Introductory Guide

ARMENIAN
ARCHITECTURE

A documented photo-archival collection on microfiche for the study of Armenian architecture of Transcaucasia and the Near-and Middle-East, from the medieval period onwards. 

ARMENIAN ARCHITECTURE
TABLE OF CONTENTS - VOLUME 1

General Introduction

Introduction by Professor Andre Grabar
Project History by V. L. Parsegian
A Brief Introduction to Armenian Architecture
The Armenian Language
Transliteration Systems
Geographic Features of the Caucasus and Anatolia
The Kingdom of Urartu (VIII-VII centuries B. C.)
The Persian-Hellenistic Period
Greater Armenia (95 B. C. to A. D. 298)
The Kingdom of Christian Armenia in the IVth Century
The Provinces of Greater Armenia
Armenia after the Partition of A. D. 387
The Partition of Armenia in A. D. 591
Armenia in the period of the Muslim Expansion
The Kingdom of Armenia During the Reign of Asot I
Bagratuni and Arcruni Kingdom
Armenian Kingdoms and Principalities (Xth and XI Cent.)
Armenian Principalities under the Byzantines and Seljuks
Armenian Principalities in the West (XIIth Cent.)
Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia
The Mongol Period
Armenia in the fifteenth Century
Armenia in the Seventeenth Century
Glossary of Armenian Architectural Terms
Monument Code Number System
Bibliography, General
Bibliography, Epigraphy
Bibliography, Sources, Travels, Topographical Works
Bibliography, Conference, Symposiums

 PROJECT HISTORY

The assembly of this archival photographic collection of Armenian Architecture became feasible following a series of field studies by a group based in Aachen, West Germany, called Research in Armenian Architecture. Inspired by Dr. Ing. Armen Haghnazarian, in 1970 the group sought financial support for travel to locate and photograph the remains of Armenian architecture in Turkey before the monuments became altogether lost to posterity. Fortunately the Armenian Educational Council Inc. of the United States learned of their interests and found it possible to support their efforts. Despite great difficulties the group, which also included Dr. Arch. Hartmut Hofrichter, Dipl. Arch. Gundolf Bruchhaus, Architect Ara Berkian and others, produced over 8000 photographs of the monuments and ruins.

There were various options for utilizing this fine collection, but a meeting of the writer with Doctors Nina Garsoian of Columbia University, Thomas Mathews of the Institute of fine Arts of New York University, and Dickran Kouymjian of California State University at Fresno, emphasized the need for a photographic archival collection to support studies in architectural history. The Armenian Educational Council thereupon determined to proceed with the organization of such a collection.

Invitations soon attracted an international Advisory Board, and assurance of international participation. Prof. Oleg Grabar of Fogg Museum of Harvard University, Judith O'Neill of Dumbarton Oaks, Dr. Alfred Frazer of Columbia, Prof. Adriano Alpago-Novello of the University of Rome, added the support of their institutions as well. The Advisory Board included also Prof. Suzy Dufrenne of the I'Ecole Practique des Hautes Etude of the Sorbonne, Prof. Toli Kalavrezou-Maxeiner of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Drs. Michel and Nicole Thierry of France. Dr. Sirarpie Der Nersesssian of Paris, for long years the most distinguished contributor in the area of Armenian Art, has continued to be a most valued Advisor to the project. Their help, Professor Andre Grabar's advice and Introduction, and visits with M. Gregoire Bahry of Paris on the subject of maps, are gratefully acknowledged. Dean Patrick Quinn of the School of Architecture and Director James Andrews of the Libraries of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, along with their colleagues Prof. Dora Crouch and Patricia Molholt, welcomed the project as an activity of the Institute. The Institute being also "home" to the writer for many years, made management of the project substantially easier.

Since the largest numbers of existing Armenian monuments are in the Armenian SSR. It was particularly fortunate to have the participation of the Commission for Restoration of Historical Monuments of the Armenian SSR. Director Krikor Hasratian of the Commission made available the services of Vatchig Khachatrian, Gagik Kalstian, and Zaven Sarkissian for photographing the monuments It was good to have also the support of the Armenian Academy of Sciences through its distinguished President Victor Hambartsumian. The valuable support of Prof. Murad Hasratian of the Academy, of Prof. Alexandra Eremian of the Polytechnic Institute of Erevan, and of President Vartkes Hamazaspian of the committee for Cultural Relations with Armenians Abroad, has continued throughout the project.

We are grateful also for the large contribution of photographs from the Courtauld Institute of the university of London through the kindness of Mrs. Constance Hill and Dr. Robin Cormack. University Professor Dr. Helmut Buschhausen of the Institute fur Byzantinistik der Universitat of Vienna made available many Strzygowski photos and other materials from their collection. Fr. Dr. Levon Zekiyan did the same for the photographs at the San Lazaro Monastery of Venice. A wealth of new color photographs of monuments in Armenia were made available through the personal efforts of Archbishop Shahe Ajemian of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The many other sources are noted with the photographs wherever possible.

Since most of the photographs carry copyright restrictions, anyone desiring to utilize the photos for publications or other uses is urged to write directly to the individuals or institutions whose names are given with the photographs.

