There are several ways of categorizing and characterizing the 13-14th century sources bearing on the two aspects of this study, i.e. on (1) the Turco-Mongol invasions of Armenia, and (2) the history of the Armenian lords in the 13-14th centuries. Some of the sources, such as the Armenian and Georgian literary histories, treat both topics and consequently are of principal importance. These include the histories of 13-14th century clerical authors from the Caucasus: Kirakos of Ganjak and Vardan the Easterner (Arewelc'i), both of whom died ca. 1270/71, Step'annos Orbelean (d. 1304), the Georgian History of K'art'li (1330?), and T'ovma Mecop'ec'i (d. 1446) . The History of the Nation of the Archers by a Cilician cleric, Grigor Aknerc'i (d. 1335?) though geographically removed from Greater Armenia, nonetheless contains material about Greater Armenia not found in the local sources themselves regarding both the invasions and the lords. Armenian chronographies, colophons and hagiographical literature likewise supply information both regarding the invasions and the lords. Frequently their authors concentrated on their own immediate milieus thereby providing important information on local events. Sometimes written by clerics possessing limited educations, they are narrower in scope and more mundane than the literary histories, but precisely that narrow scope and those mundane interests are what make such sources valuable. The early 13th century was a period of vigorous building activity across the Armenian highlands, and it was customary for the lordly patrons of this activity to inscribe the walls of their edifices with sometimes lengthy inscriptions. Besides containing much of interest for economic history, the inscriptions often contain lordly titles and valuable geneological information. The 13-14th century Armenian sources are not well known to Western scholars, and consequently, are under-utilized in their studies. For this reason, and because the sources are scattered, a more detailed investigation of these sources and their authors appears justified (see below). Conversely, sources familiar to scholars--Juvaini, Rashid al-Din, etc.--are but briefly examined for their relevance to the two specific areas of interest to this study. These latter will be addressed first.
Persian literary histories of the 13-14th
centuries tend to be of importance more for the study of the invasions
and their economic impact on the Armenian highlands, than for
the history of the lords. The histories of Juvaini (d.1283) (7)
[12] and Rashid al-Din (d. 1317) (8), for example, are more directly
concerned with the Mongols than with the Armenian [13] nobility.
Nonetheless, their works show Armenia as part of the larger picture
of the Mongol conquests and of the Il-Khanid empire as a whole,
Both authors were officials of the Mongol government in Iran,
both were Muslims, and had sensibilities other than those found
reflected in the Christian Caucasian sources. For example, the
Khwarazm Shah Jalal al-Din's activities in Armenia which included
demolishing churches and executing Christians are described approvingly
by Juvaini, A Muslim viewpoint also characterizes [14] Ibn Bibi's
History of the Saliuqs, written in the latter part of the
13th century in Persian. This work, written at the request of
the Persian historian Juvaini is a panegyric to the Saljuq sultan
Kai-Qubad I (1220-37). Nonetheless, it does provide some information
on military and political events in western historical Armenia
which was under Saljuq control in the 13th century, mentions the
presence of Armenians in the Saljuq army and court, conversions
to Islarn, and the presence of Turkmen settlements (9).
Other sources--works of a chronographical
nature--also provide information more important for military,
political and economic history than for study of the Armenian
lords. Among these sources are the works of Ibn al-Athir (d. 1234),
Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286) and Abu'l Fida (d. 1333). while [15] Ibn
al-Athir had little to say about Armenia's lords, his information
on the resurgence of Georgia and the coming of the Mongols, Qipchaqs
and Khwarazmians in the early 1220's confirms and occasasionally
amplifies what is known from native sources (10). For the purposes
of this study, the most important of the numerous works bequeathed
to posterity by Bar Hebraeus is his encyclopedic Chronography,
a history of the world from Creation until 1286, the year of his
death (11). The history of his own time he wrote with the [16]
authority of an eye-witness whose great clerical prestige gave
him access to Mongol Khans and Armenian royalty. His knowledge
of the Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Armenian, Uighur, and (to some
extent) Chinese languages placed him in a unique position to benefit
from multi-lingual sources (12). The fact that he was a native
of Melitene/Mlalatya is important, since he is always careful
to note developments there, in the area around that city, and
stretching eastward through the Armenian districts to the district
surrounding Lake Van (13). Finally, as head of the Jacobite Church
which was in communion with the Armenian Apostolic Church, Bar
Hebraeus often conveys information about the Armenians and [17]
their Church (14). Considerably less important than Bar Hebraeus'
work is Abu'l Fida's Universal History, an annal which
reaches the year 1328 (15). He based himself on former historians
but also included original sections on the countries he had visited
in person such as Syria, Egypt, parts of Arabia and Cappadocia
as far as Caesarea (16). The Universal History contains
historical information on the emirs of Rum and Syria, the rise
of Georgia in the 12-13th centuries, Jalal al-Din, on the latter's
death, and on the Mongol invasions of Rum, In addition, Abu'l
Fida mentions the Armenian backgrounds of numerous Islamized officials
in the various Middle Eastern countries in the 13-14th centuries.
