Achaemenids and the Southern Caucasus (original) (raw)
The Babylonian document BE. X.107 dated by the period of Darius II contains some very important information which is connected to the administrative division of the Achaemenid Empire. Shamesh/Iltammešbarakku who was the governor of the people of Urashtu (Urartu) and Milidu, is mentioned in the document. Urashtu-Urartu corresponds with Armenia and Milidu-Melitine, and when it was mentioned with the latter, was an indivisible part of Satrapic Armenia, and Herodotus’ account proves this. Therefore, it can be said that Milidu is mentioned separately because it later became the center of Pactyica after Darius I’s administrative reforms; it was also one of the centers of the 13th satrapy which remained part of Armenia, despite the new administrative changes. Its ruler, the satrap, continued having the title of “Governor of the People of Urashtu and Milidu (in a broad sense, Pactyica)”. Therefore, one can state that Melitine and its outlying regions, being to the west of the Euphrates where the territory of Armenia Minor would be established in the future, were an indivisible part of the country known as Armina-Armenia, during the entire period of Achaemenid reign.
Armenia and Iranian World (1-5th century AD). Sofia, 2013, Abstract
So far there are only two specialized monographs worldwide on the cultural, religious, government and public influence of Iran on ancient Armenians: James Russell. Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Harvard University, 1987) and Эдуард Хуршудян. Армения и сасанидский Иран (историко-культурологическое исследование, Алматы 2003). This work is the third voluminous study in the world on the issue and has the ambitious goal to surpass thematically the previous two by developing a much deeper insight on the social system of Armenia under the authority of the Arsacids, the pre-Christian religion in the country and its place in the context of all-Iranian religious issues.
