Richard G. Hovannisian - The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times_ Volume I_ the Dynastic Periods_ From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century-Palgrave Macmillan (1997)

A lso by R ichard G.
H ovannisian
ARMENIA ON THE ROAD TO INDEPENDENCE

THE REPUBLIC OF A RM ENIA (4 volumes)
THE ARM ENIAN GENOCIDE: History, Politics, Ethics (editor)
THE ARMENIAN HOLOCAUST
THE ARM ENIAN GENOCIDE IN PERSPECTIVE (editor)
THE ARMENIAN IMAGE IN HISTORY AND LITERATURE (editor)
ISLA M ’S UNDERSTANDING O F ITSELF (editor)
ETHICS IN ISLAM (editor)
THE PERSIAN PRESENCE IN TH E ISLAM IC W ORLD (editor)
THE THOUSAND AND ONE NIGHTS IN ARABIC LITERATURE AND
SOCIETY (editor)
THE ARMENIAN PEOPLE
FROM ANCIENT TO
MODERN TIMES
VOLUM E I
The Dynastic Periods:

From Antiquity
to the Fourteenth Century
E dited by Richard G. H ovannisian

Professor of Armenian and Near Eastern History
U niversity o f C alifornia, Los A ngeles
St. Martin’s Press

N ew York
as
THE ARMENIAN PEOPLE FROM ANCIENT TO MODERN TIMES, VOLUME I
Copyright © Richard G. Hovannisian, 1997. All rights reserved. Printed
in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or
reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except
in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
For information, address St. Martin’s Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New
York, N.Y. 10010.
ISBN 0-312-10169-4
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The Armenian people from ancient to modem times / edited by Richard

G. Hovannisian.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Contents : v. 1. The dynastic periods— from antiquity to the
fourteenth century — v. 2 Foreign dominion to statehood— the
fifteenth century to the twentieth century.
ISBN 0-312-10169-4 (v. 1). — ISBN Q-312-10168-6 (v. 2)
l. Armenia— History. 2. Armenians— History. I Hovannisian,
Richard G.
DS175.A715 1997
956.62—dc21 97-5310
CIP
Design by Acme Art, Inc.

First edition: September, 1997
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
CONTENTS
List of Maps and Dynastic T a b le s .............................................................. vi

Introduction............................................................................................... vii
RICHARD G. HOVANNISIAN
Transliteration Systems for Arm enian..........................................................xii
1. The Geography of Armenia ....................................................................... 1
ROBERT H. HEWSEN
2. The Formation of the Armenian N a tio n ..................................................... 19

JAMES RUSSELL
3. The Emergence of A rm e n ia .........................................................................37

NINA GARSOlAN
4. The ArSakuni Dynasty (A.D. 12-[180?]-428)............................................ 63

NINA GARSOlAN
5. The Marzpanaxc (428-652).......................................................................... 95

NINA GARSOlAN
6. The Arab Invasions and the Rise of the Bagratuni (640-884) ............... 117
NINA GARSOlAN
7. The Independent Kingdoms of Medieval A rm en ia....................................143

NINA GARSOlAN
8. The Byzantine Annexation of the Armenian Kingdoms in the

Eleventh Century................................................................................... 187
NINA GARSOlAN
9. Armenian Literary Culture through the Eleventh C e n tu ry ........................199

ROBERT THOMSON
10. Armenia during the Seljuk and Mongol P e rio d s ....................................241

ROBERT BEDROSIAN
11. Cilician A rm enia.........................................................................................273

ANI ATAMI AN BOURNOUTIAN
12. Medieval Armenian Literary and Cultural Trends

(Twelfth-Seventeenth Centuries)........................................................ 293
PETER COWE
Bibliography for Volumes I and I I .............................................................. 327

Notes on the Contributors ..........................................................................350
Index .......................................................................................................... 352
LIST OF MAPS AND DYNASTIC TABLES
MAPS
1. Armenia in Its Historical S etting.....................................................................3

2. The Armenian P la te a u .................................................................................... 4
3. The Federation of Biainili (Urartu). Ninth-Sixth Centuries B.C..................... 21
4. The Achaemenid Satrapy o f 44Armina.” c.550-330 B.C.................................. 39
5. The Empire of Tigran the Great, First Century B.C........................................ 53
6. Arshakuni/Arsacid Armenia, First-Fifth Centuries A.D..................................65
7. The Partitions of Armenia, 387 and 591 AD. . ............................................97
8. Armenia under Arab Domination, 650-C.885 A.D......................................... 119
9. Armenia in the Bagratuni/Bagratid Period, c.884-1064 AD.........................145
10. The Armenian State in Cilicia, c. 1080-1375 A.D.........................................275
DYNASTIC TABLES
Eruandid (Ervandian)/Orontid D y n a sty ....................................................... 36

The Arta§£sid (Artashesian)/Artaxiad D y n asty ........................................... 62
ArSakuni (Arshakuni)/Arsacid D y n asty ....................................................... 94
Cilician Armenia Dynasties ....................................................................... 291
INTRODUCTION
Richard G. Hovannisian
he history of the Armenian people is long, complex, and in many
T ways epic and heroic. Emerging las an organized state by the middle
of the second millennium b .c ., Armenia lay at the ancient crossroads of
orient and Occident on the highland located between the Mediterranean,
Black, and Caspian seas. The Armenian plateau became the buffer and
coveted prize of rival empires: Assyrian, Mede, Achaemenian, Parthian,
Sasanian, Arab, Seljuk, and Mongol from the south and east, and
Seleucid, Roman, Byzantine, and Crusader from the west. Through all
the turbulence, however, the Armenians created a rich and colorful
culture and defensive mechanisms for survival. Even during long peri
ods of foreign dominion, internal religious and socioeconomic struc
tures allowed them to preserve their distinct way of life.
The dynastic era of Armenian history extended, with interruptions,
over a time span of some two thousand years. The pre-Christian period,
spanning more than one thousand years, was characterized by strong
interchanges with Persian and Hellenistic civilizations. The Ervandian
(Orontid), Artashesian (Artaxid), and Arshakuni (Arsacid) dynastic
families held sway during this epoch, which for a brief historic moment
even gave rise to an Armenian empire in the first century b .c .
The adoption of Christianity as the religion of state at the begin
ning of the fourth century a .d . introduced a new period that had a
profound effect on the spiritual and cultural life and the political orien
tation of the Armenian realm. Although untold suffering would befall
the Armenians in the name of their religion, the fusion of Armenian faith
and patriotism provided a powerful defensive weapon in the unceasing
struggle for national survival.
viii Richard G. Hovannisian
The underpinning of Armenian society, before and after the con

version to Christianity, was the military-feudal nakharar class— often
unruly, divisive, ambitious, and vain, but also valiant and heroic. So
long as the nakharars remained strong and able to rally against external
threats and challenges, the continuum of Armenian life was maintained
whether or not an Armenian monarch reigned. Hence, in the long span
between the end of the Arshakuni dynasty in the fifth century and the
restoration of monarchy under the Bagratunis (Bagratids) in the ninth
century, the nakharars and the Church provided the structures essential
for the continuation of traditional society and a national existence.
The fall of the last major Armenian kingdom on the great plateau
in the eleventh century gave rise to an expatriate kingdom in the region
of Cilicia, which is bounded by the northeastern comer of the Mediter
ranean Sea. There, the successive royal families of the Rubenians,
Hetumians, and Lusignans came into close contact with the Crusader
states and Europe. In face of the threat posed by resurgent Muslim
powers, attempts were made to overcome the dogmatic and hierarchical
differences separating the Armenian Apostolic, Greek Orthodox, and
Roman Catholic churches. Armenian art, architecture, and literature
flourished during this period. These and other themes are presented in
detail in the first volume of this history.
The fall of the Cilician kingdom late in the fourteenth century left
only isolated pockets of semiautonomous Armenian life: Zeitun in
Cilicia, Sasun in the heart of the Armenian plateau, and Karabagh
(Artsakh) along the eastern perimeter of that highland. Armenia came
under the domination of rival Muslim dynasties: the Turkmen Aq
Qoyunlu and Kara Qoyunlu, the hordes of Tamerlane, the Safavids and
Qajars of Persia, and the Ottoman Turks, who captured Constantinople
in the mid-fifteenth century and extended eastward into both Cilicia and
Armenia proper during the next century.
Thereafter, the subject Armenians existed as a religious-ethnic
minority with the legal status of second-class citizens. Because of the
segregated nature of Muslim-dominated societies and the quasi-the-
ocratic foundation of certain Islamic states, the Armenian Church was
accorded jurisdiction in internal civil and religious matters. In return,
the church hierarchy was held responsible for the conduct of all members
of the ethnic community, their payment of taxes and fulfillment of other
obligations, and their loyalty and devotion to the reigning sultan or shah.
In the Ottoman Empire, this system was undermined by political,
economic, and social decay, especially in the eighteenth and nineteenth
INTRODUCTION IX
centuries and by the infiltration of intellectual and political currents

inspired by the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. These devel
opments raised serious questions about the relationship between ruler
and ruled and about the ability and even desirability of maintaining the
status quo in a moribund empire.
The winds of change also affected the Armenian community (millet),
first through an intellectual revival and ultimately through plans and pres
sure for reforms both within and for the community. The articulation of
Armenian social and political programs reached the table of international
diplomacy at the Congress of Berlin in 1878, but the failure of the powers
to resolve the so-called “Armenian Question” was to lead to the eventual
elimination of the Ottoman Armenians and their removal from most of their
historic lands. The widespread massacres of 1894-1896 were followed by
the Cilician pogroms of 1909 and ultimately by the Armenian Genocide
beginning in 1915 and culminating in 1922 with the burning of Smyrna and
the final Armenian exodus from Cilicia. The “Young Turk” regime, on
which reform-minded Armenians had placed so much hope, became in fact
the catalyst for the annihilation of the Ottoman Armenians.
The eastern reaches of the Armenian plateau were spared this
calamity only because Russian rule had been established there during
the nineteenth century. Despite discriminatory practices and the arbi
trariness of Romanov governors and bureaucrats, the Russian Arme
nians made significant organic progress during the century of tsarist rule.
Like the Ottoman Armenians, they experienced an intellectual renais
sance, which was strongly influenced by European social, political, and
economic thought. By the outbreak of World War I in 1914, there were
nearly as many Armenians living in the Russian Empire as in the
Ottoman Empire. They became the fastest-growing and most affluent
element in Transcaucasia, the region extending from the Black Sea to
the Caspian Sea south of the Caucasus Mountains.
World War I, the Armenian Genocide, and the Russian revolutions
and Civil War shattered the Armenian infrastructures in both the Otto
man and Russian empires. By the end of the world war in 1918, most
Armenians either had been killed or displaced. Yet, there was cause for
great excitement and anticipation. The European Allied Powers, assisted
by the United States of America, had defeated the German Empire and
its ally, the Ottoman Empire, and were publicly committed to the
restoration and rehabilitation of the Armenian people. But the first
modem experiment in Armenian independence lasted less than three
years, from 1918 to the end of 1920. The reluctance of the Allied Powers
X Richard G. Hovannisian
to sustain their pledges with armed force and the collaboration of the
Turkish Nationalists led by Mustafa Kemal Pasha and of Soviet Russia
led by V.I. Lenin crushed the Republic of Armenia.
That which remained of historic Armenia, an area of less than 12,000
square miles, was transformed into Soviet Armenia and a part of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics. Seven decades of Soviet rule were character
ized by heavy centralization and coercion and the attempted suppression of
many traditional ways. Yet, that critical period also gave rise to the contem
porary Armenian— literate, highly skilled, adept in the arts, and resourceful
individually for self and family and collectively for the preservation of
national traits and ideals under creative guises.
The rapid collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 brought another
opportunity for Armenian independence, albeit only on this small,
landlocked portion of the ancient and medieval realms. Many of the
problems besetting the first Armenian republic quickly resurfaced,
including an enervative and disruptive territorial dispute with and eco
nomic blockade by the neighboring Azerbaijani republic. Moreover, the
aspiration to democracy and the setting up of a framework of democratic
institutions have grated roughly against the daily reality of political
inexperience and perpetuation of some of the worst abuses of the Soviet
system. Critical to the welfare of the new republic is its relationship with
the numerous, generally able and affluent, and potentially invaluable
communities of the Armenian diaspora. These and related issues are
addressed in the second volume of this study.
No comprehensive history of the Armenian people exists in the
English language. Many monographs on specific subjects have appeared
in recent years, but the ambitious undertaking to present the entire span
of Armenian history has awaited this endeavor. Those who teach Arme
nian history have had little choice but to resort to selected readings from
sundry sources in place of a cohesive textbook, and general readers
seeking a reliable history of Armenia written in English have often been
disappointed with the results. It was to meet this long-standing need that
seventeen specialists in various disciplines of Armenian studies were
drawn together as contributors to this two-volume work.
Any publication with multiple authors is likely to have chronolog
ical and topical gaps, as well as significant differences in organization,
style, and attention to detail in the individual chapters. This work is not
an exception. It would have been desirable, moreover, to incorporate
chapters on art and architecture, music and theater, and other aspects of
culture that are important reflectors of the spirit and soul of a people.
INTRODUCTION XI
Fortunately, a number of excellent monographs and illustrated volumes

have been published in English on these subjects. A bibliography of the
works cited in the two volumes is included in each of them.
The transliteration of Armenian personal and place names into the
Latin alphabet is not consistent in the chapters that follow. As individual
authors have strong personal preferences, the editor has in general
respected those sentiments. Chapters 3 through 8 in volume I use the
modified Hubschmann-Meillet system, which for the uninstructed En
glish reader will not always seem phonetic. The system uses a single
character, often with diacritical marks, to represent a single Armenian
letter; thus MuSel rather than Mushegh, and Koranac'i rather than
Khorenatsi. And the traditional rendering of “ian” as the suffix of
Armenian family names has been altered to “ean”; thus, Mamikonean
rather than Mamikonian. To assist readers unfamiliar with this system,
the editor has added the phonetic form after the initial use of the term.
A table comparing the Hubschmann-Meillet system with modem
Eastern Armenian and modem Western Armenian pronunciations, with
out diacritical marks, follows this introduction. By and large, the trans
literation system used in these volumes is based on the sounds of
Classical and modem Eastern Armenian; thus Trdat rather than Drtad,
and Khachatur Abovian rather than Khachadour Apovian. Exceptions
are made in the case of names with a widely accepted alternative form;
thus Boghos Nubar rather than Poghos Nupar, and Hagop Baronian
rather than Hakob Paronian. Moreover, in chapters 5 and 6 of Volume
II, a mixed system is used, so that the names of Western Armenian
intellectual, political, and clerical figures appear in Western Armenian
pronunciation, whereas the names of Eastern Armenian personages are
shown in Eastern Armenian pronunciation; thus Krikor Odian rather
than Grigor Otian, but Grigor Artsruni rather than Krikor Ardzruni.
The preparation of this history has been long and difficult, and the
challenges and responsibilities facing the editor have been formidable.
A single author may have provided greater consistency in style and
content but could not have offered the expertise or most recent findings
relating to all periods or topics. The editor wishes to commend the
authors for their contribution, cooperation, and forbearance. Robert
Hewsen has meticulously produced the useful maps in the two volumes,
and Simon Winder, formerly of St. Martin’s Press, enthusiastically
initiated the long publication process. It is hoped that this collective
study will bring the reader the rich historical and cultural heritage, and
an appreciation of the continuing saga, of the Armenian people.
xii Richard G. Hovannisian
TRA N SLITERA TIO N SY ST EM S FO R ARM EN IA N
1. Pronounced as “h” at beginning of a word; often silent when the final letter of a word.
2. Pronounced as "vo" at beginning of a word.
1
THE GEOGRAPHY OF
ARMENIA
Robert H. Hewsen
he influence of geography on the course of history has been
T recognized since the time of the ancient Greeks, but there have
been few countries in the world where geography has played a more
important role than it has in Armenia. This role, in fact, has been decisive
to the point where the destiny of the Armenian people may be said to
have been largely predetermined by the location of the Armenian home
land and by the nature of its terrain. The frequent invasions, the long
periods of foreign domination, the difficulty of national leaders to unite
against the common foe, the rugged nature and tenacious character of
the Armenian people all become clear when seen against the background
of the remarkable plateau on which they have always dwelled.
Physical Geography
Location and Natural Frontiers

Situated in the temperate zone, Armenia occupies the central-most and
highest of three landlocked plateaus that, taken together, form the
northern sector of the Middle East. On the west, the Anatolian plateau,
built largely of limestone beds, rises slowly from the lowland coast of
2 Robert H. Hewsen
the Aegean Sea to attain a maximum average height of 3,000 feet. In

Armenia this rise increases dramatically, to an average of 3,000 to 7,000
feet. Thereafter, the elevation drops off rapidly to the much lower Iranian
plateau, which averages only 2,000 to 5,000 feet above sea level. The
Armenian plateau is not only higher but differs in character from those
on either side of it, for it is not only mountainous but hydrologically
more complex. Within the plateau itself, elevations vary sharply. The
Plain of Erzerum and the basin of Lake Sevan both reach 6,000 feet,
while Erevan, situated at the lowest point on the plateau, is only 3,227
feet above sea level. The ranges average 10,000 feet and peaks over
12,000 are common. Mount Ararat (Armenian Masis), at nearly 17,000
feet, is the highest point, not only of Armenia but of the whole of West
Asia. To the south lie the lowland steppes of the Arab world— Syria and
Mesopotamia; to the north, the trenches and plains of South Caucasia—
West Georgia, East Georgia, and Azerbaijan—backed by the great wall
of the Caucasus range running diagonally between the Black and the
Caspian seas and cutting Armenia off from the harsh winds of the
Eurasian plain. Strategically placed so that it dominates the lower
plateaus and lowlands to every side of it, Armenia has never been
isolated and has been a crossroads for traders and invading armies since
ancient times.
Although the Armenian plateau is sharply defined on the east, the
northwest, and the south, its natural frontiers are much less clear in the
west, where it descends gradually toward Anatolia; in the southeast,
where it opens wide toward Iran; and in the north, where the mountains
of northern Armenia become those of southern Georgia and where the
two peoples have fought and mingled for more than 2,000 years.
Apart from the fact that the natural frontiers of Armenia are not as
sharp as they might be, at least five other factors have made it difficult
to determine exactly where Armenia begins and ends and greatly com
plicate the “Armenian question" in modern times. First of all, the
Armenians, at least as we know them today, were not the original
inhabitants of the plateau. The Urartian state, which existed there prior
to the coming of the Indo-European-speaking “Armen” tribes from the
west, was a federation of many peoples united under the kings of Van,
most but not all of whom were absorbed by the Armens to form the
modem Armenian people. Second, it took these newcomers a very long
time to assimilate those of the proto-Armenian peoples of the plateau
whom they did absorb. The Khaldians and Mardians, for example, are
still heard of in Roman times, and the Urtaeans, Khoyts, and Sasunites
1. ARMENIA IN ITS HISTORICAL SETTING
2. THE ARMENIAN PLATEAU
THE GEOGRAPHY OF ARMENIA 5
even later. Third, the Armenians, from a very early period, have had to
share the plateau with later arrivals— Kurds, Persians, Turkmen, and
Turks—and many Armenians who gave up Christianity for Islam must
have been absorbed by these Muslim peoples. Fourth, more than half of
the traditional lands of the Armenian monarchy were lost in the fourth
century a .d . and most of these regions remained under foreign rule ever
after. Finally, for over a thousand years the Armenian people have been
gradually but continuously driven from their homeland. This process,
which began with transfers of population by the Byzantines and which
culminated in the great deportations of 1915 to 1922, created a situation
where, even before World War I, the Armenians were a minority in much
of Armenia, while today they occupy barely a tenth of the territory that
belonged to the Armenian kings in ancient times.
Despite these factors—and they are all important ones—it can be
said that historical Armenia is more or less the region located between
latitudes 38 and 48 degrees and longitudes 37 and 41 degrees, with a total
area of approximately 238,000 square miles. Thus it is a little larger than
Great Britain (228,000 square miles). Clockwise, its neighbors are the
Georgians on the north, the Azerbaijani Turks on the east, the Iranians on
the southeast, the Kurds in the south, the Arabs of Syria and Mesopotamia
on the southwest, and the Anatolian peoples, long ago absorbed by the
Turks, who live to the west. All of these peoples have influenced the
Armenians and have played a significant role in their history.
The Terrain
Armenia is mountainous country, surrounded by great mountain chains
on every side and crossed by lesser ranges that link the major ones
together. Within this framework, the Armenian tableland contains a
number of smaller plateaus set a different altitudes, the regions of Karin
(Erzerum) and Erznga (Erzinjan) being the highest. Apart from these
lesser plateaus, the ranges and their spurs divide Armenia into a number
of small but well-defined districts ranging from broad plains such as
those of Erzerum, Erzinjan, Kharpert (Kharberd, Kharput), and Mush,
to small valleys and narrow gorges such as those that characterize the
northern and eastern parts of the plateau.
In appearance Armenia is a land of harsh and rugged grandeur
more like the American Southwest than like the Rocky Mountain states
or Switzerland. There is little rainfall, forests are rare, and without
irrigation the rich but stony soil is barren.
6 Robert H. Hewsen
The Mountains
Too often and too easily invaded to be called a natural fortress, as is
often done, Armenia is best described as a large oval obstacle but
tressed by mountain chains to the north and south and crisscrossed by
other chains that cover the plateau and obscure its sharply rising
escarpment. The mountains on the north are generally known as the
Pontus Mountains, extending 680 miles and averaging 60 to 95 miles
in width; those on the south as the Taurus or Tsui (the latter being the
Armenian translation of the Greek tauros, “bull”), extending 930 miles
and, with its ramifications, averaging 95 miles wide. South of the
Pontus Mountains but facing the Taurus is the Anti-Taurus Range.
South of these but farther east and extending through the center of
Armenia stretch the Central or Armenian Mountains, which have
different names in their different sectors and which turn abruptly south
at Mount Ararat to form the Zagros Range that separates both Turkey
and Iraq from Iran. On the north, where the Pontus Mountains turn
inland, they become the Lesser Caucasus separating Armenia from
Georgia and terminating in the Artsakh or Karabagh Range. Lake
Sevan, thrust up like a great bowl above the rest of the plateau, is
surrounded clockwise by the Areguni, Sevan, Vardenis, and Gegham
mountains. Geologically, all of these ranges are mainly composed of
limestone and igneous rocks, such as trachyte, porphyry, augite, feld
spar, melaphyre, basalt, quartz, granite, obsidian, and tufa. Like all the
great ranges of Asia, these formations are the result of the buckling of
the earth's crust as it cooled and shrank eons ago.
Owing to these flanking ranges, the approach to Armenia is long
and arduous and limited to only a few perennial routes. Only after
crossing these ranges and noting the far less lengthy descent on their
inner side do travelers become aware that they have ascended a
tableland with a considerable elevation of its own, an island, as it were,
overlooking the entire Middle East and hence having an extraordinar
ily strategic position whose importance cannot be overestimated.
Before the coming of mechanized warfare and aircraft, whatever
power dominated the Armenian plateau was in a position to dominate
the Middle East. Most of the wars in this part of the world for the past
2,000 years were fought for its possession. Centrally located, whether
for invasion routes or for paths of trade, Armenia has been both the
victim and the beneficiary of its geographic location.
The Rivers
Six of the major Armenian rivers quickly leave the plateau, but one of
them, the Araxes (Armenian Araks), flows more than halfway across the
tableland before beginning its final descent to the sea. Watering the great
Ararat plain and passing by so many of the great cities of Armenian
antiquity, it is the only true river of Armenia and, as “Mother Araxes,”
has become, like Mount Ararat, a national symbol to the Armenian people.
The Araxes rises on the northeastern slopes of the Biurakan
Mountains, nine miles south of Karin and passes through the plains of
Pasen and Alashkert, both more than 5,000 feet above sea level. It then
flows through the plain of Ararat, where it forms the boundary first
between the former Soviet Union and Turkey and then between the
former Soviet Union and Iran. The descent from the plain of Karin to
that of Ararat involves a drop of some 5,000 feet, and the cascades and
shallow bed of the river, as well as the narrow wooded gorges through
which it must pass, make it unnavigable, although it has been utilized
for irrigation since time immemorial. The broad plain of Ararat, how
ever, leaves room for a more leisurely course, and here the river flows
through a luxuriant and fertile region similar to central California. From
earliest times this valley has been the center of Armenian life and
remains so to this day, if only in its eastern half. Here, between Masis
and Mount Aragats, lies the richest part of Armenia, and here in this
plain have lain its various capital cities— Armavir, Ervandashat,
Artashat, Vagharshapat, Dvin, Ani, and Erevan, as well as the important
towns of Ervandakert and Nakhichevan. Here, too, at the site of
Vagharshapat, is found the great monastery of Echmiadzin, the spiritual
and administrative center of the Armenian Church.
Of the other major rivers originating in Armenia, only the Euphrates
flows to any extent within Armenia itself. Here it consists of two arms,
the Western or Upper Euphrates (Armenian Eprat; Turkish Kara) and the
Eastern or Lower Euphrates (Armenian Aratsani; Turkish Murat). Both
of these rivers flow westward through a series of fertile plains, the upper
arm through those of Erzerum and Erzinjan; the lower through those of
Bagrevand, Manazkert, Taron, Palu, and Kharpert. Then, after joining at
Kaben Maden (Armenian Lusatarich), where a great dam creating a vast
lake has been constructed in recent years, the combined Euphrates pierces
the Taurus through a spectacular canyon, flowing down through the
lowlands of Mesopotamia and eventually to the Persian Gulf.
8 Robert H. Hewsen
The Tigris, likewise, flows into the Persian Gulf. Formed by the
merger of several streams running south from the Taurus, it is a river of
southern Armenia only. In the north, the chief river is the Chorokh or
Voh, which carves out the wide valley of Khaghtik or Sper before
entering the Black Sea. The Kur, which flows into the Caspian Sea and
is the chief river of Georgia and Azerbaijan, also rises in Armenia, as
do the Kizil Irmak or “Red River” (Armenian Alis; Greek Halys), the
Yesil (Armenian Ris; Greek Iris), and the Kelkit (Armenian Gayl Get
[“Wolf River”]; Greek Lycus), the three largest rivers of Anatolia.
Among the smaller rivers of Armenia are the Akhurian, a tributary of
the Araxes flowing from Lake Tseli (Turkish £ildir) past the ruins of
the medieval city of Ani and forming part of the present frontier between
Turkey and the Armenian Republic; the Hrazdan or Zangu, which flows
from Lake Sevan past Erevan and whose hydroelectric stations provide
much of the electricity for Armenia; the three rivers of Siunik: the Arpa,
the Vorotan, and the Hakera; and the three main rivers of Artsakh: the
Trtu (Terter), the Khachen, and the Gargar. To the north, Armenia is
drained by a number of smaller rivers flowing down to the Kur: the
Debed, Aghstev, Zakam, and others; in the south, by mountain streams
feeding the Tigris: Bitlis, Bohtan, Batman, and others. None of the
Armenian rivers is navigable and none is particularly well stocked with
fish. The landscape of Armenia is old; the rivers have cut deep gorges
and ravines through the soft fields of congealed lava, and waterfalls are
rare. Although rainfall is scanty, the snowcapped peaks yield an abun
dant supply of water, especially in spring, when countless, rushing
torrents feed the rivers, each cutting a tiny valley or gorge of its own,
the fundamental geographic units of the Armenian plateau.
The Lakes
One of the most remarkable features of the Armenian plateau is the
number and size of its lakes. In fact, most of the lakes of Western Asia
are to be found on the Armenian plateau. The three largest, though not
as large as Lake Erie, are all five to six times larger than Lake Geneva
and lie some five times higher. Each of the three has its own character,
and each now lies in a different country.
Lake Sevan (Classical Armenian Gegham or Gegharkuni) is the
smallest, deepest, and highest of the Armenian lakes. Lying at an altitude
of 6,279 feet, it is 45 miles long, 24 miles wide, and originally covered
an area of some 550 square miles. Its average depth is from 174 to 600
feet. Some twenty-three streams enter the lake but it has only a single
outlet, the Hrazdan, which, tumbling down some 3,300 feet in a distance
of 65 miles, flows past Erevan to enter the Araxes River. Greatly reduced
in size after 1948 as part of a vast hydroelectric scheme to harness its
waters for the production of electricity, its level has dropped by some
50 feet. Attempts made in the last years of Soviet rule to restore the level
by diverting a number of additional mountain streams to enter the lake
have not been very successful, and pollution brought in by such waters
has resulted in the destruction of much of the marine life of the lake,
including the famous ishkhan “prince” fish, a kind of trout formerly
much esteemed in Soviet Armenia. The lake possessed a single island,
also known as Sevan, now a peninsula because of the lowering of the
level of its waters.
Lake Van (Classical Armenian B znuniats Dzov [“Sea of
Bznunik”] or less often Rshtuniats Dzov [“Sea of Rshtunik”]) lies at an
altitude of 5,360 feet, is 80 miles long and 40 miles wide, and is the
deepest of the three lakes, having an average depth of some 5,643 feet.
A number of streams enter Lake Van, the largest of which is the Arest,
but it has no outlet. Evaporation of its waters is the sole means by which
the lake level is stabilized. This has resulted in the waters having become
charged with borax and hence undrinkable, but the lake still contains a
solitary species of fish, the tarekh (Cyprinus tarachi), which was for
merly caught and salted for export. Surrounded by mountains and
dominated by the volcanic peak of Mount Nekh-Masik or Sipan, Lake
Van is one of the loveliest lakes in the world. At the western end of the
lake, a large lava flow from Mount Nemrud blocks what may well have
been an egress once connecting the lake to the Bitlis River, which would
have given it an outlet to the Tigris. A curious feature of Lake Van is
the well-attested phenomenon whereby its waters periodically rise on
one side while lowering on the other. Obviously due to a geological
tilting of its basin, this is why it is rare to find two identical figures for
the depth of its waters. As a result of this fluctuation, of the seven islands
known to have once existed in the lake, three— Dzipan, Tokean, and
Ardzke— are now submerged, as are much of the ruins of the old town
of Arjesh. The four remaining islands in the lake are Lim, Arter,
Aghtamar, and Ktuts. There used to be monasteries on all of them, but
only the famous tenth-century cathedral of the Holy Cross on Aghtamar,
one of the great masterpieces of world architecture, survives.
Lake Urmia (Classical Armenian Kaputan Dzov [“Blue Sea”]) lies
some 4,000 feet above sea level, extends 100 miles from north to south,
10 Robert H. Hewsen
and is 24 miles wide with an area of 1,800 square miles. The largest of
the three Armenian lakes and the only significant body of water in Iran,
its area is deceptive, for Lake Urmia is extremely shallow— more a
lagoon than a lake—averaging only 15 to 15.7 feet and nowhere more
than 44 feet in depth. Subject to the same process of desiccation that has
affected the Caspian Sea, Lake Aral, and other bodies of water in Central
Asia, Lake Urmia was originally much larger. Today surrounded by
marshes, quicksands, and salt flats, the towns of Urmia, Maragha, and
even Tabriz, which once stood on its shores, now lie many miles away.
Having no outlet, the lake is extremely alkaline, and its waters are almost
as lifeless as those of the Dead Sea. The lake supports neither fish nor
mollusks, and only a few crustaceans live in it. Among its many islands,
Shahi was the largest but is now a peninsula. On Shahi, the Mongol
emperor Hulegu Khan built a fortress to contain his treasures and there
he was buried in 1265.
Lake Tseli (Turkish Cildir), Lake Gaylatu (Turkish Balik), Lake
Archishak (Turkish Ercek) and Lake Dzovk (whose Turkish name,
Golciik [“Little Sea’*], is a translation of the Armenian) are four of the
lesser lakes of Armenia, many of which are filled with reeds that form
the homes of an astonishing variety of water fowl and other bird life.
The Climate
The elevation of most of Armenia neutralizes its location in the
temperate zone. The high mountains deprive it of the effects of the
cooling breezes from the Black, Mediterranean, and Caspian seas in
the summer and of the hot winds coming from the Mesopotamian
lowlands in winter. The climate is thus continental, harsh and given to
extremes, with long, cold, dry winters (averaging 21 to 50° Fahrenheit
in January with extremes of minus 22° Fahrenheit) and short, hot, dry
summers (averaging 64 to 70° Fahrenheit in July with daytime highs
of 100° or more). Erevan is colder than Moscow in January, and in
Erzerum the winters can be extremely bitter and accompanied by
severe blizzards. Its climate tends to make Armenia a westerly exten
sion of the great desert lands of Central Asia, and, in spite of the natural
fertility of its rich volcanic soil, its fields are generally untillable
without intensive irrigation. Less than twenty inches of rain falls each
year in the central part of the tableland, while the Plain of Ararat
receives less than ten. The perennial problem of irrigating the soil is
best observed in the vicinity of Van, where the local peasants still make
use of the canal built by the Urartian king Menuas in the eighth century
B.c. Although this tendency to aridity can be quite severe, it is miti
gated by the fairly abundant snow, which, though neither frequent nor
especially heavy, results in an enormous quantity of water flowing
down from the mountains each spring, feeding both the major rivers
and the great lakes. For all its severity, the Armenian climate is healthy
and bracing, neither damp in winter like England or the Pacific
Northwest, nor humid in summer like much of the eastern United
States. The cold is brisk and invigorating in winter, and the heat of a
summer day is always followed by a refreshing coolness at night. The
Armenian climate has produced a rugged peasantry and has contrib
uted to the hardiness and longevity of the population. It has influenced
the construction of housing, determined the cycle of annual occupa
tions, and led to the disaster of more than one military expedition that
chose the wrong season in which to venture upon the high plateau. We
even hear of an Armenian king— Tiran I— who perished in a sudden
snowstorm while traveling across the high plateau.
Seismic Activity
The Armenian Mountains were highly volcanic in the geological past
and most of its peaks, including Mount Ararat, Mount Aragats (Turk
ish Alagoz or Alakiaz), Mount Sipan, and Mount Sarakn (Turkish
Nemrud), are extinct volcanos. While none of these has been active
within historical memory, Armenia is still very much the product of
the volcanic activity of its remote past. The plains have been flooded
with lava, which congealed and has long since disintegrated into a rich
volcanic soil, while obsidian (volcanic glass) and tufa (a lightweight
volcanic stone) are still major natural resources. As in many volcanic
areas of the world, mineral springs abound in Armenia, and earth
quakes are common and frequently severe. The Ararat fault, consisting
of two lines: Erzinjan-Ararat and Dvin-Siunik-Tabriz, runs through
the very center of the country, and quakes along this fault have
wreaked havoc in Armenia. The famed church of Zvartnots was
destroyed by an earthquake in the tenth century and major earthquakes
struck Dvin in 839, 862, and 892, and Tabriz in 858 and 1043. One at
Erzinjan took some 12,000 victims in 1168; another killed about
32,000 people in 1457; and another about 30,000 in 1481. Earthquakes
completely destroyed the city in 1784 and again in 1939 after which
it was rebuilt on a slightly different site; nevertheless, it was badly
12 Robert H. Hewsen
damaged in yet another tremor in March 1992. Two especially severe

quakes occurred in Taron in August 1650; another, on the night of June
20, 1840, centered at Mount Ararat, engulfed a monastery, a chapel,
and the entire village of Akori, all swept into the great ravine on the
eastern face of the mountain. In 1931 an earthquake centered in
Zangezur destroyed the monastery of Tatev; another at Kars in 1935
destroyed twenty-five villages and took 2,000 lives. In July 1966
another at Varto killed 2,477 people. A severe earthquake struck
Gumri (then Leninakan) in 1926 and another on December 7, 1988,
destroyed the city and the neighboring town of Spitak, taking some
where between 25,000 and 50,000 lives and leaving some 200,000
people homeless. More than any invader, these visitations have been
responsible for the destruction of the historical monuments that were
erected over the centuries upon the high plateau. While churches and
monasteries were usually rebuilt, the castles, fortresses, and civil
structures, once leveled, were usually quickly pillaged for building
stone by the local peasants, a process that still goes on in historically
Armenian lands under Turkish rule.
Natural Resources
Flora
Because of the lack of rainfall, Armenia largely presents a stark and
barren appearance except around the towns and villages, where irriga
tion transforms the countryside into a natural garden. Trees are rare and
forests are found only on the exterior slopes of the mountains facing the
Black Sea and the Mediterranean, except in northern Armenia and in
Karabagh, where some rich forests survive. Most of the trees probably
were cut down in the remote past to provide fuel in winter, so much so
that tesek (dried animal dung mixed with chopped straw) became the
standard fuel in Armenia, as it still is in the villages from Anatolia
through Central Asia. The trees that do exist are largely the poplar, the
aspen, and the oak, as well as all the various fruit trees that can be
induced to grow at these elevations. Small but delicious apples, pears,
peaches, plums, apricots, and cherries, as well as all sorts of melons, are
staples of Armenian horticulture, along with the vine whose grapes
provide heavy sweet wines and rich cognacs. The flowers of Armenia
are the rose, violet, lily, and jasmine.
Fauna
Armenia is a paradise for hunters, and, in ancient and medieval times,
the kings and nobles devoted themselves to the chase above all other
leisure activities. The wild goat, wild sheep, wolf, fox, mountain lion,
deer, antelope, jackal, bear, lynx, and, above all, the varaz, or wild boar,
were hunted. Among the smaller animals is the rodent known to the
Romans as the Sora armenica (Armenian mouse), which is still called
the ermine. Among the domestic animals, cattle, buffalo, donkeys,
mules, goats, and sheep—especially the fat-tailed variety of the latter—
are the most common. Camels, not native to the plateau but once
common as beasts of burden, are now unusual. Pigs are also rare; as
everywhere else in the Middle East, lamb is the meat of choice. In former
times, wild horses, now extinct, were native to Armenia. Large herds
were cultivated for the benefit of the mounted aristocracy, and Strabo
(1961,10.14.9) tells us that 20,000 foals per year were exported to Persia
as part of the annual tribute. The birds of Armenia are astonishingly
varied. In the marshes of the Plain of Erzerum, some 170 species have
been identified, among them the eagle, vulture, falcon, pheasant, pigeon,
grouse, partridge, hawk, egret, bustard, wild goose, wild duck, quail,
pheasant, francolin, heron, swan, ibis, stork, and crane. The last, the
beloved grunk, has become yet another national symbol for the Arme
nian people, the Armenian bird par excellence. The insects of Armenia
are the scorpion, tarantula, the mosquito, and the fly. The last was
particularly noxious and was brought under control in Erevan only in
the 1960s.
Agriculture
Two different and not always compatible economies have traditionally
been practiced in Armenia, the lowlands being given over to farming
and the highlands to herding and stockbreeding. Transhumance or
seminomadism is still common, herdsmen spending the winters in the
lowlands and taking their flocks to the mountains for summer pasture
after the heat has burned the plains dry. The Armenians generally have
tended to practice agriculture, leaving the herding of flocks to the
mountain people, especially the Kurds. The conversion of the Arme
nians to Christianity and the Kurds to Islam only added a religious aspect
to what was already a fundamental difference in the ways of life of the
two peoples. The best farmlands are found in the irrigated plains and
14 Robert H. Hewsen
valleys, where cereals, cotton, orchards, vineyards, and, more recently,

tobacco, have been cultivated, while in the unirrigated lower slopes,
wheat and barley are grown and goats and sheep are grazed for their
milk, cheese, wool, and hides. Silk cultivation was widely practiced in
the regions of Erevan and Gandzak (Ganja), and rice is grown in the
valley of the Araxes. Vegetables raised include beans, sugar beets,
cabbages, onions, and, more recently, potatoes. Above all, Armenia is
famous for its fruits. Small in size but extremely tasty and full of juice,
its melons, grapes, pomegranates, peaches, pears, apples, cherries, figs,
and apricots form an important part of the Armenian diet. The apricot
is believed to have originated on the Armenian plateau and was known
to the Romans as the prunus armenicus (the Armenian plum). The hot,
dry summers are especially well suited to the growing of grapes, and
Armenia produces excellent cognacs and many varieties of heavy, sweet
wines, as well as some lighter wines and ros£s.
Mineral and Other Resources

Armenia is rich in minerals and, if little has been done to exploit its
resources in the western regions, enough progress was made in Soviet
Armenia to give some idea of the treasures that lie beneath the soil.
Copper is found at Alaverdi in the north and at Kapan in Zangezur, and
Armenia was the third largest producer of this mineral in the USSR.
Molybdenum, iron, zinc, lead, tin, silver, and gold are also found, as
well as such building stones as limestone, pumice, basalt, marble, and
volcanic tufa. The last, a lightweight, easily worked material, is espe
cially abundant. Found in various colors— red, black, cream, pink, and
lavender—tufa has been used for construction purposes from remote
antiquity. A major project in the Soviet period was the harnessing of the
Hrazdan River for hydroelectric purposes, and by 1970 six power
stations had been constructed along its precipitous course. More such
stations have been built along other rivers in the republic, and it is not
too much to say that water power is not only the greatest resource of
Armenia but has the greatest potential for the country’s future. Many
rivers on the plateau beyond the borders of the Armenian republic are
also suitable for the development of the tableland, and this accounts for
the great number of dams with their attendant reservoirs that have been
erected on the Turkish side of the frontier. Although Armenia’s mineral
resources were little exploited in earlier times, gold and silver mines
were worked, quarries exploited, the sodas of the lakes utilized for
cleansing agents, and the deposits of the extensive salt flats collected.
Another natural resource appreciated in antiquity and much cultivated
in the Soviet period is the variety of mineral springs and thermal waters,
whose curative properties are highly regarded. Several such spas exist
in the mountains north and south of Lake Sevan—Dilijan, Arzni, and
Jermuk in particular—but they are found as far west as the Euphrates
and they abound in the Plain of Karin (Erzerum).
Historical Geography
Traditionally, Greater Armenia consisted of fifteen “provinces” : Upper

Armenia, Fourth Armenia, Aghznik, Turuberan, Mokk, Korjaik,
Parskahayk, Vaspurakan, Siunik, Artsakh, Paytakaran, Utik, Gugark,
Tayk, and Ayrarat. While all of these “provinces” existed at one time or
another, they never existed all at once, and most had different origins
and organizations as well. Siunik and Mokk, for example, were two
separate principalities, while Fourth Armenia, so-called to distinguish
it from the three Armenias comprising Lesser Armenia west of the
Euphrates, consisted of five Armenian principalities, composed of six
separate districts, that, acquired by the Romans in 298, were reorganized
into a single Byzantine province in 536. Gugark was a military zone
organized to protect Armenia from invasion from the north; Ayrarat
originally consisted of the royal domains in the center of the country.
Nine of these territories were lost in 387, most of them forever; three
others—Vaspurakan, Turuberan, and Tayk—emerged only after the
Byzantine-Persian partition of Armenia in 591, when the districts of
which they were comprised passed under Byzantine control. Paytakaran,
a completely alien land, left the Armenian orbit in 387, as did Koijaik,
originally the kingdom of Gordyene, a foreign state that had belonged
to Armenia for only about 250 years and whose territory was completely
Kurdish in population even before the deportations of 1915.
Actually, Armenia consisted not of large provinces but of nearly
200 small districts large and small. Some of these, such as Vanand and
Shirak, formed separate principalities on their own. Some, such as
Nakhichevan, Vostan Hayots, and Vostan Dunoy, were the municipal
territories of Armenian cities (i.e., Nakhichevan, Vagharshapat, and
Dvin). Some, such as Aghiovit and Karin, belonged to the royal family;
others, such as Hashtiank, were assigned to the support of junior
members of the ruling house; still others, such as Khoyt or Sanasunk,
16 Robert H. Hewsen
were in the possession of semi-independent mountain tribes. Ekeghiats,

Daranaghli, and Derjan, among others, were originally great temple-
states belonging to the pagan religious establishment and in the fourth
century passed to the Armenian Church. Most of these districts, how
ever, were component parts of large principalities consisting of many
districts in the possession of a single princely house. Siunik, with twelve
districts, was the largest of these—virtually a state within the state; Tayk
and Mokk were two others; Aghbak, the original domain of the Artsruni
family, was another. Of particular interest are the four military zones,
each called a bdeshkutiun Aghznik, Koijaik, Gugark, and Nor Shirakan,
whose princes were charged with the duty of protecting the Armenian
kingdom from foreign invasion. Formed perhaps as early as the first
century B.C., these viceroyalties functioned for 300 to 400 years.
Lying west of Greater Armenia and separated from it by the
Euphrates was Lesser Armenia (Pokr Hayk), which, as far as we can tell,
was never a part of the kingdom of Greater Armenia but always formed
a separate Armenian state of its own with Ani-Kamakh and later
Nikopolis as its capital. Annexed by the Romans in a .d . 72, Lesser
Armenia remained a part of the Romano-Byzantine Empire for 1,000
years, following its own line of development quite different from that
of Greater Armenia. Its people were Roman citizens, for example, and
belonged to the Catholic Church until the Byzantine Church broke with
Rome in 1054, taking the Byzantine Armenians with it. Although its
history unrolled quite outside that of Greater Armenia, Lesser Armenia
is significant because so many Armenians from Armenia proper settled
there after 1021. Moreover, many Western Armenians in the diaspora
originated in this region, which, besides Sivas, includes such later
Armenian centers as Malatia, Agn, Divrig, Arabkir, and others.
Over the centuries the political organization of Greater Armenia
changed repeatedly. Principalities merged, divided, changed hands or
were lost to Armenian control. In the ninth to the eleventh centuries, a
number of new Armenian kingdoms emerged on the tableland, their
lands made up of groupings of earlier small districts. Later, under
Persian, Turkish, and Russian rule, new provinces were established with
their own divisions and subdivisions, a few of which correspond to the
earlier Armenian lands. In the Ottoman Empire, Turkish Armenia was
comprised of six large provinces called vilayets, divided into sanjaks
(counties), and kazas (districts). In the Persian Empire, large semi
independent provinces called khanligs (khanates) under hereditary
khans (governors) existed, divided into districts (mahals) some of which
were held by independent or autonomous Armenian chieftains called

meliks. In Tsarist times, Russian Armenia consisted of the gubernia
(province) of Erevan, divided into uezds (counties) and subdivided into
ushchatoks (districts), with Karabagh (Artsakh) being assigned to the
neighboring province of Elisavetpol. Soviet Armenia consisted of thirty-
nine small districts called shrjans (Russian raiony) corresponding to the
counties of an American state. In 1995 these were combined into eleven
larger units called marzers by the new republic. Karabagh, set apart from
Soviet Armenia and placed within the Azerbaijani Soviet Republic as
the Nagomo (Highland)-Karabakh Autonomous Province, consisted of
five (later six) districts, that now, since January 6, 1992, form the
Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh or Lemayin Gharabagh (NKR).
This then is Hayastan, the Armenian homeland, high, arid, and
harsh, but beautiful in a stark and rugged way. In the words of H.F.B.
Lynch, the noted British naturalist and traveler, and perhaps the foreigner
who knew the country best, it is “a spacious plain, quite treeless, but
clothed with warm and delicate hues, and framed in the distance by
mountains of great individuality” (Lynch, 1901, vol. 1). A land of inspir
ing vistas, rich in wildlife and natural resources, dotted with crumbling
castles and ruined churches, and capable of arousing deep emotions in the
people who live there, it is a land that has seen the coming of Assyrians,
Persians, and Kurds; Romans, Byzantines, and Turks; Scythians, Geor
gians, Russians, and Medes; the Ten Thousand Greeks of Xenophon's
army, the Mongol hordes of Timur, the soldiers of the Red Army, and the
forces of NATO. The stage has been set. It will be worthy of the heroic
and terrible events that will be played out upon it.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
For the sources of, or more information on, the material in this
chapter, please consult the following (full citations can be found in
the Bibliography at the end of this volume).
Borisov, 1965. Lydolph, 1970.

Gregory, 1968. Mathieson, 1975.
Halasi-Kun, 1963. Pitcher, 1972.
Hewsen. 1978-79, 1992. Soviet Armenia, 1972.
Hughes, 1939. Toumanoff, 1963.
Le Strange. 1939
2
THE FORMATION OF THE

ARMENIAN NATION
James Russell
Introduction: The Armenia of Darius
he first historical reference to the Armenians appears in the rock-
T cut inscription of 518 b .c . of the Achaemenian Persian king Darius

I at Behistun, on the main road from Babylon to the Median capital
Ecbatana (modem Iranian Hamadan). Only a generation before, in 550,
Cyrus II (the Great) had defeated Astyages of Media, whose kingdom
had previously held dominion over Armenia, and had carried his con
quests far beyond western Iran—to Mesopotamia in the southwest and
to central Asia and the Punjab in the east. Darius seems to have seized
power in a dynastic struggle, during which the various satrapies, or
provinces, of the newly formed empire took the opportunity to rebel.
Armenia was among them. In the Behistun inscription it is called Armina
in Old Persian, but Urashtu (“Urartu”) in the Babylonian version cut
alongside. Urartu had been the principle power on the Armenian plateau
centuries before. Darius sent a faithful Armenian subject, Dadarshi, to
Armenia to fight on his behalf, and battles were joined at places named
Zuzahya, Tigra, Uyama, and Autiyara. Later in the same inscription,
Darius mentions an Armenian named Arkha, son of Haldita, who
claimed to be the son of the last Babylonian king, whom Cyrus had
20 James Russell
overthrown. Some have suggested that this Arkha bears as a name what
was in fact his title: Armenian arka (“king”).
The Greek historian Herodotus, a Persian subject who describes the
peoples and events of the age, mentions the Armenians as “Phrygian
colonists” who “in their language speak very much like Phrygians”
(Herodotus, 1954, book 7.77). In their dress and in their names, the
Armenians of his time also had much in common with the Iranian Medes,
cousins of the Persians. The later Greek writer Xenophon describes
Armenia in detail in his Anabasis, or “March Up-Country,” the chronicle
of the retreat of a detachment of Greek mercenaries from an unsuccessful
campaign involving the Persian royal succession in 401 B.c. In
Xenophon’s largely fictional Cyropaideia (The Education of Cyrus), the
Persian king has an Armenian childhood friend named Tigran, later an
Armenian royal name. (And there is a place called Tigra mentioned in the
Behistun inscription.)
These first firm references to the Armenians are an introduction into
the intricacies of the problem of Armenian origins, with references to
Urarteans (Urartians), Babylonians, Phrygians, Medes, and Persians—
some of them neighbors, others inhabitants of the Armenian plateau itself—
each of whom seems to hold part of the solution to the puzzle of Armenian
identity. It will be necessary to examine the linguistic, historical, and
religious links between the Armenians and each of these ancient civiliza
tions to determine the extent to which they contributed to forming the
Armenian people. The Armenians begin to speak at length for themselves
in historical records only after the invention of the Armenian alphabet by
St. Mesrop in the fifth century a .d . Much of the material on Armenian origins
and antiquities related by the historian Movses Khorenatsi (Moses of
Khoren), however, is exceedingly ancient and must be evaluated in the light
of other archaeological, linguistic, and mythological data. Khorenatsi prob
ably lived long after the conversion of the Armenian people to Christianity,
yet the wealth of archaic material he preserves is testimony to the great
conservatism of Armenian culture. The question of ethnic migrations and
“native” inhabitants of the Armenian plateau also must be addressed, and
this will involve the data afforded by language.
The Prehistory of the Armenian Language
Armenian is an Indo-European language. Much of the core of its

vocabulary is related to other languages of this family, such as English,
3. THE FEDERATION OF BIAINILI (URARTU), NINTH - SIXTH CENTURIES B.C.
22 James Russell
Sanskrit, Persian, and Russian. The words for mother and father, hayr
and mayr, are obviously cognates to English, once the particular sound
laws of Armenian are recognized—in this case, that -/- is lost between
vowels and that initial p - (English /-) becomes an h-. Some Indo-
European bases are harder to recognize. For example, Armenian erku
(“two”) and erkayn (“long”) do not outwardly resemble words of similar
meaning in other Indo-European languages; but it has been established
that proto-Indo-European *dw- becomes erk- in Armenian, so Greek duo
(“two”) and dweron (“far”) are in fact cognates to the Armenian words.
Such great changes would indicate that the Armenians separated at a
very early stage from their closest Indo-European cousins (the proto-
Greeks, it has been surmised), when they migrated to eastern Anatolia.
It is possible that the word in Armenian for “Armenian,” hay, is
the result of the loss of an intervocalic as in the cases just described,
and comes from an original form *Hati-yos, (“Hattian”). This indicates
that the Armenians adopted the name of the great Hittite nation over
whose lands they passed in their eastward migrations from southeastern
Europe. Perhaps their migration was even connected to the crisis and
decline of the Hittite Empire. Certain Armenian terms of religious
connotation have cognates in Hittite and in Phrygian, signifying the
conservation of very archaic beliefs. Such linguistic affinities are im
portant data in determining the origins of the Armenian people.
Some words in Armenian appear to be related to other languages,
but if similar words appear in different language families and cannot be
shown to have been borrowed, they must be classified only as “areal,”
that is, reflecting the culture of a common geographical area, in which
diverse language groups have long coexisted. The Armenian word for
wine, gini, cognate to English “wine” and Greek oinos, for example,
seems to be related also to Georgian (Caucasian) gvini and Hebrew
(Afro-Asiatic) yayin. Another example is Armenian kamurj, Greek
gephyra, Hebrew gesher, all meaning “bridge ” Although the early
Armenian languages developed in some isolation from the other Indo-
European tongues, the Armenians shared with their other neighbors of
the Mediterranean basin the economic and cultural features that bridge
differences of religion and language—even as Turkish, Armenian,
Greek, and Arab cuisine today are very similar.
Other words in Armenian, still, are loans from neighboring lan
guages of various periods. The word dzov, “sea,” for example, comes
from Urartean sue. Urartean, which seems to have been related to the
modem Caucasian languages, was probably already dead long before
THE FORMATION OF THE ARMENIAN NATION 23
the birth of Christ, but the word survives, in Hebrew form, as Ararat,
the name by which the Bible knows the mountainous land where Noah’s
ark rested. The Urarteans called themselves Biaina, a name that survives
in Armenian Van; Urartu seems to come from an Assyrian word mean
ing “high place.” The word for “sea” is a fairly basic one, which replaced
the proto-Armenian Indo-European term, so one can assume the Arme
nians had already fully assimilated dzov at a very early date. In the
Behistun inscription discussed earlier, the name of Armenia is still
represented in Babylonian as “Urartu,” and one Armenian is named
Haldita, a word that probably means “servant of Haldi.” Haldi was the
chief divinity of the Urartean pantheon, so it is possible that Haldita’s
parents had been worshippers of the Urartean god. The Armenian words
for plum, apple, and mulberry (salor, khndzor, and tut), fruits native to
the Armenian plateau, are also from the non-Indo-European Hurro-
Urartean. Had the Armenians been living in Anatolia as long as the
Hurro-Urarteans, probably they would have had native, Indo-European
words for these fruits. More likely, they settled and learned the names
of these fruits from the older, settled population who cultivated them.
It is also sometimes possible to assign loan words in Armenian
from the same language family to different periods; this helps us to
establish the cultural ties Armenians maintained over time with neigh
bors belonging to these language families. The Armenian place name
Til comes from a Semitic word for “hill” and may be a relic of Assyrian
trading settlements along the upper Euphrates in the second millen
nium B.c., but selan (now pronounced seghan ), “table,” from Semitic
shulhan, probably came into Armenian only with the introduction of
Syriac Christianity around the third century a .d . Armenian ties with
the Semitic world to the south were evidently ancient. Many Armenian
terms having to do with trade (e.g., shuka, “market” ; Syriac shuqa) are
Semitic, as are later Christian terms (e.g., kahana, “priest”). Much of
the vocabulary of Armenian comes from Parthian, testimony to the
extent to which Armenia was permeated by the political and religious
institutions of pre-Islamic Iran. And, as suggested, the oldest identifi
able stratum of loan words comes from the Anatolian civilizations,
both Hittite and Hurro-Urartean, with which the proto-Armenian col
onists first came into contact.
To sum up, the evidence of language allows us to construct a
tentative model of Armenian origins. Related Phrygian and Armenian
populations in the middle of the second millennium B.c. crossed from
southeastern Europe into Anatolia. The people whose descendants
24 James Russell
became the Armenians were the ones who moved the farthest eastward.
The latter took their ethnic name from the Hattian people whose state
they overran. They settled down, learning the words for some local fruits
and other everyday items from the native Hurro-Urarteans. Other as
pects of their culture had the common Mediterranean stamp. They
interacted in trade with the Assyrians to the south; from the south, too,
Christianity was to come to the country many centuries later. As the
Iranian states of the Medes, then the Persians, on the east, became the
dominant force in the region, Armenian language and culture acquired
the additional riches of that civilization.
Just as ancient civilizations reflect through language a process of
continuous cross-fertilization, so racial characteristics also become
shared with the interaction of peoples in areas like the ancient Near East.
Thus, when one speaks of the ancient Armenians, what is meant is a
people identifying themselves as such, their main common denominator
usually being the Armenian language. Racial characteristics cannot be
paired with language, except in conditions of extreme physical and
cultural isolation. The Armenians emerged from a complex process of
cultural interaction, as the inheritors of a rich and ancient mixture of
civilizations—and the same can be said of virtually all their neighbors.
Migrations: Phrygians, Mushki,

and the “Classical” and “Revisionist” Hypotheses
With the theory of multiple proto-Armenian Indo-European migrations

onto the Armenian plateau as early as the beginning of the second
millennium B.c. one must consider another hypothesis, advanced in
recent years, that suggests the earliest Indo-European speakers them
selves were natives of the Armenian plateau; so that in the case of the
Armenians, at least, no mass migration to their present home from
elsewhere ever took place. Finally, there is the approach to Armenian
origins that is, without the strictest controls, unscientific, though it has
its supporters. This is to take at face value the genealogies proposed by
the historian Movses Khorenatsi and beginning with Hayk, the descen
dant of Noah and the titanic progenitor of the Armenian (Hay) people.
These lists are, for the most part, a mixture of mythologies and biblical
traditions. The latter reflect the view of any pious medieval man that
whatever is true must find an explanation somehow within the pages of
Scripture. Khorenatsi’s rich narrative does contain material of what
seems to be genuine historical value, and his tales provide evidence of

a world view that is likely to have existed among medieval Armenians
contemplating themselves and their destiny.
Following Herodotus, scholars have sought to link the earliest
Armenians with the Phrygians. A people whose language belonged to
the Eastern branch of Indo-European, the Phrygians invaded the
Anatolian peninsula from Thrace around the thirteenth century B.c. and
destroyed the empire of the Hittites. This is the “classical” hypothesis
of Armenian origins. The “Hittite” or Hattie language spoken in
central Anatolia belonged to the Western branch of Indo-European.
All Indo-European languages belong to one or another of two
branches, conveniently termed “Eastern” and “W estern” Indo-
European. These are separated by certain sound changes common to
the languages of either branch.
The earliest “Eastern” Indo-Europeans seem to have lived also to
the north of their “Western” cousins, so one might visualize the move
ment of these languages southward from an original home in the South
Russian steppes and Central Asia in two successive waves: the ancestors
of the Hittites in the first; the Phrygians and Armenians in the second,
moving from the north of the Black Sea down into Thrace and across
the Hellespont into Anatolia. Migrations southward out of Asia are
common in history and are generally the product of changes in climate.
In the mid-second millennium B.c., “Western” Indo-European
Luwians and Hittites lived in western and central Asia Minor. As one
moved eastward onto what later came to be called the Armenian plateau,
the Hurrian and Urartean languages predominated. These belonged to
the Caucasian family. It is logical that the Armenian language and
culture would bear traces of both groups, and this is, in fact, the case.
Herodotus links the Armenians with the Phrygians, but “Phrygian” is a
Greek term. Contemporary records call the invaders Mushki, and a part
of Thrace, whence they came, was called Mysia. It is the source of the
biblical proper name Meshekh and the name of the Cappadocian capital
Mazaka (Armenian Mazhak; Greek Caesarea; modern Turkish Kayseri,
in central Anatolia). The Mushki, or proto-Armenians, would appear to
have adopted for themselves the name of the great, defeated empire of
the Hittites, which they would have pronounced *hatiyos; thereby the
familiar Armenian word hay (“Armenian”) develops. Historically, such
adoption of the name of another people has many precedents. With the
fall of the Hittites, the Luwians of southwestern Anatolia likewise
adopted their name. The word armina in Persian would come from the
26 James Russell
name of the region of Arme-Shupria, west of Van, where Mushki seem

to have concentrated.
This “classical” hypothesis takes into account the complex picture
of Indo-European migration and culture just sketched. It was challenged
many years ago by Armenian scholars who would see the origin of the
word hay in the name of the region Hayasa, in northern Armenia, and
would regard the Armenians as the aboriginal inhabitants of the region.
Several learned non-Armenians have in recent years attacked the “clas
sical” hypothesis as a whole. They do not regard Armenian as a Hurro-
Urartean language, but they do consider it a language essentially native
to Anatolia, developing in the context of other Indo-European tongues
attested there from the second millennium B.c. In support of their
hypothesis, they use not only the data of linguistics, but the most recent
advances in archaeology, to suggest that certain agricultural skills were
developed in Armenia by the Indo-Europeans and then taken elsewhere.
People speaking Indo-European languages were responsible for the
transfer. Indo-Europeans have traditionally been associated with a semi-
nomadic life and with horse-breeding. Proponents of the “revisionist”
school challenge this association, linking the proto-Indo-Europeans
rather with farming. Archaeological studies indicate to them that the
cultivation of grains began in Anatolia and radiated from there, as, they
propose, did the Indo-Europeans.
The “revisionist” hypothesis represents an original challenge to
long-accepted assumptions and needs to be tested and examined by
experts in the various facets of Indo-European studies. Most reject it.
Whichever theory one is inclined to accept, it is, at least, indisputable
that there were Armenians in Armenia by the late second millennium
B.c., speaking their own language. They interacted there with the Ura-
rteans, who have left written records and monuments of material culture.
Biainili-Urartu: History
The Urartean people spoke a language related to those of the modem

Caucasus, and, as noted, an Armenian of the sixth century B.c. bore the
Urartean name Haldita. The indigenous languages of the Armenian
plateau, such as Urartean, probably survived well into the Hellenistic
age, for the Greek geographer Strabo reports that it was only after the
conquests of Artaxias (Artashes) I in the early second century b .c . that
the Armenians became “of one language” (Strabo, 1961, 11.14.5).
The Urarteans gradually united the various petty kingdoms of the

Armenian plateau from the thirteenth century B.c. onward. These in
many ways resemble the nakharardoms of later Classical and medieval
Armenia, and, as in later eras, it seems to have been the threat of a
neighboring great power, Assyria in this instance, which served as the
spur to political unity. From their center at Van (where stood the
Urartean capital Tushpa), the Urarteans gradually expanded their power
to the east. In the ninth century b.c ., Urartu, led by King Aramu,
conquered tracts in Media. In the eighth century B.c., the fortress-cities
of Teishebaini (Armenian Karmir Blur) and Erebuni (Arin Berd) were
established, in what is now Erevan, by King Argishti II. His successor,
Rusa II, concentrated on consolidating Urartean power in the west. The
kings of Urartu left abundant religious and political inscriptions in stone,
in a cuneiform script. Urartean culture and domination extended also
over much of what is now northwestern Iran—King Ishpuini occupied
the region of Lake Urmia around 820 b.c.—and by the early eighth
century b.c ., Urartu was able to challenge and defeat the great power of
the day, Assyria.
But this predominance was short-lived. The mighty Assyrian
monarch Tiglath-Pileser III (ruled 745-28 b.c .) invaded the heartland of
Urartu, laying siege to Tushpa itself. The country suffered from the
incursions of the Cimmerians (Gomer in the Bible; Armenian Gamirk)
and of the Scythians, a North Iranian nomadic nation of the steppes.
Their memory is preserved in the Armenian place name Shakashen
(“Abode of the Sakas,” i.e., Scythians), in words like Armenian hskay,
“giant,” literally “a good saka,” and in names like that of the epic hero
Paroyr Skayordi “son of the Saka,” who is listed by Movses Khorenatsi
as one of the progenitors of the Armenians. Armenian tradition thereby
commemorates events that occurred a thousand years before the Arme
nians preserved a script to record them. The Bible calls the Scythians
by the name Ashkenaz, from a misspelling of Ashguza; and Greek
Skythos comes from the latter. In Armenian tradition, the Armenians
are called the sons of Askanaz; so these North Iranian nomadic people,
too, contributed to the rich fabric of the formation of the Armenian
nation, albeit with the intrusion of biblical legends about the same
events. As Urartu faced the power of Assyria to the south and the
incursions of nomads from the north, a third power was on the rise.
Around the eleventh century B.c., Iranians began migrating west
ward from Central Asia into the lands that are now Iran and Afghanistan.
One Iranian people, the Medes, begin to appear in Assyrian records of
28 James Russell
the ninth century B.c.; and in 612 b.c ., acting in alliance with Babylon,
the Median king Cyaxares conquered and destroyed the Assyrian capi
tal, Nineveh. Urartu itself fell in around 585, but Median domination
was short-lived. In 559, Cyrus the Great (Kurush), king of the Persians,
southern cousins of Medes, overthrew his father-in-law, the Median
king known to Herodotus as Astyages. Armenian tradition regards the
Mede as a tyrant. Khorenatsi calls him Azhdahak, a monstrous serpent-
man, and claims an Armenian king named Tigran helped Cyrus defeat
him. Xenophon’s Cyropaideia names an Armenian prince, Tigran, as
one of Cyrus’s childhood friends, so perhaps Khorenatsi draws these
fictional details from a common tradition. The memory of the last Mede
as a tyrant, though, seems to be a genuine survival of the era of Cyrus,
who presented himself everywhere as a just liberator. With Cyrus,
Armenia enters the Achaemenian Empire and the cultural orbit of Iran.
Biainili-Urartu: Culture
Urartu is notable not only for its political history as a major power of
the ancient Near East but for its culture as well. Urartean was written
first with a crude system of pictograms. Later, probably because the
demands of writing became more complex, the cuneiform writing
general to ancient Mesopotamia and its neighbors was adapted to
Urartean, and approximately 400 inscriptions have been discovered in
this script. Most of these deal with royal building projects and religious
dedications. Sealings of papyrus indicate that the Aramaic alphabet and
language might have been employed for correspondence, as in later
Artaxiad (Artashesian) Armenia in the second century b.c . This is not
unlikely, as alphabetic Aramaic and Phoenician are known in ancient
Anatolian inscriptions. Expressions such as “By the will of Haldi”
(Haldini ishmasini) in royal inscriptions seem to have been adapted by
the Achaemenians to their own purposes in the sixth century, so it is
possible to speak of limited Urartean literary influence on an important
neighboring culture. The title “great king” was used by the Urarteans
before its employment in the Iranian state; and this, too, may indicate
the continuation of Urartean political forms in a later age.
Other important achievements are evident in Urartean architec
ture. In the stepped tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae with its pitched roof,
and the finely dressed stonework of Persepolis, some scholars have
discerned the influence of Urartean architectural styles and techniques.
A relief in the palace of the Assyrian king Sargon depicts the Urartean
temple of Haldi at Ardini, called in Assyrian Musasir, which was sacked
during his campaign of 714 b .c . against Urartu. The building has a
hexastyle portico and triangular pediment. Shields hang from the walls
and columns, and the door is flanked by two great urns. Here is, very
likely, an Anatolian prototype of Classical Greek temple architecture.
Urartean fortresses were impressively massive in scale, and Assyrian
reliefs show windowed, crenelated towers.
It is sometimes difficult, in the absence of identifying inscrip
tions, to distinguish between Urartean, Archaemenian, and Assyrian
works of art. But some pieces are nonetheless distinctive. Metallurgy
probably originated on the mineral-rich Armenian plateau, where
objects worked in metal dating back to 9500 B.c. have been found; and
the Urarteans have left us cast, embossed, and etched bands; buckles;
harness pieces; horse bits; helmets; candelabra; and other work in
copper and bronze. There are depictions of men and horses (the latter
also found finely worked in the round, indicating a long acquaintance
with the animal), and of a curious symbol, probably of victory, of an
embrasure with an upright spear rising from the center. The Scythians
are said to have worshipped a sword thrust into a mound, probably
with martial intent, given their preoccupation with war in most regions
outside their homeland. Of obvious religious significance are pictures
and figurines of the gods Haldi, Teisheba, and Shivini (the Sun god,
surmounted by an Assyrian adaptation of the Egyptian winged disk of
the Sun-god Re). There is also a bone figurine of a goddess, and at
Karmir Blur were found statuettes of a fish-man and a scorpion-man.
At Alishar was discovered a bronze statuette of a bird with a human
head and torso, strongly reminiscent of the Harpies of Greek art. In a
scene known throughout the ancient Mesopotamian world, figures are
shown on either side of the Tree of Life, making offerings. The Tree
of Life, Armenian tsarrn kenats, continued to be revered in medieval
Armenian folk songs, and two figures are shown holding it, in a
drawing in one manuscript.
The Urartean component in the Armenian heritage is evident, not
only from Urartean loans for words such as lake, plum, quince, brick,
slave, mint, and pomegranate, which would have entered Armenian
soon after the initial settlement, but from the evidence of historical
geography, where Armenian preserves old Urartean place names over
the entire extent of the Armenian plateau: Van, from Biaina; Tosp,
from Tushpa; Erevan, from Erebuni; Garni, from Giamiani; Andzit,
30 James Russell
from Enzite; the river Aratsani, from Arzani; and Manazkert and
Arjesh, from the names of the Urartean kings Menuas and Argishti.
Armenians perpetuated old Urartean settled sites, notably Van.
Movses Khorenatsi attributes to the legendary Assyrian queen
Shamiram (Semiramis) the ancient Urartean irrigation canal of
Artamet, near Van, and other relics of Urartean antiquity that cluster
about the ancient capital and its environs are celebrated in Armenian
tradition (Mouses Khorenats4i, 1978, vol. 1, p. 16). For centuries to
come, storms on lake Van were explained as a battle between the god
Vahagn (Iranian Verethraghna) and undersea serpents called vishaps.
Khorenatsi has preserved a stanza of pagan poetry describing the birth
of the sun-like god from a reed in the sea, following the travail of
heaven and earth. This song appears to contain features going back to
the Indo-European past of the proto-Armenians, since it resembles an
episode in the Indian Vedic literature, but the legend of the serpent-
slaying itself, despite the Zoroastrian names and accretions, seems to
be an Urartean inheritance, or combination of influences for such
exploits belong to the weather-god Teisheba, Human Teshub.
On the cliff sides of the great rock of Van, the Urarteans carved
blind portals called “gates of the god,” before which offerings were
made. Though the Urartean religion waned, the sacred character of
these portals was remembered, and later Zoroastrian Armenian my
thology named one of these the Gate of Mithra (Mheri durrn), The
Armenian epic of Sasun, still recited orally, warns that the grotto of
Pokr Mher, Little Mithra, will open only at the end of time. This
popular Iranian god of justice, associated in Armenia with apocalypse
and the Sun, was believed to dwell in a dark cave, where he held the
globe of the heavens and was served by a raven. Here are several
elements— Anatolian and Iranian commingled together—of the later
Roman religion of Mithraism; and it is most probable that the cult
originated in Armenia and was brought to the West by Roman legions
who served in the country in the first century a .d . Some of the elements
of Mithraism may survive in the West to this day in the legendry and
the initiatory rituals of the Freemasons.
In some cases, noble families of Urartean lineage may have existed
continuously for thousands of years, into medieval and modem Armenia.
The Artsruni dynasty of Vaspurakan, whose descent is traced in legend to
two brothers who fled from Assyria, may derive its name from Urartean
artsibini (“eagle”). The eagle, artsiv in Armenian, was the totemic animal
of the Artsrunis. In a legend, the progenitor of the Artsrunis is said to have

been abandoned as a child but rescued by an eagle, which nurtured the
infant in its eyrie.
Another ancient Anatolian survival in Armenian legend with inter
esting connections to other cultures of the Mediterranean area is the myth
of Tork Angelea or Tork of Angl, related by Khorenatsi (1978, vol. 2, p.
8). The historian claims to have heard an oral saga in which Tork “would
strike with his hands granite rocks in which there was no fissure and crack
them, as he desired, into big and little pieces/* He also threw stones the
size of hills at enemy ships on the Black Sea to a distance of eight stadia.
Angl is a place in southwestern Armenia (modem Egil, Armenian Angegh
Tun), known to the Hittites as Ingalava, but Khorenatsi gives us a folk
etymology of an-gel as “of ferocious mien” (dzhnahayiats). It was long
ago recognized that the Armenian Tork is the weather-god of Asia Minor,
Tarkhu, whose name means “victor.”
Angegh Tun was a royal necropolis of several ancient Armenian
dynasties. According to Khorenatsi, Tork is descended from Paskam,
grandson of Hayk, the eponymous ancestor of the Armenians (Movses
Khorenats‘i, vol. 1, p. 23). Khorenatsi says Tork used to scratch pictures of
eagles and other designs on stone tablets with his sharp fingernails (Movses
Khorenats4i, vol. 2, p. 8). Armenians would have seen such images on stone,
notably the Hittite double eagle, which has had such a long history in
subsequent European heraldry. This seems to be an aetiological legend to
explain the mysterious carvings, and a grain of truth is preserved in their
attribution to a Hittite god inherited by Armenian religion.
The name of Tarkhu/Tork means “conqueror,” from a root mean
ing “go, traverse,” hence “overcome.” The name of the god appears to
be present in Tarchon (Latin Tarquin), the name of the violent Etruscan
hero. The Etruscans, ancient inhabitants of Italy, are said by Herodotus
to have come from Lydia in Asia Minor; and the only known relative
of their mysterious language is attested in a single inscription from
Lemnos, not far from the Anatolian mainland. Hesychius explained an
Etruscan word pronounced truna as “rule, prim acy/’ a word perhaps
from the same root as Tarkhu. Another word for ruler, found in Greek
but non-Hellenic in origin, is tyrannos, English “tyrant,” perhaps
related to Lydian tern, “army.” So the Armenian god has Hittite-Me-
sopotamian ancestry, an Italian relative in the Tarquin of Classical
mythology, and possibly a distant echo, through Greek, in the political
vocabulary of modem English.
32 James Russell
The Legendary Beginnings: Hayk and Bel

It has been suggested that the Armenians, a people speaking an Indo-
European language related to those of the Phrygians and early Greeks,
settled in eastern Anatolia. Their own name, hay, may have been adopted
from that of the great Hittite Empire whose former lands they traversed.
The name by which the Persians and most later peoples (through the
Greeks) knew them, armina, comes probably from the fastness of Arme-
Shupria where first they became established. The name by which their
southern, Semitic neighbors—Assyrians, Babylonians, Hebrews—knew
them, urashtu, uruatri, ararat (or urarat in a rare biblical variant), comes
from that of the Urarteans. The Armenians intermarried over the ages with
the various peoples of Urartu, as the ancient origins of the Aitsrunid house,
for example, would seem to indicate, as do the Urartean names borne by
Armenians that Darius mentions in his victory inscription at Behistun; and
they inherited many Urartean place names and words for the fruits and
natural features of the land. Struggle against powerful states to the south
has been a continuous feature of Armenian historical experience. The
national epic of Sasun crystallized around a saga of heroic resistance to
the Muslim Arab caliphate in the eighth century a .d . M ovscs Khorenatsi’s
tale of the war between Tigran the Armenian and Azhdahak the Mede (the
latter a kind of dragon-man), and the larger-than-life confrontation
between the Armenian Arshak and the Sasanian Shahbuhr II (Armenian
Shapuh) in the Epic Histories of Pavstos Buzand (P'awstos Buzand, 1989)
reflect the continuing rivalry between Armenia and Iran.
Similarly, the legend of Hayk and Bel commemorates an earlier
struggle. Hayk is the mighty archer who is the eponymous, “name-giv
ing” ancestor of the hay “Armenian” people. His opponent, Bel, is the
ancient Assyrian baal, a word for a god meaning simply “lord,” who is
meant to embody all that is oppressively alien. The contest of Hayk and
Bel, related by Movses Khorenatsi, seems to preserve a memory of the
wars between the Armenians and Assyria. It has become in the Armenian
consciousness something more important: the paradigm of the just
resistance of a small people to the tyranny of a great empire. Hayk is a
hero on a human scale. Armenian tradition calls the Milky Way the
“Trail of the Straw-Thief,” for the Armenian god Vahagn, probably a
stand-in for Hayk on a cold night once stole kindling for his people from
the heavenly woodshed of the mighty Bel.
The legend of Ara and Semiramis, found in Khorenatsi, seems also
to be a relic of that same conflict. The mighty Assyrian queen Semiramis
(Armenian Shamiram) conceived a passion for the Armenian king Ara

geghetsik, “the Beautiful/’ but he rejected her advances. She pursued
him, he was killed in battle by her army, and she placed his lifeless body
in an upper room of her palace so that supernatural dogs called aralezk,
“Ara-lickers” or “take and lick/’ might come and lick him back to life.
In Movses Khorenatsi’s account, which one imagines is colored by his
disdain for pagan stories of miracles, the aralezk do not come, and the
body disintegrates. Shamiram displays to the wondering crowd another
of her lovers who looks like Ara. Khorenatsi liked to find rational
explanations for ancient myths; in this, he merely followed the Greek
euhemerist approach to history. But he does portray Ara as a good and
faithful family man, dedicated to his nation; Shamiram is an imperious
nymphomaniac. In later Armenian history, the contest between the
Armenian Christian hero Vardan Mamikonian and the Mazdean Persian
tyrant Yazdagerd II also takes on the character of a battle between virtue
and iniquity, chastity, and voluptuousness.
The legend of Ara and Shamiram has a definite religious com
ponent, beyond its significance as a historical parable. It evidently
reflects the pre-Christian belief that certain men might visit the under
world and return. Ara appears in the Republic of Plato as Er, son of
Armenios, who is killed in battle, travels in spirit down to Hades, and
then returns to his body. The idea of spirit-travel may have been one
of the earliest Iranian beliefs to be shared in Armenia. It is the core of
the Zoroastrian book of the righteous Viraz, and later echoes of it,
transmitted through Islamic Arab literature, probably influenced the
thirteenth-century Italian poet Dante, who in his Inferno travels to the
underworld and returns safely to earth. In Armenia, as elsewhere in
the ancient Near East, there was practiced the cult of a young god who
is driven mad by a lustful mother or stepmother. He mutilates himself,
dies, and is reborn in the springtime. In Greece, it is the tale of
Hippolytus and Phaedra; in Iran, of Siyavush and Sudabeh; in Phrygia,
of Cybele and Attis. Ara and Shamiram present the Armenian variant.
This is why the lust of the Assyrian queen figures so prominently, aside
from its didactic importance.
The two legends just discussed seem to be Armenian in essence.
In the first section of his History, Khorenatsi deals with many others,
although much of this material is drawn from Greek and Syriac histories
and mythical works, often blended with either Iranian mythological
figures or with anachronistic Armenian characters. An example is the
legend of the contest of Tigran and Azhdahak. The former is almost
34 James Russell
certainly Tigran II, the Great, the Artaxiad king of Armenia in the first
century B.c. who briefly created an empire stretching from the Caucasus
mountains and Media in the northeast to Lebanon in the southwest. He
is pitted against the Median tyrant Azhdahak, whose name, as noted, is
that of a three-headed dragon-man tyrant of the Zoroastrian sacred
book, the Avesta. Azhi Dahaka (Azhdahak) became for Iranians the
exemplar of inhuman tyranny and misrule. This king, according to
Herodotus, was in fact overthrown by a younger man who created a
great empire, just as Tigran did. But the man was Cyrus, the founder
of the Persian Empire, and once this is realized, all the details fall into
place. Khorenatsi has presented a garbled tale, but one of interest.
Again, there is the example of the brave, young Armenian hero
struggling against an alien tyrant. But here, the old story of Cyrus, with
a mythological component introduced, has been adapted to Tigran.
Since the Persian Sasanian dynasty also adapted the Cyrus legend to
the early life of Ardashir I, their own founder, it seems likely that we
are dealing with royal propaganda of the first century b .c . rather than
with an older legend going back to the beginnings of the Armenians,
nearly a millennium earlier.
The Beginning of the Historical Era of Armenia
The Armenian plateau at the time of its conquest by the Achaemenian

kings of Iran in the second half of the sixth century b .c . was inhabited
by a mixture of peoples, probably with a predominance of Urarteans and
Armenians, whose appellations were used interchangeably at Behistun
to identify the country. It is likely, though, that the Armenian-speakers
developed the strongest dynastic and cultural ties to the Iranians, becom
ing thereby the dominant population to which the other ethnic groups
were gradually assimilated. Until the conversion of the Armenians to
Christianity, with its Byzantine and Syrian cultural and political links,
Armenia was to remain in the Iranian cultural orbit almost exclusively.
But it would seem that some greater diversity persisted on the
plateau. A few tantalizing monuments, in addition to persistent proper
names, may indicate that Hittite and ancient Semitic culture survived.
To the west of Armenia, at Arebsun near Nevshehir, there are several
bas-reliefs in what has been described as “Neo-Hittite” style, which
seem to depict a myth of the creation of the world. Scratched onto the
same stones are a number of inscriptions in Aramaic, the Semitic
language used throughout the ancient period for official purposes in

Armenia, Iran, and elsewhere in the Near East. They sum up well both
the diversity and the interpenetration of linguistic, artistic, religious, and
ethnic influences in the region where the Armenian nation emerged. A
rich and archaic world of which the Armenians, both adaptable and
tenacious, are now the sole survivors, their language and legendry the
inheritance of both a continuous and limpid Indo-European tradition of
extreme antiquity and all that rich mixture gained along the way.
FO R FU RTH ER INFORM ATION
For the sources of, o r m ore inform ation on, the m aterial in this
chapter, please consult the follow ing (full citations can be found in
the B ibliography at the end o f this volum e).
Arutyunian, 1970. Lukenbill. 1989.

Azaipay, 1968. Mallory. 1989.
Balcer, 1984. Meillet. 1936.
Bauer-M anndoiff, 1984. M ovses Khorenat$‘i, 1978
Diankonoff, 1985. 1985. Olmstead, 1948.
Fontenrose, 1959. Piotrovsky, 1967.
Forbes, 1983. Renfrew, 1987.
Herodotus, 1954. Russell. 1982, 1987a. 1987b.
Jahukian, 1987. 1984, 1987. 1989.
36 James Russell
THE ERUANDID (ERVANDIAN)/ORONTID DYNASTY
The dates are approximative and still debated. All dates are B.C.
Ervand (Orontes) I, C.401-C.344

Ervand (Orontes) II. c.344-331
Mithranes, 331-before 317
Ervand (Orontes) III. before 317-C.260
Samus, c.260
Xerxes, after 228-C.212
Ervand (Orontes) IV. c.212-c.200
3
THE EMERGENCE OF
ARMENIA
Nina Garsoian
The Fall of Urartu and the Persian Conquest
he political situation prevailing in Anatolia and particularly on the
T Armenian highlands altered radically with the beginning of the

sixth century b .c . as the Urartian Empire, which had survived the
downfall of its mighty Assyrian rival, disappeared in its turn, somewhere
in the first two decades of the new century.
We cannot date the Urartian collapse with absolute accuracy. A
passage from the Book of Jeremiah (51:27) attests to its survival as late
as the fourth year of King Zedekiah of Jerusalem (594 b .c .) when it calls
upon “Ararat [Urartu], Menni and Askenaz” to rise against “Babylon.”
An alliance is confirmed by the contemporary Babylonian Annals (pp.
13-20), which noted the collaboration of Urartu with the newly come
Indo-lranian tribesmen, Scythians (Askenaz) as well as Medes, in the
capture of the Assyrian capital of Nineveh in 612 B.c. Excavations of the
north Urartian capital of TeSebaini (Teshebaini)/Karmir Blur in the sub
urbs of modem Erevan show with amazing precision that the destruction
of this site came swiftly and unexpectedly under a rain of arrows, whose
three-pronged bronze heads identify them as belonging to Urartu’s former
Scythian allies (Piotrovskii, 1967, p. 24). The inhabitants of TeSebaini fled
headlong, abandoning weapons, jewels, and household goods, or died in
38 Nina Garsoian
the fire that ravaged the citadel. The blow evidently fell in late July or
August since excavators observed that the granaries had already been
filled with the new harvest but the wine jars were still empty awaiting the
vintage and charred remains of late summer flowers could be identified
in the ruins. The date of the catastrophe, however, can be given as lying
between 594 and 590 B.c., a period during which the main Urartian capital,
Rusaxinili on Lake Van, also fell to the Medes pressing in from the East.
The various portions of the far-flung Urartian possessions obviously could
not have been overwhelmed all at once, but everything was apparently
over by 585, since there is no longer any mention of Urartu in the treaty
dividing Asia Minor along the Halys River between the Median conqueror
Cyaxares and the king of Lydia (a treaty whose date is set beyond question
by its association with the eclipse of the sun observed on May 28 of that
year) (Herodotus, tr. Godley, I. 103; vol. I, pp. 134/35). Little more than
one generation later, the conquering Medes gave way to a still more
powerful Indo-European group, the Persians, whose empire was to stretch
from Central Asia across Asia Minor to the shores of the Aegean Sea for
more than two centuries.
The Persian Empire (594-331 B.c.)
With the disappearance of Urartu and the establishment of the Persian

Achaemenid Empire, our knowledge of the history of the Armenian
plateau enters into a long period of darkness. The Urartian inscriptions
with their extensive political and socioeconomic information now fall
silent, as do those of neighboring Assyria and Babylonia. When the
Armenians finally came to record their own history more than a millen
nium later, only a dim and inaccurate memory survived of their distant
past. Archaeology, so generous in its evidence for the Urartian period,
has inexplicably failed until now to provide material for the era of the
Persian domination, not only in the still-untouched regions of Anatolia,
but even in the well-surveyed sites of the Armenian Republic. Thus, the
existing sources of information for the earliest Armenian period are
reduced to a few Achaemenid royal inscriptions, the most important and
famous of which is the one set up ca. 520 B.c. at the order of Darius the
Great on the cliff at Behistun near Hamadan, where the name “Annina”
is recorded for the first time. The far more extensive Greek records of
Herodotus and Xenophon do not begin earlier than the mid to late fifth
century, a century after the Persian conquest.
4. THE ACHAEMENID SATRAPY OF "ARMINA," c. 550-330 B .C
40 Nina Garsoian
Despite the scantiness of information, which precludes a reconstruc

tion of most of the internal political history of the period, some of its more
significant aspects can be observed. The lands conquered by the Persians
were in no sense homogeneous and the newly come Armenians were but
one of a multitude of tribes among whom they cannot have been a majority
at first. The Urartians were by no means exterminated despite their
political disintegration. Some sites, such as TeSebaini, were abandoned,
but the persistence of other place names such as Biaina/Van or TuSpa
(Tushpa)/Tosp indicate a surviving population with a continuing memory.
In the trilingual Behistun inscription of the late sixth century, the Semitic
Akkadian and Elamite versions still use the name “UraStu” for the land
called “Armina” in the Indo-European Old Persian text. According to
Herodotus (Herodotus, tr. Godley, III. 93-94, vol. II, pp. 120/1-122/3), the
Persian administration may have distinguished between its Thirteenth
Satrapy or Province, which included the “Armenoi,” and the Eighteenth,
to which belonged the Alarodians or Urartians. However, the accuracy of
his administrative information has been questioned. Later in the fifth
century, Xenophon (Anabasis, IV iii, 4-5, vol. II, p. 24/5) reports that the
“Armenoi” were still distinct from the “free Khaldaioi/Chaldaeans,” who
must have been the worshippers of the supreme Urartian god, Khaldi. In
the north, the presence of Saka or Scythian tribes is attested by the survival
of such place names as SakaSen, Sakak'ar, and Sake (Shakashen,
Shakakar, and Shake). Indeed, a memory of the link between the Scythians
and the Armenoi is underscored in the genealogies compiled by the
Armenian historian Movses Xorenac‘i (Movses Khorenatsi), who identi
fied the first Armenian king crowned by the Medes (presumably at the
time of their conquest of the plateau) as “Mer Paroyr orti Skayortoy ” that
is to say, “Our Paroyr, the son of the son of the Saka” (Movses Khorenats4i,
1.21-22, pp. 108,110). The “White Syrians” of the western, Cappadocian
border may have been survivors of the earlier Assyrian colonies and so
added a Semitic element to the Human Urartians and varied Indo-Euro-
pean-speaking groups in the area. Some of the tribes can be localized by
the names they left to regions of medieval Armenia, as in the case of the
“Saspires” and “Utioi” (Herodotus, tr. Godley, I. 104; III, 93-94; IV, 37;
vols. I, 134/5; II, pp. 120/1-122/3, 236/7) in northern Sper, and Utik4, or
the Kardukhoi found by Xenophon (Anabasis, III. v, 15; IV, iii, 1; vol. I,
pp. 490/1, II, pp. 24/5) in the southern district later known as Korduk4.
Thus, the tribal and linguistic multiplicity of the Armenian highlands
throughout the Achaemenid period is undeniable, and the Armenoi at first
occupied only the southwestern portion of the plateau. Nevertheless, the
THE EMERGENCE OF ARMENIA 41
name “Armina” given to the entire region in the Old Persian version of
the Behistun inscription suggests that these “Armenoi” were gradually
gaining a dominant position by the end of the sixth century b.c . and that
this preponderance had been accepted by the Persian authorities.
The Persian Empire laid an administrative framework over this
diversity. The authority of the Achaemenid King of Kings was su
preme, as was that of the satrap within his province. The main line of
communications from the Persian capitals of Susa and Persepolis to
Sardis in western Asia Minor, the Royal Highway, ran for fifteen
resting stages through southern Armenia (Herodotus, tr. Godley, V.
52; vol. Ill, pp. 56/5-58/9). As part of the empire, the “Armenoi”
contributed a yearly tribute of 400 silver talents as well as the horses
for which the region was famous, and they served in the Persian army.
Despite these obligations, however, the position of the country was by
no means unfavorable. The inclusion of the entire Armenian plateau
inside the heartland of the Persian Empire kept it within a single
political and cultural sphere and preserved it from the opposing exter
nal tensions that were to characterize most of its subsequent history.
At the same time the customary tolerance of the Achaemenid author
ities toward the various peoples of their empire, as long as the peace
was kept and the tribute paid, fostered the development of local
institutions that flourished in general peace and prosperity.
To be sure, the great rebellion of 522 b.c ., marking the inauguration
of Darius the Great’s reign throughout the Persian Empire, was serious
enough to require at least three campaigns to subdue “Armina” alone,
although even here an Armenian named Dadar§i§ (Dadarshish) com
manded the Persian army. But, thereafter, the country appears to have
been satisfied with its distant rulers. Armenians served in the army led
by Xerxes against Greece in 480 B.c. (Herodotus, tr. Godley, VII. 73;
vol. Ill, p. 384/5) and supplied a contingent of 10,000 for the Persian
war against Cilicia in 368. At the very end of the Achaemenid Empire
in 331 B.c., the Armenian infantry and armored cavalry still loyally
defended Darius III in his last stand against Alexander the Great at the
Battle of Gaugamela (Arrian, III. viii, 5; xi, 7; vol. I, pp. 246/7, 256/7).
The internal life of the country during the period of Persian rule is
revealed to us in unexpected detail through the account of the Greek general
Xenophon who in 401 led the “ten thousand” survivors of his army across
the Armenian plateau from Mesopotamia to the Black Sea and recorded his
experience in a work known as the Anabasis, or ‘The March Up-Country.”
Xenophon (Anabasis, III. v, 17; vol. I, p. 490/1), who observed a subdivision
42 Nina Garsoian
of the Armenian-inhabited area into Armenia, which he called “a large and

prosperous province,” and Western Armenia, ruled by a different satrap, a
simple agricultural and tribal society, relatively peaceful despite some local
strife, and amazingly wealthy for the times. Apparendy no cities were to be
found in the land, with the single exception of Gumnias in the north, whose
location is uncertain although its identification with m odern
Leninakan/Giumri has been suggested (Manandyan, 1965, p. 27), and the
recent excavations at Armawir (Armavir) on the Araxes River show no
settlement between the early Urartian foundations and the later Hellenistic
center on that site. The population lived primarily in strongly fortified
villages with turreted houses or occasionally in underground dwellings, to
protect themselves from the winter cold. A palace for the satrap is mentioned
in one place (Xenophon, Anabasis, IV. iv. 2; vol.II, p. 18/9), but the villages
were ruled by apparendy autonomous village elders, and probably consisted
for the most part of blood relatives since the village chiefs considered
themselves responsible for the welfare of their kinsmen (Xenophon, Anab
asis, IV. v, 32; vol. II, p. 56/7). The main occupations of the natives were
agriculture, rather than trade, and stock raising, both of catde and of the
renowned “Nesaean” horses of the region. The Greeks marveled at the
plentiful supplies and sumptuous fare of the country and Xenophon (Anab-
asis, IV. v, 25, 31; vol. II, pp. 54/5-56/7), does not tire of listing the “lamb,
kid, pork, veal, and poultry, together with many loaves of bread, some of
wheat and some of barley,” served at a single meal with a much appreciated
local form of beer.
The natives seemingly spoke among themselves a language differ
ent from Persian, which was reserved for official purposes, but in the
absence of any other dominant influence the country was profoundly
Iranized. The Armenians shared the typical Iranian social structure
based on the tribe, clan, and family as well as the vocabulary for similar
titles and institutions, for example:
Old Persian A rm enian English

tauma tohm house
zantu/zana azg clan
xSathra (khshathra) aSxarh (ashkharh) country, realm
vith-puthra sepuh junior member
of a ruling house
If the identification of the tribute-bearers depicted on the great staircase

of the Persian capital at Persepolis is correct, the Armenians wore Iranian
dress (Median rather than Persian) with knee-length tunics, trousers

gathered at the ankle, and characteristic headdresses tied in the back. The
Aramaic script of the Persian chancellery was used in writing at least at
the end of the period. Most important, the religion attributed to the
Armenians reflected the growing Zoroastrianism of the Persian court,
although it is difficult to date the time at which beliefs and cults made their
first appearance. The Greek geographer Strabo (XI. xiv, 16; vol. V, p.
340/1), writing at the very beginning of the Christian era, informs us that
the customs of the Medes, Persians, and Armenians were the same
“because their countries are similar” and that “the sacred rites of the
Persians one and all are held in honor by both the Medes and the
Armenians; but those of Anaitis are held in exceptional honor by the
Armenians who have built temples in her honor in different places and
especially in Akilisene.” This identification of the great goddess of the
Zoroastrian pantheon, Anahita the Lady, with the western Armenian
district of Akilisene (Armenian EkeleacTEkeghiats) is borne out by later
classical sources, which call this region “Anaetica” or “Anaitis” and by
the Armenian History attributed to Agat‘angeIos’ (Agathangelos) descrip
tion of the destruction of her great temple at Erez (modem Erzincan) in
the same district (Agathangelos, 1976, #809, pp. 346/7-348/9). The
worship of Anahita may have entered Armenia later, perhaps after the
period of the Achaemenids, who themselves record her cult officially only
in the second half of the dynasty, and her rites at Erez appear to have been
contaminated by Semitic practices such as temple prostitution. However,
the places of worship and sacrifice called “Iazonia” by Strabo (XI. iv, 8;
vol. V, p. 230/1) were mistakenly associated by him with the Greek tale
of Jason and the Argonauts, since their name (derived from the Avestan
yaz- Old Persian yad, Middle Iranian yaStan/yashtan “to worship, conse
crate”) clearly indicates their Iranian origin. The horse sacrifices associ
ated with the cult of the Zoroastrian sun-god M ithra also observed by
Strabo (XI. xiv, 9; vol. V, p. 330/1), are confirmed by Xenophon {Anab
asis, IV. v, 24, 34/5; vol. II, pp. 52/3, 56/7) for the earlier Achaemenid
Armenia and are now illustrated by the splendid silver-gilt bowls, deco
rated with the figure of a horse raising his forefoot in reverence before a
fire altar, recently uncovered near the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. Thus,
the Iranian character of Armenian paganism can undoubtedly be traced as
far back as the Achaemenid period.
In spite of its Iranization, Armenia was not merely a docile portion
of the Achaemenid Empire. As we have seen, the natives used their own
language and their land was identified as a separate unit called Armenia
44 Nina Garsoian
by both the Persian chancellery and contemporary Greek authors. More

over, the position of Armenia in the Persian Empire was distinguished
by special honor. The Armenian satrap Tiribazos was characterized by
Xenophon (,Anabasis, IV. iv, 4; vol. II, p. 38/9) as “a friend of the King
. . . the only man permitted to help the King mount his horse/’ and
extensive ties of kinship through blood and marriage linked the rulers
of Armenia with the household of the King of Kings. This close
connection is all the more interesting since, as far as we can judge from
the scanty evidence, these rulers of Armenia, as we shall see, appear not
to have been foreign governors imposed from outside, but rather native
dynasts, since their names “Orontes” (Eruand) and “Tigranes,” first
recorded by Xenophon at the end of the fifth century, were to reappear
subsequently as identifiably Armenian royal names. Thus, as early as
the Achaemenid period of the sixth-fifth centuries B.c., we can trace the
coalescence of an Armenian entity emerging from the earlier fragmented
tribal pattern of the region and controlling an increasing portion of the
plateau; an entity with its own language and identity, despite its cultural
Iranization, and with the nucleus of a ruling house.
Alexander the Great and His Successors (331-188 B .c .)
The formidable thrust of Alexander the Great through most of Western

Asia and the lengthy struggle of his successors to dominate the Near
East had relatively little direct influence on the Armenian plateau,
although with the removal of the semblance of unity provided by the
overall Persian administration, the Armenian lands began to fragment
into new units. Greater Armenia east of the Euphrates River preserved
its identity in the northeast, but west of the river, the lands of Armenia
Minor gradually united into a separate kingdom associated with Pontus
in the north and Cappadocia to the west. Similarly, the kingdom of
Sophene linked with Mesopotamia and Syria to the south probably
emerged in the southwestern portion of the plateau in the latter part of
the third century B.c., although the date is still disputed. Even so, we
must remember that Alexander himself never set foot in the Armenian
highlands despite legendary allegations to the contrary, and the sparse
references to Armenia in the classical sources dealing with this period
clearly suggest that Armenia and its neighbors usually lay beyond the
reach of the new Macedonian conquerors, even if Armenia was occa
sionally compelled to recognize their overlordship.
In 331 B.c. a governor was sent by Alexander to rule Armenia

(Arrian, III. 16, 5; vol I, p. 276/7) and another is known to have been
there in 323-321, but even at this early date soon after Alexander’s
victory over Persia, the murder by the natives of the representative
whom he had sent to supervise the gold mines of Sper on the northwest
border of Armenia suggests that Macedonian authority was little
respected in the region. There is no mention of Armenia among the
lands divided by Alexander’s successors in their treaty of 321, and by
316 Armenia was again ruled by a satrap named Orontes, who may be
the one who had led the Armenia contingent defending the last
Achaemenid king at the Battle of Gaugamela some fifteen years
earlier, or his successor namesake. The later Roman historian Appian
(“The Syrian Wars,” IX. 55; vol. II, p. 208/9), writing in the second
century a .d . claimed that Armenia had become a province belonging
to Alexander’s general Seleukos I (who had obtained the eastern share
of the conqueror’s empire) and Seleukos probably was in Armenia in
the last year of the fourth century, but the information that the ruler of
Armenia in alliance with his Cappadocian neighbor had driven out the
Macedonian and “recovered his original domain” suggests that
Seleukos probably accepted the autonomous status of the region. The
royal title attributed by later sources to the ruler of Armenia may well
mean that Armenia stepped almost at once out of the hands of Seleukos
and his successors. One more effort was made by the Seleucids at the
end of the third century b .c . to reimpose Macedonian rule on all the
Armenian lands. The southwestern region known as Sophene (Arme
nian Cop*k7Dzopk), which by then formed a separate unit, was
attacked in 272 by King Antiochos III (Polybius, VIII. 23; vol. Ill, pp.
504/5-506/7), presumably in retaliation for the failure of Sophene to
pay the expected tribute. The land was overrun, the local ruler paid a
considerable indemnity of 300 talents of silver and 1,000 horses and
mules, but then was murdered and Sophene was reintegrated into the
Seleucid realm. Antiochos may then have turned northward to attack
Armenia proper; nevertheless, by 188 B.c. both Armenia and Sophene
were firmly in the hands of local rulers whom Strabo (XI. xiv, 15; vol.
V, p. 336/7) called “Artaxias” and “Zariadris,” and not even the
subsequent capture of “King Artaxias” by Antiochos IV seems to have
hindered the autonomy of the region. In short, despite the occasional
attempts of the Seleucids to control their northern border, local dynasts
already present under the Achaemenids continued to maintain their
rule over their native territories.
46 Nina Garsoian
The Native Dynasties:

Eruandids (Orontids) and ArtaSesids (Artashesids)
Foreign authors observing Armenia from afar could gain only a
fragmentary and external impression of what they considered barbaric
lands only occasionally brought into the sphere of the civilized world.
Beneath this superficial image, however, signs of a far more coherent
and continuous native tradition can be detected. Weaving together the
scattered information of the often-distorted notices in classical sources
together with the semilegendary and chronologically confused Arme
nian tradition preserved in the History of Armenia of the later historian
Movses Xorenac4i and the newly discovered epigraphic material (both
at Armawir in the valley of the Araxes and on Nemrud Dagh in
southw estern Kommagene), th e A rm e n ia n h is to ria n H a k o b
Manandyan (1965) began to trace the presence in Armenia of a
forgotten dynasty going back to the fifth century B .c ; a native dynasty
to which he gave the name of Eruandid or Orontid, from the most
common name of its rulers.
M anandyan observed the repeated references by classical
sources to dynasts variously named Orontes, Orontas, Aroandes,
Ardoates, Aruandes, ruling in Armenia between 401 and ca. 190 B.c.
These variants appear to be Greek distortions of a single unfamiliar
foreign name known in Armenia under the form Eruand, derived from
the Iranian auruand/auruant, “mighty, hero.” Manandyan (1965; pp.
36-38) linked these observations to the tale of the Armenian King
Eruand, recorded out of chronological sequence in Book II of Movses
Xorenac4i’s History (II. 37-46, pp. 178-187). The discovery at the
beginning of this century of a Greek inscription near Armawir (in
which a “King Orontes” is mentioned) reinforced the hypotheses of
the presence of a ruler of that name in Greater Armenia. Finally, the
conclusion of Movses X orenacTs tale (II. 46, pp. 185-187) with King
Eruand’s defeat and death at the hand of his own soldiers in the war
against his successor King ArtaSes (Artashes) (Greek Artaxias)
seemed to coincide remarkably with Strabo’s statement (XI. xiv, 15;
vol V, p. 336/7) that the last dynast of Armenia before the coming of
Artaxias had been named Orontes, and with another of the Armawir
inscriptions, which mourned the death in battle of a ruler linked with
Armenia and killed by his own soldiers.
Both the interior chronology of Movses Xorenac’i and the reading
of *he Armawir inscriptions are still open to considerable disagreement,
but the existence of a local Armenian dynasty, probably of Iranian origin,

as indicated by both Strabo and Movses Xorenac’i as well as by the
derivation of the Eruandid name, has now received additional corrobora
tion. In the middle of the last century B.c. Armenia's neighbor. King
Antiochos of Kommagene, inscribed upon his splendid funerary monu
ment on Nemrud Dagh a list of the ancestors through whom he claimed
descent from the Achaemenid kings (Toumanoff, 1963, pp. 277-94).
These lists support and extend our knowledge of the Orontid/Eruandid
dynasty, since they not only include the Orontes known to Xenophon in
401, but push our knowledge back to the grandfather, still named Orontes,
of Xenophon’s contemporary and incidentally identify Alexander’s gov
ernor Mithranes as a member of the same family. Consequently, even
though gaps in our knowledge still preclude the establishment of a
continuous line down to the last Eruand/Orontes of Movses Xorenac'i and
Strabo at the beginning of the second century B.c., it is already evident that
the Eruandids were neither chance leaders nor appointed governors. They
were powerful dynasts able to raise sizable military contingents who
probably achieved royal status at the very end of the fourth century, when
both the Greek authors and the Nemrud Dagh inscription begin to style
“Orontes” king rather than satrap. At first, these dynasts recognized the
overlordship of the Achaemenids with whom they intermarried, and
occasionally that of the Seleucids, but after Alexander’s conquests, the
replacement of the Persians and Macedonians in 331 B.c. did not break the
Eruandid control of their native land.
The accession in 188 B.c. of ArtaSes/Artaxias as King of Greater
Armenia has usually been taken to mark a new era in the history of
Armenia, and presumably, therefore, the end of the Eruandid rule over the
country. Strabo asserted that Artaxias and his colleague Zariadris were:
generals o f [the Seleucid King] A ntiochos the G reat . . . and these

generals ruled the country, since it w as turned over to them by the
King; but w hen the King was defeated, they jo in ed the Rom ans and
w ere ranked autonom ous, with the title o f K ing.(Strabo, XI. xiv, 15;
vol V, p. 336/7)
A new Artaxiad or ArtaScsid dynasty then descended from this

Artaxias/ArtaSes. It was to rule Armenia until the dawn of the Christian
era and reach its zenith in the last century B.c. with Tigran II the Great.
However, newly uncovered evidence now suggests that the “new”
Artaxiad dynasty was not descended from a Seleucid general alien to
48 Nina Garsoian
Armenia, as Strabo had mistakenly assumed, but that it could trace its
ancestry back to the preceding Eruandid house.
This thesis is supported by the very names: Artaxias/ArtaSes and
Zariadris/Zareh given by Strabo to his presumed Seleucid generals, since
they are Irano-Armenian and not Greek in origin. Furthermore, the most
common royal name in the Artaxiad dynasty, Tigran/Tigranes, far from
being introduced by it into Armenia, had been attributed by Xenophon
(Cyropaedia, III. i, 7, vol I, p. 220/1) to the “eldest son” of the Armenian
king in the days of his own contemporary Orontes some two centuries
earlier, and Movses Xorenac‘i (I. 22, p. I l l ) listed “Tigran” after
“Eruand” among the most ancient Armenian kings. Finally, the most
telling evidence for the association of the ArtaSesids with their Eruandid
predecessors was provided by inscriptions on boundary stones discovered
near Lake Sevan and particularly the one more recently come to light near
Tat4ew in the northeastern Armenian district of Zangezur. These inscrip
tions written in the official Aramaic script of the Persian chancellery speak
of “ArtaSes, the son of Zareh” and “ArtaSes, the Eruandid King, the good
[king] the son of Zareh . . . ” (Perikhanian [1966], p. 18) As such, they
provide documentary evidence that ArtaSes/Artaxias himself had offic
ially claimed to be an Eruandid and give greater credibility to a question
able later Armeno-Geoigian tradition that ArtaSes was the brother of King
Eruand. The identity of the name of Strabo’s contemporary ruler of
Sophene, Zariadris/Zareh, with that of ArtaSes’ father in the inscription
suggests that he too belonged to the same house, especially since he is
known to have had a descendant called “Artanes” by Strabo, (XI. xiv, 15;
vol V, p. 336/7) whose name is probably one more Greek corruption of
the name Eruand. Thus, the evidence of the Sevan and Zangezur inscrip
tions, as well as that of classical and Armenian sources, support an
Eruandid connection for both ArtaSes and Zareh and consequently the
absence of a clear dynastic break in Armenia at the beginning of the second
century b .c . Wc cannot yet trace the interrelations of the various subdivi
sions of the Eruandids, and both ArtaSes and Zareh probably belonged to
collateral lines since neither saw fit to establish himself in the Eruandid
capital, but branches of the earlier house apparently survived in Sophene
and in neighboring Kommagene, as well as in Greater Armenia.
The Prosperity of Armenia under the Early ArtaSesids

