Skip to main content

Full text of "The Orontids of Armenia"

See other formats

The Orontids of Armenia 

by Cyril Toumanoff 

This study appears as part III of Toumanoff's Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963), 
pp. 277-354. An earlier version appeared in the journal Le Museon 72(1959), pp. 1-36 and 73(1960), pp. 

The Orontids of Armenia 

Biblio graphy, 
pp. 501-523 

Maps appear as an attachment to the present document. 

This material is presented solely for non-commercial educational/research purposes. 


1. The genesis of the Armenian nation han been examined in an earlier 
Study.* Us nucleus, succeeding to the role of the Vannic nucleus ot Urarfu, 
was the ‘proto-Armenian,’ Hayasa-Phrygian, people-state,® which at first oc¬ 
cupied only a small section of the former Urartian, or subsequent Armenian, 
territory. And it was, precisely, of the expansion of this people-state over that 
territory, and of its blending witli the remaining Urartians and other proto- 
Caucasians that the Armenian nation was bom. That expansion proceeded 
from the earliest proto-Armenian settlement in the basin of the Arsanias (East¬ 
ern Euphrates) up the Euphrates, to the valley of the upper Tigris, and espe¬ 
cially to that of the Araxes, which is the central Armenian plain,® This expand¬ 
ing proto-Armenian nucleus formed a separate satrapy in the Iranian empire^ 
while the rest of the inhabitants of the Armenian Plateau, both the remaining 
Urartians and other proto-Caucasians, were included in several other satrapies.* 
Between Herodotus’s day and the year 401, when the Ten Thousand passed 
through it, the land of the proto-Armenians had become so enlarged as to form, 
in addition to the Satrapy of Armenia, also the trans-Euphratensian vice-Sa- 
trapy of West Armenia.^ This division subsisted in the Hellenistic phase, as 
that between Greater Armenia and Lesser Armenia, 

From Xenophon we gather a few glimpses of the social order that existed 
under satrapal control in cis-Caucasia: of the proto-Armenian clan-heads, ruling 
fortified rural settlements {xo>(jtdgxv^> dQx<ov and — above 

them — dynasts in particular of a king who was Cyrus the 

Great’s ally and of his sons, Tigranes and Sabaris;^ and of some proto^aucasian 
^affiXstg and dgjcovreg.® This was practically all that could until recently 
be said of these four centuries prior to the rise in 190 B,C. of the Artaxiad 
Monarchy of Greater Armenia; there was no historical continuity. There have, 
however, been a few historians who recognized the hereditary character of the 
Armenian Satrapy and its connexion with an Iranian family that favoured the 

* I 5 4-«- 

® Ibid, at 4S. 

^ In tm$ I follow Manandyan, 0 Rek..sporn,pfvbL 

* I at n. 65. 

^ Ibid, at n, 68. 

« Ibid, at n, 72. 

? 7iid. at n. 71. 

® Ibid, at a. 75. 



name of Orontes,* Bnl it was left to the late Professor Manandyan to reciiacover 
an entire period of Armenian history, which he fchowed to have been marked 
by the dominance of the Orontid, or — as he preferred to call it — Eruandid, 
(Eruattduni), dynasty.™ This period, as wiU be seen from the forthcoming 
remarks, was indeed the period of the Orontid Monarchy — the ‘First 
Armenian Monarchy’ — which spanned what has hitherto been deemed 
a lacuna separating the Urartian Monarchy and the Second Armenian Monarchy 
of the Artaxiads and which guaranteed the social and historical continuity of 
Armenia as it evolved from its proto-Armenian phase and passed into the 
HeUenistic age. 

The eponym’s praenomen Orontes is as Iranian as the dynasty itself, derived 
from the Avestan aarandfauwant (' mighty, ’ ‘hero’) and related to the Pehlevi 
its Armenian forms being Eruandi Arautan^ and, possibly, 
and its Greek renderings being extraordinarily varied: ^Agdrog, ’Agdod(v)Tr}gt 
A^xaovrfjqf ^Agrdstavog jlprdwjc, 'AQvdvdfjg, ’E^QoifVTjg, ^Ogodv- 

2. Perhaps the principal source for the Orontid house; the document that 
enables us to infer its continuity, its being, that is, a dynasty, is the Nimrud- 
dag monument of Antiochus I, King of Commagene, a scion of that house, 
with its series of inscriptions, not all of which have come down to us, comme¬ 
morative of his ancestors.^ On these and other inscriptions, on the numis* 
matic data, and on the oMler dicia of classical authors that complement the 
framework provided by Antiochus of Commagene, as well as on the commenta¬ 
ries of the editors of the Nimrud-dag and other inscriptions: Dittenberger, Ja- 
labert and Mouterde, and those of Honigmann,™ the first part of the following 
stenuna is principally based.™ 

* Ct, e.g., Lelimatiii-Hsapt, Satrap 127i W.W.Tam, * Persia, from Xerxes to Alexarnier, ’ 
CAH S (1953) 20; ‘The Heritage of Alexander/ ibid. 464; JM 10-11, etc. 

Cf, O forgople; AriaaBiri hunai^n ar/anagruVsurmeFi nor lusabanni^gttmb (Erevan 1046); 
htitiartn arianaffmt'^yuni etv Gofnii h6i*ariQsakan taSari jfcnf«c*mari Samanaki (Erevan 
1946) 55-59, Cf. also O. Tirac''yan, ‘ Ervandnninere Hayaatanun/ lANA 6/1958 3S-71. 

Justi, Namenbucli 235; Huhschniann, GFOmmatik 20-40; cf. Markwart, Sudarmenien 
17*. Needless to say, the homonymity of the Syrian river is eofncldental. 

“ Ps. Moaes 1.22,24,31; 2.37-46; — 1.31; — 1,10. 

™ Cf. D I 66S J1.7; JM 27. 

™ Cited here in D edition = JM, as Inscr,, foUcrwed hy the number of the pariioular in¬ 
scription and, la parentheses, the number of the page, as found in each edition. 

™ Honigmann, ‘Kommagene/ RE Snppl. 4 973-000. 

^ This stenuna does not include the branch of Commagene, for which see Honlgmann, 




Inscr. 390 (607) = 16 (33: cf. infra: Artasyras); cf. D 607 n, 6; JM 10, 


ARTASrtfRAS (Abtasuras), 

Inscr. 264 (427; cf. infra: Orantes I), 390 (607) = 16 (33: ’AQzatro^Qav rdy 
’Aqadvdov), 391 (608) = 17 (33; cf. in/ra,‘ OTontes 1). 392 (609) = 3 (26-27; 
i&iJ.); Ctesias, Pers. 14, 19; Plutarch, Arlaxerxes 12; cf. D 607 n. 6; JM 27, 10; 
Justi, Namenbiich 3S (No. 4); Puchstein, in RE 2/1 1308 (No. 2). 


Orontes 1. 

Inscr. 264 (427-430: ’OgSvTti^ ’AQTa<r^qov'), 391 (60S) = 17 (33 : ^Aqodvdvfy 
’Aqraffo^&Qay zdv yapti^oavza pot^ihcaav ’^PodoyoiavTjv ^Agza^dg^ov 0v- 
yazegdft 392 (609) = 3 (26-27 ; idem, except ’^Podoyodvrjv T?)r 
^a<Ti^o>v fieyd^ov zov >tai ’Aqadbtov Sttyaziga) ; Xenophon, 

An/i5. 2-4.8; 2.5.40; 3.4.13; 3.5.17; 4.3.4; Demosthenes, Orat 14,31; Ctesias, 
Pers, 20 (’Agzdjcavog), 23,29,30,31; Trogus Pomp. 10; Diodorus 15.2.1; 15,8,3; 
15.9.3; 15.11.2; 15.90.3; 15.91,1; Polyaenus 7.14; Plutarch, Artaxerxes 27. 
Coins: B. V. Head, Hisloria numorum (2nd ed., Oxford 1911) 507; cf. D 428 nn, 
4-5, 429 n. 8, 608 n. 7; JM 27, 10; Justi, JV«men5iicft 235 (No. 6); J. Miller, in 
RE 18/1 1164-1166 (No, 6); also Tam, From Xerxes to Alexander 20-21, — Sa¬ 
trap of Armenia (401 B. C.), led the Satraps^ Revolt against Artaxerxcs !! 
of c. 366-360 B. C., received, on submission, the Satrapy of Mysia. He married 
c. 401 B, G,, Rliodogune, daughter of the Great King Artaxerxes II, and died 
c. 344 B. C. 

Orontes II. 

Inscr. 393 (610) = 18 (34; cf. infra: Mithranes); cf. D 610 nn, 6-8^ for his filia¬ 
tion. — He must be the Satrap of Armenia of his name who led the Armenian 
auxiliaries of Darius HI in the battle of Gaugamela (1 October 331); Arrian, 
A nab, 3.8.5. It is extremely difficult to suppose that it was rather Orontes III (cf. 
Grousset, jffisfoire 79-80; H.Berve, in RE 18/1 1166 [No. 7]), because the latter 
most probably died after as late as 270/260B.C., i.e., some sixty or seventy years 
after Guagamela, and must, consequently, be presumed to have been a cente¬ 
narian at the time of his death, which is unlikely, Orontes II, on the other 
hand, could be in his middle sixties in 331. At the same time, it is equally 
difficult to accept — what JM propose (11 n. 2, p. 34) as a possibility — 
that Orontes II (HI according to JM, since the father of Artasyras is counted 
as the First; 10) reigned again after Mithranes down to about 316: for we 



should then have to h^eve him to have died aged between 84 and 1401 Cf. 
infra Orontes III. 


MiTHRAjtsfES (MithreneSj Mitfkhnes), 

Jnscr, 393 (610) — 18 (54: ^aatXea ... \ANhN rdv ^offtXSojg "‘A^odvdov); 
Diodorus 17, 21,7; 17.64.6; Arrian, AnaK 1.17.3; 3.16.5; Cuitius 3,12.7; 5.1.44; 
Dio Chrys, 73-2. The mutilated name of the above inscription, D 610 n, 6 
would read, together with some others, as Oqddrr^v or Btt^ddvrjv; Honig- 
mann, 981^982, emends it as Mtd^dvfjv. This JM 34 do not accept. Honig- 
mann*s identification, however, accords well with the cumulative historical 
evidence (§7.) Also Justi, Namenbuch 214 (No, 1); Grousset, Histoire 79;Berve, 
in RE 15/2 2156. A coin has been attributed to him by O, Blau in WNZ 9 (1S77) 
too, but erroneously: E. Babdon, Les Rois de Syrie^ d*Arminie ei de Comma- 
gene (Paris 1890) cxci. — Iranian governor of Sardis, he passed to Alexander 
in 344 E.C,, and, in 331* was named by him to be Satrap of Armenia. 


Orontes III 

Diodorus 19.25.3 (c. 317 B.C.: "OptJvTot) rou if<xTQ{utEia.v fi^v e^ovTog ’‘Ag- 
ptsvlag), 31,19.5-6 t&v ’Agftevftov ’AgdodriH); the difference in 

the spelling of the name must be due to the author’s dependence on different 
sources; cf. also Markwart, Berceau, 231; Grousset, Histoire^ 79 n. 4); Polyae- 
nus 4.8.3, — Owing doubtless to the fact that not all the stelae of the Nimrud- 
dag monument with commemorative inscriptions on them have been preserved 
(cf. D 592; JM 2), we have no inscription referring to Orontes III, — Cf, also 
Justi, Namenbuch 236 (No. 7); Grousset, 79-80; Adontz, Hist d*Arm.330; Serve, 
in RE 18/11166 (No.7). The last mention of him is in Diodorus 31.19, who refers 
to him as a king, in connexion with the aid he lent to Ariarathes I! of Cappado¬ 
cia for defeating the Macedonian strategus Amyntas and thus regaining his 
State. This, according to him, took place after the deaths of Perdiccas and 
Eumenes (32! and 316 B, C.), but this is too vague to indicate any, even ap¬ 
proximate,' date. The defeat of Amyntas has been put at as low as 260 B, C. 
by Bengtson, Strategie H 77-78; and 270/260 B. C., by J. Beloch, Griechische 
Geschichfe^ III/l (Strasbourg, 1904), 296; cf, Manandyan, K^nnakan. ies. 97-99. 



InscT. 394 (611) — 5 (28; cf. infra: Arsames); cf, D 611 n. 5; JM 10-11 and n. 3: 
the city of Samosata in Commagene may have been founded by this Samus, 
who, then, must be anterior to c. 245 B. C,, when Eratosthenes was writing, 
in whose work that city is first mentioned. As he must have followed Orontes 
III, he must he the King of Armenia with whom Ziaelas of Bithynia took refuge 



c. 260 B- C*: Memnon 22. Cf. Visconti* Icon, greca 322-325, PI. xvi 3, for 
his coin, 



Inscr, 394 (611) = 5 (28: ^AQtfdfttjv rdv bk ^atyiAicoQ Xrfjwotj; D 

611 n. 5 proposeid the reading but see Honigmaim 981-983; 

‘Sarnus^ was the name used by the Commagenian dynasty); Polyaenus4*17, 
{’"A^ad^riq}. Coins: Yi&conti, Icon, greca 317’321* PI. xvi 1; Babelon, Rois de 
Syne cxciii, 211, PI. xxis 2; J, de Morgan, Manuel de numismatiqae orUn- 
iale de Pantiquifi ef du moyen-dge 1 (Paris 1923-1936) 191; — 

*AQ<fdfiov); cf. P 612 n. 6; JM 28; Grousset, Hisioire 80; Markwart, Stid- 
nrmenien 50, 240-243; Justi, Namenbuch 29 (No, 10); E. Meyer, in RE SuppL 
1 141; Honigmann 980. — He must be regarded as the builder of the city of 
Arsamosata in the province of Sophenc and of the city of Arsameia in Corn- 
magene. He offered asylum to Antiochus Hierax, one-time his brother Seleu- 
cus IJ’s viceroy oi Asia Minor, who had subsequently set himself up as an in¬ 
dependent king, c. 240-c. 227 B, C., and ultimately lost his throne. —Both 
D 611 n. 5 and JM 28, 10 consider it necessary to intercalate another Arsames 

— ‘the Second* — in the'Orontid stemma between Samus and the father of 
Ptolomaeus, on the ground that, while five generations separate Arsames from 
Orontes I and Rhodogune, only three — sic,- actually four — separate him 
from Mithridates I of Cornmagene the husband of Antiochus VIIPs daughter 
Laodice and father of the builder of the Nimrud-dag tumulus. 1 must, however, 
own that I fail to appreciate the alleged difficulty of this situation. In juxta¬ 
posing the Orontid and the Seleucid stemma, the following pairs of contempo¬ 
raries are to be noted: (a) Sdeucus I (bom in 352/4 B* C.) and Mithranes: 
both were in the entourage of Alexander, though the regnal dates of the one 
(312-2S1/8Q) are lower than the regnal dates of the other (331-before 317); 

— (b) Seleucus II (246-226) with his brother Antiochus Hierax (f 227) and 
Arsames (after 260-after 228); — (c) Antiochus HI (223-187) aud Xerxes (af¬ 
ter 228-c. 212: § 3), who was of the generation of the father of Ptolomaeus 
of Cornmagene; — (d) Seleucus lY (187-175) and Ptolomaeus (c, 163). It ought 
to be remarked in passing that in both stemmata exactly the same number 
of generations separate (a) from (b), (b) from (c), and (c) from (d). Now, when 
we come to Mithridates of Cornmagene and Laodice, we discover that he was 
two generations back of her: he was a grandson of Ptolomaeus and she a great- 
great-grand-daughter of Seleucus IV, However, because a husband is usually 
older than his wife and also because belonging to parallel generations need not 
indicate the same age — Arsames may well have been a younger contempo¬ 
rary of Seleucus II, and Ptolomaeus of Seleucus IV — there is nothing extra- 



ordinary in this situation. The need of inventing another Arsames cannot, 
therefore, be considered real. 

For the sources for the remaining part of this stemma, except in the case 
of Ptolomaeus, see the remarks that foUoinr it. 

Xerxes. Abdissares. Orontes IV, Mithras. 

King of Armenia King last Orontld King High Priest of 

c. 212 B. C, (of Armenia?] of Armenia, the Sun and 

c. 200 B. C. of the Moon. 

? ? 


Strategus of Sophene; grandson of Arsames and founder of the 

King of Sophene 190 B. G. Dynasty of Commagene c. 163 B. C. — 

I Tnscp. 402 {618) = 46 (47); Diodorus 31.19; 

cf. D 612 n. 6. 

Mithrrobuzames L AraeiMtis 
King of Sophene 

Orontes V. 

last King of Sophene 95 B. C. 


Mithrobuzanes IL 
Viceroy of Sophene 69 B. C. 

The uncertainties of this stemma may toe somevrhat compensated for by An- 
tiochus T of Commagene’s assertion of his direct descent, through Ptolomaeus, 
from Orontes I! and Rhodogune and, through them, from the earlier Orontids 
and from the Achaemenids. 

3. Xerxes iras besieged by the Seleucid Antiochus HI at Arsaraosata, where 
he had shut himself up; then offered submission and the payment of the tribute 
once due from his father. Antiochus accepted this offer and even gave to Xer¬ 
xes his sister Antiochis in marriage (c. 212 B. C.), who, however, soon had her 
husband murdered; Polybius 8.25; Joh. of Ant. fr, 53. For his coins, see Visconti 
Icon, greca 325-328, PI. xvi 2; Babelon, Rois de Syrie cxdv-cxcvii, 212, PJ. xsiv 
6, 7; Moigan, Manuel 192; — {^atfiMo>^ cf. Justi, Namenbuch 173- 

174 {No. 4); Grousset, Hisioire 80. It is difficult to escape the impression 
that Xerxes was a son of Arsames, reigning as he did so soon after him and 



being in possession of the city the other had founded. His father’s tribute 
that Xerxes iras obliged to renew may well have been imposed on Arsames 
by Seleucus 11 in retaliation for the support given to Antiochus Hierax. This 
filiation of Xersesj however, has not occurred to any specialists in the field, 
who usually regard him as not an Orontid,^’ the reason for this apparently 
being that Xerxes is not mentioned among the ancestors of Antiochus of Com- 
magene (infra § 5), But, as has been already noted (§2), not all the inscriptions 
have reached us in the Himrud-dag monument, and that monument itself has 
to do only with that king’s direct ancestors, whereas Ptolomaeus, the founder 
of the House of Commagene, could readily have been not a son, but let us say 
a nephew, of Xerxes. 

The genealogical position of Abdlssares is wholly unknown. The only reason 
for Supposing him to have belonged to the Orontid Dynasty and been, conse¬ 
quently, a King of Armenia, is the striking similarity of bis coins to those of 
Xerxes and, what is probably more significant, the identical shape of the head- 
gear of the two monarchs; cf. Visconti, Icon, greca 328-332, Ph xvi 4; Babelon 
Rois de Sgrie cxiv, 2! 1-212, PL xxix 3-5; Y. Langlois, Numismatique generate 
dt VAvm^nie (Paris 1659) 6-10; Head, Hist. num. 635; — (^uctMoii; 

(rd^ow); cf. Justi, Namenbuch 1; Baumgartner, in RE 1/1 26-27. Though 
Babelon suggests (cxciv, cxcv) that he may have been the father of Xerxes, it 
it is more likely, in view of what has already been said about the probable 
parentage of Xerxes, that he was a brother of his, 

4, The last Orontid sovereign of Armenia was Orontes (IV): Strabo 11.14.15; 
cf. E. Diehl, in RE 18/1 1166 (N* 9), He and his brother Mithras 

(Mi0pd[r?7l5 ?), High Priest of the temple of the Sun and of the Moon at Arma- 
vira, are mentioned in the Greek inscriptions discovered there in 1927, as In¬ 
terpreted by A. I. Boltunova and Manandyan. One inscription contains an 
address of Mithras to King Orontes; another alludes to the King’s tragic death.“ 

Not unnaturally, the Armenian historical tradition, which Pseudo-Moses of 
Chorene preserved in his Hisiorg of Armenia, confirms and amplifies these data. 
There are several references. The most important, in Book 2, cap, 37-46, con¬ 
tains the account of the reign of King Eruand — of his brother the High 
Priest Eruaz (2.40, 48) — and of his struggle with, and overthrow by, King 

Cf. D 012, n, ft: qni manifeste non eiusdem afqaeArsamei domusesset; JM11 a. 4,29 (that 
the headgear of Xerxes and AtMlissares is dihereut to that of the King of Commagene, as Is 
remai'ked by JM, has nothing to do with their belonging or not belongiug to the Oroutida of 

^ Boltunova, 'OreCeskie uadplsl Armavlra,' TAFAN (1942) Nos 1-2; Manandyan, Arjna- 
viri hunaren arjeutagr.; ci. O iorgople 36-37. Treyer, Oc. po isi. Arm- 134-137 (lns<x. 4), 
142-147 (inscr.7). Trover does not fully accept the Interpretations ol Boltunova and 
Manandyan; cf. J. M^eiian S.J., in BA 2 (1935) 212/160. 



Artaslies. As the former name stands for Orontes in Greek, so the latter ren* 
ders here the Greek name Artaxias,^* which belonged, as wiW be seen, to the 
founder of the Second Armenian Monarchy of the Artaxiads. Pseudo-Moses 
displays in this connexion a more than usual chronological confusion. While* 
on the one hand, dating the accession of Orontes-Eruand as of the eighth year 
of the last Darius (III),*** he at the same time projects the whole story into the 
Arsacid period of Armenian history by making of Orontes a successor of ICing 
Sanatruces (c- A.D. 75-c* A.D. 110).®^ The first synchronism testifies to the 
fact that in some of Pseudo-Moses’s sources the high antiquity of these events 
was clearly implicit. On the other hand, the projection of them to so late an 
epoch is due to an onomastic confusion that our historian must have found 
in some other sources. Orontes is confused with Arbandes, son of Abgarus 
VII of Osrhoene (A.D, 110-116);*® and Abgarus, confused with an earlier Edes- 
sene ruler of the same name whom legend made to correspond with Our Lord 
and become a Christian — and Pseudo-Moses gives his own version of this 
legend (2.30-34) —, is made a King of Armenia before Sanatruces (2,26-34). 
At the same time, Artaxias-Artashes is confused with Axedares who reigned 
in Armenia c. A,D, 110, after Sanatruces.*® However, the story preserved by 
Pseudo-Moses contains, as an integral part, a true synchronism, which remains 
unimpaired by all the superimposed mistaken elaborations: it is the ascription 
to Artash^ of the building of the city of Artashat (2.49), which is Artaxata, 
founded by the first Artaxiad.** That all this confusion is not due to Pseudo- 
Moses> is patent from the existence of a similar imbroglio in the Primary Histo¬ 
ry of Armenia^ where mention is made of a King Artashes, son of Sanatruces, 
while Eruand and his brother, also Artashes, are placed some two centuries 
earlier.®® This erroneous tradition found its way into Iberian historiography 
as well; and Leontius of Ruisi speaks of the Armenian kings larvand and his 
brother Artashan, as living in the first century of our era.®* 

The other references in Pseudo-Moses to the Orontids are merely passing: 
names inserted in the theogony of the early kings with which Book 1 of his 
work is concerned. Thus, Eruand is the father and predecessor of Tigranes, 

See infra ti. 27. 

2,37 (157). 

^ tbld^ For Sia^truces, &eo Aadourianj ArntM.^om 100-103; Debeyolse, Parfhia 235. 

MQuandyaa, O torgoole 3S-39. — Orontes, however. Is not made a son of Abganis. 

®® AsdonrUn, 103; Debevolse, Parthia 217~21S, Soc ibid. 213-'2B0 for the in¬ 

volvement of lK>tli Armenia and Osrhoene In the Flomau-Parthlart politics In the age ot the 

^ Mauandyan, O torgfovle 48-53. 

Prim. Hist. Arm- 15-16. 

Leont. Mrov. 44-50. 's 



the ally of Cyrus the Great (1.22) j Aravan and Hrant are found respectively 
before and after him in the same theogony (1.31*19). The first of these referen¬ 
ces is of considerable interest. Artaxias, who overthrew the Orontids, was, 
to all appearances, a local dynast. The Greek form of his name renders, it has 
already been noted, AHa^es which is the purely Armenian form of the name, 
of which the Iranian form, ArfaxSaOra^ is usually Graecized as Artaxerseg.^^ 
The dynasty he founded, moreover, showed a marked preference for the name 
of Tigraues, four out of the eight Artaxiad kings bearing it. This was the name* 
it will be recalled, used by the proto-Armenian kings remembered by both 
Xenophon and the Armenian historical tradition.® "Whether Artaxias was 
descended from the proto-Armenian Tigranids* as Professor Adontz held to be 
indubitable,® or not, some genealogical connexion between them, real or pre- 
tented* seems definitely indicated. Now, the establishment of satrapal con- 
' trol in Armenia, of which the Orontids were the beneficiaries, must have re¬ 
duced the rights of what local dynasts there were. Thus the struggle of Arta- 
xias and Orontes IV assumes the double character of a national revolt against 
an Iranian dynasty combined with the dynastic hostility of the Tigranids* or 
their relatives, for the satrapal Orontids. At all events, the above reference 
to the succession of Tigranes after Orontes — and it is the habit of Caucasian 
historiography to designate the facts of succession among remote, chiefly fo¬ 
reign, rulers by terms expressive of genealogical relationship® — allegorizes 
this same event as the succession of the eponym of the Tigranids after the 
eponym of the Orontids. 

5. There are two assumptions that have always been made by historians 
in connexion with this period of Armenian history, which are quite gratuitous 
and incorrect, which have introduced much confusion into the little information 
we possess regarding the Orontids, and which must be obviated before a dear 
picture of the Orontid period can be obtained. One of these assumptions is 
that the south-western Armenian province of Sophene was a distinct State* 
separate from the rest of Greater Armenia, before the time of Artaxias and 
Zariadris®! (what the situation was before the Achaemenian phase, is not our 

HQbwliTiuiim* GraiianaUk 2S-29, 505; a different opinion, wbidi HDb^chmaDD does 
not accept, see Juati, Nanifn&ucA Se-S7, cf. 34-36- 

® Supra at n. 7. 

® Adontz* Armenija 390 n. 1, cf. 427 n. t. Ho even caJls the ArtaTdad? 'Tigranids* 389- 

® Cf. Ill/1 n. 40. The early kings remembecd in snch a confused way by the Armenian 
historical tradition were more remote than any foreign monarchs to the minds of those who 
gave it the literary form In which it has reached us. 

Cf., e.g., Manandyan, O torgotfU 30-40J Gronsset* Histoire 80; Hoiugmann, Kommagenc 


■rae ORONTios of Armenia 

concern here). Thus, Manaiidyan“ speaks of the Orontid masters of Greater 
Armenia — and of the great trade route that passed through it connecting 
Iran and the Euxine and was controlled from the Orontid cities of Armavira 
and Eruandashat — as being distinct from the rulers of Sophene — a land 
closely bound to the Seleucid empire both culturally and economically. Ac¬ 
cordingly, he reckons Arsames, the builder of Arsamosata in Sophene^ among 
the latter and is unaware of his connexion with the former. Yet the evidence 
of the Nimrud-dag monument for his belonging to the Orontid Dynasty is 
incontrovertible. That one and the same ruling house should have held both 
Armenia's central plain and its Syro-Mesopotamian frontier, presents nothing 
extraordinary, unless the separation of Sophene and Greater Armenia be assum¬ 
ed a priori to have existed at that time. Actually, Manandyan himself sug¬ 
gested that the Orontids must have led the proto-Armenian expansion from 
the valley of the Arsanias — the land of Hayasa and, inevitably, also the land 
of neighbouring Sophene®® — to the valley of the Araxes, where they established 
their residence at Armavira.** What ground, then, can there be for conjecturing 
that they ever abandoned the southern part of the land which they had ori¬ 
ginally controlled? In this context, the following five points ought to be con¬ 
sidered. First, there is no Indication whatsoever that Sophene was politically 
distinct from Greater Armenia before Artaxias and Zariadris. Second, Strabo 
(11.14,15) is emphatic in stating the contrary : ^tarelxov t^v 'AqfiEvlav IHq- 
ffat ttai Maxsd6ve^t juerd zavra ol zifv ZvQiav l^^forre? xai M7}d(av * 
ZEXevzaio^ d' vyr^Q^ev ^Ogdvzi^g dbtoyovo^ "^Yddgvov, rcov iy^zd HsQtfcov 
er<^C ■ eZ6l’ z^v ^Avndxov zov peydXov azgarrjyfov rov yrgd^ 
TioXtfjL^oavzo^ dt^gdQri d[%at 'AQxa^iov xai Z/xQiddgto^ * xai o§roi, 

zov ^aoiXdox; ETiizQSipavtoQ * ^zrjB^vzog d* ixelvovt sigoaOepevoi *Pcofiaiotg 
xaB’ ai5zovg irdrzopto, ^a<riXstQ yipodayogs^odevzeg.^ Third, Orontes III 
must have controlled Sophene, else his dealings with Cappadocia would have 
been difficult, if not impossible, to effect. Fourth, Polyaenus (4,17) speaks of 
the boundaries of Armenia — roijg pev "^Agfisvicov dgovg — and not at all 
of Sophene, when relating the flight of Antiochus Hierax to the Court of 
Arsames, who was the builder of Arsamosata in Sophene. Finally, Xerxes, 
who ruled at Arsamosata after Arsames, is remembered by John of Antioch 
as ‘ lord of the Armenians’ (fr. 53: *AQf£evCcav zvQdyv<i)). 

Loc. cit. 

** Supra at n. 3. 

** hunaren arjanagr. 55-59; O nek, spom. proifL 151. 

Strabo, indeed, eonld be iuteipreted as saying the opposite wben, in 12,3.28 apropos 
ol Leaser Armenia, he -writes that dvvdarai S' nazEixof dei, waSdiscg njtf 2^oi<p‘r)viiVt 

but it Is impossible to teB whether aaOdsfSQ refers to Swdatai stateixov as modified by 
Aei or irreapecUve of it; in view of the context, we may presume the latter. 



The other a&aumption is that whenever the title of king is applied in the 
sources to an Armenian dynast of the Hellenistic phase prior to the rise of 
the Axtaxiad Monarchy, his attempted or achieved independence of foreign 
control must necessarily be presumed. Actually, it was the policy of AJexander, 
at the beginning of his career at any rate, to leave the local dynasts on their 
thrones in exchange for no matter how tenuous a recognition of his suzerainty.® 
And under the overlord ship of the Seleucid successors of Alexander there 
flourished a number of vassal kings; in their empire, as a matter of fact, local 
dynasts were not infrequently invested with the office of satrap.*’ Accordingly, 
although indeed it might on occasion imply the acquisition of political inde¬ 
pendence, the royal dignity, when it appears in the obiter dicta of ancient writers 
or in some epigraphic and numismatic data, need indicate no more that the 
acquisition or continuance of the status of a vassal king. Its appearance in 
the sources need not, consequently, be interpreted as solely revolt or secession. 
Yet it seems to have been precisely this assumption that lay at the basis of 
both the hesitation of some scholars® to admit the kingship of Orontes III, who 
in B.C became a Seleucid vassal, and the refusal to reckon among the 
$atrapal Orontids those whom the sources entitle Kings — Xerxes, Abdissa- 
res, Arsames, as in the case of Grouaset, or, with Dittenberger and Honigmann, 
JaJabert and Mouterde — who could not close their eyes to the evidence of 
Nimrud-da§ regarding Arsames —- only the first two.™ 

6. With all this in view, the history of the Orontid Dynasty may be further 
elucidated. Before this, however, a word about their ‘prehistory.’ Strabo ( 11 . 
14 . 15 ), recording what may be safely assumed to have been the tradition of 
the family, deduced it from Hydames, one of the Seven Persians who put an 
end to the reign of Pseudo^-Smerdis {Herodotus, 3.70).® The genealogy of his 
family, the Hydamids can be found in Justi’s Iranisches Namenbuch.^ It re¬ 
mains, however, to be seen how this claim can be squared with the Bactrian 
origin asserted of Orontes 1 in the Pergamese Chronicle But what is of inte¬ 
rest in this connexion is the fact that two undoubted Hydamids were — before 
the time of Orontes I — successively Satraps of Armenia. They were Hydar- 
nes (HI) and his son Terituchmes.® The former’s daughter Stateira was mar- 

® Cf. Jouguet, Imp^rialtwnA 93-94. 

® Ko$tovt£ietf, Soc^E«m.Hia{. 502^ Betigt^gn. Straiegie II 3-S, 55-64; O tor- 

goole 39. 

® Cf. Mai-kVTart, Berceau 231; Grousset, Hlslofte 80. 

® Ibid. \ D 612 11 . 6 ; JM 11 n.4, 29; Honigmann, Koitmagme 981. 

® Cf. lean Aeh^m. 47 n.4, 102, 128 n. 1. " P. 397. 

® D No. 2ft4, 427-428: yivos ^diergtos ; cf. Honigmann, 

KonVnagens 9S1; JM 11 n. 4. 

Berve-Schoeh, in I3uppl.4 767-768. 



ried to tlie Great King Artasierxes II (404-35S B. C.), and so he must belong 
to the generation of Xerxes I! {424 B*C.) and Darius II {424-404 B.C.); and 
the latter was married to Artaxerxes Il'a slater Amestris.^ Thus they indeed 
belonged to tw'o generations antecedent to that of Orontes I who was married 
to a daughter of Artaxerxes IK We may, accordingly, anppose one of three 
things: (1) that Orontes I, though not — as the son of Artasyras and grandson 
of another Orontes -— a direct descendant of these two Hydarnid satraps^ was 
nevertheless their collateral, a true Hydarnid himself, although we are ignorant 
of the degree of kinship that bound them together, and that he merely suc¬ 
ceeded them in the satrapate that had become hereditary iu their family; 
or (2) that Orontes Ts wife Bhodogune was Artaxerxes IFs child by his Hydar- 
nid wife Stateira {along with Darius, Ariaspes, and Artaxerxes HI) and that, 
consequently, Orontes H was a descendant of the Hydarnids, as of the Achae- 
menids, in the female line; or else (3) that the claim to Hydarnid descent had 
no basis in fact, but was due to the Orontids^ following the Hydarnids in the 
same office.*® 

7, The circumstances in which the Orontid Satraps of Amenta became 
kings and founded the hitherto unknown First Armenian Monarchy are not 
clear. As can be seen from their stemma, all the Orontids from the second to 
the last Orontes were styled Kings, even those that were Achaemenid and 
Alexander's satraps or Seleucid vassals. Admitting that from the point of view 
of their overlords some of the Orontid Kings of Armenia might be mere gover¬ 
nors, what interests us here is precisely how, at the same time, they themselves 
conceived of their status. The most likely Orontid to have become the first 
King of Armenia is Orontes IK the first to be entitled in the Nim- 

rud-da| inscriptions; and the most likely date for this is that of the dissolution 
of the Achaemenid empire, 331 B,C. The end of that empire, sealed by the 
death of Darius HI, when conjoined with Orontes II’s own maternal Achaeme¬ 
nid descent and his de facto independence in Armenia, where the memories of 
the Urartian Monarchy must not have been obliterated,*® can be easily con¬ 
ceived to have sufficiently prompted and sufficiently justified his taking the 
royal title. If it be objected that the royal dignity of Orontes II, and of Mithra- 
nes, is found only in one Nimrud-dag inscription (393 = 18) and may, there- 

** Jiisti, iyiarosnfrHjjA 397, S9S-599. Also: 14, 311, 32S, 36S. 

For the of the Hydarnid descent oi the Oroailds through -women see JM 

11 n.4. — The spiuiou^ daim of the Adarathids ol Cappadocia to he descended from both 
one of the Seven Persians and an Achaemetud princess, Qyrua the (ireat’s aunt Atossa (Dio- 
dams, 31.19), may have been in&pired by their Orontid nei^bouis. The Arlarathid claim la 
sat older than the second century B.C.: Hiese 'Aitarathes/ RE 2/1 315. 

« I n. S4 



fore, be a mere projectioii into tbe past on the part of Antiochus of Commagene 
of a title only subsequently acquired by the Orontids, it must be remembered 
that Orontes I, for all his apparent velleilies in that direction," is not styled 
King in that monument. 

The advent of Alexander had in no way interfered with the Orontid position. 
The conqueror’s pohcy towards the dynasts who had been included in the 
Achaemenid empire has just been mentioned (§ 5). And so Armenia, Cappado^ 
cia, and some other realms remained unconquered by him and wholly auto^ 
nomous.® Orontes, consequently, may have continued to reign in Armenia after 
Gaugamela, exactly as, let jis say, Ariarathes I continued at that time to reign 
in the northern section of Cappadocia. But, within the same year 331 — after 
that victory — Alexander appointed Mithranes to be Satrap of Armenia 
(see the Stemma). Those unaware of his Orontid birth and, at the same time, 
cognizant of Armenia’s independence have tended to regard this appointment 
as purely nominal.'*® But his origin, made probable on the basis of an interpre¬ 
tation the Nimrud’dag evidence, changes the picture radically. It appears 
most likely that Alexander sent Mithranes^ who had early passed to his side, 
to replace his father in Armenia, as his recompense and as a punishment for 
the other’s support of Darius III. In this way, the local dynastic regime 
would have been interfered with the least. Orontes il, however, who 
was in his middle or late sixties at the time, could not have Jong survived 
those momentous events; and Mithranes, Satrap that he was from the Mace¬ 
donian point of view, may thus have succeeded, from the Armenian point of 
view, to his father’s kingship. There need, accordingly, be no hesitation to 
admit that Mithranes actually ruled Armenia; and to his rule the ascription 
to him of the royal title in the Nimrud-dag inscription may bear witness. 

Following Alexander’s death, his Successors adopted an entirely different 
attitude towards the local dynasts. In 322 E.C., Cappadocia was occupied 
and Ariarathes I crucified by Perdiccas (Diodorus, 18.16); and, even a year 
earlier — immediately after Alexander’s passing —, we hear of Neoptolemus 
as in control of Armenia®®, But Neoptolemus, involved as he was in the struggle 
of the Diodochi, in which he lost his life two years later* can hardly have caused 
a serious intemiption, if any, in the history of Oronid rule in that country. As 
a matter of fact, in the case of Armenia we observe a development that was 
diametrically opposite to the aims of the new policy of the Diodochi, After 

" Tam, X«raes iQ 2i. 

Tom, ‘Aiexandet; tbe Gouquest of the Par East/ CAK 6 423, 432, 

" Tani, 'Alexander: the Conquest of Persia,* CAH 6 3S3; Lehraana-Ehmpt, Sairap 
Berve, ia RE 15/2 2156. 

Flutaivh, Furnenesj ci. Berve, in RE 16/2 2464 (No. 7). 



321 B.C., Atmenia was wholly free of even nominal Macedonian controU This 
faii accompli was tacitly admitted hy the Diodochi themselves when* in the 
Partition of Tripara disus that year, Armenia was not mentioned among the 
satrapies that they apportioned to themselves*®* For twenty years to come, 
the Kingdom, for the first time after the fall of Urartu some three centuries 
earlier, enjoyed the position of a wholly independent sovereign State.^® 

8. In 301 B.C., however, Armenia fell within the orbit of the Seleucid em¬ 
pire.®® This signified that the Orontids reverted to the position of vassal kings 
that had been theirs under Alexander*®^ This — tenuous — overlordship of 
the Seleucids, Xerxes appears to have been the first to attempt to shake off, 
when he ceased to pay the tribute imposed (so it seems) on Arsames {supra 
§ 3). The nature of this tribute is unknown to us* It may have been an extra¬ 
ordinary one, imposed over and above that which was ordinarily due from 
vassal to suzerain; a penalty for the aid rendered to Hierax- it may, on the 
other hand, liave been but the ordinary tribute of a vassal. In either case, 
the refusal of Xerxes was tantamount to an assertion of independence, and 
invited Seleucid interference.®® About 212 B.C.* Xerxes was murdered, and 
was followed by Orontes IV, or — if Abdissares be accepted as indeed a King 
of Armenia (and this seems very likely) then — by Abdissares and Orontes. 
The latter was the last — rsXsvTatog — King of Armenia of his house, for, 
sometime later, about 200 he was overthrown by Artaxias. The next 

we hear of is the presence of two Seleucid strategi in Greater Armenia: Arta¬ 
xias, who held most, but not all, of the Kingdom, and Zariadris, who held 
Sophene, Thus the territory of the First Armenian Monarchy was for the first 
time divided Since they are spoken of by Strabo (supru g 5) as strategi of 

Amau, Sacc. Ales. 34; Diodorus 1^.39; cf, Lehmaun-Haupt, Satrap IS-I; Tam, Hertiags 
oj Atexander 464; Grousset, Hlstoire 79. 

It the evidence for the kingship of Orontes li and Mithranes be deemed in^ufftcient, no 
doubt can be entertained as regards the royal status of Orontes III. 

Appian, SpT., 55; c£. Grousset* Histoire SO. 

^ Nlese, Iti RE 2/1 Si5* casts doubts on the veracity of Diodorus’s report of the aid given 
by Orontes III {Ardoates) to Ariarathes II of Cappadocia on the ground that Armenia 
'war damals outer Gewait der Makedonier’; this is to misjudge utterly the nature of both 
Alexander's and the Seleucids' suzerainty. 