The project has had the services of Dr. Krikor Maksoudian of Columbia University whose knowledge of history, classical Armenian and of Armenian monuments has been invaluable. The principal staff functions have been carried on by Art and Architectural Historians Dr. Lucy Der Manuelian and Jeanne M. Keefe-Watkinson, and more recently Architectural Historian Halina Walatek. Michael Djirdjirian of Kay Studios has provided most of the photographic services. There have been volunteer workers as well, such as Alice Shahinian of Albany and Helen Sahagian of Arlington Mass.

On the financial side, a grant of $75,000 from the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and the kind interest of its Executive Director Mary Davis gave the project a head start. There were contributions from many individuals as well. However, the costs being several times these figures, the project could proceed only as much larger contributions were received from the Parsegian families, and from Miss Zaroohie Noorjanian of Massachusetts who has made this project her primary interest and beneficiary.

The objective of this first (Book I) issue of the collection is to provide, through a selection of monuments, historical survey of the progression of Armenian Architectural designs from the fifth through the fourteenth centuries. Succeeding issues will focus on more specific architectural and geographic categories. One issue will be devoted to the fortress systems, particularly those in Cilicia whose history was so interwoven with the history of the Crusades.

It is fortunate that the quality of microfiche photography has improved to the point of making it highly suitable for archival use, both for its lower initial and housing costs and for the convenience it offers for research study. The help of Dr. Henri L. de Mink, Director of Inter Documentation Company BV the Netherlands, for the planning of the issues is gratefully acknowledged.

The entire project being quite innovative, it was not too surprising to find how diverse and individualistic the advice of specialists in the field could be with respect to the scope, execution, documentation, and transliteration to give to the project. Moreover, the inadaquacies of the available transliteration schemes from the Armenian could only compound the problem of languages and diversity of names and spellings, permitting only uncertain accommodation to existing literature rather than standardization or ever internal consistency. Fortunately photographs speak for themselves, but even they are sometimes inadequate copies from very old books which are all that remain of monuments that are in ruins or are altogether eliminated. The Bibliography of General and of Source and Travel publications, although not complete, can be useful for the study of monuments that are now destroyed.

The Board of Directors of the sponsor organization, the Armenian Educational Council Inc., includes Harry Apkarian, Paul Der Ohanessian, Dr. Nina Garsoian, Dr. Lionel Galstaun, Dr. J. Michael Hagopian, Elsa V. Parsegian-Hilliard, Philip Natcharian, and Dr. V. Adrian Parsegian.

Vazken L. Parsegian, Project Director and Chairman, Armenian Educational Council Inc. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO ARMENIAN ARCHITECTURE

The Armenian Homeland, divided in what has become Eastern Turkey, western Iran, and the Armenian SSR of the Soviet Union was crossroads for the Hurri, Mitanni, Hittite, and other Asianic, Indo-European and Semitic peoples and tribes. Known as Armenia since the Vth Century B. C., the land and the people lived through violent periods of empire building and subjugation in contests with Assyrian, Median, Achaemenid (Persian), Macedonian, Syrian-Seleucid, Roman, Sasanian, Byzantine, Arab, Seljuk, Mongol, and Ottoman conquerors. Each invasion left its mark on the nation without altogether destroying the national will or the national character.

Conversion of the Armenian nation to Christianity around A. D. 301 - the traditional date, the first nation to make that commitment - brought dramatic changes in the life and destiny of the people. With aggressive fire-worshipping Sasanian Persia on the one side, Byzantine competitors on the other, and before long becoming submerged altogether under Islam (Arabs and Turks), the Church was often sole symbol and authority for the people.

If early conciliar lists are correct, the Church participated in the Council of Nicea in A. D. 325 which formulated the Nicene Creed. In A. D. 387, there came a division of the country between Byzantium and Persia, with some danger of the Church being absorbed by the Syriac Church of Persia. A desire to preserve their national identity through literature led to the development of the Armenian alphabet in A. D. 406. This in turn promoted such a vast effort of translation of the Bible and other historical, religious, and hagiographical works into the Armenian Language as to make the Vth Century a Golden Age of Armenian literature. This also prepared the nation to resist the then Persian ruler's demand that Armenians desert Christianity in favor of the fire-worship of Mazdaism. The subject princes suffered a terrible defeat in A. D. 451 at the hands of vastly superior Persian forces, but their declarations on that occasion for freedom of conscience and of worship, which are still recalled each year by Armenians in celebration of Vardanank', plead a message of tolerance that is still the unfulfilled hope of the world.

Within this complex religious, political, cultural mix of East and West the Armenian Church developed its own unique feudal pattern wherein the episcopal sees became identical with the feudal houses and their lands. The lords, ladies and bishops patronized literature and the arts, often commissioning scribes, artists, historians, poets, architects, rhetoricians, theologians to produce various works. The arts and architecture and monastic schools reached unprecedented heights in the VIIth Century until annihilation of most of the feudal families terminated cultural activities.

The nation's architectural interests revolved around the Church as places of worship and as schools, or as monastic complexes with chapels, refectories, gavit's, lecture halls, libraries, etc.. The builders had the facility of native tuff-stone which is easily fashioned into large blocks or slabs and which occurs abundantly in many attractive colors.