The Armenian tradition of attributing to ArtaSes a major role in the
consolidation and organization of the Armenian realm appears to be
grounded in fact. The king failed in his attempt to absorb Sophene,

and he was even briefly captured in 165 B.c. in the last attempt of the
Seleucids to reassert their authority over Armenia, but his hold over
Greater Armenia does not seem to have been shaken. On the contrary,
we learn from Strabo (XI. xiv. 5, pp. 322/3-324/5) that ArtaSes,
together with Zariadris/Zareh of Sophene, extended his realm on all
sides by wresting considerable territories from the tribes that still
possessed them: Kaspiane/Kazbk1 and Basropeda/Vaspurakan in the
southeastern portion of the highlands and eastward through Azerbaijan
as far as the Caspian Sea; Gogarene/Gugark* north of Lake Sevan to
the Kura River and the borders of modem Georgia; Karenitis/Karin,
Xerxene or Derxene/Derjan (Terjan) and Akilisene/Ekeleac4 in the
west, around the south of present-day Erzerum, and finally Taron-
itis/Taron in the south. The contemporary Roman historian Polybius
called him “the ruler of the greater part of Armenia.”
ArtaSes founded a new city as a capital for his expanded realm,
ArtaSat/Artaxata, or more properly Artaxiasata, “the joy of ArtaSes,”
which Strabo (XI. xiv. 6, p. 324/5) calls “a beautiful settlement and
the royal residence of the country.” The city was laid out on a peninsula
of nine hills at the junction of the Araxes and Mecamor (Metsamor)
rivers, thus showing that Artaxias already controlled the central valley
of the Araxes. The city contained a citadel on the height later called
Xor Virap (Khor Virap) and was protected by extensive fortifications
and a moat. Recent excavations have revealed a major urban center
with paved streets, public buildings, baths, shops, and workshops of
various craftsmen. ArtaSaf s position favored its participation in the
great commercial development stimulated by the coming of the
Greeks, and it rapidly became a major junction point between the trade
route along the valley of the Araxes leading outward to Bactria and
India and the one running northward to the Black Sea (Manandyan,
1965, pp. 44-52). The considerable number of Greek coins dating from
this period found on the territory of the Armenian Republic testify to
the prosperity brought to this region by its transit trade.
The boundary stones bearing Art&Ses’ inscriptions found in
Zangezur and near Lake Sevan bear tangible witness of XorenacYs
assertion that the king had personally supervised the apportioning and
ordering of the Armenian lands. One in particular records the presence
of royal fisheries established on the shores of Lake Sevan. Unfortu
nately, no description of the interior life of the country such as was
provided by Xenophon has survived from Hellenistic Armenia, but a
50 Nina Garsoian
reference to a royal “coronanf ’ in the Zangezur inscription (Perikhanian,

p. 18) shows that this office, which was to be of major importance in
medieval Armenia, already existed at this early date, and other officials
may also have been present at the ArtaSesid court. Perhaps most signif
icant of all is the observation of Strabo (XI. xiv, 5, vol V. p. 324/5) that
the unification of the various districts under ArtaSes and Zareh had led
the population of Greater Armenia and Sophene to “speak the same
language.” The Armenization of the entire area was progressing apace.
The Rise of Greek Culture in Armenia
As we have already seen, the political consequences of Alexander’s

conquests in the East were relatively superficial in Armenia. The atten
dant cultural break was to prove far more significant and lasting, as the
impact of Greek/Hellenistic traditions shattered the cultural hegemony
of Iran in the East. The present state of the evidence does not permit us
to date with precision the path of Hellenization in Armenia, and some
of its manifestations may have appeared only considerably later. By the
third century B.c., however, it had unquestionably reached Sophene,
which lay closest to the centers of Seleucid culture, and from there it
seeped into Eruandid Greater Armenia as well, bringing with it new
practices and institutions.
The most characteristic institution of the Greek world, the city-
state, with a name usually commemorating its founder in the Hellenistic
period—as did the multiple Alexandras and Seleucias of the East—
manifested itself unmistakably in the Armenian lands as Arsamosata
(Ar§ama£at [Arshamashat]) on the Euphrates, Eruandakert, Zarehawan,
ZariSat (Zarishat), and especially ArtaSat (Artashat) on the Araxes, thus
flattering the pride of Arsames (ArSam) of Sophene as well as those of
the Eruandids and ArtaSesids. These cities introduced a new and alien
element into the rural and tribal world of the plateau described by
Xenophon. The closed agricultural economy was transformed by its
contact with Hellenistic international commerce, and local coinage
appeared for the first time in the area. Both the silver coinage of Sophene
and of the ArtaSesids, bearing the portrait of the king and Greek
inscriptions, followed standard Greek models, and some of the ArtaSesid
kings officially proclaimed themselves “Philhellenes” on their coins.
The Greek parchment contracts discovered near the village of
Avroman in the Zagros Mountains show the familiarity of the native
population with the Greek language, Greek law, and the Seleucid
calendar in a region bordering on Armenia. This situation is paralleled
in the heartland of the Araxes Valley by the Greek inscriptions from
Armawir, among which can be found a listing of the Macedonian
months and references to the Greek classics such as Hesiod and
Euripides. According to Movses Xorenac‘i (II. 40, p. 182), Eruand
founded the city of Bagaran to place there the statues of the “idols” he
had brought from Armawir and which were subsequently transported
to ArtaSat by ArtaSes, who is said to have also brought bronze statues
of the Greek gods Zeus, Artemis, Herakles, and Apollo to Armenia
from the west. XorenacVs (II, 12,77, pp. 148,225) claim that Eruand
and ArtaSes had established in Armenia shrines served by priests and
supported by large estates including numerous slaves seems substan
tiated by a fragmentary inscription at Armawir recording the dedica
tion of four horses with a chariot and a small statue. Excavations at
Armawir and ArtaSat are only beginning, but they have uncovered
objects of unmistakable Hellenic type.
Despite this onslaught of Hellenism, however, Iranian culture
remained deeply rooted on the Armenian plateau. The names of all the
Eruandid and ArtaSesid kings are Iranian in origin. The Armawir inscrip
tions are unquestionably written in Greek, but their haphazard placement
on the face of two rocks brings them close to the level of graffiti, whereas
the Aramaic of the Persian chancellery is reserved for the official
inscriptions of ArtaSes in Zangezur and elsewhere. ArtaSesid dignitaries
such as the royal coronant known to Xorenac‘i (II, vii, p. 136), belong
in an Iranian and not a Greek world, as does the Zoroastrian pantheon
of Ahura-Mazda, Mithra, Anahita, and Vahagn, even though they seem
to have been identified at times with their Greek equivalents in accor
dance with the syncretism fashionable throughout the Hellenistic world.
The very name of the Eruandid holy city of Bagaran, composed of the
Iranian baga “god” and the suffix of place -aran, points to the Iranian
antecedents of such “divine places,” and we find numerous additional
examples, such as Bagrewand, Bagawan, Bagayari£ (Bagaharich), in
Armenia. The excavations of ArtaSat have brought up clay plaques
bearing the representation of the Iranian “heroic rider” as well as
statuettes of Greek type. Perhaps the most tangible examples of the
hybrid cultural traditions developing through most of Transcaucasia are
to be found at present on the borders of Armenia: in the south at Nemrud
Dagh, where King Antiochos of Kommagene (Commagene) traced his
ancestry to both the Achaemenids and Alexander the Great, and is shown
52 Nina Garsoian
receiving his investiture from the Greek Herakles as well as the Iranian
Mithra; and in the north at the excavations near Tbilisi, where purely
classical silver vases lay in graves side by side with the Iranian horse
bowls of the Mithraic cult, and the epitaph of the young wife of a local
magnate was written in both Greek and Aramaic.
The new Greek elements unquestionably enriched the culture of
the Armenian highlands, and Armenia prospered in the Hellenistic
period as it became a part of the wider Mediterranean world. Helleniza-
tion presented no direct threat in the early ArtaSesid period, and the
combination of Iranian and Greek traditions helped to produce an
increasingly complex and sophisticated Armenian civilization. Never
theless, from this time on the Armenians would never find themselves
again inside a united homogeneous world. As Armenia slowly pro
ceeded in the last centuries preceding the Christian era to the status of a
“buffer state,” the opposing cultural and more ominously political
pressures of the Mediterranean and Oriental worlds eventually in
creased, threatening at times its unity and its identity.
Armenia under Tigran the Great (95-55 B.c.)
The threat of foreign domination was still distant from Armenia in the
second and first centuries B.c. and the temporary absence of external
pressures favored the rise of local ambitions. The Seleucids, increas
ingly embroiled in family quarrels, were in no position to assert their
authority outside their diminishing realm. The renaissance of Iran under
the new Parthian dynasty of the Arsacids was still being consolidated.
Rome had not yet fully committed itself to the tumultuous struggle for
power in the Near East into which it was being reluctantly drawn, though
its antagonism to the Seleucids could already help local rulers, such as
ArtaSes and Zareh, to free themselves from the suzerainty of King
Antiochos III. The growing resentment of the Oriental population to
ward their western conquerors, which was soon to explode in the general
massacre of Romans in the East in 88 B.c., could be exploited. Conditions
were ripe for a bid for power in Armenia.
Not much is known concerning the period between the reign of
ArtaSes I and the accession of Tigran II in Armenia. The contradictory
genealogies of narrative accounts have been clarified by the numismatic
evidence, so that it is now clear that ArtaSes I was succeeded by two of
his sons: Artawazd (Artavazd) I, followed by Tigran I, the father of the
54 Nina Garsoian
future Tigran II the Great. Artawazd I was defeated in the first Parthian
attack on Armenia at the end of the reign of the Arsacid king Mithradates
I (128-88 b .c .) and forced to surrender his nephew as a hostage, but
nothing is known of the reign of Tigran I beyond a few copper coins that
have now been attributed to him and support the claim of the Roman
historian Appian (“The Syrian W ars/’ viii, 48, p. 196/7) that Tigran the
Great and the king his father had borne the same name. Sources are
plentiful, on the contrary, for the reign of Tigran II in which the Arta$esid
dynasty reached its zenith, but our knowledge of it derives almost
exclusively from Roman writers invariably hostile to a ruler who had
posed a major threat to Roman power in the East. They often present a
distorted image requiring rectification, and they are only partly comple
mented by Tigran’s extensive coinage and the imperfect memories
preserved in Armenian accounts composed many centuries later.
To obtain his release at his father’s death in 95 b .c . Tigran II was
compelled to return to Parthia “seventy valleys’’ (Strabo, XI, xiv, 15, p.
338/9), probably those conquered by ArtaSes I in the direction of
Azerbaijan, but immediately upon his accession he returned to ArtaSes’
expansionist policy. His first move was to absorb the neighboring
kingdom of Sophene, which his grandfather had failed to conquer, thus
consolidating most of the Eruandid lands under his power. So far,
ArtaSesid policy had attracted little attention from the West, but Tigran’s
next move brought him into conflict with Roman interests. The marriage
alliance concluded by him with his northwestern neighbor, King
Mithradates VI of Pontus, whose kingdom included the lands of Arme
nia Minor, led Tigran to support his father-in-law’s attempt to annex the
adjacent Kingdom of Cappadocia. Provoked by this attack on one of its
clients, the Roman Senate sent the general Sulla to drive Mithradates’
young son from Cappadocia and to conclude in 92 b .c . an agreement
with King Mithradates II of Parthia that first set the Euphrates River as
the boundary between the Roman and Iranian worlds.
Armenia’s first encounter with the Romans was inconclusive. The
Pontic candidate was soon replaced on the Cappadocian throne, but for
some two decades thereafter Tigran did not participate in the bitter
conflict opposing Pontus to the Roman state, although he may have
renewed his treaty of alliance with Mithradates VI. His attention was
focused on the more threatening Parthian Empire to the east of Armenia.
Making the most of Parthia’s temporary weakness at the death of
Mithradates II and of the distracting attacks of Central Asiatic nomads
on its eastern border, Tigran began the reconquest of the territories ceded
at his accession. A series of campaigns between 88 and 85 B.c. carried

the Armenian armies to the gates of the Arsacid summer residence at
Hamadan in Media, extending the ArtaSesid Empire over the principal
ities of Atropatene, Gordiene, Adiabene, Osrhoene, and Mygdonia in
modern Iranian Azerbaijan and Mesopotamia, in a series of victories
that justified Tigran’s assumption of the Achaemenid title of King of
Kings, which appears on his coins after 85 B.c.
If Tigran’s Parthian campaigns were in part a retaliation for the
earlier humiliation of Armenia by the Arsacids, his southern conquests
were not altogether his own initiative. Weary of the anarchy caused by
the constant quarrels of the Seleucids, a Syrian party offered to crown
the new conqueror of the East. Turning southward, Tigran annexed
Kommagene, the Cilician plain, northern Syria, and coastal Phoenicia,
and perhaps imposed his overlordship on the Kingdom of Judea, al
though these campaigns probably proved more difficult than some
sources imply. In 84-83 he apparently occupied the Syrian capital of
Antioch, as is evidenced by the silver tetradrachms bearing the king’s
portrait on one side and on the other the fortune of the city represented
by a woman wearing a turreted crown and holding the palm of victory.
Even hostile Roman authors admit that Syria enjoyed thirteen years of
peace under Tigran’s rule. His empire now stretched from the Mediter
ranean to the Caspian Sea.
The Roman republic, occupied by the continued war with
Mithradates of Pontus (Appian, “The Mithridatic Wars’’) and troubled
by internal party strife, did not interfere with Tigran’s conquests directed
against the Parthians and the Seleucids. The Armenian King of Kings
was consequently left free to organize his multinational and multicultu
ral empire. No uniform pattern seems to have been imposed on the new
territories, all of which paid tribute and supplied military contingents.
The Greek cities kept their institutions and some even struck their own
coinage. Four vassal kings were in perpetual attendance on Tigran’s
person, if Plutarch (“Lucullus,” XXL, 5, p. 536/7) is to be believed, but
as a rule the conquered territories merely acknowledged his suzerainty
and preserved their internal autonomy with a few exceptions. Tigran’s
brother was installed in the important city of Nisibis, which controlled
the East-W est trade route through Mesopotamia. Nomadic Arabs were
resettled in the area to assist in the transport of goods over the Euphrates.
In general, massive shifts of population are characteristic of this reign,
and a persistent Armenian tradition attributes the settlement of a Jewish
population in the cities of Greater Armenia to the policy of Tigran the
56 Nina Uarsoian
Great. A general named Magdates or more correctly Bagdates ruled over

the Syrian territories. The figures given by ancient writers for the
Armenian armies are unquestionably inflated, but they indicate a pow
erful war machine largely composed of heavily armored cavalry and
experienced in siege warfare.
Since the old ArtaSesid capital of ArtaSat on the Araxes was too
remote for the government of the extended empire, Tigran II chose a
location far to the south in the early seventies for the new capital to which
he gave his name. The site of Tigranakert/Tigranocerta continues to be
disputed, since it cannot yet be confirmed by archaeological evidence.
We leam from Appian (“The Mithridatic Wars,” XII. 84, pp. 398/9) that
the city was surrounded by (turreted?) walls fifty cubits (22 meters) high,
the base of which was filled with stables and contained a citadel. A
palace with “large parks, hunting grounds and lakes,” as well as “a strong
fortress” were erected nearby and the city also contained a theater. To
fill this new capital Tigran forcibly removed the population from the
cities of Mesopotamia, Cilicia, and particularly Cappadocia, which he
had invaded again in 78 B.c. Strabo and Appian probably exaggerate
grossly when they speak of the population of twelve destroyed Greek
cities or o f the 300,000 G reeks m oved from M azaka (later
Caesarca/Kayseri) in Cappadocia (Strabo, XI. xiv, 15; XII. ii, 9; vol. V,
pp. 338/9, 366/7. Appian, “The Mithridatic Wars,” X. 67, pp. 364/5),
but Appian insists that the city was “founded on an ambitious scale” and
Plutarch adds that “the city was also full of wealth. .. since every private
person and every prince vied with the King in contributing to its increase
and adornment” (Plutarch, “Lucullus,” xxvi, 2, pp. 552/3). The wealth
and power of Tigran, increased by his control of the great cities of Syria
and Phoenicia and of the transit trade through Mesopotamia, had become
legendary by the days of Movses Xorenac4i:
Who among true men and those who appreciate deeds of valor and
prudence would not be stirred by his memory and aspire to become
such a man? He was supreme among men and by showing his valor
he glorified our nation. Those who had been under a yoke he put in
a position to subject and demand tribute from many. He multiplied
the stores of gold and silver and precious stones, of garments and
brocades of various colors, both for men and women, with the help
of which the ugly appeared as wonderful as the handsome, and the
handsome were altogether deified at the tim e... The bringer of peace
and prosperity, he fattened everyone with oil and honey . . . over all
alike he spread the mantle of his care. (Movses Khorenats‘i, I. 24,
pp. 113-14)
This is again an undoubted exaggeration, nevertheless, even Plutarch

admitted (“Lucullus,” xxi, 2, pp. 536/7), albeit ungraciously, that “the
King . . . had become pompous and haughty in the midst of his great
prosperity,” and the almost contemporary Roman historian Velleius
Paterculus (II. xxxiii, 1, pp. 120/1) conceded that Tigran II was the
“greatest of Kings.”
Armenia’s increased contact with the more Hellenized regions of
Syria and Pontus as a result of Tigran’s conquests and alliances also bore
fruit. The Armenian court was profoundly Hellenized under the influ
ence of its queen, Cleopatra of Pontus, and Greek rhetoricians and
philosophers were welcomed as guests and advisors of the royal family.
A troupe of Greek actors was summoned to inaugurate the theater built
at Tigranakert (Plutarch, “Lucullus,” xxix, 4, pp. 566/7). Greek was
probably the language of the court, since Tigran’s son and heir Artawazd
II wrote, in Greek, tragedies, orations, and historical works, some of
which were still known in the second century a .d ., and Euripides’
famous play The Bacchae, was performed at his sister’s wedding to the
Parthian heir (Plutarch, “Crassus,” xxxiii, pp. 420/1, 422/3).
The brilliance of this Hellenic culture should not blind us, how
ever, to the survival of the Iranian tradition that helped preserve Armenia
from the total assimilation of Cappadocia or Pontus. Both Tigran’s title
of King of Kings and the pearl tiara with the star of divinity in which he
is invariably represented on his coins belong to the Persian world. It is
not certain whether the four kings attending Tigran at all times were the
ancestors of the great marcher lords, the bdeSxs (bdeshkhs), so familiar
to the fifth century a .d . Armenian authors, but the court ceremonial was
Iranian and the presence of a vassal nobility is an element alien to the
Classical world. The pleasure gardens and the hunting preserves laid out
at Tigranakert (Appian, “The Mithridatic Wars,” xii, 67, pp. 398/9) are
precisely the “paradises” (Armenian parte z) enjoyed by the Arsacid
nobility in Iran and subsequently recorded repeatedly in Armenia. We
know little of the structure of the country outside the court, but the
familiarity of the Roman author of the first century a .d ., Pliny the Elder
(Natural History, VI. x, 27; vol. II, pp. 356/7), with the “ 120 strategies”
composing Armenia one century later suggests that the social pattern of
great autonomous families each controlling its own lands, so character
58 Nina Garsoian
istic of medieval Armenia and the Parthian realm but unknown to the
Roman system, was already developing in Tigranid Armenia. Thus, the
philhellenism of the Armenian court does not seem to have set deep
roots, nor did it impress the Romans, who invariably viewed Tigran with
hostility as a haughty and arrogant Oriental monarch.
The peace imposed by Tigran II did not prove long-lasting, as the
imperialist party in the Roman Senate decided to put an end to the drain
of the Mithridatic wars and impose its own solution on the East. Tigran
delayed the opening of hostilities to the maximum, but late in 71 b c .
Appius Claudius, the legate of the Roman general Lucullus, brought an
ultimatum to Antioch. Insolently addressing Tigran as “King** rather
than by his official title of King of Kings, Appius Claudius demanded
the surrender of the defeated King Mithradates VI of Pontus, who had
taken refuge in Armenia. War followed soon upon Tigran's refusal to
surrender his father-in-law (Plutarch, “Lucullus,” xxi, pp. 534/5,538/9).
In the spring of 69 b .c . Lucullus, who had succeeded in winning over
some of Tigran's vassals, suddenly crossed the Euphrates near Melitene
and marched across Sophene directly on Tigranakert. Unprepared to
meet this unexpected attack, Tigran withdrew from the capital to join
forces with Mithradates and summon his vassals, most of whom seem
to have still obeyed. An attempt to raise the siege of the capital succeeded
in rescuing the king's treasure and his harem, but the main Armenian
army was severely defeated by the Romans near the city. Betrayed by
its Greek garrison, Tigranakert finally fell to the besiegers. The enor
mous booty found in the still unfinished ten-year-old city, even after the
removal of the royal treasury, amazed its conquerors, according to
Plutarch (Plutarch, “Lucullus,'* XXX, 2-4, pp. 566/7; Strabo XI, xiv, 15;
vol. V. pp. 338/9); Appian, “The Mithridatic Wars,” XII pp. 402-3), and
provides an additional index of the wealth of Armenia in this period.
The fall of Tigranakert marked the end of Tigran's control of
Kommagene, Syria, and Mesopotamia, except for Nisibis, as his vassals
turned their allegiance to Rome. Even so, the core of the Armenian
kingdom was still untouched. Supported by Mithradates and his own
son-in-law, the king of Atropatene, Tigran harried the Romans while
Lucullus struggled to make his way northward to the old capital of
ArtaSat. Sapped by the absence of supplies along the way and delayed
by Armenian guerrilla activity, the Romans reached the plateau at the
beginning of winter as roads became impassable. The threat of mutiny
forced Lucullus to turn back to Mesopotamia, where he succeeded in
capturing Nisibis (Plutarch, “Lucullus,” xxxi-xxxii, pp. 572/3, 578/9).
Meanwhile, Mithradates reentered Pontus, and Tigran had already

begun the reconquest of territories north of the Tigris and in Cappadocia
when Lucullus was recalled to Rome in 67 b .c .
Unfortunately for Armenia, the Roman decision to subdue the East
remained unaltered, and the new general Pompey counted on victory to
support his bid for power at Rome. The first blow fell in 66 B.c. on
Mithradates, who was defeated and fled northward to the eastern shore
of the Black Sea. Tigran the Great, faced with the rebellion of his sons
Zareh and Tigran the Younger, did not participate at first. But as the
younger Tigran took refuge with his father-in-law, the king of Parthia,
Armenia soon found itself attacked on all sides.
The Parthian king failed in his attempt to capture ArtaSat, whose
fortifications withstood his assault, but the younger Tigran then turned
for help to Pompey, whom he guided to his father’s capital in the hope
of being rewarded with the throne. Unable to save ArtaSat, and in order
to prevent its sharing the fate of Tigranakert, Tigran II agreed to make
his submission to Pompey from whose hands he received back the royal
diadem, thus acknowledging the Roman protectorate over Armenia. The
peace o f 66 B.c. stripped Tigran of all his conquests in Syria, Phoenicia,
Mesopotamia, Atropatene, Cilicia, KommagenS and even Sophene,
reducing his realm to Greater Armenia proper. A formidable indemnity
of 6,000 talents plus additional gifts to each of the Roman soldiers was
required of Armenia, and the younger Tigran, to whom Sophene had
first been offered but who continued to prove untrustworthy, was sent
with his family to Rome to be displayed in Pompey’s triumph (Plutarch,
“Pompey,” xxxiii, pp. 202/3-204/5). In spite of this, the situation was
by no means desperate. Pompey proclaimed Tigran II a friend of the
Roman people, thus halting any further attacks on the Armenian heart
land, which remained untouched, and even returned to him considerable
territories in Mesopotamia. Still bearing the title of King of Kings,
acknowledged to him by Pompey, in spite of the objections of Parthia,
Tigran II ruled peacefully for another decade before dying in extreme
old age in 56 or 55 b.c .
The far-flung empire of Tigran the Great was probably not viable,
since no cohesive framework held together such disparate elements as
the Greek cities and the eastern principalities with varying languages
and customs. Hellenized and urban Syro-Mesopotamia had little in
common with the essentially rural and tribal Armenian plateau. If the
surviving references to Arabs and Jews are correct, the transit trade
through Armenia remained primarily in foreign hands. No allegiance
60 Nina Garsoian
tied the forcibly moved population to Tigran. The imported Greek

garrison of Tigranakert betrayed it to the Romans, and the displaced
groups went home at the first opportunity. But in any case, the beneficial
vacuum of power that had favored the rise of Tigran II no longer existed
by the middle of the first century b .c . Instead, the revived power of the
Parthian Arsacid and Roman imperialism faced each other across the
Euphrates and in Mesopotamia in an endemic war that was to last for
centuries. The time was past for local initiatives throughout the East,
and Armenia did not have the power base to take on the two world
powers on either side. Nevertheless, the forty-year reign of Tigran the
Great may well have provided the interval of peace needed for the
development of Greater Armenia and the nexus of clan relationships that
were to preserve the Armenian identity in the troubled years to come.
The End of the ArtaSesid Dynasty (55 b .c . - a .d . 6)
Tigran II’s son and successor, Artawazd II (55-34 b .c ), tried to make

the best of Armenia’s new position as a buffer state and to preserve his
equilibrium in the repeated campaigns of Rome against Parthia. He
offered the support of the Armenian cavalry to the Roman general
Crassus in 53 and sought to advise him against the dangerous southern
route, which took the Romans to the disastrous defeat of Carrhae in
Mesopotamia. He then gave his sister in marriage to the Parthian heir
and participated in raids against the Roman province in Syria from 42
to 40 B.c. The letters of Cicero, who was proconsul of Cilicia in 51 b .c .,
show that the Romans had become suspicious of Artawazd’s intentions.
These suspicions greatly intensified with Marc Antony’s campaign in
the East in 37 B.c. during the last throes of the Roman civil war. The
withdrawal of the Armenian army, which had first accompanied Antony
on his unsuccessful campaign to Atropatene, was viewed as a betrayal,
although the returning Romans were received and supplied in Armenia,
and Antony’s vengeance was not long delayed. After an attempt to lure
Artawazd to Egypt in 35 B.c., Antony marched on ArtaSat the following
year and finally succeeded in bringing the Armenian king to his camp.
The Romans occupied and looted Armenia (Dio, XLIX. 39-41; vol. V,
pp. 420/1,424/5), and Artawazd with most of his family was carried as
a captive to Egypt (where Antony celebrated his triumph, commemo
rated by a coin bearing a representation of the Armenian royal tiara and
the legend antoni Armenia devicta ) and eventually executed (Strabo,
XI. xiv, 15; vol V, pp. 338/9-340/1). His kingdom was bestowed on
Alexander Helios “the Sun,” Antony’s six-year-old son by the Egyptian
queen Cleopatra VII, while one of Artawazd’s sons, the future ArtaSes
II, fled to Parthia. The memory of Artawazd’s disappearance to Egypt
lingered on in the folk memory of the Armenian people in the legend
recorded by Movses Xorenac4i (II. 61, pp. 203-4) that partly confused
him with his treacherous brother Tigran the Younger. In it, Artawazd
had been cursed by his father for his undutiful behavior and conse
quently was held prisoner by the k'aj (kadj) inside the “free Masis,’’ yet
Armenia still awaited his ultimate return.
The fate of the ArtaSesid dynasty was all but settled with the death
of Artawazd II, although Antony’s son Alexander Helios never set foot
in Armenia and some six ArtaSesids ruled briefly over the next generation,
still claiming sovereignty on their coinage. Supported by the Parthians,
Artawazd’s son ArtaSes II was reinstated in Armenia for ten years and
avenged his father’s death by the massacre of the Roman garrisons found
in the country. But at his murder in 20 B.c., the Armenian crown became
for all purposes a mere stake in the quarrels of the Roman emperor
Augustus with the Parthians, and Armenia broke up into pro- and anti-
Roman parties. To use Augustus’ own words in his political testament:
In the case of Greater Armenia, though I might have made it a

province after the assassination of King Artaxes [Arta&s II], I pre
ferred. following the precedent of our fathers, to hand that kingdom
over to Tigranes [Tigran III, 20-8/6 B.C.], the son of King Artavasdes
[Artawazd III], and grandson of King Tigranes, through Tiberius
Nero who was then my stepson. And later, when the same people
revolted and rebelled, and was subdued by my son Gaius, I gave it
over to King Ariobarzanes the son of Artabazus, King of the Medes,
to rule [A.D. 2-4], and after his death to his son Artavazdes [Artawazd
IV, A.D. 4-6]. When he was murdered I sent into that kingdom
Tigranes [Tigran V, ca. A.D. 6], who was sprung from the royal family
of the Armenians. (Res Gestae Divi Augusti, V. xxvi, pp. 390/1)
The account of Augustus is slightly simplified since it omits Tigran Ill’s

brother Artawazd III [5-2 B.c ], but it amply shows the interference of Rome
in the internal affairs of Armenia. On their side, the Parthians supported the
opposition party, which briefly succeeded in placing Tigran Ill’s son, Tigran
IV, on the Armenian throne on two separate occasions (8-5 b .c . and 2
b .c . - a d . 1), together with his sister-wife Erato, who, on the basis of
62 Nina Garsoian
numismatic evidence, seems to have ruled again with Tigran V (ca. A.D. 6)
as well. The autonomy of the AitaSesid dynasty was clearly at an end.
Artawazd III might still style himself King of Kings on his coins, although
the economic situation of Armenia apparently no longer permitted silver
coins but only copper, but for a time at least, the gold issue of Augustus
bearing the legend Ar m e n ia c a p t a was probably closer to reality.
Adontz, 1970. Dandamaev and Lukonin, 1988.

Bedoukian, 1978. Der Nersessian, 1969.
The Cambridge History of Iran Hewsen, 1983, 1984.
Chaumont, 1982. Manandyan, 1963, 1965.
Chronicles of the Chaldoean Perikhanian, 1967.
Kings, 1961. Russell, 1987.
Dandamaev, 1990. Toumanoff, 1963.1966.
THE ARTASESID (ARTASHESIAN)/ARTAXIAD DYNASTY

All dates are B.C. unless otherwise indicated. Some dates art approximative and still in
doubt. Names in brackets are not members of this dynasty.
Arta&s (Artashes VArtaxias I, 188-C.165?

Artawazd (Artavazd) I
Tigran I
Tigran/Tigrancs U, 95-55
Artawazd (Artavazd) U, 55-34
[Alexander Helios]
ArtaSes (Artashes) II. c.30-20
Tigran III, 20-8/6
Tigran IV. 8-5
Artawazd (Artavazd) ni, 5-2
Tigran IV and Erato, 2 B.C.-A.D. 1?
[Ariobarzanes, A.D. 2-4]
Artawazd (Artavazd) IV, A.D. 4-6
Tigran V and Erato, c.A.D. 6-14
4
THE ARSAKUNI DYNASTY

( a .d . 12—[ 180?]—428 )
Nina Garsoian
The First Two Centuries
he chaos that marked the end of the ArtaSesid dynasty in Armenia
T did not abate with its disappearance, and the rivalry of Rome and
Iran for the control of the highlands strategically placed between them
was to continue for centuries. Even so, Greater Armenia fared better than
its neighbors in that it succeeded in preserving its identity and institu
tions as a dependent kingdom with some internal autonomy instead of
being totally annexed by the Romans, reduced to the status of province,
and gradually assimilated, as was to be the fate of all the adjacent
kingdoms of Syria, Kommagene, Cappadocia, Pontus, Sophene, and
even of the lands of Armenia Minor west of the Euphrates River at which
the emperor Augustus set the eastern border of the Roman Empire.
Our knowledge of the events or even the chronology of Armenia
during this complicated period remains fragmentary in the extreme,
confused, and still highly debated. The main sources of information
continue to be the occasional references in classical authors, the most
important of whom are the Roman historians Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and
Ammianus Marcellinus writing between the second and fourth centuries
in the Christian era. These can occasionally be supplemented by coins
and a few inscriptions whose damaged state makes them difficult to date
64 Nina Garsoian
and gives the possibility for widely differing interpretations. In the third
century, the royal inscriptions of the Sasanian kings of Persia, as well
as those of the contemporary Zoroastrian high priest, are indispensable
material, but they too are far from being as extensive and explicit as one
might wish. The Armenians must still wait until the late fifth century for
the records, notorious for the confusion of their chronology, of their own
past, which was already growing dim with time. The archaeological
evidence for this period remains to date scant. Consequently, very little
is known of the internal life of the country during the first three centuries
of the Christian era except by inference from later sources, as we shall
see, and even its political framework still contains many gaps and
problems.
The Arsacids in Armenia
The first appearance in Armenia of the Parthian Arsacid (Armenian

ArSakuni/Arshakuni) dynasty, which was eventually destined to hold
the undisputed crown of the country, dates as early as a .d . 12 when a
member of this family, the King of Kings Vonones, driven from Parthia
for his pro-Roman tendencies, managed to cling to the Armenian throne.
This was, however, but a fleeting claim, since Vonones was expelled by
the Romans some three years later. In a .d . 18, the heir of the emperor
Tiberius solemnly crowned at ArtaSat a Pontic prince named Zeno who
took at his accession the name Artaxias/ArtaSes, more acceptable to his
new subjects (Tacitus, II. lvi, vol. II, pp. 474/5), whose tastes he shared,
and reminiscent of their former kings. Zeno/ArtaSes seems to have
reigned undisturbed until his death in a .d . 35, but the Parthian king had
no intention of relinquishing the Arsacid claim to Armenia, on which
he repeatedly, if unsuccessfully, attempted to impose his sons. The
Roman candidates, who form what might be called a brief Iberian or
Georgian interlude beginning in a .d . 37 on the Armenian throne, were
only a little more successful. The Parthian king Vologeses (Armenian
Valarsak [V agharshak]) set out to install his younger brother
Tiridates/Trdat on the throne of Armenia, which he considered to have
been “once the property of his ancestors, now usurped by a foreign
monarch in virtue of a crime,” (Tacitus, XII, 1; vol. Ill, pp. 388/9) and
he occupied the two capitals of ArtaSat and Tigranakert without oppo
sition from the native population, which generally seems to have pre
ferred the Parthians to the Romans insofar as we can judge. An Armenian
66 Nina Garsoian
revolt compelled the Iberian prince supported by the Romans to flee

northward to Iberia, abandoning his pregnant wife whom, according to
Tacitus, he stabbed and threw into the Araxes to prevent her capture by
the enemy, but who was rescued and received at ArtaSat with royal
honors by Trdat (Tacitus, XII. li; vol ID, pp. 388/9-390/1). The Iberian
prince was put to death by his own father a few years later (Tacitus, XIII.
xxxvii; vol. IV, pp. 60-61), and the “Iberian interlude” came to an end
after less than two decades.
By 53 the Parthian Arsacid control of Armenia seemed assured,
but the scales turned once again, and Trdat I was to wait more than ten
years for the undisputed enjoyment of his throne. New Roman legions
were sent to Syria and the East at the accession of the emperor Nero
in 54 under the command of the empire’s best general, Corbulo, and
two client states were set up in Sophene and Armenia Minor to assist
in the encirclement of Greater Armenia. Negotiations may have been
attempted by the Parthians, but late in 57 Corbulo moved his troops
into winter quarters near Karin/Erzerum and Armenia’s neighbors
were encouraged to harry its borders. In the spring Corbulo marched
directly on the Armenian capital undeterred by Armenia guerrillas.
Horrified by the capture of the fortress of Volandum/Olane (Armenian
Olakan [Oghakan]) and the execution of its entire adult population,
ArtaSat opened its gates to the Romans only to be set on fire and razed
to the ground (Tacitus, XIII. xli; vol. IV, pp. 70/1), though Trdat
himself could not be captured and fled eastward. Tigranakert surren
dered in its turn in the following spring of 59 (Tacitus, XIV. xxiv; vol.
IV, pp. 146/7-148/9). Nero triumphantly celebrated Corbulo’s victo
ries. A new Roman candidate from the royal house of Judea, who may
have had a trace of ArtaSesid (Artashesid) blood, was installed at
Tigranakert under the protection of a Roman garrison; and Armenian
border districts were distributed to allied rulers in Pontus, Iberia,
Kommagene and Armenia Minor.
Despite this serious setback, the Parthian Arsacids did not abandon
their Armenian claim. Trdat was formally crowned king of Armenia by
his brother before the approving Parthian magnates. The Roman garri
son was forced to withdraw from Tigranakert with its candidate, al
though the Parthians failed to take the city. The Romans were now
considering a policy of outright annexation of Armenia, even though the
Arsacids were showing their willingness to negotiate, when the inepti
tude of the new Roman commander Paetus altered the situation and
helped to bring about a compromise. Trapped in the southern fortress of
THE ARSAKUNI DYNASTY 67
Rhandeia, not far from modem Kharput (Kharpert), Faetus was com
pelled to surrender and to agree to evacuate Armenia in 62. Negotiations
began anew the following year, and the continued willingness of the
Arsacids to compromise in the face of another Roman army once more
commanded by Corbulo finally brought the conflict to a close in 63.
Again at Rhandeia, Trdat I laid down his diadem before an effigy of
Nero and agreed to go to Rome in order to receive it back from the
emperor in person (Tacitus, XV. xv-xvi; vol. IV, pp. 238/9-240/1. CD,
LXII; vol. VIII, pp. 120/1, 126/7). The so-called Compromise of
Rhandeia provided a solution tolerable for both sides. A junior branch
of the Parthian Arsacid/ArSakuni house would reign in Armenia, but it
would receive its crown from the Roman emperor. Rome’s choice of
candidates was limited by the obligation to choose a member of the
Arsacid house.
The long journey of Trdat I to Rome and the magnificent ceremo
nies of his coronation by Nero struck the imagination of the contempo
raries who have left detailed accounts. Following Zoroastrian practices,
the Armenian king traveled by land so as not to pollute the sea. He was
accompanied by his wife, wearing a gold helmet to cover her face instead
of a veil, by some 3,000 Parthian cavalry, by a Roman contingent, and
by Magian priests (CD, LXII, vol. VIII, pp. 138/9-140/1). In 66 he
finally reached Italy and was received at Naples by Nero to whom he
did homage and who organized gladiatorial games in his honor. The
coronation took place in Rome, which had been entirely “decorated with
lights and garlands’’ for the occasion (CD, LXII, vol. VIII, pp. 138/9-
140/1). At daybreak Nero in triumphal dress, attended by the Senate and
surrounded by the army on parade, seated himself on the rostra before
the crowd that filled the Forum. Trdat knelt before him and again
acknowledged vassality in terms that contained the formula proclaiming
the supernatural attributes of the Iranian sovereign, of which this seems
to be the first occurrence known to date:
Master . . . I have come to thee, my god, to worship thee as I do

Mithras. The destiny thou spinnest for me shall be mine, for thou art
my Fortune and my Fate. (Dio, LXII; vol. VIII. pp. 142/43)
Highly pleased, Nero then placed the diadem on Trdat’s head and pro
ceeded to entertain him in the theater of Pompey, which had been entirely
covered with gold for the occasion and shaded from the sun by purple
curtains stretched overhead, “so that people gave to the day itself the
68 Nina Garso'ian
epithet of ‘golden.’” The festivities continued with banquets, and Trdat

may in turn have initiated Nero into certain Magian rites, if we are to
believe their contemporary Pliny the Elder. At Trdat’s departure, Nero
presented him with 2,000,000 sesterces and, more important, with the
permission to rebuild the destroyed capital of ArtaSat. Trdat I raised the
capital again with the help of artisans given to him by Nero; and renamed
it Neroneia in honor of the emperor (Dio, LXII; vol. VIII, pp. 146/7).
We know very little of Trdat’s reign after his coronation. The
Armenian sources are curiously silent, ignoring even his name, although
the memory of the installation of a junior ArSakuni in Armenia by his
brother the Parthian king and the subsequent ordering of the kingdom
has been preserved in Xorenac‘i’s account, which however confuses and
alters the names of the protagonists. We know of a new barbarian
invasion of Armenia raiding down through the Caucasian passes, in
which Trdat I barely escaped capture in 72 or 73, and perhaps of a war
with Iberia, if an Aramaic inscription found near Tbilisi has been
correctly read. Trdat probably also repaired the fortress of Garni, where
he erected a building for his sister-queen. The famous Greek inscription
found at Garni in 1945 refers to Trdat as “the sun” and as “supreme ruler
of Greater Armenia.” Unfortunately, the damaged state of the inscription
permits widely differing readings, which are far from resolved. A
parallel passage of Movses Xorenac‘i states that
Trdat completed the construction of the fortress of Garni in hard and

dressed blocks of stone cemented with iron [clamps] and lead. Inside,
for his sister Khosrovidukht, he built a shaded residence with towers
and wonderful carvings in high relief. And he composed in her
memory an inscription in the Greek script. (Movses Khorenats'i, II.
90. p. 247)
But this confuses the situation by attributing the activity to Trdat III in
the third/fourth century. On the basis of building techniques and pale
ography, most scholars have preferred Trdat I, but the controversy is not
yet at an end. Meanwhile, Armenia Minor was definitely set on a
separate path of de-Armenization as the emperor Vespasian incorpo
rated it in 72 into the Roman province of Cappadocia-Galatia.
Although the coronation of 66 is usually given as the inauguration
of ArSakuni rule over the country, Armenian history enters a particularly
obscure period after the disappearance of any reference to Trdat I in the
sources ca. 75. The main problem, as usual, is the total inadequacy of
the information on the classical side, especially in the third century,

when the Roman Empire itself was plunged into chaos. Compounding
this difficulty, Armenian historians improbably record only three or
even two kings for the span of a century and a half between 145 and
325. Finally, both classical and Armenian sources know of a King
Sanatruces/Sanatruk associated by the Armenians with the martyrdom
of the apostle Thaddeus and presumably buried in the royal necropolis
of the Armenian Arsacids at Ani-Kamax (Ani-Kamakh) on the upper
Euphrates. Unfortunately, Sanatruk has been made to appear and disap
pear like the Cheshire cat at various dates, some scholars have further
confused matters by mistakenly identifying his opponent as the Roman
emperor Septimus Severus (193-211) instead of Trajan’s governor of
Armenia, L. Catilius Severus (ca. 116/7). Reconstructions of Armenian
history in this period consequently disagree greatly.
Certain scholars have proposed this Sanatruk as the successor
of Trdat between 75 and 110, but this hypothesis, for which there is
no explicit evidence, has been categorically rejected by others. The
first secure information we possess dates from the attempt of the
emperor Trajan (98-117) to break the “Compromise of Rhandeia,”
and impose total Roman control on Armenia. The Armenian king at
the time was presumably an Ar§akuni and the son of the Parthian
king. He was deposed in 113, “inasmuch as he had been satisfactory
neither to the Romans nor the Parthians” (Dio, LXVIII, vol. VIII, pp.
394/5), and replaced on the Armenian throne by another son of the
Parthian ruler who voluntarily came to meet Trajan not far from
Erzinjan, expecting to receive back “the kingdom as Tiridates had
received it from Nero.” Trajan, however, replied that “he would
surrender Armenia to no one, for it belonged to the Romans and was
to have a Roman governor.” The Armenian king was permitted to
depart, but was murdered by his escort on the way, and Armenia was
annexed outright for the first time. Trajan’s coins for 115/6 celebrate
this new status with the legend Armenia et Mesopotamia in potes-
tatem P[OPULi] RfOMANi] redactae , claiming that Armenia had been
“returned” to the Roman people. Inscriptions attest the presence of
Roman troops at ArtaSat (Artashat). Arm enia was fused with
Cappadocia and Armenia Minor in one large province governed by
L. Catilius Severus, while its financial administration was entrusted
to another Roman official, and the XV Legion Apollinaris was
probably moved to Satala/Satal (Satagh) in northeastern Armenia
Minor as an advance base for the control of Greater Armenia.
70 Nina Garsoi’an
This violation of Armenia’s autonomy proved extremely brief.

Even before Trajan’s death in 117 the Armenians were in revolt,
perhaps under the elusive Sanatruk, whom a number of sources link
with this period. In any case, the new emperor Hadrian returned to
the earlier compromise formula. “The Armenians were permitted to
have their own king, whereas under Trajan they had a governor’’ (The
Scriptores Historiae Augustae, vol. I, pp. 66/7). This king, appar
ently under another Arsacid known to Dio Cassius as “Vologeses the
son of Sanatruces’’ (Dio, LXVIII; vol. VIII, pp. 418-19) and as ValarS
(Vagharsh) to Movses Xorenac‘i, was to reign from 117 to 138/40.
He evidently extended his rule to all of Greater Armenia, since the
cities of ValarSapat (Vagharshapat) (called Kaine Polis “New City”
by the G reek s), ValarSawan (V agharshavan), and VaiarSakert
(Vagharshakert) are clearly his foundations. Armenia evidently pros
pered under his rule, but toward its end it suffered from another
Ibero-northem attack, against which the king appealed to Rome for
help, and was forced to buy the invaders off. According to Xorenac‘i,
ValarS may even have died in battle against them.
With the final deterioration of Roman sources, even the names of
the Armenian kings are often unknown. Thus, between 140 and 144 a
coin of the emperor Antonius Pius proclaiming r e x a r m e n jo s ] d a t u s
does not identify the Roman candidate “granted’* to Armenia. Some
twenty years later, a Roman army responding to a catastrophic Parthian
raid drove out of Armenia a ruler with the unmistakably Iranian
ArSakuni (Arshakuni) name of Pacorus/Bakur. He is also known from
an inscription at Rome dedicated by “Aurelius Pacorus King of Greater
Armenia’’ to the memory of his brother “Aurelius Merithates’’ [Mihrdat,
or gift of Mithra], where the twin cultural currents of contemporary
Armenia are particularly well illustrated by the Latin-Iranian names of
the two brothers. In 164 the Romans reoccupied ArtaSat (Artashat),
installed a garrison at ValarSapat/Kaine Polis (where it remained at least
twenty years, according to inscriptions found there), and crowned a
certain Sohaemus, usually known as a prince of Emesa (Homs) in Syria,
but also identified by a contemporary author as “an Achaemenid and an
Arsacid, bom a king of royal ancestors.*’ Sohaemus had to be restored
at least once by the Romans, and we have no idea of the length of his
reign, but the compromise formula of Rhandeia was seemingly still
operative in Armenia after one century and the ArSakuni usually in
possession o f the throne, which they seem to have occupied continually
from 180 to 428 except for a brief break between 252 and 278/9.
Relying increasingly on the later and complicated Armenian

sources, the Armenian historian Manandyan (followed by Cyril
ToumanofF [1969] but opposed by some other scholars) identified in 180
the p re sen ce on th e A rm enian th ro n e o f a n o th e r A rsacid ,
Vologeses/ValarS (Vagharsh) II, who then moved to Iran, where he ruled
the Parthian empire in 191 as Vologeses IV, leaving Armenia to his son
Xosrov (Khosrov) I. In Toumanoff s tempting but by no means universally
accepted reconstruction of Armenian history in this period, Xosrov I
(whom Armenian sources confused with his more famous grandson
Xosrov II) was the anonymous king whom classical authors show first as
a neutral in 193, then as sending gifts and hostages to the Roman emperor
Septimus Severus on his great campaign to the Parthian capital of
Ctesiphon in 197/8. He would also presumably be the still-anonymous
Armenian king whose detention with his family by the Romans provoked
a major uprising in Armenia from 214 to 216, and his name may be
recorded in an Egyptian inscription that speaks of “Xosrov the Armenian.”
The Armenian crown was then granted by the Romans in 216/7 to
Trdat/Tiridates II on the eve of the Sasanian revolution in Iran, which was
to alter radically the situation in the East.
Armenia Under the Sasanians (224-298)
The overthrow of the last Parthian king of Iran, Artawan V, by the

Sasanian usurper ArdaSir (Ardashir) I (ca. 224) radically broke the com
promise status quo of Rhandeia between Rome and Iran and inaugurated
centuries of intensified warfare between them. More critically for Arme
nia, it turned its ArSakuni (Arshakuni) rulers from kinsmen of the Iranian
Parthian royal house into its avengers, so that the earliest Armenian
fifth-century account of Armenian Christianization, attributed to Agafan-
gelos (Agathangelos), significandy presents the war between ArdaSir and
Xosrov of Armenia in terms of a blood feud. Xosrov
. . . attempted to eradicate, destroy completely, extirpate and over

throw the Persian Kingdom and aimed at abolishing its civilization
. . . in order to seek vengeance for the blood of Artavan.
(Agathangelos, #19, pp. 36/7)
The hostility of the Armenian ArSakuni to the Persian usurpers drove

Armenia closer to Rome, breaking the Compromise of Rhandeia and
72 Nina Garsoian
subjecting the country to Sasanian attacks and at times to outright

conquest.
The famous account of Agaângetos accepted by Armenian tradi
tion is simple and clear: Alarmed by the victories of Xosrov, ArdaSir
incited a Parthian noble named Anak to murder the Armenian king,
promising to return his own domain as a reward. Anak went to Armenia,
won Xosrov’s trust, treacherously murdered him, and was then slain with
his entire family by the outraged Armenian nobles. Only two infants were
saved from the slaughter: Xosrov’s son, carried to safety on Roman
territory, and one of Anak’s sons (also rescued by a faithful nurse), the
future Gregory the Illuminator. Meanwhile “the Persian King came and
imposed his own name on Armenia.” (Agathangelos, #24-36, pp. 42/3,
50/1) This epic tale is straightforward and deeply moving, but it unfortu
nately covers a multitude of problems. Scholars have long struggled to
give a rational explanation for the history of third-century Armenia in
which only two abnormally long reigns (that of Xosrov K ‘aj [Kadj] “the
brave” and of his son Trdat the Great) are recorded by Armenian sources,
a task made still more difficult by the need to account for the claims made
in the royal Sasanian inscriptions. To resolve the chronological im
probability of the two reigns spanning over a century, Toumanoff (1969)
has sought to separate individuals subsumed under one and the same name
but revealed as different individuals by irreconcilable features. For exam
ple, after Xosrov’s murder, in the words of Agafangelos, the fleeing Trdat
was carried as an infant to Rome; yet according to Greek sources, he was
the father of grown sons. (Moreover, an alternate Armenian tradition,
reported by the historian EliSe [Eghishe], claimed that Xosrov of Armenia
had been murdered by his brothers and not by Anak the Parthian).
Toumanoff therefore added a generation of two brothers: Xosrov II
(279/80-287) and Trdat III (287-293) between Trdat II to whom he assigns
the dates (216/7-252), following the account of Cassius Dio noted earlier,
and Trdat (IV) the Great.
The Roman-Persian wars of the third century give a framework
for this hypothetical reconstruction. The Persian campaign of the em
peror Alexander Severus, whose army crossed in 231/2 through “Arme
nia which seemed to favor the Roman cause,” allows a glimpse of the
situation in the Armenian ArSakuni kingdom (presumably under Trdat
II). Under the next emperor, contingents of Armenian archers still served
in the Roman army as “friends and allies.” But the situation altered
radically with the accession of the new Sasanian King of Kings, Sahpur
I (240-270), who recorded his successive victories over Rome on his
great trilingual inscription found near Persepolis and on monumental

reliefs depicting the humiliation of the Romans, as the pendulum now
swung radically over to the Persian side.
For the first time in 244, Sahpur I crushed the Romans near
Baghdad at Mizike (renamed Perz-Sahpur, “Victory of Sahpur” in
commemoration) and obtained an enormous indemnity from the em
peror, Philip the Arab. More pertinently, Sahpur’s inscription continues:
“Then Caesar secondly lied and did wrong to Armenia. And we upon
the Romans’ empire made an attack and the Romans’ force of 60,000 at
Barbalissus slaughtered.’’ This second campaign of 252/3 was followed
by the annihilation of the Romans in Carrhae in 260 and the capture of
the emperor Valerian himself. The mid third century unquestionably
marked the Persian hour in the East. On the basis of Sahpur’s claim that
Armenia had been injured “for the second time’’ in 252, historians have
set the beginning of the Persian domination over the Armenians after
the first victory at Mizike, especially since later Greek sources asserted
that Philip the Arab had been forced to surrender Armenia. Trdat II’s
reign thereafter presumably ended with his, after the second disaster at
Barbalissus in 252/3, while his sons turned to Iran.
In the face of Rome’s helplessness, Sahpur had no reason to hold
back. A Sasanian army overwhelmed the garrison city of Satala/Satal
west of the Euphrates, although Armenia Minor remained a Roman
province. Far more damagingly,
the country of Armenia, and Georgia, and Albania and Balakasan

until forward to the Alan’s [Darial] pass [in the Caucasus] Shahpuhr
King of Kings with horses and men of his own visited with pillaging
and firing and havoc. (Sprengling, 1953. p. 52)
In place of the exiled ArSakuni, Sahpur set his own son Hormizd-ArdaSir
over Armenia, whose special title of “ wuzurg Arminan $ah, ” “great king
of Armenia’’ (which distinguished him from the ordinary kings of other
regions) appears both on the Sasanian victory inscription and on his own
coin preserved in St. Petersburg. When Hormizd-ArdaSir left to succeed
his father in 272, his brother Narseh took over the Armenian throne,
which he kept until 293. Thus, Greater Armenia had been incorporated
into the Persian empire, although Hormizd-ArdaSir’s title shows that
even the Sasanians clearly recognized the special privileged position
Armenia had enjoyed in the Iranian world as far back as the early days
of the Achaemenids.
74 Nina Garsoian
The Sasanian domination of Greater Armenia proved brief. Their

internal difficulties after the death of Sahpur I ca. 270 and the contem
porary revival of Rome under the emperors Aurelian (270-275) and
Probus (276-282) gradually re-created the former equilibrium in the
East. This eventually led to the restoration in Armenia of the ArSakuni
heir Trdat the Great under the emperor Diocletian (284-305), but the
details and especially the chronology of this restoration are still highly
debatable. Classical sources date the return of Roman prestige in Arme
nia as early as the emperor Aurelian. The ruler of the country, however,
was still the Sasanian Narseh, who sought peace from the emperor
Probus as early as 278/9. Toumanoff gives considerable importance to
these negotiations, which, in his opinion, marked both the return of an
ArSakuni king (Trdat IPs son Xosrov II) to the western part of Greater
Armenia and a first partition of the country, with Xosrov II ruling the
western or Roman portion while the Sasanian Narseh kept the eastern
or Persian part. It is not impossible that classical writers overlooked such
a restoration and a partition of Armenia. It coincides with XorenacTs
statement that the ArSakuni had returned after twenty-six years of
Persian rule (278/9 minus 252/3 equals 27/6) and with his memory that
“Probus... making peace with Ardashir divided our land and dug ditches
to mark the frontier,” (Movses Khorenats‘i II. 77, pp. 224-25) a memory
also preserved in Agat4angelos, who, however, attributed this activity
to the Persian king, who “had ditches dug to fix the frontier.”
(Agathangelos, #36 p. 50/1). This hypothetical reconstruction solves
many problems and is consequently very attractive, but tells nothing of
the terms of Probus’s treaty.
When the Sasanian, Narseh, finally ascended the Persian throne
in 293, the inscription of Paikuli in the province of Fars celebrating
this event recorded two im portant details: Narseh returned to
“EranSahr” from Armenia, and he received, among others, the congrat
ulations of “Tirdat the King.” Many scholars have identified this ruler
with Trdat “the Great,” restored to his father’s throne in 287 (“the third
year of Diocletian,” according to some Armenian sources). But (on the
basis of E lite’s claim [EliSe, iii, p. 123] that Xosrov II had been
m urdered by his brother) T oum anoff has preferred to follow
Manandyan in placing Xosrov II’s death in 287, followed by the king’s
replacement in western Armenia by his murderous brother, whom he
calls Trdat III. Meanwhile, eastern Armenia still continued to ac
knowledge Sasanian overlordship. Finally, Toumanoff sees the return
of Xosrov II’s son Trdat IV to Armenia in 298/9 as part of the
THE AR$AKUNI DYNASTY 75
reorganization of the East dictated to Narseh by the victorious Diocle

tian at the so-called Peace of Nisibis.
The date of 298/9 for Trdat the Great’s restoration ending all
Sasanian rule over Armenia is very tempting. It coincides with some
of the Armenian chronologies. Under the terms of the Peace of Nisibis,
the southern districts of Armenia known to the contemporary classical
world as the “Satrapies” or “Nations” (Latin gentes, Greek ethne):
Sophene/Cop4k \ Ingelene/Angeitun, Arzanene/Aljnik4 (Aghdznik) ,
(Korduene/ Korduk4 and Zabdikene/Cowdek4(Tsovdek), whose terri
tories included the ancient Eruandid and ArtaSesid kingdom of
Sophene, were returned by Persia to the Roman sphere of influence.
They received the status o f “civitates foederatae liberae et immunes, ”
that is to say, free territories enjoying total internal autonomy and only
coordinating their foreign policy with the empire, a status underlined
by the regalia of their hereditary rulers (Procopius, “Buildings,” III. i,
17-23; vol VII, pp. 182/3-184/5): a cloak embroidered in gold and
fastened with a jeweled brooch, a silk tunic ornamented with gold, and
most important of all, the imperial red shoes symbolic of sovereignty.
The simultaneous return to Greater Armenia of its ArSakuni heir
educated from childhood by the Romans would have been entirely
logical and would have reestablished there too the normal autonomy
of the kingdom and the balance of power achieved at Rhandeia.
Unfortunately, the chaotic and mutually contradictory chronologies of
the Armenian sources and the absence of additional contemporary
evidence permit no definite conclusions to date, and all reconstruc
tions, no matter how attractive, must still remain provisional.
The Social Structure and

Culture of Armenia Under the ArSakuni
Even though the tormented political history of Armenia cannot yet be

coherently reconstructed, a highly individual and identifiable Armenian
entity with its own life and institutions is recorded in the Aritakuni
period. Our main source of information are the anonymous Epic Histo
ries, usually called History of Armenia, composed in the late fifth
century and mistakenly attributed to P‘awstos Buzand. The obvious
familiarity of these Epic Histories with the great families that were to
dominate medieval Armenia and their description of institutions and
customs shows them as so deeply rooted that they must obviously have
76 Nina Garsoian
had a long history behind them. Indeed some of the features of the
characteristic social structure of the country can be glimpsed in the
Annals of Tacitus and can be traced back as far as the ArtaSesids and
Eruandids. Despite the Roman protectorate exercised over ArSakuni
Armenia, this characteristic social structure was unmistakably Iranian.
Tacitus (II. lvi; vol. II, pp. 474/5) had already shrewdly observed that
Zeno of Pontus wisely changed his name at his accession to the more
acceptable ArtaSes, and that he shared his subjects' taste for the hunt and
for banquets, the only two diversions suitable for a nobleman in the
Iranian world. Linguistic studies have already shown such a close
connection between Armenian and Middle Persian vocabulary that the
two societies must have been in immediate and continuous contact. In
fact, much of the lost Middle Parthian terminology can be reconstructed
from the Armenian loan words.
The central institution of this world, the kingship, was hereditary
in the ArSakuni house. The Epic Histories repeatedly cite exhortations
to the Armenians that they should die for their “own true lords” (bnik
teark*), the ArSakuni, and deny that even their sins might make them
unfit for the crown. The ArSakuni possessed the “supernatural glory,”
the xwarrah or p*ark\ distinguishing the king in the Iranian tradition
and protecting his country even after his death. This belief embodied the
formula baxt u p (aik\ “fortune and fate or rather glory,” used by Trdat
I at his coronation by Nero (Garsoian, 1976, pp. 39-40), as we have seen,
is also found in The Epic Histories ’ accounts of the Persian attempt to
steal the bones of the ArSakuni kings from their tomb at Ani-Kamax in
Daranalik* (Daranaghik) so as to carry the protection of their baxt and
p ‘ark‘ away from Armenia (P‘awstos Buzand, IV, xxiv, pp. 157-58).
Hailed as Helios, “the sun,” in the Garni inscription, the Armenian king
thus shared the status of the Persian king “brother of the sun and the
moon” and this equality was underscored by the protocol of the Persian
court, which stipulated that on ceremonial occasions the Kings of Persia
and Armenia should wear identical robes and diadems and share the
same couch (P'awstos Buzand. IV. xvi, p. 146).
Below the ruler, society was divided into the three great estates of
the Iranian world. First came the magnates variously known as mecameck *
(metsame tsk), gahereck ‘ (gaheretsk), tanuterk\ naxarars, or nahapets to
the Armenians, and called megisthanes or nobiles by Tacitus. All
naxarars were theoretically equal insofar as they belonged to the same
social class (although there are occasional references to “seniors” [awag]
and “juniors” [krtser])f but they were ranked in a rigid order of precedence
according to the “cushion or throne” (barj, [bardz], gah) that they occu
pied at court. Most senior among them were the four great bdeSxs
(bdeshkhs) guarding the borders of Armenia: in Arzanene/Aljnik4, the
Arabian March; Korduk4, the Assyrian March; Adiabene/Heydab or Nor
Sirakan, the Median March, to the south; and Gogarene/Gugark4, the
Iberian March, in the north. These may perhaps go back to the four vassal
kings perpetually attending Tigran the Great, and were known under the
form vitaxa or pitiarch in both classical and Iberian sources, as well as in
the bilingual inscription found near Tbilisi. The second estate consisted
of the junior nobility orazats, “free men” or better, “knights” who usually
held conditional land tenures (xostaks/khostaks) granted by the magnates
in exchange for cavalry service in the naxarar's military contingent.
Finally, the mass of the population consisted of the an-azat “non-noble”
rantik, who included both the relatively rare artisans and traders and the
“peasants” Sinakan (shinakan) who were the overwhelming majority.
Slaves (struk), usually prisoners of war, are mentioned especially on
temple estates, but were apparently not as common as elsewhere. The
fourth estates of the Sasanians, the dpirs or “clerks,” does not seen to have
been fully developed in ArSakuni Armenia. A royal chancellery with dpirs
is known to have existed, since the learned MaStoc4 (Mashtots) was one
of them (Koriwn, iii, p. 27), but it does not seem to have evolved into a
separate estate, perhaps because these duties were usually performed by
clerics.
The magnates, usually dwelling in remote and inaccessible
fortresses, were unquestionably the dominant class of this period. The
great autonomous families (tun), first noted by Pliny the Elder in the 120
administrative districts or “strategies” into which Armenia was divided
in the first century a .d . (Pliny, Natural History, VI, x, 27; vol. II, pp.
356/7), jealously preserved their rights and prerogatives. Their heads,
ter or tanuter, (lord of the house), had sovereign administrative and
judicial power within their domains, and they led the military contingent
of their tun in battle. Their power was hereditary within the clan though
not invariably in direct line of descent. Particularly characteristic of
ArSakuni Armenia is the fact that the tanuter was only the temporary
administrator of the unalienable and indivisible possessions, both inher
ited (hayrenik *) and granted (pargewagank'), of his eternal family “past,
present and future” held jointly by all members of the house, and he
ruled with the advice and assistance of the other male members of the
family or sepuhs. Later conciliar lists indicate that each clan even had
its own bishop, who was the family representative in religious matters.
78 Nina Garsoian
The hallmarks of this aristocratic society were: first, precedence,

the gah strictly set according to a “Rank List,” or Gahnamak, of which
no contemporary examples are known, but whose existence is clearly
implied, and of which later copies have survived (this precedence
probably related to the size of the military contingent of each house
recorded in the “Military List,” or Zornamak); second, the hereditary
offices, which belonged absolutely to certain houses. Thus the
sparapetut'iwn, (sparapetutiun), or “supreme command of the army”
was invariably held by the Mamikonean (Mamikonian) house, accord
ing to The Epic Histories (P'awstos Buzand, IV. ii, pp. 107-8). The
office of t'agadir, or “coronant,” already recorded in the second century
B.c. Zangezur inscription of ArtaSes I (Perikhanian, 1966, p. 18), be
longed to the Bagratuni together with the title of aspet, or “commander
of the cavalry.” The Gnuni were hazarapets, “seneschals,” set over the
peasantry, and the office of mardpet, “keeper of the royal treasures and
fortresses,” is also recorded in the Armenian sources. After the conver
sion of Armenia, the patriarchate became the hereditary office of the
house of St. Gregory the Illuminator until its extinction, although this
ran counter to general Christian customs and canon law. The king
himself was but the tanuter of the ArSakuni clan, whose hereditary office
was the kingship, and as such only the first among his equals.
T he naxarars ow ed to the k in g m ilitary serv ic es (car-
ay ut (iwn/tzarayutiun) in time of war but inherited their rank and insignia
(gah and patiw/pativ). No homage has been recorded in ArSakuni
Armenia but “oaths of fidelity” (uxt) are known. The ArSakuni rulers
constantly sought to reduce their turbulent magnates to the level of royal
“officials,” or gorcakalk‘ (gortsakalk). Nevertheless, they were never
able to achieve the centralization of their Sasanian neighbors. The king
was forced by custom to seek the counsel of the naxarars on all
im portant occasions. As early as a .d . 18 Tacitus observed that
Zeno/ArtaSes had been crowned “before the consenting nobles.” This
council opposed the king on occasion and even met in his absence. Land
personally forfeited by a naxarar returned to his tun. which kept its
possessions as long as a single male heir, no matter how remote,
survived. In the absence of a male, the nearest female heir transmitted
them to her husband’s tun, as was the case of the patriarchal lands carried
at the death of St. Sahak I by his daughter to her husband Hamazasp
Mamikonean. The king at best ratified the succession of a tanuter to the
prerogatives of his house, and the allegiance of the sepuhs went to their
tanuter rather than the king. The inalienable nature of the hereditary
office, irrespective of the capacity of the holder to perform its duties, is

clearly illustrated in The Epic Histories' account of the granting of the
sparapetut'iwn to Artawazd Mamikonean, even though he was a small
child quite incapable of commanding the army, because it was his
father’s office “and no other adult could be found in that clan’’ (P’awstos
Buzand, III. xi, p. 81). The most that the king could do to contain the
arrogance of the “lords with contingents and banners’’ was to keep them
under his eye at court and await the opportunity to extirpate some
troublesome clan to the last infant. This tug of war between the king and
the centrifugal tendencies of the magnates unquestionably sapped the
authority of the crown and made it vulnerable. Yet the strength and
permanence of the tun forged a social structure capable of surviving
even in moments of political eclipse and the decentralized character of
the society diminished its chances of total annexation.
We know very little of the lower classes of society. The cities
populated by the natives and a large proportion of Jews survived until
the mid-fourth century according to the Armenian sources, although no
new ones seem to have been founded after ValarSapat (Vagharshapat),
except for the shift of the capital from ArtaSat to nearby Duin (Dvin).
The ArSakuni preferred to create great hunting preserves of the Iranian
type in which they built their palaces. The only royal attempt to create
a new urban center met with disaster, and the tales of “God’s wrath’’
falling upon it, killing and dispersing its “brigand’’ population (P'awstos
Buzand, IV. xii-xiii, pp. 134-35, 137-38), reveal the latent hostility of
the contemporary society. Arta&at and later Duin prospered from their
position on the transit trade route through the valley of the Araxes, but
the magnates kept to their distant strongholds and even the king pre
ferred his camp and hunting preserves to his capital. Like all parafeudal
societies, ArSakuni Armenia was highly suspicious of urban centers.
Villages and tow ns— gewi (g e u g h ) and awan— under geljapets
(geghjapet) and dasapets were far more common, and some rights were
recognized to the ramik, who occasionally appear at councils alongside
the nobility. Like medieval serfs, the Sinakan owed their lord taxes
(hark), of which the best known are sak and bai (bazh), probably land
and poll taxes, and work (bekar) similar to the western corvee; their
military service was usually limited to the auxiliary infantry.
The religion of ArSakuni Armenia perpetuated the Greco-Iranian
syncretism of earlier times, though some obviously Semitic gods such
as BarSamin, Nane, and Astlik (Barshamin, Nane, and Astghik), were
also worshipped (Agathangelos, #784, 786, 809, pp. 322/3, 326/7,
80 Nina Garsoian
348/9). The shrines of these gods were supported by vast temple

estates, some surrounded by fortifications, served by a hereditary caste
of priests called k'urm , and having military contingents of their own
and up to 500 slaves. The most famous of these shrines were those of
Z eus/A ram azd at Ani-Kam ax, H e p h aisto s/M ih r at Bagayari£
(Bagaharich), Apollo/Tir at Erazamoyn, and especially those of the
“Golden M other’ Artemis/Anahit at Erez and Hephaistos/Vahagn at
AStisat in Taron (Agathangelos, #778, 785-86, 790, 809, pp. 316/7,
324/5-328/9, 346/7-348/9). The Iranian aspect of these syncretic dei
ties tended to dominate as a stronger Zoroastrian current seems to have
swept Armenia in the third century, probably as a result of the Sasanian
rule. Trdat the Great invoked for his realm the blessings of Aramazd,
Anahit the Lady, and Vahagn on the eve of its Christianization
(Agathangelos, #127, pp. 138-39). The setting up of a fire temple at
Bagawan and the destruction of the statues placed there by ValarSak
recorded by Movses Xorenac‘i (II. 77, pp. 224-25), also seem to herald
a shift from the Greek aniconic tradition. The zeal of the Sasanian high
priest Kartir establishing and fostering fire temples, “wherever the
horses and men of the King of Kings arrived” (Sprengling, 1955, pp.
51-52) and specifically in Armenia, is amply attested by his inscrip
tions. Traces of Zoroastrian beliefs and customs, sun worship, and
especially the practice of consanguineous marriages lingered on long
after the Christianization of the country.
A bicultural tradition also affected other aspects of society.
ArtaSat/Neroneia was rebuilt on a classical model with the help of
artisans brought from Rome, and a classical building erected at Garni,
yet most noble families claimed direct Iranian descent: the royal
Ari&kuni from their Parthian ancestors, the patriarchal house of St.
G regory “ P art4ew ” from the great Iranian clan of Suren, the
Kamsarakan from the second clan of the Karen. The dynastic names
repeated from generation to generation in a certain house: Trdat,
Xosrov, Arsak, Varazdat, VramSapuh among the ArSakuni; Vardan,
Vahan, Vasak, Va54e (Vache), Artawazd and Hamazasp Mamikonean;
MeruZan Arcruni (Meruzhan Artsruni), Bat Saharuni; and even the
royal Sasanian name Nerses/Narseh among the descendants of St.
Gregory, are all of Iranian origin. Armenian education and eventually
the church liturgy were conducted in both Greek and Syriac until the
fifth century. Greek learning was deep enough in Armenia for an
Armenian to have taught philosophy in Athens during the fourth
century. Yet Iranian oral epic tradition with its tales of gods and
heroes, carried by gusans, or minstrels, throughout the land, was

familiar to late written sources despite all the efforts of the church to
destroy it.
Multiple other examples of Greek influence on ArSakuni Armenia
can be found. On balance, however, here as elsewhere in the East, the
tide of Hellenism was ebbing. The hereditary character of the Armenian
monarchy alone suffices to demonstrate that, true to their ancestry, the
ArSakuni stood east of the watershed separating the Iranian from the
classical world where to the very end the emperor constitutionally—if
mostly fictionally— remained an elected magistrate deriving his author
ity from the mandate of the sovereign people. Similarly the survival of
the great tuns with their unalienable hereditary offices cannot be recon
ciled with the system of appointed civil servants developed in the Roman
imperial world.
The Christianization of Armenia
The conversion of Armenia to Christianity was probably the most crucial

step in its history. It turned Armenia sharply away from its Iranian past
and stamped it for centuries with an intrinsic character as clear to the
native population as to those outside its borders, who identified Armenia
almost at once as the first state to adopt Christianity.
The Armenian traditional account of this event related in the
various versions of “Agafangelos” is a familiar one: Gregory, the son
of Anak the Parthian, was saved from the massacre of his family
following the murder of King Xosrov Kaj and brought up as a Christian
in Caesarea of Cappadocia. He returned to Armenia as an adult and
served King Trdat until his refusal to sacrifice to Anahit led to his
prolonged tortures and incarceration in the pit of Xor Virap (Khor
Virap). M iraculously saved after a vision sent to Trdat’s sister
Xosroviduxt (Khosrovidukht), Gregory was raised from the pit and
healed the king, who had been turned into a wild boar for his sins. He
preached the true faith to the Armenians and erected shrines to the other
Armenian martyrs, the virgin saints Hrip4sime and Gayane, at
ValarSapat on the spot indicated to him in a vision as the place of descent
to earth of God’s “only begotten Son,” Ejmiacin (Echmiadzin). St.
Gregory was then sent back to Caesarea with a brilliant retinue of
magnates and consecrated there by the archbishop Leontios during a
great ecclesiastical council. Upon his return to Armenia, St. Gregory
82 Nina Garsoian
baptized the king and the nation in the Euphrates, destroyed the pagan
shrines, and set up churches in their place throughout Armenia.
This famous account is undoubtedly a rendering in epic form of
the Christianization of the northern ArSakuni kingdom by way of
Caesarea of Cappadocia in the reign of Trdat the Great. It does not,
however, relate the entire story of the Christianization of Armenia, and
the date of this event has varied over an entire generation from 284 to
314, although the careful study of Ananian now points clearly to the
later date. It would have been impossible for Trdat, the protdgd of the
Romans and of Diocletian in particular, to have set up in his realm at an
earlier date a religion diametrically opposed to imperial policy, at the
very time that Diocletian was unleashing the last and most violent
Christian persecution. In fact, a passage from the Greek version of
Agat‘angelos carefully omitted from the Armenian one spells out
Trdat’s obedience to Diocletian in matters of religion:
From a youthful age raised and educated by you [Diocletian] . . .

hailing the gods who saved our power together with ourselves, I
loathe the so-called Christians. What is more, I gave over to the
bitterest death [after] tortures a certain Cappadocian [named] Gregory
beloved by me, throwing [him] into a pit in which dwell snakes who
devour [those] thrown therein. And now. Lord emperor, I will fulfill
thy orders to me with all haste and willingness. (Garitte, 1946 #40,
pp. 37, 293)
Moreover, on the basis of one of the historical passages in Agat‘angelos,

which notes that St. Gregory’s consecration came at the time of an
ecclesiastical council held at Caesarea (Agathangelos, #805, pp. 342/3-
344/5), Ananian concluded that his consecration must have taken place
in 314 (Ananian, 1961, pp. 43-73,319-60), when we know that a council
was indeed held in Caesarea under Bishop Leontios.
A second Armenian tradition, not found in Agat'angelos but
clearly known to The Epic Histories, speaks of the coming of the apostle
Thaddeus from Edessa, in the first century a .d ., to bring Christianity to
the Armenians, and of his martyrdom in the district of Artaz near Maku
under King Sanatruk. Later this tradition, which gave an apostolic
foundation to the Armenian Church, was linked to Agat'angetos’
version of the Christianization of Armenia by having St. Gregory
conceived at the site of St. Thaddeus’s tomb in Artaz (Movses
Khorenats’i, II, 74, 220-21). The connection of the account of St.
THE ARSa KL'NI DYNASTY 83
Thaddeus’s missionary activity in Armenia to the Syriac Acts o f Addai

and the legendary Christianization of Edessa has long been demon
strated to be apocryphal (Adontz, 1970, pp. 269-70), but the early
appearance of Christianity coming to Armenia from Palestine by way
of Syria and Mesopotamia is equally beyond doubt. The second century
African church father Tertullian already listed the Armenians among the
people who had received Christianity, and the mid-third-century letter
of Bishop Dionysios of Alexandria to an Armenian bishop named
Meruzanes indicates a sizable community. The historian Adontz (Ad
ontz, 1970, pp. 270-71) located this community in Sophene on the basis
of the Armenian form of the bishop’s name, MeruZan, which was a
dynastic name in the Arcruni house known to have ruled this district
later (Adontz, 1970, p. 271). The Epic Histories insist on the Syrian
origin of early Armenian missionaries such as Bishop Daniel of Taron
and on the importance of the role played by the great Mesopotamian
bishop James of Nisibis. Even more significantly, he repeatedly identi
fied AStiSat (Ashtishat) in Taron as the “first” and “mother church” of
Armenia (P‘awstos Buzand, III. x, xiv, pp. 77-80, 86). Consequently, it
is now evident that two currents of Christianity reached Armenia suc
cessively. The first came to the southern portion of the country closest
to the original center of Palestine by way of Mesopotamia at a very early
date. The second was brought to the northern ArSakuni Kingdom of
Greater Armenia in the second decade of the fourth century. Since, as
we have seen, the southern Armenian Satrapies were fully sovereign
states in the third century of the Christian era, and indeed Sophene had
been a kingdom since Eruandid times, nothing impeded the identifica
tion of its Christianization as the first acceptance of the new faith by and
Armenian realm.
With the Christianization of the entire country in the fourth cen
tury, Armenia received its ecclesiastical organization. At first dependent
on Caesarea, where its patriarchs received their ordination until the death
of St. Nerses I in 373, the Armenian Church was endowed by the crown
with the vast estates of the destroyed pagan shrines, especially in
Daranalik* and at AStiSat of Taron. Two hereditary ecclesiastical fami
lies are known from the start: that of St. Gregory the Illuminator, in
which the patriarchate was a hereditary office, and that of Atbianos of
Manazkert, bishop of the royal court, whose descendants repeatedly
disputed the first place to the Gregorids. The few bishops known from
the earliest period do not seem to have had fixed sees, but rather to have
been representatives of the naxarar tuns, and even the patriarch
84 Nina Garsoian
apparently resided usually on his estates in Taron rather than at court.

The bilingual training provided the descendants of the pagan priests, or
k'urm, perpetuated the double Syrian and Greek traditions of early
Armenian Christianity (Agathangelos, #840, pp. 374/5). Churches and
especially martyria commemorating the saints were erected throughout
the country, and isolated sites began to be peopled with hermits of the
strictest, ascetic, Syrian type. Finally, the extensive missionary activities
helped spread the faith northward to Iberia and Caucasian Albania
(Koriwn, xv-xvii, pp. 37-42).
From its inception, the Armenian Church was part of the charac
teristic naxarar society of ArSakuni Armenia. Its leaders did not hesitate
to play an independent political role, admonishing kings and nobles, or
representing Armenia on various diplomatic missions, especially in the
days of St. Gregory’s great-great-grandson, St. Nerses I “the Great”
(355-73) and his son, St. Sahak I “the Great” (387-438) at the end of the
ArSakuni dynasty. The other crucial contribution of the church under St.
Sahak and his collaborator St. MaStoc4 (St. Mashtots) was the compo
sition of the Armenian alphabet through which the nation at long last
found its own voice (Koriwn, i, iii, vi-ix, pp. 21, 27, 29-33). Thus from
the start, the church helped to create a separate Armenian identity and
provided a focus for the allegiance of the entire population that was
independent of the political framework and consequently from the fate
of the realm.
The Christian ArSakuni and the Partition of Armenia
The dominant event in the reign of Trdat the Great was unquestionably
his amply documented collaboration with St. Gregory the Illuminator to
root Christianity in Armenia. His reign is not otherwise well known,
although he probably fought northern invaders and lived until ca. 330,
late enough to send St. Gregory’s younger son and successor Aristakes
to represent Armenia at the first (Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325
(Agathangelos, #884-885, pp. 414/5-416/7), and thus to set the Arme
nian Church on a path of rigorous theological orthodoxy against the
Arian doctrine condemned by the Council. The king’s death seems to
have been followed by considerable internal difficulties as well as a new
barbarian invasion from the north. Xorcnac'i even claims that the king
was murdered by the nobles (Movses Khorenats‘i, II. 92, p. 251),
although The Epic Histories are silent on the subject. St. Gregory is said
THE ARS a KUNI DYNASTY 85
to have already withdrawn into solitude in the cave of Mane in his

hereditary domain of Daranalik4 (Agathangelos, #861, pp. 396/7;
Movses Khorenats4i, II. 91, p. 248), and we do not know the precise date
of his death, but his son and successor Aritstakes was soon murdered in
the southern district of Cop‘k ‘, again according to Xorenac‘i (II. 91, p.
249) but not The Epic Histories. St. Gregory’s elder son Vrt’anes, who
succeeded his brother in 327/8, nearly met the same fate at the hands of
supporters of paganism while at the “mother church” of AStiSat in Taron
(P4awstos Buzand III. iii, pp. 68-69). The emperor Constantine is known
to have designated his nephew King of Kings of Armenia in 335, but
the young man had not yet set foot in the country when he too was
murdered in 337, and a classical source refers to the “return” of a king
to Armenia by the Romans in 338/9.
Both the sequence and especially the chronology of the Christian
ArSakuni reigning after Trdat the Great are open to question, largely
because of the disagreements and confusion of the two main Armenian
sources for the period: The Epic Histories and Movses Xorenac‘i,
supplemented for the last period by that of Lazar P 4arpec4i (Ghazar
Parbetsi), and the difficulty of reconciling them with the contemporary
account of the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus, writing at the
end of the fourth century. The sequence usually accepted by Armenian
scholars—Xosrov III (330-338); Tiran (338/9-350), presumably the
king “returned” by the emperor Constantius II; ArSak II (350-367); Pap
(367-374); Varazdat (374-378); Pap’s sons ArSak III (ca. 379-389) and
ValarSak, with a separate ArSakuni King Xosrov IV (384-389) in Eastern
Armenia after the retirement of ArSak III in the West; the partition of
Armenia between Rome and Iran ca. 387; VramSapuh (389/401-417),
replacing his brother Xosrov IV after a possible interregnum; a fleeting
return of Xosrov IV in 417/8; Sapuh, son of the King of Kings Yazdgird
I (Yazdagerd)(418-422); and finally VramSapuh’s son ArtaSes/ArdaSir
(422-428)—presents a multitude of problems. ArSak II’s reign is said to
have lasted thirty years by Xorenac4i, but such a reign beginning in 350
is impossible, since Ar§ak is known to have lost his throne and eventu
ally his life immediately after the surrender of Armenia to Persia in 364.
The date of the partition of Armenia oscillates between 384 and 390.
The incorporation of extraneous material into The Epic Histories leads
them to confuse the emperors Constantius II (337-361) and Valens
(364-378), as well as the Sasanian kings Narseh (293-302) and Sahpur
II (309-379). Tiran was the king blinded by the Persians (presumably in
350), according to the Armenian sources (P4awstos Buzand, III. xx, pp.
86 Nina Garsoian
96-97), but Ammianus Marcellinus claims that this punishment was

inflicted on ArSak II in 364 (Ammianus Marcellinus, XXVII, xii 3, vol.
Ill, pp. 78/9). In short, it is all but impossible to reconcile these
contradictions and to crowd the generations of the last ArSakuni into the
128 years separating the death of Trdat the Great in 330 from the end of
the dynasty in 428. Consequently, historians have been driven to endless
arithmetical calculations. Ingenious as many of these hypotheses have
been, however, none has yet succeeded in providing an overall solution
universally accepted by scholars.
Three main aspects dominated the turbulent history of late
ArSakuni Armenia:
First among them was the Persian war constantly threatening under
the King of Kings Sahpur II, whose seventy-year reign in (309-379) loomed
over most of the fourth century. Unsuccessful in his first three campaigns,
which ravaged Armenia but failed to take Nisibis in 338, 346, and 350,
Sahpur made the most of the precarious state of the Roman army trapped
in Mesopotamia to obtain the abandonment of Armenia by the Romans and
the return of some of the eastern Satrapies in 364. Even this drastic step did
not resolve the conflict over Armenia, and the war continued sporadically
to the extinction of the ArSakuni dynasty and thereafter.
The second factor dominating the period was the tug of war
between the church and the ArSakuni state that was the probable cause
of the patent antagonism of the Armenian sources toward the Armenian
kings, especially ArSak II and Pap, who are on the contrary praised by
the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus. In their attempt to main
tain a precarious equilibrium in the perpetual Roman-Iranian conflict,
the ArSakuni kings usually sided with Rome against the Sasanian
destroyers of their Parthian ancestors, but loyalty in the fourth century
required not only political but absolute religious conformity. Conse
quently from 338 to 381 the ArSakuni kings sought to follow the
pro-Arian policy of the Byzantine court, especially under Constantius
II and Valens. This policy brought them into latent or open conflict with
the rigorously orthodox and consequently anti-Arian patriarchs of the
Gregorid house, whom the kings repeatedly replaced with more pliant
primate from the rival house of Afbianos of Manazkert. More violently,
the conflict let to the murder at the king's order of St. Gregory’s
grandson, the patriarch Yusik/Husik (342-348) as well as of his succes
sor the Syrian bishop Daniel, and to the exile and eventual murder at the
order of King Pap of Yusik’s grandson St. Nerses the Great, for whose
murder the king soon paid with his life (P*awstos Buzand, III. xii, xiv;
THE AR$AKUNl DYNASTY 87
IV, xv; V. xxiv, pp. 82-84, 86-91, 142-43, 145, 203-5). Peace between
the crown and the church did not return until the acceptance of anti-Arian
orthodoxy at Constantinople in 381.
The final thread running throughout this period is the turbulence
of the naxarars. The pride of place unquestionably belonged to the
Mamikonean sparapets. Their role has perhaps been overstressed by
their panegyrist, the author of The Epic Histories, as against the silence
of the Bagratuni historian Movses Xorenac‘i, but they unquestionably
came to overshadow and eventually dominate the crown, first as hered
itary commanders-in-chief and protectors of both king and realm, but
eventually as regents and kingmakers after the murder of Pap. In spite
of the remonstrances of the patriarchs Nerses and Sahak urging their
loyalty and the attempt of the kings to keep them under surveillance at
court, the centrifugal tendencies of the magnates manifested themselves
again and again: Databey, nahapet of the Bznuni and the great bdeSx of
Aijnik4, Bakur Siwni, connived with the Persians, and the treason of the
senekapet or chamberlain, Pisak Siwni led to the capture and blinding
of Tiran, according to The Epic Histories (P4awstos Buzand, III. viii-ix,
xx, pp. 75-77, 94-97). The successive mardpets repeatedly proved
untrustworthy, and the treason of Andovk Siwni helped to break the
modus vivendi established between Armenia and the Sasanians and
eventually led to the war that ended in the conquest of Armenia by the
Persians in 364. Most threatening and extensive were the nefarious
activities of MeruZan Arcruni, whom the Armenian sources invariably
portray as the arch traitor and apostate leading the Persian armies against
his own country (P‘awstos Buzand, IV. xxiii-xxiv, xxxi-xxxvii, xxxix-
xliii, xlv-xlviii, lviii-lix; V. i-ii, iv, xxxviii, xliii, pp. 155-58, 161-67,
178-80,186-87,189,222-28), but who, as lord of one of the autonomous
Satrapies, may have been pursuing an independent policy and merely
providing a focus for a pro-Persian party opposed to the generally
pro-Roman Mamikoneans in Armenia. Whatever their purpose, these
constant revolts unquestionably sapped the strength of the kingdom
from within, and the kings retaliated brutally. The Armenian histories
abound in tales of the great naxarar clans: the Bznuni, the RStuni, the
Arcruni, and the Kamsarakan among others, annihilated to the last child.
But even these savage reprisals did not have the desired effect. The
magnates were to have the last word, if we credit X orenacTs assertion
that the end of the ArSakuni dynasty and of the Armenian kingdom at
the hands of the Persians came at the request of the Armenian naxarars
themselves (Movses Khorenats‘i, III. 63-64, pp. 339-41).
88 Nina Garsoian
The dominant reign of the fourth century unquestionably belongs

to ArSak II, although he probably came to the throne in 350, rather than
338, and consequently ruled less than fifteen years. The reign opened
peacefully with the ordering of the realm and the return of the magnates
to their dignities, although the king does not seem to have resided in the
new capital at Duin but preferred his “royal encampment” (banak
ark'uni). In the words of The Epic Histories:
Profound peace reigned at that time. All those in the land of Armenia
who had hidden, fled, or been lost reassembled and lived undisturbed
in great peace under the protection of King ArSak. T hen. . . the realm
of Armenia became peaceful, organized, ordered and stable, and after
this each one of the inhabitants peacefully enjoyed his own posses
sions . . . he reinstated the military contingents of the mightiest
magnates according to each one’s rank as had been done by former
kings. And he brought the magnates into submission . . . And so the
royal power of the Armenian land was renewed and invigorated as it
had formerly been: every magnate on his gah, and every official
[gore aka l] in his station. (P‘awstos Buzand, IV. i-ii, pp. 107-8)
The ordering of the realm was paralleled by the reform of the

church under the new patriarch, Nerses I, restored to the seat of his
ancestors in 353 after the abnormal period following the murder of Yusik
when the patriarchate had temporarily passed from the Gregorid house.
Consecrated like his ancestors at Caesarea, Nerses probably called the
first Armenia council at AStiSat of Taron early in his patriarchate to
institute new regulations for the Armenian Church. Zoroastrian and
pagan customs such as consanguineous marriages and lamentations for
the dead accompanied by mourning dances and lacerations of arms and
faces were forbidden. The eating of meat was severely restricted, the
liturgy regulated, and a broad program of charitable foundations insti
tuted by the church. Throughout the land, “in every district,” hostelries,
hospitals, leprosaria, orphanages, and poor houses with their own reve
nues ministered to the poor, the abandoned, the stranger, and the sick
under the supervision of deacons or bishops. These benevolent institu
tions, which have commonly been attributed to an imitation by St.
Nerses of the activities of his contemporary St. Basil of Caesarea,
actually appeared in Armenia earlier than in Cappadocia and did not
have the monastic character of the Basilian foundations. They were
directly supervised by the patriarch through his deputies, who like
himself took no celibate vows, rather than entrusted to monastic com

munities. These do not seem to have existed in ArSakuni Armenia, where
we find only individual hermits living without a rule and seeking their
salvation in total seclusion.
The auspicious beginning of ArSak II’s reign was not to last. St.
Nerses I, sent on a mission to the Byzantine Empire in 358 to fetch the
king’s bride Olympias, returned to face the renewed Arianism of the
Roman and Armenian courts and was exiled for some nine years,
together with other anti-Arian bishops, while a royal appointee, to whom
The Epic Histories refer contemptuously as £ 4unak (Chunak) “the man
of nothing . . . the slave of the slaves of the King” (P‘awstos Buzand,
IV. xv, pp. 145-46), whom the Armenian bishops refused to consecrate,
replaced him on the patriarchal throne. The attempt to find a new source
of support for the royal authority through the foundation of the new city
of ArSakawan (Arshakavan) in Kogovit ended in the destruction of the
city whose nonnoble population was suspect to the magnates and the
church alike. The restlessness of the naxarars provoked the murder of
the Mamikonean tanuter Vardan and the annihilation of the Kamsarakan
lords of Sirak (Shirak) and ArSarunik4 (Arsharunik) at the order of the
king. Most serious of all was the execution of the king’s nephews Gnel
and Tifit4 in 359. The romantic tale of love and jealousy related by the
Armenian sources— in which Tifit4’s passion for his cousin’s wife
P4aranjem (Parandzem) of Siwnik4 (Siunik) led him to slander Gnel to
the king, who had him executed, only to succumb in turn to P4aranjem’s
beauty and marry her, with the resultant murder of Tirit4—has obscured
the implication, found in Movses Xorenac‘i, that, as ArSakuni sepuhs
entitled to wear the crown, both Gnel and Tifit4 were possible foci of
rebellion against the king. The complicated sequence of the marriage of
ArSak II and P4aranjem and the murder of the king’s Greek wife
Olympias in 361 cannot yet be unraveled; it is entirely possible that in
spite of his adherence to Christianity, ArSak II had more than one wife
simultaneously, in Persian fashion. Be that as it may, the immediate
result of Gnel’s death was the total alienation of the church, and the
patriarch Nerses was not seen at court again in ArSak’s lifetime.
The final disaster, however, was to come from without. ArSak had
been greatly favored by Constantius II, who remitted all the Armenian
taxes and gave ArSak an imperial bride in whose honor special medals
were struck bearing the portrait of Alexander the Great’s mother Olym
pias with the legend o l y m p ia s r e g in a . Ammianus Marcellinus reiterated
that ArSak was the “steadfast and faithful friend” of the Romans
90 Nina Garsoi'an
{Ammiani Marcellini, XXV. vii, 9-13; vol. II, pp. 532/3-534/5). Less
enthusiastically, The Epic Histories show ArSak oscillating between the
two empires and at times favored by the Persians as well. After the break
with Persia caused by the maneuvers of Andovk Siwni and the revolt of
M ercian Arcruni, the sparapet Vasak Mamikonean won repeated vic
tories. against the Persians, although he could not capture M ercian, but
ArSak’s participation in the emperor Julian's disastrous campaign
against Persia spelled the doom of Armenia. Under the terms of the treaty
dictated by Sahpur II to the emperor Jovian in 364, which Ammianus
Marcellinus stigmatizes as ignoble, ArSak II and his kingdom were
abandoned to the Persians together with a portion of the autonomous
Satrapies “beyond the Tigris" and the city of Nisibis. Making the most
of the opportunity, Sahpur II ravaged Armenia despite the desperate
resistance of Queen P‘afanjem entrenched in the royal fortress of
Artagers in ArSarcnik4. Decoyed to Persia, ArSak II was perhaps blinded
and imprisoned in the Persian “Castle of Oblivion," the name of whose
inmates might never be spoken, where he committed suicide after a few
years, according to the account of The Epic Histories (P'awstos Buzand,
V. vii, pp. 197-98). The Armenian sparapet Vasak Mamikonean was
flayed alive. Finally Artagers fell and Queen P4aranjem was hideously
put to death, though ArSak's heir Pap found refuge on Roman territory
at Neocaesarea in Pontus. In retaliation for Andovk's treachery, his
domain of Siwnik4 was singled out for Sahpur’s vengeance. The earlier
Armenian cities: ArtaSat, ValarSapat, Zarehawan, ZariSat, Van, and
Nax£awan (Nakhchavan) were destroyed and their inhabitants, Jews as
well as Armenians, deported to Persia. After “thirty years of war" the
Persians were victorious and Armenia depopulated and looted. The
naxarars fled “hither and yon," Persian garrisons were placed in the
Armenian fortresses, fire temples erected at Christian shrines, even
including the one at Ejmiacin, and Mercian Arcruni together with his
brother-in-law Vahan Mamikonean, the renegade brother of the
sparapet, to whom Sahpur had given his own sister in marriage, were
set as governors over the Armenian lands (P4awstos Buzand, IV, lv,
lviii-lix, pp. 173-76, 178-80).
The catastrophic effects of the Persian conquest of Armenia hor
rified and alarmed the Romans so that the new sparapet, MuSel
(Mushegh) Mamikonean, now obtained from the emperor Valens the
return of ArSak's son Pap, who was reinstated ca. 367 with the support
of an imperial army. Like his father, Pap began by a reconciliation with
the church and the nobility. The patriarch Nerses the Great returned from
THE ARS a KUNI DYNASTY 91
exile, and in 371 the sparapet routed the Persians and the Albanians at
the foot of Mt. Npat/Niphates near Bagawan (Bagavan), as well as King
Sahpur II himself in an epic battle on the eastern border of Armenia,
which drove the Persians from the country. A series of victories restored
the former borders of the kingdom. Unfortunately, Pap’s acceptance of
Valens’s openly Arianizing policy brought him again into conflict with
the church. Consequently, the Armenian ecclesiastical historians are
particularly hostile to the young king whom they accuse of having been
devoted to the dews (devs) from childhood (P‘awstos Buzand, IV. xliv,
V. xx, pp. 164-65, 202-3), whereas Ammianus Marcellinus praises his
gallantry. Resorting to the violent methods of his predecessors, Pap had
the patriarch murdered in 373, dispersed and destroyed his charitable
foundations, and appointed a successor without recourse to the tradi
tional approval of Caesarea which refused to consecrate the royal
candidate or recognize the authority of the Armenian primate over his
own bishops. The murder of the patriarch alienated the sparapet as well
as the magnates; Ammianus Marcellinus speaks of plots instigated in
Armenia by the very imperial generals who had helped restore Pap on
the throne. The king was summoned in 374 to meet Valens at Tarsus,
where he successfully escaped the machinations of his enemies, but he
was murdered at the instigation of the Romans on his return to Armenia
(Ammianus Marcellinus, XXX.i; vol. Ill, pp. 294/95-306/307).
The murder of Pap inaugurated the decline of his house. His
successor and probably nephew, to whom The Epic Histories refer
disdainfully as “a certain Varazdat from the same ArSakuni house
(P’awstos Buzand, V. xxxiv, p. 215),” soon found himself at odds with
the all-powerful sparapet MuSel Mamikonean. The king’s attempt to
throw off the Mamikonean tutelage by having Mu§el murdered and
replaced by a sparapet of his own choosing from another house resulted
only in his own defeat and expulsion from Armenia ca. 378, as Manuel
Mamikonean returned from Persian captivity to avenge his kinsman
MuSel and claim his hereditary office (P‘awstos Buzand, V. xxxv-
xxxvii, pp. 215-20). With Varazdat’s exile all effective Roman support
in Armenia came to an end, as their disastrous defeat at Andrianople in
378 withdrew the last garrisons from Armenia and turned the attention
of the empire westward. At home, the sparapet Manuel Mamikonean
dominated the situation. Benefiting from the internal instability of
Persia after the death of Sahpur II in 379, Manuel finally hunted down
Meruian Arcruni and enthroned the two young sons of Pap, ArSak III
and ValarSak, under the nominal regency of their mother Zarmanduxt.
92 Nina Garsoian
The marriage of the two young kings respectively to the daughters of

Manuel and of the aspet Sahak Bagratuni provides a clear index of the
power achieved by the magnates over the crown (P4awstos Buzand, V,
xxxvii-xxxviii, xliii-xliv, pp. 221-22, 224-28). In the absence of any
Roman protector, however, Manuel was also compelled to recognize
the authority of the Sasanians, to pay tribute to the King of Kings, and
to accept the presence in Armenia of a Persian “governor," or marzpan.
Even this compromise was short-lived. Manuel died ca. 385, and ArSak
III, unable to withstand the hostility of the pro-Persian party among the
naxarars, fled to Ekeleac4 (Ekeghiats) in western Armenia while the
Persian court at the request of the Armenian nobility, replaced ValarSak
(who had presumably died) with Xosrov IV, who ruled with a Persian
tutor in the eastern portion of the country in 384/5. The partition of
Armenia had been achieved de facto even though the date of its
ratification by the so-called Peace of Ekeleac4, between the Roman
emperor Theodosius I and the Sasanian king Sahpur III (probably in
387) is still debated. Under the terms of this agreement, Greater
Armenia was divided unequally by a line running north to south from
a point east of Karin, soon to be fortified and renamed Theodosioupolis
by the Greeks (modem Erzerum), to Mesopotamia west of Nisibis,
which remained Persian. The partition thus left approximately four-
fifths of the Armenian territories on the Persian side. A belt of Arme
nian peripheral lands fell away to its neighbors: Gugark4 in the north
to Iberia, Utik4 and Arcax (Artsakh) in the northeast to Caspian Alba
nia, Paytakaran and Parskahayk4 in the east to Atrpatakan (modem
Azerbaijan), and KorCek4and Aljnik4in the south to Mesopotamia, thus
leaving a considerably reduced territory. ArSak III resided in Ekeleac4
in Roman territory, while Xosrov IV kept the ArSakuni capitals of
ArtaSat and Duin.
The partition of Armenia marked the last stage of the ArSakuni
dynasty in Armenia. On the Roman side, no king replaced ArSak III,
who died after two and a half years, ca. 390, and many of the naxarars
who had accompanied him moved back to the Persian side. In Pers-
armenia, as the Greek sources began to call it, Xosrov IV, who had
become suspect to the Sasanians— perhaps because of his nomination
of St. Sahak I, the last patriarch of the Gregorid house, without consult
ing the Persian authorities— was recalled, either immediately (ca. 389)
or, according to some scholars, after an interregnum that lasted until 401.
The reign of VramSapuh (4017-417) brought a last moment of glory to
the ArSakuni as he presided together with St. Sahak, whom he had sent
to Persia to conciliate the Sasanian court, over the creation of the

Armenian alphabet. But the Armenian sources know little more about
him. With his death a fleeting reappearance of JCosrov IV was followed
by outright annexation as Yazdgird I set his own son Sapuh (Shapuh)
on the Armenian throne. Xorenac'i sneeringly portrays the cowardice of
the Sasanian prince (Movses Khorenats‘i, III. 55-56, pp. 323-26), and a
last ArSakuni, VramSapuh’s son ArdaSes or ArdaSir (422-428), was sent
to Armenia at the request of the Armenian magnates. The centrifugal
tendencies of the nobles, however, were beyond control. Disregarding
the appeals of St. Sahak, the Armenian naxarars themselves requested
that the Persians recall the last ArSakuni king, which was followed by
the deposition of the patriarch.
For the first time in centuries, Armenia found itself without a king.
Far to the west, Armenia Minor, which had first become a single province
under Diocletian, was divided by Theodosius I into two regular provinces:
Armenia I, with its capital at Sebastia/Sivas, and Armenia II, with Melitene
as its capital. They were administered by ordinary Roman governors, while
the garrisons stationed there were commanded by a military duke (Dux
Armeniae), although these territories remained demographically Armenian
for a long time to come. The former ArSakuni lands between the Euphrates
and the line of demarcation, now known as Armenia Interior, enjoyed a
special status under a civilian official known as the “Count of Armenia’*
(Comes Armeniae) residing at Karin/Theodosiopolis, whose prerogatives
are not precisely known. Persarmenia was ruled by a viceroy, or marzpan,
appointed by the Sasanians. The only semblance of Armenian autonomy
lay in the still-sovereign Satrapies of the south.
For the sources of. or more information on, the material in this
Adontz, 1970. Garsoian, 1985.

Ananian. 1961. Manandyan, 1965.
Asdourian, 1911. Russell. 1987.
The Cambridge History of Iran Thierry and Donabedian, 1989.
Der Nersessian, 1969. Toumanoff, 1963, 1966. 1969, 1976.
94 Nina Garsoi'an
THE ARSAKUNI (ARSHAKUND/ARSACID DYNASTY

All dates ait A.D. Some dates are approximate and still in doubt
Names in brackets are not members of this dynasty.
Vonones, 12-C.15
Orodes, C.15/5-C.18
[Zeno/ArtaMs (Artashes) of Pontus, c. 18-34]
Artak (Arshak) I. 34-C.35
[Mithridates of Iberia, c.35-37,42-51)
(Rhadamistes of Iberia, 51-54?]
Trdat/Tiridates 1, 53-C.60
[Tigran VI, c.60-c.61/62]
Trdat I, C.62/66-C.75
Sanatruk, 75-110?
Axidares, 110-113?
Parthamasiris, 113-115?
[Roman annexation, 115-117]
ValarS (VagharshyVologeses I, 117-138/140
Aurelius Pacorus 161-163?
(Sohaemus, 164-185, with interuptions]
Valart (VagharshyVologases II, c. 180-191
Xosrov (Khosrov) I, c. 191-216/217?
Trdat II, c.216/217-252
[Hormizd-ArdaSir (Ardashir), Sasanian, 252-C.272]
[Narseh, Sasanian, c.273-293]
Xosrov (Khosrov) n, 279/280-287 (K‘aj in Western Armenia?)
Trdat in, 287-298 (in Western Armenia)
Trdat IV the Great. 298/299-C.330
Xosrov (Khosrov) III Kotak, c.330-338
Tiran, c.338-350
Artak (Arshak) II, 350-C.364/367
Pap, 367-C.374
Varazdat, 374-378
Artak (Arshak) III, C.378-C.389
Xosrov (Khosrov), IV, 384-389 (in Eastern Armenia)
VramSapuh (Vramshapuh), 389/401-417
Xosrov (Khosrov) IV, 417-418
[Sapuh (Shapuh), Sasanian, 418-422]
Artatts (ArtashesyAnaSir (Artashir), 422-428
5
THE M A R Z P A N A T E
(428 - 652 )
Nina GarsoTan
P ersarm enia
ith the end of the ArSakuni dynasty, the divided lands of Greater
W Armenia were set on divergent paths. The newly acquired

imperial lands of Armenia Interior east of the Euphrates gradually
followed Armenia Minor toward de-Armenization, although their spe
cial status was maintained for more than a century and they generally
preserved their demographic Armenian majority. The southern Satrapies
kept their full sovereignty until the end of the fifth century and then
survived with a reduced status until the great reform of Justinian in 536
altered the administration of all the Armenian lands under Roman
control. Despite its clearly dependent status and periodic persecutions,
Persarmenia under Sasanian marzpans, who gave their name to this
period of Armenian history, ultimately succeeded in preserving nearly
intact its native naxarar social structure and the increasingly autono
mous church that were to characterize Armenia in the absence of a
political focus. The Sasanian domination did not begin auspiciously for
the Armenians, who revolted repeatedly. Consequently, Armenian liter
ature bom in the second half of the fifth century, at the very moment of
the desperate struggle to preserve Armenian culture from Persian assim
ilation, naturally portrayed Iran as eternally alien and hostile to Armenia.
96 Nina Garsoian
In doing so, however, the early Armenian historians obscured and

simplified a far more complex situation.
The first contacts of the Sasanian authorities with the Christian,
mostly Syrian, communities within their empire were relatively un
eventful. The main threat to the official Zoroastrianism of the dynasty
in the late third century was Manichaeanism, which was ruthlessly
extirpated while other religious groups, only occasionally disturbed,
were not actively persecuted. This relatively neutral situation changed
radically with the official recognition of Christianity by the Roman
emperor Constantine I early in the fourth century. According to the
political theory prevailing in this period in both Constantinople and Iran,
political loyalty was inseparable from religious conformity and the
Christians in Iran, the “slaves of the Roman Caesar their coreligionist,”
were now perceived as a subversive element directed against the safety
of the Sasanian state. Again and again the Persians accused the Chris
tians of being “Roman spies in the land of Persia”: “These men are
traitors to your majesty . . . since their faith and rites agree with those
of the Romans,” and they portrayed the Persian kafoiikos (catholicos)
as “an emissary sent by the Armenians and Romans” to plot against the
King of Kings. On their side, the Christians tried to counter these
accusations by desperately reiterating their loyalty to the Sasanian state:
All of us unanimously implore our merciful God that he add to the

days of the victorious and illustrious King of King Yazdgird [I] and
that his years be lengthened from generations to generations and
centuries after centuries. (Synodicon Orientate, p. 258)
Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that the first great

persecution was directed at the Christians by King Sahpur II in 338, as
war flared against the successors of Constantine in heavily Christian
Mesopotamia. In general, the situation of Christians in the Persian
empire automatically worsened in times of open conflict with the
Romans.
The first Sasanian marzpan appointed for Armenia in 428 seems
to have been a relatively tolerant and reasonable man, and the grant of
the office of hazarapet to the native naxarar Vahan Amatuni left the
civilian administration and consequently a considerable amount of
authority in the hands of the Armenian magnates. Even so, the position
of the Armenian Church immediately worsened. The Persian authorities
deposed the hereditary Gregorid patriarch St. Sahak I in 428, seemingly
56* ,4b* *** .\ti t/bnu
~ F ~
S IU N I Major princely family
ALANS
" ' " ' l - ------- \ C M l Ka/N*a
U A K D 1A X S Tnbe atMToeoCa’■ \ *-*SUAN,>s
> " * <f «f *KG~«*tAbm
•
a
Scat of the Catholkos
Fortress i \ C ^ ' ^ *•f •?c /
s •»__
Frontier of 387 \ ^ U.KUTA.-SJ o> r * Horvij
-47*-
Frontier of 591
> m National and provincial capital* ^M TSKH ETA / — N /•
V
P O N T U S t U X / N U S
vy ( BL ACK SEA)
Xt o U N T A I N S A L Bv, A N 1
PAHTAVq X
<*>
40 - £* F I R S T
Saw a. t h e cm
> . SE BAST LA
- .. -_
" (KAPIT.
£ • Erez (Erzmjan) % c ~
> .•vct''VijusT,NiAN
■4/ * Kamakria '-(ViMAN>
A, A , <
V / » * /' 4A > x A
A R
KMOTEB.NW I
CAESATUA
£; T Z A "N - T] I N E
' ! f* » * 8 MEUTENE
N U ^ 0 x
M- TAURUS ,---v 4~
A/ l r M - 58'-
MARTYWOPOLISifc ^ N, #Tavrozh (Tabriz) ° 4 ; t^ \
Vv # ‘ \
> / 44 ^rv .
C \ L > C I A ‘# .^ O S A I A
^ *■ \ (LUmuji
O
^ , c 'V v.l l R E
R E PE R S I A N * E M too
s
H
\ ' ^beitia s * « ° ENE C •4
34*- Si •» (W
a m !»*«k »» o * /
yJ
AKBELA V1
M SYRIA \ 3|\ 40* 42*
1
44*
• 4f Robert H. Hewien
7. THE PARTITIONS OF ARMENIA, 387 AND 591 A.D.