[18] Two sources have been utilized
in this study almost exclusively for economic and demographic
details: the Geography of Yaqut al-Hamavi (completed in 1224 in
Arabic) (17) and a treatise on taxation in the Il-Khanid state
(completed in 1340 in Persian), written by the Accountant-General
(Mustawfi) of Iran, Hamd-Allah Qazvini (18). In addition to providing
information of an economic nature, both help to clarify the changing
territorial conceptions "Armenia" in the 13-l4th centuries.
[19] Accounts made by four 13-14th century
travellers have importance both for military, political and economic
history, and for the history of Armenia's lords. The first of
the travellers considered is William of Rubruck. This French Franciscan
friar visited and described various parts of the Caucasus in the
period from November 17, 1254 to the beginning of April, 1255.
Returning from a frustrating, wearying journey on behalf of king
Louis IX of France to Sartakh-Khan who sent him to Batu, who sent
him all the way to Mongke-Khan in Qara-Qorum, Rubruck descended
into the Caucasus to attend to some final business. He visited
Darband, Tiflis, Shamakhi, Mughan, Naxijewan, Ani, Kamax and Sebastia/Sivas.
Rubruck met and dined with the lord of Ani, Shahnshah Zak'arean.
His remarks on Shahnshah, his observations of Armenian clerics
in the Far East, and his accounts of Turco-Mongol nobles make
the journal an invaluable source (19).
[20] Ibn Battuta (d. 1377), a Spanish
Muslim traveller, visited Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor during 1333,
For the most part travelling along the southern, western, and
northern coasts of Asia Minor, Ibn Battuta also made a short excursion
inland, visiting and describing the western Armenian cities of
Sebastia/Sivas, Erzinjan and Erzerum. The account is extremely
valuable for 14th century Armenian social history, speaking about
the presence of Turkmen bands on the highlands, the condition
of cities, religious segregation and discrimination and the slave
trade in Asia Minor (20). Battuta as a Muslim
travelling in an officially Muslim country, presents a viewpoint
not found among the Christian travellers.
The third traveller, a Bavarian Catholic soldier named Johann Schiltberger, was captured by the Ottoman sultan Bayazid in 1396 at the battle of Nicopolis when he was barely 16 years old. Following Bayazid's own capture by Timur in 1402, Schiltberger became the property of Timur whom he served until the year 1405 when he escaped and returned to Europe. The remarkable account of his adventures was dictated from memory by the author in German after his return home. Schiltberger visited the Armenian highlands [21] at the beginning and toward the end of his captivity. He described the sites, events, and prominent personalities of Sebastia/Sivas, Samson, Erzinjan, Xlat', Maku and Naxijewan during the times of Bayazid, Timur and Timr's son, Shahrukh. In addition he discoursed on the Apostolic religion of the Armenians, on St. Gregory (the of Illuminator Armenia), and on Graeco-Armenian tensions. He described his co -religionists, the Armenian Catholics of Naxijewan, in whom he apparently took much comfort and with whom he seems to have remained a sufficient amount of time to have picked up the unusual amount of lore found in his account. The book ends with the Lord's Prayer given in translitterated Armenian and Mongolian (n21).
The fourth and final traveller considered
is Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, whose Embassy to Tamerlane is a first-rate
account of his three year journey as ambassador to king Henry
III of Spain in 1403-1406 from Cadiz in Spain to Timur-Khan in
Samarqand, and back. Enroute to the East, Clavijo passed from
Trebizond to Erzinjan to Erzerum, Surmari, Ararat, Maku and Khoy,
frequently lodging in villages. On his return from Samarqand he
visited [22] Alashkert, Ani, and Sper. He commented on the condition
of cities and of the countryside undar Timur's rule, on the tribulations
of the Armenian governor of Erzinjan, on taxes, crypto-Christianity,
on the massacres and deportations of Armenians in the late 14th
and early 15th centuries and on Turkmen, Timurid, and Ottoman
warfare, frequently providing detailed historical excursuses (n22).
The non-Caucasian sources tend to have
different foci than he Caucasian. They were written by individuals
lacking the patriotic feelings that motivated the Armenian historians.
The history of the Turco-Mongol invasions could not be written
without them, but for the history of Armenia's nobles in the 13-14th
centuries, the Caucasian sources remain the most important. A
discussion of these sources follows.