Unfortunately conversion prompted an overzealous tearing down of architectural reminders of the pagan period. For a time the new construction followed the common basilica models, but even before the end of the Vth Century there began a move to mount domes of stone on existing structures. There was precedence for the dome in Syrian constructions in wood, and in Persian structures of brick. But the Armenian move to stone required major engineering innovations for the mounting of huge polygonal or cylindrical cupolas and domes on square plans. The basilica that was the original form of the Mother Cathedral of Ecmiacin (Monument # A-0001) was changed soon after A. D. 480 by the erection of massive pillars to support the stone cupola and dome apparently in the form that continues to this day. The IVth or Vth Century church of Tekor, which collapsed in 1912 (Toramanian, 1948. pp. 69-71) was also a three-aisled basilica in which a dome was raised on piers erected in the VIIth Century (1tA2147). With these trends the vaulted basilica , which bore largely Syrian and Greek influences, soon disappeared from Armenian architecture.

Armenian church designs convey a massive appearance beyond their actual size. In the early churches the thickness of the walls was such as to permit a totally different exterior from that within the structure. The apse and adjoining chambers could be built altogether within the thick walls, while a square or rectangular exterior might mask a quatrefoil interior, as in the VIth century Church of Awan (ttA-0027) whose rectangular exterior gives no evidence whatever of the quatrefoil interior with eight circular adjoining chambers. As illustrated by the envelope diagram for the VIIth century Church of St. Hrip'sime the interior and exterior divisions are often indicated by triangular slits or recesses in the wall (ttA-0020, drawing by Prof. Kenneth J. Conant, from S. Der Nersessian, 1947).

Smooth faced slabs of stone, carefully cut and joined, line the exterior and interior wall wi'th rubble concrete between. The uniform surfaces of the facades may be broken only by decorative doors and triangular slits and narrow windows, while blind arcades with slender coupled colonettes may cover the walls as well as the drum of the dome. The simplicity may sometimes be altered by large crosses and interlaced and foliate motifs or animal or human forms, the best of the latter being the Xth Century Church of Alt'amar (Aghtamar, # A-2009).

The domed churches may be domed basilicas or have the dome over a centralized plan. When mounted over a square bay the dome rests on squinches which form corner arches that transform the square into an octagon. In the larger churches four standing pillars that form a square are joined by semicircular arches, the space between adjacent arches being filled by pendentives which provide a continuous ring that serves as base for the drum of the dome.

The centralized space may be enclosed by walls of the church with a semicircular niche opening in the middle of each side, the eastern niche serving as the apse. The semi-domes of the four niches thereby help to neutralize the lateral thrust of the main dome. In the churches of Awan and of St. Hirip'sime there are four diagonal axial niches at the corners as well, in the form of three-quarter cylinders which may have been intended for further support but which also give access to four subsidiary chambers that flank the eastern and western niches. A variation in the VIIth century Cathedral of Bagaran (#A-2177) has the inner space increased by high barrel vaults that intervene between the semi-dome of the niche-buttresses and the arches resting on the four pillars.

If the diameter of the niche-buttresses is increased to equal the side of the square, the square becomes transformed into a quatrefoil with the intervening walls eliminated and the dome resting on wedge-like projections at the meeting point of the niches. Or an aisle may surround the quatrefoil to convert the exterior to the circular form of the famous church of Zuart~noc' (Zvartnotz 1tA-0006). The Cathedral of the ruined city of Ani, built A.D. 9891001 by the architect Trdat offers an example of a cruciform domed church within a rectangular plan, (~fA-2161, envelope diagram by Prof. Kenneth J. Conant). It is interesting that Trdat was the architect called to supervise the repair of the dome of St. Sophia of Constantinople after the earthquake damage of 989.

Western interest in Armenian architecture developed only through reports published in the 19th century by French and English travellers. Texier had been particularly impressed by the use of pointed arches in the Cathedral of Ani at a time when the ogival style had not yet appeared in Europe.

For Strzygowski, Greek genius at St. Sophia and Italian genius at St. Peters only realized more fully what the Armenians had originated. In his opinion the Armenians were the first to introduce, for use in a church, the square building with a single dome, and niches that served as abutments to the dome in the longitudinal, transverse and diagonal axes. His opinions have been much debated. Meanwhile T. T'oramanian pursued a very systematic exploration and study of Armenian sites and architectural progressions, making discoveries that permit better perspective on the subject. Whatever the facts may be with respect to origins and influences, it is clear that Armenian architectural history may no longer be neglected by the East or by the West.

To aid the study of cross-cultural exchanges, the presentation begins with maps that reveal the geological and socio-political framework of that history.

 THE ARMENIAN LANGUAGE

Armenian is an ancient language which is commonly spoken throughout the Armenian highland (Armenia Minor and Greater Armenia), and Cilicia. It is now the official language of the Armenian SSR, and the spoken idiom in the numerous Armenian communities scattered throughout the world.

