Transcaucasus

Ямсков А.Н. Изменение топонимии Закавказья в XX – XXI вв. // Топонимия Ближнего Зарубежья: 100 лет переименований. Атлас-справочник / Отв. ред. В.Н. Калуцков. – М.: РГО, 2020, с. 83-152
Полный текст этой коллективной монографии в открытом доступе:  https://gumgeo.ru/public/files/pomnili/Atlas.pdf

This paper represents a brief overview of the materials held at the US National Archives and Records Administration and the US National Security Archive pertinent to the nationalist manifestations in three Transcaucasian republics of the Soviet Union from the 1940s to the 1980s. The paper includes translation of original correspondence from the regional Communist leaders. See Appendixes A, B and C (author's rough verbatim translation from Russian).

The chapter presents a new critical edition, a translation and a commentary of the acts of the Council of Širakawan. In 862, the Armenian Catolicos Zachary of Jagkʽ received an emissary of Photios of Constantinople, who conveyed to him the Patriarch's appeal for Church reunion. In response, Zachary convened a Council in Širakawan, in which representatives of the Armenian, the Byzantine and the West-Syrian Churches took part. The embassy to Armenia was a part of the vast ecclesiastical activity that the Byzantines conducted in the Black Sea basin during those years, primarily at Photios's own initiative.
The Byzantine mission to Armenia occurred at the moment when the conflict between the patriarchal sees of Constantinople and Rome was deepening; Pope Nicholas had declined to recognise Photios's enthronement and had also advanced several territorial claims of the Roman See. By sending his emissary to Armenia, Photios presented himself as a promoter of Christian unity, defying thereby the Roman claims of universal jurisdiction. The fact that Zachary had been ordained three years earlier, in Širakawan, in a manner similar to the ordination of Photios could have offered him additional grounds to expect support from the Armenian primate.
The Council took place after several years of an unprecedented Byzantine advance on the Arab front. Reminiscent of the Emperor Herakleios's initiatives on the morrow of his re-conquest of Jerusalem in 629, the assembly convened at Širakawan was intended to work out a formula of mutual recognition between representatives of the ancient Christian Œcoumene. Although the Council did not achieve a reunion of the two Churches, it formulated an agreement which allowed for peaceful co-existence of Orthodox and non-Chalcedonians in the Byzantine-Armenian borderlands. Thereby, both the Armenian faith and the Byzantine mission to the Armenians were acknowledged. At the same time, the Canons of the Council secured the Orthodox Church against a possible influx of neophytes motivated by reasons of convenience. This settlement was intended to prevent the emigration of Armenians from the territories conquered by the Byzantines: they need no longer fear religious persecution. 
The spirit of tolerance, to which the Canons of the Council give voice, as well as the capacity of distancing oneself from one's own tradition, which they imply, endured in Armenia also in the centuries to come. This we learn from a letter that King Gagik Arcruni dispatched, in c. 935, to Constantinople (see Chapter IV of this book), as well as from Nersēs Šnorhali's writings (1165-1172) and later Armenian authors.

Translated title: "Turkic population of Caucasian Albania in Sassanian period (5th-7th centuries CE)"
The article deals with the evidence of earliest emergence of Eurasian nomads in the South Caucasus and their penetration to this region. Data of written sources are reviewed to prove the appearance of Turks in the region before traditionally accepted date of 370 CE at the time of the first coming of Huns to the region. Various information from written historical monuments is scrutinized to highlight the place of Turkic nomads in the ethno-political structure of Caucasian Albania. Origins and locations of some important place names in Caucasian Albania are clarified.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, researchers have paid attention to a series of the Scythian pole-tops with flat images of birds. These findings are one of the indicators of the complexes of the second — third quarter of the 6th century BC. A series of pole-tops with flat reduced images of birds of prey is formed in the Kuban region and, apparently, as a result of the contacts of local elites with the Transcaucasus and the influence of Lydian jewelry art and toreutics.

For all its strategic importance, the South Caucasus remains relatively unknown in the 'Western' scholarship. By reconsidering the historical role of the first democratic republics of Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan in 1918-1921, this project seeks to integrate the region into the mainstream of modern European history and identifies primary material contained in the most complete studies of the first independence era in Transcaucasia.