98 Nina Garsoian
with the adhesion of some of the naxarars, who repeatedly turned to the
Persian court, stripped him of his domains, according to Xorenac‘i, and
replaced him at first with an Armenian Surmak, but immediately there
after with two Syrians, Brk‘iSoy (Brkisho) (428-432) and Samuel (432-
437), who were presumably Christians from Persia, among whom the
Syrians were a dominant majority. Armenian sources have left us
unedifying portrayals of the morals of the two Syrian primates, but the
authority of St. Sahak was severely curtailed:
[The Persian King] . . . gave the archiepiscopal throne to another

Syrian, Samuel by name, so that he might be a rival and antipatriarch
to Sahak, and he set his duties: to assist the marzban and to oversee
the assessment of the required taxes, the law courts, and other secular
institutions. And Sahak the Great he set free; leaving him a few
villages from the same [patriarchal] domain that he might reside only
in his own see with the authority only to give the traditional religious
instruction and to ordain those whom Samuel might accept. (Movses
Khorenats‘i, III. 65, p. 343)
Not only were the Syrian primates direct Sasanian appointees, their
presence in Armenia was intended to break the increasingly close
contacts of the Armenian and Greek Churches encouraged by the
Gregorids and to link Armenian Christianity to the official church of
Persia. The later Chalcedonian source known as the Narratio de rebus
Armeniae even dates from Surmak’s usurpation the “waywardness” of
the Armenian bishops, the condemnation of the Armenian Church by its
former patron, Caesarea of Cappadocia, and the prohibition to the
Armenian patriarch to ordain his own bishops. The absence of the
Armenians from the (Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 and the
calling of a local synod at Sahapivan (Shahapivan) in 444 to legislate in
ecclesiastical matters point to the growing isolation of Persarmenia from
the West. The refusal of St. Sahak to return to the patriarchal throne after
the death of Samuel in 437 indicates the alienation of the Hellenizing
party in the Armenian Church, which turned to Constantinople for
dogmatic advice. The Sasanian court apparently refused to ratify the
choice of MaStoc‘’s disciple Yovsep* (Hovsep)/Joseph, who remained
a priest, rather than a bishop, and merely the vicar of the patriarchal
throne.
A sharp turn for the worse came with the accession of the new
Persian king Yazdgird (Yazdagerd) II in 439 and the rule of his prime
THE MARZPANATE 99
minister Mihr-Narseh, whose fervent devotion to Zoroastrianism is

attested not only by the hostile Armenian historians, but also by the
Sasanian Lawbook. Our two main sources for the ensuing events, Lazar
P‘arpec‘i’s History of Armenia and EliSe’s History of Vardan and the
Armenian War, agree in the main, although they differ in details such
as the origins of the Armenian revolt.
The first signs of trouble came with the summons to the Armenian
cavalry to serve against the Huns on Persia’s eastern border while a
Sasanian official was sent to take a census that harshly increased and
extended the obligations of Armenia:
First: he cast the freedom of the church into slavery.

Second: he included in the same census the Christian monks living in
monasteries.
Third: he increased the tax burden of the country.
Fourth: by slander he pitted the nobility against each other, and caused
dissension in every family.
He did this in the hope of breaking their unity, scattering the clergy
of the church . . . they taxed both bishops and priests, not merely of
inhabited land but of desolated areas .. . They did not act in accor
dance with royal dignity, but raided like brigands, until they them
selves were greatly amazed as to whence all this treasure came and
how the country remained prosperous. (Eli§€, ii, pp. 76-77)
The Armenian hazarapet was replaced by a Persian official, and “he also
brought a chief-magus as judge of the land.’’
At first no one opposed these harsh measures because “no one yet
openly laid hand on the church’’ and the Armenian cavalry distinguished
itself in the East, but the subsequent royal edict openly imposing
Zoroastrianism on Armenia, as well as on Iberia and Caucasian Albania,
provoked an immediate reaction. A council assembled at ArtaSat under
the presidency of the marzpan Vasak Siwni, the sparapet Vardan
Mamikonean (Mamikonian), the bdeSx of the Iberian March, and the
acting kat‘ofikos Yovsep4, to reaffirm the loyalty of Armenia to both the
Sasanian state and the Christian faith. Unable to accept this contradic
tion, King Yazdgird II summoned the Armenian magnates to his court,
where all of them, Vardan as well as Vasak, were constrained under
threat to accept Zoroastrianism, at least outwardly. An unexpected
attack from the East forced the Persians to release the Armenian nobles,
although the bdeSx and the sons of the marzpan Vasak Siwni were kept
100 Nina Garsoian
as hostages, and the Magians were sent to spread Zoroastrianism through

all the Caucasus.
The immediate background of the open Armenian rebellion is not
always clear, but the first overt acts seem to have come not so much from
the naxarars, humiliated and disgraced by their religious compromise, as
from the common people incited against the magians by the implacable
clergy. Vardan Mamikonean may even have intended to retire into exile,
although Lazar Ptarpecii and EliSe disagree on this subject. The villain of
the fifth century for the Armenian historians is Vasak Siwni, the traitor
par excellence (as Meruian Arcruni had been in the fourth century),
although his motives are not always clear and he was not alone in his stand.
A sizable pro-Persian party, including the aspet Varaz-Tiroc* (Tirots)
Bagratuni, some of the Arcruni, and a number of other nobles, listed by
Lazar as well as EliSe, clearly existed in the country and opposed the
policies of Vardan Mamikonean and his supporters.
In spite of this latent internal division, the armed rebellion of 450
began as a joint operation as the Armenian magnates bound themselves
by a solemn covenant (uxt) and retook a number of fortresses and
villages. Warned by Caucasian Albanians of the Persian advance,
Vardan Mamikonean, who now emerged as the unquestionable leader
of the rebellion, marched north to meet them at the same time as an
unsuccessful embassy was sent to seek help from Constantinople.
Vardan routed the Persians in the summer of 450 and concluded an
alliance with the northern Huns. But the opposing policy of Vasak
Siwni, who had remained behind in Armenia, compromised this initial
success, and the absence of Greek support gave a free hand to the
Persians. After an initial offer of amnesty and toleration, a large
Persian army including an elite corps of the “immortals” and a contin
gent of elephants advanced from the east in the early summer of 451.
On June 2 it was met by the Armenian magnates in the region of Artaz,
at Awarayr (Avarayr) near Maku. Overwhelmed by the Persian host
and abandoned by the supporters of Vasak, who fled from the field,
the sparapet Vardan and the majority of the Armenian nobility per
ished in the battle whose memory was to be preserved by the Armenian
tradition for more than fifteen centuries.
The aftermath of the battle is not altogether clear, as accounts
differ. Apparently alarmed by the Persian losses and the continuing
Armenian guerrillas, King Yazdgird II recalled his troops as well as the
marzpan Vasak, whom he imprisoned. The principality of Siwnik* was
bestowed on Vasak’s rival Varazvalan (Varazvaghan) and many of the
THE MARZPAN ATE 101
surviving supporters of Vardan were deported southeast of the Caspian

Sea and imprisoned. The leaders of the clerical opposition, the acting
kat4olikos Yovsep4and the priest tew ond (Ghevond), were martyred in
Persia. Nevertheless, a new marzpan was sent in 451 to pacify Armenia
with a more tolerant policy and the prisoners were eventually released.
The bdeSx of Iberia returned to Armenia in 455, bringing with him the
nephews of Vardan Mamikonean. The other naxarars were released by
459-460. The great Armenian clans had unquestionably been pro
foundly shaken by the rebellion of 450-451 and the losses of Awarayr,
but they were in no sense destroyed.
The tension between Armenia and Persia continued in the next
generation, as the children of the magnates fallen at Awarayr grew to
manhood. The new Armenian kat4otikos, Giwt (Giut) (461-478), accused
of secret negotiations with Byzantium, was ordered to leave his residence
at Duin, the seat of the marzpans, summoned to Persia, and finally allowed
to settle in semiretirement in the northwestern Armenian district of
Vanand, although he was not deprived of his dignity. An internal quarrel
in Iberia between the new bdeSx and Vaxtang (Vakhtang) Gorgasal, whom
Lazar P4arpec4i calls 44King of Iberia,” involved Armenia in a new
rebellion. Summoned by the Persians against Vaxtang, the new sparapet,
Vardan’s nephew Vahan Mamikonean, hesitated then sided with the
Iberians at the urging of the kat'otikos Yovhannes (HovhannesVJohn I
Mandakuni (478-490). Early in 481 the Armenians occupied Duin, aban
doned by the Persian marzpan, and named as governor the Armenian aspet
Sahak Bagratuni. The returning Persian marzpan was defeated and killed
by Vahan’s brother on the north slope of Mt. Ararat, while Sahak
Bagratuni and Vahan held Duin. The following spring they in turn routed
the Persians near the battlefield of Awarayr, despite the continuing
presence of an opposition party in Armenia. These victories were, how
ever, compromised by the disagreement between the Armenians and the
Iberians that led to a Persian victory in which both Sahak and Vasak
Mamikonean lost their lives. Vahan was then forced to take refuge in the
distant northwestern district of Tayk4 whence he carried on guerrilla
warfare in 483. Fortunately for the rebels, the disastrous defeat and death
of the Persian King of Kings on the eastern frontier in 484 restored the
Armenian situation since neither of his successors found himself in a
position to reconquer Armenia. In return for his support, Vahan received
from the new Persian king the confirmation of his dignity as sparapet, the
return of his domains as well as those of his Kamsarakan supporters,
freedom of religion, and the right of appeal directly to the Persian court,
102 Nina GarsoTan
bypassing the authority of the marzpan. In 485 Vahan himself was

appointed marzpan of Armenia, which he ruled until 505 or 510, and a
modus vivendi between Iran and Armenia was finally achieved.
The marzpanaXt of Vahan Mamikonean, who enjoyed almost total
autonomy, marked a period of prosperity according to the Armenian
historian Sebeos, followed by the later Armenian author Stephen of
Taron, usually known as Asolik. Another of the periodic invasions was
contained. Duin and ValarSapat were rebuilt and the cathedral of Duin
restored, while the kafolikos Yovhannes Mandakuni, who settled at
Duin, regularized the liturgy and reordered the church. The survival of
a number of impressive stone basilicas from the fifth century provide
material evidence of extensive architectural activity and consequently
of the wealth and stability of Armenia throughout this period. A Byzan
tine edict o f 408-409 preserved in the Justinianic Code, and reconfirmed
by the peace treaty of 562 designated ArtaSat as one of the three frontier
points where international trade with Persia was permitted. Customs
posts were established there and supervised on the imperial side by
financial officials known as “commercial counts” (comites commer-
cium). The sixth-century Byzantine historian Procopius lavished praise
on the favorable location and wealth of Duin in his time:
Now Doubios [Duin] is a land excellent in every respect, and espe

cially blessed with a healthy climate and abundance of good water;
from Theodosiopolis [Erzerum] it is removed a journey of eight days.
In that region there are plains suitable for riding, and many very
populous villages are situated in very close proximity to one another,
and numerous merchants conduct their business in them. For from
India and the neighboring regions of Iberia and from practically all
the nations of Persia and some of those under Roman sway they bring
in merchandise and carry on their dealings with each other there. And
the priest of the Christians is called “Catholicos” in the Greek tongue,
because he presides over the whole region. (Procopius, ‘‘The Persian
W ar/’ II, xxv, 1-3. vol I. pp. 478/9-480/1).
As far back as 450, EliSe had also noted that the Persians themselves
had been amazed at the wealth they found in Armenia. Most important
of all, the traditional social structure of the country does not seem to
have been disturbed.
These favorable conditions were temporarily disrupted after
Vahan’s death by the resumption of the Byzantine-Persian war in which
THE MARZPAN ATE 103
Roman Armenia suffered considerably. On the Sasanian side, this period

was marked by the recall or death of Vahan’s brother and successor
marzpan known as Vard Patrik “the Patrician/* followed for a decade
by a series of Persian governors. At the same time, repeated invasions
of Huns from the north of the Caucasus raided Armenia at the instigation
of Byzantium, which was regaining a foothold along the southeastern
shore of the Black Sea by 521. Nevertheless, under the twenty-year
marzpamit of the Armenian naxarar M2e2 (Mzhezh) Gnuni (527-548),
who successfully fought off the invaders, Persarmenia maintained the
autonomy won by the Mamikoneans in the preceding century and even
flourished under Persian rule, as we shall see.
B yzantine A rm enia and the

R eform s o f Justinian I (527-565)
In contrast to the survival of national institutions in Persarmenia, the

Roman territories were relatively peacefully but irreversibly transformed
into ordinary Byzantine administrative units. This was already the status
of the westernmost Armenian lands of Armenia Minor, divided, as we
have seen, into Armenia I to the north and Armenia II farther south at the
end of the fourth century and administered by Roman civilian governors
subordinate to the vicar of the large imperial administrative district or
diocese of Pontus, who answered in turn to the highest Byzantine civilian
authority in the region, the Praetorian Prefect of the East. A parallel
ecclesiastical administration culminated in two archdioceses or eparchies
headed respectively by, the metropolitans of Sebasteia/Sivas and
Melitene/Malatia. We learn from the contemporary army list that two
legions, plus cavalry and lesser detachments, were stationed primarily at
Satala in Armenia I and Melitene in Armenia II. They were under the
command of the Dux Armeniae residing at Melitene, whose authority
extended over Pontus and Armenia Interior as well, and who answered
directly to the commander-in-chief for the East.
Armenia Interior was ruled from the time of the partition of ca.
387 by a special civilian official known as the Comes Armeniae (“Count
of Armenia*’), whose position vis-k-vis the local naxarars is not defined
but probably resembled that of the marzpan on the Persian side. His
status in the Byzantine hierarchy was probably that of a vicar; as such
he presumably ranked higher than the governors of Armenia I and II.
Legally, Armenia Interior was a civitas stipendiaria, that is to say it had
104 Nina Garsoian
some autonomous rights but was required to pay taxes and furnish
military contingents to the Dux Armeniae. Unfortunately, we know very
little concerning the local magnates. The royal ArSakuni maintained
themselves in western Armenia, and some rose high in the imperial
hierarchy at Constantinople long after the death of King ArSak III. Some
of the Bagratuni also attempted to come over to Byzantium in Justinian's
time but were m urdered by m istake. Finally, a branch of the
Mamikonean house inherited the patriarchal domains in Daranalik*
(Daranaghik) and Ekeleac4 (Ekeghiats), districts that lay in Byzantine
Armenia as a result of the partition after the death of St. Sahak I in 439,
but we do not know how these naxarars fulfilled their obligations.
The first group to suffer a loss of status were the Satrapies that
had maintained their independence as civitates foederatae , “allies,"
even after the partition. Their hereditary rulers had full sovereign
rights and merely sent military contingents and the occasional gift of
a gold crown to the emperor. The participation of the satraps in the
rebellion of 485 against the Byzantine emperor led to the abrogation
of their sovereign rights and the loss of their hereditary rulers, thus
reducing them with one exception to the level of taxable civitates
stipendiariae governed by imperial officials.
Far more extensive reforms were introduced soon after the acces
sion of Justinian I in 527. A first imperial decree sought to bring order
into the conflicting jurisdiction of the Dux and the Comes Armeniae as
well as of the local magnates. The offices of both the Dux and the Comes
were abolished and a new extended military command, that of Magister
militum per Armeniam, Pontum Polemoniacum et gentes was created.
The authority of the new official and the extension of his jurisdiction
over all the imperial Armenian territories were spelled out by the decree:
We have found it necessary to create by the present law a special

military commander for parts of Armenia, Pontus Polemoniacus and
the Nations [Satrapies]. .. We entrust to thy care certain provinces,
namely Greater Armenia, which is called Interior and the Nations
(namely Anzetena [Hanjit], Ingilena [Angeltun (Angeghtun)], As-
thianena [HaSteank4], Sophena [Cop‘k ‘ Sahuni (DzopkShahuni)], in
which lies Martyropolis, Balabitena [Balahovit] as well as First and
Second Armenias and Pontus Polemoniacus, together with their
Dukes. And the Count of Armenia is to be abolished altogether. We
entrust [to thee] certain legions, not only those which are now being
constituted, but also those chosen from the ones in the capital, those
THE MARZPANATE 105
in the East, and certain other regiments. Furthermore, the number of

soldiers in them shall not be diminished___ (Adontz, 1970, p. 107)
This new master of the army, under whose command were three
dukes and an extensive staff, moved his residence eastward to Armenia
Interior at Theodosiopolis/Karin, which was extensively refortified and
became the anchor point of the imperial defense in the north. The same
was done for Martyropolis in Mesopotamia and the new fortified city of
Dara created a few years earlier in the same region, northwest of Nisibis.
In general, the eastern border of the empire, which up to that time had
been so open that, according to the contemporary historian Procopius,
the inhabitants of this region whether subjects of the Romans or the

Persians have no fear of each other. . . they even intermarry and hold
a common market for their produce and together they share the labors
of farming . . . (Procopius, Buildings, III, iii, 7-14, vol VII. pp.
192/3-194/5)
was closed by a continuous series of fortifications with permanent

garrisons that intensified the isolation of the two portions of Armenia
from each other.
Justinian’s civilian reform promulgated by the imperial Novella
XXXI of 18 March 536, “On the Establishment of Four Governors for
Armenia,” went much farther and completed the transformation of the
imperial Armenian territories. With this new legislation the special
status of Armenia Interior and the Satrapies was completely abolished.
Moreover, since the lands affected by it included the former Armenia I
and II and some adjacent Pontic lands as well, the division between
Greater Armenia and Armenia Minor along the Euphrates River was
partially obscured, as was the differentiation of Armenian lands from
those of Pontus to the north. Under the terms of the Novella, four new
imperial provinces all named Armenia (I,II,III, IV) were created to
replace earlier administrative districts: (1) A new Armenia I was made
up of most of Armenia Interior together with a portion of the former
Armenia I and some Pontic territories. It included several cities, The
odosiopolis/Karin (east of the Euphrates), Satala (west of the river in
old Armenia Minor), as well as several others and bordered on the Black
Sea in the region of Pontus around Trapezus (modem Trebizond). (2)
The new Armenia II consisted of the remaining, or western portion of
the former Armenia I and additional Pontic territory. Its capital was
106 Nina Garsoi’an
Sebasteia/Sivas, and four other cities were attributed to it. (3) Armenia
III coincided with the former Armenia II, in the southern portion of what
had once been Armenia Minor, with Melitene/Malatia as its capital. (4)
Finally, Armenia IV was composed of the lands of the abolished
Satrapies and had Martyropolis (modem Silvan) in Mesopotamia as its
capital. Governors were appointed for the four new provinces, and
special staffs of tax collectors saw to the revenue. The new legislation
did not create total uniformity in the territories affected since their
governors were not equals. Those of Armenia I and III, who had military
as well as civilian authority, outranked their respective colleagues in II
and IV. Nevertheless, all traces of native autonomy and privileges had
been wiped out as well as the distinction between Armenian and Byz
antine territories.
Complementing this profound administrative reorganization came
other legal measures that were to reach even deeper into the intrinsic life
of the Armenian society found in these regions, as the historian Nicholas
Adontz long since observed (Adontz, 1970, pp. 141-56). Innocuous at
first sight, these edicts extended the principles of Roman law to Arme
nian lands with far-reaching results. Inheritance henceforth was to be
through formal testamentary dispositions, daughters were to inherit as
well as sons and were to receive dowries at marriage. The mild and even
benevolent tone of these regulations hid the total disruption of the
fundamental structure of naxarar society in imperial Armenia. The
inalienable possessions traditionally held in common by the entire tun
now became the property of the tanuter, who passed it to his immediate
family, dispossessing the other sepuhs. Not only did this obviously
create dissensions within the clan, but it made the possessions far more
vulnerable since only a few persons, or even one man, rather than the
united clan, stood in the way of confiscation. The provision that all
children, females as well as males, should inherit, as well as the institu
tion of the dowry, meant the rapid fragmentation of the great territorial
units that had been the economic bases of the naxarars' power.
The Justinianic legislation and the traditional structure of Arme
nian society were clearly incompatible, and the magnates at first at
tempted to resist. In 538 the imperial proconsul appointed as governor
of Armenia I was murdered, and the master of the army in Armenia was
also killed by his brother-in-law who then turned to the Persians for
support. Ten years later, a conspiracy of two members of the ArSakuni
family (Arsaces/Arsak and Artabanes/Artawan), also failed, but the
words used by ArSak to arouse his kinsman, cited by Procopius, show
THE MARZPAN ATE 107
the bitterness of the naxarars and the gradual de-Armenization of the

land:
He had . . . given proof of his nobility of spirit. . . But at the present

juncture... he was utterly cowed, and he continued to sit there without
a spark of manhood, though his fatherland was kept under strictest
guard and exhausted with unwonted taxes, his father had been slain
on the pretext of a covenant and his entire family had been enslaved
and was scattered in every corner of the Roman empire. (Procopius,
“The Gothic War,” III. xxxii, 6-7, vol. IV, pp. 420/1-422/3)
The evidence of the Letters sent to the Byzantine emperor by the bishops
of Armenia I and II in 458 explicitly shows that this region was still
demographically and linguistically Armenian in the middle of the fifth
century, but the effects of the Justinianic legislation, the systematic
policy of deporting Armenians to the Balkans practiced by his succes
sors, and the lure of imperial service, through which Armenians reached
all the way to the throne, gradually drained the leadership from Byzan
tine Armenia. Transformed into imperial officials and gradually assim
ilated, the remaining local magnates vanished without trace, so that our
knowledge of the naxarar families and of their prerogatives must
perforce be drawn exclusively from Persarmenia, where they were able
to survive and maintain their traditional institutions.
B yzantine E xpansion
and the A rm enian P artition o f 591
Byzantine expansion toward the east, which marked the last centuiy of
the Marzpanatc, extended the scope of the Justinianic reforms with their
implicit threat against the very core of Armenian social and cultural
institutions. The imperial frontier moved radically forward under
Justinian's successors, and they briefly controlled most of the Armenian
highlands at the turn of the fifth to the seventh century, on the eve of the
Arab invasions. The result of the heavy-handed Byzantine policy of
assimilation was, however, to antagonize and embitter the naxarars and
especially the Armenian Church, fearful for their autonomy and their
very survival, and so to push them toward an open break with the empire.
The first move came soon after Justinian's death, at a time when
the stability of Persarmenia had already been shaken by a separatist
108 Nina Garsoian
movement in the region of Siwnik4, whose ruler obtained the autonomy

of his principality from the Persian king. The religious zeal of the
Zoroastrian Persian marzpan (who apparently exceeded his instructions,
since the Armenian sources invariably praise the Persian king's benev
olent attitude toward Christians) also aggravated the situation within the
country. In 571, the building of a fire temple in the capital of Duin
provoked the rebellion of Vardan Mamikonean (usually referred to as
Vardan II to distinguish him from his fifth-century namesake) supported
the kat‘olikos Yovhannes II Gabelean (Gabeghian) (557-576). The
marzpan was killed and Duin taken by the rebels. Making the most of
the opportunity, the emperor Justin II took the Persarmenians under his
protection, at first rejecting the Persian protests. But, despite repeated
victories in Armenia against the invading Persian armies and even the
rout of the Persians near Melitene, the Byzantines, more concerned with
the fate of Mesopotamia than of with that of Persarmenia, withdrew.
Under the terms of the armistice concluded in 575, Persarmenia was
returned to the Sasanians, and Vardan II (with his supporters and the
kat4o!ikos) was forced to take refuge in Byzantine territory, where he
settled in western Asia Minor. Greater Armenia had borne the brunt of
the Persian campaign, while the future Byzantine emperor Maurice went
on to pursue a scorched earth policy in the southern Armenian border
district of AljnikVArzanene, burning and ravaging the land and deport
ing some 10,000 of its Armenian population to Cyprus in 577.
The new crisis in Persia, where the young King Xusro (Khosrov) II
was driven from the throne in 591 by an usurper, proved far more
advantageous for Byzantium. In return for the help given him by Maurice
to regain his throne, Xusro II ceded to Byzantium a large portion of
Persarmenia as well as of Iberia, so that the new line of demarcation
between the two empires lay considerably east of the earlier partition of
ca. 387. In the north of the Armenian plateau the border now ran from
Garni, along the Azat River just west of Duin, down to Arest at the
northeastern comer of Lake Van.
He [Xusrd] gave him [Maurice] all of Arwastan to Nisibis and the

Armenian lands which were under his power: the Tanuterakan tun all
the way to the Hurazdan River with the district of Kotek* up to the
village of Garni and to the sea of Bznunik*, and the town of Arest,
and the district of Gogovit to Hac‘iwn [Hatsiun] and to Maku. While
the region of the gund of Vaspurakan remained under the domination
of the Persian king. (Sebeos, iii, p. 27)
THE MARZPANATE 109
The newly organized lands were apportioned into imperial provinces as

before, although the precise divisions are still open to considerable disagree
ment, since no decree such as Justinian’s Novella exists from this period.
Insofar as can be deduced from the confusing sources, the new Armenia I
of Maurice coincided with Justinian’s Armenia III. Armenia II remained
unchanged, and the term Armenia III disappeared altogether from the new
administrative roster. A new southern province composed of territories now
acquired from Persia received the name of Armenia IV or Upper Mesopo
tamia, while the former Armenia IV with some districts drawn from
Armenia Interior was now called Justiniana, or the Other Armenia IV. Even
though the exact form of the changes remain unclear, it is evident that such
an administrative restructuring coming less than two generations after
Justinian’s reform left little of the original framework of the region.
The damage done to Armenia during the reign of Maurice was not
merely structural. The antagonism of the emperor finds its expression
in an apocryphal letter from Maurice to the Persian king quoted by
Pseudo-Sebeos:
They [the Armenians] are a disloyal and disobedient nation, they

stand between us and create dissensions. Let us make an agreement.
I will gather up mine and send them to Thrace, let you gather up yours
and order them to the East. If they should perish there, then enemies
will have perished and if they should kill others, it is our enemies that
they will kill, and we shall live in peace, for, as long as they shall
remain in their country we shall have no rest (Sebeos, vi, pp. 30-31).
This policy of depopulation was immediately put into effect. The

Armenian sparapet MuSel Mamikonean, who had helped restore
Xusro II on the throne, became suspect to the Persians because of his
family’s long pro-imperial policy. He was well received at the Byzan
tine court but was sent with a large contingent recruited in Byzantine
Armenia to command the imperial army in Thrace, where he is said to
have died in combat. Muse! was not the only Armenian magnate sent
to the Balkans. The Armenian naxarars sought to be exempted from
this service “so that they might not die in the regions of Thrace but
might live and die in their own country.” As a result, some rebelled
and were executed, and many Armenians fled from imperial territory
back to Persarmenia, according to Pseudo-Sebeos, and were warmly
received. Even after Maurice’s death in 602 his successor continued
this policy proclaimed in his edict:
110 Nina Garsoian
I require the tribute of 30.000 cavalrymen from the land of Armenia.

Therefore, let 30,000 household gather before me and settle in Thrace.
(Sebeos, xx, p. 54)
The fate attributed by Sebeos to Smbat Bagratuni, thrown to the

wild beasts in the hippodrome and heroically overwhelming them
single-handed, smacks more of the ancient Armenian epic traditions of
the gusans than of history, but Smbat’s deportation by Maurice to the
army in Africa from which he subsequently escaped to Persia, where a
brilliant career awaited him, is very much in keeping with the hostile
Byzantine policy of the period.
T he E volution o f the
A rm enian C hurch D uring the M arzpanate
The growing alienation of the Armenians from Byzantium was not

provoked exclusively by the imperial administrative policies. It was
greatly intensified on both sides by dogmatic divergences that increas
ingly opposed the two churches and by the repeated imperial attempts
to force Armenia into communion with the Byzantine Church. The
jurisdictional break between the Armenian and the Greek churches had
already taken place, as we have seen, by the fifth century, as Armenia
severed its early ties with Caesarea of Cappadocia and gradually asserted
its independence from the protectorate of the Greek ecclesiastical world.
The residence of the Armenian kat4olikos in Persian territory
throughout this period also affected the position taken by the Armenian
Church and turned its eyes away from the West. As early as 410, the
Persian church recognized to the Zoroastrian King of Kings all the
prerogatives enjoyed by the Christian emperor on Byzantine territory.
The Sasanian ruler summoned ecclesiastical councils and promulgated
their decrees; his ratification allowed bishops to take possession of their
sees, whose importance followed that of the cities in which they were
located. These practices seem to have been followed in Persarmenia
whose church apparently accepted the secular jurisdiction of the Sasa-
nians. Armenian ecclesiastical sources might criticize the personality of
the Syrian primates sent by the Persian court in the fifth century, as we
have seen, but they did not question its right to appoint them, nor did
they express dismay at the naxarars' repeated requests that the King of
Kings send them a patriarch. According to the account of Lazar P4arpec4i
THE MARZPAN ATE 111
(III. 64, p. 167), the patriarch Giwt, accused before King Peroz, quite
rightly denied that he or anyone could take away his episcopal ordina
tion, but he did not question the king's right to depose him and take away
the secular prerogatives of his office. Yovsep‘(Hovsep), one of the
martyrs after 451, chosen as primate by the Armenians without Persian
ratification, does not seem to have had the full authority of a patriarch
and is usually referred to as a vicar rather than as the kat’olikos by the
Armenian sources. Armenian church councils were customarily dated
according to the regnal year of the Sasanian rulers (although a calendar
based on the Armenian era beginning in 552 was also introduced), and
the Armenian church councils of the early seventh century were con
vened with the permission of the Persian ruler.
The elaboration of the doctrinal position of the Armenian Church
came relatively slowly. As early as the beginning of the fifth century,
the church had already become preoccupied with the writings of the
Byzantine patriarch Nestorius and of his teacher, who distinguished the
divine from the human nature of Christ. This doctrine condemned by
the (Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 was likewise rejected by the
Armenian Church, which fully concurred with the decision taken at
Ephesus that the two natures of Christ should not be distinguished after
His Incarnation. The outright rejection of the christological definition
adopted at the next Council of Chalcedon in 451, and regarded as tainted
with Nestorianism by most of the eastern churches, had a slower
evolution in Armenia. The next official text to reach the country from
Byzantium in the second half of the fifth century was probably the
Henotikon promulgated by the emperor Zeno in 482. It reaffirmed the
authority of the Council of Ephesus with its condemnation of Nestori
anism and was ambiguous about Chalcedon. Under the next emperor,
Anastasius, at the beginning of the sixth century, this document was
given a clearly anti-Chalcedonian interpretation, stressing the unity of
Christ’s nature. The praise of the Armenian sources for the pious
emperors Zeno and Anastasius show the doctrinal direction taken by the
Armenian Church. Nevertheless, neither the First Council of Duin in
506, which condemned the writings of Nestorius and reaffirmed the
orthodoxy of the Henotikon, nor the Second Council of Duin in 555
under the kat'olikos Nerses II, which again condemned the Nestorians,
explicitly mentioned Chalcedon. The open condemnation of Chalcedon
came only in 607, when the Armenian bishops assembled at the urging
of the Persian marzpan, Smbat Bagratuni, formally anathematized it and
the Tome of Pope Leo I on which it was based. Even after this decision,
112 Nina Garsoian
a sizable pro-Chalcedonian party continued to exist in Armenia, as

evidenced by the composition of a treatise such as the Narratio de rebus
Armeniae (“Account of the Affairs of Armenia”), which championed
this doctrine. The immediate result of the Armenian conciliar decision
was to extend the dogmatic breach to the Iberian Church, whose
kat4olikos accepted union with the Byzantine Church in 608, perhaps in
part to free himself from the protectorate that the Armenian Church had
extended over Iberia and Caucasian Albania in the preceding centuries.
Even before taking the formal stand that marked its religious breach
with Byzantium, however, the position of the Armenian Church was
unmistakably clear and its rejection of the Chalcedonian doctrine had
historical repercussions far beyond the purely ecclesiastical sphere. In the
Byzantine Empire, the acceptance of the official imperial orthodoxy with
its Chalcedonian Christology was part of the loyalty demanded of all
subjects, and an oath of orthodoxy was a prerequisite for imperial service.
Armenian naxarars seeking to rise in the imperial hierarchy thus found
themselves cut off not only from their native language and culture but from
religious ties with their compatriots in Persarmenia, and Armenian bishops
on imperial territory no longer recognized the authority of the kafotikos.
The price of imperial asylum and support was acceptance of Chalcedonian
orthodoxy, as Vardan II Mamikonean and the kat'otikos Yovhannes II were
to learn when they took refuge in Constantinople at the time of the Armenian
rebellion of 571 to 574, although later Armenian sources attempted to
disguise or deny this fact.
The situation became far more acrimonious with Maurice’s policy
to enforce religious unity over the greatly enlarged Armenian territories
he ruled after 591. The first attempt to call a Council of Union of all the
Armenians that same year failed, as the kat4olikos Movses II (574-604),
residing at Duin on Persian territory, returned a contemptuous answer
to the emperor in which he rejected the Greek use of leavened bread for
the host and the admixture of water (symbolic of Christ’s separate
earthly nature) to the chalice of communion, both of which were
unacceptable to the Armenians:
I shall not cross the Azat river—that is the Persian border—to eat the
p'urnid [oven-baked bread) of the Greeks, nor will I drink their
t'ermon [hot water). (Garsoian. 1983, p. 223)
In retaliation, Maurice installed an antipatriarch, Yovhannes of Bagaran,

at Awan (in the suburbs of modern Erevan) and for twenty-two years
THE MARZPAN ATE 113
the two kat'olikoi faced each other over the Persian border, adding
religious schism to the political and administrative division of Armenia
and embittering the antagonism of both parties.
No solution was found for the disagreement, although the open
schism ended with the disappearance of Yovhannes of Bagaran, deported
to die in Persia at the time of Xusro IPs reconquest in 611 of the territories
he had ceded to Byzantium. The bishops of the reconquered territories,
who had supported Yovhannes, were brought back into communion with
the kat4ohkos Abraham I (607-615). The growing religious divergence
with Constantinople continued to affect the position of Armenia in the
seventh century. The repeated attempts of the Byzantine emperors to force
Armenia into religious union with themselves both under Heraclius, who
obtained in 632/3 the temporary adhesion of the kat'olikos Ezr (630-641),
and even under his successor in 652/3 (after the beginning of the Arab
invasions of Armenia) only embittered the Armenian clergy and helped
alienate much of the population.
The consequences of the religious schism were not all negative for
Armenia, however, since the growing threat from Byzantium was bal
anced by the improving position of the Armenians living under Persian
domination. As Armenia became “schismatic,” and consequently unac
ceptable in the eyes of Byzantium, its status improved in the eyes of the
Sasanian authorities who no longer feared an Armenian alliance with the
empire. The last King of Kings favored the Armenian naxarars and posed
as the protector of the Armenian Church. The best illustration of this favor
is the brilliant career of Smbat Bagrat uni, who fled from Byzantium after
his disgrace under the emperor Maurice, as we noted earlier. Granted the
exceptional title of Xosrov Snum (Khosrov shnum or “the joy of Xusro),
Smbat was appointed marzpan of Vrkan/Hyrkania south of the Caspian
Sea and viceroy of the East under Xusro II. Not only was Smbat allowed
to call the Council of 607 that elected the kat‘o!ikos Abraham I, thus
putting an end to a three years’ interregnum in the Armenian patriarchate,
and subsequently to act as co-president of the general church council held
in the Persian capital of Ctesiphon in 610 to which Armenian bishops were
also invited, but he was further permitted to rebuild the church of St.
Gregory at Duin. The Persian governor complained to the king, says the
historian Pseudo-Sebeos, that the church
is too close to the fortress and may result in danger from the enemy,
[but] the order came from the king, “let the fortress be destroyed and
the church be built in that place." (Sebeos, xvii, p. 47).
114 Nina Garsoian
Similarly, the increasingly favorable position of the Armenians in

the Persian Empire once their dogmatic position had made them perso
nae non gratae to the Byzantine court is reflected in the praise of the
Armenian source for the Persian kings, both the tale of Xusro I’s
apocryphal deathbed conversion to Christianity and Pseudo-Sebeos'
assertion repeated by Asolik that
the King [Xusrd II] ordered a search of the royal treasury, and they
found written down the true faith of Nicaea which he found in
accordance with the faith of the realm of Armenia [and] sealed with
the seal of King Kavad and his son Xosrov [1]. Thereupon King
Xosrov decreed ‘Let all the Christians within my dominion hold to
the faith of the Armenians.' And [also] those who were [already]
united with the Armenians in the region of Asorestan [Mesopotamia],
both the metropolitan KamyeSoy [Kamyesho Kami§6’] and the other
bishops . . . And King Xosrov ordered a copy of the orthodox faith
sealed with his seal and placed in the royal treasury. (Sebeos xxxiii,
p. 116; Asolik II iii, p. 127)
A rm enia D uring the M arzpanalt
The period of the Marzpanztz in Armenian history has received little

attention from scholars and is usually passed over as a time of troubles.
Indeed, it is not difficult to document the precarious position of the
country, reduced in size by the loss of its border territories and serving
too often as a battlefield in the continuous Byzantine-Sasanian wars that
culminated in the reconquest of most of Armenia by Xusro II (who
crossed the entire country in 610/1 to sack Karin/Theodosiopolis in the
west) and the retaliatory campaigns of the emperor Heraclius from 624
to 629, reaching the Persian capital of Ctesiphon, and briefly reestab
lishing the partition line of 591 in Armenia. The Persian efforts to
impose Zoroastrianism on the land in the sixth century provoked the
rebellions of the two Vardans and decimated the naxarars. Subse
quently, the religious schism of 591 to 611 split the country and alienated
it from Byzantium. Deportations drained Armenia of many of its leaders,
and the preeminence of the great Mamikonean house, generally favor
able to Byzantium, was shaken after the sixth century. Nevertheless, the
fifth, sixth, and early seventh centuries simultaneously nurtured the
development of Armenian civilization. Despite periodic persecutions,
THE MARZPAN ATE 115
Persian favor, especially after the Armenian rejection of Chalcedon,

permitted the creation of Armenian literature and the growing
independence of the kat'olikate, both on Persian territory.
The prosperity of the country noted by the Armenian EliSe and the
Byzantine Procopius manifests itself in the extensive buildings that
covered Armenia in the seventh century, not only in the reconstruction
of the cathedral of Duin and of the church of St. Hrip\sime at VaiarSapat
by the kat'olikos Komitas in 616/7, but in a multitude of churches that
prefigured the massive development of the next generation. The capac
ities of Armenian science find their illustration in the education and
career of the seventh-century polymath Anania §irakac‘i (Shirakatsi),
mathematician, astronomer, cosmographer, and composer of treatises
on arithmetic, the calendar, weights and measures, and lunar eclipses.
Perhaps most significantly, although the anonymous the ASxarhactoyct
(Ashkharhatsuyts), “Armenian Geography,” composed in the early sev
enth century, noted the multiple divisions of the country and reflected
an ideal rather than a realistic situation, it also recorded a concept of
national consciousness and unity. All but destroyed in Byzantium as a
result of the Justinianic legislation, the fundamental Armenian social
and ecclesiastical institutions had simultaneously solidified in Per-
sarmenia during the Marzpanale to the point where they could maintain
themselves without the support of a political structure and could sustain
a national consciousness sufficiently deeply rooted to withstand the
brunt o f the Arab domination.
Adontz, 1970. Manandyan, 1965.

Ananian, 1961. Russell. 1987.
Asdourian, 1911. Sarkissian, 1965.
The Cambridge History of Iran Thierry and Donabedian, 1989.
Der Nersessian, 1969. Toumanoff, 1963, 1966. 1969, 1976.
Garsoian, 1984-85, 1985.
6
THE ARAB INVASIONS

AND THE RISE OF THE
BAGRATUNI (640-884)
Nina Garsoian
he explosive expansion of the Arabs in the middle of the seventh
T century totally revolutionized the face of the Near East and modi
fied radically the history of the Armenian plateau for centuries to come.
Externally, the total conquest of the Sasanian Empire by the Arabs and
the retreat of Byzantium to a defensive position far to the west had a
twofold effect on Armenia. No counterbalancing power was left in the
area to support and protect the Armenians against the new conquerors.
The balance of powers maintained for so long between Rome and Iran
was irremediably broken for some two centuries in favor of total Arab
domination. Once this domination was established, however, Armenia
found itself for the first time in almost a millennium outside the theater
of international warfare which was now pursued either farther west in
Asia Minor or to the south in Mesopotamia. Internally, almost all the
Armenian territories found themselves reunited as the Arabs reached
north of the plateau to Tiflis in Iberia and westward to the Euphrates and
beyond. All the lines of demarcation bisecting the country, whether those
of 387 or of 591, disappeared, and only the southernmost border of the
districts of Aljnik4 (Aghdznik) and Kordek4 (Korchek) were fused with
Arab Mesopotamia. This overall unification, however, covered a gradual
118 Nina Garsoian
inner fragmentation as the overriding authority of the Mamikoneans

(Mamikonians) uniting the military forces of the country as a function
of their office of sparapet, or commander-in-chief, began to be chal
lenged. There is no doubt that the Mamikoneans were still the dominant
family of the sixth and perhaps even the seventh centuries with their
extensive domains in northern Tayk\ southern Taron and Sasun, the
central Bagrewand (Bagrevand) and Aragacotn (Aragatsotn), and with
their powerful supporters, the Kamsarakan lords of Sirak (Shirak) and
ArSarunik4 (Arsharunik), as well as the Gnuni of Manazkert north of
Lake Van. They generally continued to pursue the traditional pro-
Byzantine policy of their house, but their power was not undisputed, as
it had been before, and gradually declined. The Bagratuni had achieved
authority as early as 481, when Sahak Bagratuni had briefly been chosen
marzpan by the Armenian rebels, and the far more brilliant career of his
descendant Smbat Ttosrov Snum in the first decades of the seventh
century had greatly enhanced the prestige of this house whose main base
was in Sper, in the extreme northwest of the plateau, but who also held
other domains in Kogovit with the stronghold of Daroynk4, east of
Bagrewand, and in southern Tmorik4. Other houses were also powerful:
the house of Siwnik4 maintained its autonomy to the southeast of Lake
Sevan, while the RStuni (Rshtuni) controlled their own territories south
of Lake Van as well as those of the Bznuni northwest of the lake, and
the Kamsarakan held the north-central districts of Sirak and ArSarunik4.
When the emperor Heraclius, on the eve of the Arab invasion, created
the new title of iSxan (ishkhan) or “prince” of Armenia, challenging the
authority of both the sparapet commanding the troops of Persarmenia
and the almost-powerless Persian marzpan, and further joined to it the
high imperial dignity of the curopalates, he bypassed the obvious great
magnates to choose a minor naxarar, David Saharuni, who was then
succeeded by the sparapet of Persarmenia, Theodore RStuni, under
whom the two halves of Armenia were reunited in 639. Thus the chaotic
events of the mid-seventh century encouraged the jockeying for power
among ambitious naxarars.
The Arab Conquest of Armenia
As “all the Armenian nobles lost land through their disunity and only
the God-loving and valiant iUxan of the RStuni put in order the troops
of his region and watched day and night,” (Sebeos, xxix, p. 94) the first
r i (S y r i a ) y v. | 7_________
8. ARMENIA UNDER ARAB DOMINATION, 650-C.885 A.D.
120 Nina Garsoian
Arab raid coming from the Mesopotamian border districts of Aljnik4and

KorCek4 broke into Taron over the pass of BaleS (Baghesh)/Bidlis and
swept northward through Xlat4 (Khlat) on the north shore of Lake Van.
The Arab army then went on through the districts of Bznunik4, Aliovit
(Aghiovit), and Kogovit to the undefended capital of Duin, which it took
and sacked on October 6, 640, taking loot and captives. Theodore
RStuni, who had now officially received from the Byzantine emperor
the titles of iSxan and curopalates, attempted a counterattack into
Mesopotamia ca. 642, but a second raid coming this time from
Azerbaijan (Adherbaijan) in the east struck at the region of G oh‘n
(Goghtn) and Nax£awan (Nakhchavan) in the valley of the Araxes. The
Arabs conquered Aitaz in Vaspurakan and met the joint forces of
Byzantium and Theodore RStuni, whose disagreement led to the rout of
the imperial army in Mardastan in 643 or 644.
These early raids and others that may have occurred in 644-645
were merely plundering expeditions; their dating is highly controversial,
since the Arab sources composed at least two centuries later contradict
one another and Armenian sources are equally confused, while Greek
evidence is nonexistent for this period. The great campaign of 650, sent
by the governor of Syria and future Caliph Mu'awiyah, was a far graver
matter, as Armenia was seriously divided internally by the high-handed
Byzantine policy. Denounced to the imperial authorities, Theodore
RStuni was replaced by the former Persian marzpan Varaz Tiroc4
Bagratuni, son of Smbat Xosrov $num, then reinstated once more in his
dignity at the death of Varaz Tiroc4“whether the Armenian princes liked
it or not.” At the same time, a decree of the Byzantine emperor imposing
Chalcedonianism on Armenia provoked a council held at Duin in 648
or 649 under the presidency of Theodore RStuni and the kat‘olikos
Nerses III, which once again rejected the union, and consequently
removed any hope of help from the empire.
The Arab army, coming once more from Azerbaijan, divided into
three branches, one directed at Arran/Caucasian Albania, another at
Vaspurakan where it was defeated by Theodore, and the third, break
ing diagonally through Ayrarat (the heartland of Armenia) all the way
to Tayk4 and K‘art4li or eastern Iberia, ultimately returned to join the
Arab forces besieging Naxdawan on the Araxes. Left without support
by Byzantium or the vanished Sasanians, and perhaps embittered by
the political and religious pressures to which he had been subjected,
Theodore RStuni took the crucial step of breaking with the empire. He
concluded with Mu4awiyah a treaty whose favorable terms have been
THE ARAB INVASIONS AND THE RISE OF THE BAGRATUNI 121
preserved in the History of Pseudo-Sebeos, although Armenian

ecclesiastical historians understandably accuse their acquiescing mag
nates of “having made a covenant with death and an alliance with
Hell”:(Sebeos, xxxv, p. 132)
Let this be the covenant of agreement between me [Mu'awiyah] and

you for as many years as you shall wish. And I shall not take tribute
from you for 7 [37] years, then in accordance with the oath, you will
give as much as you wish. And you will keep 15,000 horsemen in
your country and give [them] bread from the country, and I shall
reckon it in the royal tribute. And I shall not summon the cavalry to
Syria, but wherever else I shall order you, you should be ready for
action. And I shall not send emirs into your fortresses, no Ta£ik
[Tadjik] cavalry, not even a single horseman. No enemy shall enter
into Armenia, and if the Roman [emperor] comes against you, I shall
send troops to your assistance, as many as you shall wish. And I swear
before the great God that I do not lie. (Sebeos, xxxv, p. 133)
Freedom of religion was also assured by a contemporary agree

ment between the Arab general and the city of Duin cited by the Arab
ninth century historian al-Baladhuri:
In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful. This is a treaty

of Habib ibn-Maslamah with the Christians, Magians and Jews of
Dabil [Duin], including those present and absent. I have granted you
safety for your lives, possessions, churches, places of worship, and
city wall. Thus ye are safe and we are bound to fulfil our covenant,
so long as you fulfil yours and pay the poll-tax and khardj. Thereunto
Allah is witness; and it suffices to have him as witness, (al. BalSdhurf,
II, pp. 314-15)
At first, the counterattack of the Byzantine emperor in 652/3

was well received by a number of naxarars and by the kat'olikos
Nerses III, who had taken refuge in the northwestern border district
T ay k \ “The emperor and all his troops cursed the lord of RStunik*
and took away the dignity of his authority.” MuSel Mamikonean was
named in his place “commander of the cavalry,” and the emperor
took up residence at Duin in the palace of the kat'olikos. But
Theodore took refuge in his own strongholds, and neither the moun
122 Nina Garsoian
taineers of Siw nik4 nor Caucasian Albania could be subdued by the

imperial army.
The preaching of Sunday of the Council of Chalcedon in the church

of St. Gregory [at Duin]. And the celebration of the liturgy in Roman
[Greek] fashion by a Roman priest, and the communion of the
emperor and the Kat'olikos, and all the bishops, who willingly and
who unwillingly . . . (SebSos, xxxv, p. 136)
only increased the tension. The emperor returned home without having
accomplished anything, the kat4olikos again took refuge in Tayk4, and
Theodore RStuni, still more embittered, returned, having been honored
by M u'awiyah at Damascus and given “authority over Virk4 [Iberia],
A luank4 (Aghvank) [Albania] and Siw nik4 in exchange for his
allegiance.
The intensified war between Byzantium and the Arabs continued
to devastate Armenia for a time. The stronghold of Karin/The-
odosiopolis, renamed Kallkala by the Arabs, fell in 653, and 2,000
Arabs from Syria and Mesopotamia were brought there and given land.
Profiting from the death of Theodore RStuni in 654, the emperor
briefly named as iSxan Hamazasp Mamikonean, who reaffirmed the
ties of Armenia with Constantinople, while the Arabs were distracted
by the internal quarrels that followed the murder of the caliph 4Uth-
man. The kat4olikos Nerses III returned to finish his church dedicated
to the Vigilant Heavenly Host at Zuart4noc4 (Zvartnots). But with the
accession of the first Umayyad caliph M u4awiyah in 661, Arab dom
ination over Armenia was reaffirmed once and for all. A council of
magnates presided over by the kat4olikos Nerses III accepted the
inevitable and agreed to send hostages to the Arab capital and pay a
yearly tribute o f 500 gold dahekans. In exchange, the caliph
M u4awiyah freed the hostages and installed Hamazasp’s brother
Grigor Mamikonean “with great honor” as iSxan of Armenia, a dignity
he held for more than twenty years until his death:
During his reign. Grigor, Prince of Armenia, governed the land of the
Armenians peacefully and kept it free from all marauding and attack.
He feared God in perfect piety, was charitable, hospitable and cared
for the poor. It was [Grigor] who built a house of worship in the town
of Aruch [Arut], in the district of Aragatsots [Aragacotn], an elegant
church to the glory of the name of the Lord, and adorned it in memory
of his [own] name, (tewond, ch. 4, p. 54)
The claim is confirmed by the dedicatory inscription commemorating

Grigor and his wife Heline/Helen on the great domed basilica of Aru£ west
o f Erevan.
Armenia in the Seventh Century
The description of Grigor’s iboanatc by tew ond the Priest, just cited, is,
to be sure, idyllic and exaggerated. The country was not constantly at
peace, since Grigor himself ceased to pay tribute and revolted against the
Arabs in 680 at the death of the caliph Mu‘awiyah and is also said to have
died battling a northern Turkic Khazar invasion in 685. A few years after
his death, the emperor Justinian II overran Armenia in a last attempt to
reconquer the country and took away hostages, perhaps even the
kafolikos Sahak III (677-703). Even so, the first period of Arab domina
tion immediately after the conquest was not seriously damaging for
Armenia, and there is no perceptible cultural break with the preceding
period of the Marzpartatt. As we have already noted, the unity of the
territory was re-created by the disappearance of internal political divi
sions. Far from being an annexed territory, Armenia through almost the
whole of the seventh century had the status of an autonomous, if tributary,
state whose sphere of influence, far from being reduced, was extended
northward, as we shall see, to the adjacent lands. No Arab troops were
stationed in Armenia, except in the Mesopotamian border districts, and
no foreign governors were sent to Armenia until the end of the century.
The relatively mild terms of Mu‘awiyah’s treaty are readily ex
plainable by the Arab need for the support of the famous Armenian
cavalry, especially at home as a barrier against the Khazars, whom their
Byzantine allies urged to attack the caliphate from the rear by raiding
southward through the Caucasian passes or by forcing the Arab fortified
position at Derbent on the Caspian. Since manpower was of primary
importance, taxes remained relatively light. According to Lewond, the
500 dahekans of M u‘awiyah’s tribute were not increased by his son. In
the words of the later Armenian chronicler Samuel of Ani, the Arabs
took from each house four [silver] dirrhems, three modii [about 30
kg.] of sifted wheat, one hempen rope and a gauntlet. But it was
124 Nina Garsoi'an
ordered to levy no taxes from priests, as from the azat and from
cavalrymen. (Manandyan, 1965, p. 130)
A Syrian chronicle observes that until the early eighth century,
This entire country was noted for its innumerable population, many
vineyards, fields of grain, and all kinds of magnificent trees.
(Manandyan. 1965, p. 130)
The excavations of the city of Duin show not only the reconstruc
tion of the church and the extensive palace, but an active urban life as
well. The sharp increase in the number of coins found there, from less
than two dozen for the fifth and sixth centuries to more than 300 for the
seventh, is an index of the rising trade. The great cathedral churches
built by the Kamsarakan and the Mamikonean next to their palaces at
T 4alin and Aru£ in Aragacotn, as well as those elsewhere at VatarSapat,
Ojun (Odzun), and Sisian, the smaller foundations that proliferated
throughout the country, and the numerous sculptured stelae that date
from the seventh century, all testify to the continuity of the building
activity begun during the Marzpanate and serve as a concomitant index
of economic stability and prosperity, while their dedicatory inscriptions
indicate the survival and concern of the naxarar tuns.
There is, finally, no evidence of religious persecution during this
period and even in the earlier part of the eighth century. Ecclesiastical
sources record no forcible conversions, and the two martyrs, David of
Duin and Vahan of G oh4n, were Muslims converted to Christianity and
consequently punishable as renegades under Islamic law. On the con
trary, the activity of the kat4olikate was not constrained. The kat4olikos
Anastas (662-667) sought a perpetual calendar from the great mathema
tician Anania §irakac4i, although the death of the patriarch precluded its
adoption. The relics of St. Gregory the Illuminator were solemnly
transferred from his burial place in northwestern Daranaiik* to
Valaritapat, a portion granted to Albania (underscoring the close link
between the two churches), and the Armenian patronage reiterated again
by the kat4olikos Elias (703-717). Once again, Lewond praises the
successor of Grigor M am ikonean, the “patrician” ASot (Ashot)
Bagratuni, as an opulent, magnificent and charitable prince,
zealous in his iove of learning; and he adorned the churches of God

with the arts of spiritual [vardapetakan] teaching and with a multi
tude of ministers; and he honored them with distinguished services at

his own expense. And he built a church in his domain of Dariwnk4.
(tewond, ch. 5)
As late as the first quarter of the eighth century, the great kafolikos
and theologian Yovhannes Ojnec4i (Hovhannes Odznetsi) (717-728)
could reform the church and give it a firm doctrinal base by completing
the first collection of Armenian canons; repress the heresies of the native
Paulicians (who were violent iconoclasts) and of the Phantasiasts (who
denied that Christ had had a real body); and call two councils (at Duin
in 719 against the heretics and at Manazkert in 725/6 to reaffirm the
dogmatic position of the Armenian Church and its agreement with the
Syrian Church) without any interference from the Arab authorities. On
the contrary, Asolik affirms that upon Yovhannes’s probably apocry
phal visit to Baghdad, the caliph “was struck with admiration, doubled
his consideration and regard and sent him back to Armenia covered with
honors and gifts.”(Asolik, 1883, II, ii, p. 133)
The Creation of the Province

of Armlniya and the Period of Arab Domination
Both Armenian and Arab sources agree that the situation in Armenia
worsened perceptibly with the last decade of the seventh century. The
ravages of the Khazar invasions continued throughout the eighth cen
tury. More fundamentally, not only did the invasions of Justinian II
wreak havoc in Armenia, which the Greek troops treated as enemy
territory, but they probably contributed to the decision of the caliphate
to conquer the land outright and put an end to its semiautonomous status.
At the same time, the general regularization of the vast Muslim empire,
with its concurrent fiscal demands, and the increasing Muslim piety of
the later Umayyad caliphs, and especially their Abbasid successors,
could not fail to have a deleterious effect on Armenia at a time when
Byzantium, embroiled at home in the Iconoclastic controversy of the
eighth century, could provide neither support nor a counterbalancing
force to the preponderance of the caliphate in the Near East.
In 693 the Umayyad caliph appointed his brother Muhammad ibn
Marwan governor of Armenia, Adherbaijan/Azerbaijan and Djazira or
Upper Mesopotamia, reaching all the way to Melitene in the west. His
authority was recognized in the same year by the new titxan of Armenia,
126 Nina Garsoian
Smbat Bagratuni (693-726), but Byzantine troops remained in the south,

and a new imperial campaign even attempted to retake the country in
698. The reconquering expedition of Muhammad ibn Marwan took
place in 701, according to both Armenian and Arabic sources. Moving
northward from Mesopotamia, he entered the Armenia border district of
Mokk4, where he succeeded in obtaining by deceit the fortresses, which
he dismantled, putting the men to the sword and sending the women and
children into captivity. From there he moved northward into the central
districts of Greater Armenia. The struggle for Duin was arduous and
protracted, and the Armenian capital had to be taken twice, but Muham
mad ibn Marwan ultimately subdued the entire country as well as Iberia
and Caucasian Albania. The formal annexation of Armenia must date
from this period, although the confusion of Arab sources, which usually
date it from the earlier expedition o f 650, has obscured this fact. An Arab
province called Arminiya, including not only most of the Armenian
plateau except for the southern border annexed to the Djazira, but also
Eastern Iberia and Caucasian Albania, was created, with Duin as its
capital and as the residence of the Muslim governor, or ostikan. Arab
garrisons were quartered at Duin as well as in a number of other cities,
including Tiflis in the far north. Karin/Kallkala and Melitene/Malatia
became the anchor points of the Arab military system in the west.
Muhammad ibn Marwan was installed as the first ostikan of Arminiya,
although some authority was conceded to the native magnates, since the
title of Ubcan of Armenia was maintained almost continually and the
traditional office of sparapet reappeared in the eighth century, even
though it was no longer hereditary in the Mamikonean house as it had
been formerly.
The new ostikan inaugurated his rule by the removal of both the
/ixan of Armenia Smbat Bagratuni and the kat'olikos Sahak III, who
were sent to Damascus. Islamic law was rigorously applied, the Persian
martyr David of Duin was executed, and monasteries were brutally
ravaged. The Armenian sources complain bitterly of the ostikan,
a wicked, insolent and an impudent man, extremely malicious by

nature; he implanted within himself the seeds of hypocrisy like the
venom of a serpent and tortured the princes and the azats of Armenia
with bonds and plundered the property and the possessions of many
people. Then he also put the great Sahak [ID] in fetters and sent him
to Damascus. Along with him he also sent the prince of Armenia,
Smbat son of Smbat. He plundered the entire ornaments of the
churches of Christ and made the old and the young wail, mourn and
grieve. (Yovhannes Drasxanakertc'i, xx, p. 107)
Angered and alarmed by this policy, the iix an Smbat, who returned
from the Umayyad capital of Damascus in 703, took counsel with the
naxarars, among them his own brother ASot and Vard, the son of
Theodore RStuni, and decided to turn for help to Byzantium. At first the
Armenians were victorious at Vardanakert on the lower Araxes, and the
rebellion spread from Vanand in the west to Vaspurakan in the southeast,
but Smbat then retired to the north of Tayk‘ and Muhammad ibn Marwan
was sent again to subdue Armenia. The posthumous embassy of the
kafolikos Sahak III, who had died on the way but whose body, bearing
a letter imploring Muhammad to spare the Armenians, was brought to
Harran by his bishops, saved the church and even extended its authority.
The new kat'oiikos Elia (Eghia)/Elias (703-717) was authorized to hold
a council in Partaw (Partav)/Bardha‘a at which he deposed the Albanian
kat'olikos accused of Chalcedonianism, had him exiled together with
his supporter, the widow of the prince of Albania, and consecrated a new
kafolikos for Albania, whose dependence on the Armenian Church in
this period is evident from these proceedings. The secular Armenian
nobles, however, did not fare so well. Defeated by Muhammad ibn
Marwan in 705, the iSxan Smbat Bagratuni, who had received from
Byzantium the title of curopalates, fled for refuge to the imperial
territory on the eastern shore of the Black Sea and Muhammad ibn
Marw5n retook Duin, which had been captured by the rebels. At the
order of the Muslim authorities, the governor of Nax£awan summoned
the Armenian naxarars on the pretext of a census, which would include
them in the cavalry register. According to Lewond, those of noble birth
were separated from the others who were locked in the churches of
NaxCawan and Golt'n, farther down the Araxes, and set on fire. The
nobles, stripped of their wealth under torture, were then executed in their
turn. Only a few magnates are mentioned by name among the victims,
but the sources assert that almost the entire Armenian nobility perished
or was deported, and “our realm made heirless of its naxarars."
The massacre of Nax£awan did not destroy the Armenia clans,
since only the adult naxarars had been exterminated, but it crippled
them for a generation. However, the Arabs still needed Armenian
collaboration against the Khazar threat, and the ferocious policy of
NaxCawan was not continued. The new Arab ostikan, whom Lewond
praises as a “prudent man full of worldly wisdom,” pacified Armenia,
128 Nina Garsoian
urged the exiles to return, and Smbat Bagratuni resumed his office of
i$xan probably in 709 rather than 711. The city of Duin was rebuilt by
the ostikan
stronger and greater in size than it was before; he fortified it with gates
and buttresses, surrounded the city wall with a moat and filled it with
water for the protection of the fortress. (Lewond, ch. 10, p. 67)
This relatively benevolent policy was maintained for a time, the

activity of the kafoiikos Yovhannes Ojnec4i received no check from the
Muslim authorities, and, as noted earlier, the execution of Prince Vahan
of Golt4n ca. 737 cannot be interpreted strictly as an act of persecution,
since he had been taken prisoner as a child after the massacre of
Nax£awan, raised as a Muslim, and abjured that faith upon his return to
Armenia. On the secular side, the iSxan Smbat is recorded for the last
time as being present at the Council of Manazkert, but nothing is known
of the later part of his rule. At first his successor as ifxan , ASot Bagratuni,
the grandson of his earlier namesake praised by Lewond, does not seem
to have been recognized officially by the Muslim authorities for some
five years, although he held the office de facto. But in 732 the new
ostikan came to Duin and conferred on him "the authority of patrician
over the realm of Armenia by order of [the caliph] Hi§am and honored
him greatly.” Thereafter ASot collaborated effectively in the Muslim
campaign against the Khazars and shared in the booty. The ostikan also
authorized the payment to the Armenian cavalry of a yearly stipend of
100,000 dirhems retroactive for the three years that it had been withheld.
Hence, not only had the institution of the Armenian cavalry rapidly
recovered from the bloodbath of NaxCawan, but the Muslim authorities
still took the responsibility of its maintenance.
Three factors contributed to the reversal of this enlightened policy
and provoked a new Armenian explosion in the middle of the eighth
century. Even before the disappearance of the Arab dynasty of the
Umayyads and the accession of the more strictly Muslim dynasty of the
Abbasids in 750, the tax policy of the caliphate had undergone radical
change. As a result of a general census of the Armenian lands taken in
724-725, all tax privileges were revoked and taxes were now levied not
by household, as before, but by head, by size of property, and on cattle
as well, thus greatly increasing the fiscal burden of the country. The
disappearance of international trade resulting from the endemic Byzan-
tine-Arab warfare added to the country’s economic woes. Equally
THE ARAB INVASIONS AND THE RISE OF THE BAGRATUNT 129
damaging for the stability of the country was the increasing rivalry of
its two greatest houses. Long accustomed to a preponderant position in
Armenia, the Mamikonean viewed as a direct threat to their prestige the
rising power of the Bagratuni, who were favored by the Umayyad
governors. The grant of the tfxanate to ASot Bagratuni in 732, making
this office all but hereditary in the Bagratuni house, outraged the
Mamikonean brothers Grigor and David, but the immediate result of
their protest was their own exile to Yemen at the order of the ostikan.
At the death of the caliph Hi§am in 743, however, the brothers returned
to Armenia, began to oppress the magnates of Vaspurakan and raised a
general rebellion in which they attacked the tfxan ASot, (Lewond, ch.
25, pp. 117-18) who barely escaped with his life. Reversing the previous
situation, ASot now fled to complain to the caliph at Damascus, while
Grigor Mamikonean took over his office of iSxan with the approval of
the local ostikan. Unfortunately for the Mamikonean, the tide turned
against them once again. The last Umayyad caliph, who had greatly
benefited from the support of ASot Bagratuni and his troops in his claim
for the throne, refused to ratify the decision of his ostikan. ASot conse
quently returned to Armenia with great honor at the order of the caliph,
David Mamikonean was executed, and Grigor could only bide his time
awaiting an opportunity to avenge his brother.
The overthrow of the Umayyad dynasty and the usurpation of the
Abbasids a few years later provided an opportunity both for the ven
geance of the Mamikonean and for the growing dissatisfaction in
Armenia in general. The Armenian magnates met together in 748 and
persuaded the iSxan ASot, now bereft of his patron, to join with them,
albeit unwillingly. The rebels made contact with the Byzantine emperor
Constantine V, whose successful campaigns against the Muslims had
brought him to Asia Minor and who was operating in Pontus at the time.
The Armenians also received the support of an anonymous group called
by Lewond “sons of sinfulness who know neither the fear of God nor
awe of princes nor respect of the elders,” who were probably the
Paulician heretics condemned earlier by Yovhannes Ojnec4i (Garsoian,
1967, pp. 136-37), and whose numbers and power were increasing on
the Upper Euphrates at that time. Another revolt in Sasun to the south
helped distract the Arabs, and the rebels succeeded in capturing the
major Muslim stronghold of Karin. These initial successes failed, how
ever, to abate the tension between the Mamikonean and the Bagratuni
and to preserve a united front against the Arabs. ASot Bagratuni sought
to withdraw from the rebels and was seized and blinded at the order of
130 Nina Garsoian
Grigor Mamikonean. The fragmentation of the rebellion spelled its

doom. No help came from Byzantium. Grigor Mamikonean sickened
and died at Karin in 749, and his brother MuSet failed to obtain official
recognition. A5ot “the Blind” nominally continued to rule the country
despite his handicap, but by 730 the new Abbasid caliph had success
fully reestablished the mastery of the Muslims over Armenia.
The collapse of the second rebellion within the century seriously
sapped the strength of the Armenian nobility. The greatest sufferers were
undoubtedly the Mamikonean, who lost all of their domains except for
Bagrewand and Tayk4. The Bagratuni, suspect to the new dynasty
because of their support of the Umayyads, went into temporary eclipse,
were forced to abandon Kogovit, and withdrew from Vaspurakan, where
the Arcruni seemingly began to entrench themselves, although the
history of this family remains obscure until the middle of the next
century. Karin was retaken, refortified, and garrisoned with Arab troops
from the Djazira. The emperor Constantine V, who had given no help
to the Armenians against the Arabs, now compounded the damage by
transferring the Armenian population from the districts of Karin and
Melitene to the Balkans in 733. The new Abbasid caliph sent his brother
on a tour of all his dominions. According to Lewond,
[he] first went to the land of Armenia and caused grave torment and
endangered all. leaving them in extreme poverty, to the extent of
claiming taxes on behalf of the dead . . . he cruelly tortured the
inhabitants of our country by imposing a heavy poll tax, equivalent
to many silver zuzes, and branding everyone's neck with lead seal.
[In response], the houses of the nobles, some willingly and
others not, gave horses, precious clothing, and other provisions of
gold and silver as gifts, just to fill the mouth of the dragon which had
come to attack and corrupt the country. (Lewond. ch. 28, p. 123)
The Bagratuni regained their position in 733 as one of them, Sahak,

was named tfxan while his kinsman Smbat, the son of ASot the Blind,
appears at the same time in the revived office of sparapet. Nevertheless, the
exactions increased still further under the new osrikan, who ruled Armenia
on three occasions (752-754, 759-770, 775-780), even though his mother
was said to have been an Armenian princess, the daughter of the “patrician”
of Siwnik4. The support of the Armenian cavalry was now stopped. “A set
number of horsemen was demanded from the princes and they were
compelled to maintain this military contingent at [the expense] of their own
house.” tew ond (ch. 33, pp. 127-129) even insists that the supply of silver
gave out, so that taxes had to be paid in kind, and that they fell alike on
naxarar and ramik as well as on the cleigy. The population hid or fled from
this extortionate policy, and some of the magnates abandoned their homes
and emigrated, as did Sapuh Amatuni who, according to Asotik, moved to
the empire with 12,000 of his retainers.
The revolt brought on by these oppressive measures began in
Vaspurakan, which was simultaneously threatened by the infiltration of
Muslims from Azerbaijan. These were met by three brothers from the
Arcruni house now ruling Vaspurakan after the district had been aban
doned by the Bagratuni. By 762 all three brothers were dead and the
iSxan Sahak Bagratuni may also have been put to death. Still, the
rebellion continued to smolder, and the leadership now passed for the
last time to the Mamikonean.
According to Lewond, the first signal of the great rebellion of
774-775 was given by Artawazd Mamikonean, who killed a Muslim tax
collector in the northwestern district of Sirak and was consequently driven
to flight into Byzantine territory by the ostikan, who compelled the
Armenian sparapet Smbat to accompany him. Artawazd’s example was
then followed by his kinsman MuSel Mamikonean, who massacred the
tax collectors in his district and withdrew into the fortress of Artagers in
ArSarunik*. He then went on to raid in Bagrewand, laid siege to the fortress
of Kars, defeated an Arab contingent sent from Duin near Bagawan, and
pursued them as far as the Mamikonean center in Aru£. Encouraged by
these early successes and inspired by a messianic prophecy, interestingly
branded as false by Lewond, perhaps wise after the event:
Behold, the hour of your salvation has come, and now shortly the
scepter of the kingdom shall soon be restored once again to the house
of T ‘orgom. (Lewond. ch. 34, p. 131)
The Armenian naxarars flocked to his support. They bound themselves

to each other by an oath, despite the prudent advice of Asot Bagratuni
(the son of the former iSxan Sahak), who is said to have attempted to
dissuade them from this perilous enterprise at a time when the Abbasid
caliphate was at the height of its power. The rebels even succeeded in
persuading the sparapet Smbat to join them, albeit against his will, but
the Bagratuni house was divided, as ASot continued to oppose the
rebellion, while the Arcruni and their supporters stayed in Vaspurakan,
thus splitting the Armenian forces in two.
132 Nina Garsoi'an
MuSel Mamikonean and Smbat sparapet moved to besiege Karin

while the Arcrunis retired to their fortresses at the opposite end of
Armenia when a new Muslim army of 30,000 invaded Armenia in the
spring of 775 from the Mesopotamian border region of the Diyar-Bakr.
The Arabs first turned eastward to Xlat‘ on Lake Van, and on April 15,
775, destroyed the infantry of the Arcruni coalition at ArCeS (Archesh)
on the north shore of the lake. The Muslims then moved northwestward
through Apahunik4, and on April 25, on the banks of the Euphra
tes/Arsanias (Murad Su) in the district of Bagrewand, they routed the
second Armenian army which was hastening back from the siege of
Karin. The disastrous battle of Bagrewand left most of the Armenians,
nobles and ram ik alike, as well as both their leaders, MuSei Mamikonean
and the sp a ra p et Smbat Bagratuni, dead in the field.
The Appearance o f the Muslim Emirates
There is little doubt that the aftermath of the battle of Bagrewand marked
one of the darkest hours in Armenian history. Bled three times in as
many generations, some of the n a x a ra r houses failed to recover. The
Bagratuni, perhaps the least hurt, paid for their loyalty to the vanished
Umayyad dynasty by the loss of their domains of Tmorik4, Kogovit, and
whatever was left of their possessions in Vaspurakan and the south, with
the exception of the small district of Mokk4. The sp a ra p e t' s son, ASot,
later known as M saker (the meat or man-eater), was driven to take refuge
in the fastness of his mountain domain in northwestern Sper, farthest
removed from the Arab threat. His prudent cousin and namesake A§ot,
son of the former i$xan Sahak, may have been appointed iSxan by the
Muslims in 775 because of his refusal to join the rebellion, though even
here, the quasi-monopoly of the Bagratuni on this office was temporarily
broken in 781 by the appointment of a relatively minor n a xa ra r , Ta£at
Anjewac‘i (Tadjat Andzevatsi), driven back to the east from Byzantium
by the antagonism of the empress Irene. The sparapet Bagrat Bagratuni
was to die of exhaustion with the other magnates serving with the
Armenian cavalry against the Khazars in the Caspian region of Arran
through the unbearable heat of the summer of 784.
Other houses were still less fortunate. The Gnuni lords of Afiovit,
driven from their domain after the death of their tanuter Vahan on the
field of Bagrewand, implored the help of ASot Bagratuni and were
moved by him to northwestern Tayk‘, whence they may have passed
altogether into Byzantine territory. The Amatuni lost most of their

possessions, except Artaz in Vaspurakan, where they became a minor
house. The last of the Kamsarakan, Nerseh, died in Arran together with
the sparapet Bagrat Bagratuni and the ibcan of Armenia, TaCat An-
jewac‘i. The house of Gott‘n had vanished even earlier with the martyr
dom of its tanuter Vahan in 737. Nor do we hear any more of the RStuni
and Saharuni. Perhaps worst hit of the great magnates were the
Mamikonean leaders of the rebellion of 774-775, who had lost their
tanuter Samuel as well as their leader MuSet himself at Bagrewand. Both
of MuSeTs sons, who had taken refuge in Vaspurakan, were put to death
by Meruian Arcruni, who blamed their father’s revolt for the woes it
had brought on Armenia. Of MuSel’s four daughters, one, whose name
has not even been preserved, sought safety in marriage with a newly
come Arab freebooter named Djahhaf. Of the vast Mamikonean do
mains, nothing was left but minor branches surviving in a portion of
Taron and for a time in Bagrewand. Even the Arcruni did not long enjoy
the safety of their growing domains in Vaspurakan. The new ostikan
appointed by the caliph Harun al-Rashid at his accession in 786 was at
first welcomed by them at Duin, but he soon threw all three Arcruni
brothers into chains. M eruian saved himself through conversion to
Islam, but his brothers, Hamazasp and Sahak, who refused to apostatize,
suffered martyrs’ deaths. The brilliant building activity of the earlier
part of the century significantly came to an abrupt stop, not to be resumed
for a full century.
The marriage of an heiress of the great Mamikonean house with
an unknown Arab adventurer is an indication of the profound political
and even demographic change in the life of Greater Armenia, which
paralleled the migration or disappearance of many of its native naxarar
houses. Up to the time of Harun al-Rashid at the end of the eighth
century, no appreciable Arab population had settled on the Armenian
plateau, although the infiltration of the north Arabian tribe of Bakr into
the border district of Aljnik‘, with its main city of Amida, then part of
the Djazira, was so massive that the names of both the region and the
city were transformed respectively into Diyar (house, land) of Bakr and
Diyarbakir. Listing the governors sent by Harun al-Rashid, the ninth-
century Arab historian Ya‘kubi, who was familiar with Armenia since
his grandfather had been ostikan in 775 at the time of the great rebellion
and he had served there himself in his youth, now commented on the
influx of Arabs into the country:
134 Nina Garsoian
Rashid appointed Yusuf ibn Rashid al-Sulami in place of Khuzayma

ibn Khazim. He transplanted a mass of Niz5ri to this land, and [until
then] the Yemenites had formed a majority in Armlniya, but in the
days of YOsuf, the NizSri increased in number. Then he [HarOn]
named Yazld ibn Mazyad ibn Za‘ida al-ShaybanI and he brought from
every side so many of the Rab‘la that they now form a majority, and
he controlled the land so strictly that no one dared move in it.
After him came ‘Abd-al-Kablr ibn ‘Abd-al-Hamid . . . whose
home was Harran. He came with a multitude of men from DiySr Mudar,
stayed only four months and left. (Ter Ghewondyan, 1976, p. 31)
As the studies of the Armenian scholar Aram Ter Ghewondyan

have now demonstrated, the ostikans of the ShaybanI house, who
governed the Diyar-Bakr and Armlniya in almost hereditary succes
sion in this period, infiltrated the plateau on the southwestern shore of
Lake Van, although their main migration was in the Caspian district
of Sharwan north of the Kura River. The ostikan sent to govern the
province of Armlniya by the Abbasids between 752 and 780 was the
first to shift his residence in 789 to Partaw/Bardha'a on the lower Kura,
leaving a deputy in the capital of Duin in Armenia proper, and the
Shaybana created a hereditary principality for them selves in
Azerbaijan. The foundation of the city of Ganjak (modem Ganja in the
Azerbaijani republic) in 844 helped to accelerate the Islamization of
the eastern districts bordering on Armenian proper. The main activity
of the other great tribe, the Sulaym, who alternated with the ShaybanI
in the hereditary governorship of Armlniya, was more damaging to
Armenia itself.
We do not know the exact path or date of the Arab settlements
in Armenia, but they unquestionably benefited from the vacuum
created by the weakening or disappearance of the naxarar houses after
Bagrewand. The Kaysite/Kaysikk4 subgroup of the Sulaym began to
move into Aliovit, abandoned by the Gnuni, and spread around the
northern shore of Lake Van at X la t\ Ar£es, and especially to the
stronghold of Manazkert. Their kinsmen, the ‘Uthm anids/Ufm anikk4,
installed themselves at Berkri, east of the lake. The Mamikonean
son-in-law Djahhaf seems to have been a member of the same family,
although it is possible that he was a Kurd rather than an Arab. We
know very little of D jahhaf s background, nor does he seem to have
settled in a specific place, but the later Armenian historian Vardan
Arewelc'i (Areveltsi) explicitly states that he “was planning to gain
control of the whole land through his wife.” (ch. 41, p. 182) In pursuing
this policy, Djahhaf fought both ASot Bagratuni for the control of
Aliovit and the representatives of the caliphate. He briefly seized Duin,
but according to Vardan “the citizens fell on [his son] Abdl Melik4,
killed him, and closed the city gate” (Ibid). The D[ahhafids were
routed, although they did not disappear at once, as Vardan claimed,
since DjahhaFs grandson was married to a Bagratuni princess and
raised a rebellion in the twenties of the ninth century, while another
member of the family created troubled in Siwnik4 until his defeat by
the local prince, and at least one more member of the family is
recorded. The Djahhafids were probably little more than brigands
looting wherever the opportunity presented itself and then disappear
ing in the face of resistance. Nevertheless, Djahhaf’s son was suffi
ciently settled to have struck coins in his name, probably at Manazkert,
since they carry the mint mark “Bahunays” from the district of
Bahunis/Apahunik4 to which the city belonged. The establishment of
the Kay sites around Lake Van was far more extensive and permanent.
These Arab settlements were designed primarily for defensive
purposes to bolster the Arab frontier defensive system, the thughurs in
their war against Byzantium. Despite Ya4kubl’s claim, the Arabs never
formed anything like a majority of the population on the Armenian
plateau in this period. The new emirates soon fought against each other
and against the representatives of the caliphate. Their rulers intermarried
with the neighboring Armenian magnates, and some converted to Chris
tianity, as did the emirs of Arzn in Aljnik4 and BaleS/Bidlis on the
borders of Taron, who married Bagratuni and Arcruni princesses in
successive generations of the mid-ninth century and supported their
Armenian kinsmen against the Muslims. Nevertheless, the emirates
were no longer mere garrisons or governors who came and went in rapid
succession. Their establishment in the heartland of Armenia, as well as
on its borders, and as far north as Tiflis in Iberia, often provided an
advance march for Muslim invasions, especially from Azerbaijan,
which regularly used Golt‘n and NaxCawan in the valley of the Araxes
as stages in their advance on Duin. Even more fundamentally, they
controlled the main urban centers of Armenia: the capital of Duin as well
as Nax£awan on the main transit road of the valley of the Araxes; the
military stronghold of Karin in the west; Xlat4, ArCes, and Berkri on the
shore of Lake Van; Manazkert, where an Armenian mint was located,
as well as in the capital. Thus their presence transformed and compli
cated the decentralized internal pattern of the country by the addition of
136 Nina Garsoian
a new and alien element that increased the difficulty of achieving a

unified and stable political system.
The Rise of the Bagratuni
Tragic though they were, the troubled last years of the eighth century
also proved to be a turning point in the history of medieval Armenia.
On the international scene, Byzantium still generally remained militarily
on the defense first half of the ninth century, although tentative religious
overtures were unsuccessfully made to ASot Msaker around 811-813.
The establishment of a Paulician republic on the Upper Euphrates
protected the northwestern region of Armenia from direct attack from
the west. The creation of the Arab military frontier zones or thughurs
based on Melitene and Karin removed the theater of war from the center
of Armenia, as did the residence of the ostikan of Armlniya at
Partaw/Berdha4a in Azerbaijan rather than at Duin in Armenia proper.
The brilliance of the Abbasid caliphate dimmed rapidly after the great
caliphs of the early ninth century, and the Arab emirs of Armenia
pursued with each generation a local policy of native dynasts, which
increasingly placed them at odds with the attempts at control of the
ostikan sent from the Abbasid capital of Baghdad.
Internally, the guerrilla activity carried on by ASot Msaker from
Sper began to bear fruit. He took most of Tayk4 and Taron from the
Mamikonean, and his struggle with the D/ahhafids gave him control
of ArSarunik4. More important, his war against the Arab emir al
lowed ASot to resume the traditional Bagratid stance of loyalty
toward the caliphate against local rebels, and so to pursue his expan
sionist policies undisturbed by the Muslim authorities. The discovery
of silver mines in Sper not only helped to relieve the tax burden of
the country in general, but helped ASot Msaker acquire the domains
of the now-ruined Kamsarakan: ArSarunik4 and Sirak, with the
fortress of Ani. De facto, if not de jure, ASot was iSxan of Armenia
before the end of the eighth century, a title that was conceded to him
officially by the caliphate in 804, according to the Armenian chron
icler Samuel of Ani, while his brother Sapuh assumed the dignity of
sparapet. Farther north, the establishment of another branch of the
family headed by Vasak, the uncle of A§ot Msaker, in the decade
following the battle marked the beginning of the future royal house
of the Bagratuni of Iberia.
The development of the two other great houses of medieval

Armenia, the Arcruni of Vaspurakan and the princes of Siwnik4, cannot
be traced with equal clarity. There is no doubt that the Arcruni were
consolidating themselves in Vaspurakan through the first half of the
ninth century, as is evident from later reports and from their domination
of the other great houses of the area, who either disappeared altogether
or reemerged as Arcruni vassals in the course of this period. The growing
concern of the caliphate, and perhaps its policy of support to the
Bagratids so as to create a counterbalancing power in Armenia, all
likewise suggest the growing power of the Arcruni and their gradual
control of the entire area of Vaspurakan, but the confusion of their family
historian T 4ovma Arcruni does not permit any more precise account until
the second half of the ninth century. The history of Siwnik4 is likewise
difficult to trace through this period. The region had always shown signs
of autonomy and separatism in earlier times and had even succeeded in
having its autonomy recognized by the Sasanians in the sixth century.
Almost nothing is known concerning its history for more than a century,
but at the beginning of the great rebellion of Babak against the caliphate
in Azerbaijan (817-836), Vasak prince of Siwnik4sought to benefit from
this challenge to the authority of the Abbasids and gave his daughter in
marriage to the rebel. The alliance with Babak was not always advanta
geous for Siwnik4, as we shall see, and after Vasak’s death in 821 his
lands were divided between his two sons: Sahak, prince of western
Siwnik4 or Gelakunik4 (Geghakunik), with the famous religious and
intellectual center of Makenoc4(Makenots) Vank4, and P4ilippos, prince
of eastern Siwnik4or Vayoc4Jor (Vayots Dzor) (modem Eghegnadzor),
southeast of Lake Sevan, where the local dynasts were to erect the still
more distinguished monastic center of Tat4ew (Tatev). The internal
quarrels of the princes delayed the development of Siwnik4, but here
too, the seeds of a major non-Bagratid principality had been sown early
in the ninth century.
The revival of Armenia did not, however, proceed smoothly or
unchecked. In the west, the caliphate, alarmed by the accumulation of
power in the hands of Asot Msaker, made the most of his death in 826
to divide the Bagratuni dignities and lands between two of his sons. The
eldest, Bagarat, held the southern territories of Taron and Sasun with
the new prestigious title of iSxanac' ibtan 44Prince of Princes” (ca.
826-851). His youngest brother Smbat, usually known as Xostovanol
(Khostovanogh), “the Confessor,” who had been a hostage at the
Abbasid court, received his uncle Sapuh’s office of sparapet and kept
138 Nina Garsoian
the northern Bagratuni domains of Sper and Tayk4. The quarrels of the
two brothers intensified this division. To the east, the great revolt of
Babak in Azerbaijan during the first part of the ninth century distracted
most of the attention and forces of the caliph for two decades and
allowed considerable freedom of action to the Armenian naxarars. In
the acid words of the Arab historian al-Baladhuri:
[Harun al-Rashid’s ostikan] ... introduced the system by which Dabil

[Duin] and an-Nashawa [NaxCawan] paid land tax according to the
area, not the produce. The Armenian patricians did not cease to hold
their lands as usual, each trying to protect his own region; and
whenever an *dmil [tax collector] would come to the frontier they
would coax him; and if they found in him purity and severity, as well
as force and equipment, they would give the kharaj and render
submission, otherwise they would deem him weak and look down
upon him. (al-Baladhuri, II, p. 330)
But this freedom increased neither their unity nor the peace of
Armenia. In Siwnik4, Babak’s marriage to the daughter of Vasak had
allowed him to establish himself in the districts of Arcax (Artsakh)
and Balasakan in 824, which he controlled for twelve years, until the
end of his career. But the rebellion of the local dynasts against the
overlordship of Babak led only to his devastation of Getakunik4 and
Balasakan. In the central provinces, the continuing success of Babak
against the caliphate encouraged a challenge to the authority of the
contemporary Shaybani ostikan. Joining together in one of the local
alliances between the Christian naxarars and Muslim emirs that was
to characterize the history of medieval Armenia, Sahak, prince of
western Siwnik4, the Djahhafid emir and the usually cautious sparapet
Smbat, abandoning on this occasion the loyalist tradition of the
Bagratuni house toward the caliphate, disregarded the conciliatory
intervention of the kat‘otikos Dawit4II and defied the ostikan in 831/2,
according to the Armenian historian Yovhannes “the Kat‘olikos."
(Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i, xxv, p. 117). Unfortunately for the reb
els, the Prince of Princes Bagarat held aloof with the forces of the
south, and the ostikan, taking the initiative of the attack, routed them
in a bloody battle on the Hrazdan River north of Duin. Sahak of
Siwnik4 was killed, and his domain passed to his son Grigor Sup4an I.
The Djahhafid emir fled to Siwnik4to bring more trouble on the region,
and Smbat sparapet took refuge in his northern domains. The
disturbances related to the insurrection of Babak continued until 836,

when the major campaign mounted by Afshin, appointed by the caliph,
finally succeeded in detaching the princes of Albania, Siwnik4, and
Arcax from Babak by promises of autonomy and tax remission, and
thus obtained the betrayal and capture of the rebel in 837.
Religious quarrels added to the internal dissensions and opposed
Bagarat Bagratuni to his brother Smbat sparapet, thus dividing Armenia
between northern and southern parties. The election of the new
kat'ohkos Yovhannes of Ovayk4, in 833 provoked denunciations against
him to the Prince of Princes Bagarat Bagratuni, who after some years
had him deposed and relegated to the monastery of Ayrivank4. He
simultaneously informed the Armenian bishops of the necessity to elect
a new primate. Fortunately for Yovhannes of Ovayk4, he found a
champion in the sparapet Smbat and the northern magnates, who called
together a synod that restored the kat4olikos to his throne, which he
occupied until 855 in spite of the opposition to Bagarat Bagratuni and
his southern supporters, among whom we find his nephew ASot Arcruni.
The patriarchate of Yovhannes of Ovayk4 was also marked by a resur
gence of heresy in the district of T4ondrak, south of Manazkert, which
gave the heretics their name. The historian Asolik mistakenly attributed
the appearance of the first T 4ondrakec4i (Tondraketsi)leader to the time
of the later kat4olikos Yovhannes the Historian, but his near contempo
rary, the learned prince Grigor Magistros, correctly observed that
This accursed one appeared in the days of the Lord John and of Smbat
Bagratuni. (Garsoian, 1967, p. 140)
which must be a reference to the alliance of the kat4olikos Yovhannes

of Ovayk4 and Smbat sparapet. This doctrine of the heretics has been
hotly disputed, although it bore manifest resemblances to that of the
earlier Paulicians condemned by the kat4olikos Yovhannes Ojnec4i.
Consequently, the appearance of the T 4ondrakec4i in this period in
Armenia may well have been caused by the eastward flight of Byzan
tine Paulicians, whose rigid iconoclasm subjected them to persecution
within the empire after the victory of the opposed iconodule doctrine
at the Council of Orthodoxy held in 843. It has also been suggested
that the T ‘ondrakec‘i had been influenced by the social theories of the
followers of Babak, although this thesis of social unrest among the
lower classes of society cannot be demonstrated, since the heretical
doctrine eventually reached into the ruling class of the magnates as
140 Nina Garsoian
well as the hierarchy of the church, whose peace the heretics were to
disturb for centuries to come.
A last attempt to reestablish full control over Armenia was made
by the Abbasids after their final crushing of Babak’s revolt, and the
attention given by all Arab historians to the Armenian rebellion of 850
to 855 reflects the alarm of the caliphate. The new caliph, al-Mutawakkil
(847-861), sent a new ostikan to collect the Armenian tribute in 850.
The Prince of Princes Bagarat sent an embassy bearing gifts and the
tribute to meet him at the border, but would not allow him or the tax
collectors to cross into Armenia or move freely within the country. The
ostikan withdrew, though he left two deputies to put down the southern
alliance of Bagarat and ASot Arcruni of Vaspurakan, who had risen with
their supporters and scattered the Muslim forces. The ostikan's son and
successor was only partially successful. He attacked ASot Arcruni from
the direction of Azerbaijan but failed to capture him. However, he
succeeded in seizing Bagarat Bagratuni through treachery and sent him
off in 851 to the new Abbasid capital of Samarra before falling himself
in the struggle to overcome the Armenian mountaineers in the southern
districts of Xoyt1 (Khoyt) and Sasun.
Deciding to crush the rebellion once and for all, the caliph al-
Mutawakkil then sent a formidable army, to whose leaders he had
promised hereditary holdings in Armenia, under the command of the
Turkish general Bugha al-Kabir “the Elder.” Bugha began his advance
by moving from the borderland of the Diyar-Bakr against the southern
magnates and began the conquest of the country piecemeal. The division
of Armenia into the southern and northern groups of magnates, the
absence of its two leaders with the captivity of Bagarat and the refusal
of Smbat sparapet to join the rebels, facilitated his task. According to
the historian T ‘ovma Arcruni, the
TaCiks [Muslims] of Armenia who dwelt in various regions of the

land and guided Bugha on his way in and out of the country. (Thomas
Artsruni, 111. ii. p. 198)
Coming to Xlat4on Lake Van, Bugha divided his army in two. Half went
to devastate the districts south of the lake. He himself, accompanied by
the sparapet Smbat, the official native ruler of Armenia during his
brother’s absence, moved to Vaspurakan, where he forced the capitula
tion of ASot Arcruni and sent him, with his son Grigor-Derenik, as well
as other naxarars from Vaspurakan to join Bagarat in captivity at
THE ARAB INVASIONS AND THE RISE OF THE BAGRATL’NI 141
Samarra. ASot’s brother Gurgen continued the guerrilla war in Vas

purakan, and even defeated the Arabs with the help of the local nobles
at the “Bloody Lake” (Arean liC/Arian lij). But he too was soon captured
and sent to Samarra, while Vaspurakan was ravaged and a multitude of
prisoners sold into slavery. Having completed the conquest of the south,
Bugha now moved to Duin and attacked the northern magnates, who
were faced with the choice of apostasy or annihilation. In the spring of
853 Bugha attacked Siwnik4, penetrated into western Iberia, where he
defeated and killed the local Muslim emir and burned the city of Tiflis,
and overran Caucasian Albania. The entire province of Armlniya was
now overcome and ravaged until Bugha’s triumphant return to Samarra,
bringing a multitude of captive naxarars, among them the sparapet
Smbat whose neutrality or continuous loyalty to the Muslim authorities
had not saved him from sharing the fate of the other Armenian magnates.
The condition of Armenia after the devastating expeditions of
Bugha was once more tragic. The Arab emirs profited from the captivity
of the Armenian princes to expand their own possessions. The captives
at Samarra, who included almost all the Armenian magnates—the Prince
of Princes Bagarat Bagratuni with his two sons; Smbat sparapet\ ASot
Arcruni with his brother Gurgen and his son Grigor-Derenik; the princes
of eastern and western Siwnik4; Grigor Mamikonean, prince of
Bagrewand, as well as the lords of numerous minor houses—given once
again the choice between conversion to Islam or death, agreed to at least
a nominal apostasy and eventually made their way home in disgrace
after the death of al-Mutawakkil in 861. Only Smbat sparapet “the
Confessor” refused to compromise his faith, despite his ambiguous
political stance, and died in captivity at Samarra after 862.
Outwardly, then, the situation of 855 seemingly resembled the one
that had followed the earlier Armenian defeat at Bagrewand, but neither
the international nor the internal conditions were the same. The resur
gence of Byzantium under the warlike reign of the Armenian emperor
Basil I 44the Macedonian” (867-886) threatened the rapidly decaying
Abbasids in the second half of the ninth century. Al-Mutawakkifs brutal
repression had been a last effort. The return to an international balance
of power created a favorable climate for the return of Armenian inde
pendence, which now developed unchecked. In Vaspurakan, another
Arcruni, Gurgen, prince of Mardastan, continued the guerrilla war
against the Arabs and maintained himself in the Arcruni’s domain in a
series of actions now clearly recorded by the Arcruni house historian
T4ovma but that also formed the core of the national epic of Dawit' of
142 Nina Garsoian
Sasun. Similarly, in the north ASot Bagratuni, the son of the captive
Smbat “the Confessor,” returned to the policy of his grandfather ASot
Msaker and harried the Arabs with increasing success from his refuge
in Tayk*. The reconstitution of the principalities of the Arcruni and
Bagratuni was already on the way, and another crucial, if intangible,
element had been added to the growing fortune of the Bagratuni.
Through the martyr’s death of the earlier Smbat sparapet on the field of
Bagrewand and the steadfastness of his grandson and namesake the
sparapet, Smbat “the Confessor” at Samarra, in the face of Muslim
pressure and the concessions of the other magnates, the Bagratuni now
finally achieved the spiritual prestige that the death of St. Vardan at
Awarayr had so long conferred on the Mamikonean.
“Arminiya,” The Encyclopaedia Laurent, 1919.

o f Islam. Ter Ghewondian. 1976.
Der Nersessian. 1945, 1978.
7
THE INDEPENDENT
KINGDOMS OF MEDIEVAL
ARMENIA
Nina Garsoi'an
The Altered International

Situation in the Late Ninth Century
s noted at the end of the preceding chapter, external conditions in
A the second half of the ninth century were propitious for the
reestablishment of political autonomy on the Armenian plateau. In the
east, the power of the Abbasid caliphate declined rapidly after the
murder of the caliph al-Mutawakkil in 861, and its influence over
Armenian affairs became correspondingly weaker. The main Muslim
threat to the Armenian princes at the end of the ninth and all of the tenth
centuries came not so much from the Abbasid caliphs at Baghdad as
from neighboring emirs, such as the Hamdanids based on Mosul and
Aleppo, who reached their zenith in the mid-tenth century, and the rulers
of Azerbaijan (Adherbaijan). Particularly in the case of the latter, their
attacks could and did do great harm to Armenia, especially in the reign
of Smbat the Martyr (890-913/4), but they were not sustained and might
be offset by various alliances or occasionally by appeals to the authority
of the distant caliph. On the western border of Armenia, the Byzantine
emperors returned to an offensive military policy against Islam after
144 Nina Garsoian
more than two centuries on the defensive. By 863 the great imperial
victory of Poson on the Euphrates destroyed the powerful Muslim
emirate of Melitene/Malatia, and in the 870s the emperor Basil I crushed
the Paulician republic. These victories brought the imperial armies once
again to the upper and middle Euphrates and consequently into direct
contact with the Armenian lands. Nevertheless, the main concerns of
Byzantium through much of the tenth century were, first, to secure the
main points of communication toward the east: the Euphrates crossing
near Melitene and the pass of the Cilician gates in southeastern Anatolia
leading from central Asia Minor to the Cilician plain and the eastern
Mediterranean coast; then to reconquer the former imperial territories
of Mesopotamia, Cilicia, and Syria. Consequently, Armenia was in
creasingly involved with the Byzantine Empire during this period, but
it was not yet the primary target of the imperial policy. This relative
weakness or unconcern of the great powers on either side of Armenia
created and equilibrium between them that provided a particularly
favorable climate for the development of the major local dynasties. Left
largely to their own devices, these dynasties hastened to exploit these
conditions to further their autonomy and eventually to achieve indepen
dence with the coronation of ASot I in 884.
According to the historian T ‘ovma Arcruni (Thomas Acruni, III,
xiv-xv, pp. 264-74), the surviving captive princes began to return home
from Samarra around 857-858. As was observed earlier, many naxarar
families had not survived the tragic years of the preceding century so
that power had gradually accumulated in a few dominant houses. Even
there, progress did not manifest itself simultaneously. The dynasty of
the Siwnik4 still remained divided between the prince of Geiakunik4 in
the western portion and the prince of Vayoc4 Jor in the east, who was
considered the “senior” (gaherecVgaherets) prince of Siwnik4. In Vas-
purakan, the situation remained confused until the beginning of the tenth
century. The returning prince, Grigor-Derenik Arcruni (857-886/7),
found himself opposed by his kinsman, Gurgen, prince of Mardastan
(855/58-ca. 896), who had led the guerrillas against the Muslims at home
and annexed most of the Arcruni domains during their exile at Samarra.
Driven back by Grigor-Derenik, Gurgen continued to battle his kinsman
as well as the local emirs and the heirs of Bagarat Bagratuni in eastern
Taron, to carve himself a principality centered around the principality
of Anjewac4ik4 (Andzcvatsik) south of Lake Van into which he had
married. Even where dissensions did not arise, the prestige of the
returning Armenian magnates was greatly impaired by their apostasy.
□
K vig do m oi Greater Arm enia
CZJ K n g o o m o» V a n a n d (K a rs)
K ingdom ol lo ri* Ta s h *
c a
KUTA»SI
P n n c ^ w M y o l Ta ro n
n n
i i P«nc«>aAiy ol T a y k
K n g d o m of Sw nik B dg hfc
□
Aitsrum Kin gd om ol Vasporakan
□ ’
Bugraturv k o g d o m s. principalities,
a n d vassa) stales n Arm enia
© • Naikona: a n d provincial capitals
A M onastery
SKARVAN
JOHTiS
I
HAA (PARTAV)
''" r A Y K >
Byzantines, 1000)%
1 (T A O )
,/T7VJN<OA8A.i .It
SVIdSV3»
k • V ftn A rtfu l*
N M O O m AN
r l „ ÂRJESH
A A K H L A I^ ' - '
CL D/rumik
( L Vm i # van Shwakavan / Erazgavork
AGMiAMAR •
Mwr* 1 V
1M AYVAFAR agR I.
1o S 1 A T Li
(L. Unnu)
H A
,W-AUMA
<FOCSSA) Robert\li. Hctvseit
9. ARMENIA IN THE BAGRATUNIIBAGRATID PERIOD, c. 885-1064 A.D.