Linguistic studies have shown that Armenian is an independent branch of the Indo-European family of languages, and is genetically close to the Hellenic and Phrygian groups. The majority of scholars is now of the opinion that Armenian speakers were already present in the general area of Eastern Asia Mindr and Western Armenia at least by 1200 B.C.. Studies in Armenian etymology seem to corroborate this view, since the vocabulary of Armenian contains loan words from ancient Middle Eastern languages.

Armenian did not become a written language un~til the beginning of the Vth Century. In c. 406, the monk Mastoc' invented a phonetic alphabet of thirty-six characters which he applied to the idiom of the central provinces of Armenia (Ayrarat and Tawruberan). During the first four decades of the Vth Century, Mastoc' and his students translated the entire Bible and many litergical, hagiographical, homiletic and historical works. They also wrote a small number of original works. These and the translations from Greek and Syriac comprised the foundation of Armenian literature.

Armenian writing was first utilized in building inscriptions as early as the Vth Century. The earliest surviving epigraphical evidence in classical Armenian came from the Cathedral of Tekor.

The same idiom, which is distinct from middle and modern Armenian dialects, was used in the inscriptions on the majority of the Armenian ecclesiastical monuments, since classical Armenian was, and still is, the language of the Armenian Church.

Beginning with the VIIth and VIIIth centuries, the spoken language drifted apart from the literary idiom. By the XIth Century, middle Armenian, which differed from the classical tongue phonetically, morphologically and syntactically, started to appear in inscriptions and literature. There are several building inscriptions in middle Armenian. Many of these are very difficult to decipher, since the study of middle Armenian is still in its infancy. Traces of early modern Armenian can also be observed in certain building inscriptions from the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries.

The majority of the inscriptions on Armenian monuments are written in the Erkattagir (unciel) script, which corresponds to the modern upper case letters. The Erkattagir is the earliest of the Armenian scripts and the one invented by Mastoc'. A new script called Bolorgir (Miniscule)- invented later was used ln inscriptions along with Erkattagir in a manuscript dated A.D. 971, and became more common beginning with the XIIth Century.

The writing of Armenian names in the English language has had the benefit of two transliteration schemes without, however, eliminating all confusion. Most European scholars prefer the system devised by H. Hubschmann in his Armenische Grammatik (I, Liepzig, 1897), with the subsequent revisions by A. Meillet and E. Benveniste. Many others prefer the Library of Congress system. In this collection the first name given in the introduction to the monuments follows the HMB system, followed by the Library of Congress and other forms. The bibliography utilizes the latter system although not rigidly.

The Hubschmann-Meillet-Benveniste system, and the Library of Congress system are given on the following page.

GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF THE CAUCASUS AND OF ANATOLIA

 Greater Armenia, the historic homeland of the Armenian people, with approximate]y 300,000 sq. km. lying between 37º and 409º longitude east and 37.5º and 41.5º latitude north, comprises a high plateau which is intersected by a number of major and minor mountain ranges of tectonic and volcanic origin. Running in the generally easterly direction the Transcaucasian and Pontic ranges along the north and the mountains of Kurdistan along the south, set natural boundaries that are almost impregnable in contrast with easy access-ability from the Euphrates frontier and the Plain of Mughan.

A central range called Haykakan Par (Armenian Range), extending eastward to the twin peaks of Mt. Ararat, dissects Armenia into two sections. Southern Armenia has always been culturally and politically closer to Syria and Mesopotamia, whereas the north and the east have been open to influences from the west and southeast.

Minor chains running in southerly directions form numerous small pockets and narrow valleys that are completely severed from the outside world. The major rivers (Euphrates, Tigris, Araxes and Kura) are not navigable. The isolation kept invaders out of many areas and favored the preservation of communities and their monuments, but it also made it impossible for the Armenians to establish a strong centralized government for their own defense.

The high Armenian plateau became a coveted prize for nations that wanted to secure their hold on Syria, Mesopotamia, Iran, the Caucasian passes and Asia Minor. But the severity of the climate and the requirement of large armies to control the fragments proved to be too much for the Romans, Parthians, Arabs, etc.. As a result, and because the local socio-political order was allowed to remain, the native cultural life continued to flourish even during periods of foreign domination.

The volcanic nature of the Armenian subsoil and the fertility of the mountain plains made possible a variety of minerals and agricultural products which were attractive to the merchants of the ancient world. Prehistoric trade routes connecting Europe with Iran and Central Asia passed through the Armenian plains and along the riverbeds, bringing important benefits for Armenia's economy. Lakes Van and Sevan, though navigable, were largely important for their support of commerce in fish. The ancient capitals of Armenia - Armawir, Artašat, Valaršapat, Dvin - were located on the plains of Ararat at the crossways of major highways. On the ancient Achaemenid Highway which passed through southern Armenia stood a number of early cities which were connected with Amida and Antioch. Indeed, Tigran II built his new capital Tigranocerta in this region in order to control the Near East traffic. In due time traders and people of semitic origin came from the south bringing with them very early forms of Christianity. Major roads connected the Armenian capitals with Tbilisi and the Black Sea to the north, with Iran to the southeast, and with Artašat to the west and the northwest. From the west there came also Caesarean Christianity in the person of St. Gregory the Illuminator to the Court of the Armenian Arsacid Kings in Valaršapat. In Bagratid times, (IXth to XIth cc.), Ani, Arcn, and Kars emerged as cities on the road that connected the Arab Caliphate with Trebizond. All this was good for Armenia's economy and cultural life, but severe economic setbacks of the VIIIth and the XIVth-XVIth cc. almost destroyed Armenian civilization.