Û³ó ÝáõÙ »Ýù ëïáñ¨: ´» ÑÇë Ãáõ ÝÇ ³ñ Ó³ ݳ· ñáõà Ûáõ ÝáõÙ ê³ Ï³-êÏÛáõ Ãdz »ñÏ ñÇ Ù³ ëÇÝ Ï³Ý Ñ»ï¨Û³É íϳ Ûáõà ÛáõÝ Ý» ñÁ: ²ñ Ó³ ݳ· ñáõÃ Û³Ý ëϽµáõÙ ¸³ ñ»Ñ ²-Ý, ÑÇ ß³ ï³-Ï» Éáí Çñ Ý³Ë ÝÇ Ý» ñÇÝ, ѳÛï ÝáõÙ ¿, áñ Ç ñ»Ý Ñå³ ï³Ï »Ý Ñ»ï¨Û³É 23 »ñÏñ Ý»-ñÁª ä³ñë ùÁ, ¾ ɳ ÙÁ, ´³ µ» Éá ÝdzÝ, ² ëáõ ñ»ë ï³ ÝÁ, ² ñ³ µÇ³Ý, º ·Çå ïá ëÁ, §³ÛÝ »ñÏñ Ý» ñÁ, á ñáÝù Íá íÇ Ùáï »Ý¦, ê³ñ ¹Ç ëÁ, Ðá ÝdzÝ, Ø» ¹Ç³Ý, ²ñ ÙÇ Ý³Ý, γ-å³ ¹áí ÏdzÝ, ä³ñèëï³ ÝÁ, ¸ñ³Ý ·Ç³ ݳÝ, ² ñ» Û³Ý, Êá ñ»½ ÙÁ, ´³Ïï ñdzÝ, êá· ¹Ç³ ݳÝ, ¶³Ý ¹³ ñ³Ý, êÏÛáõ ÃdzÝ, ê³ï ï³· Ûáõ ïdzÝ, ² ñ³ Ëá ëdzÝ, س-Ï³Ý 1 : ´» ÑÇë Ãáõ ÝÇ ³ñ Ó³ ݳ· ñáõÃ Û³Ý Ù»Ï ³ÛÉ Ñ³ï í³ ÍáõÙ ¸³ ñ»Ñ ó ·³ íá ñÁ ѳÛï ÝáõÙ ¿, áñ Çñ ¹»Ù ³åë ï³Ù µ»É »Ý ä³ñë ùÁ, ¾ ɳ ÙÁ, Ø» ¹Ç³Ý, ² ëá õñ»ë ï³ ÝÁ, º ·Çå ïá ëÁ, ä³ñèëï³ ÝÁ, سñ ·Ç³ ݳÝ, ê³ï ï³· Ûáõ ïdz-ê³ Ã³ ·áõ ßÁ, êÏÛáõ ÃÇ³Ý 2 : ²ñ Ó³ ݳ· ñáõÃ Û³Ý »ñ Ïáõ Ù»ç µ» ñáõÙ Ý» ñÇó ¿É ³ÏÝ Ñ³Ûï ¿, áñ ÙÇÝ㨠¸³ ñ» ÑÇ Ã³ ·³ íáñ Ñéã³Ï í» ÉÁ ê³ Ï³-êÏÛáõ ÃÇ³Ý ÙïÝáõÙ ¿ñ ² ù» Ù»Ý Û³Ý ä³ñë-ϳë ï³ ÝÇ Ï³½ ÙÇ Ù»ç ¨ ·ïÝí»É ¿ ÙÇ çÇ Ý³ ëdz Ï³Ý ë³ï ñ³ åáõà ÛáõÝ Ý» ñÇ Ñ³ñ¨³ Ýáõà ۳ٵ: àõ ãݳ Û³Í ê³ Ï³Ý ÑÇ ß³ ï³Ï íáõÙ ¿ ¸³ ñ» ÑÇ ¹»Ù ³åë ï³Ù-µ³Í »ñÏñ Ý» ñÇ ß³ñ ùáõÙ, ë³ Ï³ÛÝ ³ÛÉ ï» Õ» Ïáõà ÛáõÝ Ý»ñ ³Û¹ ³åë ï³Ù µáõÃ Û³Ý Ù³ ëÇÝ ³ñ Ó³ ݳ· ñáõÃ Û³Ý Ù»ç ã»Ý ÑÇ ß³ ï³Ï íáõÙ:
Hunara: Journal of Ancient Iranian Arts and History, 2024
The history of Armenia during the destruction of the Achaemenid Kingdom is fragmentarily presented in extant sources, which do not allow forming a complete picture of the history of Armenia. In this regard, Arrian’s account of the 2nd century AD refers to the participation of Armenians in the Battle of Gaugamela, which took place in 331 BC. This data has sparked controversy in Armenology, and it is not an isolated exception. The mention of Armenian involvement in the Battle of Gaugamela is important in the sense that after two hundred years of Achaemenid rule, Armenia regained its independence and conducted independent politics in international relations. The Arrian’s account is also important in identifying Orontes and Mithraustes, who led the Armenians.
Armenia and Iran: The Birth of Two Nations in Late Antiquity
Electrum, 2021
This paper discusses the idea of Armenian and Iranian identity in 3rd century CE. It is proposed that the bordering region of the Armeno-Iranian world, such as that of the Siwnik' and its house saw matters very differently from that of the Armenian kingdom. The Sasanians in return had a vastly different view of Armenia and Georgia as political entities, and used their differences to the benefit of their empire.