Kirakos Ganjakec'i was one of the most
important Armenian historians of the 13th century. Biographical
information about him is not plentiful. In chapter 33 of his work,
after a description of the activities of the influential Syrian
Raban, the author wrote: "'This [episode] was written down
[23] in the year 1241/42 (690 A. E.)...when I was more or less
forty years old" (n23). Consequently the historian was born
in the early part of the 13th century, probably between 1200 and
1210 (24).
Kirakos received his early education
at the monastery of Getik, at that time under the direction of
a student of the great teacher and writer Mxit'ar Gosh (d. 1213)
named Martiros (25). However, it was with another of Mxit'ar's
students, the historian Yovhannes Vanakan (d. 1251) that Kirakos
studied for a prolonged period. This education commenced at Xoranasat
monastery near Tawush fortress, northwest of Ganjak (26). When
the Khwarazmian sultan Jalal al-Din ravaged Xoranasat in 1225,
Vanakan fled with his students to a nearby cave, near the village
of Lorut, south of Tawush (27). He continued teaching there until
1236 when a Mongol army under Molar occupied Tawush. Both Vanakan
and Kirakos were taken captive by the Mongols and kept as secretaries
for several months (28). Vanakan eventually was ransomed by [24]
the Christians of Gag for 80 dahekans, and Kirakos escaped
secretly the same night, fleeing to Getik (29).
Almost nothing is known about the remaining
years of the historian's life. That he participated in the movement
to crush a rebellion in the Church in 1251, is clear from chapter
48 of his work (30). Around 1255 he interviewed the Cilician Armenian
king Het'um (1224-68) at the village of Yardenis near mt. Aragac
upon the latter's return from a visit to Batu-Khan (31). Kirakos'
name is mentioned in 1265 by his classmate and fellow-historian
Vardan Arewelc'i from whom the author requested and received a
commentary on the Song of Songs (32). According to another late
13th century historian,Grigor Aknerc'i, Kirakos died in 1271/725 (33).
[25] Ganjakec 'i's History of Armenia
is a lengthy work in 65 chapters, written in a clear, simple style.
It commences with the Christianization of Armenia and narrates
events from Armenia's political and Church history, based on sources
cited by the author (35). Since most of these sources have survived,
the early portion of the History---albeit by no means devoid
of interest--is less important than the section (beginning with
chapter 11) wherein Kirakos describes events of his own day. The
writer himself clearly was conscious of this fact (35). Kirakos
was eminently qualified to write about 13th century Armenia. An
intelligent man trained by an intellectual of Vanakan's caliber,
the author was familiar with Church organization and problems,
with prominent contemporary churchmen and their historical writings
(36). He was acquainted with important Armenian naxarars
such as prince Prhosh Xaghbakean, who participated in the Mongol
conquest of Baghdad in 1258/59 and narrated to Kirakos what he
had seen and heard, and prince Grigor Mamikonean, who informed
Kirakos what he had heard from a Mongol noble about Chingiz-Khan
(37). His detailed [26] information about members of the Zak'arid
family derives in part from Prosh, himself a Zak'arid relation.
As mentioned above, king Het'um I served as one informant. Furthermore,
during his months of captivity by the Mongols Kirakos served as
a secretary writing and reading letters (38), and he learned Mongolian
(39). In chapter 32 of his History. Kirakos Ganjakec'i
has left us a priceless treasure, a lexicon of some 55 Mongolian
terms with their Armenian equivalents, one of the earliest monuments
of the Mongolian language (40). Consequently, such an individual
knew well not only the workings of his own society, but clearly
understood aspects of the society of Armenia's conquerors and
new masters.
We do not know when Kirakos began his
work. Father Oskean, citing the aforementioned statement in chapter
33, "This was written down in the year 690 A.E. (=1241/142)..."
thinks the year 1240 a likely time (41). The History ends
abruptly with an unfinished description of the war between [27]
the Khans Abaqa and Berke (1266/67). The cause of this sudden
termination remains unknown (42).
Like Kirakos, Vardan is believed to
have been born in 1200-1210. Nothing is known about his parents
or family. One of his early teachers was Yovhannes Vanakan (d.
1251), whom Vardan refers to in his History as "our
glorious father" and whose now-lost historical work Vardan,
like Kirakos, employed (43).
[28] Around 1239-40, Vardan visited
Jerusalem on a pilgrimage and then went to Cilicia, ca. 1240-41
where he was received very favorably by king Het'um I and the
reigning kat'oghikos Constantine Barjraberdc'i (1220-68)
(44). Kirakos Ganjakec'i states that the kat'olikos entrusted
Vardan with an encyclical which the latter brought back to eastern
Armenia for the signatures of the somewhat reluctant bishops,
monks, and princes. Presumably Vardan visited most of these dignitaries
in person, a journey which would have taken him from Karin/ Erzerum
to Ani, Kars, Bjni, Amberd, Haghbat, Sanahin, Getik, Hagharcin,
Kech'aru, Hawuc' T'arh, Ayrivank' (Geghard), Yovhanhavank', Saghmosavank',
Horomos, to Aghbania, to his teacher [29] Vanakan. and to the
prince of princes Awak Zak'arean (45). Vardan then sent the signed
document back to the kat'oghikos (46).
