Armenian Historiography

A historiography, which is defined by some writers as writing about rather than of history, or as a history of historical writing, is conducted in this work on the topic of Armenian history and historical writing. The work considers in particular the effect of the Armenian Church on education and traditional Armenian historiography from the 5th century to the 18th and its reflection in the contemporary relations of Armenia and Turkey via the psychology of “Great Armenia”.

Keywords

Armenia, Historiography, Armenian Church, Great Armenia, Armenian Sources

The beginnings of Armenian historiography were set down in the first centuries A.D., and have left valuable historical resources for modern scholars. The Matenadaran Library is one of the richest libraries in the world not only for Armenian history, but also for resources on Caucasian, Anatolian and Middle and Near Eastern history. In addition to numerous manuscripts, the library has a unique richness and historical worth with authentic and official documents, letters, and religious and cultural texts. At present, though most of these sources under protection have been published in Russian and Armenian for the benefit of the wider academic community, there is still secrecy regarding some important documents. Since these documents bear a problematic potential for Armenians, they are kept in secrecy today, much as they were in the Soviet era.

The church has always had an esteemed position in Armenian social life. Though lacking an effectual religious status within Christianity, Gregorianism gradually became a national sect starting from circa the 5th and 6th centuries A.D., having proven to be compatible with Armenian national and historical life. Because the Armenian Gregorian church has always had supremacy over all political powers, the influence of the church is readily observable in almost all areas of Armenian life. Other than providing religious guidance, the Armenian Church has a tremendous and widespread amount of authority and it has been the primary power in building the cultural and historical values of Armenians. In this respect, it can be argued that Armenians’ consciousness of their history was built under the monopoly of the Armenian Church. Since a modern understanding of history has been based on these sources during the Soviet era as it is today, Armenian history has virtually exclusively been developed under the strict influence of religious and nationalistic dogmas emanating from the Gregorian church. Thus, it is not surprising that most of the Armenian sources were written by clergymen.[1]

The oldest Armenian sources were written in the early periods of Christian history and the tradition was continued systematically until the Soviet era. Since the Armenian Kingdom, which had an important status in the region during the 2nd century B.C, capitulated first to the Parthian Empire, then to the Zoroastrian faith Choson Dynasty, then to be divided – as a consequence of a treaty between the Byzantian Empire and Iran – into West and East Armenia and thereby losing all political and administrative power, the Gregorian Church became the sole spiritual and material power to protect the Armenian community’s social values. As Manuk Abeqyan has said, to spiritually elevate the Armenian community in a manner isolated from its political, administrative and legal sovereignty, “There was need for forming a great and perfect history of Armenia.”[2] Through the keen efforts of the church, consciousness of and belief in their history became a religious motive in the life of the Armenian community. For this purpose, writers of Armenian history “adopted the principle of promoting the history of an independent Armenian Tsardom; they tried to instigate a spirit of revolt among the people, by presenting the thesis of Great Armenia, which had allegedly once existed on Armenian lands.”[3] M. Abeqyan says, “There was need to sustain such theses, so that a people devoid of political power and social resistance could thrive.”[4]  It is a fact that Armenian sources were renewed periodically, as suitable for such needs. Having realized this, as Adonts points out, “The written works were revised by the current perspectives and rewritten according to the existing situation and the needs of the era. As a result of this, there emerges an inevitable doubt as to the compatibility of many historical sources with the time they were supposedly written. Apparently these sources are old; but it is also apparent that they were modified at later periods.”[5]

The fact that the center for education and culture was under control of the church and history teaching and history writing were managed by the church leaders, caused periodical re-processing and re-writing of Armenian sources. This in turn led to a loss of authenticity, letting different arguments and interpretations flourish concerning individual documents. On the issue of the censorship enforced by the Armenian Church, there is the following example taken from the book “Alban History”, which was written between the 8th and 10th centuries A.D.: “Armenians accepted Christianity in the 43rd year of the Roman calendar. Albania,[6] on the other hand, accepted Christianity 270 years earlier than Armenians.”[7] The name of the book, “Alban History,” first appears during the Armenian Catholicos Anania’s visit to Hacen (943-967). He went to Hacen as a guest of Alban Catholicos Gagik (948-962) in the year 958.[8] According to Gagik, he was appointed to Albania Catholicosdom with the name of Holy Gregory, as was the custom, referred to in the book Alban History. When Gagik wanted to consult this historical work, he was told that Albania had accepted Christianity before Armenia did. Anania Mokatsi objected and said: “this book cannot be authentic because Albania has a Bishop but Armenia has a Cathalicos” Then, the book “Alban History” was given to the Armenian Catholicos and “he ordered the information to be found in history about Albania’s acceptance of Christianity, which we yearn to see.”[9] Following this, upon Gagik’s order, the information on Albania’s acceptance of Christianity before the Armenians was deleted from the book. These kinds of alterations are quite frequent in Armenian Historiography. Again, one of the famous ancient Armenian history writers, Stepannos Orbelian, reports an interesting event on these history alterations; according to him, as suggested by Anania, there had been scrupulous additions to “Alban History”.[10]