30. Sixth Century Alania: between Byzantium, Sasanian Iran and the Turkic World
M. Compareti / P. Raffetta / G. Scarcia (edd.) Ērān ud Anērān. Studies Presented to Boris Il’ič Maršak on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, Venezia 2006, p. 43-50 (original version)
This paper tries to collect and analyse all available evidence-mainly from Byzantine, Iranian and Arabic sources-on the role played by the Alans in the Byzantine-Persian Wars which took place during the long reign of Husrav AnΩşruvn (531-79). Special attention is paid to Sasanian army reforms and Caucasian politics in the early sixth century. * Paper supported by the Research Project DGI (MCyT)-FEDER BFF 2002-02518 (Spain). 1. Kavd I (488-531) and the Gate of the Alans 1.1. Al-Bal≤urı states that, in reply to Khazar raids against Armenia, king Kavd I (Qub≤ b. Fırüz) despatched one of his generals, who ravaged Albania (bild Arrn) and conquered the region between al-Rass river and Sarwn; then, Qub≤ himself founded several cities in Albania and erected a brick dam (sudd al-libn) between Sarwn and the Gate of the Alans (Bb al-Ln), this is, the Darial pass, located East of Mt. Kazbek and South of present-day Vladikavkaz. 1 His son and successor Husrav I AnΩşruvn (Anüşirwn Kisra) is said to have built both the city of Darband (madınat al-Bb wa'l-Abwb) and the fortress of Darial (qal'at Bb al-Ln). 2 1.2. On the other side, according to Al-‡abarı, Husrav had to face an alliance of Northern peoples bursting into Armenia (Armınıyah), made up of Abƒaz, †Banπar (Bulgars?), Balanπar (later the name of a Khazar city in the Caucasian region) and al-Ln. 3 1.3. Finally, Ferdüsı tells of an expedition led by Husrav (Kesr Nüşınravn) against the Alans, because "the border of Iran lived in terror of them" (vazışn bodı marz-e ˆrn be-bım); however, no battle was fought after all, because some aged Alans arrived before the king's tent with presents, begged for pardon and were forgiven. Then the Alans were ordered to raise a castle (yekı şrsnı) and also a high wall to surround it (yekı bre-ye gerd-aş andar boland). 4 1 The Darial pass has been variously named throughout history: [1] Gr. Sarmatikai; Puv lai "Sarmatian Gates" (Ptol. 5.9.11 & 15); [2] Lat. Portae Caucasiae / Hiberiae «Caucasian / Iberian Gates" (Plin. N.H. 6.30 & 40); [3] according to Plin. N.H. 6.30 magno errore multis Caspiae dictae (cf. Tac. Ann. 6.33.3 Caspia via), a usual mistake among Byzantine authors: thus Proc. Bell. 8.3.4; Men. Prot. fr. 11 (FHG IV ed. C. Müller, p. 212a); Const. Porph. De cerim. 2, 48: Kav spiai / Kaspei' ai Puv lai) [4] after the Sasanian inscriptions of Sābuhr I and Kirdīr (3 rd c. AD) widely known in Oriental sources as "the Gate of the Alans": MPers. 'l'n'n BBA, Parth. 'l'nn TROA /Alnn dar/, Gr. pu[l]w[n Alan]wn (SKZ Gr. 3), Arm. (Pl.
Archaeology and History of Urartu (Biainili), 2021
NB: These are proofs and may differ from the published version in details. -- This chapter deals with Urartu’s relationship with its southern neighbour: the Assyrian empire, by far its most powerful rival. After briefly presenting the sources, we discuss (A) the period from the 860s to 820 BC when Urartian state expansion is countered by Assyrian incursions into its territory; (B) the poorly attested period from the 810s to 782 BC when Urartu and Assyria seem to have avoided direct confrontation with each other; (C) the period from 781 to 744 BC when Urartu offensively encroached on the Assyrian sphere of interest in south-western Anatolia and north-western Iran; (D) the period from 743 to 735 BC when Assyria reasserted its military dominance; (E) the period from 734 to 708 BC when Urartu lost its influence in south-western Anatolia and north-western Iran; (F) the entente between Urartu and Assyria from 707 to the 660s BC; and finally (G) the period of the 650s and 640s when Urartu had to acknowledge and accept Assyrian sovereignty.
The focus of this paper is, first, the reading of the toponym in Nabonidus Chronicle II 16 of which only the first character is preserved, and, second, an historical reassessment according to which the territory loosely controlled by a Median 'confederation' cannot be called an 'empire'. Contrary to the generally held view the first character cannot be read as 'LU' which would require us to restore the text as lu-[ud-di], i.e. Lydia. Collation shows beyond doubt the character represents 'Ú' and the only plausible restoration is ú-[ras- †u], i.e. Urartu. Urartu was therefore not destroyed by the Medes at the end of the 7th century BC but continued to exist as an independent political entity until the mid-6th century BC.