The Armenians

The Peoples o f Europe
General Editors James Campbell and Barry Cunliffe
This series is about the European tribes and peoples from their origins in prehistory to the present day. D rawing upon a wide range of archaeolo­ gical and historical evidence, each volume presents a fresh and absorbing account of a group’s culture, society and usually turbulent history. Already published The Etruscans Graeme Barker and Thomas Rasmussen The Lombards N eil Christie The Basques Roger Collins The English Geoffrey Elton The Gypsies Angus Fraser The Bretons Patrick Galliou and Michael Jones The Goths Peter Heather In preparation The Sicilians D avid Abulafia The Irish Francis John Byrne and Michael H erity The Byzantines Averil Cameron The First English Sonia Chadwick Hawkes The N orm ans Marjorie Chibnall The Serbs Sima Cirkovic The Spanish Roger Collins The Romans T im othy Cornell The Celts D avid Dum ville The Scots Colin Kidd The Ancient Greeks Brian Sparkes The Piets Charles Thomas The Franks Edw ard James The Russians R obin M ilner-Gulland The M ongols D avid Morgan The Armenians A.E. Redgate The Huns E. A. Thom pson The Early Germans M alcolm Todd The Illyrians John Wilkes

The Armenians
A. E. Redgate

Copyright © Anne Elizabeth Redgate 1998,2000
The right o f Anne Elizabeth Redgate to be identified as author o f this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 1998 First published in paperback 2000 2 4 6 8 10975 3 1 Blackwell Publishers Ltd 108 Cowley Road Oxford OX4 1JF

Blackwell Publishers Inc. 350 Main Street Malden, Massachusetts 02148 USA All rights reserved. Except for the quotation o f short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part o f this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Except in the United States o f America, this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way o f trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form o f binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A CIP catalogue record fo r this book is available from the British Library. Library o f Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A. E. (Anne Elizabeth) The Armenians I A. E. Redgate. p. cm. - (Peoples o f Europe) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-631-14372-6 (hb : alk. paper) — ISBN 0-631-22037-2 (pbk) 1. Armenia-History. I. Title. II. Series. DS 175.R43 1998 956.6’2-dc21 98-24617 CIP Typeset in 10 on 12pt Sabon By Pure Tech India Ltd, Pondicherry http://www.puretech.com

This book is printed on acid-free paper

Contents

List of Plates List of Figures List of M aps Preface Names and Transliteration N otes, Citations and Bibliography N ote on M aps Acknowledgements Origins The place Origins The first kingdom Nam es and identities Early History: T he ‘Arm enian’ Environm ent, c. 1165-590 вс The rise and fall of Urartu Governm ent and society in Urartu Religion Debts and legacies Foreign Rule: Medes, Persians and Greeks, 590-190 вс Armenia after the fall of U rartu Armenia in the Achaemenid empire Society Economy

viii
X

xi xii xiv xvi xvii xix 1 6 13 18 21 25 29 33 45 48 50 50 55 57 59

Contents Religion Armenia and Greek rule Armenia under the O rontids Autonomy and Empires: Artaxias I to Tiridates I, 189 b c - a d 63 Empire Royal government Decline Culture and religion Economic resources Arsacid Rule: Tiridates I to Tiridates ГѴ , a d 6 6 - a d 298/9 Reconstructions Government and society: continuity or change? Royal resources Culture: contacts and com parisons Religion: continuity and challenge The Establishment of C hristianity and the End of the M onarchy, C.300-C.428 Conversion and its consequences: early medieval Armenian Christianity Crown, C hurch and aristocracy The end of royal power C ulture and Repression: Partitioned Armenia, c.428-c.640 Christian teaching c.4 0 0-50 Persecution and resistance, 4 2 8-84 Leadership c.400-c.500: M am ikoneans, patriarchs and historians Social change: aristocracy, heresy, intellectual life C.428-C.570 Rom an revival c.500-c.640 Literature, art, architecture c.570-640 Arab Rule and the Revival of Kingship, c.640-884 The Arab-Byzantine struggle, 640-C.700 Arab rule and Armenian response, c.700-c.800 Armenian revival, c.800-84 Power and its foundations The Church: politics and problems The Paulician heretics Cities and commerce 61 61 62

65
68

71 76 81 83
88

89 96 102 104 107

113 119 132 136 140 140 142 146 149 153 158 166 166 170 173 175 184 193 195

925 Urbanization The Church Literature and scholarship Ecclesiastical problems Byzantines. c. to c . 1097-1375 The twilight years. 1820-1918 Armenians in the m odern world Epilogue: the future Bibliography 1 Primary sources: texts and translations 2 Secondary sources Index vii 197 200 205 209 211 219 222 224 230 231 236 241 244 248 249 255 255 256 262 266 273 278 280 280 283 303 .1071 The early Bagratuni kings Political society. 884-C. decline and annexation. dream s and nightmares: c. 884-C. 1400-1828 Awakenings. perceptions and peculiarities Arm enian-European divergences Arm enian identity in the early M iddle Ages 11 T he T hird M illennium .925-1071 10 Armenians and Europe.Contents 9 Kings and M igrants. a d 1100 Armenians west of Armenia Armenians and Byzantine history Armenians and western culture Arm enian-European parallels: problem s. Bagratunis and Turks: revival. c. 1071 to the Present The afterm ath of M anazkert Armenians in the time of the Crusades.

the John Rylands University Library of Manchester. but possibly originally a cult object 7 The A doration of the M agi (sixth-seventh century) from the Ejmiatsin Gospel. 881 10 Sculpted decoration on the exterior of the south wall of the early tenth-century Church of the Holy Cross on the island of A |tcamar. fo. (sixth or seventh century) set in the interior of the north wall of a seventh-century church at Ö dzun. 20. from Darius the G reat’s rock relief at Behistun 2 Coin of Tigranes II ‘the G reat’ of Armenia 3 View from a m ountain pass. Erevan. 2374. from an interior wall painting on the north side of the m ain apse of the early tenth-century Church of the Holy Cross on the island of Altcamar. no. M atenadaran.List o f Plates Ara-kha. north-w estern Armenia 4 The island of Altcamar. Kars 13 The Gates of Paradise. fo. southern Armenia 5 Seventh-century вс U rartian bronze models of a turret and part of a city probably from the same model 6 Upper half of sculpted enthroned Virgin and Child. from a Gospel of 1587 illustrated at Julfa. 8 1 3 5 9 12 35 124 161 164 191 214 215 217 265 . Lake Van 12 The m id-tenth-century Church of the Holy Apostles. Lake Van. the ‘Arm enian’ Babylonian pretender. Arm. 229 8 The south-west façade of the early seventh-century Church of St H ripcsime at V a|arshapat 9 The khachckcar of Prince Gregory Atrnersehean from the village of M ets M azrik. Lake Van 11 The apostle James and another apostle.

1842-52) IX 267 . Description de I’Armenie. (Paris. Texier. from C. la Perse. east side. et la M esopotam ie 2 vols.List o f Plates 14 The tow n of Van in the m id-nineteenth century.

1 8. Bagratunis and Siwnians in the ninth century Partial genealogical table: Artsrunis and Bagratunis in the tenth and eleventh centuries 77 180 198-9 .List o f Figures 4.1 9.1 Partial genealogical table: the A rtaxiads and their connections Partial genealogical table: the Artsrunis.

1 5.2 4.2 7.3 2.2 6.1 8.2 10.2 7.1 3. west and south Asia Armenia Armenian churches Europe and west Asia Armenia The east M editerranean and west Asia Armenia Europe and west Asia Africa and Eurasia 4 8 15 26 28 52 53 66 70 90 92 114 118 143 145 163 167 171 201 203 232 234 .2 Europe and west Asia Armenia and her geography The east M editerranean and west Asia Armenia The east M editerranean and west Asia Armenia The east M editerranean and west Asia Armenia The east M editerranean and west Asia Europe and west Asia Armenia Europe and w est Asia Armenia Europe.List o f Maps 1.2 9.1 2.2 3.1 4.3 8.1 7.1 6.2 1.2 5.1 10.1 9.1 1.

A. though the latter is. in a way which would not be expected of an interest in. Miss J. far easier of access. Griffiths. to ‘demystify’ the Armenians. whilst excluding much of historic Armenia. Professor J. Professor R. is often expected to be explicable in terms of some personal connection. M r R. w ith Europe and Eur­ opeans. . D alton. and vice versa. and an interest. M rs V. in this context. Germ any or Russia. to the neglect of the Iranian and Syrian. by m ost people. Dunkin. Sinclair for their com m ents on the text in draft. A. Cunningham . so that those more familiar with the Armenians may also find a consideration of the Armenians as a people of Europe illuminating. Brack. N either Armenia nor the Armenians how ­ ever are routinely associated. It is not to re-establish the emphasis on European influence and aspects which some m odern scholars regard as having been overdone in the past. I. M rs M . Miss S. for a west European. M acdonald.Preface A generally accepted definition of the extent of Europe. M rs A. their patience and good advice. does include the present-day Republic of Armenia. Nevertheless. but as our world becomes more a global village and com parative history and world history more illuminating. European history has traditionally been narrowly conceived. France. M oore and D r T. in Armenia. Robson and M rs I. The book is intended for non-Armenian readers interested in the ancient and medieval histories of Europe. say. C annon. I have no such connection. Cum min. the boundary between Asia and Europe being regarded as running along the Caucasus. concentrating particularly on western Europe. M rs E. and to illuminate their place in a European context. a conviction that Armenian history is just as relevant to the history of the lands and peoples which have shared the heritage of Graeco-Rom an civilization and of Judaeo-Christian religion as that of the Anglo-Saxons. scholarly perception and accounts of Europe have also changed over time. Miss J. M rs F. I should like to thank the editors for their invitation to contribute to this series. Douglass. Willis for secretarial assistance.

University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Preface xiii the Audio-Visual Centre of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne for reproducing some of the plates. and M rs A. . the Inter-Library Loan D epartm ent of the Robinson Library. Senior C artographer in the D epartm ent of Geography in the University of Newcastle upon Tyne who drew up the maps here from my hand-draw n versions. Rooke.

except that sh has been used instead of s. not Acilisena (Latin) or AkilisSne (Greek). are given in Anglicizations of Latinized forms. then the m ore fam iliar and/or the form more likely to be found elsewhere is preferred. Acilisene. U rartian.ı In the cases of Assyrian.Names and transliteration Names of places and persons in Armenia and her history present them ­ selves to the historian in a num ber of languages. However. but N em rut for the m ountain in Commagene in chapter 3 even though the name is the same. for example. or between the works. Cambridge H istory o f Iran or Cambridge H istory o f Islam is followed but generally w ithout accents or diacritical m arks except that. o. for Turkish. the N ear and M iddle East. There are a few exceptions where the name is not particularly well known in such a form and may be better known in a ‘correct’ form. and ğ and ş (rather than gh and sh) are used. W here there is a m ajor anomaly and/or a different form is frequently found elsewhere. ancient and modern. not Äzarbäljän or Äzarbäıjän. it is given in parentheses on first occurrence . Greek names and words. and in quotation of transcriptions of cuneiform where h and s have been changed to kh and sh. N im rud for the volcano in Armenia in chapter 1. Where there are inconsistencies or differences between individual volumes within the series. take priority over con­ sistent application of academic convention. of Europe. Seljuk (Saljuq). There has been no attem pt to standardize (between the different languages) to represent the same sound always in the same way. for example the names of Byzantine themes. quotations from secondary authorities are not changed. w ithout accents. Arabic and Turkish the usage of the ‘standard’ ‘general’ works. Persian. Here familiarity and com m on usage. for example Azerbaijan. Where there are different versions of a place name then the form appro­ . and ease of reference for the general reader pursuing further reading in the history. especially ancient and medieval. ii. usually the Cambridge Ancient History.for example Khayasha (Hayasa). classical and Byzantine.

Armenian proper names are given in their classical rather than their Armenian forms in discussion of the antique period. Melid in the Assyrian period. not Katcojikos (Armenian) or Catholicus (Latin). Tigranes. but here c. except where a particular context or the source makes the Armen­ ian m ore appropriate.Nam es and transliteration XV priate to the period in question is used e.thus Tiflis. the third century a d . namely the Library of Congress system w ith tw o differences and one addition. for example. Trdat. M odern names are used for U rartian sites. and where there is a well-known English equivalent it is preferred. Moses of Khoren. T hom son’s translations of the histories by Agathangelos. Since classical (Greek and Latin) sources pre-date Arm enian ones. The exceptions are twofold: some are well known in ‘incorrect’ and easier forms. Armenian forms are transcribed in accordance with the system advert­ ised in R.g. It < к A 1 & J J К H Dz к h dz ф ■ е о г 2f If 8 L Ch M Y 1 ch ф пи W р' к' о F и W р' к' б f U m У . Thus. except where familiarity renders an anachronistic form more appropriate . The periodization of ancient and medieval is debatable. and take priority over them until. (no Armenian texts being w ritten until the fifth).W. a p 9Ѣ Л Л p * ? A В G D E Z Ё Ё T‘ Zh I L a fc 5 * С PJh L ь я t b g d e z ё ё t' zh i 1 kh ts г Ü ъ 1 п 1 “ Ч 1 /V N Sh О C h' Р J R S V п sh 0 ch' Р j г S V п 9 ч я гь и < a P jh l Ы и 4 1Л Г 3 S п 3 т R Ts' t г с ts fo X T и A 2 Kh Ts л ф + 0 3 > /7 . thus Agathangelos not Agatcangejos and Katholikos (Greek). not Tigran. Tiridates. Melitene in the classical and Byzantine. and Ejishe. for ease of reference in further reading in the context of ancient history.6 40 is the dividing line: thereafter Arm enian and medieval rather than classical forms are used. thus for example Moses not Movses. not Tbilisi (its official name since 1935). at the earliest.

and likewise recent translations into other western languages. been cited in the notes by their m odern authors’ names. is also cited with page references. (Page references in the original Armenian editions. though they have not all been consulted nor are all editions listed.) In other cases the translation used is indicated in the notes. W here translations and even editions have. some problem s and differing interpretations. that provided in the translation which. The Bibliography is restricted to works m entioned in the notes w ith a few more items which require acknowledgem ent and/or w ould be helpful to the general reader. Citations and Bibliography The notes are designed to identify quotations. original sources to which the text is closely related (though generally not in the case of well-known reconstruction of narrative). . Standard works of reference of obvious im portance. In cases where the same author’s name is significantly differently trans­ literated in different publications the name has not been standardized but is given for each publication as it appears. but an English version is accessible. with a cross reference appearing under Primary Sources. are not cited. For completeness. like The Cambridge Ancient His­ tory (2nd edn) and The Cambridge H istory o f Iran are not listed. for ease of reference. in west European languages. and ease of access. the translations and editions of those texts are cited in full under Secondary rather than Prim ary Sources. Citations of prim ary sources are not given in full in every note. for the convenience of the general reader. unless otherwise stated.Notes. indicated in m any of the translations. editions of the m ost used Armenian historical texts are listed. and for Armenian ones. secondary authorities whose work lies behind particular points. W here such a translation is not in English. The translation quoted or paraphrased is in the case of classical texts that provided in the Loeb Classical Library series (where available). this is also listed. The translations of Armenian w orks w hich are listed are those which are most up to date and most cited in scholarly works in the west.

Hence the m aps include some places not m entioned in the text and the same m ap may include borders. Ancient and m odern names for geographical features differ. A rm enia’s m ajor river is the Turkish Aras. to locate the more im portant places. Some districts originally shared a name w ith a family which owned it and lived there and they kept their names while their families moved. which name is commonly used in literature and/or maps regarding historical Armenia. as smaller or larger. Here the names used are.Note on Maps The m aps do not offer a series of snapshots in time. nom enclature and representation require some clarification. reflecting the territory’s differing state and status at different times. polities and people of (sometimes quite widely) differing dates. the Armenian Araks. and to set them in a wider geographical context. but sometimes with the ancient form added in parentheses. have a varying significance. for example Egypt and M acedo­ nia. less or m ore indepen­ dent. for example Vaspurakan. and their land-holdings changed over time. sometimes to a sub-unit of a larger. the relative size and status of an area is not necessarily the same. The same name might sometimes refer to an empire. There are also some problem s regarding the internal geography of ancient and medieval Armenia. but the classical Araxes. and a kingdom in chapters 1 and 9. whereas it did not constitute a political unit in the period covered by chapters 2 -7 and hence is not m apped therein. reflecting historical change. those norm ally used in m odern w orld atlases. Although some historical continuities are thereby the more easily intel­ ligible. sometimes to a kingdom or territory ‘proper’. territories and people (tribes and families) m entioned in each chapter. as do their names in different m odern languages. for example. appears as a ‘province’ in chapter 8. Some territorial names. there is . They are intended to help the reader unfam iliar with Armenian geography. for ease of reference. foreign kingdom or empire. Accordingly the placing and style of the lettering of the name may vary.

xviii

N ote on Maps

doubt about the boundaries of districts in Vaspurakan, and there are problems regarding the status and groupings of areas at particular times. Family surnames appear on the maps in the singular form. For clarity, only tw o sub-units are indicated - those of the region, or province, generally smaller than a kingdom or country, and the district, generally a smaller sub-unit. In general the m aps follow the most recent specialized works, those by R. H. Hewsen, listed in the Bibliography, to which the reader is referred for authoritative judgements: here the intention is simply to aid in conjuring a m ental picture of family and territorial adjacencies, sizes and distances. W here a geographical uncertainty is of particular historical im portance however, it is referred to in the text. The period after 1071 until the late tw entieth century is discussed in chapter 11, but the small Arm enian kingdoms which existed in the medieval period after 1071 are m apped in chapter 9.

Acknowledgements

The author and publishers offer grateful acknowledgements to the fol­ lowing for permission to reproduce copyright material: Michael Baron (cover, plates 4, 10, 11); Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung (plate 1); Bibliotheque N ationale de France (plate 2); Christian Collins (plates 3, 12); The British M useum (plate 5); Fran­ çois Walch (plates 6, 7, 8); Patrick D onabedian (plate 9); the Robinson Library, University of Newcastle upon Tyne (plate 14); plate 13 is repro­ duced by courtesy of the Director and University Librarian, the John Rylands University Library of Manchester. The publishers apologise for any errors or omissions in the above list and would be grateful to be notified of any corrections th at should be incorporated in the next edition or reprint of this book.

1
Origins

O n 24 September 1896, at the age of eighty-seven, William Ew art G lad­ stone delivered his last great public speech. It was in his native city of Liverpool; it lasted for one hour twenty minutes; it was heard by more than 6,000 people and it was recalled in the House of Com mons a quarter of a century later as ‘one of the best speeches of his life’. H is subject was the Arm enian massacres. The vehemence of his attack on the Turks caused him to be accused of war-mongering - an ironic ending to his long career - and the leader of his ow n party, Lord Rosebery, to resign w ithin tw o weeks, declaring that G ladstone’s bellicosity was the coup de grace. In a private conversation that same September Gladstone had remarked of ‘the m artyred people’ to whom ‘in his old age he felt the first obligation’, th at ‘of all the nations of the world no history has been so blameless as the history of the Armenian people’. It had also been a rem arkably long history and Gladstone was not the first western leader to have been concerned w ith Armenian issues. Almost exactly five centuries earlier, in September 1396, a crusade was decisively defeated outside Nicopolis, south of the Danube. This crusade had been prom oted, as far as he was able, by the last of the kings of the Armenians, Leo V. He had hoped for the liberation of his kingdom - not Armenia proper, but the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia - which had fallen to the Egyptian M am luks in 1375. Leo had gone to Paris in 1384, perhaps attracted by the current Anglo-French truce, visited Westminster in 1386, acted as m ediator between the French and English kings Charles VI and Richard II and attended their peace conferences in 1392 and 1393. Leo died in 1393. His m onum ent lies with those of French kings, in the cathedral at St Denis, near Paris, site of the royal abbey of France since the seventh century.

2

Origins

An earlier visitor to the west, Tiridates, brother of the Arsacid king of Parthia and the first Arsacid to rule Armenia, enjoys a very different kind of memorial. Tiridates visited Rome in a d 66, in the reign of the em peror Nero. The great states of Rome and Parthia had struggled to dom inate Armenia, and had eventually reached a compromise. Armenia was to be ruled by Tiridates but he was to receive the crow n from N ero. There is a case for saying that Tiridates’ state visit is com m em orated every year even now. For Tiridates was not only a king, but also a priest of the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism . He was a magus and brought other magi to Rome with him. It was about the same time th at St M atthew ’s Gospel recorded a journey of wise men from the east to the infant Jesus in Bethlehem. Tiridates’ journey seems to have contributed some elements to Iranian legend, and it may also lie behind the later Christian legend of the three M agi.1 There may be a faint reminiscence of Tiridates’ visit in the activities of hundreds of tiny children each year in Nativity plays. The first surviving references to Armenia and Armenians were w ritten a little over 500 years before the Nativity. The Achaemenid king of Persia, Darius I (522-486 вс), recorded in a trilingual illustrated inscription carved high on the cliff face at Behistun (Bisitun) how he had overcome opposition and secured his crown. Armenia appears in a list of twentythree ‘lands’ or, more probably, ‘peoples’, w ho ‘called themselves m ine’ at the beginning (that is, in 522 вс).2 Two Armenians appear am ongst the dramatis personae. One is the rebel Ara-kha whom Darius im paled for claiming to be king of Babylon, the other is Dädarshish, a general of Darius himself. Armenians are referred to also in the writings of D arius’s contem porary, Hecataeus of M iletus, w ho had travelled widely between 515 and 500 в с and knew the extent of D arius’s empire. H ecataeus’s tw o works have survived only as fragm ents in later texts. According to Stephanus of Byzantium (who w rote in the sixth century a d ) he rem arked in his Description o f the Earth that the Armenians were situated south of the Chalybes (on the south-east coast of the Black Sea). These four fragments of Armenian history, which span nearly twentyfive centuries, illustrate some of its m ajor themes. The Armenians have had im portant links with a series of powerful neighbours to east and west. They have often been an object of rivalry between these neighbours. They have retained, in adversity, a sense of national identity. They have striven for national independence. C hristianity has been a vital force in their culture. They have contributed to the history and culture of the peoples of Europe. But there are problem s, for westerners, in apprehend1 The historical prototype of the legendary Caspar; or G adaspar in Arm enian tradition, the M agi leader; was not Tiridates himself but G undofarr king of Sakastan, w ith w hose reign Tiridates’ career overlapped. For this, and Tiridates’ im pact on Iranian legend see Herzfeld, 1935, pp. 63-6. 2 Kent, 1953; Cam eron, G. G., 1973.

Origins

3

ing the history of the Armenians. The Armenians seem far away, their language and the geography of their hom elands unfamiliar. The evidence is patchy and their history can only be properly understood in the context of th at of neighbouring peoples, sometimes even less familiar.

Plate 1

Ara-kha, the 'A rm enian ’ Babylonian pretender, from Darius the G reat’ s rock relief at Behistun.

Map 1.1

Europe and w est Asia

Origins

S

The story of the Armenians may be documented from about 1165 в с , when they came to eastern Turkey and subsequently spread over lands divided in the tw entieth century between Turkey, the Soviet Union, Iran and Iraq. Although there are, as we shall see, different theories regarding the Arm enians’ origins, these origins were, probably, European. H ow ­ ever, the m ost easily identifiable ancestors of the later Armenian nation are the Urartians. It would be wrong to regard the society and culture of Urartu, a powerful state between the ninth and early sixth centuries в с, situated where those Armenians referred to by Darius and Hecataeus lived, as an Armenian achievement. But it would be equally wrong to regard U rartu as external to Armenian history. U rartian culture was part of the Arm enians’ early experience, and late Urartian history was partly shaped by Armenians. Indeed, this early period, when Urartu was a world power, should be considered one of the highest points in Armenian history, rivalled only by the first century вс when the Arm enian king Tigranes the Great forged a great, but short-lived, empire stretching down to Syria and the Holy Land. In the intervening centuries the Armenians had been subsumed into the Achaemenid Empire, regaining effective independence under a native dynasty only after the conquest of this empire by Alexander of M acedon. After the turn of the millennium Armenians were caught up in R om an-Parthian rivalry and became sub­ ject to the rule of relatives of the Parthian kings. W ith the Arsacids came an intensification of Iranian influence upon Armenian culture until Tir­ idates the Great, early in the fourth century, established Christianity as the state religion, trying, under Rom an protection, to stave off the threat to the very existence of the Armenian kingdom posed by the Sasanians who had ousted the Arsacids in Parthia in the early third century. The great glories of Armenian culture were its oral tradition, reaching back into the ancient past, its ecclesiastical building, which flourished in

Plate 2

Coin o f Tigranes II ‘the G reat’ o f A rm enia.

and then a new force burst upon the scene. This is given by the Arm enian Geography which was w ritten probably shortly before a d 636 by the Armenian scholar Anania of Shirak. m ost basic questions which arise: W hat was ‘Arm enia’? W hat are the ‘Arm enians” origins? W hen did the ‘Arm enians’ populate ‘A rm enia’? W hen and where was their first king­ dom? T he Place ‘Armenia’ is not easily identifiable.320 square miles. 1992. partly because areas of Armenian settlement and culture have not coincided neatly w ith areas of Armenian rule. whilst the territory actually under Armenian rule C .3 It is this smallest territory which is treated in w hat seems to be a detailed medieval description of the ancient Arm enian state. interrupted by oppression in the eighth century. but thereafter their story is one of foreign dom ination and exile.108 square miles. The later tenth and the eleventh centuries resemble the sixth and seventh: first Byzantium gradually annexed Arm enian territories. complicate the very first. the Seljuk (Saljuq) Turks. pp. or districts. Eremyan (Hewsen. 296-303). to change the history of the world. or Byzantine. For some three centuries Armenians ruled in Cilicia. but indep­ endence and prosperity. and its vernacular historical literature. only about 108.861 less. considering historical and geographical Armenia. and partly because the extent of Arm enian-controlled territory has varied considerably. another. T. But the most recent explorer of Armenian historical geography has confirmed 3 The approxim ate area of the fifteen ‘provinces’ listed in the Arm enian Geography.6 Origins the late sixth and seventh. M uch of this literature was stimulated by religious persecution at the hands of the Sasanians and by the leader­ ship of the church after the abolition of the Arm enian m onarchy in 428. . and the tenth and eleventh centuries a d . and the slender and am biguous character of the earliest evidence. an account of fifteen ‘provinces’ comprising nearly tw o hundred gawars. w hen kingship was revived. Unfortunately the length and nature of the ‘blameless’ history of the Armenians. according to the estim ates of S. suggests about 154. and Sasanian Persian empires was ended by Arab conquests in the seventh century. Partition between the east Rom an. It was however a false dawn.440 square miles. returned in the ninth. passim) yield some 3. though this was not in itself necessarily a bad thing nor even universally unpop­ ular. They are perhaps best know n to m any westerners as victims of massacres in the early tw entieth century and as claim ants of territory in Turkey and the former Soviet Union. H ew sen’s adjustm ents (1992.a d 298 was much less.56 b c . Thus one estimate of w hat constitutes historical Armenia suggests an area of 239.

but a positive danger. . had heard 4 For these problem s and for scholarly perceptions of the text. 32-5. 45. It is clear for example from Assyrian sources th at refugees. in antiquity. pp.Origins 7 some earlier views that this account is not to be taken literally. Two arch-shaped. 6 T hom as Artsruni. 38 and n. It was at their level. encouraging avalanches and hiding precipices. above M uş. four were smaller than the docum ent records. lava flows and. where heights reach nearly 9. ch. w ho w rote early in the first century a d . either throughout the past. H istory o f the House o f the Artsrunis. pp.56 в с and a d 298) controlled all the territory in question.6 A nother hindrance to internal unity is th at com m unications in Armenia are not naturally easy.5 And in the tenth century a d the Armenian w riter Thom as Artsruni. forests.000 feet near Erzurum and over 13. The population of historical Armenia may never have exceeded 5 or 6 million and most of its extent was not fit for settlement. Although the Arm enian state had once (between c. 5 See below. Separate communities might indeed be similar in m any respects but some lack of uniform ity is natural in terrain where there are m ountains. W hen pre-U rartian H ittite and Assyrian sources allude to Armenia they refer m ost often to such ‘lands’ or ‘countries’ rather than to ethnic groups. though it has been accepted as such by some scholars. Thom son. as if they were objects of curiosity. though he adm ired their loyalty and courage. Passes are closed and com ­ m unications impeded where the mass of snow is not just an obstacle.4 These vicissitudes as to size may be explained in part by aspects of physical geography. Rivers are only partially navigable because of winding gorges. the level of the gaw afs. The more formidable m ountains have over many centuries sheltered and engendered societies which differed from those below. 7. 187-8. The geographer Strabo. rapids. H ewsen. a relative of King Gagik of Vaspurakan (the south-east and east parts of the Van region). w hether from poverty or politics. The country is com partm entalized by its m ountains. For the natural internal state of geographical Arme­ nia is not one of political unity. 1992. or even in any particular period. 284-95 and Introduction. II. though the ascent into the Arm enian plateau from the west (beginning about tw enty miles west of M alatya) is gradual.000 further east. described inhabitants of these same m ountains. 2 p. trans. And when the text was w ritten eight were long lost. that political society was m ost stable. not all the ‘provinces’ existed during th at time and of the eleven th at did. It is not a valid picture of the geopolitical realities of ancient Armenia. currents and floods. pp. 1985. and m ountains dom inate Armenia. and hence its pattern of settlem ent has been dispersed and its political communities self-contained. were attracted to the Sasun m ountains in the seventh century в с . east-w est aligned m ountain ranges alm ost meet in Armenia. 6 -1 5 .

2 Armenia and her geography .Мар 1.

wind and snow: they fled the cold as an enemy and retreated to the Van region. 10 Strabo. recorded c . 4 -9 . 23-5.7 A nother Greek. unprepared though they had been. 8 X enophon. XI.8 The eleventh-century Armenian historian Aristakes of Lastivert records that in 1022 a d an army of the Byzantine em peror Basil II outside Khoy (Hoy) suffered badly from sudden rain. The Geography. pp. Anabasis. 12-21. 4. H istory o f the Armenians. that on the m ost northerly passes whole caravans were sometimes swallowed up. iv. ГѴ. 8-1 2 . and the loss of toes through frostbite. An Armenian headm an passed on the tip of tying 7 Strabo. effects of snowblindness.Origins 9 Plate 3 View from a m ountain pass. north-western Armenia. trans. though this seems to refer to the less snowy summer m onths.9 These particular difficulties were not however absolutely insurm ount­ able. 6. some of them indicted Xenophon for assault. v. V. xiv. He records a depth of six feet. like Thom as. V. the use of snow shoes and also the practice of sliding loads down from the summit on skins.400 в с how his army was severely troubled by snow when it marched through western Armenia. viii.10 X enophon got his men through. XI. Elsewhere he m entions. . Xenophon. ГѴ . so severely th at when they reached Cotyora on the Black Sea. abandoning their possessions. 9 Aristakes of Lastivert. the deaths of many animals and slaves and thirty soldiers. The men had to be chivvied to keep going. 1-26. 1973. C anard and Berberian. Strabo rem arks that people carried staffs to signal with and help them breathe in the event of being buried.

copper. borax and arsenic to the north-w est of Lake Van. There is easy passage between present-day Armenia and Azerbaijan to Iran and to the Caspian sea via the lower Araxes valley. . Armenia has produced a variety of crops (cereals. tigers and wolves. sugar cane. and wild animals. near m odern Baghdad. In a d 1022 Basil II’s infantry lost fingers and toes. Armenia was ‘exceptionally good “horse-pasturing” country’. the Scyths troubled Urartu as well as her rival Assyria. XI. but the Byzantines were able to ride to Vaspurakan. Indeed in the w inter of a d 6 27-8 the east Rom an em peror Heraclius not only brought an army through Khoy to take the Persian capital Ctesiphon.10 Origins bags round the anim als’ feet so they could walk and not sink into the snow. Animal husbandry has been im portant. Heraclius certainly surprised the Persians. Amongst their vegetable resources have been vines and trees (fruit trees. XI. winter conditions may be construed as one of the several advantages which nature has offered Armenians. From their base south of Lake Urmia (now in Iran). precious stones. There was once much m ore forest than nowadays. cold.11 Assyrian inscriptions reveal that she had been a m ajor sup­ plier of horses. Anatolia and Russia with Iran and M esopotam ia. for Assyria. willow). and his tent-pegs were frozen to the ground. Politically however. rice. w hether as booty or tribute. Accounts of Arab campaigns and punitive expeditions against the Armenians reveal a norm of resting in winter quarters. But since military campaigning should be ruled out in winter. The geography of Armenia was also advantageous for commerce. There are other weak points. snowy Kars region. Extensive deforestation has occurred in Turkey. oaks. but brought it from the west via the much harsher. walnut. as land was cleared for pasture and tim ber cut for smelting and ship­ building. 9. In addition Arm enians have had valuable mineral resources. The Tigris basin is vulner­ able from the south and there is no clear boundary for Armenia on the 11 Ibid. xiv. birds. for example. silk. Armenian involvement in trade has varied but over the centuries trade routes passing through Armenia have connected the Black Sea with the Caspian. easy passage has sometimes had disadvantages. Another benefit was the potential for prosperity. Azerbaijan is an arrow pointed at Arm enia’s heart. w ater melons). U rartian inscriptions likewise record the taking of large numbers of horses by U rartian kings. 7. Such exploits were of course exceptional. poplar. tobacco. Arm enians’ animal resources have included fish. cotton. and iron in the plain of Ayrarat. in antiquity and later. gold and silver north of Erzurum. silver and iron in the Taurus region. cloudy. As Strabo observed. from the time of Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076 вс) to the late ninth century вс. gold. xiii. tin at M ount Sahend on the eastern frontier of U rartu. including leopards. gold.

used to be know n as the ‘Golden Plain’. has relatively warm winters w ith little snow. at about 31. This is not easily passable. of varied height but limited breadth except at Karabağ. nearly three times the size of Republican (formerly Soviet) Armenia. The m ajor regional unities and variations w ithin geographical Armenia comprise the Euphrates. w inter tem peratures may be as low as .000 feet near Erzurum. M ost spectacular are those near Lake Van. Diyarbakir. whose crater measures 5У2 miles at its widest. but m ost of it is now under w ater following the building of the Keban Dam. M alatya. except at Ergani about 75 miles east of M alatya and through the historic pass in the valley of the Bitlis river. The larger p art of the Elazığ plain. Some m ountain passes are closed for six to eight months. The Euphrates basin above M alatya is. and the areas around Lakes Van and Urmia.150 square miles. There are variations of climate. The Tigris basin is separated from the upper Euphrates basin by the Kurdish Taurus. The fierce and independent Kurds may be descended in part from the Carduchi described by X enophon. Besides chains of m ountains rising to nearly 9.168 feet above sea level. volcanic cones. The higher m ountains however. i-iii. But at Erzurum . has relatively mild winters w ith only a light snowfall. historically one of the m ost fertile parts of Armenia. in Kurdi­ stan in the south-east.900 feet. The north is a little more secure as the Pontus m ountains divide Armenia from the south-eastern Black Sea coast before sweeping round to the south of Lake Sevan and the lower Araxes.600 12 X enophon. 3. and lies for about four more. Beyond this north-eastern chain. But there are reasons for not identifying the C arduchi w ith the ancient Kurds. are snow -bound in winter. the January mean tem perature is about zero. the Kara Su. snow falls for about three m onths. and there are avalanches and floods. See Sinclair. on the Euphrates’ northern branch. IV. The climate and vegetation of south-east Turkey differ from those of the upper Euphrates. 1989(b).936 feet above sea level.281 feet above sea level.12 They are transhum ant. and Siiphan. about 2. near N im rud.953 feet above sea level. N im rud (Nemrut) to the west at 9. Anabasis. These and other aspects of physical geography lead the inhabitants to live in small communities in sites difficult of access but easily defended. p.000 feet.Origins 11 west. and those of the Caucasian Albanians. 360. About 2. classical Amida. Tigris and Araxes basins. The upper and middle Araxes (Turkish Aras) basin includes the plain of Erevan. and their economy partly pastoral. Beyond them lie the C auca­ sus m ountains and the Russian steppes. there are. in the east. at over 14. . are the lands where the ancient peoples of Colchis (on the Black Sea) and of Iberia (m odern Georgia) lived. 6. only 1. south-west of Lake Van. where it will support forests.1 7 ° . on the northern shore.

at nearly 17.Plate 4 The island o f A lfa m a r. 1991. west of Erevan. It har­ bours fish. It is of salt w ater and harbours a unique species of fish. this plain is overlooked by the (extinct) volcanic cones of Alagöz. High up north-east of Erevan. The great lakes of Armenia are those of Van and Urmia. is Lake Sevan. historically about 547 square miles. I. capital of a small kingdom in the tenth century a d .000 feet above sea level is about 1.000 feet. The Van plain. boars and birds. alm ost exactly the size of the English county of Sussex. to the south. can be even colder than Erzurum. deer. Its shallow alkaline waters have no fish. trans. This lake. The fifth-century a d Armenian w riter Lazarus (Lazar) of Pcarp details its charm s and resources and describes successful hunting. To Van’s east is Lake Urmia. on a plateau surrounded by m ountains. some 4. southern Armenia. Kars. 5. from Van itself. at over 13. and another route. and it is w atered by streams from these m ountains.13 In the higher land. 7.451 feet above sea level. at about 1. History o f the Armenians. on the lake’s eastern shore and limited to north and south by m ountain chains. . including trout. leading to this one. conditions are more like those at Erzurum. 4 2 -3 . but according to Strabo they shared w ith the 13 Lazarus of P carp. of onagers. was the heart of Urartu. pp. is. to the north and of A rarat.715 feet above sea level. via the K ötür pass. 5. The region is likewise particularly subject to earthquakes.807 square miles in size.440 square miles. Access to the east is by a route to Khoy from M uradiye on the n o rth ­ eastern corner of the lake. goats. feet above sea level. Lake Van.000 feet. T hom son. Lake Van.

Access to the middle Araxes plain is possible via the Sufian-M arand Pass. Despite some scholarly disagree­ ment. since they were. first. second. 2. 16 H erodotus. XI. around 370 в с Eudoxus of Cnidus com m ented on the similarity of Phrygian and A rm enian. specialized study suggests that proto-A rm enian m ost probably belonged to a Thraco-Phrygian sub-group w hich appeared in Asia in the twelfth century вс. If we give priority to these last then we m ust begin Armenian history with their arrival in Armenia. 19. is softer than elsewhere. 1984. Conditions can nevertheless be very severe. Aristakes of Lastivert saw the hand of God in the hardships which afflicted the Byzantine army in 1022. But their arrival is difficult to describe.900 square miles. a Thessalian and com panion of Jason. the IndoEuropean languages which had become widespread in Anatolia by the beginning of the second millennium в с . The Histories. U rartian and Indo-European Luwian w ho were joined later by speakers of Indo-European proto-A rm enian. like H ecataeus. a scantiness of conclusive evidence. he said. U rartian and other protoCaucasian languages are not. recorded much later by Strabo.14 The climate of this region. 15 Diakonoff. 8. quoted by Stephanus of Byzantium.Origins 13 waters of Van an ability to restore weathered garm ents.15 Eudoxus was not the first to record an affiliation between Phrygians and Armenians. rem arking that it was out of keeping w ith the area’s norm al conditions. VII. was that Armenia had been nam ed after Armenus. of the Greek writers H erodotus and Strabo. In the middle of the fifth century вс H erodotus had done the same. Strabo also remarked that the clothing of the Armenians 14 Strabo. At Tabriz across the eastern plain the tem perature can rise in sum m er to 40° and drop in w inter to — 20°. 109-10. whose followers had settled there. . pp. There are tw o problems: geographical and chronological. Proto-Arm enian did not however belong to the same branch of Indo-European as H ittite and Luwian. and the survival of only a few sentences from Phrygian. Origins The ancestry of the m odern and medieval Armenians of the Armenian plateau includes a num ber of different groups. of language and. xiii. The ancient population comprised speakers of H urrian.16 A nother tradition. XI. xiv. Arm enian is an Indo-European language whereas H urrian. Eudoxus is. And indeed. The first is the easier. He observed that the Armenians who were in the Persian King Xerxes’ army when he invaded Thrace in 480 вс were arm ed like the Phrygians. 40). The conclusion that the ‘Arm enians’ had come from the west to Armenia can be derived from the evidence. 39. 73. Phrygian settlers. 188-90 (n.

Toum anoff. the seventh century вс was indeed a period of change. Armenian T corgom . perhaps.20 Since Til-Garim m u is. pp. Third.17 Some m odern scholars have cited. Phrygian history stretched back many centuries. Assyria and Urartu. as he knew. 1927. Diakonoff. 1963. For Arm enian . II. II. 179 (n. XI. 1984. Indo-European origin. it is tem pting to connect the proto-A rm enians w ith Phrygian Til-Garimm u.Til-G arim m u connection. 125. 292). Scyths and M edes resulted in the destruction of the empires of Phrygia. These were reported respectively in publications of 1899 and 1901. for upon it depends the validity of treating U rartian history as a significant part of Armenian history rather than as merely a background to its beginning. p. As Strabo noted. 19 Strabo. the ancestor of the Armenians. and Thracian type tum uli discovered between M alatya. H erodotus. 1984. th at is to before the end of the thirteenth century вс. or were they an advanced people. XI. for the negative. was called T corgom. G arstang and Gurney. 1971. 179 (n. 21 For possible sites for Til-Garim m u. and.21 17 Strabo.T corgom equation. pp. which shows a figure wearing a cap of Phrygian type. no. It would seem m ost natural for H erodotus to have been thinking of the Phrygians nearest to himself in date. briefly took over from Assyria a tow n called TilG arim m u. H erodotus himself observed that the Phrygians had once lived in Europe under a different name. it seems from Assyrian sources that in the early seventh century someone called Gurdi. p. 53. XII. rats who had deserted the sinking ship of the short-lived Phrygian Empire for firmer ground in the seventh century вс. 20 Luckenbill. . but the m atter of dating is more complex. 55. For Togarm ah . 297). for three reasons. 177. VII. Adontz. Adontz. 1946. 2. 73. pp. The chronological question is im portant. 316-20. 4.14 Origins and their style of horsem anship was said to be Thessalian. a relief found north of Irbil (ancient Arbela) in Iraq. w ho had participated in the culture of the recently extinguished U rartian Empire? The hypothesis of a seventh-century arrival is very attractive. 93. Second. H erodotus did not say when the Armenian settlers left their Phrygian kin. xiv. 1959. as archaeological evidence for a ThracoPhrygian advance into Armenia. K harput and Diyarbakir. and that they were believed by the Egyptians to be the m ost ancient of nations. but other scholars give the tumuli little credence since no archaeological confirm ation for them can now be found. 138). iv.18 All of this evidence points to a western. 333. viii. and Diakonoff. p.19 We must nevertheless attem pt to date the Arm enian m igration. Were the Armenians in the sixth century в с a relatively primitive people. Burney and Lang. the Biblical Togarmah. 8. 290 (p. 1946. and since Armenian tradition records that the father of Н аук. 18 For the positive view. w ho has been conjectured to be Gordias I of Phrygia. in which the activity of the Cimmerians. stories about them ‘go back to earlier times than the Trojan W ar’. 12.

Map 1.3 The east Mediterranean and w est Asia .

There is a good case. This specialized linguistic evidence is clearly crucial.1165 вс between the northern Taurus and the Sasun m ountains. others apparently in Syspiritis. His ‘ancient’ story of Armenus is probably nonsense. (1114-1076 вс) w ho recorded that in 1115 the M ushki captured the land of Kadmukhu (in the upper Tigris valley). linguistic data seem not to support this connection. Shubria is attested later than Alzi. at the same time. probably. Scholars are not unanim ous concerning its exact location.000 captives and 22 D iakonoff. O ur first narrative of ‘Arm enian’ activity comes in the annals of the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser I. But the association of Armenus w ith Jason at least suggests that Strabo’s tw o fourth-century вс sources were thinking of a past m uch m ore remote than the period of Phrygia’s decline. . pp. 115-21. and for the relationship of Old Armenian and Phrygian.16 Origins Unfortunately. Acilisene is the area of m odern Erzincan in the upper Euphrates valley north-w est of Alzi. 205 (n. It has been argued that Old Arm enian cannot be derived from Phrygian. or Urumeans. more certainly. It is much easier to trace the progress of speakers of protoArmenian. Alzi was in the valley of the River Arsanias (Turkish M urat Su) extending as far as the m ountains of Sasun. 47). According to Assyrian sources. Teasing out the roots of the Arm enian nation’s family tree is a complex business. He claims that a successful Assyrian counter-attack inflicted heavy casualties. and. According to Greek tradition Jason w ent adventuring not long before the Trojan War. Syspiritis should probably be identified with Shubria. and the M ushki occupied tw o H urrian countries. It necessitates a traw l through pre-seventh century sources to discover some group settling in Armenia who m ight actually have been proto-Arm enians. some in Acilisene. It is not clear who the Urumeans were. who settled c. but the likelihood that the M ushki were a Thraco-Phrygian tribe is underlined by the fact th at in later Assyrian sources the name M ushki designated Phrygians. 1984. with the M ushki. within the land where the state of U rartu was to flourish and which became known subsequently as Armenia. 189-90 (n. pp. came from the west and seized some H urrian cities in about 1165 в с . that the tw o languages separated from a com m on base much earlier than the eighth or seventh centuries в с . and lay. M ore im portant is Strabo’s account of where the newcomers settled. the Urumi. advanced by D iakonoff (D’iakonov). took 6.22 The identification of the twelfth-century M ushki as proto-Arm enians has the further attraction that it is reconcilable with Strabo’s testimony. 39. 6). the kingdom of Alzi and its neighbour Purulumzi. 109-12. just south-east of twelfth-century Alzi. whom we m ight for convenience call ‘Arm enians’. for identifying this group w ith the Urumeans. and hence that the seventh-century ‘Arm enians’ were not Phrygians. north-east of Diyarbakir in the Sasun m ountains.

. Some ‘Arm enians’ may have been forcibly moved. This is assuming that the area of settlement later housed about one quarter of the population of U rartu. 1976. С 476 (r. Some Luwian names entered protoArm enian usage. The disturbed conditions caused by the Cimm erian raids probably prom pted some voluntary. 124.24 M odern physical anthropology certainly suggests that the Thraco-Phrygians were not dom inant. 24 Diakonoff. O ften this was a m atter of internal m ovement within expanding frontiers. m ove­ m ent eastw ards.785-c. there may also have been settle­ m ent of both M ushki and Urumeans in Shubria. against M elid. related to the Urartians and th at their speaking an Indo-E uropean language resulted from five centuries of Phrygian rule.27 Some ‘Arm enians’ may have settled at some stage in the M alatya area (ancient M elid) and mixed there w ith the local population.25 The ‘Arm enians’ had five kings. assessed as between 1. 1984. 12 (i 62) (pp. like the Assyrians. Tiglath-Pileser m entions 20. The inscrip­ tions of the U rartian kings record that they. was one such. 123-4. pp. much used in both medieval and modern times.5 and 3 million in the time of Sarduri II (c.23 D iakonoff calculates th at these newcomers were outnum bered three times or more by the local population. 18 (ii 89) (p. 197-8 (n. Argishti I (c. II. 104). but sometimes captives were im ported.763 вс) moved 6. 9). 1971. 6-7). pp. probably in alliance w ith the Cimm erians.000 M ushki men-atarms and 4. resulted in forced transplantation of some of the enemy population. and from Supa (north of Alzi). to Arin-berd (Urartian Erebuni). was incorporated into U rartu by the U rartian king M enua. 1976.600 w ar­ riors from M elid. The cam paign of Rusa II (C. 25 O n these grounds it has been postulated that the Armenians were A natolians. We know little about early ‘Arm enian’ society. 33) (p.000 Urumi and Kaska troops together. As we have seen. In the early eighth century. 26 Diakonoff. conquered in 856 by Shalmaneser III (858­ 824) of Assyria. 27 Grayson. at the very time when U rartu was distracted by the 23 Grayson. frequently resettled large num bers of people within their domains. the forerunner of m odern Erevan. if refugee. but. probably H urrians. ‘A rm enian’ dissem ination in the U rartian period was gradual.26 By the ninth century вс the ‘Arm enians’ had spread into the Tigris valley. II. suggesting that they either adopted local names or accepted local rulers. Alzi. according to D iakonoff. 123). the names used by the local dynasties continued to be H urrian and Luwian. burnt their cities and cut down the harvest of their gardens. 105). 197 (n. the Phrygians and the Chalybes. 1984. 177-9).763-c. T hat they had settled dow n is implied by the Assyrian records that Tukulti-N inurta II (890-884) took cattle and sheep from them . 106). (See Burney and Lang.685-C. pp.645) in 676.734).Origins 17 imposed tribute on Alzi and Purulumzi. Cl 547 (i 69) (p. M usheJ. which was Luwian. and th at they paid to his son Ashurnasirpal II (883-859) a tribute of bronze utensils and wine as well as anim als. LXXXVII.

Diakonoff. or within. on linguistic grounds Til-Garim m u seems unlikely to have been ‘Arm enian’. 271). They had already mingled with the local populations of Alzi. 122). should be connected. namely ‘son of H skay’ (hskay being Armenian for giant). I. but they had lost other aspects of Phrygian culture. and mingled with the Urartians. H istory o f the Armenians. Shubria rather than just to its north. Shubria and elsewhere and so. Shubria and Melid have all been suggested as the home of the first ‘Arm enian’ kingdom . Furtherm ore. The Arm enian form cannot be traced back to the O ld Iranian one. from Babylon. but they may have been one and the same. T he First Kingdom Til-Garimmu. imbibed some of their culture.28 Nevertheless. thereby contributing to her decline. . and Urme or Urmie. This m ountainous border zone m aintained its independence for m ost of the period of U rartian history. pp. as well as their proper names. Iranian for Scythian. the name of the Scythian leader contem porary w ith Esarhaddon of Assyria (680-669). for there are no Phrygian-style tum uli in Urartu. and it may also be th at Urme should be identified with. presumably. 21. might suggest a first entrenchm ent on the southern border of Urartu. M elid. has also been postulated. m entioned in those chapters of the Old Testament Book of Ezekiel which concern the w ar between Lydia and the M edes in 590-585 в с . After the fall of U rartu to the M edes in 590 в с the ‘Arm enians’ simply infiltrated further. pp. There are differences of opinion concerning the separate identity and location of the countries of Arme. The Arm enian tradition that Н аук travelled north to the land of A rarad. A Scythian origin has been suggested on the grounds of ‘Paroyr’ and ‘Skayordi’.29 ‘Skayordi’ perhaps means ‘son of a “Saka” ’. T hom son. There is no conclusive evidence against the possibility that it is with G urdi’s Til-Garimmu that the House of Togarmah. 1978. 29 M oses of Khoren. 1984. the names given by the eighth-century a d Armen­ ian historian M oses of Khoren to the first Armenian king and his father. It is possible that these same condi­ tions enabled some ‘Arm enians’ to make conquests of their own within U rartu. m entioned in U rartian inscriptions. Purulumzi. as has a Scythian origin for its dynasty. But a different meaning for Skayordi.18 Origins appearance of the Scyths to her east. 22 trans. The ‘Arm enians’ presumably favoured Phrygian armour. 177 (n. protoArmenian speakers had settled in Urme. ‘Paroyr’ has been thought to be reminiscent of ‘B artatua’ (Partatua). The grounds for locating the first Armenian kingdom in Shubria are stronger. It has been 28 Ezekiel. 38-9. though there are linguistic difficulties attached to this. 108-10. 201 (n.

th at is in Shubria. p. D iakonoff associates Ezekiel’s sixth-century Togarmah with the dynasty of M ugallu. including disruption in the west caused by Assyrian activities. 23. II. pp. Til-Garim m u’s subsequent bid for independence. seems to have been crushed by the Assyrians in 695. 1984. I. however.33 This is plausible for three reasons. Third. probably. whose capital was at Arslantepe (near M alatya). and LVII-LVIII (for comm ent). but it is not implausible that a new ‘Arm enian’ dynasty should subsequently have risen to power. by ‘our valiant ancestor Skayordi’. 328). 6 -1 4 . 236). suggests that Shubria was left to its own devices. therein I settled’ Esarhaddon told his god Ashur. 112. to U rartu. of the upper and lower seas. nos. centre of one of the new provinces. 1990. Second. The report in Assyrian annals for 664 that it was the inhabitants of Kullimeri. Til-Garimm u had belonged to M elid before Assyria subjugated both in 712 в с . Moses. Yet despite the strengths of the Shubrian theory.31 Finally there is in M oses of K horen’s History w hat seems to be an explicit connection between the father of the first Armenian king and Shubria. w ho slew great num bers of an invading force (from Urartu) led by one Andaria. 1978. 179 (n. was settled in Sasun. 4 -1 2 . Ibid.32 According to the Bible they went to A rarat.Origins 19 argued th at ‘H skay’ conquered all or part of Shubria in about 714-712. one of them. The brothers of Esarhaddon fled Assyria after assassinating their father Sennacherib (704-681). 1927. trans. There is no reason to suppose that Moses m eant a different Skayordi from the Skayordi w hom he had designated a little before as the father of King Paroyr. Diakonoff. For the depleted population seems to have been stocked up w ith transportees from lands west of the upper Euphrates. ‘People. that is. T hom son. Enquiries of King Esarhaddon to his oracle show that M elid achieved independence under King M ugallu by. Starr. M elid is not only attested but appears to have recovered her independence and flourished. seventhcentury king of M elid. under Gurdi. the m ost convincing reconstruction is that which locates the first Armenian kingdom in M elid. rather than w ith Til-Garim m u. . These years are suggested because they were.. It is also likely th at some more ‘Arm enians’ came to Shubria after Esarhaddon had turned her into tw o Assyrian provinces in 673. 854 (p. as we shall see. 608 (p. 96-9. In M oses’ account. the plunder of my bow.30 The Shubrian dynasty which Esarhaddon term inated seems from the names of its princes to have been H urrian rather than ‘A rm enian’. 296).34 The annals of Ashurbanipal (668-631? or 627?) show 30 31 32 33 34 Luckenbill. a period in which U rartu had both internal and external problems to cope with. pp. 675. and deported many of her inhabitants. Sanasar. whereas Assyrian sources make no further references to Til-Garimm u.

yet it may also draw on Armenian oral tradition which Xenophon had encountered during his journey. X enophon relates that the Arm enian king. For the strength of M elid had declined in the middle of the seventh century. and descended from proto-A rm enian settlers. His suggestion th at there had been a M edian affiliation seems to be supported by M oses of Khoren. M utallu fled. w ho controlled Tabal and perhaps M elid too. after deposing the kings of Tabal and M elid in 713 and 712. to U rartu.36 It is plausible that when M elid regained independence it was ruled by a new line. 32). 37 Xenophon. in 708. iv. II. which had become an Assyrian p ro ­ vince in 713. king of Kum m ukh. proposed by D iakonoff. i. 6 for num bers expected). D iakonoff supports his argum ent that the original Arm en­ ian kingdom was M elid w ith the fact that Babylonian docum ents of the Achaemenid period refer to U rartu and M elid where they. albeit garbled. 297). II. (and II. through Armenia which he described in his Anabasis. apparently. having heard th at the Medes were about to be attacked by the king of Lydia and others. 22-3) 64 (p. By C. W hen Kum m ukh became an Assyrian p ro ­ vince. since Sargon com plained of M utallu’s trust in the U rartian king. T hat M ugallu was ‘Arm enian’ is suggested by the possibility. As Diakonoff suggests. So his story may preserve some historical truth. king of Persia and founder of the Achaemenid Empire. subsequently made an alliance against Assyria with the king of the Cimmerians. whose account is independent of X enophon’s.37 M uch of the Cyropaedia is fictional. refused to provide the M edes w ith either troops or the tribute which he ow ed. he gave the city of Melid to M utallu.20 Origins that by 668 M ugallu had extended his control to Tabal35 (north-west of M elid). mean the tw o Achaemenid satrapies in Armenia which H erodotus m en­ tions. 36 Luckenbill. 781 (p. w ho conquered the M edes in the middle of the sixth century. an event which occurred in 612 в с . the dynasty of M ugallu was probably both a new dynasty. 45 (pp. The Assyrian king Ashurbanipal records th at the god Ashur smote the son of M ugallu by fire and that his kin and 35 Luckenbill. II. M ugallu’s son. The inscriptions of the Assyrian king Sargon II (721-705 вс) record that.600 the geographical base of the ‘A rm enian’ dynasty of M elid had indeed probably changed. Cyropaedia. 1927. Moses. its purpose to expound X enophon’s ideas about the model ruler rather than the historical Cyrus. that Ezekiel’s ruler of Togarm ah was the anonym ous Armenian king to w hom X enophon referred in his Cyropaedia w ritten in the 360s в с . with other Greek mercenaries. probably. states that the first Arm en­ ian king was m ade king by the Medes in return for helping in the destruction of Assyria. 1927. This text concerns the life of Cyrus. another form er kingdom . . 12. There had been a hiatus in M elid at the end of the eighth century.

40 X enophon. but they do not reveal how these identities were attained. i. 1996. Historically their com m unities had m aintained strong traditions of m arrying within themselves. 1986-7. including over 150. political and social constructs. In 1979 there were nearly 3 million Armenians in Soviet Armenia. Tabal appears autonom ous in a passage of Ezekiel referring to the 590s. as for example in the cases of Scotland and England. the area of M ugallu’s king­ dom of M elid and Tabal passed to the kingdom of Cappadocia.D D issertation.. p.40 Nam es and Identities N am es of peoples and countries signify internal senses of identity and external perceptions of them . date and source. II. an area roughly the size of Belgium. 41 There is a vast literature on the subjects of nationalism and ethnicity. . Atkinson et al. Aribaeus.39 Furtherm ore. 178 (n. French and N orth American figures are taken from m odern studies where they are attributed to the Soviet Census of 1979. 42 The Soviet. 5. 1983. in the context of a history of the ‘Arm enians’. in the USA this sense does not differentiate them dramatically from their fellow Americans. for their relationship to historical and archaeological scholarship of the ancient and medieval periods in Europe and Russia. Cyropaedia. There is even a danger that such names m ight mislead the casual enquirer. besides Scotland. Ander­ son. and nowadays many m aintain a strong sense of Armenian identity. and a com pilation for 1976 in N .g. 1979. 47.41 Hence we face the question of definition: w ho. Schahgaldian. 96-105. Paradoxically. is to be considered ‘Arm enian’. and for a table of estim ated num bers w ith definition. since ‘the ancestors of those people w ho could today be considered A rm enian’ is an obvious answer to the question of w ho a history of the Armenians should be about. prom pting a feeling th at the unities which they suggest constitute historical ‘truths’ and ‘inevitabilities’ instead of. and on w hat grounds? We m ight begin with a consideration of present-day Arm enians. pp. Accord­ ing to the Cyropaedia Cappadocia was not part of the Armenian kingdom . 1984. and some 2 million else­ where. 39 Ezekiel. The Arm enians in L ebanon. B. Banks. many other American 38 Campbell T hom pson and M allow an. p. these m odern Armenians were both biologically and culturally Armenian. 1 9 2 0-1974’. 1933.42 where there have been substantial Arm enian communities for m any decades. even in the diaspora. ‘The Political Integration of an Im m igrant Com m unity into a Com posite Society. but had its own king. C olum bia Universtiy. To a great extent. For difficulties in defining and estim ating num bers of Arm enians around the w orld. 287). see T akooshian.Origins 21 arm y then subm itted to Assyria. and Tierney.000 in the USA and C anada. See e.000 in France and over 500. D iakonoff.38 Pottery evidence suggests th at the U rartians crossed the Euphrates and built a fort at Köşkerbaba H üyük within 16 miles of Arslantepe. Ph. 32:26. esp.

. 1983 and 1986-7). both am ongst the lower classes. for example occupational. which offers individuals alternative affiliations and alternative ancestors for their ‘family history’. The first literary exposition. relatively late. whose family tree. in the 43 Talai. to an English­ man. Likewise in the medieval period there was some survival of Armenian culture and consciousness of being Armenian among immigrants into the Byzantine empire. A recent study of Armenians in London suggests that the com m itm ent and efforts of members of an ethnic group to delineate its boundaries and assert its identity are greatest when other lines of dem arcation between it and ‘outsiders’. was Armenian. This is very different from w hat is com m only implied. and regards herself as Irish. via her Irish m other and French grandmother. But we should turn now to other ancestral groups. the ancestors of the Armenians included a num ber of different groups. though not the first attestation. to which there must be many parallels. in discussing the origins of the Arm enian people. enjoy a similarly lively sense of identity. of Arme­ nian national identity is that of Moses of Khoren. investigate their roots and retain an interest in their ancient homeland. It seems natural. such as the Irish. who is legally British.44 A particular case. has as many and as deep roots in Ireland and in France as it does in the Caucasus. and to the issues of choice and articulation. 1989. and hence it is upon the speakers of proto-A rm enian that the spotlight has been trained thus far. th at ethnic consciousness serves actually to validate such non-ethnic group differ­ ences.22 Origins communities. are becoming ever m ore blurred. The m ost obvious threat to the continuity of the Arm enian com m un­ ity is m arriage outside it. residential or economic. for whom the evidence is greater. Deliberate choice is one of the many factors which are involved in ethnicity and the form ation of nations. Evidence from the USA suggests that by the late 1970s the vast m ajority of Armenians there were marrying ‘outsiders’ and were being ‘lost’ to the Armenian community. to give priority to those ancestors who seem culturally closest to their descendants.43 And not all Londoners w ho could claim to be Armenian do so. 44 M arriage records of Armenian churches in N ew England yield a figure of 81 per cent for mixed m arriages in 1976 and show a ninefold increase over the period 1950-76 (A haronian. Italian and Swedish. so too in the early medieval period. may serve as illustration both of the dim inution of the Armenian community. from Britain. and in some Byzantine aristo­ cratic families. and of the problem s of definition: a w om an now living in England whose surnam e before her m arriage. Should we regard her as Armenian? W hich group of ancestors has the best claim to her interest should she choose to investi­ gate her origins? As in the m odern.

Reynolds. 46 Diakonoff. At Behistun (Bisitun) ‘A rm enian’ had a geogra­ phical rather than an ethnic or political meaning. and Urme also occur. pp.46 45 S. This tradition was probably itself continuous from these early times. Two versions of the inscription read ‘A rm enia’ and ‘Arm enian’. M oses drew upon oral tradition which referred back at least to the sixth century вс and perhaps much earlier. ‘Khaldi-ti’. 199 (n. A series of borrowings lies behind this usage. 1984. . but the Akkadian (Babylon­ ian) has ‘U rartu’ and ‘U rartian’. These names have sometimes been interpreted as suggestions of an Arm enian presence or even predom inance but they are probably little more than coincidence.601 вс) was called Erimena. incorporating as it does ‘Khaldi’. th at it was m ore usual for a group with a political identity to claim a com m on ethnic origin than vice versa. ‘N ational Identity. the name of the chief god of U rartu. The Persians had taken it from the Aram aeans (who staffed. N ations and N ationalism ’. actually the first attested king of U rartu. W hen did ‘Arm enia’ and ‘Arm enian’ acquire the m eanings w ith which we associate them? Moses of Khoren believed th at ‘A rm enian’ was derived from the name of an ancient ruler. for they were names bestowed not by ‘Arm enians’ but by others. But ‘A rm enia’ and ‘Arm enian’ are in fact not of prim e im portance. late fifth-century.000 years their more credible stories of national origins and of deeds of national heroes.Origins 23 eighth century a d . 17 M arch 1990. that in the M iddle Ages the telling of tales of m igration and settlem ent was an expression of a present sense of com m unity rather than a com m on history. 115-17). The names Urmeukhini. paper delivered at a con­ ference held under the auspices of the Centre for M edieval Studies at the University o f Leeds. And the name of the Arm enian A ra-kha’s father. as some scholars suggest. such as that they were connected with the Trojans. suggests he was Urartian. for the origins of the Franks. to all the peoples living where the state of U rartu had been. Its plausibility contrasts m arkedly w ith the artificiality of explanations offered by M oses’ near-contemporaries in Frankish Gaul. 126-7. A nother Frankish story was th at the grandfather of the com paratively recent. and whose language was used in. in the seventh and eighth centuries a d . The father of the late seventh-century king Rusa III (c. By his date the Armenians had been recounting for over 1. The A ra­ maeans had simply applied the name of the nearest proto-A rm enian speaking group (who lived in the country of Arme). King Clovis I was the child of a sea-monster.45 then we can conclude th at some sense of national identity existed am ong the ‘A rm enians’ before the eighth century a d . His w ork was a particular response to external pres­ sures and internal problems. Yet if we agree. W hether directly or indirectly. There are other names similar to ‘A rm enia’ in U rartian history. The Greeks took ‘A rm enian’ from the Persians. the Achaemenid chancellery). Aram.

47 Ibid. I. 10-16. uniform . 1978. This is open to objections of coincidence and of the probable lack of geograph­ ical overlap. ‘H ittite’ was used by both the Assyrians and the U rartians for the several SyroH ittite states which succeeded the H ittite empire. ‘H ittite’ could have been used by the Urartians first for the proto-A rm enians and later for themselves. (It was either in the upper Euphrates valley between Erzincan and Erzurum or in the valley of the River Ç oroh. It is therefore with the first experiences of the speakers of proto-Arm enian (the M ushki) in Armenia th at this history begins.) The most convincing explanation of the Arm enians’ name for them ­ selves. pp. This is the more rem arkable. such as his account of the inscriptions at Van. trans. 1975. who are m en­ tioned in H ittite records. 118-20). For although M oses’ text does include inform ation. are H ay (pi. and subjection to a com m on. There are of course different interpretations. is that it derives linguistically from U rartian Khatini. but one is that H ayk’s family’s history contains a streamlined and garbled but not inaccurate description of Urartian expansion over the Arm enian plateau.47 Both Til-Garimm u. T hat the medieval Armenians were in a very significant sense of U rartian descent can be inferred from M oses of K horen’s account of Наук and of the rulers who were his descendants. though there are differences of opinion concerning its exact location. 85-101. governmental system. M oses. also plays a part. have prom pted a suggestion th at this people played an im portant role in the form ation of the Armenian nation. . since the Armenian tradition seems otherwise to have forgotten Urartu. and even culture. Foreign invasion.48 The form ation of countries and nationalities not only involves choices and perceptions but also owes much to external stimulus and shared experience. by w hom the ‘A rm enians’ were outnum bered. exploitation and persecution can contri­ bute. 48 Hewsen. 1 2 6 -7 . Their similarity to the name of the Khayasha (Hayasa) people. as they merged. which. H aykc. as we have seen. Its use perhaps reflects the mingling of ‘Arm enians’ and Urartians. those which the Armenians came to use for themselves and their country. a process to which the U rartians contributed greatly. Khayasha had certainly been to the north of the areas of the earliest ‘Arm enian’ settlement. if correct. H aykc) and Hayastan. pp. was associated with the origin of the Armenians through the tradition th at their ancestor Н аук was the son of T corgom. with its centre near m odern Bayberd.24 Origins The im portant names. The history of the Armenians incorporates all these ele­ ments. and M elid were among these. T hom son. this inform ation is very mangled indeed. which has proved valuable in studying U rartu. just as it includes peoples who were not called Armenians in their own time.1 9 9 -2 0 1 (n. meaning Hittite.

1330). after about 2300 в с . Her capital was Washshuganni on the River Khabur. but her territory probably extended n orth ­ wards into Shubria and perhaps beyond. king of the Hittites (с. The Khayasha (Hayasa) -Azzi confederation had recently extended into the Euphrates valley. Diauekhi. at least as far as modern Kemah. appears in the annals of Assyria’s TiglathPileser I (1114-1076). a num ber of which are discernible and should be considered in their own right until about the mid-second century вс.1165-590 в с The Armenian nation was forged out of disparate groups. at the time of the great Shuppiluliuma. possibly the Çoroh valley. Hittite control of Khayasha and Azzi was shortlived. But she fell under Shuppilulium a’s dom ination and was finally destroyed by Shalmaneser I of Assyria in 1275. but for some time she was a m ajor power. 1370 -с.__________2__________ Early History: the ‘Armenian3 Environment c. The H urrians had spread through eastern Anatolia and northern M eso­ potam ia late in the third millennium. U rartian. . A different country. and. Little is known about the society and structure of M itanni. In the fourteenth century she enjoyed marriage alliances w ith Egypt. M itanni was in existence by the mid-sixteenth century вс. The territory which was to be its homeland was far from empty when the Mushki (‘Armenians’) arrived in about 1165 в с . and the confederation itself seems to have fallen apart by the end of the thirteenth century вс. Some scholars believe Dayaenu was in Khayasha. like Khayasha. Dayaenu. whose sister married the king of Khayasha. Another ancient kingdom which had reached into Armenia was H urrian M itanni in northern M esopotam ia. attracted fugitives from the Hittites. but this location depends on identifying Day­ aenu with later.

Мар 2.1 Armenia .

118-19). A key site for the second m illennium is th at of Lchashen. 721 (pp. 573 (ii 112) (p. and their northern one Dayaenu. the num ber of N airi kings is thirty. 22-3). The Araxes plain has been regarded by some scholars as the original home of w hat is sometimes term ed the Kura-Araxes culture.1 He conquered them . all of them ’ upon w hom he imposed a tribute of horses ‘broken to the yoke’. horses. 21). near Erevan. apparently before he turned to M itanni. Ashurnasirpal II (883-859). 1976. 551 (ii 12) (p. and it may have extended to the west of Lake Van.200 horses. N airi had much the same character in the ninth century. 3 Grayson. LXXXVII 30 (iv 43) (pp. Parts of Uruaçri lay in the valley of the Upper Zab. an inscription of Shalmane­ ser refers to eight lands and fifty-one cities in the land of ‘U ruaçri’. 135). However. 109-10). 773 (pp. 722 (pp. from some time before the late fourth millennium. 795 (p. 145-6). apparently took from the kings a tribute of chariots. at the m ound of Tilkitepe. shorter. whereas others prefer Lake Van. I. Cl 642 (r. 589 (iii 118) (pp. twenty-one countries in Tiglath-Pileser’s list are otherwise unknow n. H ere a 1 Grayson. We have a num ber of very im portant archaeological sites.6 The pre-history of the lands which were to become Armenia was diverse.2 The names of twenty-three N airi lands were recorded by Tiglath-Pileser I. and settled. sheep and wine. There was early settlem ent at Van. The region was probably part of the ‘N airi’ lands.l 112 вс regarding the structure and economy of N airi is more helpful. which flourished in Armenia throughout the third millennium в с . and some scholars interpret his statem ent that he chased the kings to the Upper Sea as a reference to the Black Sea. 49) (p. 108).The ‘A rm enian’ Environm ent c. 80 (6) (pp. mules. He imposed a tribute of 2. 1926.5 Shamshi-Adad V (823-811) recorded the names of twenty-eight persons ‘kings of N airi. Twenty-three kings are mentioned and then sixty. LXXVIII 715 (p. whose forty kings the Assyrian Tukulti-N inurta I (1244-1208) claimed to have conquered. oxen. I. know n to have been south-west of Lake Urmia. on the shores of Lake Sevan. and razed 250 of their fortified cities. N airi was small-scale.4 There were cult centres and cities for Tiglath-Pileser to conquer and destroy and herds of livestock to take. 163). bronze utensils. including those w ho had come to their aid.. 1972.l 165-590 в с 27 As for kingdoms entirely within Armenia. and it reached back many millennia. version of events. 81). II. 127). . In another. This culture was uncovered first at Shengavit. silver.. 6 Luckenbill. 12-13). who appointed governors over the N airi lands. LXXXVII 69 (25) (p. gold. 123). LXXV1I 527 (p.3 their southern point was Tumme. 4 Ibid. 257-8). 5 Ibid. the inform ation offered by the king’s account of his victories of c . ruled by a num ber of kings. 2 Ibid. There is uncertainty about the exact location of Dayaenu. The extent of N airi is elusive. perhaps in some league or confederation.000 cattle and 1.

Map 2.2 The east Mediterranean and west Asia .

7 Solecki. 8 Grayson. 1971. T he Rise and Fall of U rartu M ost of these territories were to come under the dom ination of the state know n as Assyria and nowadays as U rartu. N either of these cities has been certainly located. for strategic. N eanderthal men. was buried there w ith June flowers gathered from the m ountainside. not far to the west. 1975. 9 M odern Adilcevaz is a strong candidate since not only have fragm ents of a large U rartian relief been found there.9 But under the next king. probably. 1987. Cl 651 (p. In the late ninth century в с it w as part of the newly formed kingdom of M ana. 840-C. though the U rartians them ­ selves called it Biainili. H ere there was a settlem ent as early as the sixth millennium в с . m odern Van. The design of the vehicles suggests th at this culture may have owed something to M itanni.1165-590 в с 29 wealthy barrow culture reached its highest point in the thirteenth century в с . where it remained. from c. Sarduri I (с. to the south of Lake Urmia. in 859 and 855.7 His burial is the earliest know n example of the offering of flowers at funerals. commercial and economic reasons. H asanlu was a m ajor m etal-working centre and prosperous in the very late second millennium. but its Arm enian nam e. which both Assyria and U rartu were to try to control. though various suggestions have been made. Shanidar lies close to the site of the city of M uşasir (Urartian Ardini). 1976. to whom the M ushki (‘Arm enians’) had offered gifts in 883. 1972. once lived in Shani­ dar cave. m ight be explained by th at of Arzashkun (Sinclair. know n now as Shanidar ГѴ . . L eroi-G ourhan. whose capture. pp. One. and was attacked by Shalmaneser III (858-824) of Assyria three times. The tom bs of the chieftains contained gold w ork and wheeled vehicles as well as anim als and slaves. whose spe­ cies became extinct about 35. 312. Ashur­ nasirpal claimed in 879 вс that his dom inion reached as far as U rartu. This aggression may have stimulated its victims to co-operate under central leadership. The certain and continuous attestation of U rartu begins with the aggressive Assyrian Ashurnasirpal II. the capital was at Tushpa. M ore ancient still than these sites is that of H asanlu. II. Aram e’s royal cities were Sugunia and Arzashkun. Earliest of all is Shanidar. 166). which was im portant in U rartian history. Artskhe. and w ho had taken tribute from N airi.000 years ago.860 to the late 840s.825). He reigned. 275).The ‘Arm enian’ Environm ent c. Exactly w hat had brought about the form ation of U rartu is not clear. including a shift in trade routes and adaptation to increasing Assyrian aggression. in present-day Iraqi Kurdistan. Shalmaneser portrayed on the bronze gates of his palace at Balawat.000-40.8 H er first know n king is Arame.

he defeated twenty-three kings in the region of Lake Sevan. to the south-west of Urmia in the Upper Z ab valley.685-c. and inform a­ tion in Assyrian sources. may be interpreted either as an early recovery against Assyria or as a retreat. King Ishpuini (C.714 вс) extended control in the north-east tow ards Tiflis and the Kura river. M enua himself con­ solidated U rartian control to just beyond Hasanlu. which was burnt about 800 в с.734) cam ­ paigned. He also conquered the king of M elid and took from him nine forts on the western bank of the Euphrates. 1165-590 в с whilst simultaneously weakening some local dynasties. the concerns of the Urartians were not ours. It was M enua who acquired the territories where ‘Arme­ nians’ had settled. Assyrian interests were endangered by U rartian success in the upper Euphrates valley. and conquered Urme and Kullimeri in Shubria. They also occupied at least some land west and north of Urmia and captured towns in M ana and Parsua to its south. and they are certainly partial in their coverage. The new U rartian state certainly fended off Assyrian conquest but its very success naturally provoked Assyrian concern. He took tribute from Diauekhi. but even that is not beyond suspicion. wrested Sukhme (between the valleys of Erzincan and the Arsanias) and Alzi from Assyria. In some cases the gist may be more reliable than the details. For nearly a century the leitm otif of U rartian history was expansion. Inscriptions offer statistics of booty and conquest. Their inscriptions did not state the purposes of their wars and were more concerned with details of events than their dates and sequence. and against the Kulkhai (classical Colchis) in the Çoroh valley. They may contain both error and inflation. details in the inscriptions of the U rartian kings. Precise chronology is sometimes a m atter of scholarly disagreement. under Argishti II and Rusa II (c. M enua’s successors continued his work.734c. nine­ teen of whom came from areas to its east. Sarduri II (c. They reached the area of Gyumri (formerly Leninakan) as far as the country of the Ish-qi-gu-lu-й (probably the Cimmerians). in the north. on the western shore of Lake Sevan. Rusa I (c.763 вс) the Urartians pushed further north. for example. He may have built the fort of Altintepe near Erzincan. took over the lands between Van and Urmia and gained control of the kingdom of M uşaşir.763-c. The moving of the capital to Van.810) with M enua. can be reconstructed. The expansion of Urartu. depending on the view taken of the location of Arzashkun. Geo­ graphical disagreements are of m ajor proportions and render it imposs­ ible to paint a neat and tidy picture.825-C. and pushed northw ards to the Araxes.785-c. We have dateable U rartian fortresses. and. There was subsequently further eastwards expansion. and claims th at places were destroyed. in the south. co-ruler and successor. . So too is U rartian political geography. his son. in Urme. Under Argishti I (c.645). he took tribute from M elid. and crossed the Araxes. Furtherm ore. up to Lake Çildir. by contrast.30 The ‘Arm enian’ E nvironm ent c. conquered Supa (opposite M elid). But there are difficulties.

Melikishvili. 257­ 60). because one of our principal sources is the account entangled by H erodotus in his version of the history of the Medes. The precise role of the Scyths is difficult to establish. An inscription from Toprak Kale (Rusakhinili).32 The ‘A rm enian’ Environm ent c. Ashurbanipal (668-631? or 627? вс) gloats that Sarduri. 1990. king of U rartu. 1984. as far as ‘the city of U rartu’ in 609. M elid and the Chalybes and. Babylon. 286 (p. 22-4. p. in the north. no. 19 Strabo. for twenty-eight years is especially suspect. (meaning M ana. Karmir-Blur and Toprak Kale. Scythian arrow heads in the stores at Karmir-Blur near Erevan could perhaps signify U rartian use of Scythian mercenaries. 278 (pp. advanced. plus M edia). 175 (n.20 Pottery evidence suggests that sites which were abandoned or destroyed as U rartu expired. 834 (pp. against Shubria. Yet despite these positive developments the seventh century was a period of irreversible decline. the Scyths term inated Cimm erian power at a battle in Cilicia. both in his 676 campaign against Phrygia. Diakonoff. sent him gifts in fear. . Bastam. according to the Babylonian chronicle. S. had met their fate by 650 в с .15 Argishti II extended the frontier eastwards. 1988. having contributed to the fall of Assyria in 612. Armavir. as the Cimmerians prob­ ably did. The Geography . 1987.16 This was probably about 675. The Scyths. II. A fragm ent­ ary letter suggests that the captured gods of M uşaşir may have been returned. 1960. no. including Altintepe. before Shubria was conquered by Assyria. who. 348). w ritten between 644 and 636. suggests th at a son of the Scythian king had visited. invasion of Shubria in 664. 18 Brown. 1960. Towards the close of the seventh century other predators appeared. The Cimmerians went on to molest people further west. which is itself unreliable. 341-2). thought to have been in 636 в с . They were not invariably hostile.. and to the m ountain of Bit-Khanunia in the ‘district of U rartu’ 15 Parpola. equally fatal for the state.17 But the Scyths attacked U rartu as well as Assyria from their base in M ana and the Zagros m ountains to the south of Lake Urmia. came from across the Caucasus. 16 Melikishvili. 1927. In his annals. 90 and p. С. 21. whereas Sarduri’s predecessors had used terms o f brotherhood in their messages to Assyria. but it might have been connected w ith U rartu’s own. 18 pp. no. and addressed him as lord. iii. 20 Luckenbill. Start. unsuccessful. a fortress and royal centre established near Van by Rusa II. Arrowheads betray the involvement of Scyths in the destruction. not simply of Scythian weapons. 7. caused serious trouble. at some point.18 H erodo­ tus’ assertion th at the Scyths dom inated Asia M inor and M edia. But according to Strabo. 320-1). no. however.19 It is likely that they had invaded and weakened U rartu en route.1165-590 в с These blows were not. I. Rusa II had Cimmerian allies.

seventeen bulls and thirty-four sheep. 24 Ibid. 77. is nearly three times that of the second god Teisheba.1165-590 в с 33 in 608. Khaldi. w ho had helped against Assyria and w ho were completely to absorb the Scyths by about 550. 22 Pecoroella and Salvini. They m ust certainly have dealt the final blow to w hatever was left of U rartu when they moved west against Lydia in 590. riders or foot’. 608). for he abolished w hat he called ‘superfluous’ service for the (armed) people . god of subordinated M uşaşir. H er chief god. 1 2 4 .22 If so. In 714 вс Sargon found that at the strong walled cities of Tarui and Tarmakisa (Tabriz) horses. and greater by about eight and seventeen times various others’.24 This last num ber is taken to be the num ber of men hitherto liable for service. four times that of the sun god Shivini. Khaldi’s priority is natural.763-c. 5 5 -7 and n.600 cavalrymen. sets out the sacrifices due. 1985. 105). and fattened each year. rival and. It seems curious th at Khaldi. should precede Shivini. pp. Grayson translates ‘district’ of U rartu rather than ‘city’ in no. no.4 (609.21 The Medes. Diakonoff. There m ay have been a standing arm y by the time of Sarduri II (c. Texts nos 3 . may have been involved in these assaults.The ‘A rm enian’ Environm ent c. more powerful breed of horses was introduced in Sarduri’s reign. 27 (pp. god of the capital. shows that the army was re-requipped in or by the time of Argishti I along Assyrian lines. perhaps. .011 soldiers. but ‘U rartu’ has the determ inative uru m eaning city (p. 23 Melikishvili. near Van. Tushpa. 1982. pp. that a larger. The kings also took more practical steps to be sure of military success.. Ishpuini and M enua took care to make Khaldi splendid gifts to ensure his favour. presumably on particular occasions. briefly outlast Assyria reveals a highly m artial state.1 9 7 (n. Horses were nurtured.‘92 chariots. 143-9). 253).734). 352. Their inscription at M eher Kapusu (Kapisi). There is a suggestion. was god of war. based on finds of horse-bits. Zim ansky. were stabled in the deep surrounding m oats.23 Khaldi’s allowance. 3. 155G (p. that M uşaşir may have been Aram e’s Arzash­ kun. 1975. C om parison of the Balawat illustrations w ith surviving w eapons and armour. 3. Governm ent and Society in U rartu 1 War and building The ability of U rartu to resist. to the gods. 298). He also recorded that in the district of Ushkaia 21 Grayson. no. some pieces of which are themselves decorated w ith illustra­ tions of military equipm ent. But some scholars suggest (partly because one inscription of Shalmaneser III refers to M uşaşir where we would expect Arzashkun). 1960. for the royal army. 1984. reserved.

138 (pp. no. 167 (p. at Karmir-Blur. including foundations. 263-4). ‘bars the pass into the Z aranda district like a door’. 84-5). and fortress walls to a height of 240 cubits. of massive stone blocks. 30. Sarduri IPs Çavuştepe seems not to have been an agricultural centre. 380. Rusa I’s Kayalidere com m anded the approaches to the plains of Bulamk and M anazkert.34 The ‘A rm enian’ E nvironm ent c. who recorded strong walled cities with deep surrounding m oats and towers at the entrances to their gates. 85 -6 . projecting parapets. 56 (pp. nos 29. the larger ones having walls some nine to thirteen feet thick and perhaps up to sixty-six high. The connection between fortification and conquest is m ost clearly to be seen in the career of M enua. on the west of M ount Sahend. like Argishti Ps Arin-berd. 1930. .26 This was in just a part of U rartu. The forts varied in size and function however and their role might change. 12Vİ miles from Van. probably. M ade up to about six feet. from illustrations on bronze belts and from Sargon. from bronze and ivory remains of models. 159. 1927. Sargon com plained that Ushkaia. Parpola. 1935. and Rusa II’s Bastam routes to the middle Araxes plain from the east.92). Uasi: Luckenbill. Arin-berd declined when Rusa II built Teishebaini.25 Even more im portant were the forts which were erected throughout the kingdom. narrow towers and (decorat­ ive) false rectangular windows and. battlem ents. O ur evidence for their appearance comes from excavation. in the opinion of some scholars. II. 444. perhaps m odern Uski. Sargon’s account of his 714 campaign suggests that the num ber of U rartian forts was very large. like Karmir-Blur and Bastam. founded in 782 ‘for the strength of Biainili and the suppression of the hostile countries’. spies.l 165-590 в с people had for years been catching native colts and raising them for the army. 1987. nos 198. 1927. 9. 409.. nearby. Pfeiffer.28 Another im portant adm inistrative centre. Some. according to Sargon the strongest of Rusa Ps forts. who excelled at both and used the one to further the other. 515. The chief function of these forts was to guard frontiers and access routes and provide bases for future expansion. appears in the Assyrian correspondence as a base where troops. 1960. with m ud bricks above. perhaps m odern Bitlis or Ushnu or Q ale Ismail Agha or Q alatgah. they were in naturally defensible sites.27 were centres of production. guarded the main Urmia-Van road. 26 Ibid. 25 Luckenbill. Uaiais. cultivation and population. 27-9) 27 Melikishvili. II. One inscription claims the conquest of fifty-five walled cities together with eleven towering forts. envoys and district governors with their retinues assembled. whose situation was safer from the Scyths. w ith buttresses (which seem to have been introduced by M enua). 28 Uaiais also appears as Uesi. 492. but was an administrative one. 158 (pp. Ishpuini’s and M enua’s forts at Anzaf. nos 8. W aterm an. high.

87-8). probably from the same model. possibly of late date. 161 (pp. . ‘the city of properties’. 7.1165-590 в с 35 Plate 5 Seventh-century вс Urartian bronze models o f a turret and part o f a city.874 feet high on M ount Süphan and with no 29 Luckenbill. N ear Ulkhu there was the fort of Sardurikhurda. north-w est of Lake Urmia. O ther forts served as refuges for the population. II. despite its small size and the insignificance of its fortifications.29 Kefir Kalesi. possibly the Ulkhu. 1927. whose walls and palace Sargon levelled in 714. was H aftavan Tepe. (British M useum WA 91250 and WA 91177). for whom flight was the m ajor tactic in war.The ‘A rm enian’ Environm ent c. This may explain why the larger plains have no obvious central forts.

grass and pasture. 500 sheep and 300 horses. 128 B1 (pp. their road tow ards Elazig from Lake Van. no. m odern H razdan. probably had no perm anent garrison. Sar­ gon rem arks. of extending Urartian mineral resources. daughter of M enua. no. for which he constructed a canal from the river Ildaruni. Ta-ri-ri-a-i was a near con­ tem porary of the prototype for Semiramis. Ibid. fields of barley. Victory brought tribute and loot. I l l (pp. Ibid. 137 (pp. m other of the Assyrian king Adad-nirari III (810-783 вс). They also provided irrigation works. pp. and perhaps the object. legendary queen of Assyria. Irrigation w orks were pro­ claimed with pride in the U rartian inscriptions. canals and qanäts (underground channels) which have been admired through the ages. 205-6). 1960. trans. Melikishvili. At Metsamor. T hom son. of the canal and irrigation channels dug by Rusa I. 10. Kulkhai was a rich m etal-working area.34 Sarduri II levied a tribute on Kum m ukh which included 40 30 31 32 33 34 Moses. and more iron from the Chalybes. The early conquests had the result.31 at a point beside M enua’s canal. N orthern Syria may have attracted U rartu’s attention because trade in iron passed through it. . The U rartians established a road network to connect their sites. but was simply a m ountain refuge. Ibid.33 2 Econom y War and w ater together supported U rartu’s economy. Beyond Diauekhi. being the earliest know n long-distance engineered road. ‘Like a god he made its people raise their glad songs. Irrigation works nourished vineyards.32 Rusa II made similar claims about Karmir-Blur. punctuated w ith way-stations. 100 cows. 16. 247-8). Describing his approach to Ulkhu. from the river H oşap to Van.. Gold and iron came from there. no. orchards..’ The m ost famous canal is th at of M enua. across the Araxes. imposed an annual tribute on Diauekhi of gold. forests. 344-6). no. oxen. apparently. perhaps for users of the nearby summer pastures..30 His m istake may owe something to a memory of the laying out of a vineyard for Ta-ri-ri-a-i.1165-590 в с buildings inside the fortress. Until Argishti I had connected four canals to the river and laid out vineyards and orchards Armavir had. detailed in the royal annals. 262-3). The medieval Moses of Khoren attributed it to Semiramis. 281 (pp. Sam m uram at. 1978. M ana likewise offered the opportunity of divert­ ing trade from the east.36 The ‘A rm enian’ E nvironm ent c. there had been bronze and iron works for centuries. been a desert. in 785. forty-five miles long and still used today. The building program m e needed iron tools.000 measures of copper. Argishti I. I. 99-100.

6.000 sheep in 776. 225-9). his inscriptions claim at least 219.The ‘A rm enian’ Environm ent c. no.196. pp. 38 Zim ansky. table 8 and pp. 4 5 -7 .734) shows that Argishti I claimed at least 10. 155 E 3 6 -5 7 (p.. Zim ansky’s tabulation of booty lists of Ishpuini. 115 camels. The evidence for such things as land tenure. Some destruction. H unting scenes w ith bulls. . takes a long time to rectify.. such as th at of vines and trees. 127 V (pp. and Sarduri IPs 102. or in some other useful occupation.36 From M ana. Melikishvili.’ It was probably more often males who perished. 36 Ibid.40 It was clearly a fam iliar occupation.39 In 782. and the 29. no. 263— 4). 278 (pp. 447 camels.35 From M elid he took gold. 341-2). Captives were presum ably set to w ork.871 oxen. the redistribution of agricultural surplus and the role of slaves is both 35 Ibid.captives such as the 52. The inner workings of the economy. however. Only twice do inscriptions indicate w hat happened to those who lived. in building. H unting had both an eco­ nomic and a m artial function. no. The kings seem to have been m ore con­ cerned with the regular acquisition of anim ate resources. The connection between successful w ar and economic prosperity is apparent too in the im portance of hunting. 306-8). from enemy deportations and pillage. M enua. transfer of goods.914. Readings of num bers have varied.825-C. 37 Ibid. I. 2 -3 . if any. 6. as they certainly were in Assyria.427 horses. ii. and from destruction. or unit of account..411 oxen and over 6. 41 Zimansky. but others I took alive. pp.e.442 horses. In all. sixty-two camels. 158 (pp.38 N o t all survived: the annals repeat ‘some I killed. Argishti I and Sarduri II (i. are difficult to gauge.949 sheep and goats. 57-8. 1960.37 G lam orous though they are. 33.675 Argishti took in 785.284 which his campaigns against M elid and other places provided in 783.516 sheep and goats. nos 138 (pp. Zim ansky has checked his against photographs of the texts.607 oxen and 442. 39 Zimansky. 57 -9 .41 The medium of exchange. presumably to avoid the danger of subsequent rebellion and to intim idate others. 131. 1985. and 557. precious metals appear on only four occasions in the inscriptions. for similar qualities and techniques were required in both. goats and fantastic anim als are to be found on U rartian bronze belts and on seals. is unknow n. as some of Rusa IPs captives were. 1985. 2. it was forts and w arriors who protected the economy.000 copper shields and 1535 copper basins. And. 10. 57 -8 . Cyropaedia. Argishti I took 170 horses. As X enophon explains in the Cyropaedia it ‘seems to be the best preparation for w ar itself’. The profits of w ar also included thousands of people . 800 of silver and 2. 1985.600 warriors from M elid and Supa were settled at Arin-berd perhaps to garrison it. finally. leopards. C. silver and fifty w ar chariots. taxation.1165-590 в с 37 measures of gold. in agriculture. 303). lions. 40 X enophon. 118. and Sarduri II at least 10.

338. listed twenty-six places as 42 M uscarella. 1927. might be U rartian after all. in Greece. Settlement and Defensive N etw orks. 251. 1977. and their artistry is Syrian. 46 Zimansky. com prise a hum an head and body with bird wings and tail. and especially of luxury goods. 3.governors. diplomacy and the m ovem ent of people. and which have been found in Phrygia. 44 Melikishvili. Direct evidence of commerce has been found elsewhere in the N ear East. recording his m arch through U rartu. and there were vessels from Tabal at M uşaşir. lead isotope analysis suggests th at cauldrons at Delphi. 235). includes detailed com m ent on sites m entioned by Sargon. TiglathPileser III. may be the result. Greece and Italy. . 612 (p. nos 252.45 In general foreign trade was not a necessity. for m ost adm inistrative records were w ritten on perishable materials. For references in Assyrian correspondence. Inscriptions dem onstrate that north Syria was a centre of produc­ tion. 1990. 54. no hum an-headed handles have been found in U rartu. One U rartian bell has been found on the Greek island of Samos. p. Sarduri II com plained of ‘fugitive slaves’ in M elid.46 Statements in inscriptions are probably exaggerated. for example. and his successor to have captured eleven strong and 200 small ones. 1985. but not in Urartu.38 The ‘A rm enian’ Environm ent c. 607 (p.). 1988. 236). which movement is well attested. Shalmaneser III (858-824 вс) claimed to have destroyed fifty U rartian cities.and prosperous. 52. but a multiplicity of tow ns is suggested by both literary and archaeological evidence. H er system of settlement remains obscure. 1165-590 в с difficult to interpret and very slight. 606 (p. 53. C urrent opinion supports a north Syrian origin rather than an U rartian one. probably from Afghanistan. for several reasons. Some eighth-century U rartian seals may have been of foreign m anufacture. was needed to produce bronze. riveted to the basins. no. Esarhaddon (680-669) com plained about them . II. It might be that trade is implied where there appears to have been m ovement of goods. 237). 158 (pp. her ow n bronze and iron industries . U rartu was fairly self­ sufficient . scribes. 1930. Kummukh paid a tribute of vessels to Sarduri II. The level of U rartu’s international trade is also difficult to assess. 45 Luckenbill. not of trade. 1176.42 Despite claims to the contrary.43 But the m ovement of goods. superintendents and constables as well as robbers and other criminals. W hen he conquered Shubria he returned Urartian fugitives to Rusa II. 1960. 6 2 -5 for ‘palace’/‘fortresses’ and ‘cities’ in U rartian inscriptions.44 and fugitives from both Assyria and U rartu were attracted to Shubria. nos. ch. 43 Muhly. 306-8). 1970. W aterm an. 32-47. O n the other hand. Van Loon.with. though tin. Lanfranchi and Parpola. Then there are the controversial bronze cauldrons whose ornam ental handles. For example. in C urtis (ed. pp. but of war. pp. Textile fragments found at Toprak Kale (Rusakhinili) have been identified as Chinese silk dating from the middle of the eighth century.

all but tw o anonym ous.000 people. from 360 ‘cities’. some w ith walls. 1926. This system both stim u­ lated and used towns. 47 Luckenbill. Armavir covered 400 -5 0 0 hectares and its population was about 30. but its early U rartian attribution has been challenged. 76) th at the U rartian reputation for building and planning cities is an unw arranted tw entieth-century creation.The ‘Arm enian’ Environm ent c. 283. The apparent exceptions are m ass-produced bronze belts. which m ust have been villages. citadels. though very little is known about the settlement beneath the citadel rock. p. 1957. Burney and Lawson. In the south. 128 B1 (pp. its hill site is unusual for an U rartian tow n. a variety of walled cities (for example Karmir-Blur). Sinclair. 48 Melikishvili. 2 1 9 -2 0 .48 M ost of these m ust also have been villages. 3 Administration U rban building program m es. Sargon II differentiated ‘strong’ or fortified cities. Van. temples. vine­ yards. its intersecting streets form ing square blocks are typical of R om an tow ns. . besides Van. m oats. It has been inferred from the regularity of its layout and its different types of housing th at it was built in advance. See also Burney. once blessed w ith M enua’s canal.47 The reality was less impressive.000. towers.000 people over about 0. walls. where the tow n outside the ten-acre citadel covered at least seventy-five acres. 210-11). stores and houses. the w ork of a strong and centralized adm inistrative system.49 The tow n at Upper Anzaf Kale was probably about five acres in size. 87. like the raising. Zim ansky believes (1985. 281-2). The archaeological evidence for genuinely urban life is strong. and K arahan. 65-6. citadel-tow ns (for example Çavuştepe) and villages. Further north. In the Van region there were. could have supported 50. 1. 255). They include Edremit. 1960 and Zim ansky. 50 There is a U rartian fortress-tow n at Z ernaki Tepe as well as this unfinished tow n. and it is probably first or second century a d . irrigation works and fortifications were all. 1987. 1960. no. Some specialists have rem arked on a lack of regional variation and of chronological development. It had a palace. 49 Sinclair. perhaps the Ar-şu-пі-й-і-пі m entioned at M eher Kapusu.1165-590 в с 39 cities and strongholds of U rartu. sixty in five provinces. gardens. pp. pp. which started in Diauekhi and involved three nearby countries. 1987. and a citadel. 183. 717 (p. 234-6). for inhabitants w ho were to be transferred from elsewhere. 785 (pp. provisioning and equipping of troops. 16. 588 (pp. the city of Alniunu whence came the stone for Sarduri I’s citadel at Van. Argishti I claimed th at he destroyed 105 forts and burnt 453 tow ns. 1985.4 of a square mile. whose foundation is recorded in inscriptions found near K ara­ han in 1977.50 Even U rartian art likewise implies strong central control. at least thirteen towns. Consider Karmir-Blur. pp. 2 8 1 -2 . store room s. The unfinished Zernaki Tepe has often been regarded as another example. after a campaign of 785. The latter could have held perhaps 15.

. from tributary states like Diauekhi and from the local popu­ lation. 264 (pp. on rock faces. and votive bronze plaques. oxen. probably H asanlu. 1960. Some of the jars in the wine cellars at Arin-berd could hold m ore than 200 gallons.460 cavalry and 15. The royal inscriptions were set up in a variety of places. Altintepe had tw o storeroom s. 21 (pp. . 53 Melikishvili. as they were the m ost successful. table 15 and pp. no. victories and tri­ butes. 138-42). probably for grain. for example. 1960.about a half gallon or about twelve. often labelled. The inscription of Ishpuini and M enua at Kelishin was bilingual. 19 (pp. unknow n until 1970. temples. and on steles. youths.000 gallons could be contained in eight wine stores. huge granaries and storehouses. 125-31). w ritten in an adapted form of Assyrian cuneiform. Sarduri II. 323-7).760 foot. and sometimes camels. In the citadel at KarmirBlur about 9. in fortresses. built eight. cattle. nos 24 (pp. have been found. 54 Ibid. Like the Assyrians. 1985. one some 52 by 33 feet w ith jars in rows of ten by six.52 The annals of Argishti I repetitively enum erate the yearly tally of horses. which record inform ation about their building works. the adm inistration has left some official government statistics. Besides the archaeological evidence.020 ka-pi. But the fact that the inscription of Rusa I at nearby Topzawa54 was also bilingual suggests other reasons. which suggests th at Assyrian person­ nel were used. 1. Ishpuini and M enua led 106 w ar chariots. and about 750 tons of grain in others. three short ones of Sarduri I. were in Assyrian. M enua. but the later ones are in U rartian.. which was levied through­ out U rartu. An efficient adm inistrative system is suggested also by the tribute of sheep. sheep. Zimansky. including the num ber of animals and persons captured.40 The ‘Arm enian’ E nvironm ent c.51 Long lines of earthenw are jars of three feet high or more. It is frustrating th at there are tw o possibilities for the quantity represented by the ka-pi. whose style has been termed ‘barbaric’. to take in total at least 90. Both inscriptions concerned U rartu’s relationship with 51 Zimansky. women and w arriors acquired through campaigning. 52 Melikishvili. and the last tw o have left lengthy annals at Van.174 horsemen and 2. At m ajor sites there were wine cellars. foodstuffs and precious metals. and at least (some num bers are missing) 9. O n another occasion they led sixty-six chariots.704 infantry against Me-ish-ta. The earliest inscriptions. table 6 reads 1460 instead of Melikishvili’s 460. the U rartian kings had inscriptions made. a unit of dry measure. The construction of storehouses is attested in inscriptions. 135-6).1165-590 в с which suggest both. Archaeologists have unearthed less evidence for such storehouses than for those m eant to store liquids. to keep dues in kind. no. Argishti I and Sarduri II were the m ost prolific authors.53 This might suggest that for a short period a bilingual text was the norm . 1985. 73-5.

Zimansky.9 for the roster.S5 There were several categories of administrative personnel. recording the killing of captives. 1 9 8 7 . to be used on their behalf by subordinates. some of them subdivided. The kings had multiple seals. p. Pfeiffer. One record from Karmir-Blur lists 2 2 4 calf-. 95. Rusa’s foundations of Bastam. 57 Zimansky. 10. 56 Piotrovsky. 1 4 4 -4 5 (n. 8 2 . and associating the royal deeds with the god Khaldi. being near the Assyrian frontier. Some of the formulae are analogous to those used by the Assyrians.and eighteen goat-skins and fifty-two wool skeins. Karmir-Blur and Toprak Kale. Scribes. but what it is exactly is unknown.56 From Toprak Kale comes a text which seems to be a personnel roster. 60 Zimansky. like the clerks depicted on Assyrian reliefs. pp. appear in Assyrian correspondence. pp. at least from the time of Rusa II.1 1 6 5 -5 9 0 в с 41 Muşaşir. 1969b . as is the precise significance of most of the headings. 2 7 2 ^ ) . but others are related to Hittite annals. but the evidence is too scanty for us to be sure of their role. The inscriptions use regular formulae. 58 Parpola. 1 9 8 4 . 1 9 3 5 . 55 Diakonoff. presumably. for example in summariz­ ing the year’s booty. and property marked. pp. Behind the masons who carved the inscriptions were scribes. 130). 8 0 -4 . no. of different types (cylinder seals to be rolled on clay.58 Messages were authenticated. 1 9 8 5 . was a natural Assyrian target. including land disputes. For administrative records. 172 sheep. 1 9 8 5 . a marriage. on one of which the clerk is accompanied by a war-artist. and farm rent collectors.5 0 7 people divided into six major categories.60 Their documents deal with a variety of business. This Toprak Kale text suggests there were different grades of accountants. I.57 Ambassadors appear on an Assyrian relief celebrating Ashurbanipal’s victory over Elam in 663 or 653 в с . 1 9 2 6 . an abduc­ tion and reports of spies. and seal impressions have been discovered at Bastam. to reach all interested parties. with seals. 76 9 (pp. 59 Luckenbill. whose reach was deep. It seems to refer to more than just palace personnel. 3 9. and stamp seals). (hung) about his neck’. 1 9 8 5 . besides emissaries. Both archaeological evidence and the administrative documents reveal. Karmir-Blur and Toprak Kale were all major administrative centres. . nos 6. suggesting that the Urartians may have used the expertise of some inter­ mediary Hurrian centre whose identity is now lost.59 visible in the depiction of Sarduri in flight on Tiglath-Pileser’s palace reliefs. 156. letters and personnel known from adminis­ trative records. and perhaps had a mixed population. who composed them and counted up booty.The 'Armenian' Environment c . enumerating 5 . Urartian seals. which. Royal letters found here and at Bastam refer to four other kinds of officials. It may simply be that the two kings felt that two texts were necessary here. kept the records of the contents of stores. pp. Amongst the booty Tiglath-Pileser III took from Sarduri II was the ‘seal-cylinder. 7 9 -8 3 . spies and messengers. a degree of decentralization.

such as M ana. pp. The Topzawa inscription records that Rusa established Urzana. 5 7.61 The provinces. pp.3 1 . no. 65 Adontz. 3 3 9 ­ 40) for the three individuals. 26 5 (p. The hierarchy appear in e. slave.1 3 . presumably for those maintained by the 61 Adontz. 1 9 6 0 . no. 118 conquered territories.67 Burials confirm the economic and social differen­ tiation which is suggested by the different types of housing at Karmir-Blur. no. 3 2 3 -7 ). 8 9 -9 4 . whom they accompanied into battle. 1 9 8 7 . There were the kings’ transported captives.1 1 . and Uelikukhi on Lake Sevan. 1 9 6 0 . There are hints that the troops normally received a share of captured animals and people. nos. Zimansky. T i l (pp. as ruler there. 2 0 5 -6 ). 66 Sargon refers to counsellors amongst Rusa’s personnel. Adontz concluded that there were a few Urartian-dominated inde­ pendent kingdoms.65 They seem to have remained in place in return for tribute. king of Musasir. Luckenbill. 1 960.3 . each with a courtyard and two to three rooms without storerooms. no. and those lands whose kings were deposed.4 . a term which Adontz took to mean vassal. four countries near Diauekhi. were ruled by governors. The governors had vice-governors. 2. The existence of private property has been inferred from references in inscrip­ tions to the vineyard of Ta-ri-ri-a-i. and the garden of Ish-pi-li-ni.. pp. officers and armed men. 1 9 8 5 . 26 6 (pp. Melikishvili.62 New governors might sometimes have been former kings. Parpola. respectively. the orchard of Gi-lu-ra-a-ni-e. 2 2 0 . 1 9 8 8 . 3 2 8 -3 0 ). including the kings of Diauekhi and the twenty-three around Lake Sevan64 are said to have been made bu-ra. For extensive discussion. 1 9 4 6 .8 ).63 A number of conquered kings. and may have had councils. The Urartian king had a commander-in-chief and he in turn a deputy. 8 1 -2 ). Kristensen. 2 4 7 . II. Pfeiffer.g. 62 Melikishvili. 381. W aterman. 328) 63 Ibid. 2 0 8 .3 5 connects this with Sargon’s description of a royal coronation at Muşaşir. 2 6 4 (pp. 1 927. 154 (pp. An Assyrian letter refers to ‘Abaluqunu’ ‘the governor’ of Musasir: Lanfranchi and Parpola. 8 4 . 1 9 4 6 .1 1 6 5 -5 9 0 в с The efficiency of its administration is not the only conclusion which can be drawn regarding the structure and government of the Urartian state.42 The ‘Armenian’ Environment c . 2 4 . . 67 Zimansky. Argishti I and Rusa I recorded their replacement of kings with governors in. 3 0 . 8. 1 9 9 0 . There were slaves. 2 9 . nos 128 B1 (pp. In this town were blocks of houses. pp. nos 111 (pp. 7 0. 1 9 3 5 . and about fifteen provinces in Urartu proper (the regions of Tushpa and Arzash­ kun). Whether these people remained the personal property of the kings has been debated by Soviet scholars. There were free (armed) men liable for military service. 1 9 85. p. 64 Melikishvili. but there are very few references to their appoint­ ment. often taken to refer to Urartian coronations.66 4 Society Little can be said about the structure of society. 1 9 3 0 .

Rusa. pp. and Sarduri son of Ishpuini (possibly an error for Ishpuini son of Sarduri). II. ‘King of kings’ may. Rusa I’s rabute. no. probably. Urartian rather than the less frequent Assyrian usage. governors. These were probably sites of royal domains and the text suggests they were garrisoned rather than fortified. when the Assyrian Tukulti-Ninurta I (1 2 4 4 -1 2 0 8 вс) used it. 69 Officers: Waterman.69 Although it is not possible to establish with any certainty the exact relationship between king and aristocracy it is most likely that his posi­ tion in society was exalted. no. Argishti’s had the diadem of a god and a hand raised in blessing. 1 9 3 0 . as sometimes suggested. power and success. and it may be that kings took this title precisely to suggest their association with the gods. shepherds and gardeners. Its reference to 260 of Rusa’s royal kin implies that the effective kin group was an extended one. 1 946. either possessors of part of their ancient patrimony. Their close association is suggested also by the choice of the walls of the temple at Aznavur (near Patnos) for the inscription of M enua’s annals and by the presence. ‘killers’. One of the Urartian royal titles offers a further hint o f exaltation. and were the same as the ashariduti whom Sargon captured when he defeated Rusa. in Khaldi’s temple at Musasir in 714.68 The Urartian court appar­ ently included eunuchs. besides those already mentioned. magnates: Parpola. 6 0 6 (p. no. . cavalry. of statues of Argishti. mentioned in the Assyrian correspondence. A category of 3 . 2 1 8 -1 9 . and a much smaller subgroup is designated ‘eunuchs of the palace’.The ‘Armenian’ Environment c . copying. recorded by Sargon. 11. Sargon refers to Arbu. in 68 Luckenbill. and to seven cities of their neighbourhood where dwelt the brothers of Rusa. magnates and nobles. Urartu was not immune from the influence of Assyria. in Urartu the king represented the supreme god. There may have been family or clan settlements. who. The captured pit-khalli Adontz suggested were ‘knights’. Sargon’s enumeration of Rusa’s personnel: Luckenbill. 1 9 3 5 . bowmen. have meant something like ‘ruler of a confederacy’. II. ‘king of kings’ was used only of gods. 2 35). 1 9 2 7 . and then by the Persian Achaemenids. the city of Rusa’s father’s house. shieldbearers. where monarchs underlined in words and pictures their close association with the gods. or recipients of lands as fiefs. Much later it was used by the Medes. 1 987. sappers. equivalents: Adontz. as officers. have been variously translated. 81­ 2). ‘first among equals’. There was certainly a wide range of occupations.1 1 6 5 -5 9 0 в с 43 authorities. farmers. and Riar. Inscriptions proclaim that it was Khaldi to whom the kings owed their position. Adontz postulated that they were great lords. chiefs. and that they acted in his name. 197. But until the thirteenth century. 3 1 . 1 9 27. and larger houses with more rooms. Likewise.7 8 4 eunuchs appears in the Toprak Kale roster. workmen. The people deported by Esarhaddon of Assyria from Shubria included charioteers. 154 (pp. nobles: Pfeiffer. the city of Sarduri.