All these help not only to reveal the level of reliability of Armenian sources but also enlighten us about the basic point of view of Armenian history writing. For this reason, research on Armenian history using local sources encounters serious problems. Nonetheless, while it would not be appropriate to conduct research on Armenian history by consulting solely Armenian sources, studies collected on Caucasian, Iranian, and even general Turkish history without consulting these sources would be equally unsuitable. Unfortunately, although Armenian sources are the only ones to fill in the information which Chinese sources fail to supply about Turks’ mobility towards the west, these works have not yet been made available to researchers on Turkish history.

As N. Y. Marr states, Armenian historiography in the classical era was shaped under the influence of three big factors and eventually come to claim its present local status. The first of these factors was the Missionary Literature to which Syrian culture was entirely subjected; the second factor was the philosophical Scholastic literature created under the influence of Greek thought; and the third factor was the national – or local – literature.[11] It is not possible to mark these periods as independent of each other. According to N. Adonts, the basis for Armenian Historiography emerged in two stages. The first period, beginning in the 5th century, concluded in the 7th century with the works of Horenly, represents the foundation of Armenian Historiography and literature. The second period was completed by the end of the 11th century. The 8th century is a transition period between these two periods.[12] In his study of Horenly’s famous work “Armenian History”, N.Y. Marr states that the said author reflects the properties of those three schools.[13] However, in its general sense Armenian Historiography can be subdivided into two periods: Mamikonians and Bagratunys. While all Armenian historians had tried to focus their works on the Mamikonian dynasty up until the time of Horenly, who is thought to have lived in the 8th century, this preference then shifted in favour of the Bagratunys.[14] Armenian Historian, G. Halatyants, the first person to have drawn attention to this issue, contends that two local dynasties were active in Armenian History in general. As it is known, after the Parths – who were of Scythian origin – seized Iran and the Caucasus, they formed subdivisions of the Archakian family, their subordinate, by ending all other local dynasties. Apart from the Archakian dynasty centered in Nesa in Iran, Alban - Archakian and Armenian - Archakian local dynasties were founded. These dynasties and their subdivisions were of Scythian origin; however, in the course of time they tried to establish their own independent statuses by merging with local tribes. By the first century, in addition to the Armenian Archakian dynasty (66-428), two more local dynasties had been founded. These were both of Armenian origin, the first was the Mamikonians, whose mission was sparapetdom; that is, commanders-in-chief of the Armenian army and the province administrators (merzhubans) were the descendants of this family. The second family was the Bagratunies, whose mission was to organize the coronation ceremony of a new monarch ascending the throne. For this reason, they were given the title aspet, or “coronator”. In the year 428, when the Armenian Tsardom was ended by default, both of these dynasties were dismissed from the central administration. As a reaction, the Mamikonians supported all civil rebellions there in order to restore the sovereignty they had been deprived of. As this attitude of the Mamikonians had a nationalistic character on behalf of the Armenian people and church, they were accepted as the representatives of Armenian national identity for a long time. Following the Arabian conquests, the Caliphate had preferred to exploit the Bagratunies in particular. However, between the years 747-750, when a general rebellion broke out in Armenia, the Caliphate was able to draw Ashot Bagratuni to its side, by offering very attractive promises. Thus, with the local and central administrations being seized by Bagratunies, the knezdom and sparapetry missions of the Mamikonian family ended in Armenia. When Saak Bagratuni became knez and Smbat Bagratuni sparapet, they put all of the Mamikonians in the country to the sword and seized their properties. As a result, the Bagratuni era started in Armenia.[15] Owing to these facts, from a historical perspective, dividing the writing of Armenian history into two periods, Mamikonian and Bagratuni, is most feasible. Of course, as emphasized by Marr and Adants, the general characteristics of Armenian historiography should not be ignored regarding points of style and effect.