146 Nina Garsoi'an
Under these circumstances, the advantage unquestionably belonged to

the Bagratuni.
ASot I “the G reat” (855-884, 884-890)
Immediately after the deportation to Samarra of Smbat sparapet “the

Confessor” in 855, his son ASot Bagratuni assumed his father’s title and
the leadership of the Armenian opposition in the north. Imitating from
his distant refuge in the Bagratuni lands bordering on Tayk‘ the policy
that had already proved successful under his grandfather ASot Msaker
at the beginning of the century, ASot systematically reconquered the
territories of Sirak and ArSarunik4which became the core of his domain.
The death of Grigor Mamikonean (Mamikonian) in 862 gave him further
opportunity of expanding this domain by annexing the district of
Bagrewand south of the Araxes. The increasingly dominant position of
ASot was simultaneously supported by a whole nexus of marriage
alliances that linked him with the ruling families of Armenia: two of his
daughters, Mariam and Sop4i (Sophia) married Vasak Gabur, prince of
Geiarkunik4, and Grigor-Derenik Arcruni of Vaspurakan; ASot’s sister
was the wife o f Bagarat I Bagratuni, prince of Iberia, while in the next
generation one of his granddaughters wed ASot II of the Bagratuni
branch in Taron and another, the powerful Arcruni prince, Gagik
Apumruan, regent of Vaspurakan for Grigor-Derenik’s minor sons. Not
only did these family relationships give ASot ample opportunity to
intrude into, and on occasion play arbiter in, the affairs of these princi
palities, especially in the continuing quarrels of Grigor-Derenik Arcruni
and his kinsmen, but his seniority within the family made of him the
unquestionable tanuter of all the branches of the Bagratuni house with
precedence over his kinsmen in Iberia as well as Tar5n. His transfer of
the office of sparapet to his own brother Abas insured that power would
not be divided between different branches of the family, as it had been
in the preceding generation under Bagarat and Smbat “the Confessor.”
On the international scene, ASot consolidated his position in the west
by assuring Byzantium that he had never wavered in his allegiance to the
empire. Yet, when the Greeks reiterated their constant policy of
implementing this allegiance by a religious union, ASot backed the
Armenian kat4olikos Zak4aria. A council met at Sirakawan (Shirakavan),
one of the Bagratuni residences, to consider the Byzantine position
presented in a presumed letter from Photius, patriarch of Constantinople,
THE INDEPENDENT KINGDOMS OF MEDIEVAL ARMENIA 147
and returned an answer, which though ambiguous seemed to provide a

modus vivendi for Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians throughout
Transcaucasia. Armenia's relations with Byzantium were consequently
not impaired by this action, which renewed the collaboration of the
Bagratuni and the kat‘olikos begun by Smbat “the Confessor'* and
Yovhannes of Ovayk‘ in the preceding generation, and it won for ASot
the all-important support of the church. This mutually beneficent col
laboration was to continue with the election as kafolikos of ASot’s
candidate, Georg Gevorg II of Garni (877-897), whom he supported
against the secessionist tendencies of the Albanian Church, whose
kafolikos elected without the ratification of Armenia, was forced once
again to seek his consecration from Georg II at Duin.
Alarmed by the growing menace of Byzantium on the Euphrates,
the caliphate also sought to ensure ASot’s loyalty as early as 862, and
the ostikan of Arminiya was ordered to confer on him the title of “Prince
of Princes” formerly held by his uncle Bagarat Bagratuni, Prince of
Taron. The historian Yovhannes “the Kat‘olikos” may have exaggerated
when he claimed that the ostikan,
investing him [ASot] with many robes as well as royal insignia, [and]
entrusted him with the taxes [sak] of Armenia and all the royal
[tribute] bekar(Yovhannes Drasxanakertc'i, xxvii, p. 125)
Asolik even claimed that ASot had been appointed Prince of Princes not
only of Armenia but of Iberia as well. There is no doubt that the Abbasid
ostikans ruling the larger administrative unit of Arminiya from their
residence at Partaw/Bardha4a occasionally still sought to enforce their
direct authority over Armenia proper during the 870s of the ninth
century with the help of the warlike Kaysite emirs of Manazkert.
Nevertheless, ASot's investiture in the name of the caliph officially
acknowledged his authority over the local Muslim emirs as well as over
the Christian naxarars. ASot consequently used his position as repre
sentative of the caliph to consolidate his hold over ArSarunik4 by
repelling the attacks of the Dâhhafid emir, whom the sparapet Abas
routed and drove from Armenia, and to extend a degree of control over
the capital city of Duin during the 880s without serious interference from
the Muslim authorities, even though he still preferred to remain in the
Bagratuni residence in Bagaran in Sirak.
Yovhannes the Kat'oiikos was probably correct in viewing ASot
as already de facto King of Armenia from the time of his investiture as
148 Nina Garsoian
Prince of Princes in 862; inscriptions refer to him as king from the

middle of the next decade. Consequently, a number of scholars have
argued that ASot’s formal coronation at Bagaran by the kat4olikos Georg
II with a crown brought by the ostikan in the name of the caliph on
August 26, 884 (Yovhannes Drasxanakertc4i, xxix, p. 128) should not
be overstressed, since it added no substantial powers to those he already
possessed. In their view, the sending of crowns was a customary
courtesy of the period and need not have had a crucial importance. This
argument is further bolstered by the fact that both Arab and Greek
sources continue to refer to ASot as merely “Prince of Princes” and not
king, while his recently discovered official Arabic seal styles him even
more modestly, Ashut ibn Sinbat (ASot son of Smbat), without any title
whatsoever. Moreover, ASot never achieved full sovereignty, since he
struck no coinage of his own and remained tributary to the caliphate.
Nevertheless, even though ASot’s coronation apparently brought
him no tangible additional prerogatives, and he remained to some
degree subordinate to the ostikan in Partaw, the significance of the
brilliant coronation ceremony at Bagaran in the eyes of a society for
which visible symbols were of paramount importance should not be
underestimated. A5ot I’s prestige had unquestionably been enhanced
both at home and abroad. The tenth-century Muslim geographer Ibn
Hawkal probably rendered ASot’s new status more accurately than
other Arab sources when he referred to him as “King of Armenia.” Not
to be outdone by his rival the caliph, the Byzantine emperor Basil I
hastened in his turn to offer “terms of peace, harmony and friendship
to our King ASot,” whom he addressed as “beloved son” (Yovhannes
D rasxanakertc4i, xxix, p. 129). A ccording to Yovhannes the
Kat4oiikos, the Armenian naxarars and princes had “unanimously”
requested ASot’s elevation from the caliph, and the later historian from
S iw n ik 4 Stephen O rbelean’s (O rbelian) identification of these
“princes” as the two rulers of Siwnik4 as well as Grigor-Derenik
Arcruni of Vaspurakan supports Yovhannes's claim that recognition
of ASot’s preeminence united all Armenia from north to south.
ASot I maintained this dominant position in the few remaining
years until his death ca. 890. His own domain, which stretched eastward
across the central district of Ayrarat to Lake Sevan and the border of
Vaspurakan, according to Stephen Orbelean, was increased by portions
of the northern districts of Gardman and Utik4, which ASot conquered
from the local mountaineers with the help of his faithful cousin,
Bagarat I of Iberia, as well as by the border Armeno-Iberian district of
Gugark4 pacified by the crown prince Smbat in the last years of the
reign. Presiding over the welfare of his family far and wide, ASot also
supported the Iberian Bagratid heir, Atmerseh II, and confirmed him
as curopalate of Iberia (888-923). At the opposite end of the Armenian
plateau, ASot first sought to mediate in the attack of his son-in-law
Grigor-Derenik Arcruni in an expedition against the Muslim emirs west
of Lake Urmiah. ASot appointed another of his kinsmen, Gagik
Apumruan Arcruni (the husband of his granddaughter), as regent for
Grigor-Derenik's minor sons Sargis-ASot, Xa£‘ik-Gagik (Khachik-
Gagik), and Gurgen, and as support for their widowed mother, ASof s
own daughter Sop4i. Thus, a new autonomous state based on the
northwestern portion of the plateau, such as Armenia had not known
for centuries, was re-created by ASot “the Great” and recognized as
such by the contemporary world.
T he B agratid C risis
U nder Sm bat I “the M arty r” (890/91-914)
The powerful personality and achievements of ASot I had overwhelmed

his contemporaries and united the loyalties of the Armenian princes, but
it also masked a number of latent flaws in the newly created state. The
domain of the Bagratuni based on northwestern Sirak, where ASot
normally resided at Bagaran, was an excellent refuge in times of trouble
(as the events of the ninth century had amply demonstrated), but it was
neither sufficiently extensive and powerful nor sufficiently central to
serve as a base for the control of the entire Armenian plateau. ASot l ’s
decision not to move to the ArSakuni and subsequently Sasanian admin
istrative capital of Duin in the valley of the Araxes, and his successors'
usual inability to wrest it from Muslim governors, compounded the
problem. The eastern valley of the Araxes with the Muslim emirates of
Golt*n and Naxfcawan consequently remained a threatening wedge
leading from Azerbaijan to Duin in the heartland of Armenia and
separating the northwestern Bagratuni possessions from the Arcruni
territories of Vaspurakan in the south and the lands of Siwnik4 in the
east. In general, the presence of the various Muslim centers at Tiflis,
Karin, Duin, Manazkert, Xlat4, ArCeS, Berkri, Naxfcawan, GoIt4n, Atj-
nik4 and Azerbaijan aggravated the geographical fragmentation of the
Armenian highlands and perpetually impeded any policy of political,
religious, or demographic unification and of centralization, even though
150 Nina Garsoian
the local emirs also pursued self-serving policies, neither presenting a

unified Muslim front nor supporting the representatives of the distant
caliphate.
More fundamentally, no constitutional framework held the various
principalities together or linked them into a single state. The old naxarar
structure that had flourished in the days of the ArSakuni and the
Marzpanate was beginning to break down as the common lands of the
tun split into apanages for its leading members and consequently op
posed different branches of the same family to each other. This tendency
already manifested itself in the days of ASot I as Grigor-Derenik Arcruni
and his father struggled with Gurgen, prince of Mardastan, over An-
jew ac4ik‘. The Iberian Bagratids increasingly went their own way and
battled among themselves; the Bagratids of Taron, descended from the
Prince of Princes Bagarat, drew apart from their northern kinsmen. This
divisive tendency reached the royal house itself at the king’s death as
the sparapet Abas, based on the fortress of Kars, abandoned his long
loyalty to his brother ASot to turn against his nephew Smbat 1. Still more
crucially, the Bagratid claim to a dominant position within the land
rested ultimately on the personal authority of the ruler rather than on any
traditional or legal foundation that might have curbed the centrifugal
tendencies of the magnates. According to the ArSakuni system of
hereditary offices, the Bagratuni “coronants” had placed the crown on
the head of their ArSakuni lords but had never been entitled to wear it.
Consequently, they had not even been the first among their equals in a
society where every clan jealously guarded its own prerogatives, and
both the vanished Mamikonean and the belligerent Arcruni rightly or
wrongly claimed royal descent. More immediately, the new legitimacy
bestowed on ASot by his coronation at the hands of kat'oiikos rested
upon the continuing goodwill and collaboration of the Armenian
Church, thus raising potential questions of mutual relations of church
and state and limiting the king’s freedom of action in various areas such
as Armenian religious concessions to Byzantium. The additional sanc
tification of the royal house rested only on its apocryphal descent from
the biblical house of David first reported in the mid-tenth century. These
elements of weakness were to manifest themselves all too soon after
ASot I’s death.
The first years of Smbat I’s reign continued the successful pattern
of his father’s days, even though his uncle Abas, entrenched in the
fortress of Kars, made the most of the young king’s absence in Gugark*
to dispute the succession. Two years were needed before Smbat could
assert his authority, despite the intervention of the kat'olikos Georg 11

and the support of the curopalates Atmerseh II of Iberia. This inauspi
cious beginning ended, however, in Smbat’s coronation by the
kat4otikos at his residence of Sirakawan or Erazgawork4 (Erazgavork)
with the same pomp as his father:
Smbat was presented with a royal diadem on the order of the caliph,
by AfSln (Apshin) the Ismaelite prince of Atrpatakan [ostikan of
Azerbaijan] ... and along with it he was given robes wrought with
gold, and swift steeds bedecked with ornaments and shining armor
forged with gold. They came forth to meet him at the place of
assembly, and returned to the holy church with the patriarch Georg,
who pronounced the solemn blessings on him, and investing him with
the gold embroidered robes..., he placed on his head the royal crown.
Smbat emerged from the spiritual nuptials to rule over all of Armenia.
(YovhannSs Drasxanakertc(i, xxx, p. 132)
Abas’ attempt to vent his resentment by having the kat4olikos deposed

proved unsuccessful. Like his father, Smbat also secured his position on
the Byzantine side:
Placing his kingdom on a firm foundation, Smbat tried to establish

peaceful relations with everyone . . . First, in compliance with the
alliance of his father, he did not withdraw from the friendly affection
for Leo [VI] Emperor of the Romans. He honored the latter with many
gifts and worthy presents in accordance with his gentle temper. In
return the Emperor gave to him an exceedingly great many number
of gifts, namely, beautiful weapons, ornaments, robes wrought with
gold, goblets, and cups, and girdles of pure gold studded with gems.
But a greater honor than these was, that the Emperor addressed Smbat
as his 'beloved son’ by means of a treaty of friendship. (Yovhannes
Drasxanakertc'i, xxxi, pp. 137-38)
The king even succeeded in allaying the ostikan Afshin’s under

standable alarm at this friendship with Byzantium by arguing that his
policy would prove economically beneficial to the caliphate as well:
Why are you coming upon us in anger for no reason? If it is because

of the alliance I have made with the Emperor, this was for your benefit
also. [I thought that] I might obtain with ease those items that you
152 Nina Garsoian
yourself and the caliph needed from the land of the Greeks, and
present you with noteworthy garments, ornaments and vessels for
your own use. Likewise, I wished to clear the way for merchants of
your faith, so that they might have access to their land, and enrich
your treasury w ith the riches of the G reeks. (Yovhannes
Drasxanakertc'i, xxxi, p. 138)
Consequently, the ostikan who had advanced to Armenia with an army

returned to Azerbaijan after exchanging gifts with the king.
Smbat’s early policy proved equally successful at home. On Good
Friday, April 21, 892, he recaptured the city of Duin, which had closed
its gates against him, sent its Muslim commanders in chains to the
Byzantine emperor Leo VI, and reestablished his full control over the
city. Yovhhannes 44the Kat‘olikos," who always praises the Bagratuni,
gives a considerable expanded description of Smbat’s realm:
. .. setting about to annex many lands, he watched over all of them,

and brought them into obedience, some by means of gentle words,
others by force. Accordingly the great Curopalate of Georgia
[Atrnerseh II] and his adherents persuaded by the righteousness of his
wonderful order all submitted to him. But whoever lifted their hands
against him, he repressed with daring force, and subdued them
beneath his feet. Thus, he extended the boundaries of his domain as
far as the city of Karin in the northeast, and to the farther side of
Ktarjk* [Kghardjk], as far as the shore of the great sea [Black Sea]
and the borders of Egrisi [Abkhazia], as well as to the foot of the
Caucasus Mountains, that is to say, Gugark4, and Canark4 [Dzanark]
as far as the Gate of the Alans, where he also seized the fortress
guarding the pass [Darial]. From there the boundary [ran] southward
to the city of Tiflis (Tp‘xis) along the course of the Kur River, and
[continued] on to the district of Uti, as far as the city of Hunarakert,
to Tus and to £amk‘or [Shamkor]. Thus he enlarged the limits of his
domain and brought these beneath the yoke of the royal tributes,
bekars and taxes, and dedicated the weapon he used valiantly in battle
as a sign of victory.(Yovhannes Drasxanakertc i, xxxi, p. 139)
This picture, which includes a large portion of western Iberian

lands and reached all the way to the Darial Pass in the main Caucasus
chain, probably reflects Smbat’s sphere of influence rather than his
actual domain, as Yovhannes himself implies when he speaks of
Atmerseh II’s recognition of Smbat’s suzerainty. Nevertheless, Asolik

also furnishes a more than glowing picture of the prosperity of Armenia
in this period:
During his reign Smbat ruled over all his domains, on Armenia and
on Iberia and acquired the cities of his opponents. In his reign, as
under the rule of his father, there was prosperity and peace in the realm
of Armenia according to [the words of] the prophet: ‘Everyman rested
under his vine and under his fig tree' [I Kings 4:25]. The farms
became towns and the towns cities through the increase in the popu
lation and wealth until the very shepherds and cowherds themselves
were clad in silken garments. And he [Smbat] built the church of the
All-Savior in Sirakawan with a cupola of great height and walls of
dressed stone. (Asolik, III. iii, pp. 12-13)
The report is at least partially confirmed by the reappearance of archi

tectural monuments in Armenia after the long hiatus of the eighth
century. ASot I was praised by Yovhannes the Kat‘olikos for his endow
ment of churches and the twin foundations of Smbat’s aunt, Mariam,
princess of Siwnik‘, (the churches dedicated to the Mother of God and
to the Holy Apostles) still standing on the former island in Lake Sevan.
The main blow to this flourishing situation was the frightful earthquake
that destroyed the city of Duin in 893/4 and struck the imagination of
both Armenian and Arab writers who have left descriptions of the
catastrophe. The cathedral and the residence of the kat’oiikos collapsed,
forcing Georg II to take refuge in ValarSapat, the city walls and most of
the houses were leveled, and the loss of life horrendous, though the
figures of 70,000 and 150,000 respectively given by T ’ovma Arcruni
and the Arab historian Ibn al-Athir are unquestionably inflated.
The auspicious beginning of the reign began to wane, however,
even before the end of the ninth century under external and internal
pressures. Most ominous was the outbreak of war with the Turkish
Sadjids ruling in (Persian) Azerbaijan, which began immediately after
the destruction of Duin and continued intermittently to the end of the
reign. The ostikan AfshJn belonging to this family had been granted by
the caliph authority over Armlniya as well as Azerbaijan, where he was
carving a principality for himself. As such, Smbat’s independent policy
could not be tolerated by him. The first Sadjid attack took NaxCawan,
and recaptured Duin. Afshin seized the kat’olikos Georg II, but his
defeat by Smbat at the foot of Mt. Aragac (Aragats) forced him to come
154 Nina Garsoian
to terms and retreat to Azerbaijan. The kat4olikos was ransomed through

the intervention of the prince of Sake, who had assumed the title of King
of Caucasian Albania in 893, and he returned to settle at ValarSapat
instead of his residence at Duin, destroyed by the earthquake.
Smbat’s authority likewise faced a whole series of internal
challenges. Despite his new status, the ruler of Albania seems to have
rem ained loyal to the B agratuni, but the prince o f eastern
SiwnikVVayoc4 Jor temporarily wavered in his allegiance, according
to Yovhannes “the Kat'olikos.” The young prince of Vaspurakan,
Sargis-ASot, actually went to pay court to Afshln, though he obtained
nothing and was imprisoned with his brothers on his return by Grigor
Apumruan, to whom Smbat I may even have granted Vaspurakan
jointly with Gurgen, prince of Anjewac‘ik \ Far to the south, the
Shaybani emir of Afjnik4 seized the Bagratid domain of Taron in 895.
Led astray by Grigor Apumruan, who had remained loyal until then,
Smbat I was routed by the Shaybanids and barely escaped northward
to Bagrewand. Apumruan’s treason was soon avenged, as the ablest
of the Arcruni heirs, Xa£4ik-Gagik, whom he had unwisely released,
killed him with the help of the local magnates and reestablished his
elder brother Sargis-ASot as senior prince of Vaspurakan. Neverthe
less, the growing suspicion and hostility between the Bagratuni and
the Arcruni would soon have serious consequences for the king.
Encouraged by Smbat Vs difficulties in the south, Afshln attacked a
second time in the north. Crossing through Utik4 and Gugark4, he
struck directly at the heart of the Bagratuni domain, seized the queen
with a number of the royal household and the royal treasure in the
fortress of Kars, which surrendered, and retired with his booty to Duin
while Smbat took refuge in Tayk4. This time the Sadjid terms were
harsher. To obtain the release of his wife, Smbat was compelled to
send his eldest son and heir, ASot, and his nephew as hostages; to give
one of his nieces in marriage to Afshln; and to pay a tribute to the
ostikan's son, who was left behind to govern Duin, while Afshi now
turned to Vaspurakan, capturing the fortresses of Van and Ostan and
forcing the Arcruni princes to flee to the mountains.
The position of Smbat I was seriously compromised at this point
especially since he was also faced with the rebellion of the Kaysite emirs
of Manazkert, who took the opportunity to refuse the tribute they owed
to the king, but it was not yet critical. The newly elected kat4olikos,
Yovhannes “the Historian” (897-924/5), from whom we derive much of
our knowledge of contemporary events, continued the collaboration of
the church with the crown. In the north, the curopalate Atmerseh II, who
had remained loyal, was rewarded by Smbat with the crown of Iberia in
899. The prince of Siwnik4 returned to his allegiance. In the south, the
Bagratuni heir of Taron regained his domain in 898 after the death of
the Shaybanid conqueror. The Kaysites were crushed by 902 with the
help of Sargis-ASot Arcruni and returned to their former status of
tributaries of the Bagratid crown, although their base of Manazkert was
not captured. The Bagratid crown prince ASot was finally released from
captivity, and Smbat even obtained from the caliph al-Muktafi the
separation of Armenia from Azerbaijan with the right of forwarding the
Armenian tribute directly to Baghdad, thus bypassing the ostikan.
Finally, the governor left at Duin fled on hearing of Afshin’s death in
901, after having ruled the city for only one year. Unfortunately, the new
ostikan, Afshin’s brother Yusuf (901-919, 922-929), was to pursue the
war against Armenia even more relentlessly with catastrophic results for
the king. The situation in the country, where the separatist tendencies of
the princes soon continued, rapidly grew chaotic.
The beginning of Y usufs rule was as circumspect as that of his
brother, since Smbat had the support of the caliph, who rightly suspected
the ostikan of rebellious plans. Even so, Yusuf immediately sought to
reassert his authority over Armenia. The first campaign, again following
the northern path through Utik‘ to Duin, was met by the king near Aru£
to the west of the city with a large force, which overawed the invaders,
and it consequently ended in mutual gifts. Yusuf showered Smbat with
a new crown and diadem and precious garments, designated the crown
prince ASot as “Prince of Princes,” honored the kafotikos as well, and
withdrew into Azerbaijan. In this period Yovhannes “the Historian”
could still praise the prosperity of Armenia, where “each one lived on
his own patrimony” and the “chief naxarars, being secure and at ease
from the onslaught of the enemy, built in monasteries, towns, and
agaraks churches of thick walls of stone and mortar” (Yovhannes
Drasxanakertc‘i, xl, pp. 157-58), and favorable relations were main
tained with the Byzantine empire.
The first signs of trouble came from the north, where the prince
of the coastal Iberian district of Abkhazia revolted against his father-
in-law, King Atrnerseh II. Smbat I at first supported Atmerseh, defeat
ing and capturing the prince of Abkhazia, but then conceded to him
the crown to which he aspired, winning his alliance but alienating the
more powerful king of Iberia, who now broke his long loyalty to his
Armenian kinsmen and turned against Smbat. The king’s reward of
156 Nina Garsoian
Sargis-ASot Arcruni for his help against the Kaysites by the grant of
the city of Nax£awan north of the Araxes River antagonized the new
prince of eastern Siwnik4, also named Smbat (whom the king had
confirmed as “senior prince of Siwnik4 and lord over the entire realm
of Sisakan”). Smbat of Siwnik4, who considered Naxfcawan part of his
domain, consequently refused to pay the royal tribute and turned to
the emir of Azerbaijan in 903. The king’s attempt to remedy the
situation by returning NaxCawan to Siwnik4merely aggravated matters
by alienating Xa£4ik-Gagik Arcruni, who had replaced his brother
Sargis-ASot as senior prince of Vaspurakan in 905, and pushing him
likewise toward Yusuf.
The turbulence of the magnates was increased by Yusuf, who had
made peace with the caliph against whom he had rebelled. As a result
of this reconciliation, Armenia in 907-908 found itself faced with the
necessity of paying a double tribute: to the caliph in Baghdad and to the
emir of Azerbaijan as well. Outraged by the king’s order to provide one
fifth of their possessions, the naxarars grew restive. The magnates of
Vanand plotted with Atmerseh of Iberia to murder Smbat I, and the
keeper of the royal domains surrendered the fortress of Ani in Sirak to
Atmerseh II. The plot failed, and the King of Iberia was forced to sue
for peace, but a far more damaging situation was already developing in
Vaspurakan under the leadership of the warlike and ambitious prince
Xa£4ik-Gagik Arcruni, supported by his younger brother Gurgen and the
local princes. Seeking revenge against both his uncle King Smbat I and
Siwnik4 for the loss of NaxCawan, but mostly concerned with his own
aggrandizement, Gagik set out for Azerbaijan, where he received a
crown from Yusuf in 908 as King Gagik I of Vaspurakan, thus creating
in the south an autonomous Arcruni kingdom opposed to that of the
Bagratuni in the north. The embassy of Yovhannes “the Historian”
attempting to mediate the troubles ended only in the captivity of the
kat4olikos, who remained prisoner for a considerable time, was ran
somed with difficulty, and retired to Gugark4. Gagik I Arcruni is
understandably the hero of his kinsman T 4ovma’s History of the Arcruni
House, which praises at length the new king’s bravery, generosity, and
benevolence, as well as the conspicuous prosperity of his realm. The
elegant palatine church of the Holy Cross on the island of Alfam ar
(Aghtamar) still stands as testimony to Gagik’s extensive and splendid
building program. His ability was beyond question, but his defections
struck a mortal blow at Smbat I. The split of Armenia brought about by
the creation of the Kingdom of Vaspurakan was never to be repaired and
added yet another element to the complicated pattern of Christian and

Muslim principalities developing on the Armenian highlands.
Immediately after Gagik I’s coronation, Yusuf made use of his
new ally, to march on Armenia, and in 909 the war between Smbat I
and the Sadpds entered into its final phase. Advancing from
Azerbaijan up the valley of the Araxes by way of Naxtawan, Yusuf
met with Gagik I and his brother Gurgen Arcruni to overrun most of
S iw nik\ which bore the first brunt of the attack. The senior prince,
Smbat of Eastern Siwnik‘, succeeded in escaping to Vaspurakan, but
his kinsman Grigor Sup‘an II, prince of Western Siwnik4 was forced
to make his submission to the ostikan at Duin, where the latter had
established his winter quarters and which became his base of opera
tions, while the king, who had fled northward, made his way back to
Sirak. In this moment of crisis, the hold of Smbat (whose gentleness
is repeatedly stressed by Yovhannes the K afolikos) on the loyalty of
his vassals proved insufficient. Even the sparapet ASot Bagratuni
abandoned his uncle and rallied to the support of Yusuf, as did the
leading princes, according to Asolik:
To him [Yusuf] came Atrncrseh King of Iberia and Gagik prince of

Vaspurakan. who was the son of Smbat’s sister, and ASot the son of
Smbat4s brother Sapuh, together with all their forces, abandoning
King Smbat and betraying him out of envy and for the prosperity of
the Armenian realm. (Asolik, 1917,111, iv, p. 17)
The last stand of the royal army commanded by the crown prince
ASot and his youngest brother MuSel was crushed the following spring
by Yusuf and Gagik I Arcruni north of Duin. Prince MuSel was captured,
while the king sought refuge in the impregnable stronghold of Kapoyt
Berd “Blue Fortress" in ArSarunik4, and the northern districts were
overrun. Yusuf treated the captive Armenian princes with unwonted
ferocity: MuSel, the king’s son, Smbat Bagratuni, the king’s nephew,
and Grigor Sup4an II of Western Siwnik4 were poisoned and Y usufs
armies devastated northern Armenia, while the other princes of Siwnik4
fled to the distant districts of Gardman and Arcax in the north. Smbat I
sought help to no avail from the caliph, distracted by a rebellion in Egypt,
and from Byzantium, while the Armenian princes turned away.
Those [who survived], whether they were related to him or not,

remained aloof from him in deed and in thought, some very much
158 Nina Garsoi'an
against their will, and the others for no reason at all. They preferred
to recognize [the domain of] the foreigners rather than his. Those
whom he loved with friendship dissociated themselves from him and
joined the enemy. Certain others, who were annoyed at him, even rose
and disgracefully attacked him intending to kill him in compliance
with the intrigues of the Hagarite . . . (Yovhannes Drasxanakertc'i,
xlviii, p. 174)
The fortress of Kapoyt Berd could not be taken by the Muslims,

but Smbat I finally surrendered to put an end to the slaughter. Yusuf first
received him honorably, but soon returned to his former cruelty.
Dragged to the siege of the stronghold of Emjak (Erndjak) where the
princesses of Siwnik4 were still holding out, the king was savagely
tortured to death at the order of the ostikan in the hope of forcing the
defenders to surrender, and his headless corpse was exposed on a cross
in the capital of Duin.
T he R evival o f A rm enia U nder ASot II E rkat 4

(9 1 4 -9 2 8/29) and G agik A rcruni (908-943?)
The kat'otikos Yovhannes “the Historian” follows his grim account of

Smbat Vs “martyrdom” with descriptions of the tragic state of Armenia
after his death: attempts at forcible conversions to Islam accompanied
by intensified persecution and executions; the scorched earth policy and
attacks of the northerners, Abkhazia, Gugark4, and Utik4, resulting in
widespread famine; and the internal quarrels of the magnates increasing
the fragmentation of the land:
Our kings, lords and princes tried to break up and take away the homes
of each one of the original naxarardoms, and in accord with their
whims, created newpayazats and spasalan of their own. Brother rose
against brother, and kinsman against kinsman, because jealousy,
malevolence, agitation and absolute hatred turned them against one
another. Thus falling on one another en masse, they fought as ene
mies, and .. . shed more of their own blood than that of the enemy.
They tore down with their own hands all their cities, villages, towns,
awans, agaraks and houses.(Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i, lii, p. 186)
Nevertheless, the savagery of the king's death brutally awakened

the senior Armenian princes. Gagik I Arcruni, whose support of Yusuf
had become increasingly unwilling, took over the leadership of the
Armenian resistance. Vaspurakan bore the brunt of Y usufs attacks,
giving a breathing space to Smbat Vs son ASot II, usually known as Erkat \
“the Iron King.” Following yet one more time the traditional policy of his
house in times of trouble, ASot Erkat4entrenched himself in the Bagratuni
domains in the northwest from which he systematically drove out the
Muslim invaders, whom he also defeated in Bagrewand with the help of
his brother Abas. He then advanced northward through Gugark* as far as
Tiflis, where he again defeated the Muslims before returning home.
ASot Erkat" s success bore immediate fruit. Gurgen, prince of
Iberia, and, more important, the old King Atmerseh II, turned back to
the support of their Bagratid kinsman. Atmerseh had ASot II crowned
King of Armenia. Meanwhile, Gagik I of Vaspurakan, supported by
Smbat, prince of Eastern Siwnik*, and the southern Bagratuni princes,
continued to hold off Yusuf from a stronghold in the southern moun
tains. The remaining princes of Siwnik* held out in the mountains of
their domains, and the kat*otikos Yovhannes made his way south to
Taron. Yusuf sought to counter ASot II’s new prestige by installing his
cousin and namesake, the sparapet ASot, at Duin, but the critical
situation in Armenia had already aroused the attention of Byzantium,
where the patriarch Nicholas Mystikos wrote in 914 to the Armenian
kafotikos urging a union of all Christians against the Muslims. The
correspondence led to an invitation from the Byzantine court, and in 914
ASot II traveled to Constantinople, where he was received with royal
honors, treated again as a “beloved son,” and presumably granted the
title of Prince of Princes attributed to him in contemporary Byzantine
sources. The earlier political alliance of the Bagratuni with Byzantium
seemed fully renewed, and ASot’s journey to Constantinople is noted by
the Greek sources as well, but the kat*olikos, “thinking that there might
be people who might look askance at my going there, and assume that
I so u g h t co m m u n io n w ith the C h a lc e d o n ia n s” (Y ovhannes
Drasxanakertc*i, lv, p. 198), preferred to remain at home.
The situation in Armenia was still murky when ASot II returned
home in 915 with a Byzantine army to face the opposition of his
namesake whom Yusuf had crowned as anti-king and whom he was
unable to drive out of the capital of Duin where he was residing under
the ostikan's protection. The “war of the two ASots” dragged on for two
160 Nina Garsoian
years (918-920) despite the mediations of the kat‘olikos and the support
given to ASot II Erkat4 by both princes of Siwnik4. Even so, A3ot II
steadily consolidated his position in the face of this rivalry and contin
uous rebellions, especially in the north. He wrested the powerful north
ern fortress of SamSuilde (Shamshuilde) from its governor, who had
appealed for help to the emir of Tiflis; quelled the revolt of Utik4;
escaped the conspiracy of his own brother Abas plotting with Prince
Gurgen of Iberia; and seized Gardman from his own father-in-law, who
had also attacked him. Gradually he annexed the lands of Western
Siwnik4 as well, so that Siwnik4, reduced to its eastern portion, weak
ened by interior quarrels and isolated from the Bagratuni holdings by
the emirate of Goh4n, no longer presented a serious threat.
The other crucial factor in the Armenian recovery was the reversal
of Y usufs policy, as he now recognized King ASot II, to whom he sent
a crown. ASot’s position was further improved by Y usufs recall and
imprisonment for rebellion against the caliph in 919 and the arrival of a
new ostikan, who maintained a benevolent policy toward Bagratid
Armenia. He not only recognized the legitimacy of ASot Erkat4 but
granted him the title of SahanSah (Shahanshah), 44King of Kings,” which
raised him above all the rulers of the area, effectively ending de jure as
well as de facto the career of the anti-king ASot who, bereft of his Muslim
support, could not maintain himself at Duin and was forced to make his
peace with his cousin and retire to his own domain at Bagaran in Sirak
ca. 920. The submission of the anti-king and ASot I f s renewed control
of the capital marked the effective recovery of the Bagratuni kingdom
despite continuing difficulties in the northern borderland of Utik4. The
same stabilization manifested itself in the south where the ostikan first
attacked and looted, but soon concluded an agreement with Gagik I
Arcruni, who maintained and extended his hold over Vaspurakan as far
north as the central district of Kogovit, supported by the remarkable
loyalty of his kinsmen and vassals.
The consolidation of the country, especially in the north, was
strained to some degree by the renewal of external pressures at the end
of ASot I f s reign, but its autonomy was not seriously compromised. The
earlier help given to the king by Constantinople came at a price, since
the Byzantine emperor saw himself as the image of Christ on earth and
consequently as the suzerain as well as the protector of all Christian
rulers, with the right to intrude into their internal affairs and their lands.
The imperial view on the terms of the relationship with Armenia was
clearly spelled out by the emperor himself in his treatise On the Admin
istration of the Empire:
since the prince of princes is the servant of the emperor of the Romans,
being appointed by him and receiving his dignity from him, it is
obvious that the cities and townships and territories of which he is
lord also belong to the emperor of the Romans.(Porphyrogenitus, De
admin. ch. 43, p. 201)
Undoubtedly alarmed by ASot H’s negotiations with the ostikan

and his official recognition by the Muslims as Sahanfah, the Byzantine
armies under the leadership of the empire’s ablest general, the Armenian
Yovhannes Kurkuas (Hovhannes Gurgen), interfered both in the north,
where they supported the rebels, and in the south, where they brought
increasing pressure on the Kaysites emirate and the principality of
Taron. In 922 Kurkuas even seems to have made a first attempt to seize
Duin, jointly defended by the ostikan who was in residence and ASot II,
who had been summoned to his support, according to Asolik:
In the second year of his reign he [the emperor Romanos I Lekapenos)

raised a great host and sent the Demeslikos [Grand Domestic] to the
city of Duin held by the emir Spuk* who called M ot Sahanfah to his
assistance. And the Greeks came, they besieged Duin but could not
take it, and returned from there. (Asolik, 1917, III, vi, pp. 24-25)
The contemporary Yovhannes the kat‘olikos is curiously silent about

this expedition.
The release of Yusuf by the caliph in 923 added to the difficulties.
On his return to Armenia, Yusuf first turned against Vaspurakan, from
which he extorted “two to three times the amount of tribute” before
returning to Persia. His new deputy seized the princes of Siwnik4, whom
he held at Nax£awan, and he brought back in chains to the capital forty
of the “foremost gaherec ‘ (princes) and glorious nahapets of the noble
families of the city of Duin, who had come to meet him. Abandoning
once and for all the traditional seat of the kafolikate, Yovhannes “the
Historian” fled from Duin, with the Muslim troops in pursuit, first to the
“Monastery of the Caves” (Ayri VankVGelard [Geghard]) and then to
his own “small fortress of Biwrakan,” where he had built an impressive
basilica, then to the former anti-king ASot Bagrat uni at Bagaran, and
162 Nina Garsoi'an
finally to the relative quiet of Vaspurakan, where he died some two years
later, ca. 924/5, at Gagik I’s royal residence on the island of Atfamar.
The damage done by the Muslim armies was considerable, but ASot II,
who had fled to the island in Lake Sevan, defeated their commander,
who retreated toward Duin only to be routed again north of the city. An
almost simultaneous Greek attack on Duin failed again in 927/8, beaten
off by the population as well as the garrison, according to the Arab
historian Ibn al-Athir.
The withdrawal of the Greeks as well as of the ostikan left ASot II
master of his own house at the end of his reign. The Sadjids, for all the
harm they had done, were mere soldiers of fortune whose power had
collapsed even before Yusufs death in 929. The resultant confused
situation in Azerbaijan—where various Kurdish and Daylamite chieftains
battled for power (in what the historian Minorsky has termed “the Iranian
interlude” (Minorsky, 1958, pp. 14, 19-20) of the tenth century, during
which Iranians generally replaced Arabs in the Muslim emirates)—les
sened to some degree its threat to Armenia. The attention of Byzantium
was increasingly diverted southward by the war against the great Ham-
danid emirs of Aleppo and Mosul, and Bagratid Armenia was again left
in peace, though the empire continued to manifest its displeasure by failing
to grant the title of prince of princes to ASot’s brother and successor Abas.
Seemingly less battered than the north as a result of the diplomatic skills
of its ruler, the Arcruni kingdom of Vaspurakan continued to flourish
under the aging Gagik I, whose prestige was greatly enhanced by the favor
shown him by Byzantium, since he seems to be the prince of princes
addressed in a letter of the patriarch Nicholas Mysticos rather than the
northern Bagratuni king, and by-the asylum provided for the kafolikos in
the last years of Yovhannes “the Historian.”
The Apex o f the B agratuni D ynasty (929-1020)
Our information concerning the affairs of Bagratuni Armenia, and of

the country in general, declines sharply with the end of the History of
Yovhannes the Kat‘olikos, whose last recorded events date from
923-924. The history of the capital of Duin is particularly obscure and
chaotic in the tenth century. The main dangers for the autonomy of the
Armenian states, in addition to the ever-present threat of Byzantium's
claim to suzerainty over the land, and the internal tendency to ever-
greater fragmentation, came from the neighboring Muslim powers. In
the north, the Kurdish Shaddadid emirs and Daylamite Sallarids (also
called Musafirids) struggling to dominate Azerbaijan alternatively
seized control o f Duin by way of the valley of the lower Araxes, which
was still controlled by the local Arab dynasty of the emirs of G olt4n.
In the south, the Hamdanids holding Aleppo and Mosul between 941
and ca. 967 exerted increasing pressure on the Kaysite emirate which
they eventually destroyed, as well as on the Christian principalities of
Taron and Anjewac4ik 4. Northern Armenia had obviously been seri
ously drained by the long Sad[id wars, since ASot IFs successor. King
Abas (928/9-952/3), apparently made no effort to extend his dominion
or reconquer Duin and in general, left much of the initiative to Gagik
I Arcruni, who was still ruling over Vaspurakan until 937 or even
942/3. Nevertheless, the work of ASot II had obviously not been in
vain. The Armenian kingdoms were now sufficiently rooted to survive
well into the eleventh century. As the Bagratuni reaffirmed their
autonomy from external domination and gradually retook their earlier
precedence over Vaspurakan after the death of Gagik I, their prestige
and Armenian culture reached their zenith under Abas’s descendants:
ASot III Olormac* (Voghormadz) (“the Merciful”) (952/3-977), Smbat
II Tiezerakal (“the Master of the Universe”) (977-989/90), and Gagik
I “the Great” (989/90-1017/20).
Asoiik praises the return of peace and prosperity to Armenia under
the reign of Abas, who remained the sole Armenian Bagratuni ruler after
the death of his cousin, the antiking ASot of Bagaran in 936, though
much of his energy was spent in adorning his capital of Kars, where he
erected a new cathedral, and in protecting it from the raid of Prince Ber
of Abkhazia, who sought to force the consecration of the church accord
ing to the Greek Orthodox and not the Armenian rite, rather than in
expanding of consolidating his realm. Numerous religious foundations,
among them the great monasteries of Horomos Vank4 (934) and Narek
(935), also date from his reign in which religious questions again became
acute. The kat4olikos Anania Mokac'i would have to fight through most
of his pontificate (9437-967) against the secessionist tendencies of the
bishop of Siwnik4, supported by the kat4olikos of Caucasian Albania
and the local princes who resisted the centralizing policy of the
Bagratuni king and the Armenian kat4o!ikos. In this, as in military
matters, the leadership still came at first from Gagik I of Vaspurakan,
who continued to extend his protectorate over the kat4olikate by having
three successive primates elected from the southern house of the RStuni
after the death of Yovhannes “the Historian” and keeping them in
164 Nina Garsoi'an
residence at his court, until Anania Mokac4i finally made his way back
north after the death of the powerful Arcruni king.
Duin remained in Muslim hands (since a coin struck there in a .h .
319 [=a .d . 931] still commemorates the Sadjids and a silver dirrhem
dated ten years later bears the name of the Kurdish emir of Azerbaijan),
but a number of victories are recorded in southern Armenia. In the
same year (931) the Arab historian Ibn al-Athir recorded the collabo
ration of the Greeks with King Gagik I Arcruni against the Kaysite
emirate and the Continuator of T ‘ovma Arcruni also noted a victory
of his kinsman against a nameless Muslim general, “a certain man,
Arab by race; versed in warfare and military deeds” (Thomas Artsruni,
Cont. IV, ix, p. 362), who had defeated King Abas but was routed by
Gagik near Duin. Finally, the prince of Anjewac4ik4 in Vaspurakan is
also said to have defeated and killed another raider from Azerbaijan.
The only indication of strain in Vaspurakan and among the southern
rulers in general comes from two minor Muslim historians, who report
that during the Hamdanid campaign of 940, the emir Sayf al-Dawla
had received at X lat4 and Datuan on Lake Van the submission of the
Kaysite emirs, as well as of Gagik I, of his son and of the prince of
Taron, whom he stripped of some of their possessions before going on
to loot the revered shrine of Surb Karapet (St. John the Precursor) at
MuS (Mush). Sayf al-Dawla’s attention was primarily focused on the
Kaysites, whose emirate was destroyed by 964, but it was partly
diverted northward by the Byzantine capture of the key fortress of
Karin in 949. His hastily assembled principality fell apart soon after
his death in 967, before he had done lasting damage to Armenia outside
the regions already held by the Kaysites.
The accession of Abas’s son ASot III (952/3-977), who pursued a
more energetic policy than his predecessor (despite the surname of
Olormac4‘‘the Merciful,” derived from his support of the church and of
monastic foundations), marked the return of the full prestige of the
Bagratuni house. The king failed in his attempt to retake Duin the very
year of his accession, and the capital remained in Muslim hands, but he
may have been more successful in the south, where the Armenian
historian Matthew of Edessa (Matt4eos Urhayec4i/Matteos Urhayetsi)
records an Armenian victory against the Hamdanids. One of the main
indications of Armenia’s autonomy was its final achievement of fiscal
independence. According to a tax list of 955 preserved by the Arab
geographer Ibn Hawkal, the following tribute was due to the Sallarid
emirs of Azerbaijan from the Armenian lands:
al-Wayzuri lord of Wayzur [Vayoc4Jor], fifty thousand dirrhems and

gifts. .. the Banu-Day rani [Sons of Derenik] were compelled to abide
by the obligations of the agreement by which they were to pay one
hundred thousand dirrhems per year, but were dispensed for four
years . . . An agreement was made with the Banu Sunbat [Sons of
Smbat I] for their districts of Armenia Interior stipulating two million
dirrhems. They subsequently received a reduction of two hundred
thousand dirrhems— Sinharib lord of Khadjin [Senek‘erim of
Xa£4€n] was taxed one hundred thousand dirrhems and horses to a
value of fifty thousand dirrhems (Ibn Hawkal II, pp. 347-48).
Hence, it is evident that a considerable tribute had been paid by

the Arcruni “sons of Derenik” in Vaspurakan, as well as by the lords of
Eastern Siwnik4 or Vayoc4 Jor and Xa£4en (Khachen). Something had
even been paid by the Bagratuni “sons of Smbat,” A$ot II and Abas for
the region of Armenian Interior, corresponding to northwestern Arme
nia from NaxCawan to Karin, but no tax was recorded for the contem
porary reign of ASot III.
The return of the kat‘olikos Anania Mokac4i from Vaspurakan to
the north and his coronation of ASot III in 961 in his new capital of Ani
in Sirak also contributed to the king's growing stature, as did his
supervision o f ecclesiastical affairs. The schism of the bishop of Siwnik4
supported by the kat4olikos of Albania had already come to an end in
958 at the Council of Kap4an, where the kat4olikos reasserted his
authority over Siwnik4 by consecrating its new metropolitan. The suc
cessive councils of Sirakawan and Ani summoned by the king to elect
new primates and settle dogmatic disputes testified further to his author
ity and concern, as did his continuation of the great Bagratuni monastic
foundations at Halbat (Haghbat) and Sanahin. This growing prestige
conferred on the king an authority that reached beyond the Bagratuni
domains and extended over all the other Armenian princes, as it had in
the days of A5ot I, and even Duin may have returned to Bagratid
overlordship between 957 and 966. The Byzantine advance annexed
Taron in 967/8 and razed the former Kay site stronghold of Manazkert
in 968/70, but when the Byzantine emperor John Tzimiskes, who was
also of Armenian descent, appeared on the Armenian border in 974 with
a considerable army, the princes closed ranks around the Bagratuni king:
Then all of the kings of Armenia, the azats and the greatest tfxans of
the realms of the houses of the East came together to the Armenian
166 Nina Garsoian
king ASot Bagratuni: P‘ilippe king of Kap'an and Gurgen king of

Albania, Abas lord of Kars and Senek'erim lord of Vaspurakan and
Gurgen lord of Anjewac‘ik‘ and the whole of the house of Sasun and
they camped in the district of H ark\ up to eighty thousand men.
(Matthieu d’Edesse, I. xv, p. 14)
Faced with their combinded forces, the emperor preferred to move

southeastward into Mesopotamia and to acknowledge the authority of
his “beloved son,” the SahanSah ASot III.
The one major source of weakness that would manifest itself in the
later Bagratuni kingdom was brought about by the king himself. Faced
with the constant restlessness among the various members of the ruling
house that had already manifested itself in the opposition of the sparapet
Abas to his new nephew Smbat 1 and the war of the two ASots, the king
sought to obviate this danger by creating apanages for his kinsmen. When
ASot III moved the capital from Kars to Ani in 961, he granted the former
city with its district of Vanand and eight more districts surrounding it to
his brother MuSet, who assumed the royal title two years later. ASot III
likewise granted the northern district of TaSir (Tashir) with the great
fortress of SamSuilde and the royal monasteries of Halbat and Sanahin to
his youngest son, Gurgen or Kiwrike, probably as early as 972. He is titled
king of Albania at the assembly of Hark4 of 974 and is likewise called
king on the inscription above the relief of the donors on the church of the
Savior at Sanahin built between 966 and 972, although later Armenian
sources date the creation of this secondary Bagratid kingdom, usually
called TaSir-Joraget (Tashir-Dzoraget) or Lori, as late as 980. Both
Vanand and TaSir-Joraget were unquestionably subordinate to the main
kingdom of Ani, but they formed autonomous units within the larger
Bagratid sphere. The same pattern of fragmentation repeated itself in
Vaspurakan, where the grandsons of King Gagik I—ASot-Sahak, senior
prince of Vaspurakan proper, Gurgen-Xa£4ik, lord of Anjewac‘ik4 and
Senek'erim-Yovhannes, lord of Rstunik4—divided their father's kingdom
among themselves. The two elders successively assumed the dominant
position until 1003 when Senek'erim-Yovhannes drove out his nephews,
the legitimate heirs, and reunited the Arcruni kingdom for the last time.
Finally, the remains of the principality of Siwnik4, now reduced to the
district of Balk4 (Baghk) with the fortress of Kap4an and the great
monastery of Tat4ew, which was the seat of the metropolitan of Siwnik4,
also became a kingdom probably in the 970s. We have already seen from
the tax list of 955 preserved by Ibn Hawkal that the princes of Vayoc4Jor
and %a£4en paid their taxes directly to the Sall3rid emirs of Azerbaijan
rather than to the Armenia king. Hence, by the end of the century, the
Armenian plateau was subdivided into a series of kingdoms that satisfied
the ambitions of their rulers but fostered their centrifugal aspirations and
sapped the cohesiveness of the Bagratuni and Arcruni realms, which once
again were held together only by the authority and personal qualities of
their rulers.
Smbat II was proclaimed king on the very day of his father’s death,
perhaps to prevent the intervention of his uncle, MuSel of Kars, who
then sought to arouse the Sallarid emir of Duin against Smbat in revenge
for the king’s seizure of a fortress in Sirak which MuSel considered his
own. However, the Sallarid attack of Ayrarat was halted in 982 by the
emir of G oh4n, who took from them 44Duin and all his cities,” while the
two Bagratids were reconciled through the mediation of their kinsman,
the curopalate David of Tayk4 (Georgian Tao), a junior member of the
Iberian branch of the family. The emir of G oh4n then turned against ASot
Arcruni of Vaspurakan, whom he defeated with the help of a contingent
Muslim ghazi, or fighters for Islam. In 989 he also retook the city of
Duin from the new Kurdish house of Rawwadid emirs of Azerbaijan,
who had seized it from him two years earlier. The struggle of Golt4n
with the Rawwadids also served the interests of Smbat II, who had been
compelled to pay tribute to them at the time of their capture of Duin in
987. The king even “concluded with him [the emir of GoIt4n] a treaty
sealed with an oath through the mediation of [kat4ofikos] Lord Xa£4ik,
that they would live in peace with each other.” Subsequently, however,
Smbat violated the agreement and sought the help of the Sallarids to
regain Duin, much to the indignation of Asotik:
And [Smbat* s] second evil deed was the violation of the covenant that
he had concluded with the emir of G ohn, whereas that one [the emir]
kept his oath according to his heathen religion, this one [the king]
even though a Christian did not keep his word and being forsworn,
gave Armenian troops to help make Salar emir, a thing repulsive to
God, had he not been stopped by fear of betrayal by his brother Gagik
(Ashotik, 1917, III. xxix, pp. 136-37).
The main achievement of Smbat II’s reign was his extension and
embellishment of the new Bagratuni capital of Ani:
168 Nina Garsoian
He filled the moats of Ani and built above it a circular fortification

from the Axurian river to the valley of Colkoc‘ac‘ (Dzoghkotsats).
He built it from stones bound with a lime mortar, with bastions and
tall towers; it was far higher than the old wall, enclosed the full extent
of the city, and [had] cedar doors reinforced with iron fixtures and
large solidly embedded nails. He also laid the foundation of a mag
nificent church in this same city of Ani under the direction of the
architect Trdat, who had also built the church of the Kafotikos at
Argina (Ashotik, 1917, III. xi, pp. 49-50).
Smbat II maintained the autonomy of his kingdom unimpaired and had

the wisdom to support—together with his cousin, King Abas of Kars
(984-1024), and their contemporary David of TaykVTao— their young
kinsman, King Bagrat of Eastern Iberia, in his claim to the coastal region
of Abkhazia; an action for which Smbat II received the Abkhazian
border fortress of Sakuret‘i.
The curopalate David of Tayk‘ (966-1000), great-grandson of
King Atmerseh II of Iberia, was unquestionably the most distinguished
man of his period, although his principality never became a kingdom.
Asolik praises him enthusiastically:
For he was a gentle and merciful man, more than all the kings of our
time. And he was a source of peace and prosperity for all of the East
and especially for Armenia and Iberia; for he halted the tumult of war
everywhere through his victories overall the surrounding nations. All
the kings submitted to him of their own will (Asolik, 1917, III. xliii,
p. 162).
His bicultural Armeno-Iberian court in the northwestern border

district of Tayk‘/Tao was one of the great cultural centers of the time.
Yet his brilliant career ultimately turned against his kinsmen and to the
advantage of Byzantium. The help given by David to the Byzantine
emperor Basil II (976-1025) at the time of the great revolt of Bardas
Skleros (976-979) earned him a vastly expanded domain that stretched
southward from Tayk4 along the entire western border of Bagratid
Armenia. It included the military district (Kleisura) of Xaldoyari£
(Khaldoharidz), the fortress of Karin with its district, and the provinces
of Basean, Hark4, and Apahunik4 with the city of Manazkert which had
been retaken by Byzantium a decade earlier but which David could not
recapture from the Kurdish Marwanid emirs, who had succeeded the
Kaysites in this area, until 992-993. He then removed the Muslim

population of the city, filled it with Armenians and Iberians, and twice
put to flight the armies sent against him from Azerbaijan, with the help
of the Bagratid kings of Ani, Kars, and Iberia. In the north, David’s
patronage of his young relative Bagrat of Eastern Iberia, whom he
adopted and who was able to reunite Iberia and Abkhazia into a single
kingdom in 978, gave him a form of protectorate over most of Christian
Transcaucasia that he was to enjoy until his death. Unfortunately,
however, David’s backing of a second revolt against Basil II in 989/90
undid much of his achievements. After his defeat of the rebels, Basil II
compelled David to will all his lands to the Byzantine Empire, although
he was allowed to keep them for his lifetime. No sooner had the
curopalate died (March 31, 1000), perhaps at the instigation of the
pro-Byzantine party among his nobles, than Basil II claimed the fulfill
ment of the agreement of 990. As we shall see, the emperor’s successive
campaigns, culminating in the annexation of all the lands of David of
T ayk\ were to mark the establishment of Byzantium on the Armenian
plateau and the crucial break in the international equilibrium that pro
tected the autonomy of the Armenian kingdoms.
The last of the great kings of Ani, Gagik I (898/90-1017), also
came to the throne on the day of his predecessor’s death, as Asolik had
noted in his condemnation of Smbat II’s disloyalty toward his ally, the
emir of Golt'n and NaxCawan. However, a royal governor was set oxer
Duin, which seems to have remained part of the Bagratuni kingdom
through most of Gagik’s reign. The king also acquired considerable
lands at the expense of Siwnik4, according to Asolik, who claimed that
he ruled over a larger number of fortresses and districts from the

borders of Vayoc* Jor, XaC‘€n, and P‘ansos than his brother, and no
one was able to inspire fear in Armenia [in his time] (Asolik, 1917,
III. xxx, p. 138).
His support of David of Tayk‘ against the incursions of the Kurdish

Rawwadid emir halted the first attack from Azerbaijan. A second
Ibero-Armenian coalition routed him again near Ar£e§ in 998 and
prevented the Rawwadids from reconquering the lands of the Kaysites
and Marwanid emirates. Similarly, an alliance with Bagrat of Iberia
helped to drive back the advance of the other Kurdish Shaddadid emir
holding Ganja since 970.
170 Nina Garsoian
The senior position of the king of Ani vis-^-vis the other Bagratid
kings of his generation was fully maintained by Gagik I, especially after
the death of David of Tayk‘. The southern kingdom, subdivided by the
grandsons of Gagik I Arcruni and weakened by the usurpation of the
youngest, Senek4erim-Yovhannes, who drove out his nephews in 1003,
could offer no challenge to the Bagratuni despite the protectorate
extended over Vaspurakan by the emperor Basil II after his campaign
of 1001. The southern kingdom would soon be distracted by the attacks
by the attacks of Daylamite and Turkmen raiders. Gagik's cousin Abas
of Kars seems to have accepted his subordinate position willingly. The
king's more turbulent nephews were more sharply brought to heel.
Abusahl, lord of Kogovit, who had slandered Gagik to Basil II, saw his
domain devastated by an Armenian army commanded by the king’s son
Yovhannes. David Anhoiin (Anhoghin) “the Landless,” king of TaSir-
Joraget (989-1948?), who had subjected the emirate of Tiflis and
claimed to be an “independent king” (ink ‘nakal ark ‘ay) on an inscription
of 996 at Sanahin, saw himself attacked by a royal army and forced to
make his submission:
Through the mediation of the patriarch, Lord Sargis, he submitted to

the King [Gagik] and came to meet him at Sirakawan. And Lord
Sargis made a covenant of peace [between them]. David agreed to
submit like a son to his father, and Gagik to love him with fatherly
concern (Asoiik, 1917, III. xlv, p. 167).
The more benevolent attitude of Gagik I toward Siwnik4, to which

he returned some of its ecclesiastical privileges lost in 958, was probably
a result of the intercession of Queen Katramide, the daughter of the king
of Siwnik4. The same haughty demeanor marked the relations of Arme
nia to Byzantium. When the emperor Basil II came to the Armenian
border 1000/1 to claim the inheritance of David of Tayk4, all the
Armenian and Iberian rulers— Bagrat of Abkhazia and his father Gurgen
of Iberia, Abas o f Kars, and Senek4erim-Yovhannes of Vaspurakan—
hastened to meet him and make their submission. Basil II then
came to the district of Hark* to the city of Manazkert and thence into
Bagrewand, where he camped in the plain near the city of ValarSakert
[Vagharshakert], [and] there waited for the coming of Gagik King of
Armenia. But he [Gagik] considered it demeaning to come to him
(Asoiik, 1917, ID. xliii, p. 165).
Gagik remained defiantly behind the walls of Ani. Like his predecessor
John Tzimiskes in 974, Basil II did not insist. He refortified the strong
hold of Karin in 1018, but made no further attempts against Armenia as
long as Gagik I lived.
T h e A rm enian C hurch in the B agratuni Period
The crucial role of the Armenian Church during the periods of the
Marzpanait and the Arab domination (when it substituted itself for the
crown as the focus of national allegiance) continued during the revival
of the medieval kingdoms.
To be sure, royal influence and occasional control over the church
manifested itself in all the medieval Armenian kingdoms. The dogmatic
councils of Sirakawan under ASot I and later, again at Sirakawan and at
Ani, under ASot 111 were held under royal sponsorship at the royal
residence, although the kat'olikos normally preferred to live away from
court, first at Duin or ValarSapat until the forced departure of Yovhannes
“the Historian” in 923 then at Argina near Ani after the return of Anania
Mokac‘i from Vaspurakan to the north. He moved to Ani itself only in
992. The contemporaries found this royal patronage entirely acceptable,
and Asohk related without the slightest misgivings that the Council of
Ani elected Step4annos III Sewanec'i (Stepannos III Sevanetsi) 4in
accordance with the will of ASot SahanSah” (Asolik, 1917, III, viii, p.
41), or that “Gagik King of Armenia installed as Kat4olikos the lord
Sargis” after the king had “called together a council of bishops from the
realm of Armenia and the Greek regions” (Asolik, 1917, III. xxxii, pp.
143-44). In 1036 king Yovhannes-Smbat Bagratuni briefly forced the
deposition of Petros I Getadaij (Getadardz) (1019-1036, 1038-1058)
and the election of a new patriarch. The protectorate of Gagik I Arcruni
over the church in the latter part of his reign manifested itself equally
clearly in his offer of asylum to the fleeing Y ovhannes V “the Historian,”
and even more so in the successive election of three subsequent RStuni
kat4olikoi, who remained in residence at the court of Vaspurakan. Later
in the tenth century, the kat4olikos Vahan of Siwnik‘ also found refuge
in Vaspurakan, after his deposition by the Council of Ani in 969/70, and
Gagik I’s son would not hesitate to imprison his rival, the kat'olikos
Step4annos III. The earlier election of the future kat'olikos Vahan as
bishop of Siwnik4in 958 may well have been influenced by the fact that
he was the son of Prince JuanSer of Balk4 (Jvansher of Baghk). Even
172 Nina Garsoi'an
Gagik-Abas, the last king of Kars/Vanand would see to the election of

the kat4otikos Grigor II Vkayaser in 1065/6. Still later, according to the
Armenian chronicler Matthew of Edessa:
In the year 530 of the Armenian Era (1081-1082) the archbishop of

Sirak, who resided in the city of Ani and whose name was Lord Barsel
(Barsegh) [Basil], went to the realm of Armenia to the city of Lore in
the district of Ahiank* [Albania] to the King of Armenia Korike
[Kiwrike I], son of Dawit* Anhoiin, son of Gagik [Gurgen]; and
Barsel asked for consecration as Kat‘olikos of Armenia. Then King
Korike gathered together the bishops of the land of Ahiank* and,
taking along the Kat‘olikos of Ahiank4 Lord Step'annos to the mon
astery called Halbat, they consecrated Lord Barsel onto the throne of
St. Gregory as Kat'otikos over the entire realm of Armenia at the
order of King Korike and of Lord Step'annos who held the see of the
holy apostle Thaddeus (Matthieu d’Edesse II. cxx, p. 185 corrected),
As late as 1140, the last Bagratuni rulers of Lori/TaSir met in the

fortress of TawuS for the consecration of the kat'oiikos of Caucasian
Albania. In the same troubled times, the Armenian kat‘olikos Petros
Getadaij sought refuge at the court of Senek4erim-Yovhannes Arcruni
at Sebaste/Sivas ca. 1047 after the surrender of Ani to Byzantium. A
decade later the kat'otikos Xa£*ik II would likewise flee to the last
Arcruni heir residing in Cappadocia. Finally, most of the great monas
teries of this period were all royal foundations: the churches of Lake
Sevan dedicated by A§ot Vs daughter Mariam of Siwnik4 (which marks
the beginning of the great architectural revival under the Bagratids), as
well as the famous centers of TaSir—Halbat and Sanahin, founded or
restored by A$ot Ill’s queen; the Arcrunid monastic foundations at
Hadamakert, Aparak4, and Varag in Vaspurakan; Kot4, Makenoc4
(Makenots), Gndevank4, and especially the great monastery of Tat4ew
in Siwnik4. Similarly, the cathedrals of Bagaran, Sirakawan, Kars, Ani,
and the church of the Holy Cross of Alt4amar, all of which are directly
linked to the reigning dynasty, also serve to underscore the royal concern
and protectorate over the church.
At the same time, however, the great ecclesiastical figures of the
period—Georg II Garnec‘i (877-897), Yovhannes “the Historian” (898-
924/5), Anania Mokac4i (9437-967), XaC‘ik I (972-992), and finally the
enigmatic figure of Petros I Getadaij— easily dominated the scene both
in their new position of coronant presiding over the royal consecration
and in their more secular role of ambassadors and peacemakers. The

Armenian tradition of patriarchal families going back to the descendants
of Gregory the Illuminator continued with Yovhannes “the Historian/’
a kinsman of his predecessor MaStoc4, with the three successive RStuni
patriarchs, with the transmission of the kat‘olikate from Anania Mokac‘i
to his nephew Xa£‘ik I, with the latter’s brother Petros Getadarj and
Petros’s nephew Xa5‘ik II, and finally through the long line of
Pahlawuni kafotikoi who would occupy the patriarchal throne from
Grigor II Vkayaser( 1065-1105) through the entire twelfth century. This
continuity helped perpetuate a definite ecclesiastical policy. The status
of the kat’olikos is perhaps best illustrated by the Byzantine ambassa
dors coming in 914 to invite ASot ErkaV to Constantinople. Past masters
in matters of protocol, the official imperial envoys paid their first visit
to the kafolikos Yovhannes “the Historian’’ and only then sought out
the young ruler in his domain. The move of Yovhannes from the north
to Vaspurakan helped shift the balance of prestige to Gagik I Arcruni in
the last years of the reign of King ASot II, while the return of kafofikos
Anania Mokac4i to Argina and his coronation of ASot III reestablished
the authority of the Bagratids. By the end of the period of Armenian
independence, the position of the kafolikos was so firmly entrenched
that not even the equivocal policy of Petros Getadaij could undermine
it, and the bishops assembled at Ani in 1038 forced his return against
the claims of the royal candidate imposed by Yovhannes-Smbat. The
jurisdiction of the Armenian kafolikos in this period was not limited to
the Bagratuni Kingdom or even to the Armenian lands. The Council of
Kap4an in 958 reaffirmed his authority not only over the dissident
bishopric of Siwnik4, but also over the kat4otikos of Caucasian Albania,
who had supported the schism. The religious concessions made to
Siwnik4 by Gagik I Bagratuni in 1005/6 were more ceremonial than
substantive in character. Even more interesting is the greeting in the
letter of the Byzantine Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos to Yovhannes “the
Historian’’ in which he refers to “the Armenians, the Iberians and the
Albanians who collectively comprise your faithful flock,” thus implying
that the jurisdiction of the Armenian kat4olikos extended over the whole
of Transcaucasia and that the long-standing schism between the Arme
nian and Iberian churches had found some kind of solution in the later
ninth century.
The growing power of the Armenian Church may in part have
fostered the great expansion of the heretical movement of the
T 4ondrakec4i (Tondraketsi), which is also recorded in the tenth century
174 Nina Garsoian
in a number of regions far from its home district of Apahunik4 north of

Lake Van. The heretics may have supported the insurrection of the
peasantry of Siwnik4against the great monastic center of Tat4ew in this
period, but the main references to them now record their penetration into
the upper classes of society. The Armenian historian Aristakes
Lastivertc4i (Lastiverttsi) speaks of aristocratic ladies, mistresses of
villages, a bishop, Jacob of Hark4, and Prince Vrver of §iri (Shiri) in the
northwestern district of Mananali (Mananaghi). The regular clergy was
apparently also infected in this period, since the great mystic poet Grigor
Narekac‘i (Narekatsi) wrote at the direction of the Council of Ani a letter
of reproof and admonition to the abbot of the monastery of Ktaw
(Kchav) in the southern district of M okk4. The survival of the
T ‘ondrakec4i into the mid-eleventh century when they were actively
persecuted by the learned duke of Tardn and Vaspurakan Grigor Mag-
istros Pahlawuni reveals the depth to which Bagratid society had been
penetrated and disturbed by the heresy.
Other religious groups, such as the Nestorians surviving in the
southern border districts and Syrian communities in communion with
the Armenian Church, were also found in Armenia, but the most crucial
as well as the most obscure and controversial problem is that of the
relationship between the Armenian Church and official Byzantine
Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. The continuing presence of Chalcedonian
Armenians under the Bagratuni is beyond doubt, even though their
presence has long been obscured by the common reference to them as
“Iberians.” The pro-Greek tendencies of the monastery of Narek,
founded in 935 by monks reputedly fleeing from Cappadocia, were well
known, and both Grigor Narekac4i and his father incurred blame because
of them. Siwnik4 must have contained a number of Chalcedonian
sympathizers, since its bishop, Vahan, elected kat4olikos in 967/8, was
deposed for such tendencies by the Council of Ani in the following year.
Similarly, the asylum granted to Vahan after his deposition by Gagik I
Arcruni and the king's surviving letter about a possible ecclesiastical
union with Byzantium point to the presence of the same inclinations in
Vaspurakan. Finally, the refusal of Yovhannes “the Historian” to ac
company ASot ErkaV on his journey to Constantinople in 914 lest he be
suspected of Chalcedonianism suggests that the position of the
kat'olikos himself was not beyond question. As late as 974, the assem
bled Armenian bishops were willing to compromise so far as to present
Vahan of Siwnik4's suspect confession of faith as “orthodox” to the
Byzantine emperor John Tzimiskes.
A cultural rapprochement, perhaps helped by the kinship between

the Armenian and Iberian Bagratids, seemed to be in the making and to
explain the spiritual protectorate over Transcaucasia attributed by the
Byzantine patriarch to the Armenian kat'olikos at the beginning of the
tenth century. The best example of this hybrid world was undoubtedly
to be found in the borderregion of TaykTTao with its splendid churches,
such as OSki (Oshki) and ISxan (Ishkhan) uniting Iberian and Armenian
features, and most of all the bilingual and bicultural court of the
curopalate David. Unfortunately, this seeming trend toward reconcili
ation rapidly provoked a violent reaction, perhaps linked once more to
the expansionist policy of Byzantium in the East. Asolik reports both
the brutal punishment of Prince Ber of Abkhazia, blinded ca. 943 by
King Abas for his attempt to have the cathedral of Kars consecrated
according to the Orthodox rite, and the conversion of
the marzpan Demetr who was the titxan of the fortress of Gag . . .
abandoned the Armenian faith of his fathers, and obtaining the help
of the Iberians bathed in their twice mortal [baptismal] water (As-
holik, 1917, III. xxx, p. 140).
The kat'olikos Anania Mokac‘i was also said to have imposed a

second baptism on those who had already received Orthodox baptism
in violation of the canons which forbid the repetition of this sacrament.
The election of his successor, Vahan of Siwnik4, by the Council of
Sirakawan in 967, immediately brought dissensions among the bishops
because of “the love and agreement with the Chalcedonians expressed
in his letters.” Vahan was deposed and fled to the king of Vaspurakan,
who also imprisoned ASot Ill’s candidate, elected by the Council of Ani
in the following year. The schism ended with the death of both rivals,
but the tension with the Greeks increase under the newly elected
kat4olikos Xa£4ik I (972/3-992/3), most of all among the Armenians on
imperial territory in the region of Sebaste/Sivas, whose metropolitan
bishop showed particular antagonism toward them. For the first time
Xa£4ik consecrated bishops for external sees. The learned Armenian
vardapet Yovhannes was killed by the Iberians, who remained in
communion with the Greeks, and the polemic on both sides reached such
a level of bitterness that the Armenian chronicler Matthew of Edessa
denounced the eleventh-century Duke of Antioch Philaretos (Armenian
P4ilardos Varainuni [Varazhnuni]) as
176 Nina Garsoian
the eldest son of Satan . . . [and], an enemy of the Christian faith . . .

[because] he held to the Roman [Chalcedonian] customs and religion
although he was an Armenian on [both] his father’s and mother’s side
(Matthieu d’Edesse, II. cvi, p. 173).
T he S ocial and E conom ic

D evelopm ent o f A rm enia and the B agratuni
The evidence for the prosperity of Armenia during almost the entire
period of the medieval kingdoms, some of which has already been cited
earlier in this chapter, provides an important corrective to its complex
and often unstable political history. This evidence is based not only on
the written sources, many of which are, interestingly, in Arabic rather
than Armenian, but on an increasingly large archaeological documenta
tion. The enormous artistic and cultural flowering of the period, attested
by a multiplicity of visual and literary monuments, provides an index
not only to the taste and refinement of the ruling class and the skill of
contemporary artists, but to the powerful economic base that made such
a development possible. Nevertheless, an important series of questions
on the internal life of Armenia in the period of the Bagratuni and Arcruni
kings still requires investigation and some of the answers will have to
be provided by further archaeological material.
From the point of view of its social structure, Bagratuni Armenia
does not seem to have produced a radical change from the earlier pattern.
As we have seen, no constitutional framework was introduced to rein
force the hold of the king over his vassals. The titles of “Prince of
Princes” and subsequently SahanSah acknowledged the ruler’s authority
de jure over both the Christian and Muslim princes of the region, but
this authority continued to rest de facto on the personal qualities and
prestige of powerful figures, such as Asot I Bagratuni or the two Gagiks
of Vaspurakan and Ani. To be sure, the cohesion of the collective tun
had been seriously impaired by the growing system of apanages given
to junior members of a family, but the noble classes of the naxarars or
isxans, the lower nobility of the azats, the hierarchy of the clergy, and
the great majority of the taxable ramiks and sinakans are still clearly
identifiable throughout the period and also show no appreciable geo
graphical variations within the country. The powerful cavalry continued
to provide the military force of the state, and it rested as before on the
azat contingents serving under the local princes, their immediate lords.
As such, the medieval period seems to have been one of evolution and
refinement in institutions, but not of innovation in the basic structure of
society.
One of the main elements of transformations was demographic
rather than social. The majority of the population unquestionably re
mained Armenian until the mid-eleventh century at least throughout the
region, with the exception of the southern border region of Afjnik4,
administratively linked to Mesopotamia at an early date and heavily
Arabized. The tenth-century Arab sources themselves attest that the
cities of the Araxes Valley remained Armenian despite Muslim over-
lordship. According to them, the Christians formed the majority of the
cities' population. The contemporary geographer Ibn Hawkal specified
that Armenian continued to be spoken at Duin and NaxCawan, whereas
Arabic was the language of Partaw/Bardha'a in Azerbaijan (Ibn Hawkal
II, p. 342). Nevertheless, considerable Muslim settlements resulted from
the creation of the emirates in the ninth and tenth centuries. The cities
of the emirates on the north shore of Lake Van were heavily Muslim,
and we learn from Asoiik that the Armenian quarter at Xlat4 must have
lain outside the city walls, since the churches and the bishop's residence
were to be found there late in the tenth century. These Muslim settle
ments were primarily Arab in the early period and appear to have
remained so at Karin, which was primarily a garrison city with surround
ing villages, and in the emirate of Golt‘n, which preserved its local
dynasty. In the southern districts, however— where the Kurdish
Marwanids replaced the Arab Kaysites after the brief Hamdanid inter
lude, and especially in Azerbaijan, where the Daylamite SallSrids, the
Kurdish Rawwadids, and the increasingly powerful Shaddhdids jock
eyed for power—the Iranian ethnic element began to dominate in the
late tenth century. Ibn Hawkal again specifies:
the language of Azerbaijan and of the majority of the inhabitants of

Armlniya is Persian which they use as a common language, but
among themselves they use Arabic . . . a language which the mer
chants and lords of domains use with elegance (Ibn Hawkal, II, p.
342).
Similarly, the presence of Muslim groups, first Arabs and subse

quently Daylamites and Kurds coming from Azerbaijan, were attested
at Duin. At times this demographic transformation could be reversed
temporarily, as was the case at Manazkeit, where David of Tayk4
178 Nina Garsoian
expelled the Muslim population in 992/3 and replaced it with Armenians

and Iberians, the latter of whom may have been ethnic Iberians or
Chalcedonian Armenians, to whom this term was also applied. Even so,
the ethnic unity of the plateau had been breached and was not to be
reconstituted.
One of the most interesting problems of the period, that of the
medieval Armenian cities, still requires considerable investigation. The
great revival of international trade between Byzantium and the caliphate
as well as the Far East and the northern Russian lands and the creation
of a network of routes, attested by the contemporary Arab geographers
and minutely studied by Manandyan (1965, pp. 155-72), clearly fostered
an urban development. The main trade route through Armenia ran from
the Caliphate to Trebizond on the Black Sea by way of Ani, Kars, and
Aren near Karin. At Kars it linked to secondary routes leading northward
through ArtanuC (Artanuch) to the eastern Black Sea ports or through
Ardahan to Abkhazia and Eastern Iberia. In the south, the route from
Ardabil and Maragha in Iran led to Her/Xoy (Khoi) and from there either
along the north shore of Lake Van through Berkri, Ar£e§ and Xlat‘ to
Bidlis and Diarbekir, or westward by way of Manazkert to Aren,
Erzincan, and Sivas, or yet again northward through NaxCawan to Duin,
which was linked through Siwnik4 with Bardha’a, from which other
routes led farther north to Tiflis. The main road from the caliphate to
Russia was called the “Great Armenian Highway.”
There is no doubt that Armenian cities flourished in the tenth
century as a result of this revival of international trade as well as from
a considerable amount of local manufacture, and contemporary sources
speak with some exaggeration of forty-five cities and twenty-three
additional settlements. Strategically placed at the junction point of a
number of the trade routes, Duin was unquestionably the main urban
center of Armenia even after the destructive earthquake of 893, and it
was not overtaken by Ani until the very end of the tenth or even the
eleventh century. Like Procopius in earlier days, Arab writers praise the
beauty and wealth of the city. According to The Book o f Roads and
Kingdoms of al-Istakhri.
Dabil [Duin] is greater than Ardabil. This city serves as the capital of
Armenia and in it is the palace of the governor just as the palace of
the governor of Arran is in Bardha’a . .. There is a wall around Dabil.
Here there are many Christians and the main mosque is next to the
church . . . Dabil is the capital of Armenia and there stays Sanbat ibn
Ashut [King Smbat I]. The city is always in the hands of the Christian
nobility, and the Christians form the greater part of the population of
A rm enia also known as “the Kingdom of the A rm enians”
(Manandyan, 1965, pp. 143-44).
The importance of the city was equally great in the second half of
the tenth century, although a warning note was sounded by the Arab
geographer al-Mukadasi:
Dabil is an important city, in it are an inaccessible citadel and great

riches. Its name is ancient, its cloth is famous, its river is abundant,
it is surrounded by gardens. The city has suburbs, its fortress is
reliable, its squares are cross-shaped, its fields are wonderful. The
main mosque is on a hill and next to the mosque is the church. The
Kurds watch over the town. By the city is a citadel. The buildings
of the inhabitants are made of clay or stone. The city has many
gates such as Bab [‘gate’j-Keydar, Bab-Tiflis and Bab-Ani. De
spite all of its advantages the Christians are a majority there. Now
its population has already diminished and its citadel is in ruins
(Manandyan, 1965, p. 144).
Recent archaeological excavations that have uncovered a consid

erable portion of the city have borne out much of the information of the
Arab geographers by identifying both a citadel and the central portion
of the city, which contains the cathedral and the adjacent ruins of the
palace of the kat*o!ikos, probably converted into a mosque during the
eleventh century.
The rapid growth of the new capital of Ani described as “the city
of one thousand and one churches” by Matthew of Edessa is likewise
attested by archaeological evidence. The first walls erected under ASot
111 had to be supplemented within a generation by new ones that trebled
its area in the days of Smbat II, who expended much of his energy on
the adornment of the city. By the eleventh century, the capital was
apparently composed of a citadel as well as upper and lower cities
enclosed by the two lines of fortifications, and Matthew of Edessa
claimed that its population was reaching 100,000. This figure is proba
bly inflated, but the evidence of considerable settlements beyond the
walls as well as a cemetery covering a square kilometer point to an urban
center considerably larger than contemporary ones in the West. Arme
nian historians such as Asolik concentrated primarily on the description
180 Nina Garsoian
of royal ecclesiastical foundations, such as the cathedral of Ani, begun

by Smbat II and completed by Gagik I’s wife, Katramide of Siwnik4:
The pious queen . . . completed the building of the church founded by

Smbat, a magnificent edifice with lofty vaults and a sanctuary sur
mounted by a heavenlike cupola. And she adorned it with tapestries
embroidered with purple flowers woven with gold and painted in
various colors, and with vessels of silver and gold through whose
resplendent brilliance the holy cathedral in the city of Ani shone forth
like the heavenly vault (Asolik, 1917, III, xxx, p. 139).
The archaeological excavations directed by N. Marr at the begin

ning of the twentieth century revealed primarily the elaborate urban
development of the city with its paved streets, water system for drinking
water as well as sewage, baths, caravansarais, and bazaars.
Similarly, Kars had grown by the mid-eleventh century from a
fortress to a city “enriched by the goods bestowed upon it by sea and
land/* according to the contemporary historian Aristakes Lastivertc‘i
(Aristak&s de Lastivert, xv, p. 74). Most remarkable of all was the
unfortified commercial city of Aren founded near Karin/Theodosiopolis
and described by the twelfth-century Byzantine Kedrenos:
Aren is an open and very rich city with a very large population. There
lived local merchants and a large number of Syrians, Armenians and
other peoples. Taking strength from their numbers, they did not find
it necessary to live within walls despite the proximity of The-
odosiopolis, a large and strong city with inaccessible fortifications
(Manandyan, 1965, p. 145).
And goods from all over the East were exchanged in its markets.
Despite this clear evidence for the prosperity of the great commer
cial cities of Armenia, a puzzling series of problems concerning their
integration into contemporary society remain to be solved before general
conclusions can be reached. Part of these difficulties derive from the fact
that the excavations of Duin are still incomplete and the evidence for
the period of Muslim domination in the city is far less satisfactory than
that for the earlier period of the Marzpanalc, which had relied on stone
rather than clay for its buildings material. At Ani, where no systematic
work has been possible since the beginning of the twentieth century,
earlier results remain unverified. Consequently, the chronology of the
sites is difficult to establish with precision, and the portion of the

evidence belonging to the Bagratid period rather than to later ones is
still uncertain.
One of the puzzling aspects of this urban development is that with
the exception of Kars, Ani, and Aren, whose rise comes late and belongs
to the eleventh rather than the tenth century, all the main cities of this
period are to be found in the Muslim emirates rather than in the Christian
principalities. Even Duin, as we have seen, was more commonly ruled
by various Muslim governors in the tenth century than under the control
of the Bagratuni kings. The previously cited comment of Ibn Hawkal
that the native language of the merchants in Armlniya was Arabic; the
observation in Kedrenos’s account that the “local merchants” of Aren
were distinct from the Armenians and Syrians also found in the city; and
the total absence of Armenian coinage throughout the Bagratid period,
which depended on either Byzantine or Muslim currency, all suggest
that much of the international commerce and the centers enriched by it
were not primarily in Armenian hands.
This hypothesis finds support in the picture of the purely Armenian
society provided by the contemporary native sources. As in earlier times,
the magnates normally lived in their fortified strongholds rather than in
urban centers, and we hear of no Muslim peasant communities in the
countryside. Like their nobles, the ruling houses of the period showed
a distinct preference for isolated sites and fortresses. Such were the
Bagratuni residences of Bagaran and Sirakawan and even Kars and Ani
through most of the tenth century, as well as the fortresses of SamSuilde,
Lore and eventually Macnaberd (Madznaberd) and TawuS favored by
the junior royal line of TaSir-Joraget. The princes of Siwnik4 clung to
their strongholds of Emjak and Kap4an, while the Arcruni preferred the
fortress of Nkan or the protected island of A h4amar in Lake Van. To be
sure, such preferences were often dictated by considerations of safety,
but the Christian princes showed a curious aversion to urban centers
even when they held the upper hand. Neither ASot the Great, nor ASot
HI, nor yet Gagik I cared to hold directly and reside in the central capital
of Duin, and the Bagratuni in general showed no sense of geographical
loyalty, moving from generation to generation from Bagaran to
Sirakawan/Erazgawork4 and eventually to Kars and Ani. The constant
picture derived from the account of Yovhannes Kafolikos, in which the
Muslim ostikan remains firmly based on his residence at Duin while the
Armenian king withdraws to his stronghold of Erazgawork4 or even
more commonly to camps in the countryside, is particularly telling in
182 Nina Garsoian
this context, and it clearly recalls the preferences of the earlier ArSakuni.
Obviously, no clear-cut divisions existed in this society, and the Arme
nian and Muslim worlds necessarily coexisted, yet the impression of
polarization between a mercantile and urban Muslim group with practi
cally no roots in the countryside and a para-feudal Christian aristocracy
surrounded by its traditional peasantry seems inescapable.
A chronological problem compounds the difficulty of estimating the
importance of the cities within the fabric of Bagratuni society. As was
already observed, the architectural evidence from Duin is disappointing for
this period. Ani continued to flourish in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,
and the other major sites have not yet been studied. Consequently the
internal organization of the Armenian cities and the participation of the
urban population in their administration, let alone the history of the period,
still requires considerable study. Both the Arab historian al-BaladhurT and
the Armenian Continuator of T ovm a Arcruni speaks of the “elders” of
Duin, and Yovhannes Kafolikos alludes to the “senior nobles . . . of the
noble families of the city of Duin” imprisoned by Yusufs deputy in 923
(Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i, lxv, p. 221). Some sort of aristocracy was
consequently present in the city, and Ibn Hawkal’s reference to the “Chris
tian nobility” supports the conclusion that it was Armenian. We have,
however, no evidence whatever for the relationship between these “elders”
and the ruling feudal nobility, and except for their unlucky overtures to the
Muslims in 923, we do not hear of the participation of such “elders” in
political events until the very end of the period under consideration, when
their deliberation concerning a suitable protector at the moment of the
surrender of Ani in 1045 was recorded by Aristakes Lastivertc4i (Aristak&s
de Lastivert, ix, p. 52). Similarly, archaeological evidence demonstrates the
presence of considerable workshops at both Duin and Ani, while the
marginal decorations of manuscripts depict a varied collection of craftsmen.
Much of this evidence is, however, of later date, so that the existence of an
elaborate system of artisans' guilds unquestionably attested for the post-
Bagratid period of the thirteenth century is far less clear for the period of
the medieval kingdoms to which it has sometimes been attributed. All of
these considerations and complexities suggest that the structure and the role
of the cities in medieval Armenian society still require considerable study.
In contrast with the lack of precision in our knowledge of the status
and configuration of urban centers, no such problems plague an estimate
of the economic strength of the country repeatedly praised by Armenian
and even more precisely by Arabic sources. Part of the prosperity of the
period was unquestionably derived from the exchange of foreign goods
carried along the transit routes, which enriched the cities. Early in the
ninth century, King Smbat I had called the attention of the ostikan Afshin
to the advantage for the caliphate derived from the role of Armenia as
an intermediary between caliphate and Byzantium. Even so, much of
Armenia’s economic importance derived from the country itself.
The natural resources of the land were thoroughly familiar to the
Muslim world. The silver mines of Sper, the iron of Vaspurakan, and
the copper of Gugark4 supplied local industries as well as the mints
located at Duin, Manazkert, and Bardha’a. Lead, borax, arsenic, mer
cury, copper sulfate, and salt from the mines of Kulp4 were exported to
the caliphate, as were natural dyes of which the most famous was the
scarlet kirmiz. The extensive forests covering the slopes of Mt. Ararat
supplied large quantities of timber as well as walnuts, filberts, and
almonds. The fertile valleys of the Araxes and of Vaspurakan were
particularly suited to the cultivation of cereals and fruit trees such as
peaches, apricots, and pomegranates. Wheat was exported from Arme
nia to Baghdad, according to the Arab historian al-Tabari. The vineyards
and wine industry of Duin were noted in the account of the unsuccessful
Byzantine siege of the city in 1049. The saltpeter (natron) of Lake Van
supplied the bakers of Iraq. The salted herrings of the lake called tarrex
in Armenian and tirrikh in Arabic as well as the surmahi of the Araxes
and Kura rivers, were in great demand on Muslim markets (Manandyan,
1965, pp. 150-51), as were the horses and mules of Anjewac‘ik4,
“reputed for their physical strength, their endurance, their swiftness and
their tenacity,” according to Ibn Hawkal (II. p. 340). A tax list preserved
by the historian Ibn Khaldun specifies the following goods in addition
to monetary payments: 20 rugs, 580 pounds of rakm (?), 10,000 pounds
of surmahi, 10,000 pounds of tirrikh, 200 mules, and 30 falcons.
Even more prized than these natural products were the manufactured
goods produced in Armenia. Armenian sources praised the work of the local
goldsmiths, and the excavation of the workshops of Duin have found the
metalwork, glazed ceramics, and glassware for which the city was famous.
But the greatest demand was for “goods of Armenian type” [asnaf al-
Armeni], textiles dyed with the local kirmiz (primarily produced at the
dyeworks of ArtaSat, known as the kirmiz village to Arab sources), flowered
silks called bosjun, and gold embroidered garments. A detailed description
of these prized textiles is provided by Ibn Hawkal:
From Dabil are exported goat-hair [cashmere] textiles and [ordinary]

woolens such as, for example, rugs, pillows, cushions, saddle blan-
184 Nina Garsoian
kets, laces for trousers and other textiles of the same type which are
of Armenian manufacture and dyed with kirmiz. This is a red dye for
goat-hair textiles and for wool. It is obtained from a worm which
weaves around itself as the silkworm encloses himself in a cocoon of
raw silk. They also produce there patterned silks of which many
similar are found in the Byzantine empire, although they are imported
from Armenia. And among the goods called Armenian are found
women’s cloaks, cushions, rugs, tapestries, narrow rugs, round cush
ions, sofa pillows and saddle blankets. These tapestries are not
equaled in any part of the universe in any fashion or in any technique
(Ibn Hawkal, II, pp. 335-36).
These must be the splendid garments repeatedly mentioned as

royal presents in the History of Yovhannes Kat'olikos and the tapestries
adorned with purple flowers and gold embroidery that decorated the
cathedrals of Argina and Ani, according to Asolik. Their splendor can
still be glimpsed in the caftans of figured brocade worn by the Arcruni
princes on the reliefs of the church at Alt4amar, and especially in the
embroidered caftan of the king, as well as the red and gold dress and
veil interwoven with gold of the queen in the portrait of the royal family
of Kars preserved in the Gospel of Gagik-Abas of Kars in Jerusalem.
This flourishing civilization, documented by Muslim geographers,
goes far to rectify the image of relative instability suggested by a purely
political consideration of this period. Far from presenting the battered
aspect of the eighth century, royal Armenia emerged in the tenth century
not only as thriving at home but as one of the prosperous regions of the
East with a reputation acknowledged from afar. Its position between the
Byzantine and Muslim worlds provided wide contacts with the entire
range of Mediterranean and Oriental culture, and these in turn fostered
the amplitude and magnificence of its own artistic development that
soon came to be admired by outsiders. “Frankish" painters may have
been invited to decorate the church of the great monastery of Tat’ew in
Siwnik4, but it soon counted more than 500 monks renowned for their
erudition and skill as painters, according to the local historian
Step‘annos Orbelean (Stepanos Orbelian). Before the end of the
Bagratuni period, the Byzantine court itself, searching for an outstand
ing specialist capable of repairing the dome of the Church of Hagia
Sophia in Constantinople, which had been seriously damaged by the
earthquake of 989, would find it necessary to seek him beyond the
borders of the empire and invite the Armenian architect Trdat of Ani.
“Arminiya,” The Encyclopaedia Laurent, 1919.

of Islam. Maksoudian, 1988-1989.
Der Nersessian, 1945. Ter Ghewondian, 1976.
Yuzbashian, 1988.
8
THE BYZANTINE
ANNEXATION OF THE
ARMENIAN KINGDOMS IN
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY
Nina Garsoian
wo factors emerge from the course of events described in the
T preceding chapters as the major causes hindering all efforts to

create a stable and centralized state on the Armenian plateau. The first
was the perpetual centrifugal tendency of the naxarars, whose loyalty
to their own house rather than to any common ruler was reinforced by
the fragmented character of Armenia’s mountainous setting, which
isolated the various regions from each other. This absence of unifying
elements goes far to explain the difficulties of the early Christian
ArSakuni rulers who were unable to control the autonomous hereditary
prerogatives of their magnates. It unquestionably underlay to a great
degree the fragmentation of the medieval Bagratuni, Arcruni, and Siwni
kingdoms, except for the sole occasion of the “Assembly of Hark4’’ in
974, when all the junior rulers supported the senior Bagratuni king, ASot
III, faced with the threatening Byzantine army of the emperor John
Tzimiskes. The second factor was any break in the precarious interna
tional balance that prevented either of the formidable powers to the east
and west of the plateau from overwhelming Armenia and annexing it
188 Nina Garsoian
outright. Such a break at the time of the rise of Islam paralleled by the
retreat of Byzantium had led to the Muslim conquest and subsequent
oppression of Armenia in the seventh and especially the eighth centuries,
as we have seen earlier. External conditions had gradually returned to
their previous equilibrium as the Byzantine armies turned again to the
offensive in the second half of the ninth century, challenging success
fully the power of the declining Abbasid caliphate and especially the
various Muslim principalities on its eastern border, and thus assisting
indirectly in the contemporary development of autonomous and even
tually independent entities in Armenia after a hiatus of several centuries.
Unfortunately for these principalities, however, the balance was to shift
catastrophically, now to the Byzantine side, with the opening years of
the eleventh century. The threat to the Armenian kingdoms was all the
greater since the political theory of Constantinople revived under the
Macedonian dynasty and inaugurated by the emperor Basil I (867-1036)
recognized no Christian ruler as equal to or independent of the Byzantine
emperor, and Byzantium’s ultimate goal, even when it was masked for
a time by diplomatic compromises, remained the total incorporation of
the Armenian realms within the empire. No such common purpose
united the Armenian kingdoms facing the long-range and carefully
planned imperialistic policy of Byzantium, which consequently was able
to carry out its piecemeal annexation of most of the Armenian lands on
the eve of the advance of the Seljuk Turks from the east.
The First Phase of the Byzantine Advance:

The Themes of Taron, Iberia, and Vaspurakan (968-1021)
The first harbingers of danger from the west appeared in the tenth
century at the time that the Bagratuni kingdom was reaching its zenith.
The creation of the Byzantine “theme” or province of Mesopotamia,
probably as early as a .d . 900, east of the Euphrates River on territory
that had once been part of Justinian f s Armenia IV, brought the imperial
administration within reach of the southwestern Armenian principality
of Taron, ruled at that time by the descendants of the Prince of Princes
Bagarat Bagratuni (ca. 826-851). Soon after this move, the campaigns
of the Byzantine-Armenian general Yovhannes Kurkuas failed to take
Duin in 922 and again in 927/8, as we saw in the preceding chapter, but
in 949 the future emperor John Tzimiskes stormed the great fortress of
Karin/Theodosiopolis, the anchor point of the Muslim military defense
THE BYZANTINE ANNEXATION OF THE ARMENIAN KINGDOMS 189
against the empire in the northwest. Although Karin would temporarily

be conceded by the emperor Basil II to the curopalate David of Tayk‘
in 979, the Byzantine Empire by the middle of the tenth century lay
along the full length of the western border of Armenia.
The first intrusion came in the south. The Byzantine emperors had
already viewed the Bagratuni princes of Taron as their vassals in a
certain sense since the beginning of the tenth century, for they had
accepted imperial titles, especially that of strategos, or “governor,” and
stipends from Constantinople, although Taron kept a degree of auton
omy and its rulers sought to maintain uneasy relations with their Muslim
neighbors as well. With the death of ASot Bagratuni, prince of Taron,
in 967/8, however, his sons were no longer able to withstand the pressure
exerted upon them by the empire, which annexed their principality
outright. The Taronite princes went on to pursue brilliant careers in
Constantinople for generations to come, but the first portion of intrinsi
cally Armenian territory had been lost to Byzantium and reduced to the
level of an ordinary theme within the imperial administrative system.
The main thrust of the imperial expansion followed with the
opening years of the eleventh century, as the emperor Basil II set out to
reclaim the inheritance of the curopalate David of Tayk4. In three
campaigns— 1001, 1014 (in which he also took advantage of the death
of King Bagrat of Iberia and Abkhazia) and 1021/2—the emperor retook
all of the territories he had left to David of Tayk4 in 979, including the
crucial fortress of Karin— which the Byzantines refortified in 1018—
and the city of Manazkert, conquered from the Muslims by the curopal
ate himself, as well as David’s own hereditary principality of TaykTTao.
These imperial victories brought to Byzantium not only a considerable
portion of territory taken from the Iberian Bagratids, but also a wide arc
of lands comprising the western border districts of Armenia and curving
eastward deep into the central plateau to reach as far as Manazkert north
of Lake Van. By 1021, if not before, this vast territory was also absorbed
into the empire to become the Theme of Iberia governed by an imperial
strategos as was Taron and with Karin/Theodosiopolis as its capital.
Simultaneously with the imperial acquisition of the lands of David
of Tayk4came the turn of one of the main realms of medieval Armenia,
the Arcruni kingdom of Vaspurakan. In 1003 the last ruler, Senek4erim-
Yovhannes, the youngest grandson of the first king Gagik I Arcruni and
the son-in-law of the Bagratuni king, Gagik I of Ani, had shouldered
aside his nephews in the Arcruni senior line to become the sole king of
Vaspurakan. As a result of this usurpation, his rule had always been
190 Nina Garsoian
precarious. It became all the more so in the second decade of the eleventh
century as the plundering raids of various Turkmen groups, some of
whom were probably in the service of the Iranian Daylamites of
Azerbaijan, struck at Vaspurakan. Alarmed and weakened by these
incursions, Senek4erim-Yovhannes, together with his nephew the
Arcruni prince of Anjewac‘i k \ went in 1016 to offer to Basil II the lands
of Vaspurakan (including some 72 fortresses and 3000 to 4000 villages,
according to the contemporary sources) in exchange for a vast domain
farth er west on B yzantine territo ry centered on the city of
Sebasteia/Sivas to which the former Arcruni king moved in 1021,
together with his entire family and some 14,000 retainers. Immediately
after his departure, Basil II, who had sent imperial troops from the
Balkans to Vaspurakan even before Senek4erim-Yovhannes’s offer,
reduced the Arcruni kingdom to the Theme of Vaspurakan (also called
Basprakania, Asprakania, or Media) of which Van probably became the
administrative center. It was governed by a non-Armenian strategos and
occasionally divided into Upper Media, which probably was formed of
Senek'erim-Yovhannes’s own domain, and Lower Media, which may
have corresponded to the Arcruni principality of Anjewac4ik( southeast
of Lake Van, but also included Manazkert north of the lake. With the
creation of this third imperial theme, Byzantine power was firmly
established on the Armenian plateau of which it controlled the greater
part with the exception of the Bagratuni kingdoms in the northwest and
the surviving portion of Eastern Siwnik4 or Balk4.
The A nnexation o f the B agratuni K ingdom s (1 0 4 5 -1 0 6 5 )
The Bagratuni kings likewise did not have to wait long for their turn.
As we saw earlier, Basil II did not take any decisive action against the
senior kingdom of Ani until the death of King Gagik I, despite his
victorious campaigns against Iberia and Tayk4. With the Armenian
king’s death (probably in 1017 rather than 1020, as was formerly
believed), however, the situation began to deteriorate in the kingdom of
Ani now split between Gagik Vs two sons, Yovhannes-Smbat and ASot
IV K'aj (the Brave) (1017-1040/1). The elder brother kept the capital of
Ani with most of the surrounding district of Sirak, while ASot IV
received lands that should have included the city of Duin, but which he
could not occupy since the city had already been captured by the Kurdish
Shaddadid emirs coming from Ganja. In spite of the attempted arbitra-
lion of the new king of Iberia and the Armenian kat'otikos, the two
brothers fought throughout their lives, obviously sapping the stability
of the realm, especially since ASot IV sought support from all sides,
including the court of Constantinople, which he visited. The early
relations of King Yovhannes-Smbat with Byzantium remain unknown,
but the Armenian king, distracted by his brother's attacks, embroiled in
territorial quarrels with his kinsman, the junior Bagratid king of Kars,
and fearful of Basil II’s wrath for the support given by Armenia to the
Iberian king in his opposition to the imperial reconquest of the domains
of David of Tayk4, was soon left without room in which to maneuver.
In this critical position, he seems to have had little choice other than to
resort to a diplomatic move aimed at decreasing the immediate danger
to his kingdom, but one that would ultimately lead to disastrous conse
quences. In 1022 the Armenian kat4olikos Petros I Getadaij went to the
winter quarters of the emperor Basil II at Trebizond and brought to him
a will in which the childless king of Ani sought to win a partial respite
by leaving his kingdom to Byzantium after his death. We do not know
the immediate results of this action beyond the fact that Yovhannes-
Smbat was granted the imperial title of Archon, or “Ruler” of Ani and
Basil II did not live to see the outcome of his Armenian policy. On the
almost simultaneous death of Yovhannes-Smbat and ASot IV in 1040/1,
however, the new Byzantine emperor claimed the kingdom of Ani under
the terms of the king's earlier will, and the annexation of Bagratid
Armenia entered into its final phase.
The scarce references and contradictory information of the Greek
and Armenian sources do not allow us to reconstruct the murky details
or the exact chronology of the fall of the senior Bagratuni kingdom with
the desired precision. The motives of the personages dominating the
scene at Ani, including those of the kat4olikos Petros Getadaij, remain
enigmatic for the same reasons, as do the policy and indistinct person
ality of the last young Bagratuni king, Gagik II, the son of ASot IV,
whose reign was to last only two years. At Ani, after the death of the
two kings in 1041, the interests of the regent, the vestis, “overseer or
steward” Sargis Haykazn, who had received many honors from the
Byzantine Empire, clashed with those of the powerful Armenian
sparapet, Vahram Pahlawuni, and his supporters. The Pahlawuni party
succeeded in bringing the young Gagik II to Ani and in having him
crowned, but they could not evict Sargis's forces from the citadel of the
city. Gagik II maintained himself in the Bagratuni capital until 1042/3
and even fought off a Turkmen attack with the support of the Pahlawuni,
I V2. Nina Garsoian
but then, possibly persuaded by Sargis, or perhaps fearing the attacks of

his ambitious kinsman David Anholin (the Landless) of Lofi-TaSir or of
the Shaddadid emir of Duin instigated by Byzantium, he accepted the
invitation of the emperor Constantine IX to come to Constantinople.
Once at the Byzantine court, Gagik II was kept in honorable confinement
and eventually pressured into relinquishing his rights in Armenia in
exchange for a domain in Cappadocia, as had been done earlier by the
Arcruni king of Vaspurakan. In 1044 an imperial army twice failed to
take Ani, which was protected by its great fortifications. In view of the
critical situation the kafolikos, whom the king had left behind as
governor o f the city in his absence, decided, rightly or wrongly, to
surrender it to Byzantium in 1045, although the “senior citizens” of Ani
seem to have sought in vain to offer it to the king of Iberia, to King David
ofLori-TaSir, and perhaps even the Kurdish emir of Duin, who may have
been Gagik II’s brother-in-law.
With the surrender of Ani on the eve of the Seljuk conquest, the
Byzantine annexation of the Armenian plateau was all but complete,
although the imperial army failed to take Duin from the Shaddadids in
the following year. Ani received a Greek governor, the former strategos
of the Them e of Iberia, though he was soon to be replaced by an
Armenian general in the service of Byzantium, Katakalon Kekaumenos.
The territories of Gagik II’s kingdom were joined to those of the Iberian
theme, whose capital was moved from Karin to Ani and which now bore
the name o f “Iberia and Armenia” or “Iberia and Ani.” The kat4o!ikos
Petros Getadarj was soon interned by the Byzantine governor, despite
his surrender o f the capital to the empire. He was summoned to Con
stantinople, where he was also honorably received but detained for a
time like the former king, before being allowed to retire to the court of
the Arcruni princes at Sebaste (Sivas), where he died in 1058. The
Bagratid king of Kars, Gagik-Abas, still clung to his realm successfully
for twenty more years, but even he was constrained to cede his city and
lands to Byzantium after the Seljuk capture of Ani in 1064, before
retiring in his turn to a domain in Cappadocia, where he died in 1069.
The lands o f the kingdom of Kars were added to those of the Theme of
Iberia and Armenia, but this annexation brought little profit to the empire
as the Seljuks captured Kars in 1065. By the time of the defeat of the
Byzantine em peror by the Seljuk sultan Alp-Arslan at Manazkert in
1071, all that remained of the medieval Armenian kingdoms were a few
fortresses north of Lake Sevan held by the descendants of the Bagratuni
junior line o f Lori-TaSir and the remains of the kingdom of Balk4 in
Eastern Siwnik4 shielded by the rugged mountains south of the great

monastery of T at4ew. The imperial themes of Taron, Vaspurakan, and
Iberia-Armenia carved out of the plateau earlier in the century likewise
did not outlive the imperial defeat and were destroyed by the Seljuk
invaders. Within a decade after Manazkert, the surviving lines of the
Bagratuni and Arcruni dynasties settled in Cappadocia had also disap
peared. All the heirs had been murdered under circumstances that still
remain unclear, as does the chronology of their deaths.
The Administrative and Cultural Transformation

of Armenia in the First Half o f the Eleventh Century
The transformation of the independent Armenian realms into ordinary

Byzantine provinces should probably not be viewed as exclusively
destructive despite its obviously negative aspects. Imperial governors,
whether Armenian or not, were enjoined to 44care” for their province.
Thus, the strategos of Ani in the mid-eleventh century, who was the son
of the last king of Bulgaria, saw to the repair and heightening of the city
walls and the improvement of the urban water system. He even remitted
a number of taxes at the express order of the ruling empress, as we learn
from an inscription on the south wall of the cathedral. Some Armenians,
such as Katakalon Kekaumenos, were appointed governors of the newly
created Armeno-Byzantine themes alongside Greeks or other “foreign
ers.” Even lesser local authorities, such as the “senior citizens” of Ani,
glimpsed in the sources at the time of the surrender of the city in 1045,
seem to have kept a measure of power, although we known nothing
concerning them beyond their existence. The dismissal of the local
Armenian forces in 1055 by the emperor Constantine IX, which is often
blamed for the collapse of the Byzantine defense of Armenia in the face
of the Seljuk advance, may indeed have been unwise, but it was part of
the general transformation of the imperial military system from one of
local recruitment to one increasingly based on the use of mercenary
contingents. As such, it was part of the reorganization of the army rather
than a measure directed against the welfare of the Armenians. A number
of magnates served willingly in the Byzantine administration in both
civilian and military capacities, as was the case of the Armenian general
Kekaumenos, named governor of Ani. Even the sparapet Vahram
Pahlawuni, who had backed King Gagik II to the very end, accepted the
command of the Armenian forces that accompanied the imperial army
194 Nina Garsoian
in its unsuccessful attack on Duin the very year after the annexation of
Ani. His learned son, Grigor (Gregory) Magistros, first chose to follow
the example of the Armenian rulers, surrendering his ancestral domain
in Armenia to Byzantium and retiring to Constantinople and an estate
on imperial territory, but by 1051 he had returned home, now as the
governor of the themes united for his benefit. These Armenian officials
of the Byzantine Empire were granted a multitude of exalted titles by
the court of Constantinople in recognition of their dignity and services:
among others to the vestis Sargis Haykazn; to the princes of Taron, both
before and after the acquisition of their principality by the empire; and
especially to Grigor Pahlawuni, magistros, duke and patrician. Even the
conversion to Byzantine Orthodoxy normally mandatory for all forms
of imperial service could be waived on occasion, as was done for
Gregory Magistros.
Despite the Byzantine taxation and even the subsequent devastation
of the Seljuk and other Turkmen invasions in the second half of the
eleventh century, the culture and even the economic development of
Armenia were not altogether destroyed. The works of the contemporary
historians, such as Aristakes Lastivertc'i, and the survival of the great
monastic foundations at Halbat, Sanahin, Tat'ew, and elsewhere, which
served simultaneously as centers of learning, testify to the continuation of
intellectual vitality in Armenia. The evidence for the existence of numer
ous scriptoria and the survival of illuminated manuscripts from the
eleventh century, some relatively crude but others displaying the skill and
richness of the Gospel of Gagik-Abas of Kars, preserved in Jerusalem,
provide similar support for the enduring artistic tradition of Armenian
masters. Ani, sold to the Shaddadids by the Seljuks in 1072 and disputed
between its new Muslim masters and the increasingly powerful Iberian
branch of the Bagratuni to the very end of the twelfth century, continued
to flourish through these multiple vicissitudes well into the thirteenth
century, and its building and commercial activities did not stop. The
former capital, along with other Armenian cities, even produced a new
class of powerful urban merchants, the mecatun (metsatun), distinct from
the earlier naxarar aristocracy, such as Tigran Honenc* (Honents) whose
inscription of 1215 on the splendid church he had built and decorated in
honor of St. Gregory at Ani still testifies to his enormous wealth through
the almost endless list of properties left for its maintenance.
Finally, it is worth noting that almost all the leaders who sought
to re-create Armenian principalities on the middle Euphrates and in
Cilicia at the end of the eleventh century and the early years of the
twelfth, after the disappearance of Armenian independence and the

collapse of imperial rule in the East, had begun their careers in the
imperial service and usually continued to base their claim to authority
and legitimacy on their Byzantine official position and titles, even
when Constantinople could no longer provide them with any support
and although all were ethnic Armenians. This pattern holds, with only
a few exceptions, for the greatest of them: Philaretos VaraZnuni
(Varazhnuni), duke of Antioch late in the eleventh century; and his
predecessors as dukes of Antioch; Xa£4atur (Khachatur), whose name
testifies sufficiently to his Armenian origin in 1068; and probably
Vasak Pahlawuni, the son of Grigor Magistros in 1078-1079. The same
was true for such lesser local rulers as those holding Melitene, Tarsus,
and MaraS (Marash), as well as for the ancestors of the future Rubenid
and Lam bronac‘i (Lam bronatsi) dynasties of Cilicia. Armenian
sources might claim a highly dubious Armenia royal descent from
King Gagik II for the Rubenid prince T 4oros I once his family was
established in Cilicia, but even he and his successors well into the
twelfth century still accepted and wore the exalted title of sebaste
granted to them by the court of Constantinople.
Despite these various redeeming features, however, the Byzantine
annexation of the Armenian medieval kingdoms had an undeniably
deleterious effect on the country. Not only did it put an end to its
independence and sovereignty and leave it weakened by the turmoil and
resentment attendant on the imperial conquest, but it altered the admin
istrative and demographic structure of the plateau. Administratively, the
annexed Armenian kingdoms and principalities seem to have been
treated as ordinary themes, as we hear of little if any concessions made
to local customs, although the strategoi bore a variety of titles and
separate governors were apparently appointed in some of the cities. We
do not even know the location of the administrative center of the Theme
of Taron, and whatever may have been the duties of the 44senior citizens”
of Ani, there is no indication that they were in any way important. The
duties of the strategos were military as well as civilian and we find
troops were sent from the newly created Armenian themes to serve when
needed in the imperial Balkan campaigns, thus weakening the local
defenses even before the dismissal of the Armenian forces in 1055. In
addition to the governors, the contemporary Armenian historian
Aristakes Lastivertc4i also mentions “judges” (Armenian datawor) and
inspectors. These officials, who do not seem to have been under the
jurisdiction of the local governor, had fiscal as well as judicial respon
196 Nina Garsoian
sibilities. Despite the occasional remissions, such as the one granted by

the empress to the inhabitants of Ani in 1055/6, the collection of taxes
was one o f the main purposes of the imperial provincial administration.
These fiscal policies necessarily increased the economic burden of the
general population even where occasional privileged members of the
upper classes continued to prosper.
The transformation of the Armenian lands under Byzantine dom
ination reached deeper than their outward administrative alteration. To
be sure, the new themes of Tar6n and Vaspurakan corresponded to the
earlier Armenian principalities of the same name they had replaced.
This was also true in a certain sense of the Theme of Iberia, though to
a lesser degree after the lands belonging to the kingdom of Ani, and
ultimately those of the kingdom of Kars, were included in it. Even
where the boundaries of the successive administrative units were iden
tical, the territories of the former Armenian principalities could subse
quently be altered at will by the imperial authorities. Such were the
already noted division of the Theme of Vaspurakan into Upper and
Lower Media and the reunion of the themes of Taron and Vaspurakan
jointly entrusted to Grigor Magistros in 1051. Lands not belonging to
an original principality could also be added to it, as was the case in the
fusion of Lower Media south of Lake Van with Manazkert and other
centers north of the same lake that had not been part of Vaspurakan
before its annexation. Even when temporary, these transfers and arbi
trary divisions or fusions prevented the new administrative units from
taking root in the region before they were called upon to face Seljuk
attacks. They helped to blur the divisions between the earlier principal
ities and their sense of identity as well. The vast shift of native
Armenian population westward from the plateau, as they followed their
various lords from their hom eland to new estates in imperial
Cappadocia even before the arrival of the Seljuks, undoubtedly in
creased the Armenian component of the lands that had once formed part
of Armenia Minor. Yet it necessarily altered damagingly the demo
graphic balance of Greater Armenia, whose transformation had begun
earlier with the implantation of the Muslim emirates throughout the
plateau. This gradual transformation was all the more far-reaching in
that the imperial authorities continued their earlier policy of enforcing
conformity with the official church of Constantinople in the regions
under their control. Consequently religious quarrels flared once again
and the hierarchy of the Armenian Church was perturbed at all levels.
Its patriarchs were detained or exiled, as were Petros Getadarj and his
nephew and successor Xa£‘ik II (1058-1065), or they preferred to seek

distant asylums and refuge outside the imperial territory altogether, as
did the kafolikos Grigor Vkayaser (1065-1105), elected in Cappadocia
thanks to the protection of Gagik-Abas of Kars and under whose
pontificate the Armenian kat4olikate set out on the protracted wander
ings that would keep it from its seat on the Armenian plateau for several
centuries. On the secular side, an exception might be made for the
kafotikos’s powerful and distinguished father Grigor Magistros, but
such exceptions were rare. Most of the Armenian nobles who rose in
the imperial service had willy-nilly to accept the Chalcedonian doctrine
of the Byzantine Church and found themselves consequently alienated
from the religious, if not at first from the intellectual, traditions of their
compatriots. Such policies understandably antagonized the great part
of the native population as well as the hierarchy of the Armenian
Church, and the echo of this resentment finds its clear expression in the
hostile tone of the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa.
Hence, even before the effects of the subsequent Turkmen and later
Mongol invasions could manifest themselves, a profound transforma
tion, which their coming would prolong and intensify, had already been
initiated in the history of the Armenian people. The destruction of the
native medieval kingdoms helped to create a vacuum of power at a
particularly perilous moment. More seriously even than the demo
graphic change gradually brought about by the growing migration of
Armenians from the plateau, war, constraint, and the lure of careers to
be made at the imperial court drained from Armenia the crucial leader
ship around which resistance or reconstruction might have clustered. In
the north, the precedence now passed to the Iberian branch of the
Bagratuni house, which was entering its most brilliant period in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries with the reunion of all Georgian lands
under one rule, but increasingly, linguistic and religious differences had
been drawing it away from its Armenian kinsmen even before their
disappearance. In the imperial domains granted to them in exchange for
their realms, all the heirs of the Armenian royal houses were dead before
the end of the eleventh century. The tentative successor states to the
south headed by men of relatively obscure origin, despite the inflated
claims subsequently made for them, at first had neither the strength nor
the legitimacy needed to marshal the loyalty of their compatriots and of
the local population in general except in the distant mountains of Cilicia.
All had vanished at the end of the first quarter of the twelfth century,
replaced by Muslims or Latin crusader conquerors.
198 Nina Garsoian
In the century following the disappearance of the medieval king,

doms, as in earlier times of troubles and foreign invasions, the funda
mental religious, social, and cultural institutions of Armenia survived
the collapse of the political system. The church provided a focus for
loyalties; the main element of continuity even far from home was
through the remarkable succession of the patriarchs from the Pahlawuni
house, who held the kat'olikate, albeit with co-adjutors and faced with
antipatriarchs, from 1065 to 1203. Their long tenure in such troubled
times demonstrated that the Armenian tradition of the hereditary patri
archate going back to the house of St. Gregory himself still survived.
The social structure of naxarar Armenia, even where modified by
external influences, resurfaced in Cilicia. The Armenian language, and
literature, and the Armenians’ consciousness of their identity were not
lost. Nevertheless, the centers of power shifted radically, and native
sovereignty vanished from the Armenian plateau for centuries to come.
Adontz, 1970. Manandyan. 1965.