II the tribute in question was ordinary, its Introduction at the time of Xerxes's predeces¬ 
sor need not imply that U was only then that Seleucid overiordghip was introduced. Apart 
from the wliness of Appian for the year 301 as the date of Its Introduction (supra n. 53), 
the absence of tribute need not of itself signify political independence, since the subordination 
of one niler to another can be expressed in a number of ways* not necessarily through such 
payments; but the refusal to continue to pay a tribute (whether regular or extraordlnaiy) 
must indeed signify an attempt to undo that subordination. 

« Cf. Diehl, In RE 18/1 1166. 

^ Straho, 11.14.16; 11.14.5. 



Anfiocltus the Great, it may be assumed that it was Antiochus who conferred 
that office upon them.™ How this happened, remains obscure, and we can 
only make guesses about it. Those who have overlooked the Armenian eviden¬ 
ce for these events; for the revolt of Artaxiag and the overthrow by him of 
Orontes IV, see in the two strategi mere Seleucid officials.^ Yet that evidence 
suggests that Artaxias was a local dynast who had overthrown Orontes IV 
and, as will be seen presently (| 9), that Zariadris was an Orontid. This must 
give a slightly different and more complex character to the story. The change 
from the Orontid Monarchy to the rule of two strategi was, obviously, as fa¬ 
vourable to the interests of the Seleucid government as it was disastrous for 
Armenia, It is legitimate, therefore, to suspect them of playing some part in the 
event, FYom what we know of the situation in the Seleucid empire at the time 
it is quite evident that even so energetic a monarch as Antiochus III cannot 
be presumed to have effected so radical a change In a vassal but autonomous 
State by direct action. An internal upheaval, like the revolt of Artaxias against 
OrOntes IV, was clearly needed. We may still suspect that Antiochus had his 
hand in it, and for the following reason. It could be supposed that Orontes at¬ 
tempted to follow in the footsteps of Xerxes in refusing to accept Seleucid suze¬ 
rainty and that the insurrection of Artaxias was, for all its local raison d'lfre, 
instigated, or at least connived at, by Antiochus III. At all events, Antiochus 

Tbou^ it Appears, on. the basis of all available evidence, very lilsely that, ludiiectly, 
Antiochus 111 was responsible for the fall of Orontes IV, there seems to me to he little iu 
Strabo 11.14.15 to warrant the assumption that the latter was ^arli par Antiodios IJJ (JM. 
11 n. 4). — For the office of or military governor endowed with tivU functions, 

which in the third century and especially under Antiochus 111, began to replace the 
rather solely dvtl satrap In the Seleucid empire and partienlEirly in Asia Minor, see Bengton, 
Strategic; c£. I at nn. 93'<94. 

E. g.f Gronsset, Hiat^ire 60~31, where, moreover, emphasis seems to be laid on their 
'noma iraniens^ Actually, Artaxias was more a purely Armenian than an Iranian praenomerf: 
supra at n. 27. As for Zenadris, it must be borne la mind that the coltiuallmpiriqt of the 
Acbaemesiait phase on Armenian society entailed a wholesaJe adoption of Iranian names and 
terms, so that an iranoid name can tell nothing of the provenance of its bearer. Hie Oron- 
tids, indeed, were of Iranian origin; on the other hand two recently discovered ]nsciipU.ons in 
Aramaic characters (in the vicinity of lahe Sevan, in 1906 and 1932) tnenUon Arta^{a)sile 
m*tek bar zi ZaritOTf which suggests that Artaxias I's father was u£imed Zariadris: Trever, 
Oi. po tSi, Arm- 1^2-174; A. Borisov, 'Nadpisi Artaksila (ArtaSesa), couja Armenli,' 
VDE 1946/2; I. D'jakonov and K, Starkova, ‘Nadpisi Artaksija (ArtaSesa I), carja Auncnii,' 
tbid, 1955/2; A. Dupont-<Sommeff, 'Beux inscriptions aram^ennes trouv^s prfes dn lac 
Sevan (Armdnie),* S 25 (1946-1948). Stilt another stele with an Axamate inscription of 
Artaxias I has been discovered there hi 1957. Here, too, the King is called ‘son of Zareh' 
and, moreover, applies to hImseU the dynastic patronymic of Orontid (RWNDKN): Tira- 
c'yau, ‘Novonajdennaja nadpis* ArtaSesa I caiia Ajmeiui," VDI 1959/1 88-90, This at- 
tiibutlon, due doobtless to the King's desire to legldiuixe his position, may, however, have 
been warranted by a female descent from the dispossessed dynasty. 



appears to have been quick in taking advantage of the situation that had 
developed. SomehoTv Artaxias was unable to establish his sway over the entire 
kingdom of Orontes; and it was Zariadris who held its south-western corner; 
Sophene, and also the westernmost section of Armenia north of it, between 
the Euphrates and the Arsanias (Strabo 11,14.5). We may further suppose 
that the local population there rallied round a scion of the old dynasty. Being 
more Hellenized than the rest of Greater Armenia,® and more anciently as¬ 
sociated with the Orontids, Sophene can be expected to have been less sensitive 
to the claims of a national dynasty that was then being founded by Artaxias. 
At all events, Antiochus appointed both to be his governors — or, to put it 
differently: accepted the accomplished fact by recognizing both as his governors 
— each in the part of Greater Armenia already under his control. The dynastic 
enmity between them must have seemed a guarantee of this divide et fmpera 
policy, and their reduction to strategy — at least from the Seleucid point of 
view — must have resulted from this weakening division.® If such was the 
policy of Antiochus III, it proved in the end to have been a miscalculation. 
After his defeat by the Romans at Magnesia, in 190 B.G., both Artaxias and 
Zariadris rose against him, and with the aid of Rome obtained in 18$ B.C. the 
internationally recognized status of independent kings, one of Greater Armenia, 
the other of Sophene.® Somewhat later, c, 163 another scion of the Oron¬ 
tids, Ptolomaeus, a grandson of Arsames, set himself up as king in Conmiagene, 
that had until then been a Seleucid province, and founded the royal house to 
which Antiochus I belonged.® 

9. The Kings of Sophene, successors of Zariadris, are rather scantily known. 
Their stemma was established by J. Markwark^ The Orontid origin of Zaria¬ 
dris is inferred from the following data. (1) The last King of Sophene, a de¬ 
scendant of Zariadris, who was dispossessed c. 95 B.C. by the Artaxiad King 
Tigranes II the Great of Armenia,® is called Artanes by Strabo (11.14,15); 
TOW d ^AQxdvfjg This name must be a contraction; 

® MasandTan, O torgopte 51-3^. 

^ A siiaUar patt«im is observable in the partilioa of Armeala, A.D. 3S7: Internal division 
seized upon by luipeilal neighbours. 

® CS. Grousset, Hlstaire SO-Sl. 

® Gf, Houigmaim, Eonunagene aSO, 983. That Couunageue, or at least a part of It, maiy 
at one time have belonged to the Oroutid Moaafchy of Armenia, seems ludlca.ted by the con.^ 
UKXiou of the Conuniagenian cities of Samosata and Arsamela mth, respectively, Samus and 
Arsames of Armenia; cf. 11 n. 3,^. 

** BrOitSahr 178 n.4. It Is baaed on Diodorus 31.22; Polybius 31,17; Tfogus Pomp, 35.11; 
and Strabo 11,14,15. —' For the com falsely attributed to Zariadris, see Htib^tuaun, 
Crimm/ttik 508; Babelou, Eois de Sgrie cxcvil-cxcix. 

“ Cf. Grousset, Hisioiit S4-35. 



j4gT[oldr[T]?jfj ** and, thus, another form of Eniand-t)ro]fttes.®^ ■—- {2) 
Zariadris appears to have been a relative (a son?) of Xerxes.^ The names 
Zareh, SawaS or 5QM«ir^, Merul<m^ and Ariam — Armenian equivalents of 

MtBQo^ov^dvfjg and ^AQadpivjg^ — were either favoured 
in historical times by the House of Artsruni, which was, it will be seen, of Oron- 
tid origin, or counted among that family’s remote ancestors.™ Two of the 
Artsmnid domains, moreover, bore the names of Zarehavan and Shavarshan.^ 
Then, the Primtiry History of Armenia (9) places Zereti, Shavarsh, and Ar- 
mog (more correctly: Artok = Artanea)™ in the theogony of the early kings. 
Finally, Psendo-Moaes, on his part, makes in his version of that theogony (1.31) 
Zareh a grandson of Arawan (Eniand) and the father of Aimog (Artoantes- 
Eruand).™ Elsewhere (1.19), he mentions a Shavarsh, a descendant of Hr ant 
(Eruand). It is obvious of course, that, as genealogical material, the arrange¬ 
ments of the Primary and of Pseudo-Moses have little worth. What 

is of significance in them, however, is the grouping together of the dynastic 
names just examined, which makes it clear that in the historical memory of 
the Armenians the family of Zariadris and the Orontids were one and the same 

10. It may be useful to append here a chronological summary of the Orontid 
rulers of Armenia between 401 and 95 B.C. 

A. Satraps of Armenia 
Orontes I, c. 401-c. 344 
Orontes II, c. 344-331 

B. Kings of Armenia (The First Armenian Monarchy) 
Orontes II, 331 

Mithranes, 331-before 317 
(Neoptolemus, Satrap, 323-321) 

. ^ Adontz, Armentjo. 390 n.i (Artaortte^, 

Adontz, ^oc. eii. mistakeniy Identified Artaonies with Vardan. 

™ Adontz, Jof. cit. 

ZarBft<*ZartrJi: Hftbacliiiiann, GramniQtik 40, 50Gj Jasti, 381, 380-333* — 

5(nwa(r)S <01d Pers* Sydurarfan (Habschmanii 61; Jasti 299-300) or <01d Pera. XiaySrSa 
■<for ’Which see Jnstl 173-174) and ^o was translated in the casfl ol the Orontid King as ^Xerxes's 
Markwart, Genealoeie 24-30; ErdnSahr 177 n.3; Adontz, Armenifa 390 n,l. — For the other 
two names, see HttbschniAnn 52-53, 507; and Jnstt 209, 29. 

™ Thomas 1.6 (79,82), 3(109); cT. Jnsti, Namenimeh 416 (genealogical table); Adontz, Af^ 
imnija 390 n*t, 413-415; Mark wart, Erdnfakt 176-177, 

^ Mark’wart, 

™ Adontz, loc.cit.; infra Part II nn. 57, 60a. 

™ Though indeed Ps. Moses makes of Arawan a grandson of Tlgranes the ally of Cynas the 
Great; c£. supra at nn. 7,28. 



Orontes III, before 317-c. 260 
Samus, c. 260 

Arsames, after 260-after 228 
Xerxes, after 228-c. 212 

Orontes IV, c. 212^, 200 
C. Kings of Sophene 
Zariadris, Strategus, c, 200; King, 190 
Mitbrobuzanes I (defended by the King of Cappado¬ 
cia against Artaxias I of Gi^ter Armenia: Poly¬ 
bius 3K17; Diodorus 31*22) 

Orontes V, c. 95: annexation of Sophene by Tigranes 
IT of Greater Armenia. 

11. As is clear from the combined evidence of the Armenian and of sorne 
non-Armenian sources, the Orontids of Sophene survived the annexation of 
their kingdom c. 95 B.C* Perhaps the most important bits of evidence — texts 
that compress a variety of Indications “ are found in the two versions of the 
Armenian historical tradition as found in the Primary History of Armenia (9) 
and in Pseudo-Moses, to which references have already been made above (§9) 
and which now follow: 

0ut^i<fiaiP ^tu^atuiatu^ 

gtfhn.uAh'f% ffirbiF^h^p^tPu^t tat^at ata^ttoitaJ^plr^^i jOi****~‘ 
piLn^ p-iMM^*Mn.aptMi^if A uw^p^ ^ ^hpu^ "ba^Mtt 

^Qarp^^ ap^^ nptptjip ^^t.prviLfTp It ^**p*^^^ 

rat^IrtpatPp* atupa lati^tu ^atp^atb^* uiupa ^iut.ai2* 

nittpri t^f^atsputtP h. pt**a> [iu the 

MSS ; jfiui^.uipattP\* L jfiuiq.tapuita uiin [in the MSS; 

II L. npipji^^i ptuuptiij 

<f-AMia.uilfgplr^j^ ^^PMihg ^ t^mpPuiiiu utpL.^ 

pMUfft h A pitPppm^ 

pftMEtuigh mautnt-ut^ i 

Then Semiramis possessed herself of the land of Armenia, and from that 
time until the death of Sennacherib the Kings of Assyria kept possession 
of it. Then [the Armenians] rebelled against their subjection to the Kings 
of the Assyrians, And Zareh, son of [one of] the sons of Aramaniak, ruled 
over them, a powerful man and a skilled archer. Then Armog; then 



Sarhang; then Shavash; then P'ainavaK. And he begat Bagam and 
Bagarat, And Bagarat begat Biurat, and Biiirat begat Aspat, and the 
sons of Bagarat gathered their inheritance in the 'western regions: the 
same ‘were the House of Angel, for Bagarat was also called Angel and 
was in those days called a god hy the barbarons people. 

Pseudo-Moses gives a different and ampler list of the early kings. In Book 
1, 4-5, he gives the genealogy from Adam to Japheth and then to Hayk (the 
eponyra of the Armenians). Chapters 5, 9, 14, 15, 19, and 22 deal with the 

posterity of Hayk and his eldest son Ar(a)maniak or Ar(a)menak. Chapter 
22 terminates with Tigranes, ally of Cyrus the Great, ‘son’ of Eraand and 
grandson of Haykak TL At the end of that chapter, Pseudo-Moses mentions 
a version of the origin of the House of Bagmtuui which deduced it from Hayk, 
only to reject it in favour of the Hebrew origin.^ Chapter 23 contains an ac¬ 
count of the descent of the Houses of Artsuni and of Gnuni from Sennacherib 
of Assyria, and ends with the remark that the House of Angl 'was descended 
from Pask^'am, a grandson of Haykak, who must be Haykak II mentioned in 
the preceding chapter. Chapter 3! presents a variant of the Orontid genealogy 
that is found in the Primary Hisiory. Finally, in Book 2. 8 (107), he returns 
to the origin of the House of Angl in the following terms; 

L. pHrpi,p tl paih^h &. 

^fiptMi^t h. 0 y ^uiu^r*nJtM0y 

^**p^ tabni^ np 


it ^utauftmuf^ ^nt.»raip*t^ Mtrplti//it^0-^ tl jb-phutugii 

atm^ t 

And he’® set up as governor of the west a man, ugly and tall and awkward 
and flat-nosed, deep-eyed and fierce-glanced, fonel of the children ol 
Pask'am, grandson of Haykak, named Tork% who because of his excesive 
monstrosity was sumamed anye^eay — (a maul af colossal stature and 
strength. And because of the meanness of his face, he calls his progeny 
House of Angl. [Follows an account of Tork”s mythical feats Teminiscent 
of those of Rustam and of Polyphemus],™ 

™ Infra Part II. 

™ 11119 reiers to the mythical ‘first Arsacid King of Armenia’ Vologases, who was supposed 
to ha've leorgauizied Armenia in the second century B.C.; cf. I at nn. 174-176. 

™ Ct. Abelyan, Isi, dreoneaTin. lit. I ^-29; Adontz, TarkoU 185-186. 



The two versionss then, can be summed up aa follows; 
Friirt, }Ii$L Arm, Ps. Moses 










41 generations 




Haykak II 


















1 \ 



Tork ^-Angeleay 




contemporary of 


1 i 

Nabuchodonosor (9-10) 


The House of Angh 




Nerseh \ 

, L31 















1 P 

P’amavazian (14) 





The House of Angl- 


died fighting Alexander 
the Great 

Needless to say, the historical memory of the Armenians at the tame of the 
cojQimitttDg of these two versions to writing was quite defective, Zaiiadris, 
for instance, and the Orontids in general are made to antedate Alexander the 
Great. Telescoping is also much in evidence, especially in the Primary Historyt 
where one generation only separates Zariadiis from Armaniedr-Armenak (unless, 
of course, ordi OTdwoc‘ be construed in the broad sense of * descendant ’), whereas 



forty-two generations separate the latter from the Orontid eponym and forty- 
seven from Zariadris, in the work of Psendo-Moses* The same telescoping 
is evident in the former monument^s reference to Assyrian dominaldon. Owing 
to the not infrequent confusion in Caucasian sources between ‘Assyrian’ and 
‘Syrian, ’ the r^me that is supposed to have begun under Semiramis is made 
to end with the control of Armenia by the Sgrrian Seleucids^ for it was against 
them that Zariadris rebelled. What, nevertheleas, is of importance here is 
that both versions agree in affirming, albeit indirectly, the descent of the House 
of Anglfrom the Orontids; either in a direct line from Zanadds, as in the Pri/nu- 
ry History^ orfromPask'am, a nephew of the Orontid eponym (i zamake Pask*- 
amay, referring to Tork% can of course mean that he was ‘ of the posterity of 
Pask'^am’), in Pseudo-Moses. 

12. Now ‘House of Angl* (Ang^Utim) was the name of an Armenian princely 
State, known as Ingilene to the Graeco-Roman world, which was situated 
precisely on the territory of the forrner Kingdom of Sophene. That territory, 
which was the south-westernmost province of Greater Armenia and which 
is referred to in the above sources as ‘the west’ or ‘the western regions,’ beca¬ 
me, upon the annexation of Sophene by the Artaxiads, the ‘Assyrian,* that 
is, Syrian, March of the Armenian Monarchy, its bulwark against the Sdeucid 
empire and Osrhoene.^ The chief fortress of Ingilene, and in fact of the entire 
Syrian March, was called Angl — to-day a place called Egil, dose to the wes- 
em Tigris (Argana-su), some 9 ^ km. west of the confluence of that river 
with the Dibeue-sn, in Turkish Armenia™ — and from it the principality 
derived its name. It appears to be of a very ancient foundation and to have 
been known as Ingalawa already in the Hittite monuments of the fourteenth 
century B.C.™ It was sub^quently, the site of Carcathiooerta, the capital 
of the short-lived Orontid Kingdom of Sophene, and it contained the royal 
tombs.^ From a Syriac source of the sixth century it is evident that this 
fortress-city was also known as ‘the city of King Sennacherib of Assyria’,*^ 

^ CJ. n s 7-s. 

™ Markwart, SMarmsni«it 50*, 17,35,102,107,243; Honigmaim, Oaigrenze Maps I,rV; Cni- 
net, Targaie I 428, Map at p. 400 {wberv, mistakenly, Egil is placed east of the Tigris and 
near the Dibene-su); USAF Chart 840 A IV*. 

™ Manandyaxi, O nek.Bporn.prodl. 93-^9,136-137; Forter, RAssl SS, — Lap'anc*- 

yan, Xafaaa. 200, derives its name, which may originally have had the general meaning of 
^fortress,* from the Bahyl. ektiff-u and, in turn, from the Sumer, ^/al or 'hah.* 

^ Markwart, S(id<irmemen 83-38,107^112. The tombs of the Sopheniau kings were ascribed 
by the Armenian historical tradition to the Arsadd sovereigns. Cf, Manandyan, O loegoole 
83-35. Cf. Pliny 0.10.26; the LGL tiranslatioti erroneously renders 'Carcathiooerta' as 'Khar- 

^ Markwart, op.eit. 9S, quoting the chronicle of Ps. Josue the Stylites. 



This, as Markwart explained, owed its origin to the fact that the rock, which 
formed part of the acropolis of Angh contained, hewn on one of its sides but 
well-nigh obliterated in modern times, a relief of an Assyrian monarch accom¬ 
panied by a cuneiform inscription. The name of Sennacherib being especially 
familiar through its biblical associations, the relief, and the city that coH" 
taned it, were naturally enough attributed to that particular king.^ The 
above-mentioned confusion between ‘Syrian’ and ‘Assyrian’ must, I may 
add, have further contributed to that attribution, concerning as it did the chief 
place of the Syrian March. 

It is, consequently, significant that the Armenian princely Houses of Arlsni- 
ni®® and of Gnnni*^ claimed descent from King Sennacheidb’s son Sarasar, who, 
according to the Bible, had slain his father (6S1 B,C.) and taken refuge in Ar¬ 
menia;^ while the onomastics of the former house leave little doubt as to its 
Orontid origin,*^ The Armenian historical tradition which asserts this descent 
from Sennacherib also relates that Sarasar was established on the south-western 
frontier, near the Assyrian border," What is meant here is, of course, the 
south-western Syrian. March: the Assyrian border was, surely* in the south. 
Thus, the House of Sennacherib was identical with the House of Angl, both 
genealogically and territorially. As will be seen presently (§ 15), the genea- 

M^rkw^, op. ctt, 108-112, 

Thomas 6,7(02)j 3.13(313), 29(402-405): and see II g 12.5, lor this house. In a 

recent article, ‘ Urartskoe pFolsxoidenic aimjanskogo naxararskogo roda Arcruni,* jStwrn.w 
ce¥VAkad,I,A,Orbeti 29^S, S, Barxudaryan consider? this house to have been of Urartian 
origin. In |^oTlnexio]n 'with the term Ar^u»ni[niJ/Arsunitmf, found In three inscriptions, one 
by Ispninl and Menua, the others by Menua alone; cf. Mellk'ISvUl, Utart.nadpiBl 146 (No. 27) 
196 (No. 97), 197 (No. 99), It appears to he a toponym-ethnlcon, though Melik'llvill, 14S 
n. 16, doubts that this Is a proper name. If indeed a toponym-ethnicon, the location ol the 
people-state designated by it 'was, according to Barxudaryau, 37, in the vicinity ol the Areruni 
domains. This, 11 true, might indeed be -taken into consideration in connexion -with the ori¬ 
gin of the Aremnis, -were not their Orontid origin patent from so many other data- It can, 
nevcrtlieless, he assumed that the name of this family, hitherto unexplained (cf. Barxudaxyan 
30), may indeed have been derived from the Urartian people-state, or its territory, over 
which it later came to reign. Barxudaryan (34-35) also cites the -work of A. Xafatrean, at¬ 
tempting to prove the ‘ Aryan * origin of the Arciunls: — Uils is precisely what their Orontid 
origin mi^t be described as. In agreement -with Barxudaryan (36) is also Lap'anc''yan, 
Cf. also Banfiiteanu, BeitrSse z, arm. Topooiu^ic 1071, 

^ See. for this house, II & 

^ Sarasar* s accomplice In the murder and companion in the flight -was his elder brother 
Adramelech (in the Armenian Iranscrlption these names become Sencjlc'e/^arfm, Adt-amel, 
b'anasar): 4 Kings 19.37; 2 Par,32.2l; -tsai.37.3S; cf., for the Assyrian background of this event 
Adontz, Hist, it Arm. 125-128. 

Cf. supra at an, 69-71, Mark-wart, ErSn&ahr 176-177, and Adontz, Armenifa 390 n.l* 
413-415, speak of the ‘Kings of Sophene* rather than the Oroutids; of, supra at n. 31. 

" Pfl. Moses 1.23. 



logical aspect of this synonymy springs from the territorial, and for reasons 
to be then adduced. Significantly, in both the Primary History and Pseudo- 
Moses’s work passages dealing with the origin of the House of Angl are juxta¬ 
posed with references to Sennacherib of Assyria and, even, to the descent from 
him of the Artsmnis and the Gnunis {supra § 11). 

13. In addition to this witness, be it ever so veiled, of the Armenian historical 

tradition, Classical authors also testify to the survival of the Orontids after 
the end of the Kingdom of Sophene, Both Plutarch (Luruffus 25) and Appian 
{Mithr. 12.84) mention among the three array chiefs of King Tigranes the 
Great of Armenia one named Mithroharzanes. The correct form of that name, 
however, and one found in some MSS, is i.e., Me{h)TUzan, 

the name borne presisely by the son of Zariadris and favoured by the House 
of Artsruni.®® Though no longer king, Mithrobiizanes was left in control of 
Sophene^ no doubt as margrave of the Syrian March; and it was in this capa¬ 
city that he met the invading Roman armies of LucuBus.®® It is from him that 
Mark wart and Adontz deduced the origin of the Artsunis.®® 

14. There remains the problem of the religious implications of what the 
Armenian historical tradition has to tell about the Orontids and their Artsrunid 
descendants. Besides being a geographical, and genealogical, term, ‘Angp 
was also a religious one. It was the name of the pagan Armenian deity which 
corresponded to the Sumero-Akkadian solar god of the netherworld and of the 
dead, NergaL®^ The evidence of the Armenian historical tradition for the exist¬ 
ence of the cult of Angl in pre-Christian Armenia is unmistakable in the tests 
cited above (§ 11); and, what is more, in the Armenian biblical translations 
the name of Ang| is used for rendering that of NergaL®® This Armenian cult 
appears to have had ancient roots. The chief god of the Hayasa pantheon was 
precisely an equivalent of Nergal; his name, of which we are not altogether 
certain, is rendered ideographically as ’^U-GUR in the list of the ^ayasa divi¬ 
nities, included in that part of the Annals of the Hittite King Supilluliuma 

Mqrk'v/art, Unter^ucbungEn tw Geschichtf: pon Emn i (GOttiagen 1896) 69; BrOR&ihr 
175-176; hlAnandyan, Tigran 99; cf. Adonta, ArmtTiifa 413-415 (where the correct form is 
used). JustL Namenbtich 209, however, lists the above personage under 
while adverting to the e^dstence oi the other form. Markwart, EranSahr 17d n. 4, considers 
him to have heen a sou of Orontes V (Artanes); Adontz, op. cit. 4i4, thinks he was the other's 
son or brother. 

The reason tor his eoming to meet the Romans, as given by Plutarch, Lucuifus 25, is 
obvloasly frivolous and a part of the Romaii anU-Armenian propaganda of the time: cf. Ma- 
natldyan, Tigran 99-101. Cf. Adontz, Armenf/a 413-414. 

Sizpm n. 86. 

For the connexion between the theopbany of the sun and the cult of the dead, see, e.g., 
Eliade, Pn(terns 135-13S, 141-149, 180. 

4 Kings 17.30; cf. infra 11 | 5, 



which contains what may have been a treaty of the latter’s father King Tnt^- 
liya in (c, 1400 B.C.) with Karannb, King of Hayasa*®^ It is not perhaps too 
fanciful to suppose that the cult of Angl was not only a parallel, but actually 
also a survival, a continuation, of the more ancient Hayasa cult. The con¬ 
necting linh between these two cults can be sought in the proto-Armenian 
people-state. Since the Hayasa element played a leading role in that ethno¬ 
cultural formation,®* the cult of the chief Hayasa deity can be expected to 
have survived and flourished in it. And between the culture of the proto-Ar- 
menians and that of the Armenians, the passage is unnoticeahle. 

How the name of the proto-Armenian and Armenian god was related to the 
city of Angl has not been explained. There are, however, sufficient data to 
enable us — at least tentatively — to establish the connexion between the 
two names. Since it seems certain that the toponym is of great antiquity and 
is, moreover, etymologically explicable,®^ it must follow that the name of the 
god was derived from the name of the city, and not vice versa^ as is the case 
with the analogous connexion of god and holy city — K^art^los and K'^art^li, 
Armaz and Aimazi — in 3beria.“* To be sure, we have Pseudo-Moseses ex¬ 
planation of the god’s name (2.8); but this is but another example of his facile 
and often — as here — erroneous etymologizing: angel being the Armenian 
word for ‘ugly*.®® 

As the proto-Armenians expanded, under the leadership of their Hydarnld 
and Orontid satraps, they must early on have absorbed their immediate 
neighbour to the south, the region of Sophene with its fortress-city of Ingala- 
wa-Angl,®’ When the Orontids had lost the larger part of Greater Armenia 
and retained only the now separate land of Sophene, their capital, which at 
the same time was their necropolis, was the city of Angl, named now Carcathio- 
certa. The fact that it was their capital and their necropolis must have made 
it a holy city as welL®® Whether the Satraps leading, from these regions, the 
proto-Anneniau expansion were or were not in some special way associated 

L&p'anc'yan, $8-90; for the Hittite ftoeument in question, see Foirer, *ilayaaa- 

Am,' Ca 9 (1931). 

« I n. 49. 

Supra n. 79. 

I nn. 120-131,168. 

^p'anc'yan, Bogi Arm/m 273, For attempts at other explanations of Angl, see Karat, 
Mgihologie, G4-69. 

^ Supra ain.34. Manandyan seems to regard as certain that the Hydamids and the Oron¬ 
tids were one family, which, of course, is veiy likely: cf. sapra ^6. — Sophene occupied the 
temtoiiea of the earlier Supani and ISuwa; and Hiayasa and ISuwa divinities appear to have 
^ heeu largely the same already in Hittite times: Lap'‘auc'^yau, Xafasa 76. 

See I n. 168. 



'with the presumably surviving cult of ^U-GUR, is impossible to determine. 
But, on the other hand, a connexion of the Orontid Kings of Greater Armenia 
with the cult of Angi can be inferred from the Armenian historical tradition. 
Pseudo-Moses preserved a detail more revealing than he knew when he made 
mention (2.37) of an ancient tale regarding the last Orontid of Greater Armenia 
(Eruand). It is that, quite like the Minotaur, he was borne;, by his Pasiphae- 
like mother, of a bull. Now the theophany of the sun in its Plutonian aspect 
tended to be connected with a cult of the bull, especially in the pre-ludo-Eu- 
ropean ethnic and cultural stratum of the Mediterranean world. What is more, 
the birth of this king suggests a special association, exactly like the one that 
obtained in the Minoan kingdom of Crete, between that cult and the monarchy. 
Indeed, the Kingdom of Aea (later Colchis), founded by a people related to 
the ^^ayasa, was marked by the same association and, moreover, appears to 
have stood in a special connexion with Crete, King Aeetes was a son of the 
sun god, and his sister — precisely Pasiphae — was the wife of Minos, who, 
in turn, appears to have been related to the Hurrian equivalent of NergaL®® 

This association of the Orontids with the Plutonian Angl appears thus to 
have existed before the formation of the Kingdom of Sophene; and the city 
of Angl may, consequently, have been their necropolis before it became also 
their capital Carcathiooerta. The necropolis, capital, and possibly holy city 
of a dynasty that stood in a special relation to the god of the dead may be 
expected to have been one of his cult centres. That all this involves too many 
suppositions and may, thus, appear unworthy of consideration, is readily gran¬ 
ted; yet this alone seems to harmonise the scattered data of the historical 
tradition with the explanation of how'— by becoming a territorial epithet 
— the name of the place became one of the name:i of that deity. 

That deity had another name: Tork'. This becomes clear in juxtaposing 
the texts of the Primetry History and Pseudo-Moses already cited (§ 11), Now, 
Tork' was the pagan Armenian equivalent of the Asianlc Tarku or Tarhu, a 
god of vegetation and fertility.^**® How this syncretism of Ang|-Nergal and 

For the assodatiou of the stratum ot the -world with 

the $un-theopliaii 7 in its Plutonian aspect, see Ellade, Patterns 143. Fcu' that sttatam Itself: 
1 $ 5; the Hurriaas and the Hayasa belonged to that stratum. For the eouuexlon hetweea 
Aea and Crete, see at nn. $t-57; Hoax, Argonautes, esp. 281-283. and that between 
Minos and Ncrgal: Uugnad, jSu^fn 88-68; U^akov, Xeit.proM. 92 and n,4; — the Hurrian 
deity Saman-minuhl (= Mtnos) 1$ always named in the texts next to another — Naparwi; 
and, in turu, Naparwl forms a pair with Partahi. This pair appears Identical with another — 
Farsi and Nagarsi, -which are identified in ancient caneifoim texts with Nergal. For appa¬ 
rent indicaiicna of the prevalence of the cult ol the ball in western Armenia (Toruberan), 
see Lap'ane'yan, Xajasa 40,76,222 n. 1 (= 223). For representations of the Minotaur and 
of bnDs on Colchlan colna, see Lang, Stadies 6,8,6; Houx 392. 

^ Lap^ane*‘yan, Bvgi Armjan 273-276; Xajasa 97; and, for the connexion of the colt of 



Tork' was effected* can be seen in the synthesis, achieved in the Asianic^Aegean 
world of the second mitlenniumB.C., of the cults of the dead with the vegetation 
and fertility cnits.^“ Perhaps it was already at that time and on the Hayasa 
soil that this syncretism of the local ecfuivalent of Nergal and the Asianic 
Tarku/Tar^u was achieved. ‘Tork'"’ may, accordingly, have been the onginal 
name of the tutelary deity of the Orontids, and "AngP the territorial epithet 
subsequently acquired by him. 

IS. The House of Ang| can in the genealogical aspect of the tenn designate 
the Orontid Dynasty in general, and not only its surviving branches, since 
it was under the Orontids, while still Kings of Greater Armenia and then of 
Sophene, that the cult of AngPTork' flourished and since already then — as 
it would be natural to assume in the light of what we now know of the theo- 
phany of kingship In the religious climate of the time**® — the Orontids as a 
dynasty claimed descent from that deity. To be sure, the Armenian historical 
tradition, as has been seen, presents the matter quite otherwise, by making 
Angl a descendant of those whom we know as the Orontids and one deified 
in his day by the pagan Armenians. But it is obvious that the pagan claims 
of the ancient kings to a divine descent were, quite naturally, repulsive to the 
Christian historians who first recorded the historical tradition, and .wore, in 
consequence, obviated by them. In this way, for instance, Hayk, once the 
divine astral eponym of the Armenians and the direct ancestor of all the royal 
and princely dynasties or the land, was represented by these writers as merely 
a hero, though indeed a giant.**® As for the cult ol AngJ-Tork', it must have 
been even more distasteful to the historians — with all its associations with 
the netherworld and fertility rites ■— than that of Hayk-^Orion, whose position 
as ancestor was admitted. Nevertheless, the religion of Angi-Tork' must some- 

An^ -with that of Tork""! Bogi Ariuj<m 201-202; of- Karst, Mythalogie 64-69; Adontz, Tarkou. 
Adontz draws attention to the fact that tliie names, An^, Tork*', and Pask'^am (| II), 
appear to be related to tfao names of a bird or birds of the ea^e or wlture type, and he con¬ 
nects tbts with the statement of Ps. Moses (2.S) to the effect that Ang]-Tork% a descendant 
of Pask^'am, left on rocks figures of eagles. He thus conjectures that the cult of Tarka and 
that of his near-equivalent, TeSub (both, by the way, were associated with the cult of 
bulls: supm at n. 99; I n. 151), became fnsed with a local — proto-Cancasian'— totemistic 
cult of the vulture. Adontz would also connect the geographical names Thogorma and 
Tu^pa with those of Tarkn and Te^nb. 
l^de, Patierfa 352-353. 

*»* See I S 3. 

Prim, Hist Arm- 2.-10; Ps, Moses 1.5-31. The repugnance of ChTistiaa Armenian wtitera 
to the pagan past is especially pronounced in Ps. Moses; Carri&rie, Hull Bonctuaires IS n.I, cf. 
26-27. For this reason, no doubt, the Prim,Hist,Arm^ mentions, whereas Ps. Moees omits, 
the divine character of Angl-Tork'. — Christian historiography reduces Hayk's theophauy 
and makes him a son of Thogarma of Genesis; cf, X n, 163. 



how have been better remembered than that of Hayk^ else it is difficult to 
conceive why his divine status should have been alluded to at all. Vet because 
he was so offensive, he could not be allowed among the heroic ancestors of the 
kings and princes. So, instead of being treated as an ancestor, AngJ-Tork' was 
made to pass for a descendant of the Orontids^ The confusion of these early 
genealogies has already been noted (§ 9* 11). 

As for the surviving Orontid branches of the Christian phase, he appears to 
have been simply repudiated by them as a forefather. The Houses of Artsruni 
and of Gnuni, on becoming Christian, must have soon become acquainted with 
the biblical tradition connecting the Assyrian King Sennacherib with Armenia. 
This tradition could become known to them before the invention of the Ar¬ 
menian alphabet, on the threshold of the fifth century and the consequent 
beginning of national Armenian literature, in either its Syriac or its Greek 
version. Since Syrian religious influence was very great in Armenia, especially 
before that event and especially in that part of the country which passed 
under Iranian control in 387 — and that was precisely the part where the 
Artsruni and Gnuni princedoms were situated — it was evidently the Syriac, 
rather than the Greek, version of the Bible that was first known to them.^ 
They also must have become cognizant of the fact, already alluded to {§ 12), 
that — owing to some archaeological remains and under the impact of the 
biblical tradition — the city of Angl had come, precisely among the Syrians, 
to be called also City of Sennacherib. Moreover, by a strange coincidence, the 
biblical text (4 Kings 17) in which Angl stands for Nergal makes reference 
to a King of Assyria, Finally, as has already been noted, Sophene, the last 
kingdom of the Orontids, became the ‘Assyrian’ March of the Armenian Mo¬ 
narchy. Accordingly, in the synonymy: ‘ City of Angl' =: ‘ City of Sennacherib' 
another synonymy was implicit, namely, ‘House of Angl’ = ‘House of Sen¬ 
nacherib, ' and so an obvious opportunity was seized upon of exchanging indeed 
a splendid, but no longer tenable, genealogical tradition — a chimire^ Saint- 
Simon would have called it — of the pagan days for another that was no less 
splendid, really, and yet suitable for Christian princes. However, memories of 
the old tradition lingered on; and this accounts for the juxtaposition in the 
texts of the name of King Sennacherib and of the descent from him of these 
houses With the allusions to Angl and Tork^ (supra § 11). Hence also, no 
doubt, Pseudo-Moses’s repetitive insislance on his false etymology of ‘Angl.’ 

16. Other princely houses of Armenia, besides those of Artsruni and of 
Gnuni, can be traced back to the Orontids; they now follow, (1) The Princes 
of Tngilene and Anzitene {Anfit) constituted, of course, the House of Angl 
par excellence and must have been the chief among the Orontid descendants. 

^ cl. Abetyfin, lsi,dreBnetirni.lil. f 76-77, 32-68; Grou$g«t, Hisfaire 125-127, 172, 174-176. 



exactly as they were the chief dynasty of the Syrian March.i* — (2) The Prin¬ 
ces of Greater Sophene {mec Cop’k’^) or Sophanene, siU another State of that 
march, appear also to have been of Orontid origin.^ One of them bore the 
significant name of Zareh;^^ another^ that of Gaddana.^® The latter name, 
besides being related to that of the Armenian princess Ghadana, who was 
the queen of Pharasmanes II of Iberia (c. A.D. 120),“* and that of their son, 
King Adam or Ghadam,^* was obviously connected with the name of the chief 
Artsrunid castle of Hadamakert in Greater Albak.^—(3) The Princes of Sha- 
hian Sophene (Cop^F Sahel ISahunliu]oc’), the fourth State of the Syrian March, 
may or may not have been Orontid, If the name of the principality be shown 
to signify ‘Boyal Sophene,' as suggested, e,g,, by Markwart,^ their Orontid 
origin must be regarded as highly plausible; this, however, is not certain.^ 
We do not hear of any of the princes of the Syrian March as repudLating their 
Orontid forefathers because of the pagan religious associations involved. But, 
then, we know next to nothing about them and nothing at all about what they 
claimed by way of genealogical tradition. This is due to the fact that they left 
the orbit of Armenia prior to the formation of Christian Armenian literature,^ 
(4) The Vitaxae of Atzanene, margraves of the Arabian frontier,^ were 
also ascribed by the Christian Armenian historical tradition a descent from 
one Sharashan. a descendant of Sanasar, who, according to Pseudo-Moses 
(2.8), was created Margrave of the Assyrian March and who also held Ardzn, 
i,e„ the nucleal land of Arzanene.^* Once again, a telling confusion: both 
‘Sanasar’ and the ‘Sharashan' of Pseudo-Moses represent Saiasar, son of 

II 5 7-8. 

>.“« Markwart, ErapSatir 178; U | 7-8. 

■■ Faustus 3.12. 

^ Cod, TheodOB. 12.L3.6: satrapae Sophtuienae. 

Leont. Mrov. 53, 54. 

Ibid.; Roi^, List / 50 = Majr and Bri^re, Langue 671 023, conalders the name to 

bave been ' Dami ^ and ga.~ an enclitic particle;). 

^ For the ArcxTini domains, ace 11 £ 12.;!. 

^ Er^abr 177, 178. 

^ Adont£, Atmenija 38, and Garitto, Hoaijnenta 234, consider the adjective in question 
as derived from a nomen gentiUcinmi 'Sahunl.' This name some ’would trace back to the 
patronymie Ma^uhit borne by □ Hittite prince (or perhaps dynasty) ruling over precisely 
western Sophene (5upn) and Mellteue In the eighth century B.C.: W. Bdek Soitrdge zar alteii 
Gwgrciphie Hnii Gesehicftle Vorderasicns I (Leipzig 1901) 50^52; Lap'anc'yan, 150 n. 

1: Manandyan, O mk. apor. probL 132; II S 7 at n. 65. 

En 208 the Princes of Ingilene-Anzitene, Greater Sophene, and Lesser Sophene passed 
under the aegis of the Roman Empire; after 377, two more princely States from across the 
Arsantas shared their fate: II | 7. 

a* Ibid, £ 9. 

IbiiL n. 130. 