2 4 -3 5 ). 2 7 2 . 2 9 2 ) at Nimrud. For the election. is disputed. following his defeat by Sargon in 7 1 4 . 1 9 35. 4 . used less often in the inscriptions than are other titles.1 1 6 5 -5 9 0 в с the opinion of some scholars. After Sarduri III the dates. According to Sargon royal Urartian coronations were at Musasir. The dynasty was not however so remarkable that it had never known rebellion. Joint rule may possibly have been used as a device to ensure smooth succession. though some scholars have thought it was Argishti II. 1 4 4 . 1 926. . no. I. Lanfranchi. at Rusa’s behest.72 The rebellion involved some governors 70 Luckenbill.2 ). The bearers of these titles were anxious to impress upon both gods and men that they were powerful and glorious monarchs. Lanfranchi and Parpola. claimed to be divine. his son M elartua was made King by the army and was subsequently killed by the rebels. sees the entire revolt as stemming from M elartua’s election. Lanfranchi and Parpola. order of succession and relationships of the kings are extremely unclear. Pfeiffer.4 ). later. They did this predominantly in the inscriptions. Another Urartian title however is perhaps less bombastic than it first appears. pp. The scanty evidence consists of names and patronymics in a few inscriptions on items found at Karmir-Blur. 1 9 3 0 . 76 9 (pp. 1 9 9 0 . The king was then crowned before Khaldi and given his sceptre. but it was only used by Ishpuini. probably alluded to an outbreak and suppression of revolt following Sarduri II’s defeat by Assyria. Waterman. and a banquet provided for the whole city. 1 9 8 8 . It may signify merely a claim to control of northern Mesopotamia. ‘King of the universe’ or ‘king of all’.71 Countless cattle and sheep were slaughtered before the image of Khaldi. Kristensen. nos 1 4 6 . under the statue of Rusa I. 6 4 6 . For nearly two centuries son succeeded father (assuming that the Musasir statue of Sarduri was really one of Ishpuini) in remarkable continuity. pp. piece of evidence for joint rule by Rusa II and Sarduri III. 1 9 9 0 . is thought to have originated in Mitannian Mesopotamia. 1 9 9 0 . and his murder as instigated by Rusa. and hailed by the people. The account of the defeat of Sarduri II by Tiglath-Pileser III for example could only be read in victorious Assyria. though what it held was clearly crumbling. 1 9 8 8 . that with his two horses and one charioteer he had attained the kingdom. 197. Lanfranchi and Parpola. no. 7 2 . has been suggested (Kristensen. and. for the killing. 93. 9 1 . Menua. Their target was probably Rusa. namely that it refers to the coronation of Urzana of Musasir as a vassal of Rusa. in the mid-seventh century. The one. Assyrian letters reveal another. rebellion identifying two groups of rebels.9 . slight. who did good to their people. 71 A differing interpretation of the passage in question. briefly.70 Another forum was ceremony. 72 For the letters: Waterman.44 The ‘Armenian’ Environment c. gold. But there is nothing to suggest that the dynasty itself was losing its hold. 1 983. 785 (pp. 9 0 . Repression and respect kept the dynasty of Sarduri I on the throne. no. nos 9 2 . no. of which they had a monopoly and in which they were selective. 813 (p. silver and treasure from the king’s palace presented to him. reconstructs the course of events suggest­ ing that after Rusa had fled the scene of his defeat by the Cimmerians and was believed dead. 2 8 1 . The statement.

Religion Much can be deduced about the aspirations.650 в с) in the rock crevices there received one inhumation. The Urartian cemetery (c. datable to the reign of Argishti II. 1963. the problems and the life­ style of the Urartian kings. and near Patnos and Adilcevaz. At Altintepe three masonry tombs sealed with huge blocks o f stone.75 For Urartians cremation and then burial in urns was normal. There is also a slight hint of internal insecurity in the building of the fortresses of Çavuştepe and Kef Kalesi. perhaps prompted by the Cimmerian victory over Urartu. Thus. 76 Barnett. built by Rusa II (c .6 4 5 ). hence the deposit of grave-goods. but their religious ideas are more elusive. The dead were provided with grave-goods. 73 Rush. but because the kudos o f an expensive sarcophagus was more lasting than that of the conspicuous consumption of expensive fuel. Çavuştepe was near Van. was not neces­ sary for the protection of the nearby town (Adilcevaz). It was not customary at Malaklyu. 74 N ock. Two had three rooms. 75 Bullough. a commander (probably) at Van. the destruction of property which might tie the deceased to this world and the provision of magical protection. with twenty eunuchs. The elite preferred rock-cut complexes of tomb chambers of which there were several at Van. . were designed as houses. Kef Kalesi. in which several governors including the governor of Uasi had perished.The ’Armenian’ Environment c . the making of offerings.76 Did their beliefs differ? We cannot tell. In Late Roman Gaul for example. and for the living against them. 1983. for example in a cliff at Kayalidere.1 1 6 5 -5 9 0 в с 45 in Uasi. Cremation seems to have been reserved for the lowly-placed. fashion and eco­ nomics also come into play.74 In early Frank­ ish Gaul the church did not interpret the burial of grave-goods as indicat­ ive of pagan rather than Christian belief. Funeral customs may derive from fear that the dead will be troublesome if not satisfied or disabled. and cremation from one that souls must metamorphosize or be set free for the next life. 1 932.6 8 5 -c. for particular treatments may seem to offer suggestions about beliefs. The leaders were captured and 100 men at Van executed. the rich came to prefer interment not because the Christian church did. Also involved was Narage. 1 941. A possible source of evidence is the treatment of the dead. the deceased being quite likely the local wife of an Urartian and their two children. but not on a major invasion route.73 But tradition. for the dead. There are similar tombs elsewhere. interment may derive from a supposition that the dead live in the tom b. though only the tomb o f Argishti I is identifiable.

where she lost to Sargon her jewels and begemmed gold seal ring used for validating her decrees. In the rock itself is carved a 15 foot-high panel. There were altars before and behind the building in which the god’s statue had been. chairs and tables. bronze belts. temples. jewellery. bodies were burned wearing clothes and orna­ ments. There was almost certainly a cult of the dead. The Urartians had also to propitiate their gods. 2 0 . and in regular. but sixteen Meher Kapusu deities were goddesses. of bearded figures wearing fish skins and heads. attested by Moses of Khoren. bracelets and metal ornamental equipment were added to the ashes for burial.1 1 6 5 -5 9 0 в с Two of the dead rested in plain stone sarcophagi. before the tombs were sealed. It was furnished with six steles. like that at Meher Kapusu. Items such as weapons. for example at Patnos. Offerings to the divinities were prodigious. Niches generally resemble temple doorways. a war chariot. horse-trappings and bits. refer to ‘gates’. of the sound and movement of the plane (or poplar) tree for oracles. the wife of Khaldi. made before filling. or outside. was venerated at Musasir. weapons. The (later) consultation. The scene of a goddess worshipped by a woman is depicted on a gold medallion from Van and on a box lid from Toprak Kale. before stone slabs or niches carved in rock. M ost o f the gods were male. According to the Meher Kapusu inscription. and their inscriptions. perhaps for the souls of the dead to escape. . square. Urartu had seventy-nine divinities. where it is tended by genii. Thomson. cauldrons. A cult of a fish god or gods is suggested by small statuettes. or both. a rock cut stair leads to a platform. 1 0 7 -8 .77 may have been a continuation of Urartian practice. A room at Karmir-Blur has 77 Moses. seem to refer to temple buildings. The deposits included rich clothes. by pagan Armenian priests. the others perhaps in wooden coffins. and by seal scenes featuring fish and a fish-dressed god. Animal sacrifice was pre­ scribed in the Meher Kapusu inscription. whilst ‘gates’ of gods in some other Urartian inscriptions. Offerings were probably placed in the niches within rock tombs.46 The ‘Armenian’ Environment c . with a commemorative inscription prescribing sacrifices to Khaldi and the goddess Uarubani. The temple building at Altintepe was set back in a courtyard which had a drain and columned porticoes all around. In cremations. of varying import­ ance. trans. The Altintepe tombs had such niches. Outside and adjacent to them was an open air temple comprising four steles and a round stone altar facing them. 1 978. Some of them had been deliberately damaged before they were left. found near an altar in a cellar at Karmir-Blur. The Malaklyu urns had holes. The gods were worshipped in house shrines. At a ‘temple’ established by Ishpuini and Menua near Pagan. They included gods of particular towns and gods of the earth and water. Bagbartu. I. pp. The sacred tree appears in the wall paintings in the hall at Altintepe.

The 'Armenian’ Environment c .1 1 6 5 -5 9 0 в с

47

yielded bones of 4 ,0 0 0 headless and legless lambs and calves, apparently sacrificial remains accumulated over a period of no more than thirty-five years. In addition, human sacrifice may have occurred. The suggestion has been prompted by a seal scene showing a beheaded man, and female skeletons at the palace at Giriktepe. Human bones, without skulls, have been identified, together with animal bones, at Toprak Kale, as the remains of sacrifices, though this human identification has been ques­ tioned. Another offering was weapons. Indeed, Khaldi’s temple was sometimes designated ‘house of weapons’. Altintepe has yielded spears, mace- and arrowheads, helmets and shields. Shields were hung, as the Khorsabad relief depicting the temple of Musasir shows. Royal votive shields, richly decorated and designed to be seen from just one position, quivers and helmets inscribed to Khaldi have survived. Gods were also honoured with cities and forts. Tushpa itself ( Tu-ush-pa-a) was named after the goddess Tushpuea (Tu-ush-pu-e-a). Rusa I built forts named ‘the city of Khaldi’ and ‘the city of Teisheba’ on Lake Sevan and Rusa IPs Teishebaini (Karmir-Blur) was named for Teisheba. Temples might, consequently, grow very wealthy on the proceeds of piety. The fabulous booty Sargon took from Khaldi’s temple at Musasir included six gold and 2 5 ,2 1 2 bronze shields, ninety-six silver and 1,514 bronze spears, thirty-three silver chariots, nine gold embroidered vest­ ments, a bejewelled ivory and silver bed, four cauldrons and a number of statues including Khaldi’s own. There is some evidence that temples could loan or sell cattle to community members.78 Gifts to gods must have been meant, in part at least, as a quid pro quo for past or future help in this life. There are other examples of the Urartians appealing to supernatural forces. Some inscriptions incorporate curses upon anyone who should tamper with the royal works and inscriptions. A magical purpose may lie behind the triplication of the text in most of Ishpuini’s inscriptions and some half dozen of M enua’s. (The majority were very short and recorded royal building.) Bells, belts and seals had a protective function. Urartu has been termed the ‘homeland’ of horse- and harness-bells, which survive from the reign of Menua and afterwards, some inscribed with a king’s name. It has been suggested that the Assyrians put bells on the harnesses of their horses to protect them against demons, and it is likely that the Urartians shared the ancient belief in the efficacy of ringing bells against evil.79 The repertoire of belt decoration included bulls and lions, the animals of Teisheba and Khaldi, goats, also associated with a god, scenes of gods and sacred trees and scenes of hunting, possibly meant as representation of the afterlife, as in later, Sasanian and Islamic, art. Belts
78 Diakonoff, 1 9 8 5 , pp. 8 0 , 169 (n. 176). 79 Porada, 1 9 6 7 . Bells also have more tangible practical use, drawing human and animal attention to the presence of the wearer.

48

The ‘Armenian’ Environment c.1 1 6 5 -5 9 0 в с

themselves may have had magical significance, for enclosure within a circle was an ancient method of fending off evil. Seal scenes resembled those on belts, thereby ensuring magical protection for anything the seals safe­ guarded. Worn round the neck the seal could function as an amulet. Decorated medallions, pectorals and pins did likewise. Wall paintings too had a role. The Altintepe paintings depicted lions and bulls, as did Arin-berd’s, genii tending sacred trees, whose fruit seems to be pomegra­ nates, and a frieze of stylized pomegranates. The pomegranate, a fertility symbol, was used in modern times in the eastern Mediterranean against the evil eye, and this use may be very ancient. Debts and Legacies In their deployment of magic symbols the Urartians were no different from the Assyrians, whose colossal gateway figures, like some figures on their reliefs, had magical protective purposes. The culture of Urartu bore many similarities to that of Assyria and in fact owed much to it. Royal titles and inscriptions, military dress and equipment, the bud garland motif on a horse-blinker of King Menua, the iconography of cylinder seals, the fish gods, the bulls, lions, genii costumes, colours and techni­ ques of the wall paintings at Altintepe and Arin-berd all betray this. A seal design and an ivory figure from Toprak Kale suggest that the Urar­ tian kings and courtiers dressed like Assyrian ones. The soldiers of Malaklyu wore bracelets with lion head terminals derived from those of Assyrian royal attendants. There were of course other influences too. Syrian influence is strong in Urartian ivories. Local cultures and lan­ guages (Hurrian, Luwian and proto-Armenian) survived. But Urartian culture also had original elements, and even, perhaps, some contributions to make to Assyria. Originality and independence may be seen in the animal processions on shields, the development and invention of animal motifs and composite creatures, the iconography of stamp seals and stamp cylinders, the skill of metal-workers and the building of fortresses. Urartian example may have inspired Tiglath-Pileser III in some reorganization of his large provinces, ruled by hereditary governors, into smaller ones, ruled by government appointees.80 The qanät system used in Assyria from the reign of Sennacherib (7 0 4 -6 8 1 в с) may have derived from what Sargon II saw at Ulkhu. Yet although the magnificence and achievement of Urartu were great, her legacy was slight. There are traces in Achaemenid Persian culture. Urartian rock tombs were emulated at Persepolis, and at Naqsh-i Rustam, where there are four. There is resemblance between a tower there and one
80 The view of some scholars that Tiglath-Pileser III brought about administrative ‘reforms’ seems to be unsubstantiated. (Kuhrt, 1 995, 2. p. 506).

The ‘Armenian’ Environment c .1 1 6 5 -5 9 0 в с

49

at Karmir-Blur, and it may be that Achaemenid temple towers go back to Urartian prototypes. So too might the columned halls of the Achaemenid palace at Pasargadae, built by Cyrus (5 5 9 -5 3 0 вс), though there were also prototypes at Hasanlu IV and at Median sites of the eighth to seventh centuries в с . Columned halls were built at most Urartian palaces, for example at Armavir, Bastam, Çavuştepe and Kef Kalesi. The most impress­ ive, at Altintepe, 130 feet by 75 feet with eighteen columns, in six rows of three, seems to be Achaemenid work.81 The sight of the annals of Argishti I on the cliff face at Van may have inspired the inscription of Darius at Behistun. The winged figure shown near Darius there wears a crown, thought to derive from those of some Urartian gods. There are a few other artistic similarities. Some Urartian elements were passed on through the Medes: the title ‘King of Kings’; some prototypes for the form of Achaemenid inscriptions, for example, their subdivision into paragraphs; perhaps, the use of stamp cylinders; perhaps, the few artistic elements. But as the regime had collapsed, so had the empire, into its constituent parts, and the glory of Urartu passed into oblivion.
81 Summers, 1993.

3 Foreign Rule: Medes, Persians and Greeks, 5 9 0 -1 9 0 в с

Armenia after the Fall of Urartu By 5 90 в с , when the Medes dealt the final blow to Urartu, the Armenians were probably spread through parts of Urartu and in possession of a kingdom therein. Its ruling dynasty had probably come to power a century earlier, in Melid, and benefited, directly or indirectly, from the activities of the Medes. If the Medes established a short-lived empire, then this new Armenian kingdom should be considered as part of a new, structured, polity. But the suggestion that they did so rests on the testi­ mony of Herodotus, and his reliability with regard to Median history is now considered w eak.1 On these and other grounds, including the evid­ ence of Assyrian and Babylonian records and archeology, the existence of a real Median empire with a unified structure has been questioned.2 It seems that a new beginning came only with the Persian Achaemenids, following the conquest o f the Medes by Cyrus in the sixth century, and an idea of empire only with Darius. The nature and paucity of the evidence means that much of the society and conditions in sixth-century Armenia are beyond our ken. The extent of Armenian domination and the nature of the relationship between Urartians and Armenians are two areas of uncertainty. Xenophon’s Cyro­ paedia records that in the first half o f the sixth century there was hostility between the Armenians and their neighbours, the poor and warlike ‘Chaldaei’, who lived in the mountains. This, he says, was resolved with the help of Cyrus. The defeated mountain people were to be allowed down to farm uncultivated land, and the Armenians to pasture their herds
1 Brown, S.C., 1988. 2 Sancisi-Weerdenburg, 1988.

Medes, Persians and Greeks, 5 9 0 -1 9 0 в с

51

in the hills. Both agreed upon the right of intermarriage and upon a defensive alliance, whilst Cyrus himself installed a garrison in the heights to ensure peace was kept.3 Some scholars have taken ‘Chaldaei’ to mean ‘worshippers of Khaldi’ that is, Urartians. But there is a different view, though likewise not beyond questions, that these ‘Chaldaei’ were actually the north-western Khalitu (ha-li-tu) or Chalybes, against whom the Urar­ tian Rusa II had campaigned a century before.4 The name ‘Urartian’ actually became ‘Alarodian’ in Greek and according to Strabo it was the ancient Chalybes who were later called ‘Chaldaei’.5 The testimony of Herodotus regarding the Armenian-Urartian balance of power, though initially beguiling, is no more conclusive. Herodotus provides a list, perhaps derived from Hecataeus, of the twenty satrapies into which Darius divided the Achaemenid Empire. In its thirteenth satrapy were Pactyica, the ‘Armenians’ and their neighbours ‘as far as’ the Black Sea. In its eighteenth satrapy were the Alarodians, the Matieni and Saspires, their tribute being 2 0 0 talents, half the sum which was due from the thirteenth.6 Herodotus’ evidence seems therefore to imply that by 522 в с the Armenians had come to dominate western Armenia whereas the Urartians were concentrated in the east and were inferior to them in influence and wealth. Unfortunately the accuracy o f Herodo­ tus’ list is questionable and such conclusions may be quite wrong. Varia­ tion in Herodotus’ wording implies that not all the information within his list was from the same source, and hence that it is not all equally reliable. Herzfeld has argued that in reality Darius had not two but only one satrapy in the region of former Urartu. This was effectively a combination of most of Herodotus’ satrapies ‘thirteen’ and ‘eighteen’ with his ‘nine­ teen’, (comprising the Moschi, Tibareni, Macrones, Mossynoeci and Mares, assessed at 300 talents), excluding the thirteenth’s Pactyes, actu­ ally a tribe far to the east in the Kabul region of Afghanistan, and the eighteenth’s Matieni, whom Herzfeld believed belonged to the Median satrapy.7 If Herzfeld is correct then Armenians and Urartians (Alaro­ dians) might be considered roughly equal to each other and to the other six groups within the satrapy. Whatever the balance of power between Urartians and Armenians in the sixth century в с there was some, limited, continuity between condi­ tions in Urartu and those in Armenia. If the Old Testament Book of Ezekiel’s remarks about Togarmah really do refer to the first Armenian kingdom, then its allusion to its trading, in the 590s, in the fairs of Tyre
3 Xenophon, Cyropaedia, III, ii, 1-1П, ii, 2 4. л Though Chalybes seems to have been used by the Greeks for any group in the Pontus
trading in iron ore. Diakonoff, 1 9 8 4 , pp. 6 5 ,1 1 7 ,1 6 2 , (n. 1 0 3 ,1 0 4 ) , 17 2 (n. 225) and p. 90. Strabo, The G eography, X II, iii, 19. 5 Strabo, ХП, iii, 19. 6 Herodotus, The H istories, III, 89-94. 7 Herzfeld, 1 9 6 8 , pp. 2 9 6 - 7 , 3 1 3 - 1 4 , 3 0 1 -2 .

Map 3.1

Armenia

Map 3.2

The east Mediterranean and West Asia

An Urar­ tian castle at Pagan was occupied from the late seventh century into the first half of the sixth. Tushpa in Tosp. 2 1 3 . 2 1 8 . Mandakuni and Slkuni. Karmir-Blur and Toprak Kale had been burnt.54 Medes. Manawazean.8 suggest that horse breeding. One thing which was not preserved was political autonomy. though their origin may not be Urartian. but Manda is not precisely identifiable. There is a significant amount of evidence for continuity among the upper classes. Toumanoff concluded that the origins of a number of other early medieval Armenian aristocratic families did indeed go back to Urartian times. The Pala had lived in Paphlagonia but may have extended as far as the River Çoroh before 1500 в с . 9 Toumanoff. There were perhaps survivals in religion and mythology. Pagan Armenians venerated trees. pp. trade. Sala and Kaska or Kashka peoples. and later tales of their god Vahagn overcoming dragons seem related to earlier myths about Teisheba.9 . 206). Erebuni survives in Erevan. Slkuni. 2 7 :1 4 . surnames of two medieval aristocratic Armenian families. 2 0 8 . Other Urartian sites however show evidence of disuse. royal ones). The victories of Darius meant that Armenia was incorporated into the Achae­ menid Empire and was not to be independent again until this empire itself 8 Ezekiel. The attire of the Urartian ambassadors on the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal’s celebratory relief of the mid-seventh century re­ sembles that of the Armenians depicted on the relief of the Achaemenid king Xerxes at his palace at Persepolis. A humble settle­ ment did return to Çavuştepe soon after its firing by the Scyths. (Sala was somewhere in Armenia. 2 1 8 . the first to fifth centuries a d . but it was extinguished after a few years. 2 1 2 . Rshtuni. the family name of the kings of Vaspurakan in the tenth century a d . in the Achaemenid period at Van. Arin-berd and Armavir. may preserve the names of the tribes of Manda and Sala. К cajberuni families (pp. roughly. five had Urartian origins (in four cases. Mandakuni. Paluni. Persians and Greeks. he suggested. 1 9 6 3 . A number of Armenian place and family names preserve or recall an earlier substratum. the Pala. 2 1 6 . Khorkoruni. one of the Achaemenid capitals. Hurrians. mentioned in Hittite records. 1 5 4 -2 2 7 .) Ar-su-пі-й-і-пі (Artsuniuini) looks like an Urartian form of ‘Artsruni’. or continued use. 2 1 5 . 5 9 0 -1 9 0 в с with horses and horsemen and mules. Altintepe. Five other houses were. 199. prosperity and communications had not been seriously disrupted. Bzhnuni. Mannaeans. dynasties of territorialized remnants of even more ancient groups. . The Pala and Sala are mentioned in Hittite sources. At Hasanlu part of the site may have been reused in the sixth and fifth centuries. the Orduni. There is archaeological evidence for reoccupation.9 O f twenty-nine dynasties which held some fifty princely states in. Apahuni. The Kaska had come to the Upper Euphrates Valley with the Urumeans in the twelfth century вс.

Medes, Persians and Greeks, 5 9 0 -1 9 0 в с

55

fell to Alexander of Macedon in 331 в с . After that it was the royal dynasty of the Orontids who ruled Armenia, until the beginning of the second century в с when their realm was broken up and a new line of kings was recognized by Rome in 188 в с .

Armenia in the Achaemenid Empire Unfortunately, the keynote of the period 5 2 2 -1 8 8 в с is, for Armenia, a lack of evidence. The inhabitants wrote almost nothing that has been discovered (though there are some confused memories in the History of Moses of Khoren) and there is almost no archaeological evidence from the Achaemenid period. The Greek and Iranian literary sources suggest that Armenia was now on the fringe of world events instead of being a major power, and her society seems to have regressed. Her history is scarcely discernible and depends as much on its context as on direct testimony. The incorporation of Armenia into the huge Achaemenid Empire did not, probably, involve much meddling by Achaemenid kings in Armenian affairs. Rather than aspiring to cultural unification and uniformity, they preferred to maintain their own culture, untainted by influence from subject peoples, and to leave unchanged these subject peoples’ law and government and their political and economic structures. Achaemenid intervention was limited, its priorities to stimulate the economy, collect taxes and maintain control, the latter through royal scribes, officials called ‘the king’s eyes’ and ‘the king’s ears’, and the royal roads. The history of Armenia’s place in the administrative structure of the empire is not entirely clear. Xenophon’s Cyropaedia records that by the time of the death of Cyrus Armenia was grouped with Media and Cadusia, in one satrapy.10 We have no information as to whether any Arme­ nian kingdom still existed. The satrapy was given to Cyrus’ younger son. Under Darius however, Armenia was separate from Media and Cadusia, and comprised, probably, as we have seen, a single satrapy. Sculpture on the tombs of Xerxes (485— 465) and Artaxerxes suggest that this satrapy was later divided into two, which may explain why Herodotus mis­ takenly thought that Darius had had two satrapies. Likewise Xenophon’s Anabasis, describing his own adventures in 401 в с , refers to two Persian officials in Armenia, one the Persian king’s son-in-law Orontes, the other Tiribazus,11 sometimes taken to be the satraps of these two satrapies, the ‘eighteenth’, eastern, and the ‘thirteenth’, western, satrapies respectively. Yet Xenophon identifies Tiribazus as the subordinate of Orontes, which means that if there had once been a division of the satrapy into two, it had been discontinued by 4 0 1 . Another pair, an Orontes and a Mithraustes,
10 Cyropaedia, VIII, vii, 11. 11 Anabasis, II, iv 8, 9, III, iv 13, v 17, IV, iv 4.

56

Medes, Persians and Greeks, 5 9 0 -1 9 0 в с

are mentioned by Arrian, writing in the second century a d , as comman­ ders of the Armenians in the battle of Gaugamela in 331 в с , 12 where Alexander defeated the last Achaemenid king, Darius III (3 3 7 -3 3 0 вс). They too have sometimes been assumed to represent two satrapies but may instead have been superior and subordinate. If, as is possible, Mithraustes was the Vahe whom Moses of Khoren says rebelled and was killed by Alexander,13 they were also kinsmen. Whatever the administrative theory, the Achaemenid hold over Arme­ nia was reasonably strong, though it did decline, like the empire itself, after the defeat of the Persians by the Greeks at Plataea in Boeotia in 479. Like their Assyrian and Urartian predecessors the Achaemenids exacted tribute. Herodotus gives details in his satrapy list and King Xerxes’ apadana reliefs at Persepolis show Armenians with other peoples of the empire presenting tributes in kind. Strabo records that the satrap sent 2 0 ,0 0 0 foals per year to the king, and Xenophon reveals that in 401 the Armenians were rearing horses as tribute.14 There were seventeen such colts in the village where he was quartered. Texts from Persepolis suggest that the Achaemenids also exacted, also in kind, taxes for the financing of the satrapies in their various activities. There are traces of the existence of Achaemenid chancelleries in Armenia. The chancelleries used Aramaic, and in a stratum of words in Armenian whose derivation is Aramaic there are terms connected with state scribal offices. The use of Aramaic con­ tinued through the period and appears in the second century в с in the inscriptions of the Armenian king Artaxias. Military repression and recruitment were other aspects of Achaemenid rule. Xenophon’s Oecononticus refers to the requirement that governors supply maintenance for a number of horsemen, archers, slingers and light infantry so that they should be strong enough to control their subjects. It also refers to the maintenance o f garrisons in the citadels.1S Both Arinberd and Van have been suggested as satrapal capitals, though the only evidence for a Persian presence at Van is that Darius had a niche cut for an inscription on the cliff, to which Xerxes added a text. It is certainly likely that the Persian troops used at least some of the Urartian forts. Achaemenid satraps and kings also used native troops. The multinational umy which Xerxes took to Thrace in 4 8 0 included contingents from all he groups within the Armenian satrapy. A Babylonian document attests military colony of men of ‘Urartu’ (Urashtu) and ‘M elid’ (perhaps the quivalent of the Greek Alarodians and Armenians) at Nippur on the aphrates in the time of Darius II (423— 4 0 4 ).16 Forty thousand Armenian
2 Arrian, T he Anabasis o f Alexander, III, viii, 5 -6 . 3 Moses, I, 3 1 , trans. Thomson, 1 9 78, p. 124. 1 Strabo, X I, xiv, 9; Xenophon, Anabasis IV, v, 2 4 , 34. O econonticus, IV, 5, 6. Cardascia, 1 9 5 1 , p. 7.

Medes, Persians and Greeks, 5 9 0 -1 9 0 в с

57

foot soldiers and 7 ,0 0 0 Armenian cavalry supported Darius III against Alexander. But Achaemenid control was not total. Xenophon described three groups in the mountains bordering Armenia as ‘not subjects of the king’. They were the Carduchi in the south, and the Taochi and Chaldaeans in the north. By Chaldaeans Xenophon may mean Chalybes. Some Taochi and Chalybes did however serve the Persians as mercen­ aries. The Mossynoeci, who according to Herodotus were part of the satrapy, Xenophon found to be lords of an outlying group of Chalybes, self-governing with chiefs and a king, and an official representative at the Greek city of Trapezus.17 Another threat to royal control was the ambition and power of satraps. The dynasty founded by the satrap o f Armenia under Artaxerxes III (404­ 358), Orontes, was to rule Armenia for 300 years. Orontes had been affronted to be placed under the command of his erstwhile subordinate, Tiribazus, satrap of Lydia after 395, when Artaxerxes made war against Cyprus in the 380s. His machinations against Tiribazus led ultimately to his own degradation, though he did subsequently become satrap of Mysia in western Asia Minor. Orontes then took part in the satraps’ revolt of 362, but deserted his confederates. The evidence that he stayed in the west and rebelled again in the 350s is not conclusive, and it is most likely that he regained Armenia as a reward for his loyalty and spent the rest of his career there. Royal control was reinforced when the future Darius III became satrap of Armenia, but the Orontid dynasty nevertheless main­ tained its position. The Orontes at Gaugamela was most probably the son of Artaxerxes Ill’s Orontes.

Society The society of the satrapy of Armenia during the Achaemenid period was clearly not homogeneous. From Herzfeld’s analysis of Herodotus’ satrapy list we may infer that its people, the ancestors o f the Armenians of Late Antiquity, comprised eight different groups, including Herodotus’ ‘Arme­ nians’ though neither the origins nor, as we shall see, the locations of all of them are certain. It seems likely that five were Georgian or protoGeorgian groups, speaking a form of Georgian: the M oschi, much dis­ cussed, who have been connected with the Georgian Meskhi; the M acrones and Mossynoeci, both thought to have come to Pontus after the mid eighth-century в с Urartian conquest of Diauekhi, the Tibareni, perhaps the Kashka tribe of Tibia mentioned in the fourteenth century в с , and the
17 Anabasis, V, v, 17; mercenaries: ibid. IV, iv, 18; Carduchi: ibid. Ill, v, 1 5 -1 6 , IV, i-iii; Taochi, Chalybes: ibid. IV, vii, 1 -1 8 ; Mossynoeci: ibid. V, iv, v 1.

58

Medes, Persians and Greeks, 5 9 0 -1 9 0 в с

Saspires.18 In King X erxes’ army, the Moschi, Tibareni, Macrones and Mossynoeci were, according to Herodotus, equipped alike, as were the Saspires and Alarodians.19 However, this account does not tally exactly with what is depicted on the reliefs at Persepolis. Xenophon alerts us to a further group, the Phasians.20 The Chaldaean mercenaries whom he records as being among Orontes’ troops were however probably not ‘Armenian’ in any sense. The Chaldaeans were a people of Babylonia, grouped with the Assyrians in X erxes’ army.21 For the location in Armenia of these different peoples we depend upon Herodotus and Xenophon. But even supposing that their testimony is accurate, it is not always very clear, and the question is complicated by the fact that Xenophon’s route through Armenia still provokes disagree­ ment. But it seems that by 4 0 0 в с the group Xenophon called Armenians were dominant in the south-west of the plateau, between the Euphrates, the Centrites (Bohtan) and the mountains north of the Araxes in the plain o f Basean.22 Besides the Georgian, Armenian and Urartian elements in Armenia there was probably an Iranian-speaking element too, whose penetration may have begun in the seventh century в с . It perhaps infiltrated from Media and from M ana, where Old Iranian was present, although not strong in the late eighth century. Furthermore, both the Scyths and the Cimmerians were, probably, Iranian speakers, and some of them may have settled in Armenia. There is archaeological evidence for Scythian settlement in Shakash^n (Sacasene) in Azerbaijan, in the seventh century в с , and in Mana, where a splendid princely burial, probably Scythian, was deposited at the end of the century at Ziwiye, about 62 miles south of Hasanlu. The Urartian king Rusa II may have allowed some Cimmerian settlement. There were also Medes in Achaemenid Armenia. The names Mardi and Mardastan, south of Erzurum and near Van respectively, found in the seventh century a d Armenian Geography, have been thought to signify areas of Median settlement, and Moses of Khoren refers to such settlement in the Araxes valley in the time of Cyrus.23 In the Anabasis of Xenophon the Armenians and four other peoples connected with the Achaemenid satrapy of Armenia appear. The Arme­ nians’ political organization was rudimentary, and their social organiza­ tion was that of the clan. The villages where Cheirisophus and Xenophon were quartered each had a chief (comarch). Xenophon’s chief accompan­
18 For the origins of all these groups, Diakonoff, 1 9 8 4 , pp. 6 6 - 7 , 103, 1 1 6 -1 8 , 162 n. 108 (Moschi); 6 7 ; 103, 117, 163 (n. 115), 183 (n. 11) (Tibareni); 102, 183 n. 6 (Saspires). 19 The Histories, VII, 7 8 , 79. 20 Anabasis, ГѴ, vi, 6. 21 Ibid., iii, 4 ; Herodotus, T he H istories, VII, 63. 22 Hewsen, 1983a. For Xenophon’s route, Manfredi, 1986, esp. pp. 4 - 5 for map showing varying reconstructions. Moses, I, 3 0, trans. Thomson, 1 9 7 8 , pp. 1 1 9 -2 1 .

Medes, Persians and Greeks, 5 9 0 -1 9 0 в с

59

ied him to visit Cheirisophus and whenever, in other villages, he caught sight of a kinsman, he would ‘take the man to his side’. Some at least of the villages were walled, and the villagers’ goats, sheep, cattle and fowl were reared in their underground houses.24 O f course, Xenophon did not see everything. Other groups or places may have retained elements of the more advanced society which they had known under Urartu. The ‘king’ of Armenia who appears in the Cyropaedia may represent a higher rank of aristocracy than do the village chiefs. This higher class may have continued into the fifth century and later, besides the successors of the Urartian sub-kings who were the ancestors or predecessors of Armenian princes of the Arsacid period. In the northern borderlands were the Taochi, successors of the people of Diauekhi. They apparently lived in strongholds, had others which were just refuges and preferred death to falling into Greek hands. In what had been the south-west and north-west frontier regions of Urartu Xenophon encountered Carduchi, Chalybes and Mossynoeci.25 The Carduchi opposed the passage of the Greeks for seven days, a feat which suggests that they had some political unity and organization. They fought with huge bows and slings. Both the Chalybes and Mossynoeci had strongholds and towns (тгоХшца). The name ‘Mossy­ noeci’ means ‘living in towers’ and their king dwelt in a wooden tower in their chief citadel in their city Metropolis, control o f this citadel being the qualification to rule. His people showed the Greeks their fat tattooed children, and struck Xenophon as less civilized than any people he had encountered, habitually doing in public what others did in private.

Economy Lack of homogeneity and of sophistication did not inhibit prosperity. If corrected as Herzfeld suggested, Herodotus’ satrapy list implies that the Armenian satrapy paid Darius tribute of something under 6 0 0 talents. By comparison, Assyria and Babylon together paid 1,000 talents plus 500 boy eunuchs, Egypt 700, and Cilicia 5 00 plus 360 white horses. Arme­ nia’s wealth derived ultimately from agriculture. Aristagoras of Miletus described the Armenians as ‘rich in flocks’.26 Since they were used in tribute the rearing of horses must have been a major element in the economy. The palace and villages around it, near to where the Greek army camped ‘had all possible good things in the way of supplies’. Xenophon mentions animals, grain, fine wine, dried grapes, all sorts of
24 Anabasis, IV, v, 9 - 1 1 , 2 4; 3 0 - 2 ; 9, 25. 25 Cf. above n. 17. 26 Quoted by Herodotus, The Histories, V, 49.

60

Medes, Persians and Greeks, 5 9 0 -1 9 0 в с

beans, ointment and fragrant oil made out of ‘pork fat, sesame, bitter almonds, or turpentine’, and elsewhere, at table, lamb, kid, pork, veal, poultry and both wheat and barley bread. In a stronghold of the Taochi he found large numbers of asses, cattle and sheep. Further south the Carduchi had many fine houses, abundant supplies, especially of wine, and great numbers of bronze vessels.27 There is less evidence for commerce though there is some. Herodotus mentions exports, mostly wine, from Armenia to Babylon.28 This trade was conducted by Assyrians. The Achaemenid royal roads, punctuated with way stations, passed through southern Armenia. There are terms connected with trade and handicrafts in the Aramaic stratum of Armen­ ian. Armenia’s neighbours to the south-west were Aramaic-speaking, and these terms may have entered the Armenian language in the Achaemenid period, though some at least may be due to the large numbers of people whom Tigranes the Great transported to Armenia in the first century в с . The discovery of sixth-century Athenian coinage in Zangezur, of fifthcentury coins from Miletus at Arin-berd, and of fifth-century Cretan coins may demonstrate trade between Armenia and Asia Minor. X eno­ phon records that a group of Chalybes subject to the Mossynoeci lived mostly by working in iron, which suggests some trade.29 The evidence for urban life is even more scanty. Xenophon says that the Chalybes and Mossynoeci had towns and he records a large city at Gymnias, in Scythian territory.30 This may have been Gyumri, though another suggestion is Pasinler. Nothing suggests that the Armenians themselves were intimately involved in trade or towns, for the Armenian settlements Xenophon saw were villages. Nevertheless it is likely that beginnings of urban life were being stimulated by the attractions and requirements of the two satrapal palaces to which the Anabasis refers.31 The Oeconomicus records the concern of the king that his countries should be densely populated and cultivated. Persian palaces had large parks, or ‘paradises’, artistically laid out with trees and ‘all the good and beautiful things that the soil produces’ and were provided with wild animals to hunt.32 In Armenia, according to Xenophon, one palace was associated with a large village, most of whose houses had turrets, the other had many villages around it, and all had plentiful provisions. Altintepe, where there was an Achaemenid hall, walls, a large settlement on a nearby hill and possibly in-between, may have been one of these
27 Anabasis, ГѴ, iv, 7 - 1 3 , v, 3 1; vii, 1 4; ii, 2 2 , i, 8. 28 Herodotus, I, 194. 29 Anabasis V, v, 1. 30 Anabasis: Chalybes IV, vii, 17; Mossynoeci, V, iv, 31 (using polism a - buildings of a city, town - and polis - city - respectively); Gymnias, IV, vii, 1 8 -1 9 . 31 IV, iv, 2, 7. 32 Xenophon, O econom icus, IV, 8 ,1 3 - 1 4 and Anabasis, I, ii, 7 for animals at a palace of Cyrus in Phrygia.

Medes, Persians and Greeks, 5 9 0 -1 9 0 в с

61

sites.33 That the Persians influenced Armenian society is obvious from the fact that Persian was spoken in villages Xenophon visited.34

Religion It is likely that the Persians also influenced Armenian religion. The Achaemenids followed, probably, an early form of Zoroastrianism. This involved belief in a supreme creator God, Ahura Mazda, opposed by an uncreated evil spirit, each helped by subordinate spirits, and veneration of ancestral spirits. The role of righteous men was to promote truth, and to respect the created elements, especially fire, to which end there were various regulations and rites. Doctrine was transmitted orally. The Armen­ ians certainly did not follow the Achaemenid lead absolutely, for they sacrificed horses to the sun god,35 whereas the Achaemenid kings seem to have accepted Zoroaster’s disapproval of animal sacrifice. Yet there has been much diversity and development within Zoroastrianism, and it may, as Russell has argued,36 have acquired a hold in Armenia during this period. The evidence is varied. A fire temple was provided at Arin-berd. There are a few Armenian religious terms which may derive from Old Iranian, probably Old Persian, and a seal scene of, possibly, religious significance. Artaxerxes II promoted the cult of the ancient Iranian god­ dess Anahita who, as Strabo records, came to be exceptionally honoured in Armenia. The Zoroastrian calendar was, probably, introduced throughout the empire, though there is disagreement about the date. The establishment of Zoroastrianism in Armenia would not however have been by compulsion. The Achaemenids did not try to eradicate the gods of the peoples they conquered. Instead they sought their support. Armenia and Greek Rule There is little sign of any direct Greek impact on Armenia under the Achaemenids, despite the Greek colonies on the Black Sea coast, and a Greek element in Achaemenid society and culture. There were Greek physicians at the royal court and some Greek influence in art and archi­ tecture is detectible, for example, in cameos, and at Pasargadae, and, to a lesser extent, at Persepolis. Darius III knew Greek well enough to speak privately with the leader of his Greek mercenaries. Greek influence in the
33 Summers, 1993. 34 Anabasis, IV, v, 10, 34. 35 Xenophon, Anabasis, ГѴ, v, 35. 36 Russell, 1987, pp. 14, 4 7 ; ch. 2 (pp. 3 9 -7 1 ) includes the Median, Achaemenid and Orontid periods.

One king. the Persian-speaking commander of Sardis who had surrendered to him. anes’. future king of Bithynia. . It is unclear from the text whether the natives guided Menon. who in 3 04 had taken the title of king and had then consolidated his position as ruler of the east. X I. 9 note 3 Loeb edition. former satrap of Babylon. Geography. by now dead or deposed. The gold mines are at Pharangion. Eumenes. in about 2 70 or 2 60 в с . X X X V III. There Antiochus I of Commagene (6 9 -3 4 вс) commemorated his ancestors and proclaimed his direct descent from Darius the Great via the wife of the satrap Orontes. the son whose own name survives in the Nemrut Dağ inscription only as ‘ . or killed him. and the most likely time for him to have taken it is the aftermath of 331. . and mostly only nominally. 38 The text’s ‘led up’ has been emended by some but apparently only on the grounds that it ‘seems wrong’. Alexander’s general policy was to continue the Achaemenid adminis­ trative system and to appoint Iranian satraps. to the gold mines in Syspiritis (modern İspir). a writer of the third century a d . It was the son of Orontes who was first to take the title of king. satrap of Armenia. The most important consequence for Armenia of this conquest was a greater degree of independence. according to Strabo. 2. vii.37 It was the Orontid dynasty who now really ruled there. north-east of Bayberd. In 301 в с Armenia passed to Seleucus. King Arsames sheltered the Seleucid rebel Antiochus Hierax from his brother 37 Justin. Strabo. E pitom e. 5 9 0 -1 9 0 в с east generally was to be intensified after Alexander of Macedon con­ quered the Achaemenid Empire at Gaugamela in 331. Orontes. Either Orontes or King Samus pro­ vided refuge for Ziaelas. Justin. Alexander also. sent soldiers and a Greek general. The deeds of the Orontids may be traced in classical sources. Our evidence for the continuity of the dynasty is the inscriptions on steles on Nemrut (Nim­ rud) Dağ. in about 260 в с . helped Ariarathes II of Cappadocia to regain Cappadocia from the Macedonian strategus Amyntas.38 Armenia under the Orontids Alexander’s empire was short-lived. After his death. in unbroken descent from father to son until the early second century в с . but to provide them with troops and generals drawn from his own followers. A certain Neoptolemus. . was defeated by another satrap. the Diadochi. Menon. states that neither Alexander nor his successors conquered Armenia. Mithrenes was probably the son of King Orontes. in 323 в с . Armenia was briefly drawn into the rivalries and wars of his successors.62 Medes. Persians and Greeks. xiv. The dynasty of Seleucus was to control Armenia under her Orontid kings only fitfully. For Armenia he appointed Mithrenes.

The old town of Carcathiocerta. nor the Chalybes and the Mossy­ noeci who consolidated their independence. They lost Acilisene to the Cataonians. and Taykc to the Iberians. at the Peace of Apamea in 189/8. whereupon his two generals ‘joined the Romans’ and were recognized as independent. xiv. involved in the removal o f the last Orontid king. may have been founded by King Samus. 1 984. on the site of an old town. and to marry his sister. Orontes IV. There was a partial revival of urban life. The reoccupied 39 Strabo. . also in Commagene. In the north­ east Garni was occupied and fortified in the third century. since. It included40 all western. 15. perhaps the capital of Kummukh. a very Greek element. The geographical extent of Orontid Armenia is identifiable. Strabo says Antiochus turned the country over to two of his generals. modern Eğil. Samosata (modern Samsat). Persians and Greeks. horses and mules. perhaps with its own temple and priesthood. later Commagene. They also held ancient Kummukh. perhaps. X I. kingdom of their descendant Antiochus I. round Erzurum and further west. with the title of king. Anti­ ochus besieged Xerxes in Arsamosata. Seven Greek inscriptions of the early second century or later. and lived by agriculture rather than trade. It was probably his son Arsames who founded Arsameia (Eski Kähta). Artaxias and Zariadris. The Orontids may have held Melid. was to be the capital of the Orontid kingdom of Sophene in the next century. Edessa and Seleuceia on the Tigris. Around 2 0 0 в с Antiochus was. for example at Nisibis. In about 2 1 2 в с the Seleucid Antiochus III attempted to collect tribute which the father of King Xerxes had failed to pay. perhaps stimu­ lated by the passage of international trade through Armenia and encour­ aged by the various Seleucid foundations. He was defeated at the battle of Magnesia in 190 в с . from Strabo’s account of how Artaxias and Zariadris enlarged it. southern and central Armenia.39 But Seleucid suzer­ ainty was nearly over. from the borders of Taykc. found at Armavir. 5 9 0 -1 9 0 в с 63 Seleucus II.Medes. and also the use of Greek by the last Orontid king and his associates. have suggested to some scholars the presence of a Greek colony. 40 Hewsen. probably. It was under the Orontids that Greek civilization spread in Armenia. probably Urartian settlement on the citadel site between the tenth and seventh centuries в с . the Orontids used Armavir as a capital. was chosen for security. as it did elsewhere in the Seleucid empire. Cholarzene and Gogarene. Antiochus provoked Rome by invading Greece. and Arsamosata (modern Haraba and mostly under the waters of the Keban Dam lake) where there had been a small. so it too must have been an Orontid base. The site. But they did not control the M atieni. Arsames and Xerxes issued coins. and persuaded him to pay part of the tribute. to the Araxes and the Taurus mountains and the Muş plain. according to Moses of Khoren. Samus. in money.

the new town which was to be this king’s religious centre. 1 8 1 -2 . Persians and Greeks. II. The newly introduced Hellenistic influence did not replace the long­ standing Iranian influence. Eruandakert. His successors were to introduce Arme­ nia to the interests of Rome. 1 9 7 8 . 41 Moses. 3 9. god. constructed a new fortified town at Eruandashat on the Araxes plain. this same king combined Hellenistic and Iranian interests. Thomson. gardens. . trans. The name is from Iranian bag. perhaps around 2 20 в с . 4 0 . pp. This appears for example in the name of Bagaran. where his brother was high priest. vineyards and a royal residence at another town.64 Medes.41 This was founded partly because of a shortage of water caused by a shift in the course of the Araxes. 5 9 0 -1 9 0 в с Urartian Armavir was not. deserted when the last Orontid king. In his construction o f a walled hunting park. contrary to M oses’ assertion.

First. 1 9 6 3 . Toumanoff. using two outsiders as his tools.4 On the other 1 Strabo. p. II. Zariadris took Sophene (ancient Supa). 4 Xenophon. 3 7 . Antiochus III. III. Their accession may represent an attempt. i.____________ 4____________ Autonomy and Empires: Artaxias I to Tiridates 1.1 Another poss­ ibility is that Artaxias’ removal of king Orontes IV was an Armenian and aristocratic revolt against Iranian. emerged as separate entities. and perhaps the region around Area. 15. Thomson. 7. which was forced to retreat to Sophene. and also Lesser Armenia (in north-west Armenia). Armenia had encountered Rome and begun her entanglement in the hostility of the great powers of east and west.a d 63 The accessions of Artaxias (1 8 9 -1 6 0 вс) and Zariadris in 189 в с were a milestone in Armenian history in at least four respects. power. C yropaedia. only initially successful. 4 3 . about twenty-two miles west of Melitene. to crush the independence of Arme­ nia. central. the territorial integrity of Orontid Armenia was destroyed. 1963. that Artaxias was connected with the family of the Armenian prince Tigranes who appeared in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia . 1 8 4 -7 . Second.3 It has even been suggested. The G eography. Melid passed at some point to Cappadocia. Artaxias and Zariadris themselves divided Armenia between them. trans.2 and in Moses of Khoren’s account Artaxias appears as a native dynast. as Strabo suggests. 1 978. Zariadris seems to have been an Orontid. 2 9 0 -4 . and now with its own potentates. xiv. pp. 28 5 . by the Seleucid king. 2 Toumanoff. . 189 b c . A third milestone depends on the view taken of the origins of these two kings. pp. 3 Moses. 1 7 9 -8 0 . possibly as a price for Armenia’s independent status. X I. on the flimsy grounds of his family’s use of the name Tigranes. perhaps part of the Orontid kingdom.6 . It may have been at this time that Commagene. and Artaxias the rest.

Map 4.1 Armenia .

which had expanded up to the territories of Pharnacia and Trapezus. T he Histories. Some of the acquisitions may have come from Lesser Armenia. with the support of at least some of the aristocracy of Armenia. (Timarchus himself proved unsuc5 With a father called Zariadris. satrap of Media under (the Seleucid) king Demetrius. the new kings began a programme of expansion which was to reach its zenith a century later. and Zariadris of Sophene was related. possibly Pharnaces’ ally. later known as Siwnikc. in 166 or 165 в с Artaxias had to recognize Seleucid sovereignty after Antiochus IV invaded Armenia and captured him. According to Strabo it was as a result of these Artaxiad acquisitions that ‘they all speak the same language’. . 1971 b. like the contribution of Smbat Bagratuni. It may have been in reward for this alliance that Artaxias gained his Median lands. and fined Mithridates of Lesser Armenia. and acquired Taykc.6 The details behind these successes are. It was probably Zariadris who acquired Acilisene and ‘the coun­ try around the Antitaurus’. 189 b c-a d 63 67 hand if Artaxias’ claim in his inscriptions to be an Orontid5 was true. included in the treaty which followed the victory of a group of Anatolian kings over Pharnaces of Pontus in 181 в с .ll8 в с). X I.c . 300 talents for attacking Cap­ padocia. XX V .7 As for Syria. Kiarjkc (classical Cholarzene) and Gugark0 (classical Gogarene) from the Iberians and Tamonitis from the Syrians. according to the Greek writer Polybius ( c . This forced Pharnaces to abandon all his recent gains in the west. It was probably Artaxias who took lands from the Medes. for the most part. It is unclear which of the two kings took the region of modern Erzurum and land further west from the Chalybes and Mossynoeci. Their acquisitions are summarized by Strabo. 5. Seleucid Syria and Cappadocia. xiv. 2.2 0 0 . 6 Strabo. prevents us from taking the details. perhaps brother or nephew to him.Artaxias I to Tiridates I. no doubt. Perikhanian. though his mendacity in giving starring roles in Armenian history to members of the Bagratuni (Bagratid) family. and. Classical sources allow only a partial reconstruction of Artaxias’ manoeuvrings but they do show that he and the other Armenian potentates had confrontations with Pontus. except Sinope. who having obtained Roman recognition as an independent king pro­ ceeded to armed rebellion. 7 Polybius. Hewsen. 1985. possibly the district of Muzur or west of the Euphrates. Fourth. his patrons. including modern Karadağ and the stretch from Lake Sevan to the Ara­ xes. but this recognition was short-lived. Artaxias subsequently allied with Timarchus. where his sources make no reference to them. Artaxias was. This last emerges from Moses’ account. then their accessions represent only the replacement of one branch of the ruling family by another. elusive. seriously. Armenian autonomy was gained by their clever exploitation. first of Seleucid aspiration and then of Seleucid weakness.

I. He recorded. the latter ruled by the dynasty of the Arsacids. . 1 8 9 . Now Ariarathes baulked Ptolemaeus. Moses. Moses of Khoren drew on ‘songs about Artashes’ (Armenian for Artaxias) ‘and his sons’. 1 2 0 . Thomson. confusion. Moses. 4 8 . II. Ariarathes had already blocked an attempt by Artaxias to annexe part of Sophene after its king (presumably Zariadris) had died. Thomson. the shifting alliances. pp. part of which he was ceded. In Armenian oral tradition he was remembered as a great king and warrior. governor of Commagene and grandson of the Orontid king Arsames. trans. 8 Moses. X I.a d 63 cessful in his rebellion. 3.1 . by one of its kings. II.123) and Strabo record a suspect story that Artaxias sheltered Hannibal of Carth­ age after the battle of Apamea. as his kingdom was pressed by Pontus and Parthia. Thomson. trans.68 Artaxias I to Tiridates I. p.9 5 -5 5 вс). Strabo. pp. 3 0. 189 в с . Antipater. Lives: Lucullus. Ptolemaeus.4 9 . was one of the causes of classical historians writing detailed accounts of the wars. In 163 or 162 в с . the future king Tigranes the Great (c. Mithridates VI of Pontus advanced through Lesser Armenia. and lit­ erary borrowings. 9 Plutarch. amongst other things. 5 0 .1 9 0 . and a hostage. though it was common later. There are of course some uncertainties but the gist of the narrative is clear. seized independence from Syria. 1 9 1 -2 for Alans. as a powerful and glorious hindrance to Roman expansion. that Artaxias defeated Alan invaders and wished ‘to subject the whole west’.) Another episode involved Ptolemaeus. and the boundary changes in which Armenians were involved in the first century в с . Mithrobuzanes. emulating Timarchus. and built seventy-five forts there. xiv.8 in two accounts which combine truth with tradition of dubious historicity. 5 0 . 148 for western ambition. Empire The provocation which Tigranes the Great subsequently offered Rome. Such an education was unusual at this time for a king. 6. and divide the kingdom between them. in about 120 в с . He also tried to take Melid from Ariarathes V (1 6 3 -1 3 0 вс) of Cappa­ docia. II. Parthia took Media from the Seleucids in about 148 and Mithridates II cam ­ paigned against Armenia in about 110 gaining both the submission of King Artavasdes.9 But Artaxias’ programme lapsed after his death. by refus­ ing to countenance Artaxias’ suggestion that the two of them assassinate the heir. Ariarathes was not only an ally o f Rome but had been educated there. a d 45-C . It is possible that this recalcitrance reflects something of Roman policy towards Armenia. 1 9 7 8 . 192 for songs. trans. That Artaxias was an ambitious monarch of international stature can be inferred from the reputation he left behind him. 12. X X X I . The Greek writers Plutarch ( c .

. in 70 в с . daughter of Mithridates VI. That he acceeded with Parthian help has prompted some scholars to believe he was a tributary ‘vassal’. Epitom e. of Pontus. married to Cleopatra. Rome insisted on the accession of Tigranes in the hope that the existence of an independent kingdom situated between Parthia and Pontus would hinder any subsequent alliance between them. The extent of Tigranes’ empire may also be gauged from the composition of the army he brought to defend his new capital. There was a foretaste quite soon. in about 95 and 91 в с . Albania. 1 9 8 5 -8 . that he surrender his father-inlaw. Yet the Roman general Lucullus had no authority to wage war on Tigranes. 11 Strabo. who had fled to him in 71. but it seems to have resulted in the brief acquisition of Cambysene. 2 4. whose people. which had been the price paid to Parthia for his accession. Rome was apprehensive. Tigranocerta. under siege. according to one source. a fact 10 Chaumont. XV I. and with good reason. He subjugated Atropatene. and impressed by Tigranes’ strength and his alliances with Parthia and Pontus. Adiabene. probably in Media Atropatene. Ariobarzanes. in about 95 в с . perhaps in succession to a Tigranes I. Alexandra. Adiabene. Iberia and Arabs. to his throne. between Albania and Iberia. 2 3 . X L . plus some from around the River Araxes who were apparently not his subjects. Tigranes. Cleopatra Selene. She fled to Commagene only to be imprisoned and slain by Tigranes in Seleuceia. and his refusal dragged him in. i. subordinated Commagene and Osrhoene (Mesopotamia). twice helped his father-in-law in his attempts to control Cappadocia. Appius Clodius. 12 Justin. i. against a (successful) Roman siege in 69 в с .12 by invitation of the Syrians. and it was this apprehension which was to cause the destruction o f the empire which Tigranes was to build. however was still holding out in Ptolemais. By 70 в с he was perceived in Judaea as a potential threat. 189 b c-a d 63 69 Tigranes acceded. Gordyene. Tigranes also conquered Phoenicia and Cilicia. by restoring the Cappadocian nominee. Media. The widowed queen. He raided Media. exhausted by the wars between the last of the Seleucids.11 were the ancient Carduchi. and Gordyene. Its queen. The subjugation of Albania is unrecorded. p. according to Strabo. He recovered seventy valleys. This last was. north of the Kura river. Tigranes was much more successful on his own account. He nevertheless refused the demand of an offensive Roman envoy. He took Sophene. having agreed with Parthia that the Euphrates should be their frontier. won him over with treaties and gifts. Twice Rome checked Pontus.10 but another suggestion is that. Tigranes’ empire was dismembered by Rome in the 60s в с .Artaxias I to Tiridates I. This comprised men of Armenia. Tigranes had tried to avoid involvement in the (third) war between Rome and Pontus which began in 73 в с . and took over Syria as far as Egypt.

2 The east Mediteraneatt and West Asia .Map 4.

son-in-law of Deiotarus king of G alatia. Commagene had regained independence and acquired Seleuceia and parts of Mesopo­ tamia across the Euphrates from Samosata. But Syria was lost. appointed to replace Lucullus. in principle. and the four divisions into which he divided his army. Lesser Armenia went. with the support. and aroused the jealousy of his brothers. In M oses’ account. The deciding factor was the rebellion of Tigranes’ son.14 As friend and ally of Rome Antiochus received a gift of a toga praetexta in 59 в с and he may well have been made a Roman citizen. having reverted to Antiochus III. . to Brogitarus. insignia. one related to his Alan queen. and set his sons over his household. Lucullus was beaten off from Artaxata in 68 в с and by 66 в с most of his conquests had been regained. as king. a star and eagles. in the innovations ascribed by Moses of Khoren to figures who are identifiable as Artaxiads. the royal residence. Royal Government Antiochus’ implied esteem of Tigranes was probably not due solely to his military successes. Some were changed after Pompey and the young Tigranes fell out and after Parthian intervention. 189 b c-a d 63 71 which may explain why Tigranes was ill-prepared for the siege of his capital. offices and estates to members of six families. establishing them in two provinces to the north and north-east of Lake Van. of the aristocracy. R. after its governor had left to help Tigranes. The evidence indicates that Artaxiad Armenia had enjoyed efficient government. One of these sons. religion. and his alliance with Pompey. engineered the departure of another. Sophene to Cappadocia. Another Artawazd did the same with his brothers and sisters. and Adiabene to Parthia. There may be some truth. Artawazd (classical Artavasdes) manipulated Artaxias into destroying one of the elevated families.Artaxias I to Tiridates I. The exact details of the changes and their chronology are not always clear. also named Tigranes. he forbade them to live in Ayrarat. probably. assigning them the income and rents of the ‘royal portion’ in 13 Adcock. But the upshot was that by 59 в с Syria and Phoenicia had passed to Rome. 14 Sullivan. The king made peace and agreed to pay an indemnity. Artaxias gave high rank. This may have been as propaganda. Antiochus I (6 9 -3 4 вс) issued coins showing him wearing the Armenian tiara with five points. 1 937. or at least the acquies­ cence. son of Cleopatra Selene. D „ 1973. Then.13 and Caspiane to the Albanians. its purpose to proclaim Antiochus a fully legitimate local successor of Tigranes. Pompey then rearranged the political geography of the east. Tigranes and Mithridates nearly recovered their positions.

16 Perikhanian. 1 963. 3 0 6 . 1 59. pp. presumably. successor to the first Artawazd settled his kin likewise in the same places. This measure was recorded by M oses. whom Lucullus defeated prior to besieging Tigranocerta. trans. trans. 4 7 . Thomson. which might be especially bitter in times of food shortages. 5 1 . and the dynasties of the principalities of Greater and Lesser Sophene. pp. . to obviate disputes. 1 9 3 -6 . The commander Mithrobuzanes. So did Tigranes’ kinsman Antiochus of Commagene. 19 Ibid. Various conquered potentates. but the family was permitted to survive.15 Behind M oses’ suspect details probably lies a reality of rearrangements and efficiency. may have been the son or brother of its last king. of reward and punishment for aristocracy. some of m ajor importance. It is possible that the ancestors of the Orontid dynasties were allowed significant responsibility by Tigranes. were all Orontid. 6 1. branched off before 2 0 0 в с . Eruandunis and Zarehawaneans in the south-east has been attributed to royal transfer. several of which survive. 3 2 0 -4 . 6 2 . Toumanoff suggests.72 Artaxias I to Tiridates I. 17 Toumanoff. 204— 5.18 The motive behind such transfers is just as likely to have been to strengthen the frontiers as to weaken rebellious tendencies in Sophene. who were simultaneously potential props and potential rivals.16 Tigranes the Great exploited and controlled his relatives and his aristo­ cracy with a combination of continuity. change and supervision. Toumanoff has demonstrated the Orontid origin of twelve dynast­ ies including the Artsrunis. married to the last of Artawazd’s wives. the Orontids survived as the dynasty of Ingilene.3 . II. pp. The later location of the Artsrunis. This hypothesis accords perfectly with what we know from other sources. He set up inscribed boundary stones.17 In Sophene. 1 9 4 -6 . 310. They too. who attained royal status in the ninth century. perhaps by Tigranes. like those of the Medes. Adiabene and Gordyene. And ‘Tiran’. For the Artsrunis had favoured the name Mithrobuzanes and were o f Orontid descent. 1 8 7 . 2 0 3 . pp. the latter possibly closely related to the Artsrunis. 5 6. to mark the territories of villages and. kept their royal titles. 2 2 . 18 Ibid.8 . but promoted his brother-in-law.19 The Bagadates who 15 Moses. The Orontids of Sophene of course did not. and of concern and suspicion regarding relatives. The Bagratunis. Thomson. the site of the former royal capital Carcathiocerta). and perhaps an ancestor of the tenth-century Artsruni kings. 1 9 9 -2 0 0 . II. II. and the transfer of the Artsrunis has been attributed to Tigranes himself. known as the house of Ang| (Angj being Eğil. like the princes of Arzanene and the princes of Adiabene. The Artawazd who comes first in Moses’ account is historically later than the one who comes second. were another family of Orontid origin. 1 9 78. II. Artaxias I certainly paid attention to internal stability.3 . 5 1 . for Syspiritis on the Georgian border. Moses. were per­ suaded. 1 9 7 8 . pp. and 1971b . 1971a. though their family had. in central Armenia. 1 9 8 -9 . 189 b c-a d 63 the villages. probably. to exchange their original territory. 2 9 7 -3 0 5 .

and were formed later than the others. and that they were commanded not by Orontids and Artsrunis but by. Rom an History. the princes of Kordukc. a d 90-C . His role was to guard the Bitlis Pass. the Assyrian march comprised the former kingdom of Sophene and may have been held by Mithrobuzanes. The latter appear to be the only princes known for certain to have reigned within the area of the vitaxate and so cannot be held to have lorded it over other princes. comprised the lands taken from Gor­ dyene and Mygdonia (the area around Nisibis) and included Tigranocerta. and by the princes of Mahkert-tun. comprised lands from Adiabene and Atropatene. viii. pp. and the Iberian march comprised Taykc. may have belonged to this family. Hewsen’s geographical scrutiny of the vitaxates is entirely convincing. that these two at least were Arsacid creations. whose rulers are called bdeashkh or bdishkh in Armenian sources. the Arabian one. . Hewsen22 suggests that the marches of Assyria and Adiabene both bor­ dered Adiabene’s northern frontier.21 This account of the marches has however recently been challenged. and 1 9 9 0 -1 . the Median or Adiabenian march. for Tigranes. (pp. or vitaxates. for feudal dependence. By much diminishing the Arabian march Hewsen similarly lowers the status of the prince of Arzanene. 1 9 8 8 -9 . but the evidence concerning the dates of their formation is so slight that questions remain. held by the princes of Arzanene. Cholarzene and Gogarene. Lives: Lucullus. It is possible that great power was placed in a small number of hands. making him not a super-dynast. 4 8 . 5. Accord­ ing to Toumanoff. (has Magadates for Baga­ dates). 1 2 3 -4 . 22 Hewsen. But they may have been Artaxiad creations. (The Syrian Wars).20 may suggest the continuation of the Seleucid office which bore this title. between 83 and 69 в с . X X I. held perhaps by the princes of Adiabene. 1 6 6 -7 9 Assyrian march. 189 b c-a d 63 73 supervised Syria and Cilicia. Much depends on the credence and interpretation given to the remark of Plutarch that there were four kings who were always with Tigranes. but a lord of his own principality plus a number of smaller. 23 Plutarch. though this is not universally accepted. 1 9 6 3 . The four marches. 154. despite their title’s being a Parthian (Middle Iranian) loanword. in whose old territory Kordukc lay. 1 6 3 -6 Median. X I. 1 5 4 -9 2 for vitaxae. princeless. 21 Toumanoff. are clearly attested only for the later Arsacid period. 20 Appian. whom Toumanoff suggested were descended from the royal line of Gordyene. lands taken from the Iberians. like attendants. lands. 1 7 9 -8 2 Arabian.165) terms Bagadates атрапүудј.Artaxias I to Tiridates I. That the Greek historian Appian ( c . of Medo-Carduchian origin. pp.23 whom Toumanoff took to be his marcher lords. 1 8 3 -9 2 Iberian). respectively. Toumanoff also argued that the very institution of the march implied a ‘feudal kind of dependence’ upon the bdeshkh by the princes within it.

Gordyene. Greater Armenia was divided into 120 prefectships (praefecturas). Lives: Lucullus. Gordyene and Cappadocia. however. 189 b c-a d 63 Plutarch’s often cited remarks certainly suggest that Tigranes kept the aristocracy under his eye. x . Tigranes set his brother over Nisibis. Tigranes compelled the principal inhabitants of the country. may have been an ancestor of the Mamikonean family. of. ‘some of which were formerly actual separate kingdoms’. to move to Tigra­ nocerta. apparently. Appian says Tigranes had conquered many of the neighbouring tribes who had kings (he calls them dynasts) of their own. are often referred to as his ‘vassals’. 4 8.25 Tigranes’ ‘kings’. Mancaeus. who defended Tigranocerta for Tigranes. Tigranes did not. Plutarch. . He made a marriage alliance with the dynasty of Media Atropatene.74 Artaxias I to Tiridates I. Sullivan. waited on him. where he also installed Greeks from Cilicia and people from Adiabene. under penalty of confiscation of their goods.26 If the Artaxiads were really Orontids. 2 7. viii. called in Greek’ generalships (strategias). which he had taken from Parthia and which contained his treasures and most of his other possessions. D .24 and Pliny the Elder ( a d 2 3 /2 4 -7 9 ) records that. and possibly of Georgian origin.27 a reference which suggests to some scholars that they comprised ‘vassals’ acting out of duty and mer­ cenaries coming for pay. Many kings. X X V I. Pliny the Elder. VI. who were to choose Tigranes’ grandson Artaxias II to be king. R.. These were presumably men of lesser power than the kings. perhaps the same group as the Armenian citizens who bore arms. The forces Tigranes deployed against Lucullus included men from around the River Araxes who were ‘not subject to kings’ but were persuaded by ‘favour’ and by ‘gifts’. ‘with native names. 4. but various groups are perceptible. then most of their power­ ful subordinates were their kinsmen. A subsequent army was recruited from the whole population. say. Because he had con­ quered neighbouring kings. 24 25 26 27 Appian. he assumed the title King of Kings and was vexed if it was not recognized. always use his title. But non-kinsmen were not excluded from power. But the exact terms of their relationship are not sufficiently known to warrant such an appellation. both native subjects and foreign captives. Another group comprised transportees. by the middle of the first century a d . W hat is clear is that Anatolian dynasts preferred to work through ties of marriage and blood. X I. Tigranes exacted obedience and expected respect. dynasts o f Taykc perhaps as early as the Achaemenid period. N atural History. Little is known of the structure of Artaxiad society. 1970. When Lucullus addressed him only as king. On some of his coins. he responded by refusing to address Lucullus as ‘autocrator’. who supported him in his military undertakings. Assyria.

He told his father-in-law Mithridates how Mithridates’ own envoy. X X X V I. including the king of Gordyene. may lie behind it. X X V . The attitude of Tigranes’ subjects towards him is less clear than is his to them. Greeks. Yet we should not take Plutarch’s account at face value. It is not improbable that the Artaxiads had followed the Achaemenid tradition of close association with the gods. X X II.l6 4 -a fte r 229) records that ‘some of the foremost men’ went with him to Parthia because King Tigranes ‘was not ruling to suit them’. And Tigranes’ contemporaries were not blameless. apparently. as representations of the royal ‘glory’ and ‘fortune’ which in Iranian society were thought to protect the legitimate king.31 28 29 30 31 Russell. Ibid. the inhabitants seem to have received his army gladly. The loyalty of the many foreigners in Armenia was doubtful. Russell28 interprets figures of eagles from Artaxata. Plutarch. and eagles and stars on coins. and after Mithridates engineered Metrodorus’ death.6 . variously reported as mercenaries and transportees from Cilicia. Tigranes the Younger certainly profited from discontent. some of the conquered were restive. 82— 4. Mithridates. before and during his rebellion.29 Such a character could hardly have been popular. . there must have been resentment.Artaxias I to Tiridates I. that his four attendant kings behaved towards him like slaves. 1 9 8 7 . Appius Clodius had made secret agreements with ‘many of the enslaved cities’30 and won over many of the princes (dynasts). even after death. Second. Metrodorus. was so unused to free speech that he executed the messenger who reported Lucullus’ advance towards Tigranocerta.2 0 -c. that he was pompous and haughty. When Lucullus advanced through Sophene. It has been suggested that the grander title was used only on coins struck in Armenia. and treacherous. Cas­ sius Dio (c . whom Tigranes subsequently put to death for his treachery. X X I. They. he restricted himself to ‘king’. poisoned both his own son and a man who surpassed him in driving race horses. The responsibility for Tigranes’ war with Rome rests with Appius Clodius. X X I. a man known from other sources to have been shameless and abominably behaved. 5 1. 1 ^ . as is likely. 2. 1. and a traditional distaste for oriental protocols. and the kings of the Arabs joined his cause after the fall of Tigranocerta. had advised against helping him. There were certainly three categories of malcontents. his realm. Cassius Dio. Lives: Lucullus. by extension. pp. 8 0.8 вс) bore a divine epithet on their coins. the Gordyeni. Third. 3 . Artavasdes II (5 5 -3 4 вс) and Tigranes III (c. Denigration of the enemy. Rom an History. let Lucullus into Tigranocerta. salved his con­ science by giving Metrodorus a splendid burial. Plutarch believed that success went to his head. if. and. ruled as a tyrant. the reign of Tigranes was crucial in the subordination of the separate kingdoms within Armenia to which Pliny alludes. 1. 189 b c-a d 63 75 for example those struck at Antioch.

The balance of power and alliances were altered by the victory of Julius Caesar in civil war with Pompey. as a present to Cleopatra of Egypt. where he was killed in 31 . Two of his brothers were equally disloyal. with 300 talents. until ‘rescued’. But being the father-in-law of Orodes he was besieged in Samosata. Whilst Crassus disregarded this and marched instead to his own defeat at Carrhae. and Rome’s defeat of Pacorus in 38 в с .a d 2). king of Chalcis in a d 54. that is Commagene. namely to march via Armenia. marrying off his sister to Pacorus. gave good advice to Crassus. For the Artaxiad dynasty these were decades of decline into extinction. Antony attributed the failure of his own invasion of Media Atropatene to Artavasdes’ desertion. rightly or wrongly. against the new and murderous king of Parthia. son of Orodes. In 51 в с he thought of attack­ ing Cappadocia. in 48 в с . Pontus (36 or 35 в с ). Decline The century that followed the destruction of Tigranes’ empire was one of great change for Armenian lands. Young Tigranes was out of the picture. king of Thrace ( a d 38). unlike Deiotarus. ruler of Lesser Armenia since 52 в с . to the son of Cotys. restorations and other changes. governor of Syria. though eventually he bought off the Romans. and gave Artavasdes. For a brief while however Artaxiad decline was staved off. except one of rivalry between Rome and Parthia. with members of his family. and he betrothed a daughter to the son of Deiotarus of Galatia. But Lesser Armenia was passed by Rome to potentates of Cappadocia (38 в с). Sophene was given in that same year to Sohaemus of Emesa. in which it is difficult to see a pattern. Artavasdes shifted his support to Antony and to Monaeses. Deiotarus’ Lesser Armenia passed to Cappadocia. kept in detention in Rome by a friend of Pompey. sent sufficient support to Pompey to antagonize Caesar. and Media Atropatene (31 в с ). We do not know how long he kept it.76 Artaxias 1 to Tiridates I. King Artavasdes II. whose kings were of Orontid descent. Tigranes’ brother. One died in battle against their father. Phraates IV (37 b c . by a relative of Appius Clodius. But then. 189 b c-a d 63 The prince was further stirred up against his father by some Armenians who deserted the king on his way to meet Pompey. when he decided to invade Parthia. Artavasdes even contemplated expansion. Artavasdes came to terms with Orodes of Parthia. the other was executed for taking the royal diadem after the king was thrown on the hunting field. Antiochus of Commagene had not. A detailed narrative of Armenian experiences would comprise a series of accessions. Lesser Armenia and Sophene and Greater Armenia. for an unknown fate. depositions. and to the son of Herod. a Parthian dissident. under M ark Antony. Commagene enjoyed a reasonable stability.

held Lesser Armenia 52 BC I Ariatobulus I Alexander Glaphyra Zero-Artaxias AD 18-34 Antonia m Cotysof I Thrace Artaxias II Tigranes III Artavasdes III d 34-2 0 B C 2 0 -8 ВС с 8 BC betrothed to son Herod of Chalcis King AD 4 1-8 Alexander Tigranes V Polemo I Cotys. 7 Z -4 Herod of Judaea BC Armenian wife (name unknown) Pythodoris ( i ) m Archetaus IV <2)Polemoof (1) m King of Pontus ruled 3 6 B C -8 B C Cappadoda (2 ) 83 B C -A D 17 Pythodoris d m Tigranes son son Artavasdes Ariazate m Mithridates II of d m Pacorus Orodes II of Parthia 123-96 son of Orodes II 55-34 BC Parthia с 56-38 BC ВС II of Parthia с 56-38 BC Deiotarus I of Galatia.Zariadris Artaxias 1189-7160 BC His brother or nephew Zariadris of Sophene Perhaps Mark Antony Mitttridates VI of Pontus 123-63 в ј : Artavasdes i died 95 BC I? Tigranes I Mithrobuzanes I İ? Aristocratic Pontic family Zeno of Laodicea 1 d m son Г Cleopatra 1 married Tigranes II son (ttve Great) 95-55 BC his children I I Artai Artanes Phraatos III of Parthia 7 0 58/57 BC C .1 Partial genealogical table: the Artaxiads and their connections .King of Lesser Armenia AD 38 Tigranes IV m Erato 8 B C -A D 1 с AD 1/2 Aristobulus III T»granesVI King of Lejtser AD 60-62 Armenia AO 54 Polemo Figure 4.

by the emperor Claud­ ius (4 1 -5 4 ) in a d 4 1 . perhaps a ruler of one of Pliny’s prefectures. He then killed all the Romans left there by Antony. Thomson. Vonones ruled from a d 1 1 until 16. From 2 в с to a d 1 he reigned with his sister and wife. trans. Artavasdes III was imposed in his place by the emperor Augustus ( 2 7 b c . 189 b c-a d 63 в с . but he did not for very long have the consolation of being remembered as a hero. Around 8 в с Tigranes’ son.3 .32 His son Artaxias II (3 4 -2 0 вс) regained the Armenian kingdom from Parthia. He appears in Moses of Khoren’s text as a slothful glutton who lost M eso­ potamia to the Romans. The attendants of Arsaces had been bribed to kill him. War followed. Thereafter Armenia was prey to several foreigners’ interventions. She was the last Artaxiad monarch because some time after Tigranes’ death in battle with barbarians she reigned briefly on her own. king of Lesser Armenia. but without Rom e’s approval. a Roman citizen. in a d 35. and his restoration. and they murdered Artaxias. pp. in alliance with Rome. He died (before the verdict) in the same year. 1 9 78. whither he had fled. and. Mithridates. Around 2 0 в с the Armenians requested Rome to replace Artaxias with his brother.38) installed his eldest son. Arsaces. Tigranes IV. Armenia then enjoyed sixteen years of stability under the next Roman nominee. Rome was dominant until a d 34. Tigranes III. 2 2 . installed his own brother. Artaxiad rule was to last only a little longer. and of some of the nobility.78 Artaxias I to Tiridates I. stepson of Archelaus of Cappadocia. . and this introduced the element of bloodfeud into relations with Parthia. Tigranes IV then successfully petitioned Rome for the kingship. at the request of her men of substance. whom Rome had not returned from Egypt after the deaths of Antony and Cleo­ patra. II. including a certain Demonax. and Vonones.a d 14). But then Pharasmanes of Iberia. Zeno (1 8 -3 4 ). probably. but lasted only a few years. was despite the resistance of Cotys. and the monarchs were increasingly dependent upon Roman support. Erato. When instability returned. when Parthian threats and a lack of Armenian support led to his removal. Mithridates managed to keep his throne but he had a chequered career. He was imprisoned by the Roman emperor Gaius (Caligula) (3 7 -4 1 a d ) . At this point Archelaus of Cappadocia may have attempted the restoration of his grandson Tigranes V. both Parthia and Iberia were involved. a d 17. Artavasdes had refused obeisance to Cleopatra. Such an attempt could explain why Archelaus was tried for treason before the Roman Senate. once a Roman hostage and subsequently king of Parthia until ousted by the Parthians. and he was murdered by Radamistus of Iberia (simul­ 32 Moses. succeeded him. First Artabanus III of Parthia (a d 12-C. Tigranes V. His cruelty subsequently provoked rebellion. until she was expelled. that Rome annexed Commagene. She imposed two Medians (Ariobarzanes II and his son Artavasdes IV). 1 5 9 -6 0 . who was son of the king of Pontus.

was perfectly acceptable. in about a d 52. dispatched against Tiridates. leaving him to be restored again. at the peace of Rhandeia in a d 63. that Tiridates should be king. it was finally agreed. Corbulo. and possibly also those of Iberia and Pontus. Hewsen suggests that the reversion of Caspiane to Media Atropatene was one of the provisions of the treaty. reduced. Tigranes’ kinsmen. son-in-law and brother-in-law). 34 This is according to a traditional emendation of Tacitus Annals. Annals. Tacitus did indeed remark that Armenia was untrustworthy regarding Rome at the time of Vonones. won over by Zeno’s preference for Armenian dress and institutions. in which Rome made much use of Commagenian territory and of native dynastic forces. by Claudius in a d 48. who took the name Artaxias. But he attributed it to resentment of Antony’s dreadful behaviour to Artavasdes. iii.Artaxias I to Tiridates I. questioned in Barrett. Gaius had restored Antiochus IV in a d 38. There were changes too in Commagene. and the emperor Nero ( a d 5 4 -6 8 ) established as king Tigranes VI (nephew of Tigranes V). XIV.33 Nero entrusted the rulers of Lesser Armenia and of Commagene. by long resid­ ence in Rome to slave-like docility. apparently. Armenians had tended to switch support from one ruler to another. Peace and stability may be more propitious than war and disruption for an aristocracy’s pursuit of its ‘own interests’. After some fighting. XIV. xxvi. Annals. 35 Tacitus. (a d . It took place at Artaxata in the presence of consenting nobles and a great con­ course of people.34 with the protection of Tigranes’ kingdom. and pro-Parthian. 189 b c-a d 63 79 taneously his nephew. Gogarene had been retained and Cholarzene regained by Iberia after the expulsion of Radamistus. The sup­ porters of different candidates for the throne are often labelled as pro­ Roman. Some border changes seem to have been made at the same time. 33 Tacitus. Radamistus himself was subsequently driven out. Though this may be interpreted as indicating aristocratic resent­ ment of strong government. but subsequently deposed Antiochus. But it is not necessarily the case that their divisions were actually caused by differing attitudes towards the two great powers. secured the surrender of Artaxata and Tigranocerta. with further Cilician hold­ ings. in Greater Armenia. The Roman general. II.35 The Roman coronation of Zeno. but be crowned by Nero. and aug­ mented the kingdom with holdings in Cilicia. Yet at first Roman resistance was successful. xxvi. it could equally well indicate a search for strength. W hat explanations are there for the twists and turns of the years between 38 в с and a d 63? The classical sources imply that. But Tigranes’ invasion of Adiabene provoked Parthia. 1979. 56/7-after 11 3 /1 1 4 ). The fifties and sixties saw the failure of Rome to prevent the Arsacid king Vologases I of Parthia securing Armenia for his brother Tiridates.

he argues that Roman geographical knowledge was so pitiful that a ‘sensible’ policy is impossible to credit. nor the result of creeping advance. but Braund. Appius Clodius seems deliberately to have provoked war with Tigranes II.37 the most recent scholar to study them. which in turn were aspects of Roman and Parthian policies towards each other. The job of their kings may alternatively have been. Crassus’ treacherous invasion of Parthian Mesopotamia in a time of peace was due not to policy but to rapacity. 9 1 -3 . pp. Indeed. 6 3 . Rom e’s generals were eager for triumphs. he argues. In some cases the kings had considerable freedom of action. more the result of desires for glory and plunder than of the search for sensible frontier lines. It is possible that Rome and Parthia were content for the Euphrates to be their frontier. and her business class of merchants and financiers for profit. С . Their royal troops could form the backbone of imperial defences. her soldiers for loot. 189 b c-a d 63 It would be agreeable to be able to explain Armenian attitudes in terms of responses to Roman and Parthian policies towards Armenia. 1 990. One con­ stant was Rom e’s use of native Anatolian dynasts and exploitation of their interrelationships.36 is that concern for borders and frontiers is modern rather than ancient. Their role as buffer states for her protection has been asserted. advanced forcefully by Isaac. and Parthian tactics and power that were too effective. that expansion was opportunistic. or of concerns to protect the people in the provinces. troops that were too few. Some scholars believe in a Roman strategy of linear defence. together with the expectation of an easy but prestigious victory. According to their views. 1 9 84. pay tribute. Some scholars see Rome as almost entirely predatory. but certain principles seem to emerge at different times. or of defensive considerations. This might explain why the Romans never solved their Armenian problems. supply lines that were too long. 1 9 8 8 . . though they might pay indemnities. and they had to pay troops and to provide resources and supplies when Rome requested military assistance. primarily. They have been termed ‘vassals’. emphasizes that the Romans had no juridical concept of a client state. D. as they were in their agreements of 66 в с and 2 0 в с . Roman policy towards Armenia probably developed on an ad hoc basis. Every Roman nominee could claim internal sup­ 36 Isaac. Client kings mostly did not. Roman frontier studies have become a growth industry. the management of new acquisitions.6 . 37 Braund.80 Artaxias I to Tiridates I. denied and refined.. that Roman frontiers congealed or arose by default rather than planning. Rom e’s requirements of her client kingdoms have also been variously assessed. But these subjects have provoked differences of opinion. and that the creation of the eastern frontier provinces was neither piecemeal. in order to further his family’s interests in the east. But another suggestion.

Moses of Khoren records that two sons of Artaxias ambushed and killed a brother in the hunt. II.4 . Fourth was a preference. Rom an History. Culture and Religion Iranian and Hellenistic influences combined in the culture of Commagene as they did in that of Armenia. 5 5 . . On the other hand. if not directly. These reveal a continued use of Aramaic. common in the Greek city states in western Asia Minor. and a third. xv. The banquet played the same role.39 Appian records the episode in which Tigranes IPs son presumptuously took the royal diadem on the hunting field. means ‘daughter of an Iranian’. trans. to which indeed Rom an-Parthian rivalry may have contributed. A second constant was apprehension of Pontus. Rome could exert control over Armenia from either of them. 40 Appian.38 and the erection of boundary markers was a Hellenistic practice. Artaxerxes. and dynastic rivalry. in one inscription. Cappadocia could check both Pontus and Armenia. For in Iranian culture the hunt featured in epic and literat­ ure as a context in which an individual’s true character and destiny could reveal itself. Media Atropatene could press both Armenia and Parthia. for in several respects the two kingdoms were comparable. and that one. Hence Roman concern for Cappadocia and Media. was not unknown. In Commagene too Parthia had maintained an interest. 1971 b. of hunt and banquet for certain key episodes in the careers of some of the royal dynasty. a foreboding that Parthian control of Armenia would facilitate a Parthian invasion of Pontus or of Roman territory. not his contemporaries. Exactly why things never settled down in Armenia as easily as they did in Commagene is harder to explain. 2 0 3 . though if Tigranes meant this to indicate where his loyalties lay. the name of the daughter of Tigranes II who married Mithridates II o f Parthia. pp. 189 b c-a d 63 81 port upon the grounds of legitimacy. 6 1 . he was probably referring to his ancestors. Their combination in Armenia appears even in Artaxias Ps inscriptions. King Artawazd. 1 978. ‘Ariazate’. XII (The M ithridatic Wars). ‘Artaxata’ and ‘Tigranes’ are Iranian.Artaxias I to Tiridates I. in historical texts. 1 9 8 . M ore significant is the setting. having fallen into a great pit. and use epithets for the king which accord with Iranian ideas. for avoiding direct confrontation with Parthia. suggest a middle Iranian pronunciation of some words. inaugurated by Augustus. Iranian influence is detectible in names and in the culture of Armenian high society. 104. died hunting. in fulfilment of a curse put upon him by Artaxias. Thomson.40 According to Moses it was at a banquet that Artawazd engineered the decisive breach between Artaxias and the prince 38 Perikhanian. 39 Moses. his name appears in its Greek form. and external support on the grounds of kinship.

trans. 11. pp. ХХХГѴ. 3 4. pp.41 Just as the Parthians. Russell’s interpretation of Moses of Khoren’s report that Artaxias moved the ancestral idols from Bagaran to Artaxata as an indication of the Zoroas­ trian cult of the fravashh. and had temples in different places.47 The references of Pliny the Elder to Acilisene as the Anaetic region. no. 8 3. 7 3 . 1 9 7 8 . x x . Thomson. It is how they were remembered that suggests Iranian influence. Zoroastrianism. 5 1. 16.1 . 42 Tacitus. 44 Russell. Russell. ii and Ivi. Yet some allowance must be made for the chronological distance between the writers and the Artaxiads. may represent the Iranian god Mithras. 1 9 0 and his n. pp. The religion of the Armenians was. but this identifica­ tion is conjectural.45 For Moses was adapting a passage from another work about the much later conversion of Armenia to Christianity. 45 Moses. 1 9 7 8 .82 Artaxias 1 to Tiridates I. They were all writing after Armenia had passed to Arsacid rule.46 Greek sources confirm that Armenian Zoroastrianism was strong.43 does not survive. X X II. 40) and 3 2 3 -5 9 . according to Tacitus. 80 and 1 02 (n. 4 8 . 1 9 2 9 . The Hellenistic figure of Tyche. X X X V I. 1 9 8 7 . found at Artaxata. especially in Acilisene. p.48 We lack any helpful descriptions of burial rites which might indicate whether or not the Zoroastrian prohibition of the pollution of the earth 41 Moses. The terracotta bas-reliefs of a ruler in Parthian dress. Strabo records that Anahita was particularly revered by the Armenians. 190 n. II. 1 9 7 8 . whom he believes represents Vahagn. 43 Plutarch. under which Iranian influence in Armenia intensified. Natural History.1 1 1 . 184. sacred to Zoroastrians. where male and female slaves were dedi­ cated to her service and where ritual prostitution was practised by the daughters of the most illustrious families with men of their own rank. Cassius Dio. N atural History. V. Jacoby. Pliny the Elder. 1 9 8 7 . xiv. so the Armenians liked Zeno for liking them. 11. Annals. (spirits of one’s ancestors) is more doubtful. 46 Thomson. and this intensification may have added Iranian elements to Armenian story-telling. 189 b c-a d 63 o f the Muratsean. 48 Pliny the Elder. II. It is unfortunate that the contempor­ ary account of Tigranes the Great by Metrodorus o f Scepsis. even in the cases of Tacitus and Appian. and an enthroned male figure with sceptre. and the Greek god Heracles. For Metrodorus’ account. 1 9 3 -4 . Lives: Lucullus. trans. . II.44 The repertory of symbols on Artaxiad coins includes the cypress tree. 4 9 . Rom an History. despised Vonones for his rare appearance in the chase and his disdain of banquets. X I.42 The exact truth of these accounts is not important. p. xvi. may signify Anahita and Ahura Mazda. 47 Strabo. apparently renowned for his hatred of Rom e. as Rus­ sell argues. the Zoroastrian deity of strength and victory. probably. and of Cassius Dio to the ‘land of Anaitis’ suggests the existence of temple estates. Thomson.

1 9 7 0 .51 Artavasdes himself was an author of tragedies. Greater Armenia and Commagene).Artaxias I to Tiridates I. His own. 2 5 -2 9 feet high on a 20 foot-high platform. and also in Athens on a monument erected by his grandson Philopappus. Here posterity was to worship twice monthly in celebration of his own birth and accession. was in closest proximity to the heavenly throne of Zeus.50 There was a rhetorician from Athens at Tigranes II’s court (who committed suicide after falling into disfavour). p. topped his highest mountain. the patron of a gymnasion. who included his father. pp. though it is not impossible that it was his wife Cleopatra rather than Tigranes who encouraged Greek culture. . 1 -4 . and had a foreign flavour. and where he was an eponymous magistrate and. In Sophene. At Garni there were graves which were dug in the ground and then covered with slabs. which. were meant as embellishments for a throne room of all the gods. The location was presumably meant to emphasize Antiochus’ own status as god.1 1 . Crassus’ enemy. the bridegroom’s father. Cities in Armenian lands (Lesser Armenia. In the seventies в с . probably.2 1 0 . Plutarch says that Euripides’ Bacchae was being read at the wedding reception o f Artavasdes II’s sister when the head of Crassus was brought in. In Lesser Armenia the 49 Sullivan. R. 50 Ibid. visible from almost everywhere in Commagene. Roman influence contributed to Armenian military organization. was well acquainted with Greek language and literature. Nemrut Dağ. The colossal statues. X X X III. orations and histories. were few. the kings were buried in tombs at Carcathiocerta. Sophene. The fire altar at the centre of this shrine is an Iranian feature. to which he made gifts. The family of Antiochus I of Commagene favoured tumuli. The heads of Antiochus’ statues may be the work of Greek artists. appropriately enough at a moment when the text required a head.. 150 feet high. Mithridates VI of Pontus had reorganized his forces along Roman lines and he subsequently did the same for an army of Tigranes II under his command. D . 170. But both Commagene and Armenia were also part of the Hellenistic milieu. 1 8 6 . Two o f Antiochus’ inscriptions show an interest in the cult of Greek Artemis. for example Apollo and Mithras in his Sun god. to whose temple at Ephesus he made a gift. he thought. In his sculptured gods Hellenistic and Iranian deities are fused. Orodes of Parthia. Lives: Crassus. It would of course be wrong to assume that Iranian and Hellenistic culture were antithetical.49 Antiochus IV was honoured in Chios. Economic Resources Hellenistic influence is most apparent in the promotion of urban life. 51 Plutarch. 189 b c-a d 63 83 was observed.

mostly Cilicians. The exact site of Tigranes II’s foundation of Tigranocerta has to be deduced. 1989b . Artaxata. the strong fort nearby and the unfortified palace. but it seems to have had a gridplan. probably the Anti­ 52 Sinclair. ‘joy of Artaxias’.sz Arzn has not been excavated. Various objects. These indications are not entirely consistent and scholars have considered six possible sites. Perrhe. 2 9 5 . In Sophene. Artaxata had an acropolis. from indications in the fifth-century Armenian Epic Histories. foundations. Appian says Tigranes had ‘assumed the diadem’ there. many foreigners. like cities in Syria and Asia Minor. 189 b c-a d 63 city of Nicopolis was founded by Pompey. In Commagene there were the ancient towns of Samosata and Arsameia and Caesarea Germaniceia (Maraş). O f the origins of Doliche. 67. Artaxiad. In Armenia itself there were four new. pp. Such finds reflect the presence of the many foreigners in Armenia. was of Hellenistic type. in the classical sources and on the ground. 3 6 1 . 53 Appian. Tigranocerta may not however have been absolutely new.84 Artaxias I to Tiridates I. Carcathiocerta was too small to rank as a city. XII. Excavations have revealed a coherent plan. They included Roman soldiers. bath houses and a number of fine buildings embel­ lished with columns. . three cohorts of infantry and two alae of cavalry whom Corbulo left to protect Tigranes VI. it was rebuilt early in Tiridates I’s reign by permission of the emperor Nero who provided Italian workmen. theatre. Fragments of frescoes have prompted comparison with frescoes from Roman Pompeii (near Naples). restored probably in a d 38. Razed by Corbulo. like those left by Antony. of Hellenistic style have also been found. and was not a centre of trade and industry. such as the large parks and hunting grounds and lakes in the suburbs. the stables in the base of the high walls. amphorae and figurines. It had a theatre.4 and Sinclair.53 It became full of wealth and votive offerings. Strabo and Plutarch believed it had been built by Hannibal and so Plutarch called it the Armenian Carthage. Gafni too has yielded material of Hellenistic and Roman type. whose formal dedication had been planned to include many dramatic artists from all quarters. Artaxata may have obtained from Tigranes II the right to mint its own bronze coins. maintained each time it was rebuilt. the prefect and centurion who com ­ manded the garrison at Garni for King Mithridates. There were more traditionally Iranian touches too. M ost recently Sinclair has argued convincingly that Tigranocerta was modern Arzn. X . and the thousand legionaries. nothing is known. which minted coins from the time of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (1 6 1 -8 0 ). Artaxias’ father. Both names preserve that of Zariadris. 1 9 9 4 -5 . for example.9 . private persons and princes (dynasts) competing with the king in its adornment. Zarehawan and Zarishat probably date from the reign of Artaxias.

named in honour of. IV. X X I.Artaxias I to Tiridates I. Tigranes II’s transportees included nomadic Arabs.0 0 0 .54 was given city status by Antiochus IV. populated by his mercenaries. 264. There is evidence of copper. . The Aramaic derivation of some Armenian words relating to trade and handicrafts is an additional piece of evidence suggesting that nonArmenians made a major contribution to the economy. Towards the end of the period production of enamel work and glass began. via the Medes and Armenians. 20).0 0 0 Jewish families in the cities of Armenia in the early 360s a d . to be used. 1 971. like the cities. 57 Sinclair. in part. But it is improbable that Antiochus ruled his kingdom through the cities. on nine hills. were both on important routes. Such items had earlier been imported from Mesopotamia.57 Arsamosata and Carcathiocerta. hands. 56 Epic Histories. Nero. Artaxata was at a junction of trade routes. Artaxata. Some of his cities may have been military colonies. Syria and Sidon. armouries and a flourishing pottery industry. spinning and weaving. It is to Tigranes that the fifth-century Armenian Epic Histories ascribe responsibility for the presence of 10 0 . though probably not trading centres. M ost of the cities were involved in trade. rather than Arme­ nian. Claudius and probably Gaius (Caligula). 189 b c-a d 63 85 och upon Taurus mentioned by the geographer Ptolemy (who wrote between a d 127 and 148). sited in a fertile and wellwatered spot. occupied 4 5 0 -5 0 0 hectares. the former on the ancient Royal road of the Persians. Goods from India and Babylonia went. Antiochus IV himself founded six cities: in his newly acquired Cilician lands he built Neroneia. of which 100 comprised the fortified citadel and central districts. Iv. and Iotape and Philadelphia. Garsoi'an. 56 but the transportation of their ancestors was probably the work of Artavasdes. 1 9 8 7 . p. It had forges. The rise of Zarehawan and Zarishat has been attributed to flourishing east-west trade. p. Urban life was peripheral rather than central to the royal and aristocratic Armenian lifestyle. The presence in Artaxata of coins of 54 Suggested by Jones. Lives: Lucullus. Sinclair sug­ gests that Zarishat and Tigranocerta were founded. guard and exploit this prosperity. 305 (n. trans. Claudiopolis and Germanicopolis. Its population could have reached 100 . Goods also passed west­ wards and to the Black Sea coast. 55 Plutarch. 176 and her Commentary p. Antioch in Lamotis. 4. Commagene prob­ ably had a centralized system whereby the king had direct authority over villages and cities. manufacture and trade seem to have been in foreign. though. to the tribes of the Siraci and the Aorsi on the Caspian coast. p. 87.55 in trade and commerce. according to Plutarch. and her kings were concerned to encourage. 1989. gold and silver work. respectively. who in 4 0 в с took many prisoners from Judaea. to encourage a new trade route. Artaxiad Armenia was prosperous.

0 0 0 talents o f silver to Pompey. X X X I .000 drachmae to each soldier. with regard to Antiochus ГѴ. Commagene was the richest of the Roman client kingdoms. though the classical authors may have exaggerated the latters’ severity.86 Artaxias I to Tiridates I.9 6 -C . The worst of them. Its wealth was remarked upon by Tacitus and the Jewish historian Jose­ phus58 ( a d 37-after 95). and other finds show that Armenian money circulated widely in his empire. Macrones (by his time called Sanni). some living in trees or turrets. V. iii. apparently. but also improved the fortifications of Arsameia. x .6 9 вс). according to Pliny. X V I. It was from Sophene that the money Tigranes promised Pompey came. the areas where Hellenistic culture was most influential. 1. lost their senses. Lives: Lucullus. the Heptacomitae. Strabo reported that the Tibareni. Mithridates built his Hierothesion at Arsameia with colossal statues and a processional way featuring a 21 foot-wide stairway. and it is evident in the building works of Antiochus I.59 Society in its mountain regions. He gave 6 . It had towns. and 50. T he Jew ish War. II. on the roads to tempt Pompey’s troops. Samosata and Zeugma were the major crossing points of the Euphrates. 24.000 and 1 0. with music and with offerings of food and wine. . Economic strength was concentrated in the cities and in the south. Antiochus not only erected his monument atop Nemrut Dağ. centurion and tribune. Even after the empire 58 59 60 61 Tacitus. XII. and jumping down from scaffolds to attack wayfarers. He had Mardian mounted archers and Iberian lancers upon whom he relied. Tigranes II’s conquests had given him access to great wealth. His kingdom was not only naturally fertile. Plutarch. Josephus. provided it with supplies and weapons. but on a major eastwest trade route. like Tigra­ nocerta. 18. VI. struck outside Armenia. Here too his birthday was to be celebrated monthly. a repository o f treasure. for which activities they had an exceptional reputation. ‘beyond any other mercenaries’. Six hundred drank it. however. at Caesarea. Lesser Armenia too was fertile and on a major trade route. Chaldaeans.61 Conquest increased resources and resources facilitated further victories and lent resilience in the face of major defeats. and with statues and reliefs of gods. Strabo. Histories. 5. and of his father Mithridates Callinicus (C . Ezaz and Nicopolis. Nisibis was. and were cut down. was less wealthy and sophisticated. He used people of Gordyene as masterbuilders and constructors of siege engines. subsisting on wild animals and nuts. Natural History. and the Mossynoeci were utterly savage. i. The soldiers of Lucullus complained when they were asked to go into the desert of the Tibareni and Chaldaeans to fight Mithridates of Pontus. Strabo. 26. lxxxi. set ‘crazing honey’ extracted from tree-twigs. 189 b c-a d 63 Tigranes II. 4 6 1 .60 Tigranes’ different subjects offered him different talents.

189 b c-a d 63 87 was dismembered. Corbulo devastated the districts hostile to Rome and razed Artaxata. the Artaxiad kings were not immediately impover­ ished. He also asserted that should Crassus march through Armenia his troops would be in the midst of plenty. For we know that it subsequently surrendered to Corbulo. nevertheless.62 it did. Artavasdes II took 6. It was only in the last years of the Artaxiads and in the first century a d that economic decline of their kingdom was marked. xiv. pulled it down and sent home the people who had been compelled to settle there. according to Strabo.000 mail-clad horsemen and 3 0 . Artaxata was soon rebuilt. and a new direc­ tion.0 0 0 foot. 15. with Roman help. and promised to provide and maintain a further 1 0 . The coinage of Tigranes ГѴ was limited to copper.Artaxias I to Tiridates I. Although Lucullus had plundered Tigranocerta and.0 0 0 horsemen with him to visit Crassus. and was besieged by the Parthians in 61. recover. 62 Strabo.0 0 0 foot. X I. For Antony Arta­ vasdes provided 6 .0 0 0 horse and 7. The Treaty of Rhandeia allowed Armenia a recovery. and Armenia moved back into an Iranian orbit. .

The Arsacid monarchs of Parthia. it could be held that Nero had de facto ceded Armenia to Parthia. the sons of his brothers the kings of Parthia and of Media Atropatene and the sons of Monobazus of Adiabene.Arsacid Rule: Tiridates I to Tiridates IV. and for the emperors to be in charge of the associated ceremonies. be crowned king of Armenia by the Roman emperor. costing the public treasury 80 0 .0 0 0 sestertii daily. cited in editorial note to Cassius Dio. and he ingratiated himself in Rome. 2 John of Antioch. Tiridates distinguished himself as a good shot. On the other hand. Nero. claimed asylum in Parthia in a d 79.0 0 0 Parthian horsemen and numerous Romans. 3.2 when Terentius Maximus. So Tiridates went to Rome. an Asiatic pretend­ ing to be Nero. and the 1 Cassius Dio.a d 298/9 Rom an-Parthian conflict in and over Armenia had been resolved with the agreement that Tiridates. it was as recompense for the restitution of Armenia. 3b. And although the grandeur which Rome accorded Tir­ idates was exceptional. fragment 104. his sons. in other respects he was being treated just like other clients. The form of address which he used to Nero may derive from ceremonies where the king of Parthia received the allegiance of sub-kings. instead of afterwards. . a d 66. By this date it was normal for kings to apply for recognition before accession. R om an History. Rom an History. His journey. LXV I 19. 5. took nine months. LXIII. servants. attended by his wife. 3 . Tiridates’ coronation marked him as a client king. His assertion that Nero was his ‘fortune’1 must have been a flattering equation of the Roman emperor with the royal ‘fortune’ which in Iranian society was associated with legitimate kings. At least some contemporary observers felt this. overland. According to one source. At a gladiatorial exhibition at Puteoli. brother of Vologases of Parthia.

Vespasian most probably wanted Commagene for her wealth as well as for her strategic position. The circum­ stances surrounding the removal of Aristobulus from Lesser Armenia are unknown. Roman coins and inscriptions. and conscious of Armenia’s strategic importance. and became consul in a d 109. may have seemed to Rome to mean leaving the Euphrates frontier vulnerable. involved Armenia. Antiochus IV. had been accused by the governor o f Syria. and there are disagreements concerning the dates and identities of some of them. . and Sasanian ambition to restore the empire o f the Achaemenids led to wars with Rome. usually begun by Rome. but he appears in a d 72 as king of Chalcis. Greater Armenia. Our sources comprise snippets of information provided by classical writers. with praetorian rank. Like Sohaemus of Emesa and Sophene. of contemplating revolt and being in league with Parthia. Antiochus’ grandson Philopappus was even elected to the senate. And despite their flight. third-century Sasanian inscriptions and the tangle of Armenian historical tradition. and Armenia sometimes provided the cause. seem to have regarded Armenia as the proper domain of their very closest kin.Tiridates I to Tiridates IV. The emperor Vespasian ( a d 6 9 -7 9 ) annexed them both. for over 150 years. Paetus. when auxiliaries from Commagene had assisted Vespasian’s son Titus in the siege of Jerusalem ( a d 70). nominal or otherwise. The Armenian Arsacids wanted vengeance on the Sasanians. in which Tiridates I narrowly escaped capture. Wars between the two empires. in 72. Nevertheless. a fierce and militarily accomplished nomad people. but the next two and a half centuries of Arsacid rule in Armenia are not. now that Greater Armenia was under Parthian control. but it imperilled those of Lesser Arme­ nia and Commagene. There was more turbulence after 224. Antiochus and his two sons were allowed to live in Rome with every mark of honour. and. Greater Armenia was by contrast unmolested for nearly fifty years. Antiochus had supported Vespasian in his campaign for the imperial throne and in the suppression of the Jewish revolt ( a d 6 6 -7 4 ). conditions were generally peaceful. probably in a d 71 and 72. to Cilicia and Parthia respectively. W hat is most clear is that both Rome and Parthia were jealous of their rights. Reconstructions The accession of Tiridates I brought relief from external aggression to his own kingdom. The exception was an invasion of Alans. a d 6 6 -ad 298/9 89 Sasanians who replaced them in 2 2 4 . Her king. helping in the annexation of Commagene. To allow their independence. The history of the kings can be pieced together only partially. But this seems to have been just a pretext. The beginning of the reign of Tiridates I is well reported. and that Armenia was affected by Rom e’s generally expan­ sionist policy.

1 Europe and west Asia .Map 5.

Tiridates I to Tiridates IV,

a d 6 6 -ad

298/9

91

like his brother Pacorus in Media, lost people and booty. At the end o f the century Armenia was ruled by King Sanatruk. According to his near contemporary Arrian (c.85 - sometime after a d 145 ), Roman governor of Cappadocia in the 130s, Sanatruk was good at war, a strict guardian of justice, and, being ‘modest’ ‘in his way of life’, equal to the best Greeks and Rom ans.3 Tranquillity was interrupted by the Roman emperor Trajan’s (9 8 -1 1 7 ) policy of expansion. Trajan found in Armenia an excuse to launch war against Parthia. By a d 110 the Armenian throne had passed to Axidares, son of the king of Parthia, Pacorus. Axidares’ replacement, by his brother Parthamasiris, as a consequence of a coup d’etat in Parthia, breached the agreement of Rhandeia. The excuse Parthia gave was that Axidares had been unsatisfactory to Rome as well as Parthia. Trajan nevertheless insisted on war. He invaded Sophene in 114, captured Arsamosata, visited Melitene and Lesser Armenia, cemented good relations with the kings of Sarmatia (north of the Black Sea), Iberia, and Colchis and of the Heniochi (south-west of Colchis), invested a king for Albania and received gifts, including a horse that had been trained to do obeisance,4 from satraps and kings who came to greet him. Finally he met, but refused to crown, Parthamasiris. Parthamasiris was killed by the leader of his Roman escort as he left the camp, probably at Trajan’s order, and those kings who initially refused obedience to Trajan were subdued, without battle. These stirring events had an impact on Armenian histor­ ical tradition. Confusion between Axidares and Artaxias I explains Moses of Khoren’s making Artaxias a contemporary of Trajan, and some elements in his account of their relationship.5 Trajan incorporated Greater Armenia into a huge province with Cap­ padocia and Lesser Armenia. He also acquired Gordyene, from its king Manisarus, and Adiabene, on his way to the capture of Ctesiphon in Iran. But the new arrangements did not last. In 116 there was rebellion in the conquered territories. In Armenia it was led by Vologases, son of Sana­ truk, and Rome was defeated by Armenian and Parthian forces. Soon after, Vologases was recognized by the emperor Hadrian (a d 1 1 7 -1 3 8 ) as king. It may have been then that Armenia regained Sophene. The calm that followed was only disturbed in 136, this time by another Alan invasion, in which Albania, Media and Cappadocia also suffered. The complicity of Armenia’s old enemy Iberia in the invasion caused Rome to receive a complaint from Vologases. Scholars disagree over whether this was Vologases of Armenia or Vologases II of Parthia or indeed whether the two were one and the same. The Alans were
3 Arrian, Parthica, fragment 77. 4 Cassius Dio, Rom an History, LXVIII, 18, 2. 5 In one of his two accounts, Moses, II, 5 4, 5 5; trans. Thomson 1 978, pp. 1 9 7 -8 and his p. 197 n. 2.

Map 5.2

Armenia

Tiridates I to Tiridates IV,

a d 6 6 -ad

298/9

93

persuaded to depart by gifts from Vologases and by their own dread of Arrian. Like Trajan’s activities, these events contributed elements to the stories subsequently recorded about Artaxias I. In Moses of Khoren’s muddle, the Alans, in alliance with Iberia, attacked Armenia but Artaxias subsequently married the Alan king’s daughter, helped her brother to gain the Alan throne, and elevated some of her relatives.6 The next major war was in the 160s. Between a d 140 and 144 the emperor Antoninus ( a d 1 3 8 -6 1 ) had invested an Armenian king. This may have been either the Pacorus attested for the 160s or Sohaemus of Emesa, a descendant of the Achaemenids and Arsacids, and a Roman senator and consul. Pacorus may instead have been installed by the Parthians when, after Antoninus’ death, they invaded Armenia and Syria. But Parthia’s victories were short-lived. Priscus, previously gov­ ernor of Roman Britain, took Artaxata in 163. Vajarshapat, now renamed Caenepolis, ‘New City’, was garrisoned, and Pacorus exiled to Rome. Sohaemus was king (again?) by 164. He had one further crisis to surmount. In the 170s a ‘satrap’, Tiridates, deposed him, killed Rom e’s client the king of the Heniochi, and responded to the concern of the governor of Cappadocia with threats. This behaviour naturally provoked a Roman response. Tiridates was exiled to Britain, Vajarshapat captured, and declared to be the capital, in 172, and Sohaemus was restored. We may infer from Moses of Khoren that Sohaemus was succeeded by Vologases II, an Arsacid, in 1 8 0 .7 This Vologases may have been the Vologases who became King of Kings in Parthia in 191, in which case he was succeeded in Armenia in 191 by his son Khosrov. We know only a little of Armenian politics in the three decades that followed the reign of Sohaemus. There was aggression against Iberia. The Armenian king became involved in a rebellion against Amazaspus II ( a d 1 8 5 -9 ), and his son, who was Amazaspus’ nephew, subsequently over­ threw and replaced Amazaspus as Rev I (1 8 9 -2 1 6 ). Armenian policy towards Rome was more conciliatory. In 191 the king stayed neutral in the struggle for the imperial throne between Niger and the ultimately victorious Septimius Severus ( a d 1 9 3 -2 1 1 ). In 197, the king, whose name is again unrecorded, diplomatically deflected a threat of Septimius to invade Armenia, sending him money and gifts and hostages. This tranquillity was interrupted in the second decade of the next century. In 2 1 4 the king, perhaps the same one as in 197, was persuaded by the emperor Caracalla ( a d 2 1 1 -1 7 ) to visit Rome. Caracalla then held him prisoner, and rebellion ensued. The king’s son Tiridates won a victory in 215. Caracalla also began a war with Parthia, finding an excuse in the Parthian refusal of a marriage alliance and attacking Adiabene. But
6 Moses, II, 5 0 - 5 2 , 5 8 , trans. Thomson, 1 9 7 8 , pp. 1 9 1 -5 , 2 0 0 .
7 Ibid., 6 4 , trans. Thomson, 1 978, pp. 2 0 8 -1 0 .