“Arminiya,” The Encyclopaedia Minorsky, 1953.
of Islam, 1960. Ter Ghewondian, 1976.
Arutjunova-Fidanjan, 1986-1987. Thierry and Donabedian, 1989.
D6d6yan, 1996 Yuzbashian, 1975-1976, 1988.
Der Nersessian, 1945, 1969, 1978.
9
ARMENIAN LITERARY
CULTURE THROUGH THE
ELEVENTH CENTURY
Robert Thomson
f by “literature” we understand the writing and scholarship of Arme

I nians expressed in the Armenian language, then this development
occurred quite late in the history of the Armenian nation. The political
and social individuality of Armenia and the Armenians goes back to the
days of the Old Persian Empire, but their literature was a product of
Christian times, which went hand in hand with the cultural revolution
wrought by the conversion of Armenia. In fact, the development of
Armenian literature was both the result of an established Christian
presence and at the same time a major factor in the final conversion of
the populace at large to the new faith.
But to concentrate only on literature written in the Armenian
language obscures two points. Long before the fifth century of the
Christian era, Armenians had been familiar with classical culture. Latin
and Greek sources inform us about the influence of Greek literature and
thought, notably in court circles. In the first century b .c . King Artavazd,
son of the more famous Tigran, gained a reputation as a writer of plays
and histories. Inscriptions were set up in Armenia, and coins minted.
Armenians became known in the universities of the Greek-speaking
world as teachers and scholars. But all this literary activity was con
200 Robert Thomson
ducted in languages other than Armenian. The language of cultural

aspiration was Greek—as it was for many peoples who bordered on the
Eastern Roman Empire. On the other hand, Aramaic, the international
lingua franca of the Iranian world, was used for official inscriptions; and
Syriac was known in church circles.
The second point is that the Armenians possessed a rich heritage
of oral tales and stories dealing with the gods, heroes, and noteworthy
figures— real or imaginary— of the past. These tales were recited by
bards (gusan) and accompanied on the lyre or other instrument. Such
musical entertainments were popular in princely circles long after the
collapse of independent kingdoms. Indeed, the tradition of wandering
minstrels survived until modem times. But in pre-Christian Armenia the
gusans did not put their songs into writing. Singers of tales, like dancing
girls, were frowned upon by the clergy, who dominated Armenian
written literature, and also by the compiler of the first secular law code
in the twelfth century. So apart from a few fragments preserved by
historians or antiquarian scholars, nothing survives of a long prewritten
culture that reflected the real interests and enthusiasms of early Armenia.
The written literature that developed with remarkable rapidity in the fifth
century was the perquisite of a small group that deliberately set itself
apart from pagan traditions. The books of classical and medieval times
do not therefore give us a full picture of Armenian cultural life.
Invention of the Armenian Script
One of the most noteworthy features of Armenian literature is that it has

a very precise beginning. Armenians, who were familiar with the pagan
and early Christian literatures of the world around them, could only
transpose that familiarity into their own tongue when a script for
Armenian was invented. That momentous step was due to the efforts of
Mashtots, also called Mesrop by writers after his own time, and was
accomplished around the year a .d . 400.
Most of our knowledge of these events comes from a short biog
raphy of Mashtots written by one of his pupils, Koriun, after the master’s
death (Koriun, 1964). Although it is rather short on precise details and
rather long on rhetorical description, this Life o f Mashtots is important
both as a historical source and as the first example of biographical
writing in Armenian. Koriun says little about the early life of Mashtots.
He was bom in the province of Taron in western Armenia and received
ARMENIAN LITERARY CULTURE 201
an education in Greek literature. We are not told where; but many of

Mashtots’s contemporaries went to the schools of Antioch and other
centers of Greek learning. He entered the royal chancellery and ad
vanced to an important position. However, he had a vocation for the
religious life; abandoning the secular world, he became an ascetic
hermit. After some time he began to attract disciples, and embarked on
the career that would transform Armenia.
M ashtots’s efforts were directed to preaching the gospel in
remoter parts of the country. Although King Trdat (Tiridates in Greek)
had been converted to Christianity at the beginning of the century, and
St. Gregory the Illuminator had established the first organized Arme
nian bishoprics—the main episcopal see being at Ashtishat in Taron,
Mashtots’s native province— the whole country was by no means
converted overnight. The pious exaggerations of Agathangelos
(1976), whose History describes these events, are misleading. Another
early historian, Pavstos (P'awstos) Buzand, describes in some detail
the struggle of the church in fourth-century Armenia; there was much
opposition from the old noble families with their pagan traditions and
basically Iranian-oriented outlook (P'awstos Buzand, 1989). And
from Koriun we learn that many areas were still entirely untouched by
the Christian message. Mashtots set to work to eradicate “ancestral
habits and the diabolical worship of demons.’1
It was in the course of his missionary activity that MashtUs
realized the potential value of having the appropriate religious texts
written in the Armenian language. Although the educated clergy used
Greek or Syriac for the liturgy and could read biblical and theological
books in those languages, that was of little help to the mass of the
Armenian people. In concert with Catholicos (supreme patriarch)
Sahak, Mashtots turned his attention to the development of a native
script so that Armenians could have the requisite Christian books in
their own language. The original impetus, therefore, in the develop
ment of Armenian written culture came from church authorities. And
ecclesiastical concerns remained predominant in the literature of later
generations.
There are some minor discrepancies in the accounts of Koriun and
of other early writers concerning the precise details of the invention of
the Armenian script. However, it is clear that Mashtots was the driving
force, that the patriarch Sahak lent his full support and was later active
as a translator himself, and that the king Vramshapuh was directly
involved. Koriun says that the king, when informed of Mashtots’s zeal,
202 Robert Thomson
told him about a Syrian bishop Daniel who had put together a script for
Armenian. That a Syrian should have taken the initiative is a good
indication of the importance of Syrian missionary work in southern
Armenia. The influence of Syriac vocabulary on Armenian ecclesiasti
cal usage, and of Syrian writers on developing Armenian literature, also
point to the strong ties that existed between these two Christian lands.
Naturally enough Daniel’s alphabet was based on a Semitic script.
The latter, as used for Hebrew and Syriac, had twenty-two letters, which
rendered the consonants, but the vowels were not clearly indicated. The
structure of the Semitic languages does not make this too grave a
disadvantage. But Daniel’s system—no trace of which has survived—
was inadequate to cope with the richer consonantal structure of Arme
nian; nor could it render vowels, whose patterns in an Indo-European
tongue are less predictable than in Semitic. So that attempt came to
naught, and Mashtots went himself to Syria “in the fifth year of
Vramshapuh,” according to Koriun (1964). But since the beginning of
Vramshapuh’s reign has been variously dated, from 389 to 401, the
precise date is uncertain.
Particularly important was Mashtots’s visit to Edessa, for this was
the center of Syriac-speaking Christianity on the Roman side of the
border with Iran. He had taken a group of young pupils with him. These
he divided into two groups and set to learning Syriac and Greek.
Mashtots himself with his closest associates went on to Samosata on the
Euphrates. There, in concert with a scribe competent in Greek literature,
he worked out a script for Armenian that rendered all the nuances. This
time it was based on a Greek model, with a separate sign for each vowel
as well as for each consonant. The only exception was the vowel /u/; in
this case Mashtots retained the diphthong of the Greek ou. The script
invented by Mashtots has remained in use down to the present day;
modem uppercase letters have hardly changed from the form given them
more than 1,500 years ago, while the lowercase letters are based on
medieval scribal hands. There is, however, one interesting anomaly. The
most common vowel in Armenian is the short /£/ f/?J. But this is
practically never written except at the beginning of words. So one finds
in written Armenian clusters of consonants, perhaps as many as five or
six, which in pronunciation must be grouped into appropriate syllables
containing the vowel /£/. It is difficult not to suppose that here the
influence of Syriac was at work, for even when vowel signs were later
introduced, the short/e/w as not rendered.
The First Translations

Once the script had been fashioned, Mashtots immediately set to work
to translate texts into Armenian. The first such effort was a rendering of
the Proverbs of Solomon. Armenians enjoyed fables, proverbs, and
pithy sayings; many such texts of a secular nature were translated in later
centuries, and in medieval literature the genre of the fable was popular.
But Mashtots was concerned with books appropriate for the church and
its missionary efforts, so he began with a biblical text. Koriun adds the
personal comment that he himself used that first translated text when
teaching writing to pupils.
The patriarch Sahak and Mashtots now directed a massive effort
to render into Armenian as much Christian literature as possible in as
short a time as possible. Groups of young men were gathered—since
this was an ecclesiastical operation, we must suppose that these were
the “seminarians” of the time. First they were instructed in the script,
then they were sent abroad to the main centers of Christian culture in
order to learn Greek or Syriac, or both. Koriun gives us some details.
He mentions the names of several pupils in the entourage of Mashtots
and indicates that some were sent to Edessa to learn Syriac, others to
Melitene, or as far as Constantinople, to learn Greek. But he does not
name precisely the texts that were translated. Only in vague terms does
he refer to the Armenians now having in their own tongue “Moses who
taught the law, with the prophets, Paul and the band of the apostles, and
the gospel of Christ” (Koriun, 1964).
Most of Mashtots’s own energies were devoted to missionary activ
ity in the provinces to the east and north. But he did make one extended
visit to the Armenians on the Roman side of the border, proceeding as far
as Constantinople. There he greeted the emperor Theodosius II (408-440)
and the patriarch Atticus (405-425) and received official permission
(sacra) to carry on his educational work among Armenians in the eastern
provinces of the empire. At this point Koriun refers to Mashtots collecting
“many books of the church fathers” (1964). After 431 some of his pupils
brought back from Constantinople other texts, including copies of the
canons of the ecumenical councils held at Nicaea (325) and Ephesus (431).
This new influx of texts prompted the patriarch Sahak to revise some of
the earlier translations of “ecclesiastical books” and also to translate
numerous commentaries on the scriptures. Koriun adds that Mashtots
began himself to compose homilies with material taken from the prophets
204 Robert Thomson
and gospels in order to wake people up to the truth of the Christian

message. Though several collections of homilies survive from the early
period, none of them can be securely identified as Mashtots’s own woik.
But if he put into writing examples of his lifelong preaching, he was the
first original writer in Armenian.
Before turning to the question of original compositions by the
pupils of Mashtots—men such as Koriun or Eznik, who were the real
founders of Armenian literature—we should first cast an eye over the
translated material. The texts with which the first generation of native
Armenian writers were most familiar, since they had had a hand in
rendering them from Greek or Syriac, were naturally of great influence
on their own outlook and literary methods.
It must not be imagined that theology in a narrow sense was the sole
concern of Mashtots’s pupils. The Bible formed the staple of reading and
study, while those in church circles would naturally be familiar with the
liturgy and cycles of readings from the church fathers. The homiletic
works of John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzenus, Severian of Gabala,
Eusebius of Emesa, Evagrius, or of the Syrians Afrahat and Ephrem
figured prominently, as did the biblical commentaries of Chrysostom and
Cyril of Alexandria. These provided a solid basis for instruction and a
wide range of parallels, imagery, and interpretation that were assimilated
by Armenian writers. The Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem formed a basis
for exposition of the faith—such as the Teaching of Saint Gregory, which
forms part of the story of Armenia’s conversion as described by
Agathangelos. Numerous lives of saints and martyrs provided models for
the descriptions of persecutions in Armenia that were only too frequent.
The lives and sayings of the Egyptian Fathers, popular throughout the
Christian world, were a source of enjoyment and gave a pattern for the
idiosyncracies of Armenian holy men and hermits. On a more sophisti
cated level the Hexaemeron by Basil of Caesarea (translated from the
Syriac version) gave scholars information about the physical world and
natural phenomena. It is curious, however, that Koriun and other writers
describe the importance of Edessa and Constantinople but never refer to
Jerusalem. Yet the liturgical practice of the holy city had great influence
on the early Armenian Church; the Jerusalem Lectionary was among the
first works translated into Armenian, and numerous Armenians went as
pilgrims to the holy sites.
Special emphasis must be given to two works by Eusebius of
Caesarea. His Ecclesiastical History, also translated from a Syriac
version, not only provided a fund of historical information, widely
quoted and adapted by Armenian writers, but offered a model for the
writing of history in a Christian context—that is, a model for the
description of the working of God’s providence in the present world.
Several Armenian historians, though not all, regarded the writing of
history as a demonstration of the ultimate triumph of piety and truth over
the forces of evil and death. Even more elaborate was Eusebius’s
Chronicle. This was an attempt to correlate the history of the world as
known from Greek and other sources with the Bible. It was the main
source for later Armenian knowledge of the empires of the ancient
world; but equally important, it showed how the histories of the various
nations meshed with each other. Beginning with Movses Khorenatsi
(Moses of Khoren), Armenian historians relied on Eusebius’s Chronicle
not merely for information about the non-Armenian world but as a
schema in which the history of Armenia had its rightful place. It thus
became possible to set the ancient oral traditions about the origins of the
Armenian people into the patterns of world history and to demonstrate
the antiquity of Armenia as a distinct and individual nation.
The First Original Writers: Koriun and Eznik
The amazing efflorescence of written literature in Armenian following

the invention of the script can be explained by a combination of two
factors. In the first place, Armenians— or at least, those of the elite in
both church and state— had long been familiar with the culture of late
antiquity. Many, such as Mashtots himself, had received a good
classical education; while the regular clergy were versed in Christian
texts of various kinds written in Greek or Syriac. Second, the highest
authorities in the land, the king and patriarch, gave their backing to an
intensive effort to make this accumulated wisdom available in the
Armenian language. There was, therefore, no long gap of several
generations while a newly acquired learning filtered through to a
newly educated group. On the contrary, the first translators were
already men of learning; their horizons were widened by the long
periods of study they had spent abroad; and they were writing for a
small but sophisticated audience now able to read and write in Arme
nian as well as foreign tongues. Those first pupils of Mashtots com
posed original works, drawing on the traditions with which they were
familiar—some now rendered into Armenian, but some still available
only in Greek or Syriac. As time went on, Armenian writers naturally
206 Robert Thomson
had an ever-expanding body of literature in Armenian on which to

draw, as more and more texts were translated and as original works
began to set specifically Armenian patterns.
Armenian literature deals with Armenian themes, and over the
years it developed its own traditions in matters of style, imagery, and
form. But the earliest compositions do not differ in any startling way
from the type of work that was being produced in the fourth or fifth
century outside Armenia. So when Koriun composed a biography of his
master Mashtots, he already had in his mind some idea of how a
biography should be arranged. It is not surprising that there are parallels
between Koriun’s biography and the Life of Basil of Caesarea by
Gregory Nazianzenus. And in its turn that Greek Life was part of a
long-standing literary tradition that had elaborated certain rules and
procedures. These were written down in textbooks of rhetoric, some of
which were later translated into Armenian. But anyone who had studied
at a regular school or university would have been familiar with the
standard practice. The particular importance of the biography of
Mashtots by Koriun is that these old traditions, more recently shaped by
Christian influences, were now applied for the first time to an Armenian
subject. Being the first, it set a pattern. So when Agathangelos set about
writing the life of St. Gregory the Illuminator, for his description of the
travels of Gregory as a Christian missionary he naturally took his model
from Koriun.
Much more complex was the work of Koriun’s contemporary,
Eznik. Another student of Mashtots’s, Eznik had traveled to Edessaand
Constantinople in order to learn Syriac and Greek, and had brought back
texts. Koriun gives us a few details of these journeys but says nothing
of Eznik’s later career.
Although numerous homilies are attributed, rightly or wrongly,
to Eznik, his fame in modem times depends on an elaborate treatise
dealing with the problem of the origin of evil. Eznik expounded his
theme by attacking four groups who had the wrong understanding of
God as responsible for evil, and who did not interpret correctly the
Christian doctrine of man’s free will. These four groups were: the
ancient pagan Greeks; the Persians— more precisely, the worshippers
of Zurvan as the supreme god; the Greek philosophers; and the
heretical sect of Marcion. Eznik refutes one by one their false inter
pretations and demonstrates that there is no created thing which is evil
by nature. Evil results from man’s perversion of the free will given
him by God. Because of the method of argument, the work is often
known as the “Refutation of Sects.” But that title does not bring out
Eznik’s prime concern. One should bear in mind that the most import
ant of his many sources was the Christian philosopher Methodius's (d.
311) “On the Freedom of the Will,” which attacked dualism and
determinism as found in the gnostic system of Valentinus.
Ironically, however, Eznik’s treatise— which has received atten
tion from modem scholars for its information about Zurvanism— did
not have much influence on Armenian writers after his own time. The
themes of paganism, Marcionite heresy, or Persian mythology were
too closely related to the generation of Eznik and the times before him
to be adaptable to the needs of later centuries. By then paganism was
irrelevant; gnostic theories had been more or less forgotten, though
not entirely because the writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus
still circulated in Armenia; and the Persian Zurvanites had gone the
way of all flesh. Eznik’s work was not so relevant to the burning
concerns that vexed Armenia after the sixth century: to defend Chris
tian Armenian traditions against the claims of the church of the
Byzantine Empire and against the temptations of conversion to Islam
for social and economic advantage. In matters of style too, Eznik’s
work was untypical of Armenian writing. It is exact, sparse, extremely
particular in its analysis and progression. But most Armenian authors
were wordy, fond of elaborate imagery; and especially with some of
the Histories one sometimes has the feeling that they would sound to
best advantage if declaimed. Of course, most Armenians of the time
could not read and were therefore read to.
Koriun and Eznik cannot be left without two further comments,
which are of relevance to many other Armenian literary productions.
The earliest surviving manuscript with the full text of the Life of
Mashtots—as opposed to fragments or quotations—was written in
1672. And not only is there a gap of over a thousand years in the textual
transmission, giving plenty of time for scribal errors, confusions, or
misunderstandings to corrupt the text; by the tenth century an abbre
viated version of the book was in circulation, which incorporated
traditions from sources later than Koriun himself. Other texts too, such
as the History of Ghazar Parpetsi (P ‘arpec‘i) (Lazar of Parp), were
reedited long after they were composed (1991). So a good deal of
Armenian literature has not come down to us in the precise form in
which it was originally written.
The transmission of Eznik’s treatise illustrates the second point.
Only one manuscript is known. This was written in the thirteenth century,
208 Robert Thomson
but the work remained unknown to the world at large until it was printed
in Smyrna in 1762. Other works also have survived in only one manu
script, such as the History* of Tovma Artsruni, which was not published
until 1852. So the survival of the classics of Armenian literature was
precarious. Indeed, if one remembers the many physical disasters that have
befallen Armenia over the centuries—the destruction caused by invasions,
burning, and looting, or the ravages of earthquakes— it is surprising that
so much did survive. A few texts are known to be lost, such as the History
by Shapuh Bagratuni of the ninth century (Thomson, 1988-1989); and
some have survived in incomplete versions, such as the Histories of
Ukhtanes and of Mekhitar of Ani. In some cases there is doubt whether a
surviving text has been correctly identified when no title is found in the
manuscript, such as the History of Heraclius attributed to Sebeos. But by
good fortune we do seem to have most of the important authors.
The Early Historians
The most creative originality of the Armenians— at least in early and

medieval times— lies in their art, more particularly their building and
painting. As regards their literary culture, Armenians were more cau
tious in breaking new ground. This may be partly explained, perhaps,
by the determined effort of the first sponsors of Armenian writing to
eradicate the non-Christian past. Although songs about the ancient
pagan heroes did circulate by word of mouth, sung by bards (gusan) at
the courts of princes and on social occasions, such as weddings, these
were not incorporated into the creative energy of ecclesiastical writers
and scholars. The circle around Mashtots and their immediate successors
were more concerned with assimilating the Christian culture of the world
around them, rendering this—with appropriate adaptations—into Arme
nian, and using known prose forms to express their reaction to the
specifically Armenian problems of the time. Eznik’s originality in this
sense is clear. But more typical of later Armenian interests, and more
formative for later times, was the work of the historians.
Sahak and Mashtots had been more than “sponsors” of literary
activity. They had created it, participated in it, and trained their pupils.
But they were sponsors in the sense that they dictated the subjects of
study and the texts to be translated. A different kind of sponsorship or
patronage played a role in the writing of history. The interests of the
great noble families required official spokesmen. Their endemic rivalry
played out in the political and social spheres had its echo in the war of
words and propaganda. Not all of the Armenian histories were written
at the behest of a prince whose ancestry needed flattering or whose
present preeminence needed justification in terms of the past. But most
historians had a case to argue; and despite rhetorical disclaimers of
objectivity, few were entirely dispassionate. Tendentiousness, however,
does not detract from liveliness. The classic Armenian histories not only
have many a good tale to relate; they make frequent use of letters and
speeches that break up the narrative, attract the reader's attention, and
subtly expound the writer’s own interpretations.
The first Armenian historians are extremely shadowy figures.
Agathangelos, the “good messenger,’’ who describes the conversion of
Armenia to Christianity; Pavstos Buzand, who chronicles the conflict
of church and state in the fourth century; Eghishe, who describes the
revolt of 450-451 against the Persian shah; Movses Khorenatsi, who
gives the first comprehensive history of Armenia from its origins down
to the time of Mashtots— who were they? Later traditions provide
elaborate details. But we have no reliable information from their con
temporaries; and their claims to have been eyewitnesses of the events
they describe cannot necessarily be taken at face value. In any event,
there was no writing in Armenian before Mashtots; and no compositions
by Armenians in Greek or Syriac are attested. So the works of
Agathangelos and Pavstos are not later translations into Armenian of
books written earlier, as was once thought, but works written in the fifth
century. They may well be based on remembered tradition, but they
reflect the outlook of a date later than the period described.
Agathangelos
Of all works in Armenian literature the work of Agathangelos has the
most complicated textual history. It is not surprising that the life of St.
Gregory the Illuminator and the dramatic conversion of King Trdat
(Tiridates) should have been of interest to Christians generally, and
therefore known outside Armenia. But no other work of Armenian origin
was translated in whole or in part into so many different languages,
including Greek, Arabic, Syriac, Georgian, Latin, and Ethiopic. What
is more, there were two different recensions of the History, so there are
different Greek and Arabic versions; and since the state of the story was
in flux, the Syriac version included events of later dates not found in the
Armenian. We need not investigate here this very complicated picture.
210 Robert Thomson
But it is worth noting that the first version of Agathangelos has disap
peared in Armenian. The text as known from Armenian manuscripts and
as quoted by Armenian writers is that of a second recension, for which
a date of the late fifth century is not implausible.
This History, which gives the received and accepted story of the
conversion of Armenia, is a patchwork of several different sources. It
begins with a rhetorical preface, in which Agathangelos likens the
writing of history to a voyage over the billowing sea and introduces
himself as a "Roman, not unskilled in literary composition/' who was
commissioned to write the book by King Trdat himself. He then sketches
the political history of Armenia following the Sasanian revolution in a .d .
224, the Persian occupation of the country, and the eventual recovery of
the throne by Trdat. He describes the tortures inflicted on Gregory—who
is no less than the son of the man who murdered Trdat’s father—the
martyrdoms of nuns who had fled to Armenia from Rome, the divine
punishments that befell the court, and the emergence of Gregory from
the pit in order to cure the demon-possessed king, when everyone had
assumed that he had died fifteen years previously. At this point
Agathangelos introduces a sixty-day sermon, the Teaching of Saint
Gregory, which is based on the standard instruction before baptism as
found in such works as the Catecheses by Cyril of Jerusalem. The third
section of Agathangelos’s History describes the destruction of pagan
temples, the consecration of Gregory in Caesarea in Cappadocia as the
first bishop of Armenia, the building of churches, and the organization
of a regular clergy. The History ends before Gregory’s death, though
later versions of the story discuss in some detail his final days and the
later discovery of his relics.
As a literary composition, the History of Agathangelos is a
fascinating mixture of fact and fiction, in which historical events of a
hundred years are telescoped into a lifetime. The emphasis on the
importance of Echmiadzin betrays the viewpoint of a fifth-century
writer; for until the late fourth century the Armenian patriarchal see
was at Ashtishat, an old pagan cult-site in western Armenia. But if the
historian uses the book at his peril, for the literary critic it is a mine of
information, since it demonstrates the wide learning of an author
typical of his time. “Agathangelos,” if one can so name the several
authors who had a hand in this progressively more elaborate compo
sition, was thoroughly conversant with the Bible; he drew on a wide
range of hagiographical sources for his descriptions of tortures and
martyrdoms, and on an impressive reading in the works of the church
fathers for the Teaching. The History is not very cohesive, the last part
being especially disjointed and evincing the influence of Koriun for
the description of Gregory’s missionary journeys. But by bringing
together so many literary sources to bear on a topic that was Armenian,
Agathangelos was blazing a trail. In comparison with Eghishe, for
example, he is naive. But he tells his story with panache and must be
reckoned as the first of a small group of writers who formed the
Armenian literary tradition and set an indelible print on the way in
which later generations viewed their Christian origins.
Pavstos Buzand
“Agathangelos,” the good messenger, or bearer of good news, was cer
tainly an appropriate pseudonym for the unknown redactors of earlier
tradition concerning the conversion of Armenia. But the name borne by
Pavstos Buzand has been misinterpreted. Writing about a .d . 500, the
historian Ghazar Parpetsi assumed that it was the same as “Biwzmdatsi”
and meant “from Byzantium.” Being a cleric of opinionated views, Ghazar
upbraided his predecessor for writing a book unworthy of a man educated
in that metropolis of learning. But u and iw are not interchangeable in
Armenian. The clue to “Buzand” lies in the title given to the collection of
books that included the four books of the historian Pavstos. This title,
Buzandaran, means a collection of epic tales. Books three to six constitute
the work of Pavstos. While the identity of the first two books is unclear,
the context makes it plausible to see in them the Armenian version of the
Acts o f Thaddaeus—the story of the aposde Addai of the apostolic age
and the first redaction o f the life of St. Gregory the Illuminator.
In the nineteenth century the work of Pavstos appealed to popular
writers because of its apparent emphasis on secular events: the precari
ous position of the Armenian kingdom between the Roman and Sasanian
empires, the intricate politics of kings and princes who aimed at escaping
the control o f those powers on either side; the rivalries and deceits of
the great noble families; the elaborate descriptions of battles, hunting
scenes, and worldly concerns. It is certainly true that Pavstos gives a
stirring picture of the life, social and political, of the fifty-year period
from the death of K ing Trdat to the partition of Armenia into Roman
and Iranian spheres circa 387. The ways in which Armenians of the time
thought and behaved com e out clearly.
Yet Pavstos was not a secular writer. He does not approve of those
traditional, pre-Christian mores. He is horrified at the persistence of
212 Robert Thomson
pagan ways, at the adoption of Zoroastrianism for political advantage,

at the cruelty and immorality of many of the characters, especially royal
ones, that he vividly portrays. Pavstos’s heroes are the great Patriarch
Nerses and the humbler holy men of the desert. Nerses strove to bring
a Christian outlook to the court and was a staunch advocate of ortho
doxy, opposing the Arian tendencies that influenced several Roman
emperors of the time. On a more modest level, the hermits and saints in
the wilderness strove to eradicate the paganism of the people. O f these
ascetics and missionaries, the most noteworthy example was Mashtots,
not yet mentioned in Pavstos. The History of Pavstos thus reminds us
that the conversion of Armenia was a long, slow process, not accom
plished in Gregory’s time as Agathangelos would have us believe.
Pavstos has blended three major strands of oral tradition into his
written account. The “Epic Tales’’ reflect the secular strands of royal
history, covering the reigns of Trdat’s successors down to the division
of the kingdom and the deeds of the leading noble family, the house of
the Mamikonians, in which the office of commander in chief was
hereditary. Into those two main themes, which themselves contain
numerous interpolations as they progress, Pavstos has integrated the
ecclesiastical history o f Gregory’s successors as patriarch, with atten
dant digressions. Numerous repetitions and doublets indicate that
Pavstos has not fully integrated his sources. But as a witness to the
cultural life of a nation at a time of transition, these “Epic Tales,’* the
Buzandaran Patmutiunk, are incomparable.
In particular, Pavstos emphasizes the legitimacy of family descent.
In the secular realm, the Arsacids forfeited their claim through immoral
conduct; in the ecclesiastical realm too, Gregory’s successors often proved
unworthy of their ancestor. But this theme of family legitimacy kept a firm
hold on the Armenian tradition. Over a thousand years later historians and
poets would still hope for the restoration of Armenian freedoms under the
aegis of direct descendants of Trdat and of Gregory.
Eghishe and Ghazar

But despite the value o f Pavstos Buzand as an historical source, his
History did not have nearly as great an influence on Armenians
through the ages as the work o f Eghishe (Elishe, 1982). The History
of Vardan and the Armenian War gave epic status to the leaders, lay
and cleric, of the revolt against the Sasanian shah in 450-51. Curiously
enough, we have two Armenian versions of these events, which are
not mentioned by outside sources: that by Ghazar Parpetsi and that by

Eghishe. Ghazar’s History (Lazar P ‘arp4etc‘i, 1991), written circa a .d .
500, is primarily devoted to the career of his patron, Vardan Mamikon-
ian, the nephew of Vardan. But about a third of the book describes the
rebellion prompted by the suppression of traditional Armenian liber
ties during the reign of Yazdagerd II, the final defeat of the Armenians
on the battlefield at Avarayr in 451, the martyrdom of the leading
clerics in Persia, and the final release from captivity of the Armenian
nobles who had survived the war.
The main themes of the story are common to both Ghazar and
Eghishe. It is not the difference in details that has given the latter’s
version its preeminence as a literary document, but rather his interpre
tation of the specific events in more general terms so that later genera
tions could adapt them to their own times and altered circumstances.
Eghishe interprets the war of 450-51 as a struggle between vice and
virtue in which the Armenians are fighting for their ancestral customs.
Death in that cause is more honorable than life with ignominy; the true
patriot is the defender of Armenian Christianity against Zoroastrianism;
apostasy not only leads to personal damnation, it brings about the ruin
of the nation.
Eghishe’s History is a tightly knit book in which his basic
themes— the covenant of loyalty to church and country, and the valor
of the virtuous as contrasted with the cowardice and baseness of those
who abandoned that covenant—continually reappear. Through the ef
fective use o f speeches, letters, prayers, and exhortations, he elucidates
the motives of his characters, Persian as well as Armenian, and the
underlying aims that explain their actions. Herein lies the uniqueness of
Eghishe, for no other Armenian historian clarifies so well the forces that
affect men’s actions. Eghishe’s task as a writer is not just to describe the
past, to leave a memorial of glorious deeds for the emulation of succeed
ing generations. It is his duty to point out the evil that men have done,
so that his readers will not lust after the false glory of this world but
devote themselves to truth and godliness. Impiety is not merely a
personal failing, it has abiding consequences for the nation as well.
Eghishe, like most early Armenian writers, drew on a wide range of
literary sources. Given his theme and approach, it is not surprising that
biblical and hagiographical allusions abound. He is also indebted to the
works that circulated under the name of “Hermes Trismegistus”; and he
is the first Armenian to use the Jewish philosopher Philo, relying on
Armenian versions of several of the latter’s works for elaborate similes.
214 Robert Thomson
But one source had a particular influence, not merely providing him with
picturesque vocabulary but with a general philosophy or outlook. That
source is the books of Maccabees. Agathangelos had already used those
texts in describing Armenian paganism; Pavstos borrowed various pas
sages for his battle scenes and was the first to make an explicit comparison
between the Armenians killed in war and the Maccabees. But Eghishe
more than any other Armenian historian makes the theme of the
Maccabees, who fought and died for religious freedom, applicable to the
Armenians. The Persians take the place of the Seleucids, Shah Yazdagerd
is depicted in the same terms as King Antiochus, while the idea of death
for ancestral traditions is modeled, at least verbally, on a basic theme of
the books of Maccabees. This parallel between the history of the Arme
nians and the Jews is made by other Armenian historians. Some of them
tried to find physical links between the two peoples by means of fictitious
genealogies. In fact, the Armenian nobles had no Jewish blood in their
veins. But Armenian writers were able to draw on powerful symbols of
constancy to an ideal both religious and national that struck a responsive
chord in their readers’ hearts.
Ghazar has no reference to Eghishe, whose History of Vardan may
well be viewed as a later rewriting of this dramatic period. Ghazar begins
his History by describing it as the “third” history of Armenia, following
the books of Agathangelos and of Pavstos. He depicts the last years of the
royal Arsacid dynasty, the struggle for religious freedom against Sasanian
oppression, the setback after Avarayr in 451, and the final success thirty
years later when Vardan Mamikonian was recognized as governor
(marzpan) of Armenia by the shah in 485. Ghazar’s approach to the
writing of history is less episodic than that of Pavstos; he does not break
the flow of the narrative to introduce stories not directly relevant to his
main theme. And like other Armenian historians he uses speeches and
letters to enhance the literary effect of his work. His book is also the first
to contain a vision of the distant future, as opposed to a divine revelation
for immediate purposes. This particular episode of Sahak’s vision of the
restoration of the Arsacid monarchy and of the patriarchate in the line of
Gregory after 350 years is no doubt the addition of a later interpolator.
But the theme of wishful predictions in the context of lamentation at
present woes came to have a long history in Armenian literature.
Another significant feature of Ghazar’s History is the role of his
patron. Agathangelos claims to have been commissioned by King Trdat
(who died over a century before the History was written), and Eghishe
addresses an otherw ise unknow n David Mamikon. But Vahan
Mamikonian is a well attested historical figure of Ghazar’s own time,

whose appointment as marzpan forms the climax of Ghazar’s book.
Appended to the History is a letter addressed to Vahan. Ghazar had been
attached to the monastery of the patriarchate at Echmiadzin, but was
expelled because of slander. He defends himself, giving a brief account
of his early life. After studying in Constantinople, he was brought up in
the household of the Kamsarakan family. There followed two years of
ascetic prayer in the wilderness, after which he was attached to the court
of the Mamikonian family. He had thus known Vahan since the latter
was young, and it was Vahan who had secured for him the position at
Echmiadzin. So Ghazar had a friend to whom he could turn in adversity.
Even if his defense is self-serving, it does provide a rare glimpse of social
life at a more personal level than the grand themes of his History.
Movses Khorenatsi
A fifth writer belongs to the group of early classic historians— “classic”
in the sense that their histories not only became models to be emulated,
but also gave a view of the Armenian past that was adopted as the
received, standard interpretation. The History o f Armenia by Movses
Khorenatsi (Moses of Khoren) is the most comprehensive work in early
Armenian historiography, but also the most controversial. Movses
claims to have been a pupil of Mashtots’s, and he ends his work with a
long lament on the evil days that befell Armenia following the deaths
of Mashtots and of the patriarch Sahak and the abolition of the Arsacid
monarchy (which had occurred earlier, in 428). On the other hand, there
are indications in the book itself that it was written after the fifth century.
Not only does Movses use sources not available in Armenian at that
time, he refers to persons and places attested only in the sixth or seventh
centuries. Furthermore, he alters many of his Armenian sources in a
tendentious manner in order to extol his patrons, the Bagratuni family,
who gained preeminence in the eighth century. But despite the fact that
Movses Khorenatsi is not known or quoted by sources before the tenth
century, he became revered in tradition as the “father of history,
p a tm a h a y r and elaborate legends about his life, his other writings, and
his association with Mashtots’s other pupils gained credence after the
year 1000.
The prim e significance of Movses’s History o f Armenia is that as
a literary composition, it was the most complex and sophisticated yet
produced, and of all such works it had the greatest influence on later
216 Robert Thomson
generations. Movses Khorenatsi is the first Armenian historian to dis

cuss in detail the purpose and methods of historical writing. In elaborate
rhetorical terms Agathangelos had referred to the great story he was
about to tell; and Eghishe had spoken about the moral duty of a historian.
But Movses is clear and dispassionate. For him the writing of history is
not the exposition of divine providence or the preaching of right conduct.
Rather, its basic purpose is to bequeath to posterity a reliable record of
the deeds of great men— not only heroic and martial exploits, but also
notable acts of good governance and accomplishments of learning and
piety. There is no place for obscure men or unseemly deeds. Not that
Movses refrains from describing moral turpitude when that is relevant,
but such behavior is not the model that historians should hand down.
The historian has other responsibilities: veracity, reliability, and chron
ological accuracy. These are assured when the historian compares his
sources with each other, takes into consideration the oral tales passed
down by the bards, and rationalizes tales that have a symbolic rather
than literal meaning.
These explicit considerations point to several important features
of Movses’s social world. In the first place, his patrons belonged to the
great noble house of the Bagratid dynasty, whose landed interests
dominated the economic and political life of the time. The great deeds
referred to by Movses are those that bring credit to members of such an
aristocracy, martial valor and wise acts being the most prominent. Then
the importance of such noble houses is enhanced by a glorious ancestry.
Hence Movses’s emphasis on genealogies, for the virtues of the fathers
shed luster on their sons. In the second place, Movses has borrowed from
the rhetoricians of classical antiquity for his themes of reliability,
conciseness, and chronology. This is one aspect of Movses’s use and
adaptation of a wide range o f Greek sources, secular and ecclesiastical,
to Armenian material.
Furthermore, Movses refers to rationalizing or interpreting the old
oral culture of Armenia; he thus recognizes its importance and its
popular hold. But as a writer in Christian times, he cannot accept it.
Living earlier, Pavstos had railed against pagan customs. Movses can
afford a calmer attitude because paganism was no longer a positive
threat. He deliberately quotes several snatches from oral tales still sung
in remoter parts, and refers to Iranian fables that his readers would have
recognized. So he gives us a glimpse of the bard of traditional Armenian
society, but his Christian orientation prevents him from re-creating that
vital aspect of past times.
The scope of Movses’s History is greater than that of his prede

cessors in another more obvious way. Using the Chronicle of Eusebius
as a pattern, he starts with the beginning of the world as described in the
book of Genesis. Since all mankind descends from Noah, Movses
elaborately sets forth the genealogies of Ham, Sem, and Japheth. Tradi
tions in Greek literature already existed concerning the origin of the
various nations. The Armenians supposedly descended from Japheth
through Torgom. The Armenians themselves had a heroic ancestor
Hayk— in whom they saw their own name for themselves, Hayk, the
plural of Hay. This eponymous ancestor had settled in Armenia at the
time of the giants. Movses makes Hayk the son of Torgom, and so
Hayk’s descendants can be set out in a column parallel to the lines from
Sem to Abraham, and from Ham to the Assyrian monarchs. In accor
dance with his passion for chronology, Movses can now expound in
order the legendary antiquity of Armenia, its attested role between
Parthia and the Greco-Roman world after Alexander the Great, and the
more recent history of Christian Armenia. These form the main themes
of the three books of Movses’s History.
It was a grand conception. Not surprisingly, it formed the basis of
all later Armenian writing on the ancient past. And if there were
divergences between Movses and other early Armenian historians, these
were later glossed over. The authority of Movses Khorenatsi was not
impugned until modem times.
This is not the place to describe in detail the contents of Movses’s
History or to identify his many sources. But one of the foreign sources
had a special influence on his basic design, in addition to Eusebius; that
was Josephus. The Jewish Wars had provided Movses with much
information about the Roman-Parthian wars in which Armenia had
played a significant role. But Movses often calls himself an “antiquar
ian.” It was thus Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews that provided the
underlying model. Josephus had expounded the glorious traditions of a
nation whose significance could not be measured by its small numbers.
Likewise Movses explains his purpose: “Although we are a small
country and very restricted in number, weak in power and often subject
to another’s rule, yet many manly deeds have been performed in our
land worthy of being recorded in writing” (book 1, ch. 3).
If the works of these Armenian historians have been described at
length, it is because they are important for two main reasons. In the first
place, they are our prime source for the history of early Armenia. Foreign
sources refer to the politics of that country when, in times of war or
218 Robert Thomson
international crisis, Armenian affairs impinged on other nations. But for

the internal social, political, religious, and intellectual life of the country,
we have little information save from Armenian sources.
These histories also tell us a good deal about their authors— not
personal details of their lives, but rather the general outlook and precon
ceptions of their class. We must remember that Armenian writers be
longed to a small group, the educated clergy and a very few laymen with
comparable backgrounds, whose interests were often at variance with the
culture of their patrons and whose Christian philosophy was opposed to
the lingering pre-Christian traditions of the mass of the people. Steeped
in Greek and Syriac learning, they brought their own interpretations to
bear on the history of their land. And if pagan or Iranian motifs appear in
the earliest texts, their significance was often unknown to later genera
tions. Indeed, not until our own times have the complexity of early
Armenian culture and the persistence of traditions with deep roots in
Armenia’s Iranian background been fully brought to light.
Rhetoric and Philosophy
The conscious activity of early Armenian writers and scholars was

devoted to the assimilation of Christian and classical learning and their
adaptation to specifically Armenian needs. It should be remembered that
Armenians knew of classical culture through the schools and universi
ties o f the fourth and fifth centuries a .d . They did not translate into
Armenian many of the old literary classics such as Homer, the Greek
tragedians and poets, Herodotus, Thucydides, or the orators—though
they were interested in the philosophers Plato and Aristotle and their
later commentators. It was rather the works of later antiquity that
Armenians read and studied, works that drew on a thousand-year tradi
tion but were themselves often somewhat unoriginal schoolbooks. To
this category belongs, for example, the standard text on grammar,
Dionysius Thrax’s Ars Grammatica. This was not merely translated; the
terminology and examples were adapted to fit the characteristics of the
Armenian language. The study of grammar remained of importance in
Armenian scholarship; commentaries on Dionysius were written in later
centuries, and there was a spate of original works in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries.
Greek works on rhetoric were also influential in Armenia. Theon’s
manual, the Progymnasmata, was translated; while the influence of
Aphthonius is discemable in the earliest original Armenian composition

of this kind, the Girk Pitoyits, Book of Chreiai, a technical term for
maxims. This was falsely ascribed to Movses Khorenatsi, no doubt
because of the latter's reputation for learning as a kertogh, grammarian,
or poet. The great interest of this long treatise, of uncertain date, is that
Christian examples are introduced alongside the examples from pagan
mythology that were standard in the Greek models.
Grammar and rhetoric led to the study of logic. Here the transla
tions of commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories and Analytics formed
a basis for later original Armenian com m entaries. Porphyry’s
Eisagoge, Introduction [to Philosophy], was translated. But more
significant for the development of a native Armenian philosophical
tradition was the Prolegomena, Introduction, by David, a pupil of
Olympiodorus’s in Alexandria in the sixth century. This work, known
in Armenian as Definitions and Divisions o f Philosophy, was a basic
textbook, an introduction to more elaborate commentaries on individ
ual books of Aristotle or Plato. It set out the basic purposes of
philosophical inquiry and expressed in succinct form the views of
earlier thinkers. This type of work was also influential in the transmis
sion of Greek learning to the Muslims.
The Armenian version of David’s Definitions is interesting in that
passages were adapted for an Armenian readership; it is also important
in that it remained a standard textbook for Armenians as late as the
seventeenth century, and because many commentaries were written on
it. But most significant of all, the nebulous figure of David was devel
oped into a member of the Armenian establishment; he became an actual
pupil of Mashtots. There is nothing at all implausible in an Armenian
studying and teaching in Alexandria. Many Armenians played important
roles in the Greco-Roman world, as they later did in the Byzantine world,
and some became professors of philosophy— Prohaeresius in Athens,
for example, in the fourth century. What is to be rejected is not the
possibility of David being of Armenian extraction, but his being a
member of the circle of students around Sahak and Mashtots. This
tradition, first attested only after a .d . 1 0 0 0 , was part of an effort to push
many influential Armenian writers and scholars back in time to the
“golden age.*’ Elaborate tales were invented describing the careers of
David, now called the “Invincible’* philosopher, Movses Khorenatsi,
Eghishe, and others less well known. By an understandable, if unhistor-
ical, enthusiasm—and in recognition of their significance as founders
of a specifically Armenian culture—these men came to be regarded as
220 Robert Thomson
disciples of Mashtots in the flesh, rather than as formative figures of

later generations who brought his work to full fruition.
There is one feature of these translations of technical works that
deserves further attention. They are written in a style quite different from
the elegant lucidity of earlier translations. They evince a striving for
literalness at the expense of normal Armenian usage. The word order of
the originals is strictly observed, and a new technical vocabulary devel
oped. The remarkable feature of this vocabulary is that Greek terms were
broken into their respective parts, the parts translated, and these then
reassembled to make new Armenian words. They were direct “caiques.”
The style, since it is patterned on Greek, is known as Hellenizing, and
texts written in that style are ascribed to the Hellenizing, or Hellenistic,
school. But the term “school” does not mean that they were produced
in one place or by followers of a particular master.
The reasons for the development of such a literal style of transla
tion are not clear. A similar, though not identical, tendency can also be
seen in Syriac translations from Greek, which also became more literal
with the passage of time. The main consideration seems to have been
the desire for strict accuracy in the rendering of technical terms, both
those of secular learning and of theology. Armenians soon became
embroiled in the great controversies of the Christian world and had to
defend their viewpoint when attacked, especially after their rejection of
the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon. (This met in 451, but the
Armenian split from communion with the Greek imperial church was
not complete until over a century later.) But why the search for exact
renderings of technical terms led to such slavish copying of Greek syntax
is obscure. These translations are often classified according to the degree
of literalness they exhibit. But the Hellenizing tendency did not follow
a strict chronological development. Therefore the most literal are not
necessarily the latest, or vice versa.
Technical Subjects:
Anania o f Shirak (Anania Shirakatsi)
The question of Armenians studying abroad, and the development of

secular studies such as grammar and logic, bring us to a unique figure
in early Armenian scholarship and to an unusual document. Anania of
Shirak, who lived in the seventh century, is the first Armenian to have
devoted his attention primarily to mathematics and scientific subjects.
ARMENIAN LITERARY CULTURE 22 1
His books on mathematics were used as Armenian textbooks, while his

ability in astronomy led to his being asked by Catholicos Anastas
(662-667) to establish a fixed calendar. This was not in the end adopted;
the old Armenian year moved back one day for every four years of the
Julian calendar. Anania also wrote a Chronicle—the first of an increas
ingly popular genre in which significant events were listed in order under
the year of their occurrence—and composed some theological works.
These last are primarily concerned with Christian festivals, reflecting
his interest in dates and the calendar, which in turn hinged on astronomy.
Anania was a rarity in early Armenia, a lay scholar. But the great works
of patristic writers were as familiar to him as to the clerical authors of
his time. The Hexaemeron by Basil of Caesarea, for example, was a
significant source for his work On Clouds.
In recent times, however, Anania has attracted attention because
he left a few pages of autobiography (Anania Sirakac'i, 1964). This is
a rare personal statement, even if somewhat self-congratulatory like
Ghazar’s Letter. According to the Autobiography, Anania could find no
teacher of mathematics in Armenia, so he made his way toward Con
stantinople. But he heard of a teacher in Trebizond, Tychikos, with
whom he then studied for eight years before returning to Armenia.
Anania complains of the lack of interest in mathematics shown by his
compatriots. His own travels are unusual only in that the object of his
search was a teacher of scientific subjects. Armenians in the past had
gone as far as the Byzantine capital in search of theological texts; and
that pattern was to be followed in future centuries.
Even more interesting are the details given by Anania concerning
the career of Tychikos. The latter had been bom in Trebizond and had
served in the Roman army in Armenia, where he had learned Armenian.
On leaving the army he had traveled for study to Alexandria, Rome, and
Constantinople. This “grand tour” has parallels in the claim of Movses
Khorenatsi to have studied in Alexandria, Rome, Athens, and Constan
tinople; and later historians credit the eighth century Stephen of Siunik
with visits to Rome and Athens as well as Constantinople. That Arme
nians, who traveled all over the eastern Mediterranean, may have visited
Italy is not unlikely. But there was no clearly demonstrable direct
influence of Latin traditions on early Armenian literary culture.
Anania cannot be left without reference to another text, unique in
early Armenian literature, which some modem scholars have attributed to
him. This is the Ashkharhatsuyts, Geography (Ananias of Sirak, 1992),
which earlier Armenian tradition ascribed to Movses Khorenatsi but is
222 Robert Thomson
now often ascribed to Anania. No other geographical treatise in Armenian

is known before the thirteenth century. The author of this work based
himself on earlier Greek sources, notably Pappus of Alexandria, whose
original Geography has been lost. But to that general framework he added
a very detailed description of Armenia, the Caucasus, and Iran, not found
in Greek sources but based on contemporary information. Its importance
as a historical document of the early seventh century is immense. But from
the point of view of literary culture, it has a different kind of significance.
The emphasis in this Geography is given to the political divisions of
Armenia, the provinces and their subdivisions, rather than to the geology
or natural geographical features of the land and its flora and fauna. It is a
product of a social milieu based on landholding and bears witness to the
interests of the great noble houses to which the historians had given
expression in different terms.
Homilies
Not all Armenian writers were concerned with the grand themes of
history or the scholarly activity that developed from the secular interests
of late antiquity. The Christian message had taken root in Armenia long
since; the church had developed its hierarchical organization and ritual
practices. But the mass of the people were never so securely converted
that vigilance could be suspended, while the development of an individ
ual Armenian Church had brought conflict with other branches of
Christendom.
Internally there had always been dissidents. Koriun refers to
B orborites, Eznik to M arcionites. Later on the Paulicians and
Tondrakians attracted the ire of ecclesiastical leaders. So it is hardly
surprising that the genre of homilies is well represented in Armenian
literature. Several collections are extant, the earliest anachronistically
attributed to St. Gregory the Illum inator. This collection, the
Hachakhapatum, deals with the nature of the Christian faith in its
practical application: the requirements of a holy life, the consequence
of sin, the importance of repentance. Although there is some discussion
o f d o g m atic m a tte rs— the T rinity and the In c a rn a tio n — the
Hachakhapatum is not a systematic treatise in any way comparable to
the Teaching of Saint Gregory in the History of Agathangelos.
To Catholicos Hovhannes Mandakuni (John Mandakuni) are attrib
uted thirty homilies dealing with repentance, prayer, and sin. These are
more elaborate than the Hachakhaptatum. They stress the contrast be
tween rich and poor, and the iniquity of usury. Their author refers
particularly to sins such as envy, revenge, or drunkenness, to sexual
perversions, magical practices, and excessive mourning for the dead. This
last is a common theme in Armenian writers from Pavstos on, echoed in
numerous conciliar decisions; it was a feature of pagan practice that
lingered long. But although these homilies by Mandakuni (or by the later
John Mayragometsi, according to some critics) deal with concrete situa
tions, they also contain many themes that had become literary topoi. The
warnings against Jews and Gentiles, the evils of usury, the moral dangers
of theatrical performances, known in earlier pagan Armenia but not
attested in Christian times, are themes introduced into Armenian written
texts from patristic homilies rather than the spontaneous expression of
dangers to fifth-century Armenian congregations. Important as such texts
are as evidence for social conditions, traditional themes tended to be
repeated beyond the times to which they were originally applicable.
These and similar works were designed for internal consumption,
in the sense of strengthening Christian life among Armenians. Also
aimed at Armenians were the attacks on Paulicians and other groups
who rejected the authority of the established order. The most elaborate
of these were composed in the eighth century by Catholicos John of
Odzun. Earlier refutations of heretics are numerous, but they generally
associate errors inside Armenia with heretics abroad. Such documents
attest to the need of Armenian clerics to expound the Armenian doctrinal
position and to defend it against Greek or Syrian church authorities.
Theological and Polemical Writings
The development of theological controversies in the church at large is

not our concern; and the evolution of an autonomous Armenian Church,
which no longer accepted communion with the Greek imperial church
of Byzantium or the officially recognized church in Sasanian Iran, is
treated elsewhere. Here we should merely draw attention to the offshoot
of those events in so far as they called forth new genres of literary
activity.
The many letters preserved in historians or in the collection known
as the Book of Letters (an official compilation of documents from the fifth
to the twelfth centuries) give a vivid picture of the debates between
Armenians, Greeks, Syrians, and Georgians (Tallon, 1955). But they
224 Robert Thomson
hardly qualify as “literature/* The first treatise devoted to a technical

dogmatic question is the work attributed to Catholicos John Mandakuni
entitled: “Demonstration that one must say that the Lord is One Nature
from two natures” (Tallon, 1955). Unlike many later works that hammer
away at the errors of the Council of Chalcedon and the “heretical” views
there expounded, this treatise does not identify John’s opponents by name
or attack them with opprobrious epithets. From a scholarly point of view,
it is important as the first example of the adaptation of vocabulary
associated with the Hellenizing school of translators to an original work.
In the area of theological dispute, translations continued to serve
as models for Armenian writers. Of particular interest is the Refutation
of the Council o f Chalcedon by Timothy Aelurus, patriarch of Alexan
dria from 457 to 477. The Greek original is lost; so, as with works of
numerous other patristic authors or by Philo, the Armenian version is a
valuable historical source. Furthermore, the format of this work was
influential in the development of a genre of writing with a long history
in Armenia. Timothy had set out his arguments as a series of refutations,
in which each section is primarily composed of extracts from earlier
theologians. It is a “florilegium,” a collection of “proof texts” from
writers whose authority was respected by all sides. This Refutation was
probably translated in connection with the second council of Dvin in
555, after which the break with the Greek church became irrevocable.
It became an important weapon in the Armenian theological arsenal,
frequently quoted in later centuries.
In the early seventh century the first original Armenian compila
tion of this kind was put together—the Seal of Faith, traditionally
ascribed to the catholicos Komitas (615-628), but in its present form
perhaps of a somewhat later date. It contained passages from Armenian,
Greek, and Syrian authors that bolstered the Armenian doctrinal posi
tion. In later centuries other similar collections were compiled dealing
with various matters of dispute; and in the historians long defenses of
the Armenian position became common. Whether in the format of a
speech or letter, their basic form was a connected string of quotations
from acceptable authorities.
Less polemical in intent were commentaries on the Bible. From
the earliest period commentaries by the great theologians, such as John
Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and Ephrem the
Syrian, had circulated in Armenian versions. From such works, and
many others, Armenians made commentaries in the form of extracts
from different authors on the same verses of the biblical books. Original
Armenian commentaries begin with Stephen of Siunik in the early

eighth century.
The predominant influence of ecclesiastical concerns on early
Armenian writing and scholarship is clearly evident at that period. In
701 Salomon, then steward and later abbot of the monastery of Makenots
in Siunik, composed the first calendar of feasts for martyrs (tonakan).
A much more grandiose compilation was that of Armenian canon law
made by Catholicos John of Odzun (717-728). It included translations
from Greek of the canons of early councils of the church and the original
texts of Armenian councils and of collections attributed to individual
prelates. It was another four hundred years before the secular laws of
Armenia were codified and set in writing.
John of Odzun was one of the great administrative patriarchs. His
attacks on Paulicians were noted earlier. He was also responsible for
summoning two important councils. One at Dvin in 717 was directed
primarily at internal problems. A second at Manazkert in 726 was aimed
at a reconciliation of differences between the Armenian and Syrian
churches. Representatives from the Syrian Jacobite Church attended,
and agreement was reached in a decision to establish a joint monastery
on the border between the two lands where both languages would be
taught and translations made. But this agreement broke down, and
harmony between the two churches was never fully established. An
important consideration in this regard was the divergence of ritual
practices between the two groups. Although surviving documents em
phasize doctrinal differences between the various branches of eastern
Christendom, occasional telling remarks point to the significance of
divergent ritual as the visible symbol of incompatibility.
Noteworthy in this regard is a short document of the early eighth
century that describes the process whereby the Armenian Church be
came independent of the Greek Church, the so-called Narratio de Rebus
Armeniae, which has survived in a Greek translation but not in the
original Armenian. The text is significant in that it was written from the
pro-Chalcedonian point of view—an indication that not all Armenians
supported the doctrinal position of the Armenian patriarchs. The Nar
ratio describes the schisms caused in Armenia when at different times
the Byzantine government was able to impose a forced union; some
Armenians would accept, others would reject it. In 591 Catholicos
Movses II (574-604) refused to cross the border between Iranian and
Byzantine territory when summoned to Constantinople. According to
the Narratio, he declared: “I shall not cross the Azat; I shall not eat
226 Robert Thomson
oven-baked bread; I shall not drink hot water.” The Azat was the river
marking the border, but its meaning in Armenian (“free”) is here used
as a pun. Baked and leavened bread and the mixing of warm water with
the wine were characteristics of Greek usage in the liturgy to which
Armenians objected.
The codification of canon law, the compilation of liturgical books
of ritual, and the writing of texts like the Narratio (and, according to
some critics, the composition of the History of Movses Khorenatsi)
indicate that in the eighth century Armenians were conscious of a long
and specifically Armenian tradition behind them. The break with the
Greek imperial church was over a century old, and the Armenian Church
had now developed as a distinctly separate branch of Christendom with
its own literary and religious traditions. On the other hand, the Arme
nians were not cutting themselves off from what they had always
regarded as the prime source of learning—Constantinople. In the second
decade of the eighth century Stephen, later bishop of the province of
Siunik, spent several years in the capital translating works not yet
available in Armenian. The most important of his translations was that
of the corpus of writings ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. These
mystical works, with a strong Neoplatonic tint, had had a profound
impact on Christian thought in the East and were to have an even greater
influence on the Latin West. In Armenia Stephen’s rendering had a wide
circulation, and commentaries were written on the corpus, beginning in
the tenth century.
Historians: Seventh to Tenth Centuries
Important as such works of theology or philosophy were for Armenian

scholarship, they do not reflect the broader concerns of political and
social life that dominate the histories. The writing of history was the
field of literary activity— at least in prose—in which the Armenians
particularly excelled. And although later writers did not attain the classic
status of a Eghishe or a Movses Khorenatsi, their works are significant
not merely as sources for the events they describe, but as expressions of
a specifically Armenian cultural ethos.
The last century of Sasanian Persian rule and the beginning of the
Muslim era are described by the historian known as Sebeos. As with
some other Armenian writings, notably Eznik’s treatise discussed ear
lier, the surviving text has no heading and was identified by modem
authors. So the correctness of the ascription of this history to the author

mentioned in later sources as “Sebeos” has been challenged. This
problem, however, is not very significant from our present point of view.
The book, mistakenly called the History of Heraclius, is a late seventh
century work of particular importance as the main source for Armenia
in a period of transition. Its author paints a vivid picture of the lot of the
Armenians caught between Byzantium and Iran in the long wars that
preceded the defeat of the Sasanian dynasty by the emperor Heraclius
and its final collapse before the Muslims. The Armenian situation is well
caught in a letter supposedly sent by the emperor Maurice to Shah
Khosrov, in which he suggests that they act in concert to rid themselves
of the troublesome Armenians who lay between them.
Sebeos is the first writer to draw attention to another problem that
in future centuries would loom ever larger: the fate of colonies of
Armenians outside the homeland. The emperor Maurice had deliberately
moved Armenian soldiers, with their families, away from Armenia to
other regions of the empire. In part it was an attempt to weaken resistance
to Byzantine control over western Armenia, in part an attempt to buttress
the empire’s defenses with proven troops. To the east a similar policy
had been long standing. Armenians had always been obliged to provide
military service in the campaigns of the shahs; this is clearly described
by Eghishe and Ghazar. Usually the soldiers had returned home after
their spell of duty. But Sebeos describes a colony of Armenians in
Hyrcania, to the southeast of the Caspian Sea, who had been so long
guarding that distant border that they had forgotten their language and
were deprived of the services of a priest. The Armenian noble Smbat
Bagratuni was then serving the shah as governor of that region. He
remedied the situation by having a priest sent, who would not only
strengthen their religious faith but also teach the soldiers their native
tongue. One of Sebeos’s themes was the unsuccessful efforts of Byzan
tine emperors to impose forced union on the Armenian Church. The role
of that church and of the native tongue as instruments of national
individuality thus comes out very clearly in this episode.
Sebeos was describing a time of difficulty. The even more oppres
sive days of Muslim domination are depicted by Ghevond (Levond) at
the end of the eighth century. Important as his work is for military and
political events, it is narrower in scope than that of Sebeos and cannot
be counted as one of the major literary achievements of Armenian
historiography. By the late ninth century the immediate danger of
physical annihilation had passed. For 150 years, until the final collapse
228 Robert Thomson
of Armenia and the ensuing Turkish domination of eastern Anatolia,

there was renewed prosperity; and the development of economic life
brought many visible changes—notably the growth of cities. Yet these
economic changes did not greatly alter the structure of Armenian
society. Two works written at the beginning of the tenth century are
typical of Armenian historiography and informative about social con
cerns: the History of Catholicos Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi (John of
Draskhanakert) describes the growth of Bagratid power in northern
Armenia, which was always economically more significant than the
south; while Tovma (Thomas) Artsruni traces the fortunes of the
Artsruni house in the area of Lake Van.
Following the tradition set by Movses Khorenatsi, John begins his
History with a recapitulation of Armenian history from its origins,
integrating Armenian tradition into the biblical account of Noah’s
descendants. As he comes closer to his own time, his narrative becomes
more detailed. Movses had ended in the fifth century, so John used
Sebeos for the ensuing two hundred years. In the more recent period the
now-lost History by Shapuh Bagratuni served as the major source for
the rise of the Bagratid family. But the main part of John’s work is
devoted to the thirty years (890-920) of which he had personal knowl
edge. As Catholicos of Armenia, John naturally played a prominent role
in the politics of his time. His History is thus unique as a personal
document, for no other Armenian historian was so involved in national
and international affairs. The reader gains a rare glimpse of an Armenian
who had firsthand experience of the problems he describes. Not the least
of these problems was the pacification of the endemic rivalry and
feuding of the noble families. The social instability—in the sense of
turbulence among the barons, not revolutionary dangers from below—
that so marks the pages of Pavstos Buzand was still the main disruptive
force in Armenian life.
The ebb and flow of personal and dynastic rivalry comes out
equally clearly in the History of the Artsruni House by Thomas, written
at the beginning of the tenth century. This work is perhaps best known
for the elaborate description of Gagik’s palace and church on the island
of Aghtamar. But that section forms part of a later addition; Thomas’s
own History ends before Gagik became king. Like John, Thomas begins
his story with the origins of the Armenian nation, but he places his
emphasis on the role of the Artsruni house. They were of old stock,
claiming descent from the sons of the Assyrian king Sennacherib: as is
related in II Kings, chapter 19, his sons killed their father and escaped
to the land of Armenia. By the end of the ninth century the Artsrunis
had attained a prominence second only to that of the Bagratid dynasty.
Thomas’s History is an elaborate attempt to rewrite the past, as known
primarily from Movses Khorenatsi, Eghishe, and Sebeos, in order to
show that his patron’s ancestors had enjoyed as glorious an antiquity as
their rivals. The details are not as important as the general attitude: the
emphasis on genealogy, on the great deeds of the past—real or im
agined— as giving justification for present claims, on heroic exploits in
war and valiant resistance, even to martyrdom for the faith. Such were
the virtues of the noble class whose interests Thomas and other Arme
nian historians defended.
Over half o f Thomas’s History deals with the events of fifty years:
from the murderous invasion of the caliph’s general Bugha, which began
in 851, to the lifting of direct Muslim control, the establishment of a
Bagratid kingdom in the north, and the prosperity of Artsmni lands
under Gagik. This part is interesting on several counts. It is our main
source, even if tendentious, for events in southern Armenia, written by
a contemporary. As an interpretation of Muslim domination, it reflects
the influence of Eghishe; Thomas depicts the caliphs and their minions
in terms deliberately evocative of Eghishe’s description of Shah
Yazdagerd II and his attempt to crush Armenian liberties. And by
extensive use of letters and speeches, Thomas portrays in vivid fashion
the underlying social attitudes of the Armenian nobility. Eghishe’s
speeches had dealt with themes of perennial significance: cultural sur
vival, the role of the church, the preservation of traditional values.
Thomas’s speeches deal with more specific issues: a noble’s social
responsibilities in caring for his land and punishing rebels, the ways of
attaining that goal—largesse and liberal entertainments—the delights of
hunting, and all the trappings of a nobleman’s life in the country.
Thomas’s History did not have the relevance for later generations
enjoyed by Eghishe’s Vardan and the Armenian War. Yet as a social
document it gives us a clearer insight into the personal concerns of the
nobility of the time.
Thomas’s History had little influence on later writers because the
Bagratid house dominated the political scene, and it was their spokes
man, Movses Khorenatsi, who fixed the standard version of early
Armenian history. Thomas’s rewriting of Armenian origins did not gain
acceptance, while his picture of ninth-century Vaspurakan was too
provincial to attract much attention. It is perhaps no accident that the
only surviving complete text of the History of the Artsruni House was
230 Robert Thomson
copied on the island of Aghtamar (in 1309). On the other hand, in more
popular, less formal writings the exploits of the Artsruni heroes lived
on. Reference was made earlier to the lost History by Shapuh Bagratuni.
Ironically, a text discovered and published, wrongly, under his name in
the twentieth century deals not with the Bagratid dynasty but with the
Artsruni princes who appear in the pages of Thomas. The more recent
editor of the full text wisely removed the ascription of this curious
medley of popular tales from “Pseudo-Shapuh” to an “Anonymous
Storyteller” (Thomson, 1988-1989).
Several other historical works deal with regions peripheral to the
centers of political and economic life. West of Lake Van is the province
of Taron, where St. Gregory the Illuminator had established the first
church in Ashtishat. This province produced several historians, some
with dubious credentials. Zenob, supposedly a Syrian and colleague of
St. Gregory, describes the activities of the Illuminator and King Trdat;
John, bishop of the Mamikonian, chronicles the exploits of nobles of
that family at the turn of the sixth and seventh centuries. Both works are
later compositions, of the tenth or eleventh century, designed to bring
greater prestige to the area of Taron. (The most important historian from
Taron, Stephen, known as “Asoghik,” will be discussed later.)
On the opposite side of Armenia, across the Kura River, lay the
country of Caucasian Albania. The Aghvank were not Armenian and
spoke their own Caucasian tongue. Koriun claims that Mashtots in
vented a script for them; and indeed an alphabet and a few inscriptions
have been discovered. But for literary purposes the Aghvank wrote in
Armenian. Their history was set down by Movses Daskhurantsi (Moses
of Daskhuran), of whose life nothing is known. His History of the
Aghvank was probably composed in the second half of the tenth century,
though there are a few later additions. This too is a tendentious work; it
attempts to prove the independence and antiquity of the local Albanian
Church. But it has great significance as a rare witness in Armenian to
the history of a non-Armenian people. Although Armenians on occasion
wrote about foreign nations, such as the Mongols, and adapted the
chronicles of the Syrian patriarch Michael and of the Georgians, only
the Aghvank adopted Armenian as their vehicle of literary expression.
The focus on ecclesiastical affairs, so important to Movses
Daskhurantsi, is apparent in many Armenian authors—which is hardly
surprising, given the predominant role of the church from the beginnings
of Armenian literacy. So questions of doctrine, of governance, of
opposition to heretics, all find their place in works generally regarded
as “historical.” Resistance to Greek attempts at enforced union figures

prominently in the seventh and eighth centuries. But Armenians were
not monolithic in their support of the national church. There were many
who supported the doctrinal position of the imperial church of Byzan
tium and accepted the Council of Chalcedon. In such circles the Arme
nian original of the Narratio was composed; and against such “heretics”
the later historian Ukhtanes inveighed.
Of Ukhtanes little is known. He was probably bishop of Sebaste
at the end of the tenth century— a time when Armenian colonies were
expanding westward beyond the Euphrates. His work has three sections:
a summary of Armenian history down to Trdat, a description of the
Armeno-Georgian schism at the beginning of the seventh century, and
a section, now lost, on the Armenian Chalcedonians. The great interest
of the middle section is that many of the documents used by Ukhtanes
are also preserved in a separate collection, the Book of Letters mentioned
earlier. Ukhtanes’s History does not rank high as a literary composition,
but it is a salutary reminder that Armenians were not unanimous in
supporting their national church.
Religious Poetry: Gregory of Narek
The emphasis placed thus far on the role of the clergy— on bishops who
played their part in worldly affairs, or scholarly monks writing in their
monasteries, translating and commenting on learned treatises—should
not obscure another aspect of literary activity. Armenia has produced
many fine poets. At first such talents found their expression in religious
hymns and prayers. By medieval times secular themes are introduced,
though seemingly profane verse may disguise a mystical fervor in which
the beloved is not of this world. Here we should turn to the greatest
religious poet in Armenian history, the best loved of all Armenian
literary figures in later ages, Grigor Narekatsi (Gregory of Narek).
Gregory was born in the middle of the tenth century and died
probably in 1010. He spent all his life from childhood in the monastery
of Narek, by the southern shore of Lake Van. Narek was an important
center of learning, and Gregory's father, Khosrov, had been noted for
his knowledge of Greek. An edifying story in the Haysmavurk (the
Synaxarion, or collection of saints' lives arranged by days of the
liturgical year) indicates that Gregory too was suspected of being a
tzayt, a pro-Greek Chalcedonian. Messengers came to summon him to
232 Robert Thomson
a tribunal where the charge was to be examined. Before setting out

Gregory offered them a meal: roast pigeons. But it was a Friday, and
the messengers were scandalized. Gregory excused his ignorance and
said to the pigeons: “Fly away to your fellows because today is a
fast-day.” The roast pigeons came back to life and flew away. Thus
were his critics silenced.
Gregory’s reputation, however, depends on the more solid basis
of a large number of hymns for feast days, panegyrics on holy figures,
and most especially a collection of mystical prayers known as the Book
o f Lamentations. So famous did this become that it is commonly known
simply as “Narek.” The Book o f Lamentations contains ninety-five
poems, each of which is entitled “Conversation with God from the
depths of the heart.” These prayers deal with separation and reunion with
God, dwelling in particular on the mystic’s anguish at the separation
caused by sin and his yearning for union. The language is often obscure,
but vivid and innovative. Not least interesting is G regory’s use of
rhythmical rhyming cadences, reminiscent of Arabic prosody, the sadj.
The influence of Arabic, especially in southern Armenia in the tenth
century or later, is hardly surprising given the political and economic
ties between Armenia and the Muslim world. The large number of
Arabic names in use among the Armenian nobility is but a small token
of the social impact of Islam.
The Eleventh Century
Gregory of Narek, at the end o f his Book o f Lamentations, celebrated

the advance of the “victorious and great emperor of the Romans, Basil,”
into northwestern Armenia in a .d . 1000. This eastward expansion of the
Byzantine Empire had begun in the previous century. By 1045 Armenia
had been incorporated into the empire, only to lose to the Seljuks within
another generation what security had been temporarily gained. The
demise of the independent Bagratid and Artsruni kingdoms and the
establishment of large Armenian colonies to the west of the Euphrates
River brought Armenians into much closer contact with Greek ecclesi
astical and administrative authorities than had been the case for several
hundred years. But Armenian solidarity was not totally compromised.
The establishment of Armenian bishoprics outside the old homeland at
the end of the tenth century, and the exile of the patriarch to Cappadocia
after 1045, gave a focus for national feeling that survived until the
development of a new, smaller Armenian state in Cilicia at the time of

the Crusades.
Gregory (Grigor) Magistros

Armenian authors of the eleventh century are surprisingly ambiguous
in their attitude to these momentous changes. For some it was an
opportunity to imbibe more deeply of the Greek learning that for a
thousand years had attracted Armenians. Gregory Pahlavuni, known as
Magistros from his title in the Byzantine administration, illustrates the
most extreme limit of philhellenism; his son Vahram, who took the name
of Gregory as catholicos and earned the nickname of Vkayaser, “lover
of martyrs,” was more typical in that his attention was devoted to
Christian rather than pagan learning. But others, notably the historian
Aristakes o f Lastivert (Aristakes Lastiverttsi), were full of pessimism
and lamentation. It was the Armenians' sinfulness, supposed Aristakes,
that had brought such misfortunes upon their heads. The later Matthew
of Edessa stresses the terror and sense of helplessness that the sudden
appearance of the Turks caused in Armenia.
Over the centuries many Armenians had taken service in the
Byzantine government or army. Many had risen to positions of emi
nence, and some had attained the imperial throne after a generation or
two of acculturation. Such Armenians were integrated into the ethnically
diverse population of the empire; they accepted the authority of the
Greek Church, and were more or less lost to Armenia in the sense that
their future careers had little direct influence on the cultural life of their
native land. Gregory Magistros is thus unusual; although he was a
familiar figure in Constantinople and served as duke of southwestern
Armenia for the imperial government after 1048, his literary activity was
pursued in Armenian. His interests were wide: He translated works of
Plato and Euclid, wrote a commentary on the Grammar of Dionysius
Thrax (which had been translated in the Hellenizing style, as noted
earlier), wrote poetry, and composed a series of letters on scholarly and
administrative matters. These last are quite unique in Armenian, being
not only personal letters, as opposed to official documents such as those
preserved in the Book o f Letters, but also original in style. Gregory was
deeply imbued with the contemporary Greek enthusiasm for classical
learning. His letters abound in recondite allusions to the literature of
pagan antiquity; and their tortuous language, rich in neologisms, reflects
the rhetorical obscurity of Byzantine style. Important as they are as a
234 Robert Thomson
historical source, written by a man who played a major role in the politics
and scholarship of his day, they are so daunting that no modem translator
has yet tackled the whole collection.
Gregory’s activity was not confined to scholarship of a recondite
kind. He was noted for poems on religious topics, of which the most
famous is a work of 1,000 lines summarizing the contents of the Bible for
the benefit of a Muslim. During his period of service for the Byzantine
Empire, he energetically opposed the Tondrakian sect in Armenia. Yet
Gregory Magistros’s literary work lies outside the mainstream of Arme
nian cultural activity. Later generations did not follow his enthusiasm for
Byzantine patterns. Nonetheless, he remains a remarkable figure who
illustrates, albeit in a rather extreme fashion, one of the courses open to
Armenians at a time of political and cultural change.
Gregory Vkayaser
Gregory Magistros’s son, Vahram, was more typical of Armenian
scholarship in that he devoted himself to theological concerns. For forty
years (from 1065 until his death in 1105) he held the patriarchal throne
as Grigor (Gregory) II. But he did not inherit his father’s administrative
interests. Leaving all official duties to others, he directed his energy to
seeking out and having translated hagiographical texts not yet available
in Armenian. In that search he traveled widely in the Near East, from
Constantinople to Egypt and Jerusalem.
Those forty years were a period of transformation in Armenian
life: A new home was being forged in Cilicia, and contact with the
Crusaders introduced the Armenians directly to the culture of Western
Christendom. Grigor Vkayaser’s activity draws attention to the scatter
ing of Armenian communities, already well under way before his time.
His concern for Greek literature was nothing new. For more than six
centuries Armenians had been ever anxious to make available in their
own language religious and other texts written in Greek, despite the
strained relationship between the two churches. However, this transla
tion activity was not directed to the rendering of contemporary Byzan
tine authors, but rather of earlier patristic writers, the common heritage
of all Christendom.
Although the eleventh century marks a turning point in Armenia’s
political fortunes, there was no sudden break in traditional literary activity.
The mass of Armenians continued to live in Armenia; indeed, the eco
nomic prosperity of Armenian cities was probably greater after the loss
of political autonomy than before. New artistic ideas were introduced in

the realm of miniature painting by Armenians established in Asia Minor.
But although the transformations under way in Armenian life are echoed
by the historians, their works are not dramatically different from those of
their predecessors. Armenian scholarship did not follow the path of
Gregory Magistros. In fact, the newer trends, such as interest in medicine
or the development of lyrical poetry, ambiguously religious and erotic,
owe more to the influence of Arabic and Persian than to Greek.
Asoghik
The two significant historians of the eleventh century, Stepanos Asoghik
(Taronetsi), nicknamed Asoghik “teller” of tales, and Aristakes of
Lastivert, do not evince any sharp break with earlier traditions of
historiography, although their works are quite different from each other
in approach. Stephen begins with a brief r6sum£ of the early history of
the world based on earlier authors: the Bible, Eusebius of Caesarea, and
for Armenia, Movses Khorenatsi. He lists the various Armenian histo
rians and repeats some of the tales that had arisen concerning obscure
figures such as Movses Khorenatsi. Such traditions as those attested to
by Thomas Artsruni and Stephen were not all accepted in later times.
But the desire to associate great figures of the past with Mashtots himself
was strong. Stephen was the first to include David the “Invincible”
philosopher in that circle, and later Eghishe swelled their ranks.
The second half (Book III) of Stephen’s work deals with the history
of the hundred or so years before his own time. He discusses events outside
Armenia as well as local history—hence the title of his book, “World
History.” But there is no coherent thread, for the narrative reads as a series
of disconnected episodes. A new feature is his division of material into
three sections. Each chapter gives first a summary of the major political
events, then commentary on the religious history of the time, and finally
information about literary and scholarly figures. Although this schematic
approach has parallels in some later chronicles— the Syrian patriarch
Michael, for example, actually divided his pages into three separate
columns— it did not set a precedent for Armenian historians.
Aristakes o f Lastivert
The History of Aristakes is quite different. It deals with only two
generations, from 1000 to 1071, rather than with the entire span of the
236 Robert Thomson
history of the world; and it is a very personal document, expressing at

length the author's sentiments at the disasters that befell Armenia. So
although it has greater coherence than Stephen’s work as a progressive
exposition, the narrative is frequently interrupted for lamentations and
disquisitions on Armenian sinfulness, which brought upon them the
various misfortunes. Laments were not uncommon features of Armenian
historical works; but they had previously been confined to set pieces at
appropriate occasions. And poetic laments (voghb) were a significant
feature of later Armenian literature. But Aristakes’s History is unique
in its integration of narrative and lachrymose comment.
Schools and Scholarship
Although some Armenian historians were well-known persons of their

time, most of the famous early authors remain vague figures. We know
little or nothing about their background and upbringing, save that the
great majority were churchmen or monks. Our ignorance of their formal
education obscures the importance of the monastic schools. What hints
about courses of study do survive, as for example in the letters of
Gregory Magistros, are more pertinent to advanced learning. Nonethe
less, some general characteristics of Armenian learning and scholarship,
and hence of formal literary activity, do emerge from the role of the
vardapet in Armenia.
The position of vardapet, “master of instruction,” a celibate cleric,
was a unique office in Eastern Christendom, with no exact parallel in
Greek or Syrian tradition. The closest parallel for the early period is the
role of the herbads in Zoroastrianism. These were priest-teachers whose
function was to teach orally. Their role as missionaries in the greater
Iranian Empire is reminiscent of the itinerant nature of the first Arme
nian vardapets. The most outstanding example of the latter is Mashtots
with his circle of students.
As time went on, the need for such missionary activity in Armenia
diminished. The vardapets became settled in monasteries, even if they
moved from one to another, and they acquired a specific status in the
ecclesiastical hierarchy. In the later compilations of canon law their
duties are clearly spelled out. But the most important result of the
development of this office was the continuing hold of the church over
education and learning. There were no secular schools in early or
medieval Armenia. The wealthy may have had private tutors, and in the
fourth and fifth centuries a few, (again wealthy), Armenians studied in
the secular schools of the Greek world. But the autobiography of Anania
of Shirak makes it clear that after Armenia had become firmly Christian,
there were very few laymen teaching secular subjects in Armenia. For
those who progressed beyond the elementary level, the Bible and various
theological texts provided the basic educational diet. Grammar and
rhetoric, logic and philosophy were not neglected; here the basic texts
translated in the Hellenizing style were put to good purpose. But even
technical subjects were pursued with a view to their ecclesiastical use.
In this regard the career of John the Deacon (Hovhannes Sorkavag or
Imastaser) or Philosopher, who died in 1129, may serve as a fitting
conclusion to this sketch of Armenian literary culture.
Brought up in the monastery of Haghbat in northeastern Armenia,
John first devoted himself to the study of music. As he grew older he
studied “at the feet of vardapets." But his biographer places more
emphasis on John’s spiritual development and ascetic virtues than on
details of the texts and authors he studied. However, these did include
historical writings, commentaries, and biblical texts. He later moved to
Ani, where he began to teach grammar, “the key of knowledge.”
Medieval Armenians regarded grammar as more than the study of a
shifting language; it offered insights into eternal verities. John also
pursued mathematics and became familiar with works of Aristotle and
Plato. Among his works are a chronicle, poems, and theological writ
ings. But his scholarly fame depends on his interest in astronomy. This
he put to practical use by composing a perpetual calendar as well as
several tables dealing with phases of the moon and similar topics. In this
regard his only predecessor was Anania of Shirak; but the latter held no
official position in the church.
The difference in emphasis between the scholarly activity of John
the Philosopher and the concerns of his biographer raises an interesting
question. To what extent did the populace at large appreciate the written
classics of Armenian literature? Were they indeed even aware of the
existence of most of them? John’s biographer probably had a sound
sense of his contemporaries’ interests. His emphasis lies on John as a
holy man, noted for his ascetic achievements and his ability to work
miracles. These were more tangible measures of fame than scholarly
treatises. He had in mind the edification of the Armenian people, the
needs of the church, and the greater glory of God.
238 Robert Thomson
Oral Tales and the S a sn a d zre r

But even those who could read on the simpler level, without compre
hending the profundities of John’s original works, were a minority in
Armenia. The mass of the people was illiterate. The old pagan epics had
perhaps not been suppressed entirely, but they had been driven out of
the acceptable canon. And since the medieval writers do not describe
the lives and interests of the majority of their fellow countrymen, except
to castigate reprehensible practices, we cannot know for sure what oral
tales delighted the leisure moments of humbler folk. A vast wealth of
popular stories, fables, and poems has been recorded in recent times;
much of it undoubtedly goes back many centuries. But by far the most
elaborate product of oral composition is the fourfold cycle of tales
concerning the wild heroes of Sasun, the Sasnadzrer.
This oral collection was not recorded in writing until the 1870s.
There are many versions in different dialects; for it was not the deliberate
composition of a single individual, but was created by the stylized
retelling of traditional tales by generations of bards. There is therefore
no “original” text to be reconstructed from the “variants.” The legendary
heroes form four generations: Sanasar and Balthasar; Mher the Great;
David of Sasun, after whom the whole cycle is often named; and Little
Mher. Their successive exploits are narrated in rhythmic prose to form
four sections of a whole. The unifying theme, around which are woven
numerous extravagant adventures, is the defense of the homeland
against foreigners: the caliph of Baghdad appears at the beginning, while
David does battle with the king of Egypt. The basic situations thus reflect
the periods of Muslim domination in the eighth to ninth centuries and
again in later Mamluk times when the kingdom of Cilicia collapsed. But
there are reminiscences of earlier and later periods, while the whole is
a timeless tale of the exploits of heroes greater than ordinary mortals.
It is well to end with these oral tales—rather misleadingly often
called an “epic”— for the written literature of early and medieval Arme
nia reflects the ethos of only one segment of Armenian society. Prose
writing is rather formal, and belles lettres are hardly represented until
modem times. Poetry gave an opportunity for more spontaneous expres
sion, but was mostly confined to religious themes. Yet there was a
vivacious side to Armenian life. It will not be found in learned treatises,
but it does emerge in the Sasnadzrer, in tales such as the “Pseudo-
Shapuh,” and in miniature painting.
Aristakes de Lastivcrt, 1973. Johannes Mandakuni, 1927.

Asoghik, 1883, 1917. Johannis Ozniensis. 1834.
David, 1983. Lebon, 1929.
Garitte, 1952. Movses Dasxuranc'i. 1961.
Garsoi'an, Mathews, and Movses Khorenats'i, 1978.
Thomson, 1982. Renoux, 1993.
Ghewond, 1982. Shalian, 1964.
Gr6goire de Narek, 1961. Tallon, 1955.
Hachakhapatum, 1927. Thomson, 1995.
Hairapetian, 1995. Yovhannes Drasxanakertc4i. 1987.
Hewsen, 1992. Yovhannes Mamikonean, 1993.
Inglisian, 1963.
10
ARMENIA DURING THE

SELJUK AND MONGOL
PERIODS
Robert Bedrosian
uring the eleventh to fourteenth centuries, Armenia was sub
D jected to a number of attacks and invasions by Turco-Mongol

peoples. The most important of these were the invasions of the Seljuks
in the second half of the eleventh century, of the Khwarazmians
(1225-1230), and of the Mongols (1223-1247). At the end of the
fourteenth century, an already exhausted Armenia was devastated
again by the Turco-Mongol armies of Timur-Leng. During the four
centuries examined in this chapter, important changes took place in
the demographic, economic, and sociopolitical history of the Arme
nian highlands. If at the beginning of the eleventh century Armenians
constituted the majority of the population in many areas, at the end of
the fourteenth century there were few areas where Armenians were
still the majority. If in the twelfth to thirteenth centuries Armenia’s
economy and trading situation was to be envied, at the end of the
fourteenth century, the Armenian highlands were so unsafe that cara
van traffic practically ceased. If at the beginning of the eleventh
century the nakharar (lordly) system prevailed across large areas of
the highlands, at the end of the fourteenth century nakharar practices
were confined to inaccessible mountain regions.
242 Robert Bedrosian
Although the invasions differed from each other in participants, severity,

and consequences, they had certain similarities. Each successive wave pushed
before it, brought along with it, or dragged in its wake thousands of virtually
uncontrollable nomadic warriors. Their interest lay solely in plunder and in
securing pasturage for their enormous herds of sheep. When totally un
checked, such nomads devastated the cities searching for loot. They destroyed
the countryside and the complex irrigation systems, turning cultivated fields
into pasturage; and they reduced the possibilities for internal and international
trade by infesting the trade routes between cities and attacking caravans. In
scholarly literature, this unrestrainable element is referred to as Turkmen, and
it is contrasted with those forces among the nomads interested in the estab
lishment of stable forms of government and a sedentary or semisedentary
existence. Centralizing forces within the various Turco-Mongol states to arise
in the eleventh to fourteenth centuries were obliged to support a very delicate
balance. On the one hand, the warlike Turkmens were the best, most deter
mined fighters, and therefore necessary for victorious expeditions. On the
other hand, their impulse to destroy and move on had to be fought—often
literally—by those wishing to maintain authority. The Turkmens were the
bane not only of the sedentary Christian Armenians and Muslims of the
Middle East, but also of many rulers of stable Seljuk and Mongol states. In
the end, this balance proved insupportable. The Turkmens brought down each
of the Turco-Mongol states their vigor had given birth to.
Armenian sources for the history of Armenia in the eleventh to four
teenth centuries include literary histories such as those by Aristakes
Lastiverttsi (Aristakes of Lastivert) (d. ca. 1073), Vardan Areveltsi, Kirakos
Gandzaketsi (Kirakos of Gandzak) (both d. ca. 1271), Stepanos Orbelian (d.
1304), and Tovma Metzopetsi (Thomas of Metzop) (d. 1446); chronicles by
authors such as Matthew of Edessa (d. ca. 1140), Samvel Anetsi (Samuel of
Ani) (d. ca. 1180), and Mkhitar of Ayrivan (d. ca. 1290); as well as inscriptions
and colophons. Among important foreign sources are the thirteenth-century
works of Ibn al-Athir, William of Rubruck, Juvaini, Ibn Bibi, Bar Hebraeus,
and the fourteenth-century Rashid al-Din, Abul Fida, Qazvini, the Georgian
Chronicle, Ibn Battuta, Johann Schiltberger, and Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo.
Armenia on the Eve o f the Seljuk Invasions
The Seljuk invasions of Armenia began in the early 1040s. For some
twenty years before that date, however, Turkic bands had been raiding
parts of eastern, northeastern, and southern Armenia. From 1020 to 1040
ARMENIA DURING THE SELJUK AND MONGOL PERIODS 243
these incursions were made by Turkic elements serving in the army of

the Persian Dailamites of Azerbaijan and by nomadic Turkmens them
selves often displaced by the Seljuks of Iran. Driven by a desire for booty
and captives, relatively small bands of Turkmens (sometimes fewer than
5,000) were able to wreak havoc on many unfortified places in Armenia.
In addition to superior military effectiveness, several political and
demographic factors explain the ease with which the invaders gained
control of the Armenian highlands. Among these were the shortsighted
policies of the Byzantine Empire toward the Armenian princes and their
lands, divisions among the Armenian lords, and the demographic ex
pansion of Turkic peoples.
From the late tenth century on the Byzantine Empire had followed
a policy of removing prominent nakharars from their native lands,
absorbing those lands in the structure of the empire, and giving the
nakharars in exchange lands and titles elsewhere. The decision of many
lords to leave was frequently the result of coercion, though throughout
the tenth to eleventh centuries there were also pro-Byzantine factions
within the Armenian kingdoms, supporting Byzantium's aims. Already
in 968 the southwestern district of Taron was annexed. In 1000, a large
area embracing Tayk, Karin, and Manzikert (to the north of Lake Van)
was annexed to the Byzantine Empire. In 1021 King Senekerim Artsruni
of Vaspurakan ceded his kingdom to the empire and moved to
Cappadocia. He was followed in 1045 by King Gagik II of Ani and King
Gagik-Abas of Kars (1064). The Byzantine policy of removing import
ant lords from their Armenian lands and settling them elsewhere (prin
cipally on imperial territory, in Cappadocia and northern Mesopotamia)
proved shortsighted in two respects. First, it left eastern Asia Minor
devoid of its native defenders. Second, it exacerbated Armeno-Greek
ethnic tensions by the introduction of thousands of Armenian newcom
ers into Cappadocia. The empire compounded its error by disbanding a
50,000-man local Armenian army, ostensibly to save money. As a result,
the land was left defenseless as well as leaderless. This imprudent
military decision subsequently was to have an impact on the Byzantine
Empire itself, since with the Armenian lands vulnerable, Byzantine
holdings in central and western Asia Minor were open to invasion.
The demographic expansion and westward movement of Turkic
peoples in the tenth to eleventh centuries was another important factor
in the invasions of Asia Minor. In the tenth century Armenia's eastern
neighbor, Azerbaijan, was becoming increasingly populated with
Turkmens of the Oghuz tribe, coming there across Central Asia and
northern Iran. The Oghuz and other Turkic people also were invading
and migrating across southern Russia to areas north of the Caucasus. In
the eleventh century, as the Oghuz and others invaded Asia Minor, so
to the north the Kipchak Turks were occupying the central steppe
regions, from the Carpathian to the Altai Mountains.
In about 1018, at the very time Byzantium was trying to induce
King Senekerim Artsruni of Vaspurakan to exchange his lands, Vas-
purakan was under attack from Turkic peoples serving the Muslim emirs
of Azerbaijan. Around 1021 the area from Nakhichevan to Dvin was
raided by Turkmen Oghuz serving in the Persian Dailamite armies. From
1029 onward, Turkmen groups began raiding various parts of Armenia
from the direction of Azerbaijan to the east as well as from northern
Mesopotamia. These initial attacks in the period from 1016-1018 to
1040 bore the nature of plundering expeditions and were carried out by
nomads not under direct control of the Seljuks. This situation changed,
however, after 1040. In that year two Oghuz brothers, Tughril-Bey
Muhammed and Chagri-Bey Daud of the family of Seljuk conquered
the Ghaznavid kingdom of Iran and established the Seljuk Empire.
The Seljuk Invasions of Armenia
After the Seljuk conquest of Iran in 1040, Armenia became a conscious

target of Turkish invasion, for several reasons. First, as a result of
Turkmen successes in the preceding period and from espionage, the
Seljuks knew that the Armenian lands were undefended. Second,
Tughril-Bey, head of the Seljuks, was facing a dilemma with the
Turkmens, which he solved temporarily by deflecting them to Armenia.
After capturing the Iranian cities of Rey (1042) and Hamadan (1043),
he closed them to the Turkmens to prevent them from laying waste the
central provinces of Iran. Thousands of disgruntled nomads therefore
headed for Azerbaijan, whence they entered Armenia. Armenia, a
Byzantine possession, became a magnet for the newly Muslim nomadic
Turkmens who could satisfy their lust for booty and gain religious merit
by attacking Christian infidels. This was the effective military strategy
of the Seljuk leadership: first to encourage or compel the Turkmens into
an area to pillage and terrorize, then to send in troops more loyal to
themselves, to take control. In 1042 some 15,000 Turkmens from the
Urmia area attacked and looted Vaspurakan and defeated Byzantine
forces near the city of Aijesh on the northeastern shore of Lake Van,
while yet another group was raiding around Bjni in the northern district
of Ayrarat.
Once again, in 1047, Tughril had difficulties with the Turkmens.
In that year he formed an army of 100,000 Turkmens from Khorasan,
entrusting it to his brother, Ibrahim Innal. The intention was for Innal
to unite with the Turkmens already in Azerbaijan and to invade Armenia.
At the same time, Tughril was able to rid the center of the Seljuk Empire
of the Turkmens, whose presence in Iran was a steady drain on its
resources. Thus from the mid-1040s to about 1063, detachments of
Turks, more or less controlled by Seljuk sultans and their generals,
penetrated deeper into Armenia, destroying numerous cities and devas
tating entire districts: Ani (attacked, 1045), Vagharshavan in the western
district of Basen (1047), the Mananaghi district of western Armenia
(1048), Ardzin in the northwest (1048-1049), Baiburt (1054),
Melitene/Malatia in the southwest, Colonea in the northwest (1057),
Sebastia/Sivas (sacked, 1059), Ani (captured, 1064), Kars (1065), and
Caesarea (1067), to mention only the better-known sites.
The Seljuks did encounter some resistance from Armenians as well
as from the Byzantine Empire. For example, in 1042, Khul Khachik
Artsmni of Tomavan attempted a heroic but futile resistance against
15,000 Turkmens in Vaspurakan. In 1042-1043, an unspecified number
of Turkmens raiding Bjni in northeastern Armenia were defeated by
King Gagik II Bagratuni and Grigor (Magistros) Pahlavuni. In 1053 the
Armenians of Surmari destroyed an army of 60,000 Turks. It is import
ant to note that during this very period, 1040 to 1070, the Armenian
kingdoms and principalities simultaneously were under attack from
Byzantium, which seemed oblivious to the danger facing it. Thus in
1044, when Turkmens were raiding and pillaging the Armenian coun
tryside, Byzantium disbanded a local defense force of 50,000. In 1064-
1065, the Byzantine Empire succeeded in bullying King Gagik-Abas of
Kars to cede to it his kingdom; however, before the empire could claim
it, the Seljuks under Alp-Arslan (Tughril’s nephew) had snatched it
away. Armenia’s enmity toward the Byzantine Greeks was further
aroused by Byzantine attempts to force the Chalcedonian issue again.
This led to bloody race riots and assassinations on both sides. Conse
quently, all segments of the Armenian population did not respond in a
uniform way to the Seljuk invasions. Indeed, some few Armenians saw
the anti-Byzantine Turks not as the agents of God sent to punish
Armenians for their sins, but as an excellent vehicle opportunely avail
able to themselves for vengeance against the Greeks. The contemporary
non-Armenian sources in particular accuse the Armenians of siding with

the Turks, deserting from the Byzantine armies sent to defend Armenia,
and even joining the enemy.
The Seljuks also encountered resistance from ambitious individual
commanders of the Turkmens, unwilling to subordinate themselves to
Seljuk authority. For example, in 1049, 1052 to 1053, and later in the
mid-1080s, the Seljuk “regular army” was warring against Turkmen
rebels in Asia Minor, a situation that exacerbated the chaos. In 1070-
1071, in what is regarded as a battle of major significance in world
military history, the forces of the Byzantine army were defeated by the
Seljuks under Alp-Arslan at Manzikert on the northern shore of Lake
Van. With that defeat, the Byzantine Empire ceased playing a role of
importance in the affairs of central and eastern Asia Minor. While it
appears that most of historical Armenia had been subjected to sack by
1070-1071, in several remote mountain areas small Armenian principal
ities continued to exist throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries,
although encircled by inimical forces and under perpetual attack. These
areas comprised districts in northern and northeastern Armenia (Gugark,
Siunik, and Artsakh), plus southern and southwestern Armenia (parts of
Vaspurakan and Mokk and Sasun). Consequently, it would be incorrect
to speak of the Seljuk conquest as being fully consummated in the
eleventh century. Some few parts of Armenia never succumbed.
The Seljuk invasions acted as a catalyst on Armenian emigration.
In the eleventh century, the Byzantine government had followed a policy
of removing powerful Armenian lords and their dependents from their
native Armenian habitats and settling them to the west and southwest.
Thus, Cappadocia and Armenia Minor (Pokr Hayk), areas that centuries
earlier had hosted sizable Armenian populations, suddenly became
re-Armenized on the eve of the Turkish invasions. The invasions them
selves quickened the tempo of Armenian emigration and extended its
range in a southwesterly direction (into Cilicia) and northward (in
Georgia). The nakharars, relocating as they did with sometimes large
forces, occasionally were powers to be reckoned with. Several such
powerful and ambitious nakharars carved out for themselves principal
ities over an extensive area stretching from Cilicia on the Mediterranean,
southward to Antioch, eastward to Edessa, northward to Samosata, to
Melitene/Malatia and elsewhere.
Armenian historical sources describe the period of the Seljuk
invasions as one of chaos, accompanied by widespread destruction of
human life and property. Some few areas were able to spare themselves
by making agreements with the Seljuks, but the generalized fate of

Armenia's cities was sack (sometimes more than once), frequently
accompanied by the massacre and/or enslavement of part of the popu
lation. Survivors of the invasions in some areas faced starvation, since
the Turkmens often destroyed crops and cut down fruit-bearing trees in
the surrounding villages. The situation of shock and confusion that many
cavalrymen or azats (the “gentry”) found themselves in, dispossessed
from their lands, was described by the late-eleventh-century author
Aristakes Lastiverttsi (Aristakes Lastivertc‘i): “The cavalry wanders
about lordlessly, some in Persia, some in Greece [Byzantium], some in
Georgia. The sepuh brigade of azats has left its patrimony and fallen
from wealth; they growl wherever they happen to be, like lion cubs in
their lairs” (1985). Members of the azatagundk hayots, the cavalry of
Armenia, clustered around successful bandits such as Gogh Vasil or
Philaretus Varazhnuni, in lands southwest of Armenia. Others found a
warm reception in Georgia. Many remained in their own neighborhoods,
living in caves and making sorties against the Turkmens whenever
possible. During the fifty-odd years of the invasions (ca. 1020s-1070s),
according to Lastiverttsi, the Armenian chroniclers, and the later Turk
ish epics (the Book o f Dede Korkut and the Danishmend-name\ Arme
nian churches were looted and some were converted to mosques. The
period of the invasions also had a devastating effect on international
trade crossing the Armenian highlands. Not only had the majority of
Armenia's cities been sacked, but the unsettled conditions rendered
caravan traffic unpredictable and dangerous.
A rm enia and the Seljuk D om ination
The death of Alp-Arslan in 1072 brought welcome changes for the