The monuments in Armenia were largely built during periods when foreign domination was either nominal or non-existent and when the trade routes between Europe and Asia were open and alive with merchants. The older religious monuments (pre-ninth century) were usually erected in the vicinity of the ancient towns, while fortresses were built at strategic locations to protect the highways. Invading armies would destroy towns, monuments and fortresses alike, to add to the destruction caused by frequent earthquakes. It was to counter these hazards that Armenian builders chose building techniques that might better resist destruction, or at least permit effective restoration.

THE KINGDOM OF URARTU (VIII-VII CENTURIES B. C.)

 The early records of civilization from the Middle East refer to small kingdoms, tribal groups, and coalitions of minor kings and chieftains in Armenia. Out of these the kingdom of Urartu emerged as the first central state on the Armenian Plateau.

The Urartians, who were probably of Hurrian origin, have fortunately left written records of their accomplishments. In the 860's B. C., they asserted themselves as the formidable enemies of the Assyrians. Subsequently, during the consecutive reigns of three energetic rulers, Menua I, Argishti I, and Sarduri II ( 810-735 B. C.), the Urartian armies conquered and unified most of the lands in the territory of Greater Armenia.

The Urartians were expert masons and master architects; they built palaces, fortresses, cities, temples and aqueducts. The artifacts discovered by archeologists testify to their skill in the crafts.

The Urartian kingdom fell victim to the Scythian and Median invasions. The Arme - Shubria coalition replacing it was later recognized as Armenia. Archeology still has not provided definite answers on the continuity from Urartu to Armenia.

THE PERSIAN - HELLENSTIC PERIOD

 With the fall of Urartu, and from the middle of the VIth century B. C., the tribal coalitions in Armenia became part of the Persian Empire. The Achaemenids divided the country into two administrative units called Satrapies. The Iranian dynasty of the Orontids, who were the hereditary Satraps of Armenia, continued to rule even after the fall of the Persian Empire to Macedonian conquests. By occasionally paying tribute to the Seleucids of Syria, the Orontids remained masters of Armenia and assumed the royal title.

In 189 B. C. two dynasts of the Orontid line, Artaxias and Zariadris, seized power from the ruling Orontids. Zariadris ruled in Sophene in the west, while Artaxias extended his suzerainty over the rest of the Armenian plateau. The classical concept of Armenia Magna, or Greater Armenia, extended from the Euphrates in the west to the Caspian in the east and the Taurus Range in the south to the Caucasus in the north. goes back to the period of the Artaxiad kings.

GREATER ARMENIA ( 95 B. C. -A. D. 298 )

One of the Artaxiad Kings, Tigran II (95-55 B. C.), pushed the borders of his realm as far as Palestine until Roman expansion brought an end to his empire. The boundaries of Greater Armenia remained intact, however.

The Persian Achaemenid rule of three centuries (VI-IV cc. B. C.) continued to influence Armenian culture, although after the Macedonian conquests all of the Middle East was exposed to Hellenizing influences. In their behavior, language and mores, the Orontid and Artaxiad monarchs were Hellenistic rulers. The cities, palaces, temples and theaters that they built (e.g. Armawir, Artaxata, Tigranocerta, Garni, etc.) bear witness to this fact.

Armenia served as a buffer state between the Roman and Sasanian empires under the Arsacid dynasty. Her kings were, in theory, vassals and allies of the Roman emperors. Throughout the Third Century, the Sasanians contested this, but the Roman victories in A. D. 297-298 and the establishment of Trdat III over the throne of Armenia were quite decisive.

THE KINGDOM OF CHRISTIAN ARMENIA IN THE IVth CENTURY

The conversion of the Armenians to Christianity (in A. D. 301 or soon thereafter) severed their social and cultural ties with the orient and brought them closer to the west. The Zoroastrian Sasanians made several attempts to bring back Armenia and all of the Caucasus under their sphere of influence. Throughout the IVth century Armenia remained a battlefield between Rome and Persia until the two powers agreed to divide the country between themselves.

As Christianity gained a firmer hold in Armenia, in the 370's the Armenian Church severed her ties with Caesarea, becoming autocephalous and gradually a feudal institution. However, the ecclesiastical links with the south and the west could not be easily forgotten. The language of the Church, which was either Greek or Syriac, remained unchanged until the invention of the Armenian alphabet in A. D. 406.

ARMENIA AFTER THE PARTITION OF A. D. 387.

 The partition of Armenia in A. D. 387 between Byzantium and Persia marked the end of a large, powerful and prosperous buffer kingdom. The Byzantines acquired the smaller western part of the country, and the Persians the larger eastern section. Armenian Arsacid dynasts continued to rule on both sides of the border, but first the Byzantines and then the Persians put an end to the kingship. Thereafter, the Byzantines reorganized the Armenian territories on their side, and the Emperor Justinian regrouped them into four administrative units. The Persian section was incorporated into the Caucasian or north-western Kustak of the Sasanian Empire.

The loss of political independence gave the Armenians a greater awareness of their national and religious identity. In A. D. 406 an alphabet was invented for the Armenian language, thereby giving rise to a strong literary movement and a form of Christian culture which the people guarded with great fervor. In A. D. 451 they rejected, at great cost, the Sasanian demand that they desert their Christianity, and the conflicts continued throughout the second half of the Fifth and through all of the sixth centuries. Never - the less this was one of the most creative periods in the history of the Armenian people both in literary achievements and in architectural innovations such as the cruciform church and the use of the dome in ecclesiastical monuments.

THE PARTITION OF ARMENIA IN 591

 The second half of the VIth and the first three decades of the VIIth Centuries mark an important turning point in Armenian history. In the middle of the VIth Century, the Armenian Church officially denounced the Council of Chalcedon. The Christological controversies that had shaken the Christian East since 451 finally alienated the Armenians from the west, much to the advantage of Sasanian Iran. The Byzantine Empire could not relinquish and forget the strategically important area such as Persarmenia however. In 591, after approximately thirty years of intermittent hostilities, the Emperor Maurice forced the Persians to turn over to the Byzantines the Armenian territories as far east as the River Azat and the outskirts of Dvin. On his side of the border, Maurice set Yovhan of Bagaran as antikatholikos, with his residence in the village of Awan which was located across the border from Dvin. There Yovhan commissioned the construction of a new church (#A-0027 Awan or Avan Church) which is one of the earliest of the domed structures with a central plan. About three decades later, St. Hripsime (#A-0020) was built on the Persian side of the border.

Armenia remained geographically and politically divided between Byzantium and Iran until the successful termination of the Anti-Persian Crusade of the Emperor Heraclius in 628-629. United under Byzantine suzerainty the two sectors were actually ruled by the 'Prince of Armenia' who was usually one of the leading feudal lords of the land.

ARMENIA IN THE PERIOD OF THE MUSLIM EXPANSION IN THE EAST

 The rise of Islam in the 630's and the subsequent Muslim expansion in the East eliminated the Sasanian Persian Empire from the political arena of the Middle East and Transcaucasia. The proximity of the Byzantine and Khazar borders, the severity of the climate in Armenia, and the conquests in other parts of the world convinced the Arabs to come to teems with the Armenians and to accept its socio-political status. Following three disorderly raids into southern and central Armenia, a treaty was concluded with the Armenians which stipulated only the payment of a very small tribute. The Armenian feudal lords under a presiding Prince were left free to maintain the Ancien Regime and the Army, and required only to send supporting cavalry forces. This situation continued until the end of the VIIth Century.

The favorable conditions in the second part of the VIIth Century gave momentum to the cultural achievements of the Vth and VIth centuries. The internal autonomy of Armenia provided opportunities for producing historical, scientific and theological works, and for building such wonderful monuments as the Cathedral of Talin, Zuartnoc, Aruc and others. (#A-0023, A-0006, A-0002 respectively).

THE KINGDOM OF ARMENIA DURING THE REIGN OF AŠOT I BAGRATUNI

At the end of the VIIth and throughout the VIIIthcc. the'Umayyeds and subsequently the'Abbasids devastated all of Trans-Caucasia, and united Armenia, Georgia and Caucasian Albania into a single province called Arminiya, which they placed under the control of an Arab governor and Muslim garrisons. The excessive taxation and suppression were unbearable especially for the feudal lords who continuously rose in rebellion. By 775 the Arabs had either systematically decimated the feudal families, or forced them to flee to the Byzantine side. Of the few surviving houses only the pro-Arab Bagratids recovered from the massive extermination and emerged as the leading power in Trans-Caucasia.

The waining of the 'Abbasid power and the gradual feudalization within the Caliphate helped the Bagratid Prince Ašot I (884-889) to secure for himself a crown from the Caliph. The annual tribute paid directly to the 'Abbasid court made Ašot a quasi-vassal of the Caliph, but this was only a nominal sum.

Ašot's kingdom comprised the Armenian Plateau and southern Georgia. The greater part of the rest of Trans-Caucasia, however, was ruled by Princes of the different branches of the Bagratuni Family.

BAGRATUNI AND ARCRUNI KINGDOM

The Kingdom of Smbat I, the son of Asot I, did not remain intact. Rivalry between the royal house of Bagratuni and the Arcruni of Vaspurakan made the country extremely vulnerable to the powerful Muslim Emirate of Azerbaidjan. The Sadjid Emirs, who considered all of Trans-Caucasia their family feud, ultimately succeeded in dividing the Bagratuni kingdom by crowning Smbat's nephew Gagik Arcruni King of Vaspurakan in 908.

The rivalry between the two kingdoms did not last long, and gradually relations became cordial. In fact, some of Gagik's successors occasionally acknowledged the hegemony of the Bagratuni king in matters involving foreign policy.

The Bagratuni and Arcruni dynasties established political and social order in Armenia. The result was national, spiritual and cultural revival. The monasteries of Halbat and Sanahin, the Church of the Holy Cross at Altamar, the city of Ani with its numerous palaces and churches, Sevan, Tatew, Bjni, Marmašen, etc. are among the achievements of this period. (Monument #s A-0035, A-0009, A-2009, Ani monuments # A-2150 to A-2175, A-0058, A-0046, A-0084, A-0024, respectively.)

THE ARMENIAN KINGDOMS AND PRINCIPALITIES IN THE Xth AND Xith CENTURIES

During the second half of the Xth century a number of small kingdoms emerged within the Bagratuni and Arcruni realms. The fragmentation of the royal feudal houses produced three Arcruni kingdoms in the south, and two Bagratuni kingdoms (Kars and Lori-Joraget) in the north; the Siwni Princes in the east declared themselves kings, and the heirs of the Armenian Bagratuni princes of Albania and Arcax' also used royal titles.

The eastward expansion of the Byzantine Empire in the XIth century was responsible for the elimination of the main Bagratuni and Arcruni lines. The western Bagratuni principalities of Tayk' and Taron, which were already under Byzantine tutelage, were annexed to the Empire in the Xth and early XIth centuries. In 1021, the King and Princes of Vaspurakan, under pressure of invasion from the east, ceded their territories to the Emperor and migrated to Sebastia (Sivas). In 1045, Ani the capital of Bagratuni Armenia, was taker by force. The Armenian territories were organized into three Byzantine Catepanates. The petty kingdoms and princedoms in the east, however, survived the Byzantine expansion, since they were out of reach. Some of these continued to exist as late as the XIIth century.

The fragmentation of Armenia under the Bagratuni and the Arcruni did not destroy the political unity of the country, since most of the petty kings gradually recognized the supremacy and military might of the Bagratuni kings of the main line at Ani. This was particularly true in matters concerning foreign policy. Furthermore, the decentralized social order provided strong incentive for the feudal families to expand the existing religious, monastic, and military complexes, to build new monuments and to patronize literature and the arts.

THE ARMENIAN PRINCIPALITIES UNDER | THE BYZANTINES AND THE SELJUKS

 Byzantine control of Armenia did not last long. Frequent Seljuk Turkish raids (1045-1063) devastated the country and decimated the Armenian population of Southern, Central and Western Armenia. The fall of Ani in 1064 drew the Seljuks deeper into the Byzantine provinces, and forced the Armenian aristocracy to migrate westward. There they entered the Service of the Empire and ruled over most of the towns that extended from Sebastia to Antioch. From this area they gradually migrated to Cilicia, and brought with them many of their national and cultural traditions, but not the architecture.

The Battle of Manzikert in 1071 decided the fate of Armenia and Asia Minor. The Seljuks occupied all of Armenia, but their lack of organized government left the country to the mercy of nomadic Turcoman elements who ransacked the cities and villages. Muslim Emirates now occupied the former Bagratuni territories, and the capital city of Ani passed into the hands of the Kurdish Shaddadids.

The petty kings of Lori-Joraget, and Siwnik', and certain feudal lords in Vaspurakan, Sasun and of other remote areas had the good sense to accept the terms of the Seljuk Sultan as his vassals, thereby saving their subjects from complete annihilation. Subsequently, as the sultanate established relative stability in the land the Armenian population, including those under the control of Muslim Emirs, began to return to a normal way of life. Except for a few decades the cultural and especially architectural continuity never ceased in the East and Northeast.

THE ARMENIAN PRINCIPALITIES IN THE WEST: GREATER ARMENIA IN THE XIIth CENTURY

 The Byzantine Emperors used the Armenian principalities as bulwark against the continuous flood of nomadic invaders. Nevertheless, the prevailing instability and absence of imperial control provided the Armenian lords with the independence and decentralized socio-political feudal milieu to which they were accustomed. Although the crusader states and the Danishmandids replaced most of the Armenian principalities in the southeast and the north, the Taurus and the Amanus ranges bordering on Cilicia furnished foothold and base for southward expansion. By 1135 one of the feudal families, the Rupenids, occupied most of the Cilician Plain. The Byzantine reconquest of Cilicia in 1137-1138 curbed their ambitions temporarily but within a decade the Rupenids restored their former realm, and began serious attempts to control all of Cilicia.

The situation in Greater Armenia remained unchanged until the end of the XIIth century. The disintegration of the Seljuk Empire did not affect Armenia, since the Muslim Emirates remained in control of most of the land. The kingdom of Lori-Joraget disappeared early in the century, whereas the kingdom of Siwnik survived until the 1170's. But the feudal houses in the east, northeast, the south, and the Sasun region remained unscathed.

The survival of the feudal houses ensured the continuity of Armenian culture which began to sprout anew in the newly founded monasteries on the Taurus and the Amanus Ranges, all deriving lifeblood from the East. Northeastern Armenia still remained the center of learning; the onetime Bagratid monasteries and the University of Ani continued to function without interruption.

THE ARMENIAN KINGDOM OF CILICIA;
NORTHEASTERN ARMENIA UNDER THE ZAK'AREANS

 During the second half of the XIIth Century, the Rupenean princes succeeded in imposing their authority over most of the other feudal houses in Cilicia. Their flexible foreign policy and military strength kept the country safe from the hostilities of the Crusader States, the Ayyubid Sultanate, and the Seljuks of Iconium. By the end of the century, Prince Levon Rupenean was the uncontested master of Cilicia. This fact persuaded the Holy Roman Emperor (Henry VI) and the Pope to comply with Levon's wishes to send him a royal crown. In 1198 Levon was officially crowned King of the Armenians, and became the first ruler of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia.

At about the same time, the Zak'arean princes who were in the service of the Kingdom of Georgia conquered most of the lands in northeastern Armenia. These territories, which had been in the hands of the Muslim Emirates, were annexed to Georgia, but they comprised the Fief of the Zak'arean House. Included in these was the city of Ani, which now became a Zak'arid possession. The new masters of Armenia apportioned the land among their vassals and recognized the rights of the older families that had survived the Seljuk raids.

The political revival of the Armenian people both in the West and in the East proved to be beneficial for cultural development. While the Cilicians excelled in the arts (miniature painting, music, etc.) the Zak'areans and their vassals built the majority of the post-Bagratid monuments in Armenia.

 CILICIA AND GREATER ARMENIA DURING THE MONGOL PERIOD

 In A.D. 1236, the Mongols conquered northeastern Armenia. The plight of the Armenians was sad and their losses great, yet the Armenian feudal families managed to survive the raids and to find a modus vivendi under the new regime. The Zak'areans, and the other feudal lords whom the Mongols appointed to different administrative posts, were able to maintain their lands and the old social order. The feudal heirarchy underwent some changes. A number of smaller houses began to emerge and acquire importance, while the Zaktareans slowly lost their preeminence. The Prošeans and Orbeleans of Siwnik' were among the families whose gradual rise can be detected from the monuments they built.

The Kingdom of Cilician Armenia was more fortunate than the rest of the Middle East, since it was spared the horrors of the Mongol raids. An alliance with the invaders in 1243 saved the kingdom from devastation and destruction, but it also created new problems. A Mongol ally in the Mediterranean basin was not tolerable to the Mamluks of Egypt. Beginning in 1262, the Mamluk Sultans began to attack the Cilician seaboard, and slowly dismembered the Kingdom. Sis, the last Armenian citadel in Cilicia, fell in 1375.

The adverse political situation in the east, and the gradual mutilation of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia did not affect the cultural scene until the middle of the XIVth Century. Even after that date there was continuity, since the students of the XIVth Century masters were still carrying on the intellectual tradition. The XIIIth and XIVth centuries are well known for their architecture and art. This is also the period of the Golden Age of miniature painting in Cilicia.

ARMENIA IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

 The disintegration of the Mongol Empire in the XIVth Century, and the wider exposure of the Armenian highlands to nomadic Turkish dynasties created unbearable conditions for the sedentary population of the entire country. The result was a massive wave of migrations to the north and west. The socio-economic and cultural collapse became inevitable as most of the cities and villages continued to be deserted of their inhabitants. The social order was so badly shaken that several feudal houses disappeared, and those that survived turned their lands over to the monasteries. The XVth and XVIth centuries comprise the dark ages of the history of the Armenian people. We have almost no monuments from this period; the exceptions are a few grave stones, and xac'k'ars. The same atmosphere of barrenness also prevails over literature and the arts. Folk poetry and the miniature art of Vaspurakan and neighboring areas are exceptions.

ARMENIA IN THE XVIIth CETURY

 The unsettled political situation in Armenia lasted for over two centuries (XIV-XVII cc.). Despite the treaty of 1515 by which the Ottomans and the Safavids had agreed to set borders between the two empires, neither of them could assure political stability in the country. The two Muslim powers used the Armenian Plateau as a battlefield for large scale military operations until 1636.

Wars, forced deportations, and raids by marauding brigands devastated the country, destroyed food resources, decimated the population of Armenia, and seriously detracted from every kind of cultural activity. Large numbers of Armenians were forced to migrate to the cities of western Asia Minor, Syria, Iran, Georgia, the Crimea, Russia and Europe, where they reorganized their community life around parish churches and engaged in crafts, agriculture and especially trade.

After the 1620's the new economic prosperity of the dispersed Armenians. along with the establishment of relative political stability in Armenia proper through ease of hostilities between the two Muslim empires, made an Armenian cultural revival possible. The rising merchant class in and out of Armenia also emerged as a new social force for support of the Church and of monasticism. They reopened the medieval schools in Persian Armenia where the proximity of New Julfa near Isfahan created an atmosphere favorable for cultural activity. The new movement gave impetus to literature, printing and the arts, and its mercantile outlook shaped the liberational ideas of the XVIIth and XVIIIth century Armenian intellectuals.

There was a revival of architecture with new monuments, graceful bell towers, and restoration of damaged churches. But the great earthquake of 1679 and political unrest made the third quarter of the XVIIth and the XVIIIth centuries the twilight period of Armenian architecture.

Top of The Page /\ Go Back

E-mail at: RAA@itgateway.com
This Site is developed and maintained by: Internet Telepresence Inc.