In 1264/65 a merchant named Shnorhawor
took Vardan to see Hulegu-Khan who deeply honored the great scholar
(47). Sometime in 1266 Vardan's History was stolen, the
work still unfinished. However one and a half years later he was
able to retrieve it (48). Vardan spent his last years [30] at
Haghbat and Xorhvirap (49). According to Grigor Aknerc'i, he died
in 1271/72, the same year as his friend Kirakos (50).
Vardan made use of Kirakos Ganjakec'i's
History of Armenia (51). He derived another source of his
information [31] from personal acquaintance with the principals
of the day.As was mentioned above, the erudite Vardan, praised as "the learned and brilliant vardapet"
(52) by his classmate Kirakos was a valued friend both of king
Het'um I of Cilicia, and of the kat'oghikos. Kirakos wrote:
"He went to the kat'oghikos [Constantine] who rejoiced
exceedingly at his sight. The kat'oghikos kept [Vardan]
with him for a long time, binding the latter to himself with affection,
for he never wanted him to depart" (53). When Vardan took
the kat'oghikos' encyclical East for ratification, he visited
all the important Church and lay personalities of the period.
In addition to his intimacy with prominent Armenians, Vardan was
personally acquainted with the Mongol Il-Khan Hulegu (1255-65)
and his Christian wife Doquz-Khatun (54).The account [32] of a man enjoying such authority among
his own people and their foreign overlords is of exceptional importance
(55).
Step'annos Orbelean, metropolitan of
the district of Siwnik' in eastern Armenia (1285/86-1303/4) was
the House historian of the illustrious Orbelean family (56). The
[33] year of Step'annos' birth is not known. Some scholars believe
that he was born in 1250-60, basing themselves on his statement
that he was ordained a priest in 1280/81, and probably would have
been between 25 and 30 years of age at that time (57). Step'annos
received a clerical educ ation and became successively a scribe
(dpir), deacon, and priest (58). In 1285/86 his father
sent him to Cilicia, where "on Easter day they ordained Step'annos
the metropolitan [34] of the great see of Siwnik', above all the
other bishops here and there, some in Vayoc' Jor and some in Tat'ew"
(59). He returned home in 1287/88 (60). After a protracted struggle
with rebellious bishops (61), he managed to assert his control
over the prelacies of Tat'ew and Noravank, and then commenced
industriously rennovating the ruined and dilapidated churches
and monasteries under his jurisdiction (62).
[35] In chapter 73 of the History,
the author states that he completed his work in the year 1299
during the reign of Ghazan-Khan, son of Arghun (63). For the early
portion of the History, Step'annos used many of the sources
used by Kirakos and Vardan; however, he also employed histories
and sources unused by other writers such as the sermons of the
fifth century Petros Siwnik', and the history of Mashtoc' of Sewan
(64). He frequently quotes directly from now-lost kat'oghikosal encyclicals,
letters from kat'oghikoi to the bishops of Siwnik' and
responses to them, edicts, Church property documents, inscriptions,
colophons and old letters of Armenian and Siwnik'
monarchs and the princes of Siwnik' . Step'annos knew Georgian, and
used the History of K'art'li . He may have known
Persian as [36] well (65). In chapter 3 he provides a unique but
regrettably corrupt geographical description of the 12 districts
of Siwnik', and in chapter 74 he furnishes a long list of the
taxes paid to the Church by these districts (66).
The already extremely great importance of this History is increased yet more when Step'annos speaks of his own times. As the educated son of the former lord of Siwnik', Tarsayich, and as the brother of the ruling lord Elikum, Step'annos was in a position to know intimately all the important noble personalities and events of that state and in Armenia generally. Similarly, his knowledge of Georgian and the existence of a powerful Georgian branch of his own family doubtlessly made him privy to information unavailable to many Armenian historians regarding events in Georgia. As metropolitan of Siwnik' he had jurisdiction over all churches and monasteries located there. Furthermore, he had numerous highly placed acquaintances and enjoyed their respect. In chapter 66 where the author described his trip [37] to Cilicia, he wrote:
"...But when Step'annos arrived
there, the kat'oghikos [Yakob] had died. Lewon, king of
Armenia, received him with great honor and glory and greatly entreated
him to remain there and to occupy the kat'oghikosal throne.