Armenians. Alp-Arslan's son, Malik-Shah (1072-1092) unlike his father
and great-uncle Tughril, was less a nomadic warlord than a cultured,
benevolent governor. Under the tutelage of a farsighted and prudent
vizier, Nizam al-Mulk (1063-1092), Malik-Shah moved to restrain
Turkmen depredations against his Christian and Muslim subjects. Iran
was the center of the empire of the Great Seljuks, and it was Iranian
rather than Turkic culture that the young sultan and his successors
promoted. The Seljuk Empire of Iran, proclaimed in 1040, lasted little
more than one hundred years. It, in turn, was destroyed by another wave
of Turkic nomads, the Kara Khitai. In Asia Minor a variety of states
arose during the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, virtually indepen
dent of Iran and often inimical toward each other. The most important
of these were the Danishmendid state centered at Sebastia/Sivas, the
Seljuk Sultanate of Rum (or Iconium) centered at Iconia/Konia and the
state of the Shah-Armens centered at Khlat.
Policies of the rulers of these states were conditioned by military,
demographic, and economic factors. In 1070-1071, the same year as the
Byzantine disaster at Manzikert, the Seljuk general Atsiz captured
Jerusalem. This event became the impetus for the First Crusade, which
was to halt Turkish penetration westward. By 1099 Europeans had
established principalities in Edessa, Antioch, and elsewhere in the
Levant, strengthening the hands of both Byzantium and Cilician Arme
nians. Throughout much of the twelfth century, the Turkic states of Asia
Minor were dangerously encircled by Christian powers: Georgia to the
north, Byzantium to the west, and the Crusader states and Cilician
Armenia to the south and southwest. Thus the activities of the new
overlords of eastern Asia Minor were conditioned by the military might
of their neighbors. Another conditioning factor was the centrifugalism
that quickly manifested itself among the different Turkic overlords.
Indeed, prior to the establishment of Seljuk control over much of the
Armenian highlands by the late eleventh century, the proliferation of
small, sometimes mutually hostile, Muslim emirates had begun. In the
east, embracing parts of eastern Armenia, Caucasian Albania, and
Azerbaijan was the emirate of Gandzak (ruled independently from 1148
to 1225). In the south, in the areas of Diarbekir and Khlat, the holdings
of the Muslim Marwanid emirs quickly were confiscated by the Artukids
of Aghdznik (1101-1231) and the Seljuk Shah-Armens of Khlat (1100-
1207). In the west, the Danishmendids (1097-1165) ruled a large area
including Sebastia/Sivas, Caesarea, and Melitene/Malatia. In the north
west were the emirates of Karin/Erzerum (ruled by the Saltukids,
1080-late twelfth century) and Kars (ca. 1080-1200). From 1118
Erzinjan and Tephrice/Divrigi belonged to Mangujek, founder of yet
another dynasty. The ruling dynasties of these states sometimes were
joined together by marriage ties or sometimes united to fight a common
enemy (usually Georgia to the north). But more often they were at war
with each other. Throughout the twelfth century, the Seljuk Sultanate of
Rum, centered at Konia in the west, was trying to gain control over the
above-mentioned states. This did not happen until late in the century.
Another factor conditioning the behavior of the new overlords was
their own status as a numerical minority. During and after the conquest,
Turkic rulers and Muslim state-supported institutions expropriated the

lands and properties of scores of lords and churches. They also became
the new legislators or promulgators of law. Nonetheless, they had to
contend with the reality of an overwhelmingly Armenian Christian
population in eastern Asia Minor and a Greek population in western Asia
Minor. In the twelfth century especially, a modus vivendi of sorts had
developed between the rulers and the ruled. Matthew of Edessa, for
example, describing the situation in the time of Malik Ismael ibn Yaqut
(1085-1093), wrote that “everyone ruled his patrimony in his time.”
According to Vardan Areveltsi, when the Shaddadid Manuchihr ruled
Ani-Shirak, he recalled from exile Grigor Pahlavuni and restored his
holdings. Furthermore, Armenians, Greeks, and Georgians serving in
the armies of the Shah-Armens and the sultans of Rum also received
iqtas, originally conditional landholds that quickly became hereditary.
The intermingling of cultures and institutions between the conquerors
and the conquered was paralleled by intermarriage between the two
peoples. It was through the gradual merging of newcomer and settled,
the conversion to Islam of the previously Christian population, and the
supplemental influx of invading Turkmens in the thirteen to fifteenth
centuries that Asia Minor metamorphosed from being Greek, Armenian,
and Christian to being Turkish and Muslim.
The establishment of Muslim political overlordship over an
Armenian Christian population in eastern Asia Minor did not im
mediately lead to widespread conversions to Islam. This was to occur
in the twelfth and succeeding centuries. But during the time of the
Seljuk invasions, Armenian Islamization seems to have been limited
to those obliged to convert to save their lives and to the tens of
thousands of Armenian women and children forcibly removed from
their homes and sold on the slave markets of the Middle East. In this
early period too, several influential Armenian nakharar women were
sought after as brides by Seljuk rulers. Presumably many of them
converted. Subsequently, after the establishment of Seljuk political
control, other Armenians converted, be they young Armenian boys,
gulams, absorbed into the Seljuk military schools, or the skilled
Armenian bureaucrats and artisans who dominated many important
positions within the various Turkish states and who figure prominently
in Turkish epic literature. Martyrologies of the twelfth century also
point to considerable voluntary conversion, prompted by the elevated
status in the newly developing society converts could enjoy and
especially by financial inducements. The result of this conversion,
forcible or voluntary, was the creation with time of a distinct group—

almost excluded from the Armenian sources as “renegades” but appar
ently not yet fully accepted by their new Muslim coreligionists either,
who in their writings usually style them as “Armenians.” Despite
conversion by some, most Armenians remained true to their own
distinctive form of Christianity. This fact, coupled with the reality of
an Arm enian m ajority in eastern Asia Minor, led to a certain
“Armenization” of the Seljuks. Not only did Armenians of different
faiths— Apostolic, Orthodox, Muslim—constitute the bulk of the pop
ulation in eastern Asia Minor during the Seljuk domination, but fairly
quickly an Armeno-Turkish community came into existence through
intermarriage. Intermarriage occurred not only between the families
of Armenian civil servants and Turkish lords but at the very pinnacle
of the state. By the thirteenth century few Seljuk sultans of eastern
Asia Minor lacked an Armenian, Georgian, or Greek parent or grand
parent. Evidence even suggests that the great warlord and founder of
the Danishmendid emirate, hero of the Turkish epic (the Danishmend-
name), emir Malik Danishmend himself, was a Muslim Armenian.
Judging from the many clearly Armenian names of his comrades-in-
arms who waged holy war against the Byzantine Christian “infidels,”
the same was true of his inner circle. Danishmendid coinage usually
was stamped with the sign of the Cross and/or a bust of Christ. The
hereditary rulers of the powerful emirate of Khlat in southern Armenia
styled themselves Shah-i-Armen (Persian for “king of the Armenians”)
and married Armenians. Armenization was not solely an ethnic pro
cess, but a cultural one as well. Seljuk architecture took some of its
inspiration from Armenian architecture. In the eleventh to thirteenth
centuries, many of the structures themselves were designed and built
by Christian and Muslim Armenians.
The late twelfth century was a period of great brilliance in the
history of central and eastern Asia Minor. In 1207 the Seljuks captured
the port of Atalia on the Mediterranean; in 1214 they acquired Sinope
on the Black Sea, thereby opening their state to world trade. As a result,
revenues available to the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum increased dramati
cally, leading to a quickening of cultural and architectural development
throughout Asia Minor. With the aid of the Georgian Bagratid dynasty,
a small Byzantino-Georgian “empire” of Trebizond was established in
1204, becoming another important center for international exchange.
Historians regard the early thirteenth century as the time when four
ARMENIA DURING THE SEUUK AND MONGOL PERIODS 251
societies—the Sultanate of Rum, Georgia, Trebizond, and Cilicia—

achieved the pinnacles of their development. This was a period of
economic and cultural interaction and dynamism.
The Emergence of Georgia
The emergence of Georgia as a great military power in the late eleventh

to twelfth centuries temporarily shifted the scales in favor of Caucasian
cultural as well as political supremacy in eastern Asia Minor. Because
of Georgia’s military might, much of northern historical Armenia once
again came under the political control of Armenians, though briefly.
Those parts that were not were either tributary to Georgia or had made
peace with that state. Georgia’s successes in this period may be attrib
uted to a number of factors, internal and external. Internally, the royal
Bagratid dynasty of Georgia had succeeded in restraining the rebellious
and separatist Georgian lords. Externally, Seljuk preoccupation with
other neighbors and the Crusades left eastern Asia Minor an easy object
of Georgian military ambitions.
During the reign of David (called “the Restorer” and “the Builder,”
1089-1125), Georgia had become a haven for Armenian lords and
lordless azats displaced by the Seljuk invasions. The historian Matthew
of Edessa wrote that David “received and loved the Armenian people;
the remnants of the Armenian forces assembled by him.” He also built
a special city, Gori, for the refugees. According to the medieval Arme
nian translation o f the Georgian History o f Kartli, David knew the
Armenian language and had as his father-confessor the monophysite
vardapet Sarkavag from Haghbat monastery in northeastern Armenia.
During the reign of this king, the armies of Georgia commenced clearing
southern and southeastern Georgia of nomadic Turkmens, capturing
from them Shamshulde and many strongholds in the Armeno-Georgian
districts of Somkhiti (1110), Lori, Agarak, and the Kiurikian holdings
(1118), Shamakhi, eastern Gugark, western Utik, Gag, Kavazin, Kayian,
Kaytson, Terunakan, Norberd, Tavush, Mahkanaberd, Manasgom, and
Khalinchkar (1123). The same year Ani was taken, though that city
passed back and forth between the Georgian and Muslim emirs many
times throughout the twelfth century. During the reigns of David’s
successors, Demetre I (1125-1155) and Georgi III (1156-1184), the
conquests continued though at a slower pace. Throughout this period,
the Georgian army was swelling with Armenian volunteers, enthusias

tically participating in the liberation of their country. Furthermore, the
Georgian Bagratid dynasty, themselves of Armenian descent, very
definitely favored certain Armenian nobles long since established within
Georgia and within that country’s ruling structure. Such lords as the
Zakarian/Mkhargrtselis, Orbelian/Orbelis, and Artsruni/Mankaberdelis
not only commanded the victorious armies, but were left in charge of
the newly established administrations.
The Georgian Bagratid dynasty reached the apogee of their power
under Queen Tamar (1184-1213). Under Tamar’s generals, the energetic
brothers Zakare and Ivane Zakarian, the Armeno-Georgian armies
surged ahead reclaiming one after another fortress, city, and district:
Anberd in the Aragatsotn district (1196), Shamkor, Gandzak, Artsakh,
Siunik, Shirak, the Ayrarat plain and Ani (ca. 1199), Bjni (1201), and
Dvin (1203). They now turned upon the southern and western emirates,
defeating the renowned sultan of Rum, Rukn al-Din, in the district of
Basen (1204). In 1204 or 1205, they reached as far south as Manzikert
and Arjesh on the northern shore of Lake Van, although this area was
not taken until ca. 1209. Wane’s daughter, Tamta, was married to the
Shah-Armen of Khlat in 1210. In a great final burst, General Zakare
marched through Nakhichevan and Jugha (Julfa), through (Persian)
Azerbaijan to Maran, Tabriz, and Qazvin, looting and sacking Muslim
settlements. By the time of Zakare’s death in 1213, Georgia was the most
powerful state in the region, while the status of the Armenians, be they
inhabitants of historical Armenia, of Georgia, or of the numerous small
communities stretching in a belt to the southwest to the independent
Cilician kingdom had been changed in a very positive way.
The personalities of the dynamic individuals who shaped Arme
nian affairs in this period may be examined through unique perspectives.
Because such people as the Zakarids, Artsrunids, and Orbelians func
tioned both in Georgian and Armenian milieux, both Georgian and
Armenian historians wrote about them. The reader is treated to two sides
of their personalities. Thus the information available in the Armenian
historians Kirakos Gandzaketsi, Vardan Areveltsi, and Stepanos Orbe-
lian is amplified in the Georgian Chronicle. Furthermore, the lives of
Queen Tamar and her Armenian commander-in-chief Zakare are sym
bolically alluded to in the great Georgian epic of the thirteenth century,
the Man in the Panther's Skin. This exquisite creation of the troubadour
Shota Rustaveli reveals, among many other things, the chivalrous ideals
of the period and the wealth and exoticism of the court which enjoyed
war booty, tribute, and the fruits of trade with far-flung states.
The Zakarid Period
The first decades of the thirteenth century in northeastern Armenia are

known as the Zakarid period, after its most influential family. In the late
twelfth century the Armenian Zakarids were used by the Georgian
Bagratid dynasty to counter the native Georgian lords. Zakare and Ivane
Zakarian, both notable generals, also held official positions within the
Georgian court. Zakare was the commander-in-chief of the army
(amirspasalar) as of 1191 and the “grand m arshal” (mandaturt-
ukhutses) from 1203 on; while his brother, first appointed foremost
vizier at court (msakhurt-ukhutses) became atabeg in 1212, an office
that was instituted within the Georgian court at Ivane's own request. To
reward their military prowess, the Georgian crown entrusted adminis
tration of the many liberated districts of northeastern Armenia to Zakare
and Ivane. The nature of the Zakarid brothers* service to the Georgian
crown seems to have been primarily of a military sort. Armenian lands
recaptured from the Turks paid taxes to the Zakarids, who probably paid
some taxes to the Georgian Bagratid dynasty. During the Zakarid period,
which lasted until about 1260, Armenian economic and cultural life
reached a new plateau.
The properties under the overall jurisdiction of amirspasalar
Zakare and later of his son Shahnshah were located in the northwestern
parts of the reconquered lands; Lori, Ani, Aragatsotn, Bagrevand,
Tsaghkotn, Kogovit, Surmari lands from the Virahayots Mountains to
the southern border of Tsaghkotn, from Bolorpahakits to Erevan. Ani
was the center of this realm. Subject to Zakare's house were both newly
created families (such as the Vachutians) and branches of old nakharar
families (such as the Pahlavunis, Artsrunis, Mamikonians, and others).
Under the jurisdiction of atabeg Ivane Zakarian and later of his
son Avag were the eastern areas: Bjni, Gegharkunik, VayoLs Dzor, most
of Artsakh, Siunik, Nakhichevan, Dvin, and Erevan. The center of this
realm was first Dvin and later Bjni. Subject to Wane’s house were the
Orbelians, Khaghbakians, Do pi an s, and others. The Orbelians, who
originally had been the Zakarids* overlords in Georgia, were, in the
changed situation of the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries, their
subordinates in Armenia. Another of Ivane's subordinates was Vasak

Khaghbakian, originally from the Khachen area, who had helped in the
reconquest of Vayots Dzor, Bjni, and Dvin. This family came to be
known as Proshian after Vasak’s energetic son Prosh (1223-1284). A
number of new and old nakharar families became associated with the
Zakarids through marriage alliances with three of Zakare’s and Wane's
sisters. Their sister Vaneni was married to Abas II Kiurikian of
Matsnaberd. Dopi married Hasan, prince of the old nakharardom of
Artsakh in eastern Armenia, receiving as dowry a large area on the
southern shore of Lake Sevan and the Sotk district in Siunik. Her
descendants are known as the Dopiank. Khorishah Zakarian, another
sister, was married to Vakhtang, lord of Khachen district. The family
was named after Hasan Jalal, the issue of this union. The Hasan-Jalalians
ruled southern Khachen. Within the vast territories under their jurisdic
tion, the two Zakarid brothers apparently established many of the same
offices as existed in the Georgian court. The men chosen by them to fill
these offices were those same individuals who had been instrumental as
warriors in the reconquest of Armenian lands. The service tendered to
the Zakarids by their appointees consisted of military aid and the
payment of taxes. Thus, in return for his service, Zakare titled Vache
Vachutian his “prince of princes.” Members of the Khachen aristocracy
served as Zakarid hejubs, chamberlains, court directors, and guardians
of Zakarid children. Prince Bubak, Wane's subordinate, is styled “prince
of princes” and “the great sparapef' in the sources. Bubak also was
known by the Georgian title of msakhurt-ukhutses—the same title
originally held by Wane in the Georgian court. This lends credence to
the view that the Zakarids created a partial microcosm of the Georgian
court hierarchy on their own lands.
The nobility of Armenia in the early thirteenth century consisted
of different elements. One substantial group included men of ambition
and military talents from newly arisen families, who were rewarded by
their Zakarid overlords with grants of land and/or rights of administra
tion. Before and after receiving lands and villages, this category of
thirteenth-century lord derived much wealth from booty taken during
military campaigns. Another element is referred to in the sources from
the twelfth century on as metsatun, which means literally “of a great
house.” In fact, these were men of great financial wealth who formed
the upper class in the many Armenian cities that had recuperated from
the Seljuk dislocations. These men, too, lacked antique pedigrees and
did not belong to the old nakharar families. Their wealth had been
gained through trading and money-lending, and a substantial part of the

metsatuns’ assets were in cash. However, these merchants reinvested
their capital in land, buying not only entire estates but also shares of
establishments, such as mills. An inscription of one metsatun, Tigran,
from the historically unknown family Honents, on the wall of the church
of St. Gregory in Ani (ca. 1215) indicates the far-flung and multifaceted
nature of metsatun wealth. From the inscription of another metsatun,
one learns that about 1242, a certain Umek purchased the church of
Getik for “40,000 red [gold] ducats,” a currency that clearly indicates
that such merchants as Umek were participating in the lucrative inter
national trade with Italian city-states. A third element of the nobility was
the high clergy of the church, including bishops and the directors of
numerous monasteries founded in this period.
Non-noble elements of Armenian society in the eleventh to thir
teenth centuries, as in earlier centuries, are essentially omitted from the
sources. Certain economic historians suggest that the Seljuk invasions
of the mid-eleventh century may have had a temporary “liberating”
effect on the peasantry, since the economy of the nomads did not require
attachment to the soil. As martyrologies of the eleventh to twelfth
centuries suggest, conversion to Islam, the religion of the new conquer
ors, became a means of socioeconomic elevation for many Armenians
of different economic classes in Muslim-ruled areas. However, for the
bulk of the peasantry that remained Christian, the twelfth to thirteenth
centuries brought increasing attachment to the soil. Georgian documents
from this period indicate that peasants attached to a particular plot also
could be sold with the land they worked. Urban artisans—metalworkers,
builders, weavers, and the like— were a group that grew in size during
the twelfth to thirteenth centuries. Their status as non-noble is clear,
though they seem to have acquired certain special rights in this period
as well as their own guild organizations.
As in Georgia proper, Rum, and Cilicia, the culture of northeastern
Armenia blossomed at the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the
thirteenth century. The material wealth deriving from international trade
was the basis for this. Among the major intellectuals of the period belong
the poet-catholicos Mkhitar Heratsi (Mekhitar of Her), the author of a
medical textbook; grammarians; theologians; and translators such as
Shnorhali’s nephew Grigor Tgha; Nerses Lambronatsi (Nerses of Lam-
bron); Mkhitar Gosh, the codifier of Armenian law; Davit Kobayretsi;
Grigor Skevratsi; Vardan Aygektsi; Aristakes the Rhetorician;
Hovhannes Gametsi; and Vanakan Vardapet.
The Turco-Mongol Invasions of 1220 to 1230

Beginning in the 1220s, the Caucasus and eastern Asia Minor were
subjected to a new round of Turco-Mongol invasions. The first of the
thirteenth-century incursions was made in 1220-1221 by a detachment
of some 20,000 Mongols who had been sent across Central Asia by
Genghis-Khan in pursuit of the shah of Khwarazm. The latter succeeded
in evading his pursuers and had, in fact, died in obscurity on an island
in the Caspian Sea the same time the Mongols were entering the
Caucasus. The Mongol’s route into Armenia was from the southeast,
from western Nakhichevan north to the Aghstev region. The outcome
of this first clash with Caucasian forces was that some 10,000 Armenians
and Georgians commanded by King Georgi IV Lasha and his atabeg
Ivane Zakarian were defeated in the Kotman area of northeastern Arme
nia. Northern Armenia and southeastern Georgia were looted before the
invaders returned to their base in Utik. Despite its success, this army had
not been sent for conquest but to pursue the Khwarazm-Shah and to
conduct reconnaissance for future operations. Thus, considering their
mission accomplished, the Mongols departed via the Caucasus Moun
tains to the north, destroying the city of Shamkor en route.
The second invasion of the Caucasus took place immediately after
the Mongol departure in 1222, and was caused by it. This time the
participants were nomadic Kipchak Turks from the plains to the north.
In their turn defeated by the Mongols, one sizable body of Kipchaks fled
from them in a southward direction. These nomads pillaged and looted
from Darband south to Gandzak in Azerbaijan. Atabeg Ivane mustered
troops and went against them, but he was defeated, having underesti
mated their strength. What was worse, many nakharars were captured,
then killed or ransomed for huge sums of money. The Kipchaks contin
ued looting and raiding different parts of the Caucasus until 1223, when
Ivane, in alliance with other Caucasian peoples, finally defeated them,
killing or selling them into slavery. The Kipchak raids, though less
serious than the invasions that preceded and succeeded them, nonethe
less contributed to the continued unsettled state of affairs initiated by
the Mongols, depleted the Armeno-Georgian military of some capable
leaders, and undoubtedly weakened the army’s morale.
The third devastation of Armenia took place from 1225 to about
1230, during which time various parts of the country were subjected to
raids and invasions by the ethnically diverse armies of the new
Khwarazm-Shah, Jala! al-Din Mangubirdi. Like his father, he offered
stubborn and occasionally successful resistance to his Mongol pursuers.

This was, however, at the expense of other peoples, notably the Arme
nians and Georgians. At the head of an army of some 60,000 Turkmens
and Kipchak mercenaries, Jalal al-Din invaded northeastern Armenia
following the age-old route of invasion, through Nakhichevan and
northward. He took and devastated Dvin, and at Garni defeated the
70,000-man-strong Armeno-Georgian army commanded by Ivane. This
was followed by the capture of Gandzak, Lori, and Tiflis, where a
frightful massacre of Christians ensued with the active participation of
resident Muslims, who viewed Jalal as a liberator. The northern cities
of Ani and Kars and the southern cities of Khlat and Manzikert were
besieged unsuccessfully in 1226. Certain areas, such as Tiflis and Dvin,
soon were retaken by the Caucasians, but Jalal al-Din continued devas
tating one or another section of Armenia until 1230, when he was
decisively beaten near Erzinjan by a united force composed of troops of
Malik Ashraf of Khlat, the Seljuk sultan of Rum, Cilician Armenian,
and Crusader detachments. Jalal was murdered the next year by a
Kurdish peasant. His raids and devastations had lasted seven years. Not
only did he bring mass destruction of human life and property, but also
famine and pestilence, since as contemporary historians noted, Jalal
al-Din and his unruly troops frequently cut down fruit-bearing trees and
vineyards and burned the crops. Furthermore, remnants of his merce
naries continued to practice banditry well into the 1230s in different
parts of central Asia Minor. Following the deaths of King Georgi IV
Lasha (1223) and Ivane Zakarian (1227), Christian Caucasia, already
seriously weakened, was no longer able to offer united resistance against
attackers, at the very moment when it was needed most.
The Mongol Conquest of Armenia
The fourth thirteenth-century invasion of Armenia occurred in 1236. It

was short and merciless, and confined to the northeastern and northern
regions. In that year, the Mongol general Chormaghun, now established
at the Mongol summer camp (yayla) in the Mughan plain of Azerbaijan,
sent out detachments under various commanders to capture all the key
fortresses in northeastern Armenia. Unlike the first appearance of the
Mongols in the Caucasus, which had been for the pursuit of a fugitive,
their reappearance now was for the purpose of conquest and occupation.
On this occasion, the Mongols traveled with their families, carts, and
herds— their “portable economy.” They also brought along sophisti

cated Chinese siege machinery, rock-hurling and wall-battering devices.
Upon receiving news of the return of the Mongols, the ruler of Georgia,
Queen Rusudan (1223-1247) with many of the lords fled to the security
of western Georgia, while others holed up in their fortresses. But no one
was secure. The Mongols, having divided up the districts in advance,
proceeded to take them one by one. Molar-noyin took the territories of
Ivane’s nephew Vahram of Gag. The Kiurikian fortresses of Matsnaberd
and Nor Berd fell, and about the same time the clerical historians
Vanakan and Kirakos Gandzaketsi were captured. Ghatagha-noyin took
Gardman, Charek, Getabek, and Vardanashat. The Zakarid holdings of
Lori fell, followed by Dmanis, Shamshulde, and Tiflis. Atabeg Avag
Zakarian was among the first of the Caucasian notables to submit to the
Mongols. He was rewarded and gifted by them, while he and his troops
were used in the conquest of recalcitrant areas. Seeing that submission
to the Mongols did not mean sudden death, the remaining princes went
to them and were reinstated in their lands. The historian Vardan
Areveltsi wrote that everything was surrendered to them in a short
period, without toil or labor. Although the Mongols frequently spared
cities that surrendered without a fight, surrender did not always elicit
their sympathy. Fearing the harsh fate suffered by Ani, Kars surrendered
but was devastated nonetheless. During the course of 1236, the Mongols
subjugated by sword or treaty all of northeastern and northern Armenia.
They met with no serious resistance anywhere.
The Mongol conquest of western and southern historical Armenia
took place between 1242 and 1245. These lands, though inhabited by
Armenians, were under the political domination of the Seljuks, or in the
case of Khlat, of the Ayyubids. In 1242 the Mongol general Baiju-noy in
took Karin/Erzerum after a siege of two months. Part of the population
was massacred and part was led away into slavery. Participating in the
Mongol campaigns in western Armenia were the lords of newly con
quered eastern Armenia, who in a number of cases were able to amelio
rate the lot of Armenians in some western cities. The Mongols spent the
winter of 1243 at their base in Azerbaijan, but returned in springtime to
crush the forces of the Seljuk sultan of Rum, Ghiyath al-Din Kai
Khusrau, at Kose Dagh, near Erzinjan. The defeat of the Seljuks at Kose
Dagh was an event of the greatest significance for the Armenians both
locally and abroad in the independent state of Cilicia. Like dominoes,
the remaining key cities of central Asia Minor fell: Erzinjan, Caesarea,
Sebastia/Sivas, Melitene/Malatia, and Divrigi. In 1245 Baiju-noyin
captured Khlat, Amida, Edessa, and Nisibis. By that year the Armenian
populations, be they in Caucasian Armenia, western Armenia, southern
Armenia, or even Cilicia, were to a greater or lesser degree all formally
under the overlordship of the Mongols.
The Mongol Domination
During the more than one hundred years of Mongol domination, the
Armenians experienced periods of benevolent, even enlightened rule
and of capricious benighted misrule. The years from 1236 to 1250,
though not without conflict, did not witness radical changes in
Armenia’s governing structure. Apparently, prior to 1243 no permanent
formal taxes had been imposed on Armenia, the conquerors contenting
themselves instead with the rich booty and plunder to be had from the
many areas taken by military force. But in 1243 by command of the
Great Khan Guyuk himself, taxes amounting to between one-thirtieth
and one-tenth of value were imposed on virtually everything movable
and immovable, and a heavy head tax of 60 silver drams was collected
from males. The severity of the taxes and the brutal manner of their
collection triggered an abortive uprising of the lords in 1248-1249. This
rebellion, which was discovered by the Mongols while still in the
planning stages, was crushed at the expense of human and animal lives
and crops in numerous districts of northeastern Armenia and southern
Georgia. Some of the arrested Armenian and Georgian conspirators,
unable to raise the huge ransoms demanded for their release, were
tortured or killed.
After the accession of the Great Khan Mongke (1251-1259), a
thorough census was made of all parts of the empire from 1252 to 1257.
The Iranian emir Arghun personally conducted the census of Caucasia
in 1254, which significantly increased the tax burden. An administrative
change regarding Armenia occurred in the mid-thirteenth century. This
was the establishment of the Il-Khanid Mongol substate over the terri
tory of Iran and the inclusion of Caucasia into it, beginning in 1256.
Prior to that time the Caucasus had formed a single administrative unit
composed of five vilayets. Following the granting of Iran as a hereditary
appanage to Hulegu Khan in 1256, Armenia experienced another shock
caused by nomads on the move. First, Hulegu chose as his residence
Mughan in Azerbaijan, which until then had been the camping grounds
of Baiju-noyin. Hulegu ordered the latter and all the nomadic Mongol
and Turkmen warriors subordinate to him to evacuate the Caucasus, in

order to create room for his own entourage. With considerable grum
bling the displaced Baiju and his hosts moved westward, sacking the
cities of Karin/Erzerum, Erzinga/Erzinjan, Sebastia/Sivas, Caesarea,
and Konia as they went. Almost simultaneously some of Genghis-
Khan’s grandchildren descended on the Caucasus through the Caspian
Gates in order to settle near their relation Hulegu. This unruly group also
caused much damage as it traveled and extorted whatever it could from
the sedentary population. The proximity of new powerful masters in
1256 in addition to the information obtained by them from the census
of 1254 had yet another immediate ramification for the Caucasus. Now
the nakharars were obliged to participate in all military ventures of the
Il-Khanids on a regular basis, providing a specified number of troops
yearly. Armenian and Georgian warriors fought in all the major Mongol
campaigns in the Middle East from 1256 onward, which resulted in the
deaths or enslavement of large numbers of Christian Caucasians abroad.
Heavy taxation coupled with the onerous burden of military service in
distant lands led to rebellion. The second Armeno-Georgian rebellion
occurred between 1259 and 1261. Though of longer duration than the
rebellion of 1248-1249, this one too eventually was brutally crushed.
In the 1260s the Caucasus became an occasional theater of
warfare between the Il-Khanids and yet another Mongol state, that of
the Golden Horde, centered in the lower Volga with its capital at Sarai.
The organizer of this state, Berke-Khan (1257-1266), a devout
Muslim, was outraged by the anti-Muslim policies of the shamanist
Hulegu and especially by his massacre of the Muslim population of
Baghdad in 1258. Not only did Berke and his successors attempt to
infringe on the uncertain boundary between his realm and Hulegu’s
(i.e., the Caucasus), but they also entered into an alliance with the
increasingly powerful Mamluk state in Egypt. The latter were the most
ferocious enemies of the Il-Khanids in the Near East and the only
power to have dealt the Mongols a severe military defeat there in 1260.
During the decade of the 1260s, the Caucasus was invaded by forces
of the Golden Horde in 1261 and 1265-1266. The Il-Khans were also
faced with rebellions of Mongol chiefs resident in the Caucasus. For
example, in 1268 one of Genghis-Khan’s great-grandsons, Teguder,
rebelled in the Caucasus. Teguder’s holdings included parts of south
ern Georgia and the area around Lake Sevan in Armenia. Armeno-
Georgian troops aided in the suppression of this rebellion, just as they
had fought for the Il-Khans against Berke.
The Mongols had a number of bases of support within Armenian

society. Among these were the church hierarchy, the merchants, and
certain of the lords who received special status and were Mongol
favorites. Many of the Mongol generals and their wives were Nestorian
Christians at the time of the invasion and sympathized with the Arme
nian Christians. In 1242, for example, they facilitated the return of
Nerses (the Catholicos of Caucasian Albania) to his seat since “for a
long while neither Nerses nor his predecessors had dared to circulate
throughout the dioceses because of the bloodthirsty nation of Tajiks”
(Kirakos Gandzaketsi, 1986). In 1248, when Catholicos Kostandin of
Cilicia sent to Greater Armenia gifts and money for the monastery of
St. Tadeos, the work was expedited by the Mongols. In the early 1250s
Smbat Orbelian received a decree “freeing all the churches of Armenia
and the priests” (Orbelian, 1859), and with encouragement from General
Baiju’s Christian wife, Smbat renovated Siunik’s religious seat, Tatev.
According to Arghun’s census of 1255, neither church nor clergy was
to be taxed, though the sources report numerous instances of illegal
exactions from both throughout the remainder of the century. Mongol
religious policy was quite complex and underwent numerous shifts. For
example, at the time of the census conducted by Arghun and Buqa
(1243), Muslims were used to terrorize Christians. Yet in 1258, during
the siege of Baghdad, the Mongols encouraged the Christians in their
army brutally to exterminate the city’s Muslim population. But in
retaliation for the Caucasian rebellion of 1259 to 1261, Mongols de
stroyed churches and the Georgian catholicosate itself, and the emir
Arghun (himself a Muslim) had the Christian prince Hasan Jalal tortured
to death for failure to apostatize. Clearly, Mongols adroitly used the
Christians in Muslim areas and the Muslims in Christian areas for
espionage and maintenance of terror.
Armenian merchants (the metsatuns) were another base of support
for Mongol rule during the thirteenth century. During the period of the
invasions, the Mongols took some pains to prevent caravans from being
attacked. At the time of the destruction of Karin/Erzerum (1242), special
consideration was shown to wealthy Armenians there. The support of
the merchants derived from such special treatment and from the huge
profits they earned by participating in international trade. Merchants in
the Mongol Empire, which united the Far and Near East, carried on a
brisk and lucrative trade with the West. During the Mongol period,
maritime trade expanded as the Italian states of Genoa and Venice
founded trading centers along the north shore of the Black Sea. The cities
of Tabriz and Sultanie in Azerbaijan were also major trading centers

where Genoese and Venetian merchants had their offices. The main
caravan route through Asia Minor ran from Ayas (in Cilician Armenia)
through Sebastia/Sivas, Erzinga/Erzinjan, and Karin/Erzerum, to
Tabriz. Another important route went from Tabriz through Khoi, Aijesh,
Manazkert, Karin/Erzerum to Trebizond on the Black Sea. Exported
were spices, silks, gems, drugs, and other Oriental luxuries; imported
were woolen cloths, linen, furs, and other manufactured goods from the
West. Armenian merchants were to be found at all points along the trade
routes. Ayas, the point of departure for the Far East, was a city of Cilician
Armenia; there were also concentrations of Armenian merchants at
Trebizond, Tabriz, Sultanie, in Central Asia, and the Far East, and in the
cities of southern Russia, the north shore of the Black Sea, and through
out Italy. Because of their far-flung connections, Armenian merchants
sometimes were used by Mongol officials as couriers. It is interesting
that there also seems to have been a large number of Armenian clerics
present at the courts of the khans and along many of the major stops
across Asia to the Far East. The majority of these were engaged in
translational activity and/or serving the needs of the families of Arme
nian merchants. The favorable economic situation for the merchants
finds reflection in the inscriptions carved on the walls of churches and
other structures erected by their wealth. These inscriptions mention tens
of thousands of “red [gold] ducats'* lavished on the construction and
maintenance of new and existing structures. References to Italian ducats
in inscriptions from the mid and late thirteenth century confirm the
continuing ties of these merchants with the Italian city-states.
Another group that served as a base of support for the Mongol
regime consisted of certain prominent lords whose allegiance was
directly to the Mongols. Such favorites, in Armenia as well as in other
parts of the Mongol Empire, were given inju status, which meant that
they paid taxes and fulfilled other obligations directly to their Mongol
patrons. The effect of this practice was the same in the Caucasus as
elsewhere, namely, the detachment of certain powerful lords from the
preexisting political arrangements. If before the Mongol domination the
lords of northeastern Armenia were subject to the Zakarids, who were
subject to the Georgian crown, the Mongols now altered this arrange
ment by attaching these lords directly to themselves. The best known
example of this involved the Armenian Orbelians of Siunik. Smbat
Orbelian was granted inju status by Mongke-Khan in 1252 on a trip to
the Far East. Another prince who apparently received inju status from
Mongke was Hasan Jalal (ca. 1257) of Khachen. Around 1273 the
Georgian lord Sargis Jaqeli also received inju status. During the same
decade the cities of Kars, Telavi, Belakan, “and many other lands” were
separated from royal Georgian control and given by the Mongols to their
favorite, Sadun Artsruni/Mankaberdeli.
During the thirteenth century the Mongols managed successfully
to keep the lords divided and frequently absent from the area entirely.
Dividing the lords was never difficult. The Mongols were adroit at
exploiting antagonisms existing within branches of the same family.
Thus to punish Avag Zakarian (ca. 1243), his lands were given to his
more loyal cousin Shahnshah. The Georgian royal Bagratid dynasty was
another family neutralized. Eventually sanctioning two monarchs, the
Mongols effectively divided the kingdom and the royal treasury, expro
priating one-third of it for themselves (1250s). In the 1260s and 1270s
the Mongols furthered the territorial and political ambitions of the
Orbelians and Artsrunis at the expense of the Zakarids and the Georgian
Bagratid dynasty. Finally, at the end of the thirteenth century and the
beginning of the fourteenth century, the Mongols elevated a Jaqeli to
the Georgian throne. In addition to the manipulation of nakharar prece
dence, the Mongols were able to divide the lords by creating conflicts
of loyalty. With the aim of destroying the ties that had existed between
the lords and the Georgian court, the Mongols incorporated certain
prominent nakharars into their own court and administration. This is
especially visible after 1256, the year in which Hulegu became D-Khan
in Iran, when Caucasian nobles were actually given symbolic offices
within Hulegu’s court. Cooptation of allegiance was furthered by inter
marriage between the Mongols (or officials in the Il-Khanid administra
tion in Iran) and the Caucasian nobility. The Christian Caucasian literary
sources mention eight examples of this, and the Cilician sources mention
a number of Cilician Armenian notables who had Mongol spouses.
The absence of prominent lords from the Caucasus resulted from
two Mongol requirements. First was the obligation of the two- to
three-year journey to their capital, Kara Korum, in Mongolia, and later
to Tabriz in Iran, which the Mongols insisted on for important lords.
Throughout the thirteenth century, prominent Armenian lords fre
quently were traveling to the East. Often trips were undertaken volun
tarily to advance personal interests or to resolve some local business. In
any case, the effect was the removal from Armenia of the most powerful
(and potentially the most dangerous) lords. In the absence of certain
grandees, other lords could and did attempt to encroach upon the lands
and rights of their rivals. The absence of Armenian lords from their
native habitats also resulted from the obligation of the lords to participate
with their cavalry in Mongol campaigns. Usually forced to fight as
advance attackers, the Caucasian troops had a simple choice facing
them: life and the spoils of victory, or death from defeat or attempted
desertion. The lords and their troops were taken on campaigns all over
the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia. The stringent requirements
involved in participating in Mongol campaigns were a major cause of
the princes' rebellion of 1259 to 1261. It is true that the Mongols placed
considerable trust in certain Armenian lords, such as amirspasalar
Shahnshah’s son Zakare and Prosh Khaghbakian, who aided in the
capture of Baghdad (1258). The honors bestowed upon the noted
military man Tarsayich Orbelian by Abaqa Khan are also noteworthy.
However, often the Caucasians suffered decimation. In 1261 many
Armenian and Georgian warriors died when the Mongol general
Kitbuqa’s army in Egypt was wiped out. Prince Sevada Khachentsi was
killed in the battle for Mayyafarikin. In 1261-1262 the young prince
Burtel Orbelian died in the North Caucasus, fighting Hulegu's enemy,
Berke. Caucasians died in the war between Arghun Khan and Baraq in
the mid-1260s in Central Asia. In the late 1270s Caucasians suffered
dreadful losses during the Mongols' ill-conceived campaigns in Gilan,
on the southern shore of the Caspian Sea. Participation in Mongol
campaigns resulted in more than the deaths of thousands of men. In the
absence of the nakharar warlords, the Caucasus was left without com
mitted defenders to protect it from the persistent raids and sorties of
Mongol, Turkmen, and local rebels.
Despite the serious shortcomings of life under the Mongols, for
most of the thirteenth century Armenian culture developed freely. This
was due as much to the generally free status of the church as to the
largesse of the lords and merchants. In the thirteenth and early fourteenth
century, there were a number of large monastic complexes where clerics
were educated and where the many manuscripts surviving from this
period were written, copied, and illuminated. Among the flourishing
monasteries were Ayrivank, Sanahin, Haghbat, Nor Getik (Goshavank),
Khoranashat, Kayenadzor, Khor Virap, Kecharuyk, and Gladzor. This
last institution was founded by a student of the historian Vardan
Areveltsi in the 1280s, and is described as a “university” in a colophon
dating from 1321. Possessing at least nine professors and some fifteen
lecturers, Gladzor's rise and decline followed that of its patrons, the
Proshians and Orbelians.
The Collapse of the Il-Khans

The reign of Ghazan Khan (1295-1304) is regarded by scholars as a
watershed, during which important changes took place in the Mongol
Empire. Some changes, such as fiscal reforms, did not take root among
Ghazan’s successors. Others, such as the Islamization of the Mongols,
were of a permanent nature. A fundamental problem was that the
economic system of the nomads was incompatible with the agricultural
and mercantile economy of Armenia. In the thirteenth century the
Mongols had expropriated for their own use vast tracts of land across
the Armenian highlands, taking certain choice farming areas for summer
and winter pasturage for their herds. The slopes of the Aragats Moun
tains, and the areas of Vayots Dzor, parts of the plain of Ayrarat, and
areas around Karin/Erzerum, Van, Berkri, and Baghesh/Bitlis became
sum m er yaylas, while Vaspurakan, the Ayrarat plains, and the
Kharberd/Kharpert region were used for wintering places. Formerly
these areas had been under intensive agricultural development, but
increasingly in the late thirteenth and in the fourteenth century they
became semidesert. Parts of southern and western Armenia were used
almost solely for animal husbandry. The Mongols and Turkmen nomads
used the area between Erzinjan, Baiburt, and Sebastia/Sivas, and areas
around Van and in Diarbekir for these purposes also. Not only was good
farmland allowed to desiccate, but with the mass enslavings and depor
tations of whole villages, there were fewer farmers; and with the theft
of livestock, remaining farmers often were deprived of their only source
of power for pulling the plow.
The severity of Mongol tax policies had been responsible for both
Armenian rebellions of the thirteenth century. Not only was the rate of
taxation high, but the manner in which taxes were collected was brutal.
Beyond the difficulties posed by “legal” taxes were the problems of the
illegal exactions. Such extraordinary taxes demanded by local Mongol
officials and/or rebels included money and goods. The billeting of
Mongol couriers and envoys in Armenian villages was another draining
abuse decried in the sources. Ghazan attempted to stem the deterioration
of the central government’s control over its officials, but by the early
fourteenth century, it was too late. The last Il-Khan, Abu Sa’id (1316-
1335), futilely attempted to forbid the practices that were destroying the
population and the countryside. A revealing inscription of this khan,
carved on the wall of Ani’s Manuche mosque, describes the situation;
“[In the past] taxes were collected and force was used . . . the place
started to become deserted, men from among the common people

scattered, the elders of the city and of the province because of the taxes
. . . abandoned their possessions real and movable and their families,
and went away.”
The breakdown of economic life in the early fourteenth century
was accompanied by increasing religious intolerance. With the Islam-
ization first of Ahmad Khan (1282-1284) and then with Ghazan’s
conversion to Islam, Christianity quickly passed from the status of a
favored religion to that of a tolerated religion. Anti-Christian persecu
tions began almost at once. Though checked during part of Ghazan’s
reign, they became the rule rather than the exception under his intolerant
successors. In the Caucasus, anti-Christian persecution was launched
with the plundering and killing expeditions of the fanatical Muslim
zealot Nauruz (1295-1296) during the reign of Ghazan Khan. Although
Nauruz eventually was hunted down and executed at Ghazan’s com
mand, with Christian Caucasians gleefully participating, the situation
never reversed itself. Religious persecution intensified during the sec
ond part of the reign of Ghazan’s successor, his brother Muhammad
Khuda-Banda (1304-1316). In 1307 Khuda-Banda resumed collection
of the jizya , or head tax on non-Muslims, something Ghazan had tried
but was obliged to discontinue. The sources report that even month-old
children were registered for payment of the jizya. In the 1320s Grigor,
bishop of Karin/Erzerum, was killed after refusing to convert. In 1334
Christians were obliged to wear special blue badges as a visible indicator
of their subordinate status. The requirement of the blue badge, kerchief,
or hat to set the Christians apart from Muslims was observed by the
Bavarian captive Johann Schiltberger around 1400, and so was a feature
of the entire fourteenth century.
Following the death of Abu Sa’id in 1335, nine years of internecine
warfare broke out among various nomadic elements vying for power.
Between 1335 and 1344 no less than eight khans were enthroned, only
to be deposed or murdered shortly afterward. But the collapse of the
Il-Khans, far from signaling freedom from oppressive rule for the
Armenians, meant only that their land now became the theater of warfare
for the various new contenders. During the first part of the fourteenth
century, the first set of new contenders consisted of two nomadic clans,
the Jalayirids and the Chobanids. As a result of warfare between these
tribes, parts o f southwestern Armenia were ravaged. The Chobanid
Malik Ashraf turned his wrath on the remnants of the once-great
Armenian noble houses in Ani and Bjni, decimating them in the early
1350s. The rule of the Chobanids was ended by another northern

invasion, from Khan Jani Beg of the Golden Horde (1357). The latter
part of the fourteenth century was occupied by warfare between two new
contenders, the Kara Koyunlu Turkmens and the Ottomans. The Otto
mans were part of the Oghuz tribesmen who had first come into Asia
Minor in the eleventh century, but greatly increased with new arrivals
during the thirteenth century. By the beginning of the fourteenth century,
the Ottoman entity had emerged as the strongest of the many small states
to arise on the ruins of the Sultanate of Rum. Throughout the fourteenth
century the Ottomans continued to expand at the expense of other
Turkmen principalities. Toward the end of the century, they controlled
areas of western Armenia, such as Sebastia/Sivas, Erzinga/Erzinjan, and
Melitene/Malatia.
The confused situation thus created in the Caucasus and Asia
Minor did not go unnoticed by Khan Tokhtamysh of the Golden Horde.
In 1385, with an army of 50,000, he invaded Azerbaijan via Darband
and Shirvan. After taking Tabriz, his marauding army divided into
sections, one group going via Marand to Nakhichevan and Siunik, which
was plundered from south to north. Khan Tokhtamysh’s divided army
reunited in Karabagh and then returned north via Shirvan. With them
went 200,000 slaves, including tens of thousands of Armenians from the
districts of Parskahayk, Siunik, and Artsakh.
The Timurid Invasions
In 1386-1387, 1394-1396, and 1399-1403, Armenia was subjected to

what were perhaps the most brutal invasions yet. These were led or
directed by the lame warlord Timur (Tamerlane) and constituted the last
major invasions of the Armenian highlands from Central Asia. During
the first Timurid invasion of 1386-1387, Nakhichevan was captured and
the fortress of Emjak was besieged (though it did not surrender until
1401). The towns and fortresses of Karbi, Bjni, Garni, Surmari, and
Koghb fell, and the districts of Ayrarat and Lesser Siunik were devas
tated. Tiflis was taken and sacked. After wintering in Mughan in
Azerbaijan, Timur’s generals crossed into the Kajberunik and Chap-
aghjur districts of southern and southwestern historical Armenia, where
they fought unsuccessfully against the Kara Koyunlu Turkmens. Some
Timurid detachments reached as far north as Karin/Erzerum, looting,
pillaging, and taking slaves as they went. In 1387 Timur besieged the
emir Ezdin at Van. When he took the citadel after a month’s besiege-
ment, the women and children were enslaved, while some 7,000 males
of all faiths were killed by being hurled from the walls. After Timur left
Asia Minor in 1387, severe famine ensued. Due to the disruptions he
had caused, crops were not planted, and now there was nothing to
harvest. Cannibalism was reported in some areas.
In 1394 Timur returned. Entering western historical Armenia from
northern Mesopotamia, he took Erzinjan, parts of Basen district, and
Avnik fortress. Kars, Surmari, Koghb, Bagaran, and Ayrarat were
ravaged, and the Kara Koyunlu Turkmen areas, centered at Arjesh north
of Lake Van, were attacked. At this point Timur turned upon Khan
Tokhtamysh of the Golden Horde, who had been raiding Shirvan. The
Timurids defeated Tokhtamysh and sacked his principal cities of Astra-
khan and Sarai. Timur appointed Miran, his half-mad son, as governor
of Iran, Iraq, Armenia, and other parts of the Caucasus. In 1396 Miran
continued operations against Emjak in the south and expanded warfare
against the Kurdish emir of Bitlis. In 1397 southern Vaspurakan was
ravaged and Ani in the north fell. Strangely, all powers of resistance had
not been completely broken by the Timurids. In 1399 King Giorgi VII
of Georgia attacked the Timurid besiegers of Emjak fortress, temporar
ily freeing those inside from the thirteen-year siege. But when Timur
learned about this, he left Samarkand and headed for the Caucasus. In
revenge, he attacked northeastern Armenia and southern Georgia, kill
ing, destroying, and taking slaves. More than 60,000 Caucasians were
led into slavery this time (in 1400), and many districts in northern
Armenia were depopulated. Subsequently, Timur headed for western
historical Armenia, where he took Sebastia/Sivas and Melitene/Malatia
from his archenemies, the Ottomans. After conquering Aleppo, Damas
cus, Mardin, and Baghdad, Timur decisively beat and captured the
Ottoman sultan, Sultan Bayazid II, in 1402. The next year Georgia was
invaded again and its king finally submitted to Timur. During 1403-
1404 Timur wintered in Karabagh before returning to Samarkand, where
he died in 1405.
By the end of the fourteenth century, the condition of the Arme
nians of central and eastern Asia Minor was bleak. Information on this
period derives from the History of Tovma Metzopetsi (d. 1446), from
colophons, and from the accounts of foreign travelers. Hamd Allah
Mustawfi Qazvini, the accountant-general of Iran, noted the decline of
the cities and towns in Caucasia and across the Armenian highlands in
his day (1340). Speaking of Georgia and Abkhazia, he stated that
“revenues in the time of their native kings amounted to near 5,000,000

dinars of the present currency; but in our times the government only
obtains 1,202,000 dinars.” About Rum, which embraced western histor
ical Armenia, he said: “Its revenues at the present day amount to
3.300.000 dinars as set down in the registers; but during the time of the
Seljuks they were in excess of 15,000,000 dinars of the present cur
rency.” The walls of Sebastia/Sivas were in ruins; Avnik was in ruins;
Baiburt “was a large town; it is now but a small one”; Mush, “in former
times a large city, but now a ruin”; Berkri, “a small town, that was a
large place formerly.” Khlat “is the capital of this province [Greater
Armenia] and its revenues in former days amounted to near 2,000,000
dinars of the present currency ; but now the total sum paid is only 390,000
dinars” (Qazvini, 1919). Until the Seljuk invasions, Siunik had some
1.000 villages, while at the end of the thirteenth century the figure had
declined to 677 villages. According to Samvel Anetsi and Matthew of
Edessa, the former Artsruni kingdom in Vaspurakan had over 4,000
villages, but thirteenth- and fourteenth-century authors speak of that area
with distress, as if describing a desert. Furthermore, in the 1350s the
trade routes shifted away from the northern cities of Ani and Kars, to
the southern cities of Khlat, Mayyafarikin, and Arjesh, helping to
impoverish northeastern Armenia.
Toward the end of the fourteenth century, the Armenian Church
and especially its hierarchy was under attack. In 1387-1388, Stepanos,
archbishop of Sebastia/Sivas, was executed for refusing to convert to
Islam. His monastery of St. Nshan was transformed into a dervish
sanctuary, and other churches were demolished. In 1393-1394, Cathol-
icos Zakaria of Aghtamar and Teodoros, the catholicos of Sis, both were
executed. Between 1403 and 1406, according to the Spanish ambassador
Clavijo, Timur demolished the churches of Erzinjan and Bekarich. In
addition to attacks from without, the Armenian Church was suffering
from internal division at the end of the fourteenth century. The influence
of Roman Catholicism, which had been growing on the Cilician Arme
nian clergy during the thirteenth century, led to a break between
Echmiadzin and Sis during the tenure of Catholicos Hakob of Sis
(1327-1341, 1355-1359). But by midcentury the Dominicans had won
over to Catholicism the influential Hovhannes Kmetsi of southern
Siunik, who began attracting to Catholicism his former classmates. The
fight against the Armenian Catholics of Kma preoccupied the Armenian
Church leadership for much of the fourteenth century. During the reign
of Catholicos Hakob, matters had deteriorated to the point that the
Cilician catholicos supported Kma’s efforts against Echmiadzin. An

other source of jurisdictional conflict in the fourteenth century was the
catholicosate (or anticatholicosate) of Aghtamar.
At the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth
century, a few small Armenian principalities still existed. These were in
the same areas that had withstood previous invaders and owed their
semiautonomy to the forbidding mountainous terrain: areas of Vayots
Dzor, Siunik, Artsakh, Gugark, Rshtunik, Mokk, Sasun, and Mush. The
Timurids preserved the Orbelians in Siunik, the Dopians in Tsar, the
Proshians in Vayots Dzor and Shahapunik. However, the circumstances
of the Armenian lords were far from easy. Most were under constant
pressure to convert to Islam. Tovma Metzopetsi as well as foreign
travelers described the plight of the remaining lords:
During the first year of his reign [Umar, Timur’s grandson], he

forcibly made to apostatize three princes of our people who had
remained like a tiny cluster of grapes among us: the son of Ivane and
grandson of Burtel, Burtel. ter of Orotan, of the Orbelian family; his
brother Smbat whom they took with his family to Samarqand (but
subsequently, through divine mercy and their prayers they returned
to their patrimony); the ter of Eghegis named Tarsayich, son of
Gorgon they caused to apostatize; the ter of Maku they detached from
the false and diophysitic [beliefs] of Aghtarmayutiun [Roman Cathol
icism], and the son of an azat named Azitan from Aghtsuats village
in the Ayraratian district. Later, however, they repented and became
true Believers in Christ and heirs of the Kingdom. (Tovma
Metzopetsi, 1987)
The same sources refer to Crypto-Christianity, the observance of

Christianity in secret. Other lords converted. Clavijo and Tovma
Metzopetsi both mention the Armenian prince Taharten, governor of
Erzinjan. His son by a daughter of the emperor of Trebizond was a
Muslim and (perhaps because of his faith) Timur’s governor of the same
city. Another probable Armenian lordly convert to Islam is the emir
Ezdin of Van, whom Tovma Metzopetsi described as being “of the line
of King Senekerim,’’ that is, of some Artsruni background (1987).
As a result of the unsettled, unsafe times, some lords of completely
impregnable fortresses, unable to maintain themselves in any other way,
turned to banditry. Prime sources of loot were the increasingly rare
caravans passing over the bandits’ lands, or even booty captured from
Timurids and Turkmens. Sometimes bandit lords operated alone, some

times in alliance with others, Christian or Muslim. Tovma Metzopetsi
speaks of one such mixed group of Kurdish Muslim and Armenian
Christian brigands from Sasun and Khut that looted a Timurid camp in
southwestern Armenia in the early 1390s. The Spanish ambassador
Clavijo encountered Caucasian bandits both en route to Erzinjan from
Trebizond in 1403, and on his return, again in northwestern Armenia
and southwestern Georgia: “for though they are Armenians and profess
to be Christians, all are robbers and brigands; indeed they forced us,
before we were let free to pass, to give a present of our goods as toll for
right of passage*’ (Clavijo, 1928).
Despite the extremely bleak situation across the Armenian high
lands at the end of the fourteenth century, the sources still report a few
instances of secular and clerical Armenian lords enjoying some influ
ence with the Timurids. Among the secular rulers belong the unnamed
woman ruler of Igdir castle mentioned by Clavijo and the Armenian lord
of Bayazit. Another such lord was the Roman Catholic Nur ad-Din,
mentioned earlier. Among the clerical lords enjoying some influence
with the Timurids belong the director of Metop monastery, Hovhannes,
and the noted intellectual, vardapet GrigorTatevatsi (Gregory of Tatev),
who was a confidant of Timur’s son, Miran.
Aristakes Lastiverttsi, 1973, 1985. Minorsky, 1953a.

Clavijo, 1928. Tovma Metzopetsi, I860, 1892, 1987.
Kirakos Gandzaketsi, 1961, 1986.
11
CILICIAN ARMENIA
Ani Atamian Boumoutian
he Cilician period, culminating in the establishment of the king
T dom of Cilicia in about 1199, represents something of a break in

Armenian history. For the first time, major events in the history of the
Armenian people were played out in territories that were never part of
the ancestral Armenian homeland and where Armenians probably did
not even constitute a majority of the population. It is also the first period
since that of the Roman Empire in which the concerns of Western
Europe— represented by the Crusader states—and the Roman Catholic
Church had a major impact on events affecting the Armenian people.
Moreover, the number and variety of the many contemporary European,
Armenian, Greek, and Arabic sources, while by no means providing a
complete narrative, supply rich detail on specific events and personali
ties of Cilicia, and imbue it with a more “modem” flavor than previous
periods of Armenian history.
Early History
The early history of the Armenians in Cilicia is that of the efforts of two
Armenian families over the course of many generations to extend their
control over a region of distinct and varied geographical features. Lower
Cilicia is a broad plain in Asia Minor that borders the Mediterranean
Sea. It is ringed by three mountain chains: the Taurus Mountains to the
274 Ani Atamian Boumoutian
northwest, the Anti-Taurus Mountains to the northeast, and the Amanus

Mountains to the east. In addition to the economic potential of access to
the sea, the western half offered a more secure situation, as the mountain
passes through the Taurus, particularly the major pass, known as the
Ciiician Gates, are long and narrow and easily defended. Because of the
coastline and navigable inland rivers, this was also a region of trade and
cities: to the west, Adana and Tarsus, and farther east, Mamistra
(Mopsuestia, Misis). The upper, eastern diagonal of the plain borders
on the Amanus Mountains and Syria to the east. Its mountainous
character and remoteness made it a less prosperous region and a less
secure one, as the Amanus passes, notably the Amanus Gates, are wider
and shorter and, therefore, less easily defended against invaders than
those of the Taurus.
Cilicia and its environs, populated in this period by Greeks, Arabs,
and Jews as well, had been home to Armenians since the eleventh
century. After the fall of the Bagratid kingdom, the Byzantine Empire,
which had controlled Cilicia since the mid-tenth century, assigned many
imperial military officials of Greater Armenia to lands farther west, in
and around the Ciiician plain. Other Armenians emigrated there on their
own initiative. All brought with them their households and, those who
had them, their troops. Although the generals or chieftains in Byzantine
service were assigned to protect the region from Seljuk incursions, they
sought as well to establish new principalities for themselves. Being far
from the center of Byzantine authority, they were able to achieve a level
of semi-independence in their territories.
During the second half of the eleventh century, the most powerful
Armenian in the region was Philaretus, a general of the Byzantine
emperor Romanus IV Diogenes. Philaretus controlled a wide and stra
tegic region from Antioch to Melitene (Malaria), but his territory was
eventually broken by Seljuk attacks. Upon Philaretus’s death in 1092,
his Armenian lieutenant, Gogh Vasil (“Basil the Robber”), inherited his
holdings in Raban and Kesum and his position as the most powerful
Armenian chieftain in Cilicia.
Along the Anti-Taurus Mountains in the late eleventh and early
twelfth centuries were other lieutenants of Philaretus, such as Tatul of
Marash, Gabriel (in some Armenian sources, Khoril) of Melitene, and
Toros of Edessa (Urfa, Urha). Like many Armenian imperial officials,
Tatul, Gabriel, and Toros held to the Greek Orthodox faith. The area of
Tarsus was controlled by a member of the Artsruni house, Abul-Gharib.
East of Mamistra, in the fortress of Gobidara, was Ruben, a former
10. THEARMENIAN STATE IN CILICIA,
Armenian Byzantine official in the service of King Gagik II, who

migrated west after the fall of the Bagratid kingdom. To the far western
edge of the Cilician plain, in the area of the Cilician Gates, was King
Oshin, an Armenian official of the Byzantine Empire, who, upon Abul-
Gharib’s death, was granted the strategic fortresses of Lambron and
Baberon to defend the gates against the Turks.
Despite their probable lack of numerical superiority, Armenians
came to dominate key positions in Cilicia. Among these many chieftains,
two houses maintained their dominance and, by the early twelfth cen
tury, rivaled each other for control of the plain. They have come to be
known as the Rubenids or Rubenians, after Ruben, and the Hetumids,
or Hetumians, after King Oshin’s son Hetum. Unlike the Rubenids, the
Hetumids remained loyal vassals of Byzantium, and they retained the
fortresses of Lambron and Baberon as the secure center of their power.
The Rubenids, after the death of Gogh Vasil in about 1112, came to
control the upper, mountainous region around the fortress of Vahka.
Some later chroniclers identify Ruben as a relative of King Gagik
Bagratuni. There is no historical basis to this claim, but it is no doubt
based on accounts that Ruben’s grandson, Toros, avenged Gagik’s death
by killing the late king’s assassins. However, the fact that these accounts
of Toros’s revenge appear about the time of Gogh Vasil’s death make
it likely that, fabricated or true, the Rubenids proclaimed their tie to the
Bagratid dynasty in order to legitimize their ascendancy and territorial
ambitions in the region. These ambitions consisted of aggressively
extending their control southward to the lower plain with its principal
trade routes and ports. This expansion naturally brought the Rubenids
into conflict with the Hetumids, who, as loyal imperial vassals, defended
Byzantine Cilician territory from Rubenid incursions.
At the same time that the Rubenids were beginning to enlarge their
holdings in Cilicia, European forces had entered Asia Minor as part of
the First Crusade of 1095. There is some debate as to whether the
Armenians and other Christians in Cilicia actually saw the Crusaders,
or “Franks,” as they were called, as welcome “liberators” from Seljuk
control. Rather, some historians assert that the Seljuk ascendancy in Asia
Minor after the battle of Manzikert (Malazgerd, Manazkert) in 1071, in
fact, helped to provide some stability in the region and filled a vacuum
in authority left by ineffectual Byzantine rule. Cleaning out the “infidel”
Turk, however, provided a powerful justification for the Crusaders to
enter Asia Minor. For Cilician history, the establishment of Crusader
states at nearby Edessa and Antioch meant that Europe’s desire to carve
CILICIAN ARMENIA 277
out independent principalities in the region became a major political and

military factor with which all of the Armenian chieftains of Cilicia had
to reckon. The history of Cilician Armenia was thus not made, nor can
it be told, in isolation, as its course was inevitably affected by that of the
Muslim, Byzantine, and Crusader states that neighbored it.
The Crusades and Armenia
From the first, the Crusaders— who included among their numbers
clergy and merchants as well as military men—sought out Armenians
as guides, purveyors of supplies, and soldiers. As the strongest Christian
military leaders in the region, the Cilician Armenian lords became
frequent and valuable allies. Armenian, Muslim, and Crusader leaders
alike, however, saw in each other a lack of unity, internal rivalries, and
territorial ambition, and frequently played one against another. An
example is the fall of Toros of Edessa. Soon after the arrival of the
Crusaders, Toros requested the assistance of Baldwin of Boulogne, a
French Crusade leader in maintaining control of Edessa, which Toros
had recently taken from the Seljuks. Baldwin agreed, but only after
Toros had promised to make him heir to Edessa by formally adopting
the Frenchman as his son. When another raid of Baldwin's against the
Turks endangered the safety of the area, the Armenians there, who bore
little love for the Greek Orthodox Toros, rose up to overthrow him.
Baldwin refused any aid to his “father” and let events run their course.
The result was Toros’s death by an Armenian mob and Baldwin’s
assumption of the title of Count of Edessa.
The Armenian chieftains were frequently principal players—
sometimes allies, sometimes targets— in the struggle among the Cru
sade leaders for control and expansion of the two Crusader states of
the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch. By the year
1118, the territories of Gogh Vasil’s successors and the lands of
Abul-Gharib and other Armenian chieftains, whose holdings lay east
of the Cilician plain, were conquered by Baldwin of Boulogne and his
heirs and incorporated into the County of Edessa. This left the
Rubenids and the Hetumids, who were more removed from the im
mediate vicinity of Crusader ambitions, as the only strong and semi
independent Armenian chieftains left in the region.
One of the earliest important Rubenid gains was made by Toros
(period of leadership, 1102-1129), the grandson of Ruben, when he
captured from the Byzantines the two fortresses of Bardzberd and

Anazarba. The latter, rising to a height of 700 feet, became a center of the
Rubenids and was probably the strongest of the Armenian fortresses in
Cilicia. The Rubenids continued expanding their holdings in the midst of
shifting frontiers and alliances. Toros was succeeded by his brother Levon
(period of leadership, 1129-1140). Levon became known as “Leo” or
“Leon” to the Europeans and, as evidence of growing Rubenid power,
dubbed by Western sources as “Prince Leo of the Mountains.” By the year
1135, he had succeeded in extending his holdings to the Mediterranean
by capturing, for a short period, the key cities of Mamistra, Adana, and
Tarsus. This he was able to accomplish largely thanks both to internal
fighting among the Muslims, engineered by the Turkish commander of
Aleppo, Zangi, and to the deflection of Byzantium’s attention to problems
with the Serbs and Magyars. By 1137, however, Emperor John Comnenus
was able to direct his troops to Asia Minor. His immediate concern was
the Crusader principality of Antioch, which, ever since its founding, was
to have been turned over to Byzantine rule. As the Rubenid holdings were
literally a wedge driven between imperial territories in western Asia Minor
and Antioch, John lost no time in invading and reimposing Byzantine rule
in his Cilician territories, happily assisted in this task by his Hetumid allies.
Tarsus, Adana, and Mamistra quickly fell, and soon after, the key Rubenid
fortresses of Vahka and Anazarba. Levon was taken captive to Constan
tinople, along with his wife and two of his sons, Ruben and Toros. Levon,
his wife, and Ruben, all died in captivity; young Toros, however, managed
to escape and returned to Cilicia. Military-political events soon provided
favorable circumstances for the Rubenids, now led by a grown Toros
(period of leadership, 1144-1169), to restore their power in the region. In
1143 John Comnenus died. The next year Zangi captured the County of
Edessa. This was a calamitous event for the Crusades, marking their first
major defeat, and sparked the Second Crusade. For the many Armenians
in Edessa, it meant evacuation to the nearby Crusader state of Antioch and
into Cilicia proper. A significant consequence came of the fall of Edessa,
however. In 1146 Edessa’s former ruler, Count Joscelin II, died after an
unsuccessful and bloody attempt to recapture it, during which Zangi’s
forces killed hundreds of Armenians and other Christian civilians.
Joscelin’s wife, Beatrice of Saone, sold to the Byzantines many of the
fortresses that her husband had controlled. She kept one, however, the
stronghold of Hromkla, or Rum Qalat, on the Euphrates River and granted
it to the Armenian catholicos. Hromkla became and remained for the next
CILICIAN ARMENIA HV
one hundred years the seat of the catholicosate, despite the fact that for
most of this period it was deep in Muslim-held territory.
Meanwhile, Toros was proving himself an able leader. By 1148, the
year of the Second Crusade, the Rubenids had recaptured Vahka from the
Byzantines and had reestablished Rubenid power in Anazarba and other
areas. At the same time, the growing power of Zangi’s son, Nur al-Din,
particularly after the latter’s capture of Damascus in 1154, forced the
Crusader states into a closer alliance with Byzantium. Reginald of
Chatillon, prince of Antioch, agreed to retake the Cilician cities on the
coast for the Greeks (Byzantines), but then failed to hand over the territory
to Byzantium. When the Greeks subsequently refused payment for the
attack, Reginald sought and received Toros’s cooperation in seeking
retribution, and, in one of the least glorious and most wasteful episodes
of the Crusades, the two leaders combined forces in raiding and looting
the Greek island of Cyprus. A short time later the emperor Manuel
Comnenus counterattacked and marched through Cilicia, took Toros by
surprise, and reduced the area to its already legal status of Byzantine vassal
state. It was for but a short period, however. Baldwin, king of the Crusader
state of Jerusalem, now allied through marriage with Manuel, mediated
on Toros’s behalf, probably as thanks for Toros’s military aid the previous
year, and the Armenian leader soon regained control— albeit under nom
inal Byzantine suzerainty—over Cilicia.
Toros succeeded in keeping on generally cordial terms with both the
Seljuks and the Crusaders. He made what appears to be the first attempt
to ally the two dominant Cilician Armenian families, by marrying his
daughter to the son of the Hetumid leader, though the bride was later
repudiated. Most important, he created over a period of years the begin
nings of an Armenian Rubenid state, coming to peaceful terms with the
Byzantines and receiving limited Byzantine recognition of his position in
Cilicia. He was an active participant in regional military affairs. He
established friendly relations with Prince Bohemond III of Antioch by
helping him gain the throne against the claims of Bohemond’s mother. In
1164 Toros joined a combined force of Crusader and Byzantine troops
against Nur al-Din and later helped negotiate the release of Bohemond
and the Byzantine commander from Muslim capture. Toros’s consolida
tion of land and his prestige were such that one contemporary Western
source referred to Cilicia as “the land of King Toros.’’
Toros died in 1169, at a critical time for all of Asia Minor and
Palestine. Saladin (Salah al-Din) had by that date conquered Egypt and
allied it with Syria, creating a formidable Muslim force that literally

encircled the Crusader states and threatened Cilicia. A struggle for Toros’s
position immediately began among his brothers. One of them, Mleh, who
had converted to Islam, killed Toros’s son to assure the legality of his own
succession and allied himself with Nur al-Din, still the most powerful
Muslim leader. Backed by Nur al-Din’s forces, Mleh invaded the Rubenid
holdings, took possession of all Byzantine fortresses there, and held
control for several years, much to the dismay of the other Rubenid nobility.
When Nur al-Din died in 1174, the Rubenid leadership lost no time in
ousting Mleh and choosing Toros’s nephew, Ruben (period of leadership,
1175-1187), as his successor.
Ruben continued his family’s traditional struggle against the
Hetumids. The Hetumids, however, enlisted the help of Prince Bohemond
III of Antioch, who was now himself a Byzantine vassal, and despite the
assistance that the Rubenids, under Toros, had lent him, allied with his
fellow vassals against Ruben. In 1183 Bohemond invited Ruben to
Antioch for talks, purportedly aimed at reconciling the two Armenian
houses, and promptly took Ruben captive. It was a brief captivity, but it
gave Ruben’s brother Levon an opportunity to exert his considerable skills
as interim ruler of the house. It also developed in Levon a deep-seated
animosity toward Antioch. Soon after his release, Ruben placed the
leadership of the house in the able hands of his brother and retired to a
monastery near Sis, where he died one year later.
Levon (period of leadership and reign, 1187-1219) took full ad
vantage of the favorable circumstances now facing his territory. Byzan
tine power in Asia Minor had all but been broken by their defeat at the
hands of the Turks at the battle of Myriocephalon, near Phy rgia, in 1176.
Saladin had dealt the Europeans the most crushing blow of the Crusades
when he captured Jerusalem in 1187, the culmination of a powerful
Muslim counterattack against the Crusades. The fall of the Holy City
launched the Third Crusade, which, while it recaptured the key city of
Acre, failed in retaking Jerusalem itself. With the cornerstone of the
Crusader states now lost, European strength was confined to the Medi
terranean coastal states of Antioch, Tripoli, and Tyre.
The Kingdom of Cilicia
In the eyes of the Crusaders, Cilicia now assumed a new strategic

importance as a major Christian enclave. Evidence of this is a letter
written in 1189 by Pope Clement III both to Catholicos Grigor IV Tgha
and Levon, formally requesting their military and financial assistance
to the Crusading forces. Levon was both wise and ambitious enough to
see that the circumstances were ripe to win once and for all official
recognition of his position in the region. As early as 1190, Western
chroniclers were referring to Levon as “duke,” and “prince,” but Levon’s
goal was a royal crown. He had hoped to receive it from the German
Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa, probably as a condition
for further Rubenid assistance to the Crusade effort. Unfortunately for
Levon, Frederick drowned while in Asia Minor in 1190. Finally, in
either 1198 or 1199—the date is disputed, though there is firmer
evidence for the latter—Levon received not one but two crowns, one
from a representative of the new German emperor, Henry VI, and one
from the Byzantine emperor. Chroniclers recount Levon’s coronation
as King of Armenia at the Cathedral of Tarsus on January 6 as a grand
and ceremonious event, with nearly fifty members of both the Rubenid
and Hetumid nobility, as well as numerous members of the clergy and
representatives from Europe and the Crusader states.
During Levon’s long reign Cilicia reached its greatest geographi
cal extent and the apex of its power. Armenians finally had secure
control of the coastal plain and their Mediterranean port cities. King
Levon succeeded in the long Rubenid quest of breaking Hetumid power
in western Cilicia. From his new capital at Sis he established alliances
through his own, his daughter’s, and his niece’s marriage to the houses
of Cyprus, Antioch, and Byzantium, respectively.
Levon’s reign was marked, however, by two major crises. Levon’s
grand plan was to extend his control by uniting Cilicia to the powerful
neighboring state of Antioch. It was a design that had occupied most of
his reign, both before and after his coronation. Upon succeeding Ruben,
Levon had made an uneasy peace with Bohemond III of Antioch, his
brother’s captor. When Saladin invaded Bohemond’s principality, in
about 1190 or 1191, Levon had made no attempt to aid his neighbor.
Rather, as soon as Saladin had withdrawn from the strategic Antiochene
fortress of Baghras (Gaston), which had been granted to the Order of
the Knights Templar, Levon had seized it and refused to give it up. He
had then plotted with Bohemond’s wife, who wanted to assure the
Antiochene succession of her line and, turning the tables, captured
Bohemond during an invitation for talks on the Baghras question.
Levon’s terms for Bohemond’s release was Cilician suzerainty over
Antioch. The Antiochene nobility, many of whom had Armenian blood,
were ready to accept the terms, but the citizenry, particularly the largely
Italian commercial interests, who feared Armenian competition, re
belled and established a commune to govern the principality. Levon had
obviously lost the first round of his fight for Antioch.
Levon had managed, however, shortly before his coronation, to
marry his niece Alice to Bohemond’s son, Raymond. Soon after the
birth of their son, Raymond Ruben, the boy’s father died. Given
Bohemond’s advanced age, Antioch was sure to be governed by an
Armenian regency if Raymond Ruben was upheld as heir, against his
uncle, the Count of Tripoli. A protracted struggle ensued, with the
pope and German emperor, the recent supporters of Levon’s elevation
to kingship, committed to the child’s claim, and the Count of Tripoli,
allied with Antioch’s Pisan and Genoese merchants and the still-dis
gruntled Templars, against him. Even had Levon been willing to
restore Baghras to the Templars as the pope requested, the popular
sentiment in Antioch against the Armenians was too strong. The war
of the Antiochene succession dragged on for the next quarter of a
century. Old Bohemond of Antioch died in 1201, but Levon was too
distracted by Seljuk raids into Cilicia to press the Armenian claim.
Eventually, the Count of Tripoli, Bohemond’s younger son, succeeded
his father, thereby ending Levon’s hopes of uniting the two states.
Levon’s second and, for Cilicia itself, more serious crisis arose as
a direct result of his coronation and was to plague the kingdom until its
fall. This was the question of doctrinal and liturgical unity with the
Roman Catholic Church, which the papacy had attempted to impose
since the First Crusade. In granting Levon a royal crown with the consent
and blessing of the pope, the German emperor as well as Rome expected
acknowledgment of the pope as the head of Christendom. Whether
Levon had agreed to such acknowledgment beforehand is unknown, but
once crowned, he tried to allay the fears and anger of the Armenian
clergy by requiring them only to make minor changes in the Armenian
liturgy and only to concede a “special respect” to the pope as the
successor of St. Peter. An early and apolitical Armenian supporter of
unity with Rome was Nerses of Lambron, Bishop of Tarsus, but the
cause found no leadership among the Cilician clergy after his death in
1199 and no widespread support at any time. As the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries wore on, the conflict over unity caused a serious
rift not only between the Armenian crown and clergy but between the
clergy of Greater Armenia and of the Cilician kingdom as well. The
dispute over ecclesiastical unity with Rome became an issue that was
exploited by the papacy and the Crusaders as the Muslim counteroffen

sive against Cilicia later gained strength.
Cilician Society and Economy
The nature of the kingdom created in Cilicia by Levon and his successors
differed greatly from that of the Bagratid dynasty and was, due to a
century of close contact with the Crusaders, a decidedly Armenian-
Western hybrid in certain respects. The relationship of the king to the
nobility was essentially a Western feudal one of sovereign to vassal,
rather than the earlier nakharar system of “first among equals.” This
relationship did not develop immediately or completely. As late as 1215,
certain Cilician nobles still reserved the right to levy trade duties on
foreign merchants, despite royal agreements of exemption, and through
out the life of the kingdom, the nobility had a voice in the question of
succession. Western feudal law, specifically the Assizes of Antioch
(which has survived only in its Armenian translation), was used to judge
cases involving the court and nobility. Armenian nobles were knighted
in the European tradition, and jousts and tournaments, unknown in
Greater Armenia, became popular sport. Latin and French terms of
nobility and office were used in place of Armenian equivalents: “paron”
(“baron”) rather than nakharar, and “gonstapl” (“constable”) rather than
sparapet. The alphabet itself was extended to accommodate certain new
sounds introduced by Western languages, thus the Armenian letters o
and f. French and Latin became secondary languages at the royal court.
The nobility, as surviving manuscript illuminations and chroniclers'
descriptions reveal, also adopted Western feudal dress. European, par
ticularly French names, such as Raymond, Henri, Etien, Alice, Isabelle,
and Melisende, became popular among members of the royal court. This
was an age where alliances and agreements were often sealed by
marriages, and the amount of intermarriage with the Cilician nobility,
primarily Armenian noble women, meant that there were those of
Armenian blood in the courts of every Crusader state, in Byzantium, and
even in European noble families. Frequently, in order to facilitate these
marriage alliances, Armenian nobles converted to Catholicism and the
Greek Orthodox faith.
On the level below that of nobility, Cilicia was a heterogenous
society, where the Armenian dealt with European, Greek, Jew, Eastern
Christian, and Muslim on a daily basis. While there exists very little
information on the “average” Cilician Armenian of the commercial

class, it is probable that intermarriage and the degree of “Frankish-
ness” were on a smaller scale here than among the nobility; and among
tradesmen and the peasantry, who made up the majority of the Arme
nian population, probably not at all. Certainly the clergy did its best,
in the face of pressure from the throne, to keep its Eastern, Armenian
character intact.
The fortunes of geography placed Cilicia at a strategic point in
several important trade routes linking Central Asia and the Persian Gulf
to the Mediterranean, routes that carried, among other goods, the lucra
tive spice trade from India and Southeast Asia to Europe. Cilicia itself
was a prosperous land and exported livestock as well as hides, wool, and
cotton. Its goat-hair cloth had long been renowned for its strength.
Timber from the mountains was traded as well as grain, wine, raisins,
and raw silk. As was widespread in the period, there was also a profitable
trade in Christian and Muslim slaves. During and after Levon’s reign,
the port of Ayas on the Gulf of Alexandretta, always an important
stopover for European and oriental merchants, underwent a revitaliza
tion as the center of East-West commerce in Asia Minor. Ayas was a
market center as well as a port, and its bazaars sold dyes, spices, silk and
cotton cloth, carpets, and pearls from all over Asia, and finished cloth
and metal products from Europe. Early in his reign Levon signed
agreements with the Italian city-states of Genoa, Venice, and Pisa, and
later with the French and the Catalans, granting their merchants tax
exemptions and other privileges in return for their trade. Thus, there was
in Ayas, Tarsus, Adana, and Mamistra a thriving European merchant
community, dominated by the Italians, which was allowed by treaty its
own trading houses, churches, and courts of law. As French became the
secondary language of the Cilician court, Italian became the secondary
language of Cilician commerce.
Coins were struck by Cilician leaders as early as the second
Rubenid leader, Toros, in the mid-twelfth century. During the period of
the kingdom, gold and silver coins, called dram and tagvorin, were
struck at the royal mints at Sis and Tarsus. In trade, all other coins of
the period were used as well, such as the Italian ducat, florin, and
zecchino, the Greek besant, the Arab dirham, and the French livre.
With the catholicosate at distant Hromkla on the Euphrates until
the turn of the thirteenth century, the catholicos was assisted in admin
istering the Armenian Church in Cilicia by fourteen bishops during the
reign of Levon, and even more appear to have been named in later years.
Sis, Tarsus, Lambron, Anazarba, and Mamistra were the seats of arch
bishops. Sources list up to sixty monastic houses in Cilicia, though the
location of many of these remains unknown.
The Rule of the Hetumids
King Levon I died in 1219, after one of the longest rules in Cilicia. Asia
Minor and Palestine had a far different political configuration at his
death than at the beginning of his rule. The Crusaders, led by the
Venetians, had invaded the center of Christian power in the East,
Constantinople, in 1204, forcing the Byzantine emperor to set up an
empire-in-exile in Nicea. Farther east, Saladin’s united Syria and Egypt
was the stronghold of Muslim power in the region and an equal, if not
greater, threat to Cilicia than the Seljuks. Europe recognized that threat
to their own status in the region and sent the Fourth Crusade in 1215,
which tried but failed to invade Egypt and check Saladin’s power.
Levon at his death named his only child, Zabel (Isabelle), as his
heir, but his grandnephew, Raymond Ruben of Antioch, with papal
support, seized the throne. The Armenian nobility ousted and im
prisoned Raymond Ruben and installed the young Zabel on the throne,
with Constantine, a Hetumid noble, as regent, an action that marked the
beginning of Hetumid rule in Cilicia. With the Seljuks occupying the
western Taurus Mountains and threatening another invasion, Constan
tine sought an alliance with Antioch and arranged for Philip, the son of
the Prince of Antioch, to marry Zabel, insisting, however, that the groom
become a member of the Armenian Church. Whatever Zabel’s feelings
about her new husband, the Armenian nobility were not pleased. Philip
seemed to disdain Armenian customs—it is said that he refused even to
grow a beard—and was in Antioch more than in his adopted country. In
1224 he was arrested and poisoned in prison. Constantine saw an
opportunity to consolidate Hetumid influence in Cilicia and married his
own son, Hetum, to the widowed Zabel, then only fourteen years of age
and three years Hetum’s senior. Queen Zabel is one of the few female
personalities mentioned by sources on Cilicia, and certainly the strong
est. Upon her first husband’s murder, she fled to the protection of the
Knights Hospitaller rather than remain in Cilicia, and she refused for
several years to live with her new husband. By 1230 she relented and
the two were crowned at Sis, thus officially giving an equal share in
governing the kingdom to the Hetumids.
Hetum I (1226-1270) enjoyed a reign of forty-four years, the

longest of any Cilician king, and was fortunate during that time to have
the wise counsel and support of his brother Smbat, the High Constable,
or sparapet, of Cilicia, who has left the Chronicle o f Smbat, a valuable
source of that period (Der Nersessian, 1959). The reign of Hetum and
Zabel is usually characterized as a “flowering of the arts,” but it was as
marked by as much warfare as any other in Cilicia’s history. The Seljuks
invaded again in both 1233 and 1245, demanding high tributes and
inflicting terrible damage; the Ayyubids with their Mamluk army in
Egypt were an ever-growing threat; and now, a new force appeared on
the scene, the Mongols. Moving westward from the steppes of Central
Asia, the Mongols had attacked the Seljuks in Anatolia and established
a stronghold north of Syria. The Mongols were not Muslim but shaman-
ists and had a common enemy with the Christians of the area in the
Seljuks and Mamluks. The papacy, the Crusaders, and the Armenians
all made great efforts at an alliance with the Mongol leaders, even hoping
for their conversion to Christianity.
King Hetum, wisely, lost no time in approaching the Mongols. In
1247 he sent his brother Smbat to the Mongol court in the distant city
of Kara Korum, and several years later he traveled there himself, to seal
an alliance with the Great Khan Mongke against the Muslim powers
threatening Cilicia. Upon his return to Cilicia, Hetum traveled through
Greater Armenia, the first and only Cilician leader since the first
generation of Rubenids and Hetumids to see the Armenian homeland.
The Mongol alliance was initially of great benefit to Cilicia and to
the Mongols themselves in holding back the Seljuks and the Mamluks.
Armenians fought side by side with Mongols and Antiochenes to defeat
the Mamluk army at Aleppo and Damascus. The alliance was beneficial
to the Armenians, however, only as long as the Mongols remained strong
in the region around Cilicia. In 1260 the Mediterranean Crusader states,
feeling their own security threatened by growing Mongol power, al
lowed Mamluk troops to march through Latin Palestine against a com
bined Mongol and Armenian force. The result was a crushing defeat by
the Mamluks at Ayn Jalut, a victory that saved Egypt from the Mongols
and encouraged the Muslims of Damascus, Aleppo, and other cities of
Syria to rise against their Mongol conquerors. The Mongols were thus
pushed back and contained in Iran, too distant to help Cilicia against
renewed Mamluk and Seljuk attack.
While Hetum traveled again to the Mongol court, now at Tabriz,
to seek more military aid, the Mamluk leader Baybars sought to punish
Cilicia’s alliance with the Mongols against Egypt. For twenty days the
Mamluks devastated the country, killing thousands, taking thousands
more as prisoners and slaves, and setting fire to the cathedral at Sis
and looting its treasury. The port of Ayas was destroyed, with serious
consequences for the Cilician economy. The Armenians under Smbat
the Constable fought as best they could, but they were hopelessly
outnumbered. Hetum returned to find his country in ruins and retired
to a monastery, abdicating in 1269 in favor of his son, Levon II
(1270-1289).
Levon’s reign was marked by a wave of invasions into Cilician
territory by the Mamluks and by Turkmen and Kurdish bands. Levon
was forced to sign a ten-year treaty with the Mamluks, requiring him to
pay a high annual tribute in return for the safety of his people. Levon
died in 1289, leaving the oldest of several sons, Hetum, to succeed him.
At a time when strong leadership was needed, Hetum II’s reign,
or rather series of reigns (1289-1293; 1295-1297; 1299-1307) marks the
nadir of Cilician rule, checkered with fractious family and factional
strife that was to characterize the kingdom’s political history until its
fall. Despite Levon II’s treaty, the Mamluk threat still loomed, and in
1292, Hromkla was invaded, the catholicosate and its reliquaries and
treasury looted, and the catholicos, Stepannos IV, taken captive. Hetum
abdicated in favor of his brother, Toros (1293-1294) and, a devout
convert to Catholicism, entered a Franciscan monastery. He was per
suaded to resume the throne two years later. During his second reign,
he married his sister to Amaury (Amalric) de Lusignan, brother of the
king of Cyprus, whose children would later inherit the Cilician throne.
Hetum traveled to Iran to reforge an alliance with the Mongols and from
there went to Constantinople to do the same with Byzantium. Upon his
return, he found that his brother Smbat 1(1297-1299, not to be confused
with the High Constable) had seized the throne. Hetum and his brother
Toros were imprisoned, the latter strangled, and Hetum partially
blinded. Another brother, Constantine I (1299), overthrew Smbat, de
clared himself king, and released Hetum. One year later Hetum had
gathered enough support to retake the throne and exiled both Smbat and
Constantine to Constantinople.
Hetum’s strongly and openly pro-Roman sentiments no doubt
were a factor in his overthrow. It was characteristic of the Cilician period
that it was the kings, rather than the catholicoses, who controlled the
course of Armenian-Roman church relations, and with distant Hromkla
sacked in 1292, Hetum took the opportunity to move the catholicosate
to Sis, the political capital, where this control could be better exercised.
In this period those dismayed with Cilicia’s “Romanizing” tendencies,
particularly those in Greater Armenia, found a leader in Stepanos
Orbelian (d. 1304), the metropolitan bishop of Siunik. His poem Voghb,
or “Lament,” reflects his sentiments on the pro-papacy direction of the
catholicosate in Cilicia.
Shortly before Hetum abdicated for the final time to enter a
monastery and left his throne to his nephew Levon III (1305-1307;
co-ruler since 1301), the Mongol leadership dealt the Christian world a
devastating blow by declaring its conversion to Islam. Still uncertain if
this meant the end of hopes for alliance against the Mamluks, Hetum,
now as a Franciscan friar, King Levon III, and about forty Cilician
noblemen visited the Mongol emir at Anazarba. Their question of an
alliance was answered when all were treacherously put to death.
More civil strife ensued. The throne passed to another of Hetum
II’s brothers, King Oshin (1307-1320). In a bid for European military
assistance, two Armenian church councils were held, at Sis in 1307 and
at Adana in about 1316, at which a number of Armenian clergy and
nobles formally agreed to conform to Roman liturgical and doctrinal
practice, including recognition of the pope. There rose to the surface
intense anti-Roman sentiment, which soon became a general anti-West
ern reaction. King Oshin was poisoned in 1320. When his son and
successor Levon IV (1320-1341) had both his own wife and stepfather
killed and married the widowed queen of Cyprus, the Cilician nobility
saw it as evidence of Levon’s pro-European policy and rose up and
murdered him in 1341.
The Lusignans
This chain of events left few living and legitimate contenders for the
Cilician throne. The only ones left, in fact, were the nephews of Hetum
II, the children of Amaury de Lusignan. Thus it was that the Cilician
throne passed from a series of Armenian kings who were pro-Western
in sentiment to a line that was European in culture and upbringing, and
not at all popular with the Armenians. The first Lusignan king, Guy
(1342-1344), in an effort to please his Armenian subjects, assumed the
more Eastern, though Greek, name of Constantine. He reigned for a brief
two years before being murdered. It is a significant indication of the
political chaos in Cilicia at this time that there are no reliable Armenian
sources and few sources of any kind relating to events of this period.
Constantine was succeeded by a cousin, another Constantine (1344-
1362), who is frequently identified with yet another cousin Constantine
(1367-1373). During the interim, it is unclear as to who was on the
throne. An illegitimate Lusignan nephew, Levon (later Levon V), is said
by some sources to have held power from 1363 to 1364. In any event,
King or the Kings Constantine considered it more realistic to undertake
a policy of appeasement to the Mamluks, by ceding to them pieces of
the kingdom, in return for the safety of its inhabitants. The last Constan
tine, sensing the desperateness of his country’s situation, went so far as
to sign a treaty surrendering rule of the kingdom, providing that the
safety of the Armenians would be honored. The Armenian nobility
opposed this treaty and murdered him in 1373. After a one-year regency
by Constantine’s widow, the Lusignans were recalled to the throne, and
Levon V (1374-1375) and his wife, Margaret of Soisonns, were crowned
at Sis (Rudt-Collenberg, 1980).
It was a short and unhappy reign. The Mamluks dealt their final,
crushing blow to Cilicia in 1375; the royal family was taken captive to
Cairo and Cilicia came under Mamluk domination. Levon was ransomed
and went to Europe, traveling from court to court to enlist Europe’s aid
in recapturing his kingdom. He died in 1393 in Paris and was given the
honor of burial in the church of St. Denis, the traditional medieval resting
place of the kings of France, where his tomb can still be seen today.
Though the Cilician kingdom was at an end, the Mamluks did not
hold Cilicia for long, and the Armenians who remained there came under
Turkic domination around the turn of the century. Those Armenians who
could fled the area, many eastward to Iran and Greater Armenia; some,
particularly merchant families, westward, to found or add to the Arme
nian communities of the diaspora in France, the Netherlands, Italy,
Spain, and Poland. By the early sixteenth century, all of Cilicia, as all
of Asia Minor, had passed to Ottoman Turkish control. A few semi-
autonomous mountainous principalities such as Hadjin and Zeitun sur
vived until the nineteenth century.
What tangibly remains of the Cilician kingdom arc written records
(few translated into English) and works of art. All important sources on
the period have been printed and many translated. Cilicia had what came
to be a distinctive dialect from that of Greater Armenia, and some
linguists trace the origins of modem Western Armenian to the language
of the Cilicians. The works of art that have survived include fine
examples of silver and other metalwork and coins, but especially manu
script illuminations. Toros Roslin, who headed the scriptorium at

Hromkla in the thirteenth century, revitalized the Armenian art of
illumination; his work was filled with the details of daily life and
displayed a less stylized form than that of his predecessors.
Something less tangible that remained of Armenian Cilicia was the
kingly title. This passed to Levon V’s relative, John I, King of Cyprus,
who had also inherited the equally meaningless Crusader title of “King
of Jerusalem.” Through John’s descendants it passed to the House of
Savoy, so that as late as the nineteenth century, the prince of Savoy
claimed, among his other titles, that of t4King of Armenia.”
Bedoukian, 1962. Hetoum, 1988.

Boase, 1978. Maalouf, 1984.
Dostourian, 1993. Mutafian, 1993.
Edwards, 1987. Setton, 1969-1990.
CILIC1AN ARMENIA 291
Cilician Armenia Dynasties
Lords
Ruben, d. 1095
Constantine, 1095-1102
Toros, 1102-1129
Constantine, 1129
Levon, 1129-1140
Toros, 1144-1169
Ruben. 1169-1170
Mleh, 1170-1175
Ruben. 1175-1187
Levon, 1187 to 1199 (as lord)
Kings
Levon I. 1199-1219
Queen Zabel (Isabelle), 1219-1223 (co-ruler with Philip of Antioch to 1223,
co-ruler with Hetum to 1252)
Hetum 1 ,1226-1270 (co-ruler with Queen Zabel [Isabelle] until her death in 1252)
Levon II, 1270-1289
Hetum II. 1289-1293
Toros, 1293-1294
Hetum n. 1294-1297 (second reign)
Smbat, 1297-1299
Constantine. 1299
Hetum n, 1299-1307 (third reign)
Levon ID, 1301-1307 (co-ruler with Hetum II)
Oshin, 1307-1320
Levon IV. 1320-1341
Constantine II (Guy de Lusignan). 1342-1344
Constantine III, 1344-1362
Levon V (Lusignan), 1363-1364
Constantine IV, 1364-1373 (considered a usurper by some; sources mention
a Queen Mary as regent from 1369-1374)
Levon V, (Lusignan) (second reign) 1374-1375
12
MEDIEVAL ARMENIAN
LITERARY AND
CULTURAL TRENDS
(Twelfth-Seventeenth Centuries)
Peter Cowe
he period under consideration, though rather less studied than other
T periods of Armenian history and culture, not only provides an

important transition from the classical to the modem eras of Armenian
civilization, but offers much of intrinsic interest. Its cultural trends
largely follow the contours of political, economic, and military events.
This results in a characteristic curve peaking at both ends of the spectrum
with a series of troughs in the middle, especially during the first half of
the sixteenth century in consequence of protracted Ottoman-Safavid
border disputes, after which there is a marked recovery, establishing the
infrastructure for and prefiguring some of the forms of the most signif
icant developments of the next period.
Set geographically on one of the major thoroughfares between east
and west, Armenia was always quick to be affected by demographic
movements. From the eleventh century onward it underwent a phase of
unprecedented flux due to successive migrations of Turkic peoples to
settle in the Near East and the counterpoise of increased Western
294 Peter Cowe
European involvement in the region beginning with the Crusades. One

impact of this was the creation of a permanent Armenian diaspora in
Cappadocia, Cilicia, and the north and west coasts of the Black Sea,
establishing communities that subsequently played a role in cultural
enrichment. In view of these factors, Armenians were composing in
French, Arabic, Persian, and Turkish in addition to their native language.
An increasing number of foreigners were conversant in Armenian as
well. One might cite Hetum of Korikos’s La Flor des Estoires de la
Terre d'Orient (1529) and Abu Salih’s Arabic History o f the Churches
and Monasteries of Egypt and Some Neighboring Countries (1895).
Eastward Trends in Armenian Genres
Previously Armenia’s closest literary and artistic contacts had been with
Byzantium and Jacobite or West Syrian Christianity. At one time the
Armenians even protected the Syrian patriarch Michael in the
catholicosal residence at Hromkla. However, as these Christian commu
nities became increasingly subject to new Muslim administrations, a
greater Eastern influence becomes apparent on Armenian genres and
aesthetic. Similarly, whereas Byzantine models had been seminal in the
development of the Armenian prose tradition, a partial shift in emphasis
emerges toward the recultivation of poetry for narrative, didactic, and
other functions, as had been the case before the invention of the script
and was still maintained by the oral bards (gusans).
This transition is already visible in the eleventh century and is
well exemplified by the career of Grigor (Magistros) Pahlavuni, a
learned prince of the Pahlavuni family. He gained his title as a
Byzantine official with jurisdiction over the region of Mesopotamia
and shared Hellenophile interests with the then-catholicos Petros
Getadardz, with whom he was in regular correspondence. Moreover,
he was the only premodern Armenian writer to elaborate his private
letters for publication according to classical practice. These he com
posed with studied Byzantine obscurity of style and fascination with
ancient mythological lore (Magistros, 1910).
At the same time, as he demonstrates in his grammatical compila
tion, he became enamored with Arabic and exercised himself to learn
the language in order to become acquainted with its literature. Thus,
finding himself in Constantinople in discussion with an Arab named
Manuche who denigrated the Bible for not being in verse, he undertook
MEDIEVAL ARMENIAN LITERARY AND CULTURAL TRENDS 295
to fashion a metrical version of scripture. His version runs to over a

thousand lines and was completed in three days, according to the prose
foreword. The salient new feature it incorporates is monorhyme, a
characteristic of the Arabic epic genre of qasida that had also begun to
influence Persian courts. Grigor wisely selected a rhyme in -in, which
maximized the possibilities for grammatical diversity in Armenian and
hence facilitated stylistic variation throughout his tour de force . The
verse he employed (tagh) was made up of isosyllabic lines contrasting
with the irregular meters of earlier times, but this development (which
may derive from Syriac prototypes) had already been gaining currency
for some centuries. In tagh poems the individual line usually represented
a semantic unit. This paradigm (although having little in common with
Greek prosody) was termed Homeric meter (homerakan chap). Al
though Armenian has the potential for quantitative verse, this was never
developed and so we find no imitation of the Arabo-Persian aruz meters
as in Ottoman divan literature.
Magistros’s achievement became a standard of emulation up to the
end of the seventeenth century for long narrative poems. Subsequently,
as Persian formed the literary medium of the Seljuk and Il-Khanid states,
its impact on their Armenian communities is also observable. Indeed
Kostandin Erznkatsi (Constantine of Erzinka) mentions being enter
tained by recitations from the Shah-name, while Armenians were later
to produce their own version of the epic (Rustam Zal) replete with
characters and episodes culled from the Daredevils o f Sasun. Similarly,
the thirteenth-century trend toward composing shorter lyric pieces is
reminiscent in some respects of the ghazel (lyric form). Instead of the
formal colophon with invocation of the trinity and full description of the
circumstances of writing, poets of this genre adopted the latter’s final
self-reference (takhallus), eliciting their response to the composition.
Such poems sometimes feature the ghazeVs couplets, but are more
commonly arranged in rhyming four-line stanzas. Often the typical
rhyming patterns of Turkish folk poetry are utilized, and occasionally
Turkish dialogue is found, as in Hovhannes Erznkatsi’s (John of
Erzinka) 4tHovhannes and Asha,” which treats of love between a Chris
tian and Muslim.
Another poetic form with Persian parallels is the quatrain. A large
number of such pieces that have been transmitted under the name of the
sixteenth-century singer Nahapet Kuchak may in fact be reworkings of
earlier gusan compositions. They are known as hayren and consist of
lines of fifteen syllables, as in Greek popular verse. The style was
296 Peter Cowe
maintained into more modem times in the folk songs of the Armenian
community of Agn. Predominantly devoted to the theme of love, they
treat this in a direct and often humorous vein, either representing the
lover’s address to his beloved or an exchange between them. They were
intended to be sung to the accompaniment of stringed instruments.
In contrast to these, lyric poems in a higher poetic register would
be sung unaccompanied, as in Persian. Moreover, the importance of the
melody to the overall effect is frequently stressed by writers on style.
Thus Vardan Areveltsi (d. 1271) comments: ‘The melody of the tagh
song should be suitably composed so that it moves sweetly and modu
lates at an appropriate point in the proper way . . . when verses’ words,
melody, thought and metre cohere, then the tagh is most apt and fitting”
(Areveltsi, 1981, pp. 198-99).
In many instances an attractive melody would be reutilized by later
poets and might then serve as the nucleus of the compositional process
to which apposite lyrics would be devised. Unfortunately, few such
melodies have survived from this period.
This raises the more general question of transmission. Whereas the
gusan poems were composed orally and handed down by word of mouth,
these others were created by literate poets (sometimes referred to as
kertogK a caique on the Greek poietes) and circulated in collections
known as tagharan, which were transcribed along with most prose works
in monastic scriptoria and reflected the tastes of this more educated class
to which many of the poets belonged. Copyists employed a utilitarian
aesthetic according to which a rigid distinction was usually made between
what was useful (pitani) or of general moral edification and what was
viewed as ephemeral or of local or individual interest and hence less likely
to be preserved. This accounts for the largely religious nature of most of
the medieval Armenian material. However, from about the sixteenth
century, some collections start to admit hayren compositions as well.
Literary Language
Another major development of this period was the emergence of a new

literary idiom. The provision of a script in the fifth century and the
inception of grammatical instruction tended to inhibit linguistic change,
yet, since the majority of the population was illiterate, the disparity
between the written and spoken media only continued to widen. As Latin
was retained in Western Europe as the language of church and scholarship,
so in Armenia grabar (the written or literary form) coexisted along with

the various spoken dialects. The strain required to maintain the distinction
between them is evident where scribes have deviated from older texts by
substituting a more familiar regional form. With the establishment of a
state in Cilicia came the necessity of training a secular bureaucracy and
judiciary unskilled in grabar. Various chancellery documents in this
idiom still survive, such as the commercial privilege granted by Levon II
to the Genoese in 1288 or the chrysobull from 1331 of Levon IV bestowing
other privileges on the Sicilians. These employed a register closer to
current speech patterns characterized by the addition of the particle ku in
forming continuous verbal tenses. However, this middle Armenian idiom
never became fully normative. As the medical writer Mkhitar Heratsi
(Mekhitar of Her), personal physician to Catholicos Nerses Shnorhali
(Nerses the Gracious) (d. 1173), states in one of his treatises, “I wrote this
in the free, colloquial language so as to be accessible to all readers”
(Heratsi, 1971, p. 248). The colloquial language was not constrained by
the precise rules that governed correct usage in grabar.
Meanwhile, textbooks for the intellectual elite of the monastic acad
emies that flourished throughout much of this period adhered to a more
classical medium, as upheld by Grigor Tatevatsi (Gregory of Tatev) in the
colophon to his “Book of Questions” of 1397: ‘The solution to these
questions... was not adapted to the unrefined lay vernacular, but was merely
concerned [to present] what was beneficial (pitani) to the church and issues
of faith edifying for vardapets of acute precision and impeccable under
standing” (1729, p. 772). However, with the increasing isolation of Arme
nian communities and the weakening of central religious authority, the need
for basic guidelines on standards of Christian conduct, administration of the
sacraments, and so on, to disseminate to parishes became increasingly
pressing. Consequendy, a number of such collections, such as Hovhannes
Erznkatsi’s “Advice to Ordinary Christians” of 1289, were compiled in a
veiy simple style for a wide readership. This sort of register was probably
also applied in ordinary preaching. Later it came to be known by the term
kaghakakan (civil) and was also employed in written collections of homi
lies, such as those of Ghukas Loretsi (d. ca. 1551).
Legal Texts
Canon law had been an early Armenian preoccupation. Pronouncements

of various earlier church councils were translated in the fifth century and
298 Peter Cowe
combined with later indigenous statutes by Catholicos Hovhannes

Odznetsi (John of Odzun) in the early eighth century. Thereafter, the
collection (kanonagirk) continued to expand, acquiring inter alia im
portant provisions on fasting, communion, and veneration of icons
attributed to Gevorg Erznkatsi (d. 1416). Most of the remaining mate
rials, many rather extraneous to the original conception of the compila
tion, were inserted by Azaria Sasnetsi (Azaria of Sasun) into his edition
first copied at Constantinople in 1609.
In this period a rather different manual was produced by Davit
Gandzaketsi (d. ca. 1140) offering advice to priests on how to hear
confession and apportion penance. Based largely on the Levitical code,
its ninety-seven canons are in many respects rather conservative, requir
ing public acts of contrition for misdemeanors. Yet in other cases they
can be more enlightened, such as denying that menstruation should be
considered unclean, since it is a natural phenomenon and thus part of
God’s creation. Moreover, penalties vary in gravity depending on the
age of the party involved, whether they are clergy or lay in status, and
their intentions in committing the act. The work also offers a valuable
insight into interethnic and interfaith relations in the region—Armenian
women living with Kurds, suckling Muslim children, parents selecting
a Muslim godfather for their children, and priests baptizing those outside
the Church. Though it touches on more civil crimes, its Christian
humanity is manifest in cases such as commending resort to lies and
bribes in order to cover the retreat of an escaped slave.
Gradually the codification of Islamic law impacted Armenian
developments in the same sphere. The area around Gandzak had been
ruled by a Kurdish emirate of Shaddadids but came under Seljuk rule in
the last quarter of the eleventh century. Questions of legal jurisdiction
naturally arose in suits involving Christians and Muslims, yet it seems
clear that Armenians would appeal to the Muslim legal system on
occasion for redress in disputes arising within their community. One
factor behind this practice was the lack of a written codification of
Armenian customary law. With the extinction of the Arsacid line, there
had been no impetus toward drawing up such a document, while the
Bagratid kingdom was not favorable to its formulation because of its
fragmentation into smaller realms.
The inadequacies of the current situation were patent to Mkhitar
Gosh (d. 1213), another native of Gandzak, who readily acquiesced to the
behest of his ecclesiastical superior to put together a manual (Girk
datastani) to assist judges assess the cases that came before them. His
compilation of 251 articles was completed in 1184. About the same time
complaints came to the Catholicos Grigor Tgha (1173-1193) from various
localities stating that Muslim officials did not accept the Armenian form
of justice and therefore insisted that cases be tried in their courts. When a
thorough inventory of the library at Hromkla failed to uncover a civil code,
a learned Syrian priest named Theodos was commissioned to translate the
Syro-Roman Law Code, while Nerses Lambronatsi (Nerses of Lambron)
translated the Mosaic Law, the codes of Constantine and Leo, and military
regulations from Greek. These latter collections seem to have had rather
limited practical effect; however, Gosh’s manual laid the foundation for
all subsequent Armenian legal thought in our period.
Gosh regarded his task as synthesizing the main legal corpora of his
day, punctuating them with his own insights and reflections. Structurally
he closely follows the kanonagirk and Davit’s penitential. The third
written source he employed is the Bible, especially the legal sections of
the Old Testament, which he quotes verbatim with comment, usually to
mitigate the severity of punishments imposed. For example, in the case of
settling up the wages for orchard workers, he notes that this should be
done justly, despite regional variations. However, if any cheating should
occur, the thief is to repay double the amount, not four times as in the
Mosaic law. However, perhaps the most valuable facet of his presentation
is his citations of oral customary law, for example, with regard to adultery:
“If the guilty party had remorse after separation and the couple wished,
they could remarry—we speak as we have heard” (Gosh, 1975, p. 40).
Although Gosh did not envisage himself as a lawgiver or his work
as a law code in the sense of the Code Napoldon, offering a systematic
treatment of legal issues based on first principles, nevertheless, certain
precepts are discernible in shaping its provisions. As a cleric and
monastic, it was natural for him to seek to ensure the monasteries’
well-being against encroachment by neighboring landlords. Hence, for
example, if someone bequeathed land to the church during ill health and
then recovered, that codicil in his will could not be altered. He also
desired to protect the peasantry from abuse by putting a ceiling on taxes
and prohibiting usury, which could ruin farmers in a series of bad
harvests. Moreover, where possible, he strove to eradicate regional
differences, supplanting these with others of more general application.
It is also significant that Gosh regarded Muslims as legally equal to
Christians and hence opposed levying a religious tax.
Within the next century Gosh’s formulation was twice redacted to
take account of changed sociopolitical conditions. Whereas the original
300 Peter Cowe
had only envisaged bishops administering justice, civil matters were

now placed under the jurisdiction of the local prince in the second, while
the king was endowed with greater prerogatives in the third. The second
simplifies Gosh’s style and separates the ecclesiastical matter from the
secular. The third is at once clearly dependent on both the earlier
versions and very distinct from them. Composed in much more popular
language, it abbreviates a lot of the religious material, but adds statutes
from customary law. In several respects it adopts a more liberal ap
proach, for example, with regard to a serfs rights of mobility or the
rejection of an owner’s rights to bring back a runaway slave, which form
part of the other two recensions.
This latter in turn served as the primary source for the manual’s
more thoroughgoing accommodation to the conditions of the Armenian
state in Cilicia by Smbat (1208-1276), brother of King Hetum I, high
constable of the realm and architect of his Mongol diplomacy. This
version, which appeared in 1265, introduced order and more systematic
arrangement into the structure of the individual articles and consistency
in their groupings such as befitted a law code. The work follows social
stratification, commencing with ordinances concerning the king and
nobility (indicating the impact of West European nomenclature on court
offices), before embracing military and ecclesiastical affairs and then
discussing marriage law, inheritance, mercantile regulations, issues
relating to serfs, and payment of damages. Similarly, by rendering the
text in the Cilician vernacular, Smbat facilitated its implementation by
the lay justices. He significantly curtailed Gosh’s long introduction and
biblical citations, concentrating, as he tells us, on the “heart of the
matter.’’ Where appropriate, he nevertheless incorporated Byzantine and
Franco-Norman data (Karst, 1905).
His debt to the latter source is further indicated by his translation
in the same year of the Assizes (law code) of Antioch, ironically almost
on the eve of that Crusader state’s destruction by the Mamluks. This fact
renders the Armenian translation all the more important since the Old
French original has not survived. It betrays certain broad parallels in
organization with Smbat’s law code, beginning with seventeen articles
on relations between the monarch and his vassals, followed by twenty-
one on marital and family questions, property, bequests, creditor-debtor
concerns, and criminal law.
Subsequently Gosh’s manual spread to the Armenian colonies to
regulate their community life. One of the best-documented instances is
that of Poland, where the manual was already in use in the fourteenth
century. As Armenian commerce expanded its significance and won
special concessions from the crown, protests started to be lodged and
disputes arose with local merchants in centers such as Lvov. The upshot
was cases involving murder or physical injury, damage to property, and
theft were to be tried at the city tribunal; the rest were to be tried by the
local judge along with the Armenian elders on the basis of Armenian law.
Because of suspicions concerning the precise nature of Armenian law,
which was inaccessible to the local judiciary, the collection was translated
into Latin for King Sigmund I in 1519. Upon review, it was approved with
certain changes. Soon afterward this version was translated into Polish,
the earliest manuscript dating from 1523. Later in the same century the
document passed from Polish into Kipchak, an extinct Turkic dialect, most
of whose literature was created by Armenians in their own script as they
lost facility in the Armenian language itself. Thereafter, it was employed
by the Armenian colonies of Astrakhan and Nor Nakhichevan within the
Russian Empire and in India, as well as elsewhere. In the mid-nineteenth
century, the Indo-Armenian writer Avdall mentions that the British courts
there still referred questions of hereditary bequests and wills to the
Armenian bishops for clarification (1841, p. 247).
Medicine
Another tradition largely utilizing the vernacular, as we have seen, was

medicine. Armenian contributions to the field had tended to be of a
practical nature. Greater systematization was gradually introduced in
our period by figures such as Mkhitar Heratsi. In the introduction to his
work “The Consolation of Fevers” (Jermants mkhitarutiun) of 1184, he
informs us:
I was trained in the writings of the Arabs, Persians and Greeks. I saw
in the writings they have that they possess the art of medicine full and
complete according to the first wise men (Galen. Hippocrates, etc.)
i.e. diagnosis, which is the wisdom and teaching of the an of medi
cine. But among the Armenians I did not find the instruction and
wisdom of diagnosis at all, but only treatment and that not systematic
and comprehensive, but brief and eclectic, compiled from various
sources. (1971, p. 247)
302 Peter Cowe
His survey deals with two hundred diseases giving rise to fever, includ
ing typhoid and malaria, on the basis of several Greek and Arab
authorities.
Apart from facilities attached to monasteries, it is known that
Queen Zabel (Isabelle) established a hospital in the Cilician capital of
Sis in 1241. There are also contemporary translations of parts of
Avicenna’s Medical Canon and Abu Sa’id’s anatomy as well as a
veterinary tract entitled “Concerning the Horse and Other Beasts of
Burden.” In the next century Grigor Kiliketsi compiled a medical
dictionary composed of 330 entries regarding drugs and their prepa
ration and a second portion devoted to various conditions and their
treatment. However, the major contribution to the advancement of
A rm enian m edicine was made by the fifteenth-century w riter
Amirdovlat Amasiatsi (Amirdovlat of Amasia), most of whose auto
graph copies are preserved in the Matenadaran Institute of Manu
scripts, Erevan.
Taken together, Amasiatsi’s works form an Armenian version of
Avicenna’s great collection. One of his first treatises, the Akhrapatin of
1459, parallels the fifth book of the canon, treating pharmacology in
twenty-five chapters. Number twenty-three provides a table with the
appropriate terms listed in Armenian, Greek, “Frankish,” and Persian.
His “Utility of Medicine” (Ogut bzhshkutian) of 1469, based on books
one, three, and five of the canon, concentrates on anatomy and pathol
ogy. Among the over 200 ailments treated, twenty chapters are given
over to eye disease (1940). Five years later he produced another study
devoted to vital signs, which considers techniques for drawing blood.
His most extensive work, however, encompassing 3,700 entries, is a
medical dictionary (Angitats anpet) similar to Avicenna’s second book
in which Arabic, Turkish, and Latin are added to the arsenal of languages
employed in his earlier treatise (1926).
His impact on the subsequent development of medicine is clear
from Buniat Sebastatsi’s (Buniat of Sebastia) redaction of his “Utility
of Medicine” in 1626. Sebastatsi produced a work of his own, the “Book
of Medicine” (Girk bzhshkutian tomari) four years later in fifty chapters,
in which he directs special attention to psychological and nervous
disorders (1644). His contemporary Asar Sebastatsi had produced a
similar account of practical medicine some years previously entitled “On
the Medical Art” (Girk bzhshkakan arhesti) in 140 chapters (1993).
Thereafter, increasingly Armenians were exposed to Western medical
approaches. Thus, for example, Giorgio Baglivi (1668-1707), an orphan
adopted by an Italian doctor, studied at Salerno, Padua, and Bologna

and became professor of anatomy and surgery at Rome.
As in related cultures, along with the clergy, Armenian doctors
were also interested in alchemy, again largely under Arabic influence.
References to the “arcane arts” are extant from the twelfth century, and
the translations are preserved from the next. A Persian treatise was
rendered for King Hetum I, while later in the century the indefatigable
vardapet Hovhannes Erznkatsi notes the views of Arab scientists on
minerals, acids, and gases. Indigenous texts concerning the transmuta
tion of base metals into gold are ascribed to the sixteenth-century
practitioner Daniel Abegha, among others. Gradual exposure to Euro
pean thought led to the translation of works by Domenicus Auda and
Richard de Foumival and thereafter to the debate between alchemy and
chemistry. Metallurgic experimentation facilitated a number of Arme
nian crafts such as goldsmithery, glass fabrication, pottery, and the
production of inks and paints.
Although the target of ecclesiastical condemnation since the cre
ation of the Armenian alphabet and inception of literature in the eighth
century a d., astrology remained another very popular pseudoscience.
Several writings, particularly translations of Arabic and Persian works,
are known from manuscript collections. The interesting obstetrics trea
tise “Secrets of Women” by Archbishop Hovhannes, alongside scientific
questions such as malformations, contraceptive methods, and so on, and
religious issues such as the relation of the soul to birth, also indulges in
speculation on topics such as the influence of the planets on the embryo.
The demand for such materials can easily be gauged from the fact that
two of the earliest Armenian printed books of 1512-1513 are devoted to
the topic. The Akhtark contains horoscopes, calendars, and dream inter
pretation, while the Urbatagirk (lit. “Friday Book”) concentrates on the
prophylactic aspect, offering prayers of St. Cyprian against demons,
wizards, and sects, others for protection, and a treatment of the evil eye.
The prevalence of such concerns is also observable from the many
prayer scrolls (hmayil) extant from the seventeenth century with prayers
and readings over the sick and for the aversion of negative influences.
Monastic Life
The true repositories of Armenia’s intellectual history were, however,

the monasteries, which, though themselves intermittently subject to
304 Peter Cowe
destruction and dissolution, nevertheless represented the culture's one

enduring institution from the twelfth to the seventeenth century. En
dowed in perpetuity with lands, villages, mills, and oil presses as a
memorial to the donors' piety and hence of prime economic importance,
they are often resplendent vehicles for artistic expression. Apart from
Cilicia, few Armenian castles have been preserved, and consequently
churches and monastic complexes form the culture’s major architectural
structures.
There is abundant literary evidence to indicate the existence of
monasticism in Armenia already in the fourth century, yet Armenian
monasticism maintained a significant eremitic character. Consequently,
only in the tenth century do large edifices in stone emerge. There follows
a period of consolidated expansion into the fourteenth century with the
addition of belfries (such as the very attractive example at Haghpat of
1245), libraries, and large halls (gavit) for assembly, teaching, and so
on. Thereafter, a broad hiatus ensues until the renewal of the seventeenth
century, as has been stated. In addition to successfully solving the
architectural problems, Armenian monastic churches presented the op
portunity for figural composition around the drum of the dome, as at
Gandzasar, or for higher relief sculpture on the facade, as on the
impressive west front of Amaghu Noravank. Moreover, a number of
churches still reveal signs of the glorious frescoes that originally covered
the interior wall space (e.g., Tatev and Saghmosavank). They would
further be adorned with altar curtains, like the one for Gosh’s monastery
prepared by Arzu-khatun and her daughters. Of it the historian Kirakos
Gandzaketsi (Kirakos of Gandzak) remarks:
It was a marvel to those who beheld i t . .. dyed with diverse colors

and illustrated with images very precisely executed as if they had been
carved, depicting the Savior's incarnation and [lives] of other saints
. . . Those who saw it would praise God for granting women the
wisdom to produce tapestries and the genius of embroidery. (1961,
pp. 215-16)
Monasteries also increasingly became patrons of literature.