94

Tiridates I to Tiridates IV,

a d 6 6 -ad

298/9

Caracalla was assassinated in 2 1 7 and Tiridates profited from the Rom an-Parthian treaty of 218. Tiridates (II) accepted his crown from the emperor Macrinus ( a d 2 1 7 -1 8 ), his mother was freed, and Rome restored booty taken from Armenians. There was also some sort of promise that the annual Roman subsidies, discontinued in the time of Tiridates’ father, would be resumed and his father’s lands, perhaps private royal estates, in Cappadocia returned. A much longer period of war was inaugurated in 224 with the deposi­ tion of Artabanus IV, last Arsacid king of Parthia, by Ardashir, the first of the Sasanians of Persia. Tiridates, confused in Armenian tradition with his son Khosrov,8 was nephew to the victim, and obliged to exact ven­ geance. In 227/8 he organized resistance, with the Medes and the sons of Artabanus, and this seems to have checked Ardashir for a while. In 232 he helped Rome respond to Sasanian aggression in Syria and Cappadocia. One wing of Rom e’s army was to travel through Armenia to attack Media. It had some success, but difficulties elsewhere caused an overall retreat, leaving large numbers to perish in the Armenian winter. Despite these efforts however, by 253 Armenia was lost. Sasanian aggression in Mesopotamia, beginning in 2 38, had indeed produced another Roman response, in 2 4 2 . But the death in battle of the emperor Gordian (a d 2 3 8 — 44), defeated by Shapur I (2 4 2 -7 2 ), had proved dis­ astrous. Rome seems to have abandoned Tiridates, perhaps by making a kind of non-intervention pact. Shapur proceeded to conquer Armenia in 2 5 2 -3 , claiming some Roman provocation, the nature of which is unknown, and he made his own son, Hormizd-Ardashir, Great King there. Tiridates’ sons accepted this, but Tiridates himself fled to the Roman empire. He had little prospect of help, since Persia continued to be successful in her wars. Shapur even captured the emperor Valerian ( a d 2 5 3 -6 0 ) in 2 6 0 , though, thanks to the prince o f Palmyra, he was checked soon after, and lost his conquests in Mesopotamia, Syria, Cilicia and Cappadocia. He nevertheless conquered Iberia and Albania, and he added Siwnikc to his empire, though Siwnikc retained a status different from that of the rest of Armenia. After Shapur was succeeded by Hormizd, in 272, Armenia passed, at some time before 2 93, to Hormizd’s brother, Narses. The events and personalities of the last quarter of the third century have provoked a range of opinion and sharp disagreements. The most convincing reconstruction is as follows.9 In 2 79/80 Narses ceded western Armenia to the Roman emperor Probus (2 7 6 -8 2 ), who then enthroned Khosrov (2 7 9 /8 0 -8 7 ), presumably the son of Tiridates II. Khosrov was murdered, and replaced, in 2 8 7 by his own brother, Tiridates III (287­
* Toumanoff, 1 9 6 9 , clarifies the third-century Arsacids. 9 Ibid.

Tiridates I to Tiridates IV,

a d 6 6 -ad

298/9

95

98). Khosrov’s son, the future Tiridates IV (2 9 8 /9 -3 3 0 ), fled to Caesarea in Cappadocia and pursued a career in the Roman army. Tiridates III meanwhile acquired the rest of Armenia after Narses made himself King of Kings (of the Persian Empire) in 293. Narses was subsequently defeated by Caesar (deputy emperor) Galerius in 298. The emperor Diocletian (2 8 4 -3 0 5 ) then concluded the Treaty o f Nisibis (298 or 299) with Persia. This treaty established Tiridates IV as king. The Treaty of Nisibis both restored and extended Rom e’s influence in her eastern frontier regions. This was done mostly at Sasanian expense, but partly at the expense of Armenia. Nisibis was to be the sole place of commercial exchange. This provision was economically more advant­ ageous to Rome than it was to Persia and may also have been intended to curb Persian espionage. The travelling and multi-lingualism of mer­ chants fitted them for spying, and it seems from a Roman edict of 408/9 that they had something of a reputation for it. Iberia reverted to alliance with Rome, whence her kings were to receive their insignia. The Arme­ nian frontier was extended eastwards up to an otherwise unknown Zintha in Media. This gain may have been some compensation for the substantial losses which Armenia suffered. Unfortunately for us, the treaty survives only in a summary by the sixth-century Byzantine writer Peter the Patrician. Its territorial arrangements have been much debated, often with reference to the later Roman-Persian treaty of 363 which in some respects reversed them. It seems that in 298/299 Rome took nine southern regions (run­ ning, roughly, between the Kara Su and the Great Zab - see map 5.2): Ingilene and Sophene (both formerly parts of the former kingdom of Sophene) and Arzanene (the Arabian march), Corduene (the Assyrian march), and Zabdicene, all listed by Peter, plus M oxoene and Rehimene10 (both lost to Persia in 363), Sophanene and Anzitene (like Sophanene attested in an imperial rescript as belonging to Rome in 536). These regions comprised at least 17,374 square miles,11 about one-sixth of the kingdom. Peter’s statement that the Tigris was to be the Roman-Persian frontier, obviously irreconcilable with these dispositions,12 may either refer to regions further south, or reflect the de facto situation after 299.
10 Rehimene is not mentioned by Peter, but appears in the 363 treaty. Its location is uncertain. Hewsen, 1 9 8 8 -9 , suggests the district of Nisibis, Sinclair (private communica­ tion) the area immediately south of Amida and west of the Tigris. See also Hewsen, 1 992, map I for a different location and p. 3 4 4 for discussion of possibilities. Adontz viewed Rehimene as part of Zabdicene, (Adontz-Garsoian, 1 970, p. 36), Dilleman, 1 9 6 2 , p. 2 1 0 as pan of Corduene, Toumanoff, 1 9 6 3 , pp. 166, 182, part of Zabdicene or Arzanene. 11 Hewsen, 1 9 8 5 -6 , suggests some 17, 9 4 2 square miles. For figures and map, Hewsen, 1 9 9 2 , Appendix ГѴ (Eremyan’s estimates of districts’ sizes) and commentary, and map I (where there seems to be a mistake in the scale). 12 One solution is that the eastern Tigris, the Bohtan Su was meant. Another is that the clause applied to the area south of the ceded territories. Blockley, 1 9 8 4 , p. 2 3. Resume and suggestions regarding 2 9 8 and 3 6 3 borders, Sinclair, 1989b , pp. 3 6 5 - 7 and refs.

96

Tiridates I to Tiridates IV,

a d 6 6 -a d

298/9

To what extent the ceded principalities were actually supposed to be answerable to the Armenian king as well as to the Roman emperor is not clear.13 They did keep in touch. The princes of Ingilene, Arzanene, Corduene, Sophene, M oxoene and Zabdicene attended a council of Tiridates ГѴ and the consecration, as bishop, of his evangelizer, Gregory the Illuminator, in Caesarea in Cappadocia in 314.

Government and Society: Continuity or Change? Just as the succession of kings between Tiridates I and Tiridates IV is difficult to discern, so too are their internal policies and achievements. W hat is clear is that they seldom had a free hand. Rome supplemented diplomatic encirclement, created by alliances with various client kings, with direct supervision. Sometimes there was actually a military presence though we have only snippets of information about this. In a d 6 4 -5 (between the Treaty of Rhandeia and Tiridates Ps coronation) the legion III Gallica is recorded as engaged in building, probably a fort, near Kharput. VI Ferrata probably wintered in Armenia around the same time. After Trajan’s annexation I V Scythica, probably the garrison of Zeugma in Commagene, is recorded as involved in unspecified building work at Artaxata in 116. Caenepolis was garrisoned in 163, though the men were on the verge of mutiny in 172. By 175 there were detachments in Caenepolis from X II Fulminata and XVApollinaris. The latter was still there in 185. The Roman presence was probably minimal but there were always troops stationed just inside the Roman frontier and within striking dis­ tance of, and therefore able to interfere in, Armenia. X II Fulminata came to Melitene in the early seventies, and remained there until at least the end of the fourth century. X V I Flavia Firma was in annexed Lesser Armenia, at Satala, only about 25 miles north-east of Erzincan, in the kingdom, by 76. Its later replacement, X V Apollinaris, remained there until the early fifth century. Satala and Melitene not only commanded the two main routes into and out of Armenia but could if necessary maintain vexillations (detachments, probably of about 1,000 men in this case) up to 620 miles east of the Euphrates. The frontier was punctuated with auxiliary forts about a day’s march apart. A major road linked them to the Black Sea and to Syria. In the north, Trapezus, headquarters o f the Pontic fleet, controlled access to Armenia via the Zigana Pass, and a series of coastal forts stretching nearly 2 0 0 miles east helped maintain the Roman allegiance of local tribes. When Vespasian assisted the king of Iberia to guard the Darial Pass, by building a wall at Harmozica, he may
13 Sinclair, 1989(b ), p. 368 for resume.

Tiridates I to Tiridates IV,

a d 6 6 -ad

298/9

97

have left troops there. In the south, the Roman annexations, in 195, 198 or 199 and 2 1 2 /2 1 3 , of part of Osrhoene, Mesopotamia, and then the rest of Osrhoene, gave Rome command of the southern approaches. It cannot have been only when relations were hostile that the Roman army interacted with Armenians. The civilian population of the empire normally had to support preparations for war, for example, providing supplies, and paying for their transport. In peace-time the army was normally involved in keeping order, including tax collecting. It could, as in Judaea, couple intensive interference with brutality. The Arsacid kings had to work with this Roman background. Their degree of internal control, their methods and the changes they brought about are more easily identifiable in general than in particular terms. We need not believe that they made any fundamental changes to the structure of society, despite the explicit assertion to the contrary made by Moses of Khoren. In a detailed account Moses claimed that the first Arsacid king, whom he calls by the Armenian form of ‘Vologases’, instituted principa­ lities, and established their dynasts, giving, to most of them, particular offices, and that he set up protocol, secretaries and judges at court, and judges in the towns.14 But this account cannot be accepted at face value. For one thing, Moses had confused the Arsacids with the Artaxiads, and treats the Artaxiads as successors of ‘Vologases’. Adontz indeed saw the Arsacid period as one of change, believing that other innovations which Moses ascribed to Artaxiad figures should actually be credited to the Arsacids. But in Toumanoff’s view, Armenian socio-political structure was essentially the same under the Arsacids as it had been under the Artaxiads.15 Toumanoff has demonstrated both the ancient origin of a number of the fifty princely houses (belonging to twenty-nine dynasties, including the Arsacids), which existed in the Arsacid period, and some anachronisms in Moses’ account. O f M oses’ ‘Arsacid appointees’ the Bagratunis and Artsrunis for example were Orontids, and the Dziwnakan, Hawenunis and Spandunis, although of Arsacid origin, are not otherwise attested for the Arsacid period.16 M ost of the dynasties of this period were probably descended from the earlier potentates of the region, including those of the districts which had once been the separate kingdoms within Greater Armenia to which Pliny had alluded. The evidence which best illuminates the relationship between crown and princes between 66 and 2 99 is contained in the fifth-century Armenian accounts of the conversion of Tiridates IV to Christianity, and of other events of the fourth century.17 Modern evaluation is heavily indebted to
14 Moses, II, 3, 7, 8, trans. Thomson, 1 978, pp. 132, 1 3 6 -4 5 . 15 Adontz - Garsoi'an, 1 970, pp. 3 3 1 — 43, 3 68-71; Toumanoff, 1 9 6 3 , pp. 1 0 8 -1 1 . 16 Toumanoff, 1 9 6 3 , pp. 1 5 4 -2 2 7 for houses (including vitaxae pp. 1 5 4 -9 2 ) in the Arsacid period. 17 Agathangelos, History o f the Armenians, text and trans. Thomson, 1 9 7 6 ; Epic His­ tories, trans. Garsoi'an, 1989.

from the attempt of the crown. 1 1 5 . and so to imply that their (ancient) dynastic sover­ eignty had actually been delegated by the crown. presumably meant to buttress the monarchy. esp. and thereby adding to Adontz’s ‘feudalism’ a greater emphasis on the antiquity of Armenia’s aristocratic families and on their original rights. Ibid. and hence dependable. Toumanoff. the two kinds of power reinforced. indirectly. even though. and entrenched. 1 1 5 -1 9 . Since. 1 1 6 -1 7 . This is what the Arsacids of Parthia found. The ranks of aristocratic society comprised the vitaxae (the marcher lords). though open to some degree of manipulation. their combination.. which must therefore be briefly summarized. Lack of expan­ sion can diminish aristocratic obligation and contribute to noble inde­ pendence. as he emphasizes. 1 1 2 -1 4 . whereas in fact most o f them are demonstrably of (ancient) dynastic origin. and newly conquered lands can be used to reward the loyal and so.19 The ‘feudal’ aspect arose. then the princes or dukes. 11 2 . pp.4 0 . pp. and to limit the opportunity to create a strong but dependent. and in practice were often neither perceived nor maintained: they are not reflected in the usage of Armenian authors. whether Artaxiad or Arsacid. delegated duke­ dom. and became confused with. independent principality was simultaneously a ‘feudal’. Toumanoff argued.1 4 4 . ‘in the period of the flowering o f feudal institutions’. citing Luchaire. weaken dissidents. for dynasticism. pp. This involvement of dynasts. pp. according to Toumanoff. 1 1 4 . 1 8 9 2 . Successful war can keep a nobility occupied and respectful. tended to use them indiscriminately.21 W hat it comes down to is that the kings had to cope as best they could with a nobility which was hereditary. could however equally well serve to weaken it.8 0 . Adontz argued that Arsacid Armenia resembled France.20 Such distinctions are largely theoretical. the sepuhkc (aristocrats who were not 18 19 pp. although Toumanoff distinguishes par­ ticular Armenian terms as ‘dynastic’ and ‘feudal’. a d 6 6 -ad 298/9 the work and interpretations of Adontz and Toumanoff. the utility of the labels ‘feudalism’ and ‘feudal system’ is now very questionable. 1 1 5 -1 6 . every ‘dynastic’. 10 21 Adontz-Garsoi'an. This attempt is reflected in M oses’ assertion that the majority o f the princely houses were ‘raised’ by kings. regarding ishkhatt and rtakharar for instance as ‘prince’ and ‘duke’. to involve the dynasts in serving the monarchy.6 1 . 18 Toumanoff however saw the Armenian aristocracy as representing a symbiosis of full feudalism and full dynasticism. largely ancient. . This openness would inevitably have been greater in the times of Artaxiad expansion. For example. 3 4 . for France. 1 1 0 -1 1 . elite. 1 9 63. pp. each other. meaning by dynasticism a system in which dynasts ruled fully sover­ eign states. Armenian authors. Ibid. 7 9 .. as we shall see in chapter 10. 3 4 3 . 1 9 70. 11 5 . meaning the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a d . 3 4 .98 Tiridates I to Tiridates IV.

This might be related to the view of the Parthians and Sasanians that their kings were divine. but they served in the cavalry. The protection it afforded was perhaps weakened by the belief that it would not attend an illegiti­ mate or evil king.0 0 0 . Garsoi'an. purports to record the contingents of eighty-six families. 168 and. Epic H istories. The average size of the contingents in the List is about 1. and Moses of Khoren refers to Tiridates IV making a grant with perpetual jurisdiction by written edict.4 1 . IV. though the Epic Histories record that the royal council included non-nobles and peasants as well. Ibid. who had doubted his loyalty. pp. 9 7 . Several anecdotes in the Epic Histories reveal the belief that the person of the king was inviolable. The individual numbers range from fifty to 1 9 . though some of the names are simply formed on toponyms.4 0 0 .. 126. p. the List appears in table V. In their turn the princes had to provide the crown with cavalry. iv. and advice.Tiridates I to Tiridates IV. Some scholars 22 23 24 25 her 26 27 Ibid. a d 6 6 -ad 298/9 99 heads of houses). 1 9 8 9 .24 The princes also owed castle-guard and monetary contributions. if indeed such a belief really did exist. Thomson. and which is clearly attested for the fourth century. p. gave the crown 12 0 . including peasants who were personally free though attached to the soil and who owed military and labour service and dues to their superiors. Iranian. III. The Armenian Military List. have evolved from the heads o f small clans or from dynastic warbands of much earlier times.3 6 8 -7 4 ). paid dues to the princes and may. trans. and then the azats (literally ‘the free’). It has been suggested that an oath sworn by the sparapet (com­ mander-in-chief) to king Pap (c. V. trans. p. 2 3 9 . of part of his fief or a territory to another person. was a renewal of one first sworn at his investiture. concepts regarding kingship.22 Toumanoff believes there may have been some subinfeudation ..000.000 cavalry. 1 9 7 8 . One was the concept of the protec­ tive royal ‘fortune’ and ‘glory’. 2 3 5 -6 . using official records and historical texts. by a person enfeoffed by the crown. 1 2 4 -7 .27 The authority of the Arsacid kings was buttressed by traditional. pp. 1 9 0 -1 .. A Greek inscription recording a grant was found at Aparan in 1908. pp. 1 3 5 -6 . ‘I shall live and die for thee like my ancestors for thy ancestors’. trans.26 Grants were of course recorded. 3 0 for Aparan. Ibid.4 1 . and that this. 1 9 5 6 . 1 9 8 9 . II.25 They may have sworn an oath of fealty. 3 5 -8 . to which Tiridates I alluded in Rome. Garsoi’an. composed sometime between the reign of Khos­ rov (Chosroes) I of Persia (5 3 1 -7 9 ) and 750. pp. combined with those who served the royal court.8 . Epic H istories. 57 2 . for comment.23 Below the nobility were the rest of the population.that is. See below n. Azats were not dynasts. 84. pp. Moses. The List states that the total owed was 8 4 . xxi. 92. Toumanoff suggests. at least by his inferiors. the granting. Widengren. li. pp. . 2 2 9 .

311. 2 0 4 .5 ) and Hewsen. Succession was agnatic (though it could pass through women). 1 9 59. entailing supervision of the peasantry. married off the vitaxa's daughter. The system is reflected in a tale in the Epic Histories about the punishment of a treacherous vitaxa. trans. ix. and. and that of hazarapet. the lack of evidence for royal interference in the prin­ cipalities may imply that they were autonomous.28 The power of the kings over the aristocracy was nevertheless limited by the tendency of offices to become hereditary. 1 978. Princely property essen­ tially belonged to the family as a whole. and. to confiscate territory and to oversee succes­ sion. 5 7 . pp. basically. Frye. presumably. 31 Neusner. socio-political continuity and aristocratic power. A few new families emerged under Arsacid rule. .30 Some legislative activity might conceivably lie behind Arrian’s reference to Sanatruk as guardian of justice. deposed after they fled from Trajan. 1 9 8 9 . But royal judicial rights did include rights to punish. belonged to the house of Anzitene. 7 6 -7 . a background of Roman super­ vision. welcomed by Vologases I. who had secretly survived. Furthermore. 1 3 2 -4 5 . pp. 1 9 7 6 . The Kamsarakans and the princes of Asthianene were of Arsacid origin. By the fourth century the privilege of crowning the king was regarded as belonging to the Bagratuni family. pp. advanced by Trever and followed by Toumanoff (1 9 6 3 . were the refugee royal family of Adiabene. though in the middle of the century the king gave it to the Gnunis. Thomson. trans. pp. The details of particular royal deeds are more elusive. ‘Vologases’. is relatively easy to establish. 1972.32 may incorporate some genuine historical material whether about Tiridates I.100 Tiridates I to Tiridates IV. Thomson.29 This background to royal government. one of primogeniture. ad 6 6 -ad 298/9 regard the evidence that it did as representing convention. trans. Moses. For it was Vologases II who established a permanent branch of the Arsacids on the Armenian throne. 29 Epic H istories. Garsoi’an. But later a son. by Tiridates I to a son of the former king Radamistus. Vologases I or even Vologases II. recorded by Moses as immigrants who were endowed by Artaxias I. II. 3 .8 . The Aparan inscription seems to record the gift of the district (Nig) as an hereditary estate. It has been suggested that the Amatunis. 1 9 9 -2 0 0 . the office of sparapet to the Mamikoneans. II. 1 978.31 The picture Moses paints of the first Arsacid king. 32 Moses. 30 Chaumont. 1 9 6 6. III. patrilineal. The king brought about the deaths of the vitaxa and of his brothers and sons. pp. and made her husband vitaxa and successor of the house. The Ropcseans were related either to the 28 Widengren. because there was no-one else left in the family. returned and took possession. 1 9 9 2 . pp. the ‘prince’ acting as adminis­ trator. 2 9 3 . rhetoric and confusion rather than actuality. 1 8 5 -8 challenges its interpretation as a grant by Tiridates II to a Gntcuni prince.

Hewsen. chronology.9 5 . 1 9 8 8 -9 . pp. and which was to become the Arsacid necropolis. p. It may have been internal tensions which caused him.9 9 . 2 0 4 . probably. (1 9 7 3 . 1 9 6 3 . 37 Hewsen.1 7 . pp. The ‘Rom an’ Sohaemus was deposed at least once. pp. This occurred under either Vologases I or Vologases II. Hewsen. 1 992. regarded them both as Arme­ nian lands. given to Sohaemus by the Romans. both perhaps of royal Alan origin. 2 7 6 . 38 The account given by the sixth-century John Malalas. There is no direct evidence for its normal interpretation as a temple of Mithras. 2 55). 4 3 5 . 34 From studies of Armenian historical geography by Toumanoff. before Roman recog­ nition of Vologases I. apparently. If. 1 1 4 . 141. It was perhaps in the late 180s that Cholarzene was incorpor­ ated into the Iberian march (by Vologases II) when its duke joined in the rebellion against Amazaspus II. . for the geographer Ptolemy. to be incorporated in the royal domain and administered directly by the crown. The Arawejeans and Dimakcseans. (1 9 6 3 . 1 7 0 -1 .35 It may have been then that the Assyrian march was created. 1 9 7 3 . 1 9 9 2 . The extent of this former kingdom is disputed. summarized in Hewsen. then he may have been deposed. 1 9 8 8 -9 . for Moses records that ‘Vologases’ established military governors in this area. 1 8 1 -2 . The kingdom of Gordyene was. ad 6 6 -ad 298/9 101 Arsacids or to the dynasty of Emesa. taking eastern Gordyene as royal land for the cadets of his royal house. pp. considered by Chaumont. 2 0 3 ^ t .9 .34 Gogarene and Cholarzene were regained from Iberia sometime before a d 148. 35 Hewsen. 4 9 8 -9 ) and by Hewsen. Sohaemus’ preference is suggested by the Graeco­ Roman Ionic building which was built at Garni in the second half of the first century a d . pp. 72 (taking a different view of the ambiguous evidence of Ptolemy) the Roman annexation. as one doubtful piece of evidence suggests. 172. and leaving the western portion to the Gordyenean royal line subsequently the princes of Kordukc. who seems to have written between a d 127 and 148.36 Caspiane reverted from Media to Armenia. 2 1 3 .37 It is difficult to gauge the extent and seriousness of internal disunity or opposition to the kings. the Bagratunis of Colthene and the dynasty of M oxoene seem to have risen to eminence under the Arsacids. to prefer to site his tomb at Garni rather than Ani (Kemah) where Sanatruk had built a tomb. pp. The Armeno-Georgian marchlands. 1 9 8 8 . p. suggests Vologases II. but Hewsen suggests that it was larger than the later Kordukc and that Sohaemus divided it. 199. Such indications as there are mainly connected with possession of the crown and quarrels within the royal family. 1 9 9 0 -1 ). 1 976.33 Some details of enlargement of Armenian territory in the Arsacid period are discernible. 1 9 85. since the rebellion postdates his reign. 2 0 6 .38 the late first-century king Sanatruk took part in the rebellion against Trajan in 116 which preceded Armenia’s resumption of independence. 2 5 3 .8 suggests Vologases I (presumably a misprint for II) (1 8 0 -9 1 ) or 2 9 8 (the Treaty of Nisibis) (p. and Wilkinson has shown that it is more likely to 33 Toumanoff.Tiridates I to Tiridates IV. 36 Hewsen.

the Armenians paid to Persia was perhaps the same tax they had once paid their own kings. There were strongholds. 2 2 3 .39 (Royal) family disagreements are increasingly noticeable in the third century. lured the Armenian king into captivity it was by promising to make peace between the king and his sons. Support for the Sasanians must have been nurtured at the courts of the Sasanian kings of Armenia. 1 978. pp. and generally. territory (about two-sevenths of the kingdom) and income. Tiridates II was deserted by his sons after the Sasanians had conquered Armenia. as Moses said. wardrobe. for a Romanized ruler. recalling princes who had fled. Thomson. There were taxes. like Angl and Bnabel (both in ancient Sophene). There is some evidence to suggest that the royal household. Shapur became conciliatory.102 Tiridates I to Tiridates IV. There was booty. restoring to the Arsacids their hereditary domains. built in about a d 175. It suggests that after quashing resistance. Thomson. 1 9 7 6 . and made gifts to the (pagan) priests and soldiers. Many of the aristocracy will have followed. Royal Resources As supporters of the crown. Ayrarat. text and trans. trans. wholly reli­ able. Taxes might be paid in kind. 1982. as Tiridates I and Tiridates II found. ad 6 6 -ad 298/9 have been a tomb. 41. Moses of Khoren’s account of King ‘Artashir’40 (Arme­ nian for Ardashir) probably applies to Shapur I. in the fifth century. A memory of royal sponsorship of urban 39 Wilkinson. When Caracalla. in 2 1 4 .5 . and perhaps even anticipated.41 It may be that one-fifth was the normal royal share. 7 6 . The royal for­ tresses were not confined to the royal domain. Hormizd and Narses. then. Their treasures came from various sources. within princely territory. The murder of the Armenian king Khosrov in 2 8 7 seems to have been the work of a proSasanian party to which Khosrov’s own brother belonged. their example. 2 2 . 41 Agathangelos. ‘organized Armenia in a splendid fashion and re-established its former order’. the aristocracy were not. encouraged by the new regime. and treasures therein were supervised by a eunuch grand chamberlain. Why any mediation was necessary is unknown. The most likely candidate would seem to be Sohaemus. 7 7. II. as later ecclesiastical sources suggest. pp. Agathangelos (Agatcangelos) records that ‘Khosrov’ took a fifth of the enormous booty collected after victory over the Persians. . A fifth source of royal income must have been the cities and the trade which passed through them. 40 Moses. 4 0 . There might be gifts and subsidies from Rome. fortresses. after the abolition of their kingship (in 428). But kings could also look to their own household. The tax which.

1 9 3 -4 (fortress repairs) cited by Hewsen. although mentioned only in geographical texts. trans.. i. 2 0 0 (baths). IV. the later Ejmiatsin. In Iran. 1 9. IV. 4 7 9 . founded the city of M tsurn. p. 46 Epic Histories. Sanatruk. xxiv.0 0 0 families from it. numerous other cities built. in Bagrewand. similar to Parthian palaces. have also been ascribed to Vologases I. Shapur I used deportees to found new cities and reinvigorate old ones. In 364 when Persians sacked it. with a columned hall. In the Roman Empire. 43 Epic H istories. deported 4 0 . 1 9 8 5 -6 . .. Armenian prosperity may admittedly have been dis­ 42 Moses. but both it and the palace may belong. decorate and work. Trajan tried to improve communications and develop urban centres.45 Tigrano­ certa. beside the traditional three.42 Tiridates I restored Artaxata as Neroneia. p. tradesmen and artisans were reckoned to comprise a fourth ‘estate’ in society. is normally ascribed to the second half of the third century. 1 9 8 9 . After the annexation of Commagene. as Wilkinson suggests. in Basean. 175 and for comment her pp. 157. urban life was encouraged more by the Sasanians than by their Arsacid predecessors who had concentrated rather on con­ trolling the old towns. xiv. ‘Armenia in Hellenistic and Roman Times’ (MA Diss. but they did try to establish market-centres to promote trade. 3 0 4 (n. D. It may have been Tiridates who was responsible for the repairs of the first and second century to the fortifications of Garni. was prob­ ably founded by Vologases I. Many of his captives were skilled textile workers. 15) and 4 9 8 . and Vajarshakert. 1 9 8 9 .46 These cities must have benefited from the economic development of Armenia’s neighbours. and urban residents respected by peasants. 140 and for comment her pp. Garni was embellished not only with Sohaemus’ tomb but also with a palace.44 Vajarshawan. Garsoi'an.9 . 1 9 8 9 . 44 Ibid. Thomson. making his prisoners build. p.e. Garsoi'an. 45 R. II. Caenepolis. apparently. trans. according to the Epic Histories. Wilkinson. Samosata expanded. Garsoi'an. The fruits of their labours both gratified their new masters and provided items of trade. to the first half of the fourth. trans. The mosaic pavement in their vestibule. trans. according to the Epic Histories. p. pp. which shows Greek mythological figures and has Greek inscriptions. By the sixth century such persons as merchants. Vologases). must have retained an urban character: in 3 64 the Persians. ad 6 6 -ad 298/9 103 growth is embodied in Moses of Khoren’s report that the first Arsacid king ordered Van to be restored.000 families there. p. 1972) p. Melitene received the title of Metropolis and the status of city. perhaps beyond the walls. and Roman baths. The Severan emperors did not found new towns.8 0 . in most of which Hellenistic-style organization and some autonomy survived.43 whose exact location is unknown. Iv. 1 978. Nakhchawan was known to Ptolemy and may date from the Arsacid period. there were. 144. Cambridge Univ. for its original name was Vajarshapat (‘founded by Vajarsh’. 2 0 4 (residence). 8.Tiridates I to Tiridates IV.

47 Artaxata was a m ajor commercial centre. Armenian profits derived from transit trade in oriental luxury goods and some export of raw materials. x. Nisibis in Syria. 47 Pliny the Elder. The Satires II. S. Six itineraries have been reconstructed and Ptolemy’s version of Armenian geography seems to have been based. X X X III. Iii. If Wilkinson’s datings are correct. In one of its buildings about 2 .104 Tiridates I to Tiridates IV. deo­ dorant and earwash. probably malachite (basic copper carbonate). but that thereafter it was Sasanian silver coinage which was used for trade. if indeed there was one. Juvenal’s particular and limited use of the east in his work means that his remarks cannot be treated as accurate observations. Colchis. 4 0 . medicine. N atural History. the economic life and the political history of Armenia testify to some involvement of Armenians in Roman culture and society. 1 6 4 -1 7 0 . 1982a. Pliny refers to laserwort. emery whetstones. In fact. In his Natural History. In the absence of native coins. a medicinal plant. Satala in Lesser Armenia. xxviii. 48 Hewsen. X X X V . Culture: Contacts and Comparisons The tomb at Garni. Media Atropatene. xxvii. 1 6 4 . 49 Juvenal. pounded. X X X V I. have been found. The few pieces o f sculpture which have been found are not particularly accomplished.4 . Trade routes linked Artaxata to the Black Sea coast. written in the first half of the second century. 1 8 4 -1 8 6 . and alum.48 A reference in one of Juvenal’s satires. 89. Braund. the strongly Graeco-Roman tomb at Garni is the only artistic monument of pre-Christian Arsacid Armenia to survive. another mineral (azurite) named after Armenia. . before the advent of the Sasanians. has often been quoted to suggest that the wealth of Artaxata was so great as to make it a place of luxurious and loose living. 4 7 . X IX .0 0 0 clay seals. from packs or jars of merchandise. ad 6 6 -ad 298/9 rupted in the third century by Sasanian aggression and by the so-called ‘third century crisis’ in the Roman Empire. whose price had recently dropped dramatically due to the discovery of alternative material in Spain and which produced a dark blue pigment. and Tigranocerta and other places in Greater Arme­ nia. Armenia consequently depended on her neighbours for currency.49 It is unfortunate for us that the Armenian kings did not mint their own coins. X X X V .. on at least one road map of Armenia. xlvii. dating from the first and second centuries. in part. a mineral. used amongst other things for dye. 5 4 . which after being dried. or a list of towns with distances between them. H . 1989. Coin hoards suggest that. If they were forbidden to it must have been by Parthia: Rome allowed client kings to mint. little can be said about native art. sieved and dyed was used by painters. the circulation of coins from the east was limited. xv.

53 50 51 52 53 Dejiver. the nobility normally lived in forts. with Iran but also found elsewhere. the only sure way to eliminate an enemy. with foster-parents eager to protect them. And fosterage could be used like marriage. Russell. sang not merely to entertain but also to eulogize their patrons. We must remember that some elements are probably very ancient and are shared with other societies which themselves were not influenced by Iran. Their similarity does not however necessarily imply that one derived from the other. This is demonstrated by Garsoi'an. applied to Tiridates IV. But analysis for the period from Augustus to Valerian ( a d 2 5 3 -6 0 ) has detected none of Armenian origin. There is no Armenian parallel to the participation in Roman life of the elite of neighbouring Commagene and Pontus-Bithynia. Behind the practice of fosterage must lie anticipation of such need. was to exterminate his family. This would be the more difficult if children resided apart from their parents. 1989. The ‘principal camp’ of Arsaces (Armenian Arshak) II (350P -67/8). well attested in the Epic Histories.50 Armenian involvement in Iranian society and culture on the other hand was extensive. They were members of the royal court. what Russell terms an ‘Artaxiad epic’. was adjacent to a walled hunting preserve and horse-racing course and furnished with tents or pavilions. 1987. while the kings were normally peripatetic. appears several times in Armenian tradition.51 Epic tradition was transmitted by professional minstrels. Aristocratic fosterage of aristocratic children is another institution shared. 1 9 8 6 -7 . The cliche of infants being rescued by their foster-parents. A strong oral tradition is one. clearly. for example in early Germanic and Irish society. It could also safeguard a family’s survival. ad 6 6 -ad 298/9 105 But in other respects this involvement was slight.52 In the fourth century a d . 1 9 8 8 -9 . Garsoi'an. at Shahapivan. Because property belonged to the family. and went to war so that they could encourage and record heroic deeds.Tiridates I to Tiridates IV. Fosterage of children by inferiors occurred in some Caucasian groups up to the nineteenth century. The exact location of Shahapivan is unknown. There might be a ‘principal camp’ but this was not in a city. The lifestyle of the Armenian kings and aristocracy was similar to that in Iran. Moses of Khoren drew on it extensively. The first Roman senators of oriental origin included descendants of Commagene’s king Antiochus I. and because of bloodfeud. Foster­ age created a special bond between foster-father and foster-son. in the Iranian as in the Germanic worlds. take over his property and enjoy it in safety. . probably not just of affection but of reciprocal obligations. Armenian elite society shared with the Iranian an essentially non-urban character. probably. to cement friendly relations. who. Rom e’s equestrian officers were recruited from Pontus-Bithynia as well as from other eastern provinces. There was. especially help in time of need.

At Artaxata the proportions were 4 :1 . Zarehawan. in which Tiridates IV resided. is of Iranian derivation. At the fourth-century Armenian court the princes had thrones and cushions arranged according to their rank.0 0 0 and 8 2 . The Gahnamak.54 The exact figures. ad 6 6 -ad 298/9 There was a palace at Vajarshapat. (Throne List or Rank List) composed later. 1979. Even in death the monarchs shunned cities. mostly Jews. and another at Garni. the Parthians did not lay in supplies of food or pay. Eruandashat. Van and Nakhchawan in 3 6 4 . at the request of the katholikos (katcojikos) (head of the Armenian Christian church) Sahak. 55 Cassius Dio. trans. Garsoi'an. Rank was closely related to the num­ bers of cavalry owed. at Zarishat 5:7. Aspakani. Zarishat. 2 2 9 -3 0 . ГѴ. including Artaxata about 11:13. they had Parthians with them. as for example in 162 when Vologases attacked the Romans at Elegeia. 56 Toumanoff. and Ajdzkc. Excepting Artaxata. Very few sites are termed ‘city’ by early Armenian authors.0 0 0 may be unreliable. using Armenian historical works.57 Many words in the Armenian vocabulary for social and political organization and law are related to Iranian ones of the Parthian or near-Parthian s< Epic H istories.106 Tiridates I to Tiridates IV.55 The Sasanian kings who ruled Armenia must have spent some time there. according to Dio (c.56 It asserts that this order was brought from Persia. Urban life remained largely the concern of foreigners. The extensive contact between Armenians and Iranians and their shared interests have left their mark on the Armenian language. Iran had much more direct influence upon Armenia than had Rome. and other Arsacid kings must also have had Parthian attendants.6. Rom an History. . the proportions were about 1:2 overall. but they suggest a contemporary perception that. 304­ 5. Parthian forces often worked in Armenia. pp. Ani was only a fortified stronghold in 364. both. except at Artaxata. The same system operated at the Sasanian court. totalling 9 7 . and for comment her pp. at Nakhchawan 1:8. presumably. probably in the Arab period. was a village. O f these only Artaxata is attested as the site of one of the seven major pagan shrines. Narses was there in 293 when he was invited to become King of Kings. meaning hunter. Royal favour might also affect rank. When Tiridates I and Parthamasiris visited Nero and Trajan. though in varying proportions. whither the royal necropolis then moved. 1 7 5 -6 . The Epic Histories report the numbers of Armenian and Jewish households in Artax­ ata. lv. urban Armen­ ian households were outnumbered by urban Jewish ones. but there is no evidence for one at Artaxata. They will have depended on Armenians for sustenance since. 1 9 6 3 . X L 15. 1 9 8 9 . conceivably from some Iranian term meaning ‘leading horses and hounds’.l6 4 -a fte r 229). Culturally. purports to record the order of seventy families in the early fifth century. 57 Considine. for example. pp. reflecting the realities of power.

But. largely academic.59 Fortunately. 1 9 8 7 . it did not. there are a number of words related to Armenian terms in the inscription which Narses set up. Khosrov. according to the evidence.58 Furthermore. as loan words or derivations. Considine. made in 1895. for example. for example. Chaumont. Some royal and aristocratic names. 1976. supplying. since it is normally. to borrow a word does not neces­ sarily imply the borrowing or sharing of the institution it is used for. Patarag. Besides ishkhart and nakharar. 81). Iranian influence is apparent in words for ‘temple’ and in place names incorporating bag (god). p.Tiridates I to Tiridates IV. criticized by Gignoux. For example. Russell. may be a loan from Parthian (Middle Iranian). The pioneer in identifying Iranian words in Classical Armenian was Hübschmann. the word for the rite of offering. Vologases. Religion: Continuity and Challenge The linguistic evidence is a useful supplement to the literary evidence for Armenian Zoroastrianism. used in the Armenian Bible and in later medieval texts. that this society was essentially the same as that of Parthian Iran.61 Iran influenced everyday as well as specialized vocabulary. though not always. but there is insufficient evidence to establish the degree to which the Armen­ ian office resembled its Iranian equivalent. to justify his accession in Persia. has been added to and the number of words known to be borrowed from Iranian is now considered to be between 800 and 9 0 0 . while their names remain the same. 1 9 6 3 . things may change. ‘time’. the Armenian evidence which is used to supplement the paucity of the Parthian evidence rather than vice versa. for example Tiridates. for Armenian society. as Toumanoff pointed out. 1 9 7 3 . His collection of 6 86 words. Sparapet is another title of Parthian origin. yet it has been suggested that it was common to all three societies. ‘urine’ and ‘black’. 4 9 6 and 5 1 2 (n. stimulated by the Iranian connections and especially by the vocabulary of Armenian aristo­ cratic society. There is a strong historiographical tradition. terms for ‘answer’. in Armenia. Vahan and Vasak are Iranian. pp. are Zoroas­ trian religious terms. although the office of Armenian hazarapet is attested also for Sasanian but not for Parthian Iran. ‘death’.60 In Iran it involved military command. ad 6 6 -ad 298/9 107 period. which came to be used for the Christian divine liturgy. . the implications of these objections are. sometime between 293 and 2 9 6 . 1979. Some names for Armenian (Christian) ecclesiastical vestments. that is material contained in the account of 58 59 60 61 Toumanoff. 114 (n. and Zoroastrian influence in other place and personal names. 184).

text and trans. god of strength and victory. exceptionally honoured. . Zoroastrians were supposed to recite hymns to the sun three times a day. 4 7 . Anahit (Anahita-Artemis) was. text and trans. 64 Ibid. 4 0 . pp. originally. paragraph 25 8 (text p. The fifth-century Armenian writer Eznik refers to belief that the moon caused epilepsy.4 1 . written up in approximately 4 6 0 by an Armenian known as Agathangelos is our m ajor source for pre-Christian religion in Armenia. translation p. though remains of temples and sacrifices dating from the second century в с to the third century a d have been found at Shirakawan. and Tir (Apollo). 6 3 0 ). text and trans. Thomson. 1 9 8 7 . 1 925. Aramazd. ad 6 6 -ad 298/9 Tiridates IV ’s conversion by Gregory the Illuminator. 82. as in the Artaxiad period. 6 4 . 64 and M ihr a temple at Bagayarich. 1 9 7 6 . that is Ahura Mazda (Zeus). 4 8 8 . and for comment his p. pp. Agathangelos. a translation criticized by Russell. 16. to Christianity. The descriptions of the temples and Tiridates’ prayer for the blessings of the gods reveal that Vahagn had replaced Mihr (Mithras-Hephaistus). M ost of Armenia’s gods were Iranian.. Barshamin and NanC. the bringer of the new fruits. 2 2 . 63 Ibid. and although she was not a yazata (being worthy o f wor­ ship). the ‘interpreter o f dreams’. as a member of the major triad. text and trans. Agathangelos’ reference to the ‘seven altars of the temples’ most probably means that there were seven major sites of worship. which sites are identified later in his text. The other major gods were Astlik (Syriac Astarte). 1 9 7 6 . Mihr. pp. a god of hospitality. like Aramazd. xl. There was a ‘Sun-gate’ at Vajarshapat. The Syrian Barshamin. a supreme creator god. He was worshipped with Amanor. 66 Russell. 3 3 4 . and the goddess NanC (Athena) at T cil. had a temple at Ani.. Thomson. 1 9 7 6 . Tiridates IV reportedly regarded her as ‘the glory of our race and our savior’. was wor­ shipped at T cordan. 3 5 4 n. Also worshipped at Ashtishat was Vahagn (Greek Heracles. There was also some sun worship. See also Ananikian. Thomson. and especially the (Roman) emperor. 3 1 7 .63 who gave Armenia life.8 for beliefs about the moon. with major shrines at ErCz in Acilisene. 7 7 8 . 31 where uruapasht is translated ‘idolatrous’. 65 Eznik. pp. Vanatur. 1 9 7 6 . equated with Aph­ rodite and worshipped at Ashtishat. This account. though later it came to mean ‘evil spirit’ and ‘ghost’. Her origin was Semitic. 3 0. she was widely worshipped in Iranian lands.65 Armenia certainly shared in the Zoroastrian veneration of ancestral spirits. pp. pp. to whom he was in many respects similar.3 6 . Uru apparently means ‘soul’ in early writers. There is little archaeological evidence. fertility and protection and was honoured by all kings. but some were equated by Armen­ ian authors with Greek ones. was of indigenous origin. 65.108 Tiridates I to Tiridates IV. had ‘a temple of learned instruction’ at Artaxata. Agathangelos refers to uru worship. in a harvest festival at Bagawan. 1 9 8 7 . p. 3 1 6 . Tir. Artaxata and Ashtishat.66 He also 61 Agathangelos. 5 3 . Thomson. Iran­ ian Verethragna). There may have been some reverence too for the moon.

pp. temple property.oxen. Thomson. in a prayer. . The ancient Iranian fire festival. Besides treasure. and graves at Garni suggest a change in custom in the first century which may reflect the Zoroastrian prohibition of the pollu­ tion of the earth. Thomson. even if he could not manage it biologically. Ana­ hit’s image at Erez was of gold. nevertheless. ad 6 6 -a d 298/9 109 records that King ‘Khosrov’. rams. have a son. That system was part of Zoroastrian family law and ensured that a man could. Third.. 4 6 4 . his p. celebrated on the evening of 13 February and on the next day. horses and mules. Vahagn’s temple was full of gold and silver and had received many offerings from the greatest kings. offered the royal ancestors various gold and silver objects. presumably. did have some kind of cult of fire.arshapat out of his Persian booty. There is a reference. which was left to native priests and idolatrous beliefs. It receives almost no attention in Agathangelos’ account of Gregory’s dis­ courses and deeds. Graves lined as well as covered with stone slabs came to 67 Agathangelos. Words for ‘sarcophagus’ and ‘grave’ or ‘tom b’ suggest Iranian influence on burial customs. consan­ guineous marriage and concubinage in Armenia. At T cordan the temple of Barshamin owned the whole village with its properties and territories. survives in Armenia in the celebrations surrounding the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord to the Temple. ‘Khosrov’ had given splendid gifts to the priests at Val. 101. There may have been magi in the royal and major religious centres. in thanks for victory. the fires being allowed to smoulder under the ashes until needed for services.67 The temples and their attendants were. It is nevertheless likely that Armenian society. 4 0 . pp. 2 2 . 4 1.Tiridates I to Tiridates IV. The Per­ sian Ahriman. 1 976. celebrated by Zoroastrians in April. it is much harder to discover the elaborate system of proxy and substitute marriage which obtained in Iran. text and trans. is noticeable by his absence. wealthy. But otherwise. but there were not in the rest of the kingdom. 8 9 . all of them white. the uncreated evil invader opposed to the good Creator Ahura Mazda. 68 meaning. there is little evidence that the cult of fire had had much impact. (where it is translated ‘fireworship’) and for comment. 1 9 7 6 . manifested in certain seasonal festivals. text and trans. included estates. to ancestral ‘ashworship’. also some differences. like so many others. comprising nearly 5 per cent of the kingdom. 68 Ibid. A fourth difference between Armenian and Iranian Zoroastrianism is that although it is easy to identify polygamy. as this suggests. and at Ani the town and its fortress belonged to Aramazd. 100. and animals . Though there were many similarities between Armenian and Iranian Zoroastrianism there were. silks. the care of the ashes o f the holy fires. legally. Armenian religion is characterized by Gregory as the vain and foul worship of useless idols made by the hands of men.

the influence of Iran on Armenian beliefs and attitudes concerning the powers of evil was strong. contemporary and medieval folklore.110 Tiridates 1 to Tiridates IV. 1 9 8 7 . 4 2 . Fifth-century writers allude to belief in the aralez. There may also have been some veneration of cats. pp. The same name is used of ancient megaliths. In Zoroastrian belief the dog is an inter­ mediary between living and dead. Folklore about vishaps. The early eighth-century Paulician heretics.71 Notwithstanding the absence of Ahriman from Armenia. It. 71 Moses. and etymology allow a number of additions. were strength­ ened by the sound of blacksmiths’ hammering. some carved with representations of water. 1 8 3 -4 . . and some shaped like fish. 1 9 7 8 . (serpents or dragons). whose name in Armenian is a loan from Middle Iranian. Thomson. who may have included uncon­ verted Armenian Zoroastrians. trans. Other methods were burial in a jar. According to another tradition. It shows a horseman. p. Particular plants may have been used against evil spirits. and which was scattered at Zoroastrian shrines. despite the fact that the cat is regarded by Zoroastrians as a noxious creature. 70 Russell. Moses of Khoren records a tradition concerning the last Orontid king. At Boşat is a Parthian rock relief which may date from the end of the second century or beginning of the third. suggests that blacksmiths once had some role of religious significance. Modern Armenian practice.70 Russell has given us an exhaustive account of what can be deduced. garlic. There may have been some veneration of dogs. with the power to protect souls from evil. Armenians seem to have sacrificed to them. and its presence at funeral rites is necessary. It has been suggested that the relief has been altered. with certainty. the mandrake and rue. 1989b . 2 8 1 . a site which later became a monastery was originally sacred to Anahit and was called Rock of the Smiths. about pre-Christian Armenian religion since the evidence is so limited. Some of 69 Nogaret. We have other glimpses of belief. owed something to Iranian influence. or stone sarcophagus. perhaps depicted a sacrifice which would have been performed there for the person whose tomb it was. but that the original. were accused of cat worship. that his glance split stones brought each daybreak by his attendants. possibly Mithras or an Armenian king. for what follows (and all aspects of Armenian Zoroastrianism). cursed by his father and imprisoned alive by spirits. The evil eye was feared. probably only slightly earlier. There was a belief that children could be swapped for a demon changeling. ad 6 6 -ad 298/9 be preferred to unlined ones. 1 9 8 3 .69 It is difficult to say more. above the entrance to a tomb chamber. Sinclair. often near water. The legend that the chains o f Arta­ wazd. Rock-cut tomb chambers were still used. preventing his escape and his destruction of the country. a dog which can cure battle wounds by licking. Artawazd was said to be such a changeling.

72 Other demons however do not appear to have particular links with Iran. had corresponded with Trajan about measures to be taken against them. probably. whose aim was to purify practice and belief and extinguish idolatry. and Russell thinks they may originally have represented the royal ancestral spirits who were revered by Artaxias I. could appear as men or serpents. ‘Evil Spirits and Creatures’ (pp. Kartir. 1 978.4 and p. is of Iranian origin.) The particular influence of Ardashir I and Narses. the Sasanian reformers. 7 7 . destroyed the ancestral statues at Artaxata and ordered fire to be kept perpetually burning at Bagawan. as legate in Pontus and Bithynia. and had a king. ch. and many aspects of Zoroastrian demonology are attested. 7 7 for Kca jk c and Artaxias. There were Christians in the legion X II Fulminata in the 170s. in various periods.74 Christianity provided the second threat to Zoroastrianism. The al. earthly and corporeal and good.1 1 2 ). which dated back. 4 5 1 . By 2 0 1 there was a church in Osrhoene. may lie behind the disappearance of prostitution at her temple in Егёг. to the Achae­ menid era. The fourth-century historian Eusebius of Caesarea refers to Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria (2 4 8 -6 5 ) writing about apos­ 72 Russell. 2 2 5 . probably meaning Shapur. Folklore suggests that they lived like the nobility. But it was threat­ ened in the third century. and according to the fourteenth-century Gregory of Tatcew were thought to rule in the rocks. Moses of Khoren asserts that Artashir. who both promoted Anahit. The ayskc. 74 Russell. 1 9 8 7 . but by the accession of Tiridates IV in 2 9 8 or 2 9 9 Christians had been nearby for nearly two centuries. II. Russell suggests that the promotion of Vahagn in Armenia was an expression of opposition to Kartir. Pliny the Younger ( a d 6 1 -C . The kcajkc. by two forces. ad 6 6 -ad 298/9 111 the terminology of sorcery is related to Iranian words. Precisely when it reached Arsacid Armenia is unknown. As to the first. Thomson. at Edessa. 4 3 7 -8 0 ).Tiridates I to Tiridates IV. trans. who according to legend imprisoned Artawazd. the moving force in Sasanian Zoroas­ trianism. There were Christians in Lesser Armenia when the emperor Decius inaugurated persecution in 2 4 9 . A fire altar under the cathedral of Ejmiatsin (Vajarshapat) probably predates the official Christian conversion of Armenia. wind demons. 1 982. and the Christians. 14. according to the sixth-century Armen­ ian David the Invincible. (Its alternative date is 451. was well-established in the Arsacid period. . could marry each other. the father of Artawazd in the legend.73 And there is archaeological confirmation for a promotion of the fire cult. The Armenian evidence supports him. 73 Moses. Armenian Zoroastrianism. pp. The wife of the governor of Cappadocia at the turn of the century was a Christian. the personification of a disease which strikes a woman in childbirth. p. claimed in an inscription to have worked throughout Shapur’s empire. By the middle of the second century Christianity had spread to Nisibis. were.

trans. bishop of the Armenians. 78 Winkler. As they sought Roman protection from Sasanian ambition Tir­ idates IV and his successors were to prefer Greek to Syrian Christianity. The baptismal rite it describes is related to Syrian rather than to Greek practice. pp. 2 5 7 . 1 9 8 8 . 89. pp. There were Christians in Melitene by the late third century. ГѴ. 112 and for comment her pp. that the first evangelizer and head of the church in Armenia was Thaddaeus (Jude). trans. 6 8 .78 Syrian Christianity was however to be a casualty of fourth-century politics. .76 rather than in the northern city of Vajarshapat.8 (n. xii. 2 5 7 . 4 1 1 . 6 7 . The fifth-century author of the Epic Histories stresses. Garsoi'an. with the then head of the Armenian church. which Tiridates IV and Gregory the Illumin­ ator made into the mother church. The Armenian word for a Christian altar may derive from Hebrew. 76 Ibid. which makes the Armenian church dependent on Cappadocia. 4 4 9 -5 0 . 77 Garsoi'an. 1 989. itself apparently instigated by Christians. and some Syrian Christology is detectible. 8 7. AristakSs. The Syrian bishop Daniel. has been. 75 Epic Histories. betrays Armenian Christianity’s Syrian origins. xiv. in the south. in some parts of his work. III. 9 3 . iv. iii. ad 6 6 -ad 298/9 tates to Meruzhan. It is probable then that Christianity had infiltrated Tiridates’ kingdom before his accession. identified as the Armenian Acrites who. Syriac. Some town dwellers may have been Christian. pp. though there is no evidence that it had gained many elite adherents.75 an apostle. to which early Armenian Christianity was to owe a great deal.. Meruzhan may have been bishop of Sebasteia (modern Sivas). Diocletian’s persecution of 303 was partly pro­ voked by a revolt there. The legend presumably reflects some early evangelization from Edessa. 1 989. furnished the later stratum of the words in Armenian which are of Semitic derivation. 82. xiv. supervisor of Ashtishat. Christianity had very likely arrived from Syria.г 112 Tiridates I to Tiridates IV.1 2 . xix. 113 and for comment her pp. iii. i. The Epic Histories emphasize that the first church of Armenia was at Ashtishat. attended the Council of Nicaea in 3 2 5 . 1982. and the traditional founder of the church of Edessa in the first century. tentatively. 11). 1 9 7 8 . IV. and which is of ecclesiastical-literary nature. 110. which was driven underground.77 Even Agathangelos’ account of Gregory’s work. iv. 1 980. for Chris­ tianity was often spread through Jewish communities.8 (n. Ill. Garsoi'an. 35). the dialect of Aramaic in Edessa and Osrhoene.

Melitene (ancient Melid). and this western Armenian presence continued. Commagene and Lesser Armenia. had been incorporated into Roman provincial organization. departed to study first in Antioch and then in Athens where he became professor of rhetoric. Swings of political fortune. and pressure from the Sasanians had encouraged some Armenians to leave the Arsacid kingdom for lands further west. 1986. Cucusus. After Diocletian had established Tiridates IV as king. C. of course.1 It was from Cucusus that the feted Armenian rhetor Proaeresius (2 7 6 -3 6 7 /3 6 8 ). a small town between Cae­ sarea and Germaniceia seems to have been something of an Armenian centre. if in adapted forms. was one of Roman rule. Both his cousin Gregory and Gregory’s great-great-grandson. Tiridates ГѴ had presumably used the Cappadocian estates of Tiridates II during his exile. or protecto­ rate. so for Armenians Christianity was both the harbinger of new institutions and new relation­ ships. Armenian names appear in an 1 Dedeyan. much of the ancient inheritance whose formation has been considered in preceding chapters. preserving. Its immediate context. .300-C.428 The establishment of Christianity is a landmark in Armenian history not merely for its importance in the fourth century but because to modern eyes Armenia’s church and Armenians’ Christian faith seem to have been the major contributors to the shaping and preservation of Armenians’ identity as a people. As for many of the peoples of Europe. most Arme­ nians were under Roman sway and they remained so for many years. the future patriarch NersSs were educated in Caesarea. and a vehicle of con­ tinuity.6 The Establishment o f Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy. Places where Armenians had settled and ruled in ancient times. between themselves and with a wider world. alliances with Rome.

1 Europe and west Asia .Map 6.

Hizan guarded the route from Lake Van to the Tigris. incorporated into the provinces. 12 7 . A panegyric to Gregory the Illuminator is ascribed to him. referring to his kingdom as the dastakert. 139 where he translates as ‘province’. which he made one of his bases. or property. ‘seeking vengeance in battle’. c. to the extent that his territory could even be perceived as a province. And John Chrysostom.5 It was likely that Persia would seek to regain her lost territory in Media. His own Romanization is detectible in his residence in towns and in building work at Gafni. in an edict. and the palace with a columned hall. such a statement must have been meant to warn dissidents and Sasanians that Tiridates had protectors. 1976. 3 Agathangelos. 4 6 7 . n. and his pp. Diocletian reformed the provincial organization of the Roman empire and he guarded his territories with forts and garrisons. text and trans.4 Tiridates’ Roman orientation was strengthened by the fact that trouble with Persia was practically guaranteed.3 0 0 -c. south of Lake Van. pp. quotes Tiridates. The evidence for the fourth century suggests that these principalities were allowed much self-government under their native rulers. So too may the Roman baths. Garso'ian. that archaeologists have detected may be his work. 145. however. ch. Thomson. There was an obligation on him to prosecute bloodfeud against the Sasanians. possibly correctly. got to know Armen­ ian Christians after he was exiled to Cucusus in 404. The Roman-type tower. cited by Hewsen. text and trans. which used fourth-century sources. 4 Wilkinson. for the term. Within the kingdom. Thomson. Lesser Armenia became one of seven provinces in the diocese of Pontica.to fourth-century date.Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy. rather than to Tiridates I as many scholars have thought. includ­ ing Oceanus and Thalassa. 5 2 0 and refs. 5 Agathangelos. patriarch of Constantinople 3 98— 404. that is. reflected in Agathangelos’ statement that throughout his reign Tiridates fought the Persian Empire. p. into Rom e’s newly gained Arzanene. 1 9 8 9 . 143. of second. inaccurately but suggestively includes Greater Armenia. See above. The Armenian regions which Diocletian had acquired at Nisi­ bis were not.3 Assuming the quotation to be accurate. 1 9 8 5 -6 . Tiridates IV depended on Roman support. 138. It may have been Diocletian who built the large fort at Hizan.8 (note) and xlvi. pp. but whether this accorded with Diocletian’s original inten­ tions is not clear. now fictionalized into Roman appointees. the historian of Tiridates’ conversion. of the Caesars. 1 9 8 5 -6 . 5. 132. with their mosaic depicting fabulous creatures and divinities. It included Cucusus and its capital was at Melitene where X II Fulminata was still stationed. . which may have been garrisoned with cavalry. 4 5 . 142. Agathan­ gelos. 1 9 7 2 . The inscription referring to the construction of a fort and some building for the queen should probably be attributed to him. the old Arabian march. It was still Sasanian policy to abolish 2 Hewsen. 1 9 7 6 .2 The fifthcentury ‘Verona List’ of Roman provinces.4 2 8 115 account of a saint of Cucusus who was martyred in 362. 144.

. the king could be proved to have done anything that ran counter to Roman policy. Tiridates’ new policy was to convert his kingdom and to promote the cult of martyrs who were Roman. Divine punishment followed: Tiridates behaved like a wild boar. 1 9 7 6 . The Christian Armenians against whom the emperor Maximinus Daia (3 0 5 -1 4 ) brought troops.116 Christianity and the E nd o f the Monarchy. torments fell on his household and demon-possession afflicted the people of Vajarshapat. and Gregory was consecrated bishop at Caesarea. pp. rather than 6 Hewsen. Some refugee nuns from Rome (one of whom. in a snake-infested pit. who was in his service. Tiridates tried to rape). in about 4 6 0 .3 0 0 -c. trod imperial paths. rather than Christians in Lesser Armenia or in the ceded principalities. Hripcsime. Happily the king’s sister had an instructive vision. The claim in a Roman edict of 311 of six victories over the Armenians may reflect direct Roman intervention in Armenia on Tiri­ dates’ behalf. This conversion is traditionally dated 301. tor­ tured to persuade him to give up Christianity. But 301 is wrong. but the probability is that it encountered significant resistance. c. after which Gregory was released (after thirteen or fourteen years in the pit). This includes his becoming a Christian. may even have been Tiridates’ subjects. in 312 Constantine became a convert.4 2 8 the Armenian kingship. and their abbess Gayiane. the pagan shrines were overthrown. came to a painful end. before Diocletian began persecuting Christians in 303. apparently. Tiridates then. Agathangelos’ details of Tiridates’ persecution are more legendary than historical. and Sasanian intrigue in Armenia must have continued. Agathangelos relates. 7 Thomson.8 Tiridates. Gregory’s refusal and Tiridates’ realization that Gregory was the son of his own father’s mur­ derer. Tiridates had Gregory the Illuminator. First he followed Diocletian’s lead against Christians. but the scholarly consensus is to prefer c.6 It would be surprising if. and both Constantine and his rival Licinius tried to gain Christian support. states the case. 1 9 6 1 . the martyrs buried and the afflicted cured and converted. led to Gregory’s imprisonment in a dungeon. The chrono­ logy is admittedly difficult to establish. in 312. Subsequently. In 311 Galerius (emperor 2 9 3 -3 1 1 ) issued a deathbed edict of toleration.7 According to Agathange­ los. Introduction and esp. Unfortunately the fact that Tiridates’ religious policy adhered closely to that of Rome is obscured in what became the received tradition of the conversion of Armenia. far from being a trail-blazer.3 1 4 . whose author Agathangelos claimed to be Tiridates’ contemporary but actually wrote long after the conversion. Ixxxix-xcvii for dating. proceeded to a general persecution of Christians. 1 9 8 5 -6 . in these circumstances. in 311/12. Tiridates’ attitude to Christianity changed only when Rome’s did. well before the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine (3 0 6 -3 7 ). 8 Ananian.

text and trans.428 117 Armenian. bishop of Manazkert. Behind Agathangelos’ fiction that Tiridates visited the newly Christian Constantine in Rom e9 probably lies a reaffirmation of the Armenian-Roman alliance. and who were ruled by a relative of the Armenian king. 3 7 2 . Tiridates himself gave the Church temple properties. с. trans. pp. than the aristocracy. in 337. Con­ version might lessen aristocratic receptiveness to Sasanian influence. vi. Patriarch Nerses (3 5 3 -7 3 ) did likewise. 11 Epic Histories. in order to impress the emperor. and four fields in every estate and seven in every town.10 The Church was also to profit from unsuccessful aristocratic recalcitrance. the more attractive since a religious alliance with him might heal the rift in the royal family. replacing the existing establishment. when provoked by Constantine. 7 2 -3 . their estates passed. pp. were to spread its own power and personnel throughout Armenia. patriarch in the 330s.Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy. 3 4 1 -7 ? ). visited the Roman imperial court. And there were other temptations. Khosrov III (3 3 0 -8 /9 ). at first. who was acting at the request of the king. at least some of them fervently hoped for Roman victory.1 5 . In the 330s after the warring Manawazeans and Ordunis had spurned the mediation of Albianos. Thomson.. Uniting the family might weaken the pro-Persian ‘faction’ to which Gregory’s father had belonged. and might be expected to do so again . 10 Ibid. Garsoi'an. 4 0 6 . in the late third century. a group whose identity is disputed but who may have been Alans.and indeed they did. III. 8 3 7 . text and trans. The king’s Greekeducated cousin Gregory was not therefore the prime mover in the con­ version. pp. was mistrust and martyrdoms. it might prove an instrument for royal power. and subsequently been annihilated by the sparapet. The chronology and separate identity of the fourth-century kings after Tiridates has been a matter of debate. Gregory’s grandson. Thomson. respectively to Albianos and to the bishop of Basean. to secure assent to the royal succession. In 3 24 Constantine represented himself to Shapur I as the protector of Christians in Persia. all married royal princesses. mutually beneficial. more dependent and dependable. The alliance of Church and Crown certainly proved. but what is clear is that the royalpatriarchal family partnership was reinforced by a number of marriage alliances and it is evidenced in the diplomatic activities of the clerics. to arrange fiscal privileges and a marriage alliance for Arsaces II (3 5 0 ?-6 7 /8 ). as their liberator. for the Sasanians had persecuted Christians briefly. but a convenient tool. 1 976. When he prepared to invade. in Persia. 373. .ЗОО-с. and also more authoritative. and Yusik’s twin sons. The result. Patriarch Yusik I (c.11 9 Agathangelos. if the new church. 1 9 7 6 . Vrtcanes’s son Grigoris was martyred when he tried to convert the Mazkcutckc.8 0 . 8 7 2 . Vrtcan6s. More practically. They had perceived his preaching as ‘a plot of the Armenian king’ to halt their plundering raids. 1 9 89. and of the patriarch.

2 Armenia . M e lite n e * Madia Atropatao* (A tr p a ta k a n ) ІЯвЫтвпвЬ— .Ödzun* РаПал Keban Daw Ashtishat. Nisibis ICortu»n«) • Armenia from c387 Roman frontier from c387 (Assyrian March) I Moxoertel Ceded by Rome to U r a M P t l Persia in 363 Land over 2000m (6560ft) Map 6.

in that of the emperor Constantine himself.Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy. Besides the intellectual problems. Son and Holy Ghost. Conversion and its Consequences: Early Medieval Armenian Christianity 1 Problems and tensions Political considerations aside. Zoroastrianism not only permitted polygamy but it promoted consanguineous marriages between the closest of relatives as acts of particular virtue with a sacramental value. Father. The difficulty of accepting it must have been compounded by fear of the consequences if Christianity was in fact not true. that in pursuit of this he abased himself obsequiously before Rome. an heir born of a consanguin­ eous marriage had the strongest claims in inheritance. One could however. equally logically. 13 See below. One involved marriage. one of whose dimensions. incarnated and resurrected. and who forbids worship of graven images. In this respect conversion must have been more difficult for Armenians than for Romans. is both God and man. and hence that the spectacle is scarcely edify­ ing. esp. suggest that Tiridates’ determination to impose Christianity despite resistance implies religious zeal as much as political calculation. Punishment in this world must have seemed a possibility. 10 for its contribution.3 0 0 -c. Ultimately it is not susceptible of proof. 1 9 8 5 -6 . the Son. and likewise for eternity.4 2 8 119 One view of Tiridates’ conversion is that it was motivated primarily by concern to secure his throne. Offspring of such marriages were regarded especially highly. because in the long run the Church contributed to the maintenance of Armenian national identity and tradition. c. ch. . of course. must have seemed strange to those who frequented the Armenian temples. Zoroastrian marriage functioned to preserve the purity of classes and the integrity 12 Hewsen.12 An alternative is that Tiridates deserves his epithet ‘the Great’. and it is even possible that. The relationship between higher and baser motives is complex and must always be questioned where political leaders are concerned. whose paganism lacked such a concept. under Parthian law. as it has been. for there is evidence that Zoroastrians believed apostasy (from Zoroastrian­ ism) would be punished by hell fire. how appealing is Christianity likely to have seemed to Tiridates and his subjects? Belief in a god who is one and yet three.13 Proponents of each have regarded the strong opposition which Tiridates encountered as an indica­ tion that political considerations were of prime importance. there were differences and difficulties of lifestyle to be faced.

iv. discouraged widowed persons from remarrying. and should look forward to resurrection. in order to make them tractable. . The Church in the Roman Empire had come to prefer inhumation to cremation. and whose original purpose was to inform the spirits that they were being honoured. Their funerals should have. 15 Ibid.3 3 0 -7 9 ) a near neighbour. pp. preached continence and monogamy. But Christian ecclesiastics would not have approved decarnation.3 3 0 -c. the exposure o f bodies in a ‘tower of silence’ to decompose before burial. for example. and the pulling of hair and the use of red garments.3 0 0 -c. This last included the rending of garments and tearing of hair. both substitutes for blood sacrifice. monstrous dances. the slashing of arms and lacera­ tion of faces. xvi. like Nerses’ own. The Council of Shahapivan condemned consanguineous marriage in 4 44. trans. Like them. Other Christian-Zoroastrian differences involved the treatment of the dead. Zoroastrianism prohibited the pollution of the earth. 1 1 4 .3 9 5 ) and John Chrysostom. Armenian traditions were similar enough to Graeco-Roman ones to justify and inspire in Armenian prelates the kind of ecclesiastical disapproval which was expounded.120 Christianity and the E nd o f the Monarchy. and that after the Greek wife’s death Arsaces considered marrying a Persian princess. in 373. Garsoi'an.14 but old habits died hard. 1 5 1 -2 . IV. An allusion in the Epic Histories to the wives (plural) of a vitaxa. These customs included. Patriarch Nerses taught against consanguineous marriage and betrayal of spouses. his brother Gregory of Nyssa (c. loud wailing and unbridled mourning. psalms 14 Epic Histories. X X . whose origins lay in the cult of the dead. since the church did not regard burial as crucial. wailing. 2 0 1 . c. and abhorred incest. 273 (n. 25). trans. Christianity. This difficulty was not easily overcome. in the Graeco-Roman world. probably first institutionalized by the thirdcentury Sasanian reformer Kartir. (previously the fiancee of the deceased emperor Constans). The Christian Church also discouraged traditional mourning customs. and her Commentary. prevent their being discontented and dissuade them from any hostile activity. 1 9 8 9 . IV. XV. The view of the authorities was that Christians should regard death as the summons of Christ to the place prepared for the soul. and their record that King Arsaces II was simultaneously the husband of both an Arme­ nian and a Greek. Christian marriage threatened disruption to a convert’s existing social relations and to his future prospects. At the Council of Partaw in 768 it was thought necessary to emphasize that a third marriage is detestable adultery and an inexpiable crime. the Caesarea-educated Patriarch Ners6s condemned excessive weeping. p. and mourning customs. Garsoi'an.15 reveal that polygamy continued. however. 145. V. and since burial could be accomplished without pollution. 1 989.4 2 8 of family property. This difficulty however could be sidestepped. and the playing of trumpets. by such luminaries as Bishops Basil of Caesarea (c.. p.

incense. iii. and was poisoned when he refused to return. Garsoian. Epic Histories. 6 8 -9 . The king consequently abandoned his throne for the life of a hermit. Tiridates’ daughter-inlaw. Some thirty years’ endeavour had had only a limited impact. Moses of Khoren records that Tiridates had ‘enemies’. and could lead to lust. pp. Thomson.4 2 8 121 and hymns (which were signs of the joyful concept of death).3 0 0 -c. c. 9 2 . The fifth-century John Mandakuni. dangerous because the fear and affection which gods and ancestors inspired were hindrances to conversion. was actually besieged by ‘up to two thousand’ men belonging to families of pagan priests. refers to minstrel-mad drunkards who gave themselves up to debauchery. since it is modelled on two other accounts: one about the work of Mesrop (Mashtotsc). and candles and quiet tears. The Albanian decrees testify to minstrels’ invol­ vement in inappropriate mourning. 2 6. at Shahapivan and in the late 480s by the Albanians. 1 9 89.16 Dances were associated with Dionysius. trans. 2 5 1 . 1 957. Boyce. . 8 2 -8 5 . by an aristocrat whom he had reprimanded. Ibid. Gregory’s son and successor. emboldened by the queen. written by his pupil Koriwn in about 443. pp. Dowsett. xii. trans. 249. to be condemned again. 52. 1961b . I. whom Moses regarded simplistically but perhaps not totally inaccurately.Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy. They returned. and the majority. legends and epics. pp. god of wine.18 The next patriarch. Patriarch 4 7 8 -9 0 . p. xiii. Vrtcanes. II.20 16 17 18 19 20 Moses Daskhurantsci History o f the Albanians. Agathangelos’ tale of Gregory’s extensive missionary work has to be discounted. who had been rebuked for adultery and dissolute ways. Aristakes.17 And the very content of oral tradi­ tion was both suspect and dangerous: suspect because it preserved tales of pagan gods. had already been slain in Sophene. trans.. who. according to the Epic Histories when in 347 Patriarch Yusik I was murdered for his constant admonition of persistent transgressors. But the old ways were persistent. Moses. against his Christian policy. Christianity had been accepted ‘under duress’ ‘as some human folly’. 1 9 7 8 . whose church was dependent on that of Armenia. as ‘following the will of their wives and concubines’. 1 989. Garsoian. as non-Christians. The Armenian minstrel tradition also came under ecclesiastical cen­ sure. were doomed to hell. 9 1 . the other about Patriarch Nerses by the author of the Epic Histories. Such differences between the interests of traditional culture and those of Christianity must have contributed just as much as did its political implica­ tions to the fierce opposition which it had to meet. for several reasons.19 In such circumstances it is not surprising that many Armenians were for over a generation relatively untouched by Christianity. and of ancestors. only those people with some Greek or Syriac learning had any understanding of it. aristocrats as well as peasants. III. inventor of the Armenian alphabet. and performed the old rites. still believed in their songs. trans. lamps.

and hostelries and resthouses were built. doctor of divinity). and the hunt could still char­ acterize the afterlife. The church offered opportunities. Ixxxv regarding Agathangelos. for example. The light and fire imagery in Gregory’s vision of the church which was to be built at Ejmiatsin. in festivals. c. p. increased the number of churches and ministers. 149. for con­ tinuity in religious imagery. and Abraham’s bosom for the repose of the faithful. Agathangelos combines two common Christian images for it. became part of the repertoire of Christian sculptural images. Hultgard. gave the church some systematic organization. 1983. that of Abraham’s banquet. 2 Compensation and continuity Just as it was to do in other societies.354. Thomson. and hence salvation.21 He also set up Greek and Syriac schools. 1 9 7 6 . pp.3 0 0 -c. Overseers were set over them. the success of Christianity in Armenia was to involve compromises and accommodations with tradi­ tional attitudes and behaviour which compensated for the tensions between them. though they had demonic con­ notations and had been unpleasant company for Gregory in his pitprison. and certainly the new faith proved sufficiently well established to survive the setbacks that were to follow his death.24 Hunting scenes. and extended its contact with the people. It was ordered that almshouses and hospitals were to be established throughout Armenia. and appointed more bishops. Garsoi'an. There are numerous examples of continuity of religious imagery and symbols. The reliefs of the royal necropolis built at Ajdzkc in the 360s гі 22 23 24 Rather than Basil of Caesarea. in saints’ cults and in protection against evil. only seven are identifiable at the end of the fourth century. Even then however.23 The banquet.4 2 8 It was Nerses who tackled these difficulties. and have traditionally been associated with wisdom. They appear in eccle­ siastical architecture and are still to be found ornamenting the cross on the staff of the vardapet (teacher. common on Greek funeral steles. bishoprics were few. c. compared to nineteen by the mid-fifth century and twenty-eight by the mid-sixth. His council at Ashtishat. as recounted in the fifth century by Agathangelos. the feast with the bridegroom. built dwellings for consecrated virgins.122 Christianity and the E nd o f the Monarchy. 1 9 70. Serpents. .22 Nerses’ work is recorded as having been successful. Adontz-Garsoian. Nerses’ model in these charitable activities may have been Eustathius of Sebasteia. set down canonical regulations. In a passage on Paradise. symbolizing victory over evil. into another. 2 5 4 -6 0 . were also regarded by the people as protectors of houses. 1982. in personnel. 2 6 9 . derive from Iranian religious tradition as well as from Biblical images.

written by Vrtcan6s K certcoj.. angels and apostles. c. went to T cordan.3 0 0 -c . and those of Vrtcanes and Yusik. now in a niche in the church at Ödzun.Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy. A number of measures neatly combined allowing continuity. 4 9 6 . though possibly early seventh-century) Мапиёі. pp. 3 1 6 -2 1 . pp. pp. Thomson. Thomson. 29 Garsoian. (probably sixthcentury. text and trans. and Gospels painted in gold and silver on purple parchment and bound in ivory. 3 4 6 -5 3 . with weakening the old order and removing opportunity for non-conformity. Thus at chapels in Ashtishat. 1946. full of treasures and statues. pp. p. 28 Ibid. At the church of Ptjni. of Gospel scenes. of The Teaching o f St G regory paras 6 4 8 . pp. 3 2 1 . 1 6 0 -6 2 trans.29 Some pagan festivals were ousted by Christian ones. 7 8 1 . where the memory of Vrtcanes was commemorated annually. 26 Der Nersessian. Pagan properties. of prophets. 1 9 7 6 . 3 2 0 .4 2 8 123 include one of a hunt scene. 3 75 (and his notes. 7 1 9 . martyred in Sebasteia under Diocletian. between 25 Agathangelos. 27 Agathangelos. wall paintings and holy objects. Gregory. 1 9 7 6 . Thomson. Christian church. 1 9 8 9 .26 An example of a cult image may be the enthroned Virgin and Child. There is some evidence to suggest that members of the pagan priestly class were retrained as Christian clerics. text and trans. 3 7 4 . An attack on opponents of images. attests with approval representations o f the Virgin and Child. Gregory installed relics o f John the Baptist and of St Atcanagines. 8 0 9 -1 5 . Impressive churches offered sculptured reliefs.5 1 .27 Pagan sites were made into Christian ones. but in a new context. is sculpted in a hunting scene below images of Christ. apostles and saints. Lord of the Amatunis. and those o f AristakSs and Nersfis to T cil. 2 6 1 . 1 9 7 6 . in about 3 5 6 -9 . 7 7 8 -8 1 . and of the Cross. See also below n. were transferred by Tiridates and Gregory to the new. like the crown of martydom. personnel and land at Artax­ ata. And for the funeral crowns with which pagans had hon­ oured the dead the Church Fathers provided Christian substitutes. 2 6 0 . and he promised that at the Resurrection the just and the sinners would have crowns o f flowers and thorns. for example the goddess Anahit’s property. locum tenens of the headship of the church 6 0 4 -7 . but they were given Christian replacements. 4 9 4 ). 4 9 5 . . 47. offered his audience a share of the crown of the martyred nuns. and a feast of Vahagn. 1 9 4 4 -5 . which was carved in the late sixth or very early seventh century. text and trans. even if they were only images. to replace the festivals of Amanor and Vanatur on New Year’s Day at Bagawan. 2 9 and pp. Thomson. 8 4 0 . GayianS and Hripcsim6. The Annunciation replaced. or perhaps our fifth-century source using him as mouthpiece. 1 9 7 0 . of the martyr­ dom of Gregory. 4 8 4 .28 T cordan and T cil were the burial sites for Gregory’s line o f patriarchs: his own remains. Feasts of John the Baptist and St Atcanagin6s were established.25 Armenian worshippers lost their visually splendid temples.

Plate 6 U pper h a lf o f scu lpted en th ron ed Virgin an d Child. but p ossibly originally a cult object. . (sixth or seventh century) set in the interior o f the north w all o f a seventh-century church at Ö dzun.

428 125 468 and 4 7 1 . folklore and custom and ritual. John Mamikonean.3 . But his reconstruction may be anachronis­ tic. John Chrysostom’s approval was limited to praising the will of God and to making the sign of the Cross.)32 Elsewhere in the early Christian world the Cross came to be used as a protective device against demons. says that Gregory allowed this in order to conciliate former pagan priests who feared poverty. 31 Agathangelos. in the so-called Canons of Sahak.5 0 3 (for fire cult). The early church condemned sorcery. hawrot-mawrot.30 And animal sacrifice continued. 3 1 9 . On floors. The name of a flower used in popular rites on Ascension Day. 32 If Agathangelos’ descriptions are accepted. According to Agathangelos. probably by Patriarch Sahak (387P -439). to replace one o f Aphrodite. but it had its own rites and miracles. since they would be trodden on. By the late fourth century this had become a well-established practice in nearby Syria. It was perhaps to distinguish the Christian rite from Zoroastrian practice that young animals were used rather than mature ones. Passages in the History o f Tarön by Ps. 4 9 7 . by making it. pp. 2 0 2 .Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy. 8 1 3 .31 (These attacks will have been between 312 and 3 3 0 /3 3 1 . с. including the ancient apotropaic symbol of the knot. a feast of Anahit. N or did Christianity leave people helpless against old demons and rejected gods. One tradi­ tion. Angels 30 Russell. 3 5 0 . . that there was actually no significant difference between Christian and pagan ‘magic’ other than whether it enjoyed ecclesiastical approval. as some scholars believe. 2 1 7 (for Vahagn and John the Baptist). then these attacks anticipated similar events in the Roman Empire by some fifty years. promising them an increased share in the proceeds. coloured by a (fifth-century) perception of such attacks as natural. 7 7 9 . pp. apparently. There was a large element of continuity too in saints’ cults. Elements of the cult of fire survive in Candlemas celebrations. Thomson. but this sign could. 1 987. Where sacrifice was in memory of the dead it was effectively a Christian substitute for sacrifice to them. These in their turn prompted pagan accusations that the church itself practiced magic and it is possible. which it associated with paganism. there other decorative motifs. 1 9 7 6 . which were thought particularly to need protection. 351. be far more efficacious than any pagan spell or amulet.ЗОО— с. preserves names of two divinities. suggest that some of the qualities of Vahagn had been trans­ ferred to John the Baptist. crosses were unsuitable (and indeed forbidden in the Roman Empire by an edict o f 4 2 7 ). 1 9 9 -2 0 1 . so its use may be connected with Zoroastrian practice. probably compiled early in the seventh century. 37 5 (for flower). and the Transfiguration was established. Haurvatät and Am6r£tät guardians of the waters and plants. Gregory brought down Anahit’s temple at Artaxata and a wind blowing from a wooden Cross which he held destroyed the temples at Ashtishat. 3 1 8 . for example on bookcovers and at entrances to buildings. written purportedly in the seventh century but actually in the tenth. text and trans. were used.

As an example let us consider Christian continuation of the ancient use of charms.4 2 8 were another source of protection. the only purpose of such ecclesiastical art. and.126 Christianity and the E nd o f the Monarchy. of course. Christian polemic. to us.33 Yet whether such accommodations between Christianity and society as some Christians approving o f amulets should be interpreted as signs that Christianity had had only a superficial impact in society is a matter for debate. On each side of the central window of the sixth. historical change and modern outlooks. Fourth-century clerical amulet-makers might themselves be scandalized by 1990s Church of England vicars doubting the Resurrection. Protective motifs of these kinds occur at entry points in Armenian churches. and Mahe. Some compromises may sometimes seem. c.3 0 0 -c. extreme. and the snakes’ bodies intertwine to form a knot above it.to seventh-century scholar John Mayragometsci. J. The Church taught that the souls of the faithful were carried to heaven by angels who guarded them from dangers on the way.or seventhcentury church at Ödzun for example is an angel holding a snake. At one extreme lie the twin sons of 33 Feydit. but probably written by the sixth. attributed to the fifth-century Armenian patriarch John Mandakuni. The serpents. Christ. . meant to function at more than one level.-P. perhaps in Christianized or new forms. opinion and practice within church and society was no more uniform in antiquity than it is now. the Armenians may be charged with the adultera­ tion of Christianity. A homily on charms. A similar serpent knot tops the centre of the window of the south portal at the seventh-century church of Mren. It touches upon anthropology.. 1 9 8 8 -9 . like other people. and it is probable that artistic representations were. for example. None can tell which God prefers. There are often several images together: the combinations affect their meaning. 3 Compromise and adjustment The Church’s ability to offer its converts some religious continuity and effective protection against rejected gods and evil spirits enhanced the acceptibility of Christianity but it went hand in hand with compromise and adjustment. In fact. even singly. may have been meant as reference to Gregory in the pit. That some people hoped for more than this is suggested by the concern of the mid-fourth-century Council of Laodicea that angels were sometimes the object of exaggerated veneration resembling magic. suggests that Armenians shared this predeliction for amulets. That some fourth-century clerics made amulets and that some Christians wore them is suggested by the fact that the Laodicean synod forbade both. Protection was not. 1 9 8 6 . two angels and six apostles guard a window in the Ptjni church.

and worthy. III. xii. Other ecclesiastical revenues mentioned include payments to priests of fruits of the earth. trans. 234. Nerses’ deputy whilst Nerses was in exile from 359 to 368. Zawen’s costume may have been a continuation of a pagan practice. against their own wishes. Garsoian. Arsaces gave Khad gold. and by priests. 1 9 89.39 34 Epic Histories. silver. History o f the Armenians.38 As Khad’s sad case suggests. 1987. Garsoian. Our fifth-century source disapproved.. his long white beard glistening with gold dust fixed with sweet-smelling ointment. apparently. xix. trans. the property of the church was to include many horses. Maksoudian. royal ornaments of silk woven with gold and many royal horses.3 0 0 -c. p. X X II. 37 Epic H istories . specifying a horse and an ox if the dead man had owned any.36 Zawen. and fox pelts. . patriarch from 717/8 to 728/9. which. wolf skins. IV. They enjoyed themselves with harlots. with braided and spangled garments. pp. in the hope of softening his opposition to royal policy. the patriarch of the late 370s.4 2 8 127 Yusik I who became deacons. I.35 Moses of Khoren informs us that Khad was mocked by people he reproached until he gave up his glamorous clothes and horses for a hair shirt and a donkey. trans. c. to bishops. A particular. In commem­ oration of the dead it required an offering from all laymen annually. 1 0 -3 1 . pp. 2 8 8 -9 . VI. ermine. His justification was that. 1 3 4 -6 . 1 1 0 -1 1 . His underclothes by contrast were of goat’s hair. were of course of practical use. One was the accumulation and exhibition of wealth. Dowsett. purpose of ostentation was to maintain episcopal dignity. They condemned the way ‘some nobility’ and ‘plebeian cavalry’ desecrated monasteries by lodging there with their minstrels and dancing girls. 38 John Katholikos. trans. A perception of simple susceptibility to secular mores is illustrated in accounts of King Arsaces II’s (350P -67/8) patronage of Khad. routinely appeared in fine clothes. harnessed horse and whatever else he could afford. singing girls. minstrels and buffoons at the bishop’s residence at Ashtishat. John of Odzun. 35 Ibid. Thomson. albeit. 1 9 7 8 . 9 3 -4 . trans. trans. 2 6. 1961b . 51. 36 Moses. besides being associated with aristocratic lifestyle. 3 1 . 9 1. recording that God struck them down. 1 989. p. ii. of money on ordination and of annual gifts.Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy. pp. pp. Garsoian. maintained an ostentatious attire. 1 9 89.37 Since in primitive societies priests may wear animal skins to acquire the sanctity or qualities of their original occupants. in default of miracles. III.34 The clerics at the fourth Council of Duin in 645 also took a rigorous stance against relaxed attitudes. 39 Moses Daskhurantsci. The Albanian council of the 480s stipul­ ated that for the soul of every royal and noble man should be given a saddled. The Armenian church adapted to secular society in a number of ways. sables. xv. splendid garments were necessary ‘to impress the simple and immature minds of men with the fear of God’.

4 2 7 . Khad was succeeded by his son-in-law. Such sentiments may lie behind stories of the late fourth-century bishop John: that he forcibly ordained an unbaptized catechumen and evildoer.128 Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy. 1 9 8 9 . x. A Byzantine council of 692 criticized the Armenian restriction of ordination to descendants of families of priests.3 0 0 -c. The early church not only came to terms with ostentation and sin. 2 3 7 -8 . ‘I am a cam el’ ‘put the sins of the king on me’. pp. as secular aristocratic office was. John the buffoon was the son of Patriarch І^аігёп. and that he played the buffoon whenever he was with the king. son of Patriarch Yusik. Consequently mechanisms for dealing with post-baptismal sins evolved. with the assent of the bishops. c . so that the kings put sealed deeds. although another suggestion. Grigoris’s twin nephews Pap and Atcanagines. because he was buried at Ashtishat. who may himself have belonged to the dynasty of A{bianos o f Manazkert. In Armenia this involved an evolution of an alliance between patriarch and aristocracy. Gregory’s family may also have spawned the scholar-missionary Mesrop (Mashtotsc) for he may have been the son of Vrik.41 M ore important than these family connections is that ecclesias­ tical norms were transgressed in order that the patriarchate should remain in the Illuminator’s family. . and beliefs in the efficacy of intercession and of donations for the salva­ tion of the soul. in order to take his horse as a reward. the early history of the Church in general. is that he belonged to Gregory’s. as 40 E pic H istories. In other times. on his back in exchange for their sins. There were at least three episcopal families in Armenia in the fourth century. Garsoian.4 2 8 Prospects and realities of wealth can of course lead to cupidity and to resentment and censure. VI. forcibly ordained as deacons. Some of these demands were hard. the Church made further demands on its members to test them. viii. One of its manifestations is that spiritual office came to be viewed. 4 2 8 . 41 Garsoian. Gifts to God could be perceived as compensation for offences against Him. 2 3 6 .7 . were. suggests that even in this caricature there may have been worthy purpose. to save from despair and damnation those members who were incapable of m onoto­ nous virtue. 1 9 89. it also adapted its definitions of good practice and virtue. for villages and estates. and hence a second cousin of Patriarch Sahak. Gregory’s grandson Grigoris was made bishop at fifteen. as hereditary. In Armenia a concept that a gift which is made to atone for sin somehow incorporates that sin is implicit in the tale of John’s braying and is also found in one of the canons attributed to St Sahak. 3 9 9 . 4 3 1 . crawling and braying. It was only in times of persecution that the mere profession of Christianity was demanding and so signified sincere com­ mitment to it. the illegitimate son of Pap. Thus the early church developed confession and penance. pp.40 Yet consideration of the wider context. trans.

As the church accommodated wealth and aristocratic family feeling so too it compromised with the warrior ethic of Armenian elite society. But our fifth-century clerical source chose to represent Yusik’s subsequent continence as the consequence of an unhappy vision of his twin sons. Strength of family feeling is perhaps one explanation for the failure of the Gregorid leaders of the Armenian church to espouse virginity. decreed in the 370s that all priests were to wear military dress. in various ways. 43 Agathangelos. c. pp. The council had anathametized condemnation of marriage and refusal of the Eucharist celebrated by married priests. and his two successors followed his regulations. rather than of a belief that marriage would pollute.0 0 0 . were prefaced with a letter to the bishops of the province of Armenia where the ideas it denounced were strong. 1 9 8 9 . who besieged Vrtcanes at Ash­ tishat.. 3 2 5 .3 0 0 -c. . 4 8 4 (note) for criticism of Chaumont’s theory that the ‘demons’ were humans. Garsoian. may have been temple military contingents. Hewsen.7 7 8 . pp. trans. The patriarch Zawen even. The passage of Nerses from military to ecclesiastical leadership was far from the only instance of this adjustment. apparently by being miraculously and invisibly tied up. 44 Epic H istories. Yusik.9 .43 The pagans. Gregory had taken troops to pagan sites. Grigoris did not marry. and by the influence of the Greek church. 3 2 4 . and of cavalry and infantry. c. pp. baptism was conditional upon renunciation of sexual activity. The more relaxed attitude of the Gregorids is perhaps also explic­ able by the legacy of Zoroastrianism which condemned sexual conti­ nence. III.Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy. had long been attempting procreation before begetting his own twins. The ‘demons’ who opposed him at Erez and Artaxata in the shape of an army carrying shields. Military prowess and Christian profession were closely connected. 3 1 6 . 1 9 8 5 -6 . though they subsequently opted for a military career. 1 9 7 6 . iii. The canons of the 645 42 Ibid. Vrtcanes. were defeated. Admittedly Gregory’s son Aristakes preceded his brother as patriarch because he was celibate. 5 3 -4 . Christians had offered armed resistance to persecution in 311/312. even in the third century. and his brother.4 2 8 129 preparation for rule. One was Christian use of force. Atcanagines’s son Nerses was also forcibly ordained.3 4 0 . he was ineligible. though it had ceased to be so by the 330s. and made patriarch at the urging of the council. 7 8 6 . up to 2 . though strictly speaking. despite the disapproval of his in-laws.42 In the early Syriac-speaking church veneration of celibacy was such that. The canons of the Council of Gangra. text and trans. Thomson. And Yusik’s own father. as a military man. but probably by armed men. for some reason unknown. limited conjugal relations to the first night. accepts the military interpretation.3 1 7 and his p. as the influence of Syria on early Armenian Christianity could theoretically have led them to do.44 Another accommodation was the willingness of Christians to fight. 6 8 -9 .

e. previously. 2. 156. 2 1 7 . 7 9 9 . but he does also use nahatak of them sometimes. so that ‘we may receive the crown as reward’. For the athletic image. rendered martyrdom in the authorative translation by Thomson. c . 9 0 5 ). 2 1 6 . 1 4 5 -8 for the crown of martyrdom. bravery and the like. 1 47 for Jerom e’s identification of the crowns of martyrdom and of virginity as crowns of roses and violets respectively. pp. pp. 7 n. seemingly to signify passive and active witness respectively. one of roses and violets. and of the two different crowns.50 Agathangelos almost always prefers vkay in his account of Hripcsime and her fellow martyrs. Not until the eighth and ninth centuries do clerics seem to have ceased to perform military service. According to Jerome (c. 1 4 8 -9 for the crown of sanctity. 52 Thomson. see Malone.4 2 8 Council of Duin envisage clerics abandoning their spiritual duty in order to become soldiers. 1 9 8 5 . p. in both Greek and Syriac. pp. ‘previously applied to martyrs’ was ‘used in connection with ascetics’ (p. to describe martyrs and ascetics. This development is best understood in the context of the early church’s refinement of its ideas about martyrdom. he says. they prayed for ‘the cup o f nahatakdom'. pp. the other of lilies. 1 7 -1 8 and p. . 5 8. who views the ascetic as ‘in many ways the successor of the m artyr’ emphasizing that ‘much of the terminology’. text and trans. Another was philosophy. later.130 Christianity and the E nd o f the Monarchy. 47 Rush. 1982b . 50 Thomson. 48 Stancliffe. 1 973. pp. n. p. And.3 48— 420) ‘the service of a devout soul is also a martyrdom and a daily martyrdom’. vii). 1 984. also Brock. Cf. pp. 108. Contemplation. They are used in Armenian translations for Greek words mean­ ing champion and combatant. 1 976. no. fighting itself had acquired a religious aura. p. a harsh life was actually preferable to martyrdom by blood. As a consequence it acquired a high status. 5 8 . and p. vkay and nahatak .52 implicitly gave military and political 45 Malone. 1 9 5 0 .g. 1 9 7 6 .46 In philosophical terms. terminology which is itself much used. pp. demonstrates that ‘the ascetic and then the monk came to fill the place that had been left vacant by the martyr’ (p. esp. 157. and possibly earlier. 1982. note to Agathangelos. to be regarded by the Irish as a third type of martyrdom. 6 4 -9 0 . By the late fifth century. 148 for Jerom e’s view of sanctity as a daily and second kind of martyrdom ( Letters. n.49 Nahatak and words associated with nahatak have meanings of hero. while that of traditional martyrdom was of roses and violets. col. self­ purification and suffering. 1 9 4 1 . which. and 1982b . 2 1 0 .47 Doing penance was. 49 Frendo. 148. 3 3 -4 6 . were recommended as means to union with God.51 The use of nahatak for laymen fighting against anti-Christian enemies (as in the sixth-century EHshe’s account of the mid-fifth-century Armen­ ian rebellion against Persia). Its crown was of lilies. as Christ had done. 46 Petterson. Thomson. had generated martyrs.45 One stimulus to this refinement was the cessation of persecution. 2).3 0 0 -c. 14.48 Armenian came to use two words for martyr. 51 Agathangelos. 1 7 -1 8 . 4 8 8 . 1 950. which was to be given to their relatives. 2. athlete. Those who did not return within three years were to be rejected from the privilege of the church.

56 The drawing together of patriarchate and aristocracy. It grew to more than 2 0 . pp. It is true that some luminaries of the early church had reservations about military service. as its authority. abstention from the Eucharist for three years. expect early Armenian Christian heroes to have opted out of war. and in the failure of the church to establish itself in cities. and killing in war necessitated penance.Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy. along the lines of towns sponsored by the Sasan53 54 55 56 57 Epic H istories. MusheJ’s betrayal at a royal banquet. have prompted a suggestion that Mushel was actually perceived as being Christ-like. xi. and perhaps of trade. though it seems that the Byzantine Church in practice tended to disregard his recommendation. trans. south of the River Araxes). trans.0 0 0 households. by King Arsaces II.53 A third indication that violence against enemies of the church was regarded as intrinsically pious may lie in the oral tradition concerning Mushej Mamikonean which is preserved in the same text. M ushej’s contemporary. He destroyed Zoroastrian temples which had been erected after another Persian invasion and roasted their adherents. 8 0 -1 . many Christians had pursued military careers. c. probably. p. of course. 22. Garsoian. so he referred to the dead as ‘our pious martyrs’ and told the grieving king and army that ‘the memory of their valour’ should be preserved ‘as martyrs of Christ’. III. the Armenian attitudes had an element of originality. By the fourth century. and his house­ hold’s expectation of his resurrection. 1 9 8 9 . V. i. of Arshakawan (not precisely located in our sources. to make Arshakawan a centre of royal authority. His intention was.57 The only fourth-century urban project was the foundation. but these are more likely related to a consciousness of particular non-Christian practices and beliefs within the Roman army than to a belief that Christians should be pacifist. 1 8 6 -7 .54 Other elements in the text. MusheJ was commander-in-chief in the 360s. 1 9 8 3 . 1987. 1981.4 2 8 131 actions and heroes therein an aura of sanctity. The Persians would have restored Zoroastrianism. The tenthcentury Byzantine Church was to reject the suggestion of the emperor Nicephorus II (9 6 3 -9 ) that those who fell in Byzantium’s wars should be ranked as martyrs. Ibid.55 We should not. 1 989. where he was seized by twelve men primed by the king. and he had Persian sympathizers flayed and stuffed in vengeance for his father.3 0 0 -c . pp.. for example. Bedrosian. Arsaces built a royal palace there. Garsoian. and of their interests. More explicit is the fifthcentury Epic Histories’ account of Patriarch Vrtcanes’s reaction to the defeat of the Persian invasion of about 338. war was sinful. . but in Ayrarat. can be seen not only in hereditary succession and pious warfare but also in the anti-urban policy of Nerses. Garsoian. M cLin. Neverthe­ less. According to Basil. It cited Basil of Caesarea.

c . both foreign and domestic. in fulfil­ ment of the curse. according to the Epic Histories. Hence Arsha­ kawan was stigmatized as a refuge for outlaws. Crown. built between the fourth and seventh centuries. The creation of separate bishoprics for the more powerful families may have begun. but with the complicity of the commander-in-chief. and 1 3 4 . The climax was the murder of Nerses by King Pap (C . nor the many smaller ones were near towns. Shahapivan.3 0 0 -c. according to Moses of Khoren. translating Epic Histories. by Roman hands. debtors.by plague. xii-xiii. neither the large churches.3 7 9 -c . .3 8 4 . what eventually occurred was that the alliance of church and aristocracy grew stronger. c. Pap was murdered in his turn. 1970. son of the first Christian king 58 Garsoian. p. He had encouraged settlement there by offering newcomers immu­ nity from any bloodfeud or legal process currently pending. Ashtishat.374). trans. And it was soon destroyed . The normal episcopal signature at councils took the form of ‘X .3 . and the Iberian alliance which the Roman emperor Diocletian had restored had been further cemented by the mar­ riage of Tiridates’ daughter Salome.368-C . Nerses himself cursed both Arshakawan and Arsaces when he refused to demolish it. 2 7 .60 during the peaceful regency of M an­ uel Mamikonean.4 2 8 ians. bishop of the [family name]’. Nerses’ vicar Khad refused to set up an altar in its church. in contrast to his Greek models. III. 1 9 8 9 . IV. 5 2 . renegades and evildoers of all kinds. true. O f the churches we know about. was a royal camp site. but none. 2 8 2 -3 . Peace between Rome and Persia had lasted. pp. How had this come about? Royal policy. His council and headquarters were at a village. had after all been relatively successful until the late 330s.9 . poisoned at a banquet because of his perpetual reproof. In life the patriarchs were often at the royal court and in death at their villages of T cil and T cordan.132 Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy. perhaps in vengeance for Nerses. Church and Aristocracy Although one of Tiridates IV’s purposes in introducing Christianity was to strengthen the crown. were near cities.59 Nerses’ anti-urban preferences can also be seen in his charitable activities. 59 Moses. 1 978.58 but by aristocratic attack and slaughter. His foundations spread over villages. Whereas in the Roman Empire bishops were bishops of towns. Thomson. to Rev. The meeting place of the 4 4 4 church Council. as Adontz suggested. 286. pp. Armenian bishops were represen­ tatives of aristocratic families and their domains. Nerses’ successors and colleagues likewise eschewed towns. 60 Adontz-Garsoian. hamlets and deserts. whilst the partnership of patri­ arch and king broke down.

For the sparapet who dealt with the Mazkcutckc remained loyal and there was support from Rome. Hannibalianus died in 33 7 . at the con­ fluence of the Tigris and Bohtan Su. on the border of rebellious Arzanene and Corduene. c. probably. and the greatest magnates ordered to remain with the king. In Armenia there was pagan and aristocratic revolt. however. Constantius also strengthened the border. to oust the Sasanians. Tiran (3 3 8 -5 0 ?). to be succeeded. and an invasion. Rome yet again saved the kingship after Khosrov was. Rome sent an army to assist against the prince of Arzanene. defeated the Persians. born in 309 after Narses’ death. to take Nisibis. reached adult­ hood. The kings could not afford to conciliate their patriarchs if this would have offended their imperial protectors. enemies defeated. nevertheless. The reign of Tiran’s son Arsaces II saw some royal successes but ended disastrously. Khosrov III survived. 1967b. in 350. as king of Armenia in 335/6. by his son Khosrov III (3 3 0 -8 /9 ). Tiridates had been murdered in 330/1. The patriarch Yusik I was beaten to death and his nominated successor strangled for their rebuke of Tiran. was probably one of his constructions. restored the Armenian king. pardoned the Armenian rebels and. nephew of the emperor Constantine. But the Armenian patriarchs did not. There was also a Persian invasion.61 The Armenian kings followed their lead. and co-king there from 345 to 361. War between Rome and Persia had revived c. after the death of Constantine in 3 3 7 until 3 8 0 . under his eye. Arianism was espoused by all the Roman emperors. Roman 61 Garsoian. This king was. Yet despite these traumas. As a result he was arrested and blinded. Their (Arsacid) king. Once Narses of Persia’s son Shapur II. . rebels were annihilated.Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy. The fort at Tille. held Armenia in sub­ jection for a year. 336. for they needed Roman assistance in their defence against and pursuit of vengeance upon the Sasanians. It may have been in connection with these events that Rome nominated Hannibalianus. instability had recurred. except the pagan Julian.4 2 8 133 of Iberia.3 0 0 -c . with imperial help. probably in consultation with the patriarch. SanSsan. subsequently driven out of his kingdom (as is suggested in a work of the future Roman emperor Julian (3 6 1 -3 )). in which Shapur II was involved. probably. who was waging war against Khosrov with Persian support and princes of Rome’s other principalities also joined in on Khosrov’s side. Tiran seems subsequently to have been reported to Shapur II for intending. Arsaces’ installation had followed the Roman-Persian truce inaugurated by Shapur II’s third failure. This explains their mutual estrange­ ment. In 338 the emperor Constantius II (3 3 7 -6 1 ) came to Arzanene. one of the Roman principalities. of the M azkcutckc. It was the Arian heresy which from the late 330s had undermined Tiridates IV ’s plans and the established order. Mirian III.

but he may. but the royal bones were recovered by the sparapet so that their attendant ‘glory’ would not pass away. a success. Jovian ceded (see map 6.3 9 5 ) as a Persian embassy from Sha­ pur. 95 and n.) He appeased the Mamikoneans. was described by Ammianus as ‘shameful’. made with Persia. 10. Cf. ch. his foster-family.64 The prince of Corduene.. Gnel had ambitions to reign himself. 1 9 8 9 . Ibid. ii. 5 p. Arsaces’ marriage to his Roman bride. Unfortunately the emperor Julian’s campaign of 363. every official in his station’.3 0 0 -c. have aligned himself with Persia. Rehimene65 and Corduene66 with fifteen castles. He kept the nobility at court. ch. trans. 66 Cf. Garsoi'an. and had considerable aristocratic support. Shapur II invaded Roman Mesopotamia and Patriarch Nerses was exiled. reversing some provisions of the 298/9 Treaty of Nisibis. restoring the office of sparapet to them. 1969. above. Garsoi'an. was a failure with disastrous repercussions for Armenia.134 Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy.3 3 0 -c. ГѴ. Epic H istories. Olympias. temporarily. p. including the great fortress of Artagers. or after. remained loyal. xxiv. The resentment which his foundation of Arshaka­ wan aroused demonstrates that his urban policy was.63 He also seized from the aristocracy many domains. who had been a hostage in Syria. who had broken away under Tiran. ‘every magnate on his throne. 5 pp. taxation exemptions and a marriage alliance. M oxoene.361. for a while. Pcarandzem. which Arsaces supported. Jovian. probably for his opposition to Arianism. The Persians pillaged the royal tombs at Ani. Arsaces won the return of royal hostages (his nephews Gnel and Tiritc). 108. 35. but Arsaces had him executed in 359. The peace which Julian’s successor. But in 359 problems arose. despite the defections of Vahan Mamikonean and Meruzhan Artsruni (head of the house of Roman Sophene) and the capture of Tigranocerta. p. trans. which probably 62 63 64 65 Garsoi'an. For not only do the Epic Histories record that Arsaces ravaged Roman territory for six years. 12). According to the Epic Histories he renewed the kingdom. c. He retained alliance with the family of Siwnikc by wedding Gnel’s widow. Arsaces also managed to exercise strong internal control.4 2 8 sources represent Arsaces as a loyal Roman ally.62 Whatever Shapur wanted. . 2 9 4 (n. 158 and her p. Zabdicene. but the embassy on which in 358 Arsaces sent the patriarch Nerses to the Roman Empire is probably the same one recorded by the contemporary Roman soldier and historian Ammianus Marcellinus (c. 101 and n. (It is unclear whether these nuptials came before. above. for the royal treasury.2) the Armenian territories of Arzanene. 1 9 8 9 . whose murder I^arandzem arranged c. Arsaces himself did reasonably well in the new Roman-Persian war. except for Sanatruk’s. and partici­ pated in a Persian campaign near Nisibis.

trans. Ammianus records that he was subsequently blinded and executed. 1967b. their alliance broke down.69 some quite large and many in 67 Epic Histories. her p. Sophanene. IV. but it had led to internal difficulties. or may signify. Devotion to demons could signify paganism/Zoroastrianism. The Patriarch himself apparently held fifteen ‘districts’. But yet again Rome intervened. Gogarene (disputed with Iberia). to whom Shapur entrusted his gains. p. mostly to Persia. 2 8 3 (n. These last may have caused. xxxii. 69 Epic H istories. 4 9 7 . 68 The Epic Histories depict Pap as a sodomist possessed by demons visible as snakes. . under the emperor Valens (3 6 4 -7 8 ). The accusation of sodomy was often levelled against early medieval heretics. Pap’s Arianism68 ought to have protected him. p. comprising former temple lands. Sasanian policy was to engineer the transfer of Armenian noble allegiance. either to Persia or to Rome. installing another king. her pp. trans. Caspiane. The great cities were destroyed. whilst the crown’s comprised about twice that. in alliance with imperial forces which were. V. and. The results were dire. the Armenian sources that he committed suicide. Garsoian. Others suf­ fered too. Captives were killed. son of Arsaces and Pcarandzem. Arzanene. 3). Pap (c. in obedience to imperial order. Edessa and other cities from Rom e. who had been a hostage at the imperial court and educated at Neocaesarea (now Niksar) in Pontus. Rome undertook not to give Armenia any military assistance against Persia. to campaign in Armenia for nearly eight years. Church property.3 0 0 -c . 2 1 3 and for comment. c. In about 370 the sparapet Mushej regained a great deal of territory which had been lost to Persia: Gordyene. 1 9 8 9 . 3 6 8 c. (disputed with Albania). Garsoian. 324 (n. xiv. had been a serious problem. 1 9 8 9 .6 . since no-one was willing to fight for him. to exact vengeance from those who had supported the Persians. Persia invaded. When Pap was mur­ dered it was by a Roman official. for the church had become a powerful institution. Norshirakan. 4 5 5 .Christianity and the E nd o f the Monarchy. Mushej also conquered three Roman territories. and to beat off Persian offensives. began to restore Zoroastrianism and establish the cult of fire. Some aristocrats fled. Worse. domains in Media Atropatene. and the lands up to the Kura river.4 2 8 135 included Tille. reflected also in the strange statement of the Epic Histories that Pap claimed Caesarea. royal grants and confiscated principalities comprised about one-seventh of the kingdom. 139 and for comment. Anzitene and Ingilene. Arsaces surrendered. Pap’s tasks were to suppress Zoroastrianism. The opposition of the orthodox Nerses. perhaps estates rather than entire ‘districts’. 3 74).67 Whatever the reason. 3). Their inhabitants were deported. tension between king and emperor over territory. and to abolish the Armenian kingship. Garsoian. A number of nobles deserted. who had returned from exile at Pap’s accession. Vahan Mamikonean and Meruzhan Artsruni.

1 9 8 9 . Pap had responded to Nerses’ unwelcome power by dismantling the charitable foundations.1 3 . continued their careers as hermits and as overseers of eremetical communities. and there are different views about their careers. Ecclesiastical influence had been extended by Nersfcs’ charitable foundations and organizational work.). but it seems that the murdered Yusik had been followed by Рсагёп (3 4 8 -5 2 ?) and then Shahak (Isaac). Then came Yusik’s brothers. disciples of the Syrian bishop Daniel of Ashtishat. The figures are shadowy. trans. . pp. 70 Ibid. This caused a breach with the Church of Caesarea. another Shahak and Aspurakes. They included a suggestion that the king’s subjects so hated him that they were likely to support the Persians. Dedeyan (ed. And the fact that Nersfis’ disapproval of Arsaces’ Arshakawan had contributed to its destruction boded ill for any future royal projects. in collusion with the sparapet. like his predecessors. Pap appointed Yusik II.8 . the royal domain. Garsoian.71 Such monks and holy men must have helped in the destruction of pre-Christian religion among the rural population in Armenia. 27 3 (n. Their impact must have contrib­ uted to the strength of the Syrian influence in religious terminology. 2 1 1 . Epipcan and Gind. Pap had looked. and then he fled back to Armenia. The End of Royal Power Pap’s murder of Nerses led. Mushej Mamikonean.70 Though our sources place it afterwards. p. to the dynasty of Ajbianos of Manazkert. x x x i.4 2 8 Ayrarat. Zawgn. To replace his opponent. to a weakening of his Roman alliance. forbidding the payment of dues to the church and confiscating fivesevenths of the lands which Tiridates IV had given for the support of the church. The imperial general in Armenia colluded with Armenian dis­ sidents and made allegations against him. So Pap was summoned to Tarsus. p. 1 9 6 0. however. 5 3 . Only Zawfin failed to win respect. His own murder was organized by the very general who had brought him to power. probably the Isacoces who represented Greater Armenia at the Council of Antioch in 363. pp. an orthodox friend of Basil of Caesarea whom Pap had alienated by his appointment of Yusik II. on which the Armenian Church had hitherto been dependent. Armenian Christianity was not. 152. Pap’s assault may have preceded and so partly caused the final crisis in his relationship with NersCs and the latter’s murder. V.136 Christianity and the E nd o f the Monarchy. 71 Voobus. as they did not only in Syria but elsewhere in the Roman east. 1 989.3 0 0 -c . paradoxically. c . imperilled by these ‘alternat­ ive’ patriarchs. For the suggestion as to timing. 1 9 82. 19). These resembled communities which were being formed at this time in Syria. Garsoian..

and the precise boundary lines were probably settled later (Blockley. At first. bordering Lesser Armenia (which was now augmented and divided into two provinces). Arshak (Arsaces) III (3 7 8 -9 0 ?).384. however. Albania and Iberia recovered their losses of C . C. but Rome refused to ratify their transfer and Persia recovered them. 72 Rome took Sophene. 3 8 7 and 3 8 9 have been suggested. who died soon after. Varazdat fled to the Roman Empire and.3 0 0 -c. the domains in Atropatene. of encouraging Armenian defection to Rome or Persia. Whereupon Rome. c. according to one tradition. 3 7 4 -8 ). installed Khosrov IV (3 8 4 -9 ? ). Arsaces’ kingdom. M ushej’s kins­ man Manuel brought about the fall of Varazdat. and the territory between Lake Urmia and the Caspian Sea. was the more westerly. Zarawand-Her. Gordyene. but it may be that Rome was refusing to cooperate in a renewal of Persia’s policy of 363.378. visiting Shapur II. 1987). probably. It is not clear what lies behind this episode. . and acted as regent for Pap’s widow and Pap’s two sons. accepted some small territories in Armenia which Shapur offered. Norshirakan. in 3 8 7 . Мапиёі became sparapet. Valens and Mushel agreed that azats and army should receive an imperial stipend.Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy. was exiled in Britain. and partly by the death of Shapur II in 3 7 9 . agreed with Persia to divide Armenia. asked by some of the aristocracy to nominate a king. It was one of the reasons whereby Varazdat was persuaded by his foster-father to suspect the loyalty of Mushej and to consent to his murder in vengeance for Pap. After Manuel died. per­ haps the son of Pap’s younger brother Tiridates. The autonomy Armenia enjoyed during Manuel’s regency had been facilitated partly by Rome’s preoccupation with the Goths.2). who had defeated and killed Valens at Adrianople in 3 7 8 . unwilling or unable to defend the interests of Arsaces III. including Caspiane (see map 6. of the division of Iberia which had been made in 3 7 0 . Valens nominated Pap’s nephew Varazdat (c. as could have been predicted. Armenian allegiance and tribute were transferred to Persia but subsequently Manufil drove the Persian ‘governor’ out. Cholarzene had already passed to Rome after the collapse. nearly a sixth the size of Khosrov’s. But this proved brief. This was the beginning of the abolition of the Armenian kingship. Ingilene and Sophanene and Persia took Arza­ nene. and Vajarshak. Persia.4 2 8 137 These events opened the way to bloodfeud and to annexation. a mistake. as king. possibly the son of Varazdat. The two Armenian kings retained only Armenia’s central districts. This occurred. In response. they were thwarted by Armenian distaste for Persian religion and by the rapprochement of emperor and sparapet against Persian expansionism. In 3 7 7 Roman envoys. After five years Khosrov was denounced by his aristocracy for intrigue with 72 3 8 4 . Anzitene. in favour of Persia. c. But their decision that new cities should be built.370. who was also M anuel’s own son-in-law. proved.