Second issue of new academic journal. Studia Turkica Mongolica Tibetica Manchurica Sibirica Russica et cetera.

Tartaria Magna is a peer reviewed e-journal in Russian. Editors accept papers and reviews in English and provide Russian translation. We may consider publication of the papers and reviews that have been published in other journals within the period of 3 years. More info: www.tartaria-magna.ru

16. yüzyılda Kafkasya’ya nüfuz eden Rus Devleti’nin bölgedeki ilk idari yapıları 18. yüzyıldan itibaren burada inşa edilen kaleler ile ortaya çıktı. Bu kaleler, Rus Kazakları ile Rusya’ya bağlılık bildiren halkların yönetimini üstlendi. Rusya’nın, 1774 Küçük Kaynarca Antlaşması ile Kuzey Kafkasya’daki hâkimiyetini hukuki boyuta taşıması ve 1783’te Gürcistan’ın himayesini üstlenerek Güney Kafkasya’ya nüfuz etmesi Kuzey Kafkasya’da imparatorluk taşra idaresinin kurulmasını zaruri hale getirdi. Böylece, ülke genelinde uygulamaya konulan II. Yekaterina’nın guberniya reformu kapsamında, Kuzey Kafkasya, Rus idare sistemine dâhil edildi. Fakat bölgede kurulan idari yapı kalıcı olmadı. İlk önce taşra teşkilatına dair imparatorluk genelinde yapılan yeni düzenleme, ardından da Rusya’nın sınırlarını Güney Kafkasya’ya genişletmesine bağlı olarak Kafkasya'daki Rus idaresinde değişikliklere gidildi. 1845 yılına kadar Kafkasya’da uygulanan idari yapılar, bazı istisnalar dışında genel itibarıyla yerel şartlar göz ardı edilerek imparatorluk taşra idaresinin bölgede tatbiki şeklinde kendini gösterdi. 1785-1845 yılları arasında Kafkasya'daki Rus idari yapılarının ele alındığı bu çalışmada Rusça arşiv belgeleri başta olmak üzere birinci el kaynaklar ve tetkik eserlerden faydalanılmıştır.

The first administrative structures of the Russian State that permeated the Caucasus in the 16th century appeared with castles built here from the 18th century. These castles undertook the administration of the Russian Cossacks and the peoples of Russia who reported their loyalty. Russia’s legalization of the Northern Caucasus with the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca in 1774 and its penetration of the South Caucasus through to take over the protection of Georgia in 1783 made the establishment of imperial provincial administration in the North Caucasus necessary. Thus, the North Caucasus was included in the Russian administration system in the context of Yekaterina II’s nationwide implementation of guberniya reform. However, the administrative structure established in the region was not permanent. Changes were made to the Russian administration in the Caucasus due to the new empire-wide regulation of the provincial organization and Russia’s expansion of its borders to the South Caucasus. The administrative structures applied in the Caucasus until 1845 showed themselves as the application of the imperial provincial administration in the region ignoring local conditions in general. In this study, which examined the Russian administrative structures in the Caucasus between 1785-1845, first-hand sources, mainly Russian archive documents and survey works were used.

Ardahan İli arkeolojik yüzey araştırması 2014 yılı çalışmaları, ilin merkez ilçesine bağlı yerleşim alanlarında ve bu alanların yakın çevresinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın seyri, bir önceki araştırma sezonunun sonuçları göz önünde tutularak şekillendirilmiştir. Buna göre 2013 yılında tespit edilen Sulakyurt
Tunç Çağı Yerleşimi 2014 yılı çalışmalarında tekrar ziyaret edilmiştir. Sulakyurt dışında araştırma yapılan diğer merkez ilçe yerleşimleri Değirmenli, Çataldere, Kartalpınar ve Kartalpınar ile Çamlıçatak yerleşimleri arasında kalan bölgedir.

The motif of the church patron or founder carrying a building model was inserted in church decoration since Late Antiquity, and specifically in the main apses of sixth century churches. Later, it became common in the pictorial programmes of church buildings in Byzantium as in medieval Rome and, after 1204, in the Balkans. This image bears a high symbolic meaning and, at the same time, is a powerful means of communicating the patron/founder's role in the construction, as well as displaying his/her faith and devotion, all at once. In Transcaucasia this pictorial motif first appears in Late Antiquity, probably as evidence of the cultural interaction with Byzantium, in the form of a relief sculpture decorating the exterior walls of the churches. However, with the passing of time it became a characteristic feature of Transcaucasian churches, as a part of the overall decorative programme of church exteriors or as the only figurative image on church façades. This paper explores patterns of continuity and change in the meaning of church models in those territories on the edges of the empire, particularly Transcaucasia. Concentrating on the pictorial motif of donors' models, and principally on the value of the microarchitecture within the image and the church decoration, it reflects on its use through time, and especially in the great Transcaucasian monasteries of the late twelfth and thirteenth century AD. The analysis of church models, as reproductions of the physical building and symbolic elements of the pictorial composition, will allow for a reflection on the use of microarchitecture in the imagery of Transcaucasia. After the tenth century AD, the emphasis on donation scenes and particularly on architectural models on the façades of Transcaucasian churches displays the importance of donors' model as a feature of the Transcaucasian area, which presented political, ideological or religious messages to the beholder and, as such, was an entity of cultural history.

Bu çalışma, Ardahan İli 2013 Yılı Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırmasının kısa bir değerlendirmesidir. İlin merkez ilçesinde yeni keşfedilen bazı arkeolojik kültür varlıkları üzerine detaya inmeyen ilk gözlemler bu çalışmada yer almaktadır. 2013 yılı araştırmalarında tespit edilen arkeolojik alanlar Tunç ve Erken Demir Çağları'na tarihlenmektedir. Çeğilli çevresindeki üç adet kule yapısı ve bir Yüksek Yayla Yerleşimi (Kale Yerleşimi); Yokuşdibi'nin kuzeyinde bir kaleye ait olması gereken kalıntılar; Sulakyurt'un kuzeyi ve kuzeydoğusunda bir Tunç Çağı yerleşimi ve yine Tunç Çağı'na ait olması gereken dış duvarlar ile güçlendirilmiş bir Yüksek Yayla Yerleşimi (Kale Yerleşimi) bildiride bahsi geçen arkeolojik alanlardandır.

During the survey conducted in the province of Ardahan a Medieval church and two chapels were discovered in three sites connected to the central district. This church and the chapels are the last structures added to numerous Medieval Georgian religious architecture examples in Ardahan. Medieval Ardahan was located in Tao-Klarjeti zone that had been under strong influence of the Georgian culture. This influence has acted an important role at determining the settlements’ names at the zone and surviving until today. Nevertheless, Georgians were not the only Christian population in Ardahan. Georgian culture continued to remain still since the end of Medieval Age till late periods. Besides, Greek, Armenian, Molokan of Russian origin, and a German minority have contributed Ardahan’s Post-Medieval history as a cosmopolitan area. Some of the former names of the modern settlements in Ardahan was originated from the Georgian, Greek and Armenian languages. During the 2013 survey, important cultural assets were determined such as two Greek inscribed gravestones in Çetinsu (Beberek) and 14 Molokan inscribed gravestones in Sulakyurt (Sarzep) Villages. In this paper the intention is to introduce Post-Medieval Christian populations and architecture in Ardahan supported by the archaeological and historical documents.

For scholars of Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman civilisations Armenia lies in a remote East, whereas since the Russian conquests of the Caucasus between 1783 and 1829, it has firmly occupied a place in the south of our mental map, beyond the Caucasus, in ‘Transcaucasia’ (Закавказье). Yet ancient geographers regarded the Taurus chain as a natural frontier between Northern and Southern  Asia, reckoning the Armenians amongst the ‘Northern peoples’ also on account of the ‘boreal’ climate of their mountainous homeland. Also a number of Armenian writers placed Armenia in the north. So did Catholicos Khachik Arsharuni in his letter to a Byzantine Metropolitan, dispatched c.987, in response to the Metropolitan’s appeal to join the Church of the Empire, even though his correspondent resided farther north than Khachik.
This geographical conception predates the classical authors and reflects ancient routes of cultural transmission across the Near East, which informed the culture of the Armenian high plateau for millennia. This memory lingered in the minds of Armenians: Moses of Khoren links the origins of his people to the Biblical Togarmah, a grandson of Japheth, whose country was situated ‘at the extremities of the North’ with respect to the land of Israel. According to Moses, Togarmah’s son Hayk refused to submit to the giant Bel, leaving Babylon  with all his household for the land of Ararat, ‘which is in the northern regions’, settling ‘in the cold of the freezing seasons’ of a plateau northwest of Lake Van. In responding to the Byzantine appeal that the Armenians should adhere to the faith of the Empire, Khachik was certainly emboldened by the example of Hayk who had preferred independence in a harsh country to subservience to Bel in a mild climate and had sent back Bel’s emissaries empty-handed. A mental map thus could impinge on theological debates.

The Devil’s Fortress is 1.5-2 km north of Yıldırımtepe village located in Çıldır district of Ardahan where is located northeastern Turkey. The Devil’s Fortress is situated on a highly steep and rocky peninsula surrounded by Karaçay Valley in north, south and east directions. The bastions, masonry and other architectural details show that the fortress is a typical Medieval structure. The most remarkable point of the Devil’s Fortress is the triangular area right out of the fortress, formed by the
bastion in the west and the walls with the natural structure of the land. A defense system known in the medieval military architecture is brilliantly applied right out of the fortress gate. A bent entrance that is quite narrow and has a sharp angle is built in front of the gate. Apart from this defense structuring, the fact that the land slope increases as approaching to the fortress is another challenging factor for attacking forces. For these reasons, the triangular area in the west of the Devil’s Fortress, which is the only area available to attacks can be called the devil’s triangle where eve a strong army could be lost by making a humoristic reference to the name of the fortress. In the Medieval Period, the least harmful way to capture the Fortress must have been besieging it. Inside the fortress, there is a Medieval chapel, a circular planned-cistern 23 m northeast of this chapel and a rectangular planned structure built adjacent to the southwest fortification walls of the fortress and probably used as a storehouse. Furthermore, some ruins preserved at the foundation level are observed in the north and northwest of the cistern. In order to understand the function of the ruins here, an archeological excavation is required. The ceramic findings in the fortress mainly belong to the Medieval period. Besides, pottery fragments from the 5th and 4th centuries BC. were found during the field campaign in 2017. The ancient ceramics show that there was an activity in the territory before the first construction phase of the Devil’s Fortress. However even in such a case, it cannot be asserted that an ancient fortress had existed at the same location before this Medieval Fortress by virtue of a few ceramic fragments. The essential archeological data needed to be researched is the architectural findings. No architectural findings belonging to an earlier ancient structure were detected on the ground level around the Devil’s Fortress. An archaeological excavation is required to be carried out here in order to understand the chronology of the site.

This work analyzes the Russo-Persian War of 1826-1828 and the migration of the Armenians from Persia to Transcaucasia following the Treaty of Türkmençay of 1828. This study covers the period from the forced immigrations of the Armenians of Julfa to Isfahan (New Julfa) by Shah Abbas I in 1604, to mostly the voluntary immigrations of the Armenians from Persia to Transcaucasia under the control of the Russian Empire in 1828. The main aim of the study is to draw attention to the relationship between the Russian Empire and the Armenians in the region during and after the Second Russo-Persian War. By the Persian Expedition of Peter the Great in 1722, the Armenians became hopeful that they would be emancipated from the Safavid rule, but owing to the highly strategic position of Transcaucasia and the pressure of the Ottoman Empire over the region, Peter the Great stepped back and the Armenians were disappointed. At the end of the 18th century, the Armenians hopes of emancipation were renewed with the brave attempts of Catherine the Great in the attempt to establish an Armenian state in Transcaucasia. In fact, her intention was to establish a buffer zone against the Ottoman Empire under the umbrella of the Greek Project not to liberate the Armenians from the Persian rule. With the death of Catherine, the Armenians once more abandoned their hopes. By the beginning of the 19th century, from 1804 to 1813 the Russian Empire was at war with Persia. The results of this war were unbearable for Persia; the Russian Empire had annexed all the Caucasus except the Khanates of Revan and Nakhchivan. After 13 years, because of the frontier problem these two great powers resumed the war, which continued until 1828. This second war was shorter than earlier but more costly. Although the role of the Armenians was not clear during the second war following the Treaty of Türkmençay approximately 45,000 Armenians emigrated to Transcaucasia from Persia, particularly from Azerbaijan.