Sennacherib; ’whereas Arzanene was, as has just been noted, the Arabian and 
not the ‘Assyrian’ March, the reference to Assyria being, obviously, due to 
the family’s connexion with the Orontid Kingdom of Sophene, which indeed 
had become the ‘Assyrian’ March. (5) The Vitaxae of Adiabcne, rulers of 
the Median March, were believed by Markwart to have been Orontid, and 
more particularly Artsrunid, and to have been transplanted by Tigranes the 
Great from Sophene, which was always ready to rise in revolt, to the Median 
frontier of his realm.^^^ — (6) TThe Princes Yahe’vnni or Yah(n)uni were the 
descendants of the divine Vahagn, the Armenian Heracles, according to Pseu¬ 
do-Moses (1*31), and also his hereditary high priests.^® As Yahagn was a grand¬ 
son of Emand, father Aravan, and ancestor of Zereh and Armog (supra § 11), 
the Orontid origin of this dynasty seems obviously indicated. — (7) The little- 
known dynasties of Aravenian and Zarehavan or Zarehavanian were descen¬ 
ded, according to Pseudo-Moses (1.31; cf. 2.8), from Aravan and from Zareh 
respectively (sEipra § 11), and are, therefore, to be regarded as Orontids; the 
latter honse may have been a branch of the Artsrunis.^® — (S) The equally 
little known Eruanduni dynasty (literally: Orontids), mentioned by Lazarus 
(chap, 70) must likewise be of Orontid origin.^ — (9) Last, but not least, there 
is the qnestion of the Orontid origin of the princely house of the BagratldSs^^ 
which will be considered in Part II. 

Ibid. 5 6. 

Ibid 'i 

Ibid. 5 12.7; £ 13.£3. Only one Ara’wene^tt la mentioned in the hjjstoricfd part ol Ps. 
Mosea's "wotk; (3.43), and none of the other hoii$e, \rhlch la mentioned only in the 

genealo^e^ of the early dynaete, at its beginning a separate branch. The mediaeval Ar¬ 
menian geograpbers distlngnlsh bet’ween the land at Zarehawan and that of Zarewand/Zara- 
wand, north of It and always coapled with that of Her; HUhschmann, Orfsnamcn 333. )@oth 
names are derived from Zareh; Markwart, ErdnSahr 177; Siidamteaieit 555-556. Ail the 
three lands lay in the Immediate vicinity of the chief AiraininiU domain of Greater Albak. In 
’flew of etymological identity and geographical adjacency, the distinction between Zareha- 
wan and Zarewand appears somewhat artificial. The former was an Arcinnld land; Erdniala-f 
loe.cU, And in the lists of the AnuenlaQ Princes found in the doenments of the Gregorian 
Cycle (IX § 5) the Prince of Zarewand and of Her is next to him of the Aremnids, with but one 
other intercalated between them. The Prince oi Zarewand and of Her may, thus, have been 
the head of an Arcrunid branch. This would explain the absence ITom the sources of the 
mention of any members of this family: if it was not a separate family, its members were In¬ 
deed all Arcrunis. Ps. Moses, accordingly, preserved two separate versions regarding its origin; 
one for the Arcrunis, the other for the branch to which he applied the patronymic — rather 
than any territorial epithet — of Zarehnawan/ZerehawaneaQ; both, of course, pointing to 
the Orontid origin. He 'Was whoHy unconscious of this plurality and introdticed (1.6) still 
another one by etymologizing the toponym Zarewand; cf. Markwart, ^iuhznnenien 205 n. 1 
(205-207), 555-556. 

™ II 5 12,12. 

Ibid. £ 12.S. 


1* Regarding the Orontid origin of the Bagratid Dynasty, the Armenian 
historical tradition is quite emphatic. The Primarif Hisiorif oj Armenia}- iden¬ 
tifies the Orontid tutelary deity Anglf-Tork*') ■with the eponym of the Bagra- 
tids,® That the Bagarat-Angl of that monument is indeed that eponym, is 
evident from his being made the father and grandfather, respectively, of two 
other Bagratid eponyms, Biura't and Aspat,® A little farther in the same work 
(14), mention is made of the ‘great feudatory' Bagarat P‘‘ac[nav]a&ian, a 
descendant of Aramaniak, It has already been seen (I § 11) that the Orontids, 
as indeed a great number of Armenian dynasts, were deduced by the Armenian 
historical tradition from Aiamaniak, son of the divine primogenitor of the 
Armenians, Hayk, The prmnomen of that particular descendant of Aramaniak 
can leave no doubt as to his belonging to ‘the sons of Bagarat' On 

his part, Pseudo-Moses (1.22) also refers to the tradition of the Bagratid descent 
from Hayk; but he does this reluctantly and merely in order to reject it, with 
some vehemence, for the Hebrew origin that he propounds. What may appear 
to constitute an inner contradiction in this otherwise consistent tradition is 
that the Primary History represents Bagarat-Angl as a son of P'arnavaz, who 
is none other than the eponym of the Iberian royal house of the Pharnabazids 
(P^'amavaziani),* and that he applies* consequently, the Iberian royal surname, 
in its Armenian form of P'arnavazian, to Bagarat-AngTs descendant or kins¬ 
man just mentioned. This apparent contradiction is, however, patient of an 
explanation. But before this is attempted, Mark wart's thesis about the Pri¬ 
mary History and also Pseudo-Moses, and about the tradition they embody, 
must be examined. 

* Supra Part I | 11. 

* Ibid. § 14, lor the Orontid connexion witJi Angf. 

* This is overlooked by Abejy^n, 1st. dremearm^ Ilf. I 26, who fallB to note the relation of 
Bagatat to the Bagratids. Cf. also infra at n- 67, AspaL Aspet, for which see infra | 14. 

^ That this P^afnawaz was indeed the eponym of the Iberian Pharnabazids Is clear from 
the reference (9-10) to his suhmisglon to Nahuchodonosor. The story of the Babylonian 
king’s connexion with the Iberians (of both Georgia and S^pain) goee back to Megasthenes 
(Seleucus I's ambassador to India) and has been preserved by Abydenus (in turn, preserved 
id Eusebius, Chron. I. 10 and Praepar. emjng. 9.41); by Josephus (in Con. Apiott. 1); and by 
Strabo (15.1.G, where, however, Sesostns is mentioned in this context instead of Nabuebodo- 
nosor). For this matter, sec Mark wart C^eal<tgie 71; Karst Corpus juris 1/2/1 420-421. 
— For the Georgian surname of the Iberian dynasty, see I at n. 101; its Armenian foma, 
apart from the Prim. Hist. Arm., is also found in Faustus 5.15, 



2. In one of his last works; on the genealogy of the Bogratids and the ep¬ 
och of Mar Abas and Pseudo-Moses,® the great Armenologist expounded a 
thesis whichj if true, would greatly impair the worth of the historical tradition 
on which the present Study is largely based. Attention has not been drawn 
to it sooner because it concerns in particular the Bagratids, and here, in the 
Second Part, is, therefore, the place where it can beat be discussed.® The heart 
of the thesis is that both the Primary History and the work of Pseudo-Moses 
are ninth-century productions,^ nuere are four parts to Markwart^s basic ar¬ 
gument as it regards the first^named monument; and they will now be taken 
in the order which they follow in his study, 

3. The Primary Hisioryt as we now have it, forms the opening part of the 
History of HeracUus^ written in the seventh century by Seh^s, Bishop of 
the Bagratids.® Xt purports to he the (originally) Greek work — arfanagir — 
'inscription,’ ‘register,’ or ‘monument’ is the word used® — by Agathangelus, 
secretary of the first Christian King of Armenia — and for this reason it has 
also been called ‘Pseudo-Agathangelus’ — and to have been found in the 
book of one Marab the Philosopher of Mtsum or Mtsurk' (Mcurnuc^i).*® Pseu¬ 
do-Moses, on his part, claims that the text of his History, 1.9-32 and 2.1-9, cor¬ 
responds to an extract made by one Marabas Katina from a Greek translation, 
made by order of Alexander the Great, of a Chaldaean book". The two texts 
are thus associated, in this rather fanciful way, with one and the same name: 
of a Syrian, obviously, named Mar’’Abbas. Apart, however, from the commu¬ 
nity of subject matter — the theogonic lore and early historical memory of 
Armenia — and from the fantastic attribution of the two texts to the same 
transmitter, there is nothing to indicate any interdependence, let alone identity, 
between them*®. They represent two parallel versions of one historical tradition; 
though the longer version found in Pseudo-Moses must, to some extent, have 
been expanded and even recast^. 

As to what historical personage, if any, the attributions are made, is not 
altogether dear. Markwart identified him with Jacob or James, i.e., ^Abbas 
Mar Ya''qob* the learned Monophysite Bishop of Edessa (t 703), who, ac- 

® Geiiealogie; tMa thie$l» wais already briefly propounded by Markwart In UnierBucImugen 
II {Leipzig 1905) SS5. 

® For Markwart's opinions on tbe Vltaxae, as found in Genintogie^^e 11 tm. 42,43. 

’ Genealogie 14, 56, 67. 

^ See I&trod. at n. IQ. 

® Gf. the Georgian term fegl. 

® -Prim. Ififft. Arm. 1; cf. Ahelyan, ist- dreoii£arm., Ut. 1 217, S27. 

" Ps. Moeea l-S-9; 2.9, etc.; cf. .Aheiyan, 1st. dreonearm. lit. 1 316-219, 

" Ibid. 328; cf. sapra Part I J 11; see, however, infra, n. IS. 

" Ahei)yan, Isl. tlrepneetroi. lit, 1 216-219. 



cording to Markwart, Tras further confused, in the Primaqf History, with his 
earlier namesake, the Bishop of Hisibis (t 338), and thus the toponym Mcurn 
or Mcurk^ must be an error for Mcbiix, i.e., Hisibis,** The implied upshot 
of this is that neither the Primary History nor Pseudo-Moses can at all events 
be anterior to the end of the seventh century. 

A clear distinction ought, however, to be drawn between the epoch of the 
personage to whom a given historical work may be ascribed, the time of its 
actual composition, and the antiquity of the information it contains. For 
Pseudo-Moses, MarkwarPs identification of Marabas is of little importance, 
since the compilation of his work must, for several reasons, be dated as after 
the terminus a quo implied in this identification.** Admitting the correctness 
of the identification, it must still be repeated that what is attributed to Mara¬ 
bas, or James of Edessa, cannot in reality have come from his pen. It is now 
generally recognized that the part of Pseudo-Moses’s History so ascribed con¬ 
tains, possibly in an embellished form, a great bulk of the ancient mythological 
and historical tradition of the Armenians,** It would be difficult to presume a 
Syrian writer, whether James of Edessa or another, to have set himself to the 
task of recording that tradition. But it is also known that Pseudo-Moses 
harboured, alongside a historian’s interest, a certain aversion to the pagan past 
of his people;*’ and he, accordingly, may well have attempted to calm his 
scruples in this regard by attributing the information he had himself carefully 
gathered to a foreign ecclesiastic who was Femembered for his translation and 
continuation of the Chronicle of Eusebius. 

The case of the Primary History is different. Whereas in Pseudo-Moses 
references to Marabas are frequent and interwoven with the text, that to Marab 
the Philosopher occurs only once: in the preamble to the work; and if Sefoeos, 
whose History contains the Primary History is anterior to the above terminus 
a quo, so also and a fortiori must be the latter work, which has all the indica¬ 
tions of being a shorter and more ancient version of the same historical tradition 
as is preserved in Pseudo-Moses, and one devoid of his literary embellishments.** 
It could be supposed that the name of Marab the Philosopher, and even that 
of Agathangelus, as well as the entire preamble to the Primary History that 
introduces them, were later additions to tha t ancient text, made, quite possibly, 
under the influence of Pseudo-Moses. 

** Gettealogie 18 , — The nairte Katina is the Syr. i. e., 'little,' 'mitior': cf. Justl 


** Infra S 16-17, ** I at n. 160, 

*’ Sapm Part I 115 at u. 103; Abe{.yea, Isi. drtm&OFtn, liL 1213-223, Hence his tendency 
to eiihemerUe the mytha. 

** According bo Man*, O joenwn* Istorii Anomma 294, and Adoutz, Peruon. 1st. Arm. 104, 
Ps. Mosea's longier version depends on the briefer vewion of the Prim. Hist. Arm, 



4. F^om the question of authorship, Markwart then passed to that of con¬ 
tents. He refused to admit the possihility that memories of Sophenian — that 
is, Orontid — times lingered on "in so spa ter Zeit,* meaning the mid-ninth 
century.® He proceeded, accordingly, to interpret some of the names, found 
in Tvhat has here been construed as the end of the Orontid and the beginning 
of the Bagratid stemma (I § 11)^ not as names of persons, hut as symbols — 
‘eponyms’ he would call them, although in actual fact they must be the exact 
opposite — of geographical units. He thus saw in Zareh not a memory of 
Zariadris, but precisely such a symbol, or personification, of Zarehavan, a town 
in the canton of Tsalkotn.® Likewise, Bagam was said to symbolize, or pehsonify, 
Bagauna orBagavan in Bagravandene;^ Shavash, Shavarshan in Artaz;®®Nerseh 
— found in Pseudo-Moses and not in the Primary History — the town of 
Nersehapat, also in Artaz;*® and Biurat, the Bagratid Siammbiirg of Bayberd, 
in Syspiritis.^ The reason for inserting some of these territorial symbols in 
the genealogy was, according to Markwart, a purely political one. Entrenched 
in Kogovit, theBagratids of the mid-ninth century must have sought to enhan¬ 
ce their position by laying claims — in this cryptic way --- to the neighbouring 
provinces of Artaz, Tsalkotn, and Bagravandene. The absence of any personifi¬ 
cations of KogoviL or its chief fortress of Dariunk^ was, he claimed, an 
additional proof of this theory.®® 

Ingenious though it be, this theory will not stand a critical examination. 
In the first place, though it is true that, sometime in the years 855-862, the 
Bagratids indeed wrested from the Mamikonids the princedom of Bagravan¬ 
dene,®® there is no evidence for attributing to them any designs on either 
Tsalkotn or Artaz, though such designs in themselves are quite plausible. 
Secondly, the argument about Kogovit and Darinnk^ is little more than an 
argument from silence. Thirdly, and this is more important, Markwart, as 
will be seen presently 5), held that the Primary History had been composed 
at the Court of Bagarat Bagratuni of Taraun, and for the furtherence of his 
political interests. Now Bagarat represented the western branch of the dynasty 
that was distinct from and inimical to the eastern branch, represented by his 
brother Smbat VI11, which alone could be interested in Bagravandene and the 
neighbouring regions. This proposed motivation of the entire work cancels 

® Geneatogie IS. 

^ Ibid. 18-23; cf. infra n, 65. 

® 23; cf. infra n. 63. 

CinAaloffie 24-30. 

Ibid. 30. 

J^id. 70. This is not Vciy convincing. 

^ Ibid. 31. 

^ Grousset, 273-274; cf. II | 12.3, IS. 



the motivation that waa supposed to explain the territorial personifications In 
the genealogy. 

Finally, an examination of the evidence of the two versions of the ancient 
historical tradition of Armenia demonstrates that memories of the Orontid 
and even earlier periods were contained, albeit confusedly, in that evidence 
and thns did still linger on at the time when the Primary History was set to 
writing and at the time when Pseudo-Hoses compiled his work. In Part I 
(§ 11, 4, 9> of this Study, this evidence was examined in connexion with Oron¬ 
tid history, and Indeed Orontid genealogy* and its relevance to both was 
established. Thus, of the names considered by Markwart as territorial sym¬ 
bols^ two are those of actual Orontid rulers: Xerxes and Zariadris.^ But the 
memory of the Orontids was also preserved in another way — precisely through 
their imprint on Armenian toponymy. Accordingly, the city of Bagaran in 
Ayrarat was built by the last Orontes^ and that of Eruandashat, in the same 
pTOvince, was the last Orontid capital in Armenia.*® It was doubtless also owing 
to the Orontids that there was a castle of Angl in Tsalkotn.*® Markwart him- 
^f has once been led to infer from the evidence of the toponyms that some 
of the last Orontids — or the House of Sopheue, as he thought of them — 
were transferred by the Artaxiads to the south-eastern frontieT of Armenia.®* 
It is this migration that must account for the existence in those regions of the 
dynasties of Artsmni, Eruanduni, and Zarehavanian, which have all the ear¬ 
marks of being Orontids. And it is to these Orontid branches that the topo¬ 
nyms of those regions, derived from Orontid praenomina — E^ualldnnik^ Sha* 
varshan, Zarehavan (canton), and Zarevand — must owe their existence.® 

^ It to be stressed again that the genealogical tradition In question is significant only as 
an embodiment of historical memories regarding personages and dynasties of the remote past 
(and dynasties, indeed, represented by eponyms), hut that no indication of the exact kinship 
binding these persons can be expected from it: cf, supra I’art 1, end oi § 9. 

Ps. Moses 2,40. Ct. g 11. 

Ps. Muses 2.39; cf. Manandyan, O torgovli 38-40. 

® Lazarus 31 (127); Eiiseus 3 (74); SebSos 22 (102); Procopius Bell.pers. 2.25.5-15 (Vdyys^- 
For Cajkotn, see infra at n, 05. 

** Supra Part 1 § le, at n. 117. 

® Supra Part 1116. ^^ As has been seen ibid. n. 118, 'Zarebawanean* seems to have been 
Ps. Moses’s appellation ior the Orontid Princes of Her and Zarewand or Zarehawan. Oveiv 
looking the evidenoe for their existence, Markwart considers the above dynastic name a fig- 
ment of Ps. Moses’s imagination and a symbol for the city Zerehawan: Ceneatogie 20. It 
must be remarked, however, that in the Armenian princely nomenclature territorial names 
were derived horn cantons that constituted princedoms and not from towns. The cumula¬ 
tive evidence on the subject leaves little doubt as to the Orontid origin of the princedom in 
question. As for the origin of the name of the city of Zarehawan in Cajkotn, it Is true that 
Zariadris of Sophene could not have been its founder: Ceii6alogte20. It Is equally true, that 



In other 'words> it h by Oroutid memories thot both the toponymy and the 
genealogical tradition are explicable; it is, surely, hardly satisfactory to attempt 
to explain the genealogical tradition by the toponyms and leave the toponyms 
themselves unexplained. 

5. Next, Mark wart attempted to establish the exact epoch and dr cum stances 
of the compilation of the Primary History. His thesis, as has been mentioned, 
is that it was produced at the Court and for the political ends of Bagarat, 
Piince of Taraun and Presiding Prince {‘Prince of Princes’) of Armenia for 
the Caliph, in the years 830-851,®^ This he set out to prove in a very complex 
argument. The eponym of the Bagratid house in the Primary History, Bagarat, 
is, as has been seen, identified with the god Ang| (I § 11). It has also been seen 
that Angl was the pagan Armenian equivalent of Nergal and that one of the 
manifestations of this equivalence consists in the fact that in the Armenian 
Bible, in 4 Kings 17.30 — in the phrase ‘and the Cuthites made NergeP — 
the name of the Cuthite divinity ts rendered by angel. Thb Markwart would 
regard as fortuitous, the Armenian word in question being, according to his 
intimation, an approximation to the Septuagint rendering of ‘Nergel’ as 
rajif No doubt, had we but this biblical text for the existence 

of that equivalence, Markwart's suggestion might appear convincing. How¬ 
ever, the cumulaive evidence cited in Part I § 14-15 tends to show, on the 
contrary, that, so far from creating, this text merely reflects the identity of 
Angl and Nergal. Precisely the same is the case of Hayk whose name was 

an Orontid Prince of the Zarchnwonld dynasty would bavo had nothing to do in Ca]kota. 
And yet that city, and another one named ZarlMt, appear to have been situated not far from 
Emanda^t which was indeed founded by an Orontid; cf. Manandyan, O t^rgosit 1X9, X20. 
Are we to suppose that the name Zareh appeared in the Orontid family before their loss 
of Armenia? What complicates the situation is that the Artaxiads, too, appear to have used 
it. The father of Artaadas I was named Zareh (Part I n. 59), and a son ol Tlgranes the (jreat 
appears to have been called Sarlaster (= Zariadris?): Valerius Masimns, 9.11 ext. 3 (cf. 
Appian, Mithr. 104); of. G^nealogie 21. 

For this personage, see Grousset, H Is to fre 349-351, 353-354, 358-359, 308-309; Laurent, 
Arminie 105-100, 117-118, 122-123, 120-127; cf. Markwart, S&darmenwn 390-298, 495. — 
Following the death in 826 of Aiot IV, Flince of the Bagratids and Presiding Prince of Arme¬ 
nia for the Caliph, the Bagratid domimons were divided chiefly between his sons Bagarat 
and Smhat, the former becoming Prince of Tarawa, Xoyt', and Sasun, and the latter. Prince 
of Siracene and ArSarunik^. The Caliphate, pursuing the pokey of dlttide el impera recognised 
Smhat as High Constable of Armenia and Bagarat as Presiding Prince ol Armenia with the 
title of Prince of Princes, In 83Q. The Caliphate was eminently suocessfal in its policy, and 
the relations hetw'een the two brothers and the branches they headed were not cordial, 
in 851, Bagarat fell from favour and was deported to Sdmarra, which he was not destined 
to leave. 

Geraaiflsie 51-53; cf, supm Part 1 114 at n. 92. 



made to correspond to that of OrionMoreover, the phonetic proximity of 
ergel and angel would hardly have been patent enough to suggest the use of 
the one for the other, unless the essential affinity between the two religious 
ideas represented by these terms had already been familiar to the translator.®^ 

6, Markwart’s argument continues as follows? the biblical name Cuthites, 
in Armenian, must have become confused with Xuf*; that of the inha¬ 
bitants of Khoyt', a canton of the province of Turuberan.®’ Thomas Artsruni, 
writing in the tenth century refers to the latter as "marauders ’ {meknakazenk'n 
Xiit*ay) and testifies to their loyalty to their prince, who happened to be 
Bagarat of Taraun.®® Accordingly, while admitting that he was not certain 
as to whether the pagan cult of Tork'" (whose identity with Angl [I § 14] he re¬ 
cognized) had persisted from pre-Christian days among the people of Khoyt^ 
Markwart nevertheless felt certain that when the author of the Primary Mis¬ 
ery wrote that "Bagarat was also called Angel and was in those days called 
a god hy the barbarous people’ the reference was not to the legendary eponym 
of the Bagratid dynasty, but to Bagarat of Taraun, deified by his subjects of 
Khoyt"' and, in the maimer of the pagans of Lystra thinking St Paul and St 
Barnabas to be Mercury and Jupiter (Acts 14.10-12), identified by them with 
their old pagan deity.®® There is, unfortunately, no evidence that the reference 
to a ‘barbarous people’ is anything other than the typical way in which many 
recently-Christian chroniclers were wont to refer to their recently-pagan an- 
cestors^ — and this may be an additional indication of the antiquity of the 
Primary History; or, finally, that any inhabitants, no matter how marauding 
of a land that had been Christian for some six centuries could possibly have 
manifested a completely polytheistic psychology that would have been per¬ 
fectly natural to pagans who had never known Christianity. 

I n. 1^8 

The history of the Armenian biblical translatioas Is not vciy dear, but the first trans¬ 
lation of the Bible appears to have been made from the Syriac rather than from the Greek: 
Ahelyan Jai. drevnearm. tit, 1 S4-S5; Lyonnet, Origines. 

® For this canton, see Htlbschmann, Orisnatntn 325, 

Thomas 2.7 (201) describes the mountaineers of Xoyt' In connexion with their revolt 
against the Caliph's forces after the deportation of Bagarat of Tarawn (cf. snpm n. 33); cf. 
Grousset, Histoire SSS-SSS. 

Geneatogie 52-54. 

^ Cf-, e.g., among the Georgians, Leont. Mrov. 17; or the Russ. Prim. ChroR, 14-15; or in¬ 
deed Ps. Moses (snp«E at n, 17). The latter’s attitude, since he wrote at a greater distance 
from the pagan days (cf. infra $ 17), is more detached and more academic: he enhemedses 
and attributes unpleasant traits to some gods that bad been reduced to heroes, and he as¬ 
cribes the raising of the Idol of Vahagn to the Iberians (1.31), while admitting that he was 
an Armenian dlviiiity, but he does not tax his ancestors with being barbarians. 



7. Nextj MarkTfvart shifted somewhat his ground. Having just attempted 
to prove that Bagarat the Eponym had been modelled on Bagarat of Taraun, 
he went on the demonstrate that the latter had served as a model for the 
Eponym* s descendant, Bagarat P'arnavazian. Before examining this point, 
the text of the Primc(ry Hisiory (14) dealing with the latter personage must he 

firu^JupiaatiT t/"~ 

%iu^utptap ^utUtphtp^ t 

^t/iu t^uitnatpat^ aai^^ A fi. 

^ ub^p II ^ i^w^uiu*- t^ta ji ^'anp it 

^ i^h-pmf nu^^tuupiutn ta^u^at^nt-tt. 

II ii/ii/ f*t.p f* ^1% 1 ^Qum tapmp 

atp^pay taua^h^ta ^tiytaautath irpi^p^^y wtp ^p L ^pt*t^ 

tfit^uiurntp p-inipaitJipnt.p-h^i^^t ^piadtubuiy 

It. ^ityp tup^pat^^y jAl t^i^payp* npiruP t-ia m^pnt^ 

uyiiitp^^ i ^*** ff^nrt»*iptritiy q^rf^nyr^My np tpvLprmt-prprt^ 
frij^yh jt i^pay ^apnt ^ J^jnuptity t 

There came to meet him“ with an army Bagarat P^amavazian, of the 
sons of Aramaniak, a great feudatory. He brought to him offerings of 
gold and silver and vested him with the robe and the ephod;^ he crowned 
him with the ancestral crown and seated him upon the throne of gold 
and precious stones; and he gave him his daughter in marriage. Him 
Arsaces the King made Aspet of the land of Armenia, that is, a prince 
and commander of the whole kingdom — the summit of authority, and 
[also] the King’s father and brother. And to him he gave the princedom 
of the realm. He crushed the giants who had raised levies against him in 
Mesopotamia of the Syrians. 

The name of Bagarat, the epoch that appears to be that of the early Arta- 
xiads,^ and the reference to Syria can leave but little doubt that the passage 
in question contains a memory of Bagadates, Tigranes the Great’s viceroy of 

^ The legendary hrst Arsacid King of Armenia, Who was according to the Prim. Hist, Ann, 
13, Arsaces, son of Arsaees the Great of Parthia (c. 250-24$ B.G.), or, according to Ps. Moses 
2.3, Vologases, brother of the same; cf. supni Part 1 at n. 75. — For the pro|ectlo!i by the 
Artnetiian hUtorical tradition of Arsacid rule to the third century B.C,, see X at nti. 174-176. 

^ 'Kobe' is a tentative readerlng of the fvord otherwise unknown; cf. Markwart, 
Genealogie t6n.l. For the roy^, no less than priestly, significance of the ephod (zniJIcos) lathe 
ancient East Mediterranean world, see M. Thiersch, Epetidgion und Ephod, Collesbild und 
Prlesierkleid im Alien Vorderasien (Stuttgart 19SQ}; Fraiue, Rogaat4 i&rail. 204-205. 

^ Cf. stipTu n. 41. 



Syria, mth whom we shall deal presently (§ 12), This Markwart recognised, 
hut* refusing to admit — wrongly, as we have seen — that memories so andent 
could have lingered ou, thought that this hit of information must have reached 
the compiler of the Primary History through some Greek or Syriac source." 
The reference to the crowning of the King by Bagarat and the marriage to him 
of the latter’s daughter, Markwart, in the same vein, would attribute to the 
influence of the text of Faustus, 5.44, telling how the Mamikonld Manuel, the 
all-powerful Regent of Armenia, set up C- 37$ the young Arsaees III as King 
of Armenia, gave him his daughter in marriage* and married the King’s brother 
Vologasea to the daughter the Bagratid prince* hereditary Coronant of the 
Arsacid kings.^ Once again, we seie the tendency to make of te:!ttual influence 
a substitute for actual history. The compiler of the Primary History, who, 
for all the ancient traditions his work may contain, could not have set it to 
writing prior to the invention of the Armenian alphabet on the threshold of 
the fifth century* was undoubtedly no less aware of the royal alliance and 
the hereditary office {for which, see § 15) of the Bagratids than was Faustus, 
and so could project, independently of the latter* both the office — which 
was natural* since so many Bagratids had by then already held rt — and the 
alliance to the epoch of their illustrious early ancestor. 

8. But Markwart’s argument centred on something else. He would see, to 
repeat, in the figure of Bagarat P'^arnavazian, for all the admitted echoes of 
Bagadates, a projection into the past of the figure of Bagarat of Taraun. There 
are several points to this argument. First, it takes up the above text’s state¬ 
ment that King Arsaces created Bagarat ‘the King’s father and brother/ 
Accordingly, this is interpreted as inspired by another text of Faustus* in 
Book 4.14, where the historian alludes to some domains in Taraun that belonged 
— in the fourth century — to the Grand Chamberlain of Armenia. The chief 
appanage of that dignitary, however, was the Principality of Mardpetakan, 
in Vaspurakan, whence came his title of mardpct.^ His other title was indeed 
‘the King’s father’ (hayr t'^agawori), so that he was usually referred to as hayr- 
mardpet So, Bagarat P'amavazian — we are told — was called ‘the King’s 
father* because he was modelled on Bagarat of Taraun* and Taraun it was 
where — five centuries earlier — the Grand Chamberlain had held some vil¬ 
lages/^ This is hardly serious. There is* moreover* a difference between ‘ the 
King’s father’ and 'the King’s father and brother’: the latter was not the title 

** GencaioffU 56. 

" Ibid. 4B. 

" II 5 7‘S, 

Genealagie 48. In this connexion Markwart rather bums the man of straw In declaring 
absurd the Idea that the Bagratids ever held the office of Grand Chaniherlain. 



borne by the Grand Chamberlains. More than that, the former title was not 
seldom used in. the ancient East Mediterranean world to designate the chief 
ministers of kings: suffice it to recall here Aman in Esther 13.6; 16.11. 

The argument continues with the suggestion that the words of our text; 
‘prince and commander of the whole kingdom" {(ixan ew hramanaiar amenayn 
t‘agaworut*e<mh) resemble those with which the tenth-centuiy historian John 
the Katholikos describes Bagarat of Taraun: 'commander and Prince of Prin¬ 
ces of Armenia ’ {hramanaiar ew iixan Hayoc^).^ Human speech being 

limited, it is not altogether unexpected that similar realities — being a com¬ 
mander, for instance — should be expressed by the same words. Here, more¬ 
over, the argument could be reversed, and John the Katholikos suspected of 
patterning his description of Bagarat of Taraun on that of the latter's cele¬ 
brated ancestor. Mark wart, finally, suggested, in a veiy involved manner 
which we need not trouble with, that Bagarat of Taraun*s little-known brother 
Isaac, too, might have contributed somewhat to the creation of the figure of 
Bagarat P'arnavazian, and that the latter’s expedition in Syria might have 
been a hint at some campaign or other that Isaac appears to have led on behalf 
of the CaliphSeldom has a scholarly elaboration stood in greater need of 
Ockham’s razor. 

Finally, although Markwart asserted elsewhere™ that the Ang] as a geo¬ 
graphical term mentioned in connexion with Bagarat the Eponym could not 
have been other than the castle in Tsa^otn,^ he nevertheless suggested the 
possibility — quite correctly, to my mind — that the 'western regions’ of 
the text of the Primary Bisiory (1 § 11) might indeed have had the Angi in 
Ingilene in view; his reason for this being, however, that Bagarat of Taraun 
was known to have pushed his control in the direction of Arsamosata.*® As 
has already been seen and will be seen again, the Bagratid connexion with 
both Angf-castles is explicable by their Orontid origin. 

9. The last part of Mark wart’s thesis concerns the Iberian, more particularly 
Phamabaifid, connexion of theBagratids as is implied in the Primary History. 
It is explained in the following way. {!) By the fact that the Bagratid Slamm- 
sifz was iu Syspiritis, in the valley of the Acampsis, on the Iberian frontier. 
(II) By the conjecture that a branch of the Iberian royal house might, some¬ 
time in the second century, have controlled that valley; and the Bagratids ap¬ 
pear to have been a local dynasty. (Ill) By another conjecture that the Phar- 

** John Kath, 115. 

® GenealogLe 4S-49. 

“ Ibid. 47. 

" Supra at a. 30; infra at n. 05. 
Geneatogic 55, cf. 56* 



nabazid link was introduced inBagratid genealogy by that branch of the family 
which at the end of the eighth century settled in Iberia* founding the line 
of the Georgian Eagratids.^ The two conjectures have little to support them, 
either in the Armenian or, what is more significant, the Iberian historiography; 
but the first observation is very plausible indeed. 

10. The Bagratids were in fact princes of Syspiiitis on the Armeno-Georgian 
frontier. The Greek Life of St Gregory (§ 98) entitles the Bagratid prince 
contemporaneous with the Conversion of Armenia Guardian of the Caucasian 
and Tzannic mountains.^ More than this, the early Bagratids appear to have 
taken an active interest in the affairs of the neighbouring East Georgian king¬ 
dom of Iberia. 1 he Iberian historical tradition recorded by Leontius of Ruisi 
knows of Sumbat Bivritiani commanding the Armenian military operations 
in Iberia under the Armenian kings larvand and Artashan,®® This is a parallel 
of the story found in Pseudo-Moses (2.37-53) of Smbat, son of Biurat* the 
Bagratid, who flourished under Kings Eniand and Artashes. As has been 
seen earlier (I § 4), these ancient royal names are projected by the Armenian 
historical tradition to the beginning of the second century of our era, which 
is precisely the epoch of their mention in the Iberian historical tradition. 
This projection, the latter tradition borrowed from the former, while on other 
points, except for the parallelism due to the community of subject matter, 
the two narratives, Iberian and Armenian, about Smbat the Bagratid show 
no traces of dependence on each other. One has the impression that the Iberian 
tradition had its own memories of Smbat’s intrusion in Iberian affairs and that 
those who set it to writing merely consulted the Armenian tradition for the pur¬ 
poses of identification. At all events, this Sumbat is said to have penetrated 
as far north as the Duchy of Odzrkhe and to have built there the fortress of 
Samts'khe. And then, Juansher mentions in the reign of King Vakhtang I 
(c. 446-522) the sep^ectd Bivritiani and — no doubt the same person — the 
Bivritiani Duke of Odzrkhe.®* This suggests that a Bagratid branch was for 
a time established in Iberia between the second and the fifth century. The 
fact of the Bagratids’ being sovereigns of a territory on the Iberian frontier 
and, furthermore, of their participation in the life of Iberia itself may well 
have sufficed for the Armenian historical tradition to regard them as definitely 

M For thi£ line, see my Bagr, of Iber. I; II g 12.9; infra ill; IV S 34-35. 

II I 12.9; infra | 13. 

L.eont. Mrov. 47-49. It will be remembered that the ^wth-'weBtern projection of Ibena, 
known aB Upper Eberla, protruded towards the Black Sea and was situated, according, due 
wuth of 'West Georgia or Egrisi (Colchis) and due north of north-western Armenia; and so of 
Syspiritis; cf. V. 

“ L«on. Mrov. 47; JnanSer 156, 180, 300. — For sep'^eail; infra at nn. 144-145. 



coonected Tvitb Ibeiia, that iS, ’with the Ibedan royal house, and to allegorize 
this link by introducing P^arnavaz into the steiuma of the Primary 
There is, however, another possible — and more plausible, though not exclusive 
of it — explanation, which, like the other, must nevertheless remain in the 
realm of conjecture. According to the Iberian historical tradition, the original 
divine line of the Phamafoazids was followed on the Iberian throne, already 
in the third century B.G.* by another which has been called the Nemrodid 
{i.e., ‘Iranian’) or Second Pharnabazid I>yna3ty. The first king of the new 
house was Mirvan I, related to the earlier kings in the female bne.^ His prae- 
nomen, a cognate of the Iranian Mihran, may suggest his belonging to the 
Iranian family of Mihran,®*® which, at a later date, indeed gave a royal dynasty 
to Iberia, that of the Chosroids,®^ The Orontids, however, also used this prae- 
jRamen, as in the case of Mithxanes ( == Mihran), son of Orontes II, and of Mithras 
(Mithranes?), brother of Orontes IV (I § 2). Moreover, the early Orontids could 
well have been described as Iranians. Finally, whereas we may merely infer 
the existence of the Mihranids at that early epoch, that of the Orontids is an 
historical fact*, and the moment of Mirvan Ts accession falls in the period of 
the Orontid Monarchy in neighbouring Armenia (I § 10). We have, in addition, 
the pattern of the Armenian royal cadets on the Iberian throne; thus, the rule 
of the Second Pharnabazid Dynasty was momentarily interrupted by that of 
a branch of the Artaxiads, then, at a somewhat later date, the Armenian Arsa- 
cids ruled in Iberia, and, finally, the Bagratids.® In fact the struggle of the 
Second Pharnabazid Dynasty and the Artaxiads in Iberia seems to have the 
character of a repercussion of the Orontid-Artaxiad struggle in Armenia. Ac¬ 
cordingly, if the Second Pharnabazid Dynasty was indeed an Orontid branch, 

Markwart, Giitealogie 74, wdulij interpret the name Armog, which designates. In the 
genealogy of the Prtm^ Hi»t. Arnt. and of Ps. the Orontid Artanes^Artoantes {stxpra. 

Part I at u. 72 and | 11), a& representing, instead, the King of Iberia, Artoees-Artag (in the 
Hr&t oentury B,G.). This change from 't' to *m' in the Prim* HisU (and, ioUowing it, in Ps. 
Moses) is the same as In 'Bagaram' and ‘Blvrtatn’ for Bagarat and *Blwrat.' €f. infra 
n. €0a, — The use of the patronymic derived from Biwrat by Asojik and Samuel of Ani in 
apphoaUon to Smbat VI (t 726/7) and Alot II (t ^90) Bagratnni Is an obvious archaeologlstn 
evoked by the memory of the above-mentioned second-century Stnbat; in the same vein, 
'Vardan (76-77) oomparea to the same Smbat ASot FV Bagratani. 

^ I at n. lOl and n. lOa, 

^ The immemoTial antiquity of the YwpJihran houses (Ehtdcham, Iran Achim. 21 n. 4) 
may Justify this suggestion. On the other hand, at this early epoch, we know of no historical¬ 
ly ascertainable Mihranids. 

I n. 165; II | 25.J. 

® For the Artaxiads of Iberia, see I n. 103; tor the Arsacids; ibiti* n. 105; and for the Ba- 
gratids: supra n. 53. 



the indu^on of its eponym and its surname in the material containing memo¬ 
ries o! the Orontids as quite explicable.*®* 

11. At all events, the cumulative evidence at our disposal quite forcefully 
indicates the Orontid origin of the Bagratids. We may now sum up this evi¬ 
dence. (I) Both the Primary History and Pseudo-Moses indicate this origin 
(this has already been noted in § 1); the latter indeed covertly, as a descent 
from the national and once-divine primogenitor Hayk, from whom Bagarat- 
Angh the founder of the Bagratids according to the Pnmctry History was him¬ 
self descended, and he mentions it only in order to refute it. 

(II) However, the vehemence of Pseudo-Moses's refutation is in itself an 
additional proof. It has been seen (I § 15) that the Christian scruples of the 
Orontid Houses of Arzanene, Artsruni and Gnuni forced them to exchange the 
traditional version of their descent from the Orontid tutelary deity Ang|-Tork' 
for a new one deducing them from King Sennacherib of Assyria. It was un¬ 
doubtedly the same sentiments that must have made the Bagratids abandon, 
in their turn, the Orontid claim and adopt instead a more general one that 
traced them to Hayk. The latter, it will be recalled (cf. 1 § 15), when reduced 
from his original position of part an astral deity and part a divinized primo¬ 
genitor to that of a mere hero, proved far less objectionable to the early Chris¬ 
tian writers than was the god of the netherworld and fertility, AngJ-Torl^:^ 
Nevertheless, the earlier, pagan, claim must still have remained patent —■ 
the descent from Hayk including that from Bagarat-Angl — in the new one; 
hence Pseudo-Moses, who calmly recorded the Haykid origin—when it implied 
no connexion with Angl — of other princely houses,® rejected it In the case of 
the Bagratids; and he proceeded to formulate an entirely different version that 
could match the new version of the Houses of Arzanene, Aitsuni, and Gnuni. 
To this we shall return shortly (§ 16). 

(III) A number of geographical and toponymical data point in the same 
direction, A link seems to be indicated by these data to have existed between 
the Orontid Dynasty and the nameBagarat and in particular one of its com¬ 
ponents;, the Iranian root baga^ indicative of divinity. The name itself, of 
course^ is an Armenian rendering of the Iranian *bagadata ('god-given’).®* 

In reference to n. 57 supra. It is to be noted that Artoce^ of Ibona was as Artaxiud, whose 
branch succeeded, and was followed by, what appears to be the Ibexian hranch of the Oron- 
tfds. It woidd have been perfectly natural, however, for the later Armenian tradition to 
have remembered among the latter. This might explain how —- under the Influence of 
that memory— 'Artoantes' could have been corrupted as 'Armog/Artog.' 

® Cf. I at nn. 10S-17O and a. 173. 

Adontz, Aroienila 412; Markwart, EranSahr 174; Hbbschmann, Qronimafik 31. HDhsch- 
maim gives another possible Iranian etymology; *itagaMta {*god^a giftO^ The Xranold 
character of the name of the Bagratid eponym and of the Bagratid gentilltfal title (g 14) 



Now the Orontid kings of Armenia controlled, as is known (I § 5), the central 
Armenian plain — the valley of the Araxes. There, on that river, stood the 
last capital of the Orontids in Armenia, Eruandashat {— ^Orontasata); close 
by, the last Orontes <IV) raised the cities of Bagaran (‘the god’s place*) and 
of Eruandakert (= *OrOiitocorta), as reported by Pseudo-Moses (2.39, 40, 42); 
there was in that vicinity also a place called Eruandavan {ibid. 2,46: 'Oron- 
tes’s site*); while south of them lay the canton of Bagravandene or Eagrevand 
(‘Bagarat’s region’),^ with its chief place of Bagauna orBagavan (‘the god’s 
site*);** and it was adjoined in the south-east by the canton of Tsalkotn, once 
a part of it, which contained the castle of Angh so named — it is difficult to 
doubt it — after the tutelary deity of the Orontids,*' It has been suggested 
that ‘Bagarat’ was the Itanoid name for the proto-Caucasian AngJ-Tork'.®* 
That the Iranian dynasty of an Armenia that, though then entering its Hel¬ 
lenistic phase, had been deeply impressed by the ‘Iranianism’ of the Achae^ 
menian phase should have employed Iranian or Iranoid religious terms, is 
hardly unexpected. It seems, however, more likely that the Orontid deity 
was referred to simply by the term baga: ‘ the god for ‘Bagarat * or ‘Bagadates ’ 
must obviously have been the praenomen of one of the devotees of that deity, 
a name that an Orontid might be expected to bear; the relation between the 
two terms being the same as, say, between ‘Mithras’ ‘Mithridatea’,® In this 

led Adtmtz to suppo&e (307-^03,400-402,412-413) that the Bagratlds were ef Iranian (Median) 
origin; in tins he was followed by K, Aslan, Etudes historiques sur le peuple co'mdnlen (Pam 
1928) 154, and Laurent, Arnidnte 85, It may be aaked whether the memory of Bagdattl, 
Dynaet of UlSdlS, on the Armeno-Medlati frontier, in the eighth oentuiy B,C. (cf, II n, 223) 
may not have lalliieaeed these scholars. The name itself, In its various forms, was frequent 
Is the woild of ^Iranianism’: cf. in/m n. 71. 

For the etymology of 'Bagrewand/ see Adontz, Armetiifa. 307; Markwart, ^ddiarmenien 
11 ** (‘die Landschaft des reichen Spenders [Mtthra]* cf. infm n. 87); for the canton itsell, 
Habacbmann, Orisiimnen 363; Baumgartner, 'Bagraudanene,' RE 2/2 2774. 

See Huhstdiniattit, Opigiuiimti 380, for the significance of the soMses -/iran and -^ttvan. 
Pa. Moses, 2.46, offers a wholly fanciful etymology of ‘Emandawan/ 

Httbschmann, Orisnaaten 365; Adontz, Arinfinija 307: in Faustns, Calkotn is stPl a part 
of Bagravandene; Tarjfeon 192; cf. also supra, n. 50. 

Abelyan, Jsf, drsDTtiarm. tit. I 26. 

^ And ft was, as a matter of fact, to Mithras par excellence that the term baga was applied 
In Arsacld Iran, so that the name Bagadates as used in Iran (m whatever local form) was an 
equivalent of Mithridates or Mlthradates: Her^eld, Paij|<ru/i 153. In Orontid Armenia, the Ml- 
thraist connotation of baga need not have predominated. Yet in the syncretist climate of the 
times the fusion of solar Ang] and solar Mithras (for this aspect of the Iranian deity, at. ELIade, 
Patterns 160) was probably inevitable. The Commagieuian Orontids Invoked Mithras precisely 
in hla aspect of the solar peychopomp: JM 15-16; Christensen, Irwt Sctsa. 157. For the sur- 
vanist-mazdaist aspect of the Nimrud-dqg inscriptions, see ibid. 149-15$. The association 
of both divinities with bulls mast likewise have conduced to their syncretization. Cf. supra 
Part 1 114 and n.9S and, for the cult o< Mithras in Armenia, Trevor, 0£- po isL Arm. 77-95. 



light, the toponyms Bagaran and Bagavan appear as semantic equivalents of 
Angl and of Angel-tun, all of them designating places sacred to ‘the god’ of 
the Orontid D3Tia3ty. At the same time, a land situated close to the centre of 
Orontid power must have been called ‘Bagarat’s region ’ only because it was 
the appanage of an Orontid prince named Bagadates or Bagarat, At a later 
epoch, after the disappearance of Armenian paganism, when the ancient theogo- 
nies were euhemerized and so introduced in Christian literature, the distinction 
between the divinity and its devotee — between baga. and bagadala —must have 
become oblitera ted, and in the Primary History Bagarat is presented as a scion 
of the royal race whom the pre-Christian barbarians, i.e., pagans* divinized as 

12. It is, of course, impossible to trace in an unbroken line the Bagratids, or 
for that matter any other Orontid branch, like the Aitsrunis or the Gnunis, 
back to the Orontid kings. The social history of Armenia between the collapse 
of the Urartian Monarchy and the conversion to Christianity is known to us 
very tenuously. It is only after the latter event that national historical litera¬ 
ture, risen shortly thereafter, begins to supply the historian with generous de- 
tails of a social nature. For the earlier periods* we have to rely on foreign 
sources that concern themselves exclusively with political history.^. How¬ 
ever, in the earliest monuments of the Christian period, the Gregorian Cycle 
and Faustus, the Bagratid princes are shown among the highest of the realm.*® 
The earliest mention of the nomen gentiliciam Bagratuni is found in Faustus, 
where it is applied to a Bagarat;™ which means that he was not the eponym 
and that the latter’s floruit must he projected further back into the past. It 
is perhaps significant that one of the few glimpses that can be caught of the 
social structure of Armenia prior to the Conversion: Appian’s few words about 
Tigranes the Great's realm, reveals the existence at that time, and among the 
highest personages, of another Bagarat or BayaSdtygf Tigranes's viceroy of 
Syria in the years 83-69 That he belonged to the family that was, 

probably only later* designated as Bagratid, has now been generally accepted 
by specialists.’® This appears all the more certain in context with the names 

Cf. I at n. 69 and S 12. 

“ II I 21. 

™ Faostas 3.7 (28). 

Appian, 5ffr. 5.48, 49; c£. Grousset, HistoiK 90. The correct foitti Bayaddtyq Is found 
Iq some codd., ’whereas others give the oomiipt fomEi (Markwart, ErSitScdti- 174), 

which, regrettahly, has been given preference by all the editors of the text of Appian. 

^ Mark wart, EranSahr 174-175; Adontz, Arjnpnija 411-415; Meaaadyan, Tigran 51, 56; 
O torgwie 68, 71; ProbL sfm/at 24, — It Is to be home in mind, hO’wever, that In the ’world 
of 'Imnianism,' this nanie could be met outside the Bagratid tamUy: cf. Justi, 

57 (’Where the etymology given aupm at u. 62 is not found). 



given by Appian (and Plutarch) to two other high dignitaries of Armenia: 
MayxaioQ^ who defended Tigranocerta against the Romans,^ and MiBqo- 
^Qv^dvf}^, who was in command of an army that was defeated by Lncuilus 
(I § 13). The first of these two names — possibly Ma/iKatof or Ma[fia]yxaZoQ 
in the oiiginal text — reveals ‘Mamih' or ‘Mamkon' the eponymous designa¬ 
tion of the Mamikonid Dynasty; the other is a name favoured by the Artsnmid 
branch of the Orontids (I, 113).™ That three chief personages of the Armenia 
of the Artaxiad period should have borne names peculiar to what the national 
literary monuments of the Arsacid and subsequent periods reveal as three of 
the greatest Armenian princely houses — the Bagratids, the Mamikonids, and 
theArtsrnnids — can only with considerable difficulty be deemed a coincidence. 
And indeed, as has already been noted, tbe Primary History remembers Baga- 
dates as Bagarat P'aynavazian of the family of the Bagratid eponym, Baga- 

13. Bagadates was, thus^ a contemporary of Tigranes the Great and he 
appears to have been, unlike Mithrobuzanes, unconnected with the House of 
Sophene. He must, then, be presumed to have belonged to an Orontid branch 
that had become separated from the royal trunk before the dynasty lost Arme¬ 
nia (114); and in Armenia his house must consequently have remained. This 
consideration, as well as the above toponymical indications, show — to my 
mind conclusively — that Adontz was right when he considered Bagravandene 
to have been the original allod of the Bagratids.™ However, in historically 
ascertainable times, the Bagratids held it no longer: it belonged to the patriar¬ 
chal Gregorids and passed from them to the Mamikonids, from whom (as has 
been seen supra § 4) the Bagratids wrested it in the ninth century. 

The Bagrarid princedoms, before the setting up of Islamic overlorship, were; 
the canton of Syspiritis or Sper, with its chief fortress of Smbatavan or Bay- 
berd (now Bayburt), in Upper Armenia;''^ the canton of Kogovit, with its chief 


Appian, Mithr. 12.S4, S6. 

™ Adoatz, Armmtfa 411-415; ManAndyan, Prott, ob, atrofa 24; II § 12.18, 

™ Adontz, op. eit. 307-3OS. 

” Adoutz, Armeaija 52-53, 122,124,394,398; Ht9t.d’Arm.28l a. 1; Markwart, i^neatogia 
11; StreifsOge 452; HUhschraBitm, Ortanamen 257,287, 467; Garitte, Docinnents 228,234; Ho- 
nigmann, Osiipvnss 53, Map 11; GugufihvUi, Dwision 65; I at n. 240. TMs tbe land of 
the remnanta of the Hnirian Saspelres (Sapeires, 3abiri, Espeiitae). la BrOnSfJir 159, Mark- 
wart refused to identify with Sper the Sy^ritis of Gyisilus of Pharsaia^ and Medius of La¬ 
risa {apad Strabo 11.14.12) and so interpreted the where it is found and whioh is given 
below, as to identify it rather with Supria, in Assyria (cf. I n, 44). As a result, Adoatz, in 
Arjnentja. 398, postulated the existence of two toponyius Syspiritis, and, then, in JifisL d'Arm. 
332, following Marifwart more folly, restricted that toponym to Supiia alone, while reserving 
for Sper the term found in the codd. of Strabo 11.14.9: ibid. 281 nd, 322 n.2; d. 

also Weissbach, HwjsitQlTi^ RE 4 A/2 1831-1832, All Seems to ho due to a ndsnnder^ 



fortress of Dariunk' (now Do|ubaya2it), in Ayrarat;’^ the canton of Tamoiitis 

standmg of Strabo^ In two passages, 11,4.S and 11.14,13 (citing here as hi$ authority the 
worlE of Cyrsilus and Medlus), Strabo speaks of the settlement of the proto-ArnicTiians, 
or, as he calls them, loUowers <tt the mythical eponym Armenus, in the ArmeBiaai Plateau, 
In nearly identical terms, he says that the newcotner'S settled in the lands of Acilisene and 
Sysplrltis [and] as far as CalacheneandAdlabeneibothlnthe south] ro^g cn5r 

l*AQfistK(3\ Ts olx(<fat Tjji? xs itai ^^uflSHpiTiv ico^ Kolaxavijg stai *Adui§ri- 

ifije..* [and] Se /terd t<w A^fi&vov oixfjaiti vsid rofe 

eitffO.T, to^S djJ ^ rg ^vcsrrfgfTidt img xfjg Ka^axifiv^g nal ASia^rf- 
V^g T&tr *AQfl£VKltf^V 0$(OV. 

TThe two texts ou^t to he read together, complementing each other, and then the impres¬ 
sion that Sysplrltis must he in the neighbourhood of Calachenc and Adlahene will vanish. 
It Is obvious that Sper is meant here, and what Is true here of SysplriUs mn%t he equally 
true ot AcUlsene, and Adontz himself recognizes, as he must (Hrsf. dAim^ 333), that the 
latter lay in Upper Armenia precisely, in the vicinity of Sper, lu the Gk Life of St 

Grcgoiy l'?3, Spcr is called Hovassi^tg. Originally wtthtn the Armenian realm, it became In 
the mediaeval period a part of Georgia. It is the isplr of to-day. Since in the above passages 
and In 11,14.9, Strabo places Sysplrltis in Armenia, whereas the nationallEim of some Soviet- 
Georgian adnolarB would claim Sper as a perennially Georgian land, the equivalence Syspiritis 
= Spef was flatly denied recently by Ingoroqva, Giorgi Mc/vJ'uIe 506-511. He has suggested 
therefore, that A‘Ktkl^S‘r^^ is an error for The latter form indeed occurs In 

Str^O, 11,14.5, where Zariadris is s^d to have been King of Sophene, Adsene, Odomantls 
etc. But this form must obviously be regarded as corrupt, because elsewhere Straho c»uples 
Sopihene with, precisely, AcUlsene: 11.4,3; It. 12.3; 11,14,2; It. 14.12. In the last-named pas^ 
sage, Str^o, as has been seen, states that AcUlsene was once held by the Sophenians, And, 
in any case, where and what was Adsene ? Then, the Georgian sources tend to show that 
Sper —' Speii — was not a Georgian land in eaiiy times: Juan^ei 170 says that Vaxtang 
Gorgosal moved ‘to the region of Armenia and stopped in the region of Speri* 
fego>oti hcaSligcooaj (In Q 

the soitassVW of A is replaced by the soireErif J' (region) of the south'] of the later M. P. 203: 
the Emperor came to Sper! in order to enter Iberia (fiiScqg.'OHji 1>5ig^iSQ, 

P, 226: the Byzantines seized Iberia's borders: Speri and the end of Cholarzene 
da®3g6t»a tija 3cas;;cq TSie 

first and the last passages are admittedly ambiguous, but the second one Is unequlyocal. 
!h this light, the border In question seems to have passed, precisely, between Sper and the 
'end of Cholaxzene The referenceB to Speri (238) and to the ‘ Speri river' (=» Acampsis) and 
the ' sea of Speri' (=> the Euxine) found elsewhere in JuanSer and in Leontius of Ruisi prove 
nothing one way or the other. The neict reference, just as equivocal. Is in theTtwelfth-century 
Hist. Dasid JXI. Finally, the decisive fact is that, whatever the presumed ethnic connexion 
between the Saspeires mtd the proto-C^rgians, tiie Bagratid princes of Sper were within 
the Armenian political and coltural sphere. 

^ Adontz, Armenila. 306-307; HDbschmann, Orfsiiomcn 364-365, cf. 441; Markwait, Getis- 
alogis li-12; Streilsage 252; Houignmnn, Osigreme 147 {Koao^iT of the Byzantines), In 
Faustus, 3.7; 4.40; 5,1, Dadwnk' (also: Darawnlt*, Darewnk', Daroynk% Darunk') appears 
as a royal fortress housing Axsacld treasures. Tins made Adontz think that the canton Itself had 
been a royal domain: Armenija 307, The Implication ot this was that the Bagratids could 
have acquired it only after the end of the Arsgcld MonEirchy. But occupying fortresses on 



or Tmorik% in Gordyeno;’® and possibly the canton of Colthene or Golt^n, in 
Siunia.” The havoc wrought by the struggle accompanying the establishment 
of the suzerainty of the Caliphate over Armenia {A.D. 653/4) led to a considera¬ 
ble change in the politico-dynastic configuration of the realm. Numerous 
dynasties came to extinction or grew weak to the profit of others; numerous 
allods changed hands.®*^ As a result, the Eagratids lost practically all of their 
original princedoms and acquired new ones; but the period of caliphal control 
is somewhat beyond the scope of this Study.® 

princfily terrltgry -was one of tlie royal prerogatives: 1 at n. 195; ct* the case of JngUeue: IX 
at nn. 66-70. ThiSi therefore, need not be regarded as equivalent to the royal possefsion of 
the territory itself. It Is not known when Kogovlt became a BagratidpTincedoni;possibly 
it had always been that, as a remnant of the Orontid appanage of 'Bagrat's region^ (cf, 111 
[HI]); bat it was in the seventh century that Dariwnk'’ became the chief residence (osfon) 
and sepulchre of the dynaaty. There is. hardly any need to suggest with Adontz, 307, that, 
because a fifth-century Bagratid prince, Tlroc' I, took part in the affairs of the Great King's 
portion of Armenia (whereas Syspiritis lay in the Emperor's section), he must have belonged 
to a line different to that which held Syspiritis: a 'Persarmenian’ line which, as Adontz con¬ 
cedes, may already then have held Kogovit. The simple fact seems to be rather that the 
Bagratids as a house held simultaneously domains in different parte of Armenia; *cette divi¬ 
sion de leurs domaines italt... une cause de faiblesse; elle leor donnait par contre une grande 
security contre les tentaUves des maitres Strangers de TArm^nle. Qnand Us ^talent d’accord 
avec Byzance, ou quand Us redoutaient ieur voisin oriental, ila s^Journaient dans la priuci- 
paut^ de Sper. Mala Us a valent 5 Dariounk et dans son territoire, une forteresae et une princj- 
paut^, qui devenaient leur centre d'actJon quand ils fuyaient les Grecs, on quand Els Malent 
particuli^rcmenl en faveur auprfea des maftres de TArmenie Oricntalc'; Laurent, S6. 

™ Tiimumi of the Assyrians, Tct/noQiTig of the Greeks (which some editors of Strabo, 11,14 
5, have attempted to 'emend' as TagcavlTig wa$ also known as Kordrik*, but its chief 
fortress was always Tmorik*': Adontz, Armeni/a 395; Hisi. d’Arm. 210; Hubschmann, Orts- 
neanett 336-337; Markwart, SUdarmenien 350, 352-354, 383-386; cf. Garitte, Documents 2l9- 
220. According to Ps. Moses, 2.53, the Bagratids were established in this princedom already 
in the secO'nd century* in the person of Smbat, son of Biwrat (for whom, see supra | 10). 
By the beginning of the eighth century, the Bagratids appear entitled ‘ Prince of the region 
of Vaspurakan' {Smbat iSzann kolmctim Vaspurakani}: Leontius 3 (27). Since practicatly 
the whole of Vaspurakan was held by various other dynasties (cf. Adontz, Armenija 315-321), 
this title must have been based on the Bagratid sovereignty over Its two limitrophe re^ons, 
Kogovit and Tamoritis; cf. Laurent, Arm^nie 80. 

^ Ps. Moses 2.53 also mentions the setting up of a Bagratid foothold In Colthene. ff Ba¬ 
gratid indeed* the Princes of Golthene formed a separate branch, which Ps. Moses elsewhere 
(2.8) describes — owing, obviously, io the geograpbicol position of Golthene ^— as a branch 
of the House of Siunia: cf. II 3 12.IP. 

Cf. Grousset, Histaire 296-340; Laurent, S3-128. 

After 750, when the Umayyads, whom they supported, were overthrown by the Abba- 
sids (Grousset, HlsioUt 317-321), and especially after 772, when the Armenian revolt against 
the Caliphate, in which they took part, met with a crushing defeat (ibid. 323-334), the Bagra- 
tids suffered a temporary reversal of their fortunes and lost some of their possessions, Vas- 
purakan passed to the House of Arcnini. That Syspiritis was lost likewise, has been too 



Now* if indeed the Bagratids originally held Bagravandene, it is not difficult 
to see why they came to lose it. The Ariaxiads are known to have transferred 
some Orontid branches from their original allods in Sophene to the Median 
border.^ A ^oriioTi then, they must have found the existence of an Orontid 
allod in the centre of Armenia itself quite intolerable. They may, we presume, 
have induced the Bagratids to exchange that allod for a more remote one, 
such as Syspiritis on the Iberian border. If Bagadates was the one who accepted 
this transactiou, the application to him in the PTumT^ History of the surname 
of Pharnabazid, indicative as it is of an Iberian connexion, becomes explicable. 

14. Besides the surname of Bagratuni, i.e., Eagratid, the dynasty had anoth¬ 
er, short-lived, one of Aspetuni, which appears to have been the earlier of the two 
and was derived from the gentilitial title of aspti^ This title was derived by 

readily beliewd by Laumit, Anaiiiiie t09. The inaiaUattoa there by the Empeivr af a Ba- 
gratld prince In {tST need not be taken signifying the reiurn of Syspidtis to the dynasty. 
Actually, after 772, ASot IV took refuge In the Bagratld lands on the Impodal frontier, where 
he had stiver mines. This co«i1d only be Syspiritis. Already Steaho, 11.14.9, mentioned the 
gold mines of Syspiritis; and In the Ottoman kasa of Ispir, which represented a part at least 
of the old principality, there were gold mines, which were abandoned in the sisteeiofth een- 
silver mines, still used at the end of the nineteenth: Culnet, Turguie 1 160; ef. 
Laurent 41. This source of wealth enabled A^ot to bny from the Kamsarahans the prince¬ 
doms of Ar^arunik' and of Slracene. He then acquired also ASoc' and a part of Tayk'. He 
came, finally, we do not known how (Laurent 104 states that he wrested it from the Arabs), 
in possession o! MamUconid Tarawu. His grandson, Aiot the Great seized Mauiikonld Bagra- 
vandene. The Mamikonid princedom of Bznuulk' (with Xiat^) seems to have also been 
acquired by the Bagratids already by 760, though it was soon to become an Arab emirate. 
See, for all this, II | Markwart, Str^tfsiige 452; Genca/oyie 31; Laurent 93-98, 217 ; 
Grousset, 341, 373-374; T at n. 93. Il.aurent 93 states that the Bagratids acquired from the 
Mamikonids, e. 750, MnS andBaleS as weQ as Tarawn; but they appear luBa^atid hands only 
in the ninth century; and there is nothing in Leontius, 23, 33,34, quoted by Laurent, 93 u. 7, 
99,94 and 110 n. 9, to support the assertion that Isaac Bagratuni was Prince of Tarawu, that 
Vasak Bagratuni was one also, and, a forttarU that Vasak expelled the line of Isaac from 
Tarawu (for these princes, see infra ill % 3). The most that the text of Leontius 34 warrants 
one to suppose is that Vasak held lands In the nelglibouihood of Arce^ and of Vaspurakan and 
so, according to Markwart, Stf&lfziigs 414-415, 'likely in Tamwn.' Some authors have attri¬ 
buted to the Bagratids the possession of fngiieiie, which Is a natural enough confusion arising 
from their Orontid origin: cf. Gronsset 292; Laurent 35 (where the Bagratids are, wrongly, 
given the title of miardpeU for which, see II g 7-8). Cf. infra Ell at nn. 26-2S. 

Supra at nn. 31-32, 

The Gk Life of St Gregory 9S: t < 5 v *0(S3ictbOiV&v iatdQxrfq; Procopins BelLp«rs, 2.3.12- 
18:Tw'Ao7Tst‘£aW(>v... yivo^ — a phrase nusiaterpreted as ‘the tribe called the Asperianl' 
in the LCL ed., 1 [1914], 273; yet a little below (239/281), the same word y^vog is correctly 
rendered as 'family' [of the Arfiadds}. See Markwart, Streifzilffe 437; Adontz, Arateniia 402, 
417. The fom * Aspetuni or, possibly, *Aspeietm Is not found In any Armenian sources, 
though It must have cndsted. 



Adonta from the Old Pers. vidapaitiS^ and, more convincingly, by Marfcwart 
and Hiibsclimann from the Old Pers. *aspapaiti^ or Master of the Horse,®® 
That this term designated an Armenian office, i.e., that of commander of 
the cavalry, as has been assumed by some;,*® I am now prepared to doubt. 
Adontz has made it quite clear®^ that there was no room in the Kingdom of 
Armenia for such an office, next to that of High Constable, because the Ar¬ 
menian army, which to all intents and purposes was exclusively cavalry, was 
under the authority of the latter; this, to my naind, is decisive. It must be 
asstuned, therefore, that, whatever the etymological significance of the ,term, 
it must have been merely a family title of the BagratidSi and not an office.®® 
There are indeed hardly any references in the works of the Arsacid historians 
to Bagratids in command of the king's forces.®® 

Wliat makes the whole question somewhat involved is the fact that one of 
the Seven Great Houses of the Iranian empire was sumamed Aspahbadh,* 
And this nomen genUHcium appears to have been derived not from any term 
signifying Master of the Horse, but, paralleUy with the Iranian term for High 
Constable, or spahbad, from the Old Persian spMapaitiL'^ May it not be sup¬ 
posed, then, that in a sitnilar way the Armenian gentUitial title aspet was derived, 
along with the name of the office of High Constable: sparapet or asparapeU 

Adontz op. ciL 401-402. 

Markwart, Gcnealogie 6S; Hub^chmann, Graininatik 109. 

d. Grousset, Histoire 291. 

Armenija 447. 

®® For Annenlaii gentllitial titles, see Adoutz 400: a^p^t of the Gagratids, mamak of the 
Maxnlkontd^, Tnalxas of tbe XorKOTUois. The Prim. Eisf. Arm. 14, Indeed appears to imply 
that the King of Armenia created Bagarat P^arua^azean an aspel (| 7), bnt this must he 
due to the frequent fusion of this tiltle with the offiee of Corosast in the Bagraild nomen¬ 
clature; cf. supra n. €8. 

In Sa;3sanlaii Iran, on tbe other hand, the office of Gonunauder-in-Chief or High Con¬ 
stable = EFSR^spdhiaS (Christensen, Iran Sass. 180-132; Eht^cham, Iron Achim. 63-64: 
from the Old Pers. spSdapaittS; also Hhbschmann, Granvnatik 240) seems to have co-esisted 
with that of Master of the Horse = aspabad (Christensen 107-108, and n. 1; G. Huart and L. 
DeJaporte, L’Irtm antique [Paris 1952] 365) or {Ghjistensea 108 n. 1: 

this form 'seraltplus vralsembiahle'; it is derived from the Old Pers. *ospapaitiM or * 0 i 8 abilra- 
pailtl: Bht^cham 65); cf. Adontz, Armentja 447; Huart 365; Christensen 107-108, The 
chief source for the esiatence of the second office is Theophylactus 3.8; though Christenseti, 
130-132, omits all meutioii of it when treating of the orgatilEation of the Iranian army. 

Christensen, Iran Sass* 103-105; Eht^cham, Itan Ack^m^ 21 n, 4; Justl, Nantenboich 
306, 429. 

^ Ghristeaseo, op. off. t04 n.l, Ps. Moses, 2.68, derives the name of the Iranian iamlly 
(A^pahapeti Pahtaw) from their position as commanders of the armed forces. 'What is especi¬ 
ally Interesting, Theophanes, Citron. 352, refers to the Aspahhad of the end of the fifth cen¬ 
tury as 



from the same Old Persian $pMap<iiii^ ?“ There Temams> however, the some¬ 
what baffling existence not only of parallel offices, in Armenia and in Iran, 
which was to be expected in the circumstances, but also of the parallelism 
between two great houses, one Iranian and the other Armenian, bearing etymo¬ 
logically equivalent names of Aspahbad and of Aspet. To be sure, there were 
other such paralleHsms between the two societies. The Armenian Kamsarakans 
and Gregoiids claimed to be branches of the Iranian houses of Karin and Su¬ 
ren.^ After the Hellenistic phase of Armenian history, stretching from the 
Orontids to the advent of the Arsacids in the first century, a new phase of * Ira- 
nianism' was entered by Armenian society: the impact of the Parthian empire 
of the Arsacid Dynasty of which the Armenian royal house was a branch. In 
this new phase, the Armenian aristocracy must have begun to pattern itself 
on the Iranian, exactly as the Arsacid Monarchy of Armenia tended to become 
institutionally a mirror of the Parthian empire. Thus it is entirely possible 
that, either through sheer imitation or for reason of a marital alliance, the 
Bagratids assumed injts Armenian form the appellation of the Iranian Aspah- 

15. The great hereditary office of the Bagratids was that of Goronant or 
fagadir of Armenia. The passage of the Primary History cited above (§ 7), 
which refers to the placing of the crown, along with the conferment of other 
regalia, by Bagaral P'ainavazian, and the documents of the Gregorian Cycled 
are the earliest references to this Bagratid office-fief. A similar office existed 
in Iran, where it w^as vested in the House of Suren,*® and may have served as a 
model for the Armenian office, though Adontz supposes something like the 
same office to have already existed in Urartu.*® The Bagratids appear to have 
held another office-fief, mentioned only in the Greek Life of St Gregory, of 
Guardian of the Caucasian and Tzannic mountains.*^ It implied the control 
of the Pontic Alps (Mt Paryadres), the north-western boundary of Syspiritis, 
and the position of a sort of assistant-vitaxa of the Nortli.®® The reference to 
Mt Caucasus, however, must be regarded as purely rhetorical. 

16. With the Christian phase of Armenian history, succeeding the second 
'Iranianism' of the Parthian phase, new fashions in genealogy were ushered 
into the princely society of Armenia. It has been noted (§ 11 [IIJ; I § 15) 
that, in the new phase, some Orontid branches abandoned their pagan tiadi- 

For sporapff, see HObscbmann, Grammatik 240,* Adoiitz, Armentja 445; cf. II J 

a. Ps. Moses 2.27, 28, 72, 73, 74, 82, 90, 91; II S 12./6; | 13.21. 

« II J 5 Lists A and B. 

Ghlistensen, Iran Sass^ 18; Eht^CtiAm, Iran AcMm. 21 n.4 23). 

“ Adontz, Hist. d’Arm. 215. 

II S 5 List A. 

^ II 12,S. 


32 ? 

tion of the descent from the god Angl-Tork'. And Tvhile the Bagratids at first 
retained the vaguer, and less objectionahle, claim to a Hay kid descent, the 
Houses of Arzanene, Axtsruiii, and Gnuni devised a wholly new one, to the 
Assyrian royal ancestry. The vogue of exotic origins among the Armenian 
Princes® enhanced the basic, religious, motivation of the change. It was in 
these circumstances that the Bagratids in their turn evolved an entirely new 
genealogical tradition, of Hebrew origin. Pseudo-Moses appears to have been 
the formulator of this new theory. Now the new Arzanene-Artsmni-Gnuni 
claim was prompted by the conjunction of a geographical synonymy (‘City 
of Angr = Xity of Sennacherib') with a biblical tradition (the flight of the 
sons of Sennacherib to Armenia). In a somewhat similar way, it was the con¬ 
junction of several near-homophonies and of two historical traditions, Jewish 
and Armenian, that seems to have given birth to the Hebrew claim of the 
Bagratids. Markwart has suggested that Pseudo-^Moses must have been struck 
by a series of near-homophones in Josephus. There is a mention of Ananus, 
son of Bamadus {Bell. jud. 5.13.1) and of his companion (and one referred to 
together with him) Archelaus, son of Magadates (sttcf, 6,4.2) — contemporaries 
of Titus — as well as the story of the High Priest Ananelus, Herod the Great’s 
creature {Ant 15.2.7). These names, Pseudo-Moses must have correlated with 
the memories of Baga dates, Viceroy of Syria (g 12); and thus evolved (2.24) a 
composite and imaginary personage, theBagratid ‘Enanos the Aspet,’ whom 
he made journey to Palestine, at the time of Herod the Great, and take part 
in Jewish affairs, of which he was cognizant through, precisely, the works of 
Josephus. These seem to have been the steps that led to the idea of the Jewish 
origin of the Bagratids. When once formulated, this origin was emphatically 
asserted throughout the History of PseSdo-Moses (1.22; 2.3, 8,9, 33,63). In 
connexion with this, Pseudo-Moses was able to indulge his love for etymolo¬ 
gizing, when he proceeded (2.63; 1.22) to derive the typically Iranoid Bagratid 
praenomina of Bagarat, Smbat, Ashot, Varaz, from the Hebrew names Baga- 
dia (Bagath), Shambat or Shambay, Asud, Azaria or Vazaria, and, by impli¬ 
cation, the title of Aspet from the name Sap'atiay (Saphatias).^® At any rate, 
even if Markwart’s explanation be deemed unconvincing, the fact must never¬ 
theless be recognized that no other Armenian source prior to the tenth-century 
John the Katholikos knows anything about the Hebrew claim of the Bagratids. 
So, if not by Pseudo-Moses, this theory must have been developed at the time 
of Pseudo-Moses, and he at least must be credited with putting it in its earliest- 
known literary form. Later, this theory underwent an important change. 
It was transformed into a tradition of such magnificence as outshone the genea- 

Cf. I at ti. 245. 

MarL'wari, SrSn^hr 174 n, 6 <= 175); Sti^ifsiige 426-430. 


logical chim^res of other dynastie&r the imperia] Chinese tradition of the Mami- 
konids and the royal Assyrian tradition of the Artsrunis. The latest Bagratid 
claim was one of their descent from King and Prophet David of Israel, the an¬ 
cestor of Onr Lord, the descendant in an unbroken line from Adam, and the 
archetype of kings. This implied that the Bagratids were not only the most 
ancient and, as it were, the most authentic dynasty in the world, but, moreover, 
kinsmen of Our Lord and of His Mother. This version arose and developed, 
however, not among the Armenian Bagratids, but among their Iberian cousins. 
The Iberian (East Georgian) line of the dynasty stemmed from Atrnerseh, or 
in Georgian: Adamase, son of Yasak and grandson of Ashot III the Blind 
(t 761), Presiding Prince of Armenia. Following the defeat of the Aimenian 
insurrection against the Caliphate in 772, Adamase removed to Iberia thus 
founding this line.^“^ The Georgian sources^ at all events, are the tirst to men¬ 
tion the Davidic origin of the Bagratids. The earliest source is Juansher’s 
History of King Vokhtang GorgasaU written between c. 790 and c. SOO, where 
is related the arrival in Iberia, sometime after 772, of the above Adamase, 
‘who was of the House of David the Prophet, The next source is the stone 
effigy in low relief of Adamase’s son, the Guropalate Ashot I the Great of Iberia 
(t 830)“® from the church of Opiza, in Shavshet'i, which represents him in an 
act of offering a model of that church to Our Lord, seated upon a throne, blessing 
Ashot, and accompanied by the King-Prophet, represented In an attitude of 
supplication and identifiable by the ecclesiastical majuscules CDYT' {Cinas- 
carmeigueli DuViT' — ‘the Prophet DavidHere the allusion to the don- 
or*s descent from Our Lord’s ancestor and the latter’s intercession is unmis¬ 
takable. The life of St Gregory of Khandzt'a, written in 950/951 by George 
Merch*ule,™^ is next to refer, in Chapter 11, to the tradition of the Davidic 
origin as extant at the time of the Guropalate Ashot the Great. Finally, the 
Chronicle of Iberiat compiled in the eleventh century, mentions this tradition 
as existing at the time of Ashot’s father Adamase.^®® From the latter source 

^ Infra III; IV j 34-35; Bagr. of Iber. I. 

JeauSer 243; cf. IV | 34, and n. 26. 

The date his death is discussed in my Chivnologg 83-S5. 

Amh-^nasylU, Isi. graz^ te*. 1 212-213 and Table lit- ASot is identifiable by an inscrfp- 
ticn. In another inscription from the same church, he is called the 'second hirilder' of it: 
Mbit, Dneanik poje^iv^opSeiiju. i Ktardietifu {St Petershurg 19il> 163. He must have been 
so called because, according to Juau^er 178 the original builder of the monastery of Opiza 
■was Artavaz, Duhe Of Qhdtarzene, femp^ Vastang I (late fifth centuiy)- In the CAron. Iber, 
260, however, it Is Aiot's yeaugeet son Gnaram who is qualified as the second builder of 
Opiza: no doubt as the second, after bis father, among the Bagratids. 

Cf. Introd. at nn, 54^. 

«W CftJWi- Iber. 251; cf. IV J 34, and a. 27. 



and from Juanaher^ it appears that the dalm was not, in the days of Adamase, 
as yet widely l53iown.“" This would suggest that it had just then come into 

The first Armenian author to refer to this new theory — rather in passing 
— was John Katholikos (f 931), as he was the first after Pseudo-Moses to 
mention the Hebrew theory.^ Constantine Porphyrogenitus (f 959) was the 
first to do so among the Byzantines. The latter’s account betrays a definite 
Iberian inflnence and manifests an attempt at representing this theory in the 
form of a genealogy,™ This genealogical formulation reached its complete and 
elaborate shape in the Georgian work of Sumhat, the Hislory of ffte BagTaiids^ 
written about the year 1030.^ 

™ Unis, the Choaroid princess nt Iberln, whose son married Adamase'^s daughter, is ahuwn 
by the CAron. 251, to have been ignoiaut of the Davidic origin of the Bagratids; and 
Juodier, 243, While saying, on the one hand, that Adamase was Of the House of David, on 
the other hand describes Adamnse's father as ‘related' (actueaiy ‘related by marriage* = 
mzaxebat [sic]) to the Bagratlde; cf. in/ra III at n. 21; IV | 34. 

™ John Rath. 25; qapdt f^Bagarat.,, 

who is renowned for being of the House of David’). The Bagarat in question 1$ the same 
as the one referred to in the Peiat. Hist. Arm. as 'Bagarat P'arnawazean* (|7). In generai, 
the ArmeDian Bagratids displayed Jlttte interest in the Hebrew theory and its Davidic de¬ 
velopment, as compared with their Iberian eousins with whom this legend became the 
basis of a dyuastio-poUtlcal myth. One may say that Ps- Moses launched this Idea for the 
use of hla ArmenlBU patrons, but that it was their Iberian kinsmen who made use ol It. 
The connexion of this Idea with the Armenian Bagratids exists largely only in modem 
historiography, moulded as it has been by Ps. Moses: It is enough to remember the casual 
reference of John Kath. to realize this; cf. ht/ror n. 110. 

™ adm. fizip. 45; cf. IV S 34 n. 35. The Iberian inspiration is evident in Coustantiue's 
avoidance of all mention of the Armenian past of the Iherlan Bagratids; this tendency reached 
its fullest expression in the History of Sumbat. 

It® IV Bxcursus A. — It is incredible that an attempt sbonld have been made to-day to 
rehabilitate the theory of the Hebrew and Davidic origin of the Bagratids. En JenkLns, ed.. 
Coast. Potphgr. Ds Adm. Imp. IE, Runrimah suggests (172) that ‘we need not doubt their 
[the Bagratids'] Jewish origin: large numbers of Jews from the Assyrian captivity... settled 
in Armenia, where, as In Babylonia, there were hereditary chiefs who claimed descent from 
David known as the "Princes of the Diaspora” till the high Middle Ages.* The relerenCe 
grven is to M. Brann and D. Chwolsou, ‘Evrei,* ES 11 (1S03) 44CMi41, where, as a matter Of 
fact, there is not one reference to Armenia, this entire section dealing with the Jews, and 
their BxUarchs (rsS gaiuta), in Babylonia. Referring to the same work, H. Rosenthal, 'Ar¬ 
menia,' JE 2 (1902) 117, introduces the words ‘adjoining Armenia,' when speaking ot the 
descendants of the Jewish captives of NebnchodonosOr 'in the Parthian and Persian coun¬ 
tries.* The presence of Jewish settlers In Armenia is, of course, generally known; and H is 
just aa weS known that the Exllarchs did not reside there. At all events, the entire attempt 
loses significance when It Is recalled that the Davidic claim originated not in Armenia, but 
in Iberia, and that even the Annenian theory ot the Hebrew origin is a late one; It cannot be 
found In any source prior to the eighth-centuiy work of Ps. Moses. The latter*s ascription of 



VI. The correlation of the versionsj Armenian and Iberian, of the third, 
Jewish, genealogical theory of the Bagratids bears upon the problem of the 
date of Pseudo-Moses. For over half a century the problem of the trne date of 
the composition of his great work on the Armenian Antiquities has taxed the 
ingenuity of scholars. Pseudo-Moses himself supplies his readers with broad 
hints which make it possible to place his jhTuii in the second half of the fifth 
century^ and which were once accepted* as now they are not, at their face value 
by the overwhelming majority of specialists. Being, tlius, something of a de¬ 
liberate mystifier, this author has deserved his appellation of Pseudo-Moses, 
As to the true date, scholarly opinions vary. Broadly speaking, there are three 
groups of theories on this subject; some ascribe this History to the seventh 
century,^® others to the eighth,^® and still others to the ninth.These di¬ 
vergent views, and their mutual exclusion, were recently held up to irony by 

a Hebrew (not Davidic) origin to the House of Aiuatunl, which Runcluian assumes to be a cor¬ 
roborating evidence. Is made rather hesitantly, along with another and totally different claim, 
which Is probably the earlier one. For the possible origin of this claim in Ps. Moses, see II 
I £2.^. Somewhat more plausible, though as incapable of proof, Is the suggestion of Maoler 
that the Hebrew theory may have been due to the conversioti to Judaism of some pre-Christian 
Bagratids (as in the case of the House of Adiabeue): Risioire t7n/«efselte par Btienni Asallk 
de Tar6n (Paris 1917) 7 u, 9 (= ■&), In either case, the history of the claim is the best fliv 
gument against its validity. 

Ps. Moses $.61, 62, 6$; cf. Abelyan, fst. dreumarm. Itt, i 198-1&9, 207. 

^ See, e.g., A. von Gutschmld, ' t)ber die GlaubwUrdlgkeit der armenischeu Gescbidhte 
des Moses you Khoren,' BVSGW 27 (1876); and his article on 'Moses of Chorene,' completed 
by F.C. Conybeare, £B llth ed. (19Ii) [between A.D. 634 and 643: this must he regarded 
as the definitive opinion of the last-named scholar]; A. Zaminean, grakaii patmuVisvA 
(Nakhiehevan 1914) 110; L. Mellkset-Bek, ‘Xazary po drevnearmjansMm istocnikam v svjazi 
sprobiemoj Moiseja Xorenskogo,’ Sf>ornik v iesi’ Akad. I.A. Ob^U 112-118 [cf. to/ra n, 120]. 

^ E.g., Cairitrc, RoudcIIcs sourcet de Molse de Ktiaren.\ Etudes critiqae^ (Vienna 1893); 
JVoiioelfSs sDurcCs da Moise de Khoreni Sapplimint (Vienna 1894); G. XalOteaoc*, Armfan&kij 
Epos If 'Istorii Arntenii* Moiseja. Xorenskago (Moscow 1896); AtJttfatiskle ArSakidg v *Iatorii 
Arwfinii’ Moisefa Xoretiskago (Moscow 1903); G. Ter-Mkrtican, ‘Xprenac'woy £amanak§ 
oroSela nor p'orj,’ At 1897 [after the end of the seventh century]; H. Akiuean, ‘Moses 
Ghorena^],' 'RESuppl. 6 534-641 [Ps. Moses is identical with Leontius tbe Priest, c. 800]; 
Adontz, ' Sur la date de I'Histoire de I’Arminie de Moise de Chotone: k propos de 1‘article 
de M, Hans Lewy,’ B 11 (1936) 97-100; 'A propos de la note de M. Lewy sur Molse de 
Chorine,' itld, 597-599 [between the last quarter of the eighth ecntuiy and S26]; Jena^ia, 
K krliike 473-503 [not before the eighth CJentury], 

ii* E.g., Mlaker, ‘Zur Geschichte des Ps- Moses Chorenatsi,' Ar 2 (1927); 'Die Datlerang 
der Geschichte des Ps. Moses Xorenacl,' WZKM 42 (1935) 267-286; Markwart, Gmeaio&ie 
[mid-ninth century]; Manandyan, Xorsnac^ii af^lcoaoi tucumi (Erevan 1934) [second half 
of tbe ninth century]; H. Lewy, ‘The Date and Purpose of Moses of Ghoreue's History,' 
B 11 87-96; 'Additional Note on the Pate of Moses of Ghorene,' lifid. 503-596 (between 
876 and 885]. 



a Soviet-Armenian savant, wlio reverted to the traditional date;^^ and he has 
been seconded in this by another authority,^® While pointing out, quite justly 
the mutually cancelling divergencies of modern scholars when dealing with the 
question of when Pseudo-Moses did write, these two Soviet-Armenian authori¬ 
ties seem to overlook the fact of the solid agreement of all of them as to when 
Pseudo-Moses could not have been writing, i.e., in the fifth century. The best 
among the arguments against the traditional dating of Pseudo-Moses appear 
to me to be the following. <1) frr 1,14, Pseudo-Moses projects into a remote 
past the division of western Armenia and some neighbouring lands into First, 
Second, Third, and Fourth Armenia, which division was instituted by the 
Emperor Justinian in 536.“^ — (2) In 3.18, he speaks of the Iranians’ pene¬ 
trating as far as Bithynia in the course of a war on the Empire. This occurred, 
for the first time in history, in the war of 604^29.^^® — {$) In 3.46, allusion is 
made to the institution, following the death of Arsaces III (c. 390), of the office 
of Presiding Prince {arajiiord naxornrac'n), along with that of comes Armeniae 
{komess Uxam) in the provinces fallen under Imperial control. This can only 
be a reminiscence of the situation which resulted from Heraclius I’s victory 
over Iran in 629. — (4) In 2,65, he refers to the Khazars (as at the time of the 
mythical First Arsacid King Vologases), which no Armenian source does prior 
to the Geography of Ananias of Siracene, of the end of the seventh century, 
once erroneously ascribed fo the same Pseudo-Moses, At the beginning of 
that century, Sebeos does not mention the Khazars by name.^™ — (5) He 
makes use, in 2.62, of ‘Vaspurakan’ to designate the territory east of lake 
Van; this territory, however, came to be so designated only after the partition 
of Armenia in 591.^ Sebeos, in the early seventh century, does not yet know 
this term as a toponym, but uses eospufakan adjectivally as an ‘elevated’ 
equivalent of ‘ Iranian’ and thus indeed to designate the territory in question, 
which in 591 remained in the Iranian sphere.^® It is only in the Narratio 

™ S. Mpisasyaac', Xorenac^u ofejicnacl Surfe (Elrevau 1940). 

^ Abelyan, 1st. dJvmeoFm, Hf. i 19S-209. 

Adont!. Anneni/a 203; Gutschn^id-Conybeare, Mosr# itf Cfiorene S98 n.l. 

^ lifid. 

™ Eutrod. a. 11. 

™ Melikset-Bek, Xasarg. The author^a Intention seems to bo Isas to provo Ps. Mosos's bo- 
longing to the seventh century than to dcmonstr&te that no Armenian source of unquestion¬ 
able daUng prior to Ananias knows the Khazars. He does not altogether exclude the possi¬ 
bility of an interpolation; but the presence of other anachronisms makes this possibility 
extremely unlikely. — Sebeos, who does not use the term ‘Khazar,' nevertheless refers to 
the Kbazar king as 'great Xak'an of the North': IS (104, 106), 19 (lOS, 109). 

Adontz, Armenifa 230-234. 

^ SebSos 3 (40); m 0 (70, 77), t^aspuraican is as unmistakable synonym ot ‘ Iranian.' Cf. 
AdonU, AJ'iTtentja 232; Garitte, La N<iTT(itiQ 244. 



de rebus Armemaet compiled c. 700 and reaching us in a Greek renderings 
that Vaspurakan first appears as Pseudo-Moses uses it.'® — (6) He uses the 
term ‘ Sisakan ’ to designate the province of Siunia, in 1.12. Now this term ma¬ 
kes its earhest appearance in the Syriac chronicle of Zacharias Rhetor (554);'** 
but the earliest Armenian use of it is found in the Geography of Ananias of 
Siracene. What is important, however, is that in this source Sisakan is not 
yet treated as synonymous with Siunia, but as the name of a canton in the 
neighbouring province of Arts^'akh.'® It is only in the tenth century that 
John the Katholikoa uses this terra in the same sense as Psendo-Moses; he is, 
by the way, the first Armenian writer to mention Pseudo-Moses.*® — (7) For 
Pseudo-Moses, his dislike of the Mamikonids is a corrolaiy of his devotion to 
the Bagratids. This can only have been the outcome of the dynastic policies 
of the two houses as they were shaped after the mid-eighth century.'*' — (S) 
The work of Psendo-Moses is an antiquarian’s production — one is tempted 
to suspect him of emulating the Antiquities of Josephus on whom he often 
draws — and his attention is focussed on the creative minority of Armenia, 
its class of dynastic princes. His treatment of the Armenian princely nobility, 
however, is strikingly anachronistic. It is marked by an obvious archaeologisra 
as well as by an etatiste misapprehension of the dynasticist nature of that social 
group. This suggests that the Armenian Antiquities of Pseudo-Moses could 
hardly have been written before that group began losing its vigour and, what 
is more, its actuality, and so could attract antiquarian interest: before, that is, 
the ushering in, in the mid-eighth century, of the Abbasid-Bagratid phase.*® 
— (9) Finally, Ihe work of the ’Armenian Herodotus’ belongs to the type 
of ‘Universal Histories,’ which flourished in the Armenian literature in the 
tenth-thirteenth centuries and was unknown to the early historians.'**^ The 

Narratio 103 (40: *AtTJCovQattdvy 

AUontz, Arnientfti 421 n. 3. 

Ananias 33. 

Jtjlui Kath. 135. 230. 245, 303, 307 (for SisgJcan); 53 (for JVfoses). 

Adfmtz, Sur la date 99; Akinean, Moses Cfiorenagi 536. 

Adonts, Armenija 237*238, 489; I at nn. 171-172. 

Mtiyldeimaus, Historiographic 110-111. Since, ss we shall see, Pb. Moses Is atilerior 
to the ninth century, this type oi historicaJ writing mast ho said to have been first resorted 
to by him. — la establishing this lerminas a quo all reference of Ps. Moses's connesieu with the 
Eccl. Historg of Socrates, the Life of St Sylvester, and the chronlcJe o£ Malalas has been 
deliberately avoided. This counexioin has been used by both the old antagoDista and the 
modem proponents of the fifth century as the floruit of Ps. Moses; cf. Abejyan, Isf. dreif- 
nearm.* Ut^ 1 203-209, It is not. as can be seen, essential to our problem. Nor do 1 propose 
to enter here Into the problem of the identity of Ps. Moses with Leontius, as posed hy FT 
Akluean {sapra n. 113). An anonymous chronicle, brought down to A.D. 685, and ascribed 
In the MSS to Ps. Moses, has been found to be based on bis work: Abejyan 318. It bat also 



cumulative effect of the above arguments points to the mid-eighth century as 
the fermintis a quo of Pseudo-Moses* In accepting it we must part company 
with those who would assign him to the seventh century; what follows now 
will contradict the advocates of the ninth century as well, and in the first place 
Markwart (§ 2)* 

As is well known, the two lines of the Bagratld Dynasty, Axmenian and !be^ 
rian, were long united by the close ties of dynastic and political co-operation: 
Christian Caucasia becoming thus, in the ninth-eleventh centuries, largely a 
sort of pan-Bagratid condominium*^ In view of these ties between then^, it 
would have been hardly possible for the new genealogieal theory of the Tbeiiaii 
Bagratids to remain unknown to their Armenian cousins, or to the iatter's 
historiographer; and Markwart is very right in observing that, had Pseudo- 
Moses been aware of the Iberian transformation of the Hebrew version, he 
would not have missed the opportunity of further glorifying his patrons by 
ascribing to them the Davidic ancestry.^ Markwart was able to square this 
observation with his belief that Pseudo-Moses wrote in the latter part of the 
ninth century, only because of his confidence that the Iberian Davidic version 
had been formulated, under the influence of Pseudo-Moses, in the ninth-tenth 
century.^ But, as we know, the beginnings of the Iberian version — of neces¬ 
sity a derivative of the Hebrew theory set forth by Pseudo-Moses — can be 
traced back to the eighth century. And so Markwart’s argument in favour of 
Pseudo-Moses’s belonging to the ninth century must be abandoned. Markwart 
conjectured that that writer — quite the opposite of the compiler of the 
Primary History 5-S) — was an exponent of the ideology of the eastern 
branch of the Armenian Bagratids (§ 4), who cryptically glorified Smbat VIU 
for his resistance and branded as a renegate Bagarat of Taraun for bis tempo¬ 
rizing, when faced with the Muslimizing pressure of the Caliphate^^, and who 
wrote at the Court of Smbat VIIFs son Ashot Y, Prince of Princes (c, 862-335) 
and then King of Armenia (8S5-S90).*® Markwart’s attempt to discover hidden 

bfran ascdbed to Anaiua? cf Siracene. It ran hardly be used for the datiag of either. For the 
pjmblem of Itfo&es, cf. also A.Q. Sarklaelau, ‘On the Authenticity of Mosos of Khoren's 
Jitsloiy/ JAOS 00/1. 

T3ie genealogical aspect of this dynastic oondominiTun is treated In my Bagr. of Jfler. 1; 
the historical aspect, ia Brosset, ‘Histoire des Bagratides g^glens, d'aprea les auteurs 
aim^iens et grecs, jusqu'au oomtueurament du xi*sJfecle,' In Additions IX; and, with errors, 
by nunciman, Th6 jBjTtptror iiojmmus Ltc&peniis (tnd Mis Mfiign (Canahridge 1929) cap. S. 

Qertealogit 76. 

™ 402-403 (not before the end of the ninth century), 428-430. 

GenmlogU S6-68; cf, UnUrsiuikungeR II 235. For the historical situation referred to, 
see GioiiBset, Histoire 308-369; Laurent, Arntixile 125-127. 

Far this petsottage; Grousset, ep. tit. 372-397; Laurent, op. cif. 128, 284 and pafisiin. 



allusions to that effect in the History of Armenia, whatever its apparent per¬ 
suasiveness, must fall to the ground before hard chronological facts. Because, 
even were one to persist in the old view which placed Juansher in the eleventh 
century*®* and to reject, accordingly, his testimony, as well as that of the 
Chronicle of Iberia and of the Life of St Gregory of Khandzt'a, as not being 
contemporary accounts of eighth-century events, there would still remain the 
fact of the Opiza relief made under the Curopalate Ashot the Great of Iberia 
(813-830), in other words, a witness o! the beginning of the ninth century. 
It is interesting, too, that Ashot of Iberia died in the year of B agar at of 
Taraun’s accession to the principate of Armenia, twenty-five years before the 
latter's feigned apostasy,*®® and more than thirty years before the accession 
to the Armenian Principate of Ashot V. There can, moreover, be no valid 
reason for discounting the above several mutually corroborating data of the 
Georgian sources. Whith this, the rise of the Davidic theory — and this is 
the fcrmrnus ad quern of Pseudo-Moses — appears to date from the end of the 
eighth century, or, at the very latest, the beginning of the ninth. Since the 
mid-eighth century has been established as the /erminus a quo of his activity, 
the latter part of the eighth century must be regarded as the epoch of the 
mysterious author of the Armenian Antiquities. 

18. There remains, finally, still another learned construction which I find 
it my unpleasant duty to refute. Quite recently an attempt was made by the 
Soviet-Georgian scholar, P. Ingoroqva, to argue the purely Georgian origin 
of the Bagratids.™ At the basis of this argument lies the bint of the Primary 
History of Armenia at the Iberian connexion of the Bagratids (§ 1, 9-10); but 
what is overlooked is that monument’s massive evidence for their Orontid 
origin, as well as — it has been seen (| 10) — the fact that, if there be indeed 
any truth in that hint, it must signify the Armenian, i.e., Orontid provenance 
of the Second Phamabazid Dynasty of Iberia, rather than the Iberian pro¬ 
venance of the Armenian princely house in question. The rest of the ar¬ 
gument is developed along the following lines: (1) the Bagratids were a branch 
of the Vitaxae (i.e,, of Gogarene, or, as Ingoroqva puts it, of Artnazi),*®^ and 
the Vitaxae were a branch of the Iberian royal house (it is not specified which); 

(2) the Bagratids held Cholarzene and Javakhet^i, and so had the Vitaxae; 

(3) the Bagratids are called Vitaxae in the History of Juansher; (4) Sumbat 
Bivritiani (§ 9) is called $ep*ecul in the same source, and this must mean a 
descendant of the royal house of Iberia; (5) the Bagratids were — at the same 

For th« dating of Jttaaler, see Xatroil. at n. 53. 

A.D. S55: Grouaaet, Hiatoire 368-369; Laurent, Arirt^iiie 125-127. 

^ Glotgi Mere^uU 76-80, 442-443, 445-447. 

For the Vitasae of Gogarene. see JI % 10-11; cf. infra n. 142. 



time — (Cliosroid) Guaramids. Coming from one who is a great authority 
in the domain of history of literature^ this opinion cannot be passed over in 
silence; neither can it be accepted. The plain fact is that the Bagrritid descent 
from the Vitaxae of Gogarene is wholly imaginary. Cholarzene and, as it 
seems only eastern, Javakhet'i {not the whole of it) were indeed Once included 
in the Vitaxate, but they were detached from it A.D. 363/3B7; at the begin¬ 
ning of the sixth century, Cholarzene and the whole of Javakhet'i became the 
appanage of the Guaramids — the younger line of the Chosroid Etynasty of 
Iberia; and at the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century, 
they, together with other Guar amid lands, were inherited by the Bagcatids.*®® 
ThuSj so far as these lands are concerned, there is no direct contact, even terri¬ 
torially, between the Bagratids and the Vitaxae, Genealogically, the Iberian 
Bagratids form one family with the Armenian; their Orontid origin has already 
been discussed; and their kinship to the Chosroid, i.e., Mihranid Guaramids 
can only have been in the female line.'®® The Second Dynasty of Gogarene 
(from the fourth century on) indeed belonged to the same Iranian house of 
Mihran, of which the Chosroids and the Guaramids were another branch,'* 
But this is not the same as being descended from a royal house of Iberia, 
As for the previous Vitaxae (of the First Dynasty), there is no indication at 
all of any kinship with any of the Iberian royal houses.^' The nearest approach 
to a relation is the tlieojy of the Diarchy of Iberia, which would see in these 
earlier Vitaxae a Hoe of co-kings parallel to the Kings of Iberia; this theory, I 
have not been able to accept.'* Indeed, some Armenian, not Iberian Bagratids, 
are once referred to as ‘Vitaxae' by Juansher, but this is due to their coming 
in control of a part of Cholarzene that had once been in the Vitaxate.“® Finally 

V S 11^12, 15. ^ T7 I 34-35. 

w* II S 11, Appendix A 11, I 
^ II Appendix: A I, 

Xbid. Appendix B, for a discuEsioa of lugoroqya's viewa on the Yitaxato of Go^areiie 
and the Diarchy of Iberia. 

JuanScr 244; cf. V n. C4; II Appendix A 11 (12). Mr lagoroqva might havt reforred 
to another passage in Jnanlcr, nil, where the punctuation adopted by its modem edition, 
Q would seem to support his dahn. In this passage, Vgitang I of Iberia, addressing the 
people of Armenia, say a: 0 ^ 336 , 

6 o;>b<ll>S, = 'and you, denizens of Armenia — Arsacids, 

Vitaxae, Bagratids The pbrase, however. Is purely rhetorical —' the figment, nwe the 
rest of the speech, of Juan£er‘s Thucydidean imagiiiatioa. The King is made to mention 
the most illustrious names that first sprang to the mind of an eighth-century or early ninth- 
csentnry, Georgian author: the old royal house, the Vitaxae of Gogarene, orwf the Bagratids, 
Another great house originating from the Amieno-Georgian frontier, the Mamlkonids, 
had by the time of Juanier apparently severed their ties with their place of origin, Tayk'- 
Tao. The omission of a coma, in the printed text between 'Vitaxae' and 'Bagratids' is 
thus whoDy anwairanted. 



the term sep'eciiZ, which some scholars have indeed atempted to interpret as 
denoting members of the Iberian royal houses, was in reality applicable to all 
the members of the princely class of Iberia.“^ And with the feeling of unity 
that in those days prevailed among the aristocracies of the three Caucasian 
kingdoms — Armenia, Iberia, Albania — an Armenian Bagratid prince was 
in Iberian eyes, and especially when on the Iberian soil, in very deed a 

The venture just examined appears to have been motivated by the 
same nationalist emotion as had prompted, already in the eleventh century, 
the historian Sumhat to omit in his History of fke Bagratids all mention of the 
Armenian past of the royal house that had but recently unified. Georgia and 
to trace it, through the local dynasty, the Ouaramids, back to King and Pro¬ 
phet David of Israel.*** This nationalist emotion, when it affects historiography, 
tends to afflict it with parochialism, to divide it into water-tight compartments. 
In this way, the history of one of the Caucasian nations, for instance, begins 
to be treated without regard to the closely, in fact inextricably, related pan- 
Caucasian, one may even say. East Mediterranean, context. It Is this spirit 
that must also have moved Ingoroqva — very much in the style of Pseudo- 
Moses, though indeed for different motives — to endeavour to provide the 
unquestionably Iranoid pMenomina Ashot, Bagrat (the Georgian form of the 
Armenian Bagarat), and Sumbat (the Georgian form of the Armenian Smbat) 
with a purely Georgian etymology.**^ For scholarship, the wages of parochialism 
is death.™ 

I at n. 132. 
w® Ibid, at n. 261. 

IV Excursus A- 

™ 94-93. One instance mu^t suffice: Bagrat is made a vaxiaut of Bakarf 

Bak'^ar, 'without a thought about the purely Iranian ori^ of both these different sanies, 
which the Greeks transcribed us Bayaddvjjs osd UdieoQog. IBaito^bog. 

™ For a faithful oonrinuation of the isgi0F0i;[va tradition, see Salla, ' l-a Tao-Klardjetle 
et sea monastdces,' BK 36-37 (1901), 41-42 (1062). 


1, If the history of the Bagratid Dynasty, the most celebrated of the Oron- 
tid lines, can be traced back to the period of the pase acMemenia^ its genealo¬ 
gical history goes back only to the Gonversioii of Armenia (314), and Is made 
possible by the subsequent rise of national Armenian literature. In this con¬ 
nexion, the discovery of the Greek Life of St Gregory and the rehabilitation 
of the Gregorian Cycle is of importance for the begtnnlngs of Bagratid genea¬ 
logy, On the other hand, the discovery of the oldest-known MS of the Geor- 

, gian Royal Annals, the Queen Anne Codex, is of moment for the period of the 
division of fhe dynasty into the Armenian and the Georgian line, with which 
this Study is concluded. The Queen Anne Codex (A), copied in 1479-1495, 
discovered in T913, and first published in 1942, shows some divergences from 
the more recent codices of the Annals, which are important for the historian,^ 
The A version of Juansher’s History of King Vakhtang Gorgasal gives the 
filiation of Adamase, the founder of the Geoi^an line, quite differently to the 
other versions, and in a way which is fully supported by the Armenian historian 
Vardan. This enhances the historical worth of this version and encourages one 
to give credence to another passage in that History, where is found the only 
indication of the degree of kinship that existed between the branch of the 
Armenian Bagratids to which Adamase belonged and another branch — a 
kinship that has hitherto remained unknown. On the basis of this text, 
however, and also of a highly plausible conjecture, the filiation of the Bagra¬ 
tids can be traced uninterruptedly back to the sixth century, 

2, It may be useful to recall here — the question has been taken up in some 
detail elsewhere® — what appears to have been the fundamental principles 
of Armenian, and Caucasian, succession at the period studied here. The sys¬ 
tem of succession was strictly agnatic, and only in default of heirs male could 
it pass through women. For the rest, the pattern of succession was a mixed 
one; there was the basic norm and a by-norm. The norm was one of patrilineal 
seniority, that is, to give this system its modem appellation, primogenituie. 
Normally, thus, the succession passed from father to eldest son. However, 
in cases of the latter’s minority, incapacity, or death in the lifetime of his 
father, it might pass, not to his son, but to his next brother* or to his father’s 
next brother. Upon the latter’s death and upon the majority of the original 

* Fox these sources, see IntxoU. 

® I at tm. 300-209. 



heir or of his son, the succession ■would, though not always, revert to the elder 
line. An Armenian prince’s position as the head of his house can be deter¬ 
mined in several ways: (1) by a specific statement of the sources; {2) by the use 
in them of a specific title indicative of this position; (3) by the use of the gen- 
tilitial title of the family, like the Aspet of the Bagratids; (4) by the occupation 
of the hereditary office of the house — Coronant of Armenia, in the case of 
the Bagratids.^ It may, also, be gratuitous to overlook altogether the genea¬ 
logical principle in the Roman and Arab appointments to the Principate of 
Armenia, so long as they were confined to a single family. Whenever genea¬ 
logical relationship of various members of a dynasty who followed one another 
in the Principate can be ascertained, they tend to be coincident with the ge¬ 
nealogical succession to the family headship. Often enough, to be sure, poli¬ 
tical circumstances brought about an infraction, on the part of the imperial 
overlords, of the genealogical principle. But, then, this departure can almost 
invariably be explained by the known historical facts. It would, consequently, 
be unwarranted to disregard genealogical facts in cases when the degree of 
kinship between various Presiding Princes of Armenia of the same house 
is not sufficiently known to us. Rather the succession in office is to be taken 
into consideration when attempting to determine a family's genealogical suc¬ 

B. Below are the list and, whenever possible, the filiation of the Bagratids 
from the time of the Conversion to the moment of the separation of the lines 
of Armenia and Iberia, in the eighth century. Heads of the house are preceded 
by roman numerals and their names are written in small capitals; they are 
numbered as from the year of the Conversion (314).* 

1. Smbat L 

Prince of the Bagratids, Aspet, Coronant of Armenia, 314. — Docs, of the 
Gregorian Cycle (II § 5, Lists A and B), His praenomen: Ps. Moses 2.83. 
Markwart, Genealogie 11; Streifzilge 436, tends to split the Bagratid prince of 
the story of the Conversion Into two persons, one for each list. 



Prince of the Bagratids, Aspet, 330/353. — Faustus 3.7; 4.4. Ps. Moses 2.83 
(he was the son of Smbat). Markwart, Genealogie 11; Streifzilge 437, splits 
Bagarat, also. Into two persons: one mentioned under Chosroes III of Armenia 

’ For the nomenclature of the Armenian princes, see at ns. 228-229. 

* = ante; c. = circa; p. = pwi; d. = daughter; * bom; x === manied; t = died. 



(330-339), the other at the consecration of the Katholikos Nerses I in 353. 
There seems to be no warrant for doing this to Bagarat I any more than to 
Smbat I. The dates are according to Ananian, Data e circostanse, e.g., 360. 
This is the first mention of the name of Bagratuni. 


III. Smbat IL 

Prince of the Bagratids, Aspet, Cor on ant, 367/374. — Ps. Moses 3.37: under 
King Pap (367-374); cf. Ananlan 360. 

IV. Isaac I, 

Prince of the Bagratids, Aspet, Coronant, 379/387. — Fanstus 5.44. His prae- 
nomen: Fs. Moses 8.41,43 {Sahetk}. His daughter married Vologases co-King of 
Arsaces IH (379-387); cf. Ananian 360. 



X 379 Vologases, co-King of Armenia. 

V. Smbat III. Prince of the Bagratids, Aspet. — Ps- Moses 3,58; ambassador, 
jointly with Vardan 1 Mamlkonian, to the Great King Vahram V, in 421; cf. 
Gro asset, Histoire 182-183. 

VI. Tirots' I. Prince of the Bagratids, 450-451. — Lazarus 36; Elisens 4 
(119): an adherent of Visak of Siunia in 450-451. 

Vn. Isaac H. Prince of the Bagratids, Aspet, f 482. — Lazarus 68, 74; 
proclaimed marzpanj i.e., viceroy, by the Armenian insurgents, fell In battle; 
cf. Grousset, Histoire 217-222. 

VIIL Sfandiat. Prince of the Bagratids, Aspet, 505/6. — Among the four¬ 
teen princes present at the Council of Dvin of 505/6: Bk Left 42. He seems to 
have been the early Bagratid remembered in the schematic genealogy given 
by Const. Prophyr., Be adm, imp. 45 {J^avdtdTTji}. 



Yaruz-Tirots* Isaac. 

Among the princes at the 
Council of Dvin of 555: Bk 
Lett 74 (iSohal: i Mamte^aii). 

Manuel IX. Ashot 1. 

Prince of the Bagratids, Aspet. — Among the princes at the 
Council of Dvin of 555: Bk Let. 74 (Arsbf i Yoraztiroc^ean), 
He must be Identical with the Aspet Ashot, whose son was 
Pap {q. p. infra). He thus must have become head of the 
house after 555, when he is mentioned still without the 
gentiiitial title. Since Smbat IV (g, u,), and not Pap, was 



tJie next lieaiJ qE the hoase, Ashot appears to have sueceodod 
In Smhat's minority; hence he may have been the younger, 
and surviving^ brother of Smbat's father Manuel. 

X* Smbat IV THE Mui/ri- Victorious. Pap, 

t 61G/7. Prince of the Bagratids, Aspet. Iranian 
Viceroy of Hyrcania, 595-602; adopted son of the 
Emperor Maurice; highest feudatory and third prince 
of the Sassanid empire; entitled * Joy of Chosroes' hy 
the Great King Chosroee II, 607. — Seheos 10,14-19,33; 
Tfaeophylactus 3.8.6 Bk Lett. 168-173; of. 

John Kath. 59-73; AsoliU 2.2 (who makes him Viceroy 
of Armenia). See also Grousset, Hisioire 259-265; 
Markwart, Eir&ifiugt 438-439; M. Artamoiiov, Jstori/a 
Xazar (Leningrad 1962) 143 note. 

Son of the Aspet Ash¬ 
ot, going, with other 
princes, to the Court 
of Ctesiphon c. 596: 
Seheos 11 (90); cf. 

Grows set, Hisioire 260, 

XI, Vabaz-Ttrots* it, 

■f643, Prince of the Bagratlds, Ajspet, Brought 
np and made a Cupbearer by the Great King 
Chosroes II, given the title of 'Eternal CJiOs- 
roes,* 607. Viceroy of Armenia for the Great 
King, 628-p. 631; passes to the Empire; con¬ 
spires against Heradius, banished to Africa; 
escapes from Constantinople to Armenia; 
Prince and Curopalatc of Armenia, 643, — 
Sebeos 17, 18, 28, 29, 32; Bagaran inscr. of 
631 ('in the viceroy alty of Varaz-Tlrots', Aspet 
of Armenia'): I. Orbeli, in XV 2/1 (1913) 126; 
ef. John Kath. 75, SO, 85 ; Vard^ 68. See 
also Grousset, J?wfoire 282-286*298-299; Lau¬ 
rent, AruhinU 333 ; Markwart, Sireifz^ge 438- 
440; Mnyldermans, Tiominja.iiQn urabe 86 n. 1. 

Prince = ? 
28 (157), 
(the As- 
pet and 
lus broth¬ 

Cf. Markwart, 

Sebeos 32 
(Smbat, son of 
Leontius 4 (14)7 

XII. Smbat V. 

Prince of the Bagratlds, Aspet, also Spath- 
arocaudidatus and Drungary in the Imperial 
service, X 643 a princess of the Arsacid 
Dynasty, d. of the Maglster Manuel. — Se- 
b^s 29, 32, 34 (where, 221, he Is erroneously 
called 'sou,' instead of ‘grandson,' of Smbat 
rv: cf. Markwart, StrBifzi^e 440); cf. Leontius 
6 (19) and John Kath. 85 (mistaking Sebeos’s 
indication as to his succeeding to his father’s 
dynastic position, make him succeed Yaraz- 
Tirots'as Prince and Curopalate of Armenia, 
— an error that has since been repeated in 


Sebeos 32 (187) 
(Varaz-Tlrots' II escaped 
together with his sons). 



hUtoriography: Manandyati, infra) ; Vardan 
6S. Sea also Grousset, Histaire 299; Laurant, 
AJTndiftEe 333-334; Markwart, Sireifziige 438, 
442; Manandean (Manandyan), ‘Les Invasions 
arabes en Arm^tiie (note clironologique)^* B 
18 (1948) 193-195; IV/II n. 21. 

Varas-Tirots* (ill) XIII. Ashot II. Vas<xk Btigftrai 

t690. Prince of the Bagratids, Prince of 
_____ Armenia for tiie Caliph, 636-690. — Leon¬ 
tius 5; Gk LUt 405; of. Asolik 2.2; Vardan 
70, See also Grousset, Histoire 307-308; 

Laurent, Arm^nie 203-294,334; Garitte, La 
Narratio 439-440; Mark’wart, Sireifziige 
439, 442-443. 

Ashot Smbat XV. Ashot III the Isaac {HI). 

700. — t 795- Prince Blind. High Const- 

Sebeos 8 of Vaspura- t 761. Prince of the able and Prince of 
(23): cf. kan. — Leoji- Bagratfds, Prince of Armenia, for the Ga- 
Asojik tins 8,31; cf. Armenia for the Ca- liph, c. 755 - c. 761, 
2. 4. Asolik 2.4. liph, 732-748; depos- — Leontius 28, 33, 

ed and blinded by 34. Sea Markwart, 
XIV. Smbat VI. the Mamikonids, Sireifziige 439, 450- 

t 726, Prince of the Bagratids, 748, — Leontius 21, 451; Grousset, His- 

Prince of Armenia for the Em- 22, 25, 26; cf. Aso- ioire 321, 324; Lau- 

peror, and Patrician, 691/2-696/7; Ilk 2.2, 4; Vardan 74- rent, Arniinie 335. 

— for the Caliph, 696/7-700; — 75. See Mark'w'art, 

for the Emperor, and Curopalate, Streifsiige 439, 450; 

700^711 ; — for the Caliph, 711. Grousset, Hisioiret 

— Leontius, 6, 8, 10; Theophanes 316-319; Laurent 

744 (Ea^^dtiog); Gk Lis I 405; Arm^nU 335. 

cf. John Kath. 93-94 (calls him 
^son of Smbat'); Moses Kal. 3.16, 

17; Asojik 2-4; Vardan 71-72. See 
Markwart, Sireifziige 438, 443- 

450; Grousset, Hisioire 308-315 ; 

Laurent, Arminie 204-207, 334- j 

335; Garitte, La Narratio 440; 

DO’wsctt, Hist Caac. Alb. 209 n. 6. i j 

3 Princes. ^ XVL Smbat VII, Vasak. Ashot. 

Bemove to Geor- f 772. Prince of the 771/772 771/772. 

gia, 748. Bagratids, High Con- x a princess of the — Leontius 

stable of Armenia, for Guaramid Dynasty, 34. 

the Caliph, 761-772. x d. of Guaram Ill of 



3 princess of the Maml- Iberia. — Leontius 
konid Dynasty, d, of. 34. See iVfTV §34; 

Samuel. — Leontius Markwart, Streifzfl- 
34; Asolik 2.2. See ge 439, 414. 

Markwart, Streifziige 
438, 451; Grousset, 

Histoire 324^29; Lau¬ 
rent, Armanie 335. 

^ truerseb 
or Adarnase. 

Removes to Georgia c. 772; 

Prince of Efushet'i-Artani; 
coheir of the Guaramid State. 

1 i 

The Armenian The Iberian 

Ba^atids Bagratdde 

4. In his ’well-nigh exhaustive genealogy of the early Bagratids, Markwart 
did not take the trouble to specify which members of the house were its heads; 
he merely indicated what other dignities they might hold.^ It has been noted 
that the holding of a gentilitial title, like Aspet, and of an hereditary office, 
like that of Coronant, is a certain indication of family headship. However, the 
office fell into abeyance with the end of the Arsacid Monarchy of Armenia in 
the fifth century; and the title seems to have met with the same fate with the 
passing of Armenia from Sassanid to Saracen overlordship. After these two 
events, the Bagratids are no longer mentioned in possession of these two respec¬ 
tive dignities.® Accordingly, after Smbat V, the headship of the Bagratid 
Dynasty is to be determined, when direct testimony is lacking, on the basis 
of territorial data. The fact of holding the Principality of Kogovit-Dariunk' 
(that of Syspiritis tends to disappear from the sources: it seems to have become 
subsidiary to the other), of having one's princely Court and capital (osian) 
in the fortress of Darinnk', of being buried in the princely necropolis there, 
— these are the indications which one must now seek. 

Accordingly, the headship of Nos !*1X, except VI, is patent from thear offices 
and gentilitial titles, as well as from direct indications; that of No. VI is directly 
specified, though neither the office nor the gentilitial title is mentioned. That 
Nos X-XIT were heads of the dynasty, is clear from Sebeos: they held the 
gentilitial title and succeeded one another in the Principality of Kogovit-Da- 

® Streifxuge 43S-439 and nn-; the Arm. augmented transl. by M. Hapozean (Vieima 1913), 
baa not been available me. 

* It is true that Smbat VI is called Aspet by <me historian, but that bistonan is the tenth- 
centaiy Moses Kai- (3.17). 



riunk*, and the first two were buried at Dariunk'.^ No. XTII held Dariunk* 
as his osfan and was buried in it.® The reference, in a later source, to No. XIV 
as Aspet is, obviously, an anachronistic way of saying that he, too, was the 
head of the house.® No. XV held Dariunk' as his Court and capital.^ 

5. In the above genealogical table, the link between Smbat V and Varaz- 
Tirots'' (III) is nowhere specified in the available sources. Markwart admits 
it as probable that they were father and son.^ This seems to be borne out 
by the consistency of the naming pattern: —(Manuel—) Varaz-Tirots'' — Ma¬ 
nuel — Smbat(lV)^—Varaz-Tirots' (11) — Smbat (V)—■ Varaz-Tirots* (III) — 
Smbat (VI), The facts of succession, likewise, tend to justify one in regarding 
this link as highly plausible. 

6. Another uncertainty of Bagratid genealogy has been the kinship of Ashot 
il and Smbat VL The one was succeeded by the other in two capacities, both 
as Prince of the Bagratids and as Prince of Armenia. For want of any genealo¬ 
gical data one might be led to suppose Smbat VI to have been a son of Ashot !1. 
This, however, was not the case: Smbat was a son of Varaz^-Tirots', while Ash¬ 
ot was a son of Smbat and, moreover, the father of another Smbat, who is, 
in the text of Leontius, distinct from Smbat VL^® The filiation of Ashot is 
known only from Vardan, but there seems to be no reason whatever to doubt 
in this connexion his usual veracity. Nor could the two Princes be brothers, 
for Smbat had a brother named Ashot, whom Leontius shows to be distinct 
from Ashot IL“ We may, therefore, suppose, in view of the fact of the double 
succession, that Ashot II was an uncle of Smbat VL He must, moreover, have 
been a younger brother of Smbat's father. This can be inferred from the 
above-mentioned naming pattern, according to which "Varaz-Tirots^’ would 
have been the name given to Smbat V’s eldest son, as well as from the fact 
that Ashot !1 was succeeded (in 691) not by his own son Smbat (f 705), but 
by Smbat VI: in other words, that his own succession was contingent on the 
minority of his elder brother’s son. Now the father of Smbat VI, Varaz-Tirots^ 
is known only from a passing remark of Leontius to the effect that the Emperor 
Tiberius IT! (698-705) sent an army against Smbat, son of Va^az-T!^ots^ who, 
in order to avenge the death of his father killed by theB3^antine3, had mutilated 

^ SebEos 19 <109), (156), 32 (188). 

• Leontius 5 (10,18). 

® Supra n, 6. 

» Leontius 25 (119), 26 (124), 

^ StreifsHge 438. 

“ Tbe one is called ‘Smbat, son of Vajfaz-Tlnoc'*: 6 (19); the other, ‘Stabat. son the Prince 
iisxani) Alot': 8 ^23). 

^ A^ot, brother of Smbat VI is mentioned after the death of A£ot 11: S (23), 



some of their soldiers.^ Harh-wart conjectured that the murder of Yaraz- 
Tirots- took place in reprisal for Smbat's first defection to the Arabs in 696/7.1® 
But Leontius does not say this. From his text it is dear, rather, that Smbat’s 
action was a part of his defection, as due to his desire to avenge his father^s 
death. It is unknown when Varaz-Tirots* was put to death by the Byzantines, 
It is highly probable that, tempted like his father and grandfather to take 
part in Palace conspiracies at Constantinople, he was less fortunate than they 
in saving his head. At all events, Yaraz-Tirots^ may well have been killed 
while Smbat his son was still a minor, and this may have paved the way for 
the accession of his younger brother Ashot IL Here, again, the naming pat¬ 
tern shows a remarkable consistency which tends to strengthen this conjecture. 
It would have been natural for Smbat Y to name his eldest son after his father; 
for Varaz-Tirots' {HI), son of Smbat Y and brother of Ashot II, to have named 
his sons Smbat and Ashot; and for Ashot 11 to name his son, after his father, 
Smbat. Markwart’s suggestion that Ashot II may have been a son of Varaz- 
lsaae*s son Smbat has nothing to argue in its favour.^^ 

Yasak and Bagarat were brothers;^' their parentage, however, has not been 
determined, Markwart conjectured that they might have been sons of Smbat 
of Vaspurakan, son of Ashot II.*® This would make Ashot III the son of Yasak 
one generation younger than the sons of Smbat YI, whereas, as will be seen. 

^ Leontius 0 (19). 

^ SfrBifzGge 444 snd n, a. 

® Ibid. cf. Muyldermaiis, Dommation araftc Tabt. 1 A and 93 n. 4, cf. 96 n. 2. Mark- 
wari must have been induced iuto this error by his behet that ASot 11 succeeded In the 
lordship of Dariwnh', not Smbat rv, Varaz-Tiroc'" II, and Smbat V, as was the case (supra 
at n. 7), but Smbat, son of Varaz-lsaac. The latter is indeed mentioned by Sebeos 32(189) 
as being in Dariwok* at & given moment, which can hardly be construed as his being the 
lord of that fortress. And so Markwart called this Smbat Herf oon Darlimk^z 439, 440-441; 
cL Muyldermans loe. eii. —Asopk, 2.2, calls ^mhat VI Biwratean, while the twetfth-century 
Samuel of Ani applies the same patronymic to ASot 11; 409. 'Biwrat' le of course, one of the 
eponyms of the early Bagratlds; supra II ^24. lii the second century, a Bagratid, Smbat sou 
of Biwrat (ordi Bivoraiau) became the hero of an epic: Ps. Moses 2.37-53; Vardan 76“77. He is 
also remembered, as Su/n^af BiBriiiaui by the Iberian historical tradition; Leont. Mrov. 47- 
49; cf. il I 10. Evidently, ^Biwratean,' like 'Aspetuni,^ was a synonym of 'Bagratunl': 
cf. il 5 14. Since the memory of the heroic Smbat son of Biwrat lingered on (Vardan, loc. 
ciL, siugtes him out as an ancestor [nanopn] of A5ot 1, King of Armenia), Asojik and Samuel 
of Ani are, obviously, indulgmg in archaism when referring to different Bagratids as 'Biw- 
ratids.' This is a nourish, and it cannot be taken as a basis for constructing Bagratid filia¬ 
tions, as is done by Justi, Nameitbuth 417. 