Whereas most works of the early period, and especially history, were
composed by bishops, often at the request of the local dynasty, by the
twelfth to the seventeenth century this role was assumed by the vardapet
or teacher at one of the monastic academies at the behest of one of his
colleagues or pupils. This development had an impact on the very
conceptualization and approach to the genre. Moreover, frequently

bishops themselves resided in monasteries, as in the Jacobite tradition,
while the sociopolitical relationship between secular and religious au
thority was gradually transformed. Previously it was not uncommon for
the episcopacy to be held by a younger scion of the princely house. Now
under Muslim suzerainty it was deemed prudent to reverse the process
by presenting the family property as a religious waqf administered by a
hereditary higher clergy. Examples of such “prince-bishops’*were found
throughout the Armenian lands, in Erznka, Aghtamar, Maku, and Cau
casian Albania.
Historiography
The demise of the old aristocratic houses meant that historiography was
viewed even more as an ecclesiastical discipline (except for a few texts
from Cilicia, such as the annals of Hetum II, spanning the years 1076 to
1296). Individual works often were commissioned by a catholicos who
wished to preserve a record of contemporary events. However, building
on the tradition of Movses Khorenatsi (Moses of Khoren), it became the
norm to preface this main portion with an epitome of earlier history,
traced back to the country’s Christianization by Kirakos, to the origin
of the human race by most practitioners of the genre, and to creation
itself by Vardan Areveltsi. The chronographic approach was much
cultivated during the twelfth-seventeenth centuries, from large under
takings such as Samvel Anetsi’s (Samuel of Ani) work, which extended
until 1180, to the widespread band of largely anonymous continuators
who expanded the original chronicle sometimes for centuries by record
ing events of more local significance. Along with manuscript colophons,
these are particularly important for the sixteenth century, as there is no
major treatment from the conclusion of Tovma Metzopetsi’s (Thomas
of Metzop) “History of Leng Timur” (1385-1440) until those of Grigor
Daranaghtsi and Arakel Tavrizhetsi (Arakel of Tabriz) covering the
years 1602-1662. In addition to national history, one work by the local
metropolitan, Stepanos Orbelian, concentrates on the region of Siunik.
It is unusual in the amount of archival and inscriptional documentation
it provides.
Granted the breadth of Armenia’s international contacts, it is
hardly surprising that an effort was made to acquaint Armenian readers
with neighboring cultures. Thus Vardan Areveltsi translated the chron
306 Peter Cowe
icle of the Syrian patriarch Michael (d. 1199) with the assistance of the
priest Ishokh. Almost contemporaneously, an early version of the Geor
gian chronicle was rendered, circulating under the name Juansher. In the
fourteenth century Nerses Palianents, the Latin archbishop of
Manazkert, translated a chronicle of the Pole, Fra Martinus. Despite their
diversity, they are all loose renderings, those responsible appropriating
their sources to various degrees by inserting material of direct Armenian
interest. Developing the ethnographical excursus on the Turks in
Michael’s work, a thirteenth-century epitomator added a new section
discussing the Mongols, or “Nation of Archers.” The latter theme was
also explored by Hetum of Korikos, constable of Cilicia from 1294 to
1305, in his La Flor des Estoires de la Terre d ’Orient, which he wrote
for Pope Clement V.
Scribal Arts
Book arts also flourished throughout the twelfth-seventeenth centuries

within a monastic setting. While valuable liturgical items such as gospel
books were copied in uncial (erkatagir) script on parchment with rich
textual illumination into the thirteenth century, scholarly materials were
usually produced in paper with minimal adornment. Moreover, since the
development of a minuscule hand (bolorgir) in about the ninth century,
the amount of material that could be comfortably contained within a
normal book increased vastly. This in turn facilitated the scholastic
movement toward the greater codification and synthesis of knowledge,
creating a number of compendia, such as the full Bible, which were now
accessible i mi tup (within one cover). Whereas provincial scribal
practice in the preceding period is rather erratic, it was raised to a high
degree of consistency in Cilicia, where in centers such as Gmer, Drazark,
and especially Skevra a small, finely wrought script was perfected. The
last school was particularly influential through the line of teacher-pupils
Nerses Lambronatsi, Grigor Skevratsi, Aristakes Grich, and Grigor
Skevratsi (nephew of Grigor). Aristakes and Gevorg contributed man
uals on the important practical issues of orthography and syllabication;
the latter’s exemplars were highly sought after as models.
While all students were schooled in scribal skills, a rigorous
training in illumination was much less common. Although some laymen,
such as Toros Roslin, were trained, many painters derived from the ranks
of the higher clergy. Armenian miniature of the twelfth century as
elaborated in gospels and other liturgical books betrays significant

Byzantine influence in subject and treatment. Increasingly Western
motifs gained popularity, especially in the atelier of the catholicate at
Hromkla, as illustrated by Roslin’s Lady Keran gospel of 1265. Much
attention focused on the canon tables tabulating the passages evangelists
hold in common. A uniquely Armenian genre of commentaries devel
oped in which the various flora and fauna that adorn the tables are
accorded allegorical significance. In contrast, the schools of Greater
Armenia preserve greater continuity with the past, those from Khachen
and Artsakh perpetuating strikingly primitive traits. While several
schools in the north and east maintained a rather tenuous existence, those
in the Van region flourished under relatively peaceful and prosperous
conditions. These display more Persian influence and are characterized
by a highly abstract approach, dispensing with most of the architectural
framing of scenes to concentrate more dramatically on the figures
themselves, against a backdrop of floral embellishment.
Higher Education
It is sometimes suggested that the model of contemporary European

universities is an appropriate analogy to these Armenian academies, yet
surely the monastic school offers a closer parallel. Quite apart from the
similarity of setting, the Armenian institutions lacked the stability of
university foundations, on the one hand reflecting the broader political
situation of the region, but also being heavily dependent on the quality
of the teaching staff to draw students. When figures such as Vanakan
Vardapet or Grigor Tatevatsi moved to a different location, their pupils
would generally follow suit. Moreover, despite secondary references to
the seven liberal aits, the mathematical quadrivium (arithmetic, music,
geometry and astronomy) received comparatively little attention. The
greatest involvement with the last of these arose from practical consid
erations relating to the date of Easter pursued by such scholars as Hakob
Ghrimetsi (ca. 1350-1426). Their results (often embracing several cen
turies) were usually tabulated in works known as parzatumar (calendri-
cal explanation). Music was studied mainly for performance in the
liturgy and office, not generally for its theoretical aspects. In the course
of time the precise tradition of how the various chants were executed
diversified in different parts of the country, as is exemplified by the
contrasting practice of the major centers of Echmiadzin, Jerusalem,
308 Peter Cowe
Constantinople, and New Julfa until more recent times. Moreover,

interest in numerology focused on symbolic significance rather than
calculation or measurement. Instead, from the bulk of the production of
the vardapets associated with the academies, there can be no doubt that
scripture formed the principal focus of their inquiry. This emphasis thus
maintains continuity with the Armenians' early formation in the School
of Edessa.
Meanwhile, the artakin (lit. external, i.e., nonreligious) fields of
grammar, rhetoric, and logic provided the basic tools ancillary to that
task. The procedure was to write a commentary (meknutiun) on texts
regarded as authoritative within a given discipline, in the course of
which the thought of pagan authors such as Dionysius Thrax (ca.
170-ca. 90 B.c.: grammar), and Aristotle and Porphyry (logic) became
increasingly Christianized. These were supplemented by the nurb griank
(subtle writings) of Christian authors incorporating the works of the
Cappadocian Fathers, Psuedo Dionysius the Areopagite, Evagrius of
Pontus, and the philosopher David “the Invincible.” Using the minus
cule script, all the primary texts on the syllabus might be collected in
one volume, such as Mkhitar Ayrivanetsi’s (Mekhitar of Ayrivan)
famous homiliary of about 1282, which well symbolizes the fundamen
tal aspiration to reconcile divine revelation with human inquiry.
Brief introductions to the various textbooks for student needs were
provided by Grigor Abasian in his Patjarats girk (Book of Synopses).
These were supplemented for more advanced classes by detailed inves
tigations (lutsmunk) of problematic passages in the texts, such as those
of Davit Kobayretsi (d. ca. 1220) on the Cappadocians and Dionysius
and Hovhannes Orotnetsi (d. 1387) and Grigor Tatevatsi (d. 1409) on
Aristotle. In the mid-sixth century, the Armenians had been introduced
to the dogmatic florilegium, tabulating excerpts from church Fathers in
favor of or in opposition to a certain proposition, in Timothy Aelurus’s
refutation of the Christological definition of the Council of Chalcedon
(451). From the eleventh century the form was exploited to gather
together the varied interpretations of commentators on a particular work,
thus offering a conspectus of the status quaestionis and facilitating the
resolution of their viewpoints. Armenians were also unique in develop
ing a commentary tradition on the exegetical and philosophical writings
of the Hellenistic Jewish author Philo of Alexandria (ca. 25 B.c.-ca. 45
a .d.), whose ideas had little influence on Byzantium and who does not
seem to have even been translated in Syriac. Yet his views on cosmology
and divine providence were the subject of keen debate in Armenia over
several centuries, stimulating the development of indigenous thought on

those issues.
Scholarly discussions resulted in compilations of question and
answer (hartsmunk ev pataskhanik) on specific topics, the most cele
brated being that of Vanakan Vardapet (d. 1251). More wide-ranging
discussion with his royal patron, Hetum I, during the 1240s initiated
Vanakan’s pupil V ardan’s encyclopedic work Zhghlank (lit. conver
sations), which employs the same format to present a fascinating
kaleidoscope of the questions provoking intellectual curiosity at the
time. It well articulates the contrast between the empirical Syriac and
Arabic approach to natural philosophy and the more speculative posi
tion adopted by the Armenians, who lacked access to Aristotle’s
physical and biological treatises. Nevertheless, the Armenians’ spec
ulative position gradually diversified over the next two centuries
through closer contacts with those traditions, the effects of which are
already visible on V ardan’s historical compilation of 1267. It benefits
from the Syrian Ishokh’s “Book Concerning Nature” (Girk i veray
bnutian). Undoubtedly the most comprehensive treatment of this type
is Grigor Tatevatsi’s “Book of Questions” (Hartsmants girk). Subdi
vided into ten chapters, his magnum opus proceeds systematically
from a consideration o f non-Christian and heretical propositions to an
expositions of his own tradition. Beginning with a detailed review of
Psuedo Dionysius’s teaching on the angelic realm, Tatevatsi treats in
turn creation, the composition of man, biblical and ecclesiastical
history, the church and its worship and sacraments, culminating in
eschatological issues o f the afterlife.
From the information available, it seems that monastic life was
increasingly regulated by St. B asil’s provisions, while Nerses
Lambronatsi also translated St. Benedict’s rule, which he had seen
applied in Latin monasteries on the Black Mountain near Antioch. Once
again vardapets composed most of the hymns (sharakan, tagh, gandz,
etc.) for feasts of the saints and other celebrations. Throughout this
period musical execution preserved an important extempore quality.
Consequently, the notation (khaz) employed was elaborated from the
basic pointing of texts such as the gospel to give guidance in chanting
and declamation. Beginning as a reminder of certain initial and codal
melismas, the system of signs became increasingly more complex
between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries, after which it gradually fell
into abeyance. Since no comprehensive key has been preserved, musi
cologists are still unsure of the significance of several of its forms.
310 Peter Cowe
Poetry
In addition to the rhetorical study of the Bible and other texts, students
were also trained in poetic composition. To assist beginners, word lists
of appropriate synonyms for use in verse were prepared. Although many
did not aspire to lofty lyric accomplishments, they nevertheless utilized
the skill they attained in composing colophons to the manuscripts they
copied in which a verse component became increasingly popular. Apart
from m editating on liturgical hymns, particularly since Grigor
N arekatsi’s (Gregory of Narek) “Book of Lamentation” (Matian
voghbergutian), poetry became an integral part of monastic spirituality.
Side by side with the more intellectual tradition represented by Evagrius
and the commentaries written on his corpus by such figures as Grigor
Skevratsi (d. ca. 1230), Kirakos Erznkatsi (d. 1355), and Matteos
Jughayetsi (Matthew of Julfa) (d. ca. 1412) was a more affective strain
emphasizing contrition and tears of compunction.
Some poems, such as those of Grigor Tgha, seek to emulate
Narekatsi’s verse. His uncle Shnorhali designated his major poem Hisus
Vordi (Jesus the Son) a voghbergutiun (elegy/lamentation) like the
matian. Each point in the retelling of sacred story is punctuated by
reflections on the state of the soul, the awareness of sin and alienation,
and prayer for reconciliation for appropriation in private devotions.
Many ecclesiastical poets cultivated the genre of the personal lament
(voghb) as a means of self-examination and confession. At times this
becomes a psychomachia, utilizing the age-old form of a dialogue
between the two opposing principles in the human composition of flesh
and spirit. When the latter, according to Khachatur Kecharetsi
(Khachatur of Kechar) (d. 1331), poses the question of how the flesh
had misled it into a shallow accommodation with this transient life, it
receives the sobering response:
1 am a horse, and you the horserider,

1 am a servant, and you the master,
When you have a wish, I put it into effect.
Why do you blame me. the earthborn? (1958, p. 152)
An indication of the deep bond between master and pupil in this period
is the frequency with which the latter would write his mentor's life. In
addition to a prose vita, poetic treatments were also common. At first
these were eulogistic laments on their teachers' passing, praising their
physical as well as spiritual attributes as an angel in the flesh. Some

times they included a ritual search for the vardapet culminating in a
vision of his inauguration into the angelic ranks of paradise. Subse
quently, panegyrics tended to be written as tokens of respect during
the teacher's life as well.
Religion
Religiously Armenia was a very pluralistic society. Vestiges of

Zoroastrianism lingered on particularly in the group referred to as
arevordik (“children of the sun"). One community of arevordik near
Samosata was received into the Armenian Church in the 1170s through
the good offices of Nerses Shnorhali, while others in the neighborhood
of Amida continued well into the nineteenth century. Additionally there
were strong colonies of Armenian Chalcedonians in various parts of the
Byzantine Empire (especially in Cappadocia and Trebizond) as well as
along the Georgian border. Often they engaged in polemic against the
main body of the Armenian Church, such as in the missive the rhetor
Theopistes, secretary to Prince Aaron of Balu, sent to his counterpart of
Sasun, provoking a detailed apology from the theologian Poghos Ta-
ronetsi in 1101. Apart from this they were very active in translating from
Greek and Georgian into their own language up to the eighteenth
century. Naturally they rendered all the Byzantine service books for their
own use. Other works, however, entered immediately into the Armenian
mainstream. Ivane Zakarian had adopted a Chalcedonian confession at
the turn of the thirteenth century and sponsored a monastery of his
coreligionists at Pghndzahank. There the monk Symeon occupied him
self with renderings from Georgian. One of the earliest copies of his
translation of the Neoplatonic Proclus’s Elements of Theology was
incorporated into Mkhitar Ayrivanetsi’s homiliary, while in 1363
Hovhannes Vorotnetsi commissioned a copy of Symeon's version of St.
John of Damascus's Source o f Knowledge in Tiflis. In collaboration with
a colleague, Minas, he also rendered St. John Climacus’s Ladder of
Spiritual Ascent, which gained wide currency in a revised version of
1290 from Cilicia.
Cilicia had been in intermittent contact with Latin Christianity
during the twelfth century, which led to the establishment first of
Franciscan houses and then of Dominican ones by the middle of the
thirteenth century. As a result, several Western motifs are observable
312 Peter Cowe
in the art of the period. Moreover, whereas philosophical pursuits were

generally advanced in Greater Armenia, the only important philoso
pher of the Cilician state was Vahram Rabuni (d. ca. 1290), secretary
to Levon II, who showed openness to European trends in nominalism.
Enlarging the scope of reader's aids in scriptural study, Stephen
Langton's Vulgate chapter divisions were inserted into Armenian
Bibles of the end of the century. By the 1230s Latin monastics had
also arrived on the Armenian plateau and subsequently entered into
dialogue with the scholars of Gladzor and Tatev. Centered in the
monastery of Krna, they in turn initiated a significant series of trans
lations from Latin with the aid of Armenian converts who were soon
to be established as the Fratres Unitores.
Their work was supervised by the missionary Bartolomeo di
Bologna who became first archbishop of Atrpatakan in a hierarchical
line that reached to 1766. Together with Hovhannes Tsortsoretsi, a
former pupil of EsayiNchetsi, in 1321 he rendered Aquinas's sacramen
tal theology from the summa, which later influenced Grigor Tatevatsi's
eclectic eucharistic formulations. Nevertheless, many of the dogmas
they introduced were impugned by their Armenian counterparts. Vardan
Areveltsi queried the understanding of purgatory and Mkhitar Skevratsi
the basis for papal supremacy in the primacy of Peter. However, unlike
their neighbors, the Byzantines and Syrians, it was characteristic of the
Armenians not to instigate acrimonious exchanges with proponents of
other religious views. On the contrary, ecclesiastics such as Gosh and
Vardan Aygektsi argued pragmatically that rather than insisting on
uniformity in belief and practice, affairs should be governed by confes
sional tolerance and interethnic entente. In like vein, the poet Frik
advocates greater cooperation of all Christian peoples against their
common enemies. At the same time, the expansion in hymnography
eulogizing St. Gregory the Illuminator and other early hierarchs and
saints related to the area (such as St. Sargis) in this period gives clear
expression to the distinctiveness of the Armenian Christian tradition.
As in art, so in literature, Armenian borrowings from the West
more usually impacted form and methodology rather than content.
Previously the main genre for the discursive exposition of a theme, often
evolving from a biblical citation, was the homily (jar). Now this was
largely supplanted by the karoz (sermon, cf. Latin praedicatio,) which,
while treating fundamentally the same subject matter, was typified by
the more rigorous use of logic. Characteristically it proceeds by subdi
viding the main theme into its constituent elements and defining each
in turn with supporting arguments so as to arrive at a more comprehen

sive understanding of the topic under discussion. One of the first
collections was authored by Hovhannes Tsortsoretsi, while that of
Bishop Bartolomeo, translated from Latin by Hakob Kmetsi in 1331,
was one of the most influential. Its proverbial illustrations, in particular,
were so appealing that they frequently infiltrated compilations ascribed
to indigenous writers. As a whole the genre offers a wide range of
information on contemporary social mores.
In addition to movements advocating union either with Byzantine
Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism, heretical sects such as the Tondrak-
ites preserved a folk religion beyond the penumbra of the church's
sacraments. Although their cult center had been destroyed by Grigor
Magistros, the devotees continued to maintain a marginal existence.
That their ideas persisted is well demonstrated by the case of a sectarian
Tomas, who is recorded to have appeared in New Julfa in 1642 es
pousing similar beliefs. They were propagated into modem times. A
manual known as the Key of Truth is related to the movement and was
confiscated in Anatolia only in 1837.
Laments
Earlier it was mentioned that religious poets sometimes composed

personal laments as a spiritual exercise. Communally the lament became
a popular social and political genre that came to terms with major
disasters, such as the devastation of large cities by war. Thus there are
extant treatments of the fall of Edessa to the Turk Zangi in 1144,
Jerusalem to Salah al-Din (Saladin) in 1187, as well as a series tracing
Ottoman expansion encompassing Constantinople (1453), Crimea
(1455), Nicosia (1570), Tabriz (1585), and the Safavid removal of the
population of Julfa to Isfahan in 1604. Whereas later examples tend to
be fairly short, simple narratives by lower clergy, the earlier practitioners
are generally taken from the upper echelons and demonstrate their skill
in longer works in a high poetic style employing the devices of person
ification and apostrophe to intensify the pathos. The city is invoked as
an orphaned widow after the manner of the biblical book of Lamenta
tions, addressing her scattered and deceased children. The extent of the
cataclysm is heightened by inclusion of the natural forces. Hence, as
Hovhannes Makuetsi (John of Maku) states, when Julfa was breached,
“All the hills entered mourning, the seas and rivers were moved to
314 Peter Cowe
weeping” (1969). Moreover the contrast with its prosperous, illustrious

past underlines the city's present plight, painted in somber hues. Often
this is accompanied by poignantly reiterated rhetorical questions as by
Nerses Shnorhali on the cessation of festivities:
Where now is the crown you were embellished with or your

magnificent fillet ?
Where are the adornments of the lady, bride of the king's son?
(1973, p. 33)
Successor to the teeming multitudes, the image of a loan owl perched

on the ruins frequendy symbolizes the utter desolation of the place.
Usually also the question of theodicy is broached and resolved with
reference to the former population's sinfulness. In the final poition a
note of optimism for the future is often sounded for the readers'
consolation. As Simeon Aparanetsi (Simeon of Aparen) writes in an
allusion to the book of Daniel:
It is not right to break the thread of hope

Any more than Israel in Babylon,
But to take [as models of] hope the young men in the fire
And to sing their songs. (1969, p. 238)
Significantly, this final element is lacking in treatments like the lament

of the cathedral of Echmiadzin by Stepanos Orbelian (d. 1304). By not
offering comfort, this category more closely resembles the tone of the
funeral oration. As the author’s focus concentrates on the decline of the
Armenian plateau since the departure of the royalty and many of the
noble houses to Cilicia, this strategy is adopted to apply psychological
pressure on the conscience of nobles to return and reestablish an Arme
nian state there.
Other Poetic Genres
For those who had gone to foreign parts, whether in pursuit of trade or
as a result of expulsion, the motherland continued to exert a gravitational
pull on their emotional allegiance. Their feelings of yearning and loss
are eloquently channeled into another genre, the song of the exile
(pandukht, gharib). These regularly lament the dmigrd's alienation, lack
of rights, and vulnerability in a place where neither he nor his worth

receives recognition. His quandary is often depicted by a different bird
motif, as in the following excerpt from Mkrtich Naghash, archbishop of
Amida (d. ca. 1469):
The exile in a foreign land is indeed extremely wretched.

Like a fowl separated from its flock. Going off course it finds rest
nowhere,
But continues to wander until it reaches its place. (1965, p. 165)
The opposite genre, a celebration of the joys of merriment and good

company (tagh urakhutian), is also widely found. Sitting around a table
laden with choice delicacies, the assembled gathering is to enjoy the
plenty and take relief from responsibility and care while young men ply
them with wine and entertain them with song and dance to the accom
paniment of the saz and santur. Indeed, as alcoholic beverages were
illicit under Islam, Armenians and other Christians had a monopoly on
the wine trade in the Middle East. With the emphasis on fun, good
humor, and harmonious interaction, sometimes the poems are explicit
on the etiquette expected, discouraging drunkenness, rowdiness, and
pique. As was noted earlier of the oral tradition, love is one of the most
widespread themes to receive poetic treatment. It is also handled in many
different ways. Under the influence of sufic texts such as 'Attar's Mantiq
at-tayr (Conference of the Birds), figures such as Kostandin Erznkatsi
(thirteenth century) composed religious allegories around the theme of
the rose and nightingale to express their mystical love for Christ. In St.
John's Gospel (15:11-12) Jesus tells the disciples, “I have spoken thus
to you, so that my joy may be in you, and your joy complete. This is my
commandment: love one another, as I have loved you." To this
Kostandin offers his own commentary, utilizing the theme of inebriation
to convey ecstasy:
Today . . . we should be intoxicated with love, we who are united

together.
The rose is adorned with beauty and has given us the command.
(Erznkatsi, 1962, pp. 132-33)
Aware that the universe is permeated by divine love, the poet

employs settings of spring and dawn to emphasize the exhilaration that
he experiences in his vision of the divine light of the “Sun of righteous
316 Peter Cowe
ness.” Other poets employ the rose and nightingale motif in a fascinating
range of contexts unexplored by surrounding cultures.
Songs of earthly love are usually divided into two categories, one
eulogizing the physical attributes of the beloved woman (govasank), the
other the outpouring of the poet’s unrequited love (gangat). The former
follows a broad Middle Eastern pattern of cataloging the young
woman’s external attractions in an extremely stylized sequence (some
times in an alphabetic acrostic) with increasingly elevated similes.
Finally the poet is forced to confess her beauty absolutely peerless and
incomparable. A typical example is provided by Hovhannes Tlkurantsi
(John of Tlkuran):
I saw a beautiful image

Like the sun which gives light,
I saw eyes like seas,
Eyebrows thicker than cloud and sea.
A pale forehead and lush mouth,
Plaits and braid that would pluck out your soul,
Her bosom was filled with dazzling white roses,
Her waist and back more supple than a willow. (1958, p. 13)
As this excerpt indicates, no reference is made to the woman’s

qualities of character and intellect. In fact, the poet Naghash Hovnatan
(1661-1722) devotes one of his works to women’s “shortwittedness.”
There he articulates the marked distinction between women’s exterior
and interior aspects very succinctly in the opening lines, drawing the
parallel between women’s minds and their pot plants. The latter may
develop into a large yellow clump of good height. But color is their only
attraction, they emit no fragrance. He then jocularly proceeds to justify
the censure by citing their fundamental weakness, namely that they pay
no heed to men’s advice, but prefer their own false talk and customs in
a spirit of mutual appreciation. Moreover, this proclivity becomes more
ingrained with every generation. If the mother is bad, the daughter is ten
times worse. It is not until the Enlightenment that appreciation is shown
of women’s mental and emotional capabilities. The only exception to
this is the Virgin Mary, who besides representing beauty and purity is
portrayed as the embodiment of maternal affection and strength.
Baghdasar Dpir (1683-1768) is a good representative of the more
sophisticated taste of the upper echelons of Armenian society in Con
stantinople. His treatment of the lover’s plaint is chaste and restrained.
His beloved is so elusive that his soul wanders over hill and dale like a
dervish in search of her. Gradually a note of melancholy insinuates itself
into the tone, especially when he compares himself to the nightingale
lamenting the absence of its rose. In urging the petals to open it is pierced
by the thorns. In contrast, Naghash Hovnatan is more direct and earthy
in his expression, as in his attempt to woo a widow who, he complains,
displays unnecessary coquetries to tease him.
Come, let's send each other a writ.

Let's stop being so abusive.
It's cold, come let’s huddle together
To keep warm.
Let's get drunk.
Quince will do fine for starters.
Then let's unclasp your bosom. (Hovnatan, 1983, pp. 40-41)
Another aspect of poetic activity consisted of social criticism. One

of the main exponents is the thirteenth-century writer Frik. He inveighs
against the vices o f dishonesty, exploitation, and immorality in a type
of verse similar to what the contemporary scholars described as popular
comedy, or what we might call satire. For example, in his attack on
adultery and drunkenness, he adopts the catalogue approach of the
govasank from head to toe, only this time draws attention to the abuse
the various bodily parts have suffered as a result of such sybaritic
excesses.
Your heart is filled with deceit like a beast or wolf:

You should have shown yourself merciful to the poor and
orphaned...
Your stomach you’ve let sag loosely like a horse or mule:
You should have behaved with self-restraint and been moderate in
consuming food. (Frik, 1952, p. 305)
The message he purveys with effective bluntness is of the tran

sience o f life and the future reckoning of judgment where the inequal
ities of this life are not replicated and the criterion is honest dealing
and care for others. In fact, some of his poems closely resemble the
counsel of his contemporary Hovhannes Erznkatsi to the wealthy
merchant class of his city, underlining their shortcomings in commu
nity welfare, avoiding almsgiving, negligence in hospitality to way
318 Peter Cowe
farers, defrauding widows as well as unconcern for piety. In at least

two of his poems ( “Com plaint to C hrist” and “Against F ate” ), Frik
insightfully pursues his criticism beyond the human factor to v o ice his
incomprehension o f the world order itself and the possibility o f re c
onciling this with the workings of providence. Here too the p o w er o f
his appeal is located in the vivid contrastive vignettes he ju x tap o ses,
allowing the accum ulation o f instances to overwhelm the easy c e rta in
ties of audience and reader alike, as on the question of preserving o n e ’s
family line in his gangat to Christ:
One is given twenty sons and daughters,

One is barren and does not have a single child.
He lives as a captive under miserable conditions
And has no way to be remembered on the earth. (Frik, 1952, p. 544)
With the publication o f the first (partial) edition o f F rik’s poem s

in 1930, these works became a cause cdlfcbre for the now -discredited
Soviet scholarship on the subject. Their notoriety was conditioned by
the notion that they offer a novel iconoclastic attitude toward organized
religion; in fact, these poignant appeals mark no new departure, but arise
out of a well-established medium in the Judeo-Christian tradition al
ready embodied in the Psalter, at once the most basic and w idespread
primer in forming morals and piety.
This period is associated with some o f the great Persian rom ances,
such as Layla and Majnun, Vis o-Ramin, and Varqeh o-G olshah. A l
though there existed analogs in neighboring Georgia, such as R ustaveli’s
“The Knight in the Panther’s Skin,” there is no reflection of this trend
in Armenia. As these works were essentially court creations, the insta
bility of Arm enia’s statehood and demise of its royal house did not offer
a suitable environment for that genre to thrive. However, w e find a
variety of tales (zruyts) of eastern origin circulating in Arm enian,
sometimes in multiple recensions. Alongside ancient gnomic material
such as Akhikar, there are versions o f the “Youth and the M aiden” and
“King Pahlul” deriving from Arabic and the “Counsels o f N ushirvan”
translated from Persian in the thirteenth century. These indicate the
Armenians* love of enigmas, parables, and aphorisms, which is also
visible in the indigenous collections o f Mkhitar Gosh and Vardan
Aygektsi (d. 1235) as well as Nerses Shnorhali’s set of puzzles, appar
ently originally intended for the guards on duty at the catholicosal
residence o f Hromkla to while away the long night watches.
MEDIEVAL ARM ENIAN LITERARY AND CULTURAL TRENDS 319
Another group o f stories illustrating Indian spirituality in the

renunciation of this w orld in favor o f a life o f ascetic purity adapted well
to the atmosphere of Arm enian monasticism. (Indeed the earlier type
also developed distinctly Christian themes in the course o f transm is
sion.) One originally describing the B uddha’s enlightenment, the tale o f
Barlaam and Ioasaph (i.e., Bodhisattva), becam e only partially m eta
morphosed, preserving its fundamental teaching o f a sage elder persuad
ing a young prince to forsake his w ealth and status in exchange for prayer
and solitude. Its popularity is dem onstrated by the number of prose
versions. Later it was versified appropriately by the hero’s nam esake,
Hovasap Sebastatsi.
Another of this type of tale, the “City o f Bronze,’’ rendered from
an Arabic interm ediary in the tenth century, appears in a different form
in the “Thousand and One N ights.’’ In the process of its appropriation,
it was embellished w ith verses term ed kafa (from an Arabic root),
which comment on the preceding scene, heightening its em otional
impact. These verses are usually com posed in m onorhymed quatrains
and cast in the hayren meter. Hence they probably derive from popular
practice in the narrative presentations o f the gusans. In “City o f
Bronze” they form lam ents, as the follow ing which the hero recites on
reaching the city o f his destination only to find it abandoned and
empty, allegorically pointing to the vanity o f human glory:
Alas for you, fair city, that there is no one alive in you.
All have turned to dust: there is no owner in these well-stocked stores.
Would that we had never seen such bewildering things.
Woe on us too if we should become like them— pitiable and fit for
tears. (Akinian, 1958, p. 21)
The Alexander Romance attributed to Pseudo Callisthenes had

been translated into Armenian in the fifth century, but in its turn was
regarded as too pagan in spirit. Hence Khachatur Kecharetsi appended
his own com m entary in the sam e kafa style and an epilogue in which
he expounds an elaborate typology by which the events of the
Macedonian king’s life prefigured the coming o f Christ. As the form er
defeated Darius, the latter overcam e Satan. The former penetrated
deserts and places infested with wild beasts, while Christ tamed our
nature. Alexander’s image was reverenced as a god by the Greeks, but
Christ is worshiped by those in heaven and on earth. Subsequently, the
poetic accretions continued with Grigoris Aghtamartsi and his pupil
320 Peter Cowe
Zakaria Gnunetsi in the sixteenth century. At the same time they built
on Khachatur’s illuminations of the battle scenes, making the cycle
one of the richest and most developed of nonreligious topics in
Armenian art.
The genre of punctuating a prose narrative with poetic passages
enjoyed wide popularity thereafter in both elevated and folk contexts.
A good example of the former is Eremia Chelebi’s description of the
great fire of Constantinople in 1660, where, in addition to laments, the
kafas offer appropriate paraphrases from scripture and moral advice, in
the folk idiom the form was exploited by the ashugh (from the Arabic
term ashik, for “lover”) successor to the gusan, who appears first in the
Armenian community in the figure of Nahapet Kuchak and a larger
group from New Julfa in the next century, presumably under the
patronage of the merchant (khodja) class.
The prototype of this kind of poet is found at the end of the
fifteenth century significantly at the Safavid court. There rivals such
as Kurbani and Kureni brought Azeri folk meters such as the qoshma
to new levels of accomplishment. Their prose romances (hikaye) were
interspersed with various verses of the sort we have already seen in
praise of beauty, heroism, social criticism, and moral advice. This
same pattern is also observable in the Armenian cycle of the Sasna
Dzrer (Daredevils of Sasun), especially the third phase centering on
Sasuntsi Davit (David of Sasun), who is not only a warrior but also a
singer and poet. Another of the genres describing significant military
or political events (destan) has had a long history; it even was utilized
by contemporary folk poets to describe atrocities committed against
the Armenian population of Sumgait and Baku in the last few years.
A number of the Armenian practitioners studied under Turkish mas
ters. As many made a livelihood by going on tours of eastern Anatolia
and Caucasia, like the most famous of them, Sayat Nova (1712-1795),
they composed a large part of their compositions in Azeri Turkish, the
lingua franca of the region. As a result of these contacts, Armenian
variants developed on the tale of the Robin Hood figure, Koroglu and
his band, loosely based on historical events surrounding the Jelalian
revolt at the turn of the seventeenth century. The Armenian ashughs
held a special devotion toward Surb Karapet (St. John the Baptist), the
murazatu (bestower of desires), and organized annual competitions in
their art during the pilgrimage to celebrate his feast day at his shrine
in Mush.
Printing
The rise of the Armenian merchant class had a significant cultural
impact. Figures such as Tigran Honents at Ani in the thirteenth century
had already assumed the traditional aristocratic patronage of dedicating
churches. Their interests and superstitions were obviously to a large
extent behind the early experiment in printing by Hakob Meghapart at
Venice in 1512-1513, and their financing supported the later presses,
which sprang up in Constantinople (1567), Lvov (1616), New Julfa
(1638), Amsterdam (1660), Livorno (1670), and in India later. They are
thus the nucleus of the modem reading public. Moreover, at New Julfa
they established their own school where, as in the case of the poetry they
encouraged, the medium of instruction was the colloquial vernacular
(ashkharhabar). Textbooks such as Ghukas Vanandetsi’s Gandz chapoy
(Treasury of Measures: Amsterdam, 1699) catered to their needs, offer
ing a conspectus of the weights, measures, and monetary units in use all
over the world as well as interesting details about the national charac
teristics of the Europeans with whom they would be doing business.
Moreover, their account books provide fascinating insights into eco
nomic conditions in Central Asia where they were active. Their presence
in cities like Milan and Amsterdam aroused the interest of local scholars
in their language and culture and laid the foundations of modem
Armenology through publications such as Francesco Rivola’s Armeno-
Latin dictionary (1621) and grammar (1624) and Johann Joachim
Schroder’s more encompassing Thesaurus linguae Armenicae (1711).
Their artistic patronage was an important conduit in the transmission of
Western styles and motifs, as in the Bible of Ghazar Baberdatsi (Lazar
of Baberd) (MS. no. 351 in the Matenadaran, Erevan), which was
commissioned in Lvov in 1619, employing the iconography of many of
the illustrations of the De Bry Bible of 1609 from Mainz. Thereafter the
style spread to New Julfa, where it became very popular. Similarly, the
celebrated first printing of the Armenian Bible by Oskan Erevantsi at
Amsterdam in 1666 has a series of woodcuts inspired by Dtirer.
Crafts
Although there is less information regarding artisans and tradesmen,

indications are that they thrived in several urban settings. One such is
322 Peter Cowe
Erznka, which for a long time was primarily an Armenian city whose
bazaars and wares (fabrics, copper utensils, and lampstands, etc.) were
extolled by the Arab traveler Ibn Battuta on his visit in 1333. The
indefatigable cleric Hovhannes drew up an interesting set of statutes for
its confraternity in 1280 to promote mutual self-help and raise the moral
tone of the community. Subsequently, more specifically guild structures
emerged regulating the conduct of particular professions, including the
ashughs, some of whose regulations are preserved from the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries. Special mention must be made of the Arme
nian pottery in Kutahia, which gained priority over Isnik in the seven
teenth century. Among the churches and mosques adorned with its
craftsmanship is the Monastery of St. James in Jerusalem. Status sym
bols of many gospels commissioned by merchants are the books’
elaborate gilt and silver covers. The covers testify to the skill of
goldsmiths in such major centers as Constantinople and New Julfa,
which attracted artisans from all over the Armenian world. Metal objects
from Tokat and Erzerum also attained a high degree of finesse by the
seventeenth century.
Seventeenth-Century Revival
Merchant influence and capital also underlay the revamping of the

catholicate of Echmiadzin, particularly under the active tenure of
Pilippos Aghbaketsi (1632-1653). After a period of monastic decadence
vividly portrayed by Grigor Daranaghtsi (1576-1643) in his contempo
rary history, the seeds of reform were sown by a group of four committed
ecclesiastics who traveled to Egypt and Palestine to reacquaint them
selves with the monastic movement’s roots. On their return they estab
lished the Mets Anapat (great “desert,” or skete) at the turn of the
century. The momentum was maintained by reformers such as Asar
Sebastatsi, who sought to found new monasteries and prefigured the
work of his compatriot Mkhitar Sebastatsi (Mekhitar of Sebastia) (1676-
1749) at San Lazzaro in the next century. As the latter discovered, at
that time only in Europe could the necessary conditions be found for a
monastic and scholarly community to survive.
Subsequently the attempt was made to raise the standard of clerical
education and hence to return to the old curriculum. However, the
Philohellene works which already required commentaries that began by
simply paraphrasing the text in Hovhannes Vorotnetsi’s time were now
completely incomprehensible and hence required a totally new transla

tion. A number of these were effected by Stepanos Lehatsi (Stephen of
Poland) (d. 1689). Lehatsi had been brought up in Lvov, where he
received a good training in Polish and Latin, which formed the basis of
his renditions of Pseudo Dionysius, Josephus, Proclus, Aristotle’s Phys
ics, and the Quran. In addition, he produced a shortened version of the
Grand Miroir edited in 1605 by Johann Maior under the title Hayeli
varuts (Mirror of Conduct), criticizing the vices and foibles of different
social classes. Other textbooks on grammar and logic were prepared by
Simeon Jughayetsi (d. 1657).
Armenian religious renewal followed the Counter Reformation in
the Roman Catholic Church in the aftermath of the Council of Trent
(1545-1563), which led to renewed interest in proselytism throughout
the Middle East to be directed by the Congregation for the Propagation
of the Faith. The congregation was provided with a polyglot press from
which issued a range of materials to foster mission among the Arme
nians. Moreover, the Jesuit order established itself officially in Constan
tinople in 1609 and about thirty years later was settled in New Julfa. In
the course of the next century, a variety of priests, especially from France
and Italy, were dispatched to pursue this task. Some of them became
quite knowledgeable about Armenian culture in the process.
Perhaps the most outstanding was Clemens Galanus (1610-1666),
who participated in the Theatine mission in Tiflis, opened a school in
Constantinople, and spent the last portion of his life in Lvov, where a
preliminary acceptance of papal supremacy had already been achieved
in 1635. His great three-volume work Conciliationis Ecclesiae Armenae
cum Romana (Rome, 1650-1690) is extremely important for presenting
the European public with a detailed exposition of Armenian history and
refutation of the bizarre heresies with which Armenians often were
charged in popular tracts. Galanus’s successor at the Theatine school in
Lvov, Louis Marie Pidou, is also important for his theatrical talents in
composing the earliest extant Armenian tragedy, “The Martyrdom of St.
Hripsime” of 1668. Only the titles of his other compositions have
survived. “The Martyrdom” follows the norms of neoclassical drama
and, following local convention, includes Polish intermedia for the
benefit of the wider audience. Its propaganda value is fully exposed in
the epilogue in which the saint’s spirit appears and promises to intercede
for the Armenians as long as they remain faithful to the church of her
homeland. It seems also to have had some influence on later Armenian
plays on the same theme.
324 Peter Cowe
While this missionizing movement provoked quite a heated riposte

in some quarters, such as New Julfa, where Tatevatsi’s “Book of
Questions** received its first printing and the Armenian position was
defended anew by such scholars as Hovhannes Mrkuz (1643-1715),
others were more sympathetic to Roman arguments. The reading of the
last gospel at the conclusion of the divine liturgy is a ubiquitous
memorial to this openness to Western practice. Similarly, Voskan com
pared the Armenian text of the Bible with the Vulgate before publication
and altered certain passages of the New Testament accordingly. More
over, the catholicos of the time, Hakob Jughayetsi (Hakob of Julfa)
(1655-1680), died on his way to Europe to pledge his acceptance of
papal claims in return for assistance in liberating his homeland.
Others actually transferred their affiliation, paving the way for
the creation in 1742 of an Armenian Catholic patriarchate with a seat
in Lebanon. Some of these, like the Fratres Unitores, were involved in
valuable translation activities, though executed in a style and expres
sion characteristic of the Latin originals from which they predomi
nantly derived. One of the most prolific in this endeavor was
Hovhannes Holov (1635-1691). Alongside renderings of such classics
of popular piety as Thomas k Kempis’s “Imitatio Christi” and the
“Giardino Spirituale** and more weighty expositions of Roman doc
trine, he pointed the way to Armenian classicism in a treatise on
rhetoric of 1674, while making a case for the development of the
vernacular as a literary medium in one of his final works.
Thus the dynamism of Armenian culture that had dissipated in
the middle of the period from the twelfth to the seventeenth centuries
is revived in the seventeenth century and redirected toward goals that
were to gain increased importance in the ensuing era. Particularly
notable are the cultural significance of the merchant class, their net
work of international contacts, initiatives in creating a secular educa
tional curriculum , and im pact on the transform ation o f book
production from the largely cloistered scribe to the greater flexibility
and accessibility of the printing press. Gradually the study of history
again becomes a source of stimulation, fostering in the subsequent
generations the aspiration of reattaining statehood by constructing a
patriotic army. Finally, underpinning a number of these changes, there
is the multifaceted impact of reestablishing regular contacts with
Europe, which result in ever greater integration of the educated classes
intellectually and culturally in the next two centuries.
MEDIEVAL ARMENIAN LITERARY AND CULTURAL TRENDS
For the sources of. or more information on. the material in this
Cowe, 1989. Nersissian, 1984.

Der Nersessian. 1978. Russell, 1987a.
Mathews and Sanjian, 1991. Thomson, 1989.
Mkhitar Sasnec'i, 1993.
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR VOLUMES I AND II
Abovian, Khachatur. 1858. Verk Hayastani (Wounds of Armenia). Tiflis.

Abrahamian, A. G. 1964. Hamarot urvagids hai gaghtavaireri patmutian (Concise
Outline of the History of Armenian Expatriate Communities). Erevan.
Abu, Salih. 1865. The Churches and Monasteries o f Egypt and Some Neighbouring
Countries. Trans. B. T. A. Evetts. Oxford.
Acoghic. See Stepanos Asoghik (Taronetsi).
Adontz, Nicholas. 1970. Armenia in the Period o f Justinian. Trans, and Comm,
by Nina Garsoi'an. Lisbon.
Aftandilian, Gregory. 1981. Armenia: Vision o f a Republic: The Independence
Lobby in America. Boston.
(Agathangelos). 1970. The Teaching o f Saint Gregory: An Early Armenian Cate
chism. Trans, and comm. R. W. Thomson. Cambridge, MA.
Agathangelos. 1976. Agathangelos, History o f the Armenians. Trans, and Comm.
R.W. Thomson. Albany, NY.
Ahmad, Feroz. 1969. The Young Turks. Oxford.
Ahmed Emin (Yalman). See Emin (Yalman), Ahmed.
Ajarian, Hrachia. 1942-1962. Hayots andznanunneri bararan (Dictionary of Ar
menian Personal Names). 5 vols. Erevan.
Akinian, Nerses. 1958. “Zruits bghndze kaghaki” (The Tale of the City of Bronze).
Handes Amsorya.
al-Baladhuri. 1968. The Origins o f the Islamic State. Trans. Ph. K. Hitti. 2 vols.
New York. Originally published in 1916.
Alboyadjian, Arshak. 1941, 1955, 1961. Patmutiun hay gaghtakanutian (History
of Armenian Emigrations). 3 vols. Cairo.
Alishan, Ghevond (Leonce M.). 1888. U on le Magnifique. Translated from
Armenian. Venice.
Alishan, Ghevond. 1893. Sisakan. Venice.
Allen, W.E.D., and Paul Muratoff. 1953. Caucasian Battlefields. Cambridge, UK.
Amasiatsi, Amirdovlat. See Amirdovlat Amasiatsi.
Amirdovlat Amasiatsi. 1459. Akhrapatin. Preserved in Matenadaran Institute of
Manuscripts, no. 8871.
328 BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR VOLUMES I AND II
Amirdovlat Amasiatsi. 1926. Angitats anpet. Ed. K. V. Basmajian. Vienna.

Amirdovlat Amasiatsi. 1940. Ogut bzhshkutian (Utility of Medicine). Ed. St.
Malkhasian. Erevan.
Ammiani Marcellini res gestae libri qui supersunt. Ed. and trans. R.C. Rolfe. 3
vols. Loeb Classical Library.
(Anania Shirakatsi) (Anania of Shirak) Anania Sirakac'i. 1964. “Autobiographic
d'A nania S ira k ac 'i.” Trans. H. B erblrian. Revue des Etudes
arminiennes, n.s. 1.
(Anania Shirakatsi) (Anania of Shirak) Ananias of Sirak. 1992. The Geography o f
Ananias ofSirak (A$xarhac‘oyc‘): The Long and the Short Recensions.
Trans. R. H. Hewsen. Beihefte zum Tiibinger Atlas des Vorderen
Orients. Reihe B, 77. Wiesbaden.
Ananian, Paolo. 1961. “La data e le circonstanze della consecrazione di S.
Gregorio Illuminatore.” Le M ust on 74. Original Armenian version
published in Pazmavep (1959-1960).
Ananias of Sirak. See Anania Shirakatsi.
Ananun, Davit. 1926. Rusahayeri hasarakakan zargatsume (The Social Develop
ment of the Russian Armenians). Vol. 3, 1901-1918. Venice.
Anasian, Hakob. 1957. Haykakan aghbiumere Biuzantiayi ankman masin (Arme
nian Sources on the Fall of Byzantium). Erevan. English trans. in A.
K. Sanjian (Cambridge, MA, 1969), and with commentary in Viator 1
(1970).
Anasian, Hakob. 1961. XVII dari azatagrakan sharzhumnern arevmtian
Hayastanum (The Seventeenth Century Freedom Movements in West
ern Armenia). Erevan.
Anderson, M. S. 1966. The Eastern Question, 1774-1923. London.
Andreasyan, H. D. 1964. Polonyali Simeon’un seyahatn&mesi, 1608-1619. Istan
bul.
Aparantsi, Simeon. See Simeon Aparantsi.
Appian. ‘T he Mithridatic Wars.*' Appian 's Roman History. Ed. and trans. Horace
White. Vol 2. pp. 240/1-476/7. Loeb Classical Library.
Appian. “The Syrian Wars.” Appian's Roman History. Ed. and trans. Horace
White. Vol 2. pp. 104/5-236/7. Loeb Classical Library.
Arakel Tavrizhetsi (Arakel of Tabriz). 1896. Patmutiun (History). Vagharshapat.
Arakelian, A. 1964. Hay zhoghovrdi mtavor mshakuiti zargatsman patmutiun (The
History of the Development of the Intellectual Culture of the Armenian
People). Vol. 2, XIV-XIX Centuries. Erevan.
Areveltsi, Vardan. See Vardan Areveltsi.
Aristakes Lastivertcl. See Aristakes Lastiverttsi.
(Aristakes Lastiverttsi) (Aristakes of Lastivert) Aristakes de Lastivert. 1973.
Aristakes de Lastivert. Ricit des malheurs de la nation armtnienne.
Trans. M. Canard and H. Berblrian. Brussels.
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR VOLUMES I AND II 329
(Aristakes Lastiverttsi) AristakSs Lastivertc‘i. 1985. History. Trans. R. Bedrosian.

New York.
Arkomed, S. T. 1929. Pervaia gruppa revoliutsionerov armian na Kavkaze. Tiflis.
Arlen, Michael J. 1975. Passage to Ararat. New York.
Armenian Academy of Sciences. 1971-1984. Hay zhoghovrdi patmutiun (History
of the Armenian People). Vols. 1-4. Erevan.
Armenian Assembly. 1975. Directory o f Armenian Scholars. Washington, D.C.
“An Armenian Catholic Bishop of Nakhichevan." 1837. Journal Asiatique
(March).
Armenian Delegation. 1919. Riponse au mimoire de la Sublime-Porte en date du
12 fivrier 1919. Constantinople.
Armstrong, John A. 1976. “Mobilized and Proletarian Diasporas." American
Political Science Review 70, no. 2 (June).
Arrian. Anabasis Alexandri. Ed. and trans. E. I. Robson. 2 vols. Loeb Classical
Library.
Arutjunova-Fidanjan, A. 1986-1987. “Some Aspects of the Military-Administra
tive Districts and of Byzantine Administration in Armenia during the
11th Century." Revue des itudes arminiennes, n.s. 20.
Arutyunian, N. V. 1970. Biainili (Urartu): Voenno-politicheskaia istoriia i
voprosy toponimiki (Biainili [Urartu]: Military-Political History and
Questions of Place-Names). Erevan.
Asar Sebastatsi (Asar of Sebastia). 1993. Girk bzhshkakan arhesti (Book on the
Medical Art). Ed. D. M. Karapetian. Erevan.
Asdourian, P. 1911. Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Armenien und Rom
vom 190 v. Chr. bis 428 n. Chr. Venice. Armenian edition (1910).
Asoghik, Stepanos. See Stepanos Asoghik.
Avakian, Arra. 1977. “Armenians in America: How Many and Where." Ararat 18,
no. 1 (Winter).
Avdall, Johannes. 1841. “On the Laws and Lawbooks of the Armenians." Journal
o f the Royal Asiatic Society o f Bengal 111.
Aydenian, Arsen. 1866. Critical Grammar o f Ashkharhabar or the Modern Arme
nian Language (in Armenian).
Azarpay, Guitty. 1968. Urartian Art and Artifacts: A Chronological Study. Berke-
ley.
Baberdatsi, Ghazar. See Ghazar Baberdatsi.
Bakalian, Anny. 1993. Armenian-Americans: From Being to Feeling Armenian.
New Brunswick, NJ.
Balcer, J. M. 1984. Sparda by the Bitter Sea. Chico, CA.
Baldwin, Oliver. 1926. Six Prisons and Two Revolutions. London.
Baltrusaitis, Jurgis, and Dickran Kouymjian. 1986. "Julfa on the Arax and Its
Funerary Monuments." In Armenian Studies/Etudes Arminiennes: In
Memoriam Haig Berbtrian, ed. Dickran Kouymjian. Lisbon.
Barkan, O. L. 1958. "Essai sur les donnles statistiques des registres de recensement
dans 1’Empire ottoman aux XV* et XVI* sifccle." Journal o f the Eco
nomic and Social History o f the Orient. Vol. 1.
Barsoumian, Hagop. 1982. "The Dual Role of the Armenian Amira G ass with the
Ottoman Government and the Armenian Millet (1750-1850)." In vol.
1 of Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, eds. B. Braude and
B. Lewis. New York.
Barton, James L. 1930. Story o f Near East Relief, 1915-1930. New York.
Basmadjian, Gang. 1971. "Armenian Poetry: Past and Present." Ararat (Spring).
Bauer-Manndorff, Elizabeth. 1984. Das Friihe Armenien. Vienna
Bedoukian, Kerop. 1978. The Urchin: An Armenian's Escape. London. Published
in the U.S. under the title Some o f Us Survived (New York, 1979).
Bedoukian, P. 1978. Coinage o f the Artaxiads o f Armenia. London.
Bedoukian, P. Z. 1962. Coinage ofCilician Armenia. New York.
Bedrosian, Margaret. 1991. The Magical Pine Ring: Armenian-American Litera
ture. Detroit.
Berb6rian (Perperean), Haig. 1965. Niuter K. Polsoy hay patmutian hamar (Ma
terial for the History of the Armenians in Constantinople). Vienna
Originally published as a series of four articles in Handes Amsorya.
Beylerian, Arthur. 1983. Les grandes puissances: L'Empire Ottoman et les
Arm&niens dans les archives frangaises, 1914-1918. Paris.
Boase, T. S. R. 1978. The Cilician Kingdom o f Armenia. Edinburgh, New York.
Boase, T. S. R. 1979. The Cilician Kingdom o f Armenia. 2nd ed. Danbury, CT.
Borian, B. A. 1929. Armeniia, mezhdunarodnaia diplomatiia i SSSR. Vol. 2.
Leningrad.
Borisov, A. A. 1965. Climates o f the U.S.S.R. Trans. R. A. Ledward. Chicago.
Boumoutian, George A. 1983. "The Ethnic Composition and the Socio-Economic
Conditions of Eastern Armenia in the First Half of the Nineteenth
Century." In Transcaucasia: Nationalism and Social Change, ed. R.
Suny. Ann Arbor.
Bournoutian, George A. 1992. The Khanate o f Erevan under Qajar Rule, 1795-
1828. Costa Mesa, CA.
Bournoutian, George A., trans. 1994. A History of Qarabagh. Costa M esa CA.
Brosset, M. F. 1874. Collection d ’historiens arminiens. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg.
Buniat Sebastatsi (Buniat of Sebastia). 1644. Girk bzhshkutian tomari (Book of
Medicine). Preserved in Matenadaran Institute of Manuscripts no.
1023.
Busse, H., ed. and trans. 1972. History o f Persia under Qajar Rule. New York.
Buxton, Noel and Harold. 1914. Travels and Politics in Armenia. London.
Cahen, Claude. 1968. Pre-Ottoman Turkey. London.
Cambridge History o f Iran. 1983,1985,1991. Vol. 2, The Median and Archaemen-
ian Periods, ed. Ilya Gershevitch. Vol. 3, The Seleucid, Parthian, and
Sasanid Periods, ed. Ehsan Yarshater. Vol. 7, From Nadir Shah to the
Islamic Republic, ed. Peter Avery et al. Cambridge, UK.
Campbell, George Douglas (Duke of Argyll, 8th Duke). 1896. Our Responsibilities
fo r Turkey. London.
Carswell, John. 1968. New Julfa, The Armenian Churches and Other Buildings.
Oxford.
Cartwright, John. 1611. The Preacher's Travels. . . through Syria, Mesopotamia,
Armenia, Media, Hircania, and Parthia.. . . London.
Cebesoy, Ah Fuat. 1955. Moskova hdtiralan (21/11/1920-2/6/1922) (Moscow
Memoirs [November 21, 1920-June 2, 1922]). Istanbul.
Chamchian, Mikayel. 1784-1786. Hayots patmutiun (Armenian History). 3 vols.
Venice.
Charny, Israel W. 1983. International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide.
Book I, The Conference Program and Crisis. Tel Aviv.
Chaumont, M. L. 1982. “Tigranocerte: Donnies du probifeme et Itat des recher-
ches.” Revue des Etudes arminiennes, n.s. 16.
Chelebi, Evliya. See Evliya Chelebi.
Chronicles o f the Chaldean Kings (626-556 B.C.). 1961. Trans. D.J. Wiseman.
London.
La Chronique attribute au Connttable Smbat. Trans. G. Dldlyan. 1980. Paris.
Chronique de Matthieu d ’Edesse: Bibliothique historique arminienne. 1858.
Trans. E. Dulaurier. Paris.
Qavijo. 1928. Embassy to Tamerlane, 1403-1406. Trans. G. Le Strange. London.
Commission of the Churches on International Affairs. 1984. Armenia: The Con
tinuing Tragedy. Geneva.
Cook, M. A. 1972. Population Pressures in Rural Anatolia, 1450-1600. London.
Cowe, S. P. 1989. “An Allegorical Poem by Mkrtich Naghash and Its Models.”
Journal o f the Society fo r Armenian Studies 4.
Current Digest o f the Soviet Press. 1991. 43, no. 18. (5 June).
Dadrian, Vahakn N. 1975. “The Common Features of the Armenian and Jewish
Cases of Genocide: A Comparative Victimological Perspective.” Vic
timology 4.
Dadrian, Vahakn N. 1986. ‘The Naim-Andonian Documents on the World War I
Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians.” International Journal o f
Middle East Studies 8, no. 3 (August).
Dadrian, Vahakn N. 1986a. “The Role of Turkish Physicians in the World War I
Genocide of Ottoman Armenians.” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 1,
no. 2.
Dadrian, Vahakn N. 1989. “Genocide as a Problem of National and International

Law: The World War I Armenian Case and Its Contemporary Legal
Ramifications.*' Yale Journal o f International Law 14, no. 2 (Summer).
Dadrian, Vahakn N. 1991. “The Documentation of the World War I Armenian
Massacres in the Proceedings of the Turkish Military Tribunal.*' Inter
national Journal o f Middle East Studies 23, no. 4 (November).
Dadrian, Vahakn N. 1992. “The Role of the Turkish Military in the Destruction of
the Ottoman Armenians." Journal o f Political and Military Sociology
20, no. 2 (Winter).
Dadrian, Vahakn N. 1993. “The Role of the Special Organisation in the Armenian
Genocide during the First World War.’’ In Minorities in Wartime, ed.
Panikos Panayi. Oxford, UK, Providence, RI.
Dandamaev, M. A. 1990. Political History o f the Achaemenid Empire. Leiden.
Dandamaev, M. A., and V. Lukonin. 1988. Culture and Social Institutions o f
Ancient Iran. Cambridge.
Daranaghtsi, Grigor. See Grigor Daranaghtsi.
Darbinjan, M. O. 1965. Simeon Lekhatzi, Putevye zametki. Moscow.
Dashian, Hagovpos, and Kerope Sbenian. 1898. Study o f the Classical Armenian
(in Armenian).
Dasxuranc'i, Movsts. See Movses Daskhurantsi.
David. 1983. Definitions and Divisions o f Philosophy. Trans. Bridget Kendall and
Robert W. Thomson. Atlanta.
Davis, Leslie A. 1989. The Slaughterhouse Province. New Rochelle, NY.
de Lusignan, Levon V. Chronique d'Armtnie. 1906. In Recueil des Historiens des
Croisades: Documents arminiens, vol. 2. Paris.
Dldlyan, Gerard. 1996. “Les princes armlniens de l’Euphratls et 1’Empire by-
zantin (fin XI*-milieu XID* s.).** VArm inie et Byzance. Paris.
D ldlyan, Girard, ed. 1982. Histoire des Armtniens. Toulouse.
Dekmejian, R. Hrair. 1975. Patterns o f Political Leadership: Egypt, Israel, Leba
non. Albany, NY.
Dekmejian, R. Hrair. 1976. “The Armenians: Historical Memory, Consciousness
and the Middle East Dispersion.’’ Middle East Review (April).
Der Nerses si an, Sirarpie. 1945. Armenia and the Byzantine Empire. Cambridge,
MA.
Der Nersessian, Sirarpie. 1959. “The Armenian Chronicle of the Constable
Smpad’.*’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers. No. 13.
Der Nersessian, Sirarpie. 1962. “The Kingdom of Cilician Armenia." In Vol. 2, A
History o f the Crusades, ed. K. M. Setton. Philadelphia.
Der Nersessian, Sirarpie. 1969. The Armenians. London.
Der Nersessian, Sirarpie. 1978. Armenian Art. London.
Diakonoff, I. M. 1985. Prehistory o f the Armenian People. Delmar, NY.
Diakonoff, I. M., and V.P. Neroznak. 1985. Phrygian. Delmar, NY.

Dio's Roman History. Ed. and trans. E. Cary. 9 vols. Loeb Classical Library.
Djemal Pasha (Jemal Pasha). 1922. Memories o f a Turkish Statesman, 1913-1919.
London.
“Documents: The State Department File/’ 1984. Armenian Review 37/1 (Spring).
Dostourian, A. E. 1993. Armenia and the Crusades: The Chronicle o f Mathew o f
Edessa. Boston.
Drasxanakertc'i, Yovhannes. See Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi (Yovhannes
Drasxanakertc‘i).
Earle, E. M. 1935. Turkey, the Great Powers and the Bagdad Railway. New York.
Edwards, R. W. 1987. The Fortifications o f Armenian Cilicia. Washington, D.C.
Egan, Eleanor Franklin. 1919. “This To Be Said for the Turk.” Saturday Evening
Post 192,20 December.
EliSS. See Eghishe.
(Eghishe) Etishe. 1982. History o f Vardan and the Armenian War. Trans. R.W.
Thomson. Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, 5. Cambridge, MA.
Elliott, Mabel E. 1924. Beginning Again at Ararat. New York.
Emin, Joseph. 1792. The Life and Adventures o f Joseph Emin, an Armenian.
London.
Emin, Joseph. 1918. Life and Adventures o f Joseph Emin, 1726-1809. 2 vols.
Calcutta.
Emin (Yalman), Ahmed. 1930. Turkey in the World War. New Haven.
Encyclopaedia o f Islam. 1960.2nded. Leiden. See especially, “Arminiya,’’ “Kara-
Koyunlu,” and “Enwer Pasha.”
Erznkatsi, Kostandin. See Kostandin Erznkatsi.
Etmekjian, James. 1964. The French Influence on the Western Armenian Renais
sance, 1843-1915. New York.
Eudin, Xenia Joukoff, and Robert C. North. 1957. Soviet Russia and the East,
1920-1927: A Documentary Survey. Stanford.
Evliya Chelebi. 1896-1928. Seya hat name (Travel Account). 10 vols. Istanbul.
Partial English trans. Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, under the title
Travels o f Evliya Chelebi, 2 vols. (London, 1834-1846). Partial Arme
nian trans. in Safrastian, vol. 3 (Erevan, 1967).
Eznik. 1959. Eznik, De Deo. Trans. L. Mari&s and C. Mercier. (Patrologia Ori-
entalis. XXVIII 3-4), Paris.
Faroghi, S. 1984. Towns and Townsmen o f Ottoman Anatolia. Cambridge.
Fontenrose, Joseph. 1959. Python: A Study of Delphic Myth and Its Origins.
Berkeley.
Forbes, Thomas B. 1983. Urartian Architecture. BAR International Series, 170.
Oxford.
Frik. 1952. Frik Divan. Ed. Archbishop Tirair. New York.
Galanus, Clemens. 1650, 1690. Conciliationis Ecclesiae Armenae cum Romana.

2 vols. Rome.
Gandzaketsi, Kirakos. See Kirakos Gandzaketsi.
Garitte, G. 1952. La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae. Louvain.
Garsoian, Nina. 1967. The Paulician Heresy. The Hague and Paris.
Garsoi'an, Nina. 1984-1985. “The Early Medieval Armenian City: An Alien
Element?” The Journal o f Ancient Near Eastern Studies 16-17.
Garsoi'an, Nina. 1985. Armenia Between Byzantium and the Sasanians. London.
Garsoi'an, Nina. 1994. “Reality and Myth in Armenian History.” In The East and
the Meaning o f History. Rome.
Garsoian, Nina. 1997. “The Armenian Church between Byzantium and the East.”
Morgan Library Symposium (1994). New York.
Garsoi'an, Nina G., T. F. Mathews, and R. W. Thomson, eds. 1982. East o f
Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period. Washington,
DC.
Genocide: Crime against Humanity. 1984. Special issue of Armenian Review 37,
no. 1 (Spring).
Georgia. 1919. Dokumenty i materialy po vneshnei po lit ike Zakavkaz'ia i Gruzii.
Tiflis.
Ghazar Baberdatsi (Ghazar [Lazar] of Baberd). n.d. Bible. Preserved in
Matenadaran Institute of Manuscripts, no. 351. Erevan.
(Ghazar Parpetsi) Ghazar P ‘arpec‘i. 1985. History o f the Armenians. Trans. R.
Bedrosian. New York.
(Ghazar Parpetsi) Lazar P ‘arpec‘i. 1991. The History o f Lazar P'arpec'i. Trans,
and Comm. R. W. Thomson. Atlanta.
(Ghevond) Lewond. 1982. The History o f Lewond. Trans. Z. Arzoumanian. Phil
adelphia.
Ghukas Vanandetsi. 1699. Gandzchapoy, kshroy, tvoy, ev dramits bolor ashkharhi
(Treasury of Measures, Weights, Numeration, and Currency from All
Over the World). Amsterdam.
Gidney, James B. 1967. A Mandate fo r Armenia. Kent, OH.
Gilbert, Charles K., and Charles T. Bridgeman. 1921. Foreigners or Friends. New
York.
Girk Tghtots (The Book of Letters). 1994. Jerusalem.
Graves, Philip. 1941. Briton and Turk. London.
Great Britain. Foreign Office. 1916. The Treatment o f Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire. See Toynbee, Arnold J., ed. 1916.
Great Britain. Foreign Office. 1928. British Documents on the Origins o f the War,
1898-1914. Eds. G. P. Gooch and Harold Temperley. Vol. 5. London.
Great Britain. Parliament. 1878. Sessional Papers. Vol. 83, c. 1973, Turkey no.
22.
Great Britain. Parliament. 1878a. Sessional Papers. Vol. 83, c. 2083, Turkey no.
39.
Great Britain. Parliament. 1895. Sessional Papers. Vol. 109, c. 7894, Turkey no.
1.
Great Britain. Parliament. 1896. Sessional Papers. Vol. 95, c. 7923, Turkey no. 1.
Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. 1917. The Parliamentary Debates.
5th series. London.
Great Britain. Public Record Office. Classes 371 and 424.
Grggoire de Narek. See Grigor Narekatsi.
Gregorian, V. 1972. “The Impact of Russia on the Armenians and Armenia.” In
Russia and Asia, ed. W. S. Vucinich. Palo Alto.
Gregory, J. S. 1968. Russian Land, Soviet People: A Geographical Approach to
the U.S.S.R. New York.
Griboedov, A. S. 1953. “Proekt uchrezhdeniia Rossiiskoi Zakavkazskoi
kompanii.” In Sochineniia, ed. V. Orlov. Moscow.
Grigor Daranaghtsi (Grigor of Daranagh). 1915. Zhamanakagrutiun (Chronol
ogy). Jerusalem. French trans. M. F. Brosset in vol. 1 of Collection
d ’historiens armtniens (St. Petersburg, 1874).
Grigor Magistros (Gregory the Magister) Pahlavuni. 1910. Grigor Magistrosi
Tghtere (The Letters of Grigor Magistros). Ed. K. Kostaniants. Al-
exandropol.
Grigor Narekatsi (Gregory of Narek) (Grggoire de Narek). 1961. Grigoire de
Narek: Le Livre de Priires. T. Klchichian. Paris.
Grigor Tatevatsi (Grigor of Tatev). 1729. Girk hartsmants (Book of Questions).
Constantinople.
Hachakhapatum. 1927. “AusgewShlte Reden aus dem Hatschachapatum vom hi.
Mesrop.” Trans. S. Weber and E. Sommer. In Ausgewdhlte Schriften
der armenischen Kirchenvdter, ed. S. Weber, vol. 1. Munich.
Hairapetian, S. 1995. A History o f Ancient and Medieval Armenian Literature.
Del mar, NY.
Hakobian, H. 1932. Ughegrutiunner (Travel Accounts). Vol. 1, 1253-1582.
Erevan.
Hakobian, V. A. 1951, 1956. Manr zhamanakagrutiunner XUI-XVIII dd. (Minor
Chronicles, XIII-XVIII Centuries). 2 vols. Erevan.
Hakobian, V., and A. Hovhannisian. 1974. Colophons o f Seventeenth Century
Armenian Manuscripts. Vol. 1 ,1601-1620. Erevan.
Halasi-Kun, T. 1963. “The Caucasus: An Ethno-Historical Survey.” Studio
Caucasica 1. The Hague.
Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph von. 1827-1835. Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches.

2nd ed. 10 vols. Pesht. French trans. J. J. Hellert under the title Histoire
de rEmpire ottoman, 18 vols. (Paris, 1835-1841).
Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph von, trans. 1834-1846. Travels o f Evliya Chelebi. 2
vols. London.
Harney, Robert F., Anne McCarthy, and Isabel Kaprielian, eds. 1982.44Armenians
in Ontario.” Polyphony 4, no. 2 (Fall/Winter).
Harvard Encyclopedia o f American Ethnic Groups. 1980. Stephan Themstrom,
Ann Orlov, and Oscar Handlin, eds. Cambridge, MA.
Haykakan Sovetakan Hanragitaran (Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia). 1974-1986.
12 vols. Erevan.
Hekimian, Kim. 1990.44Armenian Immigration to Argentina: 1909-1939.” Arme
nian Review 43, no. 1/169 (Spring).
Heratsi, Mkhitar. See Mkhitar Heratsi.
Herodotus. 1954. The Histories. Trans. Aubrey De Selincourt. London.
Herodotus. Trans. A. D. Godley. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library
Hertslet, Edward. 1891. The Map o f Europe by Treaty. Vol. 4. London.
Hetoum. 1988. A Lytell Cronycle. Toronto.
Hetum of Korikos. 1529. La Flor des Estoires de la Terre d ’Orient. Paris.
Hewsen, Robert H. 1978-1979. “Introduction to Armenian Historical Geography:
The Nature of the Problem.” Revue des Etudes arminiennes, n.s. 13.
Hewsen, Robert H. 1983. “Introduction to Armenian Historical Geography: II. The
Boundaries of Achaemenid Armenia.” Revue des Etudes armdniennes,
n.s. 17.
Hewsen, Robert H. 1984. “Introduction to Armenian Historical Geography: ID.
The Boundaries of Orontid Armenia.” Revue des itudes arm€niennes,
n.s. 18.
Hewsen, Robert H. 1992. The Geography o f Ananias o f Shirak: Introduction,
Translation and Commentary. Wiesbaden.
Hofmann, Tessa. 1985. “German Eyewitness Reports of the Genocide of the
Armenians 1915-16.” In A Crime o f Silence: The Armenian Genocide,
Permanent People’s Tribunal. London.
Hourani, Albert H. 1947. Minorities in the Arab World. London.
Housepian, Marjorie. 1972. Smyrna 1922: The Destruction o f a City. London.
Hovannisian, Richard G. 1962. 4tThe Armenian Communities of Southern and
Eastern Asia.” Armenian Review 15 (Autumn).
Hovannisian, Richard G. 1967. Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918.
Berkeley, Los Angeles.
Hovannisian, Richard G. 1971-1996. The Republic o f Armenia. 4 vols. Berkeley,
Los Angeles, London.
Hovannisian, Richard G. 1974. “The Ebb and Row of the Armenian Minority in
the Arab Middle East.” Middle East Journal 28, no. 1 (Winter).
Hovannisian, Richard G. 1991. “Altruism in the Armenian Genocide of 1915.” In
Embracing One Another, eds. Samuel and Pearl Oliner. New York.
Hovannisian, Richard G. 1993. “The Armenian Diaspora and the Narrative of
Power.” In Diasporas in World Politics, eds. Dimitri C. Constas and
Athanassios G. Platias. London.
Hovannisian, Richard G. 1994. ‘T he Etiology and Sequelae of the Armenian
Genocide.” In The Conceptual and Historical Dimensions o f Geno
cide, ed. George J. Andreopoulos. Philadelphia.
Hovannisian, Richard G. 1994a. “Historical Memory and Foreign Relations: The
Armenian Perspective.” In The Legacy o f History in Russia and the
New States o f Eurasia, ed. S. Frederick Starr. Armonk, NY, and
London.
Hovannisian, Richard G., ed. 1980. The Armenian Holocaust: A Bibliography
Relating to the Deportations, Massacres, and Dispersion o f the Arme
nian People, 1915-1923. Cambridge, MA.
Hovannisian, Richard G., ed. 1986. The Armenian Genocide in Perspective. New
Brunswick, NJ.
Hovannisian, Richard G., ed. 1992. The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics,
Ethics. London, New York.
(Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi) Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i. 1987. Yovhannes
Drasxanakertc 7, History o f Armenia. Trans. K. H. Maksoudian. At
lanta.
Hovhannes Makuetsi (Yovhannes Makuec‘i) (Hovhannes of Maku). 1969. “Oghb
Hayastanay Ashkharhi Erevanay ev Jughayu” (Lament on the Land of
Armenia, Erevan, and Julfa). In Hay mijnadarian patmakan oghber
(Medieval Armenian Historical Laments), ed. P. M. Khachatrian.
Erevan.
(Hovhannes Mamikonian) Yovhannes Mamikonean. 1993. Pseudo-Yovhannes
Mamikonean, The History ofTardn (Patmutiwn Taronoy): Historical
Investigation, Critical Translation and Historical and Textual Com
mentaries. Trans. Levon Avdoyan. Atlanta.
(Hovhannes Mandakuni) Johannes Mandakuni. 1927. “Reden des armenischen
Kirchenvaters Johannes Mandakuni.” Trans. J. Blatz and S. Weber. In
Ausgewdhlte Schriften der armenischen Kirchenvdter, ed. S. Weber,
vol. 2. Munich.
(Hovhannes Odznetsi) Johannis Ozniensis. 1834. Johannis Ozniensis Opera.
Trans. J. Aucher. 2 Vols. Venice.
Hovhannes Tlkurantsi (Hovhannes of Tlkuran). 1958. (Khev) Hovhannes
Tlkurantsi Taghagirk (Book of Tagh Poems by [Crazy] Hovhannes of
Tlkuran). Ed. N. Bogharian. Jerusalem.
Hovhannisian, Ashot, comp. 1926. Hayastani avtonomian ev Antantan:
Vaveragrer imperialistakan paterazmi shrdjanits (Armenia’s Auton
omy and the Entente: Documents from the Period of the Imperialistic
War). Erevan.
Hovnatan, Naghash. 1983. Tagher (Tagh Poems). Ed. A. Mnatsakanian. Erevan.
Hudson, Michael C. 1968. The Precarious Republic: Political Modernization in
Lebanon. New York.
Hughes, Byron 0 . 1939. ‘The Physical Anthropology of Native Born Armenians.”
PhD. diss., Harvard University. Published as ‘‘Occasional Paper no. 6
of the Society for Armenian Studies.” Photocopy (1986).
Ibn Hawkal. 1964. Configuration de la terre. Trans. J. H. Kramers and G. Wiet. 2
vols. Paris.
Inglisian, V. 1963. ‘‘Die armenische Literatur.” In Armenisch und kaukasische
Sprachen, ed. G. Deeters (Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1, 7).
Islam Ansiklopedisi. 1945-88. 1st ed. See especially “Ak-Koyunlu” and “Kara-
Koyunlu,” Vladimir Minorsky. Istanbul.
Jahukian, G. B. 1987. Hayots lezvi patmutiun: Nakhagrayin zhamanakashrjan
(The History of the Armenian Language: The Pre-Literate Period).
Erevan.
Jennings, R. 1976. “Urban Population in Anatolia in the Sixteenth Century: A
Study of Kayseri, Karaman, Amasya, Trabzon and Erzurum.” Interna
tional Journal fo r Middle Eastern Studies 7.
Johannes Mandakuni. See Hovhannes Mandakuni.
Johannis Ozniensis. See Hovhannes Odznetsi.
Kapoi'an-Kouymjian, Angfele. 1988. L'Egypte vuepar les Arminiens. Paris.
Kaprielian, Isabel. 1987. “Migratory Caravans: Armenian Sojourners in Canada.”
Journal o f American Ethnic History 6, no. 2 (Spring).
Karakashian, Madatia. 1895. Critical History o f the Armenians (in Armenian).
Kardashian, Ardashes. 1943. Niuter Egiptosi Hayots patmutian hamar. (Materials
for the History of the Armenians of Egypt). Cairo.
Karst, J., ed. 1905. Armenisches Rechtsbuch. 2 vols. Strassburg.
Katerdjian, Hovsep. 1849, 1852. Tiezerakan Patmutiun (Universal History). 2
vols. Venice.
Kayaloff, Jacques. 1973. The Battle o f Sardarabad. The Hague.
Kazemzadeh, Firuz. 1951. The Struggle fo r Transcaucasia, 1917-1921. New
York, Oxford.
Kazemzadeh, Firuz. 1974. “Russian Penetration of the Caucasus.” In Russian
Imperialism from Ivan the Great to the Revolution, ed. Taras Hunczak.
New Brunswick, NJ.
Kazhdan, A.P. 1975. Armiane v sostave gospodstvuiushchego klassa Vizantiiskoi
Imperii v XI-XII w. Erevan.
Kecharetsi, Khachatur. See Khachatur Kecharetsi.
Kerr, Stanley E. 1973. The Lions o f Marash: Personal Experience with American
Near East Relief, 1919-1922. Albany, NY.
Kevorkian, Garo. 1954-67/68. Amenun taregirke (Everyone’s Almanac). Beirut.
Khachatur Kecharetsi (Khachatur of Kecharis). 1958. Khachatur Kecharetsi xiii-
xiv dd. Ed. T. Avdalbegian. Erevan.
Khachikian, Levon. 1950. Colophons o f Fourteenth Century Armenian Manu
scripts (in Armenian). Erevan.
Khachikian, Levon. 1955, 1958, 1967. Fifteenth Century Armenian Manuscript
Colophons (in Armenian). 3 vols. Erevan. Partial English trans. A. K.
Sanjian. Cambridge, MA, 1969.
Khachikian, Levon. 1972. In Hay zhoghovrdi patmutiun (History of the Armenian
People), Armenian Academy of Sciences, vol. 4. Erevan.
Khatisian, Alexandre. 1930. Hayastani Hanrapetutian dsagumn u zargatsume
(The Creation and Development of the Republic of Armenia). Athens.
(Khatisian, Alexandre) Khatissian, Alexander. 1950. “The Memoirs of a Mayor,
Part IV " The Armenian Review 3, no. 2 (Summer).
Khorenatsi, Movses. See Movses Khorenats‘i.
Kirakos Gandzaketsi (Kirakos of Gandzak). 1961. Patmutiun hayots (History of
the Armenians). Ed. K. A. Melik-Ohanjanian. Erevan.
Kirakos Gandzaketsi. 1986. History o f the Armenians. Trans. R. Bedrosian. New
York.
Kiuleserian, Babgen. 1939. Patmutiun katoghikosats Kilikioy (1441-en minchev
mer ore re) (History of the Catholicosate of Cilicia [from 1441 to Our
Days]). Amelias.
Kiumurjian, Eremia Chelebi. 1913,1932,1939. Stampoloy patmutiun (History of
Istanbul). 3 vols. Vienna.
Kloian, Richard D., comp. 1985. The Armenian Genocide: News Accounts from
the American Press, 1915-1922. 3rded. Berkeley.
Knapp, Grace H. 1915. The Mission at Van. New York.
Knik Havatoy (The Seal of Faith). 1974. Louvain
Koriun. 1964. TheUfeofMashtots. Trans. B. Norehad. New York. Reprinted 1985
in the Delmar Classical Armenian Text Series. New York.
Kostandin Erznkatsi (Constantine of Erzinka). 1962. Tagher (Tagh Poems). Ed.
A. Srapian. Erevan.
Kouymjian, Dickran. 1975. “The Canons Dated 1280 A.D. of the Armenian
Akhi-Type Brotherhood of Erzinjan." In part I, vol. 2 of Actes du XXIX*
congrts international des orientalistes, Paris, 1973. Paris.
Kouymjian. Dickran. 1982. “L’Arm6nie sous les dominations des Turcomans et
des Ottomans (X^XVI* sifccles)." In Histoire des Arminiens, ed.
Gerard D6d6yan. Toulouse.
Kouymjian, Dickran. 1983. “Dated Armenian Manuscripts as a Statistical Tool for
Armenian History.” In Medieval Armenian Culture, T. Samuelian and
M. Stone, eds. University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Stud

ies, vol. 6. Chico, CA.
Kouymjian, Dickran. 1988. “A Critical Bibliography for the History of Armenia
from 1375 to 1605.” Armenian Review 41/1 (Spring).
Kouymjian, Dickran. 1994. “From Disintegration to Reintegration: Armenians at
the Start of the Modem Era, XVIth-XVIIth Centuries.” Revue du
monde arminien 1.
Krikorian, Mesrob K. 1978. Armenians in the Service o f the Ottoman Empire,
1860-1908. London.
Kuper, Leo. 1982. Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century. New
Haven, London.
Kurat, Y. T. 1967. “How Turkey Drifted into World War.” In Studies in Interna
tional History, K. Bourne and D. C. Watt, eds. London.
Kurkjian, Vahan M. 1958. A History o f Armenia. New York.
Landau, Jacob M. 1981. Pan-Turkism in Turkey: A Study o f Irridentism. London.
Lang, David Marshall. 1981. The Armenians: A People in Exile. London.
Lang, David Marshall, and Christopher J. Walker. The Armenians. Minority Rights
Group, no. 32 (revised). London.
Lastivertc'i, Aristakes. See Aristakes Lasdverttsi.
Laurent, J. 1919. L Arminie entre Byzance et IT slam. Paris. Revised and enlarged
edition by M. Canard (Lisbon, 1980).
Lazar P ‘arpec‘i. See Ghazar Parpetsi.
Lazian, Gabriel. 1957. Hayastan ev hai date (Armenia and the Armenian Ques
tion). Cairo.
Le Strange, Guy. 1939. Lands o f the Eastern Caliphate. Cambridge, UK.
Le Strange, Guy, ed. and trans. 1926. Don Juan o f Persia, A Shi*ah Catholic,
1560-1604. New York, London.
Lebon, J. 1929. “Les citations patristiques du Sceau de la foi.” Revue d fhistoire
eccUsiastique 5.
Lehatsi, Simeon. See Simeon Lehatsi.
Lepsius, Johannes. 1897. Armenia and Europe: An Indictment. London.
Lepsius, Johannes. 1916, 1919a. Der Todesgang des armenischen Volkes. Pots
dam.
Lepsius, Johannes, ed. 1919. Deutschland und Armenien, 1914-1918. Potsdam.
Lewis, Bernard. 1968. The Emergence o f Modem Turkey. 2nd ed. London, New
York.
Lockhart, L. 1938. Nadir Shah. London.
Lockhart, L. 1958. The Fall o f the Safavid Dynasty and the Afghan Occupation o f
Persia. Cambridge, UK.
Luckenbill, Daniel David. 1989. Ancient Records o f Assyria and Babylonia. 2 vols.
Reprint, London.
Lydolph, P. E. 1970. Geography o f the U.S.S.R. 2nd ed. New York.

Lynch, H. F. B. 1901. Armenia: Travels and Studies. 2 vols. London.
Lynch, H. F. B. 1990. Armenia: Travels and Studies. 2 vols. London, 1901.
Reprint, New York.
Maalouf, A. 1984. The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. New York.
Magistros, Grigor. See Grigor Magistros (Grigor the Magister) Pahlavuni.
M ahl, J.-P. 1993. “L’Eglise arm6nienne de 611 & 1066.” In Histoire du
christianisme, vol. 4, ed. J.-M. Mayeur et al. Paris.
Maksoudian, Krikor. 1988-1989. “The Chalcedonian Issue and the Early
Bagratids: The Council of Sirakawan.” Revue des itudes arminiennes
21.
Makuetsi, Hovhannes. See Hovhannes Makuetsi.
Mallory, J. P. 1989. In Search o f the Indo-Europeans: Language. Archaeology and
Myth. London.
Mamikonean, YovhannSs. See (H ovhannes M a m ik o n ia n ) Y ovhannes
Mamikonean.
Manandian, Hakob. 1963. Tigrane II et Rome. Lisbon. Original Armenian edition,
Erevan, 1940.
(Manandian) Manandyan, Hakob. 1965. The Trade and Cities o f Armenia in
Relation to Ancient World Trade. Trans, and ed. Nina Garsoian. Lis
bon.
Mandakuni, John (Johannes). See Hovhannes Mandakuni.
Mandelstam, Andr6. 1917. Le sortde Vempire Ottoman. Paris, Lausanne.
“Manifest H. H. Dashnaktsutian” (Manifesto of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation). 1958. In Droshak: Hai Heghapokhakan Dashnaktsutian
Organ. 1890-1897 (n.p.)
Mari&s, L. 1924. “Le De Deo d’Eznik de Kolb. Etude de critique littdraire et
textuelle.” Revue des Etudes arminiennes 4.
Mathews, T. F., and A. K. Sanjian. 1991. Armenian Gospel Iconography: The
Tradition o f the Glajor Gospel. Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 29. Wash
ington, D.C.
Mathieson, R. S. 1975. The Soviet Union: An Economic Geography. New York.
Matossian, Mary Kilbourne. 1962. The Impact o f Soviet Policies in Armenia.
Leiden.
Meillet, Antoine. 1936. Esquisse d ’une grammaire comparie de I’armtnien
classique. 2nd ed. Vienna.
Mekhitar, Abbot. 1749. Dictionary o f the Armenian Language (in Armenian).
Mekhitar, Abbot. 1985. Grammar in Armeno-Turkish (in Armenian).
Melson, Robert F. 1992. Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins o f the Armenian
Genocide and the Holocaust. Chicago, London.
Metzopetsi, Tovma. See Tovma Metzopetsi.
Mikayelian, V. A. 1960. Hayastani giughatsiutiune Sovetakan ishkhanutian

hamar mghvads paikari zhamanakashrdjanum (1917-20) (The Peas
antry of Armenia during the Period of Struggle for Soviet Power,
[1917-1920]). Erevan.
Minorsky, Vladimir. 1953. Studies in Caucasian History. London.
Minorsky, Vladimir. 1953a. ‘Thomas of Metsop on the Timurid-Turkman Wars.”
In To Professor M. Shaft. Lahore.
Minorsky, Vladimir. 1958. A History o f Sharvan and Darband. Cambridge and
London.
Mirak, Robert. 1980. “Armenians/* In Harvard Encyclopedia o f American Ethnic
Groups, Stephan Thernstrom, Ann Orlov, and Oscar Handlin, eds.
Cambridge, MA.
Mirak, Robert. 1983. Torn Between Two Lands: Armenians in America, 1890 to
World War I. Cambridge, MA.
Mkhitar, Gosh. 1975. Girk datastani (Judicial Manual). Ed. Kh. Torosian. Erevan.
Mkhitar Heratsi. 1832. The Consolation o f Fevers (in Armenian). Venice.
Mkhitar Heratsi (Mekhitar of Her). 1971. In Hay groghner (Armenian Writers).
Jerusalem.
(Mkhitar Sasnetsi) Mxit'ar Sasnec‘i (Mekhitar of Sasun). 1993. Theological
Discourses. Trans. S. P. Cowe. Vol. 21 (in Armenian), and vol. 22 (in
English) of Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Louvain.
Mkrtich Naghash. 1965. Mkrtich Naghash. Ed. E. D. Khondkarian. Erevan.
Morgenthau, Henry. 1918. Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story. Garden City, NY.
Mouradian, Claire. 1979. “L*immigration des Armlniens de la diaspora vers la
RSS d’Armdnie, 1946-1962.“ Cahiers du Monde russe et sovietique
20, no. 1 (January-March).
Mouradian, Claire. 1990. De Staline d Gorbachev: Histoire d'une Ripublique
sovietique. I’Arminie. Paris.
(Movses Daskhurantsi) Movses Dasxuranc‘i. 1961. The History o f the Caucasian
Albanians. Trans. C.J.F. Dowsett. London.
(Movses Khorenatsi) Moses Khorenats‘i (Moses of Khoren). 1978. History o f the
Armenians. Trans, and Comm. Robert W. Thomson. Cambridge, MA.
Mserlian, Kevork. 1947. Akanavor hayer Ekibtosi medj (Distinguished Armenians
in Egypt). Cairo.
Mutafian, Claude. 1993. Le royaume arminien de G lide, XII*-XIV* si tele. Paris.
Naghash, Mkrtich. See Mkrtich Naghash.
Nalbandian, Louise. 1963. The Armenian Revolutionary Movement. Berkeley, Los
Angeles.
Nalbandian, Mikayel. 1940-1948. Erkeri liakatar zhoghovatsu (Complete Collec
tion of Works). 4 vols. Erevan.
Nassibian, Akaby. 1984. Britain and the Armenian Question, 1915-1923. London.
Nerses Shnorhali (Nerses the Gracious). 1973. Oghb Edesioy (Lament on Edessa).
Ed. M. Mkrtchian. Erevan.
Nersissian, V. 1984. “Medieval Armenian Poetry and Its Relation to Other Liter
atures/’ In Armenia: Annual Volume Review o f National Literatures,
ed. Vah6 Oshagan, vol. 13. New York.
Nfeve, F. 1861. “Exposl des guerres de Tamerlane et de Schah-Rokh dans 1’Asie
occidental, d’aprfcs la chronique arm£nienne inddite de Thomas de
Medzoph." In Academic royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-
arts de Belgique: Mimoires, couronnis, vol. 11/4. Brussels.
Niepage, Martin. 1975. The Horrors o f Aleppo. London, 1917. Reprint, New York.
Olmstead, A. T. 1948. History o f the Persian Empire. Chicago.
Orbelian, Stepan os. 1859. History o f the Region o f Sisakan by Stepanos Orbelian,
Archbishop ofSiunik' (in Armenian). Ed. K. Shahnazariants. Paris.
Orbelian, Stepanos. 1864. Histoire de la Siounie par Stfpannos Orbelian. Trans.
M.-F. Brosset. St. Petersburg.
Ormanian, Malachia. 1912,1914,1927. Azgapatum (National History). Vols. 1-2,
Constantinople. Vol. 3, Jerusalem.
Ormanian, Malachia. 1955. The Church o f Armenia. Trans. Marcar Gregory. 2nd
ed. London.
Oshagan, Vah6. 1982. The English Influence on West Armenian Literature in the
Nineteenth Century. Cleveland.
Oshagan, Vah6. 1986. “Literature of the Armenian Diaspora.” World Literature
Today, 60.2.
Oshagan, Vah6, ed. 1984. Armenia: Annual Volume Review o f National Litera
tures. Vol. 13. New York.
Pahlavuni, Grigor. See Grigor Magistros (Gregory the Magister).
P'arpec'i, Lazar. See Ghazar Parpetsi.
Papazian, H. 1972. In Hay zhoghovrdi patmutiun (History of the Armenian
People), Armenian Academy of Sciences. Vol. 4. Erevan.
Papikian, Hakob. 1909. Adanayi egheme (The Adana Calamity). Constantinople.
Pavstos Buzand P‘awstos Buzand. 1989. The Epic Histories: Attributed to
P*awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmut,iwnk‘). Trans, and comm. N.
G. Garsoian. Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, 8. Cambridge, MA.
Pechevi. 1961. Ta’rikh (History). In Contemporary Turkish Sources on Armenia
and the Armenian (in Armenian), ed. A. Safrastian, vol. 1. Erevan.
Perikhanian, A. 1967. “Une inscription aramtenne du roi ArtaSes trouvde &
Zangu6zour (Siwnik4).*’ Revue des itudes arminiennes, n.s. 3.
Permanent People’s Tribunal. 1985. A Crime o f Silence: The Armenian Genocide.
London.
Piotrovsky, B. B. 1967. Urartu: The Kingdom o f Van and Its Art. Trans. P. Gelling.
London. Originally Published as Vanskoe tsarstvo (Urartu) (Moscow,
1959).
Pipes, Richard. 1964. The Formation o f the Soviet Union. Cambridge, MA.
Pitcher, D. E. 1972. An Historical Atlas o f the Ottoman Empire. Leiden.
Pliny. Natural History. Trans. H. Rackham. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library.
Plutarch. “Crassus.” Lives. Trans. B. Perrin. Vol. 3. pp. 314/5-422/3. Loeb Clas
sical Library.
Plutarch. “Lucullus.” Lives. Trans. B. Perrin. Vol. 2. pp. 470/1-610/1. Loeb
Classical Library.
Plutarch. “Pompey.” Lives. Trans. B. Perrin. Vol. 5. pp. 116/7-324/5. Loeb
Classical Library.
Polybius. The Histories. Trans. W. R. Patron. 6 vols. Loeb Classical Library.
Procopius. “Buildings.” Works. Trans. H.B. Dewing. Vol. 7. Loeb Classical
Library.
Procopius. “The Gothic War.” Works. Trans. H.B. Dewing Vols. 3-5. Loeb
Classical Library.
Procopius. “The Persian War.” Works. Trans. H.B. Dewing Vol. 1. Loeb Classical
Library.
Pseudo-Sebeos. See Sebeos.
Qazvini. 1919. The Geographical Part o f the Nuzhat-al-Qulub o f Hamd-Allah
Mustawfi o f Qazvin. Trans. G. Le Strange. London.
Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: Documents arminiens. 1906. Vol. 2. Paris.
Renfrew, Colin. 1987. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle o f Indo-European
Origins. New York.
Renoux, C. 1993. “Langue et literature arm&iiennes.” In Christianismes Ori-
entaux, ed. M. Albert et al. Paris.
Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Ed. and trans. F. W. Shipley. Loeb Classical Library.
Rudt-Collenberg, W. H. 1963. The Rupenides, the Hethumides, and Lusignans.
Paris.
Russell, James R. 1982. “Zoroastrian Problems in Armenia: Mihr and Vahagn.”
In Classical Armenian Culture, ed. T. J. Samuelian. University of
Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies, vol. 4.
Russel], James R. 1984. “Pre-Christian Armenian Religion.” In Aufsteig und
Niedergang der Rdmischen Welt, II. 18.4, ed. W. Haase and H. Tem-
porini.
Russell, James R. 1987. “A Mystic’s Christmas in Armenia.” Armenian Review
40, no. 2-158 (Summer).
Russell. James R. 1987a. Yovhannes T'lkuranc 7 and the Medieval Armenian Lyric
Tradition. Atlanta.
Russell, James R. 1987b. Zoroastrianism in Armenia. Harvard Iranian Series, 5.
Cambridge, MA.
Russell, James R. 1989. “The Craft and Mithraism Reconsidered.” Proceedings o f
the American Lodge o f Research (Masonic), New York.
Russell, James R. 1993. “Tork4 and Tarkhu.” Proceedings, Second International

Conference on the Armenian Language, Erevan, September 1987.
Russia, Ministerstvo Inostrannykh Del SSSR. 1924. Razdel Aziatskoi Turtsii po
sekretnym dokumentam b. ministerstva inostrannykh del. Ed. E. A.
Adamov. Moscow.
Russia, Ministerstvo Inostrannykh Del SSSR. 1957. Dokumenty vneshnei politiki
SSSR. Vol. 1. Moscow.
Sachar, Howard M. 1969. The Emergence o f the Middle East, 1914-1924. London.
Safrastian, A. 1961,1964,1967.1972. Contemporary Turkish Sources on Armenia
and the Armenians (in Armenian). 4 vols. Erevan.
Sanjian, Avedis K. 1965. The Armenian Communities in Syria under Ottoman
Dominion. Cambridge, MA.
Sanjian, Avedis K. 1969. Colophons o f Armenian Manuscripts, 1301-1480: A
Source fo r Middle Eastern History. Cambridge, MA.
Sarkissian, A. O. 1938. History o f the Armenian Question to 1885. Urbana, IL.
Sarkissian, Karekin. 1965. The Council ofChalcedon and the Armenian Church.
London.
Sasnec'i, Mkhitar. See Mkhitar Sasnetsi.
The Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Ed. and trans. D. Magie. 3 vols. Loeb Classical
Library.
Sebastatsi, Asar. See Asar Sebastatsi.
Sebastatsi, Buniat. See Buniat Sebastatsi.
Sebeos. 1904. Histoire d'He radius. Trans. F. Macler. Paris.
Setton, K. M., ed. 1969-1990. A History o f the Crusades. 6 vols. Madison, WI.
Shalian, A. 1964. David o f Sassoun. Athens, OH.
Shiragian, Arshavir. 1976. The Legacy. Boston.
Shirakatsi, Anania. See Anania Shirakatsi.
Shirinian, Lome. 1990. Armenian-North American Literature: A Critical Intro
duction. New York.
Shnorhali, Nerses. See Nerses Shnorhali.
Simeon Aparantsi (Simeon of Aparan). 1969.44I veray arman Tavrizoy” (On the
Capture of Tabriz). In Hay mijnadarian patmakan oghber (Medieval
Armenian Historical Laments), ed. P. Khachatrian. Erevan.
Simeon Lehatsi (Simeon of Poland). 1936. Ughegrutiun (Travel Journal). Ed.
Nerses Akinian. Vienna. Russian trans. M. Darbinjan (Moscow, 1965).
Partial Turkish trans. H. Andreasyan (Istanbul. 1964). Partial French
trans. Angfele Kapoian-Kouymjian, VEgypte vue par les Arminiens
(Paris, 1988). Partial Polish trans. Zbigniew Kosciow (Warsaw, 1991).
Siurmeian, A. 1935. Tsutsak hayeren dzeragrats Halepi (Catalogue of Armenian
Manuscripts of Aleppo). Jerusalem.
Sommer Ernst. 1919. Die Wahrheit iiber die Leiden des armenischen Volkes in
der Ttirkei wdhrend des Weltkrieges. Frankfurt.
Soviet Armenia. 1972. Moscow.
Sprengiing, M. 1953. Third Century Iran: Sapor and Kartir. Chicago.
(Stepanos Asoghik) Acoghic. 1883. Etienne Acoghic de Daron, Histoire Uni-
verselle. Trans. E. Dulaurier. Books 1 and 2. Paris.
(Stepanos Asoghik) Asolik. 1917. Etienne Asohk de Taron, Histoire Universelle.
Trans. F. Macler. Book 3. Paris.
Strabo [of Amasia]. 1961. The Geography. Ed. and trans. H. L. Jones. Loeb
Classical Library.
Strom, Margot Stem, and William S. Parsons. 1982. Facing History and Our
selves: Holocaust and Human Behavior. Watertown, MA.
Sue, Eugene. 1991. The Wandering Jew. Dedalus European Fiction Classics
Series. New York.
Suleiman, Michael W. 1967. The Political Parties in Lebanon: The Challenge o f
a Fragmented Culture. Ithaca, NY.
Suny, Ronald Grigor. 1972. The Baku Commune, 1917-1918. Princeton.
Suny, Ronald Grigor. 1983. Armenia in the Twentieth Century. Chico, CA.
Suny, Ronald Grigor. 1993. Looking Toward Ararat: Armenia in Modem History.
Bloomington, IN.
Surmelian, Leon Z. 1946.1 Ask You, Ladies and Gentlemen. London.
Swietochowski, Tadeusz. 1985. Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping o f
National Identity in a Muslim Community. Cambridge, MA.
Synodicon Orientale, ou Receueil des synods nestoriens. 1902. J. B. Chabot. Paris.
Tacitus. Annales. Ed. and trans. J. Jackson. 3 vols. Loeb Classical Library.
Taft, Elise Hagopian. 1981. Rebirth. Plandome, NY.
Tallon, M., trans. 1955 “Livre des Lettres. I*1 Groupe: Documents concemant les
relations avec les Grecs” (Book of Letters). Melanges de VUniversity
de S. Joseph. 32, fasc. 1. Beirut.
Tatevatsi, Grigor. See Grigor Tatevatsi.
Tavrizhetsi, Arakel. See Arakel Tavrizhetsi.
Ter Ghewondian, A. 1976. The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia. Trans. Nina
Garsoian. Lisbon.
Ter Minassian, Anahide. 1973. “Le mouvement rdvolutionnaire armSnien, 1890-
1903.” Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 14, no. 4 (October-
December).
Thierry, J. M., and P. Donabedian. 1989. The Art o f the Armenians. Paris.
Thomas Artsruni. See Tovma Artsruni.
Thomson, R. W. 1988-1989. “The Anonymous Story-Teller (also known as
Pseudo-Sapuh).” Revue des Etudes arminiennes, n.s. 21.
Thomson, R. W. 1994. Studies in Armenian Literature and Christianity. Variorum.

Aldershot, UK.
Thomson, R. W. 1995. A Bibliography o f Classical Armenian Literature to 1500
AD. Turnhout.
Tlkurantsi, Hovhannes. See Hovhannes Tlkurantsi.
Toumanoff, Cyril. 1963. Studies in Christian Caucasian History. Washington,
D C.
Toumanoff, Cyril. 1966. “Armenia and Georgia.” In Cambridge Medieval History,
vol. 4, 2nd ed.
Toumanoff, Cyril. 1969. “The Third-Century Arsacids: A Chronological and
Genealogical Commentary.” Revue des Etudes armtniennes, n.s. 6.
Toumanoff, Cyril. 1976. Manuel de gtnialogie et de chronologic pour Vhistoire
de la Caucasie chritienne. Rome.
Toumebize, F rancis. 1910. “Lion V de Lusignan dernier roi de l’Armlno-
Cilicie.” Etudes p u b lic s par des pires de la Compagnie de Jtsus 122
(Paris).
Toumebize, Francois. 1910a. Histoirepolitique et religieuse de I'Armtnie. Paris.
(Tovma Artsruni) Thomas Artsruni. History o f the House o f the Artsrunik'. Trans,
and Comm. R. W. Thomson. Detroit 1985.
Tovma Metzopetsi (Thomas of Metzop). 1860. Patmutiun Lank Tamuray ev
hadjordats iurots (History of Timur Lang and His Successors). Paris.
Partial French trans. F. Nfcve (Brussels, 1861).
Tovma Metzopetsi (Thomas of Metzop). 1892. Colophon. Tiflis.
(Tovma Metzopetsi) T 4ovma Metsobets'i. 1987. History o f Tamerlane and His
Successors. Trans. R. Bedrosian. New York.
Toynbee, Arnold J. 1915. Armenian Atrocities: The Murder o f a Nation. London.
Toynbee, Arnold J. 1917. Turkey: A Past and a Future. London.
Toynbee, Arnold J. 1922. The Western Question in Greece and Turkey. London.
Toynbee, Arnold J., ed. 1916. The Treatment o f Armenians in the Ottoman Empire
1915-16: Documents Presented to Viscount Grey o f Fallodon, Secre
tary fo r Foreign Affairs. London.
Tiirk Devrim Tarihi EnstitiisU. 1964. AtatUrk’un tamim, telgrafve beyannameleri
(Ataturk’s Circulars, Telegrams, and Declarations). Vol. 4 ,1917-1938.
Ankara.
Turkey. 1919. Memorandum o f the Sublime Porte Communicated to the American,
British, French and Italian, High Commissioners on the 12th February
1919. Constantinople.
Ukhtanes. 1985, 1988. Bishop Ukhtanes o f Sebastia: History o f Armenia. Trans.
Z. Arzoumanian. 2 Parts. Fort Lauderdale, FL.
United States vs. Cartozian. 1925. 6 Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, 919 (District
Court of Oregon).
United States. Department of State. 1943, 1946. Papers Relating to the Foreign
Relations o f the United States 1919: The Paris Peace Conference.
Vols. 3-4,6. Washington, D.C.
United States. National Archives. Record Group 59.
Uratadze, G. I. 1956. Obrazovanie i konsolidatsiia Gruzinskoi Demokraticheskoi
Respubliki. Munich.
Ussher, Clarence D. 1917. An American Physician in Turkey. Boston.
Vanandetsi, Ghukas. See Ghukas Vanandetsi.
Vardan Areveltsi. 1981. In Hay grakan knnadatutian krestomatia (Chrestomathy
of Armenian Literary Criticism), ed. Zh. A. Kalantarian. Erevan.
(Vardan Areveltsi) Vardan Arewelc‘i. 1989. “The Historical Compilation of
Vardan ArewelcV* Trans. R. W. Thomson, in Dumbarton Oaks Pa
pers. 43, pp. 125-226.
Velleius Paterculus. Compendium o f Roman History. Ed. and trans. F. W. Shipley.
Loeb Classical Library.
Vratzian, Simon. 1928. Hayastani Hanrapetutiun (The Republic of Armenia).
Paris.
Vryonis, Speros. 1971. The Decline o f Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the
Process o f Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Cen
tury. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Waldstreicher, David. 1989. The Armenian Americans. New York.
Walker, Christopher J. 1980. Armenia: The Survival o f a Nation. London, New
York.
Walker, Christopher J., ed. 1991. Armenia and Karabagh: The Struggle fo r Unity.
London.
Wheeler-Bennett, John W. 1938. Brest Litovsk: The Forgotten Peace, March
1918. London.
Winkler, G. 1994. Koriwns Biographic des Mesrop Mastoc ‘ (Orientalia Christiana
Analecta, 245), Rome.
Woods, John. 1976. The Aq-Quyunlu: Clan, Confederation, Empire, A Study in
15th/9th Century Turko-Iranian Politics. Minneapolis.
Wyszomirski, M. J. 1975. “Communal Violence: The Armenians and Copts as
Case Studies.*' World Politics 27, no. 3 (April).
Xenophon. Anabasis. Ed. and trans. C. L. Brownson. 2 vols. Loeb Classical
Library.
Xenophon. Cyropaedia. Ed. and trans. W. Miller. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library.
Yovhannes Drasxanakertc'i. See Hovhannes Draskhanakeittsi.
Yovhannes Mamikonean. See Hovhannes Mamikonian.
Yuzbashian, K. 1975-1976. “L'administrationbyzantineen Arm£nieauxXc etX Ic
sifecles.” Revue des Etudes arminiennes, n.s. 10.
Yuzbashian, K. 1988. Armianskie gosudarstva epokhi Bagratidov i Vizantiia IX-XI

vv. Moscow.
Zarbhanalian, Garegin. 1905. Patmutiun hayeren dprutian (History of Armenian
Literature). Vol 2. 2nd ed. Venice.
Zulalian, M. K. 1959. “‘Devshirme’-n (mankahavake) osmanian kaysrutian medj
est turkakan ev haikakan aghbiumeri [The ‘Devshirme* (Child-Gath
ering) in the Ottoman Empire According to Turkish and Armenian
Sources].” Patma-Banasirakan Handes (Historical-Philological Jour
nal), nos. 2-3. Erevan.
Zulalian, M. K. 1966. Jalalineri sharzhume (The Jelali Movement). Erevan.
NOTES ON THE CONTRIBUTORS
a n i a t a m ia n b o u r n o u t ia n received her Ph.D. from Columbia Univer
sity and is currently Assistant Dean at Barnard College. She has con
tributed several articles on Armenia in the Dictionary o f the Middle
Ages.
Ro b e r t b e d r o s ia n is a specialist in the history and cultural anthropology

of eastern Asia Minor. He has translated into English several of the
Armenian classical historians and chroniclers. He currently works as a
computer programmer in New York City.
peter co w e taught Armenian language and literature at Columbia Uni

versity for several years before joining the UCLA Department of Near
Eastern Languages and Cultures as a visiting associate professor. His
recent publications include translations of Mkhitar Sasnetsi*s Theolog
ical Discourses (1993) and A Catalogue o f the Armenian Manuscripts
in the Cambridge University Library (1994).
a n was the first holder of the Gevork Avedissian Chair in

n in a G. g a r s o K
Armenian History and Civilization at Columbia University. She also

served for two years as the Dean of the Graduate School of Princeton
University. She has written and translated many works on Armenian
history and culture, including The Paulician Heresy (1967), Armenia
between Byzantium and the Sasanians (1985), The Epic Histories At
tributed to P'awstos Buzand (1989), and V iglise arminienne et le
Grand Schisme d ’Orient (1997/98). She is the recipient of numerous
awards and honors.
Ro b e r t H. h e w s e n is Professor of History at Rowan University in New

Jersey. He is a specialist in the historical geography of Armenia and has
contributed several large scale maps to the Tlibingen Atlas of the Middle
East. He has translated and published the geography attributed to
NOTES ON THE CONTRIBUTORS 351
Anania of Shirak (1992) and is currently completing a historical atlas of

Armenia.
Ri c h a r d G. is the Holder of the Armenian Educational

h o v a n n is ia n
Foundation Chair in Modem Armenian History at the University of

California, Los Angeles. He is the author of Armenia on the Road to
Independence (1967) and The Republic of Armenia, 4 vols. (1971 -1996),
and he has edited three volumes on the Armenian genocide. A
Guggenheim Fellow, he was elected to the National Academy of Sci
ences of Armenia in 1991 and awarded an honorary doctorate from
Erevan State University in 1994.
r u s s e l l is Mashtots Professor of Armenian Studies at Harvard

Ja m e s
University and has also taught at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
He has published a monograph on the Zoroastrian influence in ancient
Armenia and is a frequent contributor to the Revue des itudes
arminiennes, Le Musion , and the Journal of the Society for Armenian
Studies.
Ro b e r t w. T h o m s o n is the Calouste Gulbenkian Professor of Armenian

Studies at Oxford University. He was the first Mashtots Professor at
Harvard University (1969-1992) and served as Director of Dumbarton
Oaks (1984-1989). His major research interest is classical and medieval
Armenian literature, and he has translated with introduction and com
mentary several major Armenian historians.
INDEX
Aaronof Balu. Prince, 311 Aghtamar, 9.156.162.172.181,184,228.230,

Abaqa-Khan. 264 270. 305
Abas Bagratuni, King. 159.160.162.163.164. Aghtsuats, 270
163 Aghvank, 230
Abas Bagratuni. Kingof Kars. 168,170 Aghznik, 15.16
AbasBagratuni, Sparapet, 146,147.130.131. Agn(Akn). 16.296
166 AhmadKhan. 266
Abas II KiuriIrianof Matsnaberd, 254 Ahura-Mazda, 51
Abasian, Grigor. 308 Akhikar, 318
Abbasid. Abbasids, 123.128-29,134.137.140- Akhrapatin, Amirdovlat, 302
41 Akhtark. 303
Abd-al-Kabir ibnAbd-al-Hamid. 134 AkhurianRiver, 8
Abdl Melik*. 135 Akilisgnt. See Ekeghiats.
Abkhazia. 152,155.138.168-69,178,268 Akori. 12
Abraham, 217 al-Balfidhurf, historian. 121,138
AbrahamL Catholicos, 113 al-Istakhri, writer, 178
AbuSa'id. 302 al-Mukadasi. geographer. 179
AbuSa'id. Il-Khan, 265-66 al-Muktafl. 155
AbuSalih. 294 al-Mutawakkil. 140-41.143
Abu*l Fida, 242 al-Tabari, historian, 183
Abul-Gharib. 274,276 al-Wayzuri. 165
Abusahl of Kogovil 170 AlagOz. SeeMount Aragadz.
AchaemenianEmpire. Achaemenians, Alakiaz. SeeMount Aragadz.
Achaemenids. 28.38.41.43.45,47.51. Alarodians. 40
70.73 Alaverdi, 14
Acoghic. SeeStepanosAsoghik(Taroneisi). Albania(Caucasian). 73.84.91.122,124.127.
Acre. 280 139,154.165.166, 172
Acts ofAddaU 83 Albianosof Manazkert. 83,86
Acts afThaddaeus, 211 Aleppo. 143, 162.163. 268.278.286
Adana. 274,278.284.288 Alexander Helios(“theSun”). 61
Addai, 211 AlexanderRomance. 319
Adherbaijan. See Azerbaijan. AlexanderSeverus. Emperor. 72
AdiabtnC. 55 AlexandertheGreat. 41.44,45.47,50. 51.89.
Adontz, Nicholas, 83,106 217
“AdvicetoOrdinary Christians,”Hovahmes Alexandria. 219.221, 224
Erznkatsi, 297 Alice, nieceof Levon. 282
AegeanSea, 2. 38 Aliovit. SeeAghiovit.
Afrahat, 204 Alis River. SeeKizil IrmakRiver.
Africa, 110 Alishar. 29
Afshin, ostikan, 139,151.153.154.182-83 Aljnik*(Aghdznik), 87.92.108.117.120,133.
“Against Fate.” HovhannesErznkatsi, 318 135. 149. 154. 177
Agarak, 251 Alp-Arslan, Sultan. 192. 245, 246.247
Agathangelos(Agat'angelos), 43.71-72.74,81, Altai Mountains, 244
82.201,204, 206. 209. 210. 211.212, Ah‘amar. SeeAghtamar.
214,216 AmaghuNoravank. 304
Aghbak, 16 AmanusGates, 274
Aghiovit. 15.120.132.134.135 AmanusMountains, 274
Aghstev River, 8 Amatuni. Sapuh(Shapuh), 131
INDEX 353
Amatuni, Vahan. 96 Appian, 45. 54. 56

Amatuni lords, 133 AppiusClaudius. 58
Amaury (Amalric) dcLusignan, 287-88 Apshin. See Afshin.
America. UnitedStatesof. 5,7,11 Apumman, Grigor. 154
Amida. 133,259,311 Ara, 32. 33
Amirdovlat Amasiatsi (Amiidovlat of Amasia), ArabMesopotamia, 117
302 ArabianMarch, 77
Amirdovlat of Amasia. See Amirdovlat Arabkir, 16
Amasiatsi. Arabs/Arabic. 59. 117,122.123.129,130.132.
Ammianus Marcellmus. 63,85.86,89.90,91 133,134, 135,141, 142,162,177, 209.
Amsterdam. 321 232.235,274.294. 301,302. 309, 318
Anabasis (“MarchUp-Country”), 20,41 Aragac, Mount. See Mount Aragats.
Anahit/Anahita, 43. 51.80-81 Aragacotn(Aragatsotn), 118,122,124.253
Anaitis. 43 AragatsMountains, 265. See also Mount Aragats.
Analytics. Aristotle, 219 Aragatstots. See Aragacotn.
Anak. theParthian. 72.81 Arakel Davrizhetsi. See Arakel Tavrizhetsi.
AnaniaMokac'i (Mokalsi). Catholicos, 163,164, Arakel of Tabriz. See Arakel Tavrizhetsi.
165,171, 172,173, 175 Arakel Tavrizetsi. See Arakel Tavrizhetsi.
Ananiaof Shirak. See AnaniaShirakatsi. Arakel Tavrizhetsi (Arakel of Tabriz), 305
AnaniaShirakatsi. 115.124,220-22,237 AraksRiver. See AraxesRiver.
Anania§irakac‘i. See AnaniaShirakatsi. Aramaic. 34,200
Ananian, 82 Aramazd, 80
AnaniasofSirak. See AnaniaShirakatsi. Ararat, 7.10.11.23.37.101,183
Anastas. Catholicos. 124,221 Ararat, Mount. See Mount Ararat.
Anastasius, Emperor. 111 Aratsani River. See Euphrates.
Anatolia, 2.8. 12.22.23.25. 26. 32. 37.38.144. AraxesRiver. 7.8.9. 14.42.46.49. 50. 51. 56,
228.286.313, 320 66.79, 120, 127,130. 135,146,149,157,
Anazarba. 278.279.285. 288 163,177,183
Anberd. 252 Arcax. See Artsakh.
Andovk Siwni, 87,90 A r iH . See Aijesh.
Andrianople. 91 Archon(ruler), 191
Andzevatsik. See Anjewac'ik*. Aren(Ardzn), 178, 180.181,245
Andzit. 29 Arcruni, 87,130.131,135.137.142.154,181.
AngeghTun. See Angl. See also Artsruni; Artsnmid; andnam es
Angl, 31 of individual Arcruni princesandkings.
Anhotin. See DavidAnhoghin. Arcruni, ASot. See AJot Arcruni (Ashot Artsruni)
Ani, 7.8.136. 165.166,167,168. 169.170,171. of Vaspurakan.
172. 173, 178,180.181.182, 184.190. Arcruni, ASot-Sahak. See A&ot-SahakArcruni.
191,192,193,194, 195,196.237, 245. Arcruni, GagikI. See GagikI Arcruni (Artsruni).
251,252, 253.257. 258, 266,268. 269 Arcruni, GagikApumruan. See GagikApumruan
Ani-Kamakh, 16,69.76.80 Arcruni.
Ani-Kamax. See Ani-Kamakh. Arcruni, Grigor-Derenik. See Grigor-Derenik
Ani-Shirak, 249 Arcruni.
Anjewac'ik*, 150. 154, 163. 164,166.183.190 Arcruni, GurgSn. See GurginArcruni, Princeof
Annals, Tacitus. 76 Mardastan.
Antioch. 55.58.195. 201.246.248. 274.276. Arcruni, Hamazasp. See HamazaspArcruni.
278,280.281,282.309 Arcruni, Metuiaa See MerulanArcruni
Antioch, Principalityof, 277 (MeruzhanArtsruni).
Antiochenes, 286 Arcruni. Sahak. See SahakArcruni.
Antiochos, KingofCommagene. 51 Arcruni, Sargis-ASot. See Sargis-Aiot Arcruni
Antiochos(Antiochus) III, King. 45. 52 (Sargis-Ashot Artsruni).
AntiochosIV. King. 45.47.214 Arcruni, Senek'erim-Yovhaimts. See
Antiquities o f the Jews, Josephus. 217 Senek‘erim-Yovhann£s Arcruni
Anti-Taurus Mountains, 6,274 Arcruni, Tovma. See TovmaArcruni.
Anzetena. 104 Arcruni, Xa£ik-Gagik. See Xatfk-GagikArcruni.
Apahunik. 132. 168.174 Ardabil. 178
Aparak*. 172 Ardahan. 178
Aphthonius, 219 Ardashir I, 34. 71, 72. 74.93
Apollinaris. 69 Ardaiir. See Ardashir I.
Apollo. 51 Ardini, 29
Apollo/Tir. 80 Ardoates. 46
354 INDEX
Ardzke. 9 Artamet, 30
Ardzn. See Aren. ArtanuC(Artanuch), 178.
Arebsun. 34 Artaiat. See ArtashaL
Areguni Mountains, 6 Artatts. See Artashes.
Area, 9.108 Arta&sid. See Artashesid.
Arghun-Khan. Emir. 259,261,264 Artashat, 7, 50.51.56.58.59.60.64.66.68.69.
Argina, 168.171.184 70. 79. 80.90.92.99,102.183
Argishti, King. 30 Artashes, last Arshakuni king. 93
Argishti II. King. 27 Artashes1,26,45-52passim, 78.
Arianism, 89 ArtashesIL 61
AnnBerd. See Erebuni. Artasheshid. 28.48. 50.52.55.61.66.76
Ariobarzanes. 61 Artavan. See ArtawanV.
Aristakes. Catholicos. 84.85 ArtavazdL See ArtawazdI.
AristakesGrid), 306 ArtavazdD. See ArtawazdII.
AristakesLastivertc'i. See AristakesLastiverttsi. Artaxata. See Artashat
AristakesLastivertsi. See AristakesLastiverttsi. ArtawanV.71
AristakesLastiverttsi (Aristakesof LastiveitX Artawazd1.52.54.61.199
174,180.194,195, 233,235-36,242, Artawazd II, 57,60,61
247. ArtawazdUI. 61.62
Aristakesof Lastivert See AristakesLastiveittsi. ArtawazdIV. 61.
AristakestheRhetorician, 255 ArtawazdMamikonean. See Mamikonean
Aristotle. 218,219.237. 308,323 Artawazd.
Arjesh.9.29.132,135.149,169.178,244.252. Artaxata. See Artashat.
262,268. 269 Artaxiad. See Artasheshid.
Arkha. 19.20 Artaxias I. See Artashes1.
Armavir (Armawir). 42,46,51 Artaxias n. See ArtashesII.
Arme-Shupria. 26,32 Artaxiasala, 49
Armentribe, 2 Artaz.82.100,120.133
Armenian History, 43 Artemis/Anahit, 51. 80
Armenios, 33 Arter. 9
Armenoi. 40,41 Artsakh. 8. 15.92. 138.139.146. 157,252.253.
“Annina," 38.40,41 254.267.270,307
Armlniya. 126,147 ArtsakhMountains. 6
Armsames(ArSam). 50 Artsruni, 16.229. See also Arcruni.
Aroandes. 46 Artsnmi/Mankaberdelis. 252
ArpaRiver, 8 Artsruni, Thomas. See TovmaArtsruni.
Arran. 120. 132,133, 178 Artsrunids, 30.32.252.253.263,269. See also
A rt Grammatica, Dionysius Thrax, 218 Arcruni; andnamesof individual
Arsarid(Arshakuni)dynasty, 52, 55.63-93pas Artsruni princes andkings.
sim, 104.149,150,181,212 Artukidsof Aghdznik. 248
Ariak(Arshak). 106 Aruandes.46
Ariak(Arshak) II. 32.85.86.88.89.90 Aru£(Aruch), 123.124.131.155
Ariak(Arshak) ID. 85.91.92.104 Arwastan, 108
Ariakawan. 89. Arzan£n€/AIjnik(Aghdznik), 75,77
Ariakuni. See Arsacid. Arzani, 30
Arsamosata(AriamaSat, Arshamashat), 50 Arzn, 135
Ariamnik, 89.90.118,131, 136,146, 147,150 Arzni. 15
Arshak. See Ariak. Arzu-khatun. 304
Arshakavan. See Ariakawan. Asar Sebastatsi. 302, 322
Arshakuni. See Arsacid(Arshakuni) dynasty. Ashguza. 27
Arshakuni. Arshak. See Ariak(Arshak). Ashkenaz, 27,37
Arshakuni. Khosrov. See Khosrov, King. Ashkharhatsuyts (Geography), Anania
Arshakuni, Pap. See Pap. King. Shirakatsi, 115. 221-22
Arshakuni. Tiran. See Tiran. King. Ashot. See ASot.
Arshakuni. Trdad(Tiridates). See Trdad Ashtishat. 83. 85.88.201. 210.230
(Tiridates), King. Asia. 8.10. 12, 31. 38.41.44.108,129.144,
Arshakuni, Vagharsh. See Vagharsh, King. 235. 243. 244.246, 247.249. 250, 251.
Arshakuni, Vramshapuh. See Vramshapuh. 256,257, 262.264, 267.268, 273,278.
Arsharunik. See Ariarunik. 279.280, 281.284. 286,289. 321
Artabazus. 61 Askanaz. 27
Artagers. 90,131 Asotik. See StepanosAsoghik(Taronetsi).
INDEX 355
ASot(Ashot). PrinceofTarftn, 189 164,167.169.177,244.245.252.256,

Afot Arcruni (Ashot Artsruni) of Vaspurakan, 257.259.261.267
139.140.141.167 Azerbaijani Turks, 5
ASot(Ashot) Bagratuni. 127 Azeri Turkish. 320
ASot (Ashot) 1(TheGreat) Bagratuni, 142,144, Azhdahak. 28. 32.33.34
146-49.130. 153.154, 172. 176.181 Azitan. 270
ASot(Ashot) II (E rka t‘) Bagratuni, 139,160,
161.162. 163.165.171.173. 174,176 Blbak. 137,138.139
ASot (Ashot) 10O lorm ac' (Merciful) Bagratuii. Babeton, 276
164.165.166.171, 172. 173, 179.181. Babylon. Babylonians. 19.20.28.32.37. 38. 314
187 Babylonian Annals. 37
ASot (Ashot) IV (theBrave, K 'aj) Bagratuni, Bactria.49
190.191 Bagaharich. See Bagayarift
ASot(Ashot) Bagratuni, anti-king, 163,164 Bagaran. 51.147, 148.149.160.161.172.181.
ASot(Ashot) Bagratuni. Ishkhan, 132 268
ASot (Ashot) Bagratuni, Ishkhan (‘‘theBlind”), Bagarat, Princeof Iberia. 146
128.129.130.131 Bagarat. PrinceofTarftn. 147
ASot(Ashot) Bagratuni, M saker, 136,137,142, Bagarat Bagratuni. 137,138,139.140,141.144,
146 148.150.188
ASot(Ashot) Bagratuni. Sparapet, 157 Bagawan/Bagavan, 51,80.91.131
ASot-SahakArcruni (Ashot-SahakArtsruni). 166 Bagayarift(Bagaharich), 51,80
Asprakania. See Themeof Vaspurakan. Bagdates. 56
Assizes o f Antioch, 283,300 Baghdad, 73. 125,136,143.155.156,183.238.
Assyria. Assyrians, 27.30. 32. 38 260.261.264.268
AssyrianMarch. 77 BaghdasarDpir, 316
Astghik. 79 Baghesh/Billis. 120, 265
Asthianena. 104 Baghk, 166
AStiSat. See AshtishaL Baghras(Gaston), 281.282
Asttilc. See Astghik. Bagrat. Kingof WesternIberia, 168.169,189
Astrakhan. 268. 301 Bagrat Bagratuni, Sparapet, 132,133
Astyagesof Media, 19.28. 34 Bagratof Abkhazia. 170
Alalia. 250 Bagralid(Bagratuni)dynasty. 78,104,118,129,
Athens. 80.219,221 130.131.135,136. 137. 142,143-84pas-
AtmersehII of Iberia. 149.151,152,155.156, sim, 189,194, 263. See also nam esof in
157,159,168 dividual Bagratuni princesandkings.
Atropal£n6.55. 58, 59.60 Bagratids. See Bagratid(Bagratuni) dynasty.
Atrpatakan, 92.151.312 Bagratidsof Ani. See Bagratid(Bagratuni) dy
Atstz, General, 248 nasty.
Atticus. Patriarch. 203 Bagratuni. Abas. See Abas Bagratuni.
Allis. 33 Bagratuni. ASot (Ashot). See ASot(Ashot)
Augustus, Emperor, 61.62,63 Bagratuni.
Aurelian. Emperor. 74 Bagratuni. Bagarat. See Bagarat Bagratuni.
Autiyara, 19 Bagratuni. Bagrat. See Bagrat Bagratuni.
Autobiography, AnaniaShirakatsi. 221 Bagratuni. Gagik. See GagikBagratuni.
Avarayr(Awarayr). 100, 101. 142, 213,214 Bagratuni. Sapuh. See SapuhBagratuni.
Avdall. 301 Bagratuni. Smbat. See Smbal Bagratuni.
Avicenna. 302 Bagratuni. Varaz Tiroc*(Tirots). See Varaz
Avnik. 269 Tiroc*(Tirots) Bagratuni.
Avromanvillage. 50 Bagratuni. Vasak. See VasakBagratuni.
Awan. 112 Bagratuni. Yovhannis-Smbat (Hovhannes-
Ayas. 262, 284,287 Smbat). See Yovhannts-Smbai Bagratuni.
Ayn Jalut. 286 Bagtevand. See Bagrewand.
Ayrarat, 15.120.148,245. 252,265,267,268 Bagrewand.7.51. 118. 130, 131. 132,133.134,
Ayrivank, 139,264 141, 142, 146.154, 159, 170. 253
Ayyubids, 258,286 Bahunis. 135
Azaria. See AzariaSasnetsi. Baiburt, 254,265, 269
AzariaSasnetsi (Azariaof Sasun), 298 Baiju-noyin. 258.259,260
Azat River. 108,225.226 Baku. 320
Azerbaijan, 2,8.17.49. 54,55,120,125,131. Balabitena, 104
134.135.136,137. 138. 140.143.149. Balakasan, 73
152.153.154.155. 156.157.162, 163. Balasakan, 138
356 INDEX
Baldwin, KingofJerusalem, 279 “Bookof Medicine," Buniat, 302

Baldwinof Boulogne, 277 “Bookof Questions."GrigorTatevatsi, 297,309.
Balik. See LakeGaylatu. 324
Balk1.See EasternSiwnik*. Book o f Roads and Kingdoms, The. 178
Balkans. 107,109,130,190 “Bookof Synopses,”Grigor Abasian, 308
Balthasar. 238 Borborites, 222
BanuSunbat (Sonsof Smbat 1), 16$ Brk'iioy. See Brkisho.
Banu-Dayrani (Sonsof Deienik), 16$ Brkisho, 98
Bar Hebraeus, 242 Bubak. Prince. 254
Baraq. 264 Bughial-Kabir‘TheElder” 140,141.229
Barbalissus, 73 Bulgaria. 193
BardasSlderos, 168 Buniat Sebastatsi (Buniatof Sebastia). 302
Bardha'a. See Partaw. Buqa, 261
Bardzberd, 278 Burtel Oibelian. Prince. See Orbelian, Burtel,
Barlaam, 319 Prince.
Barshamin(Baiiamin). 79 Buzand, P’awstos. See PavstosBuzand.
Bartolomeodi Bologna. Bishop, 312,313 Buzand. Pavstos. See PavstosBuzand.
Basean, 168 ByzantineChalcedonianOrthodoxy, 174,194,
Basen. 24$. 2$2, 268 313
Basil I. 141.144.148.172,188,232 ByzantineChurch. 16,197
Basil n. 168,169,170,171.189.190.191 ByzantineEmpire/Byzantium, $. 6.89.101,103.
Basil ofCaesarea, 204,221 104.108.110. HI. 112. 113,114,11$.
Basprakania. See Themeof Vaspuruakan. 117,120. 122.125, 127. 130,132, 135.
Basropeda. See Vaspurakan. 136,141. 144,146. 147, 150, 151, 157.
Batman, 8 159,162, 168.169,170. 172, 175,178,
BayazidII, Sultan. 268 183.188.189.191.192. 194,207,211.
Bayazit. 271 223.227,231.232,243, 244, 24$. 246.
Baybars, MamlukSultan. 286 247.248, 274,276,279,281.283. 287,
Beatriceof Saone, 278 294,308.311.312
Behistun, 19. 32. 34.38.40.41 Bznuni, 87
Bekarich. 269 BznuniatsDzov ('Seaof Bznunik’). See Lake
Bel. 32 Van.
Belakan. 263 Bznunik'. 108.120
B6r. Princeof Abkhazia, 163,17$
Berke. 260,264 Caesarea, 81.82.83.88.91.98.210.24$. 248.
Berkri. 134.13$. 149.178.26$. 269 258,260
Biaina. 23.29.40 Cairo. 289
Bible, the. 23.24. 37. 204.20$. 210. 217.224, Cappadocia. 44. $4. 56. $7. $9.63.69.81.82,
234,23$. 237.294, 299, 306.310. 312, 88.172.174.192. 193.196.197,210.
321,324 232.243,246.294,311
Bidlis, 13$ Cappadocia-Galatia. 68
Bitlis, 8,9.120,26$. 268 CappadocianFathers, 308
BiurakanMountains, 7 CarpathianMountains, 244
Biwrakan(Biurakan). 161 Carrhae. 60.73
Bjni, 24$. 2$2. 2$3.2$4.266. 267 CaspianAlbania. 92
BlackMountain, 309 CaspianGates, 260
BlackSea, 2,8.10.12.2$. 31.41.49. $9.103. CaspianSea. 2.8.10.49. $$. 101,113.123,227,
10$. 127, l$2,178, 250.261.262. 294 254.264
“BloodyLake.” 141 Castle o f Oblivion, 90
Bodhisattva, 319 Catalans. 284
BohemondIII. Princeof Antioch. 279,280.281. Catecheses (of Cyril of Jerusalem). 204, 210
282 Categories, Aristotle. 219
Bohtan. 8 CatholicChurch. 16
Bologna. 303 Catholicism. 269,270.273.282.283. 287. 313.
Bolorpahakits. 253 323
“BookConcerningNature,“ Ishokh. 309 CaucasianAlbania. 99.100.112,122,126,154,
BookofChreiai (G irk Pitoyits). 219 163.172. 230,248. 261, 30$. See also
Book o fD e d e Korkut. 247 Albania(Caucasian).
Book o f Lam entations, Grigor Narekatsi (Greg* Caucasus. 2. 100,103.152, 222,244.256.257,
oryofNarek). 232.310 259.260,262.263.266.267.268. 320
Book o f U tters, 223. 231,233 Chagri-Bey Daud. 244
INDEX 357
Chalcedon, 114 ConstantiusII. 85.86.89

ChalcedonianChristianity. 112.120.127.147. Cop'k. See Soph€ni.
159,174,175.178.231,245, 311 Corbulo, 66.67
Chaldaeans, 40 Council of Ani, 171,174, 175
Chapaghjur. 267 Council ofChalcedon. 111. 122.220,224.231,
Charek, 258 308
Chobanids. 266.267 Council of Kap'an. 165.173
Chormaghun. General. 257 Council of Manazkert, 128
ChorokhRiver. 8.111.125.160,203. 319 Council ofOrthodoxy. 139
Christendom. 222, 226.234,236.282 Council of Sirakawan, 175
ChristianCaucasia. Caucasians. 257,260.266 Council of 607. 113
Christianity, Christ. 5.13.20.23.24,34,71.80- Council ofTrent, 323
93.96,98.102.114.121.124,127.135. Council of Union. 112
201,202.209,213,237.250.255,257, "Counselsof Nushirvan." 318
266.270.294.305,315,318 Countof Armenia, 93.103,104
Christians. 108,159.167.177-78,179.249.257, CountofTripoli, 282. See also Tripoli.
260.261. 266.271,276.283,286.298. Counter Reformation, 323
295,299,315, Countyof Edessa, 277,278. See also Edessa.
Chronicle. AnaniaShirakatsi. 221 Crassus, 60
Chronicle, Eusebiusof Caesarea. 205,217 Crimea, 313
Chronicle o fS m b a t, 286 Crusades/Cmsaders. 234. 251,276-80,282.283.
Chrysostom, John. See JohnChrysostom. 285,294
Cicero, 60 Crypto-Christianity. 270
Cildir. See LakeTseli. Gesiphon, 71,113,114
Cilicia, 41.56, 59.144,195.197.198,233.234. Cyaxares. King, 28,38
238,246, 248,251, 255.257,259.273, Cybele. 33
274-90. 294, 297. 300. 304, 305.306. Cyprus. 108. 279.281,288.287
311,314 Cyril of Alexandria, 204,224
CilicianGates, 274,276 Cyril ofJerusalem. 204,210
Cimmerians. 27 Cyropaideia (‘The EducationofCyrus'). 20
“City of Bronze." 319 Cyrus D(theGreat). 19.28.34
Clavijo, Ruy Gonzalesde. Ambassador, 242.
269,270. 271 Dabil. See Dvin.
Gement m. Pope, 281 Dadarshi. 19
Geopatraof Pontus, 57 Dadarshish. 41
CleopatraVII. 61 Dadariii See Dadarshish.
CodeNapoleon. 299 Damascus. 122. 126.127. 268.279.286
Colkaoc‘ac‘. See Dzoghkotsats. Daniel. Bookof, 314
Colonea, 245 Daniel. Syrian Bishop. 86,202
Commagene. See KommagtnS. Daniel Abegha. 303
“Complaint toChrist." HovhannesErznkatsi. 318 Daniel ofTarOn. Bishop. 83
"ConcerningtheHoraeandOther Beastsof Bur Danishmendids. 248
den." AbuSa’id, 302 Danishmend-name. 247
C onciliations Ecclesiae Arm enae cum Romano. Dante, 33
ClemensGalanus. 323 Dara, 105
“Conferenceof theBirds," KostandinErznkatsi. Daranaghik. 16. 76.83.85. 104. 124
315 Daranalik*. See Daranaghik.
CongregationforthePropagationof theFaith. Darband(Derbend). 254,267
323 "Daredevilsof Sasun."295,320
"Consolationof Fevers, The" Mkhitar Heratsi, Daria) Pass. 152
301 Darius1.19. 32
Constantine1.85.96.285,287.288.289.299 DariustheGreat, 38.41.319
ConstantineV. 129.130 Daronyk'. 118
ConstantineIX. 192.193 Databey, 87
Constantineof Erzinka. See KostandinErznkatsi. Datuan(Daivan). 164
Constantinople. 87,96.98.100.104.112.113. David. Curopalate. 175
122.146. 159,160.173, 174.184.188. DavidAnhoghin, Kingof Tashir-Dzoraget, 170.
189.191. 192.194.195.196. 203. 204. 172,192
206.215, 221.225,226. 233. 234. 278. DavidAnholin' (theLandless). See David An
285.287,294.298,308.313.316.320. hoghin.
321,322, 323 DavidMamikon, 214
358 INDEX
DavidMamikonean. See Mamitonean, David. Ecclesiastical History, EusebiusofCaesaic, 204

DavidofDvin. 124, 126 Echmiadzin. 7,81.210,215.269.270.307,314,
Davidof Lori-Taiir. King. 192 322
Davidof Sasun. See Sasuntsi Davit. Edessa, 82.83.202.203.204,206.246.248.
DavidofTayk*. 167-70,177,189,191 259,276,277,278,313
DavidSaharuni. 118 Edessa, School of. 308
David“theInvincible." 219,235,308 Eghegis, 270
DavidtheRestorer/Builder, 251 Eghishe(Elishe). 72.100.102.115.209.211.
Davit Gandzaketsi. 298 212.213.214.216.219,226. 227.229.
Davit Kobayretsi. 2SS, 308 235
Davit Sasuntsi. See Sasuntsi Davit. Egil. See Angl.
Dawit‘, 172 Egypt. 157. 234.238.260.264.279.285.286.
Dawit*II. Catholicos, 138 287,322
D aw it' o f Sasun, 141-42 EgyptianFathers. 204
DaylamiteSallirids. 177 EighteenthSatrapyor Province, 40
Daylamites, Persian. 243,244 Eisagoge, Porphyry. 219
DeBry Bible. 321 Ejmiacin. See Echmiadzin.
DeadSea. 10 Ekeghiats. 16.43.49.92, 104
DebedRiver. 8 Ekeghiats. Peaceof, 92
“DefinitionsandDivisionsofPhilosophy.” 219 Ekeleac*. See Ekeghiats.
Demeslikos(GrandDomestic), 161 Elem ents o f Theology. Neoplatonic. 311
Demetr, 175 Elias(Eghia), 124.127
DemetreI, 251 Elisavetpol, 17
Derbent. 123 Elite. See Eghishe.
Derjan. 16,49 ENshe. See Eghishe.
Derxbte(Terjan). See Derjan. English. 289
Diarbekir. 133.178.248 Enzite. 30
Dilijan, 15 Ephesus. 203
DioCassius. 63.70. 71, 72 Ephesus, (Ecumenical Cbuncil of. 98.111
Diocletian. 74.75. 82.93 EphremtheSyrian. 204,224
Dionysius theAieopagite, 226.308,309 Epic H istoriesJhe. 75.76.78.82.83.84.85.87.
DionysiusThrax. 218.308 88.89.90.91
Divrigi. 258 Epic Tales. Pavstos. 212
Diyir-Bakr, 132. 134.140. See also D iarbekir . EpratRiver. See Euphrates.
DiyarMudar. 134 Er.33
Djahhlf. 133.134,135 ErlnSahr. 74
Djahhifids, 135,136.138,147 Erato, 62
Djazira. 123,126,130,133 Erazamoyn. 80
Djughayctsi, Mateos. See MattcosJughayetsi. Erazgavork. 151
Dmanis, 258 Ercek. See LakeArchishak.
Domenicus Auda. 303 Erebuni. 27.29
Dopi, 254 Erevan, 2.7.8.9.10. 13. 14.17.27,29. 37,112.
Dopianlords. 253.270 123, 253, 321
Dopiank. 254 Erevantsi, Oskan. See OskanErevanisi.
Drazark. 306 Erfz. 43. 80
Duin. See Dvin. E rka t *“theIronKing.”See ASot II (E rkat')
DUrer. 321 Ermesa. 70
Dux Armeniae, 103, 104 Emdjak(Emjak). 158.181.267.268
Dvin. 7.11. 15. 79, 88.92.101. 102, 108,112, Eruand(Ervand). King. 44.45.46.47.48. 51
115.120.121.124. 125.126.128. 131. Emandakert, 50
133.135. 138.141.147-83passim, 188. Eruandids, 46.47.48.75.76.83
190,192. 194.224. 225. 252. 253. 254. Ervandashat. 7
257 Erzerum. 2.5.7,10.13.66.102.248.258,260.
Dyonysios. Bishopof Alexandria. 83 261,262, 265. 266.267. 322. See also
Dzanark. 152 Karin; Theodosiopolis.
Dzipan. 9 Erzinjan, 5.7.11.69.178.248.257,258.260.
Dzoghkatsats. 168 262.265.267,268.269.271
Erznga. See Erzinjan.
EastGeorgia. See Georgia. Erznka. 305. 322. See also Erzinjan.
EasternSiwnik. 190.193 Esayi Nchetsi. 312
Ecbatana, 19.38.55. 244 Etchmiadzin. See Echmiadzin.
INDEX 359
Ethiopic, 209 Gateof Mithra. 30

Euclid. 233 Gateof theAlans. 152
Euphrates. 7. IS. 16.23.29.44. SO. S4. SS. 60. Gaugamela, battleof, 41,45
63.69.73,82,93.95,105.117.132.144, Gayane, 81
147,178.188,194, 202.231.232. 284 GayIGet. See Kelkit River.
Eurasianplain. 2
Euripides. 51.57 Geghakunik. See Getakunik'.
Europe. 248.278. 280,284.285,289.296,321. Gegham.See LakeSevan.
322.324 Gegharkuni. See LakeSevan.
Europeans, 283 Gegharkunik. 253
EusebiusofCaesarea, 204,235 Gelakunik*. 137.138.144,146
EusebiusofEmesa. 204 Genghis-Khan. 256.260
Evagriusof Pontus. 204. 308, 310 Genoa(Genoese). 261.297
Ezdin, Emirof Van. 270,268 Gtorg DofGarni (GevorgGametsi), 147,148,
Eznik, 204.206.207.222 151,153,172
Ezr. Catholicos, 113 GeorgErznkatsi. 298
GeorgSkevratsi, 306
Fars.74 Georgi III. 251
FaustosBuzand. See PavstosBuzand. Gcorgi IV Lasha. King. 256,257
FirstCouncil of Dvin, 111 Georgi VII. King. See Giorgi VO.
FirstCrusade. 248,276 Georgia, 2,8.49. 73. 246,247.248. 251-53,256.
FourthCrusade, 285 259.268. 271,318. See also Iberia.
FraMartimis. 306 Georgian Chronicle, 242
France. 289.323 Georgians. 5.209. 223. 230,249.257
FratresUnitores. 312.324 Getabek. 258
FrederickBarbarossa. Emperor. 281 Getik. 255
Freemasons, 30 Ghatagha-noyin, 258
French. 283.284,294.302 Ghazan-Khan. 265.266
Frik, 312, 317 Ghazar Baberdatsi (Lazar of Baberd), 321
Ghazarof Baberd. See Ghazar Baberdatsi.
Gabetean*. See Yovhamis II Gabelean GhazarofParp. See Ghazar Parpetsi.
(HovhannesGabeghian). Ghazar P‘arpec‘i. See Ghazar Parpetsi.
Gabriel (or Khoril) of Melitene, 274 Ghazar Parpetsi (Lazarof Parp) (Lazar
Gag. 175,251 P'arpec'i) (Ghazar P4arpec‘i). 85.100.
GagikApumruanArcruni, 146.149 101,110.207.211.213.214,215.221.
GagikI Arcruni (Artsruni), 156.157.159.160. in
162,163.164,166. 170.171,173, 174. Ghevond(Levond) (Lewond) thePriest, 101,
176.189.228.229 123-24.127-31,227
Gagik1Bagratuni. 163, 167.169. 170. 171,173, Ghiyathal-DinKai Khusrau. Sultanof Rum. 258
176.181.189.190, GhukasLoretsi. 297
GagikII Bagratuni. 191.192.193.195.245.248. GhukasVanandetsi, 321
276 Giardino Spiriiuale, Thomas I Kempis. 324
GagikII ofAni. See Gagik II Bagratuni. Giamiani, 29
GagikI of Vaspurakan. See GagikI Arcruni Gilan. 264
(Artsruni). Giorgi VII, KingofGeorgia. 268
Gagik*Abas. Kingof Kars, 171-72. 184.192. GiorgioBaglivi. 302
194, 197. 243. 245 Girk Pitoyits (Bookof Chreiai), 219
Gahnamak “RankList." 78 Giumri (Leninakan). 12.42
Gaius. 61 Giut. 101.110
Galanus. Clemens, 323 Giwt. See Giut.
Galanus, Clement. See Galanus. Clemens. Gladzor, 264.312
Galen, 301 Gndevank*. 172
Gamirk. See Cimmerians. Gnel.89
G andz Chapoy. Ghukas Vanandetsi. 321 Gnuni. Vahan. 132
Gandzak. 14. 134.169. 191.248.252.256. 257, Gnuni lords. 78.103.118.132.134
298 Golcuk(Little Sea). See LakeOzovk.
Gandzasar, 304 Gobidara, 274
Ganja. See Gandzak. Gogarent. See Gugark.
Gardman. 148.157,160.258 GoghVasil (Basil theRobber). 247.274.276
Gargar, 8 Goghtn. SeeGolt’n.
Garni. 29,68.80.108.257.267 Gogovit, 108
360 INDEX
Golden Horde. 260.267.26* Gurgen(Kiwrike) Bagratuni, KingofTashir-

“Golden Mother," 80 Dzoraget, 166.172
Golfn. 13.120,133,149,160,163, 167,169, Gurgenof Anjewac'ik' (Andzevatsik). 156
177 Gurgen-Xae‘ikof Anjewac‘ik(Andzevatsik). 166
Gomer. See Cimmerians. Guy Lusignan. King. 288
Gordi£n£(GonJyene), IS. SS Guyuk, Great Khan, 259
Gorgon. 270
Gori. 2S1 Habibibn-Maslamah, 121
Gosh. See MkhitarGosh. Hachakhaptatum, Gregory, 222, 223
Grammar. DionysiusThrax. 233 Hac‘iwn(Hatsiun). 108
Grand Miroir, 323 Hadamakert. 172
Great Britain. 5.11 Hadrian, 70
Great Seljuks. 247 Hagarite, 158
Greece. Greeks. 1.32, 33.41,42.49. S6.146. Haghbat. 165,166.172.194.237,251,264.304
152.161. 162.164,175, 193, 201, 202, HagiaSophia, Churchof, 184
203,204, 205.206, 209. 220, 223, 231. Haik. 24,31,32,217
234,235, 245.249, 274, 279. 283. 299, Hakera, 8
301,302,319 Hakob, CatholicosofSis. 269
Gr6goiredeNarek. See Grigor Narekalsi. HakobGhrimetsi, 307
Gregorids. 83 HakobKroetsi, 313
Gregory Magistros. See Grigor Magistros. HakobJughayetsi. 324
Gregory Nazianzenus. 204.206 HakobMeghapart, 321
Gregory of Narek. See Grigor Narekalsi. Ha!bac‘. See Haghbat.
Gregory of Nyssa, 224 Haldi, 23,28,29
Gregory ofTatev. See GrigorTatevatsi. Haldita, 19.23,26
Gregory (Grigor) theDluminator(Saint), 72,78. HalysRiver. See Kizil IrmakRiver.
81-84.113,122.124, 172,173,194.198. Ham. 217
201,206, 209,210, 211.222. 230.255, Hamadan. See Ecbaiana.
312 HamazaspArcruni, 133
Gregory (Grigor) Vkayaser. See Grigor II HamazaspMamikonean. See Mamikonean.
Vkayastr. Hamazasp.
GrigorDaranaghtsi. 305. 322 HamdAllahMustawfi Qazvini. 268
GrigorDanmaghetsi. See Grigor Daranaghtsi. Hamdanids, 143,163,164
Grigor Kiliketsi, 302 Hark', 166.168.170
GrigorMagistros. 139,174.194.195.196.197. Harran, 127,143
233-36,245.249,294, 295,313 Hfirtki al-Rvhld, 133
Grigor Mamikoncan. See Mamikonean, Grigor. Hasanlalal. Prince. 254.261.263
GrigorNarekatsi. 174,231, 232.310 Hashtiank. 15
Grigorof Narek. See Grigor Narekatsi. Hayasa. 26
Hayastan, 17
Grigorof Tatev. See Grigor Tatevatsi. Haysmavurk, 231
GrigorSkevratsi, 255,306*310 Hebrews. 202,322
Grigor Sup‘an1.138 Helen. 123
Grigor Sup‘anII. 157 Hellenism. Hellenization, 50.51.52.81.220
GrigorTatevatsi (Gregory of Tatev), 271, 297, Hellespont. 25
307-9. 312, 324 Henotikon, 1 11
Grigor Tgha. Catholicos. 255.281.299, 310 Hephaistos/Mihr, 80
Grigor II Vkayarfr, 172,173. 197, 234-35 Hephaistos/Vahagn. 80
Grigor-DerenikArcruni (Artsruni). 140,141. Heradius, 113,118,227
144,146, 148.149, 150 Heraides, 51. 52
Grigoris Aghtamartsi. 319 HermesTrismegistus. 207,213
Gmer, 306 Herodotus. 20.25.28.31.34.38.40.218
Gugark'. 15. 16.49.92, 148.150. 152.154. 156, Hesiod. 51
158.159, 183.246. 251,270 Hesychius. 31
Gulfof Alexandretia, 284 Hetum1.285.286,287, 300. 303, 309
Gumnias. 42 HetumII. 287,288. 305
Gumri. 12 Hetumof Korikos. Constableof Cilicia, 294, 306
Gurgen, Princeof Iberia. 157, 159,160.170 Hetumids(Heturaians), 276,277,279,280,285-
GurgenAicnmi, PrinceofMardastan, 141, 144, 88
150 Hexaemeron, Basil ofCaesarea, 204,221
GurgenArcruni, 9thcentury, 141 Hippocrates. 301
INDEX 361
Hippolytus, 33 Hovhames Sarkavag(or Imastaser). See Johnthe

Hilam(Hisham), 128.129 Deacon/Philosopher.
Histories, Mkhitarof Ani. 206 Hovhames Tlkurantsi (Johnof Tlkuran), 316
Histories, Ukhtanes. 208.231 HovhamesTsortsoretsi, 312, 313
History. Agathangelos. 210.222 Hovhames Vorotnetsi, 311.322
History, Aristafces, 235-36 Hovnatan, Naghash, 316, 317
History, Ghazar Paipetsi, 207,213.214 Hovsep(YovsepVJoseph). actingCatholicos. 98.
History, Johnof Draskhanakert. 228 99. 101.110
History. Khorenatsi, 215 Hrazdan. 8.9.14.138
History. Pavstos. 212 Hrip'simt, 81
History, ShapuhBagratuni. 208.228.230 Hromkla, 278. 284, 287.290.294,299, 307. 318
History, Tovma Metzopetsi. 156.268 Hulegu(Hulagu) Khan. 259,260,263
History o f Armenia. 46, 75,99 Hunarakert. 152
History o f Heraclius, Scbeos. 208,227 Huns. 99.100,103
History o f Kartli. 251 Hurazdan(Hrazdan) River. 108
H istory o f the Aghvank. M osesofDaskhuran Hurro-Urarteans, 23.26
(Movses Daskhunmtsi), 230 Hyrcania. 227
History o f the A rtsruni House. ThomasAitsnmi.
208.229 lazoniasacrifice. 43
History o f the Churches a n d Monasteries o f Iberia(Caucasian), 66.68,84,92,99,101,102,
Egypt. 308 108.112, 117.120.122,126,135,136.
History o f Vardan and the Arm enian War. 141,146. 147.149.151.153.155,169.
Eghishe, 99.212-14 174,173, 175,178. 191.192
HittiteEmpire. Hittites. 22,25,31.32 IberianMarch. 77.99
Homer, 218 ttmal-Athir, 153.162. 164.242
Honents. Tigran, ofAni, 194,255,321 IbnBibi. 242
Horvnizd-Ardashir. 73 IbnBanna. See IbnBattuta.
HoromosVank\ 163 IbnBattuta, 242, 322
HovasapSebastalsi. 319 IbnHauqal. See IbnHawkal.
Hovhannes. directorof Metzopmonastery. 271 IbnHawkal. 148.164,165.167,177.181. 182.
Hovhannes, Archbishop. 303 183
Hovhannes(Mamikonian), Bishop. 230 IbnKhaldun, historian. 183, 184
Hovhannes. Catholicos. See Hovhannes IbrahimInnal. 245
(Yovhamts) Draskhanakerttsi. Iconia/Konia. 248
"Hovhames andAsha," HovhannesEnnkatsi, D-Khans. Mongol. 259,260.263, 265.266
295 im itatio Christi, Thomas h Kempis, 324
HovhannesDraskhanakertsi. See Hovhannes India. 49.102,284. 301.321
(Yovhannis) Draskhanakerttsi. Indo-Europeans, 25,26
Hovhames (Yovhannis) Draskhanakerttsi (John Ingalava. 31
of Draskhanakert) (Yovhamis Ingel6n£/Angehun. 75.104
Drasxanakertc'i), CatholicosandHisto loasaph, 319
rian, 138,139,147,148,152-63passim, Iran, 2, 5. 6,10. 19, 23.27.28.32.33. 34. 35.
171,172. 173,174, 181, 182, 184, 228 63. 71.73, 85,95.96. 102.117. 162. 178.
HovhannesErznkatsi (Johnof Erzinka), 295. 202,222, 227.243. 244, 245,247. 248,
297, 303.317 263.268. 286, 287.289. See also Persia;
HovhannesGametsi. 255 PersianEmpire.
HovhannesHolov, 324 IranianDaylamites. 190
HovhannesKmetsi of Siunik, 269 Iraq. 6. 183. 268
HovhannesMakuetsi (Johnof Maku), 313 Irene. Empress. 132
Hovhannes(Yovhannts) Mandakuni (JohnI Iris. See Yesil River.
Mandakuni), 101, 102,222-24 Isabelle. See Zabel (Isabelle). Queen.
HovhannesMrkuz. 324 Isfahan. 313
HovhannesOdznetsi (Yovhannis Ojnec'i) (John Ishkhan, 175
of Odzun), 125,128.129,223,225,298 Ishokh. 309
Hovhannesof Erzinjan. See Hovhannes Ishpuni. King. 27
Erznkatsi. Islam, 5. 13.121,133.134.141,143,158. 167.
Hovhamesof Erzinka. See Hovhames Erznkatsi. 188.207. 232.249. 255. 266. 269. 270.
Hovhannesof Maku. See HovhannesMakuetsi. 280.288.315
HovhamesofTlkuran. See Hovhannes Islamization. 249, 265. 266
Tlkurantsi. Isnik. 322
Hovhames Oodtetsi, 308 Israel. 314
362 INDEX
Bxan. See Ishkhan. Kapoyt Berd“BlueFortress,” 157-58

Italians. 284 KaputanDzov (BlueSea). See LakeUrmia.
Italy. 31.67.221.262.289 KaraKhitai. 247
KaneZakarian. See Zakarian. Ivane. KaraKonun. 263.286
KaraKoyunluTurkmen, 267,268
Jacobof Hark*. 174 KaraRiver. See Euphrates.
Jalal al-Din Mangubirdi. 256.257 Karabagh. 6.12.17.267,268. See also Nagorno-
Jalayirids. 266 Karabakh.
Jamesof Nisibis. 83 Karbi. 267
Jani-BegKhan. 267 Kardu’. 40
Japheth. 217 Kardukhoi, 40
JasonandtheArgonauts. 43 Karen. 80
Jermuk. 15 Karenitis/Karin. 49
Jerusalem. 184.194. 204.234. 248.280. 307. Karin. 5. IS. 66.92.93.105,114.122.126,129.
313.322 130.132, 135.136. 149. 152.164. 165.
Jesus the Son. NersesShnorhali. 310 168.171, 177,180, 188,189.192, 243.
Jewish Wars. Josephus, 217 248.258.260.261.262.265.266.267.
Jews. 59. 79. 214.223, 274. 283 See also Erzerum; Theodosiopolis.
JohannMaior. 323 Karmir Blur. See Teishebaini.
Johannes Mandakuni. See Hovhannes Kars. 12.131.150.154.163.166.169.172.175.
Mandakuni. 178.180. 181.184, 191. 192.194,196,
JohntheKal‘olikos. See Hovhannes 245.248. 257.258.263. 268.269
(Yovhannis) Draskhanakerttsi. Kartir. 80
JohnI. KingofCyprus. 290 K'art'li, 120
JohnChrysostom. 204.224 KaspianS/Kazbk*. 49
JohnComnenus, Emperor. 278 KatakalonKekaumenos, 192.193
JohnMandakuni. See HovhannesMandakuni. KatramideofSiwnik*. 170, 180
Johnof Damascus. 311 Kavad. King, 114
JohnofDraskhanakert. See Hovhannes Kavazin, 251
(Yovhannts) Draskhanakerttsi. Kayenadzor. 264
JohnofErzinka. See HovhannesErznkatsi. Kayian, 251
Johnof Maku. See HovhannesMakuetsi. Kayseri. See Mazaka.
Johnof Odzun. See HovhannesOdznetsi. Kaysite/Kaysikk', 134.135,155.156.164.169.
JohnofTlkuran. See HovhannesUkurantsi. 177
JohntheDeacon/Ptulosopher(Hovhannes Kaytson. 251
Sarkavagor Imaslaser), 237 Kcaw. See Kchav.
JohnTzimiskes. 165. 171.174,187. 188 Kchav, 174
Joraget. See DzorageL Kecharuyk, 264
JoscelinD. Count. 278 Kcdrenos. 180
Josephus. 217. 323 Kelkit River. 8
Jovhannis'the Kat'olikos." See Hovhannes Keran. Lady, 307
(Yovhannts) Draskhanakerttsi. Kesum. 274
Jovian, 90 Key o f Truth. 313
Juan&rof Balk'. See Jvansher. Princeof Baghk Kghardjk. 152
Judaism. 121 Khachatur, Duke. 195
Jugha(Julfa). 252.313 KhachaturKecharetsi (Khachaturof Kcchar).
JustinD. 108 310.319
Justinian1.95.104 Khachaturof Kechar. See Khachatur Kecharetsi.
JustinianII. 123.125 Khachen(XaC*en). 8.165,167.169.263.307
JustinianCode. 102 Khachik. See XaS'ik.
Justiniana, 109 Khadjin. 165
Juvaini, 242 Khaghbakians. 253
Jvansher, Princeof Baghk. 171 Khaldi. 40
Khaldians, 2.40
KabenMaden. 7 Khaldoharidz. 168
Kajberunik. 267 Khalinchkar, 251
Kamsarakan, Nerseh. 133 Kharbeid. See Kharpert.
Kamsarakanlords. 80.87.89.118.124.133. Kharpeit. 5,7.67
136.215 Kharput. See Kharpeit
Kamyesho, 114 Khatchadur. See Khachatur.
Kapan(Kap'an). 14.166.181 Khazars. 123.125.127.128,132
INDEX 363
Khlal. 12a248.250.257.258.259.269 L. CatiliusSevenis. governor. 69

Khoi (Her/Xoy), 178.262 La Flor des Estoires de la Terre d'Orient,
Kbor Virap. 49.81.264 Hetumof Korikos. 294
Khoranashat. 264 Ladder o f Spiritual Ascent. JohnClimacus. 311
Khorasan, 245 LakeAral. 10
Khorenatsi. Movses. See MovsesKhorenatsi. LakeArchishak. 10
Khosrov(K a) (Kadj)) I. King. 71.72.81.114 LakeDzovk, 10
Khosrov U. 71.72. 74 LakeErie. 8
Khosrov III. 85 LakeGaylatu. 10
Khosrov IV, 85.92.93 LakeGeneva, 8
Khosrov. Shah. 227 LakeSevan. 2.6.8.9.15.48.49.118.137.148.
Khosrov shnum. SeeSm bat Xosrov Inum. 153.162. 192. 254,260
Khosrovidukht, 68,81 LakeTseli. 8. 10
Khostovanogh(Xostovanol). 137 LakeUrmia, 9. 10. 27.149
Khoyts, 2.15.140 LakeVan. 9. 38.108. 118. 120.132. IX 135.
Khul KhachikAitsruni ofTomavan, 245 140. 144. 164, 174, 177, 178, 181. 183,
Khut, 271 189.190. 196.228. 23a231. 243.244.
KhuzaymaibnKhazim, 134 246.252. 268
Khwarazm-Shah. 256 Lambron. 276, 285
Khwarazmians, 241 Lambronatsi (Lambronac'i). lords. 195
uKingPahlul," 318 Lamentations, bookof. 313
KipchakTurks. 244.256.301 Langton. Stephen. 312
KirakosErznkatsi. 310 Lastivertc'i. See AristakesLastiverttsi.
KirakosGandzaketsi (Kirakosof Gandzak). 242. Latin. 209. 283. 301.302, 323
252.258. 304.305 LatinChristianity, 311
KirakosofGandzak. See KirakosGandzaketsi. LatinPalestine, 286
Kiwrikt 1.166.172 Layla, 318
Kizil IrmakRiver, 8.38 Lazarof Parp. See Ghazar Parpetsi.
“Knight inthePanther'sSkin, The." Rustaveli. LazarP'arpec'i. See Ghazar Parpetsi.
318 Lebanon, 34,324
KnightsTemplar. Orderof. 281 Lectionary. Jerusalem, 204
Koghb(Kulp), 183,267.268 Lemnos. 31
Kogovit. 89.118.120. 130,132.160,253 Leo. lawcodeof, 299
Komitas. Cathdicos, 224 LeoI. Pope, 111
Kommagini (Commagene), 46,47,48.51.55. LeoVI. Emperor. 151. 152
58.59.66.63 Leon. See Levon.
Konia. 248,260,323 Leontios, Archbishop. 81.82
KonstandinErznkatsi. See KostandinErznkatsi. LemayinGharabagh(NKR), 17
KorCek(Korchek). See Korjaik. LesserCaucasus. 6
Korchek. See Koijaik. LesserSiunik. 267
Korduini/Kotduk, 75 Letter. Ghazar, 221
Koriun. 201.202.203.204, 206.211.222.230 Levant. 248
Kocjaik(Korfek). 15.16.92.120 Levon, Prince. 278
KorOglu, 320 Levon1.280, 281.282. 283.284. 285. 289
KoseDagh. 258 LevonII. 287.297,312
Kostandin, CatholicosofCilicia. 261 LevonIII 288
KostandinErznkatsi (Constantineof Erzinka), Levon IV. 288
295.315 LevonV. 289
Kof. 172 Levond. See Ghevond.
Kotik', 108 Lewond. See Ghevond.
Kma. 269.312, Life o f Basil o f Caesarea. Gregory Nazianzenus.
Ktuts, 9 206
Kuchak. Nahapet. See Nahapet Kuchak. U fe o f Mashtors. 200. 207
Kulp*. See Koghb. Lim.9
Kur (Kura) River. 8.49.134. 152.183.230 LittleMithra. 30
Kurbani. 320 Livorno. 321
KurdishRawwldids. 177 Lori. 181
Kurds. 5,13.134.179.298 Lori, 166.251,253. 257.258
Kureni, 320 Lcri-TaJir. 192. 193
Kutahia. 322 LowerCilicia. 273
Lower Media. 190. 196
364 INDEX
Lucullus, 58.59 Mamhiks, 238,286.287,288,289.300

Lusatarich. 7 M an in the Panther’s Skin,ShotaRustaveli. 252
Lusignans, 289 Mananaghi. 174
Luwians. 25 Mananali'. See Mananaghi.
Lvov. 301.321.323 Manandian, Hakob(Manandyan. Hakob). 46.71,
Lycus, 8 74,178
Lydia. 31,38 Manandyan. Hakob. See Manandian, Hakob.
Lynch, H.F.B.. 17 Manasgom.251
Manazkert 7.30.83.118.125,134,135.139.
Maccabees. 214 147,149,154.155.165, 168,170, 177,
Macnaberd. See Matsnaberd. 183,189. 190,192,196,225.248.262.
Magdales. See Bagdates. 276
Magians. 100 Mane. 85
M a g u ter m ititum p e r Armenian* Pontum Mangujek. 248
104
Poiem oniacum et gentes, Manichaenism,96
Magistros. Grigor. Grigor Magistros.
See Manuche, 265.294
Magyars. 278 Manuil Comnenus, 279
Mahkanaberd. 251 Manuel Mamikonean. See Mamikonean, Manuel.
Mainz, 321 Manzikert. 243,246,248.252,257. See also
Majnun, 318 Manazkert.
Makenoc*Vank. See MakenotsVank. Maragha. 10.178
MakenotsVank. 137, 172, 225 Maran, 252
Maku, 82.100.108,270,305 Marand. 267
Malatia(Malatya) (Melitene), 16, 58,93.103, Marash. 195
106.108, 125,130.136, 144. 195, 203, MarcAntony. 60
245.246. 248.258. 267. 268. 274 Maicion/Marcionites, 206.222
Malatya. See Malatia. Mardastan, 120.141.144,150
MalikAshraf. Chobanid, 266 Mardians, 2
MalikAshrafof Khlat. 257 Mardin, 268
MalikDanishmend. Emir. 250 Margaretof Soisorms, 289
MalikIsmael Ibn Yaqut. 249 Mariamof Siwnik*. 146,153.172
Malik-Shah, Sultun, 247 Mair, Nicholas. 180
Mamikonean(Mamikonian), 87,103,118.124, “The Martyrdomof St. Hripsime,"LouisMarie
129,130, 131.136.142. 150.212.215. Pidou, 323
253 Manryopolis, 104,105,106
Mamikonean. Artawazd. 131 Marwinids. 169.177
Mamikonean. Artawazd, Spa rapet. 79 M arzpantU . 107.114, 115.123.124. ISO. 171,
Mamikonean. David, 129 180
Mamikonean. Grigor, 7thcentury. 122,123.124 Mashtots. 77.84. 173,200-220passim. 230, 235.
Mamikonean. Grigor. 8thcentury. 129,130 236
Mamikonean, Grigor, 9thcentury. Princeof Masis, 7
Bagrewand. 141. 146 MaStoc*. See Mashtots.
Mamikonean. Hamazasp. 78 Maienadaran, Instituteof ManuscriptsinErevan.
Mamikonean. Hamazasp. Prince. 122 302.321
Mamikonean. Manual, 91.92 MateosJughayetsi. See MatteosJughayetsi.
Mamikonean. Muiel (MusheghMamikonian). Matsnaberd. 181.258
4thcentury, 90.91 MatteosJughayetsi (Matthewof Julfa). 310
Mamikonean, MuSel. 6thcentury. 109 Matthewof Edessa. 164,172.175,179,197,
Mamikonean. MuSel, 7thcentury, 121 233, 242,249,251,269
Mamikonean. MuSel. 8thcentury. 130,131.132. Matthewof Julfa. See MatteosJughayetsi.
133 Maurice. Emperor. 108,109,110.112,113.227
Mamikonean. Samvel. 133 Mayragometsi. John(Hovhannes), 223
Mamikonean. Vahan. 101.102.214-15 Mayyafarikin, 264,269
Mamikonean(Mamikonian). Vardan. 33.99- Mazaka, 25. 56
101.112.213,214.215 Mazhak. See Mazaka.
Mamikonean. Vardan(thesecond), 108,112.114 Mecamor(Metsamor) River, 49
Mamikonean. Vardan, ranutir, 89 Medes, 20, 24. 27. 28. 37. 38.40.43
Mamikonean. Vasak. 90 Media. 27. 55
Mamikonian. See Mamikonean. MedianMarch. 77
Mamistra(Mopsuestia. Misis). 274,278.284, Mediterranean, 10.12.221,246.273.278.281.
285 284
INDEX 365
Mekhitarof Ani. See MkhitarAnetsi. MosaicLaw, 299

Mekhitarof Ayrivan. See Mkhitar Ayrivantsi. Moscow. 10
Mekhitarof Her. See Mkhitar Heratsi. Moses. 203
Mekhitarof Sasun. See MkhitarSasnetsi. MosesKhorenatsi. See Movses Khorenatsi.
Mekhitarof Sebastia. See MkhitarSebastatsi. Mosesof Daskhuran. See MovsesDaskhurantsi.
Melitene. See Malaria. Mosesof Khoren. See MovsesKhorenatsi.
Melitent. See Malatia. Mosul. 143.162. 163
Menni, 37 Mount Aragats. 7.11. 153
Menuas. 11.30 Mount Ararat, 2,6,7, II, 12
Mehthates, Aurelius, 70 Mount Nekh-Masik. 9
MercianArcmni (MeruzhanArtsnmi). 4thcen Mount Nemrud. 9. 11.46.47.51
tury, 87,90,91, 100 Mount Npat/Niphates. 91
MercianArcruni, 8thcentury, 133 Mount Sarakn. 11
Merczanes, Bishop, 83 Mount Sipan. 11
Meshekh. 25 MovsesDaskhurantsi (Mosesof Daskhuran). 230
Mesopoumia, 2, 5.7. 19. 28,41.44,55.56. 58, MovsesDasxuranc*i. See MovsesDaskhurantsi.
59.60,83.86.92.96. 105.106,108,109. MovsesKhorenatsi (Mosesof Khoren) (Moses
114,117,120.122, 126.144. 166. 177. Khorenatsi) (Movses Khorenatsi)
188.243. 244.268. 294 (MovstsXorcnaci). 20.24.27.28 30.
Mesrop. See Mashtots. 31.32. 33. 34.40.46.47.61.68.70.80.
Methodius. 207 84. 85.87. 89.93.98.205.209, 215.216,
MctsAnapat, 322 217,219, 221.226. 228.235. 305
Metsopetsi, Tovma. See TovmaMetzopetsi. MovsesofDaskhuran. See MovsesDaskhurantsi.
Metzopetsi. Thomas. See TovmaMetzopetsi. Movsesof Khoren. See MovsesKhorenatsi.
MhertheGreat, 238 MovsesII. Calholicos. 112.225
MhertheLittle. 238 Muiwiyah, Caliph. 120. 121.122,123
Michael. Patriarch. 230, 235.306 Mughan. 259. 267
MiddleEast. 1.6.13. 249. 260. 264. 315. 323 MuhammadibnMarwfin, 125.126.127
Mihr-Naneh, 99 MuhammadKhuda-Banda, 266
Milan. 321 Murat River. See Euphrates.
MilitaryList. See Zom am ak. MuS. See Mush.
Minas. 311 Muslfirids, 163
Minorsky, Vladimir. 162 Musasir. See Ardini.
Miran. 268.271 MuSel (Mushegh). Kingof Vanand—Kars. 166.
“MirrorofConduct,"*JohannMaior. 323 167
Mithra. Mithraism, 30.43,51.52 MuSel (Mushegh) Bagratuni. 157
MithradatesI, Kingof Parthia. 54 Muset Mamikonean. See Mamikonean, Musel.
MithradatesII, Kingof Parthia, 54 Mush. 5.164,269. 270. 320
MithradatesVI. KingofPontus, 54. 55.58.59 Mushki, 25,26
Mithranes. 47 Muslims. 124. 129.130. 131.132. 135. 140.144.
Mithras. 67 158.159,161. 182. 197.219.227. 234.
Mizitt, 73 242. 249. 257. 266. 270. 271.278, 283.
Mkhitar Anetsi. 208 286.295. 298, 299
Mkhitar Ayrivanetsi (Mekhitarof Ayrivan). 242. Mydonia, 55
308 Myriocephalon, 280
MkhitarGosh, 255.298.299.312.318 Mysia. 25
Mkhitar Heratsi (Mekhitarof Her). 255.297.301
Mkhitar Sebastatsi (MekhitarofSebastia), 322 Nagorno-Karabakh, Republicof, 17
MkhitarSkevratsi. 312 Nagomo(Highland)-KarabakhAutonomous
MkrtichNaghash, Archbishopof Amida. 315 Province. 17
Mleh. 280 Nahapet Kuchak. 295. 320
Mokk, 15.16.126.132. 174. 246.270 Nakhchavan(Nakhichevan). 15.90. 120.127,
Mokk'. See Mokk. 128.135, 138.149. 153. 156, 157. 161.
Molar-noyin. 258 165.169. 177.178. 244. 252, 256. 257,
Monasteryof St James, Jerusalem. 322 267
“Monasteryof theCaves**(Ayri Vank‘). 161 Nan*. 79
Mongke-Khan(Great KhanMongke). 259.262- Naples. 67
63.286 Naregatsi. Krikor. See Grigor Narekatsi.
Mongol Empire, 265 Narek. 163.174.231
Mongolia, 263 Narekac'i. See Grigor Narekatsi.
MongoU. 230.256-65passim. 286,287. 306 Narekatsi.Grigor. See Grigor Narekatsi.
366 INDEX
Narratio de Rebus Armeniae. 225. 226.231 “OntheMedical Art.” Asar. 302

Narseh, King, 73.74.75.85 Orbelian, Burtel. Prince. 264,270
NATO. 17 Orbelian. Smbat, 261,262
Nauruz, 266 Orbelian. Stepwos. 184,242.252.288,305. 314
NaxCawan. See Nakhchavan. Orbelean, Stephen, 148
Near East. 35.44 Oberiian. Tarsayich. 264.270
NemrudDagh. 46.47. 51 Orbelian/Orbelis. 252.253,262,263.264.270
Neocaesarea, 90 Orontas. 46
NeoplatonicProclos. 311 Orontes. See Eruand. King.
Nero, Tiberius, 61.66. 67.68.69,76 Orontids. See Eniandids.
Neroneia. 68.80 Orotan. 270
Nerses. Catholicosof CaucasianAlbania. 261 Oshin, King. 276,288
Nerses1(theGreat). 87.88.89.90.212 OshinI. See Oshin, King.
NersesII. 111 Oshki. 175
NersesIII. 120.121. 122 OskanErevantsi. 321
NersesLambronatsi (Nersesof Lambron). 255. OSki. See Oshki.
282,299, 306. 309 Ostan(Vostan). 154
Nersesof Lambron. See NersesLambronatsi. OttomanEmpire. 16,267,268
NersesPalianents, Archbishopof Manazkert, 306
NersesShnodiali. Catholicos(NersestheGra Pacorus/Bakur, 70
cious). 297.310,311.314.318 Padua, 303
NersestheGracious. See NersesShnorhali. Paetus. 66. 67
NestorianChristians. 174. 261 Pahlavuni, Grigor (Magistros). See Grigor Mag-
Nestorianism. 111 istros.
Nestorius. 111 Pahlavunids. 253
Netherlands. 289 Pahlawuni. Vasak. 195
Nevshehir. 34 Pahlawuni lords, 192
NewJulfa. 308. 313. 320.322. 323.324 Paikuli, 74
Nicaea(Nicea). 114.203.285 Palestine. 83,279.285.322
Nicaea. (Ecumenical Cbuncil of. 84 Palu.7
NicholasMystikos. 159.162. 173 Pap. King. 85.86.87,90.91
Nicosia, 313
Nikopolis. 16 Pappusof Alexandria, 222
Nineveh. 28. 37 Parandzem, Queen. 89.90
Nisibis. 55. 58. 86.90.92.105, 108.259 P'aranjem, Queen. See Parandzem,Queen.
Nisibis. Peaceof. 75 Pesos', 169
Nizamal-Mulk. 247 ParoyrSkayordi, 27,40
Nizlrf, 134 P'aipec'i. See Parpetsi.
Nkan, 181 Parskahayk, 15,92,267
NorBerd. 251.258 Partaw(Partav), 127, 134, 136.147,148,177,
Nor Getik(Goshavank), 264 178
Nor Nakhichevan. 301 Parthia, ParthianEmpire. 23.54.55.59.60.61.
Nor Shirakan. 16 64. 66.69. 217
NorthAfrica. 264 Pasargadae. 28
N ovella XXXI. of Justinian. 105.109 Paskam,31
Nutad-Din. See Nur aJ-Din. Paterculus, Velleius. 57
Nur al-Din, 271. 279.280 Paul. Apostle. 203
Pauticians, 125.139.222,223,225
Odzun. 124 Paustosof Buzand. See PavstosBuzand.
Oghakan. See CNane. PavstosBuzand(P'awstosBuzand), 32,201.
Oghuz. 244 209.211.212.216.223.228
Oghuz tribe. 243 P'awstosBuzand. See PavstosBuzand.
(Makart See Olane. Paytakaran, 15,92
(Mane. 66 PJrOz, King, 110
Olympias. 89 Persarmenia. 92.93,95.98.103.107,108.109,
Olympiodorus. 219 110,112.115.118
On Clouds. 221 Persepolis, 28.41.42.73
On the A dm inistration o f the Empire,161 Persia, PersianEmpire. 5, 13,16,20,24,28, 32.
On the Establishm ent o f Four Governors fo r A r 34, 38.41.43.44.45.64,71,72,75.85.
menia. 105 87,90.91.93.98.100.101,102,105.
On the Freedom o f the Will, Methodius. 207 106.109,110.113.161,177,199,206,
INDEX 367
213.214,235,247. 294,296, 301, 302, Raban, 274

318 Rab*ia, 134
PersianGulf, 7,8,284 RankList. See Gahnamak.
Perz-Sihpur. 73 Rashidal-Din. 134.242
Peter, Apostle, 312 RawwSdids. 167. 169
Petros I Getadtuj (Getadardz). 171-73.191,192, Raymond, sonof Bohemondof Antioch. 282
196-97,294 RaymondRubenofAntioch. 285
Pghndzahank. 311 Re. SunGod. 29
Phaedra. 33 RedArmy, 17
Phantasiasts. 125 RedRiver. See Kizil Irmak.
Philaretos(Philaretus) Varazhnuni. Dukeof Anti Refutation o f Sects. 206
och. 175,195. 247. 274 Refutation o f the Council o f Chalcedon, Timothy
Philhellenes, 50 Aelurus, 224
PhiliptheArab, 73 ReginaldofChatillon, Princeof Antioch, 279
Philipof Antioch, 285 Rey.244
Philippos. See Pilippos. Rhandeia, 67.71,75
PhiloofAlexandria, philospher. 213,308 Rhandeia, Compromiseof, 67.69.70.72
Phoenicia, 55, 56.59 RicharddeFoumival, 303
Photius, 146 RisRiver. See Yesil River.
Phrygia, 280 Rivola, Francesco. 321
Phrygians. 20.25.32. 33 Romano-ByzantineEmpire, 16
Physics. Aristotle. 323 Romanos(Romanus) 1Lekapenos. 161
Pidou, Louis Marie, 323 Romans. 161,210.211.232
P'ilardosVara2nuni. See PhilaretosVarazhnuni. RomanusIV Diogenes. Emperor, 274
P'ilippt. KingofKap'an, 166 Rome. 13. 14. 15,16.47,52, 54. 58, 59. 60,63,
Pilippos. 137 64,66.67, . 70.71. 72.73.74.75.80.
PilipposAghbaketsi, 322 85.86.90.91,96.105. 117.199,202.
Pisan. 282 221,273.282,303
Phis, Antonius, 70 Roslin, Toros. See TorosRoslin.
Plato. 33,218,219,233, 237 Royal Highway. Ferisan. 41
PlinytheElder, 57.68,77 feltuni (Rshtuni), 87.118.133,163.173
Plutarch. 55.57.58 RStunik, 121.270
PoghosTaronetsi. 311 Ruben, first. Cilician lord, 274-76,277
Poiand/Polish. 301.323 Ruben, second,Cilicianlord. 278
Polybius. 49 Ruben, third, Cilician lord, 280,281
Pompey. 59,67 Rubenids(Rubenians). 195,276-283.284.286
Pontus, 44. 54. 56.57. 59.63.66,90. 103.105, Ruknal-Din. Sultanof Rum. 252
129 Rum. 249.255,257.269
PontusMountains. 6 RumQalat, 278
PontusPolemoniacus, 104 RusaII. 27
Porphyry, 219, 308 Rusaxinili, 38
Poson, 144 Russia. 178. 244, 262. 301
PraetorianPrefectof theEast, 103 Rustam Zal, 295
Probus. 74 Rustaveli. Shota. 252
Proclus. 323 Rusudan, Queenof Georgia. 258
Procopius. 102.105,106.115.178 RuyGonzalezdeClavijo. See Gavijo. RuyGon
Progymnasmata, Theon. 218 zalezde.
Prohaeresius. 219
Prolegomena. David. 219 S9djids. 153.157.162.164
ProshKhaghbakian. 254. 264 SadunAnsnmi/Mankaberdeli. 263
Proshianlords. 264,270 Saghmosavank. 304
Proverbsof Solomon, 203 Sahak. Catholicos. 78.84,87.93.96,98.104.
Psalter. 318 201.203.208.215.219
PseudoCallisthenes, 319 SahakIII. Catholicos. 123.126.127
PseudoDionysus, 323 SahakArcruni, 133
“Pseudo-Shapuh." 238 SahakBagratuni, 92, 101.118.130,131.132
Punjab. 19 SahakofSiwnik*. 137
SahanSah. See Shahanshah.
Qazvin, 252 Sahapivan. See Shahapivan.
Qazvini, 242 Sahanini lords, 133
Slhpur (Shahpur) 1.72-74
368 INDEX
Sihpur (Shahpur) II. 8S. 86,90.91.96 Sasun. 2.30.32.118.129.137.140,166.238,

Sfthpur(Shahpur) HI. 92 246,270,271
Saint Basil ofCaesarea. 88 Sasuntsi Davit (Davidof Sasun). 238,320
Saint Cyprian, 303 Satagh. See Satala.
SaintGregory Part'ew, 80 Saul. See Satala.
Saint Hrip'simt. IIS Satala. 69.73.103. 105
Saint JohnGimacus, 311 Satrapies. 75.83,86,87,90.93.95.104.105.
Saint JohntheBaptist (SurbKarapet), 320 106
Saint Mesrop. 20 Savoy. Houseof, 290
Saint NersesI (theGreat). 83.84,86 Sayat Nova. 320
Saint Nshanmonastery. 269 Sayfal-Dawla, 164
Saint Peter. 282 Schiltbcrger, Johann. 242.266
Saint Petersburg. 73 School of Edessa. See Edessa, School of.
Saint Sargis. 312 Schroder, JohannJoachim321
Saint Tadeos monastery. 261 Scythians. 27. 29. 37.40
Saint Vardan. 142 Seal Faith. Komitas, 224
Saka. See Scythians. Sebastt. See Sebastia.
Sakak'ar(Shakakar). 40 Sebasteia. See Sebastia.
Sakatfn(Shakashen), 27,40 Sebastia(Sebasteia. Sebastf. Sivas), 16,93.103.
Sake(Shake). 40, 1S4 106.175,178. 190.192.231,245.248,
Sakurifi, 168 258. 262. 265.267. 268. 269
Saladin(Salahad-Din). 279,280.281,313 Sebeos. historian. 102.110.113.114.121.208.
Salahad-Din. See Saladin. 226,227, 228.229
Salar. 167 SecondCouncil of Dvin. 111
Salerno. 303 SecondCrusade. 278.279
SallArids. 163.167 Secrets o f Women. ArchbishopHovhaimes, 303
Salomon, 225 Seleucids. 45.47,49. 52. 55. 214
Saltukids, 248 Seleukos. 45
Samarkand. 268.270 SeljukEmpire. 245.247
SAmarrf, 140. 141, 142. 144, 146 SeljukShah-Armensof Khlat, 248
Samosata. 202, 246, 311 SeljukSultanateof Rum(or Iconium), 248. 250
SamSuilde. See Shamshuilde. SeljukTurks. 188
Samuel. See Samvel Anetsi. Seljuks. 192-94, 196.232, 241. 243.244.245.
Samuel ofAni. See Samvel Anetsi. 246.247.250.258. 269. 277, 279. 285.
Samvel. Syrianprimate, 98 286
Samvel Anetsi (Samuel of Ani). 123,136.242. Sem.217
269. 305 Semiramis. See Shamiram.
Samvel Mamikonean. See Mamikonean. Samvel. Semitic, 202
SanLazzaro. 322 SenekerimArtsruni. Kingof Vaspurakan, 243.
Sanahin. 165, 166.170. 172.194. 264 244,270. See also Senek'erim-
Sanasar. 238 Yovhannts Arcruni.
Sanasunk. 15 Senek‘erim-Yovhann£sArcnini. 166.170, 172.
Sanatruces. See Sanatruk. 189.190
Sanatmk. King. 69.70. 82 Senek'erim-Yovhann£sof R&unik. 166
Sapuh, sonof Yazdagerd. 93 Sennacherib. King. 228
SapuhAmatuni. See Amatuni Sapuh. SeptimusSevems. Emperor. 69.71
SapuhBagratuni. 136, 157 Serbs. 278
Sarai. 260, 268 SevadaKhachentsi. Prince, 264
Sardis. 41 Sevan, Lake. See LakeSevan.
Sargis, Catholicos. 170. 171, SevanMountains, 6
Sargis Haykazn. 191. 192. 194 SeverianofGabala, 204
SargisJaqeli. 263 Severus. Alexander. See Alexander Sevens,
Sargis-Ak>( Arcruni (Sargis-Ashot Artsruni), Emperor.
149. 154. 155.156 Severus, L. Catilius. See L. CatiliusSeverus.
Sargon. 29 Severus. Septimus. See SeptimusSeverus.
Sarkavag. 251 ShaddAdid, Kurdish. 163
SasanianEmpire. 117 Shaddidid Manuchihr. 249
SasanianIran. 223 Shaddadids. 177.192,194,298
SasanianLawbook. 99 Shah-Armensof Khlat. 248,249.252
Sasanians. 73,77,87.92.93.108,120.137. 211 ShahKhosrov. See Khosrov. Shah.
Saspires. 40 ShahYazdagerdII. See YazdagerdII. Shah.
INDEX 369
Smbat Bagratuni, Sparapet, “theConfessor,”

Shahanshah, 160,161,176.253.263 137,138,139.140. 141.142.146. 147,
ShahanshahAlot III. See ASol (Asho<) III 148
Bagratuni.. Smbat I ofCilicia, 287
Shahapivan. 98 Smbatof Siwnik', 156.159
Shahapunik, 270 SmbatOrbelian. See Orbelian. Smbat.
Shahbuhr(Shapur) 0, 32 SmbatXosrov Snum, 118.120
Shahi. 10 Smyrna. 208
Shah-name, 295 Sohaemus, 70
Shakakar. See $akak‘ar. Somkhiti, 251
Shakashen. See Saka&n. Sophena. See Soph6n6/Cop‘k.
Shake. See Sake. Sophtnt/Cop'k. 44,45.48,49.50,54. 58,59.
Shamakhi, 251 63,66.75. 83.104
Shamiram,Queen, 30.32, 33 Sophia. 146
Shamkor, 152.252,256 “Sourceof Knowledge.” Johnof Damascus. 311
Shamshuilde, 160.166,181.251.258 SouthCaucasia. 2
ShapuhBagratuni. 206 Spain. 289
Shaiwan, 134 Sper. 40.45.118.132.136,138.183
ShaybinJ, 134 Spitak. 12
Shaybanids, 154 Spuk*, 161
Shirak. 15. 89.118, 131,136.146.149,157, St Denis. Churchof, 289
160,165,167.172.190.220,252 StepaniKKIII Sevanetsi, 171,172
Shirvan. 267,268 Step*annosIII Sewanec'i. See StepannosIII
Shivas, 172 Sevanetsi.
Shivmi. 29 Slepannos IV. 287
ShotaRustaveli. See Rustaveli. Shota. SteparmosLehatsi. See StepanosLehatsi.
Sicilians. 297 Stepanos. Archbishopof Sivas. 269
SigmundI, King. 301 StepanosAsoghik(Taronetsi), 102,114,125,
SimeonAparanetsi (SimeonofAparen), 314 131.139, 147,153,157, 161,163.167,
SimeonJughayetsi. 323 168,169, 171.175. 177.179,180,184.
Simeonof Aparan. See SimeonAparanetsi. 235
Siitharib. 165 StepanosLehatsi (Stephenof Poland), 323
Sinope, 250 StepanosOrbelian. See Orbelian, Stepanos.
Sipan. See Mount Nekh-Masik. StepanosTaronetsi (Asoghik). See StepanosAs
Sirak. See Shirak. oghik(Taronetsi).
Slrakawan(Shirakavan). 146, 151,153,165, StephenLangton. See Langton. Stephen.
170,171,172,181 Stephenof Poland. See StepanosLehatsi.
Sis. 269. 280. 281.284. 285.287. 288.289.302 Stephenof Siunik(StepanosSiunetsi), 221.225.
Sisakan. 156 226
Sisian. 124 Stephenof Taron. See StepanosAsoghik
Siunik(Siwnik*), 8. 11. 15. 16.100. 108,118, (Taronetsi).
122,130. 135,137. 138. 139. 141,144, Strabo. 13. 26.43.45.46.47.48.49.50. 56
149.153. 154,155, 156, 157, 158. 160, Straboof Amasia. See Strabo.
163.165. 166.169, 170,173, 174,178, Sudabeh, 33
181,225. 246.253, 254. 261.262,267. Sulaym, 134
269. 270. 288,305 Sulla. General, 54
Sivas. See Sebastia. Sultanateof Rum. 251.267
Siwnik*. See Siunik. Sultanie. 262
Siyavush. 33 Sumgait, 320
Skayordi. Paroyr. See Paroyr Skayordi. SurbKarapet (St. JohnthePrecursor). 164
Skevra. script. 306 SQrSn. 80
Skythos. 27 Surmak. Bishop. 98
Smbat. HighConstable. 286.287. 300 Surmari. 245. 253,267,268
Smbat I Bagratuni (“theMartyr”),143,149-158. Susa. 41
165. 166. 179.182 Switzerland, 5
Smbat II Tiezerakal Bagratuni. 163.167,168. Symeon, monk. 311
179.180 SymeonAparentsi. See SimeonAparentsi.
Smbat Bagratuni. Marzpan, 110.111.113.227 < Syria. 2.5.40.44,55. 56.57,58,59.63.66.70.
Smbat Bagratuni, Prince, 126,127,128 83.120.121. 144, 180. 200, 202,203.
Smbat Bagratuni, Sparapet. 130,131.132 207,223, 274,280. 285. 286,306, 312
370 INDEX
Syriac. 200.201.202.203.204,20S. 206.209. Theodosiopolis. 93,102.105.114.122. 180,

220.308.309 188.189. See also Erzerum; Karin.
Syro-RomanLawCode, 299 Theodosius1.92.93
TheodosiusII. 203
Tabriz. 10.11.252.262.263.267,286.313 Theopistes. 311
TaCai Anjewaii. See Tadjat Andzevatsi. Thesaurus linguae Armenicae, JohannJoachim.
Tacitus, 63.66.76.78 321
Tadjat Andzevatsi. 132.133 ThirteenthSatrapy or Province. 40
Taharten. governorof Erzinjan. 270 ThomaskKempis. 324
Tajiks, 121,261 Thomas Artsruni. See TovmaArtsruni.
T'alin. 124 Thomasof Metzop. See TovmaMetzopetsi.
Tamar. Queen. 232 Thousand andOneNights," 319
Tamta.232 Thrace. 25.109
Tanutfrakan, 108 Thucydides, 218
Taichon. 31 Tiberius. 64
Tarkhu. 31 Tiflis. 117.126.135. 141,149. 159,160.178,
Taron, 7,12.49.80.83.84,85,118, 120.133. 179.257. 258.267,311,323
135,136.137.144,146. 150.155, 161, Tiglath-Pileser III. 27
163.164.165.174.188, 189. 193. 194. Tigra. 19.20
196,200.201.230. 243 Tigran, legendary. 28. 32.33-34
TarOn. See Taron. Tigran. Prince. 28. 32.44.48
Taionitis. See Taron. Tigran1.52. 54.199,225
TarsayichOberlian. See Oberlian. Tarsayich. TigranII (theGreat). 34.47.52,54-60,77
Tarsus. 91. 195.274, 278. 284. 288 Tigran111,61
Tarsus. Cathedral of, 281 TigranV, 62
Tastar. 166,172 TigranHonentsof Ani, 194. 321
Tashir-Dzoraget, 166.181 TigrantheYounger. 59.61
TaSir. See Tashir. Tigranakert/Tigranocerta, 56.57,58.59.60,64.
66
TaSir-Joraget. See Tashir-Dzoraget. Tigranes. See Tigran.
Tatev, 12, 137,166.172.174.184. 193.194. Tigris. 8.9.59,90
261.304.312 Timothy Aehims, 224
Tat‘ew. See Tatev. Timur (Tamerlane) (Timur-Leng). 17.241.267.
Tatulof Marash. 274 268.269
Taurus Mountains, 273, 285 Timurids. 268-271
Taurus, 6,7.8 Tiran 1.King. 11.85.87
Tavush/Tawul. 172.181,251 Tiribazos, 44
Tayk‘, IS. 16.101.118.120,121,122.127,130. Tiridates. See TrdaL
132,136. 138.142.146. 154.168.175. Tirif. 89
189.243 Tmorik'. 118,132
Tbilisi. 44. 52.68.77 Tokat, 322
TeachingofSaintGregory,” Agathangelos. Tokean. 9
204.210,222 TokhtamyshKhan. 267.268
Teguder, 260 Tomas. 313
Teisheba, 29.30 T‘ondrak, 139
Teishebaini. 27.29. 37,40 T'ondrakec'i (TonAaketsi). 139.173,174
Telavi, 263 Tondrakians. Tondrakites. 234, 313
Templars, 282 Torgom/Torgom, 131,217
TenThousandGreeks. 17 TorkAngeleay(Torkof Angl), 31
Tephrice/Divrigi. 248 Toros, first, Cilician lord. 195. 276
TerGhewondyan. Aram. 134 Toros, second. Cilician lord. 278.279.280, 284
Terter. See Trtu. Toros. Cilicianking, 287
Tertullian, 83 Torosof Edessa(Urfa, Urha), 274. 277
Tcrunakan, 251 TorosRoslin, 290, 306
TeSebaini. See Teishebaini. Tosp. 29.40
Tghay, Grigor. See Grigor IV Tgha. Toumanoff. Cyril. 71,72,74
Thaddeus. 69,82.172 T'ovma Arcruni. See TovmaArtsruni.
Themeof Iberia. 189,192,196 TovmaArcruni (Thomas Arcmni). See Tovma
ThemeofTaron. 195 Artsruni.
Themeof Vaspurakan. 190.196 TovmaArtsruni. 137,140.141,144.153.164,
Theodoreftltuni, 118.120,121,122.127.299 182.208.228,229.230
INDEX 371
T'ovmaMetsobets'i. See TovmaMetzopetsi. Vagharsh1,70.

TovmaMetzopetsi. 228.229.230.233.242. Vagharsh11.71
268.270.271.305 Vagharshak. 64.70.85.91.92
Tpkhis (Tiflis), 152 Vagharshakert 70.170
Trajan. 69.70 Vagharshapat, 7,15.70.79.81.90.102.115.
Transcaucasia, 51. 147,169,173.175 124.153.154,171
Trapezus, 105. See also Trebizond. Vagharshavan. 70.245
Trdat (Tiridates) I. King. 64.66.67.68.76.210. Vahagn. 30.32.51.80
211,212.214 VahanMamikonean. See Mamikonean, Vahan.
Trial II. 71.72.73. VahanofGoh*n\Prince. 124.128. 133
Trial IU. 68.72.74 Vahanof Siwnik*, Catholicos. 171.174,175
Trial IV theGreat. 72. 74.80.81.82.84.85.86. Vahka, 276, 278.279
209.210.211,214. 230.231 Vahram. See VahramRabuni.
Trial of Ani, 184 VahramofGag. 233.234.258
Trebizond. 178,191.221,25a251.262,270. VahramPahlawuni, Sparapet, 191.193
271.311 VahramRabuni. 312
Treeof Life. 29 VakhtangGorgasal, 101
Tripoli. 280 Vakhtangof Khachen, 254
Titu, 8 Valaii. See Vagharsh.
Tsaghkocn. 253 ValarSak. See Vagharshak.
Tsar. 270 Valaiiakert. See Vagharshakert
Tsui. See Taurus. ValaiiapaLSee Vagharshapat.
Tughril-Bey Muhammed. 244.245.247 Valaiiawan. See Vagharshavan.
Turoo-Mongols. 241 Valens. 85.86.91
Turkey. 6 Valentius. 207
Turkish. 302. 294 Valerian. 73
Turkmen. (Turkomuu). 5,170.190.192.194. Van. 2,10. 23. 26, 27. 29.30.40.90. 154.265.
197,242. 243.244.245. 246.247. 249. 268
251,271 Van. Lake. See LakeVan.
Turks. 5. 233. 246. 253.276.277,280, 306 VanakanVardapet. 255.258. 307.309
Turuberan. 15 Vanand. 15. 101.127. 156.166
Tus. 152 Vaneni. 254
Tushpa. 27. 29.40 Vanice. 321
Tychikos. 221 Varag. 172
Tyre. 280 VarazTiroc*(Tirots) Bagratuni, 100,120
Tzimiskes, John. See JohnTzimiskes. Varazdat. King. 85.91
Varazvaghan. 100
Ukhlanes, historian. 208,231 Varazvalan'. See Varazvaghan.
Umar. 270 Vard. sonofTheodorefotuni, 127
Umayyads. 125.128.130 VardPatrik. “thePatrician.” 103
Umek, 255 “VardanandtheArmenianWar,”Eghishe. 229
Upper Euphrates. 136,129 VardanAreveltsi. 134. 135.242.249.252.258.
Upper Media. 190.196 264,296.305.312
Upper Mesopotamia. 125 VardanAygektsi. 255. 312. 318
Urartu(Urarteans) (Urartians), 19,20.23.26. VardanMamikonean. See Mamikonean, Vardan.
27, 28.29. 30.32. 34,37. 38 Vardanakert, 127
Urashtu. 19.40 Vardanashat 258
Urbatagirk, 303 VardenisMountains, 6
Urmia. Lake. See LakeUrmia. Varqeho-Golshah. 318
USSR. 14 Varto, 12
Uthman, 122 VasakBagratuni, 101,136.138
Uti. 152 VasakGabur. 146
Utik. 15.40.92. 148.154. 155. 158. 160, 251. VasakKhaghbakian. 254
256 VasakMamikonean. See Mamikonean. Vasak.
“Utility of Medicine.”Amiriovlat. 302 VasakSiwni.99,100. 101
Utioi. 40 Vaspurakan. 15. 30.49.108,120.127,129.130.
Ut'manikk(Uthmflnids), 134 131,132,133,137,140, 141, 144, 146,
Uyama, 19 148.149. 154.156. 157. 159.160. 161.
162,163. 164,165, 170, 171, 172, 173.
VacheVachutian, 254 , 175,183, 189,190,192, 193. 229, 244,
Vachutianlards, 253 245,246,265.268.269
372 INDEX
Vaxtang. See Vakhtang. Yovhantfs Drasxanakertc'i. See Hovhannes

Vayoc*Jor. S te VayotsDzor. (Yovhaimis) Draskhanakemsi.
Vayots Dzor. 137. 144.165. 167. 169.253. 254. Yovhamis II Gabdean(HovhannesII
265, 270 Gabeghean). 108.112
Venetians, 285 Yovhamts Kurkuas(HovhannesGurgen). 161.
Venice. 261 188
Verethraghna. S e t Vahagn. Yovhamts Mamikonean. See Hovhannes
Victory of Sahpur. 73 (Mamikonian).
Virahayots Mountains, 253 Yovham£s Mandakuni. See Hovhannes
Viraz, 33 Mandakuni.
Virgin Mary. 316 Yovham£s (Hovhannes) of Bagaran. 112.113
VisO-Ramin. 318 Yovhaim£s(Hovhannes) of Ovayk*, 139.147
VohRiver. See Chorokh. Yovhamts Ojnec'i. See Hovhames Odznetsi.
Volandum. See Olane. Yovhamts theHistorian. See Hovhannes
VolgaRiver. 260 (Yovhannds) Draskhanakemsi.
Vologeses. See Vagharshak. Yovhamts theKat'olikos. See Hovhannes
Vologeses IV. 71 (Yovhanngs) Draskhanakemsi.
Vonones. King. 64 YovhamSsTzimiskes. See JohnTzimiskes.
VoroianRiver. 8 YovhamSs-Smbat Bagratuni, 171.173,190.191
Voskan. 324
VostanDunoy, 15 Yovs*p*. See Hovsep.
VostanHayots, 15 YQsef. 155. 156.157,158.159.161
VramSapuh, See Vramshapuh, King. YQsefibnRashidal-Sulami, 134
Vramshapuh. King. 92,201.202 Yusik/Husik. 86,88
Vrkan/Hyrkania. 113
Vrtanis, 85 Zabdikini/Cowdeka»>vdek). 75
Vrver of Shiri, Prince, 174 Zabel (Isabelle). Queen. 285.286.302
Vulgate. 324 ZagrosMountains. 6.50
Zakam.8
Wayzur. See VayotsDzor. Zak'aria. Catholioos, 146
WestGeorgia. See Georgia. Zakaria. Caiholicosof Aghtamar, 269
World History. Asoghik. 235
Zakarian. Avag. Atabeg, 253.258,263
Xa£'atur. See Khachatur. Zakarian. Wane. Atabeg. 252.253.254.256.
Xa£‘£n. See Kachcn. 257,270. 311
XaC'ik(Khachik) I. Catholioos. 167.172.173. Zakarian. Khorishah. 254
175 Zakarian. Zak«t. General. 252,253,254.264
Xa£‘ik(Khachik) II, Catholioos, 172.173,197 Zakarian/Mkhargrtselis, 252
Xa£‘ik-GagikArcnmi (Khachik-GagikAitsnmi), Zakarids. 252-56.262.263
149,154. 156 Zangezur. 12.14.49.50.51
Xaldoyari£‘. See Khahldoharidz. Zangi. 278,313
Xenophon. 17. 20. 38.40.41.42.43.44.47.48. ZanguRiver. See HrazdanRiver.
49,50 Zaieh. 45.47.48,49,50.59
Xerx2n£, 49 Zarehawan, 50.90
Xerxes, 41 Zariadris. See Zareh.
Xlaf (Khlat). 132. 134. 135,140, 149, 164,178 Zarilat (Zarishat). 50,90
Xor Virap. See KhorVirap. Zarmanduxt, 91
Xosrov. See Khosrov. Zedekiah. Kingof Jerusalem, 37
XusrO(Khosrov) D. King, 108,109, 113.114 Zenoof Pontus, 64.76,78, 111
YakObi. 133 Zenob. 230
Yazdagerd1,85.93.96 Zeus/Aramazd. 80
YazdagerdU. 33.98.99.100.213 “Zhghlank," 309
YazdagerdII. Shah. 214,229 Zomanusk (Military List), 78
YazdgirdI. See YazdagerdL Zoroastrianism.43.96.99.100.108.110.114.
YazdgirdII. See YazdagerdII. 212.213.236,311
Yazid ibnMazyadibnZa'idaal-Shayblnl, 134 Zurvan, god, 206
Yemen. 129.134 Zurvanism, 207
Yesil River. 8 Zuzahya, 19
“Youth andtheMaiden,” 318 Zvartnots, 11.122

Richard G. Hovannisian - The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times_ Volume I_ the Dynastic Periods_ From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century-Palgrave Macmillan (1997)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Richard G. Hovannisian - The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times_ Volume I_ the Dynastic Periods_ From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century-Palgrave Macmillan (1997)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Richard G. Hovannisian - The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times_ Volume I_ the Dynastic Periods_ From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century-Palgrave Macmillan (1997)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A lso by R ichard G.

ARMENIA ON THE ROAD TO INDEPENDENCE

The Dynastic Periods:

E dited by Richard G. H ovannisian

St. Martin’s Press

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The Armenian people from ancient to modem times / edited by Richard

Design by Acme Art, Inc.

List of Maps and Dynastic T a b le s .............................................................. vi

2. The Formation of the Armenian N a tio n ..................................................... 19

3. The Emergence of A rm e n ia .........................................................................37

4. The ArSakuni Dynasty (A.D. 12-[180?]-428)............................................ 63

5. The Marzpanaxc (428-652).......................................................................... 95

7. The Independent Kingdoms of Medieval A rm en ia....................................143

8. The Byzantine Annexation of the Armenian Kingdoms in the

9. Armenian Literary Culture through the Eleventh C e n tu ry ........................199

10. Armenia during the Seljuk and Mongol P e rio d s ....................................241

11. Cilician A rm enia.........................................................................................273

12. Medieval Armenian Literary and Cultural Trends

Bibliography for Volumes I and I I .............................................................. 327

1. Armenia in Its Historical S etting.....................................................................3

Eruandid (Ervandian)/Orontid D y n a sty ....................................................... 36

he history of the Armenian people is long, complex, and in many

The underpinning of Armenian society, before and after the con­

centuries and by the infiltration of intellectual and political currents

Fortunately, a number of excellent monographs and illustrated volumes

TRA N SLITERA TIO N SY ST EM S FO R ARM EN IA N

he influence of geography on the course of history has been

Location and Natural Frontiers

the Aegean Sea to attain a maximum average height of 3,000 feet. In

damaged in yet another tremor in March 1992. Two especially severe

valleys, where cereals, cotton, orchards, vineyards, and, more recently,

Mineral and Other Resources

Traditionally, Greater Armenia consisted of fifteen “provinces” : Upper

were in the possession of semi-independent mountain tribes. Ekeghiats,

were held by independent or autonomous Armenian chieftains called

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

Borisov, 1965. Lydolph, 1970.

THE FORMATION OF THE

Introduction: The Armenia of Darius

he first historical reference to the Armenians appears in the rock-

T cut inscription of 518 b .c . of the Achaemenian Persian king Darius

The Prehistory of the Armenian Language

Armenian is an Indo-European language. Much of the core of its

Migrations: Phrygians, Mushki,

With the theory of multiple proto-Armenian Indo-European migrations

seems to be genuine historical value, and his tales provide evidence of

name of the region of Arme-Shupria, west of Van, where Mushki seem

The Urartean people spoke a language related to those of the modem

The Urarteans gradually united the various petty kingdoms of the

of the Artsrunis. In a legend, the progenitor of the Artsrunis is said to have

The Legendary Beginnings: Hayk and Bel

(Armenian Shamiram) conceived a passion for the Armenian king Ara

The Beginning of the Historical Era of Armenia

The Armenian plateau at the time of its conquest by the Achaemenian

language used throughout the ancient period for official purposes in

FO R FU RTH ER INFORM ATION

Arutyunian, 1970. Lukenbill. 1989.

THE ERUANDID (ERVANDIAN)/ORONTID DYNASTY

Ervand (Orontes) I, C.401-C.344

The underpinning of Armenian society, before and after the con

Despite the scantiness of information, which precludes a reconstruc

by both the Persian chancellery and contemporary Greek authors. More

. . . attempted to eradicate, destroy completely, extirpate and over

reorganization of the East dictated to Narseh by the victorious Diocle