73 did too. Thomson. That bloodfeud had survived the advent of Christianity is perfectly clear. Within it the Arsacids retained Carenitis. pp. ii. then by Shapur. 108 and for comment her pp. 75 Epic Histories. of its local name (Arzn and KcJimar in Armenian). There is very little evidence for the existence and development of a bureaucracy such as the Sasanians had. booty swelled the treasury and new lands sweetened the aristocracy. and 1 9 7 6 . 1 9 9 4 -5 esp. Details of the Roman-Persian boundary were finally settled after Persia. by Khosrov IV. in 73 Agathangelos. ГѴ. The final realization of the long-standing Sasanian dream was diplo­ matic. only briefly reversed by Mushej Mamikonean. removed Artaxias in 428. Garsoian. who includes struggles for revenge in his definition of the subject-matter of his history. the Bagratunis Syspiritis. cols 187 and 2 3 0 (n. 74 Sinclair. and who records m ajor events. 150. it was then one of three points of commercial exchange between Rome and Persia. they seem to have been nobles. Though offi­ cials at Arsaces II’s court are referred to. 1 9 8 9 .4 2 8 Rome. Admittedly the destruction was not total. according to an imperial edict of 408/9. the other two being Nisibis and Callinicum (on the Euphrates). After Vramshapuh’s death in 41 4 the surviving king­ dom.9 .74 But other cities decayed and were not refurbished. 160. . but pressure of arms had prepared the way. in the Epic Histories. c. namely Arzon and Chlomaron. After Arsaces III died. By the late fifth century Zarehawan was in ruins. his kingdom was made a Roman province (390). 2 9 5 . Vajarshapat survived as a religious centre. Perhaps its shops and glass-making. but no such improvement seems to have occurred. 161.138 Christianity and the E nd o f the Monarchy. 5 2 7 . 2 1 1 .3 0 0 -c. The Crown’s financial and political standing might have been improved if it had been successful in war.8 . and the city is mentioned in sixthcentury sources under Syriac and Greek forms. Epipcan built a martyrium there. Tigranocerta survived. trans.75 The downfall of the Arsacids may also be blamed on bloodfeud. briefly. and deported. 2 1 4 and 1989b pp. The destruction of the cities must have greatly impoverished Armenia’s crown. 74). and lastly by Vramshapuh’s own son. both from Agathangelos. 1 9 76. just under half the size that the third-century kingdom had been. which Agathangelos mentions in connection with the refugee nuns. Artaxias ГѴ (4 2 2 -8 ). Unfortunately royal impoverishment was exacerbated by the loss of territories. the Gregorids Acilisene (which the Mamikoneans inherited in 438). 3 6 1 -4 . for example the murder o f ‘Khosrov’ and the imprisonment of Gregory. Captives could have repopulated cities. The abolition of the kingship was thereby complete. again at the request of the nobility. 1 9 4 -5 . Artaxata regained vitality for. text and trans. was ruled again. pp. His brother Vramshapuh (3 9 3 -4 1 4 ) succeeded only after an interregnum. Improvement in the exploitation of its resources could likewise have prolonged the life of the Arsacid monarchy. son of the Persian king. p.

3 0 0 -c . suffering and intrigue. 2 2 . n. 4 4 . It had been intended that it would. Only in the fifth century was the church to realize its role of stiffening Armenian resistance to Persian encroachment.). 4 6 6 . Thomson. 76 Agathangelos. 2 5 . 1 2 1 . 1 9 7 6 . 132. but Tiridates IV ’s policy had backfired. pp. The murder of Pap began a spiral of instability. The church could have strengthened the monarchy.Christianity and the End o f the Monarchy.76 and from the Epic Histories. 2 3 . 4 5 . In addition. Ecclesias­ tical opposition to imperial Arianism led to ecclesiastical alliance with the aristocracy rather than with the crown. honour dictated that the kings continue the bloodfeud with the Sasanians which had begun in 224. Yet to pursue it was to provoke retaliation. 133 where ‘son of a guilty man’ renders the literal ‘son of one meriting vengeance’ (vrizh signifying vengeance) (See his p. . 12.4 2 8 139 terms of the exaction of vengeance. c . text and trans.

Koriwn. by Khos­ rov IV. and the church was equipped for the role which Tiridates IV had envisaged and which it was to play. Modern studies indicate that a twenty-sign code did indeed undergo two stages of development. possibly Sahak’s second cousin. -f (kc). and that Mesrop’s changes were to improve legibility and to represent sounds particular to Armenian. culminating in abolition. over the next centuries. himself appointed patriarch. in Samosata. so that the alphabet begins with (a) representing God. Under Sahak’s patronage and with royal backing. 1 Mouraviev. placing it last. decline and foreign domination. The details and dating of this invention have prompted much discussion. were used.428-c. a form of the Greek monogram for Christ. especially with regard to the testimony of M esrop’s biographer and pupil. The partner­ ship between king and patriarch was renewed. 384— 428. 1980a. 1980b.1 He introduced only one new letter. Mesrop formulated an Armenian alphabet. Patri­ arch Nerses’ son. Mesrop fashioned a new alphabet. an ascetic and scholar. and perfected it in consulta­ tion with a Greek scribe. was one of weakness.640 Christian Teaching c . But there was one glimmer of light in the gloom. under the influence of Greek. and then perfected. but that after these letters had proved deficient. probably in 4 0 0 . . learnt from a Syrian bishop. and o f Mesrop. This achievement was the work of Sahak. and ends with Christ. albeit without a royal partner.4 0 0 -4 5 0 The story of the last years of Arsacid kingship in Armenia. that for two years letters of Syrian origin. c.___________ 7___________ Culture and Repression: Partitioned Armenia c. Daniel. probably in 3 87. evangelization was extended. in Edessa.

In the late fourth century Persia was probably tolerant of Armenian contacts with Christians in Mesopotamia.428-C. By then vardapets had authority both to 2 Thomson. probably. 3 1 -7 . M esrop’s rejection of the ‘Syriac’ letters may have been facilitated by the accession to the Persian throne of Yazdgard I (3 9 9 -4 2 1 ). under the aegis o f Sahak. shows that of the Greek church. As a rank in the church vardapet. Sahak and Mesrop obtained permission from Constantinople (capital of the Roman Empire since the time of Constantine I). It was probably in this period too that the development of the role of the vardapet. and to the kingdoms of Iberia and Albania. is. of Basil of Caesarea (c. who in his early years was sympathetic to the Christian West. for both of which he invented alphabets. but their timing may nevertheless have been related to the contemporary political situation. Based upon one used in fifth-century Jerusalem. known as the Refutation o f the Sects. to include Roman Armenia. pp. There has been debate about whether a vernacular Albanian literature ever came about. began. dealing with the origins of evil and with free will. a long exposition of the faith incorpor­ ated in the History of Agathangelos.640 141 The motivation behind Mesrop’s creations was concern for his people’s salvation rather than for its worldly prospects. by one of his group. a representation of Mesrop’s preaching. Instruction was provided. Their first translation of the Bible betrays the influence of Syria but its revision. peculiar to the Armenian church.Partitioned Armenia. at court and in the provinces. by analysis of style and language.3 3 0 -7 9 ) and o f Cyril of Jerusalem (3 1 3 -8 6 ). Many of these translations have been identified. His pupil Eznik composed a treatise on God. This dynamic educational programme was not restricted to Persian Armenia. C. it was probably adopted in Armenia. is first attested at the 444 Council of Shahapivan.2 The influence of Jerusalem is also apparent in the Lectionary used in the Armenian church until the eleventh century. but it seems that it did not and that it was Armenian language and culture which predominated in Albania. originally meaning ‘teacher’. Once the alphabet was settled. and they suggest that a large number of translators with a common training was involved. Mesrop’s circle also produced original works. after 4 3 1 . . Armenian scholars embarked on a programme of translating and teaching. 1 9 7 0 . where schools were set up. Students of Mesrop left Armenia to study Syriac and Greek and to translate patristic works. but suspicious o f any sign of Roman influence or sympathy. It betrays the influence o f works of John Chrysostom (patriarch of Constantinople 3 9 8 -4 0 4 ). Koriwn wrote a biography of Mesrop in about 44 3 . M esrop’s missionary work also took him to Siwnikc. between 4 1 7 and 439. The Teaching of St Gregory.

bribery and force. They feigned apostasy and returned home with Zoroastrian teachers. as a new Moses. the Persian-appointed 3 Thomson. Brkishoy. but were entitled to respect and. if necessary. form a covenant and. Vahram V (of Persia) replaced Sahak.640 excommunicate and to readmit excommunicates. and then with a Syrian. Samuel (4 3 2 -7 ) and a power struggle ensued. facilitated by direct Persian rule. as bishops had. Both displeased the Armenian princes. 4 2 8 -4 8 4 One of the stimuli to these developments in Christian teaching must have been ecclesiastical fears concerning Persian policy.4 The crisis of 4 5 0 -1 began when in c. as a follower of the apostle Paul in his educational work. and Sahak. When they refused. Iberia and Albania were summoned to his court. Mesrop. Repression came only after Patriarch Sahak refused to consent to the deposition of Artaxias IV in 4 2 8 . repres­ sion. recovered spiritual authority in 4 3 2 . would encourage noble apostasy. to rebel. 1992.3 Persecution and Resistance. from their disciples.142 Partitioned Armenia. 1962. and they were teaching in monasteries. may have been partially realized. whose restoration some of them requested. and as an example to be emulated. The methods used were persuasion. led by Vardan Mamikonean. . the magnates and senior members of the lesser nobility in Armenia. in his biography of Sahak’s partner. For the Persian mon­ archy’s increasing dependence on the Zoroastrian religious establishment for support led to an increase in pressure on Armenian Christians to convert to Zoroastrianism.428-C. taking advantage of Persia’s military engagement in the east. Vardapets seem to have resembled the herbads.449 Yazdgard II (4 3 8 -5 7 ) not only increased Armenian taxation. Koriwn’s purpose was. 4 Mahe. parades biblical references to legitimize Mesrop. C. Samuel looked for excuses to expel bishops and to seize their domains. in 4 5 0 -1 and in 4 82. but also levied it on the Church. There the sad and scornful reaction of their compatriots caused the princes to swear an oath. support. But his temporalities went to another Syrian. He then ordered conversion to Zoroastrianism. presumably. priest-teachers of Zoroastrianism. Vasak of Siwnikc. as well as those of dead bishops whom he did not allow Sahak to replace. For a while it was relatively limited. These ecclesiastical-political tensions may partially explain why Koriwn. first with Surmak. Two crises resulted. The initial hope of the shah that friendly contact. By the seventh century vardapets could authorize marriages and depose and reinstate chorepiscopi. to defend Sahak’s party. They could not demand payment.

1 Europe. west and south Asia .Map 7.

though its trustworthiness has been questioned. died.144 Partitioned Armenia. By the 430s the emperor Theodosius II (4 0 8 -5 0 ) had built the fortified city of Theodosiopolis.4 4 2 -5 1 ). a list of the offices of the imperial administration. And the frontier was still protected. joined them. Ctesiphon (near modern Bagh­ dad). For this defence Persia seems to have been entitled to some Roman subsidy. probably the site of the centre held in Carenitis by the late fourth-century Arsacids. But despite this continuing propinquity the Armenian rebels received no help from Rome. of major concern to Rome.640 governor. Persia being preoccupied with the defence of her northern frontiers against invasion from central Asia. Rome did not. There was an heroic battle against Persia at Avarayr in 451 in which many. Rome after all had serious problems in the west. partly because his sons were hostages at the Persian capital. including Vardan. in Carenitis. Satala indeed played an important role in the wars of 4 2 1 -2 and 4 4 1 -2 in which Persia invaded Syria. Annexed Armenian principalities were required to furnish her with military aid. Zeno (4 7 4 -5 . in 4 7 5 . or marzpan (c . modern Erzurum. C. obtaining from Persia a promise of religious toleration. Nor was he the only Armenian on Persia’s side. And Roman-Persian relations were generally peaceful. the taxes were remitted and Vasak o f Siwnikc was deprived of his principality. W ithin none of the aristocratic houses was there total consistency in members’ sympa­ thies. Defences were improved. during the fifth century. Apostasy continued to be the price Persia exacted for positions of power. Cappadocia and Roman Armenia. 4 7 6 -9 1 ) likewise contributed to Persian wars against the Kidarite Huns and the Hephthalites. of course. For Armenia was never. Leo I (4 5 4 -7 4 ) paid up in 4 6 4 . and acquired from Persia both a royal spouse and control of Alba- . The early fifth-century Notitia Dignitatum. They did however manage an alliance with some Huns and they did achieve something. where her provinces were lost one by one. suggests that the Black Sea coast was still garrisoned. but. Less happy results were that the patriarch Joseph and some clerics were executed and some nobles were imprisoned and then required to do military service. completely abandon her north-eastern inter­ ests. It began in 4 8 2 when the king of Iberia executed the apostate vitaxa of Gogarene. This vitaxa had martyred his Christian wife. Vardan’s daughter Shushanik. Armenian Christians’ circumstances were the more difficult because the Roman Empire did not offer the same prospect of help as she had in the past. It was erected on an earlier site. regularly to have asked for substantially more. subsequently deserted. and that the legions X V Apollinaris and X IV Fulminata were still at Satala and Melitene. Freedom of religion was granted.428-C. and hence there was another crisis in the 480s. and to have seized opportunities presented by Rom e’s western problems to extract it by force.

Map 7.V V.■ ' OackSem .2 Armenia .

Vakhtcang I. 1 9 9 1 . some aspects of the abolished Arsacid kingship. p. who died in 4 3 9 . but the Iberian king was put to flight. Peroz (4 5 9 -8 4 ). it was Sahak who obtained it from Vahram ГѴ (3 8 8 -9 9 ). at the hands of the Hephthalites. Following negotiations between Vahan and a Persian envoy who had come to Nuarsak (a village in Her). the martyrs Vardan and Shushanik being Sahak’s grandson and great-granddaughter. joined this Iberian revolt. to lead them.5 by some Romans. Vahan had to suffer desertion and opposition from other Armenian princes. persuading Shushanik’s cousin. It was Sahak who arranged that the survivors of the Kamsarakans and Amatunis who had offended the Persian king be granted their lives and restored to their domains. 2 1 2 . Vahan Mamikonean. c. in 485. married to Hamazasp Mamikonean. Some Armenians. deriving from former temple estates. III. their power rested in part on ecclesiastical wealth. dues. trans. As for the patriarchs. The rebels swore an oath on the Gospel. in their leadership of Christian society. but also that each had assumed.5 0 0 : Mamikoneans. a relative of Zeno. gifts given to atone for sin.4 0 0 -c . that the territory of Cholarzene was returned to Iberia.146 Partitioned Armenia. in 4 1 4 . It was probably in connection with his marriage to Helena. The Mamikoneans had indeed also aquired much o f the Gregorid inheritance.6 4 0 nia. and right of access to the king. and Bagrewand) made the Mamikoneans the greatest of the Armenian landowners. that Khosrov ГѴ be restored. Leadership c . and were reinforced briefly by some Hun mercenaries sent from Iberia and also. . Patriarchs and Historians The two fifth-century crises reveal not only that the Mamikoneans and the patriarchs worked in concert. judging by the ‘Greek’ origin of one of the elite casualties. to ally with Rome. like Vardan before him. They seem also to have assumed some Gregorid obduracy and prestige. Gregorid estates (in Acilisene. Thomson. The triumphant conclusion was that Vahan was appointed marzpan. had no heir but his daughter. Sahak and others were killed and. which was now in the Roman Empire.4 2 8 -c. that Artaxias IV accede in 42 2 and 5 Lazarus of I^arp. 8 3. The patriarchal assumption of aspects of a kingly role can be seen in the career o f Sahak even before the abolition of the kingship. for Patriarch Sahak. The situation was saved in 4 8 4 by the death of the Persian king. H istory o f the Armenians. appointed the Bagratuni prince Sahak II as marzpan. Merit rather than apostasy was to be the basis for promotion. part of Tarön around Ashtishat. They had some military success. and exemption from taxation. The new political context enabled the Iberian king. the Armenians were granted freedom of religion. When King Vramshapuh refused to invest Hamazasp as sparapet without Sasanian permission.

History o f the Armenians.6 . pp. ‘Agathangelos’. 2 7 2 . x x x . 1 9 7 6 . 1 2 5 . 7 Thomson. Hultgard. He may also have hoped that the Armenians would be encouraged by the Teaching o f Gregory. xciii. 9 Thomson. in which. 2 9 2 . 1 976. lv-lvii. wherein the sparapet attributed victories over the enemies of Armenia to Nerses’ prayers and ‘those o f his clan’ and predicted that there would be no more. 10 Thomson. p. lxxv-xciii. trans. to remain steadfast under pressure. 2 7 . 1976. the patriarchs and their circle offered exhortation. V.9 7 . John Mandakuni. some scholars believe. Garsoi'an. 2 1 0 . who purported to be the secretary of Tir­ idates ГѴ and hence an eyewitness. kept in close touch with the rebel Vahan Mamikonean and his army and would bless them before and after battle. pp. which he included. Thomson.Partitioned Armenia. in around 4 6 0 .8 And Gregory’s appar­ ent direction of King Tiridates and of the nobility had the function of precedent and model for the current role of the church. Patriarch Giwt (4 6 1 -7 8 ) was deposed by Persia for canvassing for Roman help and attacking apos­ tates. is described. 5 3 5 .11 The impious will of 6 Epic H istories. For one of its lessons is that men must make their choice between Heaven and Hell when they hear the message. . c . esp. and pp. pp. to legitimate the present and to insure the future.5 6 .1 1 . lxxxix-xciii. The reality of patriarchal leadership is underlined in the fifth-century Epic Histories’ account of reactions to the death of the fourth-century patriarch Nerses. recounted the conversion of Armenia by Gregory the Illuminator some 150 years earlier. 2 9 3 . 1 9 7 6 .4 2 8 -c. that Tiridates’ conversion had been independent of that of the Roman emperor Constantine would make Armenian Chris­ tianity less suspect to any Persians who learnt of the conversion as he portrayed it. pp. (probably by Vahram V (4 2 0 -3 8 )). actually a fiction. 11 Agathangelos. 7 5 4 .6 Whereas the Mamikoneans provided military might. T he Teaching o f St Gregory. both orally and in writing. p. Thomson.7 Mesrop’s recent missionary work was given authority as a fulfilment of a Gregorian blueprint by the simple expedient of modelling the account of Gregory’s work on M esrop’s. patriarch 4 7 8 -9 0 . text and trans. Agathangelos may have hoped that the loyalty of Gregory the Illum­ inator’s fratricidal father to the Sasanian king and the representation. text and trans. and his pp. per­ haps a reference to those who deserted Vardan. 7 3 1 . and that there is no second chance after death. it was not really to record the distant past but rather to justify the recent past. para. When.10 To reinforce this theme the explanation offered regarding Gregory’s vision of the ‘future’ refers to a time when many ‘impious ones’ ‘will abandon the holy covenant’. an actual building.9 which quite clearly included political leadership. 1 9 7 0 . lvi-lvii.6 4 0 147 that the order of precedence at court be confirmed. 8 Agathangelos. 1982. Thomson’s pp. either complete or still under construction. 1 9 8 9 . The contemporary cathedral of Ejmiatsin was sanctioned by a vision of Gregory.

Thomson.9 . perhaps. Princes who may. instead of an ox or bull like his biblical model Nebuchadnezzar. 1 -8 . with Iranian imagery. and for discussion his pp. for when they lead the army it is victorious. . are anticipated in an address of Patriarch Nerses to the council of the realm. 1 991. xliv. in the realization that without Mamikonean leadership ‘no Armenian affairs or undertakings were brought to comple­ tion’ to abandon it.6 4 0 course be ‘handed over to unquenchable fire’. and the Mamikoneans.3 5 (sources). trans. trans.13 Patriarch Sahak’s sentiments about Artaxias IV. 4 8 . whose author. Lazarus. I. Mamikonean authority is enhanced by Vardan’s statements that salvation is the most important thing in the world. the animal identified with the god Vahagn. 6 . c. and that his family was always more concerned for a friend’s well-being than its own. V. 1982. the kings from Khosrov III to Arsaces II. Epic H istories. Garsoian. Willingness to die for the cause is lauded and death for the cause is equated with martyrdom. in a parody of his ‘divine’ protector. and for the true-lords of this realm’. is simultaneously Manuel M amikonean’s deathbed injunction to his son and successor in c. is portrayed as waiting anxiously for a favourable moment to declare his true faith and so avoid 12 13 14 15 Garsoi'an. The history by Lazarus of P°arp. 2 2 8 . have been within their rights when they failed to follow Arsacid policies. helpless before the Christian God.3 8 4 . and wallows. ‘Die bravely for your God-serving realm. Agathangelos makes it clear that Zoroastrianism is no protection.9 (attitude). is less sophisticated. But Lazarus conveniently portrays the mid-century pseudo-apostate Var­ dan embracing a self-imposed penance of exile. 1 9 8 9 . pp. which takes up where the Epic Histories end and continues to 48 5 . are simply regarded as traitors to their legitimate lord. pp. and being entreated by his fellow pseudo-apostates. an anonymous cleric. was commissioned by the marzpan Vahan Mamikonean.9 .12 The account of Armenian history between about 330 and 387 provided by the Epic Histories.4 2 8 -c. Vahan. Tiridates becomes a boar.14 albeit the Arsacid mantle now rested on others. likewise an insincere apostate. 3 7 . Tiridates’ punishment for martyring the nuns is charged. that however sinful he might be he was nevertheless a Christian king and so should be served. as Garsoian has shown.148 Partitioned Armenia. The momentous events of the fifth century likewise provided opportun­ ities for exhortation.15 The fact that the Mamikonean rebel leaders had actually apostasized before rebelling could of course have turned out to be embarrassing.1 6 (date and authorship). Garsoian. Vahan wanted the virtues of clerics and good deeds of brave men to be written down so that others would emulate them. 2 2 . for His church and His covenant. 1 9 8 9 . wove together in the 470s oral traditions about the patriarchs. The Mamikoneans figure as the protectors of the realm. since that is in itself a death for God. pp. and our 470s compiler’s injunction to his con­ temporaries. 4 .

pp. 1 991.3 . 6 1. Vardan urged his associates to hurry to the banquet of Christ. Finding the bridge at Artaxata destroyed and the river swollen. for Avarayr. Thomson. 1 3 0 -1 . the abolition of the kingship and the more pronounced leadership of the Mamikoneans were not the only changes Armenian society underwent in the fifth century. The total strength of the noble cavalry after 4 2 8 .0 0 0 .5 . And his appointment as marzpan was celebrated in church. for Vasak. 2 8 4 . p. III. 112.570 The extension of Christianity. were initially reluctant to help their collea­ gues. pp. On one occasion victory was announced in Duin. II.Partitioned Armenia. Thomson. whither the capital was transferred in the second half of the century and. 7 5 . trans. 2 4 0 . 2 3 2 . 1982b . 9 4. The face of Vahan’s brother Vasak was illuminated before he died. p. Thomson 1 982b . 114. trans. 1 9 9 1 . Lazarus emphasized a relationship between martial resistance and martyrdom. pp. he said. but held off because they wanted martyr­ dom more than victory. not simply willing to suffer martyrdom. 161. trans. p . 181. 9 7 . 17 Lazarus. in token of his imminent translation to the army of angels. apparently. but actively seeking it. Lazarus. 4 6 . They found the Persians unprepared at Avarayr. 1 991. Lazarus particularly emphasizes the worthiness of the Mamikoneans as leaders by Vahan’s defiance when urged by a Persian adversary to submit.9 . The grand chamberlainship had disappeared with the kingship. 3 8. 3 8. Thomson. p. 6 5. Both heroes. And in 451 the protagonists were.428-C. 1 9 9 1 . 6 9 . Thomson. 1 991. Lazarus. for the women. 1982b .6 and 1 9 9 1 . He had won his victories. III. for Vahan. trans. Lazarus. and 1991. 18 For Vardan. Vahan gained passage for his troops by making the sign of the Cross on himself. p. Lazarus. 1 9 4 -5 . . was much less than under the monarchy. II. Lazarus. Wives of prisoners and the widows of the martyrs ‘were living martyrs’. trans. III.3 . 6 3. III.3 .1 0 0 . 6 6 . And 16 For Vardan.326. 2 8 5 . 3 0. Another was that the central administration was reduced. II. and they were admired and honoured by Persian nobles and monarchs. 3 0 0 . 1982b . Intellectual Life C. pp. trans.17 Like the author of the Epic Histories. 1 7 1 . Thomson. C.428-C.640 149 Hell. The patriarch chose as one of the readings the biblical passage where David had Solomon anointed king. with the proclamation that the power of the Cross had conquered and would always prevail. 9 9 . Heresy. 77. apparently. remembering that their ancestors had suffered deceit and treachery.16 Lazarus also made it indubitably clear that Vahan’s cause was that of God. trans. p. Lazarus. Thomson. 2 0 1 . and had only lost the recent encounter because of dissent and treachery on his own side. pp. 164.18 Social Change: Aristocracy. with inferior numbers and without any foreign aid. 2 7 0 . likewise (by Patriarch Giwt) the seat of the patriarch. about 3 0 .

20 Toumanoff. leaving thirty-five houses and twenty-two dynasties. 145. not to support the rebels. Naturally the invol­ vement of the lost principalities in Armenian affairs decreased. and the Dashtakarans and the Spandunis. the Sruandzits. instead of independent. the first two mentioned last in 555. as were the pagans. Thomson. 2 4 8 . 2 1 9 . the Abejeans and the Dziwnakans. of Corduene and of Zabdicene. thereby denying the Syrian contribution. The Khorkhorunis’ increasing importance was probably due to their assumption of a margravial role after the loss of Arzanene.20 They include the dynasties of Arzanene. 1 5 4 -9 2 ).1 .. The M am i­ koneans acquired some of the ‘extinct’ families’ lands. 22 Winkler. 124 (apanages). 2 5 2 (cadets). p. were refuted by Eznik in his treatise on God. By contrast. the Orontid Eruandunis. 146. c. pp. though Arzanene. as co-possessors of family estates. The princes of Siwnikc. Toumanoff argues that the ‘new’ houses represent cadet branches of older dynasties. the position of some other families improved. and Marcionites.19 The historical record would suggest that a number of Armenian dynasties declined or even disappeared after the failure of the rebellion of 4 5 0 .6 4 0 indeed the aristocracy as a whole was also reduced. p. H istory o f Vardan and the Armenian War. Some new dynasties appeared. pp. and Arzanene and Corduene may have tried to help. pp. 1980. albeit short-lived and of minor importance: including besides the Entsayatscis. Asthianene. the latter two in the seventh century. p. and the 6ntsayatscis. the Ropcseans. The Mandakunis are not attested after 50 0 .4 2 8 -c. the Slkunis. 21 Ibid. . Toumanoff says. the Kcojeans. in the east. as Winkler suggests. Sophene.2 8 (for houses existing only in post-Arsacid period).ISO Partitioned Armenia. and Acilisene were asked for help against Persia.21 As for the church. IV. and the Sruandzits (who are all three attested solely in 450). 2 2 7 . be reflected in the ‘official’ attribution of Armenia’s conversion to Gregory. pp. Another development was the practice of forming apanages for the sepuhs. hitherto under the grand chamberlain. followers of M ani. nor the Palunis after 505/506. Disapproval of early Syrian doctrine may. who preached a radical asceti­ cism. pp. the Kco!eans. 1982b . The sixth-century writer EJishe blamed Vasak of Siwnikc for holding back Arzanene and for urging the garrisons of Tmorikc and Kordikc. making them. 1 5 4 -2 2 7 for dynasties’ histories (including vitaxae pp. Ingilene. adjacent to Corduene. In sum. 2 2 9 for statistics. The Marcionites. The Artsrunis took over Mardpetakan (between Lakes Van and Urmia). Toumanoff concludes that seven houses belonging to six dynasties did disappear between 4 0 0 and 500. Though Arianism had been vanquished there were a number of other heresies to face.22 The first Chris­ tians of Edessa had included members of Gnostic circles. 1 9 6 3 . did likewise. 19 Elishe. 1 3 5 -2 4 1 for cavalry strengths. it had other problems besides Persian persecution. tenurially dependent on the family head. trans.

1 9 9 1 . Anzitene. and Balabitene whose metropolitan superior was 23 Meyendorff. though by an unfortunate coincidence the name used for them also means simply ‘filthi­ ness’. pp. dissatisfied. in a letter to Vahan Mamikonean. The 451 Council of Chalcedon.6 4 0 151 Greek philosophers and Mazdaeans (Zoroastrians). and they were cer­ tainly known in Armenia.24 They may be the same heretics whom Lazarus o f Pcarp described. This had addressed the nature of Christ. whose Armenian representatives were from ‘lost’ territories (from Theodosiopolis. studied. and some scholars have argued that some other group of deviants were meant by it. joined in the continuing campaign against him. Theodore. the Ephesus Council. 24 Garsoian. Sophanene. 2 5 4 . In 4 33 or 4 3 4 Bishop Acacius of Melitene expressed to the patriarch. 2 0 7 -1 0 . with the Tome of Patriarch Proclus and the canons of Ephesus. Sahak. According to Epiphanius of Salamis. Doctrinal disagreement with outsiders began after the first Council of Ephesus of 431.23 The Armenian church con­ demned Messalians at the Council of Shahapivan in 4 4 4 . Garsoian. who came to the attention of the patriarch Atticus o f Constantinople (4 0 5 -2 5 ). 196 7 a . 1 985. and a defective Christology. asceticism.25 There were also the Borborites. pp. 19 6 7 a . lazy and incon­ stant. Eznik’s reason for including them may have been that he believed there were Marcionites in Armenia. marriage. 25 Lazarus. 1 5 6 -2 0 9 . . Thomson. Sahak proceeded to seek clarification from Constantinople and when his delegates returned.6 . as ignorant. mother of God. but some Armenian clerics. had come under suspicion since. and to have embraced a dualist theology along the lines of Manichaeism. Messalians seem to have rejected manual labour. a contemporary of Basil of Caesarea. possibly. Letter. Ingilene. who had died in 4 28.Partitioned Armenia. Another group of heretics were the Messalians. and their beliefs have to be gleaned from orthodox writings. There were probably some Manichees too. the Council of Ashtishat was held (in 435/436) and the decisions of Ephesus accepted. 1970. his fears that there were followers of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Armenia. the sacraments and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. but ‘not named for any teacher’. and partly as a result of. Theodore’s writings had earlier been promoted in Edessa. and affirmed the status of the Virgin as Theotokos. and from Sophene.26 Theodore himself escaped condemnation. trans. The surviving version of Sahak’s reply to Aca­ cius rather evasively denies the presence of false doctrine.4 2 8 -c . The Messalians had been condemned around 3 90 by the Council of Side. The Armenian Church had not been represented at this council but it soon became aware of its concerns. the Borborites had Gnostic origins. pp. 26 Winkler. where Mesrop and some of his disciples had worked and where Brkishoy and Samuel (the Syrian replacements of Sahak) had. c. though there is no evidence that they were numerous.

p.24. pp. sometimes used. The fifth-century John Mandakuni’s Call to Repentance and the Oath of Union of the 555 Duin Council allude to Paulicians. and in 4 8 2 the emperor Zeno. with Armenia. 90 n.27 The Katholikos John of Ödzun’s (7 1 7 -2 8 ) Against the Paulicians records that the Paulicians hid somewhere on the border. for fourth-century patriarchs. Papal opposition having provoked an east-west schism.9 .5 9 0 -6 1 0 . 29 Der Nersessian. John says. soured. 1955. and ultimately.152 Partitioned Armenia. issued his Henoticon. 1973. 5 1 5 -2 8 . 1967a and Russell. though not immedi­ ately. 54. which the Persian church had adopted in the early sixth century. for it appears in Armenian historical writing of the second half of the fifth century. 1 9 8 7 . and which defined the orthodox dyophysite doc­ trine of the nature of Christ. Discussed in Garsoi'an. It was perhaps reacting against the current ecclesiastical involvement in Roman-Persian rivalry. and Lemerle. 8 7 and n . 2 8 . Followers of Julian of Halicarnassus. Armenia in turn sub­ sequently rejected both Chalcedon and so-called Nestorianism. . It is possible that the later sixth-century church had yet another heresy to face. in 555 or (if indeed there were two councils) in 5 5 2 -3 and 555. c. Roman and Persian Armenia each having. pp.4 2 8 -c. In 451 Armenian attention was of course focussed on rebellion against Persia. But Constantinople sub­ sequently repudiated the Henoticon. 9 0 n. they were joined by icono­ clasts who had been rebuked by the Albanian Katholikos. which Armenia accepted at the 506 Council of Duin. in the 590s. whose name means ‘followers of Paul’. who were a minority in Syria. at another council or councils at Duin. 28e. This group seems to have formed. Alexander. 1 834. 1 9 4 4 -5 . and for the oath. that of the Paulicians. By the 670s the schismatics had become heretics and were rejecting baptism. Relations with the Syrian church. their own Katholikos. Then. For its Christological doctrine provoked schism with the eastern Monophysites who all stressed His single nature. but there are doubts about the authenticity of both these references. in the period c . 1967a. after the death of Katholikos Nerses. this council’s chief concern. 27 Garsoian. 131. 28 Against the Paulicians in Aucher.6 4 0 the bishop of Amida). ibid. but he could equally well have meant NersSs III (6 4 1 -6 6 ). 8 8 . was to prove more troublesome. (The first known use by the head of the church of the title Katholikos is in Nerses II’s synodal letter o f 555.) John may have meant NersCs II (5 4 8 -5 7 ). For their early history may belong to this period though the evidence is slight. 1 946.28 Other texts attest a group which cited Old Testament prohibitions against idolatry to support its opposition to images and paintings.29 The Albanians took action against these iconoclasts in about 6 3 3 . attempting to heal the breach with the Monophysites. which ended only in 519. and been noticed by the Armenian authorities. But it was probably in use earlier. pp. found support in Armenia. anachronistically.

suggest that they may have been originally composed for accept­ ing apostates and heretics back into the fold. and was then recalled. The 4 4 4 Council decreed branding and hamstringing for Messalians and for priests who failed to report them. generally conceived in the early church as a second baptism. though the precise extent of this count’s authority is uncertain. and in seven years made many Hun converts and translated some books into the Hun language. in response to the onslaught of the Huns upon the Roman Empire. and the medical writers Hippocrates and Galen. annexed in 390. the former ‘Rom an’ kingdom. Armenia appears also to have resumed. Former dissidents could be admitted to penance. Studies of the earliest rites of penance. whence he cleared himself. To convert the Borborites Mesrop tried punishments. the Bagratunis in Syspiritis (Sper) and the Mamikoneans in Acilisene). as punishment for 30 Raes. Lages. 31 Thompson. before being appointed. by contrast. including Aristotle and Plato. In the lands annexed in 387. 1971.31 Roman Revival c . had been replaced. in the sixth century. financial probity and orthodoxy were impugned. except in Balabitene.4 2 8 -c . to supervise the princes o f Inner Armenia.) An organized form of communal monasticism seems to been a new develop­ ment in Armenia in the fifth century. branded and expelled. Lazarus of Pcarp studied in the Roman Empire. 1946. c. he took refuge in Amida. some missionary enterprise.Partitioned Armenia. by the marzpan Vahan. About 535.5 0 0 -c .6 4 0 Whereas the Armenian political experience in the fifth century had been one of increasing Persian pressure. The late fifth century onwards pro­ duced further translations into Armenian of Greek writers.6 4 0 153 Heretics were dealt with by preaching. in which the Roman emperors asserted and extended their control. 1 9 4 7 . impri­ sonments and tortures. as abbot of a monastery in Vajarshapat. a bishop with seven priests went from Albania to minister to Roman captives. When they remained obdurate. it was one of Roman revival. with the Arsacids in Carenitis. punishment and ecclesiastical legislation. (When his efficiency. . in the sixth century. they were scourged. Already in the late fifth century Zeno had created the office o f count o f Armenia.30 Despite the various political and ecclesiastical problems Armenian intellectual life continued to thrive. (that is. according to a Syriac source of 5 69. probably with political overtones. M aku. known as satraps. the five hereditary southern princes. This success was followed up a little later by another initiative on the part of another Armenian bishop.

deciding not to fortify the city of Bizana. The satraps’ territories were set.) Armenia IV comprised the satrapies. The Armenian-born Acacius was appointed to this post but was killed by the Armenians not long after. 1 970. was the former Armenia II. and necessitated provincial. . The military centre was transferred north from Melitene to Theodosiopolis. Armenia III. Tzumina was at or near Altintepe. and two cities from Pontus Polemoniacus. under a magister militum. prompted by the Persian invasion of 50 2 . in which only Edessa had proved to be adequately defended. The second province comprised the rest of former Armenia I. Anastasius’ walls were completed and improved.428-C. with Armenia I. with additions. Some scholars suggest that the place selected was the ancient Urartian site at Aluntepe. had military powers. probably. 5 3 2 . to hold the northern end of one of the Taurus passes. after 515. an Armenian. Melitene and Martyropolis.33 In 536 he created four provinces. in 5 27 and the failure of the Roman offensive of 528. the highest military rank of the empire. Anzitene. by Anastasius though it was completed by Justin I (5 1 8 -2 7 ). and at Melitene some refortification was undertaken. C. Armenia II and Pontus Polemoniacus. including Satala and two other cities. and the line of defence moved east from Satala-Melitene to Theodosiopolis-Martyropolis. and by 5 02 the satrapies had lost their immunity from taxation. Sophanene.32 Justinian also addressed Armenian civilian life. The first. 22 (map 111) 18 and 25 (table) for provincial organization. Satala was provided with new walls and at Theodosiopolis. V. 1 3 -1 5 says justinianopolis was built in the place called Tzumina. Proco­ pius. see Croke and Crowe. 33 Adontz-Garsoian. 1 992. Justinianopolis was its capital and its gover­ nor held proconsular rank. pp. c.640 supporting a rebellion. built another. with five dukes beneath him. The third. Martyropolis had been founded. 1983. Justinian abolished both the office of Count of Armenia and the title of Satrap. Thomas. military and financial reorganization. For Justinian embraced a massive programme of imperial restoration which entailed reconquest of the West besides defence. Justinianopolis to act as capital. (The office of duke was discontinued. desperate for money. 41 0 by Bishop M arutca who endowed it with bones of martyrs killed by Shapur II of Persia. Even greater changes came with Justinian I (5 2 7 -6 5 ). In Armenian lands military reorganization followed the reopening of war by Persia. part of the former Armenia I. Theodosiopolis was expanded and given new walls. pp. 1 2 7 -5 4 . p. The fort of Citharizon in Asthianene was begun. or Leontopolis. Asthianene and Balabitene and it included M artyr­ opolis and Citharizon. For Procopius’ consistent exaggeration of Justinian’s building. Justinian also. or refounded. Next the frontier was strengthened by Anastasius (491­ 518). and also Hewsen.154 Partitioned Armenia. 111. Sophene. Armenia I comprised Inner Armenia. 1989a. and much building. Its capital was Melitene and its count. 32 The suggestion regarding Justinianopolis is reported in Sinclair. Buildings . and crediting of earlier work to Justinian’s reign.

the empress Theodora having thwarted his desire to marry a niece of Justinian. meanwhile remained relatively unchanged. by the taxation and occupation of his fatherland and by the enslaving and scattering of the Arsacids. in an unsuccessful conspiracy in Constantinople was probably due to per­ sonal as much as to political reasons. Inheritance was one of his major concerns and he decreed that Armenian customs should fall into line: women were to have rights of inheritance in cases of intestacy. 35 Procopius. The result was rebellion. for four years. by the three princely families of former Inner Armenia. Artabanes. xxxii and II. whence there had been an invasion in 5 1 5 -1 6 and another in 527. VII. Adontz regarded this order as an attempt to undermine Armenian princely power by fragment­ ing princely landed wealth. thereby contributing to the outbreak of another Roman-Persian war. John’s two sons served Justinian in Libya. and who was. by his brother. early in the sixth century. 36 Garsoian. in true classical tradition. which were probably normal for the Armenian aristocracy. History o f the Wars. Persian jurisdiction in Armenia extended to the church.34 Justinian followed it with the introduction of a tax of 4 00 pounds of gold. asked Persia for aid. Sometimes the marzpan was an Armenian prince. probably a Mamikonean. It was organized by Artabanes’ kinsman Arsaces. Mzhfizh’s main problem came from the north.36 An eleventh-century Georgian treatise on the separation of 14 Adontz-Garsoian. c. The declarations of the disgruntled Armenians to the Persians in 5 39 served Procopius as a vehicle for a general denuncia­ tion of Justinian’s rule. 1 9 8 4 . p.6 4 0 155 Justinian was not only an administrative innovator but also a legal reformer and a grasping financier. 1 970. and our source. combined with Iberia. who had been punished for treacherous negotiations with Persia. But the trouble-makers soon deserted Persia and the elite of the region were absorbed into Justinian’s empire. played a leading role between 541 and 545.35 Persian Armenia. and Persian policy seems now to have been to detach Armenia from her Christian neighbours. In 5 3 9 . Mzhezh Gnuni held the office 5 1 8 -4 8 . uses speeches to express his own views as much as his perception of the views of the speakers. the contemporary historian Procopius. pp. 2 35-42. after their Arsacid leader John was slain. Atropatene and Siwnikc in one administrative unit. pro­ voked by John’s death. just as it did elsewhere in Persian dominions. in 5 48. 153.Partitioned Armenia. where one. But opposition to Justinian’s expensive policies was not confined to the Armenians. led by Joh n ’s sonin-law Vasak. apparently. Albania. The conspiracy itself is certainly suggestive of particularly Armenian opposition to his deeds. the Armenian rebels. . Vahan Mamikonean was succeeded. The Bagratunis and Mamikoneans seem to have ceased to be important there after Justinian’s reign. Artabanes’ participation.4 2 8 -c. in 5 38. iii 3 2 -5 4 .

He had been encouraged in 571 by a Turkish offer to join in an attack on Persia. suggests that pressure from King Khosrov I (5 3 1 -7 9 ) caused the Armenians. after the Persian marzpan SurCn (5 6 4 -7 2 ) had killed Vardan’s brother Manuel and. Persia’s encouragement of such separatism is more easily apparent in the events of the early seventh century. just after the cessa­ tion of Siwnikc to Persia and under the leadership of Vardan M am ikon­ ean. In 578 the future emperor Maurice (5 8 2 -6 0 2 ) ravaged Arzanene. An Iberian rebellion meanwhile fared no better.6 4 0 the Georgians and the Armenians. but it was the Armenians of Persian Armenia who fortuitously provided him with a casus belli. In 580. In 581 M aurice’s offensive against 37 John Katholikos. History o f the Armenians. In 572. alleging religious provocation. and which draws on a seventh-century source. especially since Persia was representing it to other people as tribute. the council of 608/9 at which Armenia separated from the Iberian church was also ordered by Smbat. Though Suren was killed.156 Partitioned Armenia. they rebelled. south-east of the Caspian Sea. despite the objections of the Katholikos whose palace he seems to have taken over. formally to separate from the Roman church at the 555 Council of Duin. to hold back the Persian subsidy. and the palace and fire temple burnt. the rebellion failed. unsuccessfully. Vardan and the Katholikos fled to Constantinople. 1 9 8 7 . trans. XVII. p. sometimes attributed to the ninthcentury Iberian katholikos. Justin II (5 6 5 -7 8 ) however was anxious to cancel this subsidy. For some sixteen years however Rome made little headway. and to fight Persia. 13. but failed to capture Chlomaron. an imperial appointee installed about 5 92 in opposition to the katholikos Moses II (5 7 4 -6 0 4 ) and currently at Theodosiopolis. The katholikos Abraham (6 0 7 -1 0 /1 1 or 615) was elected in 6 0 7 at a council summoned by Smbat Bagratuni. Rome had made peace with Persia in 561 but at a price and on condition that from 572 she would pay Persia an annual subsidy. and at the request of its princes. Smbat and Abraham tried. Abraham was to rival John of Bagaran. 96. Persia abolished the kingship of Iberia.37 These ecclesiastical events were related to the shifts in political fortune which had recently occurred. His forces raided Arzanene. took thousands of pris­ oners and the fort of Aphum. with Armenian allies.4 2 8 -c. c. In 576 Khosrov invaded Armenia and sacked Melitene. despite the dissent of the bishop of Siwnikc and four northern colleagues. that is ancient Tigranocerta. So Justin seized this opportunity to engineer church union. built a Zoroastrian fire temple in Duin. Arsen. to persuade the Iberians to abandon communion with the empire and according to the tenth-century Armenian katholikos John V. an Armenian high in the favour of Khosrov II (5 9 1 -6 2 8 ) and formerly (5 9 5 -6 0 2 ) marzpan in Hyrcania. . Maksoudian. In 5 7 7 Rome was defeated in Armenia. which had refused to support the rebellion. In 573 Justin lost Dara and went mad.

In 591 the Roman frontier was advanced.6 4 0 157 Ctesiphon failed. and. which consequently included Citharizon and Arsamosata. Katholikos Moses severed relations with the bishops of Roman Armenia whereupon Rome estab­ lished an anti-katholikos. Arzanene and Commagene now became Fourth Armenia. John. c.39 The ancient Armenian lands of Sophanene. Hewsen. according to the late seventh. was restored to Rome. 212. Lower and Inner Armenia. And in 582. but not its former capital.or eighth-century Armenian historian ‘SebSos’. Bahram made himself king. though some 38 Sebeos.4 2 8 -c. IV. 1 6 2 -3 . III. encour­ aged by Khosrov who offered gifts and emblems of rank and distinction. One was ecclesiastical. led by Smbat Bagratuni. 2 0 4 . This Roman advance prompted yet another imperial provincial reor­ ganization. when Chlomaron was besieged but again not taken. 2 4 . Duin and Garni. maps III. 39 For detailed discussion and maps. Martyropolis. pp. The existing Armenia I became Greater Armenia. There was therefore some emigration into Persian territory.38 It was the Roman Empire which was to profit from Bahram’s difficulty. pp. there were yet further campaigns in Arza­ nene.7 . at Awan just across the frontier. and where Khosrov set up an inscription. When Khosrov fled. Church union was established in 591 but then there was a schism. The Roman Empire’s expansion proved however to have some disad­ vantages for the Armenians. 1 5 3 -4 . Macler. once attributed to King Pap. 1 9 92. passing just west of Artaxata. The Iberians petitioned the emperor for a king. betrayed to Persia in 589. infuriated by the shah’s insults after he had suffered a Roman defeat. Armenia II was retained. They refused. com­ memorating the recovery of his dominions. There may also have been an unsuccessful rebellion against Maurice. to run from Tiflis to just east of Bitlis. . The emperor Maurice restored Khosrov. 5 8 3 . 15 8 . Contingents under Mushej Mamikonean and under Sahak Mamikonean fought there.5 . retaining five of its six principalities. Armenia III became the new Armenia I. or Upper Mesopotamia. Then in 589 the Persian shah Hormizd’s general Bahram (Vahram) Chobin. 1 9 04. trans. The former Armenia IV became Justiniana. The tide only turned in 588. Martyropolis. rebelled against him. seemingly intending to enthrone Hormizd’s son Khosrov II (5 9 1 -6 2 8 ). There was also the emperor’s policy of settling Armenians in Thrace. and recruiting Armenians to fight the Avars in the Balkans. and his reward was about half of Armenia. and were granted Vakhtcang I’s grandson as ‘presiding prince’. Unfortunately this recruitment was not popular with all Armen­ ians. 1 9 -2 1 . History o f Heraclius. 150­ 2. 585 and in 5 8 6 . Rom e’s newly acquired territory was grouped into Deep. offered the Armenians a restoration of their king­ ship and of their former territory in return for their support.Partitioned Armenia. the future marzpan of Hyrcania. 1 8 -1 9 .

40 Nevertheless Roman control was seriously threatened only after the coup o f 602 in which Maurice was executed. The frontiers were restored. one o f Persia’s greatest..158 Partitioned Armenia.. capital of Atropatene. 5 5 . Melitene in 612 and Jerusalem (with the True Cross) in 614. It produced translations. The omens for Rome in the 630s were auspicious. a Persian ally. in 638. Sergius. by the emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople. Kavad-Shiroe. Unfortunately. of another doctrine. Art. disagreement elsewhere led to the imperial pronounce­ ment. instead. In 628 Khosrov II was deposed and Heraclius made peace with his successor. In 6 2 7 the ruling prince of Iberia. c. stipulating that the Cross be returned. Architecture c .4 . son of Smbat Bagratuni. In 623 Heraclius even destroyed the fire temple at Gandzak (Shlz). retaining. 4 . Satala and Citharizon in 607/8. was killed and Heraclius installed another. that of a single will (Monothelitism). 127 and n. Then Khosrov. Literature. 8 3 . Roman Armenia was supervised first through Mzhezh II Gnuni. The Chalcedonian problem was addressed. Whitby. They had some success in Egypt and Syria. for Rome. Albania. to 5 8 9 . and Persian Armenia through Varaztirotsc II. III. 291 and n. and in Roman Armenia church union was established at a council in Theodosiopolis in 6 3 2 -3 . The so-called ‘Hellenizing school’ of Armenian writers and translators was founded in about 570 in Constantinople and flourished there until about 730. the Armenian-Iberian frontier regions. with the formulation of a doctrine of a single energy in Christ (Monenergism). including Cholarzene. in 6 2 8. 24. mainly 40 Theophylact Simocatta. trans. Rom e’s situation was eventually retrieved by the emperor Heraclius (6 1 0 -4 1 ) who for six years made Armenia his base. М . M . Heraclius’ commander-in-chief there from 628 to 6 35. whose kingship Persia had abolished early in the sixth century. Whitby. . of a presiding prince sympa­ thetic to his religious policy.4 2 8 -c. art and architecture. History. recouped his losses with interest.5 7 0 -6 4 0 The events of the later sixth and the early seventh century naturally affected the development of Armenian scholarship. and in all quarters. 1 9 88. prefer to date this before the redrawing of the frontier. He took Theodosiopolis (whose inhabitants were later deported). who had been fostered at Khosrov’s court.6 4 0 scholars. historical literature. This was to cause more trouble than Monenergism had. and Whitby. and then through prince David Saharuni. pp. pp. viii. following the early seventh-century Greek historian Theophylact Simocatta rather than the later Armenian ‘SebCos’. for dating.8 . 1986. avenging his adopted father. М . was secured by Heraclius’ appointment.

This western version of ‘Agathangelos’ was later recopied to help Katholikos Ezr (630— 41). and pp. He was responsible for four major works in Greek. its purpose to justify and inspire those involved in the ensuing war. in his study of the History. justifies armed resistance and emphasizes martial martyrdom even more than had the account of Lazarus of Pcarp. Thus the clergy urge resistance even before the rebellion begins.4 2 8 -c.43 Its composition may be related to the 572 rebellion. to bring it into line with the present. but the surviving version seems likely to be late sixth-century. as in former times. emphasizes: that there are numerous verbal parallels between Elishe’s text and the Armenian version of the Syriac Acts o f the Persian Martyrs-. pp. 1985. compiled by a pupil on the basis of lecture notes. a Neoplatonist philosopher associated in later traditions with M esrop’s circle. merely praying in the camp. instead of on early Christians who suffered torments for their 41 Kendall and Thomson. One of this school’s members was David the Invincible. that the History's set-piece speeches focus on Old Testament figures who fought for their country and people. later. The very place where John resided appears in this version as the site of Gregory’s mass baptism of Armenians.42 Our most important text is the History o f Vardan and the Armenian War by Elishe. 1982b. One of the several surviving versions of Agathangelos’ History seems to derive from some time between 6 0 4 . and 6 1 0 . 42 van Esbroeck.44 Thomson. The priest Lewond tells the warriors that the clerics wish to join in the attack instead of. 9-21 motives and themes. ally of Heraclius. EJishe’s version of the 4 5 0 -1 revolt gives the clergy a leading role.6 4 0 159 of philosophical works. which were used for centuries in Armenia as an introduction to philosophy and were also influential.Partitioned Armenia. Their purpose was probably to help Armenians studying the originals in Constantinopolitan schools. HI. Ecclesiastical politics required changes. when Maurice’s anti-katholikos John fled from the Persians to Theodosiopolis. which became the classic account of the 4 5 0 -1 rebellion.41 As for those who remained in Armenia. when he was imprisoned. some justified events by refer­ ring to or inventing historical precedent. 1983. 165 for Elisha. 3-9. in geographical locations and in points of doctrine. 114-15. 22-9 for dating. pp. composed by him directly or. 1982b. 44 Thomson. in Byzantium and the Arab world. where for a time he was head of the school. He belonged to the school of Olympiodorus of Alexan­ dria. c. as had been done in the fifth century. 43 Thomson. and they question Vardan about his apostasy before sanctioning his leadership. 1971a. Its date has been much discussed. pp. faithfully reproducing the original Greek syntax. possibly. presumably to compensate for the fact that John’s rival controlled the holy sites of Vajarshapat. within the ‘received’ version of Armenia’s Christian past. . Frendo. V.

possibly. and.4 2 8 -c. at the sixth. pp. pp. prince of Siwnikc. representing the souls of the dead. 17-18. who died in 389. dated to sometime in the sixth-seventh centuries prior to 6 40. probably completed in 6 91. as. Such effort might be death for the faith. as statesmen. 190-1 (Vasak’s end). trans. 1982a and 1982b. Like many of the churches them­ selves. 20. But so that everyone may curse him and not lust after his deeds. His portrayal in a hunting scene. ecclesiastical artists did not reject all aspects of Persian culture. art was purely decorative. they are difficult to date precisely. 45 Thomson. Lucy Der Manuelian’s studies of sculptural images on steles and in and on churches have highlighted significant differences from Byzantine. or contemporaries who were currently making it. rises. 11-21. The effort might also be patron­ age of a church. perhaps. 198-202 (vision). The ‘traitors’ could have been portrayed very differently. as in the case of Kohazat. Their images evoked the concept of salva­ tion through individual effort. denounced by all.6 4 0 faith. esp. probably sepulchral and often associated with churches. whose portrait at a church at Sisian. whereas the deserter Vasak of Siwnikc and his party accept them. They show a variety of designs. which are numer­ ous. symbolizing Heaven. of the ascent to Heaven of Vardan and numerous soldiers who died at Avarayr. as in the case of Manuel. VII. his body thrown out as carrion. c. technical advance. Ejishe emphasizes Vasak’s bad end. The four Ejmiatsin miniatures. Architectural works include many carved steles. Coptic and Syrian art. earlier martyrs who had already made the choice as spelt out in Gregory’s Teaching. 1982. is located at the point where the cupola. angels and apostles. behind which may lie not merely artistic creativity but also. vary in size. his message is even more explicit. 14. 1982b. Thomson. Little. .45 In the vision.160 Partitioned Armenia.47 Despite the axe they ground against Persia however. show famil­ iarity with contemporary Persian art and practice. by images decorating churches. itself having connotations of the afterlife. The churches. Armenian monuments often depicted historical and secular Armenian characters. and that Ejishe uses terms with connotations of martyrdom when­ ever the Armenians face the Persians in battle. several single-naved churches being less than 9 yards long. 46 Ejishe. especially in the treat­ ment of dress and stance in the representation of the Adoration of the Magi.or early seventh-century church of Ptfni is suggestively close to images of Christ. Even the birds which decorate a sixth-century Arme­ nian commemorative mosaic pavement in Jerusalem had a purpose. if any. 47 Der Manuelian. especially in the seventh century. Lord of the Amatunis. changes in liturgical requirements. seen by a chief magus newly converted to Christianity. exemplars. EJishe’s heroes treat Persian promises of religious freedom as cunning deceits rather than genuine solutions.46 The historical literature of Armenian resistance was complemented just as the Scriptures were. VI. she believes.

Mathews ‘Observations on the Church of St. 229. Matenadaran. 1983. fo. 141. 8 of text and 1991a. (Study IV in Mathews. c .6 4 0 161 Plate 7 The Adoration o f the Magi (sixth-seventh century) from the tLjmiatsin Gospel. accepted by the majority of specialists according to Donabedian.48 48 Eremian. doctrinal affiliation.4 2 8 -c. In the same period some churches were built. p. p. including a challenge to Eremian’s dating of the windows in this church which is crucial to the argument. Erevan. 2374. to have three windows in the altar apse instead of just one and some specialists have hitherto accepted Eremian’s argument that this feature reflected a Chalcedonian allegiance. 1971. Thus an apparent preference in the seventh century for more space and annexes may reflect liturgical need. Hripsime’. 1995) disagrees. or modified.Partitioned Armenia. . no.

49 The late fifth-century church of St Sergius at Tekor. criticized by Mathews. that at Ererukc. of several types. Besides the design there was the building material.4 2 8 -c. Sculptural decoration. Five such buildings. including the mausoleum (c. Representations of the Virgin. four-apsed square ones. and the late fifth. and churches planned as crosses within perimeters. Design variations50 included the number of apses as well as other aspects. a preference to which the ancient tradition of symbolizing and representing Heaven in domed ceilings may have con­ tributed. has a central plan and is the earliest example of a church with four apses.630 had three apses.162 Partitioned Armenia. Vahan Mamikonean’s cathedral at Ejmiatsin (Vajarshapat). McVey. O f these. finished 6 3 9 -4 0 . an Amatuni village.or early sixth-century mausoleum traditionally associated with Saint Vardan and Tachat Gntcuni. have been preserved. 1987 and 1989. namely different coloured tuff-stone.442) of Mesrop at Öshakan. and Katholikos Christopher’s church at Korhan. 1983. birds. To this last category belong David Saharuni’s cathedral at Mren.6 4 0 O f the known churches the earliest were rectangular basilicas. Christ. discusses the literary evidence for the associa­ tion of the Christian dome with cosmology in the sixth-century Hagia Sophia of Edessa. To the aesthetic impact of the churches a variety of media contributed. and the anti-katholikos John’s cathedral of Awan. built by Sahak Kamsarakan and consecrated by John Mandakuni. founded by the emperor Heraclius c. vine scrolls. At least some churches had decoration in mosaic. por­ traits and scenes. which shows signs of Syrian influence. c. of both churches and steles. four-apsed ones with galleries. 1945. which includes the church at Ptlni. of about 6 00. The Armenians also built domed churches. The cate­ gory of hall-shaped churches with a cupola. built in 6 37.625. Ners5s Kamsarakan’s small church of St Anania at Alaman. with one or three naves. that is with four vaulted wings extending from the central cupola and with corner rooms in the angles. animals. A later one is the small church of the Holy Cross at T cordan. Lehmann. fairly certainly pre­ date the 640s. The latter two were probably built by Katholikoi Nerses II and Moses II. . those at AJdzkc and Kcasa{ (the Holy Cross) are fourth-century. are all domed with a central plan. and those of Ashtarak and Elvard are sixth-century. Some underground martyria. built nearby in 618. and Katholikos Ezr’s churches of St John at Bagawan and St Gayiane at Ejmiatsin. Katholikos Komitas’s (610/11 or 6 1 5 -2 8 ) smaller church of Hripcsime. with three naves. 50 Categorized in Thierry and Donabedian. 1982a.500). The church of the M other o f God at Crviz (c. comprised geometric and plant motifs. c. for a few fragments of mosaics have been 49 For this contribution (without particular relevance to Armenia). saints and laity were more common than those of biblical scenes. with a cruci­ form perimeter. was concentrated in Amatuni territory in Ayrarat. at Zovuni in Gntcuni territory. Armenians built single-apsed cross-shaped churches.

3 Armenian churches .Map 7.

build­ ing was an opportunity to display the donor’s and his family’s wealth and piety. whether in a small locality or the country at large. Probably the katholikoi felt professionally obliged to build. For the aristocracy. inscriptions reveal that church building was thought to help ensure salvation.6 4 0 Plate 8 The south-west façade o f the early seventh-century Church o f St Hripcsime at Valarshapat discovered. In addition. c. .4 2 8 -c . The motives for building churches must have varied. To judge by Vrtcanes Kcertcol’s defence of images and modern scientific analysis. A few frag­ ments of frescoes have survived at Mren and Lmbatavank0 and elsewhere. to build was to make a statement about fitness to rule. and church decoration an opportunity not simply to inspire fellow Christians but also to recall their own great deeds: in short. 1991. The building itself was conceived as 51 Kotandjian.164 Partitioned Armenia.51 churches also normally had frescoes.

4 2 8 -c .54 may have been booty from Duin. The prophet Muhammad died in 6 3 2 . and his followers emerged from Arabia to change the history of the world. xxv. Armenian rebels offered to the emperor in 5 7 2 . Roman coins reached Armenia but the currency of trade in Armenia was Sasanian.6 4 0 165 a kind of intercessor for the donor and for those he associated with his gift. according to Procopius’s near-contemporary. Artisans lived there and Jewish. Roman-Persian relations were peaceful. 104-5.Partitioned Armenia. the problem of Christian doctrine was. c . 40. 54 Gregory of Tours. where Nerses Kamsarakan was joint patron with David Saharuni. Unfortunately a little-observed storm cloud on the horizon was about to break. an inscription records that the cathedral was built for the salvation of the souls of the Kamsarakans. perhaps the greatest glory of Armenian culture. and Sasanian coins. Roman-Armenian rela­ tions close. many minted in Nakhchawan and Duin. According to Proco­ pius. 1984. Ecclesiastical building. from practically all the nations of Persia and from some under the Romans. Syrian and Persian merchants visited. Its intended audience will have included God. solved. 3. II. Duin received goods from India.52 At Mren. and the building of churches was proceeding apace. The emperor Heraclius’ achievements should have inaugurated a golden age. His angels and His saints in Heaven.53 The huge amount of unwoven silk which. for a while. pp. . Armenians had weathered Persian persecution and much warfare. circulated throughout. 53 Procopius. 52 Der Manuelian. the late sixthcentury Gallo-Rom an writer Gregory of Tours. is an index of economic prosperity as well as of stability and o f piety. Duin became a trading centre. History o f the Wars. IV. T he Histories.

granting him authority. at Qadisiyya in 6 3 7 . had been badly received and church union rejected at an Armenian church council in Duin in 648/9. but its gradual relaxation in the ninth culminated in the re-establishment of an Armenian monarchy. gained control. especially regarding chronology. and Byzantine Syria. the Byzan­ tine emperor Constans II (6 4 1 -6 8 ) supported Theodore’s coming to terms. W ith startling rapidity Arab forces conquered Persia. c. but another invasion followed and by 6 52 the Arabs had. The Arabs first invaded in 640. . and so they joined forces against it. the establishment of Arab rule took several decades. They captured Duin but then retired. His Typos. issued in 648 to end Christological disputes. despite resistance. Neither Katholikos Nerses III (6 4 1 -6 6 ) nor. naturally enough. Albania and Siwnikc. The Arab-Byzantine Struggle. but neither his military action nor his attempt to unite Armenia and Byzantium doctrinally succeeded in retrieving the situation. over Armenia. M esopota­ mia and Egypt. under their own sovereignty.640-884 Neither Byzantium (as modern historians call the Roman Empire from around this date) nor Persia was prepared in the 630s for armies from Arabia. This was a raid rather than a conquest. In 652/3 they made a treaty with the Persian-raised and Byzantineappointed sparapet.__________ 8__________ Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. with booty and thousands of captives. though the tangled information in the sources has provoked disagree­ ments. Iberia. however. In Armenia. Theodore Rshtuni. 640— c. Constans dismissed Theodore. fighting in the name of Islam. In the eighth century this rule was oppressive.700 The initial Arab conquest of Armenia may be summarized as follows. in the hands of the Bagratuni dynasty.

Map 8.1 Europe and west Asia .

1981a. p. Macler’s translation (1904. Until it came. in 6 3 4 . History o f Heraclius. The prevailing interpretation was that the Arab scourge was a divine punishment for sin.0 0 0 cavalry were to be maintained and made available. Yet some scholars have disputed this explanation for the fall of Syria and Egypt1 and it is just as questionable with regard to Armenia. though 1 5 . XXXV. Christianity would not be threatened. and. Macler. that Christian victory would follow repentance. 2 Sebeos. military service would not be required in Syria. Moorhead. perhaps. 1993. Theodore’s treaty after all provoked both disapproval and opposition. Armenia would not be occupied or garri­ soned. 1904. 154. But in 661 the Arabs invaded again and an assembly of the princes accepted their overlordship. XXXV. that Arab conquest would not be permanent. The terms the Arabs had offered Theodore were favourable: three years breathing-space. presiding prince. since the territories in question were Monophysite areas. p. the Armenians were not uniformly anti-Chalcedonian. XXXV. namely the emperor Heraclius’ Persian war. life had to go on. a sign that the end of the world was near. Thus the Patriarch o f Jerusalem combined opposition to imper­ ial doctrine with belief.5 1 Jones. underpinned by a belief that Arab domination would prove temporary. had proved that conquest could be followed by reconquest. as we shall see in Chapter 10. heretic or not. 133) is amended by Mahe.6 4 0 -8 8 4 and there was now hostility in Armenia to NersSs’ abandoning his former opposition to union. . trans.4 probably a lighter burden than Byzantine tax. Why? It is often suggested that dislike of imperial Chalcedonianism and of religious persecution explains the early Byzantine losses to the Arabs. and no aid was to be given to the Arabs’ enemies. then the payment of tribute (probably what could be considered ‘surplus’ for it was to be ‘what you wish’ but given under oath). 1969. to leave Armenia to Byzantium. to the enemies of Byzantium was a pragmatic attempt to avoid being ravaged. is understandable. and Hamazasp refused to pay the tribute due the Arabs.168 Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. And in 654 the Arabs captured Melitene. Arab help against Byzantine invasion was promised. 1904.3 Such an expectation. Macler.2 and Constans’ assembly in Theodosiopolis. 474 n. which followed it. c. 1959. that is. p.or eighth-century) History by ‘Sebeos’ it is designated a covenant with death and a treaty with H ell. trans. nominated by Nerses and the princes. In the (seventh. and especially for heresy. It was only war within the Caliphate which caused them to retire. Furthermore. 133. 5 Sebeos. Theodo­ siopolis and Duin. 3 Kaegi. Constans appointed Hamazasp Mamikonean (6 5 4 /5 -8 ). was well attended. as Prince of Armenia. 4 Sebeos. It is more likely that surrender. p. 132. with Theodore. The Arabs were unknown as a world power but familiar as raiders. and recent events.

pp. 38-45. II.8 But instead of pursuing a decisive victory and a full recovery of her lost territory. sent them a bishop on a peace mission. Byzantium allowed herself to be bought off. including Armenia. 1961b. and threatening Syria. 1. Justinian’s gold and silver 6 Moses Daskhurantsci. This retreat could be considered a major tactical error. after a council at Theodosiopolis. Gregory Mamikonean (6 6 1 -8 5 ). In 684 and 689 plague swept from Basra. 8 T he Vision o f Enoch the Just. for a large tribute and a half share of the taxation revenue of Cyprus. Justinian II concluded a ten-year peace and removed what had been a serious threat to the Caliphate in Syria. and Nerses Kamsarakan (6 8 9 -9 3 ) was appointed presiding prince. 150. There was a possibility of an alliance with the powerful Khazars. 150. slaves and gold.after Justinian. In 689.6 Despite his success as a missionary. numbering many thousands. especially since it was followed by a deterioration of relations. The Albanians had then. had attacked Albania. Noonan. defeating them in Asia Minor. his p. in consultation with the Armenian Katholikos and the (Arab-appointed) presiding prince of Armenia. Its prophesy implies an anticipation that the Arabs would shortly be destroyed by the emperor. amounting to more than a fifth of the taxes of Syria. and Iberian and Armenian rebellion. asserted his own religious position on his coins. 36. and the Arabs likewise . n. like Byzantium. in 692. 7 For Khazar-Byzantine relations. who had been allies in the past. which was probably translated from Greek into Armenian at the end of the seventh or early in the eighth century. . Dowsett.Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. The period 6 8 1 -2 brought the Arabs civil war in the Caliphate. assisted by the Khazars. In 681 the Khazars’ underlings. the Huns of the north Caucasus. its effects worsened by extreme weather conditions in 683/4. to Egypt. presumably either Justinian II (6 8 5 -9 5 and 7 0 5 -1 1 ) or the Armenian Philippicus Bardanes (Vardan) (7 1 1 -1 3 ). namely the Mardaites. trans. foes of the Arabs. during Heraclius’ reign. who. 152-71. through northern Mesopotamia and Syria. c. 6 4 0 -8 8 4 169 And Byzantine recovery did indeed become a real possibility in the 680s. A Khazar-Byzantine rapprochement would have been logical. 686/7 and 689. And in 685 the emperor Constantine IV (6 6 8 -8 5 ). in which Gregory died. there had followed another Hun attack in 6 8 5 . had occupied part of Lebanon since 669. across the Caucasus. Armenia and Iberia. gained from Caliph Abd al-M alik (6 8 5 -7 0 5 ) an annual tribute of horses. 1992. History o f the Albanians. This propitious context encouraged Byzantium to resume her attempts to revover Armenia. Byzantium was provoked when papyrus made for her began to carry Islamic inscriptions. and cf. Church union was established in 6 89.7 and that it was expected is suggested in an apocalyptic text purporting to prophesy the end of the world. They were now. after beating the Arabs off from Constantinople.

in some cases. the ostikan ’s base. A subsequent Byzantine military intervention was unsuccessful and Armenia was lost. o f servant of Christ. R. Some captives were executed. who by and large were more conciliatory towards the Arabs. King. 1972. There were Arab garrisons at Duin.8 0 0 The eighth century brought Armenians financial burdens and religious repression. and. Armenian Christianity was at least potentially threatened by the anti-Christian trend of some o f the Caliphs’ religious policies. according to one source. Hisham 9 Constantelos.9 Yazid II (7 2 0 -4 ) ordered Christian images to be torn down. under an Arab governor. Byzantium attacked. and at Theodosiopolis. his own image. the title. the presiding prince appointed in 69 3 .170 Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. by the Mamikoneans. led by Smbat Bagratuni. encouraged the Armenians. as they had been in the fifth-century struggles against Persia. were objection­ able to Arab authorities whose domains the coinage would reach and the whole must have seemed aggressive. at Nakhchawan and Khram. D. in Lazica. Umar (Omar) II (7 1 7 -2 0 ) began a policy of conversion to Islam in Syria. including Smbat. and Smbat settled. applied to Justinian. and heavy taxation was imposed. perhaps because he had moved some Cypriots to Asia Minor. In 69 2 Justinian was accused of breaking the 689 treaty. G. The armed resistance of 703 and 705 was led by Smbat Bagratuni. . returning home. but respite was only temporary. others deported. These events. In 7 1 6 -1 7 A rab Byzantine war brought to Armenia an Arab force which wrought much devastation. In response. Despite Byzantine backing. 1985. c . forbade Christians to show their crosses.7 0 0 -c . but was heavily defeated.800 it had gone for ever. Both Christ and the Cross. protest.. the ostikan. with his nobles. to submit to the Arabs.6 4 0 -8 8 4 coinage now bore the image of Christ as Pantocrator (an innovation) with a plain cross behind. combined with Byzantium’s increasing preoccupation with the Bulgars in the Balkans. c . many exiles. it failed. as the sign of Christianity and of imperial victory. Repression subsequently eased. and burnt them. In their resis­ tance Armenians were most often led. By c . punishment began early. but Mamikonean pre-emi­ nence was increasingly threatened by the Bagratunis. At the end of the seventh century the Arab province of Arminiya was formed. The cycle of demand. in 705 the Arabs assembled many princes in two churches. Arab Rule and Armenian Response. comprising Iberia and Albania as well as Armenia (except for Ajdznikc (classical Arzanene) and Kordukc (Corduene)). also with a cross. and it saw rebellion and migration in response. and.

Map 8.2 Armenia .

The Abbasids. but by Gregory Mamikonean. The canons of the 768 Council o f Partaw show how the church had been affected: some bishops had been prevented from attending. Hisham took a census and changed levies per household to levies per head and on property.6 4 0 -8 8 4 (724— 43) encouraged conversion in the frontier zones. 5.10 efforts were made to convert Armenians to Islam. The rebels were led. women were raped by heathens. It began with the killing of two financial officials and a military victory at Bagawan. This early success encouraged almost all the nakharars to join the rebellion.0 0 0 obliged Theodosiopolis to surrender. captives reduced to eating impure meat. By C. oppression. c. Yazid’s order was implemented in Armenia. Some of the treaties made in the early 740s between local rulers and Hisham’s governor (7 3 2 -4 4 ) the future caliph Marwan II (7 4 4 -5 0 ) stipulated an annual supply of slaves. tightened the financial screw by not only increasing taxation. outnumbered. apparently. and the tax upon Arminiya was heavy: 13 million dirhams annually. both land and cattle. episodes of financial extortion were visited on the church.0 0 0 pounds of fish (from the River Araxes and Lake Van). thirty falcons and 580 pieces of cloth.800. Ashot Bagratuni (appointed by Marwan in 732). while the Caliphate was being weakened by internal war. Byzantine help was anticipated but the rebellion had already failed by the time the emperor. 1976. revolt. twenty carpets. who had replaced the Umayyad Caliphs in 750. but it had also inspired many Armenians to move to Byzantine territory and service. church property had been sold. Constantine V (7 4 1 -7 5 ). A 10 Ter-Ghewondyan.172 Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. . whose resumption after a three-year lapse Ashot had secured. The aftermath was another round of oppression. Arab rule had not only provoked rebellions. where crosses too were uprooted. was discontinued. plus 2 0 . attacked Melitene and Theo­ dosiopolis. not by the presiding prince. Furthermore. 2 0 0 mules. So Arab pressure continued. Armenia was unable to pay the taxes in coin imposed by Caliph al-Mansur (7 5 4 -7 5 ). what peasants had previously paid to monasteries was now going to the nakharars. Under Harun al-Rashid (7 8 6 -8 0 9 ) Arab settlement in Armenia increased. But at Archesh many peasants were cut down and in a second battle the Armenians who had taken Theodosiopolis. These stimuli provoked a second Armenian rebellion to threaten in 745 and to break out in 747/8. A second Mamikonean revolt followed in 7 7 4 -5 . The Arab grant to maintain the Armenian cavalry. They swore an oath of unity and a force of. And her suffering was exacer­ bated by Khazar invasions in 7 62 and 764. And financial pressure was increased. Arab emirates were founded on lands of dead or migrant princes. were massacred. as dues in kind they required fish and luxury goods rather than corn. but also making money dues more important.

was the command of Armenia. forced Byzantium to pay the Arabs tribute. and became strategus of the Boukellarion theme (that is. Arvites. Sahak of Siwnikc and certain azats joined the emir Sawada (Sewada) in revolt against the ostikan. Other Armenians too played a part in late eighthcentury Byzantine politics. when he tried to collect tribute for the ostikan. likewise in opposition to Irene. and in 850 Bagarat and his nephew Ashot Artsruni defeated the emir of Arzn. c .11 O f such migrants the most outstanding individual is Tachat Andzewatsci. . c. 11 Lewond. led by Alexius Musele. strategus of the Anatolikon theme. in 852. despite the resistance of Katholikos Joseph (7 9 5 -8 0 6 ). 1982b. p. including the dynasty which had taken Duin in the time of the Byzantine emperor Leo V (813­ 20). Tritle. of a province in which soldiers were settled on the land). Tachat’s final office. The office of presiding prince. 12 For this and Tachat. in the 770s and early 780s. He moved west about 760. Subsequently Ashot had some success against the Arab emirs. with civil and military powers. was revived in 804 and entrusted to a Bagratuni. in reward from the Arabs. served the emperor Constantine V against the Bulgars. It subsequently enthroned Alexius after Constantine. 42. Arab sources record that the taxes of Arminiya in this period came to about 4 million dirhams. Tachat was a leading general in Byzantium’s eastern campaigns against the Arabs. partitioned his domains (826). Indeed Tachat’s desertion of the regent Irene in 782. readmitted Irene to government. 8 0 0 -8 4 The years immediately following the 7 7 4 -5 rebellion were hard. Ashot’s power did indeed cause the ostikans some disquiet but this disquiet was soothed after his death when his sons.000 is recorded to have settled near the border of Pontic Chaldia. Like Artawazd Mamikonean. 1983. This rebellion was not nearly so easily defeated as the eighth-century revolts had been. and was defeated only in 7 9 3 . provoked by Irene’s purge of commanders and officials. led by the Turk Bugha. in 791. though the patriarchate was impoverished when. Then in 830 Smbat.Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. it lost substantial estates at Artashat (classical Artax­ ata). in abeyance since Tachat’s death. 1977. 149. the governor. History. another Ashot. took three years to do so. Arzoumanian.6 4 0 -8 8 4 173 group of over 1 2 . Bagarat. refused to swear loyalty to her and instead proclaimed her son Constantine VI (7 8 0 -9 7 ) as emperor. trans. a fact which suggests that financial exactions had diminished. The second army sent to suppress it. In 790 the army of the Armeniakon theme.12 Armenian Revival. the sparapet Smbat and the Prince of Armenia. but conditions eased in the first half of the ninth century.

1988-9. and made judicious marriage alliances. it tolerantly decreed that persons who thought that Chalcedon did not accord with the first three ecumenical councils should anathematize it. Thomson. and he was undaunted by their return.6 4 0 -8 8 4 In the short term. 1989. ch. and thereafter internal economic weakness and the increasing strength of Byzantium led the Caliphs to be conciliatory. called to consider Byzantine proposals for church union and held by the Katholikos in Ashot’s presence. he exploited opportun­ ities opened by others’ absence. refer to Ashot and his wife as king and queen respectively. and gave him the authority of an ostikan thereby entrusting him with the taxes. though some scholars doubt this. Archesh and Berkri to M anazkert. staying neutral in the wars between the Arabs and the Byzantine emperor Basil I (8 6 7 -8 6 ). Jenkins. 44. who had been promised the rule of Armenia for helping Bugha. p. may have been intended to reunite Christian Caucasia.13 Ashot had. at Basil’s request. who had guided Bugha. granted by both Arab caliph and Byzantine emperor. petitioned by the heads of the Artsruni and the two 13 Vardan. There the Caliph demanded the captives’ conversion to Islam and few refused. 14 D e Administrando Im perio.174 Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. admittedly. It was only in 884 that the Caliph. II Commentary. Historical Compilation. In 862 the Caliph appointed him ishkhan of ishkhans (Prince of Princes). 15 Maksoudian. Ashot sent him a crow n. for example parts of Gugarkc (Gogarene) (before 876) from his sister’s Iberian Bagratuni husband. should not. The longer-term consequence of the revolt was that Smbat’s son Ashot was able to amass great power. 186. Ashot acquired new lands. whereas those who did not. in 874. and in 875.15 (As it turned out. founded in 836. Ashot followed his accumulation of power with the acquisition of royal status. according to the thirteenth-century Armenian writer Vardan. 1962. c. He remained on good terms with both his powerful neighbours. and so to gain Byzantine approval and Arab respect. 1. Basil himself claimed descent from the royal Armenian Arsa­ cids. thereby to advertise both Ashot’s piety and the extent of his control. and from Garni. to whom the Bagratunis had been coronants. and it is possible that such status had long been one of his conscious objectives. Muslims living in Armenia. although his council rejected Byzantium’s proposals. 45. . Spared captivity.1-23 and v.) Armenian inscriptions from Sewan. some trouble with local emirs. trans. the results of this show of spirit were unfortunate. One who did was the sparapet Smbat. ed. in 879. subjugated other princes. The 8 62 Council at Shirakawan. According to the emperor Constan­ tine VII (9 1 3 -5 7 ) Ashot actually gave Khlatc. The emirs of Partaw and M anazkert plotted against him and he besieged Manazkert in 884.14 itself under his dominion. But from 858/9 the princes were allowed home. seized their oppor­ tunity for territorial aggrandisement when leading Armenians were taken to the Caliph’s new capital of Samarra.

About twelve other aristocratic families were represented in Ashot Artsruni’s train when he went to the help of Bagarat Bagratuni in 8 5 0 . 221 (Hawenunis).17 Andzewatsci property passed to the Artsrunis about 8 67 when the last prince bequeathed it partly to his infant son and partly to Gregory-Derenik Artsruni. yet in about 800 it was perhaps the Artsrunis. based in Vaspurakan east of Lake Van who were the most powerful. They had heroism and resilience to their credit. 198-9. and especially after the failure of the 7 7 4 -5 revolt it had increasingly become concentrated in a few hands. moved to Vaspurakan in the mid-ninth century. Thomson. the Gabejeans. It is even possible that none of their number. pp. and his son Gregory-Derenik recon­ quered Slig (by Mount Varag) and gained some control over Her and Zarawand. for they had offered resistance to Arab penetration: two of their leaders had been killed in the process in 762 and two more martyred in 786. Their power in the ninth century can be gauged from the number and identity of their supporters. 199 (Apahunis).16 Several Armenian families make their last appearance in history as Artsruni subordinates. Gurggn Apupelch. 220-1 (Gabe|eans). having been dislodged by the emirs of Manazkert. They include the Apahunis. The internal balance of power had shifted. only for it all to pass to another Artsruni. 176. 206 (Kcajberunis). . 215 (Vahewunis). Ibid.18 The failure of the 850 rebellion was a blow to Artsruni power but not a fatal one. The Byzantine emperor followed suit. Power and its Foundations Armenian society in 884 was. pp. who. Kcajberunis and Trpatunis who last appear in the mid-ninth century. The restoration of a monarchy after 456 years in abeyance had not been the only change. Whilst Ashot was held captive in Samarra his relatives continued fighting Arabs. granted Ashot his royal title. he himself recovered Varag. trans.. II. p. History o f the H ouse o f the Artsrunis. After he returned home. in contrast to other families. 17 Toumanoff. 1963. O f these four it was the Bagratunis who held the crown. 6. joined in the trend of migration in response to the difficulties of the times. the princes of Ake and the Hawenunis who last appear at the beginning of the tenth century. who married his widow. 16 Thomas Artsruni. 197 (Akeatsis). 221 (Trpatunis). in some respects very different from what it had been in 640.6 4 0 -8 8 4 175 Siwnian houses. By 884 the Bagra­ tuni. Artsruni and the two Siwnian houses far outstripped in importance those other of the ancient families which still survived. c. naturally. and the Vahewunis who last appear in 9 0 6 . 1985.Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship.

Dimakcseans. Sahak. last prince of Gardman. 205 (Gnunis). Ashot Bagratuni (the future king). only twenty and twelve respectively. the Khurramites who rebelled against the Caliph in 816/7. By 800 the number of houses and of the dynasties to which they belonged were. partly to Iberia). pp. 203-204 (Colthene). The Gnunis had moved to Taykc after 7 7 5 . 220 (Dashtakarans). 208-9 (Khorkhorunis). 215 (Vanand). 21 Toumanoff. 213 (Rshtunis). they may have returned to TarOn after its annexation (966) by Byzantium. For the anciently pre­ eminent Mamikoneans the 7 7 4 -5 rebellion’s failure had been a cata­ strophic final straw. after his murder in 822. 221 (Spandunis). to have met their end in the eighth. with a brief interruption when Sahak’s grandson Vasak Gaburn. and they last appear in history about 914. In 821 the allies expelled the emir Sawada from Siwnikc. but in the early years of the ninth its prince. with the help of his father-in-law.21 19 Ibid. Rshtuni had ceased to be a name to conjure with a little earlier.20 By 884 some of the greatest names of the seventh century were of little account. 204 (Dimakcseans).5 0 0 . now they lost Taykc (mostly to the Bagratunis. others. 209-10. according to Toumanoff. and Spandunis seem not to have survived the seventh century. who joined Sawada in rebellion against the ostikan in 830. 199 (Arawejeans and Araweneans). which last appears in the 730s. 214 (Saharunis). particularly that of 7 7 4 -5 . 1963. As these families had risen to greater eminence so others had declined. Babik proceeded to ravage Siwnikc. One was the line of Vasak’s son. But this useful alliance failed to survive Vasak’s death. 20 Conversely. Dashtakarans. Some families like the Araweleans..19 The appearance of the Mamikoneans as potent­ ates near Arsamosata and in Sasun in the eleventh century suggests that they had retained some lands there. allied with Babik. Araweneans. the leader of some sectarians in Azerbaijan. It was down the other that the superior status of prince of Siwnikc was to pass. c. They did retain Bagrewand but this was annexed by Ashot Bagratuni in 862. through a marriage with the daughter and heiress of Varaz-trdat. Vasak. Yet a third branch of the family had meanwhile expanded into Albania. 206-7 (Kamsarakans). . Khorkhorunis and Saharunis were no longer among the powerful. pp. appar­ ently at Ashot’s hands. 227-29 (statistics). after the death of Gregory Mamikonean. The Kamsarakans. killing thousands and burning the monastery of Makenotsc. as opposed to thirty-five and twenty-two in c. presiding prince of Albania.6 4 0 -8 8 4 The third Armenian power block in the middle of the ninth century was Siwnikc. a Byzantine sympathizer. also in 821. They had already lost most of their lands. Little is discernible of the deeds of its rulers in the eighth century. Their decline followed naturally from the financial difficulties and migra­ tions of the eighth century and especially from the consequences of the failure of its rebellions.176 Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. retaining it until his death in 859. The princely family subsequently split into two branches. like the Bagratuni house of G ojtcn (classical Colthene). acquired it.

and where he resisted siege for a year. Thus Gagik Artsruni retreated from Arab attack to Nkan. 32. 214. and husband of an Iberian princess. 201-3. which they had briefly lost after 775. He was captured. For the Bagratunis the early ninth-century presiding prince Ashot had purchased the Kamsarakan lands in fertile Ayrarat. pp. in the histories written in the early tenth by Thomas Artsruni and John Katholikos. The seventh-century territories themselves. one of which was land.6 4 0 -8 8 4 177 The foundations of the extensive power which the Bagratuni. were sheltered by mountains. From their seventh-century territories the Arstrunis had expanded around Lake Van. 199-200. in campaigning to avenge an offence. established a branch of the family in Klarjkc (Cholarzene) in the Iberian-Armenian border zone in the late eighth century. Siwnian and Artsruni dynasties22 enjoyed in 884 were property. A second type of property upon which the powerful depended was forts. for war and for government. Artsruni territory included previously Rshtuni (anciently Urartian) lands. Arzoumanian. coming into conflict with the emirs of Berkri in the north. The properties were of various kinds. pp. heroes. and given the title of Curopalate by the Byzantine emperor. was most often deployed in raiding. 126-7. In Thom as’s illuminating account of the followers of Ashot Artsruni.Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. in their heroism. 1982b. essential as storehouses. their importance had been enhanced. In Siwnikc the princes enjoyed the protection offered by the mountains beyond Lake Sevan. The advantages o f Tarön and o f the Ayrarat domains were their relative flatness. and retrieved Tarön.23 Warfare in the ninth century is recounted. and some Amatuni lands which were acquired after 775. whence he raided the frontier of Azerbaijan. grandson of the presiding prince who had been appointed in 732. largely in terms of possession of fortresses.. Always important in Armenia. and partly because o f the immigration of Arab settlers. the rebel of 850. only after the besiegers began negotia­ tions. or in enforcing payment of tribute. refuges. though superior to that of the Armenians in open battle. and suitability for agricul­ ture. offering them both security and oppor­ tunities to demonstrate valour and rally support. centred on Adamakert (modern Başkale). and they told Bugha that if the Artsrunis turned their many fortresses to their advantage they would cause him great 22 Ibid. 23 Lewond. in c. depended on forts. Another Bagratuni. people and pro­ paganda. . or castles. trans. The Arstrunis thus combined easily defensible refuges with lands vulnerable to Arab attack. partly because Arab military power. and bases. wanting him to surrender to Bugha they told Ashot that the fortresses were not adequately prepared or provisioned for defence. for brief history and territorial vicissitudes. In the eighth century. c. and dislodging the Bagratunis in the south. It acquired all of Taykc and its Ashot I (8 1 3 -3 0 ) was made presiding prince of Iberia by the Caliph. for control of routes. 7 7 2 -3 .

to whom GregoryDerenik had entrusted the fort of Sewan. One indication of their mismatch is that the seventh-century churches. 1986. For in his reproach it is emphasized that he had regularly let them ‘plunder’ his treasures. Some late ninth. calling everyone to support him and giving gifts to great lords. kinsmen. 203. 2. The role that treasure could play in politics is underlined in the story of another Artsruni betrayal. despite some Arab hostility. had by contrast little to do with Armenian aristocratic power. 180 (Vasak).and early tenth-century Siwnian churches however were near trade routes which are recorded by Arab geographers. obligations of support. is suggested by Ashot’s speech to his followers who wanted him to surrender. 1953. M „ 1976. were dominated by the Arabs. that of Ashot’s son Gregory-Derenik by his nephew Hasan. c. and the people upon whom it depended may be considered under three headings: outsiders and superiors. and the fulfillment of his dreams depended on his possessing the treasure. It was for fear that the Arabs would find his treasure. potentates also needed movable treasure. 286-7 (Hasan). 20. III. Irwin. On the plus side. nor the system of assignment of an iqtcf27 were significantly extended into Armenia. From the seventh through to the ninth century a determining factor in the Armenian political scene was Arab policy and action. trans. and subordinates. buried in a barrel under his house.178 Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. 2. are not closely related to towns. but seems to have been the assignment of tax revenue of particular land to a soldier or official in order to prevent him from becoming directly associated with the land itself. III.24 A number of citadels on the south of Lake Van were the basis of the Artsrunis’ defence o f their western frontier in the ninth and early tenth centuries. 28 Cahen. Thomson. containing much treasure. where there is a church built either by the seventh-century Katholikos NersSs III or in the eleventh century. Thomson. observable elsewhere in the Arab world. 202. Besides lands and castles. III.25 Urban sites. (The iqttf has been a matter of debate. forming cavalry. 26 Thomas. 1985. and thereby reduce his power to nothing that Vasak Artsruni denounced the rebel Ashot before the Caliph. 25 Thierry. That lavish gifts from leaders were expected. . pp. in theory. II. trans. and that they created. except in Duin and Vajarshapat and perhaps Garni. pp. 6. which as we shall see.6 4 0 -8 8 4 trouble. aristocratic power depended as much on people as it did on property.)28 Particular family fortunes were significantly affected by 24 Thomas. namely of assembling forces. or inaction. 202-3 (Ashot). 1978. 27 Canard (translating Ter-Ghevondian). and neither state territorial ownership.26 As these tales make plain. 1985. the nakharars seem to have retained their traditional rights. Hasan dreamt of power.

30 Moses Daskhurantsci. were expected. Dowsett. 33 Perikhanian. pp. in 804. partly. 119. Helen. had been exiled for opposition when Ashot Bagratuni had been made prince in 732. 26. and fought. is actually termed queen in a tenth-century source. 21. apparently.32 The azats who attested donations by princes and by their close kin may have been agnatic kinsmen. In the seventh century. For the prince. actually chosen by nakharars in council. The support of kinsmen for each other could not always be guaranteed. there of family ownership of lands. though this too could work. An ethic and perhaps a reality of kin solidarity in Siwnikc may be inferred from the retention. 1961b. . 117-18. though obliged to organize military aid for the caliph. One source attributes Gregory’s revolt to a wish to depose Ashot. For matters 29 Ter-Ghevondian. 113-14. above ch. 7 pp. for which act they blinded him. 25. was nevertheless governor and involved in collecting the tribute. not only the leading rebels but also their kinsmen. between close kin at least. Stephen asserts that he was quoting inscrip­ tions. 1982b. explains it.31 and Ashot himself only reluctantly fell in with the rebels’ plans and then deserted them. The elimination of an enemy’s kinsmen was more likely to prevent future trouble than was the taking of hostages. 1966.33 Cases in which one kinsman failed to help another do not all necess­ arily disprove the hypothesis that solidarity was a norm. another Gregory Mamikonean. return. which itself may be inferred from donation texts. with the appoint­ ment. The ninth-century balance was likewise swung by the Arabs in the Bagratunis’ favour. This may explain why in 852 Bugha arrested. whose consent to the donations was required. perhaps out of suspicion of the Mamikoneans’ power and their loyalty to Byzantium. lacking the rights of the Arsacid kings and. 164-5). or renaissance. Mushe} Mamikonean had not joined the transfer of alle­ giance from Arabs to Byzantium in 6 54 because four of his sons were hostages. for Gregory’s exile. II. 6 4 0 -8 8 4 179 Arab patronage. and this time it may have been a wish to check Artsruni power which. dating from the middle of the ninth century onwards. p.30 The later preference of the Arabs to appoint the Bagratunis. 153. 31 Lewond. Arzoumanian. appointment as Prince of Arme­ nia enhanced an individual’s status considerably. In Armenia many donation texts survived as inscriptions in situ (cf. Indeed the Armenian rebellion of 747 has some elements of a Bagratuni-Mamikonean power struggle. incorporated in the History written in the thirteenth century by Stephen Orbeiean. motive for revolt. 38. trans. 32 In western Europe ninth-century charters appearing in thirteenth-century confirma­ tions or compilations are usually not authentic. 1968. of another Bagratuni prince. yet it is clear that co-operation and the acknowledgement of obligations. Its leader.29 The Arab-appointed Gregory Mamikonean’s wife. c. trans.Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. contributed to the Bagratunis’ ousting the Mamikoneans from pre-eminence.

Bagratunis and Siwnians in the ninth century .Note: In o rd e r to s h o w ce rta in in te rre la tio n s h ip s c h ild re n a re n ot a lw a y s listed m o r d e r Ы birth Ashot Bagratuni presiding prince 804 V m k of Sfttnık' died 821 Phirp pnftc* 8 2 1 -4 « d mBabik Smbat pnnce 821-31/2 the Khurramrte sparapet in nted Ayrarat Bagarat pnnce Ы Armenia inherited Tarön НһрЧипв m A rtyvni pnnce BabgÄn Ners8s Vasak Ashot Ishkhan* Am m an Gregory Supcan Mrahal G ag* Ashot King d m tbenan d r Bagratid Gurgen Gregory Г 4 sons Gag* (S m b a t Sahak vasak Babgen) Hrahat I Ashot Vasak ■ Gabum I I М лат Sophia m G regory-Oeren* Artsruni d m Vahan А п а т и т tons Vahan m d at Artsruni King Ashot G a g * Apumruan m (1 )d . of Vasak Ashot G eykm M *1 1 # Gurg8n Sophia Hasan d(1) m Gag* Apumruen Figure 8.1 Partial genealogical table: the Artsrunis.

One of his reasons was that David was his brother-in-law. Gluckman. Hasan’s uncle Gregory-Derenik had entrusted the captive Ashot of Taron and the fort of Sewan to him when he was only fifteen. (pp.. 1964. 7 (pp. note 52 pp. 284. 175-6. He was first cousin to the two rival brothers but father-in-law of Gregory-Derenik. 145-6. Gurgen had an opportunity to kill Gregory-Derenik. 22. 139-164). ch. ‘The Family as Corporate Group’. 1985. trans. Beattie. 150.6 4 0 -8 8 4 181 mighr be complicated by an individual’s having obligations. 125-60) esp. In 878 Gregory-Derenik Artsruni estab­ lished David Bagratuni as prince of Tarön. When GregoryDerenik was himself captured. Gurgen refused a suggestion of Ashot’s brother to partition Ashot’s lands between them. J. 1962. Thomson. by Hasan. III. Following his wrathful uncle’s release Hasan regained Sewan by taking captive for him another rebel. 20. Geary. 286-9. did not. ch. .Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. ch. 298. ch. 1985. for an introduction to the literature. 9 ‘Social Control: Political Organisation’ (pp. pp. 36 For anthropological appraisals of bloodfeud. Thomson. pp. He had managed to imprison Gregory-Derenik by enticing him to visit.37 This behaviour looks similar to the institution of adoption. While the rebel Ashot Artsruni was in Samarra. WallaceHadrill. Evans-Pritchard. 185-212). pp. perhaps of differing force. Gregory-Derenik expected that he would take it. 1964 esp. by pronouncing a formula such as ‘you are my daughter’. 1994. For bloodfeud in early medieval Frankish Gaul. VIII. Campbell. 287-8.34 Hasan’s own career paradoxically reveals both that kinsmen had positive expectations of each other and that they might be cruelly betrayed. Ill ‘Stateless Societies and the Maintenance of Order’ (pp.l5 Bloodfeud is just as much an expression of family cohesion as is patronage. trans. His refusal was partly to avoid offending the Caliph who had just invested Ashot and his son Gregory-Derenik with the Artsruni principality and partly because his father had been killed by the brothers’ father. 1985. 148. In this situation the Prince of Princes Ashot remained quiescent. 35 Ibid. 1965. by feigning illness. 81-122) esp. for ‘love of Christ’. III. The clearest evidence lies in the career of Gurgen Apupelch Artsruni.. 1 Thomas Artsruni. 265-7. 295. imprisoning the rightful prince. like David his first cousin once removed. c. in vengeance. David’s brother Ashot. 14. pp. 269. pp. 145-150 and. 111-14 for significance in medieval European history. 1940. K. Ashot abandoned the siege of Manazkert to secure his son-in-law’s release. For feud in western Europe and the church’s involvement therein. and the two addressed each other as ‘son’ and ‘father’. When. In one Caucasian tribe a murderer could con­ secrate himself to his victim at the grave to form a fictitious relationship 34 Thomas Artsruni. But Gurgen. David pre­ sumably seemed likely to be an easier neighbour. the offender’s grandson. Hasan’s own brother-in-law. This man himself later seized the fort and gave it back to Hasan again. 20. trans. ch. later. 10 ‘Social Control: Law and Social Sanctions’ (pp.36 and bloodfeud seems still to have obtained in Armenian aristocratic society. Thomson. known among some Caucasians in the nineteenth century. which conflicted. pp. 165-81) esp.

for example. their role in the ninth century was much as it had been in the Arsacid period. the emir of Amida (Diyarbakir) wel­ comed the supporters of the rightful princes as brave and powerful men. pp. The feud was not however completely resolved. trans. trans.182 Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. 7. trans. p. who took him prisoner in 862. ‘regarding it as the blood price’. They participated in political life. Thomas Artsruni. 42 John Katholikos. Ashot. III. princes. and they also had to reckon with fellow Armenians of lesser individual influence. 43 Thomas Artsruni. IV. The structure of ninthcentury society naturally differed somewhat from that of earlier cen­ turies.40 As for azats and ramik s. ishkhan after the 770s seemingly representing a position and status superior instead of equivalent to that of nakharar. 1987. pp. tenurial obligation. 332 n. The change of use of the words ishkhan and nakharar in the Arme­ nian sources.6 4 0 -8 8 4 which would presumably gain him the rights of blood kinship. sustained or betrayed by kinsmen. provided most of the military strength of their superiors. 1 for differing editorial enumerations of the chapters of the anonymous continuators.42 and in their inclusion (with bishops. 39 Thomas Artsruni. For detail.and early tenth-century azats in the Artsruni History (comprising the work of Thomas Artsruni and of his continuator) occur in a military context. 2. Thomson. XXV. in about 900 Gagik Apumruan usurped Vaspurakan. his p.38 Gurgen subsequently did assume a fatherly role towards Gregory-Derenik when he protected him from the Prince of Princes. because his nakharars did not agree with him. c . 1985. p.43 These gradations of power. 40 John Katholikos. 38. It is possible that Armenian princes were attended by men who corresponded. The azats. 119. monks. 298-9. trans. lords and azats) in the early tenth-century king Gagik Artsruni’s discus­ sion of building plans for Altcamar (Aghtamar) on Lake Van.41 The ramik served as cavalry and defended forts. W hen. 1985. History o f the Armenians. 22. . 270-1. and differentiations of roles involved con­ trol of territory. Yet the ninth-century princes still needed nakharar support. who had their own troops. pp. 1987 p. They were azats. 41 Thomas Artsruni. his son and grandsons. as indicated by their attendance at King Ashot I’s funeral. 1985. Gurgen engineered both Gregory-Derenik’s release and his marriage to Ashot’s daughter. 58. Thomson. III. 297. Thomson. ‘especially because they had often acquired a victorious reputation’. 8. 356 and cf. probably. (Continuator). as is shown by the inability of Ashot Artsruni in 852 to resist Bugha. p. 130. 1951. especially the capital of Rshtunikc (Vostan) the site of his father’s murder. In 895 Gurggn asked Gregory-Derenik’s son for part of Vas­ purakan. 1985. reflects the concentration of power in a few families. 14. XXX.39 The powerful could be promoted or baulked by caliphs and emperors. Maksoudian. trans. 22. M ost of the references to the ninth. trans. Maksoudian. Thomson. III. yet we should not think entirely in terms of a neat and tidy social pyramid. Bands of azats are associated with Ashot Artsruni. 38 Luzbetak. inherited status and. 200-04.

176.179. 1982b. trans. 45 Lewond. the probably late eighth-century Lewond’s account of eighth-century events concentrated by contrast on Armenians making their careers inside Armenia. The Artsruni trains in the 850s included Gregory Gnuni with six harazat (related) men and Artawazd Entruni with seven. Whereas the possibly seventh-century ‘Sebeos’ recorded a number of individuals serving Persia or Rome.47 whether for reasons of kin solidarity. continuing friendship. 6. was a third buttress of power. removed M us­ lims living in Vaspurakan. 4. Besides property and people. depending upon military power. and 291. Vahewunis. several Varazhnunis. Having begun as a follower of the prince of Vaspurakan Ashot Artsruni. propaganda. III. and Amatunis. 10 pp. 213 (850s). Thomson. 270: Laurent. 126-7. 1985. 1985. c. 124-5. gathered the local nakharars and their cavalry and raided from N kan. which simultaneously justifies achievements and reflects aspirations. trans.262. . 301 (Amatuni support for Ashot’s son and grandsons). defeated the individual whom the Artsrunis who remained at liberty had elected as prince. as in the case of the Amatunis.6 4 0 -8 8 4 183 to some degree. pp. 46 Thomas Artsruni. 1922. trans.264. Loyalties might survive over several generations. pp. II. and III. Thomson. 176.8 . whose nakharars accompanied him and the governor Marwan on cam­ paign against the Khazars: and Gagik Artsruni. who after the deaths of his two brothers. Such persons include Sahak and Hamazasp Artsruni who met the Arab enemy with a few men in 762: Artawazd Mamikonean who gath­ ered troops in considerable numbers in 774.258.44 It may be that the circumstances of Arab rule had provided the conditions for such an institution to flourish. III. 2 4 7 .46 There might of course be kinship bonds between the followers of a great lord. 13. he was invited to enter Byzantine service and he was eulogized throughout the land. 129. He fought Byzantine forces in Sper. II. with the comitatus of Germanic societies. distinct from the mass of troops. Arzoumanian. pp. 20. in or outside Armenia. he acquired renown during Ashot’s captivity. 34. Prince Ashot Bagratuni. 6. W hat survives from the period 6 1 0 -8 8 4 was composed for the 44 See below ch.45 The clearest examples of the existence and importance of the personal following lie like those of bloodfeud within the career of GurgCn Apupelch in the 850s and 860s. tenurial obligations or political imperatives. His retinue had grown with his success: in Sper he had forty warriors but when he encountered Bugha’s army in Vaspurakan and when in 862 he marched from TarOn to Rshtunikc to rescue GregoryDerenik he had 4 0 0 . 30. a body of noble men attending a leader for purposes of war.Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. He was appointed prince (presumably of Vaspurakan) by Bugha. and trounced the army Bugha sent against him.14. 47 Thomas Artsruni. 114. 22. 32. 24.

52 Ibid. 49 Moses. Their reasons include the text’s anachronisms. 58-60. conveniently. pp. false. He effectively erases the actual pre-eminence in Armenia’s history of the Mamikoneans and. Toumanoff. pp. 50 Thomson. 1963. and the mission to the Huns was. 7-8. 1978. 46. 40. In pursuit of his aim Moses falsely represents the Bagratunis as having been. But M oses’ main purpose was to exalt the Bagratunis and to justify their new late eighth-century position as the leading family. Moses of Khoren’s History o f the Armenians.50 for example making the Christian apostle Thaddaeus’s first Armenian convert a Bagratuni.8 0 0 took this further. Thomson. p. C. 110-11. 326-9. by the mid-fifth century. 1. 65. the second half of the fifth century. 1984. I. pp. pp. pp. trans. is dated by most scholars to the late eighth century. 29-31. Ashot offering a church to Christ in return for a blessing.52 A Georgian annalist writing between C. that is an origin among God’s chosen people.51 and he por­ trays Bagratunis as consistently loyal to friends and steadfast in religion. asserting that the Bagratunis were descendants of the Old Testament king David.-640-884 Bagratunis. Thomson. 1970. genealogy.48 Moses was concerned to explain the origins of Armenian aristocratic families and since such a concern might be the nostalgic interest of an antiquarian in something which is in decline it may reflect their decline.. The Church: Politics and Problems Throughout the seventh and eighth centuries the Church had retained a leading role in politics. . 170. that is with Adam the first man. 49-52. p. prominent in Arme­ nian affairs for many centuries. 1978.184 Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. trans. II. Moses is the first writer to ascribe them a Hebrew origin. I. 1978. 53 Martin-Hisard. 330-6. may lie a real Bagratuni patron. 1978. despite M oses’ claim to have been one of the fifth-century circle of Patriarch Sahak and the scholar Mesrop. 51 Moses.49 presumably meant to be the marzpan of 4 8 2 . Thomson. 368-71.53 This of course made them distant kinsmen of Jesus Christ. 48 Thomson. pp. 56-61. Nerses III had instigated Byzantium’s appointments o f Theodore Rshtuni and Ham a­ zasp Mamikonean to oversee Armenia. The Bagratuni family also propagated a prestigious. and authorial interests which seem to reflect later eighthcentury developments. 1963. which begins at the beginning. ends his account just before their most heroic period. AdontzGarsoian. Toumanoff. 22. its use of sources later than the fifth century. 1978. trans. Behind his claim that he was writing at the request of ‘Sahak Bagratuni’. A sculptured relief of Ashot I of Iberia shows David interceding with Christ for Ashot. In the seventh century for example. 33.790 and c.

According to a later source. 55 Vardan. Dowsett. after the 703 revolt. trans.Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. may have been meant not merely to improve standards but also to impress the. John expelled the ‘Greek’ party. 11. The establishment of the canon of the Old Testament was yet to come. a political move. It terminated Armenia’s union with the Byzantine church. Thomson. Just as it had done in the fifth century the church maintained a favour­ able attitude towards war. In both the nakharars confirmed 54 Moses Daskhurantsci. 1989. and the princess who supported him. 5. c . trans. which it did with the con­ demnation of the errors of Julian of Halicarnassus. Stephen of Siwnikc.6 4 0 -8 8 4 185 probably. Elia denounced him. at the Council of Partaw in 768. attacking shortcomings and heresy (notably in two treatises. Katholikos E}ia (7 0 3 -1 7 ) conciliated the caliph Abd al-M alik when the Albanian patriarch turned to Chalcedonianism. pp. which had proliferated in the seventh century. into a canon.56 Lewond’s account of the two eighth-century Mamikonean rebellions offers a number of illuminating details. At a sensitive moment. 38. p. arousing a protest from Emperor Leo III (717— 41). 191. . In his 719 synodal oration for example he urged the extension of the Sunday vigil and liturgical uni­ formity. stressing that he had come to an agree­ ment with the Byzantine emperor. Katholikos John of Ödzun (7 1 7 -2 8 ) followed Elia’s example. clergy and laymen. was probably the work of his contemporary. Against the Docetists and Against the Paulicians) and promoting improvements. trans. John’s earlier measures. 1961b. Dowsett. He certainly seems to have impressed the Caliph (Umar) with his glamorous attire and discourse and he obtained tax exemptions for clergy and church property. III. a matter addressed in the Council’s canons. insuring independence by impressing the Arabs with Armenian loyalty and rectitude. 200-1.54 and replaced him at a synod in Partaw in 704. His work was essentially to forge the Armenians into a people of God. at the Caliph’s orders. p. The organization.55 The Council’s chief concern however was to re-establish good relations between the Armenian and Syrian churches. teetotal Muslims. as they clearly were (by laymen) according to the Albanian katholikos Symeon in 7 0 4 . 56 Moses Daskhurantsci. theoretically. and agreement to differ on some liturgical matters. of hymnodic material. 180. His compilation of a book of canon law in 7 20 was perhaps meant in part to prevent Armenian disputes either reaching Arab courts or suffering Arab interference. though soldiers were regarded as unfit to be given authority in the church or church property. John’s accomplishments had political implications but it would be unfair to question his religious sincerity. III. to curb drunkenness in bishops. in the canons of his 719/20 Duin Council. The 726 Council of Manazkert was a joint enter­ prise between the Armenians and the Syrian church which was subject to the Arabs. 1961b.