The sources of Armenian history consist of a series of works entitled “Armenian History” that date back as late as the 5th century. Such historiography studies that have become traditional are supported and notified to the public by Church. The first Armenian source obtained is “The Life of Mosto/Mosto’nun Hayat?” that is thought to have been written by Koryun in about 440. This work carries properties of eulogy revealing the author’s emotions towards his spiritual father and his teacher, however the book gives as well information about the educational and religious activities of the church.[16]

 Another source of secondary importance is “About Vordon and the Armenian Wars,” which was written by Yegise in the second half of the 5th century. This work, in the appearance of a history book, tells about the position of Armenian, Georgian, and Albon societies in the years of 450-451 and the public rebellions against the Sasani Empire. The work is a serious source from the point of view of general Turkish historiography. Yegise gives information for the first time about Haylanturk, the first nomadic tribe bearing the name “Turk”. Apart from this, the work contains precious information about the beliefs of Hurr and Zarathustra. Once this work is investigated, it may confirm that the Turkish emigration towards the west, that is, the Caucasus and Anatolia, took place even before the birth of Christ.[17]

Another work written in the second half of the fifth century is “Armenian History” by Faustas. This work consists of at least six books. Only the third to fifth books, covering the years 332-387, were able to be preserved so far. Faustas Busand was the first author who attempted to write the complete Armenian History. The work is the most serious source in its own field for its particular time period and theme. The work is not only about Armenia but also serves as a primary source to learn about Azerbaijani, Georgian, and Turkish emigration, Iran, and the history of Anatolia. This work rejects unfounded claims and opinions of Armenian historians and also facilitates the learning of Armenians’ real situation from a historical and geographical point of view.[18] Busand had already caused some deviations by shaping his work according to the Armenian Church.[19] As a result of the technique applied by the various works which cited this work; deviated the theme of Busand’s work from its own reality.[20]

Lazar Parpetsi continued the tradition of writing “Armenian History” which began with Buzand. Parpetsi’s “Armenian History,” written at the end of the 5th century and at the beginning of the 6th century, is the history of the societies beyond Caucasia, and comprises as well the period of the division of Armenia by Iran and Byzantine in 387.[21]

Moisey Horenly is generally accepted as the father of “Armenian History”. Horenly’s “Armenian History” consists of three parts. Horenly, as he mentions in the preface of his work, wrote his book on Knyaz Saak Bagratuni’s request, as the latter was keen on learning the history of the Armenian Community, the Armenian State, Armenian local sovereignties, and the Bagratuni reign. After doing this, Horenly undertook writing a general history of Armenia beginning from the oldest era until the year 428. In this work Horenly analyses the ethnic membership and historical position of the Armenian people together with the Babylonian Kingdom, the Assyrian Imperial, the Med Imperial, Persian societies and dynasties, the Scythian Part State, Rome and Byzantium and the Sassanids, and ultimately gives a rich example of history writing.[22] Of course, as stated above, Horenly’s work could not avoid the psychological structure, which the Armenian Church tried to impose, and thus this attitude can be found in the work from beginning until end. As the famous writer N.A. Karaylov of the former Empire of Russia also states, the famous History of Horenly “proves the existence of the Armenian Tsars which was independent but under developed[23] “. Horenly lived in the 8th Century, the period in which the Bagratunian dynasty developed in Armenia. For this reason, Horenly largely establishes his work on the political existence of this dynasty. Horenly’s work is also a good reference book for studies on the history of the Turkish tribes. The writer provides considerable mention of the Turkish attacks on Azerbaijan, Armenia, Persia, and Anatolia. There is also much unique information on Bulgarians, Basi/Barsil, the Khazars and the Huns.[24]

The writer of “The History of Armenia,” which has been much discussed and is supposed to have been written in the 7th Century, is not known. Some state that it was written by the author of “Irak’s History,” Sebeos,[25] on the other hand, some state that it was written by Husrev.[26]

