1 H. Hubschmann, Armenische Grammatik,
I. Armenische Etymologie (Leipzig, 1895), p. 240. F. Justi,
Iranisches Namenbuch (1895, repr. Hildesheim, 1963), p.
306.
2 The Armenian and Iranian social
patterns also show numerous similarites. In Armenia, as in Iran,
supreme power was exercised by a monarch ever engaged in a struggle
against his own family, the nobility, and frequently against
the clergy as well. In both societies the power of the nobility
tended to increase with the consolidation of the state apparatus.
An explanation frequently given for this phenomenon is that during
the establishment of a new royal clan, in the process of overthrowing
the old royal clan and its noble allies, the would-be monarch
was forced to rely on the armed might of the country's dynasts
who possessed large private armies. Following the seizure of power
from the previous ruling clan, the new monarch was obliged to
give gifts to his loyal comrades-in-arms. Such gifts were in the
form of land grants.
A second stage in the growth of
the nobles power came as the state increased in size or was centralized.
To administer his realm, the monarch had no choice but to turn
again to the most powerful rulers of the land and distribute the
most important offices to them. Among these "most powerful
rulers of the land" must be included not merely the king's
noble supporters, but also the aboriginally powerful dynasts and
clan leaders whose true power in a particular locality was not
only more firmly established than that of the king, but also frequently
predated it. Thus as Iranists and Armenists have noted, a mixed
bureaucracy existed in both societies composed of dynasts receiving
office in recognition of their ancient and real military rights
and of royal appointees (such as junior members of the royal clan)
through which later group the monarch tried to maintain or expand
his control over the nobility. Again in both societies a hereditary
principle operated which meant that offices and land grants remained
in a particular family as inalienable possessions. This meant
in Armenia, for example, that if the sparapet died or was
killed, another member of the same family had to fill the vacant
position. In the case of land-holdings, the king could not reclaim
his grants and could not confiscate one family's lands without
first exterminating the entire clan since as long as one male
member of the clan survived, the family holdings could he reclaimed
and the clan gradually reestablished when the surviver reached
maturity. Any attempt on the part of the crown to alter their
rights and privileges was resisted militarily by the nobllity.
In both Iran and Armenia it was through
an oath of personal allegiance sworn before the king that a noble
expressed his "vassalage" or recognized the king's military
superiority. The oath of allegiance carried with it the obligation
of military service. Each nohle was assigned a gah (seat,
place) at royal assemblies based on the number of cavalry he could
provide.
As Adontz, Christensen, Widengren,
and others have shown, the Armenian social, ethnic, and military
vocabularies bear a heavy Iranian stamp. For example, (Arm.)
nahapet-Ir. nafapat; ishan-xshana;
zoravor-zoravar; azg-azg; patiw-patev; shnorh-shnorh.
Most revealing of all, the names of the Armenian nobles themselves
are often Iranian: Varaz, Bagarat, Vahan, Vardan, Vagharsh, Vasak,
etc.
These and other similarities in Armenian
and Iranian society led Widengren to comment:
Comme ces faits armeniens nous ont servi a confirmer que les conditions decrites dans le SN [Shahname) sont valables pour des temps ante-islamiques, les faits armeniens peuvent aussi servir a supplement pour la periode parthe meme en Iran proprement dit et ensuit pour la periode sassanide.
See G. Widengren, "Recherches sur
le Feodalisme iranien", Orientalia Suecana, V (1956);
94 and passim. R. Frye, The Heritage of Persia (New
York, 1963); and N. Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justinian,
N. Garsoian, trans. -ed. (Lisbon, 1971), passim.
3 A. Christensen, L'Iran sous
les Sassanides (2nd ed.. Copenhagen, 1944), p.
99.
4 Ibid., p. 370.
5 Ibid., p. 132.
6 Widengren, op. cit., p.
108. The great value of Widengren's study is that the author
frequently draws upon Armenian sources to fill some of the many
gaps in our understanding of the Iranian social pattern. As a
result of this study Widengren equates certain Armenian and Iranian
terms such as "servant"/"vassal" (Arm. caray.
Ir. bandak), house/holdings (Arm. tun, Ir. katak),
decree (Arm. hrovartak. Ir. fravartak), military
detachment/banner (Arm. drawshs, Ir. drafsa) and
others. Widengren, pp. 93-94.
7 Adontz, op.cit., p. 185.
8 Ibid., p. 340.
9 Ibid., p. 362.
10 Ibid., p. 288.
11 C. Toumanoff, Studies in Christian
Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963), p. 209.
12 Ibid., p. 97 n. 144.
13 Ibid., p. 141 n. 253.
14 Ibid., p. 211 n. 238.
15 Ibid., p. 325.
16 The earliest use of the term sparapet
is found in the Bible, translated by different hands soon after
the creation of the Armenian alphabet in the early fifth century.
Usually sparapet is given as the equivalent for Greek strategos
(I. Ezra 3. 14; I Maccabees 2.66, 14.47; II Macc. 3.5, 4.4,
8.8, 8.9; III Kings 2.22, 2.31; Judith 2.4, 2.5).
17 N. Akinean, "Elishe vardapet
ew iwr patmut'iwn hayoc' paterazmi [Eghishe Vardapet and His
History of the Armenian War), Handes Amsoreay, 1931-32; 1933-34;
1935-37; 1950-51.
18 See note 219 on Xorenac'i.