58 The nakharars had earlier been encouraged by a visionary monk. and they reflected later authorial attitudes. trans. p. the heroes of the last battle perceived themselves to be fighting for their church as well as for country and nation. 62 Thomas. low and declining standards. Arzoumanian.59 The rebels were accompanied into battle by clerics carrying Gospels. 7. naturally. according to enemy informants. trans.61 Thomas Artsruni’s account of the early 850s resistance to Bugha has similar elements.60 And though the Armenians lost. Arzoumanian. The 645 Duin Council attests and attempted to curtail some aristocratic abuses . candles and incense. 61 Ibid. 26. 1982b. who prophesied the return of ‘the sceptre of the kingdom’ and exhorted them daily. 4. and the choir sang the song of victory over Pharoah. 1985. trans. trans. 1982b.62 In another passage the Albanian prince Apumuse claims that slaying enemies of God is ‘great piety’. Ibid. The church sanctioned armed struggle even when there was no immediate religious provocation. 10. and insurgents used Christianity to justify their cause. 132. pp. of the executions of the clerics of the church of St Gregory (probably the monastery of St Gregory at Bagawan).. infringing ecclesiastical immunity from tax. trans. 131-2. Lewond’s audience could nevertheless rejoice. p.63 Such accounts as these scarcely represent the exact truth. For in an earlier account. 58. 243. and. almost as if they had learnt their lesson from ElishS’s account of the 45 0 revolt.6 4 0 -8 8 4 their union with an oath. trans. They certainly reveal the interpretations which the authors and their associates wished to be accepted. Ecclesiastical problems in the period of Arab rule included lay encroachment. pp. pp. Both priests and heavenly hosts took part in the battle ‘for it was a spiritual battle’ ‘for the holy churches and the people of God’. . Yet because they also drew on mem­ ories and because they were written for patrons it is unlikely that they entirely misrepresent the attitudes of the protagonists concerned. Thomson. p. Arzoumanian. by a multitude of angels fighting in human form. 63 Ibid.the holy cross’. dismissing monks. after the battle line was arranged. 34. Thomson. They drew on earlier sources. trans. 34. c. III. Arzoumanian. ‘the deacons offered benedictions’.. When Gurgen Artsruni’s army was attacked.186 Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. secular sins. 120. Ibid. The 704 Partaw Council complained of usurpation of property and of authority in 57 58 59 60 Lewond.lodging in monasteries with cavalry. and they were assisted. Ibid. owing much to Elishe. Thomas. Arzoumanian. 213-14. 1982b. citing four particular Old Testament examples and the Israelites in general as parallels. while the wicked will ultimately receive their just rewards.57 In the second rebellion. 1985. p. for example.. 136. minstrels and dancing girls. Lewond explains that those who are crucified with Christ will reign with Him. 137.. 1982b. ‘the priests raised up the holy gospel and their banner . 1982b.

princes and nobles. to be beheaded in 737. Unfortunately the date of this event is uncertain.64 The problems and deficiencies of monastic establishments are not the whole story of monasticism. especially by soldiers. 7. was a recluse. The phenomenon of aristocratic control of monasteries surfaces in the tale of Vahan of G ojtcn. and Arzoumanian’s p. 1-9. and p. Arzoumanian. 60 for the later Church Fathers’ concept of virginity as a species of martyrdom. trans. though not so secluded that she could not give music lessons from behind a screen. Venice. pp. as soldiers and martyrs. p. though first collected in an Armenian version in the twelfth century. й 6 Stephen Orbelean. pp. 58. very early eighth century according to Lewond. humility and solitude.Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. 164 where he states 699 to be the date. The monastery of St Gregory at Bagawan. lest he ruin his benefactors as well as himself. Vahan had found hospitality in several monasteries before he returned to the Caliphate. 13 (1854). Raised a Muslim. 85. esp.66 Some snippets of information suggest that some monasteries and churches may have been wealthy even in the times of troubles. There is no evidence for nunneries as such. c. 1864. The 768 Council as we have seen also attests ecclesiastical losses.65 There was a large community at Makenots0 in Siwnikc in the 780s. p. Village clergy seem not to have held hereditary ecclesiastical properties any more and these properties o f Saint Vahan o f Colthene 64 Vahan’s story is recounted by Artawazd. trans. recording the digging of a monastic canal. following another source’s dating of the perpetrator’s arrival in Armenia rather than Lewond’s reference to the Caliph. in the late 780s according to John Katho­ likos. Stephen of Siwnikc. The selections suggest very respectable aspirations. Sayings of the fourth. their thoughts and desires. when plundered.67 A 783 inscription at T calin suggests monastic estate management. 91-111 for martyrdom and monastic life conceived as spiritual military service. John Katholikos. The 645 canons stipulate that bishops should supervise monasteries but it also attests that they were themselves not immune from faults: they could not be relied upon to avoid violence. while hostage in Damascus. Maksoudian. 114-15 and his Commentary. 1968. trans. 1974b. Malone. but was expelled after six months at the behest of the lady of the province. were excerpted earlier. whose M artyrdom is to be found in Armenian Texts (Sopcerk c H aykakan kc) (22 vols.1. Abbot of Erashkhavorkc. 1987. The concept of monks as martyrs and soldiers was traditional. 1982b. 1950. Vahan converted to Christianity after returning home around 719. towards monks fighting. H istory o f the H ouse ofS isakan . but there are examples of well-connected women undertaking a monastic life. 65 Leloir. cavalrymen and tax-collectors. towards contemplation. Brosset. The sister of John of Ödzun’s contemporary. including during the eighth century. virginity. 67 Lewond. Sought by the authorities he found shelter only in a monastery in Shirak. . 1853-61) vol. 1974a. XXIV. 6 4 0 -8 8 4 187 the church.and fifth-century Egyptian Desert Fathers. greed and encroachment on others’ dioceses. XXXI. possessed glori­ ous and precious vessels which had been given by kings.

trans. to study for six months with a mathematician. under Tychicus who attracted pupils even from Constantinople. His Geography. included the Persian and Armenian systems. XXXIX. possibly involving archival material. 69 Stephen Orbelean. Popular legend later portrayed him as a scholar of the occult. 71 Berberian. based on a work by Pappus of Alexandria.69 But the wealth of Tatcew was part of the ninth-century Armenian revival. 1964. astronomy. 1992. though the Armenians did complain in a letter to Constans II in 648 that Arab invasions had caused a decline in religious learning. Bishop David purchased a village. bishop of the Arsharunis. and acquired half another by exchange. his books banned. 249. p. XL. Bishop Solomon was given another in 867.6 4 0 -8 8 4 seem to have passed to monasteries. Born between 595 and 60 0 . . pp. chronology and mathematics. probably to Martyropolis. 1992. prematurely taking students of their own and so bringing him into disrepute. He also wrote a discourse about Easter and Christmas. nor anyone capable of teach­ ing him. then moved south. had become very wealthy by 884. the career and brief autobiography of Anania of Shirak are instructive. There were no mathematical books available in Armenia. and for full discussion of authorship. and works of cosmography. in 844 Philip gave the village of Tatcew. worked in Constantinople with the Armenian ‘Hellenizing’ 68 Canard (translating Ter-Ghevondian). Prince Hrahat another village. While Arab domination was stronger. c. and then north to study for eight years. 70 Sebeos. 1. in 839. Anania taught for a while in Armenia but found his pupils lazy and arrogant. Hewsen. trans. and purchased another property in 8 8 1 .71 Anania composed a variety of works. It was not that the wars which occurred between 640 and 700 had themselves dealt a fatal blow to Armenian culture. killed in 735 by a loose woman whom he had reprimanded. (French translation of text). Brosset. 72 The Armenian section is based on local information and some research. reworking a text of Epiphanius of Cyprus (c . seat of the Siwnian bishops. XXXIII. but Anastas’ death prevented its adoption. 1864. In the early years Gregory. exiled. 1986. 59A.68 Tatcew. 122. from Prince Philip. in Trebizond. 273-5 for discussion. gained another in 877 by exchange. Hewsen. which has not survived in its entirety. 123-7.4 0 3 ). his Introduction.70 In this context. The eighth-century church lacked such scholars. 130-2. 32. the glories which the seventh-century church had enjoyed had not continued. and some scholars believe that they were parts of a single exposition of knowledge. 1904. though learning did not entirely cease. Anania left his native Ayrarat for Theodosiopolis. pp.3 1 5 -c. was composed before 6 3 6 . both movable and fixed. Macler. date and sources. In the 660s Anania was asked by Katholikos Anastas (6 6 1 -7 ) to compose a perpetual calender of ecclesiastical feasts. Bishop Stephen of Siwnikc. pp.188 Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. wrote a commentary on the Lectionary for Vahan Kamsarakan. for use in the education of theologians. probably in the 620s.72 His On Weights and Measures.

Subsequent scholars. X. p. concerned by the work’s tripartite nature (focussing first. but this venture failed after their deaths.6 4 0 -8 8 4 189 school and specialized in Biblical exegesis. 76 Mahe. 74 SebSos. 1904. pp. seemingly a short excerpt though not a literal quotation from the real Sebeos. was put together in the eighth rather than the seventh century.and seventh-century Roman-Persian wars. as one who lead his people back to the true religion.74 More important is that Arab dominion is identified as the fourth world empire prophesied in the Old Testament book of Daniel.. argued differences of authorship between the parts. 75 Ibid. 1984. 37-39. 129-30. Macler. c . 132. and the early Arab period. 95 and pp. p.77 was surely in the minstrels’ repertoire. Its discoverer. In translating. with vehemently anti-Arab passages. Shakhatcunean. identified it as the History o f Heraclius by Bishop Sebfios. XXX. It combines a sympathetic account of Muhammad. In 1949 Malkhasian reasserted authorship of the whole by Sebeos. 77 Sebeos. XXXII. XXXV. trans. on some fourteen generations of legendary history. The tale of the rebel Smbat Bagratuni first defeating bear. in the part nowadays known as the Primary History. 1985. 104-5. Oral tradition must have contributed to his information about the Bagratunis.Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. Nevertheless Pseudo-Sebeos’s work is especially valuable for the informa­ tion it provides about late sixth. 227.75 In another text. Armenian involvement therein. One indication is that it is not a unified construction. pp. though its narrative concludes in 66 1 . into Armenian. 104-5. O f the historical works composed between 6 40 and 884 the most problematic is the anonymous text which was discovered in 1842. In 1958 Abgarian argued persuasively that the text is not Sebeos’s lost History.76 The conviction of ‘Pseudo-Sebeos’ that Arab power was a permanency suggests that he wrote in an eighth-century context. trans. who attended the 645 Duin Council. And discussion of its authorship has continued. and thought Seb6os to be the Sebeos. bull and lion in the Constantinopolitan arena then being spared at the prayer of the empress. and feasted. and third on the late fifth century onwards). Macler. which is referred to by later Armenian historians. . 1904. bishop of the Bagratunis. 73 Frendo. includes a brief resume. Macler.73 It is even possible that even the third part of the text. His contemporaries Katholikos John and the Syrian patriarch Athanasius established a monastery on the Armenian-Syrian border where boys might learn Syriac and Armenian and works of the Fathers might be translated. this fourth is identified as the Persian monarchy. and XXXII. the (probably early sixth-century) mystic works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite he was helped by the Byzantine emperor Leo Ill’s consul and attendant David. 1904. XXXIV. second on the Artaxiad and Arsacid periods. trans.

Mahe. and this is partly attributable to the Umayyads’ opposition to Christian construction or restoration.6 6 5 . Armenia’s ‘Father of History’ who glorified the Bagratunis. His greatest work was the congregational church of the heavenly host. at Aruch. Ashot’s son Bagarat Bagratuni sub­ sequently asked Nonnus for a commentary on the Gospel of St John. There was clearly an interest in literature and theology. Colophon. trans. 150. 70-105 and for discussion his pp. p.80 A smaller scale work than these is an anonymous history of the Hripcsimean nuns. around 840. Arzoumanian. for the 885-90 suggestion. to economic difficulties and political distractions. 491 n. The Patriarch of Jerusalem commissioned an explanation of the Chalcedonian faith for the Armenians and this led to a theological debate at Ashot Bagratuni’s court. Katholikos NersCs III is known as ‘the Builder’. and for the identification his pp.78 or the Shapuh who was the brother of the later king. or may even be an original Armenian composition (rather than an Armenian translation from Greek) of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. four-apsed with galleries. It was translated into Armenian in about 856. c. The presiding prince Gregory Mamikonean likewise built a palace. pp. And there were other later seventh-century churches. Before 700 architecture had flourished. and was part of his palace complex near Ejmiatsin. between the author and the Syrian scholar the deacon Nonnus of Nisibis in 817. and at his instigation. composed about 800. pp. 42-7. 13-14. for example NersSs 78 Lewond. . Gero.1 90 Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. It incorpor­ ates a lengthy epistle. Gregory was also associated with the unusual church at Zoravar near Elvard. the vardapet Lewond. and provide ammunition for use in debate. 80 See Gaudeul.79 This epistle may actually have been composed in reply to a letter written by a Muslim in Syria about 8 8 5 -9 0 0 . Lewond’s history covers 6 3 2 -7 8 8 . c. which was founded between 643 and 6 5 2 . Arzoumanian. 311 for criticism of Gero’s suggestion. beside the church which he and his wife founded. The eighth century is marked by a decline in building. 79 Lewond. 153-71 for the suggestion of the later date. naturally. Its exposition of the divinity of Christ may have been intended specifically to buttress the faith of orthodox Christians. trans. 1973.6 4 0 -8 8 4 Eighth-century writers later than Pseudo-Sebeos were Pseudo-Moses of Khoren. which had a radiating plan with eight wings and apses. 3). which Nonnus provided. purportedly from the Byzantine emperor Leo III to Caliph Umar II. and partly. 1993. and. answering questions which had been put about Christ­ ianity. 1982b. Zuartcnotsc. 196 (n. Lavishly decorated with sculpture. 41. 1984. perhaps. in Arabic. its design is related to some Syrian and north Mesopotamian churches and it accommodates the Byzantine liturgy. Lewond’s patron was ‘Shapuh Bagratuni’ brother of Ashot and so was either the Shapuh who was brother of the presiding prince Ashot who died in 8 2 6 . 1982b. pp. in the face of criticism by Muslims or heretics.

trans. 82 Thomas Artsruni. 68. Thomson. 7. architecture revived.81 Like political independence. pp.6 90.6 4 0 -8 8 4 191 Plate 9 The khachckcar o f Prince Gregory Atrnersehean from the village o f Mets Mazrik. slowly.Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. 81. c . 70-1.82 In Vaspurakan the church of the Holy Cross of Albak was 81 Thierry and Donabedian. founded between 670 and 689. and Prince Kohazat’s and Bishop Joseph I’s St John at Sisian. There was by contrast almost no building in the eighth century. Kamsarakan’s church of the Mother of God at T calin. pp. in the ninth century. c. 1989. . Bagarat Bagratuni of Тагбп built a domed church in Muş at great expense. 1985. 186-7. probably completed in 691. There are assertions in literary sources that Katholikos John and Katholikos David I (7 2 8 -4 1 ) built churches at Ödzun and Aramus but their validity has been questioned. 561. 881. II.

began to be erected.86 83 Thierry and Donabedian. such as those which had been condemned by the Church Fathers. to mark its end. at Garni. besides aristocratic encroachment. 18. 1961a. pp. the wearing of black and of ashes on the head. to the monastery at Varag was completed in 862. Marriage with infidels. 170. M lkc5. by Princess Miriam in 874. In Siwnikc two churches (the Apostles and M other of God) were built on an island in Lake Sevan.84 Clerical admonition. Some other lay sins were political necessities. of nobles. c. Anonymous Continuator. and this may by now have become an integral part of the ritual. if insincere and forced. pp. to recall the mourners to the fear of God. M khitcar Gosh (edns 1880. . which caused con­ cern. at an unknown scriptor­ ium but probably for an Artsruni patron. n. 1 for difficulties regarding Book and Chapter numbering. Bagarat’s view that apostasy from Christianity. for code. is one of the earliest. 1975). stigmatized by the 768 Council as worse than fornication and adultery. 85 For text and translation of Penitential. 280-1. Christian counter-attack was impracticable because apostasy from Islam and attacks on Islam were punishable by death. is also mentioned.85 could not be avoided. of 879. This church is probably the church of St Ejmiatsin at Soradir. 1989. and condemned in the first Armenian penitential and law code. that is steles bearing a carved cross. Thomson. 332 n. 1 and p.6 4 0 -8 8 4 founded sometime between c. was harmless. Khachckcars. Thomas Artsruni regretted that the returning apostates remained outside canonical regulations and committed further sins. but there were of course others. trans.83 The illuminated Gospel pres­ ented in the early tenth century by King Gagik Artsruni’s wife. 577. 328-31 and see his p. perhaps one brought to Armenia in the fifth century. Its illustrator used as a model a ‘classicizing’ manuscript. but he had doubts. both of twelfth-century date. 1985. was not the official one. These reactions included wailing. Thomson. 84 Thomas. Queen Katranide’s. pp.670 and 859.192 Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. perhaps in part a manifestation of the cult of the Cross. 1985. after GregoryDerenik’s murder. trans. 325. He conceded that deathbed repentance might save Ashot from torments in the after-life. Conver­ sion to Islam was another danger. Quite apart from the occasional overt pressure on Christians to convert there was also the insidious pressure of social contacts with Muslims. labourers and artisans. Literary. 86 Thomas. as shown in Thomas Artsruni’s continuator’s account of the reactions. Lay transgressions included traditional mourning practices. Dowsett. He was sure that such a sinner would not ‘enjoy the wedding with the bridegroom’. of his widow and bodyguard. architectural and artistic patronage was one aspect of the laity’s behaviour with which the church could be pleased. III. whose (poor) building is either later seventh-century or early ninth-century. breast-beating. Thus daughters of the 770s rebel Mushej Mamikonean and of Bagarat of Tarön were married off to Arab emirs and Vasak of Siwnikc’s daughter wed (by 821) Babik the Khurramite.

by Katholikos John of Ödzun. Their leader Gegnesius-Timothy was denounced to Leo III. Sometimes female donors acted for the benefit of husbands and sons. 88 Astruc et al. 130. was practiced. 1973. recounted in ninthcentury Greek sources and. Brosset. Vahan Kamsarakan. 131-2. lived as an anchorite after a military career. 124-5. 89 Huxley. the heretics’ leader from about 688 until about 717. south-west of Lake Van. has suffered differing reconstructions. XXXIX. There their leader Constantine-Silvanus was executed by imperial authorities in about 682 and then. 867. their leader from 685 to 688). with prayer for remission of the donors’ sins. c . during the Byzantine emperor Leo Ill’s reign (7 1 7 -7 4 1 ).88 What is certain is that between the 660s and the early ninth century they were active in the Armenian frontier zone. Loos. Paul established a dynastic right of leadership and it is not impossible that it was after him that the orthodox called the heretics ‘Paulicians’. 1984. Their history and doctrine. Donation. XL. 877 and 910 threaten that offenders against the grants will answer to God for the donors’ sins. and had Armenian leaders (except for Symeon-Titus. The 867 grantor adds the sins of her parents and husband. XLIV. so no connection with the Duin Council can be established. by now Arab territory..6 4 0 -8 8 4 193 The methods whereby sins might be atoned for included penance and other. trans. probably the neighbourhood of the Bitlis river. Animal sacrifice. (Siwnian) records of 839. 78-107. Garsoian. other peoples’ (the beneficiaries) prayers and salvation are explicitly connected in some Siwnian charters. 1974a. Aucher.1. (between Theodosiopolis and Erzincan) in the middle of the seventh century but about 655 they moved (for reasons unknown) to Cibossa near Coloneia in Lesser Armenia (a natural stronghold. To make salvation secure. some Paulicians found Arab support and established themselves at ‘Jrkay’. 87 Stephen Orbelean. or later. probably one of Mithridates of Pontus’s forts). pp. 1970. 1864.89 Further persecution in the reign of Justinian II caused a flight from Cibossa to Episparis (site unknown) led by ‘Paul’. 1834. . more briefly with regard to the history.87 The Paulician Heretics For probably most of the period 6 4 0 -8 8 4 the church had the further problem of the Paulicians. The date of this episode is disputed. recipient of Bishop Gregory’s commentary on the Lectionary. The Paulicians were condemned in Armenia at the 719 Duin Council. They were at Mananali. pp.Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. Lemerle. 140-1. but hoodwinked Leo’s patriarch and then fled to MananaH. 1967a. traditional ones.

amongst other things. 16. whose testimony deserves more respect than it has sometimes received. espoused a docetic Christology (maintaining that Christ did not have a real body whilst He lived as a human. who was pleased to inhabit inanimate materials. moved north to Tephrike (Divriği). John also emphasized that both the Creation and the miracles recounted in the Old Testament were works of God. crosses. It is perhaps not surprising that Paulicianism proceeded to change. to counter Paulician evangelization. in which John’s evidence is discussed (pp. by the emir. ‘Children of the Sun’ (pp. Arzoumanian. ‘The sons of sinfulness’ who joined Gregory M amikonean’s revolt (747) and whose presence. that the Pauli­ cians credited the creation of matter to a god other than the heavenly father. John of Odzun.91 Gregory.194 Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. 91 Lewond. In addition. 180 (n.6 4 0 -8 8 4 With regard to Paulician doctrine. 11 and pp. and rejected the Old Testament and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. destroyed unity. 518. for disappointed iconoclasts were attracted by a sect which shared their rejection of images. And there were Paulicians amongst the transportees whom the Byzantine emperor Con­ stantine V moved from Melitene and Theodosiopolis to the Balkans in 756. of detesting Christ. Against their charge of idolatry he stressed that divine power entered into churches. n. 120 and his p. 515-533). sometimes in 90 Russell. Sergius’ disciples fled to (Arab) Melitene and were given Argaun. the ninth-century Greek sources allege. of rejecting images and the Cross. under Carbeas. 5. 6 to ch. Persecuted by the Byzantine emperors Michael I (8 1 1 -1 3 ) and Leo V (8 1 3 -2 0 ) (and later by the regent Theo­ dora (8 4 2 -5 6 )). Lewond says.90 for example beseeching the sun. of parodying the Eucharist. The Paulicians were dangerous because they were enthusiastic to recruit. But Paulician numbers increased after Iconoclasm was temporarily defeated in Byzantium in 787. This early eighth-century opposition must have weakened Paulicianism and further setbacks followed. 537-8 provides translation of passages which may reflect a survival of Zoroastrianism. c. p. . Raids on imperial territory proved enrich­ ing. and that it was through this that they performed miracles. but later some Paulicians. 522-4). 1987. wanting independence. 26. 520. accused Paulicians. amongst other things. Their leader Joseph fled. itself the subject of his ch. may have been Paulicians. trans. to the far off Antioch of Pisidia. p. In the mid-eighth century many Paulicians were executed by the Arabs for trying (for reasons unknown) to leave Mananaji. They continued fighting. who went after the revolt to Theodosiopolis. 26). nearby. In the early ninth century it passed to Greek leadership and to military action. but only an apparent one). images and altars through consecration. and of practices suggestive of surviv­ ing Zoroastrianism. 1982b. Much of John’s treatise against them answers Paulician criticisms of the orthodox. 530. Sergius-Tychicus (8 00/1-4/5) refounded the sect. provoked a schism and gained many converts. may be the same Gregory who arrested some Paulicians in Episparis.

Cities and Commerce In the seventh century Duin became a centre of glass-making. it may have been in recompense for the emir’s eschewing M elitene’s patronage of troublemakers. but it was in Arab hands. 93 Garsoian. 1971b. and in 878 Tephrike fell. so called because its founder. pp.94 Under Constantine V iconoclasts taught that the Eucharist was the true image of Christ. drawing ultimately on the propaganda of the iconoclast Leo III. Lewond’s. had already become very much an Arab city. The T condrakians had been massacred some­ time in the mid-ninth century by the emir of Manazkert. present Leo as a new Moses who in 7 17 caused Arab besiegers of Constantinople to drown by the power of the Cross. 1971b. so it was hardly a peasant protest against ‘feudalism’. T condrakianism. .6 4 0 -8 8 4 195 alliance with the Arabs. But Armenia’s economy declined in the eighth century. 94 Gero. 39. Many fled. Katholikos David I (7 2 8 -4 1 ) had left because he was ‘annoyed’ by its non-Christian population.93 is undermined by the eighth-century Paulicians’ rejection of the Cross and of the Eucharist.95 The choice of Partaw (Bardaa) for the 768 Council may have been for the same reason. trans. since internal conditions were disturbed and poor. some probably to strengthen a new Armenian heresy. had worked in T condrak. and because there was another shift of trade routes. 37. p. 95 John Katholikos. his nephew and son-in-law Chrysocheir. Maksoudian. Urban life revived. 1987. But in 872 the Byzantine emperor Basil I defeated Carbeas’ successor. Smbat. that Pau­ licianism was a survival of early Christianity. In the reign of the caliph al-Mahdi (7 7 5 -8 5 ) a discovery of silver relieved poverty and frontier dues were abolished. Matters did not improve until the last quarter of the eighth century. 230. Exactly what had made Paulicianism attractive is unclear. 112. e. c. 227. although the majority of its population remained Armenian. this time to avoid Arab-Byzantine and Arab-Khazar wars in eastern Anatolia and in the Caucasus.92 Garsoi'an’s interpretation.g. and the volume of trade passing through Armenia increased as war in M eso­ potamia disrupted more southerly routes. 1967a. 3. For contemporary Byzantine iconoclasts revered both.Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. until the ninth century Adoptionist and iconoclast rather than dualist. Duin was after all the 92 Garsoian. It had per­ meated the upper classes and it had its own hierarchy. and the eleventh-century Stephen Asolik’s historical works. whose raids had been for Byzantium a major problem. If (king) Ashot did indeed give territory to Manazkert as Constantine VII claimed. originally from Zarehawan. pp. XXIII. 1973. Duin.

When trade increased in the tenth century it was the latter. Bitlis and Martyropolis. as king. Indeed. 20. 98 This is recorded by two Arab writers. Arabs also held Melitene. 372-3 and pp. Berkri.13-115. 1919. The towns of Khlatc. began in the period 775­ 800 when Arab-Khazar wars ceased. and through or by Her. Thomson. but coin circulation suggests that in the ninth century Armenia had links with many parts of the Arab world. pp. Tahir al-Maqdisi and al-Mascudi. which they had refortified in 757. 99 Thomas Artsruni. murdered by the emir of Her in 8 8 7 .99 The coronation of Gregory-Derenik’s father-in-law.97 Probably the most famous exports were Armen­ ian carpets. artistic renaissance and a triumph of religious ortho­ doxy. Ashot Bagratuni.196 Arab Rule and the Revival o f Kingship. which developed first. 96 De Administrando Im perio. c. of which Theodosiopolis was a centre of production. 374-6 in App. 357-81). Manazkert. 139-40. Duin. Just as towns revived so too did commerce. trans. Ani and Theodosiopolis.6 4 0 -8 8 4 Osakan's base. 1985. . 97 Ter-Ghewondyan. III. This route itself was not Armenian. marked a revival of political independence coinciding with economic growth. Theodosiopolis (reconquered from Byzantium in the 750s) and Arzn. The two main Armenian routes passed through or by Nakhchawan. 291. Merchants were widespread.98 It was merchants who retrieved the corpse of Gregory-Derenik Artsruni. 1976. Khlatc. Babik the Khurramite and some companions once disguised themselves as commercial travellers to escape capture. It remained to be seen whether Ashot’s successors would retain or lose leadership of the Armenians. Berkri and Manazkert were regarded by Byzantium’s Constantine VII in the mid-tenth century as effectively Arab territory. which could be controlled throughout by the emirs. p. Extracts from their works are translated into French in Canard’s 1980 revision of Laurent. 44 1. Archesh. Trade between eastern Europe and the Islamic world. Van. though from 789 it shared this honour with Partaw. al-M utahhar b.96 Emirate territories rarely included much land outside cities. ArchCsh. II ‘La Revolte de Bäbek’ (pp. via the Caucasus. ch. pp. sourthern route.

It was King Ashot’s brother Abas and son Smbat who held his extended frontiers in the north. 273 pointing out the debt to Moses. this claim cannot be taken at face value.1 Though the historian John Katholikos asserts that. 1978. Moses of Khoren’s account of King ‘Valarshak’. History o f the Armenians. Maksoudian. which were to be essential to state formation in Western Europe. 7. It was his marriage alliances which facilitated influence in Siwnik0 and Vaspurakan. King Ashot worked not through a bureaucracy but through his kin. History o f the Armenians. especially a legal system controlled by kings. were to establish themselves in Iran. 135-9). Bagratuni kingship ultimately neither united Armenians nor preserved them from the twin perils of the eleventh century. cities and villages. originally from central Asia and Muslims.2 Not until 1184 was there a written Armenian law code. XXIX. in England. . One explanation of Armenia’s failure to develop into a powerful coun­ try is that Ashot’s Armenia was not a nation-state. The office of Prince of Princes (ishkhan ishkhanatsc) continued. concerning noble houses. 6 and 7 (trans. Thomson. 1987. II. p. had achieved this as early as the late ninth century. compiled by M khitcar Gosh.___________________________ 9___________________________ Kings and Migrants. and from these regions invade Armenian lands. but what it involved is not recorded. These Turks. 128 and his commentary p. For John was following a literary model. 1 Of those polities which were to become nation-states only Wessex. the annexation policy of Byzantium and the aggression of the newly appeared Seljuk Turks. pp. and by Smbat’s son Ashot. as king. held successively by Ashot’s sons Smbat and (under Smbat) David. 2 John Katholikos. trans.1071 The establishment of Ashot Bagratuni as king in 884 proved to be little more than icing on a cake made by his own good management and baked by courtesy of his neighbours. Ashot did pass many laws. She lacked some of the governmental institutions. 884-C. Mesopotamia and Azerbaijan.

I A s h o t IV 1 0 2 0 -4 1 I D a vid 9 8 9 / 9 1 -1 0 4 8 I G a g ik 1 0 2 9 -6 5 Jo h n -S m b a t 1 0 2 0 -4 1 G a g ik ll m (2 ) d of D a vid 1 0 4 1 / 2 -5 A rtsru n i . 8 8 4 -8 9 0 Г 1 Philip S m b a t m S o p h ia A rtsruni Sahak Vasak Babgen I Vasak Gabum I m M iriam O th e rs G urg e n 0f Iberia S ah ak Sew aday of G a rd m a n S m bat I 8 9 0 -9 1 3 David I G re g o ry -S u p can I Sahak d m A s h o t II 9 1 3 -2 8 Abas m d 9 2 8 -5 2 /3 M ushej A s h o t N1 9 5 2 / 3 -7 7 M ushe l of Kars S m b a t I) 9 7 7 -8 9 / 9 0 G a g ik ) 9 8 9 / 9 0 -1 0 2 0 — .Note: In order to s h o w certain interrelationships children are not alw a ys listed in ord er o f birth Vasak of S iw n ik died 821 I I Philip prince 8 2 1 .4 8 S ah ak prince 8 2 1 -3 1 / 2 Others V a sa k Ishkhanik с G re g o ry -S o p an I I H ra h a t G ag ik Ashot I king. - G urge n/K w in k e A b a s 984— 10 29 1 I I .

1 Partial genealogical table: Artsrunis and Bagratunis in the tenth and eleventh centuries .S e n e k e rim 1 0 0 3 -2 1 G a g ik II m of A n i d Figure 9.A s h o t B a gra tu n i p re s id in g p rin ce 804 Ashot a n ti-k in g T co m ik Seday D e re n ik -A s h o t 9 3 7 -5 3 1 A busah l H a m a za sp 9 5 3 -7 2 I I A s h o t-S a h a k 9 7 2 -8 3 _l G u r g e n -K h a c h 'ik 9 8 3 -1 0 0 3 I J o h n .

in 892/3. and Smbat’s personal mishandling o f friends and allies. and he extended his frontiers and influence in the north. Gagik’s marriage to a granddaughter of Ashot. accomplished by the mid-890s. 1962. Kars and Lori). Maksoudian. and possibly an aberration. but in David’s case there is some confirmation from the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII (9 1 3 -5 7 ). which is also the interpretation of Brosset’s 1874 French translation. Gagik Apumruan. They began when the governor Afshin (appointed in 889. titles. XXVIII. ambitious for greater power. and were compounded by his own alienation of the Artsrunis. is preferred and the ruler (ark cay) of Thomson. for two of Ashot’s junior contemporaries. a subsidy and a house. to pay taxes. 127. Secondly. Thomas Artsruni.200 Kings and Migrants. one Artsruni and one Siwnian. 4 Thomas. Taken in 895 by the emir of Amida (Diyarbakir) and Arzn and recovered in 898 by Gregory Bagratuni. III. 284 (where Thomson translates ark cay as ruler). Byzantine revival. Smbat’s m ajor troubles were provoked by the Caliph’s governors of Azerbaijan. Commentary ed. Their contemporary. its princes receiving invitations to Constantinople. may have been made then. 1985. Armen­ ian for ‘king’. regent. In the reign of Smbat I (8 9 0 -9 1 3 ). p. unifying ideology. non-exclusive honour. But TarOn was effectively lost. 5-7. which is a diminutive of arkcay. rather than as David.and tenth-century Armenians also lacked an inspira­ tional. three Bagratuni (Ani. and David of Tarön. pp. only three times in all. 1987.4 This is. 1985.5 By the end of the tenth century there were five Armenian kingdoms. p. refers to each as king. Taron revolved thereafter in the Byzantine orbit. . ninth. Jenkins. Arab patronage. ch. The Early Bagratuni Kings The royal Bagratuni pre-eminence had declined quite quickly. trans. cousin of its deprived prince. 884-C. trans. 28 and v. 292 and 283. Kingship may have been perceived as a personal. seem also to have assumed a royal title. 43 1. Gregory-Derenik. 5 D e Administrando Imperio. where the identification of Arkaias as David’s son. admittedly. 20. II. Thomson. such as the empires of Rome and Sasanian Persia had enjoyed.3 after Gregory-Derenik’s assassination Ashot made his (own) grandson. and whose duty regarding Armenia was to forward 3 John Katholikos. retrieving him from an Artsruni prison. Constantine’s account of recent Tarönite his­ tory refers to David as Arkaikas. 284 is taken to be David’s brother Ashot.1071 Although his son-in-law Gregory-Derenik Artsruni of Vaspurakan did begin to reject Ashot’s advice. Admittedly Smbat did deal successfully with rebel­ lion by his uncle Abas and with failure by two Arab governors of Duin. the causes were the intrinsic power of the Artsru­ nis.

Map 9.1 The east Mediterranean and west Asia .

and who would have liked to keep it. Smbat was faced with financial demands from both parties. When Yusuf rebelled against the Caliph. as we have seen. and the peace which was then made owed much to Ashot Artsruni. but also Vaspurakan. and its treasure. When its emir fought Smbat over the matter of Tarön. also called Gagik. where he appointed governors. and Gagik Apumruan to dispossess Ashot and his two brothers. Though Smbat dis­ approved of this. Maksoudian. but the three brothers were nevertheless taken captive. Afshin took Duin in 894. He subsequently attacked again. The brothers’ supporters then went to Diyarbakir. . 7-8. according to the contemporary historian John Katholi­ kos. and Smbat. Smbat rewarded Ashot with Nakhchawan. The outcome of all this was that Afshin was encouraged to attack Armenia. by Ashot Artsruni’s brother. and his 6 John. over which he.6 yet he did nothing to help them. Ashot obtained troops from Afshin. and. In defence. in Van and Vostan. had acquired some kind of suzerainty. and tribute was reduced. 145. Smbat. A brief respite followed Afshin’s death in 900 but it was soon squan­ dered. whom he had lately freed. He subsequently lost much of his territory to Constantine o f Abasgia (modern Abkhazia). Smbat. The breach with the Artsrunis was healed. Atrnerseh (Adarnase).202 Kings and Migrants. against the emirs of Manazkert who had reneged on their financial and military obligations to him. Smbat’s success. shortly after Constantine attacked Gugarkc in about 9 0 4 . Smbat also antagonized another powerful figure. Afshin’s brother Yusuf. p. in about 902. bribed its commander to surrender it to him and then required a high price of Gagik for its return. Atrnerseh had restored the monarchy of Iberia in 888. Smbat restored Nakhchawan to Siwnikc after Ashot’s death in 904 and. The results were disastrous.1071 the taxes to the Caliph) reacted suspiciously to Smbat’s making. Smbat’s ally Gagik Apumruan defected and led Smbat to defeat. In 897 he took Kars. But the king proceeded to jeopardize Artsruni support when he provoked Ashot’s successor Gagik. jealous of Gagik’s success in recapturing the long-lost fort of Amiwk. 1987. annoyingly crowned him too. a treaty with Byzantium. other noble women. and exacted tribute. Х Х Х Г Ѵ . incited Gurgen Apupelch who. nephew and niece as hostages and a bride. not only Smbat’s territory. by 899. The Caliph released Smbat from the authority of the new ostikan. had a grudge of bloodfeud against the Artsrunis. had been crowned by Smbat. worried by Afshin’s friendly relations with the late Gregory-Derenik’s son Ashot Artsruni of Vaspurakan. thereby preventing an alliance between Prince Smbat and the resentful Yusuf. Gagik was killed soon after. early in his reign. trans. Then he acquired Smbat’s son. 884-C. removing Smbat’s queen. Only temporarily soothed. And Ashot proceeded to reconcile King Smbat with Prince Smbat of Siwnikc to whom the king had previously entrusted Nakhchawan.

2 Armenia .Map 9.

LIV. This Byzantine push against the Arabs was marked also by the creation of a new Byzan­ tine theme. but with the aid of the Katholikos the two periodically came to terms. He also repressed rebellions. trans. both o f success and failure. by the prince of Uti. which was cut off from royal territory by Arab enclaves at Duin. Melias attacked M araş (Germaniceia) in 915 and. and Goltcn. wrested from Siwnikc in 914. and was subsequently leader of a band of Armenians. Although Gagik subsequently.1071 consequential exactions irked his nakharars. who came from the Armeniakon theme and was likewise of Armenian descent. Its fort had been rebuilt in 9 0 7 -8 by an Armenian warrior M elias. Unity between Armenians. King Smbat lost support and incurred hostility. both wanting vengeance on Smbat. which saved his reputation. between Caesarea and Melitene.. martyring persons who refused conversion to Islam. The restored Ashot II’s reign avoided extremes. 8 Dedeyan. pp. The recovery which followed was brought about only with Byzantine help. 1987. Nakhchawan. for its support. 884-C. So he surrendered to Yusuf. with Byzantium’s general John Curcuas (Domestic of the eastern Schools). was a problem. 189-191. After being implicated in a (Byzantine) rebellion they had taken refuge in Melitene whence they successfully asked the emperor Leo VI (8 8 6 -9 1 2 ) for immunity and for employment in the Cappadocian frontier regions. In 910 Yusuf and Gagik campaigned against Smbat.7 King Ashot II.204 Kings and Migrants. whence he returned with an army in 915. and Gregory of Тагбп lobbied the Caliph. was invited to Constantinople. He established friendly rela­ tions with the governor of Duin. had perhaps once been in the service of the grandson of the Ashot of Taron whom Gregory-Derenik Artsruni dethroned in 878. 1981b for Melias’s career. Melitene in 9 2 5 -6 . Ashot II was recognized as King of Kings. It was his crucifixion. In G ojtcn. with the fort and district of Ernjak. Iberians and Abasgians was recommended by the Byzantine patriarch N icholas. previously part of Vaspurakan. Armenia’s trials however went on. Armenia’s Byzantine and northern neigh­ bours joined in her pillage and there was unrest. negotiated by Katholikos John. disunity and famine. His cousin. secretly. Yusuf allowed the establishment of an emirate. . Lykandos. Yusuf himself continued campaigning. another Ashot. For a while he did well. came to terms. And after Yusuf was imprisoned by the Caliph in 919. in 913. In 908 Yusuf crowned Gagik Artsruni as king. In 907 one o f them joined Atrnerseh in a murderous plot. In 909 Yusuf devastated Siw­ nik0. including three Mamikonean brothers. who was crowned by Yusuf as another rival king. by the Gntcuni keepers of the fort of Shamshulde in 7 Ibid. The Siwnian princes were submissive.8 Melias was possibly a Varazhnuni. 1-15. already crowned by Atrnerseh of Iberia. Maksoudian. had certainly been in Byzantine service at the battle of Bulgarophygon in 896.

Babgen and Sahak of Siwnikc. 11 Thomson. from Ashot to Gagik.9 Furthermore. resumed Yusuf’s offensive. none of them matched by the Bagratunis. was. according to John Katholikos. 33— 4. made everyone lose confidence in him. with his brother Gurgen. northwards towards Mount Ararat and south to the basin of the Bohtan Su. but he failed to suppress a further rebellion in Uti. he had undermined his friendship with Byzantium. Sahak Sewaday the prince of Gardman. In 922 Byzantium had. 107-17. 10 D e Administrando Im perio. Biwrakan. 1987. Meanwhile Ashot’s blinding of his father-in-law and brother-in-law had. Political Society. And by 925 Byzantium had transferred the title Archon of Archons. What Thomas did. who had had deal­ ings with John Curcuas. Katholikos John’s fort. attacked Duin. the panegyric of Gagik written by a contemporary continuator. Maksoudian. perhaps out of his resentment. which the emperor Constantine VII attests. and perhaps in retaliation for Byzantine collaboration with the governor of troublesome Uti. despite claiming to be a careful scholar. He took Sahak’s territory and he annexed Gejarkcunikc in Siwnikc. and by his own father-in-law. 884-C.1071 20 5 Gugarkc. Ashot managed to keep it. had extended Artsruni power. was pillaged in 923 and other patriarchal property seized. he lured to imprison­ ment having posed as a friendly intermediary. 212. and the remarkable church of the Holy Cross which Gagik built on Altcamar between 915 and 921. who were at odds over territory. exalted the Bagratunis’.925 The superiority of Gagik Artsruni’s vision and strength to those of his Bagratuni contemporaries may be gauged from three vehicles of Artsruni propaganda. by Nasr himself. These are the history undertaken by Thomas Artsruni for Gagik’s father. ch. trans. first. Worse was that Nasr. Ashot had sided with Duin. Gagik.Kings and Migrants. War was waged on Ashot by N asr’s deputy and on the Siwnian captives’ brother. 43 1. p. a subordinate of Yusuf’s to whom Yusuf. by his own brother Abas and Abas’s father-in-law (Gurgen of Iberia).11 Thomas distorts Moses’ account of Armenia’s early history 9 John. Smbat. it was only King Gagik Artsruni who offered strength. . By the m id-920s. unsuccessfully. entrusted Armenia. Greek equivalent of Prince of Princes. In about 923— 4 the Katholikos left Ashot’s court for Gagik’s. 1984b. 884-C .10 of Byzantium’s paying a stipend to Gregory of Tarön. earlier. released in 922 but bought off by Gagik Artsruni. security and reliability. to exalt Artsruni history just as Moses of Khoren had. LX. Vasak Gntcuni offered Shamshulde to Gurg5n of Iberia. But Ashot’s good fortune did not last.

with a nimbus on his head. 197 n. pp. 1985. and being wounded ‘died a mar­ tyr’s death’ (both martirosakan and nahatakdom are used). 16 Thomas.15 Ashot and his fellows in one battle are ‘like brave nahatak s’. 29. 46-51. 147-8. 8. trans. who eventually died from a fall from his horse.12 In his treatment of the 451 rebellion he emphasizes the martyrdom of an Artsruni. Maksoudian. pp. 19 Ibid. p. p. 2. Thomson. 176-83. p. Thomson.17 Thomas considered to be the equal of nahataks. Ashot Artsruni’s son and grandsons must have delighted in Thom as’s portrayal of Ashot as an unprecedented hindrance to Arab power and dominion. and in the use of the term nahatak with its connotation of ‘martyr’. trans. 1985.18 A slightly later worthy was Shapuh Akgatsci. I. 15 Thomson. 147. 174 where ‘notable deeds of valour’ is the translation. . XXXIV. 1. and King Gagik himself. offering his church to Christ. The designer was implying that Gagik was comparable to victorious Old Testament heroes and hence that adherence to Gagik was both righteous and profitable. 13.16 The heroic warrior on the make. Thomson.14 Thom as’s account of the period after about 850 is strongly influenced by Ejishe. II 5 and III. particularly in the use of imagery.. Other scenes include David and Goliath. an Artsruni. II. 5. 206 n. 110-11 and his n. 18 Thomas. 1984a. pp. Hamazasp and Sahak. 1. 177. whose absence from Ejishe’s account Thomas explains by asserting that Artsruni details had been deleted by a contemporary heretic bishop with a grudge. 323. 249 n. III. and Samson and the Philistine. ‘in order to preserve them safe and unsullied’. 235 n. 6. 1985. trans. 6. where nahatak is translated as ‘hero’. his new palace was 12 Thomas. 174. 257. 884-C. Gurgen expended blood for his native land..13 Thom as’s second achievement was to suggest that the mid-fifth. Thomas was willing to use these terms despite believing that Ashot’s fate in eternity was open to question. 13 Ibid. Thomson. 1985. in remarks about Armenian disunity and its effects. 14 Ibid. 1987.1071 by editing out some Bagratuni material and by inserting Artsruni details. trans. 1 for comment. trans. According to Gagik’s panegyricist.. ‘for the sake of Christ’s sheep’. and soul and body for the saints and believers. who liberated booty and captives from invaders who had seized them. 17 John Katholikos. pp. he apparently showed ‘much bravery of nahatakdom’.2 06 Kings and Migrants. for example making the first Armenian Christian. 19 At Ajtcamar the sculpted decoration of the church exterior incorpor­ ates the Artsruni martyrs of 786. 31.and ninth-century situations were comparable and that the Artsrunis were the new Mamikoneans. translates the first phrase as ‘exhibited many acts of prowess’. 1985. Gurgen Apupelch Artsruni. 1985. II. and through him ‘much valour of nahatakdom’ was accomplished. 18. 6. and his struggles against the invaders as ‘of a martyr’ using a word (martirosakan ) which more explicitly denotes what we might regard as martyrdom in the ordinary sense. who according to Moses had been a Bagratuni. 1985. Thomson. Thomson. and pp. 5. 280-81. pp. trans.

Thomson. is revealed for example by Thomas Artsruni’s continuator. Г Ѵ . pp. and pictures. She was rightly distrustful of Ashot. Clerics. both parties. 3 5 7 -8 . Women’s lands probably came from their husbands rather than from their fathers.1071 207 equally awe-inspiring. 29 and IV. These charters attest ownership. professionally interested in peace. Thomson. being outsiders. 2. armed men. and about a quarter of the Siwnians’. Such intercession is however sometimes directly attested. The continued importance of feud. 334-5. 7 . by adoption and by compensation. He records that there was no-one to avenge the murdered Gregory-Derenik because his sons were very young.21 Feud might be resolved by marriage. and perceptible. with domed halls. pp. For Ashot’s wife was the victim’s daughter. Such relatives included married women and such women must often have participated in negotiations involving bloodfeud. as men often are. it was not Hasan’s brother but his mother. Bloodless resolution necessitated negotiation. this Ashot’s mother. who guaranteed Hasan’s safety with an oath. who negotiated. as ideal and reality. 330. 1985. 884-C. Their ecclesiastical foundations between about 875 and 925 were only about half those of Gagik and his brother Gurgen.20 The Bagratunis matched neither the splendour nor the volume of Artsruni building.Kings and Migrants. trans. wrestlers. trans. Ashot’s aunt. bequest and donation of properties by some such women. that his widow forbade the opening of her palace windows until one of them should have undertaken to avenge him. unless their fathers lacked male heirs. but blinded him after receiving the fort. Female intercession was probably usually too private to reach the histor­ ical record. This was one aspect of their political role. the most important institutions of political society are nevertheless identifiable. IV. That highly placed women could wield power is clear from the Siwnian charters. though women are never portrayed in ecclesiastical sculpture as donors. between III. 1 9 8 5 . and of minstrels. and that God allowed (King) Gagik to slay Gagik Apumruan. purchase. 1. as objective. of Gagik and his entourage. Though the Artsruni historians and John Katholikos describe only a few aristocratic careers in any detail. whom the continuator implicates in the murder. dancing girls. refusing to surrender Sewan. were often mediators. That married aristocratic women (for example the wives of King Smbat and of Smbat and Ashot of Siwnikc. with obligations to. Other intermediaries must have been mutual kinsmen. 20 Thomas Artsruni (Continuator). 21 Thomas (Continuator). and King Smbat’s daughter-inlaw) had a value and role beyond the purely sentimental and personal may perhaps be implied by the practice o f the Arabs o f taking them hostage. as well as by retaliation. When Ashot captured his treacherous kinsman Hasan. 328. . lions and other animals and birds. but it may explain why it was Gagik Artsruni rather than his elder brother Ashot who killed Gagik Apumruan. and influence over. in vengeance.

Gregory of Tarön. 151. 26 Stephen Orbelean. (They arranged an exchange. ch. Ip . John Katholikos commented that Ashot II had been adopted by his father-in-law through his marriage. very limited. II Comm entary ed. nephews and cousins. admittedly.25 There were certainly multiple interests in lands.23 Ashot’s brother Abas supported his own father-in-law against Ashot in 918. 4. 24 D e Administrando Im perio. pp. the second son. Gregory-Derenik’s lands were divided into three. 49-54. to avoid his cousins obtaining it. 43 1. 25 Perikhanian. fathersin-law and sons-in-law less so. LX. And there is a case of an illegitimate Bagratuni being as important as legit­ imate ones. The azat witnesses in the charters may imply the common own­ ership of land by the agnatic kin. 23 John.26 But there was also some partition of territory. . took the principate. 163-88 and v. the fourth degree of kinship (first cousins were thus forbidden to marry). Ashot acted with his half-brother against their cousin T cornik. The bond between son-in-law and father-in-law could resemble that between son and father. Siwnian behaviour by contrast suggests a greater emphasis on consan­ guinity. 1968. in 9 2 9 . p.1071 The great Armenian potentates were all related. But there seem to have been some slight differences between the great families in their structures of loyal­ ties. T cornik bequeathed his land to the Emperor. Jenkins. 1864. and quite convoluted ones could be formed. 208. and redivided after Ashot’s death. at the order of Smbat. L. The church of Ejegis was apparently built. 22 Dauvillier and De Clercq. trans. but the evidence is. 144-5 for Byzantine and Armenian rulings respectively. Over three generations fathers. when Gagik. After Gregory’s death. where Ashot received a title. when courted by Byzantium.22 restricting marriages to relatives only up to. Maksoudian.and ninth-century Armenian church was more generous than was the Byzantine in its rules. and brothers maintained amicable relations. uncles. 1987. and including. There may have been some joint patronage of churches.2 08 Kings and Migrants.)24 There are no comparable references to bastards of other families. Ashot. 884-C. 1936. his eldest son. his wife and his brother. The behaviour of the Bagratunis towards each other suggests that within their family emphasis was on direct descent rather than shared blood. Kinship ties were constantly regenerated by marriages. 1962. 136-9. probably between 898 and 900. sent his bastard son Ashot to Constantinople. History o f the H ouse o f Sisakan. taking the principate and the greatest share. Vayotsc-dzor and other lands passed from Vasak Ishkhanik to his brother Ashot and then to Vasak’s son as co-heir with Ashot’s four sons. Nasr had exploited the resentment of Prince Babgen following a partition. Brosset. sons. Sons appear more reliable than brothers. trans. For the eighth. It is less easy to categorize the Artsrunis.

Biwrakan. John called Bagaran a ‘town’. 8. of clients (of the Arsacids) and in Elishe. . 1985. where John Katholikos built his church of St John. There were the humblest soldiery. trans. and they functioned as such. 131. 8. When King Gagik gathered money in 922. Thomson. Even Erazgaworkc (also called Shirakawan). 309. King Smbat used them to store treasure. 219 (Gagik). which Smbat made his capital. 293. gardens and palace. 884-C. trans. trans. Thomas Artsruni was suspicious of city life. to judge by references to non-ramiks. were termed cities by the Artsruni historians.28 It was the proteges of Vasak Gntcuni who held the fort of Shamshulde while Vasak. residences. IV. 328-29. Maksoudian. Thomson.19 Urbanization The early tenth-century Armenian elite retained its traditionally nonurban character. and surrendering to Ashot only after a siege. Maksoudian. Thomson. from the rest of the common people. or protege) men.33 But the concept of a good king. 130 (funeral). it was from his relatives.31 There were nevertheless some urban aristo­ cratic connections.32 Van. 296. Gregory-Derenik was mourned by his. pp. There were the nakharars. Ramik s and non-ramiks attended the funeral of Ashot I. 22.30 Seldom did potentates have urban bases.Kings and Migrants. 30 Thomas. 10. negotiated with Gurgen of Iberia. distinct. 244 where he translates as ‘domestic’ and his n. XXX. refusing to admit either Gurgen or King Ashot II until Vasak returned. p. and p. describing populous Duin in 893 as ‘teeming with commerce and all kinds of impur­ ity’. appears in Joh n ’s text as a fortified village. of servants. 143 and 1982b. Adamakert and King Gagik’s fortified complex of streets. 130 and his ‘Glossary of Feudal Termino­ logy’ p. 28 Thomas Artsruni. III. Thomson. 1987.27 perhaps a retinue. pp. a youthful bodyguard distinct from the army of azats. 31 Garsoi'an. III. LXIV. 365. 22. 1985. 10. azats. (Continuator). emphasizing 27 Used in Agathangelos. 6. History o f the Armenians. p. near Erevan. There were dzefnasun (‘brought up by hand’.897). IV. 359. XXX. trans. 20-1. 29 John Katholikos. 69 for these capitals and terminology. 1985. trans. 1987. 77-8 and n. in about 920. The later capitals of Ani and Kars were in his time still primarily fortresses.1071 20 9 The society beneath the greatest potentates retained its earlier struc­ tures. Kars sheltered Smbat’s wife from Afshin. p. complete with storehouses and harbour on Ajtcamar. was a village. at least as held by Thomas Artsruni’s continuator. ramiks and non-ramiks. whose lack of accord with him forced King Smbat to give his son and nephew as hostages and his niece as bride to Afshin (c. trans. pp. the ramik. History o f Vardan and the Armenian War. VII. 33 Thomas Artsruni. 32 John. paid no attention to cities. 1987. p. 1976. John called them forts. p.

36 Howard-Johnston. to Afshin. 6. Smbat. by the historian Aristakes of Lastivert regarding the Turkish sackings of Artsn and Ani in 1048 and 1064: Artsn had ceased to be a centre of piety.600 are mentioned in an account of an Arab raid in 9 5 6 . despite the 893 earthquake. increased in commercial importance. By the late tenth century Bagratuni Ani eclipsed Duin as a commercial centre. not trade. 138. XII. Artanuj in Klarjk0. p. XXIV. Royal interest is suggested by Smbat I’s defence.1071 instead the fortification of hill summits and fortresses to serve as refuges. pressed for tribute. Kars and Ani.210 Kings and Migrants. Ani was about 4 0 0 acres with a population of perhaps 5 0 . ordered the collection of one-fifth of all herds of horses and cattle and 34 Ibid. 120— 4. Thomson. p. Anti-urban attitudes were tenacious. 253-61 esp. Kars (like Artsn) profited from land and sea traffic. 1983. such as wood. On Artsruni Lake Van and its towns centred three m ajor routes. Duin. traffic increased as routes further south were disrupted by wars. Canard and Berberian. There had also been urban growth in the formerly Armenian Sophene by 956. There was a three-storeyed castle. 353. Maksoudian.37 The later king­ doms are related to commercial intersection points. 1985. connected Armenia. and the m ajor beneficiaries were Armenian kings. 35 Aristakes of Lastivert. History o f the Armenians.9 0 7 -8 . Artashat (classical Artaxata) was a centre of the dye industry. trans. XXXI. after which its Arab character was accentuated.36 Towns depended on trade. usury. the tenth century was a period both of urban expansion and of an increased association between royalty and towns.35 Nevertheless. In c . and exported natural resources. In the late tenth century Ani’s enclosed area was trebled. 258. seat of the Iberian Bagratunis. . built by David of Tashir (9 8 9 /9 1 -1 0 4 8 ). there was injustice in Ani.0 0 0 -1 0 0 . Armenia imported luxury products and arms. pp. p. 1987. and disregard for and exploitation of the poor. 884-C. trans. 37 John Katholikos. fortified in the eleventh century by Vahram himself. 63-4. such as carpets and silks. of his Byzantine treaty. other textiles and goldwork were manufactured. besides an aqueduct. silks. written between 1072 and 1087. 1973. Lori. Woollens. in 1026. echoed in comments. producing a valuable red.. Iberia and Abasgia with Byzantine Trebizond.0 0 0 . Vahram also built a church there. 3-6. arsenic and agricultural produce. Three cities which had not existed in c. Some exports how­ ever signified tax. and textiles. trans. a bathhouse and two secret passages leading to the river. the ishkhans had become slaves to money. referring to obtaining items desirable to Afshin and the Caliph and to clearing the way for Muslim merchants. Vahram Pahlawuni was the old fort of Amberd. pp. New towns arose: unfortified Artsn (with a mixed population) near Karin (Theodosiopolis).34 The family base of eleventh-century Ani’s great general. IV. with new walls.

for excommunication might follow oath-breaking and the sign of the Cross and relics might be used in oath-swearing.39 All three authors cite numerous Old Testament parallels. 3. moveables.40 Church councils were held in royal resid­ ences. Thomson. Katholikos Peter (1 0 1 9 -5 8 ) surrendered Ani to Byzantium in 1045. Oaths seem normally to have been written.1071 211 of flocks of sheep. For oath-breaking. 1985. Ashot II. and p. p. the continu­ ator of Thomas Artsruni. John V excommunicated Ashot Artsruni. but merely reproved his king. trans. Thomson. 40 Thomas Artsruni.Kings and Migrants. 1953. and could be vulner­ able. John’s three successors were from the family of the Rshtuni. at Shirakawan in 967/8 and at Ani in 969 and 1038.38 The Church Whilst wealth supported kings. It was trans­ ferred to Argina sometime between 948 and 9 67 and to nearby Ani in 992. 265 and his n. . The sources suggest that kings were normally consecrated. Artsruni subordinates. and IV. had not been consecrated by the Church. wishing to dissuade his father-in-law from war. (Continuator). 3. the Church offered them authority and eternal peace. John V. 11 for Gagik. 366. 14. at Kapan in 958. 39 Thomas Artsruni. To them. mules and gifts. the Artsruni History seldom asserts this explicitly. sent a bishop to remind him of his earlier oath of peace. was concerned because Gagik. God’s will and anger were constantly at work. moved it to Vaspurakan in 923— 4. Prelates played an overtly political role. III. Katholikoi sanctioned oaths despite the fact that oath-swearing was forbidden in the Bible. and Biblical prophecies as being fulfilled in Armenia. but it does say that Gagik reigned ‘like Josiah over a new Israel’. gold. Katholikoi moved as power shifted. In 922 King Gagik paid silver. Ashot II and his 38 The list is translated and the tributaries identified in Minorsky. John V and the Artsruni historians perceived their society as a new Israel. for example Ashot Artsruni’s oath not to harm his captive cousin Hasan. Oaths could be supported by the most powerful of ecclesiastical weapons. 1985. not merely spoken. having been crowned by a Muslim. Admittedly. IV. who had returned the katholikosate to Duin. and there are references to their being sealed. An Arab tribute list of 955 envisages some payment in kind. The katholikos was usually a royal nominee. p. 348. He thought it necessary to say that Gagik’s anointing ‘was invisibly per­ formed by the Holy Spirit’. 884-C. often as intermediaries. Gagik Artsruni’s biographer. John V was involved in procuring oaths several times. and it may be that their authority was thought to depend on their consecration. horses. Ejishg I (9 3 6 -4 3 ) was deposed by King Derenik-Ashot (9 3 7 -5 3 ). trans.

trans. priests and monks. each armed only with a cross and Gospels.45 Tatcew received substantial do­ nations. pp. it seems that the earlier the relic the better. p.1 pp. 1864. 16. 43 Thomas Artsruni. 9. trans. of treasures of gold. Katholikos Ejishe and groups of priests are recorded as contributing to victory for King Gagik Artsruni in 937 through prayer. through the dissemination of miracle tales.42 but Thomas Artsruni’s references to relics are restricted to early ones.41 By the tenth century the cult of relics was established. LX. . pp. in both the tenth and the eleventh centuries. fish at Bojash5n and what seems to be river revenues. other apostles. 209. 177. IV. into battle against the emir of Duin. 884-C.43 In 1040 David of Lori took bishops. 1985. 110-11. 1985. as earlier. mules. 350. Thomson. 45 Stephen Orbelean. Though it is possible that our sources’ coverage was meant to educate. 211. trans. made between 994 and 1041. p. to war. The church of the M other of God at Aparankc was built for one given by Basil II. though it was restrained by comparison with Byzantium and especially western Europe. Maksoudian. 3.1071 father-in-law sealed an agreement with the cross and with the intercession of the cross. by their associates.212 Kings and Migrants. 44 Ibid. cattle and sheep. XLIX. The very best were relics of the True Cross. rather than to record current practice. trans. In return for such support the church acquired wealth. pontiffs and martyrs.44 In Siwnikc princely grants were many and lavish. There is little to suggest that relics of contemporary Armenian martyrs were treasured. Gregory-Supcan for example made M akenotsc a grant which included five vineyards at Erevan. Brosset. (Continuator). The intimate association between kings and clerics extended also. a phrase which could mean swearing over a cross or relic of the True Cross. including villages. Ejishe lowering his hands only after victory was achieved. John Katholikos does record that the soil on which King Smbat’s blood had dripped had healing qualities. horses. Siwnian Tatcew had relics of Peter and Paul. trans. and refers to the bones of the saints buried at T cordan as treasures. The evidence is abundant. M aksoudian. Its modesty was perhaps partly due to the decline in ecclesiastical pro­ ductivity and in monasticism under Arab domination. silver and jewels. livestock. The word is separate in Emin’s 1861 edition (p. For the cult of relics in Christendom depended in part on active promotion. 29. appears as part of the first proper name. also from Constantinople.. and hence is not translated. Inscriptions on the walls of churches in Ani record gifts of shops and land. 363-4. 42 John. 131). When they nevertheless came to war Ashot attached his opponent’s deed ‘to the mantle of the Cross’ carried before him. 6. 1987. get. 1987. XXXVII. 41 John Katholikos. Thomson. through the intercession of Gregory the Illuminator. installed in 983. To monasteries Gagik Artsruni gave not only estates but also treasures. John acquired a twig from a tree planted by the Illuminator. Abljarib Pahlawuni’s church of the Redeemer in Ani of 1036 was for another. In the reading used by Brosset the word river.

This time the bishop was killed and the revolt put down by troops sent by King Vasak from Kapan. the bishop and others fled. illustrated by miracle stories. its final three sections. unsuccessfully. to persuade Peter’s successor to pay tax before allowing him to leave Constantinople to reside in present-day Darende. The History o f Taron. This one centred on the village of Aweladasht and was put down by the bishop. Some monks were killed. and possibly some editing. There is also rather more explicit encouragement. and pur­ portedly continued in the seventh by Zenob’s thirty-fifth successor as bishop of Tarön. its purposes to deprive Ejmiatsin and Duin of their pre-eminence and to acquire patronage for Glak. Since great wealth could be had. After Peter’s death the Byzantine Emperor removed his treasure to Constan­ tinople. being added before 1220. with its territories. The power of St Karapet (John the Baptist). To enhance Glak’s cause the tenth-century writer makes Glak Gregory’s first foundation. whose first abbot Zenob is purported to have been. Beginning with Gregory the Illumin­ ator and ending in the mid-seventh century. Another revolt began in 930. in reality a relatively new foundation. and certainly Tatcew suffered rebellions. A number of them involve supernatural help in war. This was purportedly written in the fourth century by Zenob of Glak. destroyed the fort. 2 5 -4 8 . and a voice from Heaven assents.Kings and Migrants. trans. 1 9 9 3 . pp. Splendid works combined debts to earlier and contemporary traditions. there must have been competition for endowments.47 Patronage involved art and architecture as well as estates. west of Melitene. Such competition explains the History o f Tarön. 1 1 7 -1 8 . attacked Tatcew in 915. 47 Pseudo-John Mamikonean. Some scholars believe that peasants were more harshly exploited by the church than by the laity. 1993. Their inclusion was presumably to hint at potential returns on investment in order to attract aristocratic donation. 6 0. Gregory is told by a correspondent to advise princes to be charitable. and its abbot Zenob the first bishop of Taron. it focuses on events in and near the monastery of Glak. is a major theme. had been granted to Tatcew. both native and foreign. There was a third in the 990s. 884— C. The inhabitants of the fort of Tscur which. pp.1071 213 The katholikos Peter had 5 0 0 prosperous villages in his charge. whose relics Glak possessed. . John Mamikonean. again at Tscur. confirmed Tatcew’s possession and restored the bishop. with originality. But Avdoyan46 has shown that the History was actually composed between 966 and 988. King Gagik Artsruni’s church on 46 Avdoyan. the monastery pillaged. or Innaknean. Prince Smbat expelled and punished the rebels. and tried. There is no corroborative evidence for the monastery’s existence before the end of the tenth century. Avdoyan. Some ascetics pray that anyone who has made liberal gifts from their sinful wealth be delivered from tribulation.

50 Thierry and Donabedian. Sasanian art and Abbasid court art. animal and plant life . 1991. 356-7. externally with five bands of sculpture and internally with frescoes. 1982b. the church is a variation on the seventh-century St Hripcsime. poss­ ibly the mosaics. 1985. are not original. 1989. martyrs.1071 Plate 10 Sculpted decoration on the exterior o f the south wall o f the early tenth-century Church o f the Holy Cross on the island o f Altcamar. Lake Van. pp. There have of course been differing interpreta­ tions of its meanings. 170. 251. 7. The detail of an angel watching the Creation of Eve is unique to its frescoes. evangelizers. But the amount of its sculpture and the scope and variety of its programme are unique.51 The subjects of its sculpture . 577.214 Kings and Migrants. bird. . saints. IV. The most recent52 is that the south wall illustrates 48 Grishin. A jtcamar. to instruct as well as to embellish.and their purpose. itself partly influenced by Turkish traditions. apostles. pp. though one scholar has dated these frescoes to 1 0 0 2 -2 1 . Thomson. trans. as is the church at Soradir which was perhaps the Holy Cross of Ajbak where Artsruni princes were buried.48 Artisans are recorded as having come to Gagik’s court from all countries49 and a number of influences are identifiable: Byzantine iconographic types. designed by the architect Manuel. now lost. 52 Davies.50 In its decoration Gagik’s church has many elements of originality. 884-C.including prophets. of the residence of Basil I. Palestinian art. was lavishly decorated. 1985. p. 49 Thomas Artsruni (Continuator). 51 Mathews. In plan.

Lake Van. proclaims the power of the Life-giving Cross. Its paintings. and the Redemption offered by Jesus. and encourage Christians to remain steadfast should they be persecuted. their sin.Kings and Migrants. Its paintings trace the Creation of Adam and Eve. funded by him and by several princes. the four crosses here meant as allusion to the four in the famous vision of St Gregory. the west. featuring Gagik’s presentation of the church to Christ. it was built between 895 and 906 by Bishop John. Dedicated. the east presents Paradise regained. commissioned by . The most important Siwnian church was at Tatcew.1071 215 Plate 11 The apostle James and another apostle. from an interior wall painting on the north side o f the main apse o f the early tenth-century Church o f the Holy Cross on the island o f Altcamar. confrontation between good and evil. the north resumes the theme of conflict. and offers an assurance of the eventual triumph of good. to Peter and Paul. The interior is a renewed Paradise. some of whose relics the bishop had acquired. 884-C. uniquely for the period. warns of doom and judgement.

М. about 1005. built in 1038 at the monastery of Horomos by King John-Smbat of Ani (1020­ 41 ). possibly to mark Gagik’s assump­ tion of the title King of Kings after the Byzantine annexation of Ani in 1045. seems the archetype for late twelfth.-M. with sixth-century ivory covers and four seventh-century miniatures at the end. 15-48) esp. J. The Gospel of King Gagik of Kars (1 0 2 9 -6 5 ).2 16 Kings and Migrants. and Thierry. Yet over a fifth of late ninth. 1968. modelled on Zuartcnotsc. Smbat I’s at Erazgawork0. Such architec­ tural conservatism was perhaps a natural consequence of the near cessation of ecclesiastical building in the eighth and much of the ninth centuries.1071 John’s successor Jacob. produced at Noravankc in Siwnik0. which confirm the record that Jacob procured Frankish painters. It was produced between 1045 and 1054. The father of Vahram Pahlawuni. built a church o f St Gregory at Ani. They include John V ’s church at Biwrakan. 54 Thierry. Halted by Smbat’s death. ‘Datation’ (pp. in 989. 150. as also in the Mulni Gospel. The innovative gawitc of the church of St John. and that conservatism was an assertion of ecclesiastical continuity and of the comparability of present and past patrons. it was finished in 1001.and early tenth-century monuments recall seventh-century building. Those surviving include the Nativity and the Resurrection of the Dead for the Last Judgement. ‘Le jamatoun Saint-Jean’. a type of porch in front of a church. Thierry. (pp. Illuminated manuscripts include the famous Ejmiatsin Gospel. They are remarkable for their West European affinities. 884-C. of Gagik holding a model of the church. Trdat then built St Gregory for Gagik I (9 8 9 /9 0 -1 0 2 0 ). at enormous expense. trans. 1980. finished. Brosset. originally a memorial building though subsequently used for meetings. dated between 1050 and 1075. 45-8). ch. probably. were consecrated in 930.. who died in 982. and a monastic 53 Stephen Orbelean. I p. Smbat II (9 7 7 -8 9 /9 0 ) commissioned a cathe­ dral. N. Secular patrons were not exclusively kings and queens. A major architectural development was the gawitc.and thirteenth-century *r Ç 4 gawit s.. including portraits of Gagik himself. King Abas’s Holy Apostles at Kars. had more than 2 2 7 miniatures. XLIX. study and prayer. though its drum is differ­ ent). . now lost. built in the 930s (modelled on M astara. It first appears in Siwnik0 in 911.53 In Bagratuni Ani the most important monuments were by the architect Trdat. Its decoration included a large statue. and Gagik I’s St Gregory. which survives in a mutilated form. The combination of foreign influence and independent interpreta­ tion is apparent. Ill. Other possibilities are that schooling in tradition as well as technique was necessary for artistic confidence.8 9 2 . Vahram himself a church at Amberd (in 1026). founded c. 1864.

1071 217 Plate 12 The mid-tenth-century Church o f the Holy Apostles. stipulated that the office be celebrated in his two new chapels.Kings and Migrants. Kars complex at Marmashen. Gregory’s kinsman Abljarib’s church at Ani may have been designed by the great architect Trdat. Friday for his mother and sister respectively and Saturday in St Stephen’s for his father. in 1040. 884-C. But they were also monuments to sin. The inscriptions at Ani record the traditional expectation of masses in recompense for generosity. St Stephen’s and St Christopher’s. Glorious books and buildings marked the partnership of kings and church and they testified to piety. An inscription of 1041 stipulated six offices yearly in four . and his nephew Gregory Magistros founded or restored at least three churches. Abllarib.

historically. for Mashtots c recommending it. like another polemicist. Maksoudian. complained about lengthy exclusions from communion. where Bagratuni kings were buried from 9 77 onwards. trans. J. Tatcew. copied in 10 0 7 . 1931. Donation was perhaps a more attractive option than penance. X X X .55 The Armenian who commissioned the Gospel of Adrianople. Like the monastery founded by Katholikos M ashtotsc on the island of Sewan. and other houses were restored or founded. writing to Katholikos Gregory II (1 0 6 6 -1 1 0 5 ). and requested prayers for forgiveness for his own. have contributed to monasticism. monks 55 Basmajian. Armenian monasticism was to attract criticism. were founded by the wife of Ashot III in 966 and 976. his parents and the nation’s souls. The spate of Armenian foundations in the 930s and 940s was a continuation of the late ninth-century revival. 1 9 1 2.lO H chapels. 60 Maksoudian. 2 7 for a different version of no. thrived. Macler. They were not. trans. Mingana. 8 8 4 -c. 1 9 9 0 -1 . John X criti­ cized superiors buying positions and treating monks as slaves.218 Kings and Migrants.59 Anxiety about salvation is one of the factors which. ” Stephen Asolik. founded in 9 3 5 . H ajbat’s probably by Trdat. 97)) which is followed here.60 For there was no such persecution. 6 9 .57 probably commensurate with his power. and Uluhogian. the work o f refugees fleeing eastwards from imperial persecution. which. 1 917. 1 987. Less permanently ostentatious was the lavish charity of Ashot III of Ani (952/3— 77) to the poor and sick. pp. 5 3. became a centre o f scholarship. nos 16 and 18. p.56 Such arrangements had the additional advantage of perpetuating the memory of the deceased. to expiate his sins. however. as we shall see. 1 9 9 2 . The Syrian O rtho­ dox patriarch John X (1 0 6 4 -7 3 ). 1967. adding that anyone usurping the property should be answerable for the donor’s sins. the new houses followed the rule of St Basil of Caesarea. Sanahin’s buildings were augmented in the mid-eleventh century by Queen Hranush. on Lake Van. parents’ and sons’ sins. Universal History. 1 9 2 2 -3 and 1 931. 59 Nau. They included Narek. viii. 135. In Siwnikc. was great. to which the penitent was to confess as appropriate. b u t how recently is unclear. He also.. 39. 136. 3 9 9 n. and X X X . his wife’s. . III. 16 (following Corpus lnscriptionum Armenicarum I 1966 (no. In the kingdom of Tashir. Private penance had devel­ o p e d b y th e te n th c e n tu ry . 7 0. p. John Katholikos. and Horomos. By the eleventh the Armenians had become idiosyncratic in their practice. whose churches. condemned the Armenian custom of the priest’s reading out a long list of sins. as often suggested. Sanahin and H ajbat. 56 Janashian et al. Like penance.. The suggestion of Smbat I’s uncle Abas that if Mashtotsc became Katholikos (897) there should be no confession of sins58 implies an elite dislike of penance. did so ‘as a memorial’ to his. and there are few recorded cases. whose monks eventually numbered about a thousand.

is the first Armenian historian to assert that Muhammad was a pupil o f a heretic Christian monk. 62 Thomas Artsruni. Thomas Artsruni. pp. and ‘A Separate Discourse Commem­ orating His (Yovhannes’s) Name’.66 His experiences allowed him to form an overview of Armenian society and its political weaknesses. 3. 1. John’s Preface. The dedication of the church of Tatcew. . pp. covered the eighth and ninth centuries and the accomplishments of his father King Ashot I. 1 9 8 5 . a legend also found in Islamic tradition. 1 9 8 7 .61 Literature and Scholarship Literature and scholarship flourished at both elite and popular levels. There was some cultural interaction between Arabs and Armenians.64 The Arab literary device of rhymed prose was used by Gregory Magistros.Kings and Migrants. ’. and the eating of meat. princes. though his most recent commentator denies it. (Continuator). 1912. pp. 2 5 . 1 9 8 7 .67 he was partial.62 Some tenth-century Arab authors record a few Armenian legends. . 51 and n. 4 . 2 3 3 .7 . He hoped his audience. either directly or through Syrian inter­ mediaries. 2. and 1986a. 66 For the request to write. from the Flood to 9 2 3 -4 . 23 for lack of dates. pp. 1 9 8 7 .5 2 for John’s literary works. but it is not even mentioned. as the refer­ ence by Thomas Artsruni’s continuator to friendship between GregoryDerenik and the emir of Her suggests. and influenced Armenian vocabulary. like the Syrian physician at Gagik I of Ani’s court. 1 9 8 2 . trans. 63 Thomson. 4 8 . and ‘come to your senses’. trans. Katholikos John V wrote a List o f Katholikoi and. as an example of Armenian unity. p. 1 9 8 6 -7 (p. pp. 1 9 8 5 . concentrating on the reigns of Smbat I and Ashot II.1071 2 19 taking the habit when they wished. 1 9 8 6 . Several histories were written. unfortunately for us giving no more than five precise dates. in the early 920s. Maksoudian. 65 Maksoudian. 3 2 6 . John seems more concerned about family than about ‘national’ unity. now lost. 884-C. ‘kings. Thomson. ‘A Separate Discourse. 1 9 7 9 -8 0 . His coverage reflects disunity without challenging it.6 Arab medicine was known. 64 Greppin. Scarborough. But he depended heavily in his early sections on earlier historians and. 2 3 4 .9 . Shapuh Bagratuni’s. to inspire potentates to see unity as an ideal. 242). 4 . . 3 6. attended by King Smbat and Gagik Artsruni as well as himself.65 John was asked to write this by (unidentified) kings. Vardanyan. Maksoudian. p. trans. for his hopes. without the saying of office or prayers over them.4 . who relates Muham­ mad’s early life in more detail than did his predecessors. leaders and commanders’ would learn from his account. 6 3. 67 Maksoudian. could have been exploited. about war between the two King Ashots than about the coexistence of an 61 Nau. his History. Artsruni and Siwnian history receive only slight attention.

using the Armenian era. Macler. perhaps by the Moses cited last in its list of Albanian patriarchs. but was most indebted to Moses of Khoren and Ejishe. and one of the History's interests is in justifying Albanian independence from the Armenian church. either their conversion to Christianity or their recent abandonment of Chalcedonianism. dates. Arzoumanian. both Armenian and non-Armenian. most useful. first. began not there but with Gagik’s father.9 7 0 -9 8 5 ). thereby duplicating some of the coverage. teacher. His third. reviewed by P. 1986.1071 Artsruni with a Bagratuni kingdom. Gregory-Derenik. 1 987. There are three late tenth-century three-part histories. 1961b. part begins with Ashot I’s kingship. to the accord and achievements of Gagik and Gurgen Artsruni after the death of their brother Ashot.9 5 0 -1 0 1 0 ). Stephen Asojik of Tarön’s Universal History 72 began with the Old Testament and concluded in 1004 a d . kinsman of Abbot Anania (likewise a scholar. He had cited historical precedent. with detail. He is the first Armenian historian to include apocryphal stories about Old Testament figures. but their outlook is much the same and the continuator refers to Thom as’s work as if it were his own. There are slight differences between the two writers’ accounts. and who wrote against the T condrakian heretics). in the 980s. probably. probably for use in monastic schools). Moses Daskhurantsci’s History o f the Albanians69 was composed. Stephen is lucid and. The third. 1985. Western Albania had become a kingdom in about 880. Kolandjian. abbot Anania of Narek.71 wrote for his former teacher. Ukhtanes’ interest was perhaps a defensive reaction stimulated by late tenth-century Byzantine expansion and also by Georgian pre-eminence and pressure on Armenia.70 Ukhtanes. 884-C.3 for Moses). His second section recounted the early seventh-century separation of the Georgian from the Armenian Church. Armenian bishop of Sebasteia (c . the period from Adam to Tiri­ dates IV. often accurate. perhaps inspired by the interference of Katholikos Ana­ nia in the 950s. unusually. Dowsett. both of which were to encourage the growth of Chalcedonianism among Armenians. 1917. Priest. and son of bishop Khosrov of Andzewatscikc (who wrote a commentary on the liturgy. section treated the conversion of the Tsad (Chalcedonians). Thomas Artsruni’s History o f the House o f the Artsrunis68 moves rapidly from the Creation to the mid-ninth century a d . 1 9 8 8 -9 (pp. Another late tenth-century writer was Gregory of Narek (c. Ukhtanes covered. lost. gives precise.220 Kings and Migrants. and thereafter slowly. writing at Gagik’s request. Political disunity is not coherently presented as a cause of ill fortune but rather as an aspect of it. 1 9 85. Gregory was familiar with some Greek theological 68 69 70 71 72 Thomson. Akopjan. its capital Pcarisos. Thomas used a variety of earlier sources. 4 9 2 . . Donabedian. Thom as’s continuator.

is a collection of prayers together comprising a poem about the wretchedness of the soul. . some o f which passed into written form. Thus war is blamed on foreign kings. 137. for detailed study. An anonymous collection of tales. David o f Sasun. and poetry. Theodore Rshtuni and King Gagik Artsruni.75 This is a collection. 884-C. once suggested to be the (lost) history of Shapuh. translation. first written down in 1873. 110. symbolizing Armenia. 1 9 6 4 . And the cycle has 73 Thomson. for French. 74 Avdoyan. Kudian. and.1071 221 writings. Like cultivated Byzantines. in some characters’ names.and eighth-century Armenian experi­ ences. Sasun. Gagik II of Ani was another learned layman.Kings and Migrants. of tales which go back to the tenth century. It recounts the history of David’s family over four generations. of course. 1 9 9 3 . pp. and more particularly there are reminiscences of seventh. of Bugha’s invasion. ecclesiastical disap­ proval of them. its setting. their armies are felt to prefer peace. including one against the Pauli­ cians. completed in 1002. 75 Shalian. non-Armenian. and resistance is the task of Armenian leaders rather than of their people. 1 9 72. He also translated two dialogues of Plato and the Elements of Euclid into Arme­ nian. 1 970. but it also reflects Armenian history. 3 9 . of Bagarat of Tarön’s resistance. He defended Armenian religious doctrine in Constantinople in 1065. concerning David himself. A complaint in it that an impious prince gave some monastic estates to a gusan reflects both the continuing importance of minstrels. 2 4 . 1 9 8 8 -9 . A religious debate there with a Muslim prompted Gregory to compose a version of the Bible in Armenian verse. In a general sense David incarnates the heroes who fought foreign tyranny. by now traditional.0 0 0 on one occasion. p. the church may have contributed to the Armenian national epic. At popular level there was oral tradition. oral and epic traditions. and post-twelfthcentury material about (earlier) Artsruni personages. for they fight alone. contains ninth. confessing mankind’s sins but trusting in salvation. In the eleventh century the philhellene Armenian known as Gregory Magistros was celebrated in Constantinople. David o f Sasun was a popular epic. especially in its third and most important part. disapproval. Feydit. 1 9 6 4 . Introduction. and. The epic has much in common with other. His most famous work. for English translations. the Book o f Lamentations . Der Melkonian-Minassian.or tenth-century material con­ cerning the Roman emperors Maurice and Heraclius. In some respects it embodies what were probably popular attitudes. of real persons. like the cutting off of enemy noses. He wrote religious treatises.73 The fraudulent History o f Tarön contains elements from oral tradition. Gregory could write letters whose style and imagery makes them almost incomprehensible.74 Yet despite this.

Vrver in M ananaji. are used actually to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity. The bishop of Harkc was also accused. thinking him pious. even when exposed. Canard and Berberian. either paganism or Zoroastrianism. both under Byzantine rule in the mid-eleventh century. Early eleventhcentury T condrakians77 included noble ladies and a prince. by keeping a pact to sleep with another man’s wife. to expunge 76 Alishan. with hostility to ecclesiastical hierarchy. One was T condrakianism which had grown considerably since its ninth-century beginnings. In Taron and Vaspurakan. but in Christian terms commits sin. The epic had. and was treated lightly. but the ishkans of the gawar. The resulting son proves the arch-foe of Sasun. endeavoured. He subsequently became a fugitive after a disillusioned disciple informed against him to the Katholikos. 1 9 7 3 . protected him. It had spread by 1000 to M ananaji (formerly Paulician) and to Vaspurakan. reinforced by Paulicians after the fall of Tephrike. 77 AristakEs of Lastivert. pp. Amongst other things this bishop taught that prayers for the dead. 884-C. David embodies elements of the biblical Moses and David. Thus for example the virgin mother of the first (twin) heroes is reminiscent of the Virgin. sacraments and the cult of the Cross. 1 9 8 5 -6 . of T condrakianism. Bagratuni patronage. Thus for example Great Mher. ecclesiastical.222 Kings and Migrants. X X III. in this argument. He engin­ eered the imprisonment of bishops who took action against him.1071 been seen as testimony to a pre-Christian religion surviving at popular level. The Mithraic elements. in T condrak in Apahunikc. and was actually crafted to recount and promote the triumph of Christianity over Zoroastrianism. trans. 1 0 8 -2 0 . it is suggested. Ecclesiastical Problems The Church had two major problems. the governor. between 1051 and 1054. masses and animal sacrifice were of no help to sinners who died without doing penance. Twice a synod tried to curb him. em­ bodies M ihr’s character as guardian of oaths. T condrakianism. whereas Christ in His divinity was the Son of God by nature). one story recalls a theme in the baptismal rite. . since they ruled Taron and claimed Davidic ancestry. temporarily avoiding condemnation by the judge sent by the Byzantine emperor. Prince Vrver too was difficult to combat. But it has also been argued76 that David o f Sasun contains much Judaeo-Christian imagery. Gregory Magistros. or. X X II. belongs in a Judaeo-Christian ideological framework. combined an Adoptionist theology (a view that Christ in His humanity was the Son of God only by adoption. perhaps erroneously. because his brother was an ishkhan known to the emperor.

4 9 7 . Canard’s 1 9 8 0 revision of Laurent. 1 9 9 3 . 81 John. coming to admonish king and exile. 5 0 7 .6 . Khosrov himself was respectful towards Rome and saw the Armenian church as part of the universal church. until 9 5 8 -9 when they died. As T condrakianism had been. The 862 Council had recommended tolera­ tion and there are a number of indications that Chalcedonianism had many adherents. Anania of Narek had Chalcedonian leanings. pp. and discussion. p. for the deposed Vahan found sanctuary in Vaspurakan and Vahan’s replace­ ment. Katholikos George for removing ‘the difference’ between anti-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians. Joh n ’s refusal to visit Constantinople himself was due only to fear of criticism. 510. 80 M ahe. 146 (French translation) 147 (Greek text). There was some persecution of 78 Photius. For a resume of views. 198. 133. and he himself required that former Chalcedonians be rebaptised. Anania had the support of King Abas. 1 0 -1 3 . Katholikos M ashtotsc. 1 9 7 1 . X X X .7 .9 . 884-C. 1 9 8 5 .81 The two chief bishops of Siwnikc and Albania resisted the efforts of the katholikos Anania (9 4 6 -6 8 ) to make them give up Chalcedonianism for ten years. 1 9 9 3 . 83 Cowe. Laourdas and Westerink.Kings and Migrants. pp. p.2 0 for discussion of John’s attitude. was the son of a Siwnian prince and had trained and worked in Siwnikc. 1 8 . the Byzantine patriarch Photius claimed that the ‘Taronites’ of Fourth Armenia were ‘orthodox’. but it was to survive in Tarön into the nineteenth century.82 Katholikos Vahan I (9 6 8 -9 ). in ed. One alumnus of Siwnian Makenotsc. who forbade marriage with dyophysites. M ahe. In a letter to Ashot. Maksoudian. pp. bishop of Andzewatscikc was excommunicated by Katholikos Anania in 955 for challenging his authority over other bishops. 79 John Katholikos. 1 9 9 1 . . though indirectly. to around 862. LV.78 Chalcedonian sympathies seem to have been particularly strong in Siwnikc and Vaspurakan. and Khosrov. pp. Maksoudian. And the rebellions against Tatcew may. who was actually deposed on suspicion of Chalcedonianism. lines 3 1 9 4 . 1 9 8 7 . 1 9 9 3 . trans. Mahe.79 He contemplated going to Constantinople for his consecration80 and to discuss religious questions. pp. The second major problem was tension arising from the growth of Chalcedonianism in Armenia. on pain of death. pp. King Gagik had initiated discussion with Byzantium about church union (after 930). and his pp.1071 223 T condrakianism. p. 1 919. 5 0 9 -1 0 . 3 8. 7. as they have sometimes been interpreted. 1 987. and Photius’ letter to the Katholikos. Darrouzes dates this letter. was imprisoned. 3 4 4 -5 6 . and he did make a long visit to the Chalcedonian Atrnerseh of Iberia. 1 993. The authenticity and chronology of Photius’ Armenian correspondence are problematic. As for Vaspurakan. Chalcedonianism was strengthened by Byzantine expansion. 4 9 2 . had been excommunicated by his predecessor. trans. also Darrouzes. “ Mahe. have been protests against ‘heresy’. His kinsman and disciple John V was likewise tolerant.83 Anania’s moving his seat from A|tcamar could have been related to doctrinal disagreement. for fear. Letter 2 8 4 .

took eastern Andzit in 937. Byzantium had created Chalcedonian bishoprics in her annexa­ tions. and took Arsamosata. Jenkins. beginning in the late tenth century. in 931. In 986 priests were arrested and Bishops Sion and John of Sebasteia and Larissa pressed into ‘conversion’ in Sebasteia and the Armenian katholikos Khachcik admonished by its metropolitan. the Armenian Bagratunis and their Iberian kins­ men all consolidated their positions. She attacked Duin. who by 952 had reasserted independ­ 84 Thomas Artsruni. Thomson. 9. The Iberian Ashot II. Byzantines. respectively by King Gagik Artsruni. Iberian rights here and near Theodosiopolis were contended. Byzantium was preoccupied with the Hamdanids. ordered the persecution of Syrian and Armenian ‘heretics’. and by Atom Andzewatsci in 937/8. 9 9 . In 1063 or 1064 the emperor Constantine X . (Continuator). IV. ch.1071 anti-Chalcedonians. 1962. expanded his territory. unidentified in our (Artsruni) source. which had recovered independence after Smbat’s death. though unsuccessfully. son of King Atrnerseh. Berkri and other towns. It is to these we should now turn. their capital. p. 1 985.2 24 Kings and Migrants. 884-C. M ore impor­ tantly. 85 D e Administrando Im perio. in 927/8. Thereafter Byzantium. c. but. The Armenian Bagratuni king Abas (9 28-52/3) defeated an invasion from Abasgia. acquiring upper (south-west) Taykc after the death of Gurgen II of Taykc (918— 41) and Armenian Basean in about 952. 362. according to Constantine VII. . Byzan­ tium’s aim was command of the southern east-west route through Arme­ nia. Decline and Annexation. trans.9 2 5 -1 0 7 1 After restoring Ashot II Byzantium had continued her Arab offensive.1 4 4 invaded Armenia as far as Duin in 937.85 It was under Ashot III (9 5 2 /3 -7 7 ) that the glory of the Armenian Bagratunis revived. and there was a raid by a subordinate of the governor of Iraq. an (Arab) emir. ed. They were defeated. Perhaps as a riposte. blinding its leader who had sent a message ordering that his (Abas’s) cathedral at Kars be consecrated according to the Chalcedonian rite. Bagratunis and Turks: Revival. and of the Ergani Pass. who controlled the territory between Mosul and Aleppo. which was to become by 951/2 capital of a small province. in 9 3 7 -9 . 45 1. Khlatc. took Melitene (which she subsequently repopulated with Syrian O rtho­ dox) in 934. Basean was bestowed on Ashot by Byzantium. and with the emir of Manazkert. II Commentary.1 7 5 and v. whose position was complicated by the 1054 Papal-Byzantine schism. Byzantium reconquered Theodosio­ polis in 9 49 and acquired command of the Ergani Pass sometime between 956 and the early 970s.

paragraphs 1 7 . Three other potentates. para. pp. Gregory of Tarön. under pressure. The figures in the 955 list suggest that the Bagratunis were now the richest of the Armenian rulers. . Dostourian’s translation (p. Vanand and a royal title to his brother Mushej. 884-C. In 9 74 or 975 the emperor John I Tzimisces (9 6 9 -7 6 ). whither the katholikos followed. and to suffer attack from the emir of G ojtcn.00 0 dirhams plus offerings and horses to the value of 5 0 . 1 3 7 -9 5 . composed in 955 and recorded by the Arab writer Ibn Hauqal. Derenik-Ashot and his brother Abusahl Hamazasp (9 5 3 -7 2 ) of Vaspurakan together owed a tribute of 100. In 968 Bardas Pho­ cas. 1 9 6 5 . 1 4 4 -5 and n.3 3 . History. In 966 the emperor Nicephorus II Phocas (9 6 3 -9 ) acquired the estates of the two grandsons of Smbat I’s contemporary. Adontz in his ‘Notes armeno-byzantines’ (first published in Byzantion 1934 and 1 935) reprinted in Adontz. from Tarön. Ashot III was not daunted even by the resumption of Byzantine expan­ sion. Adontz’s correction is accepted in Yuzbashian 1 9 7 3 — 4 pp. working. two from Albania. 1 4 1 -4 6 . The source for Ashot’s reward is a corrupt and incomplete passage in M atthew ’s rendering of a letter from John to Ashot.Kings and Migrants. though the rejection of Adontz’s additions is not explained in the notes (p. in exchange for others.86 suggests that his kingdom had now broken free of Azerbaijani dominion. Kars. Ashot II and Abas are listed.0 0 0 slaves. Dostourian.0 0 0 in response to Byzan­ tium’s victories just south of Armenia.0 0 0 dir­ hams. pp. they had owed (together) 2 . 2 7 . Ashot-Sahak (9 7 2 -8 3 ) was to lose the northern banks of Lake Van to the emir of Diyarbakir in about 980. The letter is discussed pp. probably in Chaldia. for Ashot’s predecessors. 33) of the passage (Matthew. Archesh and Artske. dux of Chaldia and Coloneia. owed.000 dirhams. came to Muş.1071 225 ence and taken the strategically important Khlatc. 2 0 0 .000 dirhams) plus offerings. 87 Matthew of Edessa.000 horses and 1. and held it between 9 5 7 and 966. 2 6. In about 972 he had given ShamshuldS and TashirDzoraget in Gugarkc to his son Gurgen/Kwirike.0 0 0 dinars (750. trans. Ashot earlier assembled all the Armen­ ian princes and. The omission of Ashot III from a list of tributaries of the ruler of Azerbaijan. 291). respectively. 3 0 0 . Ashot III may also have taken Duin from the Sallarids (who ruled there 9 4 1 -8 7 ). In 961/2 Ashot had granted.0 0 0 dirhams. and was rewarded with 3 0 .2 1 . He transferred his capital from Kars to Ani. Arab Azerbaijan was suffering internal disputes.87 But the domination of Bagratuni Ani was soon challenged. This became a kingdom 86 Minorsky. took Manazkert. He provided 10.000 men and provisions for Joh n ’s campaign against the Arabs.0 0 0 dirhams plus some offerings. Vaspurakan was declining. 2 1 ) follows Adontz only in part.0 0 0 dahekans. 1 0 . corrected and reconstructed by N .0 0 0 dirhams with 2 0 0 .0 0 0 . 1 9 9 3 . 1 953. and 100. himself Armenian. 2 . apparently.0 0 0 remitted. Vasak of Vayotsc. probably.dzor in Siwnikc owed 5 0 . Derenik-Ashot (9 3 7 -5 3 ) had been briefly captured by the emir of Her. an army of 8 0 .000 mules.

seemingly for David’s lifetime only. in 983. David of Taykc. probably by some group from Azerbaijan. sometime between 961 and 997 Smbat II of Vayotsc-dzor proclaimed himself king. After David the most prominent leader was Gagik I of Ani (989/90­ 1020). as the Armenian sources have it. at Aparankc. Gagik joined in defending David’s conquests. Turkish pressure seems to have begun in 1029. Bagarat was grandson of the Iberian king and David’s adoptive son and heir and his current hostility to them had perhaps been provoked by David’s rapproche­ ment with the encroaching Byzantium. of much of western Siwnikc. And. in about 990. the support he had earlier promised to the Artsruni king Gurgen-Khachcik (983­ 1003) seemed needed. through his marriage to the heir o f its king Vasak VI who died in 1019. Bagarat of Iberia.1071 in 982. David and the king of Iberia rallied Smbat. 1 9 6 8 . N ext Basil looked to Vaspurakan. and Bagarat’s successor Gurgen. but it favoured Byzantium. and to David being disillusioned with his adoptive son Bagarat after the war between them. giving a relic of the True Cross to the monastery of the prince’s deceased uncle. Cahen. David brought Smbat II of Ani and his uncle Mushej of Kars to terms. For himself Gagik established control of Duin and. due prob­ ably to Basil putting pressure on David after David helped Bardas Phocas in his rebellion of 9 8 7 -9 . David had helped Byzantium against the rebellion (9 7 6 -9 ) of Bardas Sclerus. For Vaspurakan was attacked that year. subdued G ojtcn. In 1018. Between 975 and 1000 the leading potentate in the region was an Iberian Bagratuni. . Its exact terms are unknown.88 In about 1019 and 1021 Prince David Artsruni and his father King Senekcerim-John (1 0 0 3 -2 1 ) 88 Identification of the attackers as the Turks is incompatible with the other evidence for early eleventh-century Turkish history. Smbat having taken up arms against Mushej in the late 970s. The emperor Basil II (9 7 6 -1 0 2 5 ) had re-established good rela­ tions with the prince of M okkc. 884-C. pp. 6 7 -8 . In 1000/1 Basil came to claim his legacy. and also acquired the submission of David of Tashir-Dzoraget (9 8 9 -1 0 4 8 ). Arab Hark0 and Apahunik0 which David subsequently conquered. in the 990s.226 Kings and Migrants. At that time King Gagik stayed aloof but others met and were submissive towards the emperor. including Theodosiopolis and Basean and. when he refortified Theodosiopolis. Like Abas of Kars. which had been based in Kharput and supported by Gregory and Bagarat of Tarön and by the prince of M okkc. and again in 1 0 2 0 . Since problems elsewhere prevented Basil removing Bagarat from territory which each considered his own the two rivals parted apparent friends. King Abas of Kars and troops of the princes of Vaspurakan. But Basil II had designs on Armenia and the way to complete Byzantine annexation was opened when David of Taykc changed his will. Siwnikc and Albania in about 988 in the two Iberians’ defence against King Bagarat of Abasgia. rather than the Turks. To David Basil had granted territory.

with its capital at Theodosiopolis. and he had seized K lafjkc in 1011. Thomson. 5 8 . acceded to the kingship. p.3 . pp. 1975. 91 AristakSs. in 1008 through his natural father. Dedeyan. the kings moved to Cappadocia. 884-C. currently divided between Gagik I’s sons. John-Smbat and Ashot IV. 1 985. and their women and children. 90 Arutjunova-Fidanjan. after the Turkish conquests. 1980a and 1980b. Gagik accepted an invitation to Constantinople and he was imprisoned. in 978 through his mother. Ashot and Smbat died in 1040 and 1041. 109. followed submission of Kars to the Turks in 1064. 1 9 93. king (1 0 1 4 -2 7 ) of a powerful and recently united Georgia. . 7 8 -8 2 for Vaspurakan and Artsruni family. In 1044 Constantine IX (1 0 4 2 -5 5 ) attacked Ani and persuaded the emir of Duin to do likewise. removing to Sebasteia with 1 4 .90 The histories of Taykc and Ani reveal some hostility to annexation at the time. despite the ambitions of the regent.92 Certainly 89 Thomas Artsruni. Byzantium next claimed the kingdom of Ani.1 . 9 6. as penalty for having supported Georgia. para.Kings and Migrants. 1 3 0 -1 . pp. where it is numbered as II. bequeathed his lands to Byzan­ tium. (Continuator). perhaps David of Lori. Dostourian. Sargis. But he did not last long. The outcome of their clash was that Byzantium acquired southern Taykc and Basean and established the theme of Iberia. most probably accompanied by their nobility. The interest of the Byzantine annexations lies in the attitudes and the consequences to which they gave rise. to do so himself. Gregory Magistros is known to have followed his king to Constantinople and exchanged his estates for ones in Mesopotamia. George refused to relinquish to Basil the lands which Basil had conceded to Bagarat. IV. Like the Artsrunis before them. 3 7 0 . its brave leaders replaced with eunuchs. pp. who had ruled north-eastern Taykc and other lands. For Bagarat. In 1022 John-Smbat. 92 Matthew. Disregarding warnings to the contrary. His grandees then contemplated turning for help to Bagarat IV of Iberia and another ruler. trans. 12. and this was shared later.89 In 1 0 2 1 -2 Basil went to war for his inheritance from David of Taykc.9 . trans. Michael met resistance and Ashot’s young son.1071 22 7 exchanged their domains for lands and office in Cappadocia. and then Iberia. The last Byzantine annexation.000 men. His adversary now was George I. by some Armenian historians. had inherited first Abasgia. 1 973. Thus the late eleventh-century Aristakes of Lastivert bewailed the dispersal and exile of Armenians and their abandonment of their land. that of the kingdom of Kars. thereby blocking Georgian expansion into Armenia.91 and the twelfthcentury Matthew of Edessa believed Armenia was left abandoned and unprotected. Epilogue. trans. 13. Canard and Berberian. But in 1045 the katholikos Peter surrendered Ani to Byzantium. Gagik II. and then the emperor Michael IV (1 0 3 4 -4 2 ) tried to take possession. Kars joined Ani in the Iberian theme. 5 2 .

they were defeated by Vaspurakan’s governor. Dostourian. migrant Armenian leaders appear to have assumed the role of strategoi of themes. who died without male heirs in 1036. Gagik of Ani’s initial holding was small. with the Armenian Gregory Magistros from Mesopotamia and the Georgian prince Liparit. Even Byzantium’s defeat at Capetrus near Artsn. After this battle Armenia was lost. 12. IV. Gregory of N arek’s (c . most of it good land. resistance was minimal and attitude to its architect. Basil II. begins with a panegyric of Basil II. Second. and a new era began. But when the Turks ravaged Vaspurakan in 1048. reaching down to Melitene. 4 9 . have contributed to Byzantium’s own decisive defeat by the Turks at Manazkert. just and saintly. (when the emperor Romanus (1068­ 71) was briefly captured). and Balkan matters contributed to Turkish victory over Ani in 1064. pp. was not the end. including the former Paulician site of Tephrike. 1 9 8 5 . and. p. but happened partly because of fear o f the Turks and partly because of the strength of personal ties to Armenian leaders and to kin. Gagik of Kars received Tzamandus. Larissa. First. annexation did not bring rule by aliens. Initially they had about 17.94 And the author who continued the Artsruni history to the mid-twelfth century regarded Basil as a benefactor who offered safety from the Turks on generous terms.93 Matthew of Edessa characterized Basil as illustrious. admit­ tedly. 34— 5. Tarön and Vaspurakan against rebellion in Bulgaria. trans. Larissa and Cae­ sarea. faced a second invasion in 1048. Thomas Artsruni. 1 975. universal. (Continuator). 5 3. in 1071.1071 Byzantium did use Armenian resources for non-Armenian problems and her non-Armenian problems caused difficulties in Armenia. 1991. Amaseia and Comana in Pontus. Nor was Byzantium’s treatment of the Armenians unfavourable. pp. Caesarea.375 square miles. In the south. 884-C. but later he acquired more. Thomson. merci­ ful. And third. defeated in 1 0 4 5 -6 by a Turkish force coming up from M esopota­ mia. The strategus of Melitene in 1047 was descended from T cornik of Tarön. by weakening Armenian defence.228 Kings and Migrants. When the provinces of Vaspurakan and Тагбп were combined into one in 1051 93 94 95 96 Mahe. his second wife’s father. The annexations may in their turn. Resentment of annexation was not. Byzantine rule in Armenia was initially successful. having overrun many other areas. however.96 The Artsrunis were given the district of Sebasteia.9 0 for the organization of areas settled on Armenians. These two. paras 2 4 . Matthew. trans. with the governor of Ani. In 1041 Michael ГѴ used troops from Sebasteia. Dedeyan. very favour­ able. 8 6 . for a time. (Arab) Berkri and Archesh were taken. 370.95 Westward migration was not actually forced on Armenians by Byzantium. 1 9 9 3 . including the lands of David Artsruni. The commander of Archesh was.9 5 0 -1 0 1 0 ) History o f the Holy Cross at Aparankc. intended for the elite of Vaspurakan. .

Catacalon Cecaumenus. 1057 and 1059 respectively Kars. Melitene and Sebasteia were sacked. was of Armenian origin. who brought Armenia much economic and political disruption. One indication of the former is provided by analysis of pigments used in illuminated manuscripts: by c. 1984. In 1064 Lori and Kars sub­ mitted and Ani fell. or the expensive ultramarine. .Kings and Migrants. The Bagratuni period had seen Armenian kingdoms proliferate. In 1067 Caesarea was sacked. Between then and 1071 Cappadocia was troubled regularly. The coming of the Turks changed everything. governor of Ani and Iberia from late 1045. previously dux of M esopota­ mia. and learning.97 In 1054. These developments had been facilitated by economic growth and by the dynamics of the international situation. governor of Ani under Constantine X Ducas (1 0 5 9 -6 7 ). in both approved and deviant forms. architecture and religious life.1 0 5 0 artists in the region of Melitene no longer used gold. belonged to the same family. flourish. His family originated from Taykc and he had property in the theme of Coloneia. art. 884-C. Bagarat.1071 229 they were entrusted to Gregory Magistros. made from Afghan lapis lazuli. Nevertheless the new Byzantine system was not sufficiently well estab­ lished to cope with the Turks. 97 Cabelli and Mathews.

to c. yet retaining. like Armenians. will recognize old friends in Armenia. Armen­ ians had important elements in common not only with Christian Byzan­ tine society. becoming Christian and. It is also that Armenians contributed to western life.10 Armenians and Europe. Armenians had both eastern and western affinities. besides. Some of their contributions were more spectacular. and some have been overstated and need qualification. in the Christian period particul­ arly. and her defeat by the Turks at M anazkert in 1071 contributed to her losing her multinational. Rome and Byzantium. yet these too still deserve to be noted. both ancient and early medi­ eval Armenians have a European significance. and affected by. Sasanian Persia and the Arab Caliphate. Arabs and Turks.and eighth-century England. As a frontier region between the western and eastern powers. Furthermore. partially Romanized. besides Parthia. and some are more certain. It is not only that their origins were western and their language Indo-European. but also with Germanic peoples who established kingdoms in Rom e’s western provinces. and. their warrior char­ acter. in different degrees. Manazkert was a milestone . imperial character.a d Despite their geographical position and their entanglement with Assyr­ ians. than others. and conversely Armenian phenom­ ena may occasionally be illuminated by consideration of English paral­ lels. A reader familiar with. and much of her international power and status. Byzantium’s failure effectively to use Armenia as a buffer against the Seljuk Turks. The truth of Armenian involvement in European history and culture considered on a large scale is undeniable. Urartians. Armenia was important to. seventh. Identification of European links and similarities is not of course intended to be either a complete delineation o f the character of the Armenians. say. a whole is more than the sum of its parts. Persians. or a denial of its individuality.

2 Dfedeyan. likewise. in status. They also had common concerns and experiences: a conviction that sin and heresy would provoke divine punishment in this world.1 and he had an Armenian staff. suffered Roman expansion and enjoyed Christian conversion.2 St Gregory of Pithiviers. Vitale. 1 9 8 2 . Armenian. and who was the last person to enjoy an official triumph in Rome. King Tiridates I’s visit to the emperor Nero in a d 66 belongs in the context of Rom an-Parthian rivalry and diplomacy. cop­ ied by an Armenian scribe and illuminated by an Armenian artist in 1007. then. like others to west and south. Narses. who in 5 52 completed Justinian I’s reconquest of Italy. was an 1 Dedeyan. There were also ecclesiastical visitors and settlers. The exarch of Ravenna between 625 and 6 44. was the former rebel Gregory of Tarön. who died early in the eleventh century.a d 1100 231 in European as much as in Asia Minor history. Armenia had. Basil II’s governor in Thessalonica in the early 990s. Armenian Christians thus shared with many other Christians a common heritage. and so have political and military consequences. or perhaps through trade. commemorated in the church of S. one of them commisioned the Adrianople Gospels. in 55 4 . for Armenians in Byzantium. and the degree of political and cultural influence they had therein. and travelled for different reasons. possibly a Kamsarakan. tensions and compromises between Christian­ ity and society. these were common to all early medieval Christian societies. shared in Hellenistic culture. to c . of course. perhaps through the movement of refugees. The governor of Philippopolis whom Basil appointed in 994 was. As for culture. Armenians West of Armenia Significant Armenian involvement in western society occurred only in the Christian period. who died in 995 in the war with Samuel of Bulgaria. Yet another was the strategus of Lombardy who in 892 issued a privilege for the monastery of Monte Cassino. Some Armenians came as high-ranking representatives of (east) Roman and Byzantine imperial power. in antiquity. their physical presence there. like many other lands to both east and west. though some scholars have thought that Urartian influ­ ence had reached as far west as Etruria and Greece. religious and psychological problems posed by Christian suffering at the hands of non-Christians. It now seems however that Urartian exports and artistic influence have been greatly exagger­ ated. was another Armenian. The pious eunuch general. On a subordinate level the hypothesis that ‘Armenians were Europeans’ involves first and foremost their interest in the west. . The Armenians who came to the west varied. 1979.Armenians and Europe. in France. was Armenian.

Map 10.1 Europe and west Asia .

This community seems to have disappeared by 807. is Jerusalem. Interest in the Holy Land was continuous. it seems. . reached Tours in 5 9 1 . Three Armenian bishops. An account of two visits. The feasts of Gregory. Eutactus of Satala. For more. came to western Europe from the east. are recorded by Icelandic sources as missionaries in Iceland in the eleventh century.a d 1100 233 Armenian who had worked for the archbishop of Nicopolis. X . The. 24. Accused of heresy. and whose body was elevated in 1067 before Philip I of France.4 An early medieval Irish litany suggests that the monastery of Killeigh in County Offaly passed under Armenian leadership at about the same time. political upheaval or religious per­ secution. and who had. we should look amongst the many refugees. 1 9 8 6 -7 .Armenians and Europe. Symeon himself is of course an example of the pilgrim. The seventh-century Gallo-Roman Gregory of Tours records that an Armenian bishop. As an object of pilgrimage for all early medieval Christendom. visited England.3 Their presence has been explained in terms of the connection between Harald. These are particular cases. hailed from the Armenian community in Antioch where he had been arch­ bishop. who died in 1016. more anciently. and Katholikos Gregory II (1 0 6 6 -1 1 0 5 ). who died in Lucca in Italy in 1050. Peter. 3 Dachkevytch. nearly and naturally within Armenian hori­ zons than was the further west. who had been a prisoner of the Persians. he cleared himself with the help of a bishop who had happened to come to Rome from Armenia and who acted as interpreter. by spectators suspicious of his strange customs and language. He had gone to Rome in 983. Simon. 1 0 4 7 -6 6 ) and Constantinople. Other Armenian pilgrims included a Davin. In the seventh century there was a particulary large eastern influx to Italy. formerly Latin. monastery ‘called Renati’ (meaning of Renatus) appears among the ‘Greek’ monasteries in Rome which are first referred to in the Acts of the Lateran Council of 6 49. who fleeing war. from the east. for the same reason. did so in the 350s and is likely to have gone to Jerusalem. few and far between in the hurly-burly of Europe. The first Armenian attested to have visited it. though mostly anonymous. King of Norway (c. in response to Arab conquests. Another. Abraham and Stephen. but there were Armenian immigrants elsewhere. 4 Gregory of Tours. The Histories. Rome is one place where we can be sure that the chances of westerners meeting Armenians were reasonably continuous. The monastery of Polirone (near Mantua) was home to the Armenian saint Symeon. Hripcsim£ and Gayiane were being celebrated in Naples by the late eighth century. St M artin’s tomb at Tours and the shrine of St James at Compostela in Spain. to c . as a ‘monastery of the Armenians’. where Harald had served and where there was an Armenian community. The St Macarius who died of plague at St Bertin in Ghent in Flanders in 1012.