Another book written in the 7th Century is “The Geography”, “Alharasuys” in Armenian, by Ananiya ?irakl?. As its name suggests, this book was about the general geography of the world, and it was based on the Roman author K. Ptolemaus’ book, “The Geography”.[27] However, those parts of the book on Armenia and neighbouring countries were written in light of researches made by the author himself. In this book, Asia is divided into 44 countries. The 26th country is Armenia, which is divided into 15 states.[28] For about 150 years, Armenian historians have been talking about the dream of “The Great Armenia,” and this dream is based, to a large extent, on this work of ?irakl?. However, when it is studied seriously, it is found that ?irakl?’s work contradicts the claims of other Armenian historians. In this book, two regional geographic maps are taken as a basis for locating Armenia: the geography of the Archakian period and the regional position in the 7th Century. But the latter only consists of a presentation of the changes. In places where points in this work contradict with various other reference books, the contradictions tend to result from ?irakl?’s loyalty to the traditional Armenian historians’ attitude.

In the Arabian Imperial period, the most important and remarkable Armenian source book is Levond’s “The Caliphs’ History”. This book enlightens the history of the period between the years 662-788, a period of about 127 years. This is an important work, which reveals the religious and social position of the Arabians and that of the Armenians in relation to their religious applications.[29]

“The Book of Letters- Girk tltos” is the most remarkable of the mentioned resources. The book consists of the letters of the administrators of state and church. The book includes not only the correspondences of the Armenian government and church but also the letters and official documents of the neighbouring countries. It is a very important source for understanding the place of the church in the social life of the Armenians.[30]

According to a rumour, the work “A?van / The History of Albania” which was written first in Albanian in the 8th Century and translated into Armenian with additions in the 10th Century, is also present among the Armenian resources. The author of the book, Movsey Kalankatuklu, is an Alban but presumed to be a Turk because of his name, is the only known historian of the Albanian State that existed on the land of today’s Azerbaijan in the 8th Century. This book, which includes a vast amount of knowledge, is supposed to be the most important resource not only for the Albanian and Azerbaijanian history but also for Armenian Persian and Turkish history. This work is very important as it gives an opportunity to evaluate the content and possible mistakes of the Armenian historians and resources. This work generally consists of three books, the first two of which were written by Kalankatuklu and the third by the Armenian author Moves Dashuranatsi in the 10th Century. “The History of Albania” includes the history of nearly a thousand years’ history of the region.[31]

The most important author who continued the writing of the traditional “Armenia History” works was Catholicos 5th Yohann Drashankertly (catholicosdom period: 897-925). His work is very important for studies on the history of the Armenian Bagratunis dynasty after the Abbasids and the Turkish dynasty in Azerbaijan, in other words, the Sac O?ullar? period. It also includes important knowledge on the history of Anatolia.[32] “The History of the Artsruni Dynasty” by Foma Arstruni, another Armenian author, is among the reference books for studies on regional Armenian dynasties.[33]

When studying the history of Armenia it is necessary to reveal the political role of the Bagratunian dynasty in the history of this country. The most serious resource on this issue is Stephannos Taronski’s (Asogik) “General History” which includes the 119 years of the history of the Bagratunian dynasty between the years 885-1004.[34] Among the other remarkable Armenian source books are Vardan’s “General History”,[35] Stepannos Orbelian’s “Sünik History”[36] and Mhitar Ayrivantsi’s “Chronographic History”.[37]

In the 12th Century, the writing of Armenian history was represented by mainly two famous names. In this period Armenia had no local element and the whole country was under Turkish control. The authors writing in Armenian were living mainly in Gence. Among them, Mhitar Go?[38] and Kirakos of Gence[39] are significant.

In the 13th and 14th centuries, there is a serious recession in Armenian Historiography, generally seen as being caused by the Mongolian invasion. Although, there are in this period several Annuals written within the church community, they are far from being historical.[40]

The Armenian’s main center was shifted to the Cilicia area because of the growing Turkish population in the 14th and 15th centuries. We come across many Armenian sources written in the 15th century. The Matenedaran M. Ma?tots Library is filled with documents, official correspondence samples, epistles, decrees, church scriptures, numismatic, and epigraphic materials. We already know the names of many of the Armenian authors of the 15th to 18th centuries: Foma Metsopski,[41] Samvela Anetsi, Ogannesa Arci?etsi, Arakela Davrijetsi,[42] Zakariy Kana Kertsi (Sarkavaga),[43] Zarariy Aguletsi,[44] Eremiy Çelebi,[45] Grigor Daranagtsi, Simeona Lehatsi,[46] Azariy Sasnetsi, Simeona Yerevantsi,[47] Haçatura Cugaetsi, Abraama Yerevantsi,[48] Abraama Kretatsi,[49] Akupa ?emahetsi, and Albanian Catholicos Yesey Hasan Celalyan.[50]

