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 reexmined the entire
history of he 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 Suject to the Zak'arids]"
p. 547.
269 ibid.
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 0rbeleans 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.