Map 10.2 Africa and Eurasia .

soon after the year 428. 1961b . in the seventh century and it is thought to be apocryphal. Katholikos Nerses II forbade Armenians to visit Jerusalem. The calendars of the Armenian and Greek churches sporadically (twelve times 5 Stone. Sebeos. viewed Armenian pilgrimage in this light. favours the 630s for the first on the grounds of territorial information in the text. Macler. but it revived later. probably in the 630s. another to one of eight hundred. in about 6 3 0 . 7) alludes to the resumption of Armenian pilgrimage but not to what caused its interruption. One inscription is ‘to the memory and for the salvation of all Armenians’ but the others commemorate indi­ vidual Armenians.) A previous suggestion was c. The Armenian religious commun­ ity in Jerusalem was to have a long history. II. They could also. Like many western Christians the Armenian katholikos Komitas (6 1 0 -2 8 ). This list was written purport­ edly by an Armenian monk Anastas Vardapet. regard their pilgrimage as a penitential exercise. X X V . later. One source refers to a group of four hundred. Two date from the fifth century and the others may be only slightly later. 171). Symeon and Davin had reached Rome via Jerusalem. That there was some. Modestus of Jerusalem (see below n. trans. 6 Stone. to c . 1986. p. X X V . primate of Jerusalem. The interests of Jerusalem pilgrims in enhancing their spiritual life included seeing the holy places and acquiring relics of them. Macler. In Jerusalem the presence of an Armenian (religious) community is sug­ gested by several panels from mosaic pavements with Armenian inscrip­ tions which have been found. According to Samuel of Ani and two other sources. 1 8 1 -2 . 1 9 0 4 . pp.6 Pilgrimage may have declined in the Arab period. For Moses.7 The Holy Land harboured Armenian residents as well as Armenian pilgrims. after the formal separation of the Armenian Church from communion with Chalcedonians. This claim may or may not be true (see Garitte.8 The details might be wishful thinking. (which may well have been the recent Roman-Persian wars). pp. 70) 7 SebSos. History o f Heraclius. but their gist is not inherently implausible.Armenians and Europe. and it made itself felt. and in the monastery of Theodosius at Deir Dossi in the fourth century. 7 3 -6 . 8 Sanjian 1969a. some still in existence and some fifteen still under Armenian control in the seventh century. Gregory II was in Jerusalem in 1099 when the western Crusaders arrived. 50 see Dowsett. some of whom were buried nearby. 1 9 5 2 p. Inscriptions from the Sinai dating from the fifth century onwards suggest that Armenians were the second largest group to visit there. Armenian belief in a significant Armenian presence in Jeru­ salem may be implied from a dubious list of seventy monasteries and a number of churches founded in Jerusalem and its environs by Armenians in the fourth century.6 6 0 . . (The second hermit travelled three years after the first’s return. and in large groups. trans. 1 9 8 6 . Armenians probably travelled to the Holy Land regularly.s is incorpor­ ated in the tenth-century Moses Daskhurantsci’s History o f the Alban­ ians. In Palestine they were numerous in the Greek Lavra of St Sabas. 1 9 0 4 .a d 1100 23 5 each by a different Armenian hermit. because of the difficulties involved in the journey. in a letter to Modestus.

to Macedon. Constantine V settled Armenians in Thrace.9 Armenians and Byzantine History That there were Armenians. of varying backgrounds. and a large proportion of its finest troops. military and political problems. It has been concluded that between c. 949. to Thrace.0 0 0 . though some scholars have attributed to Armenians an important role in Byzantine war. Armenia certainly contributed to the empire’s military might. pilgrims and voluntary residents west of Armenia. and perhaps the principal one for Maurice and for Heraclius after the Balkan provinces were lost to Slavs and Avars late in the sixth century. Basil II moved more. in Italy in 934.582 and c. in 9 8 8 . and many Armenians were involved.000 soldiers.10 Some Armenians founded great families. however.236 Armenians and Europe. She was an important source of recruits for Justinian I. 131 for percentage. there were also Armenian transportees. but not at regular intervals) yield different dates for Easter. . 1 971. were of Armenian stock. to c . and some 1. The number of (identifiable) Caucasian individuals in imperial service was greater after 811 than before and it rose during the ninth and tenth centuries to a height of twenty-four. to Sicily. p. in the territory of the east Roman (Byzantine) Empire in Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages is undeniable.000 to Cyprus in 578. refugees. And on the eastern frontier the Armenian Melias and the theme of Lykandos which he governed defended Byzantium and promoted her conquest of Arab lands. where they were ‘2 5 % or more’ in the ninth and tenth centuries. From the early twelfth century there were outbreaks of violence. and 9 60. culture and government. and there may well have been on the previous occasions. when the dates clashed. Armenians were settled in Crete in 961. Leo IV apparently moved some 1 5 0 . Charanis. leadership. Besides Armenian visitors. For some Roman and Byzantine emperors used transportation to deal with eco­ nomic. 1963. though there is no documentary evidence for them. It has been estim­ ated that almost all the tenth-century Byzantine provincial nobility. is less certain. Armenians were involved in m ajor campaigns in Crete in 911. It is certain also that some Armenians reached the highest level of Byzantine society. and in the Balkans in 971 and 986. The nature and significance of their connection. 10 Toumanoff. Tiberius II (5 7 8 -8 2 ) apparently moved 10. and hence it follows that they were involved in its history. probably Armenians.959 Armenians were in the majority at court and in the forces.a d 1100 between a d 5 70 and a d 2071 inclusive. 1 9 7 1 . during the Easter period. that most of the twenty great Anatolian families which emerge in eleventh-century 9 Toumanoff. including Armenians.

for example. Toumanoff concludes. for Heraclius is the equivalent of Vahagn. that of the house o f Boilas. Toumanoff. Patriarch John the Grammar­ ian (837— 45) and Leo the Philosopher were Armenian. in the funeral oration delivered by his son Leo VI. 1934a. but the counter-arguments. a name favoured by the M amikoneans.14 Basil I. 11 Such conclusions might make Byzantium seem like an annex of Arme­ nia. however. 1 5 7 -8 . Explicit claims of Arsacid descent were made by his family and friends. because of this family’s apparent Bulgarian origin. His father. was also. is likely. Toumanoff. and that about 10 per cent of Byzan­ tium’s approximately 3 40 ‘aristocratic’ families in the eleventh and twelfth centuries were ‘Armenian’. also named Her­ aclius.12 The choice of personal names can reflect fashion. 98). The patron Caesar Bardas. This house. he spoke Armenian as a first language. and also in his biography. and that of the house of Phocas. seem overwhelming. An Armenian personal name. and their repetition may express family rather than ethnic consciousness. Within Byzantium’s intellectual leadership the Armenian element was most marked in the ninth-century cultural revival. quali­ fies an individual for inclusion by Toumanoff in his list of Caucasians in imperial service. p. 156. 1 940. to c .13 His Armenian origin appears only in late Armenian and in late Greek sources. We cannot date the immigration of all the ‘Armenian’ families exactly. But some qualification is needed. Maurice is one. because of what seems definite evidence of western origin. In the latter case at least it is explicable in terms of the contemporary Armenian population in Cappa­ docia. which is where Maurice really came from and a consequential failure to distinguish Armenia from Cappadocia in the past. probably. 134— 5.Armenians and Europe. or calculation.15 The biographer suggests 11 12 13 14 15 Jenkins. known as the M acedon­ ian. and some of the greatest emperors have also been credited with Armenian origins. 1 9 8 1 . 1984. 1 9 9 4 . Bryer. but a M am i­ konean origin is also possible. but Toumanoff himself notes that the deduction of Armenian origin from an Armenian name seems precluded in two cases. p. 1 9 7 1 . 1 981. and sometimes the evidence for their origins is questionable. 1 3 5 -6 (n. The Arme­ nian origin of Heraclius. whose author may have been his grandson Constantine V II. pp. in his case. The greatest position of leadership in Byzantium was of course that of the emperor. had been Armenianized through mar­ ital alliances. taken by some earlier scholars to be Armenian. 1 9 7 1 . 9 2. Tougher.a d 1100 237 Byzantium had Armenian origins. Goubert. pp. Adontz. of Armenian stock. and the scholars Patriarch Photius. According to one Byzantine source. 6 6 . was born in the region of Karin. . One interpretation of a remark by ‘Sebeos’ is that Heraclius was descended from the Arsacids. Kazhdan.

9 . often seen as a significant land­ mark in the decline of the Latin and the rise of the Greek element in the empire’s polity and culture. trans. Adontz. . has been shown to emanate from Basil’s circle.16 The exact truth is probably less glamorous. And according to the thirteenth-century Armenian historian Vardan. Basil’s biographer tellingly alludes to the Armenians’ ancient devotion to the Arsacids. to its greatest church. 2 5 5 . There are signs of scepticism in Leo V i’s account of Basil’s royal descent and his family might have been merely an impoverished branch of the M amikoneans. Photius’ rival for the patriarchate. p. Adontz. 19 3 4 a .18 In these genealogical inventions the ‘Armenian’ Byzantine patriarch Photius may have played a part. Its interpolation into the history by the fifth-century Armenian Lazarus of Р°агр has been concluded to have been made at Constantinople at the time of Basil’s accession. 1934a. 1934a. 4 5 .17 What is clear is that Basil was interested in promoting his lineage. H istorical Com pilation. p. invented a genealogy connecting Basil and Tiridates. pp. which included the eventual restoration of the ec­ clesiastical patriarchate to Gregory the Illuminator’s family. whose cult he may have promoted. miraculously discovered in Constantinople. whilst in (temporary) exile. Sahak’s ‘prediction’. 1911. 1971b.19 It is even possible that Photius himself was regarded. 186. 237. must have been meant to impress his descent not just on Byzantines but also on Armenians. Hagia Sophia. with some justification. p. Some association is certainly suggested by the biogra­ pher of Ignatius. 1 989.20 where Basil arranged for him (Gregory) to be pictured in mosaic. An Armenian text attributes to Photius the translation of some relics o f Gregory. the bishop of Taron more or less assured Basil that he was this prophesied king. 2 3 3 . 1934a. that one day an Arsacid would rule the Roman Empire. and thereby to encourage Armenians to be sub­ missive. He asserts that Photius. 2 4 5 . Only in the case of Heraclius is the evidence strong. Basil’s claims. like Basil.a d 1100 that Basil’s reign fulfilled a prediction of the fifth-century Armenian katholikos Sahak. Since Heraclius 16 17 18 19 20 21 Vardan. Adontz. to c .21 The influence which the presence of Armenian stock in the empire’s greatest families had upon the direction of Byzantine government how­ ever was probably less than has sometimes been claimed.238 Armenians and Europe. Van Esbroeck. given that the Bagratunis had been the royal Armenian Arsacids’ coronants. was to a considerable extent for reasons connected with Heraclius’ involvement in Armenia. as a fulfilment of Sahak’s prophecy. Der Sahaghian. Thomson. 1933b . and his sending to Ashot Bagratuni for a crown. Shahid has argued that Heraclius’ assumption in 6 29 of the title /ЗасгіXevf. Adontz. to be a member of the family of Gregory. Photius could have claimed. thereby regaining Basil’s favour.

a d 1100 239 spent six years here in pursuit of his Persian war and since his reign could be regarded as a period of ‘Christianization’. but this attention can be more simply explained. 1 9 6 3 . since opponents of image wor­ ship are attested in Armenia in the early seventh century. For the Armenians were sometimes an obstacle. E. Charanis. kingship. Gregoire. a problem which lasted well into the seventh century. and the estates he was granted were in the region of Artanuj in the Armenian-Iberian border zone. may be seen in the case of Eustathius Boilas whose will survives. Whether Basil’s dynasty was significantly influenced by its Armenian roots has been acknowledged as not deter­ minable. and indeed reflected his own Armenian outlook. 35. In other imperial and elite cases however Armenian descent had less import.25 The generally absorbing power of Byzantium. There was a contribution to religious tension. though not the only one. There had for example been opposition to images throughout the early church.22 It has also been asserted that Heraclius’ policies were dominated by Armenian con­ cerns:23 that Heraclius made sacrifices in religious dogma in his attempts to heal the rift between Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians because he needed Armenian support in his campaigns: and that his presentation of the Persian war as a religious one.26 As for changes and developments within Byzantium. as a result. was designed to appeal to Armenians. have reminded Armenians of Tiridates the Great. Ibid. 1957. On the other hand the origins and significance of Byzantine Iconoclasm have generated differing interpretations and they are explicable without giving major importance to Armenian factors. p. His promise to his troops of the martyrs’ crown and of eternal life is also susceptible to this inter­ pretation. 1946. The evidence to support the assertion that Heraclius’ successors were influenced by their Armenian origin is that they paid careful atten­ tion to Armenia. and also that his new title marked Heraclius’ resumption of the Arme­ nian. Shahid believes that Her­ aclius must. Vryonis.24 The sophisticated scholar Photius has been deemed ‘Hellenized’.. Armenian impact upon them is not easy to evaluate. possibly (if he was an Arsacid) his ancestral. to free the holy places and to recapture the True Cross. by Armenia’s very real importance. to c .g. 28. 1972. His family was thoroughly Byzantinized. p. his own original home Cappadocia. but his ultimate origin was perhaps Bulgar. It is also not impossible that there was an Armenian contribution to eighth-century Byzantine Iconoclasm. from which Armenians within the empire cannot have been entirely exempt. 22 23 24 25 26 Shahid. to Imperial attempts to heal the internal rift created by the Council of Chalcedon.Armenians and Europe. .

. has been almost de rigeur in secondary literature. First. 1994. have suggested that historians have understood the terms ‘feudalism’ and ‘feudal system’ so variously as to have deprived them of any useful meaning at all. 5 pp. E. and that it was her contact with them which stimulated the development of the new system. namely the theme system (in which the soldiers of the province’s army were settled on the land) and feudalism. like the Byzantine governors of themes. working on other medieval societies. R . from ‘military contin­ gent’ to ‘geographical-administrative division’. 1 974. Brown. some scholars. There are two points of comparison: first.and twelfth-century Byzantium has been com­ monly held. but one which slowly evolved. a d 1100 Armenian influence has also been associated with two very important elements in Byzantine government and society. there is a parallel in the development of the meaning of both Greek Ѳёца and Armenian gund.2 40 Armenians and Europe.32 However.29 Finally. 1984. from a beginning in the second half of the seventh century. 1993 and 1995.31 is a construct devised in Europe in the seven­ teenth century. t o c . Haldon. second. the ‘feudal system’ an early essay in comparative jurisprud­ ence. Cf. Howard-johnston. 9 7 -9 8 . if indeed it did appear then. pp. but their similarities must be precisely identified. As for chronology. There is little evidence and it is only comparison and chronology which suggest an Armenian contribution. Bryer. • For this view and a resume of others.а from the Avars. Armenian princes combined civil and military functions. though not the more convincing for its repetition. 1980. But these arguments are easy to challenge. The view that Armenian movement into and influence in Byzantium in the eleventh century probably played a crucial role in the development of feudalism in eleventh.28 It may even be that it was not a deliberately planned system.g. the assertion that late antique and medieval Armen­ ian society itself was feudal. E. The first was the mainstay of Byzantine organization. Consequently neither the application of these terms to Armenian society nor any general comparison of it to western society which involves asserting that the western society is ‘feudal’ should be considered illuminating in itself.27 and an Armenian ‘origin’ for the theme system would tie in with its appearance in Byzantium in Heraclius’ reign. with references. we have the historiographically thorny issue of feudalism. One ex­ ample is the supposition that the Armenians who moved to Cilicia in the 27 28 29 30 31 32 Garsoi'an.. above ch. 8 8 -9 2 . 1 9 81. A different suggestion for example is that Byzantium borrowed the term Ѳср. and also Reynolds. Armen­ ian gund had acquired its second meaning by 5 5 5 . ‘Feudalism’ as pointed out by Elizabeth Brown.30 But it ought not to be maintained. and its origins and date of introduction have suffered considerable debate. A. They may of course have had much in common. and their inner workings detailed.

8. a heresy whose date of origin is not entirely clear. Bulgarian Bogomilism. 1 973. discovered that they were planning to send missionaries to Bul­ garia. 34 Dedeyan. 38. through the mid-eighth-century emperor Constantine V ’s transporting Armenians from Melitene to live there. Bogomilism was itself very likely influenced by Armenian Paulicianism. Relations between Cilicia and the Norman principality of Antioch (1098­ 1268) were particularly close. partly. text and trans. but which is generally thought to have become a problem in Bulgaria by the 930s. Some of Nicholas’s replies 33 Edwards. pp.34 Armenians and Western Culture That there was an Armenian contribution to the actual structure of Byzantine government and society seems doubtful. 37 Sullivan. (1 9 6 6 ). some at least of the heretics are likely to have been active in recruitment and they may even have been reinforced. and for guidance on particular isses. 1 9 8 3 a . pp. Lemerle.36 The surviving reply of Pope Nicholas I (8 5 8 -6 7 ) to the 106 lost questions put to him by Bulgaria’s first Christian monarch. Paulicianism reached the Balkans. 35 Theophanes. was both to infect Constantinople and also to contribute to the emergence of Catharism in the late twelfth-century Rhineland and France. 1 p. that there was one to western heresy and art a little more certain. in 8 6 6 . 9. of course. 1994. There are some simila­ rities of doctrine. Boris. 36 Peter of Sicily. Garsoian. 5. 1 9 7 0 . Given their history. and by the Armenian Leo II’s reign (as prince 1 1 8 7 -9 8 .E . 3 5 -6 . will have facilitated the heresy’s reaching Bul­ garia itself. Basil I’s ambassador to the Paulicians of Tephrike in 8 6 8 -9 . 1 9 -2 1 for comment. R . modern comments regarding their ‘feudal system’ in Cilicia are not supported by textual evidence and most often derive from examples of an earlier ‘feudal system’ in Armenia. in the context of frequent Byzantine-Bulgarian hostilities. C hronograpbia. As Edwards has noted. of the different teachers available. Mayr-Harting.Armenians and Europe..35 Subsequent movements of both people and frontier. Astruc et al. to c . But Boris had asked which. and the historical context suggests some contacts. necessarily have been Paulicians. These need not. 1967a. 1 989. as king 1 1 9 8 -1 2 1 9 ) the influence of western ‘feudalism’ on Cilician elite society is apparent. as a tenth-century Byzantine chronicler noted.. 4 2 9 . Peter of Sicily.a d 1100 241 late eleventh century took ‘feudalism’ with them. pp.37 reveals that there were Armenians teaching in Bulgaria even before then. pp. . he ought to obey. 1 2 2 -3 and n.33 The Armenian aristocracy and its monarchy in Cilicia did in fact change under external influences as western Crusaders established themselves nearby in the twelfth century. 1 9 9 4 .

they must have worked in their old style unless and until re-educated. and baptism.242 Armenians and Europe. by the western. suggestion is that the development of early Irish and Anglo-Saxon free-standing sculptured crosses owes something to the Middle East. though it is recorded that Basil I. 6 8 . Vitale at Ravenna and not to Armenian tradition. 1 986. namely steles at Ödzun. most likely. in his monumental work of 1918.39 But it is also likely that the Preslav church was influenced from a quite different direction. the so-called Round Church at Preslav (dated to c. emperor Charlemagne’s palace church at Aachen40 in pres­ ent-day Germany. and it has been suggested that one of her most important churches. Another. If they were able to ply their trade. 1978. Like the western crosses these are carved on four sides and include figures within a frame. a few years earlier. Richardson. some Armenian artefacts in their baggage which could have kept the memory of this style alive. 41 Der Nersessian. which was completed in the very early ninth century and to which it bears some resemblances. For amongst the Armenian transportees and refugees who came to the west there were probably at least some artists and craftsmen. 1 9 8 4 . It has been argued that there was an Armenian influence on Virgin 38 Boyadjiev. and fragments of steles at Harich and T calin. 1 7 3 -4 . is not now accepted. p. owes a great deal to Armenian inspiration. or a desire for a written authoritative statement with which to impress his subjects.a d 1100 concern points regarding which Paulicians and non-Paulicians would certainly have differed. One channel through which Armenian influence reached England may have been the Irish monastery on Iona (off the coast of Scotland) which itself hugely influenced seventh-century Anglo-Saxon Northum­ bria. such as the sign of the Cross. or simple ignorance. are discernible. that Armenia played a formative role in the architecture of Christendom. 1 978. 900).38 There are certainly no surviving parallels for this church in contemporary Byzantine architecture. Scholars of the Carolingian world relate Charlemagne’s palace chapel to the (earlier) church of S. notes parallels and suggests development from a common heritage. Cramp. p. It is unknown whether they reflect puzzlement about differences of opinion in Bulgaria. As for art. built a similar one in Constantinople. For there was a great deal of contact between Carolingians and Bulgarians in the ninth century. 5. 1 983. though tentative. We might expect some impact in Bulgaria. 35 M ango. a number of Armen­ ian-western links are nevertheless identifiable and explicable. 40 Hoddinott. (these were probably carved by a Georgian sculptor). . which involve the sanctification of matter. pp. The fragments may even be fragments of crosses. to c . Carolingian. Unfortunately the exact pur­ pose of Boris’s questions is not clear.41 Some resemblances to pre-Arab Armenian works in Armenia. There were. although the overall conclusion of Strzygowski. 1 9 6 6 .

17. 14. pp. first the Carolingians and then the Ottonians. The dome’s restoration was planned and begun by Trdat. 1982. Thierry. were heavily involved in Rome. itself one of the greatest monuments of Byzan­ tine civilization. Constantine IX ’s church of the monastery of St George of Mangana another. but some may have followed contacts and perhaps acquisition of artefacts. late tenth and the eleventh centuries several imperial churches were built under the influence of Armenian design. to c .43 Some decorative fragments from Hexham in Northumbria are reminiscent of strips of decoration on Armenian churches. M ango. and Thierry..45 And there are the paintings consecrated at Tatcew in Siwnikc in 930. after it was damaged in an earthquake in 989.47 The most famous Armenian work of the period which still survives is of course that done on the dome of the church of Hagia Sophia.5 and n. 9 9 -1 0 1 . pp. source of Armenian styles must have been Constan­ tinople. There is the Latin-Armenian glossary of ninety words (including days. 1 9 6 0 . which had been commissioned from Frankish artists by its bishop Jacob. Cramp. indirect. 3 0 8 -9 . Donabedian.Armenians and Europe. 1991. and in the ninth and tenth centuries the western emperors. it is clear that in the late ninth. For although only a fraction of Byzantine architecture survives. . Basil I’s round church was one.to tenth-century strate42 M acLean. 174. pp. 4 . Such contacts might explain two tantalizing glimpses of Armenian interplay with the culture of the far west. the great architect of the kingdom of Ani who. Hewsenian. a d 1100 243 and Child iconography in eighth-century Iona. where Armenians were not the only foreigners. There were a number of English there in the late seventh and early eighth centuries. These elements include echoes of ninth-century Paulician history and of the ninth. it seems. numbers. 1 9 6 6 .46 Another. 1 9 8 6 . 116. М . N. and some parts of the body) found at the end of an early tenth-century Autun (in France) manuscript of letters of St Jerom e. capital of Iberia in the fourth century. especially in Rome. 1968. though this has been explained as parallel development. 43 44 45 46 47 48 Neuman de Vegvar. just happened to be in Constanti­ nople at the time. and which have affinities to the art of some great German mon­ asteries. 1 9 8 7 . n. though Armenian elements have been perceived by some scholars in the medieval Greek epic poem Digenis Akritas.44 Some Armenian traits in the art of the west must have come with Armenian individuals. for example Fulda and Reichenau. sacred things. Weitenberg.48 It is less easy to see Armenian influences in western literature. 1991b .42 There is some similarity between a panel on the eighth-century Northumbrian Ruthwell Cross and a scene on an exterior wall of a late sixth-century church at M tsckhetca. made initially in Italy. pp. 1 2 7 -8 .

suggesting similarities between their societies. comment in D. But the pre-Islamic Iranians had no historiographical tradition. If Armenian epic did impinge on German culture it was probably in the twelfth century. 1982b . if not always heeded. and has much in common with the folklore of other societies. Moses emphasizes these by claiming to have used Persian archive material. in Armenian tradition the ‘Father of History’ . Perceptions and Peculiarities The study of early medieval Armenian history shares some of the prob­ lems which bedevil it with that of European history of the same period. that an ancient version of the Armenian David o f Sasun was one source of the German Nibelungen. to c . 1993. and presenting history in a manner reminiscent of Iranian epic tradition. leaving us artificial pictures rather than disinterested recollec­ tions of the past. vii-viii. reviews of Thomson. For his approach and reaction. Another. .244 Armenians and Europe. The context in which Moses portrayed Armenian history is the Judaeo49 Especially by Adontz. One example is omission and imprecision in written sources. 50 Essays in Beaton and Ricks. in studies of medieval western writers has been emphasized by Robert Thomson in his annotated translations of the major Armenian historical texts.a d 1100 gus Melias. This is true despite the apparent implication to the contrary in the History of Moses of Khoren. Gregoire. 52 E. Thomson.that is. is that early historians shaped and interpreted their material. It is to a European rather than a non-European context that Armenian historiography belongs. Digenis Akritas was shaped probably early in the twelfth century. Bartikian. And late ninth. consensus is to deny that Armen­ ian echoes are either loud or significant. and Jews. 1 993. The applicability to Armenian authors of such a warn­ ing. in narrative and characterization. in Constantinople or in Pontus or Cilicia.g. but there are also important differences. stressing the kinship of Armenian and Parthian royalty. and 1 980.to early tenthcentury Armenian Paulician ‘authorship’ and transmission has been inferred.51 Armenian-European Parallels: Problems. There are similarities. Lang. 1 9 7 9 . His criticism has had a hostile reception in some quarters52 but its validity is not thereby diminished. more important. whereas Greeks and Romans.49 But the current. Bartikian in Beaton and Ricks. despite his emphasis on Anatolian and Iranian elements in Armenian history and culture. when the German emperor Frederick Barbarossa went east on crusade. did. convincing. 1 9 78.50 Nor is it certain. particularly at the beginning and end. M . 51 A m s K 1 9 7 8 -9 . commonplace. toponyms and personal names. cf. pp. though it has been suggested.

One element in such images was divine sanction for warfare. in part. not just the next. of Armenian armies and war leaders is paralleled. the belief that God would inflict punish­ ment in this world. It seems that most. 1 978.5 2 for Byzantium. in whose conceptual world the Old Testament played a dominant role. though particular emphases. This presentation probably reflected both their own perception of their society and its events. 8 -5 6 . Sometimes the answers are too.a d 1100 245 Christian one provided by the Bible. and his use of sources. p. where it is particularly well-documented from the ninth century. found this neglect surpris­ ing. 3 4 7 . For example. use of two works which were of seminal importance in the development of western historiography. the first-century Jewish Josephus’ Jewish Wars. by religious means. He included Armenians’ acceptance of the law of foreign overlords among possible explanations.53 When the same questions are posed of Armenian and western societies. Such presentation and perception is paralleled in England. 55 Mkhit car. is connected to this attitude. that of their patrons and audience. pp. pp. perhaps even surpassed. and he often modelled descriptive passages or elements within them on biblical ones. 2 4 5 . Thomson. pp.55 We might emphasize that codification is not a prerequisite for effective law and order where a 53 For Moses as historian. early medieval Christian societies developed self-images with elements of the Old Testament about them. Moses traced the ancestry of Armenian legendary heroes back to the only survivors of the biblical flood. The scholar who compiled a code in 1184. the Iconoclast movement was related to it. He also used the Bible for specific information and for parallels with Armenian history. and the fourth-century Greek Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. issued written law codes. Merovingian Gaul and Visigothic Spain. and extensive. and John Katholikos and Thomas Artsruni too were strongly influenced by the Old Testament in their presentation of their subject matter. 1 6 -1 7 . it is not only the problems involved which are similar. for the Katholikos of Albania. and in Byzantium. 3 5 7 -8 . that is the history of the world beginning with Adam. In Armenia. and also. in Byzantium. sometimes more for propaganda than for practical purposes. to Noah and his family. 54 M cCormick. Armenian kings did not. He made a similar. 1 8 8 0 . A self-image as a New Israel is also discernible among Syrian Christians. 385 for Francia. to c . 3 4 4 .54 But whereas west European kings. as we might too. 308 for Spain. Elishe’s interpretation of the 4 5 0 revolt is modelled on the Old Testament books of the Maccabees. stimulated by Old Testament kings and by Roman emperors as their two role models. nuances and consequences differed in different societies. if not all. The religious preparation and strengthening.Armenians and Europe. . pp. 1 9 8 6 . in Visigothic Spain and in Carolingian Francia. M oses’ real debt to these far exceeds what is implied by the sparsity of his explicit references.

which troubled the eighth-century katholikos John 56 M cCormick. But in the eastern churches it was established early. . p. given that in the 620s the emperor Her­ aclius had lent his Persian war a religious dimension by stressing the objective of regaining the relics of the True Cross. Mary was likewise especially honoured in Byzantium and in England. in. Whether Armenia influenced Byzantium or vice versa is a different matter. With some westerners Armenian Christians had in common an especial veneration of the Virgin Mary and of the Cross. As for the Cross. to be seen as the special protectress of Constanti­ nople. pp. M ary’s popularity in Armenia is revealed in the dedication of many churches to her both in the seventh and in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. Pope Nicholas advised the Bulgars to do the same. and in King Gagik Artsruni’s church at AJtcamar and in the honour paid to its relics in the tenth and eleventh centuries.246 Armenians and Europe. 1 9 9 4 . and MayrHarting. and the Imperial battle standard was a gilded cross containing a relic of the True Cross. pp. discernible in various sources. especially over non-Christian enemies. Epp. 358 for Byzantines. 3 0 8 . In Byzantium she had come. For many Christians the Cross had martial associations. And since medieval law-giving both expressed and enhanced the legislator’s authority. In England M ary’s cult was promoted by contact with the late seventh-century papacy. 17 for Nicholas and the Bulgars (referring to q. for example. it is not surprising that similar disciplinary problems worried different early medieval churches. for example. That of drunken clergy. not being widely promoted in Gaul for example until the twelfth century. P apae Epistolae M . and has long tradition and ecclesiastical canons to draw on. having more. VI. It reached different places at different times. In west­ ern Europe. Visigoths and Franks. and the decisions of the Council of Ephesus in 431 contributed to its growth. At a more mundane level. its veneration in Armenia is clear. and given his Armenian connections. including vernacular poetry. 33 of Nicholas I.56 There may have been some Armenian influence in this development. 9 9. In Byzantium it became very much a symbol of Imperial victory. and it flourished especially during the tenthcentury Reformation. its association with Gregory the Illuminator’s victories over pagans. than others did. which the Persians had taken from Jerusalem.a d 1100 society is small and personal. Again Roman influence promoted veneration in England.G . In these later years she seems to have been the most popular saint. to c . 5 6 8 -6 0 0 ). 2 4 7 . one of a series of popes of eastern origin. almost a third of new dedications. the eastern festival of the Exaltation of the True Cross was introduced to Rome by Sergius I (6 8 7 -7 0 1 ). Further west the Visigoths in the seventh and the Franks in the mid-ninth century likewise followed the Cross into battle.H . The cult of Mary is particularly interesting. by the late sixth century. the lack of a code may reflect aristo­ cratic resistance to central control. 1 9 8 6 . no.

1957. That bloodfeud was also part of Iranian society can be seen from the Shah-nama or Epic o f the Kings. . its secular life bore in some respects a closer similarity to the ancient Iranian and the Germanic than it did to the Byzantine. dealt predominantly with property. to c . the mid-ninth-century Prince Ashot Artsruni’s speech reproaching his disloyal followers.58 It is not dissimilar to the reproach directed. from generalized recourse to violence or from individual or family ani­ mosity and grudges. 2 0 2 . pp. in Beowulf. and others. Boyce. who died. 5 2 . 57 For England.3 and his pp. The minstrel tradition. III. prob­ ably. Whereas in its religious life the early medieval Armenian aristocracy had much in common with Byzantium as well as with Germanic Europe. injury and dishonour. for example in Merovingian Gaul and in Anglo-Saxon England. the Iranians had a system of written law and law courts. which differs. the historical tradition of Iran written in verse by Firdausi. protection and affection that he had afforded them. as anthropologists have shown. but the law. about Northumbrian and Mercian monasticism. as evidenced by the Sasanian legal tract. 1 9 8 5 . suggesting that some eighth-century AngloSaxon monasteries were practically indistinguishable from (secular) aristocratic households. The complaints of Bede. who intended to surrender him.a d 1100 247 III. like the history of their dynasty. min­ strels and dancing girls. news reporter and publicist. a judicial process to deal with mur­ der. to be recorded and recounted in poetry as soon as possible. The minstrel acted as entertainer.7 for comment on princely responsibilities and rewards. 2. saga and oral poetry so entrenched as even to invade the cloister. History o f the H ouse o f the Artsrunis. between 1020 and 1025. trans. As in western Europe the right to feud in appropriate cases may have been maintained. True.57 Kings and war leaders desired their own great deeds. and probably also the courts. just as it is in Germanic Europe. are not a world apart from the Duin canons’ complaints in 645 about monasteries suffering noble encroachment. 1 9 7 8 . appears in almost exactly contemporary Anglo-Saxon legal and peni­ tential texts. As reported by the historian Thomas Artsruni. Germanic and Armenian societies. of debated date. both used by historians of seventh-century England in discussion of the comitatus (warband. Bloodfeud is discernible in late antique and early medieval Armenia. retinue) as a major institution within its royal and aristocratic society.Armenians and Europe. The Armenian Arsacids yearned to exact vengeance for their kinsmen from the Sasanians. emphasizes the generosity. Thomson. was common to Iranian. A third area of comparison concerns great men and their entourages. for Iran. One particular piece of Armenian evidence is reminiscent of evidence from the first-century Roman writer Tacitus and the Old English poem Beowulf. 58 Thomas Artsruni. Armen­ ian Christianity accommodated feud. Another common institution was bloodfeud. Wormald.

In a study of Umayyad clientage. and their first responsibility was to each other rather than to their sovereign or their ultimate paymaster. whereas in the case of the Anglo-Saxon comitatus historians have evidence for it from very different sources. Old English similarly lacks a standard technical term. ‘his own’ . the institution itself did not exist or was of no importance. usually from within his own tribal group’. ‘whose loyalty to him was a personal one’. During the ninth-century. 1 2 5 -6 . Crone has remarked on the qawm. pp.59 There are. fought in bands. a d 1100 by the loyal W iglaf to the men who have deserted King Beowulf. to c .60 The Arab world offers further parallels. Asian nomads provide one. or something like it. Yet it is not necessar­ ily true that. differences as well as similarities between Armenia and western Europe in the development of Christianity. ‘whom he main­ tained’. In one anecdote is ‘an undeniable w hiff’ of the Anglo-Saxon style ‘warlord and gold-giver whose followers would faith­ fully repay him in battle and avenge his death’. ‘aşhäb or companions’. who appear in memorial inscriptions as threptoi anthropoi (kept men). 2 8 6 4 -9 1 . the same is not true of Armenia. One objection is that there is no part­ icular term in the Armenian texts for such a retinue. where there is no technical name for an institution.62 Armenian-European Divergences There were. 59 60 61 62 Beow ulf. 1 986.61 In the early tenth century the ghulam system was introduced. 1 9 7 5 . certainly. . p. the Bulgarian monarch had. Yet there are parallels nearby. 11. Another difficulty is that. of course. was known in Armenia but they are not overwhelming. in this. difficulties attached to this suggestion that the institution of the warband.248 Armenians and Europe. and who offer some parallel to the unfeoffed household knights of early Norman society. pp. ‘familiars’. 206. Browning. There is no routinely used technical term for ‘retinue’ even in Beowulf. in the experi­ ences. practices and expectations of its adherents and in their fate. Kennedy.in appropriate contexts. having been recruited by a leader who was seen as a sort of father figure and was responsible for their pay and employment. including both ordin­ ary and more distinguished retainers. that Beowulf’s care and generosity have been wasted. ‘a general’s personal recruits. an ‘entourage’ of warriors. men. according to Browning. Crone. 5 5 -6 . ‘the gen­ eral’s most trusted men’. But the Armenian historians writing in the early tenth century do use terms which appear to refer to distinguished fighting men who were especially close to their leader ‘brought up by hand’. often only a few hundred. 1 9 8 0 .

the Genesis frescoes at A}tcamar suggest. and was always accepted by the Roman Papacy. 65 Kennedy. 1982b .65 M ost striking is Armenian ethnic. p. salvation was gen­ erally felt to be difficult for individuals other than monks and nuns to attain. after the fifth century. whose creed was normally the official doctrine of the Byzantine church. They also neglected the kingly and remote aspect of Christ.a d 1100 249 The most obvious is that the Armenian church refused to recognize the Council of Chalcedon. The Armenian sense of national identity has survived even longer than did ‘Armenia’. Francia and Ottonian Saxony both female communities and powerful abbesses could be found. By 1065 there had been an independent ‘Armenia’ albeit of varying extent and form. and merciful. In Muslim literature divine involvement is a more distant affair than it is in west European or Syriac literature or in that of demon-ridden Byzantium. 64 Mathews. whereas in England. 1 9 8 6 . In general terms the sharing of a language may contribute 63 Der Manuelian. political and cultural longevity. to c . A striking difference is the lack of evidence. despite having been both buffer and theatre of war between neighbouring powers and suffered temporary subservience and oppression. between 600 and 1000.63 Similarly. and instead seemed to emphasize that Christ was ever-present. Der Manuelian’s study of sculptural images between the seventh and four­ teenth centuries indicates that Armenians were less concerned than Eur­ opeans were with frightening Last Judgement images. perhaps have been a rather more optimistic attitude. at least in the ninth and tenth centuries. 2 5 2 -3 . Another is that whereas there are indications that in the western church. scarcely paralleled in European history. . . In this respect Armenians had more in common with their Muslim neighbours than with their western co-religionists. Armenian Identity in the Early Middle Ages To the survival of a sense of Armenian identity several factors contrib­ uted. for nearly thirteen centuries (since 189 в с ). 2 4 9 . for the existence in Armenia of religious houses for women. . underpinned by a ‘peculiarly Armenian reading o f . pp. The geography of Armenia helped resistance to would-be conquer­ ors. Genesis’. a God closely involved in the Creation. there may in Armenian society. rather than a remote and severe one.64 A fourth difference is that Armenian historians between the seventh and early tenth centuries do not suggest that there was much expectation of tangible supernatural intervention in events. according to one interpretation. and hindered their consolidation as much as it did Armenians’ political unity. 351. 1984.Armenians and Europe.

probably to enhance their standing in Constantinople and to give Justin an excuse to support them in what may have been simply a political. A common theme in Armenian historiography has been a connection not only between national identity and Christianity but also between national identity and Christology. And his viewpoint was. whose works became classics of Armenian historiography. cloaking and protecting one another. partly. ancestral culture and being Armenian were all bound up together. 67 Jones. Other aspects of their long history meant that. 1985. to hopes of this. For him. is convincing. promoted. for most of our period. expressing. For the Armenian ‘Sebeos’ does not offer us a religious interpretation and two reliable Greek accounts suggest that Persia denied religious interference.67 As for the particular 66 Frendo. The general thesis that ancient heresies were national or social movements in disguise has been challenged. The impression of a Christiannational link was fostered in the fifth and sixth centuries by Agathangelos and by Ejishe. of the dyophysite Christological doctrine (that Christ had two natures) propounded by the 451 Council of Chalcedon. Armenian identity and Armenian anti-Chalcedonianism have often been seen as closely related. And after Armen­ ian became a literary language. and hence of church union with Rome and with Byzantium. is doubtful. even. national. But there are difficulties about such views.250 Armenians and Europe. in the early fifth century. by refugees from Armenia at the court of the Roman emperor Justin II (5 6 5 -7 8 ). unlike. Elishe’s purpose in writing about the 45 0 rebellion was undoubtedly to stimulate religious enthusiasm. bravery and unity against a foe.66 Elishe’s position was also taken up in the early tenth century by Thomas Artsruni.a d 1100 to internal and external perception of national identity. 1 9 59. The significance of the Armenian church’s rejection. Persian and Arab attempts to eradicate Christianity were resisted. early Franks and Bulgars. Armenians had a literary heritage of which they could be proud. to c . The first. they did not have to regard their neighbours’ culture and institu­ tions as superior to their own. say. it seems. and they could partake of prestigious Christian culture without losing their separate identity. antiChalcedonianism and anti-Byzantine feeling going together. They claimed religious motiva­ tion for the 5 72 rebellion against Persia. perhaps mendaciously. with its suggestion that Christianity ultimately unified at least some Armenians and hindered foreign assimilation or elimination. the Church. movement. refuted. some might consider. Moorhead. Christianity. . Tiridates IV’s conver­ sion was due. 1981a. Agathangelos depicted Gregory the Illuminator as the model for the church leaders who were the leaders of society after the abolition of the monarchy.

expressed surprise that they should both profess to be loyal to the Persian king and also communicate with the Roman church. Politics can be a dirty business and it may be that what seems. p. Macler. Theodore Rshtuni’s coming to terms with the Arabs met disapproval. This is neither political nor cultural separatism. p. and both the truth and the sincerity of protagonists’ assertions are elusive. K.71 Doctrinal disagreement and political co-operation were easily combined. currying favour with Arab overlords. to be inconsistent. a d 1100 251 case of Armenia some scholars have concluded that the anti-imperial aspect of the Armenians’ original rejection of Chalcedon was not nation­ alist and deliberate. 191. To drag politics into a doctrinal debate must often have seemed a useful way of strengthening one’s position if not one’s argument. explaining to Emperor Constans II that the Armenians could not accept his doctrinal position. trans. When Katholikos Elia (7 0 3 -1 7 ) denounced to the Caliph the Albanian patriarch who had turned to Chalcedonianism.. Second.Armenians and Europe. But a third reason for denying that Armenian national identity was guarded by the anti-Chalcedonian church is that Armenians were not in fact united under an anti-Chalcedonian banner. to c . but never dispatched. 1 9 7 7. addresses Constans respectfully and includes profession of loyalty. emphasizing that he had made an agreement with the emperor. 1965. and many Armenians entered imperial territory and service. judged strictly. trans. but he may also have been. 69 Moses Daskhurants ci. 1 904. but an accidental consequence of a genuine difference of theological opinion. and the princess who supported him. 1 993. to be inevit­ able and insignificant. The ending. pp. and implying political overtones. political expediency caused them to appear to do so. 138. III. X X X III.69 he may have been communicating the literal truth. to put it cynically. Sometimes of course. of the brief union (established in 689) between the Byzantines’ and the Armenians’ churches. Mahe. 4 7 3 . Persian pressure rather than Armenian free will may have lain behind the Armenian Church’s separations. in 726. Byzantine help was anticipated in the rebellion of 747. in his letters to the Iberians early in the seventh century. judged realistically. 1961b .70 A letter of 648 in ‘Sebeos’’ text. 71 Sebeos. 5. in 555 and (about) 608 from the Churches of the Roman Empire and of Iberia. . doctrinal and political disagreements and allegiances did not always dovetail neatly. 70 Kojababian. Dowsett. Thus the Armenian katholikos Abraham. might seem. His correspondent naturally denied their incompatibil­ ity. did not inhibit political rapprochements in the eighth century. pp. 112— 13.68 And the ambitions of dissenters in general were for the imperial authorities to accept and enforce their own dissenting views. 1 1 4 -2 9 . Chalcedonianism and the desire for church union were undoubtedly 68 Sarkissian.

in Armenian. p. 1961b . instead of the usual single one. tell which were artifi­ cial colours or living beings. 74 Stephen Orbelean. the prophets. in 862 and in the mid-tenth century especially. Vrtcan6s Kcertco} and John III. of course. the building of three windows in the apse. of victors destroying opponents’ writings.75 On the other side. not. surviving only in a Greek translation. is disputable. of Chalcedonian literature and of antiChalcedonian tracts whose purpose must have been. I. significant in numbers and/or strength and influence. in part. can be deduced from a variety of evidence. Dowsett. We are handicapped by the practice. was composed about 700 to relate Armenian-Byzantine ecclesiatical relations from a Chalcedonian point of view. p. both direct and indirect. in several seventh-century churches. only a little survives. The paintings in the church at Tatcew. 193. Some of it. X L IX . to c .73 Yet fashion. 1952. particularly of Christ. results from a Chalcedonian allegiance.252 Armenians and Europe. certainly. ch.a d 1100 opposed. 1 8 6 4 . 161 and n. O f the former. From the proposition that Monophysites were averse on doctrinal grounds to figural representation. When the katholikos Vahan was deposed in 969. we can count two (one lost) of the three 72 Moses Daskhurantsci. diplo­ matic compromise or coercion may have played a role. But this proposition has been challenged and in Armenia we find non-Chalcedonian church lea­ ders. for example. in 726. he was accused of trying to renew the errors of the Council of Chalcedon by introducing images into the church. trans. History o f the H ouse o f Sisakan. apparently. 48. 75 Garitte. were so well done that one could not. Curiously it is also true that in the tenth century some Armenians did explicitly associate images with Chalcedonianism. in the seventh century. 73 See above. trans. 150. According to Eremian. defending figural representations. The writings of the Alban­ ian patriarch deposed by Katholikos E}ia. Brosset. whose suggestion some specialists have accepted. in religious art it would follow that there were Chalcedonian sympathies where such representations occur. 7 p. including Heaven. and a challenge to Eremian’s dating of the earliest of such windows undermines the argument as a whole. The justification for such an association is not clear. and ultimately vanquished. III. The so-called Narratio de rebus Armeniae. but they were just as much part of the tradition of Armenian Christianity as were their opposites. apostles and pontiffs.74 The existence of a ‘Chalcedonian’ party is more explicitly attested by the production. were thrown into a river.72 But the continuing existence of Armenian Chalcedonians. to persuade members of the ‘party’ to abandon it. . but perhaps the role of middle Byzantine church decoration in stimulating emotion and heigh­ tening the liturgical experience made it a natural one. 7. amongst others. confined to Arme­ nia.

29. a desire to avoid provoking scandal and division. a relatively unusual choice. seeming to think it had Chalcedonian implications and terming Gagik ‘not rightly inclined to the faith’. scholarly opinion as to authenticity and the exact date of all the Byzantine patriarch Photius’ letters about union has varied. That they were not emerges most clearly in the case of King Gagik’s Vaspurakan. and nor are they men­ tioned in the early tenth-century Histories by John Katholikos or Thomas Artsruni. Photius seems to have resumed discussion in about 881. The 862 attempt to restore church union (ended in 726) is a complex issue. which made it possible to assert that the Armenian church was an 76 Thomas. Whereas Tatcew’s St Peter’s and St Paul’s paintings resembled German ones. It was fear of criticism which prevented John from visiting Constantinople. As we have seen. p. They complement our sources’ more direct references to Chalcedonianism in tenth-century Armenia. But they are mentioned by the eleventh-century Stephen Asolik and it is generally agreed that they are to be associated with Photius and the future king Ashot Bagratuni. of honorands whose veneration was shared with other Christians rather than of narrowly national ones. 318 and his n. bishop of Sebas­ teia and the Root o f Faith by his contemporary. The outcome was neither union nor its unequivocal rejection. Thomson. Finally. Chalcedonianism was subsequently particularly strong in Siwnikc and Vaspurakan. Gagik’s palatine church of the Holy Cross was far from an example of cultural subordination to the west. Thomas himself criticizes Gagik’s original choice of the Saving Name as the dedication o f one of the churches he built. . and the issue was a sensitive one and caused some tension. but toleration (in Armenia). Anania of Narek. to c. which explains his omission of the Photius-Ashot negotiations. for church dedications. nor even the assertion of Armenian independence were ruled out by the sharing of doctrine or by the choice. Chalcedonian sympathies were not a new development in the tenth century. drawing as it did on a number of artistic influences and having many elements of originality. and at Tatcew. had worked in Armenia. where the dedication is to Peter and Paul. 1985. trans. Then there are the legends that two of the twelve apostles.76 Gagik opted for Peter instead. The context. for there are uncertainties about the negotiations. nor its assertion. found also in Siwnikc with a church built sometime after 885 by Princess M iriam. and Thomas’s continuator’s omission of the ones undertaken by King Gagik. neither the maintenance of a sense of Armenian identity.a d 1100 253 parts of the history by the late tenth-century Ukhtanes. Byzantine authors are almost completely silent about them. and perhaps it was the same concern. 6.Armenians and Europe. for example. the Siwnian preference and the association of Peter with the Papacy suggest that Gagik’s choice was not an insignificant one. III. Thaddaeus and Bartholomew.

Joh n ’s use of Bartholomew is of particular interest since the locations of legends about Bartholomew in Armenia are the border zones of Vaspurakan and in Siwnik0. Armenian Chalcedonians were characterized by bilinguilism and trilinguilism. the late tenth-century Chalced­ onian David of Taykc preferred an Armenian translation he commis­ sioned. Arutjunova-Fidanjan. and avoided merging. to lend extra glory and status to the new kingdom of Vaspurakan and its dynasty. mostly weary. was first made explicitly by the katholikos John in the History which he wrote at Gagik’s court. Thus though these co-religionists pressed Armenian Chalcedonians to celebrate the litugy in Georgian or Greek. language and custom. Armenian by race.77 Christianity had played an important role in the forging o f a sense of national identity. used Armenian rites and traditions. the Chalcedonian element in the Armenian church seems to have remained and felt just as ‘Armenian’ as its opponents. citing both apostles. probably. The assertion. to come. A related factor was pride in heritage. This too was to sustain Armenian national identity in the centuries. 1 9 8 8 -9 and 1991. One of Bartholomew’s functions was. with their Georgian and Greek co-religionists. from Arabic. to c . Probably at a lower level too. and the late eleventh-century prince Gabriel of Melitene is described by the twelfth-century historian William of Tyre as Greek by religion. and a particular perception of the past.a d 1100 apostolic foundation and an autonomous church. and it was to foster it after 1071. well into the eleventh century. . or identification.254 Armenians and Europe.

in about 1077. Vasak. once strategus at Romanopolis in Sophene. died. who effectively dominated Cilicia and north Syria between 1072 and 1086. only the Artsruni brothers. The recent collapse of the Soviet Union. son of Gregory Magistros. since Gagik of Kars had died in 1069. in the twelfth century. The Aftermath of Manazkert After 1071 Armenia itself was controlled by the Seljuks. Philaretus had many compatriots amongst his subjects. and abroad. Edessa. Antioch. Samosata. without his help. which he took in 1077. soon after.to fourteenth-century kingdom in Cilicia. though it was on Byzantine orders that Gagik died. T com ik Mamikonean of Sasun. offered to Philaretus by the troops of the deceased Armenian governor. and Melitene were full of refugees. Atom and Abusahl. The most notable of these was Philaretus. was. in their newly independent republic. Philaretus played some part in the deaths of two of his rivals. (Arewordikc or sun worshippers. housed Armenian clergy and Armenian heretics. and Gagik of Ani.__________ 11___________ The Third Millennium. and the genocide of 1915 in the Turkish Ottoman Empire. probably Zoroastrians). M ost of the . who refused Philaretus’ summons to submit. for the Seljuk conquest had inspired large-scale migration. about one-third Armenian. but much prev­ iously Byzantine territory nearby was controlled by Armenians. by 1098. 1071 to the Present The two m ajor landmarks in Armenian history after the Byzantine annexations and the Seljuk victory at Manazkert in 1071 are the twelfth. which engendered new prospects and attitudes for Armenians at home. The others. may prove to be a third.

The Rubenids had two external problems. The first to attain effective independence was T coros II (1 1 4 8 -6 8 ). soon took over several places which had Armenian populations. the Crusaders appeared in the area in 1097. Despite this context of disruption. some towns. had Greek and Syriac acts of the martyrs translated into Armenian. The founder of one. a history covering 1 0 0 0 -7 1 . From the north many migrants went to Tiflis. some Armenian scholarly culture continued. and a coastal outlet. At this time Prince . whose third part. and the Papacy negotiated repeatedly with the Armenian-Cilician church about union. from the countess of Edessa. which lie outside the scope of this book. including Jerusalem. And an agreement with Rome to implement union followed in 1198. are particularly valuable for their evidence regarding western Crusader activity in the region. and Crusader ambitions. by Gregory the Priest. The vardapet Aristakes of Lastivert wrote. at the Synod of Hromkla. between 1072 and 1087. Put briefly. their lords and military orders (the Templars. Armenians in the Tim e of the Crusades. and its continuation. An embassy was sent to the Papacy in 1145. Their near-contemporary the monk-priest Matthew of Edessa wrote a three-part chronicle covering the years 9 5 2 -1 1 3 6 . Ruben. 1071 to the Present Armenians will have been from southern Armenia. to 1162. 1 0 9 7 -1 3 7 5 1 Cilicia and Armenia before the coming o f the Mongols.l 150.2 56 The Third Millennium. John Sarkawag (died 1129) studied philosophy. and he was perhaps related to Gagik. seat of the Katholikosate since Gregory III (1 1 1 3 -6 6 ) had acquired it. Antioch and Edessa. brother of Vasak of Antioch. c . had served both Philaretus and Gagik of Ani. the Teutonic knights and the Hospitallers) subsequently had much to do with Armenian rulers in Cilicia. Cilician Armenia’s rapprochement with Rome is perhaps best explained by its general political context. 1 0 9 7 -1 2 2 0 A complete assessment of the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia would involve careful consideration of the western Crusaders and of the Papacy. Two major Armenian principalities had been established in Cilicia in the late eleventh century. Byzantine attempts to control them. at Lambron). and some to the Ukraine. The orthodoxy of the Byzantine church’s Christology was recognized in 1179. Katholikos Gregory II (1 0 6 6 -1 1 0 5 ) VkayasSr. papal approval seeming a precondition of western military and political friendship and support. who resigned his position rather than live under Philaretus. but from their base at Vahka they extended their domination over their rivals the Hetcumids (whose base was further west.

Muslim conqueror of Jerusalem. The Armenian occupation was predominantly non-urban. Katholikos Gregory III had attended councils there.The Third Millennium. which had been a (Latin) Crusader kingdom between 1099 and 1187. and in those made at Skewra in 1193 for Nerses of Lambron (died 1198) and his brother. which later fell under Armenian domination. The reverse. of his heiress. King Hetcum I (1 2 2 6 -7 0 ). in illuminated manuscripts. Cilicia’s relations with her Latin neighbours were close. his crown sent by the Roman (western) emperor Henry VI and presented by the archbishop of Mainz. and a scholar. to the son of Constantine of Lambron. Katholikos Nerses the Gracious (1 1 6 6 -7 3 ). Leo struck his own coins. is apparent in literature and in the excellent and distinctive miniature painting. The western image of the Lamb of God appears in the 1166 Gospels from the school of Hromkla. Her aristocracy and monarchy. under Norman influence. thereby becoming King Leo I. second port of the kingdom after Ayas. Isabel. great-nephew of another. granted rights to Italian merchants from Venice and Genoa. anointed by his Katholikos. the capital. His new status was recognized by Byzantium. Sis. There were also reciprocal Cilician-Crusader cultural influences. the harbour of Korikos. one of whose consequences was entangle­ ment. property and freedom of worship. He was crowned in Tarsus on 6 January (the date the Armenian church celebrates both Epiphany and Christmas together) 1198. and rebuilt. the poet. theologian and philos­ opher. in 1226. and he guaranteed Armenian security. and the unity of the new kingdom was eventually ensured by the marriage. There were various marriage alliances. For Saladin trusted the Armenians more than he did the Greeks or the Latin Christians. Her coinage bore similarities to that of the early Crusader rulers. Euro­ pean influence on Armenian culture. was archbishop of Tarsus. He collaborated with a monk of Antioch on a translation of what had for . Another part of this deal was that Leo acquired royal status. It was used by Ners6s as his personal symbol. 1071 to the Present 257 Leo II (1 1 8 7 -1 2 1 9 ) and the Crusaders needed each other’s support against Saladin. This Nerses. which constitutes most of Armenian Cilicia’s surviving art. in 1 2 0 1 -1 9 . an unwalled village. in 1140 or 1141. the first Armenian coins since the Artaxiads’. after a Latin church council in Antioch in 1139. where an Armenian presence and interest continued. and brother of Katho­ likos Gregory III. who retained domination of the Holy Places until 1291. There had also been marriages with Jeru­ salem. in 1206. became more ‘feudal’. in succession disputes over Antioch. Nearly two-thirds of the castles of Cilicia are ‘Armenian’. in 1136 and. and through them and through the churches associated with them there may have been an Armenian input into west European architecture. Leo I’s Cilicia was rich and cultured. The Armenians’ position in Jerusalem even weathered its Muslim conquest. but it benefitted from west-east trade.

The Seljuk empire. With this political and economic revival came a cultural revival. New families were then established in Armenia. itself enriched by his own and by Katholikos Nerses’ and Katholikos Gregory II’s work. the latter three in amalgamation. He also wrote a commentary on the liturgy. perhaps hoping that Cilician Armenians. 1071 to the Present several centuries been the dominant monastic Rule in the west. the Sultanate of Rum. the Seljuk conquerors had allowed local rulers to continue in return for submission and taxes. Artscakh itself had become a kingdom by 1000. just as it was further west. whose armies included Armenians. In the thirteenth century it began to be known as Karabağ. decorated with frescoes by Georgian painters. The Albanian kingdoms and the Armenians to their north-west even­ tually fell under the sway of Georgia. and the two Albanian kingdoms. The highlights of Armenia proper were likewise phenomena o f the later twelfth century onwards. sheltered at Amiwk and AJtcamar. defeated the Sultan in 1204. The Orbeleans. An Artsruni offshoot lingered in Vaspurakan. and who held there the position of commanderin-chief in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. and where there were Genoese and Venetian merchants. In the eleventh.258 The Third Millennium. under the overlordship of the Zakcarean dynasty. was revived by the Zakcareans and is still active in . its memory preserved in the updating of the Artsruni history in the mid-twelfth century. not all obedient to their central government. In 1071 the king of Dizak-Kctish was bequeathed Balkc by his brother-in-law Gregory. in Ani for example. whose Queen Tamara (1184­ 1213). Mountainous Karabağ in the twentieth century has been a bone of contention between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Dizak-Kctish and Artscakh. conquered only in 1113. which had been deserted since the early tenth century. The monastery of Gejard. the Rule of St Benedict of Nursia. The kingdoms of Tashir. must have been destructive. currently lacking a written law code. others genuinely new. some ancient. His kingdom subsequently passed by marriage to Artscakh. He produced a translation of the Ecloga of the Byzantine emperor Leo III. held by descendants of the presiding prince who had been murdered in 822. Yet in general the domination of Armenia by a nomad people. with estates and precious objects in 1215. survived. The twelfth century however brought m ajor changes. where Trebizond had become the Byzantine capital after Constantinople fell to the Crusaders in 1204. disintegrated. a branch of the Mamikoneans who had settled in Georgia in the late ninth century. would use it. of Ba}kc in Siwnik0. where annual raids led to economic. Ani grew increasingly wealthy from the much improved trade which passed through Armenia to the Black Sea. with its centre at Iconium. where the rich merchant Tigran Honents0 endowed his church of St Gregory. administrative and ecclesiastical disruption. settled in Siwnikc. N ot­ able buildings were erected.

. The literary revival was however predominantly a phenom­ enon of eastern Armenia.l 180. In Armenia itself. The second. the Mongols proved providential. produced a code in 1184 at the request of the katholikos of Albania. Some of them made Mongol marriage alliances.). from which in some respects some Armenians benefited. visited and joined the Mongol court. though this theory was not always put into practice. M khitcar also wrote a short Albanian chronicle. and there were sporadic outbreaks of local religious perse­ cution. in T corosyan (ed. In addition. Military service could take Armenians far from home. the great families surrendered. and Mkhitcar of Ani. Yet for Cilicia. for laws. Karin in 1242. Armenians inevitably became entangled in Mongol rebellions. imposed in 1243. occurred in 1 2 5 9 -6 1 . taking Ani and Kars in 1239. 1 958. and defeating the Seljuk Sultan in 1244. rivalries and disunity.1 2 Armenians and Mongols. its surviving version ending in 1162. perhaps to prevent their acquisition by Mongols and to avoid taxation. society and religion. A Cilician-Mongol alliance was established. but the Mamluk conquest of the Holy Land made Cilicia an obvious base for western 1 For chronicle. from the city of Gandzak. and retained their property. of which only part survives. now threatened by the rising power of the Mamluks of Egypt. again heavily punished. in some cases.l 100) wrote a chronicle. on economy. 1975. the empire of the Mongols. M khitcar Gosh (с. For not only did the Mongol empire offer extensive commercial opportunities. Severe taxes.1300 The thirteenth century saw the establishment of a new world power. Imperial reorganization in 1256 put Armenians under the control of Iran. the last 1236— 44. ending c . led to attempted rebellion in 1248/9 and to harsh punishment. 1130­ 1213). wrote a History. For from the m id-1250s the church enjoyed exemption. 1071 to the Present 259 the late twentieth century. in 1213 named Goshavankc after him. at the end of the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth centuries. and brought new Mongol groups to the area. Mkhit car Gosh. They gave lands to the church. And Cilician prosperity increased. and Bastameants (ed. Samuel of Ani (born c . Another rebellion.). But Mongol rule also had negative effects. The first to attempt some codification of Armenian law was the vardapet David of Gandzak (died 1140). 1880. 1220-C . The Mongols first defeated Armenian and Georgian forces in 1220. worked in Mongol administration. in his early twelfth-century Penitential. and they completed the conquest of Armenia after three further invasions.The Third Millennium. and he founded a mon­ astery and school at Nor Getik. Dowsett.

and he introduced typological references in illustration of Gospels. Erzurum was a m ajor station. possibly by T coros Roslin. a brief geography. In Armenia proper however the increased trade had a mixed effect. established by 1263. But it destroyed Ani. Some western influence is also detectible within a group of ‘royal’ manuscripts whose illustrators are anonymous. producing the dis­ tinguished and inventive artist T coros Roslin. by the Mongols (in 1236). 1978. drawing on daily life. draws from French miniature painting of the first half of the thirteenth century. Scholarship. illuminated some time between 1268 and 1284. a ruin in the eighteenth. And khachckcars were approaching their best. Vardan of the East (c. the decoration becoming more elaborate. 1071 to the Present merchants. but rather giving their whole life up to divine protection. A Gospel for Vasak’s brother. Its artist drew on Byzantine and western prototypes for iconography.260 The Third Millennium. is one of the first Armenian manuscripts to incorporate the allegorical Tree of Jesse. Their materials betray a lack of money but their illumination is lively and interesting. the first known Armenian illustrated Bible. illustrated in 1287. an important source for the period 1220 onwards. a grammar. often using scenes from daily life. for example weaving. Some compositional characteristics are common to some rugs and to some manuscript illumination. Kirakos wrote a two-part history. .2 The output in Armenia proper includes the Erzincan Bible o f 1269. like other donors depicted in other manuscripts. and openwork sculpture used. pp. Archbishop John. and used as a secretary. and both the growth of Tabriz. Briefly captured. also continued. in eastern Armenia. and John’s scriptorium at Grner. who undertook six Gospel books between 1256 and 1268. In Cilicia the school of Hromkla continued to flourish. 148-50. in Siwnikc and in Artscakh for example under the patronage of the ruling dynasties. the second. The Gospel of Prince Vasak (brother of Hetcum I). was influenced by Italian art. benefited the Van region. longer part. 1 2 0 0 -7 1 ) wrote an Historical Compilation (proceeding from the Creation to 1267). biblical commentaries and hymns. a village in the sixteenth. He developed narrative illustration. Prosperity and international contacts in turn invigorated culture. Bishop 2 Der Nersessian. and his style shows some influence of Cilician art. a city in the twelfth century. and a shift of routes southwards. In some of his work the influence of French and Italian art and of some Franciscan ideas is apparent. especially history. Manuscript illumination in Vaspurakan revived in the late thirteenth century in a number of local schools. Royal manuscripts contained pictures of the donors and o f their families which suggest that they were not merely offering their manuscripts to Christ. Building continued. From N or Getik there came the vardapet Kirakos of Gandzak (1203— 71).

Ayrarat was devastated and Van pillaged and razed. the Kara Koyunlu (the Black Sheep). The Mamluks were not checked: they defeated the Mongols and their Cilician allies. and was written before 1305. in 1387. Another historian was the monk M khitcar of Ayrivankc (1 2 2 2 -9 1 ) whose abbreviated universal history ends in 1289. soon afterwards religious persecution became a matter of policy. invaded Cilicia. in its surviving form. Cilician policy in these years was to strengthen the Cypriot and Papal alliances. 1980. Cilician scholarship too included historical work. King Leo I had begun the close involvement with Cyprus through his second marriage. A copy of the Artsruni History was made at Stephen’s request in 1303 at Altcamar.1400 Armenian decline was mostly a fourteenth-century phenomenon. Tens of thousands of Armenians were trans­ ported as slaves. By 1400 much of Armenia had passed to a Turkmen dynasty. revised M khitcar Gosh’s law code in 1265.1285-C. C.The Third Millennium. which is attributed to Constable Smbat (1 2 0 8 -7 6 ) elder brother of King Hetcum is probably not. by Smbat. forcing the Katholikosate to move to Sis.3 but is based on his work. The kingdom of Artscakh was terminated in 1266 with the execution of its king. 1071 to the Present 261 Stephen Orbelean’s (died 1304) History of Siwnikc included an account of its geography and many quotations of inscriptions. the Advice on Confession. Smbat. A chronicle of events in Cilicia and nearby. It was continued to 1331 by another anonymous writer. and the empire itself was to disintegrate in the second half of the four­ teenth century. There was a series of ruinous invasions of Armenia between 1357 and 1403. He was the first to make extensive use of such material. They had taken Crusader Acre in 1291. Franciscan and Dominican teachers had 3 Dedeyan. though the glory days were already under threat in the later thirteenth. The penitential text. first estab­ lished there only a century before. They took Ayas in 1337. 3 Decline. imposed heavy tribute and punished default. having already translated parts of the Assizes o f Antioch for use in Cilicia. . drew on some western ideas as well as on Armenian tradition. There were also legal advances. Abbot Gregory of Akner (who died about 1335) wrote The History o f the Nation o f the Archers. which is attributed to the vardapet Moses. though its walls survived. covering 1 2 2 9 /3 0 -7 3 . forced a disadvantageous peace in 1285. M ean­ while in the Mongol Empire Islam had become the official religion in 1304. and they captured Armenian Hromkla in 1292. 9 5 1 -1 2 7 3 .

Abbot Esayi of Nichc made Gladzor a ‘second Athens’. and the Dominicans in Armenia proper. In 1341 Pope Benedict X II (1 3 3 4 -4 2 ) requested a proclamation of union.262 The Third Millennium. Nor did learning suddenly disappear. 1 3 4 6 -1 4 1 0 ). This is decorated with sculptures. Building work too continued for a while. an abandonment which lasted until the seventeenth. Hetcum II (acceeded 1289 and died 1307. с . for example. where they had a convent at Sis by 1289. The Twilight Years. taking the royal family captive. but mainly at Drazark. Their church. in Cilicia.1 8 2 8 Armenian institutions and communities limped into the modern world enfeebled if not shattered. But neither Rome nor Cyprus could save Cilicia. and occupying the capital. and the fact of resistance to it. was completed in 1321. In Armenia.4 But a sign of the times was the abandonment of Goshavank0 in the mid-fourteenth century. These criticisms indirectly reflected both the unpopularity of union. including depictions of the donors. to an end. was not 4 Smalley. . whose exact date is uncertain and which also refuted 117 criticisms of Armenian teaching and practice. having reigned and resigned three times) converted to Catholicism and took the Franciscan habit. were translated into Armenian. T coros of Tarön worked at the monastery of Gladzor. between 1307 and 1346. There were often envoys from king and katholikos at Avignon. The last great Cilician artist was the prolific Sargis Pitsak. the papal residence from 1309 to 1376. The state of fourteenth-century culture was less depressing than was its political context. And Latin influence on the Armenian Bible can be seen with the incorporation of the modern Latin chapter divisions which had been devised by the English archbishop Stephen Langton (died 1228). Armenia and elsewhere. who sometimes worked at Sis. was familiar with Greek and Latin authors and with western scholastics. especially of thirteenthcentury French art. His work shows some western influence. for Langton and chapter divisions. who taught philo­ sophy and theology. the Franciscans in Cilicia. which had passed by marriage to the (French) Lusignan family of Cyprus in 1342. by authors such as Thomas Aquinas. In Jerusalem for example the Armenians had refused to accept the pro-Latin canons of a synod of 1307 and in 1311 the Mamluk Sultan of Egypt recognized the Armenian patriarch of Jerusalem as independent within his sultanate. This request was granted by a synod at Sis. Between 1320 and 1350 a number of western works. in the fifteenth century. Sis. 1071 to the Present established a presence in the late thirteenth century. Gregory of Tatcew (c. In 1375 the Mamluks brought the kingdom. The church of the White Virgin (Spitakawor). 1 9 4 1 .1 4 0 0 -с .

Armenians initially fell under the jurisdiction of the sees of Ejmiatsin. . to their overlords. and southern Armenia was now ruled by two Turk­ men dynasties. the White based at Diyarbakir. and their heads being responsible to the government. and destroyed Mamluk rule. as tribute. Poland. who were then controlling Persia. There were four melik doms in Karabağ (and a fifth established in the seventeenth century) and eight in Siwnikc established in the middle of the fifteenth century by the Black Sheep (Kara Koyunlu) as buffer territories. as the Armenians’ sole representat­ ive.The Third Millennium. Mamluk religious intolerance and financial demands caused the Armenian community to decline. due to legal expenses and bribery. But custodianship of the Holy Places was always to be a matter of rivalry and sometimes. thereby acquiring the Holy Land. thereby ending the Byzantine Empire. in the late medieval and early modern periods. 6 Bardakjian. Trans­ ylvania and India. China. Sultan Selim I guaranteed. The effects of Ottoman rule over Armenians varied from place to place. the members obeying their head. had sovereign rights over their subjects.000­ 2. A}tcamar. in 1 5 1 6 -1 7 . and of the Armenian patriarchate of Constantinople. Italy. Armenia and Mesopotamia. The Turks’ non-Muslim subjects were grouped by religion into millets. by the Ottoman government. Sis and Jerusalem. Those who remained at home were to be troubled by three great powers: Turkey (the Ottoman Empire). the devastated southern lands were repopulated with Kurds. in 1453. Only the descendants of the Siwnian dynasty remained. 1982. In the Holy Land. in 1517. who had been granted the same concessions as 5 Hewsen.5 Outside Armenia. Such local leaders. title of melik. in 1473. Russia. the Black and the White Sheep. they defeated the White Sheep. which retained their own laws. the Black at Van. ancient aristocratic society was by the sixteenth century almost complet­ ely destroyed.0 0 0 infantry. Then in 1863 this patriarchate was formally recog­ nized. the Ukraine. The Mamikoneans had lost their hold in Siwnikc early in the fifteenth century. Armenians became established. maintained castles. Romania. gained Armenia in the 1510s and 1530s. all-purpose. In the Holy Land. enjoyed a new. Armenian possessions and Armenian ecclesiastical rites and institutions from disturbance.6 In Armenia itself. 1071 to the Present 263 united. had about 1. transferring much of their income. Then they took Constantinople. not all of princely origin. of expense. 1 9 7 2 . the Crimea. The Ottoman Turks’ empire rose out of the wrecked Sultanate of Rum. and collected taxes. The Armenians’ first rivals were the Greek Orthodox. Persia and Russia. in a great variety of places: Cyprus. Mongolia. established by Sultan Mehmed II in 1461. In Armenia. 1 9 7 3 — 4. Unfortunately the Muslim Kurds often pillaged the Armen­ ians and they found no redress from the authorities.

264 The Third Millennium. Such opposition had a financial besides a religious cause. But these happy conditions did not last. The printing of Armenian books was related to the eastern communities and to their trading interests. Across the river from the Persian capital. Scandinavia and India. For some time it was Persia which offered Armenians the best oppor­ tunities. and with whom they shared the m ajor shrines. whose own eccle­ siastical authorities opposed them. art prof­ ited from international connections and from the attraction to it of Armenian artists from elsewhere. for example. by the Katholikos of Cilicia. generally exhibited a Cilician or Byzantine style. Chinese and European influences are discernible. the Elector Palatine and Peter the Great of Russia were canvassed. the schools at Van and Khizan were influenced by Persian Muslim illumination. At New Julfa. Another revival was that of western contacts. The rivalry could sometimes assume an international character. Isfahan. Louis X IV of France was first targeted. 1071 to the Present them. and many became wealthy. conditions and contacts of the commun­ ities who produced it. Since apostacy from Islam was punishable by death. In the seventeenth century Capuchins and Jesuits attempted to promote Roman Catholicism in the Ottoman Empire. In Armenia. In 1847 for example. from Armenia. Once the Ottoman Empire had been established. Catholic European powers the Latin. and at Constantinople Greek and Russian icon painting was influential. Armenian merchants were entrusted with the silk trade. in 1663. naturally. Inevitably Armenia resumed a position as the battleground of great powers. the Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem was revived with French backing. where Armenian merchants were favoured by Indian rulers and prospered. A third revival was of Armenian hope for foreign aid against Muslim masters. the books themselves intended for a merchant market. the miWets’ tax being fixed. establishing a trading network which reached as far as western Europe. sometimes enlisting governmental support. Orthodox Russia support­ ing the Greek Church. but in 1639 the two powers agreed upon Turkish author­ ity over western Armenia and Persian authority over eastern Armenia.0 0 0 in 1620. Crimean work. some revivals were possible. The first was printed in . Turkish wars with Safavid Persia began early in the six­ teenth century. as it reflected the origins. New Julfa had a population of 3 0 . regardless of their size. In 1686 Armenians made the agreement with the British East India Company which gave Britain a monopoly on the transport of goods. affected by all these political develop­ ments. was New Julfa. whither the Persian Shah Abbas I (1 5 8 7 -1 6 2 9 ) had removed the population of the border town of Julfa on the Araxes in 1604. Pope Innocent X I. so Persian. their prime targets were the Turks’ Christian subjects. in 1699. Many went to India. and by 1700 persecution and taxa­ tion were stimulating emigration. Armenian art was.

265 Plate 13 The Gates o f Paradise.8. fo. . 20. from a Gospel o f 1587 illustrated at Julfa. Arm. the John Rylands University Library o f Manchester.

1071 to the Present 1641 in New Julfa. when the Russian-Persian frontier was fixed at the Araxes. 8 M irak. using the fort of Tatcew as his base. like their Catholic predecessors. fifty-four educational establishments and 130 churches. from four melik doms. It was in the later eighteenth century that the T condrakian heretics. Russian aggression revived under Catherine the Great (1 7 6 2 -9 6 ) and Alexander I (1 8 0 1 -2 5 ). 2 4. besides Russians. Commercial contacts existed already.7 but its doctrine differs in some significant respects from that of the medieval T condrakians. in the 1770s. There was a revival. Garsoian. The next major political development was the extension of Russian authority into Armenia. established at Ejmiatsin. Russia’s further acquisitions came from Turkey. in 1831. A copy. . 1 9 8 3. David’s principality subsequently fell. with a mission to Constantinople. in Amsterdam. eastern Georgia in 1801. to the Turks. made in Tarön in 1782.266 The Third Millennium. Its text has been thought by some scholars to go back to the ninth century. American Protestant missionaries targeted the Ottoman Empire. In 1722 Persian Armenia suffered invasion by Peter the Great (1 6 8 2 -1 7 2 5 ) and rebellion led by David Bek. not mentioned in Armenian sources after the fourteenth century.0 0 0 adherents. An Armenian Evangelical Church was established in 1846 and by 1908 Protestantism had over 1 5 . but now American missionary work and European scholarly research helped to spread western ideas among Armenians and information about Armenian matters among westerners. The results were Turkish invasion and the division of Persia’s territory between Russians and Turks in 1724. around Karin. Dreams and Nightmares: c . and in 1666 the printer Oskan produced a Bible. was financed by a merchant from India. Russia annexed the Crimea in 1783. The Key o f Truth. David. and the rest of Georgia by 1804. 18 9 8 a . The first press in Armenia itself. for resume and discussion. of their manual. the Ottom ans’ Christian subjects.1 8 2 0 -1 9 1 8 The nineteenth century saw Armenia attract the attention o f other west­ erners. and she gained Karabağ by treaty with Persia in 1813. M ajor discoveries began with the suggestion.8 Western scholarly investigation was often connected with the European diplomatic presence. and so. Awakenings. reappeared. over 4 0 . in the 7 Conybeare. in 1730. Persia withdrew from Armenia entirely in 1828. an Armen­ ian from Georgia. p. and T condrakian migrants from Turkey are attested in Arkcweli in Russian Armenia in 1837. 196 7 a . in 1771. was discovered in 1838. established a principality.000 communicants.

in the late 1870s. Schultz. A German scholar. Henry Layard. in 1898 and 1905. in which achievement the Oxford professor A. and also from a stream of publications of western travellers. discovered cuneiform inscrip­ tions at Toprak Kale. After French and British endeavours. And as a consequence of the later Plate 14 The town o f Van in the mid-nineteenth century. 1 842-52) . H. and his copies reached Paris. (Paris. and a catalogue of the British Museum’s 143 Armenian manuscripts. all by F. according to Moses of Khoren. in 1913. should be searched for. English translations of the T condrakian Key o f Truth and of the liturgy were published. 1071 to the Present 26 7 1820s. from official reports. from C. uncovered Assyrian monuments. seeking further Assyrian antiquities. despite his murder by bandits in Kurdistan. east side. Sayce played a leading role. in Oxford. and from 1880 the Urartian of the inscriptions was deci­ phered and translated.The Third Millennium. The British Museum subse­ quently commissioned excavations at Van. The remains of a temple were found. C. French translations of Armenian historical works were published in Paris and in St Petersburg between 1836 and 1876. Texier. Saint-Martin that the city which. copied cuneiform texts from the cliff at Van. J. under the supervision of Layard’s assistant. Conybeare. of a French scholar. et la Mesopotamie 2 vols. Rassam. Description de /’ Armenie. in the 1840s and 1850s. since these subjects led the interested to the civilizations of Assyria and Persia and these in turn involved Armenia. Contemporary conditions in Armenia became known in the west from Armenian exiles. Armenia also benefited from European interests in biblical and in ancient history. la Perse. Queen Semiramis had built at Van.

in the 1870s it was on education. began publication in 1852. There. Soon afterwards. Their progress followed developments in intellectual culture and scholarship in Russian Armenia and in Europe. amalgamated. originally from Sebasteia. and in 1880 the three main educa­ tional pressure groups. for example. and had promoted education. M os­ cow.) It was also a response to external challenge. imbued by the 1880s with patriotic and nationalistic sentiment. And as editions of Armenian historical works were published in Venice. in 1715. In sum. in 1839. founded a printing press. Whereas the emphasis in the 1860s was on journalistic activity. in 1833. Russian troops and officials provided secure borders. the second in 1811. In Constantinople. In 1878 Patriarchal agents of enquiry recom­ mended a national educational effort. The repercussions for Armen­ ians of both these trends (themselves exemplified in the Balkan revolts of 1875). The patriarchate of Jerusalem. at the Benedictine M khitcarist monasteries in Venice and Vienna. and protection for middle-class Armenians. especially Russian. to the rise of an intellectual class. Their feelings were fired also by consciousness of better conditions in Russian Armenia. Jerusalem. Some ninety periodicals were founded between 1840 and 1870. whose founder was a major influence on later writers. a variety of stimuli engendered a renaissance of Armenian intellectual life within and outside the empire. and. a monthly. They proceeded to increased freedom of expres­ sion and educational opportunities. Sion. consequently. internal stability. in Smyrna. Paris. 1071 to the Present nineteenth-century accounts. There too. The Ottoman Empire had been declining throughout the nineteenth century and it was particularly threatened by the percolation within it of western ideas of nationalism and liberty. founded in Venice in 1843. though retitled. By 1897 they were sorely warranted. including female educa­ tion. Bazmavep. The American missionaries had inaugurated the first long-running Armenian periodical. founding girls’ boarding schools in 1845 and 1864. formed in London in 1897. who dominated the urban economy. relief and pressure groups were established. with financial help from Armenians outside Turkey. but ultimately they were fatal. almost every community with some hundred families had a school. today. The Armenians began the nineteenth century with the reputation of ‘the loyal community’. Armenians were allowed . for example the Friends of Armenia. and o f western. had initially been favourable. three educational establishments and a monthly periodical. Masis. education and journalism inspired in Turkish Armenians an incipient nationalism. from an earlier house in Trieste itself established in 1773. (The first was established by Abbot M khitcar. still published. interests.268 The Third Millennium. from exploitation by a contemptu­ ous and envious Georgian nobility. St Petersburg and Vajarshapat. though few lasted. founded in 1871. proved the most enduring. 1876 and 1877.

It was not that Turkish Armenians uniformly suffered atrocious conditions. and in consequence. in 1872 and 1876. Christians were subject to more taxes than were Muslims. Van one of the most important fortified sites in the empire. were often dependent on Armenian bankers. with a large Armenian population. indeed. paradoxically. representative system of government. had been power­ ful. when allowed. Armenians had to give free winter quarters to the Kurds. and emigration to Russia. for example exclusion from military and governmental service. concerned about the balance and the inclinations of the powers of the east. the influence of the Armenian bankers declined. forbidding bribery. where there were about 2 5 0 . This gave the millet a democratic. regulating taxation and promising freedom of worship and civil equality.0 0 0 Armenians in 1851. partly because of KurdishArmenian problems. In Constan­ tinople. Armenian trust and boldness and Turkish suspicion and repression. Muslims could apply to Muslim courts. estab­ lishing salaries for officials. which provoked an expectation of active interference. In all the circumstances it was natural for Armenians to seek to improve the Armenian lot in Turkey. but to no avail. Unfortunately for Armenians western humanitarian concerns . dominated by the laity. by a National General Assembly. and after 1854. consequentially. though certain restrictions. especially Britain. Rus­ sia was involved. Christians were forbidden to bear arms. Additionally. as also were the powers of western Europe. was more disadvantageous to the Armenian establishment than to the Ottoman government. Armenian dreams were of constitutional reform. For Turkish officials. The Assembly took up petitions and complaints. 1071 to the Present 26 9 to settle in formerly Muslim areas. Armenians had always been reasonably well-off and some.The Third Millennium. fear. For Catholic and Protestant Armenians became separate millets in 1831 and 1850. After a general reform of 1839. did apply to them all. But subsequently the Turkish regime itself was targeted. Such bankers could. all recorded by western observers. who had to collect their own salaries together with the taxes which they were responsible for gathering. They enjoyed an increasing prosperity. and in 1863 the Armenian National Constitution was approved. And fourthly. Early on. be influential outside the millet. so self-defence was difficult. Conditions were worst in Armenia itself. was prosperous. Matters were complicated by the entanglement of foreigners. where nonMuslim testimony was originally disallowed. The former. Spe­ cific reforms were requested. and since the same bankers often financed the patriarchate. later they were of better conditions in the east. usually discounted. educational revival and dynamic publications. So too did that of the church. The governmental demands were heavy and the farming of taxes effectively increased them. they were also very powerful within it. Erzurum. These problems caused suffering.

Con­ sequently both Turkish and non-Turkish Armenians founded revolution­ ary groups. provoking violence and then retaliatory. This treaty had required Turkish reforms in territory where Armenians lived and whence Russia was to withdraw. It was the m ajor role played by Britain in the negotiations leading to the revisions which caused some British people to feel. The Ottoman government tarried. which emerged in 1891. or Dashnaktscutciwn. and the West found Balkan issues more important than Armenian ones. despite resistance. encouraged by two Hunchaks. The most fateful western intervention followed the Russian-Turkish Treaty of San Stefano of 1878. Nicholas II (1 8 9 4 -1 9 1 7 ) took over management of church prop­ erty in 1903. violence against the Armenians in 1905. In 1894 peasants in Sasun. in 1898. in Constantinople. to be implemented prior to Russian withdrawal. This refusal led to weeks of slaughter. the Treaty of Berlin. 1071 to the Present were concentrated on Balkan Turkey. The miseries of 1 8 9 5 -6 which had indirectly provoked this Russian hostility were the responsibility of the perpetrators. In the revised version. and revolu­ tion and repression proved mutually stimulating. The force of the requirement was thereby lost. in 1886. In 1895 a demonstration in . a particular duty to help the Armenians. Russia was now moving away from liberalism and reform. had refused to pay the tribute traditionally demanded by local Kurds in addition to government taxes. but considered chronologically they were caused by the Armenian revolutionaries. Hunchaks independence from it. In 1890 there had been a near-riot. Both groups were prepared to use terrorism. In 1893 revolutionaries had posted seditious placards. in angry. and was based in Tiflis. and to be periodically reported to the signatory western powers. Policies of Russification and repression were being introduced. implementation of reform and protection of Armen­ ians from Kurds and Circassians was instead to follow Russian with­ drawal.270 The Third Millennium. Britain preferred diplomacy to force. It was now that Armenian dreams began to turn into nightmares. formed by Russian Armenians in Geneva in 1887. later. and British policy was to strengthen Turkey against Russia. Dashnaks wanted free­ dom within the Ottoman Empire. her authorities perceiving national feeling and socialism as dangers to empire and government. Societies and libraries were closed. they were closed again in January 1896. The two most important were the socialist Hunchakian Revolutionary Party. This development alarmed Russia as well as the Turks. and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. Reopened. Tatar. suspicious response to some Armenians in Europe seeking British assistance follow­ ing massacres in Turkey in 1 8 9 5 -6 . under closer supervision. and references in print to the Armenian people or nation forbidden. Armenian schools were closed in 1884. begun by a Hunchak.

5 million Armenians in Russian Armenian territories. Some 2 0 .0 0 0 and 1 .1 0 0 . twice more. But the figures compiled. known as the Young Turks. small. Genocide followed. incident led to the massacre of about 1. Western ambassadors protested. briefly.9 5 0 (some from Russia) to the USA between 1899 and 1 9 1 4 . in 1896 the Ottoman Bank in Constantinople was seized. except more schemes for reform. 5 1 .2 9 5 . and relief work was undertaken. the policy of Turkicization of O tto­ man subjects. There was a slight decline in emigration and some encouragement felt in the USA to return home. was forthcoming. Germany.The Third Millennium.0 0 0 respectively. and Turkey joined their foe. Cilicia. Their politicians could now afford humanitarianism and were glad to denigrate the Turks and to express commitment to the oppressed subjects. forced the Sultan to concede constitutional reform. Many Armenians now saw emigration as their best option. including 6 6 0 . comprising 17 per cent of those provinces’ people. 4 5 .9 per cent. 1 9 8 3 . but other­ wise no western support for Armenians. In 1 8 9 5 -6 there was rebellion at the town of Zeytun. There were by then about 1. and to gain support in Turkey. to be followed by massacres in a number of other cities. But the possibility of rebuilding Armenia was short-lived. hoping to justify their cause to their own people.4 per cent Turks and 16. pp. 1071 to the Present 271 Constantinople was violently suppressed. More auspiciously.9 Yet hopes for Armenia were to be revived. The First World War brought a second prospect of a new world. and again violence followed. in February 1914 the government agreed on another reform scheme. suggesting that the Armenian population of the six provinces was 38. the other western powers no longer wished to strengthen Turkey. Muslim refugees from the Balkans were resettled on Armenian lands. 12. Their number in Turkey is harder to establish. by the Armenian patriarchate in Constantinople were 2 . Some 2 0 . purportedly to prevent an imminent Armenian uprising.0 1 8 .0 0 0 Armenians. which included Kars and Erevan.3 per cent Kurds. of course. were massacred in 1909. In 1908 the Committee of Union and Progress. by Dashnaks. Early in 1915 Turkey was disastrously defeated by Russia with whom.0 0 0 went to Russia in 1 8 9 2 -3 . Ottoman government statistics and some modern Turkish scholars acknowledge only 1 . in 1912. despite its attendant expense and difficulty. The Young Turks adopted pan-Turkism.500 to the USA between 1891 and 1898. she shared a frontier in Armenia. 29 0.0 0 0 in the six provinces which lay in historic Armenia. and another.0 0 0 people in Adana. Since Russia sided with Britain. (in the mountains near M araş).000 in Trebizond. the USA safeguarded Amer­ ican personnel and property. as against 2 5 . and dashed. . It is not 9 Mirak.

And Armenians hoped for yet more from the Armistice. suggests that the central govern­ ment had decided to exterminate the Armenians. present though less marked twenty years earlier. and that those who did were expected to survive the inhospitable terrain and hostile tribesmen only briefly. which ended the First World War in November 1918. Estimates have varied. real or imagined. and shocked state. They developed into large-scale massacres. and perhaps even to the state itself. earlier threats. 1071 to the Present surprising. The Allies. Not only did the Armenians now stand out as an apparently deviant. but it seems that about 1 million people were killed. . whom they had supported. But it is probable that few deportees were anticipated to arrive at their destinations. it had become an Anatolian. as so often this century. and over 33 per cent of the territory which it had incorporated in 1 9 0 8 . April 24. It had been ordered that Armenians be moved out of the regions near the war front.10 Retaining only a toe-hold in Europe. and Turkey granted some 3. given previous Armenian agitation. These factors. pp. The Armenians’ situation was next complicated by the Russian Revolu­ tion of 1917. though understandably. and dangerous. which were the Syrian desert and Mesopotamian valley. in the Febru­ ary. the victors were ceasing hostilities before concluding their work. 1 9 86. Furthermore the deportations were not actually confined to front­ ier regions.272 The Third Millennium. minority. the unprecedented slaughter of this war left the 10 Melson. the Allies’ Caucasian front collapsed.861 square miles of territory by treaty in June 1918. and had issued orders accordingly. the date of the arrest of the leaders of the Armenian community. and they proved unable to resume it later. from outsiders. for further territory and for security from the Turks. may also have contributed to the violence of the later 1890s. But. Amid the ensuing turmoil. M us­ lim. First. It seemed necessary both to deny Armenians independence and to claim their homeland as the homeland of the Turks. but the possibility of one day losing eastern Anatolia to Armenian nationalism was one of a fatal blow certainly to the power of Turkey. Following the Russian victory in 1915 Armenians serving in Ottoman forces were demobilized and organized into labour groups. the Russian Armenians opposed the Turkish advance. By 1912 it had lost nearly 20 per cent of the population. 7 1 -3 . had repeatedly pro­ mised these things. and then massacred in the April. whose authenticity has been disputed. But even more important was the Ottoman Empire’s continuing decline and hence its search for a new identity. and the current participation of Russian and diaspora Armenians in fighting for the Allies. is Armenian M artyrs’ Day. Some evidence. their Republic of Armenia declared independence in May 1918. that the Turkish govern­ ment was suspicious of Armenians.

possible neither to protect Armenians in Turkey.The Third Millennium.0 0 0 had fled Turkey to the Caucasus. though they were outnumbered by Muslim Azerbaijanis in the province of Elizavetpol to which Karabağ belonged). Then in December 1922 Armenia was incorporated in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. adjudicated by President Woodrow Wilson of the USA. (For the Republic in relation to modern states see chapter 1 map 1. third. Armenians in the Modern World I The mid-twentieth century The frontiers of the new Armenia took some time to be resolved. some 10. while Azerbaijan gained the disputed Nakhchawan and Zangezur. By the treaties of Laus­ anne the Allies drastically revised the Treaty of Sevres and abandoned the Armenians. its missionaries tempted by the prospect of converting Muslims. It was. There were some 2 0 0 . and its government by Turkish oil and other resources. First.1) There were a number of postscripts to these events. Armenians remained insecure. and between 300 . under Azerbaijani control. The newly secularized Republic of Turkey now enjoyed western favour. Britain proposed borders running from Lake Sevan to the Cilician coast. The year 1923 was another landmark. In 1919. Before it was ratified however the Bolshe­ viks took over Armenia’s government. announced in November.425 square miles. In September Turkey had invaded Armenia and in early December. with thousands massacred in 1920 and some 5 0. nor to guarantee the borders of any new Armenian state. naturally. second. their own rivalries and the political considerations which had obtained in the nine­ teenth century resurfaced. granted the Armenian Republic a territory somewhat smaller than the 1919 proposal. remained. its exact borders. men.0 0 0 refugees in . consequently. at the Paris Peace Conference.000 emigrating in 1921. Some 4 0 0 . 1071 to the Present 273 western powers lacking money. In Turkey. incorporating Trebizond and a Black Sea coastal stretch to its west.0 0 0 and 4 0 0 . theoretically provi­ sionally. Powerless to intervene. by the Treaty of Alexandropol. Turkey allowed to Armenia a much smaller territory. keeping Kars for herself. the Treaty of Sevres. the USA sought Turkish friendship and a favourable image of the Turks in the American press. meanwhile. It left Karabağ (where Armenians were the majority. and nerve to enforce their wishes. The question was finally settled in 1920.0 0 0 to other places. But there was no-one willing or able to enforce these terms. in August. their interests lay further south than Armenia. Armenian humanitarian needs. The border was finally fixed by further treaties in March and October 1921.

under Stalin.274 The Third Millennium. to Kars and Artahan. asked the United Nations.0 0 0 in the Soviet Republic of Armenia. the only larger collection being in Armenia at the Matenadaran. or of Soviet claims. and the scheme was abandoned in 1929. One ex­ ample concerns the Republican and central Soviet authorities’ attempt to repatriate Armenians to Armenia after the Second World War finished. But humanitarian needs were still entangled in political concerns. decided not to oppose the regime there. In the 1920s Christian worship had been allowed. and stunning artistic treasures including illuminated manuscripts. and these positive trends continued. Present-day Jerusalem houses some 4 . from 1947. at Antelias near Beirut. the Cold War ended the movement. successor to the League of Nations. there had been persecution and purges. Soviet rule had also seen indus­ trialization and educational and cultural improvements. caused both western powers and Soviet authorities to be unhelpful to Armenian ambitions. and it complicated relations between Armenians inside and outside the Republic. 1071 to the Present the Near East. Soviet repression ceased during the Second World War (1 9 3 9 -4 5 ). the library of ancient manuscripts at Ejmiatsin. Other postscripts were ecclesiastical rearrangements. one example being the creation of the Armenian Academy of Sciences in 1943. the Katholikos murdered in 1938.0 0 0 were resettled. including the re­ establishment of the katholikosate of Cilicia. but Britain. and a revival of Armenian education and culture. In 1947 an Armenian assembly. But they were not implemented. facilitated by the establish­ ment of Palestine and Syria as British and French mandates. Yet it had already proved inimical to Armenian Christianity and Armenian nationalism. a large library. whose guarantor was the League. After the Lausanne treaties it is the Soviet Union which has most affected twentieth-century Armenian matters. American support for Turkey in 1947. In September 1923 the Council of the League of Nations approved the settlement of 5 0 . Nothing came of this.0 0 0 Armenian manuscripts. both contributed to their abandonment in 1953. Though some 15 0 . to encourage the effort against Germany. The Lausanne treaties’ betrayal of Armenians had been softened by articles referring to minorities in Turkey. made in 1945. convinced that Armenia’s safety was depend­ ent on the Soviet Union. for either an extension of Armenian territory or the implementation of the 1920 Wilson boundaries. Some 3 0 . refused. vestments and vessels. and Turkey’s joining NATO in 1952. In the 1930s. fearing to ‘fund’ the Soviet Union. and the independence of Jerusalem from Constantinople. In 1938 some Armenian diasporan political parties.0 0 0 Armenians were deported in 1 9 2 9 -3 0 . And in Armenia itself many of the recently . Some western governments offered aid. On the other hand. in 1930. The Cold War. but the church had been repressed and undermined in other ways. with delegates from twenty-two countries.

and the ancient port of Marseilles. perhaps the major centre of Armenian culture outside the Soviet Republic. and very unsettled conditions there only a few years ago. not all widely known as ‘Armenian’. some South American countries and in the USA. backed by the pro-western Dashnaks.0 0 0 . where some of the earlier immigrants rose to riches. and the Turkish sector’s declaring itself a republic in 1975.The Third Millennium. Katho­ likos Vazgen I (1 9 5 5 -9 4 ). The diaspora has generated many distinguished individuals. schism. where a number of periodicals are published and Armenian studies taught at university level. many of whom lived in the Lebanon. . under Khrushchev. Armenians are concentrated in Paris. improved both internal conditions and rela­ tions with other churches.000 at the beginning of the 1980s. leading his katholikosate. the majority in Istanbul. many periodicals and charitable foundations have been nurtured. that conditions began to relax. 1071 to the Present 275 repatriated persons had suffered in another purge. In the USA. Armenian studies are taught in several universities and children instructed in the Armenian heritage in a number of Armenian day schools. in 1962. in 1949. Beirut was. But he could not prevent the election of an anti-Communist. Lyons. A particular problem for diaspora Armenians was that the head of their church had to live with the Soviet regime. It was only in the 1950s. gateway to the New World. There are few left in Turkey. Canada. 11 The figure is an estimate of the Armenian patriarchate. is the centre for intellectuals. civil war in Lebanon. since he lived under it. Paris. to the katholiko­ sate of Cilicia in 1956. in 1 9 8 4 . where there are more Armenians than anywhere else outside the former Soviet Repub­ lic. an area popular with Armenians). Egypt.11 In England. and its consequence. France. cited by Takooshian (1 9 8 6 -7 ). the American singer-actress and celebrity Cher is a case in point. where there were some 5 0 . into the World Council of Churches. Saturday schools and Sunday schools. Consequently there are now many Armenians in England. 2 The present day Various later twentieth-century wars and conflicts caused many Armen­ ians to leave the Middle East. This schism was important because it was the Cilician katholikosate which had authority over the majority of Middle Eastern Armenians. Armenians are concentrated in Manchester. (in the Oriental rug business on the east coast. or in agriculture in California. and in (Greater) London where there were some 10. have all stimulated migration. troubles in Iran. after the Second World War. In France. Syria and Iraq. Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus in 1974. in 1958 and 1975.

and are often well integrated into non-Armenian communities. given some Turkish treat­ ments of Armenian history. of the Armenian as exile is one element which nourishes consciousness of Armenian identity in people who are otherwise of different backgrounds and interests. and of these some have shown a patriotic fervour in rejecting some modern scholarship. It buttresses the Armenian case against the Turks. and its grip. and the ‘limited’ repression of Armenians as legitimate responses to terrorism and treach­ 12 See e. 1071 to the Present The Armenian Apostolic Church still guards Armenian national ident­ ity. with its own distinctive practices and calendar. perhaps. 1987.g. or even deliberate untruth. 13 Talai. And the symbol. Many Armenians have maintained an interest in their past. The distant glories of Urartu and its forerunners compensate for modern miseries. and there was some Armenian terrorist activity between 1975 and 1984. whereas acknowledgement that Armenians were. 4 for symbol of exile. to avoid legal claims and international opprobium which might prejudice Turkey’s political. like Turks.27 6 The Third Millennium. 1 9 8 9 . like that of other Churches. in 1973 a survivor murdered two Turkish consular officials in California. p.13 It is also understandable that some modern analyses of unacknowledged literary debts. Some have rewritten history. Writers on the Turkish side have often deployed ‘source criticism’ of medieval Armenian historians and of modern western reports. In their accounts. The official Turkish denial of genocidal activ­ ity towards the Armenians evolved. the fact of the massacres was reiterated and denied in the forum of the United Nations. once newcomers. There were some particular embarassments for Turkey in the late 1960s and in the 1970s. Ouzounian). In 1965 diaspora Armenians commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of the ‘deportations’. in the diaspora. 1 2 7 -8 for the claim to be the homeland. pp. has been loosened by the secularization of the modern era. Turkish and Soviet writings. 3 Armenian history The study and interpretation of Armenian history have been much influ­ enced by the experiences of the twentieth century. though these are not everywhere observed. Kavoukjian (trans. eco­ nomic and military aims. might raise the possibility that Armenian and Turkish ‘rights’ to Armenia were morally equal. as one can see clearly in some Armenian. There was and is a conviction that the Armenians were the original inhabitants of much of historic Armenia12 and the psychological appeal of this assertion is easily understandable. of invention and of distortion by medieval Armenian historians have been perceived as anachronistical^ and unfairly discrediting these early authors. . western reports of Turkish atrocities appear as exaggeration.

Their arguments include the following:14 Armenians were immig­ rants. or to render anonymous. See Atkinson et a!. Two instances are the represen­ tation of the Bagratuni kings as Turkish in origin. and. 18 March 1989. and cherished. seals.The Third Millennium. nowadays Armenians in Turkey are happy. happy. their ‘kingdoms’ being merely vassalages and buffers formed by the (foreign) dominant states. O f the holdings of the museum at Van. 1996. and partly by the propaganda and activities of Protest­ ant missionaries and of foreign consulates. rock reliefs. has escaped such treatments. sometimes. Armenian terrorists were encouraged by such agencies. Foss. in the Soviet Union heretical movements tended to be interpreted as socio-economic protest. O f course some elements of the past can indeed be made to disappear. 1071 to the Present 277 ery. 1992. 16 Though archaeological scholarship may likewise reflect political thinking. for example Çavuştepe and Altintepe. by contrast. disapproving the laicization and democratization of the millet's administration in the 1860s. . Such authors also deny Armenian national identity in history any reality and Armenian nationalism in the present any historical justifica­ tion. Archives. have been restored. which houses blocks and steles. And in former Soviet Armenia both Urartian and Armenian sites have been studied. wanted genocide against the Turks and committed atrocities. about 80 per cent are Urartian. nationalism was created partly by the church. and nine­ teenth-century nationalism represented according to Stalin’s views.16 To take two instances. belts. lacking national feeling. 1996. jewellery. helmets and other items. under Turkish rule. to deliberate destruction. Arme­ nians were few. statuettes. due to lack of care and. and some monuments. as 14 For resume. Sites have been excavated. Unauthorized treasure hunting has been dis­ couraged.. elements of the Armenian past which cannot be made to disappear. and the inclusion of the Artsruni church on AJtcamar in guide books without acknowledgement of any Armenian connection. Another method of removing Armenians from Turkey’s history has been to Turkicize. Such work has been more disinterested than was some Soviet histori­ ography. 15 This was brought to public attention in an article in the British newspaper The Indep­ endent. partly by the machinations of the western powers seeking the end of the Ottoman Empire. photographic records and local reports suggest that material evidence of Armenian historical achievement has significantly dimin­ ished. Excavations at Karmir-Blur and Duin for ex­ ample began in 1939 and 1937. and esp.15 It is not long since some non-Turkish scholars whose research programmes and concern conflicted with officially approved Turkish representations found visiting Turkey to be rather difficult. Urartian culture. they were never self-governing. including the ‘temple’ at Garni. Dolukhanov.

around the world. vol. are now on micro-fiche. 1 9 7 0 onwards involved the Faculty of Architecture of Milan Polytechnic and the Academy of Science of the Armenian SSR.22 The early medieval Armenian histories have been reprinted and translated into English in the USA and some medieval histories are available in other western European languages too. 1982. in seven volumes (though not widely accessible). 1993 and 1994. 1 9 8 7 .18 A collection of Armenian inscriptions was published in 1913. 7. 17 L. having been part of the Soviet Union since December 1922.Project Director V. 1 9 67. reported vols 1 -5 . 1 960.0 0 0 photographs. at Erevan. US Archive material on the 1 9 1 5 -1 8 genocides. 1 966. resistance to socialist Russian rule.20 The major manuscript collections are gradually being catalogued. 1991. 6 forthcoming. 24 Libaridian. 7 covers the region outside the Republic of Armenia and Turkey. its immediate legacy. 19 . beginning in 1960. containing over 3 0 .g. and over 4 2 . 1989a. The study of Armenian history and culture which began in the nine­ teenth century has continued and has been well served in recent decades. 20 Sanjian. Several histories of the Armenians have recently been pub­ lished. 18 Sinclair. 23 E. The Armen­ ian National Movement had emerged in the late 1980s.278 The Third Millennium. 1 973. 1985 onwards . and about eighty European and US institutions held the collection. pp. Badaljian et al. 1 9 9 1 . 1969b for English translation. Parsegian in Atti del Q u i n t o . a treacherous disregard of the popular will. some brief and general.19 Many manuscript colophons have been collected and published since 1950 and some translated. 1071 to the Present lacking historical foundation.. we must answer that of this and of their history many.17 The monuments of eastern Turkey have been comprehensively surveyed. Bournoutian. Armenian matters are now an object of academic study and publication in a number of countries.).. Epilogue: The Future The Republic of Armenia declared its independence in September 1991. 1990. in 1 990. At the end of the Soviet period.24 Its broader Armenian Architecture. 1993. are well aware. 21 Der Manuelian. were already issued. most notable for an Urartian forti­ fication.0 0 0 photo­ graphs relating to Armenian architecture. 1982. 22 The D ocum enti di Architettura Arm ena series. others longer and more detailed. 1991... Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum . though sadly these are virtually inaccessible in the west. An iconographical index is being compiled on computer. an American-Armenian Horom Expedition began investigations at the site of H orom.23 In 1939 Adolf Hitler asked who nowadays still speaks of the annihila­ tion of the Armenians? One hundred years after Gladstone’s great speech. and Dedeyan (ed. published Milan. 1989b . 1977.21 There has been western-Soviet scholarly collaboration in the publication of some monuments. and inscriptions from Ani and from the Republic have been published in a series of volumes.7 . 2 4 3 . Vol.

Armenian criticism of the Soviet regime became public and outspoken in 1987. . It also asserted the independence of its foreign policy and of regulation of its economic system. a belief that Turkey continues to be a threat. proclaimed a multi-party political system. its immediate context the failure of the Soviet Union physically to protect Armenians. After national elections. for six months. The major principle behind such activity was to rely on Armenia’s own resources and tailor policy accordingly. It renamed the Armenian SSR the Republic of Armenia and issued a Declaration. supported the goal of achieving international recognition of the 1915 massacres as an act of genocide.The Third Millennium. with its fear of Turkey and bitter memories of the genocide. 1071 to the Present 279 context was the disintegration of the Soviet Union. returned home to take advantage of the new climate. not all Armenians have agreed with the AN M ’s stance. or demanding ‘Armenian’ territory. active dur­ ing the Soviet period only in the diaspora. There remain distaste for Turkey. The National Self-Determination Group (which began in 1965) for example seems to have felt that armed help from the United Nations and from the European Parliament. and mainly in cultural and community work. which recognized the Armen­ ian genocide on 18 June 1987. rather than to wait for a champion and to pursue impossible dreams. establishing independ­ ence as a goal. in 1988. a failure which prompted some Armenians to reassess traditional policies and to incorporate more realism in their calculations. The past. is not to paralyse the present and abort a future. of Armenian-Azerbaijani violence in Mountainous Karabağ (Nagorno-Karabakh). after much debate. and in December 1988 its members were imprisoned. Not surprisingly. the Armenian National Movement formed the government of the Republic in August 1990. Some more recently formed groups like­ wise dissented. when there were demonstrations to do with environmental issues and more so after the eruption. But the relative success of the new regime and the spirit of optimism it has promoted has prompted some calls in the diaspora for a reassessment of diasporan attitudes and institutions so that diasporan Armenians too can contribute to a new democratic nation-state. The three major Armenian political parties. The Republic refused to sign the new Union treaty proposed by President Gorbachev in December 1990. without insisting on acknowledgement of the genocide as a pre-condition. It exchanged trade delegations and had high-level meetings with Turkey not long after the elections. and their responses were critical. were possibilities. The Armenian Karabağ Committee had at first concentrated on the Karabag question but had soon moved to a broader programme. guaranteed the use of Armenian as the state language and. and the conviction that Armenia needs a protector.

Canons: Kanonagirkc Hayotsc (The Book o f Canons o f the Armenians) ed. San jian . ed. Thom son. and ed. French trans. M e l­ bourne and Toronto. . 1 90 9 ). Thom son. . 1969a.Geography. 1967).Bibliography Abbreviations CATRS REArm ns os C lassical A rm enian T ext R eprint Series ed. B edrosian. in Anglo-Saxon Poetry tran s. A ristakes of L astivert. of p aras 2 5 9 -7 1 5 as The Teaching o f Saint Gregory. T er-M krtchcean an d St. 1964. A rrian. Loeb C lassical Library. -----. Roman History. J. II Scripta Minora et Fragmenta (Leipzig.Parthica in ed. C. A. V. B radley (London. Autobiography. Colophons. 1969b. S an jian . version exists. G. Roman History. K. 1976. J. History o f the Armenians. -----. G. 198 5 a. H ew sen. C an ard and B erberian. Y uzbashyan (Erevan. Engl.). 1 97 0 . S. text and Engl. CATRS (1 9 8 0 ). Loeb C lassical Library. R oos. Beowulf. A nastas V ardapet. A ppian. A. ed. A. tran s. A nania of Sh irak. . 198 2 ). The Anabasis o f Alexander. N ew York) Revue des Etudes Arm eniennes new series old series Primary Sources: Texts and Translations A gathangelos. C assius Dio. text and Engl. . 1964. G reppin (D elm ar. List o f Armenian M onasteries. H ako byan (2 vols) (Erevan. 196 3 ). B erberian. 1973. repr. pp. A rm . 1971) (w ith com m . History o f the Armenians. of the rest. 4 1 1 -9 4 . K anayeantsc (Tiflis. 1992. tran s. An Engl. Loeb C lassical Library. French trans. Flavius Arrianus v. trans.

