254 On the various derivations see Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justinian, published originally in Russian in 1908, translated into English with extensive editorial remarks and notes by N.G. Garsoian (Lisbon, 1970) p. 514 n. 44; also Anahit Perixanyan's "Drevnearmianskie vostaniki [The ostanik's in Ancient Armenia]", VDI #2 (1956) pp. 49-50.
255 Nicholas Adontz placed the disintegration of clan relationships in the time of political unrest in Armenia under Zariadris and Artaxias (second century B.C.), and the completion of this process during the reign of Tigran the Great (first century B.C.) at which time the greatest naxarar families, in his view, already had emerged (Adontz, pp. 307, 310, 315). Manandyan challenged this, suggesting that "a significant break in clan relationships and the growth in power and authority of clan leaders and chiefs had already occurred in this ancient [Urartian] period" (Manandyan, Trade, also Feudalism, pp. 250-51 ). It is important to observe see note 2 below) that Manandyan was looking for the "emergence of feudalistic features" in Armenian society, automatically equating this with naxararism or "naxarar customs"—which to my knowledge he nowhere defines. Toumanoff places the appearance of dynasts before the creation of the Urartian state, styling them the "immemorial dynasts", Studies, pp. 50-52, 69, 74, 79, 136, and note 2 below.
256 Adontz, pp. 303-26 viewed the naxarars as descendants of tribal chieftains of different ethnic backgrounds who held power by right of birth. Manandyan (to the extent that it was and is possible given the scanty information available) focussed on the class position of the naxarars relative to the other classes in Armenian society. He, as many Soviet scholars, was eager to associate the naxarar "system" with Western European feudalism (See Manandyan, Trade, pp. 70-72; Feudalism, pp. 42-89; also B. Harut'yunyan's article "Feod-in ev beneficium-in hamapatasxanogh terminnere hay mijnadaryan grakanut'yan mej [Terms Corresponding to Feod and Beneficium in Medieval Armenian Literature]" Lraber #12 (1958) pp. 87-95, and the remarks of Sukiasian in the forward to his study on early "feudalism" in Armenia, Sukiasian pp, 15-27). Toumanoff, in his classic Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963) has reexamined the entire history of the Armenian highlands from Urartian times to the Bagratid period. Toumanoff considerably elaborated and took in new directions Adontz' recognition that the Armenian social system had a double aspect: one "feudal" and one dynastic (Studies, pp. 34-144,154,188). According to the author, the dynastic element pre-dated statehood (be it Urartian statehood, Arsacid or other) and consequently regarded itself as equal to the monarch. One should consult the notes and appendices to Adontz provided by N. Garsoian, also the same author's recent "Prolegemena to a Study of the Iranian Aspects in Arsacid Armenia", HA (1976) pp. 177-234, and also R. Hewsen's important tripartite study on the Meliks of Eastern Armenia (see Bibliography) on which see the conclusions of this study.
257 Adontz, p. 183.
258 Manandyan, Feudalism, pp. 255-56.
259 ibid. p. 256.
260 Studies, p. 144n. 262.
261 See Adontz, Armenia pp. 289-371, and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 33-144.
262 HAP ch. 34, B. N. Arhak'elyan, "Mecatunneri k'aghak'ayin vernaxavi jevavorume [Formation of the Mecatun Urban Upper Stratum]" pp. 585-94.
263 VT pp. 58-59; Manandyan, Trade, pp. 185-86.
264 Manandyan, pp. 186-87.
265 Manandyan, Trade, p. 186.
266 HAP pp. 554-55.
267 R. Hewsen, "The Meliks of Eastern Armenia (I) ", REA IX(1972) p. 293.
268 HAP ch. 32, L.H.Babayan, "Zak'aryannerin ent'aka feodalakan tnere [Feudal Houses Subject to the Zak'arids]" p. 547.
270 ibid. p. 548, also Appendix A.
271 See below p. and also Appendix A.
272 On the Mamikonids: H. Kurdian, "Mamikoneanneri Dsegh chughe [The Dsegh Branch of the Mamikoneans]", Bazmavep (1956) pp 155-62, 246-51; also A. Shahinyan, "Mamikonyan-Hamazaspyan tohme Hayastanum XII-XIII darerum [The Mamikonean-Hamazaspean Clan of Northern Armenia in the XII-XIII Centuries]" Lraber #3 (1968) pp. 84-93.
273 HAP p. 548.
274 SO pp. 142-43.
275 SO p. 144. On the Orbeleans see also R.Hewsen,'"The Meliks" REA #XI (1975/76) pp. 220-24.
276 G. Yovsep'ean, Xaghbakeank' kam Prosheank' (Antelias, 1969 repr. of 1928 ed. with additional collected articles) pp. 10, 14. Hereafter, X. On the Xaghbakids, also R. Hewsen, "The Meliks" (III), REA XI (1975/76) pp. 225-26.
277 HAP ch. 32, L.H. Babayan, "Zak'aryan erek' ishxanut'yunneri kazmavorume [The Formation of the Three Zak'arid Princedoms]" p. 541.
278 On the Kiwrikeans: Gh. Movsesean, "Histoire des rois Kurikian de Lori", F. Macler, trans. REA (1927) pp. 253-55, 266.
279 On the Dop'eans: G.E. Kirakosyan, "Matenagitakan teghekut'yunner Dop'yanneri masin [Bibliographical Information on the Dop'eans]" PBH #1 (1969) pp. 217-26; also R. Hewsen, "The Meliks" (II) REA X (1973/74) pp. 289-90.
280 I. A. Orbeli h'Asan Dzhalal kniaz' Khachenskii [Hasan Jalal, Prince of Xach'en] Izvestiia Imp. AN (St. Petersburg, 1909); also also R.Hewsen "The Meliks" (II) pp. 288-89.
281 See ch. 2 p. 3.
282 When in 1021 king Senek'erim Arcruni of Vaspurakan exchanged his lands for lands in Byzantine Cappadocia, "he did not give [emperor] Basil the monasteries, so that they would remain free and pray for Senek'erim and his son. There were 115, or some say 900 monasteries" (SA p. 104). An Arcrunid counter-kat'oghikosate was established at Aght'amar in the early 12th century, and existed until the 20th century, much to the chagrin of Sis and Ejmiacin, other centers of the Church of Armenia. See N. Akinean, "Aght'amaray kat'oghikosac' gawazanagirk'e [The Succession of the K'atoghikoi of Aght'amar] HA (1916) p. 145, 148. Curiously, Akinean omits reference to the passage in SA.
283 X p. 7.
284 See Appendices A and B.
285 SO p. 145.
286 See ch. 2 pp. 81-82 n. 2.
287 KC p. 180; Mur. p. 68: "...Now the mandat'urt'-uxuc'es Shahnshah was in Ani, the amirspasalar Awag was in Bjni, while Vahram Gageli, the people of Heret'i, Kaxet'i, Somxit'i, K'art'li, Toreli, Shavshet'i, Klarjet 'i and Tao were all fortified into their keeps, each of them loyal to Rusudan's rule, but due to their preoccupation, they were unable to participate in the ceremony for king David".
288 KG pp. 226-27.
289 KG p. 226; KC pp. 175-77; Mur. pp. 64-65.
290 KC p. 182; Mur. pp. 69-70.
291 KG p. 228.
292 KC pp. 173-74; Mur. pp. 63-64.
Return to Turco-Mongol Menu