In the 26th century, Chronicle writing and Notebook composing were popular activities. Among these authors, Yoannesika Tsaretsi should be noted. Tsaretsi’s Annual reflects the perspectives of the period’s political, economical and social history.[51] The author, in addition to providing information about the Ottomans, provides particular details on Mustafa Lala Pasha’s 1578-1579 campaign to the Caucasian Area.[52]

The Armenian Chronicles almost complete each other historically. Tsaretsi’s Annual is essentially the continuation of Ovanes Arci?etsi’s Annual.[53] In addition to the Annual, Tsaretsi wrote also a book called “A?van Ülkesinin Tarihi”.[54] Vartapet Grigor Kamehetsi or Daranagtsi (1576-1643?), who is thought to have lived in the 17th century, continued Tsaretsi’s tradition.[55] Daranagsti’s Annual consists of two parts. The first part includes Armenia’s period from 1018 to 1539, and the second part considers the political situation in 1595-1634. It is possible to obtain from this work information concerning Safevi policy and Abhaza Pasha’s campaigns in 1623-1624.[56] Simeone Lehatsi’s work also provides information on Abhaza Pasha.[57] The common characteristics of Anatolian, Armenian and Azerbaijani history are shaped by the Celali Revolt. There are at least two works in the Armenian sources concerning the Celali Revolt: The works of Azar Soonetsi[58] and those of Yeremi Çelebi Kermuçyan.[59]

One of the most significant sources of the 17th century is Agutenti Zakari’s “Catalogues”. This rare work, which has the characteristics of a diary, is worthy for providing information about the region’s social position.[60]

Russia’s unification with Caucasia’s political life in the 18th century is generally evaluated as having been an incredible opportunity for Armenia. This period is regarded as a new beginning both in the political life of Armenia and in Armenian historiography. Tsar Petro I’s aim was to create a buffer zone between Caucasia and Ottoman ruled Turkey. The state that could achieve this mission was Armenia. However, 1000 years of Turkish presence and sovereignty had greatly Turkified the Armenian area, particularly Yerevan. Establishing so-called Armenia required a great preparation for the foundation of a new country. For this reason, an intensive propaganda within the Armenian churches in order to unite the national psychology of Armenians was initiated. In 1721, Tsar Petro I’s Khazar campaign excited the Armenians.[61] Prayers were made for the Tsar in the Armenian Churches and Armenian national sentiments were stoked. There are great numbers of sources reflecting the period’s events, including Russia’s activities and Armenian propaganda activities.[62] These sources are preserved as documents and scripts in the Russian Central Archive of State,[63] Old Documentaries Section, in the Asrahan State Archive,[64] the Russian Political Archive[65] and in the Matenedoran Library.[66]

In the 18th century, the tradition of composing notebooks continued. Egi Mu?egyan’s Karnetsi catalogue,[67] reflecting the events of the beginning of the century, also explain Russia’s regional perspective and the position of Iran and Turkey. Arakel Davrijets’s Köro?lu Collection[68] should be evaluated as a product of cultural interaction and Petros di-Sorgi’s Gilanentsi’s Catalogue[69] as the product of political events of the region. Petros di-Sorgis Gilanentsi’s other essay on the Nadir Shah period is also worthy of attention.[70]

Tsar Petro I’s extremely religious and national theories caused, especially after the second half of the 18th century, a new perspective to emerge in Armenian historiography. It is observed that all the historical, literary and religious works of this period were written focusing on a single goal: to establish, if possible, Great Armenia. As the contents of these works will be dealt with in a separate essay it can be said that traditional Armenian historiography was completed by the first half of the 18th century.

It is obvious that traditional Armenian historiography was shaped within the church community between the 5th and 18th centuries. As mentioned above, the aim of writing these works was to prepare Armenians, psychologically, for realizing “Great Armenia,” in order to re-establish the Armenian Tsardom, which had fallen in 428.

The Armenian problems, which occurred in Caucasia and Turkey after the second half of the 19th century, were the reflections of the social violence caused by this psychology. Armenian problems, which for about 150 years constituted the major problem in Turkey and Caucasia, have to be examined in a broad perspective within historical, regional, and religious values.