History o f the Armenians. 1961a. Engl. 1964. J. 1 935. Patrologia Latina. edn. 1960) (in A rm enian). R. (Paris. Ejishe. H erodotus. W ashington. trans. 1 98 7 . 1967) (in A rm enian). 1964. The City o f Ani (Erevan. and French trans. Sisian and Kapcatt (Erevan. G. A vagyan and R. text and French trans. S. M ercier. 1 97 4 .C lay. Levy (London. Eznik de Kolb De D eo (2 vols). W aterm an. M aries and C. The Vision o f Enoch the Just in S. Engl. G. tran s. D owsett. 1 97 5 . 1960: A ssyrian . ed. Gelarkcunikc (Erevan. Engl. . 1 95 7 ). 1967). H. 3 0 9 -2 3 . Engl. 189 6 ). 1 99 0 . ed. (Tiflis. The Shähnäma o f Firdausi. U luho gian . Loeb C lassical Library. Fragm ents of G reek H istorical T exts. The Valley o f Vayotsc-dzor. 1929: others . Cor­ pus Inscriptionum Armenicarum . trans. C ardascia. Kc. 1929. M . P. done into English by A. in J. Lie. region o f Elegnadzor and o f Azizbekov (Erevan. 1 9 2 0 -2 1 . 1966) (in A rm enian). David o f Sasun. French trans. D avid of G andzak. L uckenbill. 1907: G reek . 1 9 2 2 -2 3 . J. 1975. trans. pp. D avid the Invincible Philosopher. King and T hom p­ son. 1967). 1982b.M elik ish vili. 1951.Bibliography 281 C onstantine Porphyrogenitus. 1973) (in A rm enian). John K atholikos. trans. Jaco b ite P atriarch. 1930: Persian . W arner and E. Uncanonical Writings o f the Old Testament (Venice.G rayson. idem. P atkanean (St P etersburg. ed. 1 9 0 5 -2 5 ). 1983. T hom son. III.). trans. ed. ed. G. The Histories trans. The Histories. idem. G arsoian. 1974). Artscakh (Erevan. Emin (M oscow . Definitions and Divisions o f Philosophy. E. ed. and K udian. Jan p co lad yan . A. ed. I. 1 99 0 . Penitential. 1 85 3 ). pp. idem. Issaverdens. Ter M in asean (Erevan. D ionysius B arsalib i. O rbeli. 1 97 2 . N au. I. Jerom e. The Epic o f the Kings Shah-Nama the national epic o f Persia by Ferdowsi trans. Jacob y. 1977) (in A rm enian). IV. CATRS (1 9 8 4 ). fascicules 3. II. repr. Against the Armenians. 1 95 3 . M . Collection o f Uncanonical Writings o f the Old Testament (Venice. Letter. M in g a n a. text and Engl. The Epic Histories (Buzandaran Patmutciwnkc). 1970. 1989. L. Corpus Inscriptionum Armetıicarum. Inscriptions : A rm enian-B asm adjian. V. ed. 4 of the Patrologia Orientalis ) (Paris. 1883). G regory of Tours. K endall and Thom son. M akso u d ian . ed. Region o f ljewan (Erevan. 1926. 1976. D e Deo ed. 1992: U rar­ tian . XXVIII. M o rav csik and Engl. D e Administrando Imperio. 1912) and CATRS (1 9 8 0 ). Thorpe as The History o f the Franks (H arm ondsw orth. Eznik. B arkh udarian. L. 1927. M ign e. repr. S h alian .Jalab ert and M outerde. 1931. Jenkin s (rev. CATRS (1 9 9 3 ). 1854). 9 vols (London. 1904. Districts o f Goris. trans. repr. Feydit. Letters in ed. ed. R . Starr. W arner. Lanfranchi and P arp o la. 1912. History o f Vardan and the Armenian War. G rayson. 1987. Yovsepceantsc (ed. S. (v. 1959).Kent. 3 7 8 -8 6 (in A rm enian). VI. trans. 1982) (in A rm enian). Engl. B asm ajian. 1931. Engl. 2 2 . Pfeiffer. 1929. John X . 190 1 ). K h atchatrian. P arp o la.

Liturgy. 1898a. Narratio de Rebus Armeniae. (in French) G aritte. G. Lives. 188 0 ). 1991. Loeb C lassical Library. ed. Khosrov A ndzew atsci. repr. Arm . 1 97 8 . French tran s. M ah e. Loeb C lassical Library. M oses D askhurantsci. The History o f Tarort. Ill ed. CATRS (1 9 8 5 ). Aucher.. 197 9 ).282 Bibliography (Ps) John M am iko n ean . A bgarean.. Laws: A rm enian -M khitcar Gosh. History o f Heraclius. Greek text and French tran s. and J. French tran s. The Key o f Truth. CATRS (19 8 1).History o f the Wars. Ju v en al.Letters. 1941). Epitome = Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi. M alkh asean (Tiflis. 1860). History o f the Albanians. 1952. The Histories. 1972). Engl. Natural History. 191 3 ). Patm ufiw n Sebeosi (Erevan. unnam ed (Jerusalem . tran s. D owsett. P atkan ean. Lew ond. B. Peter of Sicily. G. 1991. 187 9 ). 1985b. Josephus. Patm ufiw n Sebeosi episkopi Heracln (St Petersburg. Arm . A vdoyan. . K. V. L ao urd as. Ezean (St Petersburg. text and Engl. Y arutciw nean (Tiflis. John of Ö dzun. com plete Engl. (Leipzig. Arm. History . 1961b. 1970. P ersian-B ulsara. N ersoyan. Arm . trans. of m od. ed. History. Italian tran s. Engl. The Satires. version exists. Buildings. Latin trans. trans. 1993. Against the Paulicians. 1964. A rak celean (Erevan. ed. Epistolae et Amphilochia vol. Commentary on the Divine Liturgy. The Jewish War.. 1984. 1993. 1985).V. W inkler. Girkc Datastani (Erevan. History o f the Armenians. D ostourian. tex t. 7 8 -1 0 7 . 1993. tran s. ed. repr. 1982b. T hom son. ed. Emin (M oscow . C om m . K. tran s. M acler. T5r-M ikcayelian (V ajarsh ap at. Lazarus of Pcarp .-P. trans. trans. 1971. 188 7 ). TEr-Mkrtchcean and St. Kh. A bejean. ed. p artial Engl. ed. trans. M . A rzoum anian. Pliny the Elder. trans. Loeb C lassical Library. 1834 pp. M k h itcar Gosh. 198 3 ). ed. C. O. Law Code o f the Armenians. repr. T hom son. Canons. B edrosian. M oses of Khoren. L. 1982b (app en dix). text. trans. 1898). M khifaray Goshi Datastanagirkc Hayotsc (V ajarsh ap at. The Life o f Mashtots. ed. An Engl. Ju stin . (Tiflis. Sebeos. T hom son. 190 4 ). trans. A b raham yan (Erevan. T coro syan . M . P olybius. A. G ugerotti. 1 99 4 . C ow e. History o f the Paulicians. G reek text. S. Seel (Stuttgart. French trans. G. -----.. Loeb C lassical Library. G erm an trans. Loeb C lassical Library. ed. M . Engl. Engl. N orehad. C onybeare. 1 904. Loeb C lassical Library.. B astam eants. Engl. History o f the Armenians. 186 9 ). ed. ed. A struc et a l. Engl. C o nybeare. 1990. -----. A. Procopius. Engl. M atth ew of Edessa. Greek text. N. D arrouzes. Plutarch. 1937. Loeb C lassical Library. W esterink. Engl. ed. 1912). K oriw n. Sah ak (St). tran s. M elik A dam ian. 1898b. 1975). Photius.

Loeb C lassical Library. 186 2 ). Byzantion 8: 4 7 5 ­ 5 00. Intermarriage and the Armenian-American Community: A Socio-Religious Study (Shrew sbury. ed. . Loeb C lassical Library. ‘L’age et l’origine de 1’em pereur Basile I (8 6 7 -8 6 )’. Annuaire de I’lnstitut de Philologie et d ’Histoire Orientates 2 (1 ): 1 -1 2 . 1864. 1: 2 0 3 ­ 15. 1 9 5 0 -1 9 7 6 ’. -----. 1 93 3 a. V ardan. U khtanes. ‘Les legendes de M au rice et de C onstantin V. ed.-Garsoi'an. (V ajarsh ap at. G. J. Loeb C lassical Library.1946. 1970. ‘Lesser A rm enia and G alatia after Pom pey’s settlem ent of the East’. 1986. 1874. Chronicle. E.1933b. 1964.1934b. N . Engl. First publ. de Boor. Loeb C lassical Library. ns. Les origines du X е siecle au VIе (Av. Secondary Sources A b garian. -----. Armenia in the Period o f Justinian. Byzantion 8: 5 0 1 -1 3 . Thom son. 1 88 5 ). ‘L’age et l’origine de l’em pereur Basile I (8 6 7 -8 6 )’. P atkan ean (St Petersburg. 1 908. History o f the House o f Sisakan. History o f the Armenians. -----. Histoire d ’Armenie.. Sopcerkc Haykakankc (Armenian Texts).1 93 4 a. Etudes Armeno-Byzantines (Lisbon). C. M alkh asean tsc (St Petersburg. Brosset. The Geography. 187 1 ). M acler. Anabasis. ‘Rem arques sur l’histoire de Sebeos’. -----. -----.). The Political Conditions Based on the Naxarar system. French trans. T heophanes. D edeyan. 1985. Engl. Stephen A solik of T arön. 197 2 ). Universal History. G. Journal o f Armenian Studies 3 (1 -2 ): 1 0 3 -1 0 . CATRS (19 9 1). W h itby and W hitby. T hom as A rtsruni. T hom son. -----. Journal o f Roman Studies 27: 1 2 -1 7 . Chronographia ed.1965. ed. French trans. trans. P. A dontz. History o f the House o f the Artsrunis. K. 186 1 ). F. A rzou­ m an ian . Engl. 1983. 1917. ‘La portee historique de l’oraison funebre de B asile I par son fils Leon VI le Sage’. 1989. Loeb C lassical Library.Bibliography 283 Sm bat. ed. Stephen O rbelean. de Boor (2 vols. Emin Stepcanos Siuneatsc Episkoposi. Brosset. French trans. S.1 9 8 6 -7 . A.Oeconomicus. repr. C. unnam ed (Venice. ed. Leipzig. re-ed.) (Paris). em pereurs de B yzance’. Patmutciwn Tann Sisakan (M oscow . 1 93 7 . T acitus. French trans. A dcock. trans. Loeb C lassical Library. Byzantion 9: 2 2 3 ­ 60. -----. B. -----.The Histories. by G arsoian (Lisbon). trans. M ass. R EA rm . A dontz. C. ‘A rm enian Interm arriage in the United States. N . ed.Cyropaedia. The Annals. T heophylact Sim o catta. A haronian. 1 8 5 3 -6 1 ). Strabo. N . trans. 1985. 1883). 1980. -----. G. V. into Engl. X enophon. tran s. 188 7 ). C onstable. (22 vols) (Venice. History. W irth (Stuttgart. Engl. Historical Compilation.

H. (Pea­ body M useum . 1 96 1 . Lem erle. G regorio lllu m in ato re’. T h e Sacred W orld of Sasna Tsrer: Steps T ow ard an U nderstanding’. R J. A . K. A Seventh-Century D ocum ent’. W eitzm ann (ed. Albania in the ancient Graeco-Latin and Armenian sources (in R ussian) (Erevan). A. H . Sam uelian (ed.. History o f Lewond. Le Museon 74: 4 3 -7 3 . Arvites.. A rzoum anian.. M itch ell (ed. C onus-W olska. A n an ikian .. 3 1 7 -6 0 . Leiden). A. 5. Jr. Contribu­ tions to the Archaeology o f Armenia. History o f Armenia Part II History o f the Severance o f the Georgians from the Armenians. (Inter D ocum entation C om pany bv. Sw itzerlan d. ‘La data e le circostanze della consecrazione di S.. C am bridge. and Arm .). vol. . 4 . 1980a The Chalcedonian Armenians on the Eastern Frontiers o f the Byzantine Empire (in R ussian.1991. Bishop Ukhtanes o f Sebastia. text L. trans. -----.284 Bibliography A ko pjan . ‘Sur le problem e des provinces byzantines o rien tales’.). ed. 1 98 7 . D. ‘Les A rm eniens chalcedoniens en tan t que phenom ene culturel de l’O rient chretien’ . Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread o f Nationalism (London and N ew York). Introd. Amsler. In Atti del Q uinto. Travaux et Memoires 4: 2 -2 2 7 . J. . O ’Su llivan . Armenian Architecture.. A. (Princeton).1 9 8 8 -1 9 8 9 . J . 4 6 3 -7 7 .).. 1955.. P apachryssanthou. M akso u d ian . (tran s. ‘A C ritique of Sebfios and his History o f Heraclius. 1 96 8 . J. A lishan. P. 1 9 8 5 -1 9 8 6 . (Philadelphia). vols 2. A lexander. G ouillard. In K. P. V. of Pennsylvania A rm enian Texts and Studies 4) (Pennsylvania). In V. Banks.. and A rtin ian .). 198 1 ). ‘An Ascetic Sect of Iconoclasts in Seventh C en tury A rm e­ n ia’. A rm en.. A n an ian.). and C om m . ‘The Defense of B yzantine A n ato lia durin g the R eign of Irene (7 8 0 -8 0 2 )’. publ. V. Scottish Archaeological Forum (G lasgow ). Project D irector).) Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in H onor o f Albert Mathias Friend. Anderson. Journal o f the Society for Armenian Studies 2: 1 0 7 -3 9 .). 1 9 7 8 -9 . vol. (Univ.. H . (eds) 1996. A rak elyan .1982b. Historical Atlas o f Armenia (N ew York) (in Engl. ‘The Ethno-Confessional Self-Aw areness of A rm enian C h alce­ do nian s’. In T. 1 5 1 -6 0 . 7. A. . (H akob yan . J . In S. REArm ns 14: 1 5 7 -6 9 . The Eminent Vardapet o f the Armenians.. J. 1. L. by the Arm enian A rchitectural A rchives (Dr. Field. V. J. ‘ “D aw itc de Sasun ” et les “N ibelungen” REArm ns 1 3 :1 8 7 -9 5 . A rutjunova-F idanjan. -----. Astruc. 1987. Alekseev. P. Armies and Frontiers in Roman and Byzantine Anatolia (O xford). B. B. . -----. -----. Der M an u elian Z ug. A tkinson. -----. pp. Armenian Mythology (Boston). 1 98 2 a. 6 8 -7 8 . w ith English sum m ary) (Ere­ van). M icrofiche. K rim gold. L. W. P arsegian. М . G.1985. Classical Armenian Culture. 1 925. ‘Les sources grecques pour l’histoire des P auliciens d ’Asie M ineure: Texte critique et tradu ctio n ’. I. Z. J. REArm ns 21: 3 4 5 -6 3 . Nationalism and Archaeo­ logy. (Fort L auderdale). ‘E xcavations at G arni 1 9 4 9 -5 0 ’ . 1970. (tran s.1980b. and Com m .). (w ith introd.-A. P. M ass. A . P aram elle. 2 1 9 -3 7 . 3 (1 9 8 5 ). A. C . 1983. Introd. 1983. 1991.

Critical Translation. H am ayak jan . R. K ing’s C ollege. J. n atio n alism and eth n icity’.) Tiglath-pileser III (7 4 5 -7 2 7 B. B edoukian. T on ikjan. V. ‘Les inscriptions arm eniennes d’A ni’. S. American Journal o f Philology 98: 1 5 3 -5 9 . Digenes Akrites: N ew Approaches to Byzantine Heroic Poetry (Publications of the Centre for H ellenic Studies. B asm adjian. 1968. 1 99 3 . Braude and B. 1964.) Esarhaddon (6 8 1 -6 6 9 B . In D. B arrett. and R icks. 1978. H.C ... Anatolian Studies 13: 1 5 3 -9 8 . I. P. A. (eds). B. B. ‘Les A rew ordi (Fils du Soleil) en A rm enie et M esop o tam ie et I’epitre du catholicos N erses le G racieux’..D .60 ’. B arnett. Edens. A rm enia’. In B.). and Histor­ ical and Textual Commentaries (A tlanta). The History o fT a rö n [Patm u fiw n Tarönoy]: Historical Investigation. I. Domini Johanttis Philosophi Ozttiensis Armettiorum Catholici Opera (A rm enian text. M o m iglian o (ed . In A tkinson et al... ‘The Survival of M ag ic A rts’. Latin tran s. (eds. B edrosian. King of Emesa and Sophene’. D . R O C 23: 4 7 . 1996. B ad aljan . A vdoyan. 1986. In A. S. J. 3 1 4 -4 4 .1979. C ontinuation from 1 9 2 0 -1 9 2 1 . S. 2) (Variorum ) 13 Studies in English. Barb. Methods and Achievements in Social Anthropology (London). Lew is (eds) Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Em pire (2 vols) (N ew York.. 1 996. London) vol. J. R. B arnett. P.) (Venice). ‘ Annals 14. ‘T he R eligious D iplom acy of B yzantium in A rm enia durin g the Tenth and Eleventh C enturies’. 1 -1 1 . 2 7 1 -8 8 . ‘The Sparapetufiw n in A rm enia in the Fourth and Fifth C enturies’. and Falkner. ‘P relim in ary Report on the 1993 E xcavations at H orom . M an d rik jan .8 1 . A rm enia’. 1979. Revue de I’Orient Chretien 22: 3 3 7 -6 2 . G. and Z ard arjan . A.. T onikjan. B ad aljan . 1 99 4 . P. Les inscriptions d'Ani. Aims.1 9 2 2 -3 .) from the Central and South-West Palaces at Nimrud (London). -----.26 and the A rm enian settlem ent of A . R. B eattie. D. 1963. Iran 32: 1 -2 9 .. D . 1 98 6 .C. ‘The U rartian C em etery at Igdyr’. Aucher. Coinage o f the Artaxiads o f Armenia (London)... M . B. R . A. 1 97 7 . ‘The Rise of the A rm enian P atriarch ate of C o nstan tin o ­ p le’. B anks. ‘Sohaem us. M . К. (ed. B artikian . 1983. R. B ard ak jian . Gorny. REArm ns 5. 1 9 2 0 -1 9 2 1 . B edrosian. Stronach.C. H. A. 5 5 -6 2 . Classical Quarterly 29: 4 6 5 -6 9 . K ohl. Stronach. J.. 8 9 -1 0 0 . Pseudo-Yovhannis Mamikonean. The Turco-Mongol Invasions and the Lords o f Armenia in the 1 3 -1 4th Centuries (C olum bia U niversity PhD) (N ew York) (M icrofiche). S.) 1993. L. 1 931. (Venice. The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (O xford). de Bagnair et de Marmachen (Paris). D. C . Bartcik ian . 1 98 2 . Z ek iyan . K. Other Cultures. R. K ouym jian (ed . L. 1991). 1 0 0 -2 5 . -----. ‘A rchaeology. D. Z.) 1 834. K ohl. 1 993. Iran 31: 1 -2 4 . L. 1963. Armenian Review 3 6(2 ): 6— 46. London. The Sculptures o f As'sur-nasir-apli II (883­ 859 B. ‘P relim in ary R eport on the 1992 E xcavations at H orom . V. . Beaton. L. A. M .Bibliography 28 5 Atti del Quinto Simposio Internazionale di Arte Armena (1988) ed. B asm ajian. R. A. 1962.). R.

Collection d ’historiens armeniens I (St Petersburg).1 994. R. M ew s (ed. B ournoutian. Bullough and R .. S. 1 -1 9 . B oyadjiev. S. S. ‘Influences arm eniennes dans l’architecture de l’eglise Ronde de P reslav’. Florilegium 6: 2 8 -4 9 . tran s. C. ‘C lient K ings’.. C o llins (eds). 1 993. D. B row ning.) Religion and National Identity (Studies in Church H istory. Journal o f the Royal Asiatic Society. 1 981.2 86 Bibliography -----. Blockley. H. B raund. 1984. ‘The D ivision of A rm enia between the Rom ans and the Persians a t the End of the Fourth C entury A . -----.1 98 5 a. 1964. F.). 6 9 -9 6 . Sebeos’ History (N ew York). 8 3 -1 1 0 . 241 B . C al. C. In P.D .1984. N um en 20: 1 -1 9 (repr. Georgia in Antiquity: A History o f Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia 5 5 0 B C -A D 562 (O xford). 1 974. ‘B urial. 1957. REArm ns 1: 189­ 94. Armenian Review 3 7 (2 ): 23— 47. ‘The First Encounter w ith the W est . ‘D ayeakufiw n in Ancient A rm enia’. In A. 2 99 and 3 6 3 ’. 18) (O xford). S. In D. B. B raude. Histoire de la Siounie par Stephannos Orbelian (2 vols) (St Petersburg). Brown.C .D. ‘A utobiographic d’A nania S ir a k a c T . A. 4 5 -5 2 . Aristakes Lastivertcci’s History (N ew York). A History o f the Armenian People vol. 1973. 1989. 1984)). I Pre-History to 1500 A . Historia 36: 2 2 2 -3 4 .) 1981. 1983.’. ‘C hristians in the Sasanian Empire: A C ase of D ivided L o yalties’. Brosset.D . and L ew is. In W h ittin g (ed. Braund (ed. -----. . tran s.-A . In S. in idem. -----.1985b. Brock.1982.D . tran s. Boyce. Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society (O xford). 1874. Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (London: V ariorum . H. C. D. ‘T he P arthian Gösän and Iran ian M instrel T rad itio n ’. Brown. Bryer. 7 1 -8 6 . In D. American Historical Review 79: 1 0 6 3 -8 8 . M . 10— 45.A. 1975. H. C om m unity an d Belief in the E arly M ed iev al W est’. E. 1864.. 193 (Exeter). Berberian.) The Administration o f the Roman Empire. P. I. M . W orm ald w ith D.1 987. 1 988. 1 7 7 -2 0 1 . A comparative study across the early medieval frontier (London). ‘Ju v en al and the East: satire as an h istorical source’. D. -----. Kuhrt and H. B. G. S. ‘E arly Syrian A sceticism ’. 3 5 -5 2 . (C osta M esa. M . Brosset. -----. Byzantium and Bulgaria. -----. French and C. ‘The Rom ano-Persian Peace T reaties of A.1 988. Rome and the Friendly King: The Character o f Client Kingship (London and N ew York). ‘The M ediko s Logos of H erodotus and the Evolution of the M edian State’ . R. Histoire des Ardzrouni par le vartabied Thoma Ardzrouni in idem. Sancisi-W eerdenburg (eds) Achaemenid History III: M ethod and Theory (Leiden). A. B ullough. In Atti del Primo Simposio Internazionale di Arte Armena (1975) (Venice). 1984. A. Lightfoot (eds) The Eastern Frontier o f the Roman Em pire (2 vols) (O xford) vol. (eds) 1982 Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Em pire: The Functioning o f a Plural Society (2 vols) (N ew York and London). B raund. 1978. ‘The T yranny of a C onstruct: F eudalism and H istorian s of M edieval Europe’. R . 1 0 5 0 -1 2 0 4 ’. C.

vol. In K ouym jian (ed. 7 1 -1 9 4 . 1 95 1 . 1960. Aristakes de Lastivert. C h aran is. (Bom bay). Burney. Journal o f N ear Eastern Studies 32: 4 7 -5 6 . Business Documents o f Murashu Sons o f N ippur Dated in the reign o f Darius II (424— 404 B. G. G. Annals o f Archaeology and Anthropology 2 0: 7 1 -1 8 6 . 1973. Des l’avenem ent d ’A uguste ä Pavenem ent de D iocletien’. Gloss. 11) (2 vols) (A m sterdam ). 1973. and Law son. Pre-Ottoman Turkey (London). vol. D. 1971. trans. G. ‘The M oslem Conquests of the N ear East as revealed in the G reek Sources of the Seventh and the Eighth C enturies’. 8 9 -1 0 4 . M . (T ranslating part of Ter-G hevondian. ‘L’evolution de l ’iq tac du IXе au XIIIе siecle: C ontribution ä une histoire сош рагёе des societes m edievales’.. ‘The B ritish M useum E xcavations at N ineveh.Bibliography 287 B ulsara. C. E. L. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.. C ahen. Synchronic and Typological Linguistics: Festschrift for Oswald Szemerenyi (Am sterdam Studies in the T heory and H istory of Linguistic Science. ‘Pigm ents in A rm enian M an uscrip ts of the Tenth and Eleventh C enturies’. T he Laws o f the Ancient Persians. B rogyanyi (ed. REArm ns 8: 3 5 9 -6 3 . Family and Patronage (N ew Y ork and O xford). C ard ascia. A. Burney. M .) (Philadelphia) (The B abylonian E xpedition of the U niversity of P ennsylvania. Journal Asiatique 2 54 : 4 7 1 -9 7 . J.9. and M ath ew s. ‘L’A rm enie entre Rome et l’lran I. C an ard . G. The Armenians in the Byzantine Em pire (Lisbon). D. 1 97 2 . F. 1 904. J. 1979. C am pbell Thom pson. D. 1953. R.1986. Annales 8: 2 5 -5 2 . T. 1 96 6 . S. ‘C h iliarq ue et curo p alate ä la cour des Sassanides’.1968. ‘The Persian Satrap ies and R elated M a tte rs’. 1 98 4 . tran s. 1957. 1 93 7 . Burney. -----. 1 9 3 1 -3 2 ’. The Peoples o f the Hills (London). and M allo w an . 1 9 6 4 . ‘A Sem antic A pproach to the Identification of Iranian L oan­ w ords in A rm enian’.-L . 1977). Anatolian Studies 7: 3 7 -5 3 . М . C ab elli. C an ard. C am p b ell. 2 1 3 -2 8 . ‘L’O rdre des preseances ä la cour des A rsacides d ’Arm e­ nie’. E.1973. R. A. 1933. (Berlin and N ew York). K. ns 18: 33— 47. R EArm . T. J. 1963. and com m . C onstantelos. P. -----. C. -----. Les archives de M uraiü (Paris). P.C urrent Issues in Linguistic T heory vol.).1 976. -----.1 9 8 5 -8 . Anatolian Studies 10: 1 7 7 -9 6 . 1 97 1 . ‘Les Impots en n ature de l ’Arm enie ä l’epoque cA bbaside’. and Lang. -----. and B erberian.). ‘A propos des prem ieres interventions parthes en A rm enie et des circonstances de l’avenem ent de T igrane le G rand’. ‘U rartian Fortresses and Towns in the Van R egio n ’. ‘M easured Plans of U rartian Fortresses’.1 . In B. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (Budapest) 31: 1 3 -2 5 . M . Byzantion 42: 3 2 5 -5 7 . Honour. C onsidine. I. Studies in Diachronic. C haum ont.C. J. C am eron. C. and Ind. "L es fam ilies feodales d ’Arm enie et leurs possessions h ered itaires’ d ’a Ter-G hevondian’. 1 986.) (Brussels). C . Series IV . 10). C lay. Series A Cuneiform Texts. M . . Recit des Malheurs de la Nation Armenienne (w ith introd. Iranica Antiqua 10: 1 3 9 -6 5 . w ith Introd. A. H.

The Key o f Truth. A Manual o f the Paulician Church o f Armenia (O xford). 2 6 9 -9 6 . In K ouym jian (ed. In Sam uelian (ed. R. -----. -----. ‘Les Arm eniens en C appadoce au x Xе et XIе siecles’. c. -----. -----. D agron. Le M anage en droit canonique oriental (Paris). J. 1 9 8 6 -7 . N. 1991. M . ‘D eux lettres inedites de Photius a u x A rm eniens’. trans. .1898b. A Political history o f Parthia (C hicago). R EA rm ns 2 0 : 3 2 1 -3 6 . J. J. J. Fifth to Eighth C en turies’. Bronzeworking Centres o f Western Asia.1986. G. C roke.1982. ‘E questrian officers in the E ast’. V. Medieval Armenian Art and Architecture: The Church o f The Holy Cross. ‘Les Arm eniens en Islande au XIе siecle’.). ‘M leh le G rand. 1983. Lightfoot (eds). 1982. D auvillier.). -----.)’. G. -----. Der M an u elian . In D. A. P. LVII) (Paris) 123— 43. R. ‘A rm enian Sculp tural Im ages. The Eastern Frontier o f the Roman Empire (2 vols) (O xford). 1938. D avies. (ed. 1 99 1 . H. moines et empereurs (6 1 0 -1 0 5 4 ) (D esclee).. and Vauchez. ‘Les listes “feodales” du P seudo-Sm bat’. 1966. American Journal o f Theology 2: 8 28— 48. French and C . La Chronique Attribuee au Connetable Smbat: Introduction. Early Northumbrian Sculpture (Jarro w Lecture 1965) (Jarrow ). C atholicos of A rm enia (390— 4 39 A . ‘T he A rm enian C anons of St. Revue des etudes byzantines 29: 1 3 7 -8 1 . French trans. Slaves on Horses: The Evolution o f the Islamic Polity (C am bridge). and L uko n in.1981b . The Culture and Social Institutions o f Ancient Iran (C am bridge). ‘Les A rm eniens en O ccident fin X е . C urtis. 1 971. Greek text. ‘Vocation im periale ou fatalite diasp oriqu e: les A rm eniens a Byzance (ІѴ^-ХГ siecles)’. D illem an. C . 7 7 -1 1 1 . ‘Procopius and D ara’. A rm enian text.D .debut XIе siecle’. L.197 9 . In Occident et Orient au X е siecle (Publications de l’U niversite de D ijon. Riche. ‘L’im m igration arm enienne en C appadoce au XIе siecle’. Cahiers de Civilisation Medievale (Poitiers) 32: 2 5 -4 2 . S. 1 99 3 .1 98 1 a. 1982. ‘Le peuplem ent A rm enien au x frontieres de la C ilicie a u x IVe-Ve siecles’. D ebevoise. 1 89 8 a. 1986. w ith an introd. Histoire des Armeniens (Toulouse). P. 1 98 0 . Sah ak. P.). D arrouzes.. -----.).1980. Byzantion 4 5 : 4 1 -1 1 7 .288 Bibliography C onybeare. 7 5 -9 5 . D andam aev. I. D achkevytch. L. Histoire du christianisme des origines a nos jours 4 : Eviques. -----. (eds). G. REArm ns 15: 7 3 -1 0 2 . et notes (Paris). 1 98 2 . and De C lercq. 1 98 9 . Dejiver. F. Commentary on the Divine Liturgy by Xosrov Anjewacci-. C. C.. H. B. 1 96 2 . Aght’amar (London). Y. Haute Mesopotamie orientate et pays adjacents (Paris). 1989. S. (London and N ew York). Journal o f Roman Studies 73: 1 4 3 -5 9 . G. C rone. D edeyan. 1 7 6 -2 0 7 . C ow e.(ed. 2 1 5 -2 7 .1989. 1936. J.) 1988. Engl. tran s. C ram p. (N ew York) (includes Arm . -----.C. trad u c­ tion. 1 98 2 . text). trans. vol. 1975. stratege de Lykandos’ . and Crow . In L e aree omogenee della Civiltä Rupestre nell’ambito dell’Im pero Bizantino: la Cappa­ docia (G alatin a). 1 0 0 0 -5 3 9 B. In D edeyan (ed. A.

Jen ­ nings) (N ew York). The N uer (N ew York and O xford).. ‘L’architecture religieuse dans l’A rm enie du haut M oyen-A ge’. E. series publ.) (Lanham . (Louvain). 1 0 3 -1 7 . The Penitential o f David o f Ganjak (ed.1984. ‘T he State of the Field of A rm enian Art: ubi sumus/quo im us’. E rem ian. Armenian Art (London). Univ. ‘A rm enian Sculptural Im ages Part II: Seventh to Fourteenth C en tu­ ries’. N ew York and Toronto). E. D iakonoff. REArm ns 21: 4 8 5 -9 5 . M . 1 99 1 . B erkeley). ‘Le Point sur Parchitecte arm enien T rdat-T irid ate’. F. Cahiers archeologiques 39: 9 5 -1 1 0 . -----. -----. L. C.. 1984. -----.1 9 8 8 -9 . . Scriptores A rm eniacae 3. 1 9 4 4 -1 9 4 5 . Byzantion 17: 5 8 -8 7 . 1958. F. ‘Une ap ologie des im ages du septiem e siecle’. E vans-Pritchard. (unpa­ ginated). ‘E cclesiastical A rchitecture in the Fortifications of A rm enian C ilicia: Second R ep o rt’.Bibliography 289 -----. ‘La sculpture architecturale dans PArm enie p rearab e: rapports exterieurs’. com m . B. vols 2 16 . 1964. tran s. -----. 125— 45. 4 .1983b. .) (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 20: 1 6 5 -7 6 . -----. 1970 onw ards.196 1 a. ‘Un docum ent arm enien de la gen ealo gie de B asile Ier’. M ilan Poly­ technic. -----. I. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 3 7 . 1 2 3 -4 6 .1 99 1 a. 2 1 7 ). In A tkinson et al. R .. In Atti del Q u i n t o . ‘The F ortifications of M edieval C ilic ia ’ (D issertation. Docum enti di Architettura Armena. The Pre-History o f the Armenian People (trans. In Sam uelian and Stone (eds). ‘A rchaeology and n atio n alism in to talitarian and postto talitarian R u ssia’. Der Sah agh ian . P. E dw ards. 1 94 0 . A. Der N ersessian. P. In Atti del Q u in to . 9 6 -1 1 9 . C. 1972. Armenian Quarterly 1: 6 7 -8 1 . D olukhanov. 1911.. -----. The History o f the Caucasian Albanians by Movsis Dasxuranci (London O riental Series. D ostourian. and introd. REArm ns 8: 2 5 1 -6 6 . ‘B agras and Arm enian C ilicia: A R eassessm ent’. -----. (eds) 1996. traduit de 1‘Armenien avec une introduction et des notes (Paris). ‘The A lbanian Chronicle of M x itca r Go's’. Armenia and the Crusades: Tenth to Twelfth Centuries the Chronicle o f Matthew o f Edessa (tran s. -----. 1987. D onabedian. of C alifo rn ia. Feydit. S. M .1961b. 8) (London. 1 98 3 a. A.1983c. Les cahiers de Saint-Michel de Cuxa (Prades-C odalet) 14. REArm ns 17: 4 1 5 -5 5 . David de Sassoun: Epopee en vers. 1991. D ow sett. 1993. . ‘Sur certaines m odifications subies p ar les m onum ents arm eniens au VIIе siecle’. G. Der M elk o n ian -M in assian . ‘Im age W orship in A rm enia and its O pponents’. J.1991b. NY and London). 1 984. E. w ith an Engl. 1971. review of A kopjan.1991.1978. L’Epopee populaire агт ёпіеппе David de Sassoun: Etude critique (M ontreal). tran s. 1 99 6 .1946. -----. W. 2 0 0 -1 3 . Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental and African Studies 21: 4 7 2 -9 0 . 1983...

1 99 3 . . 4) (Louvain). Paris). -----. REArm ns 4: 2 9 7 -3 2 0 . as Study XII in G arsoi'an. T. IV. -----. In H ovannisian (ed. as Study XI in G ar­ soi'an. Repr. ‘The Iranian Substratum of the “A gatcan gelo s” C ycle’ . Handes Amsorya 90. T hom son (eds). ‘N erses le G rand. La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae (Corpus Scriptorum С hristianorum Orientalium vol. -----. 2 7 -6 4 . 1985.1981. 1992. as Study X in G arsoian. N . as Study IX in Garsoi'an.1982. G aritte. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 25: 8 7 -1 1 3 .A N ote on the M ission of St. Repr. 1985. 1 95 2 . 1985. (eds) 1986. 1981. ‘Prolegom ena to a Study of the Iran ian Aspects in A rsacid A rm enia’. Repr. G. G. as Study III in Garsoi'an.).1984.the Inverted Im age’.1972. P. G arsoi'an. H ovannisian (ed. Repr. 1985. Repr. Subsidia vol. East o f Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (W ashington). C olum bia U niversity. Peritia 4: 1 -2 0 .290 Bibliography -----. P. -----. ‘The C harism a of K ingship in A ncient Iran’. In R. ‘The Locus of the D eath of Kings: Iran ian A rm enia . The D efence o f the Roman and Byzan­ tine East (British A rchaeo lo gical R eports. 1985. and Kennedy. M ath ew s and R . 1985. 1985. -----.1 967b . a re-interp retation ’. as Study IV in G arsoian. In N. F reem an-G renville. cols 1 7 7 -2 3 4 . G. G. -----. Repr. ‘Gund-Qifia dans les sources A rm eniennes’. -----. -----. 1964. 1985.1 986.1976. Armeniaca: Melanges d ’etudes armeniennes (Venice). ‘The Turkish V iew of A rm enian H istory: A Vanishing N atio n ’. Iranica Antiqua 9: 1 0 2 -7 . 132. Frendo.). VI) (The H agu e. Repr.197 1 a. 2 5 0 -7 9 . Iranica Antiqua 4: 3 6 -5 4 . 1 9 6 7 a. Series A. 121. ‘Byzantine Heresy. 1 4 8 -6 4 . International Series. -----. C. D. G. ‘Secular Jurisd ictio n over the A rm enian Church (Fourth .An A ttem pt to Redefine the Concepts “A rm enia” and “L o yalty” ’. REArm ns 8: 3 4 1 -5 2 . ‘SebSos and the A rm enian H istorio graph ical T radition in the C ontext of B yzantine-Iranian R elatio n s’.196 9 . ‘Q uidam N arseus? . Repr. -----.1971b. -----. ‘G estures of Deference to R o yalty in Ancient Iran’. W. Foss.1983. M ass. REArm ns 17: 1 4 5 -6 9 . ‘P olitique ou O rthodoxie? L’A rm enie au quatriem e siecle’. Basile de C esaree et Eustathe de Sebaste’. Historical Atlas o f the Middle East (N ew York). as Study V in Garsoi'an. In Actes du X V е Congres International d ’Etudes Byzantines (Athens). Frye. ‘A rm enia in the Fourth C entury . R. The Paulician Heresy: A study o f the Origin and Devel­ opment o f Paulicianism in Armenia and the Eastern Provinces o f the Byzantine Empire (Publications in N ear and M id d le East Studies. N. Freem an.).Seventh C enturies)’ . 1 5 1 -7 4 . 2 2 0 -5 0 . Armenia Between Byzantium and the Sasanians (London).1985. as Study VII in G arsoian. N erses the G reat’. 1985. -----. S. 2 97 ) (2 vols) (O xford). 1 992.1980. F. In Okeanos: Essays Presented to Ihor Sevcenko on his Sixtieth Birthday (Harvard Ukrainian Studies 7) (C am bridge. D. Amulettes de I’Armenie chretienne (Venice). G arsoian.

G rayson. Gero. 6 7 -8 3 . 1973. 1 959. REArm ns 2 3 : 3 9 -8 0 . 1 97 2 . ‘A rabic P harm aceutical Terms in M id d le A rm enian’. P. G oubert. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47: 1 -6 7 .-M . The Epic Histories Attributed to Pcawstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmutciwnkc). -----. and G urney. Ill Les evfches m eridio n aux lim itrophes de la M esop o tam ie’. 2 4 9 -8 5 . H aldon. E. A. G odel. G luckm an. review of C haum ont. Note sur le lieu d’origine et la fam ille de l’Empereur M au rice’. ‘The Aghtcam ar w a ll paintings: some new observations’. The Geography o f the Hittite Empire (London). Echos d'Orient 39: 3 8 3 -4 1 3 . M ilitary Lands. ‘M au rice et l’A rm enie. H.1975. G rigolia. Byzantine Iconoclasm during the reign o f Leo III with particular attention to the Oriental Sources (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium vol. Par ergon ns 3: 3 9 -5 1 .). ‘ “7 xagaworanist kayeankc” kam "Banak arkcuni”: Les resi­ dences royales des A rsacides arm eniens’. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (N ew York). ‘Q uelques Precisions P relim inaires sur le schism e entre les eglises byzantine et arm enienne au sujet du concile de C halcedoine. Subsidia vol. 1946. . V. A. C.) (H arvard A rm enian Texts and Studies. introd. 1 94 0 . ‘T he Correspondence between Leo an d cU m ar’. Politics. C hrysostom ides (ed. ‘M ilitary Service. 346. K. G regoire. Law and Ritual in Tribal Society (O xford). R EArm ns. In Ancient Studies in M emory o f Elias J. ‘Some P relim in ary Precisions on the Separation of the A rm enian and Im perial C hurches. P. -----. its function and m ean ing’. G arstang.). C asa Editrice M azzian o ) (in Italian). -----. G rishin. 1990.1 9 8 8 -1 9 8 9 . D. Bedi Kartlisa 4 1 -2 : 1 4 8 -6 7 . 41) (Louvain). S. ‘The Significance of the N arrative D escribing the T rad i­ tio n al O rigin of the A rm enians’. ‘An A rm enian D ynasty on the B yzantine T hrone’. and notes). and the Status of Soldiers: C urrent Problem s and Interpretations’. G ignoux. F.1 98 9 . 1984. Le Museon 86: 3 6 5 -7 5 .1992. Bickerman. P. Armenian Quarterly 1: 4 -2 1 . 1962. C . M ass. ‘T he E arly M ed iaev al A rm enian C ity: An A lien E lem ent?’. R. J. (trans. -----. Sebeos Storia (Trans. 1976. Studia Iranica 5: 160. -----. Journal o f the Ancient N ear Eastern Society 1 6 -1 7 (1 9 8 4 -8 5 (19 8 7)). An Introduction to the Study o f Classical Armenian (W iesbaden). G audeul. Islamochristiana 10: 1 0 9 -5 7 . 1976. (C am berley).1 988. 2 1 : 2 5 1 -7 0 . G ugerotti. A. J. 1 96 5 . J. 8) (C am bridge. (V erona. 1973. G ulb ekian . G eary. Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages (Ithaca and London). J. M .Bibliography 291 -----. КАѲ НГНТРІА Essays Presented to Joan Hussey on her Eightieth Birthday. Annual o f Armenian Linguistics 7: 6 5 -7 1 . A. J. 1973. In J. 1 99 3 .1 987. II From T iglath-P ileser I to Ashurnasir-apli II (W iesbaden). Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (2 vols). R. 1986. 1 976. I: The Presence of “A rm enian” Bishops a t the First Five (E cum enical C ouncils’ . G reppin. 1985. I From the beginning to Ashur-resha-ishi I (W iesbaden). O. 1994. ‘M ilk relationship in the C aucasus. and C om m .

Catharism and the Crusades (9 0 0 -1 3 0 0 ) (London. A R e-E xam ination of the T errito rial Aspects of the Institution (Part O ne)’.9 July. -----. -----. -----. Papers . ‘The K ingdom of A rcca x ’. E 1983. ‘The Primary History o f Armenia. In Sam uelian (ed. 1979). H ew sen.1975.1982b. W alser (W iesbaden).1968. H. Trade in the ancient N ear East. -----. In Sam uelian and Stone (eds). ‘The Satrap ies of the Persian Em pire’.1 99 2 . The Persian Empire.) 1977. from the posthum ous papers by G. -----.1 9 7 3 -1 9 7 4 . R. REArm ns 2 2 : 1 4 7 -8 3 .1 9 8 5 -1 9 8 6 . Armenian Review 13 (3 -5 1 ): 9 0 -3 . Orientalia Christiana Periodica 2 7 . 1976 (London: British School o f A rchaeology in Iraq). ‘Seventh-C entury C ontinuities: the Ajnäd and the “T hem atic M y th ’” . -----. 3 7 9 -4 2 3 .198 3 a. C am eron (ed.1985. Introduction. REArm ns 9: 2 8 5 -3 2 9 . Resources and Armies (Princeton). Poulter (ed. ‘P tolem y’s C hapter on A rm enia: An Investigation of H is T oponym s’. REArm ns 2 1 : 2 7 1 -3 1 9 . Studies in Geography and Ethnography o f the Ancient N ear East ed. REArm ns 17: 123— 43. H erzfeld. In A. ‘D esignation de l’em pire et concepts p olitiques de D arius Ier d ’apres ses inscriptions en vieux-Perse’. Repr.292 Bibliography -----.1 98 2 a. The Long and the Short Recensions. H. -----.). In A. ‘Introduction to A rm enian H istorical G eography IV: The Vitax­ ates of A rsacid A rm enia. cols 8 7 -1 0 6 . ‘The M elik s of Eastern A rm enia. The Geography o f Ananias o f Sirak (A SXA RH AC^O Yc). 1 97 6 . -----. ‘Introduction to A rm enian H istorical G eography III: The Boundaries of O rontid A rm enia’. Handes Amsorya 87. -----. H ew senian. REArm ns 19: 5 5 -8 4 . E. as Study I in idem. Journal o f the Society for Armenian Studies 2: 1 1 -4 9 . 1 97 2 . -----. J.1995. R . 4 2 -6 8 . ‘N inth C entury B ulgaria between East and W est and an A rchaeological Footnote’. 5 . 1960. ‘Introduction to A rm enian H istorical G eography IV: T he Vitax­ ates of A rsacid A rm enia. R. An E xam ination of the V alid ity of an Im m em orially T ransm itted H isto rical T rad itio n ’.).1973. G. REArm ns 16: 1 1 1 -5 0 . ‘T he c ity of Rom e and the Eastern C hurches in the tenth century’. REArm ns 18: 3 4 7 -6 6 . ‘The A utun G lossary’ . -----. 1 98 2 . ‘Introduction to A rm enian H istorical G eography II: The Boundaries of A chaem enid “A rm in a” ’. -----.).1 9 8 8 -1 9 8 9 . -----. 27— 40. D. Translation and Commentary (W ies­ baden). B.1983b. H am ilton.1 9 9 0 -1 9 9 1 . Monastic Reform. Studia Iranica 5: 3 3 -6 5 . H aw kin s. 1961. 2 9 8 -3 4 9 . Archaeological History o f Iran (London). Ancient Bulgaria. ‘T he M elik s of Eastern A rm enia II’. -----. Papers presented to the X X III Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale.1984. A P relim in ary Stud y’. ‘Introduction to A rm enian H istorical G eography IV: The B oundaries of A rtax iad A rm enia’. (ed. The Byzantine and Early Islamic N ear East III States. H oddinott. A R e-E xam ination of the T erritorial Aspects of the Institution (Part T w o)’. C l. REArm ns 10: 2 8 1 -3 0 3 . University o f Birmingham. History in Africa 2: 91­ 100. ‘C aspiane: An H isto rical and G eographical Survey’. In idem. ‘E thno-H istory and the A rm enian Influence upon the C aucasian A lb an ians’. 1 935. 1983. 5 -2 6 . H errenschm idt. ‘In Search of T iridates the G reat’.

1984. O uzounian. P. (Venice). d . The Armenian People From Ancient to M odern Times. vol. Politics. Jalab ert.) 1992. M . The Armenian People From Ancient to M odern Times. ‘T he A rm enians in the B yzantine R u lin g C lass P redom inantly in the N inth through Twelfth C enturies’..a . In Sam uelian and Stone (eds). Volume II. 1 97 8 . G regory’. R. Commagene et Cyrrheslique (Paris). K avoukjian.Bibliography 293 presented to the International Sym posium on the Ancient H istory and A rchaeo­ logy of B u lgaria. (ed. ‘The Age of Conquest . Maistor. G. 1987. A. and H all. J. 1 96 7 . Isaac. 1 990. 1 98 4 . J. E. C al.) 1997b. I The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century (B asingstoke. E. A. (ed. Jenkin s.1 98 4 . 1982.. (ed. 2 7 0 -8 2 . I. F. J . (ed. edn. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. 1981.).(ed. Church History 38: 1 3 9 -4 9 . -----. N. R. M itch ell (ed.). H.1971. Jan ash ian . 1 95 9 . -----. Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ D e Administrando Imperio. Armenia.). 1981 (2 vols) (N ottingham ). R. II Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Cen­ tury (B asingstoke. L. K azhdan.). 8 1 -9 5 . C urtis. Ethics (London). ‘Change and C o ntinuity in the R eligion of A ncient Arm enia w ith P articular Reference to the Vision of St. D.) 1 96 2 . W. G. 2 3 9 -9 0 . 1 96 9 . Anatolian Studies 31: 1 4 1 -5 . vol. ‘Initial Byzantine R eactions to the A rab C onquest’. and M outerde. In H o lt. et al. E. Irw in. 4 3 9 -5 1 ). . M . In Sam uelian (ed. History. H ow ard-Johnston.(ed. -----. In Sam uelian and Stone (eds). 1 8 9 -9 7 . M . In S. London and N ew York). Classical.) 1981. Jenkin s. 6 1 -8 2 . Armenian Miniature Paintings. 8 -2 6 . 1 981. and Sumer. M . ‘Iqtäc and the end of the C rusader States’ . Jones. -----. ‘The H istorical G eography of the P aulician an d T ondrakian H eresies’. H. In A. Journal o f Theological Studies ns 10: 2 8 0 -9 8 . Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker vol. 1 929. The Armenian Genocide. II Z eitgeschichte 2 (Berlin). The Limits o f Empire. A. Jnr. M offat (ed. Jacoby.) 1978. R. 8 4 3 -1 0 5 0 ’. vol. Commentary (London). 1984. ‘W ere Ancient H eresies N ation al or Social M ovem ents in D isguise?’. U niversity of N ottingham . Subartu.) 1 99 7 a. 1984. 1 92 9 .(ed. H ughes. -----. T. O xford).) 1978. B. The Armenian Image in History and Literature (Studies in N ear Eastern C ulture and Society 3) (M alib u . J. II. H ovannisian. K aegi. 1982. 62­ 77. ‘A nalyses of Some U rartian Bronzes’. The Indo-European Homeland and Ancient Mesopotamia (M o n treal). Byzantine and Renais­ sance Studies for Robert Browning (C anb erra). M . 1 981. H olt. ‘T hem a’. trans. The Cities o f the Eastern Roman Provinces (2nd rev.). 1983. Armies and Frontiers in Roman and Byzantine Anatolia (British A rchaeological Reports International Series 156) (O xford). ‘Byzantine A nzitene’. R. In W h ittin g (ed. H u ltg lrd . H uxley. London and N ew York). The Roman Army in the East (O xford). The Eastern Mediterranean Lands in the Period o f the Crusades (W arm inster).

R . ‘T he M ost Ancient P enitential Text of the A rm enian L itu rgy’.. review of T hom son. 1 98 5 . The Islamic Near East from the sixth to the eleventh Century (London and N ew York). and T hom son. Kuhrt. Lages. -----. retold (London). 1978. D. ‘Les colonies arm eniennes des origines ä la fin du XIIIе sidcle’. 1 968. H. A ccording to the A rm enian Sources (3 0 0 -6 1 0 )’ (O xford Univ. 1982. L’Armenie entre Byzance et I’Islam Depuis la C onquite Arabe jusque’en 886 (Paris). D. G. Part II: Letters from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces (State Archives o f Assyria 5) (H elsinki). K. of Pennsylvania A rm en­ ian Texts and Studies 5) (C hico. and where did they come from ? Sargon II. L. Art Bulletin 27: 1 -2 7 . ‘Islam . 1 98 6 .) 1 98 6 .). K udian. 1 98 8 . 1 979. M . the Cimmerians. 1991. 1970. and Rusa I (C openhagen). and Thom pson. N. K hatchatrian. C al. ‘Some new texts about a revolt again st the U rartian king Rusa I’. 3 9 0 -4 0 9 . B. In D edeyan (ed. M . G.294 Bibliography K endall. edn by M . review of T hom son. ‘The Dome of H eaven’. Old Persian Grammar. G. Kristensen. K olandjian.. fils d ’Abou Beldj’. 1 990. Texts. Lexicon (2nd edn. C. The Correspondence o f Sargon II.). -----. 1995. Connecticut). G. iconoclasm and the declaratio n of d o ctrine’. K ojababian.1 980. In Atti del Q uinto. Who were the Cimmerians. Kent. REArm os 2: 1 5 7 -8 8 . W. 1 971. K ouym jian. D. A. King. Laurent. K hosdegian. 1 907. The Saga o f Sassoun: the Armenian Folk epic.). F. . K. .1 922. E. Oriens Antiquus 22: 1 2 3 -3 5 . Irenikon 47: 3 0 7 -2 4 . G. 1 982. . L. Rev. 1 94 5 . (ed. In Armenian Review 1: 1 0 9 -1 0 . 1 9 7 7 .1 97 4 a. N ew H aven. Definitions and Divisions o f Philosophy by David the Invincible Philosopher (Univ. tran s. The Sculptures and Inscription o f Darius the Great on the Rock o f Behistün in Persia (London). ‘Solitude et so llicitude: Le m oine loin et pres du m onde selon les “P aterica” arm eniens’. Leloir. 1978. (2 vols) (London and N ew York). Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental and African Studies 4 8 : 2 6 7 -7 7 . ‘T he Tenth C entury A rm enian H istorian Uxtanfes: W as he bishop of Sebastia or E dessa?’. 1983. The Ancient N ear East c. B. ‘Un ffeodal arm enien au IXе siecle: G ourguen A rdzrouni. Kennedy. G. K otandjian. L anfranchi. C an ard (Lisbon. R. 1991. and P arp o la. Lang. S. A. 1 983. R. 1986. M . R. S. W. 1 97 4 . A. 1919. Lehm ann.3 3 0 B. 1 98 6 . The Prophet and the Age o f the Caliphates.C. ‘T he R elatio n s Between the A rm enian and G eorgian Churches. 1953. J. In K ouym jian (ed. 3 9 7 — 413. Armenian Studies/Etudes Arminiennes in Memoriam Haig Berberian (Lisbon). DPhil thesis). In Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental and African Studies 4 2 : 5 7 4 -5 . Inscriptions et histoire des eglises armeniennes (M ilan ). Lanfranchi. 3 6 7 -3 8 0 . 3 0 0 0 . REArm ns 5: 1 9 9 -2 3 0 . -----. King. 1980). Didaskalia 1: 4 3 -6 4 . В. ‘Essai sur la silhouette spirituelle du m oine d ’apres la collection arm enienne des apophtegm es’. ‘Fresques arm eniennes du VIIе siecle d ’apres les m onum ents d ’Arm enie Sovietique’ . G.

(ed. -----. N. M . Manuel des institutions françaises periode des capetiens directs (Paris). P.. 1 98 3 . 1 97 4 a. P. . H. Repr. In Freem an and Kennedy (eds). Histoire Universelle par Etienne Asolik de Taron. Eternal Victory. L ib arid ian . E. ‘D eux publications fondam entales sur le paulicianism e d’Asie M in eu re’. Travaux et Memoires 5: 1— 44. L ieu. Luzbetak. Lie. 1 926. La place de I’armenien dans les langues indo-europeennes (Louvain). Dualist Heresy in the Middle Ages (Prague). Marriage and the Family in Caucasia (Studia Instituti Anthropos vol. tran s. P. Byzantium and the Early Medieval West (C am bridge). . a N eanderthal B urial in Iraq’. F. ‘Iona. E. H . vol. Histoire d ’Heraclius par I’evique Sebeos (Paris). Lynch. A. 4 7 5 -5 0 5 . 1 90 4 .1974b. D. B eirut. Leroi-G ourhan. 1950. Loos.1974b. -----. -----. M acL ean . Dumbarton Oaks Papers 37: 9 1 -1 2 1 . 1 98 6 . ‘The Domed Church as M icrocosm : L iterary Roots of An A rchitectural Sym bol’. S. A. Papers from the T w enty-sixth Spring Sym po­ sium of B yzantine Studies. L uckenbill. M arch 1992 (A ldershot. C. 1 99 1 . 1986.Bibliography 295 -----. M acler. In Atti del Q uinto . Т.). 1981. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity. N ew Constantines: The Rhythm o f Imperial Renewal in Byzantium. I (C hicago). ‘Just W ar in Byzantine T hought’. G. 1 929. M . 1964. D. 5 5 9 -7 3 . The Inscriptions o f Sargon II (Paris). A n drew ’s. Byzantinoslavica 35: 1 8 9 -2 0 9 .) 1991. St.) 1994. 1951.1973. ‘L’histoire des P auliciens d ’Asie M ineure d’apres les sources grecques’. 1 98 9 . M ass. M agu ire.) 1 986. 3) (V ienna-M ödling). Leroy. G. V t). D. ‘C aptives. REArm ns 1: 1 9 5 -2 0 2 . and D uncan-Flow ers. D. II (C hicago). Lem erle. J. B. and M aw e t. К. 1965. Refugees and Exiles: a Study of C ross-frontier c ivilian movem ents and contacts between Rom e and Persia from V alerian to Jo v ian ’. M cVey. 1 99 1 .1 927. . Armenia: Travels and Studies (2 vols) (London). M agie. 1 90 1 .1 91 7 . interviews and speeches by the leaders o f the national democratic movement in Armenia (W atertow n. 1975. M agd alin o . H ants and B rookfield. Michigan Academician 13: 4 8 5 -9 . Armenia at the Crossroads: Dem ocracy and Nation­ hood in the Post-Soviet Era: Essays. ‘Les orientations essentielles de la sp iritualite des Peres du desert d ’apres les “P aterica” arm eniens’. Fr. Art and Holy Powers in the Early Christian House (U rbana and C hicago). J.. C. Livre III (Paris). 1 892. A. (ed. 4th-13th Centuries. ‘Note sur les donnees historiques de l ’auto bio grap hie d ’A nania de Sh irak ’. F. M . M agu ire. Ancient Records o f Assyria and Babylonia vol. Revue de Theologie et de Philosophie 3rd series 24: 30— 47. ‘The Flow ers found w ith Shanidar IV. -----. . J. L. 1 98 6 . M . (eds. Science 190: 5 6 2 -6 4 . Luchaire. Roman Rule in Asia M inor to the end o f the third century after Christ (2 vols) (Princeton). M cL in . traduite de I’armenien et annotee D euxiem e Partie. D. A rm enia and Italy in the E arly M ed iev al Period’. M cC o rm ick.

trans. ‘The C halcedonian Issue and the E arly B agratids: The C ouncil of S irak aw a n ’. REArm ns 2 2 : 2 0 3 -1 5 . M ath ew s. F. ‘Une legitim atio n scrip tuaire de l’hagio grap h ie: la preface de K oriwn (443) ä la Vie de Mastocc. The Trade and Cities o f Armenia in Relation to Ancient World Trade. 1 9 8 2 a. M an fredi. 1995.1 9 8 8 -1 9 8 9 . M elik ish vili. J.-P. G. 12) (W ashington). -----. J.199 1 . -----. edn. G arsoian (Lisbon). into Engl. ‘C ritical R em arks on the N ew ly Edited Excerpts from Sebeos’ In Sam uelian and Stone (eds). (The C atholic U niversity of A m erica. The Armenian Genocide in Perspective (N ew B runsw ick and O xford). G. 1984. ‘L’aristo cratie georgienne et son passe: T radition epique et references bibliques. ‘C racks in Lehm ann’s “Dome of H eaven” ’. A. H ants. 1993) (R eading). T. Histoire de ГАгтёпіе par Moise de Khor'ene. 5 8 5 -9 0 . The M onk as the Successor o f the Martyr. M alo n e. ‘L’eglise arm enienne de 611 a 1 06 6 ’. S. K. 1986. M akso u d ian . 1993. ( v ii'. M eyendorff.) 1991. Urartskie Klinoobraznye tiadpisi ( Urartian Cuneiform Inscriptions ) (M oscow ) (U rartian texts. and com m .. -----.E . M erhav. 1970. Urartu: A Metalworking Center in the First Millennium B . (ed.). Yovhannes Drasxanakertcci History o f Armenia (A tlan ta. G a).296 Bibliography M ah e. -----. Liturgical and Exegetical Approaches (A ldershot. Byzantine Architecture (London). 1 99 3 . Topografia e geografia dell’ Oriente di Senofonte (M ilan ) (in Italian). G.1995. Travaux et M im oires 11: 5 5 5 -7 3 . R. 1950. R. 1 987. -----. 4 5 7 ­ 547. Art and Architecture in Byzantium and Armenia. Studies in C h ristian A n tiq uity no. In Kyriakon. ‘Basile II et Byzance vus p ar G rigor N arekacci’ . In R . V. B.C . trans. E. H . A. M ath ew s. in idem. -----. 1984. N . M artin -H isard . Vt).x ie siecles)’.-P. J. ‘M essalian ism or A n ti-M essalian ism ’. R . and B rookfield. Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Illuminated Manuscripts (N ew York). A. M an go . M an an d ian . -----. Festchrift Johannes Quasten II (Berlin). 2 1 8 -3 9 . and W ieck. Bedi Kartlisa 4 2 : 1 3 -3 4 . 1986. 1 96 0 . Nouvelle traduction de I’armenien classique (d ’apres Victor Lattglois) avec une introduction et des notes (Paris). 1 99 4 . H. R ussian trans. ‘T he Genesis Frescoes at A ltca m ar’. Repr. 1 9 6 5 . REArm ns 16: 2 4 5 -5 7 . -----. M ayr-H artin g.1982b. C. ‘Provocation or N ation alism : A C ritical Inquiry into the A rm enian G enocide of 1 91 5 ’. F. In REArm ns 2 1 : 5 5 2 -5 4 . In D agron et al (eds).).1 9 8 8 -1 9 8 9 . ‘A Note on the M onasteries Founded during the R eign of King A bas I B agratun i’. 1 984. Source 1: 12­ 16. (Jerusalem ). E. review of F eydit.1 9 9 0 -1 9 9 1 . and M ah e. M elso n . from the 2nd rev. . REArm ns 2 1 : 3 33— 44. La strada dei Diecimila. T. 1986.1992. The M onk and the Martyr. 1986. M ah e. inventeur de l ’alp h ab et arm enien’ Melanges Jacques Fontaine I (Paris) 2 9 -4 3 .1993. (eds) 1994. Two conversions to Christianity: The Bulgarians and the Anglo-Saxons (Stenton Lecture. H ovannisian (ed. 6 1 -8 4 .

-----.).. Harvard Theological Review 25: 3 2 1 -5 9 . ‘Ä Propos du R elief “Sassanide” de Boşat en T urquie O rienta le ’. A Study in the Transmission o f Style (Selinsgrove. ‘The M onophysite response to the A rab Invasions’. ‘The W ork of D ionysius B arsalibi A gainst the A rm enians’ (ed. M ino rsky. J.) 1 97 9 .). ‘Les caracteres M esropiens (leur genese reco n stitute)’. 1983. N um en 13: 1 4 4 -5 0 . A. Bulletin o f The John Rylands Library. M ..). Geographical Handbook Series: Turkey (2 vols) vol. 1 98 4 . Religion 11: 2 6 5 -7 4 .). 3) (Los Angeles/Pico R ivera. M ira k . 1 979. M o o rh ead. Art and Technology (C am bridge. Y. 1 97 0 . Byzan­ tion 51: 5 7 9 -9 1 . ‘Lettre du P atriarche Jaco b ite Je an X (1 0 6 4 -7 3 ) au C atholique A rm enien G regoire II (1 0 6 4 -1 1 0 5 )’.) 1 98 8 . L. N ercessian. L.1981b. A bstracts in English and A rm enian. 1 94 3 . ‘The Conversion of A diabene to C h ristian ity’. N eum an de Vegvar. REArm ns 14: 5 5 -8 5 . B. 1993. J. H. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II. N o garet. pref.1980b. ‘N ear Eastern Bronzes in the W est: T he Q uestion of O rigin’. In S. London and Toronto). N au. 1966. Divine Liturgy o f the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church (5th rev. 1 1 6 9 -2 6 1 . M u tafian . Iranica Antiqua 18: 2 2 1 -3 2 . N ersoyan. ‘C aucasica IV’. 1984. V. Journal o f the Society for Armenian Studies 2: 5 1 -7 1 . M ass. ed. ‘The E arliest C hristian T heological Response to Islam ’. N ersoyan. ‘C rem ation and B urial in the Rom an Em pire’. Armenian Numismatic Bibliography and Literature (A rm enian N um ism atic Society. text. D oehringer et a l. M . tran s. 7. B. ‘The R elation of the M aro n ites of Lebanon to the M ard a ites and A l-Jarajim a’. E 1912. M anchester 15 (2): 4 8 9 -5 9 9 . ‘The W h y and W hen of the A rm enian A lphabet’. 1 8 9 0 to World War I (H arvard A rm enian Texts and Studies..T. R. 1 98 3 . 1 9 8 5 -1 9 8 6 . A. and tran s. ‘C ap padocia and A rm enia M ino r: H istorical Setting of the Limes’. C al. 1 0 9 -2 8 . N arkiss. M ouraviev.Bibliography 297 M ik irtitc h ian . M in gan a. D. W. tran s. an d com m . C. M itfo rd. N ock. 1987. J. tran s. Neusner. M ass.. 1 9 8 1 a. Engl. edn London). Le Royaume Armenien de Cilicie X IIе-X IV е siecle (Paris). Armenian Art Treasures o f Jerusalem (N ew York). ‘C oncluding R em arks’. (Berlin and N ew Y ork). -----. 1988. 1 9 8 0 a. w ith Engl. 2. The Northumbrian Renaissance. N aval Intelligence D ivision 1 942. 1 (O xford).. In C urtis (ed. REArm ns 14: 8 7 -1 1 1 . Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental and African Studies 15: 5 0 4 -2 9 . M u scarella. Cauca­ sian Review 9: 9 8 -1 2 2 . Arm . (ed. Speculum 4 4 : 5 9 7 -6 0 8 . 1 96 9 . Т. J. M uh ly. O . . T. C . 1931. Special P ublication no. Revue de I’Orient Chretien 7: 1 4 5 -9 8 . D. Torn between Two Lands: Armenians in America. 7) (C am bridge. 3 2 9 -4 2 . 1953. 1 95 9 . M oo sa. 1 93 2 . ‘Soviet H istoriography of the A rm enian N atio n ’. S. ‘Les caracteres danieliens (identification et reconstruction)’.

J. England. P orada. trans. V t). The Correspondence o f Sargon II. Armenian Architecture see Armenian Architecture. ed. -----. ‘Les Rites de la Penitence chez les A rm eniens’. 1 0 9 -3 2 .1 9 8 6 -1 9 8 7 . an d Engl. text and R ussian tran s. ‘Les inscriptions aram eennes du roi A ttaches’. 1982. N . Pfeiffer. R ush.1992. Repr. 1994. REArm ns 5: 9 -3 0 .). 1967. P arpola. The Kingdom o f Van and its Art (London). 1 986. Shiels (ed. ‘B yzantium and the K hazars: a special relatio n sh ip ?’.. 1972. In W. 1 982. 6 5 3 -7 . In P. E. ‘The A rm enian A rchitectural A rchives Project (A status rep o rt)’. trans. Irland und Europa: Die Kirche im Friihmittelalter (Stuttgart. 1984. Orientalia Christi­ ana Periodica 13: 6 4 8 -5 5 . A. -----. P arsegian. In J. Persica 10: 1 -4 6 . REArm ns 20: 2 5 3 -7 0 . P.1986.1 971b . F ranklin (eds) Byzantine Diplomacy (A ldershot. S. and Salvin i. B. and tran s. ‘ Researches in the R egion between the Z agros M ountain s and U rm ia L ak e’. N orehad. Zoroastrianism in Armenia (H arvard Iran ian Series vol. R EA rm ns 8: 169­ 74. Iranica Antiqua 7: 9 9 -1 2 0 . . ‘N otes sur le lexique iranien et arm enien ’. In K ouym jian (ed. thereof.).196 9 a. R ichter (eds). J. 1 98 4 . P. State Letters o f Assyria (N ew H aven. P ecoroella. J. S. Urartu (London). C. The Life o f Mashtots (N ew York). -----. 2 9 -4 2 . 1 982. -----. S. -----.1991. tran s. ‘Sur le m ot arm enien Buzand’. 1 -7 . R . R . Urartu. R ichardson. Part I Letters from Assyria and the West (State Archives o f Assyria 1) (H elsinki). C onn. S. Bells and P om egranates’. .298 Bibliography N oonan. H o garth . 1 93 5 . Pferikhanian.). 5) (C am ­ bridge. T ext of M . R aes. and B rookfield. 1947. В. of Engl. Palm er. H . 1964. A. Reynolds. In Sam uelian (ed. M ass. 1 98 4 . 1 2 7 -3 4 . w ith Arm. Pettersen. J. -----. 1 99 1 . ‘Inscription aram eenne gravee sur une coupe d ’argent trouvee a Sisian (A rm enie)’. The Ancient Civilization o f Urartu (London). -----. E. Persecution and Tolerance (Studies in C hurch H istory 21) (O xford). K lett-C otta).. Shepard and S. 2 4 3 -7 .). ‘Some Iranian Im ages of K ingship in the A rm enian A rtax iad Epic’.1969b . ‘ “To Flee or N ot to Flee”: An Assessm ent of A th an asius’s D e Fuga Sua’. . A. 1968. ‘Z oro astrian Problems in A rm enia: M ih r and V ahagn’. trans.1987. A. Death and Burial in Christian Antiquity (C atholic U niversity of A m erica. B. L. -----. . ‘The Concept of the H igh C ross’ . Piotrovskii (у). -----. N . A b elean ’s 1941 m odern Arm. J. G elling. ‘O f Deer. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 4: 1 5 1 -2 8 2 . Studies in C h ristian A n tiq uity 1) (W ashington). 1981. C h atain an d M . Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (O xford and N ew York). ‘W h y dirham s first reached R ussia: the role of A rab-K hazar relations in the developm ent of the earliest Islam ic trade w ith Eastern Europe’. R ussell. 1 987. H .197 1 a.). V. France and Christendom 1 3 7 7 -9 9 (London). E revan. REArm ns 8: 5 -1 1 . 1 9 6 7 . T. M . In Atti del Q uinto .. 1 94 1 .

(ed. I’ . 1 3 0 1 -1 4 8 0 (C am bridge. ‘H oly Land Pilgrim age of A rm enians before the A rab C on­ quest’. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 26: 2 9 3 -3 2 0 . Studia Caucasia 2 : 26— 47. and discussion. S an jian . Le Museon 82: 2 6 5 -9 2 . М . Journal o f Near Eastern Studies 2 6 : 2 7 8 -8 8 .) 1982. Sm alley. 1989. w hite and blue m artyrdo m ’. (eds). Sam uelian.) 1990. 1941.1969b . B. -----. 1 965. 2 1 -4 6 . 1971. W h itelo ck . S. The Armenian Folk Epic in Four Cycles. and Stone. Classical Armenian Culture (U niversity of P ennsylva­ n ia. Medieval Armenian Culture (U ni­ versity of P ennsylvania.) Sansterre. The Council o f Chalcedon and the Armenian Church (London). M . The Armenian Communities in Syria under Ottoman Dominion (C am bridge. Ill (London). I. Sancisi-W eerdenburg. 4) (Pennsylvania). 1967. Eastern Turkey: an Architectural and Archaeological Survey vol. Sarkissian . REArm ns 2 5 : 1 8 3 -2 5 4 . trans. J. . 1987. ‘A nastas V ardapet’s List of A rm enian M on asteries in Seventh-C en­ tu ry Jerusalem : A C ritical E xam ination’. In A. A. Scarborough. Media Atropatene und Gross-Armenien in hellenistischer Zeit (Bonn).). 1 96 4 . Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria (State Archives o f Assyria 4) (H elsinki). vol. C al. -----. Solecki. K. I. (Text. Shanidar (N ew York an d T oronto. 1 97 2 . J. B. (A nnotated selection in trans. (ed. 1 9 7 -2 1 2 . the original text translated with an introduction and notes (A thens. O hio). vol. Kuhrt and H. Les moines grecs et orientaux ä Rome aux epoques byzantine et carolingienne (milieu du VIes. 1 9 2 0 -1 9 7 4 ’ (PhD Dis­ sertation . A. The Study o f the Bible in the Middle Ages (O xford). ‘The Iranian Factor in B yzantium during the R eign of H eracliu s’.fin lX es.1 966. N. 6) (C hico. Colophons o f Armenian Manuscripts. II (London). 1986. C olum bia U niversity). ‘W as there ever a M ed ian E m pire?’. ‘The P olitical Integration of an Im m igrant C om m unity into a Com posite Society. M cK itterick an d D. . A. Sancisi-W eerdenburg (eds).) -----.Bibliography 299 Sam uelian. T. K. IV (London).1990.1994— 1995. -----. ‘The Site of T igranocerta. -----. 1965. 1 9 8 6 -1 9 8 7 . T. D. Achaemenid History III: M ethod and The­ ory (Leiden). Stronach. R EArm ns 2 0 : 2 3 7 -5 1 . I (London).1989b. R. E. R . 1988. Sch ah galdian . ‘U rartian and A chaem enian Tower Tem ples’.1 98 9 a. The A rm enians in Lebanon. Ireland in Early Medieval Europe: Studies in M emory o f Kathleen Hughes (C am bridge). K. ‘Red. 1 98 4 . М . -----. and London).-M . 1983.A source of G reco-A rm enian R eligious C ontroversy’. M ass. M ass. H . In D. Stone.). E. ‘Ctazatik ‘Erroneous Easter’ . S h alian . Starr. J. Shahid. -----. 1 979. Revue Biblique 93: 9 3 -1 1 0 . D um ville (eds). T. Stancliffe.). vol. C. ‘M edieval A rm enia’s Ancient M ed ical H eritage’. Schottky. David o f Sassoun. Arm enian Texts and Studies. 1982. A rm enian Texts and Studies.1 96 9 a. J. Sinclair. 1972.) (2 vols) (Brussels).

R EA rm ns 11: 3 1 3 -2 1 . tran s. 1 96 8 . Christian Missionary Activity in the Early Middle Ages (A ldershot. R. trans.). G. trans. Byzantion 38: 1 8 0 -2 4 2 . Anatolian Studies 4 3 : 8 5 -1 0 8 . History o f the Armenians.1977. 4 1 -5 1 . 1 9 8 6 -1 9 8 7 . . Sullivan. ‘V ardapet in E arly A rm enian C h ristian ity’. N Y). 1962. W. E. ‘Some D ynastic A nswers to the A rm enian Q uestion: A Study in East A n ato lian Prosopography’. and T hierry. D. 1989. Le couvent armenien d ’H ofom os (L o uvain-P aris). The Teaching o f Saint Gregory: An Early Armenian Catechism. and D onabedian. as Study IV in idem. Suny. Armenia and the Arab Caliphate (Erevan) (in R ussian). J. 1980. -----. Les arts armeniens (Paris). 4) (C am bridge. Hermathena 67: 7 3 -9 .1 9 7 5 -1 9 7 6 . 1982. J.1 98 2 a. R. ‘D iadochic coinage in Com m agene after T igranes the G reat’. Revue des etudes byzantines 34: 1 5 9 -7 3 . The Making o f the Georgian Nation (London). and com m . ‘Les im pots en nature en A rm enie ä l’epoque arab e ’. 1 976. 1993. M . H ants and B rookfield. Thom pson. (H arvard A rm enian Texts and Studies. (PhD dissertation . ‘C h ristian M ission aries am ong the H uns’. Ter-G hewondyan. Sullivan. -----. ‘N otes de geographie historique sur le V asp urakan ’. N. Moses Khorenatsci. N . 1987. 1946. U niversity of C alifo rn ia. ‘A rm enian Im m igration to the U nited States from the M iddle East’.1 9 7 9 -8 0 . Agathangelos. 1970. In Sam uel­ ian (ed. (A lbany. repr. T hierry. Sum m ers. First publ. Le M useon 75: 3 6 7 -8 4 . -----. M ass. 1 98 9 . Harvard Ukrainian Studies 3/4(1): 8 8 4 -9 5 . V t). T hierry. A. A. (Lisbon). Ter-Ghevondian. V. ‘Eliife’s History o f Vardan': N ew Light from Old Sources’. Armenian Art (N ew York). ‘Peintures m urales de caractere occidental en Arm enie: Eglise Saint-Pierre et Saint-Paul de Tatev (debut du X mc siecle)’. T alai. R. (C am bridge. ‘Khan Boris and the Conversion of B ulgaria: A C ase Study of the Im pact of C h ristian ity on a B arb arian So ciety’. A.). G. G. Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in M odem History (Bloom ington and Indianapolis). T akooshian. -----. 13: 1 8 -3 9 . J. 1976. History o f the Armenians.-M . ‘Le “Prince d’A rm enie” ä Pepoque de la dom ination arab e’.1973. D. and London).300 Bibliography Strzygow ski.1989. -----. -----. 1966. P. -----. Los Angeles). T hierry. Garsoi'an.1993. ‘Arm enian V ariations on the B ahira Legend’. 1994 (1 9 6 6 ).1978. an d com m . 1918. Die Baukunst der Armenier urtd Europa (2 vols) (Vienna). REArm ns 3: 1 8 5 -2 0 0 .1970. M ass. M . and com m . Armenians in London (M anchester and N ew York).1 97 6 . Thom son. T hierry. The Numismatic Chronicle 7th series. -----. -----.-M . E. A. 1966. Journal o f Armenian Studies 3 (1 -2 ): 1 3 3 -5 5 . H. -----. R. ‘A rchaeological Evidence for the A chaem enid Period in Eastern T urkey’. The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia trans.

-----. 1930. . G. M ass. A. In Atkinson et al. Repr. ‘The H istorical C om pilation of Vardan A rew elcci’. The n atio n .1 9 8 8 -1 9 8 9 .199 4 .1 985. ‘The W ill of a Provincial M agn ate. In M agd alin o (ed. -----.1971. ‘T covm ay A rcruni’s Debt to EliSe’. D ionysius A erop agita’. The History o f Lazar Pcarpecci (A tlan ta.1986b. History o f Vardan and the Armenian War. A. 1963. -----. Van Loon. History o f the House o f the Artsrunikc. -----. ‘The Bloodfeud of the F ranks’. 1994.1971b. (H arvard A rm enian Texts and Studies. W aterm an. R EArm ns 23: 3 93— 417. -----. (D etroit). 1960. 1962. M . 2 2 9 -3 1 . -----. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 4 3 : 1 2 5 -2 2 6 . In K ouym jian (ed. Byzantion 4 7 : 2 7 9 -3 0 0 . 7 7 -9 1 . Vryonis. ‘Jerusalem and A rm enia’. Repr. as Study XIV in Thom son. 1 99 4 . -----. ‘Les eglises d ’Ani d ’aprSs le tfemoignage des inscriptions’. In Sam uelian and Stone (eds). Traditio 27: 1 1 1 -5 8 . Ga). 1 97 1 a.1982b. -----. and London). 1 986. Toum anoff. 1982. Elishe. 5) (C am bridge. and com m. 1 7 1 -7 9 . 1 99 6 . ‘The A rm enian version of Ps. Tierney. 1958.1 989. Proceedings o f the 1983 O xford Patristic Conference (Leuven). REArm ns 6: 2 3 3 -8 1 . 1996. and tran slit. Vööbus.196 9 . Royal Correspondence o f the Assyrian Empire. REArm ns 16: 2 1 3 -1 9 . T ritle. W a llace-H ad rill. 1977. Jr. In E. ‘The Place of U rartu in F irst-M illenium B. J. S. M . Studies in Christian Caucasian History (G eorgetown). Acta Jutlandica 27: 1 1 5 -2 3 . ‘C aucasia and B yzantium ’.C. trans. L. E 1 994.).). S.1 99 1 . ‘The w isdom of Leo VI’. Analecta Bollandiana 89: 3 87— 418.1982c. 1 2 1 -4 7 . (Ann Arbor). 1984. S. -----. -----. In idem. ‘Ancient A rm enian T ranslations of the W orks of Syrian P hysician s’. REArm ns 8: 1 3 -1 6 7 . V ardan yan. trans. U luhogian. T rad e’. A ch ronological and gen ealo ­ gical co m m en tary’. 1957. and com m . 6 9 -8 0 . -----. In H aw kin s (ed. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 11: 2 6 3 -7 7 . 1977. Van Esbroeck. REArm ns 21: 1 7 1 -2 3 2 . ‘The Anonym ous Story-T eller (also know n as “PseudoSapuh”)’. nationalism and natio n al id en tity’.). 1994. Vt). The L ong­ Haired Kings (London). 1 2 -2 1 .1 9 8 6 a.1 98 4 a. -----. L. ‘T ’ovm ay A rcruni as H isto rian ’. Livingstone (ed. 1 977. -----.).Bibliography 301 -----. trans. ‘Un nouveau tem oin du livre d’A gath ange’. ‘M uh am m ad and the O rigin of Islam in A rm enian L iterary T rad i­ tio n ’. REArm ns 18: 2 2 1 -3 5 . Studies in Armenian Literature and Christianity (A ldershot.1984b. E ustathius Boilas (1 0 5 9 )’. as Study V in T hom son. pts I and II. A. (eds). M . ‘The third-century A rm enian A rsacids. H ants and B rookfield. Thomas Artsruni. C. ‘T atzates’ Flight and the B yzantine-A rab Peace T reaty of 7 8 2 ’. 8 2 9 -5 8 . 1 99 2 . M . History o f Asceticism in the Syrian Orient (2 vols) (Louvain). Tougher. ‘Tem oignages litteraires sur les sepultures de Saint G regoire Plllum inateu r’.

S.D . -----. 1982.) 1 9 8 1 . W orm ald. M . 46) (O xford). C. T. Pontifical Institute of O rien­ tal Studies). 1976.1980. . Byzantium: An Introduction (O xford. ‘The A rm enian P hilhellenes. 1 97 8 . A Study in the Spread of Byzantine R eligious and C ultural Ideas am ong the A rm enians in the Tenth and Eleventh C enturies A . REArm ns 16: 2 2 1 — 44. J. The History o f Theophylact Simocatta (O xford). Koriwns Biographie des Mesrop MaStocc Übersetzung und kommentar (Orientalia Christiana Analecta. W inkler. 3 2 -9 5 .302 Bibliography W eitenberg. 1 985. The Emperor Maurice and his Historian. tran s. W idengren. 1 3 9 -8 3 . 1988. ‘Bede. (ed. and W hitby. R EArm ns 10. Y uzbashian. W hitby. -----. -----. J. M. Eastern Churches Review 8: 4 5 -5 3 . Theophylact Simo­ catta on Persian and Balkan 'Warfare (O xford). ‘A rm enia in H ellenistic and Rom an T im es’ (M . 7 9 -1 8 2 . Z im ansky. ‘The H istory of the Syriac P rebaptism al A nointing in the Light of the E arliest A rm enian Sources’.1959. Y arnley. REArm ns 19: 8 5 -1 8 0 . W h ittin g. C am bridge Univ. D iss. 1 9 7 3 -1 9 7 4 . G. 1978. J.1994. K.1985.).’. “B eow ulf” and the Conversion of the A nglo-Saxon A risto cracy’. Farrell (ed. M .. P. -----. ‘L’adm in istration byzantine en A rm enie au x X е XIе siecles’. Das Armenische Initiationsrituale. 2 4 2 -5 7 .A .).. Bede and Anglo-Saxon England (British A rchaeological R eports. ‘O ur Present K now ledge of the H istory of A gatcangelos and its O rien­ tal Versions’. Whitby. 1982. -----. In R. Pontifical Institute of O riental Studies). W ilkin son . Untersuchung der Quellen des 3 bis 10 Jahrhurtderts (Orientalia Christiana Analecta. ‘A Fresh Look at the Ionic B uilding at G arn i’. In Sam uelian and Stone (eds). Orientalia Christiana Analecta 2 0 5 : 3 1 7 -2 4 . 245 ) (Rom e. Ecology and Em pire: The Structure o f the Urartian State (C hicago). ‘Recherches sur le feodalism e iran ien ’.1982. R . 217) (Rom e. G. REArm ns 14: 125— 41. Orientalia Suecana 5 (U ppsala). ‘An O bscure C hapter in A rm enian Church H istory (42 8 — 4 3 9 )’. ‘The Sacral K ingship of Iran ’.1982. N. revised edn). D. Entwicklungs-geschichtliche und liturgievergleichertde. 1 3 -2 8 . E. 1 95 6 . 1972. ‘Arm enian D ialects and the Latin-A rm enian G lossary of A utun ’. P. 1986. -----. P. In The Sacral Kingship/La Regalitä Sacra (Leiden).

. N o rsh irakan . 2 24 . 185 A bejean fam ily. 166. 138. 9 3 . 153 A dad-n irari III. 2 5 0 . 121. 137. 1 1 6 -1 7 . G. 73: origins. 36 A dam akert (m odern B aşkale). 141. 5. A rsacid. 2 0 8 . 54. 2 2 0 . 2 16 . 121. 9 3 . 1 42 . em pire. 138. 5 0 . 185. 67.1 5 5 . 2 5 5 . A gath angelo s. 6 9 . 2 22 A drianople. 2 26 . 2 5 2 . 231 A fghanistan. 43— 4. p atriarch s. ОТ p atriarch . 117 ‘A laro d ian ’. Teaching o f St Gregory. H am azasp. 9 1 . 4 2 . 2 1 8 . 2 5 1 . 3 8 . 2 29 Afshin. 152. 122 A busahl. 138. prince of. 9 1 . 176. İ 12. presiding prince. 2 0 . 4 5 . 2 5 0 . 6 9 .2 1 0 A gatcange|os. k ath o liko i. 226 A b asgia. 5 6 -7 . 9 9 . 99. 146. 6 8 . 89 A cilisene (Arm . 2 0 9 . 51. 101. 2 27 A bbas I.8 .1 3 2 . 2 0 2 . 2 4 5 . 7 2 . 71. 224. U rartian . 2 2 0 . 144. 195.). 2 17 A b raham . Sasan ian . 146. 218. statistics. 9 7 . 264 Abd a l-M a lik . 109. king of Arm enia (928-52/3). 2 25 . 1 9 1 -2 . 152. 197. 89. 3 3 . 7 9 . king of K ars. 147. 2 0 5 . C alip h (7 5 4 -7 5 ). 149. A laro d ian s. 2 0 2 . Gospels. 6 2 . 195 al-M an sur. 189 A b ljarib P ahlaw un i. 73 A dilcevaz. 5 6 . battle (37 8 ). A basgians. 223. 158. king of A ssyria (8 1 0 -7 8 3 в с ) . 155.1 0 0 . 176.4 3 . History o f the Armenians . 5 1 .2 2 5 . 137.9 7 . 2 9 . 5 5 -7 . 2 0 0 . 225 A chaem enids. 7 1 . 1 22 . 135. 3 3 . q. 94. 71.v. 6 3 . E kejeatsc). 2 09 A diabene (Arm. 177. 50.9 . 7 4. 2 1 2 . 93. 72. 158. 5 1 . C alip h (6 8 5 -7 0 5 ).2 2 6 . 185. 108. 169. 82. 2 10 . A diabenian m arch. N . 4 8 . king of V aspurakan (9 5 3 -7 2 ). 225 adm in istration . 2 51 . princes of. 23. 2 14 A lb an ia. 2 3 .2 5 9 . 186. 156. 1 4 7 -8 . 138. 2 2 0 . 2 0 4 . A lexan d er’s.Index A bas B agratuni: brother of King Ashot I. 3 9 -4 2 A dontz. 141. 153.. 72. 4 0 . N oshirakan. 149. 172 A lans. 2 2 3 . 73. 150.2 2 5 A doptionism . 130. 6 2 . A rtsruni. 16.2 5 1 . 88. 159. 11. 102. 115. 2 00 . C alip h (7 7 5 -8 5 ). kath o liko s (607-10/11 or 6 15 ). 125. 58 A jb ak. 150 A b garian. 169. 160 A ke. 170. A chaem enid. 1 4 7 -8 . A lb an ians (C au casian ). 175 a l-M ah d i. 121. church. 108. 91. Shah of Persia (1 5 8 7 -1 6 2 9 ). 223 .

16. 2 0 9 . 137 an ti-K ath oliko i. On Weights and Measures. N orm an p rin cip ality (1 0 9 8 -1 2 6 8 ). I of R ussia (1 8 0 1 -2 5 ). 6 3 .v. 100. 2 46 . 54. 123. 257. abbot of N arek. 72. 149. 6. 2 4 3 . 108. 76. 2 2 5 . 57. 1 5 1 -2 . (1139/40/41). 188 A nania. 175 Andzit (classical A nzitene. 2 2 .). C ouncils of (363). 18. 2 2 6 -7 . 95. 2 27 . 7 1 . 9 5 . 6 0 . 214 Angj (classical Ingilene. 2 2 4 . 2 2 9 . q. 67 A ntoninus. A rtem is). 82 A ppius C lodius. 2 3 3 . 134. IV. 2 7 7 A lzi. 72 Angj (Eğil. Seleucid king of Syria. kath o liko s (6 6 1 -7 ). 223 A nastas. 154. 113. 2 71 . 2 1 1 . 119. 100 A pahuni fam ily. 142.v. 79. 93 Antony. 258 Am m ianus M arcellin u s (c . 177. 5. 111. Peace of. 2 17 . 2 0 6 -7 . 9 3 . 154. origins. 2 6 1 . R om an em peror (4 9 1 -5 1 8 ). 61. 2 5 6 . 263. A rm enian. island. 7 4 .2 . house of. territory. 200 A m iw k. 253 A nania of Sh irak. 86. 2 58 .2 . 72. 226 A pam ea. 109. 110. 2 4 5 . bishop of. 2 1 1 . king of Com m agene. 2 2 . A ndzit). 82: A n aitis. 135. 75. 2 5 7 . 2 2 . apostates. 2 1 0 .6 . church. 148. 7 6 . 2 2 8 . a d 90-C . 2 23 . 151. 146. 226 apostasy. 177 Am azaspus II. 83. 6 3 . 162 Antioch. III. 162. 186. 123. 2 4 9 . origins. 23 . 7 3 . 156. 2 2 3 . 89.3 3 0 -e .165). 2 5 8 . 4 8 . 2 0 6 . 4 5 . city. spirits of. ’ 170 A lexander: of M acedo n . 2 2 2 . Irish. 2 12 . 2 0 9 . 165. 188. 30 A m atuni fam ily. 147. 101 Am berd. 65. 6. 2 0 5 .304 Index A ndzew atsci fam ily. 2 2 2 . q. 2 1 0 . 154 ancestors. 4 9 .v. 62. 5 5 . 215 A ltintepe. 157. 117. 17. 86. 192. 273 alp habet: A lb an ian. 111. 105. 241 Antiochus: I. R om an envoy. 1 2 2 -3 . R om an. 121 A nglo-Saxons. 183. veneration of. 152. battle of. T reaty of. 2 0 2 . 6 9 . 63 A p aran. 141. 2 0 5 . 30. 97. 85. 160. 2 0 6 -7 . 108. 100 A p aran k c. 123. 100. 2 24 angels. 2 12 . 162 A jdznikc (classical A rzanene. 82. 8 2 . 159. 71. 106. 2 00 . Assizes. 5 8 . 75. C ouncil of (969). 106. Seleucid kin g. Root o f Faith. q. M a rk see M ark A ntony A nzitene (Arm . 2 1 3 -1 5 . (K em ah). q. 121. 32. em ir of. 1 2 5 -6 . 83. 2 77 . 188. 81.). 2 6 1 . Sw edish. 2 2 0 . 135 A m sterdam . 6 2 . king of Iberia (a d 1 8 5 -9 ). 2 1 6 . 188 A nastasius. house of. 108. 197. 141. 128. C arcath io certa. 56. bishop of M an azk ert. 5 4 . 2 16 .v. 2 1 . 175 A pahunikc. 141 Altcam ar. 266 A lexandropol. 174.). Geography. 2. king of Com m agene (6 9 -3 4 в с ) . 121. 2 1 . 99. Rom an em peror ( a d 1 3 8 -6 1 ). 209. 196. Iberian. A rm enian. 134 an n exatio ns: B yzantine. 2 4 3 . 109. Italian. 111.3 9 5 ). 82 A n an ia. 6 8 . 2 1 4 . 2 4 7 -8 A ni. 182. 2 5 5 . 80 A ra-kha.). 136. 2 64 A ppian ( c . 102 AJbianos. 1 82 . 2 59 . 125. 216 A m erica. 101. 109. A naetic region. 2 5 5 . 4 0 . 2 6 6 . 153. 3. see also USA A m ida (D iyarb ak ir). 146. 144. 159. A m ericans. 140. 2 7 8 . kath o liko s (9 4 6 -6 8 ). 2 6 0 . 2 2 0 . 4 7 . 266 A nahit (A nahita. 2 5 . IV. 136 A jdzkc. m issionaries. 137. 2 5 3 . 89. 153.

1 6 0 -2 . 7 9 -8 0 . N ational A rianism . 115. 172. 117. 7 5 -6 . 6 9 . 3 2 . see also forts. 2 9 .1 7 2 . of C ap p ad o cia. 1 4 9 -5 0 . 2 0 5 . 1 6 8 .1 9 6 . K arabağ C om m ittee. 111 see G reater A rm enia. 34. 192. conquests. A raxes. A rm enia: A cadem y of Sciences. 2 2 5 . A rabs. king of M a rty rs’ D ay. 39. 17. River.1 6 6 . 135. 1 2 8 -9 . 1 7 5 . 196. C alip h ate. 23 buildings. 34. 174. 122.1 6 9 . 37. 105. 1 7 2 . 64. 2 4 9 -5 0 . 141. 2 2 5 . 1 7 3 . 11. 168. 178. 82. A rm enians. 4 9 . 1 6 5 . 133. 7 5 -6 : in C ilic ia . 187. 176. 6 0 . 2 0 9 -1 0 .1 8 7 . 2 79 . 2 2 7 . 115. 2 6 9 . II. 6 9 . 81. 176 144.1 9 6 . U rartians. colum ned. 2 74 . Archesh. h alls. N ation al U rartu. 1 0 5 -6 . 138. river see A raxes 2 4 7 -8 . 33. 1 2 8 -9 .1 6 8 .7 6 3 2 7 9 . 2 30 . 2 4 2 . 115. 147: attitud es to T igranes II. 7 9 -8 0 : attitud es to A raw e[ean fam ily. Sasanian king (shah) of E vangelical C hurch. 182: in A rm enia. 2 07 . Rom e.2 . 10. 45 C o nstitution. king of C ap p ad o cia. 39. 61. 2 54 . U rartu. 2 3 0 . C h ristian . 1 7 8 . 11. see also A rm avir. 2 5 1 : attitudes A ras.1 7 4 . 102. A raks). non-urban. 107. 100: see 103. A rdini. agreem ents w ith 4 8 . A rab ia. 2 63 : allian ce w ith A ram e. 148. 13. 7 5 . 121. 228 100. see also 146.1 7 6 . G reater Persia. 2 46 . 135. 4 4 . 4 9 . 2 7 8 -9 .2 1 9 . 230. king of C ap p adocia (1 6 3 -1 3 0 D eterm ination G roup. 2 7 . 256 em irs. 11. 2 6 1 : inheritance. 64 C hurch. 2 43 . A raw enean fam ily.6 3 . 47. 85.1 6 8 . 135. 1 3 1 -2 : attitudes A rarat. 94. U rartian . 2 4 1 . 13. 1 6 6 . 111. m iddle. P ersia. 21 . 6 0 . 63. 7 2 -4 . 2 5 9 -6 0 . A nglo-Saxons. A raks. 186. 5 4 . 9 7 -9 . 85. 1 0 6 -7 . 170. 5 6 . 43 252: gawitcs. 6 0 . 2 7 2 . 5 4 . valley.1 0 1 . 3 2 . 7 9 -8 0 : attitud es to 101 Sasan ian s. 36. 17. 62. basin. 61 A riobarzanes. origins. A rab ian m arch. 49. 255 111. 8 4 . A ribaeus. A ras.1 9 5 -6 1 3 1 -2 . 109. 121. 4 9 . 142. 78 A ristakes. A rew o rdik0. 140. Lower. 2 5 6 -8 . in A rm enia. 1 3 7 -8 . see M usasir 13. 58 relationship w ith crow n.7 8 5 -c . 164. 2 6 6 . 12. aristo cracy: A rm enian. 123. 3 0 .2 2 5 .1 3 1 . 102: succession. 2 46 : relatio ns w ith Sasanian architecture. 129. A rgishti: I. 2 3 7 . 30. в с ) . (Turk. 112. 144. 2 1 6 . 139. river see A raxes to P arth ia. em irates 121. 2 76 .1 9 2 . 33 P atriarch . 2 4 8 . alp habet. 9 7 -9 .2 0 4 . plain.7 4 . 97: 13. 112. 2 6 4 . 134. 2 4 7 -8 . 5 9 . 147.Index 305 A rin-berd (Erebuni).1 7 7 . 16. upper. 2 79 . provincial o rganizatio n . Lesser see Lesser A rm enia. 155: 172. 1 9 0 -2 . king of C ap p adocia. tem ples A postolic C hurch. A rzanene 1 7 5 -6 . lan guage. 37. 2 1 4 . 142. 85. 106. 4 2 .2 0 0 . p atriarch of A rm enia. 147. 4 6 . 2 1 6 . 7 3 . II. 3 4 . 2 57 : origin s. M ovem ent. 150 G eneral Assem bly. of L astivert. N orm ans.1 7 4 . 67. also fam ilies. 19 to A rabs. 68 P atriarch ate. 95. m t. 3 0 . 2 48 .6 9 . 4 5 . 11. 4 0 . king of A rm enia. 36. 210.6 4 . 9. urban life. 134. 2 6 9 . 1 3 1 -2 . 102. king of U rartu (e. 127. 5 4 . 126. Arm. 71. 2 6 6 . 1 6 6 . 2 78 .6 7 . 101. mod. 4 3 . 170. N ation al A riarath es: II. 2 57 . 4 0 . 31. в с ) . 2 51 . 103. 5 6 .. 18. A rdashir I. 3 3 -6 . N atio n al Self­ V. C h ristian Arm enian: A rm e. 64.

2 3 9 . 5 5 . 2 3 6 . (4 0 4 -3 5 8 в с ) . 173 A rrian. 2 6 8 -8 . 6 3 . 2 24 A rsanias. 2 5 7 A rm enia: A cadem y of Sciences (contd) C onstantinople. 2 0 . 2 5 7 . 172. 2 2 9 . 2 6 6 . 271 A rm enians: in B yzantine em pire. 2 . 2 23: Inner.7 9 . 1 3 3 -4 .6 . A rsacid. 2 6 3 . 30 A rshak (classical Arsaces) see A rsaces A rsh akaw an . 1 7 2 -3 . 2 6 9 . 2 1 3 -1 6 . 2 39 A rtash at (classical A rtax ata). 24. Roman/Byzantine provinces I: 154. 1 3 -1 4 . S asan ian . 2 6 1 . 7 5 . 2 76 . 137. 33. 2 6 3 . 108. 2 7 1 .306 Index A rsacid fam ily. 2 64 . H arab a). 81. 7 2 . 13. 137. in Iceland. 137.38). 1 5 8 -9 . 2 63 . 93. 11. 7 1 -2 . strategus. 183. 2 1 . 104. 16. 115. 4 7 -8 A rtabanus: III. 2 1 . 2 6 3 . 6 3 . 123. 2 5 1 . 86 A rsam es. 204. (Turk. 2 1 . Islam ic. in O ttom an em pire. 111. 6 3 . 87. 4 7 . H unchaks. (Arm . 2 7 8 . 2 6 0 . 17. R ussian. 2 3 0 . A chaem enid. 2 3 3 . 2 1 0 . 78 ‘A rtaw azd ’(classical A rtavasdes): son of A rtax ias I. 138. IV. 1 57. 183. 2 2 8 . 157: IV. 68 A rsam osata (m od. 71. 106. IV. 155: A rm eniakon them e. 16. 2 5 3 . 144.8 5 . 151. Persian. 2 69 . 157. 2 7 1 . 136 A rslantepe. 1 5 5 -6 . king of P arthia (a d 12-C . ‘A rtaw azd ’. 57 A rtax iad s. 11. 2 7 4 . C h ristian . 120. 194. 6 8 . 2 7 2 . 2 04 .8 3 . 174. 154. in Persia. R epublic. in C alifo rn ia. 3 9 -4 0 . 104. 61. 155. A rtaw azd ). 2 33 . 2 7 1 . in C ilicia. 18. 2 3 3 . 153. 2 71 . 275. 4 7 . 1 2 5 -6 . 1 6 -1 8 . 183 A rtax ata (Arm . 153. 2 6 6 . 173: M am iko n ean (7 7 4 ). 71. 117. 141. II. in N orth A m erica. see also A rtax ata Artashgs (classical A rtaxias) see A rtaxias A rtavasdes (Arm . 22. in South A m erica. 84. 1. III. 2 35 . 192. A rtaw azd . A rshak): P arth ian king of A rm enia. 62. 127. (5 5 -3 4 в с ) . 2 7 5 . 91. 2 7 3 . 2 7 6 . A bbot of E rashkhavorkc. in C an ad a. 9 1 . 2 3 3 . 2 5 2 . 9 6 . early m odern. 2 6 6 . 2 2 6 -7 . 1 3 1 -2 . 2 7 0 . 7 8 . 173. 84 A rtaxerxes: A chaem enid k in g of Persia. 85. 2 3 0 . 129. M u ra t Su). 21 art. 157. 100. 2 5 5 . 2 79 . 2 3 8 . see D ashnaktsc utc iw n. 164. 2 4 2 -3 . 157: II. 231. 134. 9 3 . T urkish. 125. 2 4 2 . 2 7 8 . 2 1 . 1 5 3 -5 . River.8 7 . 154. 141. 14. 2 6 2 . 2 3 6 . 244 A rsam eia (Eski K ähta). 78. 2 2 . 187. 189. 75. in the Rom an em pire. 144. 2. 157. 2 64 . 160. elsew here. 2 73 . 2 6 4 . 7 8 . U rartian . 2 2 9 . 115. Entruni. k in g of A rm enia. 19. 2 6 4 . 2 58 . see also diaspora A rm in iya. 138. 1 7 3 . 2 3 5 -6 . 2 2 .7 8 . 1 5 8 -9 . 2 6 8 . 2 7 5 . 2 6 6 . 2 3 7 . 9 7 . 113. R evolutio n ary Groups. in the H oly Land. 135. in the USA. 176. III (3 7 8 -9 0 ?). 79. 82. 160. 2 7 2 . 2 1 0 . 157. 7 6 . 8 1 . 5 5 . 94 A rtan uj. another. 183. 2 77 . 2 3 7 . 142. 2 1 . 138. 1 4 6 -7 . 2 3 8 -9 . 71. 105. 2 2 5 . 8 5 -6 . 2 6 2 . character. 148. 2 7 1 . king of P arth ia. terrorists.2 1 0 . 154. 169. 2 7 7 . II (35 0 ?— 67/8). 2 5 6 -8 . 2 7 5 . 6 1 . A rtash at). 2 7 5 . 9 3 . 84. 1 0 4 -5 . A rtaw azd M am iko n ean . 2 3 . province of A rab C alip hate. 179. proto-A rm enians. 2 75 . A rsacids. II. 136. 5. in w estern Europe. 173. 2 5 9 -6 0 . 149. 189. 157: III. 3 7 . 103. 138 . 97. 154. O rontid king of A rm enia. Soviet. 2 78 . 158. 2 3 6 -4 1 . o rigins. 1 3 1 -2 . 100 Arsaces. 2 77 . 138. 170. nam e. 2 7 5 . III.1 1 0 . 2 7 0 . 2 4 9 .

origins. forts. 2 14 . king of V aspurakan (9 7 2 -8 3 ). 149. 190. 2 47 . 154. II A rtsruni. 127. 5 4 . A rab ian m arch. 179. 2 7 7 .3 2 . 1 7 4 -5 . 192. 19. 30. k in g of Iberia. A|dznikc. 223. gods. 7 2 . k in g of A rm enia (952/3-77). 73. (6686 3 1 ? о г 6 2 7 ? в с ) . 162. 2 5 3 . 144. princes of. 207. 181. 188. 150. St. 115. 197. 78. 17. 2 9 . H ash tean kc). 208. 9 7 . 2 30 A ssyrian m arch. 182. 4 8 . sources.35 4 ). 2 55 . 128. 97. 102. 7 3 . A rtashes): I. 17. 2 2 5 . 137. 2 2 5 . 2 0 . IV.a d 14). 160 Avars. 2 09 A zerb aijan . 2 9 . q. 157. 2 2 1 . 172. III. presiding prince. 1 9 . 2 0 2 .4 1 . 101. 2 2 5 . 112. em ir of. 220 A shot. (435/436). 2 1 1 . surnam e. 173. 73. 178. 261 Artsn. 27. 2 0 8 . 279 A zzi. 2 04 . 177. 2 25 . 151 A ugustus. 82. 100. 173. 181. 175. 2 0 0 . 183. 150.2 0 .Index A rtaxias (Arm . 2 0 . Media Atropatene A tticus. 2 3 6 . correspondence. 63. 2 2 0 . p atriarch of C onstantinople (4 0 2 -2 5 ). kings. em pire. 71. 178. 170. 3 4 . 175. 2 0 8 . of Tarön. 184. 150. 225 307 A shtishat. q. 4 4 . 2 0 0 . 131.). 10. 151 A sh urb anip al. 2 5 7 . 138. 123 Athens. 21. 72 A rzashkun. 19. king of A ni. 2 0 4 -5 . 133: origins. 2 2 3 . 2 24 . 19. 19. 177. king of A rm enia (8 8 4 -9 0 ). an n als. 99. 2 1 9 . 179. 7. 72. 177. 2 7 . 4 3 . 182. 33. 31. 91 A yas. 1 2 8 -9 . I of Iberia (8 1 3 -3 0 ). 2 02 . 17. C ouncil of (c. battle of. 14. 2 09 . 29 A spurakes. p ro p agan da. princes of. 96. 2 5 8 . 7 4 . 30. 177. 197.5 4 A shurnasirpal II. 78. p atriarch of A rm enia. 34. 2 0 5 -6 . 196. 3 3 . 2 60 . 129. 2 40 A vdoyan. 95. king of A rm enia. 150. 125. king of A rm enia (4 2 2 -8 ). 10. 10. 5 8 . king of A rm enia. 132. 1. king of A ssyria (8 8 3 -8 5 9 в с ) . king of M a n a . see also Corduene Asthianene (Arm . landholding. 42 Arzn (? T igran o certa. 95. 73. 43. 84. 2 0 . 2 19 . 177. 181. 2 02 . 2 27 A shot-Sahak. 81. 44 A ssyrians. 224 Ashot of Siw nikc. 196. 73. 133. 213 A xidares. 177. 176. 208 Ashot B agratuni: of Tarön. 182. azats. 3 2 . 127. 2 19 . 2 5 . 2 00 . Rom an em peror (27 b c .). 30. 148 Artscakh. 2 0 8 . 134. 174. 122. 6 7 -8 . 173 Ashot: I A rtsruni. 16.. 228 Artsruni fam ily. 100: origins. dyn asty of. (85 0 ). 74. 108. 54 A rzanene (Arm . 84. 173. 197. A trp atakan ). 2 24 A tropatene (Arm . 2 0 4 . 177. of G regory B. II. 138. 2 0 8 . 14. 195. 155. 6 5. 183. ill. 136 A ssyria. 10. 158 A trp atakan see Atropatene-. 2 0 6 . 261 A za. II. L. 156. rebel. 56. an ti-kin g. 2 04 . 2 2 6 . 123. 176. II. king of Iberia. 72. 2 0 5 -7 . king of A ssyria. 16. 4 0 . 2 2 6 -7 . 135. presiding prince (804). 2 2 5 . 2 1 0 . 25 . 2 1 1 -1 2 . 2 0 9 . 181. 2 2 8 . 31. 5 8 . (747/8). 179. king of A rm enia (1 8 9 -1 6 0 в с ) . 137. IV. 142. 7 2 . 146. 2 2 6 -7 . s.v. king of A rm enia (3 4 -2 0 в с ) . 2 0 7 . 2 0 0 . 2 5 8 . 105 Avarayr. 261 A yrarat. 83. ninth-century power. 31 azat. 113 A trnerseh (A darnase). 5 9 . 2 19 . records. 2 6 7 . 100 Atcanagines: son of Yusik I. 4 1 . 2 7 3 . 2 38 . 2 2 4 . 175.v. 2 1 8 . 146. 2 5 8 . 91. 2 28 . 137. 71. 6 9 . 183.

174. 97. 268. 187. 2 2 . king of Iberia. 2 77 . 7 2 -3 . 3. 10.. 208 B abik the K hurram ite. 115. Phocas. 218 B astam . 239 B orborites. 271 banquets. 32. 2 26 . 157. 233 B ith ynia. 19. 122. 2 4 1 . 166. 2 1 1 . 2 27 .3 3 0 -7 9 ). 2 2 7 . 41 bdeshkh see m arches Behistun (Bisitun). II. king of B ulgaria. 2 1 3 . River. bishoprics. 2 2 5 -6 . 31 B aghdad. lan dho ldin g. Pasinler) 103. 222. 132. sources. 179. 2 2 2 . T reaty of. 177 B erlin. S. of Tarön. 3 4 . 1 92 . 2 0 8 . Byzantine em peror (8 6 7 -8 6 ). 56 B agaran. bishop of. 2 2 4 . 196. 2 47 Bogom ilism . 187 B agdatti of U ishdish. 101. 273 B lack Sheep (K ara K oyunlu) Turkm en dyn asty. bishop of C aesarea (c . 2 1 5 -1 6 . 2 2 5 . 135. 2 3 7 -8 . 2 0 4 -5 . 175. 2 28 . 2 4 4 -5 : see also Old Testam ent. Sclerus. 6 0 . 2 7 . 157. 176. 172. 262. 189. 2 6 7 . P. 2 2 1 . 10. 94. 2 2 7 . 236 B asil. 2 70 Bible. 151. 1 44 . 226 B agaw an . 2 27 . G reat. 1 75 . 2 4 7 -8 B erkri. 177 B agrew and. 131. 151. 2 31 . R om an. 1 8 3 -4 . 2 12 . 103. 2 5 3 . 254 Basean (classical P hasiane. 188. em irs of. 108. B yzantine em peror . 6 1 . 158. governor of A ni. 157. 2 2 4 . 2 62 Beowulf. 2 7 4 . 192. 2 1 4 . 1 2 8 -9 . 144 B agratuni (B agratid) fam ily. 137. 62. 2 7 4 . 151. 1 81. 142. 170. 2 6 4 . 2 00 . 6 2 . 191. 2 7 0 . 85. 2 5 8 . 9. 32. 73. 64. 226 Bartholem ew. 154 B alaw at. 224. 153 Boris I. 2 0 4 . 2 0 7 . 176. 2 4 3 : biography. 149 B ardas. 1. 154. 2 4 2 . 11. 117. 9 6 . 105. 117. 132. 142. 11.. 183. St. 2. 2 2 4 . 2 16 Black Sea. 2 0 5 . 184. 2 2 8 . 9 3 . 141. E ustathius. 104. G oltcn).1 0 .3 08 Index (9 7 6 -1 0 2 5 ). 174. 2 9 . 2 3 . B abylonia. 111 B itlis. 127. kings. 2 2 4 . 2 3 8 . 2 0 6 . 260 bishops. rebel (976). 196 B abylon. 2 39 . 2 2 5 -6 . 173. plain. 6 7 . 2. 82. 2 0 2 . 2 1 0 . 130 Babgen of Siw nik0. 2 0 7 . p atriarch of A rm enia. 182. 2 37 B ardas. 275 Benedict XII. 2 61 . house of. 49 B eirut. 107. 2 18 . 122. 2 7 3 . 184. 2 2 6 . 194. 1 90 . 193 B iw rakan . 169. 2 3 7 . 100. 9 . Pass. C . 120. 3 4 . 2 60 . 72. 2 4 1 -2 B raund. origins. 170. 58. 80 B ritain. 7 8 . Iberians. Pope (1 3 3 4 -4 2 ). 132. of Colthene (Arm . 176 B alabitene (Arm . 228. 174. 2 7 1 . 97. 2 3 7 -8 . 176. 9 5 . E rzincan. 162. apostle. 153. 85. 174. 184. 1 8 1 -2 . 195. 91. gates. 2 2 3 . 141. banqueting. 177. 2 0 5 . and histo rical w ritin g. 32. 209 B agarat: king of A b asgia. 133. 2 1 2 . 123. 229 B agarat B agratun i. 2 2 6 . 176. 2 2 8 . 137 Brkishoy. 221 B agarat. 8 1 -2 . 151 Brock. 2 2 6 . lan dho ldin g. 5 1 . prince of A rm enia. 153. 2 0 2 . British M useum . IV of Iberia. 2 0 . 136. D. 131. 133 B oilas. 2 0 9 . mod. 2 0 5 . 1 3 8 -9 . 153. 2 41 . 18. Caesar. 2 6 6 . 2 26 B ardas. 2 6 9 -7 0 . 157. 2 1 1 . 2 2 7 . 2 2 4 . 5 9 . 185. 263 bloodfeud. 2 3 6 . 33 B alkans.1 1 . p ro p agan da. 2 2 6 -7 . 138. B alaho vit). 186. 58 B asil: I. 241 Bohtan Su (eastern T igris). 2 2 2 .