Step'annos did not consent to this"...(67)
He was personally acquainted with three
Mongol Khans, Arghun, Geikhatu, and Ghazan, aIl of whom esteemed
this important dignitary and quickly granted his requests (68).
Consequently, Step'annos was uniquely qualified to write an authoritative
history of his country and his times (69).
Very little is known about the author
of this work which treats the 44 year period from 1229/30 to
1273. He is presumed to have been born in Cilicia around 1250(70).
Nothing is known about his parents, although by his own testimony
Grigor did have a brother Mxit'ar who had died by the time Grigor
completed his work (71). A colophon dated 1312/13 speaks of
Grigor as the abbot of Akner monastery in Cilicia (72). Father
Nerses Akinean places his death around 1335 (73).
[39] The HNA differs from the works
of other Armenian historians thus far described. First, as the
product of a Cilician author in his early 20's when the work was
completed in 1273, this history lacks the immediacy found in the
compilations of eastern Armenian eye-witnesses to
the Mongol conquest and domination, such as Kirakos, Vardan, and Step'annos. This circumstance probably
accounts for some of the chronological inaccuracies committed
by Grigor in the early portion of his work. On the other hand,
as Blake observed, "The writer had one advantage over his
more gifted contemporary [Kirakos]: he was not immediately exposed
to the impact of the invaders..."(74). A second difference
between Grigor's work and the histories of Kirakos, Vardan, and
Step'annos concerns the scope of his undertaking. Aknerc'i wrote
a relatively short history of a 44 year period. Far from being
a universal history [40] of Armenia, the author focussed on but
two principal arenas, Greater Armenia and Cilicia, and he devoted
considerable space to 13th century Cilicia. A third important
difference is that clearly Grigor was not a well-educated or deep
individual. His frequent lapses into fantasy jeopardize the credibility
of other information for which he is our only source.
What were Aknerc'i's sources of information?
Fr. Akinean observed a number of them. Apparently among the most
important were oral accounts of events provided by Armenian visitors
to Akner monastery such as Dawit' Bjnec'i, Kirakos Getikc'i, and
king Het'um I, people who either were from the East, or had travelled
there (75). One informant in Akinean's opinion, had been a student
of Vanakan vardapet (76). It was from such informed individuals
[41] that Grigor learned the meanings of the large number of Mongolian
military and juridical terms which he incorporated into the History
(77). Akinean also detected a few written sources, including the
Bible, a commentary on the Names of the Hebrews, the Chronography
of Michael the Syrian, and the lengthy colophon of Vardan Arewelc'i
(1246) providing a legendary geneology of the Mongols, which Grigor
incorporated into his own work with few alterations (78). It is
also possible, as Akinean and Blake suggested, that Grigor may
have had access to Vanakan's now-lost history (79). [42]
Information about this author is found
in T'ovma's own History (80) , in the Life of T'ovma Mecopec'i
(81) written [43] by his student Kirakos Banaser (the Philologist)
(82), and in a number of 15th century colophons. According to
these sources, T'ovma was born in 1378 (83) in the district of
Aghiovit, north of Lake Van. He received his early education at
the monastery of Mecop' north of Archesh, but the invasions of
Tamerlane and the attacks of Turkmen bands obliged him to move
from place to place, frequently fleeing for his life. In 1395
he went to Suxara (Xarhabasta) monastery in the K'ajberunik' district
of southern Armenia where he studied for 12 years with the
noted vardapets Sargis and Vardan (84). In 1406
together with 12 classmates, he went to one of the most
important seats of learning in Armenia, the monastery of Tat'ew in the Cghuk region of Siwnik' (85). After
a residence of only two years there, T'ovma, his classmates and
their teacher, the great intellectual Grigor Tat'ewac'i were forced
to flee to Mecop' monastery to escape the Qara Qoyunlu Turkmens
(86). [44] Soon thereafter T'ovma's beloved teacher was taken
to the Ayrarat district by other students and T'ovma who set out
after him with his classmates was unable to convince him to return
(87). According to Kirakos Banaser, Grigor Tat'ewac'i conferred
the vardapetal dignity on T'ovma in Erewan (88). T'ovma
then returned to Mecop' where he engaged in teaching and literary
activity. However between 1421 and 1437 southern Armenia once
again became a theater of warfare between Turkmens, Mongols, and
Kurds. In 1430 T 'ovma fled for his life to the island of Lim
in Lake Van. In 1436 he and his students fled to Xlat', Archesh
and Arcke (89). T 'ovma Mecop'ec'i was one of the major protagonists
involved in transferring the Armenian kat'oghikosate from
Sis back to Ejmiacin in 1441 (90). After the realization of his
dream, T'ovma returned to his beloved Mecop' where he died three
years late, in 1446 (91).
[45] The History of Tamerlane and
His Sucessors, although the major source for Armenia in the
late 14th and early 15th centuries, is, nonetheless a rather defective
production. Written for the most part from memory, the work especially
when dealing with events occurring outside of Armenia, contains
historical inaccuracies and frequent repetitions, jumps episodically
back and forth from one decade to another, and does not, generally
seem to be a well-structured history (92). T'ovma himself was
well aware of its shortcomings. He wrote: "This [referring
to the martyrdom of four vardapets] occurred in 1425/26
more or less. You must excuse me, for I was old and commenced
after 50 years [of age], Therefore I wrote going backward and
forward (yet ew yaraj grec'i )"(93).
The History commences with the
devastations wreaked on Siwnik' by the northern Tatars in 1386.
Tamerlane's invasions of 1387, 1388, 1395, 1401, and 1402 on numerous
districts of eastern and western Armenia and Georgia are described
with the blood-curdling immediacy of a terrified eye-witness.
The account is more detailed yet for the [46] first three decades
of the 15th century. It describes the impact on Armenian economic,
intellectual and religious life of this dismal and nightmarish
period of mass exterminations, mass deportations, and the forced
and voluntary apostasy of the population (94).
In addition to the longer literary histories
reviewed above, a number of chronographical works and medieval
martyrdoms also are important for an examination of the invasions
and the lords of the 13-14th centuries. Of the chronographies,
some are rather extensive, lengthy works, others are quite short.
The more lengthy works include Samuel of Ani's Chronography,
Mxit'ar Ayrivanec'i's Chronology and Smbat Sparapet's Chronicle.
Samuel, the first of the three was a 12th century cleric from
Ani whose chronicle ends in 1179/80 (95). However, for the purposes
of this study, [47] more important even than Samuel's own work
are the anonymous continuations made by a number of subsequent
writers, covering the periods 1179/80-1304/5 and 1257-- 1424/25
(96). Mxit 'ar Ayrivanec'i's Chronology extends from Biblical
times to the year 1289 and, as Samuel's work, provides details
on political, military, and socio-economic matters, confirming
or amplifying what is known from other sources (97). Smbat Sparapet's
Chronicle (the Royal Chronicle) was compiled by
the influential brother of Cilician king [48] Het'um I. Believed
to have been born in 1208, Smbat became commander-in-chief of
the Cilician army (Constable or sparapet) in 1226 when
barely 18 years old, and he occupied that office for some 50 years
(98). In 1246-47 Smbat was sent to Guyuk-Khan in Qara-Qorum to
negotiate a peace agreement between Cilicia and the Mongols. This
journey lasted two years (99). Smbat died in 1275/76 at the age
of 67, several days after being thrown from his horse in a triumphant
battle against Egyptian invaders (100). The Chronicle Smbat
compiled covers the period 951-1272. Information on the 13th century
derives from official documents which the author had access to
and from his acquaintance with the principals. The Chronicle
is important for confirming details of political and military
history, though it contains little detail on the lords of Greater
Armenia (101).
[49] In addition to the more lengthy
chronographical works just mentioned, a number of shorter chronicles
dating from the 13-15th centuries are important for the details
they provide about events merely alluded to elsewhere, particularly
for western Armenia for which at times they are the only sources.
They are: the Anonymous Chronicle of the XIIIth Century,
the Annals of Bishop Step'annos (13th century) the Annals
of Het'um II (13th century), the Chronology attributed to Sargis Picak
(14th century), the Chronicle of Kirakos Rhshtuni (15th
century) and the Anonymous Chronicle of Sebastia (102).
[50] Finally, accounts of a number of
neo-martyrdoms which had occurred during the 13-14th centuries
are relevant for their descriptions of the religio-juridical position
of the Christian Armenian lords in a time of an ascendant Islam,
again, especially for western and southern Armenia about which
the more lengthy literary histories are often silent. In 1903
H. Manandyan and Hrh. Acharean published the critical edition
of a collection of records of martyrdoms occurring between 1155
and 1843. These episodes are drawn primarily from various menologies
and collections of sermons and from the works of medieval historians.
Accounts of the following 13-14th century neo-martyrs were used
in this study: T'eodoros of Caesarea (d. 1204), Grigor Xaghbakean
of Xach'en (d. 1223), Hasan Jalal of Xach'en (d. 1261), Grigor
of Balu (d. 1290/91), bishop Grigor of Karin/Erzerum (d. 1321/22),
Amenawag of Derjan (d. 1335/36), bishop Vanak of Bjni (d. 1387/88),
archbishop Step'annos of Sebastia (d. 1387/88), Awag of Salmast
(d. 1390/91), Eghisabet' of Xarhabast (d. 1391/92) kat'oghikos
Zak'aria of Aght'amar (d. 1393/94) and T'amar of Mokk' (d. 1398/99)
(103). [51]
The colophons of Armenian manuscripts
represent an important source for the history of Armenians and
neighboring peoples from the 10th century on. For the 13th century,
the colophons are valuable for the information they provide supplementing
what is known from other historical sources. For the 14th
century--a period which failed to produce historians such as Kirakos,
Vardan, and Step'annos--the colophons become the major source
of our information.
Colophons are those writings usually
found at the end of a manuscript and most often made by the manuscript's
copyist or recipient. Frequently providing the copyist's name,
the year the manuscript was copied, and the year the colophon
was made, these often lengthy addenda sometimes provide considerably
detailed information not found in other sources concerning political
and military developments, taxation, agriculture, the condition
of villages, towns, cities, and monasteries and churches, and
the place where and circumstances under which the manuscript was
copied. Written as they usually were by professional scribes from
humble backgrounds, possessing limited educations, the colophons
are also important from a linguistic standpoint, since they contain
numerous [52] dialectal forms and much foreign terminology (104).
The humble origins of the copyists also led them to relate mundane
details--so valuable for the historian--often ignored by churchmen
such as Kirakos, Vardan and Step'annos.
The great importance of colophons was
appreciated already in the 13th century by Step'annos Orbelean
who made use of them in his History. The 17th century author
Arak 'el Davrizhec'i, the 18th century Mxit'arist M. Ch'amch'ean,
and the 19th century Ghewond Alishan made prodigious use of colophons
in their works. In the 20th century a number of studies on feudal
families by Garegin Yovsep'ean were based almost exclusively on
colophons. In no case, however, did any of the above authors have
the full corpus of colophons at his disposal. During the 19th
and 20th centuries numerous additional collections of colophons
have been published (105). [53]
The late 13th century archbishop of
Siwnik', Step'annos Orbelean, perhaps the first to utilize [54]
colphons in his study, was also it seems the first Armenian historian
to understand the great importance of epigraphical material and
to make lavish use of it. However, the modern scholarly collection
and publication of Armenian inscriptions began only in the19th
century. Prior to the publication of K.Kostaneanc's Vimakan Taregir
[Annal of Inscriptions] (106), no large corpus embracing inscriptions
from both eastern and western Armenia existed. Rather, numerous
smaller collections devoted to the inscriptions of one district,
one city, to a single monastery or to monastic complexes had been
the rule. Frequently collected by travellers, ethnographers and
historians, the impressive volume of this work carried out in
the 19th century has acquired an added significance in the 20th
century when large areas of western and southern historical Armenia
are no longer under Armenian political control and regrettably
are closed to Armenists. The natural and deliberate destruction
of Armenian historical sites in [55] eastern Asia Minor further enchances
the value of many of the inscriptions collected from those areas.
Kostaneanc's work conviently incorporated many of the inscriptions
previously published in books now rare, or in journals difficult
of access (107).
Since 1960, the Institute of Archaeology
and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of Armenia has issued
5 volumes in an ambitious projected series of 10 volumes of Armenian
inscriptions, the Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum, a compilation
which fully meets the demands of modern scholarship. Volume I
(Erevan, 1966) contains inscriptions from Ani, while the succeeding
volumes II, III, IV, and VI (Erevan, 1960, 1966, 1973, 1977) embrace
those inscriptions located on the territory of present-day Armenia
(108). For western and southern historical Armenia, however, we
still must depend on Kostaneanc's collection (109).
[57] Of the various sources considered
thus far, while the Armenian sources remain foremost for the study
both of the invasions and of the lords, the Anonymous Chronicle
in the Georgian History of K'art'li holds a uniquely important
place for the study of the lords. During the 13-14th centuries
(and to some extent before it) large parts of Armenian territory
were under the political control of the Georgian Crown. These
areas included the districts of Tashir, Gugark', Lorhi, Ani and
its environs, Kars and Karin/Erzerum and their environs, and parts
of central historical Armenia. Numerous other areas such as Gag,
Somxet 'i ( "Armenia" ), Javaxet 'i, Tayk''/Tao, Klarjet'i,
etc. for centuries were inhabited by mixed Armeno-Georgian populations
(110). Consequently the Chronicle speaks about developments
in these parts of the kingdom. Furthermore, a substantial proportion
of the most important officials at the Georgian court and in the
realm in this period were Armenian: the royal family of the Bagratids
were of Armenian origin as were the Zak'arids, Arcrunids and Orbeleans,
to mention only a few (111). Just as the Armenian historians present
these families in their Armenian milieu, so the Anonymous Chronicle
provides a rare opportunity to observe the Georgian side of the
personalities of these [58]many individuals who were bilingual
as well as bicultural.
The Anonymous Chronicle, one
part of the larger History of K'art'li is devoted to the
13-14th centuries, i.e., to the period 1207-1318. Unfortunately
little is known about the author. He is believed to have been
a senior contemporary of king Giorgi the Brilliant (1318-46) (112).
The Anonymous Chronicle itself is a remarkable work written
by a surprisingly unbiased individual who recorded the positive
and negative aspects of Georgia's native and foreign rulers in
a clear, concise fashion, avoiding repetitions and keeping to
a minimum those tales of the fantastic and miraculous which
characterize medieval histories generally. However like other
sections of the History of K'art'li, the Anonymous Chronicle
unfortunately lacks absolute chronology, a circumstance which requires
the use of other sources for verification. Apparently the author knew
several languages and had at his disposal a number of sources
now lost (113).
[59] It was mentioned at the beginning
of this chapter that there is more than one way to categorize
the 13-14th century sources. The method followed here has been
to classify the material on the basis of its application to studies
of the Turco-Mongol invasions and/or the lords of Armenia in the
13-14th centuries. The Persan literary histories are more relevant
for study of the invasions. They are important for their Muslim
viewpoint and the picture they provide of Armenia as part of the
larger Il-Khanid government. The non-Armenian chronographies and
geographies are important for information on the invasions and
conditions in western and southern historical Armenia. Travellers'
accounts contain information on conditions of life during the
Mongol domination, and on certain Armenian lords. The History
of K'art'li holds a uniquely important [60] place in juxtaposition
with the Armenian sources, since it reflects the Georgian side
of political-military events and of the "Armenian" lords
of the 13-l4th centuries.
Armenian chronographies, hagiographical literature, colophons, and inscriptions provide new information, but also supplement and amplify what is found in the most important sources-- the 13-14th century literary historians. A few general observations on these sources are in order. First, if the literary histories are categorized by geographical provenance, it is clear that they reveal a definite bias in favor of northeastern Armenia. This tendency becomes comprehensible when it is recalled that the three most important 13th century Armenian historians, Kirakos Ganjakec'i (d. 1270/71), Vardan Arewelc'i (d.1270/71) and Step'annos Orbelean (d. 1303/4) were all born in this region and passed most of their lives there. Step'annos may be excluded from criticism on this point, since he set out to write the history of an eastern Armenian district, Siwnik'. As for Kirakos and Vardan, although they by no means confine their works to the eastern regions solely, naturally it is about their own milieu that the accounts are most detailed and intimate. As regards the early 14th century Cilician sources, their main interest is Cilicia.
[61] The major Georgian sources, the
History of K'art'li (when speaking of specifically Armenian
events) and the few published Georgian inscriptions from Armenia
tend to focus on northern Armenia. Some information on western
and southern Armenia is found in the minor chronicles, colophons,
the neo-martyrdoms, inscriptions and in T'ovma Mecop'ec'i's History,
however for the political and military history of the Armenian
highlands in the 13-14th centuries the non-Armenian sources are
crucial. Thus geographical bias in favor of northeastern Armenia,
resulting from the nature of the Armenian literary
histories is a problem facing the investigator.
Second, it will be noticed that the13th
century Armenian literary historians Kirakos, Vardan, and Step'annos
were all educated, polished churchmen. Their interests were in
the important events and lords of the day, and rarely extended
down to the lower ranks of society. Such groups as the peasants,
the artisans, and other non-clerical non-noble city population,
although occasionally glimpsed in the colophons, chronicles and
neo-martyrdoms, [62] are essentially left out in the narration.
Nor, in this case, do the non-Armenian sources come to the rescue.
Possibly extensive archaeological excavation will one day partially
right this imbalance, although it is doubtful if the details of
everyday life of the lower classes will ever be known. The literary
sources therefore contain a class bias.
Finally, the quantity and type of the sources is likewise not constant. The quality of the sources also deteriorates over time. Kirakos, Vardan, and Step'annos lived through the Mongol conquest and domination of Armenia. Kirakos, though taken captive by the invaders, and forced to serve as their secretary, had grudging praise for his new overlords. Vardan and Step'annos both were befriended by the Il-Khans and died blessing their wisdom and religious tolerance. But as the Khane Islamized in the early 14th century, the situation changed dramatically. The unsettled, intolerant 14th century produced no major Armenian historian. Only the humble authors of chronicles and colophons, many of them anonymous, detail the persecutions, plunderings of churches and famines. Finally, with T'ovma Mecop'ec'i's life and History the results of the breakdown of a corrupt and fanatically intolerant Mongol state are observable, for T'ovma was a poorly educated, superstitious cleric who wrote his sorry and disorganized account while literally fleeing from his Muslim persecutors.
Continue to Chapter Two: Armenia and the Turco-Mongol Invasions