Leon tins 2S (128): ... ^taqiapmtaa^ ^ taoA^ TL?g^ 

•BBj j np api^p 4apbqpttp liir/iuf (,., Isaac, son of Bagarat, of the same house as. the 
Prince ASot [HI], who' was his uncle's son). 

** StreLfuI^ 439. 



the reverse is true. Thus Markwart’s conjecture must be abandoned- And it 
is here that the Georgian historian Jnansher may shed new light on this problem. 
As is known, after Smbat YI, the Caliph appointed to the Prineipate of Arme¬ 
nia, Ashot, son of Vasak Bagratuni,^^ His exact kinship with Smbat VI has to 
this day remained unknown. It was from Ashot, however, that the subsequent 
Bagratids were descended: while his elder son Smbat YII continued the Ar¬ 
menian line of the dynasty, his younger son Yasak was the father of the founder 
of the Ibeiian Bagratids, surviving to this day. 

The period of the reversal in Bagratid fortunes, following the overthrow of 
their protectors the Umayyads and then the failure of the insurrection of 771- 
772, saw members of this honse seek refuge in the Georgian lands. The Armeno- 
Georgian marchlands often offered shelter to Bagratids in times of need: Smbat 
VI had found safety in Pontic Georgia at the beginning of the century. So 
now the Georgian historical sources signalize two arrivals of imigri Bagratids 
at the time when St Arch^il (t 786) was still the head of the ex-royal house 
of the ChosToids.*® One of the arrivals was Atrnerseh or, in Georigan, Adar- 
nase, the founder of the Iberian line of the Bagratids; the identity of the other 
three princes, arriving together, remains yet to be determined. Here are the 
two passages relative to these arrivals. 


Then a certain prince came to him [= ArchMl] who was of the Hous® 
of David the Prophet, Adarnase by name, a grandson of Adamase th^ 
Blind; his father was related to the Bagratids and had been set up a® 
duke in the regions of Armenia by the Byzantines. And during the op" 
pression of Qni, he had come to the children of the Curopalate Gnaram 
in Cholarzene and remained there- He petitioned Arch'il, saying; 'If 
thou wiliest, make me as thy vassal: give me land.? And he gave him 
Shulaveri and ArtanL^ 

^ Leontius 21 (112). 

» See IV/IV S 34. 

Juanter 243: 6;>do6 9or)i3i(5o ^(vcno oget 

bitigssjoo ^^66^113, • 

dfvdob*, Sidi 6ol>o 6iii3f>i^)c^5Ao6cf)igi30 

cgi d0^d()5o>:k iSgroi hc^hoouoh^oi^, 

dab ogcti 050 _ 

9^5 fli;i(»)bci3os^ ogci. ocnlSfTgA i^fioi^ob5i6 jq* (5^9*: 
0635G1 ayni 83 01a6o, IQ* dobgi 

QgcjigySo sjji — Q (a) has: 0ob* g^<i>o. — (b) has: 

d3ob^0C^ (‘brother's son'} (this 'emendation,' so completely at vaiiance with the 
histoncal context, la most unfortunate). — (c) rlgbtly replaces the A 3^'Si^oci6o>i 
(a decldety less ancient form of the surname}.^ Adamase's lather is said to be 'related by 
marriage' (sic) to the Bagratids; ef. supm El n. 107. The Byzanttno connesions^of Vasak 




And the nephews of Adarnase the Blinds who had burnt out the eyes of 
their paternal uncle ■— three brothers — came from Taraun to Shahihh 
and settled there with the permission of Archil.^ 

Mark wart has pointed out that ‘ Adamase the Blind ’ can be none other than 
Ashot III the Blind.®® Upon him, the praenomen of hia grandson, the first of 
the Iberian Bagratids, w-as projected by the Georgian historian. The relation 
of Adamase to Ashot is given incorrectly in the hitherto available, more recent, 
codices of the Georgian Royal Annals as ‘nephew’ {disculi, lit. ‘sister’s child’). 
But the most ancient recension, the Queen Anne Codex, only recently dis¬ 
covered and published, describes him, in the above passage, as ‘grandson’ 
(jisculi, lit. ‘son’s child’). This is confirmed by the Armenian historian Vardan, 
who shows exactly how Adamase was Ashot Ill’s grandson,®* 

If the degree of kinship shown in Text A is correct, what about the one found 
in Text B7 Who are the ‘nephews’ {jtnisculnif lit, 'brother’s children’) of 
Ashot III, — the Bagratids who took part in the blinding of their paternal 
uncle (mamis jmisa [gen.J, lit. ‘father’s brother’)? Markwart though they 
were Matnikonids,® relatives of Prince Gregory who blinded Ashot III; and 
the mention of Taraun, once a Mamikonid princedom, might be interpreted 
as supporting this view. Yet the text is clear in its — reiterated — insistence 
on the agnatic character of their kinship with Ashot; and unless it is accepted 
in its entirety, it might as well be rejected altogether: there is no possibility 
of construing it otherwise. Laurent inclines to consider them to be the deacen- 

Ba^tutil, the iather of Adamase, are not clear. This may be a remmiscenoe of the By¬ 
zantine appointuieut as Prince of Armenia of Vasak's first cousin once removed, Smbat VI. 

JuanSer 244: &fo9obt>6o, 

0i9ob o>gipj6o, bidSo 99^ &o, fi5i>a933- 

( 35 ^ 60 ^ 3^6, dd>d^509oo)^ Ck<*aROf5^oboooJi. — As in the preceding tei^t* the A :k(3Q:t^50'b0 
has been emended by Q. 

Streifaige 414. 

®* Vardan 77: h*- ““VJ® \)jntitfr apq,i.aj JJpiptibpv^^fr aptfLi^ 

f t/pip./^ q^kp^pph Hjiaip (‘ The Prittce Of the Ismaelites 

gave the land of Iberia to Alot [the Great of Iberia, t ^30], son of Atmerseh, son of Vasak, 
son of Asot [the Blind] the Prince of Armenia'); 81-S2; udiu bp^aL irpifp^f }^tf^iaia' 

^iatf.anjipiiigii & ^WJTfu^ ati^qph fftaqjaLtrpaifflf npirj api^h 

J^phbpvMfWtrpai^ ('he [sci7. A^ot HI) has two sons, Smbat, the author of the 

Kings of Armenia, and Vasak the founder of the Kings of Iberia, whose son [is] Atrner- 
sch; his, ASot—- (t is to be greatly regretted that, in editing the collated text O'! the 
Georgia,!) Anna3s, Q should have preferred the historically inadmissible reading of less 
ancient codices. Even In his earlier edition of Qneen Anne’s text alone (315), he offered 
/[jitlisculi as a 'corrected' reading of the word in question; cf. also Q I 243 notes. 

“ Stnifgiigs 416. 



danU of T^ac III, Asliot IIFs nephew. He assumes that Isaac was Prince 
of Taraun, that Ashot*s son Vasak was subsequently also installed in that 
principality, and that, consequently, the line of Ashot must have driven that 
of Isaac from Taraun. Accordingly, thinks Laurent, some members of the lat¬ 
ter line may have passed from Taraun to Georgia.*® All this is based on nothing. 
There is nothing in Leontius, adduced by Laurent, that would justify the as¬ 
sumption that either Isaac or Vasak was Prince of Taraun. Mark wart, it is 
true, thought, on the basis of some vague geographical indications in Leontius 
that Vasak might perhaps have been a lord in Taraun,®^ yet he concluded that 
the first ascertained Bagratid lord of that old Mamikonid princedom was Ash¬ 
ot IV and that he did not know how it had passed into Bagratid hands.®* 
7. Who, then, were these three brothers? For that, we must return to Leon¬ 
tius. The Armenian historian narrates that, upon Ashot II Fs elevation to the 
Principate in 732, the 'sons of SmbaL declared against him. Almost Imme¬ 
diately thereafter, he speaks of Gregory and David, princes of the Mamikonid 
Dynasty, who were banished by the Saracens to Yemen because of Ashot's 
complaints about their intrigues against him.^ Ashot was a loyal vassal of 
the Caliphate and, in 736/7, took part in the campaign against the Kha^ars of 
Marwan ibn Muhammad {later Caliph Marwan II),*® Meantime interual strug¬ 
gles shook the Umayyad empire®^ — the civil war of 744 — and Leontius 
again mentions the sons of Smbat: they had come back, or escaped, from 
Syria. They had been banished there, it would seem, when the Mamikonids 
had been sent to Yemen; now, finding, doubtless, the Bagratid princely State 
under Ashot III closed to them, they settled in Yaspurakan* where their 
cruelties made them universally disliked; then they rose in an open revolt 
against Ashot.®* Coming to Syria in person, Ashot complained to the Caliph 
— now Marwan II — about this matter. In his absence, however, the Prin¬ 
cipate was seized by Gregory Mam ikon iam the Mamikonids, too, thus appear 
to have meantime returned to Armenia from their exile. The Caliph, taking 
into consideration Ashot's complaint about the sons of Smbat, and, informed 
about all that David, Gregory Mamikonian’s brother, had done — he, thus, 
seems to have been the more serious culprit of the two — sent orders to the 
Viceroy of Caucasia to have him brought to justice, David was put to death 
and Ashot restored in power, while Gregory was obliged to become reconciled 

Laureat, Arntinie 110-114, cf. 94. 

See 9Upra II ft. 81, 

®* ibid, 

» LeunUus (112, 112-113). 

» Ibid. 22. 

SI Ibid. S4. 

®® Ibid. 25 (llS-lt9>. 



'with him. Ashot had once agala proved loyal to the Caliph, fighting on his 
side in Syria and Iraq with his 15,000 horse.®^ The XJmayyad Dynasty, never¬ 
theless, was tottering, and as its control over Armenia relaxed, the princes 
began preparing a revolt, which Ashot !H -was constrained to join. 

It was then, in 748, that Gregory Mamihonian wrealced vengeance on him: 
seizing him, he had him blinded by the retainers of David, He then passed to 
the Empire (in the region of Theodosiopolis) at the head of the insurgents. 
After his death, his brother Mushel headed the insurrection which apparently 
proved abortive.®* Meantime the Umayyads were crushed by the Abbasids 
(750). The new regime spelled a far greater, especially fiscal, oppression for 
Caucasia and disgrace for the Bagratids, who had been loyal to the old caliphal 
dynasty. It was during this eclipse of the Bagratids that the Principality of 
Kogovit-Daiiunk* seems to have passed to the House of Artsruni. Abbasid 
oppression finally provoked a really serious revolt of the Armenian Princes 
in 771, in which the Bagratids, forgetting the recent events, joined the Mami- 
konids. It was possibly in preparation for this political reconciliation that 
Ashot Ill’s son Smbat YII, now ruling High Constable of Armenia for the 
Caliph, had married a Mamikonid princess: he is mentioned as a son-in-law 
of Samuel, Prince of the Mamikonids, Among the leaders of the insurrection 
was Mushel Mamikonian, called now son of Hrahat. The story of the revolt 
of 771-772 is too well known to be told here. It ended in the temble defeat 
of Bagravandene, on 25 April 772, in which Smbat VII and the two Mami- 
kontds, Samuel and Mushel, lost their lives.*^ Following this catastrophe, the 
Mamikonids saw the loss of most of their princedoms and so also the Bagra¬ 
tids, who, however, soon acquired others.®® 

The activities directed against Ashot HI by the sons of Smbat and by the 
Mamikonids, Gregory and David, appear to have been coordinated. This may 
he the reason why Leontius telescopes so much in dealing with them. He 
refers to the banishment of the Mamikonids to Yemen, but omits what seems 
to have been a similar banahment of the sons of Smbat, to Syrian while, on the 
other hand, he mentions the return from Syria of the sons of Smbat, he fails 
to mention the return from Yemen of the Mamikonids: they are simply hack 
on the stage without any explanation. Ashot III, at the beginning of his Prin- 
dpate, complains about the Mamikonids, though it seems likely that he must 
have complained about the sons of Smbat as web. At all events, later on, he 

Ibid. 25 (iie^iSl). 

^ Ibid, 20 (121-124). 

Ibid. 27-34. 

See, e.g., Grausset, Mistoire 315-334, for the period covered by Leontius's narrative and 
for the aftermath ol the insuirection of 771-772; cf. supra 11 n. 81 for the territorial changes. 

‘ma ORO^rriDS of armetjia 


conaplains of both. Finally, David was put to death for what must have 
been a serious political crime: was he not a chief participant, or even the in¬ 
stigator, of the revolt of the sons of Smhat? As will foe seen, both parties 
may have been i^ponsible for the blinding of Ashot. This close collaboration 
of the sons of Smfoal and the two Mamihonids, and doubtless also the telescoping 
of Leontius, has led to a strange confusion. Already Vardan spoke of the op¬ 
position to Ashot, at the beginning, on the part of ‘ Smbat [sic, instead of ‘the 
sons of Smbat’] and David and Gregory the Mamikonids.’*^ The text is vague, 
so that, even though the presence of the conjunction between the first two 
names shows that, while the last two persons were Mamikonids, the first was 
not, it could also be interpreted as implying, in a phrase marked by polysynde¬ 
ton, that all the three of them were of that house. This is how it has been often 
understood in modem historiography.*® Accordingly, there has been a tenden¬ 
cy to fuse the sons of Smbat with Gregory and David, into Gregory and David 
Mamikonian, sons of Smbat, And this, in spite of the fact that whenever they 
are spoken of together by Leontius they are carefully differentiated;® that, 
for instance, while the sons of Smbat are relegated to Syria, the Mamikonids 
are banished to Yemen; that Mushel, son of Hiahat, cannot reasonably be 
considered as distinct from Mushel the brother of Gregory and David; that, 
finally, Smbat is a most un-Mamikonid and a most Bagratid name.^ 

This name Is, indeed, a clue. And so Markwart, taking it, interpreted the 
narrative of Leontius in a different way. To him, there was no doubt that the 
sons of Smbat must have been Bagratids, and, more than that, sons, precisely, 
of the Smbat who had been last, and most prominently, mentioned in Leon- 

** VanlaD 74. 

See the tpUewing note. 

The two parties are mentioned in pro^dmity to each other only twice, and both times 
carefUlLy diittognished. la 21 (112-113) Letmtiq^ introduces lirst the sons of Smbftlt; then, 
in the foUowing eeuteuce, he introducea Gregory and David, adding, by of explanation, 
"P‘it ^ (‘who were of the Mamikonld race'). The second men¬ 
tion Is In 25 {120) and hAS the following text: l^pHLoib'u ^wifpmwtamUaL., 

ft qap mpiap hia hpppyp 

(‘SoMarwiln [11] was tnfartned of the accusation against the sons of Smbat and of what thing 
David, brotherofGregory, had done against him [seff. A^at HI]For tbe rest, the sons of 
Smbat and the Mamikonids are mentioned separately: 25 (113-119), and 25 (120,120-121), 26. 

— The fusing of the two parties into one is probably due to the translator of L^eontlus into 
FreDch, Cbahuazartan, in Hlsloire pai -... Cfi^iwid, Thus, where the original refers to the 
sons of Smbat the translator added Grigolre el D&tfLd .... (de M^anluori): HQ (±± 21 [112-113]), 
115-116 (= 25 [11$-119]>. In his Hayoe^ aajruxnxtniteri bararait II (Erevan 1944) 29 (No.30), 
H. ACaryan makes Qavid Mamikoinean a son of Smbat; cf. Grousset, Itistoire 318. 

^ It Is true that the historical romance of Pe, John Mamikonean — the HMorg of Taraiifit 

— mentions, in chaps. 3 and 4, a Smbat Mamlkonean, son of the hero, Vahan the'Wolf; but 
the historical worth of this work is m inim al; Dita^od. at n. 15. 



tius^s History^ namely, the Curopalate Smbat VI * Indeed, any sons of Smbat 
Yl would have been outraged by the elevation of Ashot Til to the position 
of their father; nor can there be any doubt that the Caliphate would have been 
anscious to transfer the succession to the Principate to another, rather than 
let it remain in the line of that troublesome man who had several times proved 
traitor to both Caliph and Emperor, The question here, however, is not only 
of the transfer of the appointment to the Principate, which lay, theoretically, 
entirely within the Caliph’s, or the Emperor’s pleasure; there is also the problem 
of Ashot Ill’s succession to the headship of the Bagratid Dynasty over the 
heads of Smbat Vi’s sons. This, too, could depend on the Caliph. It was one 
of the rights of the lords paramount of the Armenian Princes, whether the 
Kings of Armenia or their successors in that position, to inflict upon a felonious 
vassal the pain of forfeiture.^ Usually, the succession would revert to the 
rightful genealogical heirs; yet, occasionally, it might not. This was evidently 
such a case, and this can explain the tension that existed between the dispo^ 
sessed sons of Smbat and Ashot III. This must have thrown them into the 
arms of the Mamikonids, who by the mid-eighth century were beginning to 
develop into the Bagratids’ hereditary enemies. 

On one point, Laurent was quite correct: his interpreting the word ‘nephew* 
of the Geoi^tan source in a broad sense. The sons of Smbat YI could not be 
the nephews — in the narrow sense — of Ashot III, because Smbat, son of 
Varaz-Tirota', and Ashot, son of Vasak, were not brothers. Georgian, however 
uses the term ‘ nephew’ not only in its narrow and exact sense, but also in the 
broader sense of ‘cou^n once removed,* exactly as it uses the word ‘cousin- 
german’ (mamis-jmiscutt lit,, ‘father’s brother’s child’) to denote more distant 
cousinships. As an instance, Ashot I (V), King of Armenia, is referred to in 
the Chronicle of Iberia as mamis-jmiscul of his third cousin (and brother-in- 
law) Guaram of JavakhetT, son of Ashot the Great of Iberia,^ Likewise, a 
distant cousin of Vakhtang I is called, in the first part of Juansher’s work, his 
mamis-jmiscuL^''^ With this in view, the genealogical connexion between Ashot 
111 and Smbat VI can be pushed one generation back, and it can be assumed 
that the jiubculni of Ashot, who participated in his blinding, were not his 
nephews, but his cousins once removed and that, consequently, Smbat VI 
and Ashot III were cousius-german, and Yasak and Bagarat were, together 
with Asbot II and Varaz-Tirots*, sons of Smbat V, 

« SiFtifitage 438, 449. 

^ See, for this, I at cm. 199, 204^205. 

** Chmn. Iber. 257; cf. Bagr. of Her. I No. 7. 
^ f51, cf. 159. 



Leontius, when he comes to the final stage of the tragedy, the blinding of Ash¬ 
ot, no longer mentions the sons of Smbat. On the other hand, Juansher ascribes 
to them the part in the crime which Leontius attributes wholly to Gregory 
Mamikonian, However, the participation of the Bagratids in the affair can 
by no means be excluded by the decorous silence of the historian who wrote 
at the express command of a Bagratid prince.^ To this decorous restraint may 
also be due the earlier ambiguities and telescoping of Leontius, It has just been 
seen that it is impossible to say when exactly Tarann was wrested from the 
Mamikonids, It may well have still remained in their hands in the mid^eighth 
century. In this case, the reference to Tarann in Juansher may be taken as 
an echo of the joint Mamikonid-Bagratid action against Ashot III. 

8. The two arrivals, mentioned by Juansher, are given as though occurring 
at approximately the same time.® The two passages axe preceded by the 
statement that ‘twelve years had elapsed' after the event previously described. 
That event was Arch'^irs accession to the headship of the dispossesed Chosroid 
D 3 masty of Iberia, which took place in 736.^^ Now, twelve years after that 
was the year 748 — precisely the date of the blinding of Ashot III. This 
chronological detail rather confirms the veracity of the text regarding the 
existence of the ‘nephews’ of the victim. The text on the arrival of Adamase 
contains^ moreover, a synchronism. He came to Cholarzene ‘during the oppres¬ 
sion of Qru.’ Now Qru {‘the Deaf*) or Murvan-Qru is the name given in Ar- 
meno-Georgian historiography to a composite figure: a combination of Muham¬ 
mad ibn Marwan, the Umayyad, and of his son Marwan ibn Mu^iammad, 
subsequently Caliph Marwan II (744-749). The former was Teraembered for 
his atrocious execution of some Armenian princes at Nakhchavan in 705; the 
latter for having waged war in Caucasia in 736/7, while Hisham (724-743) was 
Caliph.® The mention of Qru in this case Is an obvious error; both dates, 705 
and 736, are too high for Adamase, whose grandfather Ashot IH was deposed, 
at the height of his political career in 748. What the Georgian historian must 
really have meant, and confused with the ‘oppression of Qm’ (which is men¬ 
tioned in his narrative immediately before the accession of Arch^'il), was the 
defeat of the Armenian Princes in Bagravandene in 772, in which Adamase’s 
uncle Smbat VII was killed and his father Vasak was last heard of. It was 
then that the Bagratids met with difficulties in Armenia and then that Adar- 

® Ahelyan, 1st* drepusarm* Hi* I 363-3t>4. 

® A few lines separate the two passages and there Is no indication that any time had elap¬ 
sed between them. 

See IV/III S 26 etc. 

® Markwart, SireifsUffs 304 and u. 4, 597 q. 1 (402) 415-416; Y. Mluorsky, 'TtOis,' El 4 
(1034) 752-753. 



nase must have Temoved to Iberia, Accordingly, the date 748 — twelve years 
after the invasion of Qni and the accession of Arch'd — must apply to the 
second passage of Jnansher^ whereas the da te of the event recorded in the first 
passage must he 772 or later. Through some error of redaction — and the closing 
section of Juansher displays many such errors^—the position of the two passa¬ 
ges became reversed in the text, 

9 Of the three sons of Smbat VI nothing more is known.®** On the other hand^ 
the posterity of Adamase has survived, be it repeated, to this day. As has been 
seen, Adamase acquired from Arch'il (f 786)—between 772 and 786—the lands 
of Shulaveri, that is, Erushet'i and Artani, in the upper basin of the Cyrus.®* 

V n. G4; Joasler, 244, appears to be reierrisg a little later in tbe text once again to the 
'nephews of Adamase the ]Qlind,' this time, however, as a branch of the Vitaxao. Since 
another branch of the Vilaxae, which he mentlotis in the same text, refers ia reality to the 
posterity of ASot III the Blind (l.e., 'Adamase the Blind'), this second mention may be taken 
m an indirect confirmation of what has been established ah.out the Identity of the ' nephews' 
with the sons of Smbat VI. Cf. 11 Appendix A II (12). 

*** The Sakix of JuanSer, 244, where the sons of Smbat Y1 ('nephews of Adamase the 
Blind *) estahliahed themselves (stipre atti- 22), is Identical with the Arm. Sak'S, the Arab. Sak- 
ki: Minorsky, Cazzcosfea IV 506,508; 'ShekkI, ’ El (1826) 346-348; HUbschmann, Orfan&isen 211 
n. 5. In view of this, Sahl, son (= descendant t) of Smbat and lord of Sak'e, who makes bis histo¬ 
rical appearance in the fhst half of the ninth century, mnstbe related to the sons of Smbat VI. 
On the other band, he Is called Eran&ahik and Zapnirhakan by Moses Ka}., 3.19,20, whichliU- 
pliea his descent from the first royal hoase of Albania (II § 27 J), Tims, the evidence at onr 
disposal would seem to indicate both a Bagratid and an Aran^ahlk origin for Sahl, only one of 
which, naturally, conld be agnatic. Now it Is far easier to suppose a praenomen. and a lord- 
ship, than a nomeii gentilicium, to have passed through a woman to another family. Quite 
erroDeously Laurent ascribed to Vasak of Sdunia, the presumable father of another Sahl or 
Isaac, who was the father of Atmersch of Xa6'&a (II n. 250), the descent from (one of) the 
ttrothers settled in ^ahix and, consequently, a Bagratid origin to the Princes of Slnnla after 
Vasak: Arm^niE 110; in this Grousset foDowed him: JJisfoire 347. 

^ The Chron. arm., in tendering the passage on Adamase’s arrival (101), speaks of bis re¬ 
ceiving ra&a, ^uer, and At6n€. Artani-AtOnE is present day Ardahan, for which see V at 
D. 9. ^ulaverl-^luer Is actually not a territory, but a river: a small western tributary of the 
Cyrus: VasuSt, Geogr.. Descr. 92 and Map i. As Brosset has suggested, HiaL de la Gi. I/I 
249 0.5, the chroniclcf must have had in mind the r^on between that river and Artan 
wbich corresponds to the land of Eru^et'i, or western Javaxet^l: JavasiSvili, K^art^, cr. fat. 
IE 321-323; Vaxult 96, 102 (for him EruSet'i is a separate province from Javaxet'^i). And 
indeed the mention of Bl^a in the Chron. aim^, which is an obvious corruption of 'EmSet'i,' 
bears out this supposition. Some modern writers, unacquainted with Georgian, render 
Solaveri as 'K(h)olaver% though a confusion, presumahly, with the land of Kola. — Mark- 
wart doubted that Arc'll, the dispossessed Chosroid codd have had anything to do with 
Adamase's acquiring fiefs: Streififiige 415. Bat Ar5'il was the head of a former royal house 
at a time when the iustitation of the Iberian Prlncipate was momentarily in abeyance; 
IT/rV § 33. So his sanction may conceivably have been sought even II these lands were, as 
Markwait suggests, possibly have been obtained from the Empire. Actually, this was hardly 
SO; cf. the following note. 



This was, moat likely, a matter of inheritance.®® Later on, in the lifetime of 
Juansher, Arch’^il's son and last Chosroid, that is, between 736 and $06/7, 
Adarnase acquired more territories, thus laying the foundation to the ‘Here- 
ditaiy Lands' of the Iberian Bagratids; this is discussed elsewhere.®* Then, 
in 813, Adarnase's son Ashot the Great had the Principate of Iberia revived 
for him by the Caliph and received the title of Curopalate from the Emperor; 
both of these dignities became thereafter quasi-hereditary in his posterity.^ 

“ IT/tV i 54. 

«» V S at.26. 

Tar4an 77 (supra n. 24); thereafter, Vardan tellfl the story of the murder ol Leo V 
which broit^t Michael II to the throne, so thnt it is dear that it was Leo (813-520) who con¬ 
ferred the dimity of Curopalate on immediately before ASot’e elevation to the pdu- 

cipate, Vardas mentions internal dissensions among the Saracens, which, as Markwart 
has shown, were the civil war between al-Ambi and al-Ma^mfln, in the years of H. 195-108 
A.D. 810/11-S13/14. The date 813 Is thus established: Streifztige 405, cf. 421. — The Cftron. 
Iber. 252 confuses Leo V with Leo 111 and speaks, consequently, of the bestowal of the euro- 
palatate as tahlng place after the expedition of Maslamab against Constantlnopie la. the reign 
of an earlier Leo I Cf. Markwart 406. The traditional historiography of Georgia, the VaxnSt- 
Brosset tradition as It may be cafled, put the accession of Ak>t at 786/7; cf. Brosset, Hist. 
d& la Gi, 1(1 260; Gugushyllt, CItFon.-C&ii£QL Table 116. This was, obviously, due to the 
desire to make of A3ot an immediate successor of Arfl:'il who was martyred in 786. Recently, 
Prof. T'aqailvili (Taqaishvlli) propounded a new theory- In ‘Georgian Chronology and 
the Beghmlngs of Bagratid Rule in Geoi^a/ G 1 /I (1035) 9-27, he put the accession of Ak>t 
at 780, this date being, according to him, the unexplained beginaing of the national Georgian 
era. Actually, however, the reason for the date 78'0 is perfectly well known, V. Grumel, in 
La Chfonolagte (Paris 1058), baa shown conclusively that the Georgian Era, like the Arme¬ 
nian Era, was an adaptation of the short-lived Homan Era, which was dahorated in 363/364, 
but the beginning of which was projected, proleptically, to A.D. 248/240 (the beginning of 
the second mlDenary after the foundation of the City); Gmmel 146-151,151-153. This dls^ 
poses of T^aqaiSvili's argument against this origin (already suggested by Brosset), to the 
effect that in 248 the Georgians were not yet Christians: T'aqalSvtU 13. The Roman Era, 
together with the lunar cycle of Constantinople, on which it was based, became outmoded, 
within two decades of Its invention, through the adoption by the Court of Constantinople of 
the Alexandrian Cycle; but it passed to Christian Caucasia; Grumel 151, The year 780 Is 
thus nothing other thou the end of the Paschal Cycle of 532 years (19 lunar years multiplied 
by 28 solar years), the generaDy adopted basis of the perpetual calendar (Grumel 52-53), 
adapted to the Roman Era (248/9 -|- 532). The end of that cycle provided the Georgians 
with the opportunity of having their own national era. In imitation ol their southern neigh¬ 
bours; Gmmel 152. So the year 731 was the first year ol the first cycle (fr^onmikon == 
wrfp) of 532 years of this newly-bom Georgian Era; the second cycle began in 1313. On 
this basis, the Georgians soon arrived at their own Annus Mandi; they dated the Crea¬ 
tion 5,664 B.C-: exactly 12 cycles before A.D. 780 (532 x 12 = 6,384; 6,384 - 7S0 = 5,604). 
A still more fantastic result of treating things national mlcrocosTnically: as utterly indepen¬ 
dent of the outside is found in Ingoroqva, Jpet-k’art.* maliane. He proposes to consider 
the national Georgian Era as coeval with national history; and counting two Paschal Cycles 
back of A.D. 780 he arrives, proleptically, at 284 B.C., which date he postulates to be that 



Later still, in 888, his descendant Adamase lY restored the dormant Iberian 
Monarchy. Thus the foundations ■were laid for the powerful mediae:val King¬ 
dom of United Georgia, the vestiges of which survived well into the last cen¬ 

The posterity of Smbat YII continued the Armeniaii line which, manoeu-vring 
adroitly between the weakening Ahbasids and the predatory Basilids, also 
succeeded in converting the Prindpate of Armenia into an hereditary kingship, 
founding the Fourth Armenian—or the Second Orontid—Monarchy. Despite 
its initial success and its cultural achievement, however, the story of this 
Monarchy soon became one of political disintegration in a welter of waning 
States, sub-kingdoms, and anti-kings, until the Byzantines by ruse and 'the 
Seljuqs by force put an end to its nearly bicentennial existence. The branches 
of the Armenian line disappear thereafter from history.®* 

of the hHlf-lQgeiidary 'first King' Phamabazas. — la sa^tport oj his theory, T'a^jailvUi 
adUaced a brief chronicle he discovered in an elgbteenth-cenbtry collection oi MSS, In which 
it stated that the kingship of the Bagratida began In the thirteenth 'Salstorto 

masalent* Z (Mokle c^nobehi Shk'ari'veloB istoiiidan) AG 2 (1911-1913) 56-59, esp. 60; 
Chronologg ^5-^. This little chronicle, however, is a late and rather defective compilation. 
Ite refereDce to the arrival of Adamase to Iheria, which precedes the statement that Bagra- 
tid rule began in 781, la a re-wording of the text of JnanSer (supra at n. ^1). And, as in later 
codd. of the Annals, Adamase is called dtstuU hrmisa = 'sister’s sou of [Adamase, sclL ASot) 
the Blind.' The abbreviation sign miataheuly placed over frirnfso induced T'aqalsvill to hold, 
forgetting the text of Jnan^r, that this word was — instead of the genitive of brum — 
'blind' — the genitive of the name jBn(^)rnni: SaisL mas. 60; Chronotoffjf ^5 (‘son of the 
sister of Bar am’ I). And the statement that Adamase 'took counsel with the children of 
■Vaxtang Gorgasal’ — 

and obvious adaptation of Jnan^r's words about his staying with the 'children' of the 
Curopalate Guaram (who was of the ‘children' of Vaxtang), T'aqallvili chose to Inteipiret 
as meaning that he 'became related by marriage to' them: ibid. 
w Cf. II 5 I2.a. 

Cf. ifrid.; Grousset, Histatre 341-636; Laurent, Arm^nfe, 




" AdG 





























~ Queen Auae Godex of the Auuala 21f. 

■B Anaieda. BolloRdiafw. (Brusnela). 

= Ana/eefa (Rome). 

= AfjnnnocA de Golha (G^La). 

= L’Anci'enn? Giorgio / JmU Sait art'vtto (TlfUs), 

= Ahhsndltmgtn der kSnigiichen Gsseilsdtaft der Wissenschaften su 
GStliagent PhU.-hI$t. Klasae, N.F. (Berliu). 

= An^maire de j'ljisIiArf de Pbilologis et d^HUtoire oriejitates et 
$la 06 S (Brussels). 

™ AJtty sobraimge Kavkazs&oiu Aiixografl£eskoJii Kommissieju (TUGb). 
™ Ajtgtisin Mateaadaran f NalhnaibibliotAek (Vieniia). 

= Armenian Qaarierlg (New TTork). 

~ ArmenLacQ (Leipzig), 

= Ararat (Ejmiadzm). 

= Bffxaniion (Brussels). 

t= Battetin-OTwinologiqu^ (Mitanges de V Uitioer$iti de Saint Joseph) 

— Dibtiothiqae des ^ioJes franches d’Athinea et de Borne (Paris). 

= Brilish Academy, Supptementarg Papers (London). 

■- ^ufleffn de Vlnsiihit Marr / Enis^ isiortisa da mater, kalUirls 
tiistttiiti akad. JV. Marisa ssp. (Tiflia). 

= Bedl Kart(li}tisa, Refuse de kar1(h)odologie (Paris). 

5=* Bander Matenadarani (Erivan), 

=5 ei orientatia (Rome). 

= BorSaja sevetskaja incikiopedifa. 

^ of the Settml of Oriental and Aftkint Sfadies (London), 

=* Berichie iiber Verhandiungen der kSrtigl, 5dcJisiS(rAien Geselisehafl 
der Wissefisehaften (Leipzig). 

= Eral dalaivUl Codex of tbe Georgian Annals [Introd. 21]. 
GantrdSica (Leipzig). 

' Cambridge Ancient Hlsiorg (Catuhridge). 

'V ijC'Wpos brtixeltense fiistoriae bgsantinae (Bt^asels), 

'='dfllou3(c Gnlbenkian Faundation Armentan Library (Lisbon), 
u d*htsioriens armeniens (St Petersburg), 

a Colfecflon des hisioriens anaiens et modernes de VAnnenie (Paris); 
= Ttie^Cafirotie HUtorical Ee»i’e!if (Washington). 

= CambTidge Jldedieonf iiiautrg (Cambridge). 

= Cambridge Orisniai Series (London). 

^ Corpus paeiamm epieoram graseormn (Leipzig). 

= Clqssicui Philology (Chicago), 








DuCaiige, GLgr, 





































E9 scrlptoram bistoriat bgstmiinae (Bonn). 

■a Corpa» scrtptorum cbriatiaironini wimtaiiitm (Lou'vain). 

= "W, Dlttenberger, Orientts graeci inscriptioaes asleetae (Leipzig). 
= DictLonnaire d'arcbSotogie eftf^I/enne de Ulurgle. 

=? Dtclionnaire d'hi&loite el de g&tgr<ipbie^ icelestaeflgaes. 

— C« du F. Giftssarium ad sCTiptetea msdiae. et infinjoe 

graecitatfs (Lyons 16SS). 

= Encgctopaedia Brltcamtca. 

^ Etudes d^ethnugtaphle, de sociologie et d'eibnolegte (Paris). 

^ Eng/isA ffMprioe/ KepicEii (London). 

^ Enci/r^lapaedtei 0 / Istairit 
= Afja'bfppedd^eeki/ S/ouar^, 

= Bragmeiifa A/startcorum ffroeearum (Paris)* 

= G«pryie£i (Loudon), 

= £>ie grtecAisefien cArtsttfeAm ScAri/ts/e//er (Leipzig). 

= fjermitagiseAee JJa/iiJbgeb des Adets : FUrstlicAe Udiiser (Gldcksiiurg). 
= Handes Am^rga (Yleuna). 

= Histoire de i^EgiisSt depals Jes originee fusqu’A nos fourst pabliie 
SOBS la direction de: Augustin Fticks et Yietor Mtwtin (Paris), 

^ Histoire du. inonde, publtie sous Id direolion de M, E, C^oaignse 

= Histoire du Mogen-Age {Histoire g^mfrate} (Paris), ^ 

= Hratarakatimn ip*list ink, Hagerin grk'ert kraL (St Peter^^urg). 
= Amiftiitskogo Fitiata Akudemtl Naak SSSR (Erevan). 

= JzocsLija AkddemU d*tuak AfH?firpAto/ JiHE XErcvstu). 

B> lieesttja Abadsmii Nauk SSSH (^uoifcow), - 
™ IsMstija (josadarstoenpoi AIcctdemii istorii matertal*noS kiiPlarg 
(Leningrad/MosOow), ’>> 

= Iwiestifa ImperatorskoJ Abadcmii (St Petersburg), 

= larjestija Koe^koESkogo Otdfeleitija Jtr^, Moakovskago Arxeologi* 
ieskago ObSiesloa (Moscow). 

= Iipestifo, ObSiestm obsiedovaniju i tzaieRiJa Ajerbajd^aRia (Baku). 
= Isloriceskie Zapiski (Moscow)- 
= Journal Asiatigue (Paris). 

Es Journal of the Anverical Oriental Society (Baltimurs). 

= Encgclopaedia. 

= The Journal of Eeeleslastical His lory (Loudon). 

= L. Jalabert and R, Mouterde, S. J,* Inscriptions greequ^Sycfe^IAti^ 
de la Sgrie 1: Commagine et CgrrkesUqtie (Paris 
^ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Societij (Loudon). , 

» Klio, Beitrdge sttr alien Geschicbte (Leipzig)'. 

= Kultargeschlehte des aiten Orients (Munldi). 

= JTffllJbii/a geografUeskafa inciklopedijei. 

= Rrailele soobSlenlfa InsiHuta Atarodou AjcJI Aftodonii Notirfr SSSR 

— Language. Journal Of the Lingaistie Sod^g of America (Baltimore) 
= The Loeb Classical Libretrg (London/New.'i w<cj. 

^ ifl Mus^n (Louvain). 

£.«itasean MatetitshoraR (TLOis). 






































ST - 

= London Oriental Series (L.andon)- 

= Qu^aci Mary Codex ol the Georgian AnnaJa [IntrcMi, 21]. 

= curiosh'^ies (St Petersburg). 

= Materloly po arxeologil Kaokoza (Moscow), 

= J. D, Mansi, SoLrorttm conelliortijn nooa et ampfissijna callcetia, 
^ Le monde bezant In iL'^ooluUon. de thumanltf) (Paris). 

>= Mopumenta blbUca et eeclesiasttca. (Rome}. 

^ Morgonland^ Darsielltxitff tms Geachichte and KttUur dea Oslem 

^ Mitteitun^n der deuiBchm Orlent^Geaettschafi (Berlin)- 
^ Magyar^GSrSg Tanalmdn^k (Budapest). 

^ Memnon. Zeitsclirift pir Kunst- and Kuliur-Geachtebte des alien 
Orients (Beriiii/Stuttgart/LelpEig). 

— Moambe (Tiflis). 

= Masalebi Stdc^wfoelos da Kaokasiis istariidan (Tiflis). 

= Nmpitmalle Llofes and Mafiaffrophs (New York), 

= NoraJc Tidsskrift far Sprogoidenskap (Oslo), 

^ Orientalta ClirisliaieQ, (Rome), 

= Oriena cltrtstianu$ (Leipzig). 

P^eri (Tlflla). 

= J.. P. Mtgne, Patrotogtae, cursua compleim. Sertea gmeea-latincL 
= Ptrirofc^ia orientalta: 

=== Pabbiteaiionl della Stadium blbUeam praneiseanaia (Jerusalem)- 
=• Oaux^^ifivili ed. of the Georglaii Armais [^tvod. 23J. 

= S. Qubaneifivili, Joeli k^arfall llieralurts k'^reatopiaVta I (TJfUs ld46). 
aratdica (Rome). 

— ReaUexikoTi der AsagrtoiegU (Beiiln/Lelpzig), 

— Pauly, Wissowa, Krotl, Pealenegctopddie der elassiachen Alteriuats^ 

= iReoue cfn itndes anmSpiennes (Paris). 

= Peoue tjea Hades dheiennes (Bordeaux:), 

~ Peaae Idllitc et asionigtie (Paris), 

= lUeaeil des histoHena dea Croiaades: DwaTnenis anaSnieita. 

= Retfue d£ rhisfoire des religiana (Paris). 

= Recueil ife fa Sociiii Jean Bodin (Paris), 

= S{^ria .(Pails). 

= Sfzid/en slot armenlsehen. Geschtchle (Vieima). 

— Sfudfo bibtlea el eccl^taatioa (OxIorriL 
=1 Sop’^erk' Hagkaktmk (Venice). 

= Siudia fnsfifuff Anthropos (Vienna). 

—' ,Sl>ontik matertalop df/a optsantja mfestnestej piemen Kavkaxa 

=i Sak^tvelas Mszemnis mataabe (Tlflis). 
ca Mearopeon matenadarim (Tiftls). 