2 48 . 227. 169. 174. 6 9 . 2 2 9 . king of France. 157. Rom an em peror (a d 2 1 1 -1 7 ). 174. 7 1 . 156 2 57 . 9 3 . 102 C arcath io certa (Eğil A rm . 2 4 8 . 2 66 C aucasus. 2 4 9 . 2 3 6 -7 . 1 38 . 2 3 5 . 2 3 6 . 115. 2 04 . provincial organizatio n . 122. charters see donations 5 6 . 2 2 . 3 9 . church building. 2 09 . 99. 120. influence of.). 2 1 8 . 158 111. 173. 95. 2 2 0 . C ap p ad o cia. 27. 196. 76 C asp ian Sea. R . 3 8 . 9 4 . 241 C atherine the G reat of R ussia (1 7 6 2 -9 6 ). and K hazars. 169. 154. 74. 159. 72. q. 2 24 . 1 6 9 -7 0 . 263 Bzhnuni fam ily. p lain . 170. 186. 63. E jm iatsin. 6 0 . q. 137. 2 3 0 . 2 41 . 173. 5 7 . battle of (89 6 ). 2 1 2 .v. 2 5 . 228. 69 C h arlem agn e. m ercenaries. q. 115. 83. 71. 76. 141. 173. C h ald aean s. 3 8 . 144. 2 2 8 . T i l C halcedon. 5 7 . 248 B ugha. 37. 5 7 . kingdom . q. 183. horses Ç avuştepe. R . 4 5 . 62. 3 3 .). 2 5 0 -4 . 190. 173. 82. 6 3 . A. 101. 2 29 . 243. 2 2 5 . 2 1 6 . 2 6 3 .. coinage. 2 0 4 -5 . 9 5 . 2 2 8 . 144. 10. 250 B ulgarophygon. 137. Arab treaty (689). C hlom aron (T igran ocerta. tribes. 17. m ts. 9 3 -4 . C ouncil (692). 181 cavalry. 166. 156 C asp ian e (Arm . 149. 186. 172. 2 55 . 2 3 9 . 2 2 4 . 2 51 . 174. and Turks. 2 2 7 . 2 11 . 177. 58 96* 103 C h ald aei. 1 68 . 2 3 9 . 243 C apetrus. 6 3 .164— after 2 2 9 ). 96. 2 5 6 . 225 C aesarea in C ap p adocia. 6 9 . . 2 3 7 . 135. 6. 264 Cholarzene (A rm . 2 3 7 . 2 9 . 57. 2 5 5 . them es. 2 28 . 173. 67 229 ch arity. 5 9 .v. 2 2 5 . 2 5 0 . 2 0 4 . 2 5 8 . 6 0 . 4 0 . 2 4 9 . 138. 2 0 4 . C ouncil of (45 1 ). K azbkc). 2 49 . 169. 2 2 2 . C h alybes. V ajarsh apat. 195. 175. battle of. 6 7 . A ngj. 6 5 .v. society. 51 C aesar.v. 158. q. 161. Ju liu s. 2 47 . 2 2 6 -7 . 106 castles see forts C atharism . 76 C h ald ia. 75. 153 C arrh ae. battle of. 9 1 . 84. attitud es to. 85 C arduch i. 93.). 182. an n exatio ns. 7 9 . 34. 182. 2 2 . 179. 2 4 3 . 242. 5 4 . 5 8 . cap ital cities. 1 6 8 -7 0 . 152. 7 8 . 2 3 0 . B ulgars. 178. 3 2 . 5 9 . 113. C aro lin gian s. 2 2 2 . 2 40 B row ning. 2 1 6 . 197. 3 9 ^ 0 Brown. 7 1 . E. 2 2 3 -7 . 34 B ulgaria. C h ina. 228. 89 C aenepolis. 69 C arenitis (Arm . 112.). 2 4 0 . 2 27 .v. 2 31 . 2 3 6 . see azats. 86. 2 10 . see also church union C h alcis. 173. 197. 166. 2 3 9 . 106. 2 46 . 81 C arac alla. 1 5 1 -2 . 149. 93. 2 6 2 . 5 6 . 204 burial see funerals B yzantium : em pire. 7 2 . 54 309 229. K larjkc. 5 1 . 146. 6 8 . 2 64 144. and A rabs. 168. 2. 6 9 . 2 2 0 . 177. 2 00 . 136. ‘N ew C ity’ (Arm. 96. 2 14 . 228 C harles VI. 174. 137. 158. 2 0 2 . 30. 2 2 0 . 172. 87. 132. 221 B ulank. 275 C am bysene.). 183. 128. 2 04 . 63. 1 6 8 -7 0 . 2 2 8 .. 8 5 . bronze-w orking.Index bronze. 4 3 . 32. 2 4 2 . 2 2 3 -4 . 2 40 . 11. 2 1 . 1 cap ital city. 7 3 . 2 3 9 . 113. 11. 79. K arin. 135. 224. 17. 174. 2 4 2 . 136. 31. 2 7 3 . 129. 2 27 . 187. 5 0 . 67. 173. 2 46 . 36. 137 C assius Dio (c. 185. 101.

188. property. 217: 81. 119. 2 1 2 . 85.). 173. 2 21 . (1 0 4 2 -5 5 ). 193. 1 4 7 -8 . 149. 173. B yzantine em peror revenues. 2 16 : decoration. 116. Apostolic. 131 2 3 7 . G ojtcn. 2 6 2 . buildings. IV. 2 5 6 . II. Chosroes see Khosrov C hrist. 196 C olchis (K ulchai. 104 C lovis I. 74. spread tow ards A rm enia. 184. 1 6 0 -2 .). 8 4 . 9 4 . q. 185. 162 C olthene (Arm. 2 0 5 . m ilitary aspect. 172. 194. 146. 2 45 . 1 5 1 -2 . 147. 2 5 1 . 63. 2 0 4 . 2 51 : Typos.1 7 . 5 9 . 1 4 7 -8 . 1 4 . B yzantine em peror (1 0 5 9 -6 7 ). 162.1 5 7 . 190. 2 0 0 . 1 1 9 -2 2 . 172. VI. 104.v. C h ristian A rm enian: Com m agene (ancient K um m ukh. 128. 154. 168. A rtax iad . in A rm enian history. m artyrdom . Rom an. V. . 5. 2 3 6 . 2 2 0 . and 194. 176 C hurch. 87.1 0 4 1 1 1 -1 2 C o lon eia. 140. 141. C onstantine: I. 169. (G eorgian). 1 1 5 -1 6 . 8 4 -5 . 112. 2 0 8 . Rom an em peror (4 1 -5 4 ). B yzantine. 89. 2 4 0 -1 . 123. 1 5 9 -6 0 . 2 0 . 78. 146. 75. 131. of 246. 108. em peror (9 1 3 -5 7 ). 2 7 3 . 97. B yzantine from R om an. 160. B yzantine C hurch. 7 8 . 2 5 2 . 96. 2 4 3 . 1 5 5 -6 . 3 2 . 58 C itharizon. 6 0 . in A rm enia.v. 88. 2. C hristology.1 6 6 . k ath o liko i. 188. 189. 152. 2 6 4 . dedications. 275 C im m erians. 86. 117. 9 1 . 2 0 7 . 2 24 . 2 0 2 . 194. 2 23 . inscriptions. 1 1 5 -1 6 . 252: B yzantine em peror (6 4 1 -6 8 ). 1 8 5 -6 . 5. 166. 69. 162. w ealth . 112. 7 4 -5 . 2 5 6 -8 . 1 2 2 -6 . 1 6 0 -2 . 136. conversion. 2 64 . lan d-h oldin g. 86. (3 0 6 -3 7 ). . 2 76 Porphyrogenitus. 6 8 . 2 29 Christopher. 131. 2 4 6 . 2 5 5 . 166 1 6 4 -5 : size. C onstans: I. 156. 113. 2. 2 31 . ap p earan ce. k ath o liko s. 251. 1 5 6 . 119. C ilician . 45. 2 13 . 6 2 . 2 5 9 .1 6 8 . 123. 63. 158. 1 27 . 6 9 . 166. 108. 2 6 0 . 23 co in age.). 2 5 3 . 117. 2 29 C ilicia. 158. 165. 83.v. IX. 155. 2 2 7 . 2 5 2 . VII. 11. 251: 195. 2 50 . 83 client kings. 79. 158 C laud ius. 169. X D ucas. q. 8 5 -6 . 6 9 . 2 5 7 1 3 5 -6 . queen of Syria. 71. 184. 2 7 4 . 80. 7 1 . 196. 128. 2 6 4 . 3 0 . 2 50 . 73. 151. 150. 2 0 0 . 105. 186. 78. 174. C ouncil (69 2 ). 165. 84. 194. 2 7 6 . 2 1 2 -1 3 . 89. C onstantine: of A b asgia. 174. 148. 1 6 0 -2 . king of the F ranks. 79. 123. 2 7 6 . 127. Rom an em peror. B yzantine. 7 6 . 162. Byzantine em peror church union. 262 2 2 4 . coins. 79. 169. Rom an em peror possessions. 2 1 6 . 1 6 9 -7 0 . 185. 132. 222. 6 9 . 1 9 0 -2 . 2 22 . 147. 2 4 1 . 101. 195. 82. 2 61 . 3 1 . 6. q. of C om m agene. 2 2 5 . 133. 1 2 9 -3 1 . 181. 3 2 . 149. E vangelical. 123. co ntinuity from Paganism/ Z oroastrianism . Lam bron. 1 95 . queen of E gypt.310 Index 2 7 1 . 256 C h ristianity. 2 49 . 1 27 . 192. 159. 195. 76. 157 2 1 4 -1 5 . from Iberian em peror (7 4 1 -7 5 ). 2 1 2 -1 3 . 158. O rontid. 141.1 5 8 . 173. 2 52 : design. 2 4 3 . 1. 120. 130. 2 1 5 . 2 4 4 . 2 5 1 -3 . 1 6 9 -7 0 . 3 0 . 172. 257. A rsacid. 113. 2 1 2 . 157. 6 5 . 120. 2 50 . 96. location. (6 6 8 -8 5 ). 71. 85 C leop atra: Selene. 103. 170. em peror (7 8 0 -9 7 ). Byzantine sep aratio n. 178: m otives. w ife of T igranes II. 2 64 : account of. 1 8 7 -8 . C onstantinople. 156. 2 5 0 . 2 2 0 . 2 0 6 . 119. 2 22 : com prom ise. 1 2 6 -3 2 : problem s. 147. 173. 89.

5 4 . 62 D iakonoff (D’iakonov) I. 2 7 4 .6 . 181.1 5 0 . 4 9 . 184. 2 7 2 . 1 1 1 -1 2 . 76 D em etrius. 2 4 1 . 95. 2 7 0 . 165 D avid B agratuni: of T arön. 59. 20 d iasp o ra. 2 63 . king of V aspurakan (9 3 7 -5 3 ). 2 2 7 . 2 5 5 . 61 D ashnaks. 2 6 4 . 206 D ayaenu. churches.4 2 . valley. 84. 2 44 . king of G alatia. 158. 5 7 . 56. 2 5 8 . 225 D iadochi. 1 2 0 -1 . em irs of. 2 0. 2 44 . 2 2 6 . 101 Dio see C assius Dio D iocletian. 115. 127. 5 6 . 2 3 9 . 5 . 67 Der M an u elian . 2 5 . 2 5 3 . 27 dead: com m em oration of. 76. 50. 2 5 . king of Persia (c .. 191.. 262. 2 3 3 . katholikos 311 (7 2 8 -4 1 ). 10. Rom an gen eral. 270. D ashnaktscut'_ iwn (A rm enian R evolutionary Federation). 2 6 8 . 76. of T aykc.). Achaem enid king of Persia (5 2 2 -4 8 6 в с ) . dynasty of. 2 1 9 -2 0 . governor of Syria. 1 1 2 . (4 2 3 -4 0 4 в с ) . 3 9 . 162. 123. cult of. 236 C rim ea. 2 1 5 . 59 Digenis Akritas. 169. L. 56. A rm enian. 144 C yprus. River.. origins. 2 0 5 . 2 2 7 . 117. 4 5 . 101. 19. 159. 2 07 . 95. 11. 2 6 6 . 2 49 D erenik-A shot. 2 2 7 . 150. 261 C tesiphon. 149. 1 1 2 . 2 7 1 . 120. 2 . 7 1 . 117. 80. 194 donations. 2 5 4 . 116. see also consecration C rassus. 158. Sah arun i. and see Ajtcam ar C rusades. 125. 2 58 . god. 87 C orduene. 144.1 3 4 . 101. hero. 5 5 . 1 1 5 -1 6 . III. treatm ent of. 1 9 1 -2 . 2 7 6 . 206. 133 C onybeare. 2 4 . 125.1 1 3 . 2 5 0 . prince. 193. of Lori. 2 1 7 -1 8 .1 7 0 . 263. R om an em peror (284— 3 05). 123. 2 2 2 . 2 6 4 . and G oliath. 2 67 C orbulo. F. 111. 2 5 9 . the Invincible. 91. of T ashir-D zoraget (98 9 /91-1048). 128.. see also gawars disunity. 200. 1. 259 . М . 87 crem ation see funerals C rete. princes of. q. 2 61 . 2 1 2 . 111 D eiotarus. 7. 102. 123. 2 15 . 7 9 . 2 50 D ivrigi (Tephrike) see Tephrike D iyarbakir. 1 7 4 -5 . 279 D iauekhi. 16.Index 2 2 3 .4 0 . see also funerals D ecius. 96. 58 D aniel of A shtishat (? A crites). 186. 2 4 6 . 2 0 2 . (classical A m id a). 2 1 4 . 2 6 6 . Rom an em peror. 275 D ash takaran fam ily. 2 7 4 . 170. 149. 197 David o f Sasun. 2 22 . gran ts. 2 4 3 . C rusaders. 2 3 8 . 134. 242. 54.1 3 6 D arius: I the G reat. 275. 14. II. 2 2 6 -7 . 2 3 5 . 2 12 . 2 53 . in tern al. 2 2 6 . 179. 258 D ocetism . 7 9 . 4 6 . 2 41 . 95. 2 4 3 -4 D im akcsean fam ily. Seleucid king. 30 coronations: U rartian . 182. 121 districts.v. 176. 2 1 1 . 195. 2 5 6 -7 . 2 4 9 . 176 D avid. 55. 5 1 . K ordukc. 7 5 . 2 6 9 . 2 1 . 16. A ssyrian m arch. 100. (Arm . 5 7 . C . О Т king. 150 Ç oroh. 2 08 . 170. 4 9 . 57. 4 4 . 2 6 8 . 162. 9 9 . 2 1 0 . of G andzak. 2 3 6 . 194. I. son of king Ashot I. A rtsruni. 132 D ionysius: bishop of A lexan d ria (2 4 8 -6 5 ). 6 2 . 2 2 6 . 2 6 3 . 50. 6. 123. 60. 17. 80. 3 6 . 83. 275 C onstantius II. 2 4 4 . 225 D izak-K ctish. 88. 222 D avid. 5 1 . 2 1 1 -1 2 . 2 2 6 . 160. 1 3 3 . P. 2 6 3 . 195.5 5 9 -5 3 0 в с ) . 2 4 6 . 135. 275 C yrus. 30. 2 4 2 . Bek. 248 C ross. Rom an em peror (3 3 7 -6 1 ). 2 2 1 -2 . (3 3 7 -3 3 0 в с ) . 266 C rone. 2 5 . 192.

225. 2 2 7 . 2 4 2 -3 . 121. 2 5 .312 Index D ualism . basin. 5 8 .v. governors of. 2 3 3 . kath o liko s (9 3 6 -4 3 ). 2 4 7 -8 . 273 2 4 7 . dukes. Egypt. 4 5 . 154. 189. 2 30 . 126 170. 2 09 . q. 185. 2 04 . 130. 100. 3 1 . 2 7 0 . 2 6 0 . 188. 2 4 2 . Ephesus. 54 East India Com pany. Erez. A rab see Arabs 2 6 4 . 185. 2 46 152: (5 5 2 -3 ). 2 6 2 . D uin. 2 1 2 . 1 5 9 -6 0 . 83. 2 62 147. see also E ruandashat. 18. 10. 162. 3 4 . 2 4 . 101 2 3 1 . 2 4 4 . 14. 193. 256 E rgani. 181. 122.v.v. 150. 4 1 . E sayi. 43 C ainepolis. 2 46 . 111. A. 183. 162. abbot of N ichc. River. 2 0 9 . 149. 14. 2 0 2 .1 3 9 . 64 2 62 . E lishe. 2 66 . 2 6 8 . 2 6 9 . 129 151. B. E ruandakert. 3 0 . 105. Pass. classical C arcathiocerta T heodosiopolis. 157. w estern. 11.). q. 2 50 : History o f Vardan 11. 6 7 . 63. 11. 2 5 0 . 2 0 6 . 151 d ynasticism . 2 69 166. 161. 86. 11. dynasties see fam ilies E pisparis. 1 3 0 -1 . 2 1 3 . 2 7 7 . 12. 236 2 7 1 . 2 3 0 . 152: (55 5 ).1 3 8 . 8 9 . 1 2 9 -3 0 . 2 6 8 . 22 E keleatsc see Acilisene E ucharist. Easter. 2 27 E piphanius: of C yprus (e .). 2 1 . 2 60 Eğil (C arcathio certa) see E rzurum (Arm . R. 30. 89. 138 20).1 4 8 . W . k in g of A ssyria (6 8 0 -6 6 9 Ejmiatsin (V ajarsh ap at. 2 2 0 . 195 E lazığ. 11. 2 4 5 . 2 1 . K arin. 2 4 9 . 6 4 .1 4 9 Epipcan . 168. 154. G erm anic. 2 2 . 2 24 . 98. 150. Europe.).v. 84. 194 D yophysites. classical в с ) . 173. 2 24 education. 11 eunuchs. 152. 95 2 7 4 . 212 196. 188.). 165. 127. 5 4 . 103. 2 12 . E razgaw orkc (S h irak aw an . 241 E rzincan. origins.. 6 7 . 186. 4 3 . 2 4 0 . 2 51 . 3 6 . 272: Saxon. 206. 144.3 1 5 -c . 9 9 . 1 8 7 . 190. 112. 2 6 3 . 2 2 6 . B ible. 2 13 . 2 0 0 . 2 52 E revan. 151. q. 2 78 : A llies. E gyptians. 166. 96. 231 E lia. 111. 193. 2 3 3 . Epic Histories. 1 9 5 -6 . Anglo2 7 4 . 5 8 . of Salam is. 197. em irs. 168. E ntsayatsci fam ily. I. 11. 1 5 8 -9 . 156: (645). 16. 112. . 161. 190 144. 12. 140. 2 04 . 105. 11. 278 Edessa. and the Armenian War. upper. 2 7 1 . valley. 195 2 4 5 . 71. 252 6 9 . 2 7 2 -3 . 63. Euphrates. E ngland. 106 schools E ruanduni fam ily. 5 9 . 30. 2 57 . 131. P arliam ent. 2 11 . 24 1 5 9 -6 0 . 178. 38. 2 1 . 2 7 9 . 2 16 .1 3 5 . 2 5 9 . 19. 97 2 16 Erebuni (A rin-berd. q. 111. 69. 2 12 . 160. 78 D ziw nakan fam ily. 247: (648/9). C hurch of. 131. 97. 186. 2 5 7 . 17. 2 10 . 106. 2 3 0 . 162. 216 ethnicity. 136. C ouncils of (506). 108. 2 7 . 275 E sarhaddon. kath o liko s (7 0 3 -1 7 ).4 0 3 ). espionage. 2 7 7 . 2 4 5 . 193. 2 75 . 156. 2 4 . 16. 197. 135. queen of A rm enia. plain. C ouncil of (43 1 ). 120. 1 4 1 -2 . Gospel.1 8 9 . Emesa. 2 4 9 . 5 4 . em irates. 2 0 9 . 158. 150 2 0 5 . 2 1 1 . 151. 166: (719/ 1 3 2 . 7 2 . 17. 264 Ё гё т іа п . E lvard. 98 1 88. 150. 2 4 . 223 E rato. 2 5 5 .1 3 4 . 7. 2 7 4 . 19. 9 5 . E lizavetpol. 186. 150 E dw ards. 103. 109. 2 7 5 . 2 7 0 .. eastern. northern (K ara Su). 85.

2 1 4 . religio us. 2 1 6 . 106. 2 07 . 2 6 8 . 95. 183. 4 5 . kinship ties. 192. 104. 2 3 . 2 3 1 . 106. G aius (C alig u la). 197. influence of. 96. U rartian . 1 2 0 -1 . 60. 2 16 . 157. 84. 74. 2 1 9 . 162 313 154. feasts. 235: also aristo cracy attitud es of C h ristian churches. 99. 165 G arni. Gabnamak. G andzak (Shlz). 158. 2 4 1 . 110. patro n age. 156. 2 7 1 -2 . 2 54 flow ers. 2 1 3 -1 4 . 2 2 7 . 2 5 6 . 246. 176. 4 5 . 30. 116 165. 4 8 . 4 4 . 4 6 . 84. 2 3 6 -7 . 182. 37. 2 5 3 . 86. 99. A llies. 1 3 4 -5 . 9 7 -8 . 125. 111. 172. Franks. II. (2 9 3 -3 1 1 ). forts. 89. 2 59 . fortresses. 1 7 8 -9 . Syrian s. 2 4 3 . A pum ruan. 2 74 . 176. 220. crem atio n. 269 Eusebius of C aesarea. 75. 115. 4 2 . 134. 2 5 3 : p ainters. 106. 2 43 . 2 6 4 . fam ilies. 133. 1 2 0 -1 . 2 04 . 158 First W orld W ar. 246 feudalism . tem ples. 46. 2 0 7 . Athenian rheto rician . 2 3 6 . 192. 3 0 . 120. 2 77 . rites. 2 6 6 -7 1 . 111. 1 0 1 -2 . 1 2 0 -1 . 106. M edes. A rm enian aristo cratic. 1 8 1 -2 . 2 2 6 . subinfeudation. 111. 2 9 . 8 2 -3 . 1 7 5 -6 . 245 Ezekiel. festivals. 179. 243 Frederick B arbarossa. 18. 192. grave-goods. 2 0 9 . 2 5 7 . x ii. 97. 177. 221. 184. fiefs. 75. 110. foreign 27. 129 G ardm an. 205 5 8 . 3 1 . 2 4 2 . 2 0 8 . 2 0 9 -1 0 . 2 56 . 2 2 8 . 108. 9 6 . 162. 106 58. 2 24 . 2 13 . 2 5 7 -8 . 141. b u rial. H uns. 109. 247. 2 0 . 182. Sasanian s. 2 16 . Greeks. custom s. 157. of A ni. 60. 2 44 frontiers. Rom an em peror P arthians. king A lans. 2 0 6 -7 . 156. 1 0 0 -1 . G agik A rtsruni. 98. 4 0 . 2 0 2 . G angra. 84. 5 4 . A rabs. 63. 177. C aesar. 4 5 . 125 G agik B agratuni: 1. 2 5 5 . 138. F ran cia. C ouncil of (c. 2 58 . 2 28 . 21. 2 6 6 . 2 0 8 . 2 1 . 7 2 . 2 6 1 . Ecclesiastical History. 165. O ld Testam ent Book of. 146. see 1 2 2 -3 . 2 30 . 7 1 . 83. 108. 2 0 4 . C im m erians. 2 55 . 5 6 . 83. 175 fire. G alerius. 272 2 1 1 . 2 02 . 4 5 . 2 02 . 84. 2 6 1 . cult of. 2 6 6 -7 : travellers. 109. 2 0 0 . 56 France. 193. 80. 7 5 . 4 8 . 2 1 2 . Rom an legions.3 4 0 ). 19. 125. 74. A ram aic speaking. in B yzantium . king of Ani (989/ folklore. 73. 74. 83. 106. rock tom bs. 1 5 3 -4 . 99. 84. 2 3 3 . 2 6 4 . 2 09 . 5 8 . 255 C ilician s. 60. 115. 2 6 6 -7 .6 . F ranks. 54. 123. 257. 2 7 3 . 68. 2 0 5 . 2 1 8 . . 43. feudal system . 146.7 7 1 ). 42. 2 1 5 . 9 0 -1 0 2 0 ).Index research. 2 6 0 . Rom an soldiers. 182. A rm istice. 2 08 . 1 7 7 -8 . 150. 2 74 funerals. 18. 183. 99. 102. rebel (c. 109. 2 5 0 . 2 1 6 . 79. 7 5 . 110 195. 2 77 103. 2 77 G abelean fam ily. 2 46 . 58. king of V asp urakan. 7 4 . 20. 159. 109. 78. 272. 85 85. (Throne List or Rank List). 104. 2 1 9 . castles. 2 45 . R om an em peror (3 7 -4 1 a d ) . 101. 154. 2 63 . 59. decline. 6 1 . 106. 4 7 . Scyths. 61. festivals. 2 1 . 29. 200. king of Kars (1 0 2 9 -6 5 ). 4 5 . 9 5 . 7. Persians. 2 9 . 181. 2 7 5 . 2 0 5 . 158. 2 9 . 109. 51 Eznik. 105. 120. 4 5 . 2 63 . Jew s. 1 0 9 -1 0 . 135. 2 6 9 . 178. m ourning. 9 6 . vassals. 106. 2 4 5 . 2 2 . 122. 2 07 . 6 9 . katholikos (630— 41). 111. 14. 2 2 1 . 4 5 . 63. 2 04 . origins. 125 foreigners in A rm enia. 1 9 5 -6 . 259 96. 2 6 2 . 2 4 0 -1 . R om ans. 80. 144. 56. 103. 3 4 -6 . 2 4 3 . 175. 182. 174. 85. 85. 150-1 Ezr.

6 1 . 150. 2 2 2 -3 . 2 71 .. 178. 38. 109. 112. 2 0 8 . 122. 1 1 6 -1 7 . 7 4 . Aparankc. 278 2 2 6 . 2 3 . Geography. 2 5 9 .v. 2 7 6 . 4 5 . 62. 2 5 7 .. 96. 2 4 9 .2 7 9 influence of. 1 8 1 -2 . 101. see . 1 9 5 -6 . q. goddesses: A rm enian. O ld Testam ent Book of. 9 7 . (? Goths. Genoese. 63. 2 2 8 . Gnuni fam ily. 57 G erm any. 2 66 . 2 6 2 . 196. 151 G regory. 223 G eorgia. 2 00 . Gntcuni fam ily. 195 B yzantine. 2 4 6 . 2 3 1 . 138. 188. em irs of. Garsoi'an. 126. 2 1 2 . 108. 149. 2 3 1 . VkayasĞr. 135. 2 56 . 128. W.3 3 0 -c .2 . G ugarkc. 94 2 2 0 -1 : Book o f Lamentations. 136 2 0 4 . 115. Rom an em peror ( a d G regory: of N arek (c . 147. 193. 89. G enesis. 2 2 7 . 123. R om an.3 9 5 ). 175. 204. 123. 179. 4 4 -5 M ero vingian . 79. 226 rebel (747/8). G reeks. 7. 11. Gnostics. 2 7 1 . 146. princes frescoes. 2 1 3 . of Tatcew 73. 187 A lexan der’s. 2 21 : History o f the Holy Cross at G ordias 1 of P hrygia. 2 4 3 . 2 3 . 159. М . Z oroastrianism . 6 . 14 Gordyene (Arm . N. 231 G nosticism . 140. 5 8 . q. 69. 2 4 6 . 146 2 2 7 . 2 25 . 115. 91. 101. 72. 6 3 . king of G eorgia (1 0 1 4 -2 7 ). III. 113. 188 see also H ellenistic influence George: I. 57. 4 8 . G aul. 169. of G oshavankc. 2 1 8 . 190. 108. genocide. Teisheba G regory M agistro s. 274 256. see also 2 3 3 . 147. 6 1 . A rm enian. 6 3 . 2 21 . prince (6 6 1 -8 5 ). 141. A ssyrian. 76. early F rankish. 2 5 9 . 2 3 8 . Tsopckc M ets). 62 Persian. 5 6 . died G orbachev. 115. Korchc6kc). A rab . 74. 104. 2 50 K haldi. battle of (331 в с ) . 75. 2 02 . 86. 176 G ordian. 2 6 8 . 8 3 -4 . A ssyrian. territory.314 Index also ostikan. 279 862. 3 4. churches. 192. St. 2 2 8 . 136. 72 G enoa. 2 55 . 2 0 2 . 194.. 2 2 0 . 181. 125.v. 5 6 . 19. 129. q. 120 162 G regory the Illum inator. G regory-D erenik A rtsruni. of the A rsharunis. 33. B agaw an ). G regorid fam ily.). 20. 54. 137 governors: A chaem enid. 148. 4 2 .2 7 7 . bishop. 2 2 5 . 2 26 . 2 5 8 . U rartian . 2 0 0 . 144. 109. 2 5 8 . 183 gods. 173.7 . 170. 72. Gind. 2 4 5 . kath o liko s 2 2 7 . 137 (c . church. 2 3 3 . 144 G regory M am iko n ean : presiding G ojtcn (classical C olthene. G ayian e. 154. 2 0 4 -5 . 2 3 3 .1 3 4 6 -1 4 1 0 ). 176. 2 7 8 . Gregory. G ogarene (Arm . see also A nahit. 157 G reater Sophene (Sophanene. (1 0 6 6 -1 1 0 5 ). 183. G augam ela. 176. 2 1 6 . 255 7 3. rebel (97 6 ). 111. 4 6 . 2 22 G reater A rm enia. 2 33 . 2 3 1 . 2 2 9 . E. 257 G regory B agratuni: of T arön. kath o liko s. 2 2 9 . of N yssa (c . 2 5 8 . 121. 57. 2 4 2 . 72: origins. 2 62 Tours. 172. 179. St. 82. 150. G iw t. U rartian . 155.v.9 5 0 -1 0 1 0 ). 186. 249 of. proto-G eorgians. 2 2 8 . 100. 233 Gregory. 2 0 0 . 2 1 7 . G eorgians. 2 49 . 6. p atriarch (4 6 1 -7 8 ).). 258 Greece. 2 7 . 2 4 7 . Late grants see donations R om an. 67. 2 2 8 . S asan ian . 7 9 . A rm . 1 5 5 -6 . G regory: II. 139. 74. 135. 149 G ladstone. 45 grave-goods see funerals gawars (districts). 2 3 8 -4 4 ). 1. 2 2 2 . 176. 165. 174. kath o liko s (1 1 1 3 -6 6 ). 2 1 9 . 100. 123. 2 0 5 . 2 15 . 162 91. 2 3 5 . 2 5 4 . G.

146. Armenian. 1 5 9 -6 0 . 2 1 6 . 127. 2 7 6 . king of Cilicia. 2 1 2 . 107. 2 1 3 . 107 Heaven. /Kwirike. 224. 79 Hisham. 190 Hell. 7. 2 5 2 -3 . 185. 5 9 . 116. 2 6 0 . emperor (of Germany). 196. 6 4 . 147. 2 0 2 . 119. 231. 109. 2. emirs of. 1 4 6 -9 . Soviet. 102 Hormizd. 1 8 8 -9 Heniochi. 2 4 7 . 129 Gugarkc (classical Gogarene. 252 Hecataeus of Miletus. 93 Henry VI. 162. annals. 89. 1 5 9 .1 9 6 . 2 4 4 -5 .). 2 0 7 . 220 Grigoris. sixth-century Sasanian king (shah) of Persia. 5 . 2 5 7 Hormizd-Ardashir. 184 Hannibal of Carthage. 257. 170.4 1 ). Iranian. 128. 9 1 . king of Chalcis. q. 4 0 . 2 3 6 . 5 4 . 2 5 7 Hephthalites. 2 1 9 -2 0 . 1 5 8 -9 . 219. 2 1 9 . 183. 178. 2 2 6 . heretics. 103. 225 Gurdi. 14. 6. 2 0 5 . Hasanlu IV. 59 Hetcum: I. 60 Hadrian. 2 6 3 . Hellenizing school. 1 7 5 . 2 4 . 256 Hewsen. 2 7 8 . 2 7 6 -7 History o f Taron. 250. 2 4 . 2 4 4 . 27 . records. 4 . 91 Hagia Sophia. father. 225 Gymnias. 1 4 8 -9 . 2 0 . 168. 2 5 9 . 2 3 9 . R. 278 Hittites. 277 Herod. 183. A. 2. language. 2 3 7 . brother of King Gagik. 18. 2 5 6 .v. 211 Hasanlu. 6 8 . 30. 76 Herodotus. 86. q. 24 hazarapet. 6 1 . 206 Gurgen: of Iberia. 97 . origins. Roman emperor (ad 1 1 7 -1 3 8 ). 5 6 . 206 Hamazasp Mamikonean. 165. sources. 58.v. 54 Holy Land. 3 2 . 168. 60 Gyumri (formerly Leninakan)..Index 2 0 4 . 60 Herzfeld. 9 4 . 1 2 6 .1 6 5 . 128. Apupelch. Hetcumids. 220. E. 2 2 0 . martyr (786). 2 0 7 . 2 2 6 . 121. II. 14. sparapet. 169. 233 Harkc. 5. 179. presiding prince. 5 0 . 49 Hashteankc see Asthianene Hawenuni family. 2 7 6 . 1 8 9 -9 0 . 81. Caliph (7 8 6 -8 0 9 ).1 4 7 . 67. 224. 2 3 5 -6 . 1 5 0 -3 . 2 7 6 -7 . 18. 2 0 9 . 5 1 . 168 3 15 Hellenistic influence. 2 3 8 . 168. 2 0 2 . Turkish. 2 3 3 . 144. Sasanian king of Persia. 2 4 . 172 historical writing. 2 5 9 . 2 6 8 . 13. 10. 100. 225 Heraclius. 30. 255. 157 Horomos. 2 5 . 8 8 . empire. Caliph (7 2 4 -4 3 ). 2 6 0 -1 . king of Cilicia (1 2 2 6 -7 0 ). 2 6 2 . 51 Helen. 56. 7 3 . 8 3 -5 . king of Iberia. 146. 2 4 6 . 2 4 0 . 241. 2 7 7 -8 . 117. 2 0 5 . 2 1 3 . 175. 2 0 7 . 206. 2 0 8 . 4 7 . about Armenia. heresies. 186. 174. 181. 2 3 1 . 97 Hayasa see Khayasha Наук. bishop of. 1 8 1 -2 . 2 4 9 . 243 Hamazasp Artsruni. 2 2 6 . 57 . 2 5 8 . 186. king of Norway (c.). 225 . 184.. 2 3 7 . 54. Places. 2 3 8 -9 . east Roman emperor (6 1 0 . 54. 2 2 2 Harun al-Rashid. 14. -Khachcik. 2 1 9 . 2 2 1 . 2 3 7 heresy. 2 0 5 -6 . 175. 2 1 0 .1 0 4 7 -6 6 ). 2 0 5 . 172 Hasan Artsruni. 5 1 . 5 7 .. name. 2 1 3 . 206. 146 Her. 6 3 . 2 5 0 . 2 5 . 6 3 . 5 8 . king of Vaspurakan (9 8 3 -1 0 0 3 ).1 5 8 . 84 Haraba (Arsamosata.1 6 0 . 3 7 . 2 0 9 .1 6 2 . 125. 181. wife of Gregory Mamikonean. 91. 2 1 8 horses. 233. 221 Hitler. 2 0 5 . 2 5 0 . 169. H . II of Taykc (9 1 8 -4 1 ). 3 3 . presiding prince. 59. 221. 1 0 . 63 Harald. 29. 2 2 2 . 13. 186. 19 Gurgen Artsruni: brother of Ashot I. 2 4 .

26 3 . 2 2 4 : of Siwnikc. 174. 9 3 . revolt against Rome. 238 imagery. Byzantine. Hskay. 4 4 . 8 1 -2 . names. 19 Hübschmann. 116. 1 0 5 . 69. 264 inscriptions. 2 2 .v. 4 1 . 107 humanitarian concerns. 23. king of Urartu (c . 2 6 1 . Irish society. religious. 36. brother of Hetcum I. Christian. 85. 10. 205. 2 7 1 . Pope. 73. 2 7 8 . Synod of (1179). 6 0 . 2 1 6 . 170. 144. cult. 4 9 . 2 5 9 . Iranian-speaking population. 130. 2 3 3 . patriarchs. 2 3 9. 2 6 8 . 2 0 4 . 2 6 1 . 252 India. 156. 210. 4 7 . Virkc). 224. 4 8 . 3 4 . 95. 1 2 5 . 1 6 4 -5 . 157. 123. 194. 158. 135. 54. 2 4 2 Irene. 123. 109. 1 2 2 -3 . 2 5 2 . 58. 9 1 . 2 5 7 . ishkhans. 128. 160. ishkhan of ishkhans (Prince of Princes). 2 2 2 . 13. 17. 182. 2 1 2 . 187 Isaac. Hunchaks. Sasanian. 2 6 0 . 106. 1 6 9 -7 0 . Arsacid. 2 5 2 . 148. 5. 155. 123. Gospels.1 9 4 . 6 2 . 2 4 3 . 243 Jason. 109. 5. 148 images. 89. 105. 1 5 5 -6 . hunting. 194. 168. 82. 96. 158. 63. 14. 174. 235. 2 1 5 -1 6 . language. 39. 152. 197. 162. 124. 164. 115. 7 6 . 194 Ignatius. 9 6 . Byzantine empress. 16 Jerome. 197 Ishpuini. 1 3 2 -3 . 226. 2. 3 3 . 1 6 4 . 18. 2 6 4 .. 2 3 3 . 262. school of. Byzantine patriarch of Constantinople. 1 6 4 -5 . 63.8 2 5 -c . 32 . 7 2 . 40. 141. 38. 89. 27 0 Huns. 187. 2 6 0 Iberia. 81. 37. 165. influence of. 256. 153. 130. 164. 100. 146. 2 6 4 Jesus see Christ Jews. 123. 2 1 7 -1 8 . 2 7 3 -4 Hunchakian Revolutionary Party. 2 3 5 . Siwnian bishop.v.. 96 Inner Armenia. 194. 160. 2 2 4 .316 Index 4 0 -1 . 9 4 . 165 John: archbishop. 107. 61. 2 4 3 . 166. 2 1 0 . 137. 227. 89. 2 7 5 . 263. 154. q. 257. 25. 1 1 0 -1 1 . 103. 5. 126. 106. 27. q. 30. 64 .3 4 8 -4 2 0 ). St (c. Iberians (Arm. 263 Jacob. 177. 38. 1 0 6 -7 . 108. Roman. 17. 229. 155 Innocent X I. 169. 153. 174. 190. Angeltun. 179. anti-katholikos. of Bagaran. 11. 13. 170. 150. Hripcsime. 256 hskay. 214 Hromkla. 4 8 . 159. 195. 121. 144. 128: of Larissa. 67. xii. 91. 2 0 4. 80 ishkhan. 162. 7 8 -9 . 39. 192. 174. 2 6 0 . 123. 67. 246. 137.1 3 0 . 243 Jerusalem. princes of. 142. 111. needs. 160 Hurrians. office. 47 Islam. 2 0 2 . 170. 2 3 9 . 24. 225 Iconoclasm. 95. 135. 151. 184. 2 5 7 . cult of. 2 3 6 . 275 Italy. 99. in Armenia. 251 Iberian march. 105. 119. 4 8 .). princes of. Iranians. 37. 101 Ibn Hauqal. 169. 120. 4 6 . 2 4 2 -3 Iran. patriarchate of. 1 2 2 -3 . 193 Iona. 9 8 . 184 hunts. churches. 223. 2 3 3 . 264. bishop. . 101. H . 112. 172. 256. 85. 266 Ingilene (Arm. 46.). 8 1 -2 . 37. 10. 141. Chrysostom. 2 7 4 .8 1 0 в с ) . 33. 2 4 4 . 2 3 1 . 157. 148. 3 0 . 173 irrigation works. 2 7 5 Ireland. defence of. 2 6 9 -7 0 . 155. 170. 89. 36. opposition to. 2 0 . 153. 61 Iraq. 162. 261 Istanbul (Constantinople. house of Ang|. 2 6 7 . 44. 18. St. 4 3 . 112. 2 4 4 . 176. 72. 107 intercession. fourth-century Armenian. 245 idols. 146. 83. B. patriarch of Constantinople (3 9 8 -4 0 4 ). 185. 3. 19 hymns.

152. 4 0 . 1 2 5 . 3 2 .2 4 6 . 165.1 8 7 . origins. 123. Byzantine emperor (9 6 9 -7 6 ). Mayragometsci. Against the Docetists. Erzerum.1 9 4 . 211 Kavad-Shiroe. katholikos (717/ 8 -7 2 8 /9 ). 100 Kapan. 36. 2 1 3 Karin (classical Carenitis. 97 Julfa.1 9 3 . 2 5 8 . 4 6 . 176 Khosrov (classical Chosroes): king of Armenia. 219 John. 63 Kemah (Ani) see Ani (Kemah) Key o f Truth.1 5 2 . katholikos. Malalas. 10. katholikos (7 9 5 -8 0 6 ). the Baptist. 196. 2 6 1 . 11. 152. 191.1 9 3 . 164. Byzantine patriarch of Constantinople. 1 5 4 -5 . 45 Kcajberuni family.1 9 4 . 4 2 . 125. 96 Khayasha (Hayasa). 6 2 . 208. 2 1 0 . 54. 147. patriarch of Armenia. 126. 101. 225 (ps) John Mamikonean. 4 6 . 134 Julius Caesar. 2 2 3 . 4 7 . 266 Karmir-Blur (Teishebaini). 51. 216 John X . 4 7 . 253. Byzantine emperor (6 8 5 -9 5 and 7 0 5 -1 1 ). king of Ani (1 0 2 0 -4 1 ). 1 5 2 . 271. 229. Mandakuni.1 8 5 . 3 4 . 54. 224. 127. 2 0 0 . 213. 2 4 . katholikos. Theodosiopolis. 2 5 0 . 245 Jovian. 100. Against the Paulicians. History o f Taron. 154 317 Kamsarakan family. Sarkawag. 2 1 6 . 2 6 3 . 2 5 9 . 2 3 . 197. 277 Kars. Jewish historian (ad 37-after 95). 2 3 1 . 2 5 4 . 196 Khlatc. 23 Kharput. 176. mod. 95 Kara bag. Jewish Wars. of Odzun. 2 1 9 -2 0 . 14. 2 6 4 . 25 Khazars. 86. 157 Justinianopolis. 2 0 2 . 54. 2 1 1 . 2 1 0 . 173 Josephus. Roman emperor (5 1 8 -2 7 ). 154. Sasanian king of Persia. 33. 211 Kara Koyunlu (Black Sheep). 2 7 3 . 2 1 3 . 2 0 5 . 67 Karapet. people.7 . 69. 2 6 6 . 2 0 4 . List o f Katholikoi. 2 1 9 -2 0 . (St Karapet). 1 2 7 . 2 0 9 . 225 Khorkhoruni family. . 225. 2 6 4 . 162: Call to Repentance. Khaldi-ti. 2 6 6 . 133. 4 4 . 4 1 . 191. Roman emperor (5 6 5 -7 8 ). 93: II. 227 Joseph. 4 4 . 207. 128 Khaldi. churches. 224 khachc kcars. 106.1 8 5 . 2 0 9 . district. the Grammarian. 169. (958). Roman emperor (5 2 7 -6 5 ). 158 Kayahdere. 183.2 5 2 . 259. 175 Kazbkc see Caspiane Keban Dam. 204. I. city. Council of. 202. St (John the Baptist). 85. 1 9 1 . 2 3 7 .1 8 9 . 4 1 . 17. 4 9 . 12. 216. History o f the Armenians. 260 Khad. 205. 1 6 9 -7 0 . Roman emperor. 2 6 5 . 146. vicar. 245. 266 Julian. patriarch (4 7 8 -9 0 ). 134 Judaea. 57 katholikos (katcojikos) (head of the Armenian Christian church). 150.Index Curcuas. 2 5 4 . 177. 172. 76 Justin: I. 156. Roman historian.). 69 Justinian: I. 2 2 4 . II.v. 2 3 1 . 195. 174. New Julfa. 24. 39. 2 6 7 Khachcik. St. 192. 126 John III. Syrian Orthodox patriarch (1 0 6 4 -7 3 ). II. 227. 121. 2 3 6 . 187. 274 Kaska or Kashka people. (2 7 9 /8 0 -8 7 ). 1 4 6 -9 . katholikoi. 144. 209. 11. 256 John I Tzimisces. 218 John-Smbat. 185 John V. 156. Roman emperor (3 6 1 -3 ). bishop of Tarön. 2 1 7 . 54. q. 2 5 . 193 Justiniana (Roman province). 162. 4 3 . 273 Karadağ. Khayasha (Hayasa) -Azzi confederation. 2 1 2 .2 1 3 John. 34. 263 Kara Su (northern Euphrates).

Hurrian. 72: origins. 4 8 . 2 0 4 . 150 Komitas. 18. 6 1 . 85. consecration. 2 3 7 . 36 Kullimeri. 13. 194: VI. 126 Larissa.v. III (717— 41). 13. 109. 109. Armenian. 2 2 . 60. 176. 174. 111. 19. 189. 117. V. 16. 12. 2 4 . 2 6 7 . 79. 179. 102. 173. Bagratuni. 2 6 7 Laodicea. 9 9 -1 0 0 . 188. 112. 275 Lectionary. 7 4 -5 . 192. 173. 123. 2 0 8 . 11. 9 6 . 13. 2 4 1 . 89. 1 5 6 -8 . 17. 177. 13. 223 Khoy (Hoy). 20 7 kingship: Achaemenid. 109. 135. (8 8 6 -9 1 2 ). temples. 100. Roman. 2 5 4 . 270 . 10. Urartian. 2 0 8 . 13. History o f the Armenians. 160. Urartian. 144. 16. Luwian. (3 8 4 -9 ? ). 151 Lchashen. 1 8 1 -2 . 123. 117. 150 Kordukc (classical Corduene. 99.v. 71. katholikos (610/11 or 6 1 5 -2 8 ). Kura-Araxes culture. 148: IV. king of Cilicia. 2 3 0 . 31. 193 Lesser Sophene (Arm. 121. Siwnian. 2 5 4 . Sasanian king of Persia. 141. 81. 2 6 7 Lazarus (Lazar) of Pcarp. 170. Byzantine emperor. 185. 7 9 . 7 3 . 195: Ecloga. q. 2 2 8 . 177. princes of. 1 4 8 -9 . .).1 . 2 2 8 . 233 Lausanne. 128. 2 4 5 -6 . 78. 138. 146: ‘Khosrov’. 179. 2 1 0 . 2 3 6 : V. Phrygian. 2 0 7 . 159. 48. 156: II. 2 4 9 -5 0 . 2 5 7 . 16. the Philosopher. 2 1 1 . II. Sasanian. 13. 150. 189. 29. 88. 197. Old English. 2 7 . 2 7 Kurdistan. 144 Leo: I. 1 0 6 -7 .1 7 9 . 2 5 4 . I. 2 5 8 . 177. 169. 109.). 3 0 . Kurds. Roman emperor (4 5 4 -7 4 ). 135. 228 Lateran Council (649). 99. 12 Khrushchev. 193 legions. q. 208 language. 4 0 . 146. (5 3 1 -7 9 ). 193. Armenian. Cyrus. 111. 95. 235 Korchcekc see Gordyene Kordikc. 140. 140.). 63 Kura river. 190. trilinguilism. River Kur. 177.v. 102: III. Iranian. 197. 30 Kummukh (later Commagene. 138 Kohazat. 30. 2 6 9 . 191 Kcolean family. 5 8 . 113. Old Iranian. 13. 101. legislation. 76. 112: Iranian influence. 9 1 . 1. 126. 146. use of. 13. 6 7 . 89. 7 5 . 4 3 — 4. q. q.. 81. 141. 1 8 7 -8 . Artsruni. 2 3 . 142 Kulkhai (classical Colchis. 2 5 9 . (8 1 3 -2 0 ). 176. 1 1 5 . 137. 2 4 . 2 3 8 . 1 7 8 .). 9. 194. prince of Siwnik0. 197. 190. 2 2 4 . 195. 4 8 . 2 5 8 : IV. 5 8 .v. 73. 6 5 . 9 6 . 2 7 9 : Aramaic stratum. 275 kin. 2 6 1 . 2 4 9 -5 0 . bishop of Andzewatscikc. 4 3 -5 Klafjkc (classical Cholarzene. 162. bilinguilism. Armenian Christian Church. 8 3 -4 . 72. 153. 237 Lesser Armenia. 2 6 1 . Council of. Hittite. proto-Caucasian. 20. 16. 94. 88. proto-Armenian. princes of. 111.v. 69. 2 3 7 . 67. treaties of. Arsacid. 117. 4 8 . 220. Letter. H . family ownership. (3 3 0 -8 /9 ). Bagratuni. Syriac. 2 0 8 . 2 6 3 . Artaxiad. 271 landholding. 2 5 4 . 2 3 8 . 2 7 3 . 2 1 2 -1 3 . 1 8 5 . 193. N . 56. 8 0 -1 . 1 3 7 -8 . 36 . 227 Kc]imar (Tigranocerta. 72 Khosrov (contd) 94. prince and king (Leo I) of Cilicia (1 1 8 7 -1 2 1 9 ). 11.. Old Armenian. 133. 6 8 . 29 Lebanon. 185. royal. 112: Hebrew influence. 116. 38. (5 9 1 -6 2 8 ). 274 law. Mamikonean. Tsopckc). 2 4 7 Layard. 150. 2 4 8 . 101 Koriwn. women. 173. 74. 6 7 . q. 8 6 . 102.318 Index 113. 1 3 5 -6 . 104.). 1 4 8 -9 .

Zoroastrian. Roman emperor (ad 2 1 7 -1 8 ). 190. 84 Mardaites. 239. 94 Macrones. 160. 72. 123. 160. 2 1 0 . 2 0 4 . Urartian. 155. 183. 195: History. 2 2 . 2 0 2 . 109. 236 Macrinus. 187. 142.3 7 9 -c . surname. 155 Mashtotsc. 174. 116. 2 2 6 . 2 2 8 . 30. 2 5 7 . 187. brother of Vardan II. origins.3 8 4 ). priest. 194. katholikos. fort. 1 8 5 -6 . 5 4 . 4 6 . 175. alliances. 157. 79. 179. 137. 148. propaganda. 48. battle of. 58 Mananaji. 100. 183 marzpan. 17 Lydia. 57. 2 5 4 . 2. 263 Mana. 15 0 -1 Marcus Aurelius. 2 6 2 . 184. 193. (Persian governor). 175. 2 0 4 . 2 7 0 -2 . land holding. 214. 196 martyrs. 159 Licinius. 1 4 6 -9 . 188. 170. 5 1 . 150. 169 Mardpetakan. 2 0 6 . 34 Manchester. Arsacid. 176. Roman emperor (1 6 1 -8 0 ). 2 1 2 . 279 Matieni. 275 Mandakuni. 2 3 8 .v. 9 8 . 2 6 5 . 2 3 7 . 7 3 . 2 0 8 . 63 Mahkert-tun. 37. Mamikonean. E. 150 Mark Antony. E. 196. 78. Three Magi. 272 Marwan II. Caliph (7 4 4 -5 0 ). 172. 2 2 4 -5 . 1 2 5 -6 . 2 6 1 . 262 Luwians. decline. 45. 1. S. martyrdom. 45. 182. 223 Malaklyu. 2 5 5 . 1 5 9 -6 0 . 229 Louis XIV. 11.). 2 0 0 . 100. 154. 184. 146. 192. 146. 2: Adoration of. princes of. 110. Melitene. 2 5 9 .. 1 4 8 -9 Mamluks. 32 . 71. History. regent. 74. 138. 29. 2 0 7 . 13. 2 0 4 . 58 . 259. 48 Malatya (Melid. family. 256. 276. 161 magic. 2 3 7 . bdeshkh. 2 2 3 . 2 2 5 . 174. 2 0 0 . rules of. 93. emirs of. 2 7 3 . 87 marriage. 170. names. 150. 176. 87 Lusignan family. 74. 2 6 3 . 117. 84. 183. 86. 2 2 7 . 2 2 3 . Iranian. 73. 54 Manichaeism. 1 8 5 -6 . 1 6 0 -1 . 148. 21. 2 2 . king of Gordyene. 54. vitaxa (marcher lord). 195. 278. 2 6 4 Lucullus. 116 liturgy. sparapet (c .. 69. 14. 131. king of France. 17. 2 6 1 . 129. battle of (1071). outside the community. 192. 105. 2 5 5 . 153. 33. 117. 19 Malkhasian. Christian. 212. 73. origins. 275 Lori. 6. 130 Mamikonean family. 63 Matthew of Edessa. 1 1 9 -2 0 . 20. 4 8 . 120. 2 1 8 . 86 magi. 154. 31. 73. 132. 75. 2 2 5 . 151. 189 Malone. 2 0 2 . 123. 149. 73. 2 2 8 . 91 ManuSl: Lord of the Amatunis. 190. theme. language. 107. Londoners. 120. 176. 2 6 3 . 197. 172. 204. 73 Makenotsc. Council of (726). 134. 36. 187. S. 144. Armenian historian. 126. 185. 2 0 8 . 256 . 157. 4 7 -8 Magnesia. q. 117 319 Manazkert. 223 massacres. 222 Manawazean family. 2 2 . Roman general. 185. 1 1 9 -2 0 Martyropolis. Manichees. 2 5 5 . office. Artaxiad. 107 London. 2 0 9 . 190. 2 6 8 . 160. 130. 134. 109. 76. 2 5 8 . 146. 18. 150.Index Lewond. 2 0 6 . Assyrian. 144 Marcionites. 57 Lykandos. 258 loanwords. 151 Manisarus. 7. 176. 48. 181. 252. 17. within the community. 74. 73. Christian. 2 1 . 156 marches (vitaxates). plain of. 194. 174. 51. 2 3 0 . 220.

Malatya. 88 Mihr (Mithras. 2 6 9 . 150 131. Iona. 63. 219. 228 Monobazus of Adiabene. Atrpatakan). 1 9 -2 0 . 33. 261 mercenaries. hostility of 94. 2 0 . 127. 263 Mirian III. 2 5 9 .1 4 7 . 91. 2 4 2 . 255. 153 Monte Cassino. 2 6 4 . aspect 58. 2 1 3 . Meskhi.). Sultan. Monophysitism . 94.1 4 2 . 222 168. 4 6 . 3 3 . 75. 6 5 . 7 2 . 1 4 1 . 113. 152. 101. 32. 4 3 . q. 67. name. monks. 85. 50. (3 0 5 -1 4 ). 236 . 104. 158 Michael.1 9 5 . 68. king of Urartu. 2 2 9 . 14. German. 78. 108. Mongols. 69. 56. 46 Miriam.1 7 2 .v. 197. 74. 2 2 8 . 2 6 6 Parthia. 84. Mokkc (classical M oxoene.). 2 5 9 . q. 6 9 . 74.v. 2 1 2 . 105. 39. Monophysites. 2 4 . 2 1 . 2 6 3 . Gosh. Mkhitcarist. 97. 186. 272 nunneries. 42. 115. 71. 103.2 2 4 . 2 6 2 . 1 2 8 -9 . Mongolia. 2 6 8 . Iberian king of Melitene (Melid. 78. education. 4 3 . q. service. 7 3 . 2 5 4 . 2 7 . 3 2 . 82. (1 0 3 4 -4 2 ). 2 4 9 . princess.320 Index Military List. Armenia. 1 5 1 . 75. inscription. 5 8 . 193 1 5 4 . king of Iberia. Mesrop (Mashtotsc). 32. see also Christianity.2 2 8 . of Renatus. 73 tradition Meher Kapusu (Kapisi). 83. 18. 4 9 . 44 Melid (Melitene. 50. 1 3 2 -3 Melias. 121. 99 Maurice. 117. 58. 179. emir of. 6 5 . 220. 2 6 0 . 2 4 7 . 2 9 . 2 5 . 82 Monenergism. 2 4 7 . of daughter. 136. 192. 157. 86. 81. 159. Mkhitcar: abbot. 2 4 3 . 17.1 4 0 . Media Atropatene (Arm. bishop. 218.1 6 8 . 2 2 1 . 253 Mehmed II. military Medes. 86: 38. Median or 186. 17. 76. 195. 74. 172. monasteries. 39. 4 4 .1 5 6 . 216. 194. 142. 83. 30. Commagene (c . 243^1 Mitanni. Roman emperor (5 2 8 -6 0 2 ). 86. 144. of Ani. 1 1 1 Media.1 5 8 . 125. Mithridates: Callinicus. 42 Ayrivankc.2 1 3 . 68.1 9 4 . 2 6 3 . Hierothesion. 135.1 2 8 . 80. Roman emperor organization. 166. 2 5 9 . 86. 34. 72. IV. king of 18. 10. 4 8 .v. 2 3 5 . 69. 5 8 . 121. 169. 1 2 1 . 2 6 3 . Messalianism. 113. 20 7 . 68. 2 6 1 . 146 prince of. king of melik doms. 75. Metrodorus. 141. 9 9 . Mithras see Mihr 1 9 6 . 176. 153. 226 Meruzhan. monasticism. 130. 168. VI of Pontus. 2 2 1 . 2 4 9 . 112 127. Artsruni. 88. Malatya. 3 3 . 151. 94. 32. 115. 71. II. 192.1 5 3 . 37. 134. 2 5 . 6 9 . 1 1 0 . 20. 50 millets. 83. 36.2 4 1 .). 213 33. 2 3 1 . 57. 67.2 0 4 . 116 56 . 48. 31. 189. 187. 4 7 . 2 2 1 . 2 5 9 . 2 5 2 . 96. 37. 55. envoy of Mithridates VI 233 of Pontus. miracles. see also oral Adiabenian march. 6 1 . 4 0 . 2 4 5 . Maximinus Daia. 101. 2 5 9 . 133 2 6 9 . 36. melik. 182. 86. Hephaistus). equipment.6 9 в с ) . 226. 194. 2 6 3 . 221. 91.2 2 9 . 1 8 6 -7 .9 6 -c . Byzantine emperor: I. 189. 261 227. 2 3 7 military.1 6 2 2 4 9 . 72 Menua. Messalians. 197. 68. 2 5 9 . nuns. 6 8 . 204. Mazkcutckc. 57 182. 2 2 7 . Christian churches to. 2 3 3 . 85. empire. minstrels. 81. 2 4 7 . 151. 127. 3 0 . (8 1 1 -1 3 ). Mithrobuzanes: of Sophene. 194 commander. of Scepsis. 3 3 .1 5 9 . 79. Mesopotamia. 112. 138. 2 6 8 . 2 5 8 -9 . 1 5 6 -8 . Mazdaeans. 2 6 1 : empire. 135. 2 3 6 .

165: presiding prince (6 8 9 -9 3 ). Daskhurantsci. 268. 113. prophet. 279 mountains. 9 5 . 132. 183 non-nobles. 156. 2 2 0 : History o f the Albanians. 274. 107. nationalism. II. 132. 56. 2 0 2 . 190. 111. 121. patron. 18. 151. 6 2 . 63 Muşaşir (Urartian Ardini). Roman emperor ( a d 5 4 -6 8 ). q. 164.v. II. 204 Niger. 2 4 1 -2 . 2 6 4 . 196. 2 0 4 . 2 7 7 . 134 Nkan. 6 7 . katholikos (5 4 8 -5 7 ). II of Russia (1 8 9 4 -1 9 1 7 ). 95. 178. 85. 6 4 . 25 . 165. surnames. 277 Nativity. 104. III. 2 NATO. 81. 33. 2 4 6 . 123. prince of. prince of. the Gracious. 2 2 0 . 4 3 . 152. 111. 2 2 0 . 20 Muhammad. 58 Moscow. vardapet. 184. II. 2. 106. 138. 97. 2 7 6 . 137. 110. 152 New Julfa. 119. 7. Kamsarakan. 17.1 7 8 . 51. 6 0 . 7 2 . 272. 5 4 . 133. 158 Nagarno-Karabakh see Mountainous Kara bag nahatak. 106. 115. 127. king of Kars. 32. 1 8 3 . 1 9 0 -1 . archbishop of Tarsus. 31.1 8 5 . 2 4 4 -5 . 197. 93 Nisibis.Index Monothelitism. 135. 2 3 . 16. 4 0 -1 . 179. Treaty of. 27.1 7 7 mourning see funerals Moxoene (Arm. 2 1 -4 . 103. 51. 267: History o f the Armenians. nahatakd om. 152. 8 6 . 24. 54 Narratio de rebus Armeniae. 162. 19. 7 . 95. 2 2 5 . 9 4 . 93. 209 321 Nakhchawan. 7 4 . 8 6 . 29 Mutallu. 189. 6 5 . king of Melid. 131. 29 nakharar. 93. 103 Nerses: I. 9 8 . 206 Nairi. 270. 117. 273 names. Sasanian king of Persia. 177. 1 9 -2 0 . 2 3 1 . 7 1 -2 . 2 5 8 . 38. 182. 2 1 . 7 3 . 193. son of. 115. 130. 138: (654). 63. 21. 100. 157. marzpan. 131.). 208 national identity. 81. 84. 126. 86 Mountainous Karabağ (NagarnoKarabakh). Byzantine patriarch of Constantinople. Mamikonean sparapet. 2 3 5 . 20 Mzhezh Gnuni. Council of. 179. 219 Muratsean. 8 5 . 195.6 . 6 3 . king of Kummukh. 225 Nicholas: I. patriarch of Armenia (3 5 3 -7 3 ). 8 1 -2 Muş. rebel (770s). 82. 2 0 5 . 155. 72. 58. 134: partial reversal. 2 2 -3 . 131. 102. 2 3 5 . 127. 162. 88. 4 2 . 101 Mren. in Cilicia. 2 2 2 . 2 5 8 . 120. 2 5 3 . 166. 18. 121. 2 4 . 2 5 7 . katholikos (1 1 6 6 -7 3 ). 9 1.4 . 2 1 6 . name. 133 Nasr. 101. 46. 58. 2 5 7 -8 . 129. 79. 96. 4 4 . 21.1 1 . 17 Mushki. nativity plays. 134. 192. 168. 148. Byzantine emperor (9 6 3 -9 ). 78. 165 Mugallu. 2 3 7 . 184. 95. katholikos (5 7 4 -6 0 4 ). 138. 83. 2 9 . 107. 184. 86 Nero. katholikos (6 4 1 -6 6 ). 17. 63. 99 . 3 6 . 105. 170. 106. Pope (8 5 8 -6 7 ). 4 4 . 152.1 2 . 51. 111.1 0 7 . 103. Mokkc. 30. 1 6 2 . 142. 169. Nestorianism. nakharars. 136. 113. 261 Mossynoeci. 5 5 . 158 Moschi. 47 Mushej: Bagratuni. 136. 2. 9 5 . 2 7 4 Nemrut (Nimrud) Dag. ОТ prophet. 5 7 . 134. 64. 2 7 0 . 122. 2 4 9 -5 4 . of Khoren. 268 Moses. Advice on Confession. 135. of Lambron.1 7 2 . 57. 231 Neroneia. 112 Nicephorus II Phocas. 102. 84. 65. 113. 57. 5 0 -1 . 6 8 . 99. 19. 2 0 4. 71. 2 4 4 -5 . 2 0 . 5 8 . 190. plain. 266 Nicaea. 101: origins. 46. 5 9 . 2 0 5 . 97. 134. Artaxata. 2 52 Narses: Roman general. 2 2 5 . 67. 191. 5 9 . 2 9 . 165. 226.

2 2 2 . 2 7 1 . 46 Daniel. 2 1 8 . 4 5 . 1 9 5 -6 . 2 2 2 . 7 8 . 2 2 1 -2 . 5 5 -6 . Persians. 7 8 . Paulicians. 2 6 8 . 142. 5 5 . Parthia. 7 4. king of Parthia. 189 patriarchs see katholikoi oral tradition. 189. 2 1 5 . 129. 137 Northumbria. 152.1 5 3 . 5 4 . 100. 274 Persepolis. oath-breaking. 2 5 9 . 2 3 . 9 3 -4 . 5. 1 7 0 . 2 3 5 . 247 Tatcew. 2 2 4 . 5 8 . son of Yusik I. 2 5 9 . 135 65. 123. 186. Old Testament. 2 0 0 . 1 2 8 -9 Papacy. 2 3 3 .1 0 6 Old languages: Armenian. (4 5 9 -8 4 ). 2 4 3 ^ t Orodes. nuns see monasticism Pagan. Parsua. periodicals. 152. 213 Orontids. Young Turks. 262 Paradise. 2 1 1 -1 2 . 131.3 6 8 -c . 132. 168. empire. 61 Pacorus. 2 4 1 -2 . king. 172. 6 2 -4 . 146. 1 2 8 -9 . 67 . sparapet. 5. 2 4 2 . 107. 65. 2 6 6 . 57. 261 Osrhoene (Mesopotamia). 135. 61. 2 6 8 . 128. king of Armenia (c . 110. 100. 2 6 8 . 117 1 9 3 -5 . 7 9 . queen of Armenia. 3 0 . 2 5 7 Norshirakan (classical Adiabene. 126. English. of fealty. 5 8 . 2 3 0 . Ottoman Empire.v. 111. 172. 7 6 . 2 1 1. 6 . 146 176.1 9 2 . 9 4 . 2 6 7 . 127: (704). 7 3 . hazarapet. 2 3 0 . 54 . 1. peasantry. q. 159. 112. 76. 261. 2 4 5 : and Rome see Rome on historical writing. 4 8 . 9 7 . 2 1 0 . 4 3 . 144 nunneries. 2 4 9 . king of Armenia. Otene see Uti 128. 127. 148. reform. 2 4 7 Notitia Dignitatum. 91. 1 8 5 -6 . Paul. 9 9 . 2 5 0 . I^aren. 100. 6 9 . 100. 107 Parthamasiris. 256. 5 4 . 267: Parthia. 144. 2 4 8 . 98. 124. 2 7 4 Paluni family. 2 4 8 . 97. 146. 174. 185.1 7 3 . 83 I^arandzem. son of Orodes of Achaemenid. 194. 6 8 . Paris. 2 2 1 . 142. 245: Patnos. Conference. Orontes: king of Armenia. 122. 61 attitudes derived from. 2 6 0 Normans. 100. 9 9 . 2 7 1 . 2 6 4 . penance. 121. 136. 253. 206. . 105. 4 6 . 2 0 . 2 4 5 : Pasargadae. 82. 130. (768). Paulician leader. 6 8 . St. Councils of Odzun.). 2 4 3 . 117. 89. hereditary. 120. 2 4 6 . 81. 209 Nor Getik. 185. 7 4 . 71. Arab governor. 2 . 116. 2 7 0 . 273 oath-swearing. 192. 150. 1 2 8 .3 7 4 ). 258 Paulicianism. 1 8 6 -7 : offices. emir of.322 Index non-ramiks. 7 2 . 215 oaths. satrap. 54 Palestine. 202 persecution. peasants. 107. 2 4 2 (480s). 135. 2 2 3 . 271 259. Parthia. 2. 165. 62 172. 2 0 7 . 76 Sasanian (Sasanid). Iranian. 187. of Persia. 2 6 9 . 2 1 5 : church see 121. 193 Orbelean family. Peace 2 1 1 -1 2 . 275 112 Peroz. 137. 191. 185. 57. 2 7 0 . 9 1 . I. 263. 142. 58. 91. 2 5 0 . 75. 194.1 3 0 . 16. 2 7 5 . 2 2 0 : influence of. 2 2 2 . 5 5 . commander. empire. 9 3 . 1 0 4 . 170. 111-. 111. 139. 95. 88. 31 99 Partaw (Bardaa). 264. 172. 152. 2 3 . 8 9 . 2 1 2 . 150 218. 2 6 3 . coronant. 103. 150 Pap.1 9 3 . 1 9 5 -6 . 62: IV. 134. 261. of Armenia. Orduni family. 2 7 2 . Orontid dynasty. patriarch. 4 9 . 174 107. Book of. 2 6 9 . 5 6 . 57. 69. 9 9 .1 4 8 . 119. 136 son-in-law of Persian king. 63. 2 2 3 -4 . 145. Sasanian king of Persia ostikan. 123.

162 Phraates IV. 176. see aristocracy. 1 5 7 -8 .C . 2 4 0 . 137. 98. 174. 8 2 . 71 provinces. 16. Roman emperor (2 7 6 -8 2 ). 213. king. 2 3 3 . 160. prince of 2 0 5 -6 . 81. patriarch of Constantinople. battle of (637). 182. 7 6 . Polybius ( C . b c . 231 75. Vitale. 177. 2 6 8 . Philippicus Bardanes (Vardan). pilgrims. 2 0 . 67 Procopius. geographer. 2 5 1 . house of. 101. 18. 266. 153.C . 178. 177: of Rome Albania. 26 7 Plutarch ( c . 153. 174. 150. 2 6 3 . 1 8 5 -6 . Buildings. 179. 91. exarch of. 6. 2 0 0 . Pontus176. 2 5 0 . 157. 123. 131. Artsruni. 2 1 . 2 3 8 . Roman/Byzantine. 71. families. 1 0 4 . 1 4 7 -9 . 84. 17. Bithynia. 155. 170. 68. of Armenia. 1 1 8 в с ) . 86 153— 4. 48 253 Ptlni. 1 1 2 ) . 83. Siwnikc. 8 6 . 56 Qadisiyya. 168. 155. 2 7 1 . battle of. Roman general. 170. 78. 16. 7 4 . 142. 275 Primary History. mountains. 2 2 7 . publishing. 11. a d 4 5 . 2 2 8 . of Sicily. 152. 14. 9 7 . 154. 159. 19. 17. 173: of Iberia. Roman/ Byzantine writer. 166 Plato. 32. 78 Tome. 94 Tatcew. 268 Probus. 192. 102. rebels. 197 katholikos (1 0 1 9 -5 8 ). office. 112. Radamistus of Iberia. 1 8 3 -4 . 173. 157. 148. 169 Protestantism. 100 1 0 4 : Natural History. 181. 85. 107. 146. 14. 106. Safavid. Urartian. 111. Philip: I. 105. 168. Prince of Peter: the Great of Russia Princes (ishkhan of ishkhans). 2 5 5 . 76. 175. 91. revolts. 65. 85 rebellion. 135. 1 1 1 Rassam. 169. empire. 2 3 6 . 2 6 6 . 115. 146. the Patrician. 4 2 . Bagratuni. 2 6 4 . Protestants. 7 1 . 142. (1 6 8 2 -1 7 2 5 ). 126. S. 83. king of France. 13. 1 3 0 -1 . 2 3 7 . periodicals language. 38 . 2 6 6 . 215: churches. 1 4 8 -9 Byzantine emperor (7 1 1 -1 3 ). 169. 172.Index 323 population. and Rome see Rome . 16 Purulumzi. 154 Phasiane see Basean propaganda. 264: post-Safavid. nakharars 212. 103. 69. 1 5 9 -6 0 . 239. ishkans. 269. 7. 241 Proclus. 2 6 7 . 136. 6 7 93. 2 7 2 . 101. Constantinople. 189 200. Byzantine patriarch of 115. 39. 76 104 Phrygia. 2 5 3 . 16. 223. 106.C . 7 8 . 156. 18 pilgrimage. Phocas. 2 3 7 277 Phoenicia. Pharasmanes of Iberia. 137. 134. 2 3 3 . 165. 253 see also printing. 269. 4 4 -5 . 179. office. Photius. 17. 144. 256 1 6 9 -7 0 . 2 0 5 . 2 7 3 -4 . 2 2 7 . 147. Pontus. see also 31. 6 8 . 13. 26 6 .a d 2). 2 6 4 . king of Parthia (37 Ptolemy. 142. 144. 172. 133. 141. correspondence. 2 3 0 . 164. 7 9 . 158. Mamikonean. 156. 138. the ramik s. Assyrian. 2 1 1 . 1 2 3 ) . 185 Commagene. 221 Pliny: the Elder. 2 3 1 . 7 5 . 138. 7 3 . 95. estimates. 7 8 -9 . 2 0 4 . 166. 209 Younger ( a d 6 1 . 2 2 3 . St. numbers. 2 6 4 . 103. and Rome see presiding prince. Sasanians. Philaretus. 235 Plataea. 85. 67. 157. see also Prince. 151 Pharnaces of Pontus. 7 4 . princes (dynasts). 2 0 5 -7 . 131. 135. Ravenna. Peter. 8 4 . Pompey. Phrygians. 133.

3 6 . 2 7 0 . 2 0 6 . 110. 2 6 4 . 6. 61. 54.7 1 4 в с ) . 2 3 1 . 125. 137: army. 154. emigration. 1 7 . 2 6 9 . 10. 96 Richard II. 2 0 4 . 246 religion. animal. 102. 85. 148. 1 1 5 -1 6 . 43. 116. 273 Sacasene. 71. 82. 2 1 7 -1 8 . 142. 235. 119. 2 3 6 . Rubenid family. 5 8 . 173. 2 0 6 . 9 1 . 4 2 . 104: frontier. 251 : annexations. 1 0 0 -1 . 62. origins. 125. 170. 178. 1 8 2 -3 . 6 3 . 3 6 . 115. 228. 2 7 0 Rhandeia. 154. 2 6 3 . 3 1 .. 157: soldiers. 103. J. 3 8 . Armenian: pre-Christian. (3 4 5 -6 1 ). 151 Samus. 2 4 5 . 2 4 1 . 2 3 5 .645 в с ) . II. 103. Revolution (1 917).7 3 4 -c . patriarch. 81: and Persia. king of Urartu: I.1 9 . 165: partition. 69. 89. 116. 158: influence on Armenia. 7 8 -8 1 . 1 4 6 -7 . 1 0 7 -1 1 . Treaty of. 2 4 6 . empire. 2 71. 137. 113. 160. 184 Sahak: Kamsarakan. 2 0 5 . 2 5 9 . 228 Rome. 93. 91.7 . 166. 174. 157. 2 5 1 . 97. 88. 1 4 0 . 3 3 . 182. 2 2 3 . 138. 209. 138: protection. 238 Saharuni family. city. 4 3 . 3 7 . 9 4 -5 . 275 retinue. 2 4 3 . 158. 99. prince of Gardman. 4 4 . 4 5 . 258 Rusa. II Bagratuni. martyr (7 8 6 ). 2 2 1 . 3 4 . mt. 17. 2 2 2 . 9 3 . 1 6 4 -5 . 138. 1 3 6 -8 . Sewaday. 55. 111 Russia. 137. R. 269 Romanus. 115: legions. 1 1 5 -1 6 . 137. 97. 76. 89. comitatus. 5 1 . 103. 222. 152. 4 6 . 30. 231. 2 5 7 salvation. 1 5 7 -8 . 2 5 5 Samuel: of Ani. 7 8 -8 1 . 151. 194. 63. 2 2 6 . 154. J. 80. 183. 2 6 . 6 8 -9 . 142. 226. 141. 165. 32. Catholics. 193. 96 Ropcsean family. 181 Samosata (modern Samsat). rebels. 125. 2 7 0 . 6 1 . 2 4 7 -8 Rev king of Iberia: I ( a d 1 8 9 -2 1 6 ). 184. 2. 111.1 0 6 : and Pontus. 2 0 0 . Zoroastrianism religious terms see terminology resettlement. 4 0 . patriarch of Armenia. 54. 2 6 8 . 87. 9 3 -4 . 2 6 6 . 74. 2 0 5 . 104. of Siwnikc. 1 5 0 . 30. 4 7 Sahak Artsruni. kingdoms. 89. 211 Rshtunikc. 96. 4 7 . 2 5 0 . 3 1 . 65.1 0 5 . 72. 184.7 5 . 61. (c. 8 2 . 131: buildings. Orontid king of Armenia. 2 3 3 . 155. 2 3 5 . 148. 7 9 . 117. 2 7 4 .. (c . 6 0 . see also gods. 95. 1 5 6 -7 . 2 1 3 . 1 3 2 -5 . 115. 2 3 0 . Sultanate of.685-C. 63 San Stefano. 1 9 2 -3 . 101. 2 0 8 .4 . 1 rock tombs see funerals Roman Catholicism. 96. 84. 71. 2 0 6 ‘Sahak Bagratuni’. 144. 5. 2 4 2 . 47. 144. 2 1 5 . 2 2 2 . 34 Saint-Martin. 88. 2 7 1 . 76. 157. 144: and Parthia. 96: supervision by. 175. 2 3 1 . 128. 1 4 7 . 154. 76. 37. 4 1 . 1 3 2 -5 . 2 1 1 -1 2 . 3 4 . 95.. 2 3 6 .601 в с ) . marzpan. 6 9 . 2 7 2 . 76. II. 256 Rum. 96: client kings. of Siwnikc (c. 2. 93. katholikos (387P-439). 10. 89. 153. 1 3 2 -3 revolutionary groups. 177. 273.1 1 0 . 23 Russell. 2 5 9 . 128. 84. Treaty of.922). 176. frontier studies. 88. 89. 1 0 4 -5 . 86. III. 1 6 2 . 1 5 3 -5 . 266 Rehimene. 264. rebellion. 140. see Shakashen sacrifice. 80. 146. 91. Byzantine emperor (1 0 6 8 -7 1 ). 176 Sahend. 134 relics. 183 Ruben. 4 2 . 2 5 6 . king of England. rebel (830). of Bulgaria. 146. 2 1 3 . (C. 71. 238. human. 2 1 1 -1 2 . warband. 133: provincial 100-1 Rshtuni family. 96.324 Index organization: 9 1 . 4 4 . revolts (contd ) 194. 106. 2 6 7 Saladin. 176. 249 Samarra. 144. 86. 2 6 2 .

Index 3 25 Sanatruk. 2 67 Shakhatcunean. 2 2 7 . 168. 154. 132. 68. Senekcerim-John. 27. 2 3 8 -9 2 7 0 . I. 71. 2 0 4 -5 .8 2 5 в с ) . 103. 4 6 . 2 2 1 . 6 2 -3 3 8 . king of Assyria: I. 162. king of Assyria 2 4 2 -3 . 139. 183. 153. island. 33. 153 schools. 51. 157. satrapy Shahak (Isaac). 7. Shahid. 194 103. Pope (6 8 7 -7 0 1 ). 162. pattern of. 2 2 1 . 2 5 5 . 267 120.763-C. 17. Bagratuni. 9 8 -9 . 63 2 0 9 . (C . Sasanian Persian king of 237. 3 1 . 58 Sebasteia (modern Sivas). son of King Ashot I. 176. 4 3 . 54. 3 0 .4 1 . III. 31. 13th. 9 4 . list. 112. 1 5 8 -9 . 44. 150 Sargon II. see also education Shakashen (classical Sacasene).1370-C . 4 7 . 135. 1 3 3 -4 . 178.3 9 . 105. 17. (e . 273 Satala. 192. 273 mountains. 121. 158. 57 .4 0 . 18. 1 2 2 -3 . 96. 3 8 . Seleuceia. 51. 211 6 2 -3 . 33. (8 5 8 -8 2 4 в с ) . 27 Bagratuni. 59 I. 189 Scotland. 115.4 4 sepuhs. 117. king of the Mazkcutckc. 173. 20. 56. 17. 2 9 . 9 9 . 138 Heraclius. 29 Scyths. 2 2 6 -7 Sanesan. 2 9 . 104. bishop of the Shapur. H .734 в с ) . Sultan.1 0 0 . Sasanian king of Persia: I. Shanidar IV. 2 5 3 : (967/8). 39. king of Armenia. A. 2 6 2 . 218 51. 14. 144. 268. 4 0 . Paulician leader. 21. 51. 189 II. 225 Shanidar. 137. 48 (church). Armenian 190 historian. 2 9 . II. king of Assyria (7 0 4 -6 8 1 Sarduri. 2 2 4 . 100. 19. (2 4 2 -7 2 ). 2 2 0. 154. 93 34. 12. 51. 16 Severan emperors. H . 4 2 . 103. 2 0 6 . Seleucus: I. (862). 55. 91. 250 . 275 Shirakawan (Erazgaworkc. 136 Shahapivan. Shapur. 38 sculpture. 35. 242 Shalmaneser. 38. 102. 39. 151. 25. St 43. 5. 158. also Persia 5 8 -9 Saspires. 62. 160. Treaty of. 133 Sennacherib. 123. 2 6 7 ’ . 58 Sevan. 34. 17. 19. 134 (1 0 0 3 -2 1 ). king of the Hittites Semiramis.8 4 0 -c. 3 1 . 18th. 58 Schultz. see settlement. on the Tigris. 2 0 . Sasun. 141. 30. 184 Shamshulde. Septimius Severus. Shamshi-Adad V. I. 2 2 9. 207. 176 Sayce. 25 36. 251: History o f Armenia. 16. 141. Sawada (Sewada) emir. 48 в с ) . 4 7 . 104. legendary queen of Assyria. 174.. 2 0 6 . 33. Sasanians. 174. 138. q. 51. 8 8 -9 . 122. 192. 5 5 -6 . empire.). 3 2 . 189. 43 Selim I.1 0 2 . 2 1 4 -1 5 . 111. 223. Roman emperor (C. Iberian (8 2 3 -8 1 1 в с ) . 2 2 2 .4 4 . 154 Second World War. 58. Seleucids: dynasty. ( a d 1 9 3 -2 1 1 ). 94. 6. 103 Sevres. Sewan. 190. 263 Shuppiluliuma. 19th. king of Vaspurakan 101. king of Urartu: 1. 2 7 . 57. 158 satrapies: Persian. 69. Council of (444). 2 4 9 . Sergius-Tychicus. 18. 3 6 -7 . III. 136. 108. Bagratunis. 181. 268 ‘Sebeos’. 34.. 110. 4 4 . 2 5 . 2 4 6 . Shapuh: Akeatsci. II. 2 0 9 . 190. 36. 10. king of Assyria (7 2 1 -7 0 5 Sergius: patriarch of Constantinople. 32. 5 5 . 2 1 9 . 69 Shubria. 19. pseudo-Sebeos. 33. 67. Councils of. Roman. patriarch of Armenia. в с ) . II. 2 4 7 .. 6 7 . patron. Lake. 3 0 . 32. 7.v. 6 2 -3 . 2 2 8 . fort. Christian. 126. 11. 2 7 4 .1330 в с ) .

1 3 7 . 86. Tsopckc Mets). St Siwnikc. evil. 75. patriarch of Armenia. 208. 156. 107. 2 0 8 . 3 2 . 156. 6. 84. 2 3 3 . 3 6 . 63. 183 Slkuni: family. 149. II.1 2 0 . Siwnikc .1 3 5 . 2 0 0 . A. 2 1 8 . 156 93. 7. 197. 137. 2 6 3 . T. 193. 1 1 0 -1 1 . 82. 61. 225 St Petersburg.v. Sis. 76. 193. Tsopckc). 2 6 7 . 172. 2 5 5 .1 9 4 . 84. 2 0 5 -9 . Armenian. 97 225. 6 7 . 9 7 -9 . see also Greater Sophene. society. 150 135. 2 1 8 . 9 5 . founder of T condrakianism. 2 5 3 . 2 7 3 . Sophanene (Greater Sophene.2 2 8 . 1 0 8 . Byzantine. 255 Urartian. 141. 37 Sohaemus: of Emesa and Sophene. king of Armenia. 104. 176. 93. 2 0 4 . 2 2 6 . 1 7 4 -5 . House o f Sisakan. Syrians. 2 1 6 . q. 169.326 Index Shushanik. princes of. 144. 160. 2 6 2 . 6 1 . 2 6 1 . Orbelean. 151. 103 Surmak. 2 2 5 . families. of Emesa. 17. 6 3 . 82.2 5 5 1 8 2 -3 . 121. marzpan. 111 prince of Siwnikc. sun worship. 175. 185. 94. 187. mt. 6 7 . 5 6 . 84. 94. 2 7 8 -9 Siwnikc. 146 Sophene (ancient Supa.Titus. 2 1 9 . 150. Süphan. 2 4 3 . Stalin. 174 slaves. (5 6 4 -7 2 ). Council of. 72. 26 2 . 83. 68.. 16. 179. 136. 3 1 . 2 2 0 . 261 İspir). Sper (classical Syspiritis. 2 2 4 . 177. 146. 2 6 1 . 235 210. 187. 2 0 2 . Visigothic. 42 . 150 II of Vayotsc-dzor. Asojik of Taron. 3 0 .. socio-political structure. 177. 9. 13. 5 1 . 2 2 3 . 166. 35 89. 75. 96. 236 71. 226 Strabo. 73. 2 2 0 . Sinclair.2 3 1 . archbishop of 170. 117. 38. 99. 102. 2 7 7 195 Stephen: (Stephanus) of Byzantium. 83. Paulician leader. 261 king of Ani (9 7 7 -8 9 /9 0 ). Sruandzit family.. Soradir. 2 6 3 .. 188 (died 1016). 188. 2 0 5 . 2 1 0 . bishops of. 2 3 3 . strategoi. kingdom. 24 3 . 2 5 7 . 85. J. rebel. 3 8 . . princes of. 8 3 -4 . 150. 208 2 7 4 . 192. 142 Solomon: ОТ king. Sicily. 137. 76. 100. 2 5 5 . 151. 86. 54. Spain. 185. surname. 207. 7 3 . 12. 166. 188. mod. 219. 154. 2 0 7. 2 0 9 . 2 6 1 : History o f the 212. 195. sparapet (826). Spanduni family. 126. 6 9 . 2 1 5 .. Smbat: Constable (1 2 0 8 -7 6 ). 95. 54 spirits. 179. sparapet (commander-in-chief) 260. 150. 253: 1 5 7 -8 . Soviet Union (USSR). 174. 173. 218. 176. 11. 69. 134. see also Strzygowski. Artaxiad. 2. 207. 5. presiding prince (693). 212. 2 1 6 . 68. 189. 14. 85 69 . 2 7 4 . 97. 6 5 . landholding. ‘Smbat Bagratuni’. Roman. 2 5 4 . 67. 155. sparapets. 97. bishop of Symeon: Albanian katholikos. 10. 275 Arm. 263. 2 0 2 . Sinai. . 33. good. 2 1 9 . 2 7 4 . Arsacid. 157 71 . 5. 2 1 6 . 6 8 . Side. origins. 179. 151 91. Canterbury (died 1228). 74. 96. 9 9 . 2 1 6 . 1 1 0 -1 1 . Suren. Sisian. 2 0 4 . Arm. 101. of king of Armenia (8 9 0 -9 1 3 ). 173. J. 9 5 . 102. 2 4 2 aristocracy. 6 2 . 214 205. 87 98. Langton. 179. 1 1 1 . q. 1 7 3 . 89. 67: Universal History. Smbat Bagratuni’: marzpan. 154. 268 Smbat. 2 1 3 . 1. 1 8 8 -9 . 5 8 -9 . Synod of. 4 2 -5 Supa. 245 192. 89. 262 134. 6 5 . 176. 197. 2 0 2 .v. 2 5 8 . 134. 2 3 5 . Syria. terminology. 37. 156. 191 Lesser Sophene Siwnian families.

129. 2 4 3 . 61. 2 1 3 . 116. taxes. 177. 169 Taurus. 112. 154. 219. 4 7 . 185. mod. Ispir). also tribute History o f the House o f the Taykc. retinues. 135. 134. 107. urban life. Tacitus.v.). 54. 188. 17 . 16. 2 2 0 . 5 6 . 173. 7 6 . 2 7 2 . 258. 2 2 3 . 159. 6 3 . 146. 4 6 . 193. Christian. 253. Tarön. 274. 2 0 4 . 109Ј 117. 191. 2 2 4 . 98: ramik: sepuh. 2 1 0 . Theodora: Byzantine empress and 2 6 6 . 117. 2 0 2 . 168.v. Zoroastrian. q. religious. Roman of. taxation. 2 2 5 -6 156. T calin. 20. 236 34. Artsrunis. church of Peter and Paul. 182. 123. 229. 194— 5. see 2 0 9 -1 0 . 162. 2 4 2 4 2 . 168. Karin. 140. 4 3 . 2 6 9 . 170. 194. archbishop 251 of. 20 0 . 155 225. Tachat. 173. 2 1 5 -1 6 . 31. 10 (4 0 8 -5 0 ). 141. 22 9 2 2 0 . 4 3 . 9 8 -9 : 9 8 -9 : q. 250. 190. 159. mod. 63. Urartian. 4 3 . 136. 2 2 8 . 158: 219. 172. 186. 9. 4 6 . 3 8 -9 . property. 86. 4 7 . 155. political. 102. 187. 98: nakharar. 151. 190. 82. 3 1 .7 . 172. 177. 142. empress. bishops of. queen of Georgia Thaddaeus (Jude). 4 7 .1 8 2 : azat. 2 0 0 . 2 1 2 . 241 189. 136. 228 Theodore Rshtuni. 213. 253 (1 1 8 4 -1 2 1 3 ). 112. Thomas Artsruni. 162 Syrian influence.Index 327 104. Syro-Hittite states.1 0 6 . 2 0 7 . 2 6 3 . 109. 144. 2 1 3 . see also Seleucids terminology. 2 2 4 . temples. 1 3 0 . Tephrike (Divrigi). 170. 112. 142. 247. Christianity. 48. 2 6 7 . cities. 107 Tamara. 2 0 9 .. 2 5 8 . 3 3 . 2 1 9 . 168. 7 9 . 47 Thraco-Phrygians. 62. 2 0 9 . 67. 3 7 .: Tabal. 196. q. Urartian god. 182. 245. 154. 130. 101. Andzewatsci. martyrdom. 2 4 . 202. 2 2 6 . 184. 2 2 2 . 173. 13. 2 1 8 . 2 5 3 . 2 0 0 . 99. 144. 2 6 4 . 146. 2 2 3 . princes regent (8 4 2 -5 6 ). 125. 191. Armenian. 2 2 6 . Sper. 7. 106. 152. 119. Gntcuni. 16. 2 2 8 . 131. 2 0 5 -6 . 228.v. Roman historian. mountains. 144. 168. 184. 14. 111. 2 0 6 . 38 Iranian influence. 258 The Teaching o f St Gregory. 98. 72. 60 themes. 182. Tashir-Dzoraget. 9 8 . Tatcew. influence of. continuators. 138. 2 2 2 .v. 5 6 . 2 4 4 Teishebaini (Karmir-Blur. 194. 21. 192. 6 1 . 57. theme system. Theodosius II. presiding prince. 261 Teisheba. 73. 176. 125. 258. 82. socio­ Syspiritis (Arm. 2 2 1 . 33. W. 2 1 8 . 253 (689). 2 2 7 . 123. NersSs. 108. Councils of (6 3 2 -3 ). 129. Erzurum. Assyrian. 169. 236. 2 1 2 . 107. xii. 2 5 7 . at 159. 1 7 7 -8 . 136. 2 5 5 . 2 1 1 . 158. 13. 2 7 7 . 178. 227. 247 2 4 8 . 2 0 5 -6 . 170. 166. 2 2 2 . 83. 187. 4 0 . 160 Taochi. 136. 6 3 . 2 2 7 . 169. 16.). 257 Theodosiopolis (Arm. Thrace. 13. language (Syriac). 158. 266. 135. 260 107. 174. 2 5 2 . 181. Tarsus. 183. significance of. 144 tax. 2 0 5 . 2 7 0.. 2 2 8 . 188. 2 2 8 . 2 0 0 . 146 150. 220. Tabriz. Roman emperor region. 2 0 8 . 219: on Muşaşir. 1 5 9 -6 0 . 2 4 8 . 2 5 9 . 4 0 . 177. Tashir. 186. 59. 2 4 9 . 2 2 5 . 166. 112. 146. 136. 107. 9 9 . 2 1 1 . 74. R. q. 147. 192. 2 7 5 . 11. 153 99: ishkhan. 240 2 1 3 . Thomson. 2 3 8 . 154.

2 . of Tarön. 43 Topzawa. 76. 4 8 . 96 Trdat (classical Tiridates) see Tiridates Trdat. 17 T cil. 59. 231: II. 7 9 . 73. 2 0 0 : king of all. 19. 100. 2 2 0 . River. 84. 2 1 6 . 103. 266 Toprak Kale (Rusakhinili). 2 9 . 102.9 5 -5 5 в с ) . 57. king of Armenia (3 3 8 -5 0 ? ). 51. House of. 8 3 -6 . 2 5 9 . 72. royal. q.v. 5 1 . 121. 51. son of Tigranes II. 2 2 2 -3 . 84. 177. (2 8 7 -9 8 ). 195. 2 1 0 . 2 0 . 2 1 0 . 84. 75. satrap. king of Armenia: I. 134. 1 0 2 -3 . 188. 8 4 . 7 5 . 2 6 0 . 212 T corgom. 109. 1 4 1 . 6 0 -1 . T condrakians. 1 9 5 -6 . 74. 4 8 . 7 8 . 9 7 . 162. 54 Toumanoff. 73. cities. 75. 104. 8 6 : III. 72 Tiribazus. 132.). 2 5 0 Tiridates. (7 4 4 -7 2 7 в с ) . 57. 262 Tosp. into western languages. 150 . 2 6 7 . 76 Tigranocerta (Arm. 111. 6 9 . 84. 2 7 1 . 117. 67. (e . 2 6 8 -9 . 83. 4 3 . valley. 16. 123. 2 5 7 -8 . 96. 4 3 . 133. king of Armenia: I. q. 2 5 2 . 57 Tiridates (Arm. 8 5 . 9 3 . 31. 8 1 . 86. into Greek. 42 T cordan. 10. 6 5 . 2 6 7 .a d 1 ) . early prince. 2 6 7 . 99. 138. 157. 190. 8 5 . 113. 254. q. 108. 7 2. 87. 195.1 4 0 . 2 5 6 . 2 5 6 . 54. 5 4 . 74. 2 1 8 . see also capitals. roster. 102. 95. 10. 80. 54. T condrakianism. 103. Kclimar. 106. 1 1 5 -1 7 . 7 8 : IV. 1 0 7 -8 . 81. 82. 72. 279 Trajan. 7 1 . 100. 43 — 4. 132. Roman emperor (a d 9 8 -1 1 7 ).. 4 7 . 2 6 0 . С. 2 3 9 . 2 5 7 . 165. name. 5. 3 8 . 96. 11. 135. 113: III. 95. 1 5 8 -9 . 153. urban life. 2 0 9 . 106. 2 5 8 . 178. 156 Tigris. 5 5 . 107. 112. brother of King Pap. ? Arzn. upper. 189. 17 T condrak. 2 2 0 . 25. Tigranakert. 6 3 . 48 Tigranes (Arm. 133. 2 2 1 . 134. 278 transportation see resettlement Trapezus (later Trebizond. 9 4 -5 : IV the Great. 255 T coros: II. ‘Tiran’. 273 Tibareni. 94. architect. 2 5 6 . 1 0 2 -4 . 115. 7 4 -5 . 2 6 2 . 2 5 6 .). 4 4 . 24 Tiran. into English. 112. 30. (1 1 1 4 -1 0 7 6 в с ) . 101. 5 8 . 7 1 . 93 titles. 93. 14. 3 8 -9 . 16. 18. 3 4 . 137. 123. 3 2 .v. 14.Trdat). 96. into French. 88. ( 2 b c . 2 7 1 . 2 0 9 -1 0 . 24 Tcornik: Bagratuni of Tarön. 115. 44: king of kings. 178. (C. capital cities trade. basin. 2 6 6 . 7 9 . katholikos. 2 0 4 . 2 3 7 Tours. inscription. 44. 4 9 . 14. 106. 38. 48. 72. 106.9 . 19. 2 2 9 . 2 5 8 . 6 3 -4 .328 Index Togarmah. 138. Chlomaron. 41. 236 Tiflis. 2 6 0 . 216: king of the universe. 5. 1 3 1 -2 . 111 translations: into Armenian. 27: III. 36. 79. 41. 1 4 7 . 133. 3 3 . II the Great. 60. 150. 224. Mamikonean of Sasun. 8 7 : V.1 4 8 . (2 9 8 /9 -3 3 0 ). 2 6 4 . 108. 47. 89. 86 Tiberius II. king of Assyria: I. 144. 6 8 . 9 7 -9 . 104. 2 5 9 . 1 3 9 . 176. Roman emperor (5 7 8 -8 2 ). 7 8 . 131. 119. 154. Roslin. 2 3 8 . 23 1 . 137. 233 towns. 2 1 7 . see also prince of princes Tmorikc. 153. 91. 69. 152. Tigran). 43. 6 5 . 74. Urartian. 38. 2 6 1 . 95.). 105. 2 6 7 .v. 4 0 -1 . 115. 8 5 -6 . 2 7 8 . 136. 2 0 8 . 95. 2 2 2 . 46 . eastern (Bohtan Su). 133. 75. 73.8 в с ) . 4 1 . 99. 7 9 : VI. 17. 6 0 . into Hun language. 103. 270 Tiglath-Pileser. 169. 243 Trebizond (ancient Trapezus. satrap. 1 9 5 -6 . 197. 2 2 8 . 138.20-C. of Cilicia (1 1 4 8 -6 8 ). 132 Til-Garimmu. 123. 2 4 3 .

94. 4 6 . 2 5 5 . 103. 18. 1 0 3 . 20. 2 6 7 . 4 7 . 268 Vajarshawan. bishop of Sebasteia. 4 0 . Roman emperor ( a d 2 5 3 -6 0 ). Mamikonean. 2 2 8 .1 7 5 . 30. 103. 30. 29. 14. 36. 4 5 . 108. 159. 108. 279 Urartu. 12. 2 1 4 . 2 6 6 .2 6 1 . IV. 22. 112. 56. 166 Tyre. 42 Uishdish. 31 Ukhtanes. 178. 10. 153. 137 Valarshakert. Greater Sophene Tukulti-Ninurta. 33. 1 7 2 . 168. 2 7 3 . 48 Ullusunu of Mana. 36. 2 1 0 -1 1 . 35. 2 7 5 . son of King Pap. 254 Uelikukhi. 2 7 5 . 1. 13. 31 Umar (Omar) II. 18. 3 1 .2 0 9 . 134. 4 2 . 157 ‘Vajarshak’. 2 1 0 . 177. 58. 225. 137 Valerian. 193. 220. 54. see also Ottoman Empire Tushpa. 259. 190 Umayyads. 4 3 .2 6 3 . 109. 156. 2 7 1 . Iranians. 24. 2 4 . katholikos (9 6 8 -9 ). 2 7 3 . 111. (PUski). 142. 137. 30. 2 7 6 . 146. 17. king of Iberia. 188. 190. 30. 2 7 4 . 2 7 6 -7 . 258. 2 1 6 -1 7 . 150. 261. 4 7 . 146: V. (mod. 80. 164. 150 Urumeans. 36. Ottoman. 187. 264. 2 2 3 . 2 0 2 . 272. 6. 183 Vahram: Pahlawuni. 162. 12. I. 23.2 7 . Tsopckc Mets see Sophene. Urartians. 2 7 1 . 4 2 . 135. 237 Vahan: of Goltcn. 2 6 1 . annals. 3 3 . (8 9 0 -8 8 4 в с ) . 30. (1 2 4 4 -1 2 0 8 в с ) . 2 5 5 . Ejmiatsin. 2 5 6 . 106. 197. 156.1 8 2 . 2 7 7 . 2 3 1 . 2 7 7 .1 0 6 . 17. Sasanian king of Persia. 36. 148. 2 3 0 . 109. Lake. 30 Urmia.1 9 6 . 18. 103 Valens. 3 2 . 23. 185. 270. 263 Ulkhu. 82 tribute. 151. 35. 54 Typos.Index trees. 1 4 8 -9 . 2 1 . 16 Trpatuni family. 56. 63. 153. 2 6 3. 82. 71. name.2 1 5 . Roman. Arabs. 263. 44. 2 7 1 . 2 7 . 10. 7. 1 9 5 -6 . 11. 147. 276. 2 5 2 -3 Ukraine. 115. 34. 11. king of Armenia. 34 Uti (classical Otene). 197 Vajarshak. Caliph (7 1 7 -2 0 ). 271. 16. 105 Van. representations of Armenians. 2 9 -3 3 .2 2 5 . plain. classical Cainepolis. king of Assyria. and western Europe. 3 3 . 54 Urzana. 277. 2 2 9 . 48. 103.1 9 3 . 278. see also towns Urme or Urmie. 5. 3 7 . 4 9 . 2 9 -4 9 . 162 Vahewuni family. 278 Ushkaia. 19. region. 175. 173. 111. 268.1 7 8 . 175 Tsopckc. Republic. 56. prince of. 2 7 . 279 Turkmen dynasties. 9. 4 3 : II. 4 0 -1 . 10. 2 7 7 . 44 USA. 40. 17. 2 7 4 . 2 5 2 . History o f the Armenians. 2 6 9 . 2 1 4 . 210. 29. 204 Vahagn (Heracles. 103 Vajarshapat (mod. 31. 123. Kamsarakan. 12. 269. 51.2 1 8 . 32. 33. 2 7 6 . 54. 169. inscriptions. 17 Turkey. 125. 231 3 29 urban life. 270 Trojans. 3 9 . Seljuk (Saljuq). 116. 5. 12. 51. 38. empire. 1 3 .1 7 7 . language. 2 6 0 . 14. (3 8 8 -9 9 ). Verethragna). 4 6 . q. 2 7 4 . 49. 2 6 3. 93. 42. 2 0 5 . 59. 40. 36.v. 170. Roman emperor (3 6 4 -7 8 ). 135. 10. 147 Vakhtcang I. 10. 47. 6. 17. 227. 146. sacred. 54. king of Musasir. Urumi. 2 2 6 . 26 4 . 273. 36. 2 7 . 2 3 0 . 220. 12. 178. 46. 39. 267. I. 2 4 . 2 7.2 0 2 . 172. 155. 11. Trojan War. 4 8 . 23. (4 2 0 -3 8 ). 1 7 -1 8 .). 263 Turks. 16. 10. 34. Van). 138. Lake. 2 9 . 2 9 . 5. 51. 248 United Nations. 178.

134. 160. 2 5 7 . king of Armenia (393— 414). upper. 2 0 2 . 2 3 8 . D. 129. Mamikonean. 4 2 . 174. 7. 176. 225. 202 Vramshapuh. 1 2 6 -7 . 1 9 1 -2 . 2 1 1 . king of Armenia (1 1 -1 6 ). 172 Yusik. (c. 79. 123. 176. 192. 3 7 . 2 5 7 . 156 Vardan of the East. 88: II. 63 Yazdgard. 268 Xenophon. 188. 2 0 4 .1 9 3 . 209. G. 5 6 . 2 0 8 . 60 . 97. 178. 101. 2 2 2 .3 4 1 -7 ? ).. 144.850. 117. 144. 136 Yusuf.. 1 0 1 -2 . 254. 197. 5 8 -9 . Artsruni C. 155.. Yazid II. 94. 191. 149. Oeconomicus. 128. Historical Compilation. 123. 2 5 6 . 30 Zabdicene. doctor of divinity). 190. patriarch of Armenia. 146 Vrtcan£s.330 Index Vologases: son of Sanatruk and king of Armenia. 150. 5 5 . 148. 159. 58. 122. 82 Vostan. 192. 103 . 151. 2 4 9 . of Siwnikc. 2 5 1 . 183. (4 3 8 -5 7 ). Siwnian king (990s). 172. 1 4 1 -2 Vasak: of Antioch. Orontid king of Armenia. 218. 9 1 . R. 116. 147. 208. 121. Arsacid king of Armenia. II. 2 0 . 56. 101. 9 . 1 2 1 . king of Siwnik0. vitaxates see marches ‘Vologases’. 2 5 8 . 162. 1 3 1 . of Siwnikc. 253. River. 275 Venice. 55 . princes of. king of Armenia (e . Great. 2 7 7 . Anabasis. 9 6 -7 Virgin Mary.1 1 . 228. 111. 205 Zab. 7 9 . 100. VI. 142. Cyropaedia. 174. 134. son of Gregory Magistros. 150 women. 2 7 . Caliph (7 2 0 — 4). prince of Gardman. dynasty of. 125. 5 5 . 1 4 4 . 183. marzpan. 2 5 5 . 69. 59. 252 Wessex. 56. 100. Sasanian king of Persia: I. ally of Babik. 260 vassals. churches. 5 4 . 2 4 6 . 2 5 8 .1 2 9 . I. Achaemenid king of Persia (4 8 5 -4 6 5 в с ) . 123. 136. 26 0 Vaspurakan. Gaburn of Siwnikc. 2 0 2 . 44. 2 0 2 . 2 1 . 175. 80.1 2 1 . 226. 212. 5 5 . 78. 1 1 7 . 2 2 . 6. 20 . 176. Gospel of. 93. 60 . 170. 274 Winkler. (3 9 9 -4 2 1 ). 42. 228. 182. 149. 164. 2 5 4 Wilson. king of Parthia. 89. 146. 160. 179. 96. 1 0 3 . 204 Vardan Mamikonean. 2 2 6 . 162. 50. 262 Virkc see Iberia Visigoths. and Child. historian. 61. 9 5 . 182. 135. 2 4 5 . of Vayotsc-dzor. 5 7 . 2 4 7 . 141. 2 7 3 . 82. 260 vardapet (teacher. President of USA. 142. prince. 227. 138. 60 Xerxes. 229. 93. Gntcuni. son-in-law of John (Arsacid). Ishkhanik. 100. 91 Vonones. 74. 150 Varag. 2 2 5 . 197 Wilkinson. II. 36. 124. 2 0 9 . see also feudalism Vayotsc -dzor. 2 1 3 . 127. 101. Kcertcol. 223. 175. 13. 3 7 . II. Roman emperor (ad 6 9 -7 9 ).1 0 4 William of Tyre. 1 9 2 . 4 5 . W.1 2 3 . 208 Vazgen. II. 2 0 . katholikos (1 9 5 5 -9 4 ). 2 4 2 -3 . 2 0 4 . patriarch of Armenia. 2 0 5 . 162. 5 8 -9 . 187. 137 Varazhnuni family. 142. 207. 155. 192 Varaz-trdat. 95. 246 vitaxa. 123. 268 vernacular literature. 149. 4 6 .3 7 4 -8 ). 10. 5 4 . 222. 65. 258 Varazdat. 133. Venetians. I. see also historical writing: Armenian Vespasian.

152. 190.. 129. 106 Zawen. 84. 148. 4 7 6 -9 1 ). colleague of Artaxias I. 85. 222. 146. 63. 85. 65. 2 5 5 : Sasanian reformers. 131. 60. Zoroastrianism. 106. 1 0 7 -1 1 . 137 Zarehawan. 68. 61. 152. 82 331 Zeno. 144. king of Bithynia. 135. 8 2 -3 . 78. 84. 2. 195 Zarehawanean family. king of Armenia (1 8 -3 4 ). 142. 79. 213 Zeugma. 61. 153 Zenob of Glak. 138. 175. 258 Zangezur. 216 .Index Zakcarean family. 125. 111 Zuartc notsc. 84 Zarishat. 119. 67. 37 Zoroaster. 273 Zarawand. Henoticon. R E. 136 Zeno-Artaxias. 129. 62 Zimansky. patriarch. Roman emperor (4 7 4 -5 . 96 Ziaelas. 72 Zariadris. father of Artaxias I. 150. 194. Zarawand-Her. 127. 86.

Cover illustration: T h e early to H oly Cross on the island of A ll Photograph by M ichael Baron. Art. historical Armenia has been a pivotal point between the forces of the east and of the west over much of its long history. Situated south of the Caucasus mountains. the Greeks (under Alexander) and the Seleucids. and also with Armenians’ recent experience and expectation of an independent. its successor partitioned by Romans and Persians four centuries later. She is Lecturer in History at the University of Newcastle where she teaches early medieval history.T h e A rm enians This is a 3000 year history of one of Europe's most fascinating and ancient peoples. The independent and powerful kingdom of the last two centuries before Christ was subverted by Romans and Parthians. E. which had elements in common with early medieval Western European society. R edgate was born m Lancashire and educated at Bolton School Girls’ Division and St. historical literature and textual analysis contribute to the author’s consideration of the realities and ideas of power in antique and early medieval Armenian elite society. and to a distinguished architectural and artistic heritage. the most plausible for nearly a thousand years. The contributions of Armenians and their culture to European history are also examined. University of N REDGATE USED Visit our website at http://www. Anne’s College. though tiny. E. most recently under the Ottoman Empire and as part of the Soviet Union. The Author A . That history has seen subjugation and conquest by rival empires and peoples. some families maintained power and influence over many centuries. vernacular literature and historical tradition which survived Arab conquest and flourished for some two hundred years in independent kingdoms. Despite these vicissitudes. The conversion of Armenia to Christianity in AD 3 14 led to a distinctive Christianity as the author shows. The book closes with a survey of Armenia under foreign rule. Oxford. In the classical period Armenia was ruled successively by the Persians.blackwellpub 3 . analytical narrative is illustrated with fourteen photographs and twenty-two maps. Armenia. Redgate’s vivid. A. V isual Centre.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful