Category Archives: HISTORY

Part I. Тhе rout of king Sargon II՚s campaign to Urartu in 714 B. C.

Summary

Aleksan H. Hakobyan

The detailed analysis of the texts of king Sargon II about his campaign east and north in 714 B. C. allows us to correct or clarify the route of the Assyrian troops in several cases. In particular, the small kingdoms Andia and Zikirtu mentioned between the countries Manna and Urartu are actually localized not to the east of Lake Urmia, but to the south and south-west of it; Zikirtu corresponds to medieval province Mahkertu (bordering Greater Armenia) in the river basin Barazgir, and Andia corresponds to “country Parsua” of early Urartian texts (on the southhern shore of Lake Urmia – “Great Sea of the East”), with the city Meišta / Misi.

Part III: Consolidation of Chalcedonian provinces and formation of the Transcaucasia united kingdom of chalcedonians

Summary

Arman S. Yeghiazaryan
In the second half of the X century the Armenian kingdom of Bagratunis gradually separated to some lesser kingdoms and lost the control over Transcaucasian countries. That was a great opportunity for the Abkhazian kingdom, which tried to unit all chalcedonian provinces in Transcaucasia. Abkhazian king Georgi (929-957) could conquer Georgia, and although his army was defeated by Armenians near the Kur River, the Armenian king Abas (929-953) did not develop the success. After Georgi’s death Abkhazian kings lost their chance to keep Georgia under their control.

In the second half of the X century in Transcaucasia was acting powerful David the Curopalate of Taik. He called for help Smbat II the king of Armenia (977-989) and they jointly could overthrow Theodos – the Abkhazian king (975978) and put on the Abkhazian throne Bagrat III Bagratuni (978-1014) son of daughter of Georgi the Abkhazian king and Gurgen Bagratuni from Kgharjk.

During two decades Bagrat liquidated all Kgharjian Bagratunis and David the Curopalate of Taik. The main goal of this policy was to overcome the feudal separatism and form a united kingdom of chalcedonians.

When Gagik I the Armenian king (989-1020) could strengthen the Armenian kingdom again, Bagrat III used its authority and power in confrontation with the Gandzak emirate.

On the first decade of XI century Bagrat III could consolidate Transcaucasian chalcedonian provinces and found the united kingdom of chalcedonians.

Armenian side

Summary

Hamlet K. Davtyan
The article is devoted to the Christianity of Virk. In spite of the undeniable proofs that this significant event had happened parallel to the Christianity of Mets Hayk and by the efforts of Grigor Partev’s delegates, planned studies are printed in the recent decades through which an attempt is made to review and comment on historical facts by modern events. Of course this is not the way by which it is necessary to go. The fact of the contribution of one nation’s representatives to the national and cultural life of another nation deserves only deep respect.

Part one. The raising of political purpose about fragmentation’s overcoming and first steps of its implementation

Summary

Karen P. Hayrapetyan
Since the first days of formation of the Republic of Armenia, the authorities faced a number of problems arising from the fragmentation of the Armenian people that had to be solved. The task to solve the problem of fragmentation was first brought up for discussion by the authorities of the Republic of Armenia at the Second Congress of Western Armenians in February 1919. The main political tool for solving the national question was the strengthening of the Republic of Armenia. the rest of the Armenian territories must have been united around the Republic of Armenia. A number of important historical decisions have been taken by the authorities of the Republic of Armenia in order to solve the problem of fragmentation. The most important of these decisions was the declaration of United Armenia

Part II: The shape of independent historical perspective of the all-Georgian Kingdom.

Summary

Arman S. Yeghiazaryan
In the 9th century the tendency of the spread of superiority of the Curopalacity of Kgharjk over Georgia was emphasized.

The main goal of curopalate of Kgharjk Atrnerseh Bagratuni was to achieve the dominant position among the South Caucasus Chalcedonians with the perspective to include them in a joint kingdom led by Kgharjian Bagratunis. At the same time Atrnerseh tried to seize the throne of Armenian King Smbat I, but failed

In the last years of Smbat I, the weakening of the Armenian kingdom led to broad perspectives for the Kingdom of Abkhazia and the Curopalacity of Kgharjk. The Abkhazats kingdom, which was far from the dynamic events of those times, became gradually stronger and took over Georgia after a couple of years.

During the reign of Atrnerseh in the Curopalacity of Kgharjk, there was one more reputable prince named Gurgen Bagratuni, who successfully withstood the Abkhazian king, conquered the lands neighboring his principality also spread the Chalcedonian faith in the Albanian kingdom.

Aleksan H. Hakobyan
The migration paths of Hayk’s descendants on Armenian Upland as described by Movses Khorenatsi vividly remind the routes of the first Biaynian kings who conquered the territory of the future Biaynili (Urartu) kingdom in a few decades. This is a new argument to support the hypothesis of H. Karagyozyan and M. Katvalyan, according to whom the formation of the Armenian ethnos has happened bt ethnoconsolidation-ethnomixation of all the various Indo-European and non-Indo-European tribes that inhabited the kingdom of Urartu-Biaynili (=Armenian Upland), and not by ethnoseperation (immediate separation of Armenian language carriers from the Indo-European language community) or by ethno evolution (which means gradual absorption of other inhabitants of the Urartu kingdom by the small Armenian-speaking tribe). The process of ethno consolidation of Armenian people was a result of ethno integration of multi-tribal Urartu kingdom and was completed in mid-7^th century B.C. The later formed Armenian legend about the descendants of Gayk shows that a leading role in this process was played by Biaynians themselves, although the language of the newly formed ethnos (with the self-designation – endonym of Hay- Hayo- Armenians) was an Indo-European one namely, the Armenian language spoken by the relative majority of the population of the multi-tribal Biaynian kingdom. Combined with other evidences in historical sources, this legend also shows that the kingdom of Urartu was not “destroyed” by anyone; rather it continued to exist as ‘Eruandean Armenian Kingdom”, which was conquered only by Achaemenid Iran.

Summary

Ararat M. Hakobyan
There are different, sometimes even mutually exclusive opinions concerning the question of the international-juridical situation of Armenian Soviet Socialistic Republic (ASSR) in 1920-1922. A large group of scientists finds that before the formation of Trans-Caucasian Federation and SSSR, ASSR was nevertheless an independent state due to a number of standards. And finally, there are some authors with soviet nostalgia, who think that Armenia achieved its “real” independence only in November, 1920 with the sovietization of Armenia.

The author brings numerous facts, and examining these three approaches by the modern standards of historiography substantiates and defends the thesis that the Soviet Armenia wasn’t in fact independent initially, but kept its statehood. At the same time, drawing parallels between the three Armenian states of the XX century, the author shows the fact of their succession.

Part one. Bagratuni princes’ establishment in Kghardjk (Klarjeti) and the beginning of ethnic motions

Summary 

Arman S. Yeghiazaryan
At the end of VIII century after suppression of the antiarabian revolt of Armenians in 774-775 Bagratunies participating in it settled in Kghardjk the western area of province of Gugark of the Great Armenia. Having appeared in mostly armenian-chalkedonian environment, Bagratids have gradually integrated in it to which promoted beginning during rule of Curopalate Ashot Bagratid (the beginning of IX century) extensive church reconstruction and building in Kgharjk.

During the first half of IX century curopalates of Kgharjk tried to extend their political domination to Georgia, but failed. Then has been made the state idea of Georgian kingdom which proclaimed that: “Georgia includes all lands where church service and all prayers are creating in Georgian language”. After that the spiritual power of “the Prince of Georgians (from 899 – “King of Georgians”)” has gradually extended to the east to Georgia (Kartli).

At the end of IX century the Curopalacity of Kgharjk was a part of the Kingdom of Armenian Bagratids, and Atrnerseh Bagratid the Curopalate of Kgarjk at the end of the century obtained the title of “the King of Georgians” from Armenian king Smbat I, i.e. of population of georgian (chalkedonian) confession.

Part one. Comparative spiritual system in Commagene and Great Armenia

Yervand H. Margaryan
Mithraism as a religious and ethical system was formed in the Hellenistic period. It has come a long way from the archaic Aryan cult (where Mithra-Mihr acted in pair Verethragna-Vahagn and held subordinate to  Ahura Mazda) to complex syncretic world-view. Like most generated in the Hellenistic period phenomenas, Mithraism had borderline nature, that determined it’s fate for many centuries. Charactersitically, the first mention of the Aryan cult of Mithra refers to the mid-2nd millennium BC and is associated with the state of Mitanni, on the territory of which the Hellenistic kingdom of Commagene was formed, after a thousand year. Specifically, the formation of the cult of Mithras had some impact ancient Anatolian cults. Later, during the Achaemenid, Mithraism experienced ups and downs. When Darius I, in favor of the emerging imperial Zoroastrian religion, the cult of Mithras and other ancestral Aryan deities suffered intense persecution. However, in the twilight of the Achaemenid empire, especially in the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon, the cult of Mithra was resurrected along and entered into a new ohase of development. He enriched elements of Chaldean astronomy and mazdeistic religious ehics.

A special place is occupied Mithraism in the spiritual life of ancient Armenia, which was reflected in the appearance of religious monuments, in the national epc “Darelevile of Sasun” and literary works.

But the golden age of the cult of Mithras and its ransformation into an independent religious and ethical system began in postachemenidian Hellenistic era. According to the eminent Belgian historian Franz Cumont, who introduced the term into circulation MIthraism, more or less final shape and form of the religion adopted in Commagene, and a number of neighboring countries on bots sides of the Euphrates. Some aspects of the cult of Mithras in Commagene, however, as in the whole region, you can get an idea for Archaeological Research at Mount Nemrud and Arsamea on Nymphaios. This coincided with the aggression of Rome in the region and the location of the Roman legions along the border all over the Euphrates. Hence Mithraism began to spread throughout the Roman Empire.

Babken H. Harutyunyan
The so-call Albanian or Aghvan Kingdom was formed at the end of the second century B.C. or beginning of the first century. It was a confederation of 26 tribes and undoubtedly was composed of 26 administrative units in the beginning.

According to the dates of Strabo, Plinius Secundus, Claudius Ptolemaeus and as well as of “Ashkharatsuyts” (Armenian geography) by Movses Khorenatsi, the borders and territory of the latter are illustrated and an attempt is made to clarify the names of rivers and ascertain their current names. For example, Strabo’s mentioned Sandobanes is corrected to become Sardobanes or Zardobanes and is identified with Turyan-chay; Roitakes is corrected to become Rostakes and identified with Gyok-chay and Xanes with Gardman or Girdiman-chay. The river name Albanos and the city Albana are not connected to the name Alban, these emerged from the name, Lpnats River or Lpnats City, and from the influence of the country name Albania, which was accepted in the Greco-Roman world.

The district-division of so-called Albania or Aghvank, which has reached us through the “Ashkharatsuyts”, refers to the period of Aran’s or Ran’s marzpanate, when the Persian court merged the 19(20) districts Great Armenia’s Artsakh and Utik into the latter.

Archbishop M. Barkhudaryants and academician S. Yeremyan were engaged with the issue of the district- division of the Left Bank of Kura in so-called Aghvank, using the dates provided in the “Ashkharatsuyts”, in the work of the historiograph of the Eastern lands of Armenia Movses Kaghankatvatsi, reports by historiograph Ghevond (Levond) and other sources. M. Barkhudaryan’s locations are discussable, mainly incorrect, while S. Yeramyan’s locations are notably acceptable.

The district-divisions of so-called Aghvank or Albania are presented using the materials of public sources on the subject and the results of former researchers’ studies. The district Ekhni is located in the territory adjacent to the present-day settlement of Lagodekh; Bekh in the area of present-day Belokan or Belakan; Kambejan in the lower part of the basin of present-day river Iori all the way to the River Kura; Shake, currently Shaki in the area surrounding the city Shaki, which incorporated at different times the province of Hoghmagh to the west of the district Shaki; Vostan in the area surrounding the capital city of Kapaghak; Haband, whose name in different manuscripts was known as Hambasi (distorted version); to the east of Kapaghak, and Vostan-i-Martspanan is identified with Jora Pahak and the territories south of it. Kaghadasht or Kaghats Dasht (field) and Dasht-i-Baghasakan, were located near the river Kura and fields north of the Caucasus mountain range all the way to the Caspian Sea.

It is necessary to note that due to the incorrect annotations made by transcribers in the “Ashkharatsuyts”, in one case the name of the district of Vostan is omitted and in another case the word vostan in Vostan-i-Martspanan or Marzpanan is omitted, which has caused a misunderstanding. In this same vein, transcribers have omitted the word dasht from Kagha (Kaghats) dasht (field) or Dasht-i-Baghasakan, thinking that it was a repetition. Because of this, the number of provinces on the left bank of Kura number 11.

Nonetheless, the number of districts in so-called Albania or Aghvank during the reign of the Mazkut kingdom was much numerous and later reduced by the Persian court during the marzpanate when tribal districts were united in the districts of Vostani-Marzpanan, Kaghats Dasht and Dasht-i-Baghasakan. Using the description by Asian Sarmatia of “Ashkharatsuyts”, it is possible to disclose that until the establishment of Persian rule, Shighpk, Jighpk, Kaspk, Pakhk, Paskhk, Khsrvank and Mazkutk and other districts existed. The research reveals that the number of provinces during the kingdom’s reign numbered 20/21 and even 21/22. They were Ekhni, Bekh, Kambejan, and Hoghmagh, which was most probably created later, Shake, Geghavu, Vostan, Haband, Kaghadasht or Kaghats Dasht, Jor, Pakhk (probably Paskhk – B.H.), Tavaspark, Hejmatakk, Izhmakhk, Gatk (probably Vatn – B.H.), Gghuark, Shighpk, Jighpk, Lpink, Baghasjik (also Kaspk – B.H.) and Kaghadasht or Kaghats Dasht , later called Hejeri.