1=1 Sbariiik sofedenij o kmkaxskix gorcax (TLOls), 

= e lesti (Votioan City). 

= The Rn^an Empire, The Golkge of Heralds of the Govemlsg 
.Senate, Spi&ki titnlovataigm eodam i tieam Baitaijskoi imperii (St 
f^teFshurg 1S02) 





, TUS 











= Sludien sur armenisctieii GeschichtE 

= Traditio {New York)- ■ ■■■: 

E Traitd d*iliides by^tmtines {BibliQlhiqilE byzunliriB) (F^ris), 

B Tekstif i razyskanija po annfarto-griizinskof filolifgii (St Petersburg). 

B Tesie tuid Untfrsuchungen. def attatsienischen. Lileratar (Yienna). 

= Tp’iliats Unioersitada tnoambe (TlfUs). 

= TrtimtLC de r Unioeralti Stalina (TlfUs). 

= Vtiioeraily of Mloltigan Stadias, Sumanfstlc Series (NewYorii). 

= King Yaxtaug VI Redaction of the Georg^au Annals [Introd. 21-22]. 

= Vosfan. Cahlers d'hlatalre et de ctstllsation eirmdR.iermes (Paris). 

=1 Yestnlk drepnej tstartt (Moscow). 

^ Voatok (Leningrad). 

=: Visaniilskij vremeimik / Xgovtied (St Petersburg, later 


B 'Wiener numiajnQtischea Zeilsehrifl (Yfeuua). 

= lYfexier Zeitscbrift jur die Kande des Motgealandes (Vienna). 

T*. 2ordania, iCronikebi da axioa maaala Sok^art^i^elos iatoriisa 

B Zapiski lasLUata voatokooedenlfo. Akademii Naak SSSR (Moscow/ 

=> ZuthclI Mliiisterstm narodnago prosofeSisRiia (St Petersburg)? 

^ Zapiski o^isioSaago otdjdeniia Impcratorskago Russkago Anxolo- 
giteakago Ob&Cestm (St Petersburg). 


' A. CAUCASTArr SounoBS ■ ^ 

a. Armenian 

Ananias = Ananlaa of Straoene (Ananla ^irakacT)^ Geography^ eA, 

hao^ogc” Movsesi X(iret\.ac‘’wog, Venice ISSl. -— TUe brief 
version: ed. J. Saint-Martin, Af^moiV^s jftfsfcri^cs ef giograpM- 
sur VArminie 11, Paris 1819 318-377. 

Arab Life of St Gregory, see The Gregorian Cycle. 

Aiistaoes = Aristaces of Lastiveit (AristakSs Lastlvertc'i), Hiat^ry of 

Armenia, ed. PaimuCiam. Aristakecg vardapcti Lastiuerle^timg 
(LM 6 1912). 

Atm. Agath., aee The Gregorian Cycle. , 

-jl"- .■ ' 

Artawazd, Abbot of EraSxavoik', Marlyrdom of Sainl VahaA af Colthene, cd. 0/5^*^ uosn 
' ^orextp’ti oExarhia Hagod eiu v&aydbaiiiifititn srbogn Vcthanag 

Goltnac'^atQg (SH 13 1854). , 

ABo]ik B Stephen AsoUk of Tarawa (Step'annds (Aso)ih/Aso]nik] Taroneo' i)- 

C/fifiwrsaf His lory, ed. S. Malxaseanc", Slep^a/inosi Tardnec'- 
wog Asojkaii palmaritort tlezarakan (HT 20 '1885). 

Rk* Left, — The 'Book of Leflers, ed. Girk" Jtfaten^ruf'Iaui.- 

naxneac^ (SMMh 5 1901) 



Gyrlaeus — Cyriacus of Gaoja {Kiialcoa Ganjakec'l), Hhtorg of Armsnia^ 

. qd. Patmiit'lran Hayoe'’ arareat Kirakosi nardapeii Gofijaltec’- 
wog (LM 3 1900). 

EUseus = Eliseoa (EUle), Htstorg of the VardanianSt erf. EliHi paimat'^* 

lojii yardammc’ ^LM 11 1913). 

Fatustus = Faustus of Buzaada <P'a'W5to3 Buzandaol), Historg of Armenia, 

ed. P'flMJsfosf Biwzandac^wog patiniit''iu}n. Hayoc\ Venice 1933. 

Gk Agatk., see The Gregorian Gyde, 

Gk List = Greek List of the KathoUkoi and Rtilers of Amaenla, apad Nar- 


The Gregorian Gjde — 1 Recension: The Agathangelus. A. Am. Agath. = The Annenian 

Agathangclus, cd. Agat'^angelay patnuiCiwa Hayoc" (LM 15 
1914). B. Gk Agath. = The Greek Agathangelns, ed- V, 
Langlois, in CHAMA 1 (1867) 100-193. — II Recension: The 
Life of Saint Gregory. A. Gk Life of St Gregory = The Greek 
Life of Saint Gregory, ed. G. Garitte, TTioa^ei^ x<tl ftapi^gtoif 
Tov dyfov aal IrSdfov IsgoftdgTvga^ FgiyyoQiov T^g Meyd^vjg 
"‘Agpeviag^ In IIocKmcnis pour {*itade da. livfs d’Agathajnge 
(ST 127 1946). — B. Arab. Life of Saint Gregory = The 
Arabic Life of Saint Gregory, ed. N. Marr, EreiHenie AraTyon 
Gruziiit A^jmzop i Alaiton sojatgm Ctigorlem (2V0 16 1005) 

Gregory of Akner = Gregory of Akner (Grigor AknercT), Htstorg of the Noffon of ihe 

Arciiers, ed. R. P. Blake and R- N. Frye, Htstorg of the Noiion 
of the Arehen (the Mongols}, Cambridge [Massachusetts) 1954. 

John Kath. = John VI of Draszanakert (YoyhannEs BrasKanakertec'i), 

Kathokkos of Armenia] History of Armenia, ed. Yoohatitiii 
kai’^ofikosi Drasxanak6rtec‘’u}oy potmaViiOR Heiyod' (LM 5 1012). 

Pb. John Mamikonean = Pseudo-John Mamikonean, Htsiory of Tarown, ed- Yophannu 

Mamikoueai eplskopoet patmafixif/i TardRoyt Venice 1S89. 

Koriwn — Kori’fm, Life of Saint MaStoe^, ed. N. Akinean, Koruttn, VarJf 

5. Mt^loe‘i (TUAL 1/1 1952). 

Lazaras ™ Lazarus of Parpt (Lazar P^arpec^i), History of Armenia, ed. 

Lozarag P’arpee'wou patimiVicon Hagoe^ (LM 2 1907). 

Leontius ™ Leontius (Legend) the Priest, History of Armenia, ed, I. 

Kzeanc^, Pufmaf^iiun Leofondeog med oardopeti Hagoc", St 
Petersburg 1S8T, 

Matt. Edess. = Malthe’w of Edessa (MatfSo® UrhayecM), Ghrontcle {^canana- 

. kagruViwn), ed. Patnmt‘^iwn Matt’eosi Urhagec^soogt Jerusa¬ 
lem 1869. 

Moses Ka|. = Moses of KalankaytuV or of DasanirEn (MoyB£;a Kalankatuac'^l 

or Das^^uranc'i), History of Albanlaf ed. M. Emin, MooaSsl 
Kalankatuao’ujog patmiiViton. Ainanlc’ aSxarhi (LM 3 1912). 

Pb. Mobob — Pseudo-Moses of Chorene (Movses Xorenac'i), j?iiris(orff of 

ArmBaia, ed. Srbog hSrn meroy MoosEsi Xorenadwog patmuf- 
iwn ffayoc' (LM 10 1913) 

Mjdt^'ar GoS, Code {Dosianagirk'’ Hayoc’ mecae'), ed. V. Bastameanc', Va[arSapat 


Narmtlo = JVarraflo de rebus Armeniae ed. G. Garitte, La 



Prim.. Hist, jlm* 

Snibat of Babaron, 

Stephen Oibellan 


ttiomas Gontin^, 
£*s. UxtanEs 


Ps, Vardan, Georg, 
P& Zennhlus 

Samuel of Atd 

Zachailaa the 
Deacon, CarL 

Zecharlas the 
Deacon, Softs 


BaaU nf Zarma, 
Cftron. Jier. 
CWB. Iber. 


Narratio de rebus Armeaiae, Edition critique et commeiitaire 
<GSCO X32, Suhsldia 4 1063)* 

= JViznarp Hisloty of Armenia, apud SehSoB. 

— Seb€cs, History of HeracUus, ed* PaLmutHion SebSosi episkoposi 
i Heralcln. (LM 7 101S). 

High Constable of Armenia, Code, ed, J. Karst, Sempadscher 
Kodcx,,, Oder mitteiarmeniscfies Rechtaluch, Strasboni'g 1905" 

= Stephen Orbellan (Step'amios OrbSean), History of Slunta, 
ed* K. Sahnazarean, Paimiit‘'iii}ii itahangm Sisakati arareat 
Step'aniiost OrbSleoTt ark^^episkoposi Siioneaif, Paris 1859. 

»« Tbomas (TToYma) Arcruni, History of the House of Arcrmtif.. 
ed. To'y/nafF uaidapeii Arcrunioy paimiifiwn tun/i Areruneag, 
TJflis 1917. — Its latter part is Thomas Contin. — Thomas 
see ThomaE. 

= Fseudo-tF3d;an^, History of ihe Ibero-Armenian Schism (Pat- 
muCiwR bdUuunan Vrac” ew Itayotf)^ Valaraapat 1871, 

™ Vardan, Unioeraal History, cd, HaioakTuinii paimafean Yarda- 
nag pordapeti hisobaneai, Venice 1862. 

= Geography attributes to Vardan, ed. J. Saint-Martin, Mimoires 
historiquesetgiograpkiyaes sur rAriitdnie IL, Paris 1819, 406-453, 

= Pseudo-Zenobln^ <Zenob) oi Glah, History of Taraivit, ed. 
Patmutiiva Taronoy ear torgmaaeay Zenob Asori, Venice ISSfl. 

{Available to the Author in Translation] 

= Samuel of Ani, or The Priest (AnecT or Erec'; end of the twelfth 
century), Cftroni^ue, iransl. M. F, Brosset, CHA li (1876) 340- 

^ Zacharias the Deacon (Zak'aria Sarkavag; 1626-1699), Cnrfii- 
iaire de 7oaunoi£-Vank, transl. M, F. Brosset, CHA II <1876) 

= Zacharias the Deacon, Af^nwires hisforiyttes sar les Sofis, 
transl. M. F. Broaset, CHA il (1876) 1-151. 

b, Georgian 

= Basil, Master of the Court (Basfli, Kzoar-Mojguari), History 
of Queen Thamar ((Txoirreba mep^et' mep'efa T*amarisi), ed. 
Q II 115-160, 

= Life of Saint Serapion of Zarzma, ed. Qub 86-96. 

= Cftroiijcie of Iberia {Matidne JiTarf iisa), ed. Q i 249-317, 

= Gregory the Deacon (Grigol Diakoni), JTie Consersion. of Iberia 
iMol(fc*eaa iCarVlisa}, ed. E. TaqaliSvili, in SM 41 (1010) 
50-59 = ed. N. Marr and M. Brifere, La langae g£orgienne, 
Paris 1931, 511-514. 

= Bagrat HI, King of Georgia, Diwm of the Kings (Dioaui 
mep^eCa), ed. E. Taqaifevili, in AG 2/3 (1911-1913) 28-54^ 



G^cnrge Hqgjor. ■> Gearge the Hagladte (Giorgl Mt'acmlndeli), Life of Saints 

John and EtiihgtniaSj ed. I. JavaxlEvUl and A, Sanlje, TifUs 

Hist. Dastd IJI = Ar^nlus the Monk, Htstory of King Haotd III (II) ((Tsmvreba 

mep^eV mep^tsa Danlfisl), ed. Q i 318-364. 

Hist. EaU Sop. = First HlatorlaQ of Tbamar, Histories and Eulogies of the Soo- 

ereigns {Istoriant da azmanl £araj}<mdedfani)t od. Q 11 1-114. 

Five Reigns = Historian of IV, History of the Five Reignst ed. Q 1 


HVG, see Jaan^er. 

JuanSoF = JuanSer JuanSerlaDl, History of King Va/ctaitg Gorgasai 

{Cxooreba Vaxiang Gorgcislisa)t «d, Q I 13S-244. — Its first 
part -- HVG. 

Leont. Mtov. = Leontius Bishop of Rulsi (Leontf Mtoveli), Historg of the Kings 

of Iberia (C'xooreba k^arl'neiCa mep’eCa), ed. Q I 3-138. 

Mart. Abo » John, son of Sohan (loane Sabanlsje), Martyrdom of Saiai 

Abo (Marlnflobay Habogsi)^ ed. Qub 54-71. 

Mart. Ariril — Martyrdom of Saint Ari^il (Cameba emidisa da didebuUsa mo- 

camtsa Artf'/lisf). ed. Q I 245-248, 

Mart. EusL - = Martyrdom of Saint Eastace of Mdxefa (Maritoiobag Epstai*i 

mdsefelisag), ed. Qub 44-54. 

jltforf^fidcMn of the Nine Infants of Kola, ed. N, Marr, olrpioff Kolafcev 

(TRAGF 5 1903), 

Jliarf. Sasaa = James the Priest of G'urtavi (lakob GortaTeli), Martyrdom 

of Saint Susan {Martwtobag SuSaaikisi), ed. Quh 34-44. 

Mer£'‘iile »= George (Giorgi) Life of Saint Gregory of XanfCa 

(Srornag da mc^uacebay ,,. Grigoim arifimandriiisay Xanft’- 
isd...}, ed. N. Mair, Georgy MerSuI : Zitie so. Grigortja Xand- 
zttfskago (TRAGF 7 1911). 

Mesch. Ghron. = Meschinn Chronograpber (^amfaa^cerell). History of the 

Mongol Intfosioas, ed. Q 11 151-325. 

Prim. Hist. liter. = Primary Historg of Iberia, ed. E. T'aqaiSTili, in SM 41 (1910) 

48-49 = ed. N. Mair and M. Bii^re, La iangae gdorgienne. 
Pans 1931 569-570. ■ 

Roy. List Royal List I, II, HI, ed. E. raqmSToli, in SM 41 (1910) 49-50, 

69-66, 66-67. 

Sumbat = Sumbatj son of David (Davit'isje), iTlsforj^ of the Bagraiids 

(Cfxovreba da ueqeba Bagratomimt''a), ed. M 336-361. 

Vif. Niit. - Life of Saint Nino, ed. E. raqaiSvili, in SM 41 (1919) 67-96; 

— 42 (1912) 1-57, 

B. Now-Catjcasiak Sotmens 

Acts = The Acts of the Apostles. 

Aelius Spaitianus, Viia Hadriani (Scrip tores hisioriae augasiae), ed. LCL* 

Aeneas Sylvius, Ep. = Aeneas Sylvius (Pius If, Pope), Episiolaram. liber I, 

Basel 1571, 

Aeschylus, Prom, ninct. « Aesehylus, PromefAens vinetus, ed. LGL. 



Aesdiylus, Sept, com Thefts 


AiDun. Marcell. 

Ana^tasiu^ AptKir. 

Ana^taslu^ the Librarian 
Anartym. Peripl. {Lond.] 

= Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebast ed LCL. 

= Agatbias, Hlstoriae^ ed. PG SS. 

= AmiulaQua MaFoelUuus, Ses gestae^ cd. LCL. 

= Anastasius the Pflcst and Apocrisiariiis af Rome, 
Eplsioia ad Theadosium presbybervtm Gofisrciiaem, 
ed* PG SO 171-1S4* 

= Anastasias BibUothecarius, Hhteria ecclesioAtica ... ex 
Theophane oontraoia, ed. PG lOS 1205-1423. 

= Fseado-Arrian, Periplus Patiti Euxini (Codies Loit» 
diniensis), ed. A, BasohmaVoff [SyniA&eJ, EESE 2 

Apollodorus, BibL b 

, ApoUodoros, Perieg, ■■ 

ApoUonivifi Bhod.. Arg. = 

Appian, MitAr. ^ 

Appiao, Syr. ^ = 

Arrtan, Aiiab. ' t . i ' = 

Arrian, Perlpt. = 

Arrian, Succ. Aiex. — 

Cassius Dio « 

Cedrenua — 

CAron. pascb. = 

Cicero, Ep. ad /am. = 

Cod, Just. = 

Cod. Thsod. = 

Const. Porphyr,, De adm. imp. = 

Apollodonis, BibUotbeca^ ed. FHG 1 104^179, 
Apollodorus, Perlegests, ed. FHG I 449-453, 
Apollonius ol Rhodes, Af^naujictr, ed, R, Merkd, 
CPEG 4 (1852), 

Appian, Romanae hietoriae: MHiiridfilicay ed. IXL. 
Appian, Romanae historiae: SyriacQf ed, LCLr, 
Amau, [AnoAosfs] De expedithne Alexandtt, ed. LCL, 
Arrian, Perip^iis Ponti ^uxlni, ed- A. Baschmakott 
ERSE 3 30-107. 

Arrian, De re Ana aticceasorum Alexandrit ed, LCL, 
Cassius Dio Coccelanus, Etstoriae romanae^ ed, V, P. 
Boissevaln, Berlin 1956. 

George Cedrenns, Sistofiaruin compend/iun, ed, CSHB 

Cbronicon paschale, ed. PG 92, 

M. Tullius Cicero, Eptstolae ad familiarest ed. LCL. 
Corpas flirts cipiiis; Codex JustinianiiSf ed. P. Krueger, 
II, 9th ed., Berlin 1915, 

C«f^ TAcodosionus, ed, T, Mommsen and P, Meyer, 
Tlteodosiani libri XV Berlin 1905, 

Constantiae VII PoTphyrogenitus, Eastern Emperor, 
De adminisirando imperiOf ed. Gy, Mora^estk, MGT 

Const, Porphyr,, De cerim, 
I Cor, 

Gtesias, Pera, 


Demosthenes, Oraf. 

Dio Chrys. 




Eusebius, Praep. evang. 
Eusebius, Chron. 


29 <1949). 

= Constantine Vi I Porphyrogenitus, Eastern Emperor, 
De eerimcnils aulae bgzaiitinae, ed. PG 112, 

= 1 Corinthians. 

= CtesiaSi De rebus persIciSf ed. G. Mtiller, Paris 1887. 
ea Quintus Cuttius Rulus, De rebas gesHs Alexandri 
Magni, ed. LCL. 

— I>emosthenes, Orationes, ed, LCL, 

= Dio Coccelanus Chrysostomus, Orationes^ ,ed. LCL. 

— Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca his lor lea, ed. LCL. 

= Epborus, Fragmeniaf ed. FHG I 234-277. 

= Eusebius Pamphili, Proeparatio etMtngelica, ed, PG 21. 
= Eusebius Pamphili, Chronicoram llbrl duo, ed. PG 19. 
= Ezechiel. 


= Galatians. 




George the Meiik, Cbroiiicon, 




^ Geue$ls> 

ed. C. de Boor^ Leipzig 1904. 

= Hecatfieue, Fragmeniaf ed. FHG I 1-3L. 

=: Hellanieiia^ FraginetifUt ed. FHG I 45-09. 

= Herodotus, Hlstorlae, ed. C. MDUer, Paris 1S87. 

Hlppolytus of Home, Cbronicat ed. A. Bauer and H. Helm, GCS 36 (1929). 


John of Ant. 

John of Ephesus, EdcL Hist. 
John ol Epheans, Saints 

= Isaias. 

= Johannes Antiochenus, Fragmentaf ed. FHG IV 535-622. 
^ John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical HistorUf ed, CSCO 
(Scriptorea syri). 

— John of Ephesus, Lii>cs of the Eastern Saintsj ed, 
PO 17-19, 

John Lydns 
Josephus, Anf. 
Josephus, Bell. fud. 
Josephus, Con, Apioa. 

= Johannes Lydus, J>e magistratibus ramanit ed. 
H- "WiinBch, Leipzig 1903. 

= Flavius Josephus, Aniiqttilates fudalcae, ed. B. Mese, 
Berlin 1355. 

= Flavius Josephus, Be Ham Jadalaintf ed. B. Nlese, 
Berlin 1355. 

— Flavius Josephus, Gtui/m Apioitem, od, B. Nleao, 
Berlin 1355. 

Pa. Josue the Stylites = Ps, Josue the StyUtes, Cttronicle, ed. W. Wright, Cam¬ 

bridge 1SS2. 

Jiillus CapitoJinus, Vila Pii {Seriptores historiae aagastae)f ed. LCL, 

Justinian 1, Emperor, Corpus faris ciailis: Novellae, ed. H, Sch^ill and G. Kroll, III, 4th 

ed, Berlin I9l2, 

4 Kings, 


2 Mac. 







1 Par. 

2 Par. 

Peter the Patrician 
Phllotheus, CteL 

Plato, Besp. 


Plutarch, Anionius, ed. LCL. 
Plutarch, Arlaatxes, ed. LCL 
Plutarch, Crassus, ed. LCL. 
Plutarch, Eiune/ies, ed. LCL. 
Plutarch, LticullaSt cd. LCL. 
Plutarch, PojnpefEis, ed.LCL. 

2 Machabeea. 

Johannes Malalas, Cltronographia, ed. CSEIB (1331) 

Memnon, Fragmeiita.f ed. FHG III 525-553. 
Menander Protector, Fragmentaj ed. FHG IV 20CK269. 
Odyssee, ed. LCL. 

1 Parallpomenon. 

2 Parallpomenon. 

Petrus Patiicius, Fragmcntat ed. FHG IV 131-191. 
Pidlotheus, Cletorotogion {apod Const. Porphyr, JDe 

Plato, EespuAlicff, ed. LCL, 

C. Plinius Secundus, Naturalis Azs/orio, ed. LCL. 

Polyaenus, Strategemata, ed. E. Woelfnin and J. Mel- 
her, Leipzig 1837. 





Pfocopiua, De otd. 
Pfocctpiua, B&ll, ^oth. 
PFOoopius, Btli. pers. 
Procopius, Bill. imnd. 

Bpss* Prim. Cbroa. 
Sallust, Hist, fragm. 
Scylflac, Petipl. 

C. Jul. Soliaus 
Stepli. Byz. 


Tacitus, jiufi, 

Theodosius and Theodore 
ol (jougra, Hypomivst. 
Theophanes, Chron. 
Thooph, Byr. 


Trogus Pomp. 

= Polybius, Historiaet ed. LtlL. 

= Priscus Punita, Fragmmta, ed, FUG TV 69-iiO. 

^ Procopius of Caesarea, Be aediftells, ed. 1,CL, 
Ptooopl^is of Caesarea, Bstlum gothlcam,. ed. LCL. 
j= Procopius of Caesarea, SsUum psrsieam, {ed. LGL. 

■B Ptocopius of Caesarea, BsUunt pandaticam, ed. LCL. 
aa Oaudiua Ptolemaeus, Geographia, ed. C. MUllei, Pads 

=* PFimary ChFotiicle) Poofest’ Vremenayx 

L/ef, ed. D. Lhea^v, Moscow/Lenjugrad 1950. 

= C. Crispiis Salliistus, HtsforiariUn frogniEnta (Opera 
quae extant omnia), ed. I. Bumouf, Turlu tSSi?. 

— Scyla;^ of Coryauda, Periptas, ed. A. Baschmakoff 
[5iffif*Sse], EESE S 63-79. 

— C. Julius Soikuis, Coliecltmea rerum jnenwro^ffiu/n, 

ed. I. Buruouf, Turia 1327. 

« _ 

■■ Stephaxkus BysanUuus, BUmica, ed. W. Dindorf, 

Leipzig 1825. 

^ Strabo, Geographta, ed. LCL. 

= C. ComeUus Tacitus, Aimales, ed. LCL. 

— Theodosius and Theodore, Priests of Gangra, Scho- 
liuoif sioe Hyponvaesticumt ed. PG 90 194^202. 

=: Theephanes, Chronographia, ed. PG lOS. 

Theophaaes Byzantuius, Pro^fnienla, ed. FHG IV 

— Theopbylactus Simocatta, Histeriae, ed. G. de Boor, 
Leipzig 1837. 

« Theopompus, PTagmeuta, ed. FHG I 27S-333. 

= Cu. Pompeius Trogus, Hislerae Phiiippiaie, apud 
[Prologi] M. Jutdauus JusUnus, ed. O, Seel, Leipzig 

Valerias Maximus = Valerius Maximus, Facia et dicta memotabilta, ed. C. 

Kempf, Leipzig 188S. 

Vita S. Dantelis StylitiSf ed, H. Deleliaye, AB 32 (1913). 

‘Wadding, Ann. Jltfin. ■ ■» Lucas Waddingus, Annates Minerum Xfli, Borne 


Xenophon, Anab. 
Xenophon, Cyrop. 

« Xenophon, AiioAosis, ed. LCL. 

B Xenophon, Cgropaedia, ed. LCL. 

— Va^qubi (Ibn Wadih), Historiae, ed. M. Th. Houtsma, 
2 vuls., Leiden 1333. 


Baachmakutf, A., La syitihise pirlples poaligaes. MiUiodc de precision en pal^^ 
eOmalegie (EESE 3 1048). 

Brosset, M. F., Histaire de in G4orgie, depals Vantiqulti Jitaqa'au vx.* si&cle, traduite da. 



1, 2 Uvrajsona, St Petersburg 1849; — li, 3 livraisoQ3» St PeUra- 
burg £856, 18&7. 

Brofisetj M. F., Mistoire de la. Sioui^Ie d£ St^pltamun Orbilian, tradaiie de ramtiiiient 
2 volSj St Petersburg 1864, 1866. 

Bury, J, B., The Imperial Adminisiratioe System In the Ninth Century, With « 

Text of the Ktelorotoyion. of Phiietheos (BASF 1 1911), 

Cbalmazarian, G., Hisioire des guerres el des coiii^uStes des Arabes en. Armenie par ,,. 

1= LeoDtius], Peris 1856. 

Du'vrsett, C. J. F,, The History of the Qaucasian AlboRians by MobsSs Dasxuranci (LOS 8 

Dowsett, C, J- F-, 'A ^(e^ectad Passage id the History of ihe Caucasian. Albanians/ 
BSOAS 19 (1957) 456-468, 

Gklser, H,, Georgii Cypril descriplio orb is romanif Leipzig 1890, 

Gordon, C. D,, The Age of Atlila, Ann Arbor 1960. 

Javasi^vlll, I., Axalt K^arfits CTxooreba, Tiflia 1940. 

Jenkins R, J. H., ed,, Gonsiort^ine Porphyrogenltus, De Adiuinisirando Imperio II: Commm- 
lary, Loudon 1962. 

Mader, F., Hisioire d'Hiraelius par V4v€ytie SebSos, Pads 1904. 

Mader, F,, Hisioire anioerselle par Etienne Asolik de Taian, Paris 1017, 

Mark wart, J., Erduiahr naeh der Geogmphie des Pf, Moses Xorenat^L Mil historieeh-kriti- 
schem Kommentar nnd ftisforiwr/ten nnd topographlschen Exeursen (AGWG 
3/2 1901). 

Muyldermans, J,, La domination wabe en Arntinie. Estraii de TRistoire uniDer&ellt de 
Yardan tradiLii de Varminien ei orroU. Etude de critique Lexittelie et lil- 
tiraire, Louvoin/Paris 1927, 

Peelers, P., Histaires monasliques giorgiennes (AB 36-37 1917-1919), 

Peeters, P., 'Salute SousanlU, martyre en Arm^no-G^oigie (13 d^oembra 482-484),' AB 
53 (1935). 

Tallon, M,, S, A,tLivTe des lettres {Girk’EWo^. Dottnaenls arminiens da Beyrouth 1953, 

T'aqai^vilij E., 'SaiEtoiio masalenl’ 2 (Mokle c'nobebi Sak'‘art'‘Telo&i 3 toriidaii), AG 2(19tl- 

T^-Minaseauj E,, EfiSei Yardaiumc'' patnm/ivoaib, Galro 1950. 

’Vogt, A., Constantin V/J Porphyrog4nite, Le Liore des eirimonteSf 2 vots. Parts 1935, 1939, 



AmiranSiVUi, S., ' Serebrjanaja Ca§a rannesasanldskoj IpoTi iz raskopok 'r Afmazisxevl,' 
Sbornik o desT Akad. I. A, Orbelt [infra V] 383-293. 

Ap'akije, A,, ef aL, Mcxeta, Itogi arxeotogi6eskix issledotponij T; ArxeologtSeskte pamjat- 
niki Armazis-xeui po r^kopkam 19S7-1946 gg., Tlflls 1958. 

Bebelon, E,, Les Hois de Syrie, d’Armiinie et de Commagine, Paris 1890. 

Barataev, Prince M,, Namizmatiileskie fakty Gmxinskago earstBa, St Petersburg 1844. 
Bartholomaei, J., Lettres numismatiques et archioiogiques retatipes d la Tranacaacastef 
St Petersburg 1859, 

Basmadjian, K. J,, Les inscriptions d’AnU de Bagnalr et de Marmachin {BibtiothkqaeE.J^ 
Basttuidjiaii 2), Paris 1931, 




Blake, R. P., and Der Nersessian, S., ^The Gospels of Bert'ay: Oid-Georgian MS* of the 
Tenth Century/ B 16 (1942^1943>, 

Bodchoridze, G., ‘The Monument of Juarisa/ G 1/2-3 (1936). 

Boltunova, A., ‘Gre^eskie nadpisi Armavlra/ lAFAN 1942 1/2. 

Boiisov, A., ‘Nadpisi Artaksija (ArfcaSesa), carja Armenli,' YDl 1946/2* 

Brosset, M. F., Rapports sur im myage arcMoiogiqiis dans ia G^orgie et dims et i’Arminief 
St Petersburg 1840-1351, 

Brosset, M. F*, ‘Sut les couvents ann^uiens d'Haghbat et de Sinahin/ MA 6/5-6 (1873)* 
Ceret'ell, G., ‘ EpigrallCeskie naxodkl v Mcxeta, drevnej stobce GrruiU/ YDi 194S/2* 
Cereteli (Tsereteli), G., ^TJhe Most Ancient Georgian Inscriptions in Palestine/ BK 36- 
37 (1961)* 

Gorho, Y., Gli Atooi di Kh. Slgar ai-Ghtmain {Cainpo dei Pa&loti) e I monasteri dei dialorni 
(PSBF 11 1953). 

Crim4e, Archimandrite Jean de, Z^escriplion 4es monast&res arm^niens d^Hayhpat et de 
Sinahin, St Petersburg 1363. 

D’Jakonov, 1., and K. Starkova, ‘Nadpiai Artaka4^ (ArtaScsa I), caija Armenil/ VDI 

Dupont-Sommer, A., *Deux inscriptions arameennes trouv^es pr^ du lac &4van (Arminie),' 
S 25 (1946-1948). 

Head, B. Y*, ffis/oria namoriim, 2Qd ed,, Oxford 1911. 

Herzfeld, E*, Pa/Jcuit: Jldonameni and Inscription of ike Barlg History of tks Sasanian Em.- 
pire, 2 vols, Berlin 1924. 

Kapanaje, D, G., Grminskala. namismatikat Moscow 1955* 

,Karst, J., Precis de nvanisma.iiqae gioigienne, Paris 1923. 

Kent, R. G., ‘The Daiva Inscription of Xerxes/ L 13/4 (1937). 

KufUn, B*, ArxeologiSeskis roskopki v TriaLeii^ Tiflis 1941. 

Knftln, B*, Material^ k arseologii Kalxidg II, Tiflis 1950. 

Lang, D, M., Studies in the Namismatic History of Georgia, in rranscanerasia(NNM 1301955). 
Langlois, V., Essai de eiassificaiion des suites Tnonitalres de /u GiorgiCy Paris I860. 
Langlois, V., ^iumismatique ginArale de VArminit, Paris 1359* 

Lukomin, Y. G*, 'Rezno) ametist s laobraieniem caricy caric Denak,' Sbornik v iesV Akad. 
jT, a. Orirefi [see infra V] 379-385. 

Manandyan, Y*, Armaviri banaren arjanagrut’gtinneTi: nor lusabanuVyamtit Erevan 1946. 
Manandyan, Y., Gofjiii kunarEn orfanagrut^yane euf Garni i heronosakaa facdri iofu/mon 
Himanaidt Erevan 1946. 

Marr, N., Dneonlk pofesdki b Sav^etifu i Klardletifu (TRAGF 7 1911), 

MellkT£vili, G. A., Urartskie kltnoobfo^ye nodpisi, Moscow 1960, 

MeSCaninov, I., ^Giklopideskie sooruienija Zakavkaz'ja/ IGA 13/4-7 (1932). 

Morgan, J* de, Manuel de numlsmatiqu.e orlentale ds CantiquiU et du. mogen-dge I, Paris 

Paxomov, E.^ Monetg Crasii I {domongorskif period) (ZVO 1/4 1910), 

Pridik, E., ’Novye kavkazskie kiady,’ MAR 34 (1914). 

RezaPtaiy raskopok 1939'1S4& gg. Arxeologifeskie raskopki v Armenil, Erevan 1950ff. 
TarchniSvIli, M., ‘Le r^centes dfeouvertes dpigraphiqties el littdraires en Georgle,' LeM 
63/3-4 (1950)* 

TarrchniSvili, M*, ‘La d^couverte d’une inscription g^orgienne de Tan 1066/ BK 26-27 

Tarckni£viti, M,, ‘Le iscrizioni muaivc del monastero di Bir el-Qutt,’ apud Corbo, Gli 
scoffi (supra} 135-139. 



Tirac^yan, G., ’Novonaidcmi^a nadpi$’ AitaSesa I caija Arnieml,* VDI 1959/1^ 

Visconti, E. Q., Iconagrafivi greta 11 (i£ opere di Ertnio Quirino Visconti. Classe secortdd), 
MUan 18 ^. 

Welasbach, F. H., IHe Keilinfclirtflen der AcIidmenidEiit Leipzig 1911. 


Abelyan, M., Istorija dfepneaTinjQnskoj Utercitarg I, Erevan 1948, 

Abulaje, Lt otkrytiju alfavlta kavknzskix AlbanoeT,' BlM 4/1 (1938). 

Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Sbornik slalej p cesl’ Akadcmika I. A. Ofbeili. IssledotKi- 
ni/a po istorii kurtury narodoP Vostoka, Moscow/Leningrad 19QO, 

ACafyan, H, Hayoc' aTtjnanunneri ta^an II, Erevan 1944, 

Adontz (Adtmc'), N,, ‘L'£ge et l*or[gine de rempereiir Baslle ler,' B 9 (1934). 

Adontz, N., ‘A propos de ia note de M. Lewy sur Molse de Ghoi^e/ B 11 (1936), 

Adontz, N., Atitienifa a ^poTu Jastmiarta. PotitH^skoe sostojanie na osniopje naxararskago 
strojii (TRAGF 11 190SJ. 

Adontz, N.p L*aspeet Iponien du seroags (RSJB 1937). 

Adontz, N,, histoire d’Arniiiiie. Ees origineSf da siiete aa vn (flp. J. C,), Paris 1940. 
Adontz, K,, ^ Notes artn^no-byzantiTies, V. Les Dalassenes/ B 10 (1935), 

Adantz, N,> 'Observations sur la g^n^aiogle des Taronites,' B 14 (1939). 

Adontz, N., ' Pervonadal’jiajfl Istodja Armenii u Sebeosa,' VV 8 (1901), 

Adontz, N., 'Sur )a date de I'Histoice de FArm^nie de Molse de Chorine: A propos de I'ai* 
tide dt M. Hans LeVry,' B 11 (1930), 

Adontz, N,, 'Tarkoa chez les anclens Armeniens,' BEA 7 (19217). 

Adontz, N., 'Les Taronites en Armenia et d Byzance,' B 9 (1934), 10 (1935). 

Adontz, N., 'Les Taronites ii Byzance,’ B 11 (1936). 

Adontz, N., 'Les vestiges d'nn anclen culte en Armdnie,' reprinted in Histoire d'Arminie 

Akinean (Aklnian), N., *E]i$e vardapet ew iwr patmut'lwn Hayoc' paterazmi,' I, HA 
45 (1931), 46 (1932); — II, HA 47 (1933), 48 (1934); ~ lil, HA 49 (1935), 
50 (1936), 51 (1937), 64 (1930), 65 (1951). 

Akinean, N,, 'EllSfi vardapet kolbac'i,' HA 64 (1950), 65 (1951). 

Aklnean, N., jtitttrio/i knf'ofifeos Trac*. Patmafiwn hay-vrakan. yarabemfeonti" eoi^nerord 
daru mSf {k’opisiKinieay £rjaii Hagoc^ ekeiec'akan patma.l‘’epen S74-6Jd) 
AM 60 1910). 

Akinean, N., 'Moses Cborenaci,* RE Suppl.-Bd 6, 

Alexander, P.J., The Patriarch Nieephorus of ConstaniinoplCj Oxford 1953. 

Aliev, K., 'K voprosu o plemenax Kavkazskoj Aibanit/ Sbornlk atatef o cesL' Akadf 1. A, 
Orbeli 15 18, 

Aliev, L, 'Midlja - drevneijiee gosudarstvo na terrltorii Azerbajdiana,* Oferkl po dreonef 
latorii Azerita/dSana, Baku 1956, 57-169. 

All San, Z., Ayrarat bmaSxarh Hayastaneayc\ Venice 1890. 

Ail San, L,, Staakan. Teiagriiriivfi Siioneae' aSxarhit Venice 1893, 

Alien, W, E. D., ' “Ex Ponto"* I and II,* BK 30,31 (1958); — lU and IV, BK 32^ (1959) 
— V, BK 34-35 I960. 

Allen, W. E. D,, A History of the Georgiiin People, front the Begintiing down lo the Russian 
Conquest in the Nineteenth Centuryt Loudon 1932. 



Amlraiialvilij S., Istorija gruzlnskogo iskusstm I, Moscow 1950. 

Ananlan, *La data e U ctrcostanxe della conseciaziooe dl Gregoiio niusainatore/ 
LeM 74 (1961). 

Andreas, 'Albania,^ RE 1/1. 

d'Amiberg, Prince J., Les Princes dti Si-Empire A I’^poqae napol^nimne^ LonvaiTi 1951. 
AtimtroDg, A. H., aod Markua, R. A., Chtislian. Fatih and Greek Phiicsophy, London 1960. 
ArUmonoVp M. I., I^iorija XazoTt Leningrad 1962. 

Artamonov, M. I.p Ocerki di-eme}$ej islorii Xasar, Leningrad 1936. 

A$douriaa, P„ DU pplitischen Bejfiehimgen zatischen ArmenUn mid J?om. oon ISO v. Chr. 
bis 4&8 n. Chr.t Venice 1911, 

Aslan, K,, Ffades historlgaes snr le peapU arminieiif Paris 192$, 

AvaUckvilU ^La succession du curopalate I>aYid d'lb^rie, dy^aste de TaOj’ B 8 (1933), 
BaltmSaitU, J.j Mtades sur Varl midi^al at G*fDrffie et en Arm^ie, Paris 1929. 
Banateanu, V., 'Beltrdge £um Siudlutu der urartlscheu Ortsnameu in der armetiischeii 
Toponymie,' HA 76/10-12 (1961). 

BarsLudaryan, S-:, ‘Urartskoe prolsxo^denie anujanskogo naxararskogo roda ArcrutU,^ 
Siornfi: u (esP Akad, L A. Orbeli 29-3S. 

Basclnnakoff, Q-»nguonie d*ivolu.tii>n etfiniqae auiout de ta imr Noire (EBSE 1 1937). 

Baumgartner, A., 'Arzanene,* RE 2/2. 

Baumgartner, A., 'Bagraudaneue,' RE 2/2. 

Baumgartner A., Fo^Svijv;^, RE 7/2, 

Baynes, N. H., ‘Rome and Armenia In tke Fourth Century/ EHR 25 (1910), 

Baynes, N. H., ‘The Successors cd Justinian,* CMH 2. 

Belck, W,, Beitrdge sur ailen Geographie and Geschichie Yorderasiens I, Leipzig 1901, 
Beloch, J,, CrUchiscbe GeSchickU III}!, Strassburg 1904. 

Bentsou, H., Die Strategie in der heilenisttscbai Zeil II, Munich 1944. 

Benveniste, E., ‘Reniargues sur les composes arm^nlens en -pel,' HA 75/10-12 (1961). 
Benveniste, E,, 'Titres iraniens en arminien/ REA 9/1 (1929>. 

Bei^eni^viU, M., et aL, Istorija Gruzii I, Tifli^ 1946. 

Bethe, ‘Klrke,* RE 11/1. 

Bodde, D., ‘Feudalism in China,* in R. Cotdboni, Feudalian in Hislorgf ll/iv. 

Boltunova, A,, ‘pplsanle IbetU v “GeografU" Strahona/ VDI 1947/4. 

Bonfante, G., 'Armenian and Phrygian,' AQ 1 (1946), 

Brandenstein, "W.j ‘Dor Urspning der Ariaenier,* HA 75/10-12 (1961). 

Braun, M, and D. Ghwdison, 'Evrei/ ES 11. 

Brehier, L., ‘Les demiers H^raclides,' HE 5 (1947). 

Bi^hier, L., Les instiin/ioris de /'empire bgzantin (MB 2 1949). 

Br^er, L., Vie ci nwrf de Egz/aiice (MB 1 194S), 

Brooks, E. W., ‘The Successors oi Heracllus,* CMH 2. 

Brosset, M, F., Additions et iclaircisseinents h VHistoire de la GAorgiet St Petersburg 1S51. 
Brofiset, M. F., Introdaction. & i'Lfistofre de ia CdorgUt St Petersburg 1358. 

Brundage, B.,'‘Feudalism in Ancient Mesopotamia and Iran,* in R. Coulbom, FendaUsm 
ia History, Il/V. 

Bunijatov, Z., ‘Lc istorll KavkazskoJ Atbanii YII-VllI w.,' Academy of Sciences of the 
Azerbaijan SSR., Voprosg islorlt Kavkasskoj A/&anii, Baku 1962. 
Bunijatov, Z., ‘O mestonajxofdeuii &i€dnevekovyx gorodov-krepostej Bazz i Saki,' 
KSINA 47 (1961). 

Bury, J. B., A JTisforf^ of Greece, Srd ed., London 1951. 

Bury. J. B., A History of the Later Rmnaa Empire, 2 vblB, London 1923. 



Cattioun^ G.t 'Glasses and Masses In Homer/ CPh 29/3 (1934). 

Carriire, A., Les hait semctuair^ de rArminii paj^enne d’apris Agathange ef Afofse de 
Khoren^ Blade critique^ Paris 1399. 

Cairi'^, A. I Nojufeltes sources de Molse de Khoreni £tudcs criliqiieSf ^Vienna 1S93. 
Carri^re, A., JNoaveUcs sources de MoJse de Kharent Sappiimenit Vienna 1894. 
CavalgnaCr E,, £e imoude inMita'rart^en Jasqu’au fr^ siicle aimnt J.-C. (HM 2 1929). 
Cavalgnac;, £.j ‘Le premier royamne d’Arm^nie,' RHA 17 (1934). 

Ceram, C-, The Secret of the Hiitites, New York 1956. 

Cbadwlck, H- M., The Heroic Age^ CainbEldge 1912. 

Clmpol, V., fronlUre de 1‘Bupttrate de Pompie d la eonqiiite arshe (BAR 99 1907). 
Gberalavaky, M., Zisar and Peopie. Studies in Russltut Myths, New Haven/London 1961. 
Ghristensen. A., L’Jrian sous les Sassanidest 2nd ed., Copenkagen/Paris 1944. 

Gontenau, fi,. L'Asle occidenlale oncienne, Paris 1936. 

[Ontschmid, A. v,, and] Conybeaie, F, C-, ‘Moses of Omrene,' EB 11th ed, 

Conibom, E.» 'A Comparative Study of Feudalism/ in Gouldbom, Feudalism in History, III. 
Coulbom, E,, ed.. Feudal lam in History, Princeton 19^. 

C'ohina^vili, G., Bolnifskif Sion (BIM 9 1940). 

C'lihina^vili, G., Grusiiisl»>e iekannoe tsktisstoo. Issledooanic po istortl gratinakogo 
srednevekouogo iskasatva, 2 vols, Tiflis 1959. 

Cuinet, V., in Tnrruie d'Asie I, II, Paris 1892, 1898, 

DanoII, C., 'Pontos Euseinos/ HE SuppL 19. 

Dawson, C., Progresa nnd Religion, Imago Books i960. 

DebevoJse, N, C., A Political History of Parlhla, Chicago 1936. 

Dor Nersesalan, S.> Armenia and the Byzantine Empire, Cambridge [Massachusetts] 1947. 
Diohl, C., and G. Marcais. Lc nwnde oriental de SstS d iddJ (HMA 3 1944). 

Diehl, E., 'Phasls/ RE 19/2 (1,2). 

Diir, A., EinfUttrang in das Stadium der kaukasisehen Sprachen, Leipzig 1928. 

Dolger, J., Byxaiis and die ettropdische Staatemieit, Ettal 1953. 

Doise. J., 'Le partage do rArm^nie sous Th^odose ler/ REAne 47 (195). 

DolgorukoT, Prince P., Rossifskafa rodaslotnmfa kniga IL 111, StPetershurg 1855,1856. 
Driver, G. ‘The Name Kurd in its PhUologica] Connexions/ JRAS 1923. 

Dum^zii, G., ‘Dne ch^tlent^ dJspanie. Les Alhanicns du Caacase,' JA 41/1 (1940). 
Dum£^, G., ‘Le dit de la princesso Sat^ntk,' REA 19 (1929), 

Dumizil, G., ‘Vahagu/ KHR 1938. - 

Dunlap, J., The Office of Grand Ckamberiain in the Later Ramon and Byzantine Empires 
(UMSlhJ 14 1924). 

Ebt4cham. M., i'Jrnn sons les Achimilnides, Fiibonrg 1946. 

Eliade, M., Cosmos and History^ The Myth of the Eternal Return (transl. W. Trask), 
Harper Torchbooks 1959. 

Eliade, M,, Images and Symbols. Studies in Retigloua Symbolism (transL Ph. Mairet), 
New York 1901. 

Eliade, M., Myths, Dreams and Mysteries (transl. Ph, Mairot), London 1060. 

Eliade, M., Patterns in Comparative Religion (trausi, R. Sheed), New York 1958. 

Eliade, M., Tfiie Sacred and the Profane, The Nature of Religion (transl. W. Trask), New 
York 1959. 

Emin, J., TAe Life and Adeentares of Joseph Rmi'n atritien by himself, Calcutta 1913. 
Engnell, I., Studies in Djuiae Kijn^hip /n the Ancient Near Bast, Uppsala 1943. 

Ensslla, VT., 'The Emperor and the Impeiial Administration,' In Baynes, N. H., and H. 
Muss, Byzantium, Oxford 1943 268^07. 



Ensslin, "W., 'Praepo»itus sacri cubiculi/ RE Sllpp^. S. 

Eremyan, S., ' Agarclnskaja nadpis’ nS4/ v 6£St* Akad* I. A. Orfeii 73-84. 

Bremyan, S.j Kalaiikatujskij o posoJ'stve alban&kogo knjazja Varaz-Tjnlata k 

xazarkkomu Aip-Ilitveruj^ ZIV 7 (1&39)* 

Erie'eaac', A., ‘NersSs V i manakut^iT^ne ew patanakut’iYfn#,' P 1377. 

Ezov, G*, StioSettifa Petra Velikago s Afitijatiami. Dokumentyf St Petersburg 189S* 
Esciier, 'Aia/ RE 1/1. 

Escber, 'Aieteg,' RE 1/1. 

Fanta^ A,, -ZTsf Staat in der llias und Odgssee, Innsbruck 1332, 

Fleldt H.f CoAfrtA'Ul/ons to the Anthropotogy of the Caucasus, GaniLrldge [Massachusetts] 

Foirer, E,, ‘Alai,* RAss 1. 

Forrer, E., *Hayasa-Azzi,' Ga 0 (1331). 

Furrer, E., £>ie Proeiiuienteilutiy des assgrischen ReielieSj Leipzig 1321. 

Fl-aukfart, H.* Kingship and the Cods. A Study of Ancient Near East Religion us the Inte¬ 
gration of Society and Nature, Chicago 1948. 

F^alne^ J. de, S. J., Vaspect religieua: de la royauii ieraHite. L’inslilutlon monarthique 
dans VAneieii Testament et dans les textes m^sopolamiens (AB 3 IS'M)* 
Furiani, G., La religiope degii Hittili, Bologna 1936. 

Glasingeir F.^ 'Oikumeue {obeovftSytf}/ RE IT. 

Goetce, A,, EleUiasien (KAO 3 [Snd ed,] 1957). 

Goigajcr S., ‘Garileba Sak^art'velos istoiiidan/ AG 1 (190&)i 2 (1913). 

Goyan, G., 'Certy srvoeobiazija armjanakogo SllinisUCeskogo teatra,' VDI 1353/3. 

Gray, G. B., and Cary, M,, ‘The Reign ol Darius/ CAH 4, 

Gren, A., ‘Blnastija Bagralldov v Armenii/ ZMNP 290 (1893). 

Grillith, J. G,, ‘BaaiXsi^ ^aatAiosv: Remarks on the History ol a Title/ CPh 4S (1953), 
Grousset, R.. If IS join <fe rAmi^nie: des origines d 1071, Paris 1347. 

Grume), V., La Chronologle (TEB 1 1958). 

Ghterbock, K., Bg^an^ und Bersien in ibren. diptomatiseh-^odikerrechtlichen Beziehungen 
im Zeitalter Jastinians, Berlin 1906. 

Gugu^vUi, A. 'The Chronologicat-Genealo^^eal Table o£ the Kings of Georgia/ G 1^2-3 

GugusbvUI, A., 'Ethnographical) and Historical Division of Georgia/ G 1/2-8 (1335). 
Gugusbvili. A., ‘Nicholas Marr and his Japhetic Theory/ G 1/1 (1935), 

Gutschmid, A. von, 'Uber die GlaubwUrdigkeit dec armenischen Geschlchte des Moses 
von Khoren/ BYSGW 27 (1876). 

GvritifvUU D., P'eodflfuri Sak*art*oetos soc^taiuri uj’/'Eerf'oius istoriidan {K^arPlis sat'aaa- 
doebi)t TiflU 1955. 

Haas, O., *Zur Vorgcschichte der amienischen Sprache/ HA 75/10-12 (1961). 

Hakobyan, T Uroageer Hayaatani patinakan a£xarhagru.t*yant Erevan I960. 

Haxtbausen, A. v., ^ur Jurisprudent ru Transkaukosien I, Leipzig 1358, 

Hepdlng, ‘Heirodulol,^ RE 8/2. 

Herrmann, 'Laxai,' RE 12. 

Herzfeld, E., Archaeological History of Iran, London 1935, 

Higgins, M. J,, ' International Relations at the Close of the Sixith Century/ GHR 27 (1941). 
Hlggl&s, M. J., The. Persian War of ihe Emperor Maurice (532^602) I; Chronology, tuiih a 
Brief History of ihe Persian Gafeuefar, Washington 1933. 

Hogarth, D. G., ‘The Hittitea of Asia Minor/ CAH 2. 

Hogarth, D. G., ‘The Hittites of Syria/ CAH 3. 



Hogarth, D. G., ‘Lydia and Ionia,' GAH 3, 

Home], F., Ethnotogie and GeogTuphit dei alien Orients^ Municli 
Honigniaim, E., ‘Kommagene/ RE SuppL 4. 

HonigiaaDDj £», Dit Oslgrtnxe dea bgiantiniichen Reiehest von S6S bis 1^71 noch griechi- 
scAen, aTobischm, sgrisehen tind armenischen QueUm (GBHB 3 1935J. 
HovsSp*yan, K*, Tarsagii Orbeliani eta Mina Xaf^tmi aerundif Antelias 1947. 

Hovaep'yan, K*, Xaibakgank' kam. P'jro5ifank% ya|ar£apat 1923. 

HroztiJ, B,, Histoire de i’Asie Antirleure, de Vlnde el de la Critef depais les origines 
I'uaqa’au d4but dn second mill^nalre (irani. M. David), Pans 1947. 

Huart, C-, and L. Delaporte, L’lran Antique. Skiitt et Pet&e et la civilisaiioit ircUiivtuie 
{L"evolution dc rhumanitd), Parla 1952. 

H^bschmatin, H., Arimnische Granunatik I: Arntenische Etgmologte, Leipzig 1897, 
HikbscJimatm, H., Die a/larniejii^c/ie;! Ortenamcn, MU BettrSffen stir histoftschen Topogra- 
phie Afrrieniens und einer Ut^dogerm. Forscli. 16) Strasbourg 1904. 

Httslng, G,, Die Vdlker AU-KIeinasiens and ant PonloBf Vieaua 1933, 
luMdean, L., Storagrafitan hln Hagaslaneagc*, Yenico 1332. 
logqroqva, P., Giorgi MerS'ufe, ft'fir/'ueii mcerali meaCe saakanisat TiHis 1954, 
iDgdtoqya, P,, ‘ Jvel-k'art'ull matlaue *'Mok'c'eva K'art'Iisa** da antikurl ^anis Iberiis 
mcp'era sla/ SMM 11 (1041). 

Ingoroqva, P,, ‘K‘'art''uli mcerioMs istoriis tuoUe mlmoxllva/ Mo 1939, 

JanaSia, S., 'Abxazsksga ASSR,,' BSE 1. 

JatiaSla,' S., ‘K krlUko Moiseja Xoreuskogo, * MSKi 6 (1937). 

Jaualla, S., ‘O vrem«Di i uslovljax vosuiknovoaija Abxasskogo carstya,' £1M 3 (1940}- 
JanaSia, S., Sak’arfveio a^frincfell p^'eodallzac'lls gxaze, TillU 1937. 

JanaSia, S., 'T'uba) — Tahali, 'Tibareni, Iberl,' BIM 1 (1937). 

Jana^ia, S., 'Ujvotesi eiovn«li c^'Roba k'^aif^velfa pirvel sac'xovtlsls maxlobeU agmosa- 
vlet'is i&toriis BauatUeze/ BLM 5-6 (1940). 

Javakhisbvili, A., ‘The Caucasian Race,' G 1/2^3 (1936). 

Javaxilvlli, L, Axali iCai-Clis iTxovrebai Tifli$ 1940, 

JavftsiSvili, I., 'Axlad agmod'^enili K'artUis C:K;ovTeba da T^^amar mep'^is meoie ak^amde 
uc*^11001 Istorlkosfs t'xzuleba,’ TUM 3 (1923). 

Javaxllvili, (DdLavaxov) I., Gosudatsloennffj stroj drennsj GrazU i dreunej Armenii (TRAGF 
8 1905). 

JavaxlivOi, L, Jveti k’drCuli saistorio mcerloba ss.}, TiflLs 1921, 

JavaxiSvai, I., Kart^veti eris istoria I, TiHis (Srd ed.) 1928, (4th ed.) 1951 f — II. TiHls 1914. 
JavaxiSvill, J,, samarVtts istoria i, Tfflls 1928. 

Jessen, ‘BasUeus,’ RE 3/1. 

Jouguet, P., mac^donien et rhell£nisation de I'Oftent {L'ittoltilioa de 

Palis 1926. 

Joumet, G,, The Church of the Word Incarnate. An Essay in Speculative Theology (transl, 
A. H. C. Downes) i, London/New York 1955. 

Jugle, M,, Theologia doginalica Christianomai orientaltum ab Eeclesia catboUca dissidentium. 
Ill, Paris 1930. 

Junker, H., ‘Das Awesta-alphabet und der Ursprung der armeulsclhen und georglschen 
Scrift/ Ga 2,3 (1925, 1926), 

Jnstl, P., iraniseltes l^amenbuch, Marburg 1895. 

Kaerst, J., Die anttke Idee der Olkamene, Leipzig 1903. 

Kantorowiez, E., ‘Feudalisni in the Byzantine Empire,' in R. Cpnlbom, Fetidalism in 
Historg Il/viii, 



Kaist> J«, Alai^tena et pr^Ui-Ba^ues, Contribatton A Vethnologic comparie des penplcs 
aslQitiques liby-hssp^ienv, Vienna 1928. 

Karstj J*, Cerptts juris ibero-cattcaaici I: Code giotgien du roi Vakhtcng VI; 2: Comtitentatre 
MI Precis du Broti IbiFo-caueasien 2 vols., Strasbourg 1935, 1937. 

Kaist, J., ies ii^ures, Strasbourg 1930* 

Karst, J., Mpttiotogie armniiio-caucasienne at hittto-asioinique. P^pertoire des antiques re- 
ttgions paiaimca ds VAsie Antirieure Septantrionate comparies omc ie 
pemthion chamito-^simitiquet piiasgo-ig4en et liesp^-a^/anfigue, Strasbourg/ 
Zuilcli 1948. 

Karst, J., Ortgtnes mediterraneaef Heidelberg 1931* 

Kekelije (Kekelldse), K*, *DIe Bekebrung Georglens zum Christeutum, ’ MDGKO 18 {1928). 
Ker^nyl, K., TSckter der Sonne, Zurich 1944. 

Kherutnlan, R., Jntrodaalton A rauthrcpologie du Coucose; ire Armenians, Paris 1943. 
Kheruiiuaii. R*, ‘Esqulsse d’une feodalit^ oubme,^ Vn 1 (1948-1949). 

Klessbug, M,, 'Gogarene,* RE 7/2* 

Kiessling, M*, 'Uvioxoi, RE 8/1. 

Kogean, S*, KfnnaarakaurterS “fcorAf Sirakag ew Ariaruneac\** Patmakan usunumstrui'iiuii 
(AM 110 1920). 

Krymskii, A., 'field/ in Pam/ati Akademika N. Ja. Marra, Moscow/Leuingrad 1938, 369- 

Kiymskij, A., 'Strauicy is Istorii sevemogo HI Kaykazskogo Azorbejdiann (KlasslCeskoJ 
Albanii)/ in Academy of Sciences of USSR, Serffaju FeodarovlSu Oi’dea- 
bargu, k pjaltdesjatUetiju. nau£no-obSiesfvrnpf dejateVnostit 1882-1932. 
Sbornik stalej, Leningrad 1934, 289^303* 

Lafon, R., £tades at causasiques, Salamanca 1952. 

Lafon, R., 'Le g^orgien et le basque sont-Ua des taugues parenbeaV* BK 20-27 1957, 

Lang, D. M., The Last Years of the Georgian Monarthg, 1858^1832, Ne’w York 1957* 

Lang, D. M.> A Modern History of Georgia, Loudon 1902. 

Lang, R. M* ^ Peter the Iberian and His Bio^aphers,' JEH 2/2 (1951), 

Langdon, S. H., 'The Dynasties of Akkad and Lagash/ CAH 1. 

Lap'ane^'yas (Kapancjan), G., IslorlhodlnyoisHdeskia taboty k nadal'tiof istorii Armfan: 

DjTet»ii/a)a Maiafa Aalfa, Erevan 1956. 

Lap'^ane'^yan, G., ‘K proisso^deniju armjanskogo jazyka/ lANA 7 (1946). 

Laurent, J., L’Arminie entra Byeaiiice et flslam, Paris 1919. 

Laurent, J., 'Un f4odal ami4ulen du si^e, Gourgin Ardzrounl, fils d'Abouhedj,’ 
REA 2/2 (1922). 

Lehmann-Haupt, C. F*, *On the Origin of the Geor^ans,' G 4-5 (1937). 

Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., 'Satrap,’ RE 2A/1, 

Lehmann-Haupt, C. F*, 'Tlgranokerta/ RE OA/I. 

Leroy, M*, 'Cr^oire MagUtros et les traductions arm&iieDnes des auteurs grecs,' AlPhH 
3 (1935). 

Levy, H., 'AddiOonal Note on the Date of MoEies ot Chorene/ R 11 (1936). 

Levy, M., 'The Date and Purpose of Moses of Choreite's History/ B 11 (1936)* 

Luabetakj L., SYD., Marriage and tha Famllg in Caucasia (SLA 3 1951). 

Lynch, H.> Armenia: Travels oaid Studies, London 1901. 

Lyonnet, S., S. J., Lea origiires de la uersion armanienne et te Dialesaaron (BO 13 1950). 
Magie, D*, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, to the End of the Third Cenfiir^ after ChrisI (Prince¬ 
ton 1950). 

Malsasyanc', S., Xorenatfu ofelatfaei Surfif Erevan 1940* 



MBlxaaysn«% S.^ 'Istprik Sebeoa/ W 27 {1M9}, 

Manaudyan (Manandean), Y, (H.), Dit^ot*ffunner hut HayasUuii $ipiak<iiuh6ti driiVyim 
niasia. tnarzpanuVyan Srfanam, Erevan 1925« 

ManandyaD, 'Les incurUons araLea en Arm^nle (Note cbroDolo^ique)' B 1$ (1948). 

Manandyan, Y*, fCiUia&cm teauVyun hay £olovrdt patmuVyan I, Ere van 1945. 

Manandyaiij Y., *Kpgda 1 kem ^yla soatavlena ‘^Armjanskaja Geggraflja*’ priplsyvaem^a 
MoUeju Xorenakomu, ’ VY 1/26 (ld4T)« 

Manandyan, Y., hiti Hayastani tntesakan kgartk^i paimufyait II, Erevan 1928. 

Manandyan, Y*, O nekatcryx spornyx problemax isiorii i geografii drAtJti£j Armenttf Erevan 

Manandyan, Y., O iotgoole t gorodax ArmertU p sejazi ^ miropaf lorgoolej drevttix PTemeitt 
Erevan 1945. 

Manandyan, Y,, F’eodalizmS Itm Hayastanam: ArSakiuiinsfi etp ma^panut^yan ^r/an, 
Erevan 1934. 

Manandyan, Y., 'Froblema ob^festyennogip etroja doarSakldskoJ Armenil/ IZ 15 (1945). 

Manandyan, Y., Yigran Vtoroj i Rim, Erevan 1943. 

Manandyan, Y., Xorenaifu afelcooci laciimi, Erevan 1934, 

Manandyan, Y., Zameiki o feade i ftcMiarnom vofske Porfii i ArSakid^kof Armenlt, Tiills 

Manveliehvilj, A., fiisloire de Giotgle, Paris 1951, 

Marlrwart (Marquart), J,, 'Le berceau dea Arm^niens,' REA 8/1 (1928). 

Marlcwart, J., Die Enlalehimg imd Wiederhersieltufig der amtAniachin Nation, Berlin 1919. 

Mark^art, J.,‘Dje Genealogle der Bagratlden und das ZeitEdter des Mar Abas und Ps. 
Moses Xorenaol,' Ca 6/2 (1930). 

MarkTrart, J., Mberer und Hjnrkaner,' Ca 8 (1931). 

Markwart, J., Osteiiropdiache and ostaaiatische Streifzuge^ Leipzig 1903. [Armenian transl. 

of the Bagratld genealogy, found in Esknrs iv * Der Ursprung der iberiscben 
Bagratlden,’ by Fr M, Kapozean, I: Hay Bagfatimeac* t^iwlagrufiami; 
— ii; Vraftan Bagratuneae^ cagumi (AM 73 = SZAG 1913),] 

Marhvrait, J., Sktssen ziu historischen Topographia and Geschichte son Kaukasien., Dos 
Itenerar oon Artazata nach Armastica atif der rSmlschm IVittkarle (SZAG 
3 1928). 

Markwart, J., SUdaimatUn und die Tigrisqtielleit, nach griechischen und orubiscAen 
graphert (SZAG 4 1930). 

Mark'wart, J., Unteraachangen GeMhichte won Eran 1, Gottingen 1896; 11, Leipzig 1005, 

Markwart, J., 'Wolier etammt der Name Kaukasus/ Ca 6/1 (1930). 

Markwart, J., and Messina, J., S. J., ‘Die Ekitstehung der amienisehen Blstilmer,' OGa 
37/3 (1933). 

Marr, N., ^Ark'^ann — mongol’skoe nazvanle xrlBtian v svjazi a voprosom ob Amijanax- 
jralkedonitas:,^ W 12 (1906). 

Mair, N., ‘Astronomideskle 1 €tni£eskle znadenlja dvux ptemennyx nazvani| Amy an,' 
ZVO 2 j (1922). 

Marr. N., 'Etimdlogija dvux tenninov aimjanskago feodaVnagO stroja,* ZVO 11 (1899). 

Marr, N., l^tatmye raboty I, Leningrad 1933. 

Mart. N., 'Jafetl^eskie Jazyki,’ BSE 45. 

Marr, N., Jajetifeski} Kaokaz i iretif ^lemejit a soEdanii sridiiAiimoDtorskof kurtary, Le^zig 
1920. German transi. by E- Braun, Det Japhetifisdte Kaukasus and das 
dritte eihnische Eiemeitt im Bildungspi^sess der mitteliAndischeii Kattur, 
Berlin 1933. 



Maff. N., 'Jafetiay,* Vo 1 (1922), 

Marr, N,, Kurt iei}£ciiiif i rgcarsfyo p poimje Sofij fe (TRAGP 12 1910). 

Marr, N.^, *Novy] poTorot v rabote po JafetlGeskoJ teoiii,' IANS 1931. 

Marr, N.^ *0 pervonafal^noj Estoril Anu'enii Anoaima/ W 1 ^1894). 

Marr, N., Ositaongja ta^iicg k sraimnatikje dreene-grazinakago jazgka, St Petersburg 1908. 
Marr, N., aad Bri^, M., La longue g^rgiennet Paris 1931. 

Mafifioa, M., 'Netotorye norye damiye po istoril Parfll,' VDl 1950/3. 

Meiilet, A,, A/Iarmaaisc/^ Elemeatarbaek (IiuiogeFtn<mtsehe BibliQthek 1/1/10), Heidelberg 

MeiUot, A., 'De quelques mots parthes en arm^nlea, * BBA 2/1 (1922). 

MeiUet, A., Esqulase d'lme granunoire de rarm^nien. ctasstgue, Vleaiia 1936. 

MelLk'i£vill> G.> Netirt- XJmrttt, Tiflla 1954. 

Melikset~Bek(ov), L., Armociif: latotiko-arxeologiCeski} oierk (MSKI 193S/2). 
Melikset-Bek, L., 'Graeco-byranUtia y dreveantyanskoTn Liber epistolarum,' W12 (1957). 
Melikset^Bek, L., ‘Xazary po drevneaimjanskfm istocnikam v syiasi s problemo) Molseja 
Xorenskogo/ Sbornik v Heat* AA:ad. i. A. Orbeili 112-118. 

MeS^emhicry, I., 'Osnovnye nafala JaletldologU/ 10 1 (1925). 

Mhlorsky, V,, 'Caucasica IV," BSOAS 1953 15/3. 

Mluor^dty, V., A HUiorg of Sborvdit and Darband in th& 20fh-lilh Gambiidge 


Mlaorsky, V., *Las,' EE 3/37. 

Mbiorafcy, V,, Studies ffi Caucasian HUUs’g (COS 6 1953). 

Mlnorsky, V-, 'TifUs/ El 4. 

Mlnorsky^ Y., ‘Ttanscaacasica/ JA JuiUet-Septembre 1930. 

Mieker, K-, 'T>ie Daiierung der Gesduehte des Ps. Moses Xorenac^l,' "WZKM 42 (1935). 
Miaker, K-. ‘Die Herkanft der Mamikonier und der titel Cenbakur,' WZKM 39 (1932) 
Mlaker, K., *Zur Gesehichte des Pa. Moses Cborenatsi,* Ar 2 (1927). 

Meiftor, J., Allgeorgistihe Glosaar pa aasgeatdhlim BiiKUevten (MBE 6 1952). 

MoHlor, J., Montunenta ihetita ontiquiora (CSCO 166, 166, Subsidia 10 1956). 

Moagait, A., Archaieoiogg in C5Si?. (transl. M. W. Thompson), Penguin Books 1961. 
MovsSaean,'L., ‘Lori et 3'hlstoire de la famille bagratide arm^tiieiiDe Kuriklas,* (transl. 
F. Macler) REA 7/2 (1927). 

Muyldenuans, J.» 'Le dernier prince Matnikonieu de Bagrevand,' HA 40 (1929). 
Muyldermans, J., ‘L’bistoriograpble arm^nienae,' LeM 76/ 1-2 (1963). 

Niese, N., 'Ariarathes/ BE 2/1. 

Nikltine, B., Lea Kardes. &tude aeciotogiqae et Aisforf^ue, Paris 1956. ' 

Orbeli, ‘Hasan Jalal, ksja^' Xaiieuskij/ HAN 1909. 

Oskean, H., Gnuneac^ ew BStunead naxararufiafnneri (AM 171 1952.) ' 

Oskean, H., 'Kirakos Ganjakec'i,' HA 36 (1922). 

Oskean, H., Yookani^ Vonakan ew iwz dprodSj Vienna 1922. 

Osti^gorsky, G., History of the Byzantine State (transl. J. Hussey), Qxfoni 1956. 
Pedersen, H., Xe groupemeat des dialectes iRdo~euTopieitSt Copeubagen 1925. 

Peeters, F., S. J., *Les ddbuts dn christlanisme en Giorgie d'apris les> sources bagiogra- 
phique?,' AB 60 (1932) 

Peetees, P., 'S. Grggnire PDluminaftenr dans le calendrier lapidaire de Naples,' AB 60 

Peeters, P., 'L'lnterventioti polHJques de Constance II dans la Grande Aim^nie, en 336,' 
reprinted in Beckerches d'Aisioijie et de philologie orieniales I, Brussels 1951. 
Peeten, P., ' J^remle, £vSque de I'lb^rle perse (431)/ AB 51 (1933). 



Peeterg, p,, 'Le^ Kliaztirs dans la Passion do S. Abo do Tiflis,' AB 52 (1934). 

Peeters, P,, 'Pour rhistoiie des oilgltiaa de i'alpbabet aimimen/ leprtiited iji itechenhea 
d’hisioire et de phitologle orientates I, Brussels 195i. 

Partzold, A., Der Kaukasus II. Lelpjdg 1367. 

Plgulevakaja^ N,, Vizaniiia i Iran na rubeie Vt i vu oekoo^ MDSCOW/I.aiiIngFaid 1946- 
PlotrovskJJ. B., Uiarija i kurturci UAir/ii, Erevan 1944* 

PiotrovaklJ, B,, VansJcoc corstvo Moscow 1959. 

Polascbek, E., 'Uti/ RE 9A/2. 

Pope, A. U*, 'Irauian and Armenian ContdliutLons to the Beginnings of Gothic Architec¬ 
ture/ AQ 1/2 (1948). 

Reinach, Tb.. Mithridate EnpatoPy rot de Poni^ Paris 1890. 

Reischauer, E., 'Japanese Feudalism in Coulboru, Feudalism in Histors Il/iii. 
Rosenthal. H,, ‘Armenia/ JE 2. 

Rostovtzelf, M., A JJisfori^ of Ihe Ancient H^orW I, Oxford 1930. 

R'OstovtKcft, Mi. The Social and Ecoinomic Historu of the. Hellettlalic Wor/d, Oxford 1941. 
Rostovtseff. M.. Studien zur Ceschichtc des rGmischen Kolonafa, Leipzig 1910. 

Roux, R., Le problime des Argonantes. Recherches sur tcs aspects rel^i^ieiiz de la (dpende, 
Paris 1949. 

RhdtpCoUcnbei^, Count W. H., The Rupenides, jtiethumides and Lusigiicms: The Straetwe 
of ihe Armmo-Cllielaji Dgnasties (CGPAL 1963). 

Ruge, 'Kolchis*' RE 11/1* 

Rundman, 5.. The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His ifeigrt, Cambiidgo 1929* 
Satraatian, A,, 'The ^urri-lands,* G 4’5 (1937)* 

Sahatuneau, Bishop, Efmlaeni, Ejmiadzin 1842. 

Salia, K., 'Note sur I'origine et TAge de j’alphabet g^orgien,' BK 43-44 (1963), 

SalLa, K., 'E.a Tao-Klardjetie et ses monast^res/ BK 36-37 (1961), 41-42 (1962). 

Salmon, Dom P., Blade ear les insignes da pontife dans le rit romctin, Rome 1955* 
Samuelyan, X., Hln hag iraoimk^i patmut'yuni 1, Erevan 1939. 

Sanije, A*. ‘Novootkrytyj alfavit havkazsldx Alhanoev 1 ego snafcnie dJja nauki/ BIM 
4/1 (1938). 

Sarkissian, A», 'On the Authenticity of Moses of Khoren's Hislorgt’ JAOS 60/1 
5<Jracheirmayer, ‘Moxoene/ RE 16/1. 

Scherling, K., ‘Pa^phae/ RE 18/4. 

Schwarzenberg, K., Adfer and Hrache: Der Wetfherrscbaftsgedanke, Vienna/Munich 1958. 
Sc6ld, H., ‘L'origine des Mamikonlens/ REA 5/1 (1925>* 

Smith, S., 'The Supremacy of Assyria/ CAH 3* 

Soita. G. R., Z>ic SUUung dee Armenisehen ijn jfiCreise der indogermantschen Spraehen, 
Vienna i960. 

Speiser, E., Mesopoiamian Origins: The Basic Population of the Near Easlt Phiiadelphla/ 
London 1930. 

Stein, E., 'Erato/ RE 6/1. 

Stein, E., Histoire da Bas-Empiref 1: De f*Bfat romain d I'Etat hgzaniin (284-476) (transl- 
J.-R. Paianque), Descl6e de Brouwer 1959; — 11; De la dispart tion de 
I’Empire d'Occident d fa mart de Jastinlen. (476-565) (public par J.-R, 
Palanque), Paris/Brusseis/Amsterdam 1949* 

Stein. E,, ^fudien lur Ceschichle des bgzantinischen Reiches^ Stuttgart 1919* 

Strayer, J,, ‘Feudalism in Western Europe,' in Coulbom, PeudaZfam in. History Il/ii. 
Sirayer, J., and Coulbom. R., 'The Idea of Feudalism/ in Coulbom, Feudalistn in. History 



Stortevantj H., The lRdo~Hittite LarffitgeaU Pluladelphta ld42« 

Szeltel, M., 'Aspects of FeudalHsta In RussiaD History,' in Coolbom, Feadali&m in Si&iory 

T'aqalSvili (Taqa^^vHI), £,, 'Gem^^iaii Chronology and the Beginniiigs of Bagratid Rule 
In Georgia/ G 1/1 (1&35). 

TarchniSviU, M., 'Le dien lune Aimazi/ BK 36-S7 (1&61). 

Tarchni^vili, M., Geschichte der kiechltckeii geot^ischen Literdiiir. Aaf Grand des ersten 
Bandes der geargischen. Litiraturgeachtchte oon K^lidzer bearbeiUt otm 
M^T. in VerMndung mii Dr, J, Asafaig (ST 185 [1955]). 

TarchaiIvtK, M.^ 'Sources arm^o-g^orgionnes de rhlstolre ancieiiue de rEglise de G^or* 
gie/ LcM m (1947). 

Tarn, W. W., 'Ale:Kander; The Conqueror o£ the Far East/ CAH 6. 

Tam, W. W., 'Alexander: The Conquest of Persia/ CAH 8. 

Tam, W. W., 'The Heritage of Alexander/ CAH 6. 

Tarn, "W,, 'Persia, from Xerxes to Alexander/ CAH 6. 

Ter-Levondyan, A., 'K voprosu o voznltaovenii DvinskogD {nilcata t Atajenll,’ iir 
V Akad, I, A, Orbeti 153-139, 

Tir"Ml£rtd''ean, 'XorenacVoy £atnanak£ oroSelu nor p'oij,' At 1897. 

TSr-Sahakeau, K., Bag Icagserk' Blwzandioni II, Venice 1905, 

Tbalheim, Aovkoi^ RE 5/2. 

Thiersch, H., Ependgton imd Epiiod, Goiteshilt tmd Priesterkleid i/n Alien Y^rder^iai^ 
Stuttgart 1936. 

Thompson, J. W., Feitdaf Germang, Chicago 192S. 

Thompson, R. C., 'Assyria,' CAH 2, 

Thorosslan, H., Hisioire de la littiratare armenienne, dea originea fiisqa*£t noa /ours, Paris 

Tirac'yan, G., 'Ervanduninerfi Hayastanun,' lANA 6 (1953), 

Tomaschek, 'Alhanoi,' RE 1/1. 

ToumanoK, C., 'The Bagratids of Iheria, ftom the Eighth to the Eleventh Century,' LeM 
"" 74 (1961). 

Tpumanoff, C,, 'Cbrlatian Caucasia between Rysantium and Iran: New Light from Old 
Sources,' T 10 (1954),. 

Toumanoff, C., 'Chioaology of the Kings of Abasgia and Other Problems,' LcM 69 (1956), 
Toumanoff, C„ 'The Fttteenth-Century Bagratids and the Institution of Collegial Sover¬ 
eignty in Georgia,' T 7 (1049-1951). 

Toumanoff, C,, 'Medieval Georgian Historical Llteratare (viith-xvth Centuries),' T1 (1943), 
Toumanoff, C., 'Moscow the Third Rome: Genesis and Significance of a Politico-Religious_ 
Idea,' CHR 40 (1955), 

Toumanoff, C., 'La noblesse g^orglenne: Sa gentec et sa structure/ RA 54/9 (1956), 
Toumanoff, C., 'The Oldest Manuscript of the Geor^an Aunals: the Queen Anae CodeK 
(QA), 1479-1495/ T 5 (1947). 

Toumebize, F., 'Amatouuiq/ DHGE 2. 

Tournebize, F., 'Antzevatsiq,* DHGE 3. 

Toumebize, F,, 'Apahouniq,' DHGE 3. 

* Toumebiaej F., 'Arschamouniq/ DHGE 4, 

Toumebize, F., 'Arscharouniq,' DHGE 4. 

Toumebize, F., 'Arzii,' DHGE 4. 

Toumebize, F,, Hisioire politique et religieuse de VArminie, Paris 1910. 

Treidler, H., 'iberia,' RE Suppl. 19. 



'fteitlnger, O. Die ostrSmisehe Kaiser- and Reicbstdce itach Uirer Gastaifang tm hdfischen 
Zeremonieti, oom asirSmischen Staats- and Iteichss&iaiiken (2ud ed.);i Daim^ 
stadt 1956. 

Trever, K., Oierki po istorit kurturjf dreunef Arjtieniif Moacow/Lenldgtqd 195S. 

Trever, K., Oierkt po istorii t kuPture KaokazskoJ Albaniit Moscaw/l.eiilTigrad 1959. 

TVombetti, A,, Etementi di gtoltaiggia^ BcJogia 1922. 

Tseretheli (CerefeU), M. (von), ‘The Asianle (Asia Minor) Elements in National Georgian 
Paganism,* G 1/1 (1935). ' 

Tserethell, M,, ‘Das Snmeiiscbe nnd das Georgische,' BK 12 (1959)* 

Ungnad, A., ;^u5arfu*' Beitritge zar Kultargesehichte und YUtkerkimde Vorrfernswns, Berlin/ 
Leipzig 1936. 

tiaakoVt P., 'DrevenijSle narody Gruzdi i novye arxeologliieskie otkrytija/ SMM 10 (1940). 

UHakov, P-, 'K poxodam Urartijeev v Zakavkaz'e,* VDI lO-^O/d. 

U^akoT, P., 'Problemy drevneilSego naseieuija Meloj Azil, Kavkaza 1 TSgeidy,' VDJ 1939/4. 

USakov, P., ^Xettskaja proldema: K voprosn o genezise i vzaimootnoSenijax Indoevro’ _ 
pejskis i kartverskix Jai^ykov,* TUS 1941. 

VasiUev, A. A., Jusffn tki FirsU An introduction la the Epoch of JusUmtin the Great 
Cambridge [Massachusetts] 1950. 

Vasmer, R., Chronologie der arabiscfien Statthalter v>on Araienlen unterdeti Abhasiden, von 
as-Saffaeh bis sum Krbnung Aschois i., 760-887 (SZAG 5 1931). 

VaxaSt, Prince of Georgia, A^cera samep^osa Sak*art’velosa^ ed. and transl. M. F. Brosaet, 
Descriplioii giogrttphiqus de la Giorgte par ie isarisitch Wakhaachtf 
St Petersburg 1S42. 

Voegelin, E., Order and Historg I: Israel and Keuelaiioitt Baton Rouge 1058. 

Vogt, H., ‘Armdnien et g^oigien,' HA 75/10-12 (1961). 

Vogt, H,, ‘Remaiques aur la pr^hlstoire des langnes kbarthvdliennea,* BK 36-37 (1961) 

Welssibach, F. RE 11/1. 

'Weissbacb, F. H., Ka^^ovj^oi, RE 10/2, 

Weissbach, F. ?1.,RE 14/2. 

Weissbach, F. H., ’Sophene,' RE 3A/1. 

'Weissbach, F, H., RE 4A/2. 

Wesendonk, O. G. von, ‘Ober georgisches Heidentum,* Ca 1 (1924). 

Wesendonk, O. G. von, ‘Zur georgischen Geschiebte,' K 21 (1927), 

"Winkler, H., Die Spradie dcr sweiten Cotumne der dretsprachigeu Inschriften and das Altal- 
sehBf Breslau 1896. 

Wirth, A., Der Gong der WEligesehlchte, Gotha 1913, 

Wirth, A-, 'Ka^seke Forschungen/ Mn 3 (1909-1910). 

’WoJH, J-, Krifazioatie Litemsko-ruscg, Warsaw 1395. 

Xalat’eane*^ G., Atinjaaskif epos v * Istorii Armenii* Moiseja Xorenskago^ Moscow 1903. 

Xndadov. V., ‘Xaldy-Urarlijcy poale padeni|a Vanskogo carstva,* VDI 1938/2/3. 

Zaminean, A., Hag grakan. patmut'iian^ Nakbicberan 1914. 


J fi ^ 

Academy of Sciences of tbe Annenian SSR., A Has Antijanskof Sooetskof SoeialisfijSeakoj 
. Eespabtiki, Erevan/Moscow 1961. 

USAF Aeronautical Chart and Information Center, Air Photographic and Charting Service, 
United States Air Force, USAF Aeronaaiitxtl Approfiicft Cftorf, St Louis, 
Mo. 1956-1958.