This book consists of five studies that explore different facets of the enduring derivation of Armenian theology from the South, i.e. the Syriac world and the Holy Land. The Armenian Church adhered only to the first three Œcumenical Councils, accepting also the Formulary of Reunion of 433 which had represented a fragile reconciliation between the exegetical schools of Alexandria and Antioch. At the Council convened at the patriarchal see of Duin in 553, the Church of Armenia confirmed its rejection of the Definition of Faith adopted by the Council of Chalcedon (451), thus detaching itself from succeeding developments in Byzantine theology. At the same time, it opened the door to new Christological queries characteristic of the non-Chalcedonian Churches and to independent liturgical developments. It also allowed local customs to take root within its ecclesiastical discipline.
The official position of the Armenian Church regarding Christology was settled at a Council convened in 726 at Mantzikert, a joint initiative of the Armenian Catholicos John of Ōjun (717–728) and the West Syrian Patriarch Athanasius III (724–740). The Council of Mantzikert should be regarded as an outstanding event in the history of theological ideas: not only because it repaired a schism that had lasted two centuries, but also because it was promoted by two Churches, and not by an overarching secular authority seeking political cohesion. Those two Churches needed theological unity in the face of subjection to the Caliphs.
The first four studies analyse the official Christology of the Armenian Church as expressed in technical language, doctrinal treatises, ecclesiastical correspondence, canons of Councils and the iconographic programme of a palatine church. The last one focuses, by contrast, on an apocryphal text. Its nucleus, a text about the birth and the infancy of Jesus, was introduced into Armenia at the end of the sixth century by missionaries of the Syriac Church of the East. Although after the Œcumenical Council of Ephesus (431) the Armenian Church had officially condemned the strict dyophysite doctrine of the Church of the East (pejoratively called ‘Nestorian’) and later even embraced strict Cyrilline Christology, this new theological orientation could not be implemented overnight across the entire territory of Armenia. The fact that that ancient Syriac text was received and translated in Armenia witnesses to the enduring influence that the East-Syriac tradition could still exercise there a century and a half after the schism occasioned by the Council of Ephesus.
The complex history of the transmission of this text and its rich manuscript tradition reflect the great popularity enjoyed in Armenia by those early Syriac apocryphal stories of the birth and the childhood of Christ. They also represent a trace of original theological reflection outside a formal ecclesiastical framework. This text, which contains carefully elaborated narratives with numerous learned references, represents a junction between ancient Christological ideas—rejected, abandoned or overlooked by official Churches—and the actual form of Christian devotion in the Syriac world and, subsequently, in Armenia, first under Zoroastrian and, later, Islamic rule.

The Formation of Sectarian Identities in the Religious Interchange between the Balkans and Caucasus and their Role in Contemporary Religio-Political Processes

The settlement and presence of Georgian monastic and non-Chalcedonian (Armenian and Syriac-speaking) communities in the early to high medieval Balkans is an acknowledged sphere of the religious interchange between the Balkans and the Caucasus (and Transcaucasia and northern Mesopotamia in general) which, however, is rarely explored in depth. The study of the religious interchange between the Balkans and Caucasus in the sphere of Christian and Islamic religious heterodoxy and its role in the formation of modern sectarian religious identities in the two regions is an even less explored area of research. To address this problem the paper will offer a discussion of two (respectively Christian and Islamic) heterodox movements which spread from the Caucasus (and Transcaucasia) to the Balkans, Paulicianism  (in the early medieval period) and Hurufism (in the early Ottoman era). The analysis will be based on literary and archaeological evidence published and explored in the last twenty years and will dwell on the problems how did the Balkan wings of these two movements maintain their links and communion with the co-sectarians in the Caucasus and Transcaucasia to maintain their sectarian religious identity and what was the nature of  the socio-religious pressures which occasioned the transformation of their religious identities in the early Ottoman period. Following on my recent work on current sectarian identity politics in the region between  the Balkans and the eastern Pontic (as well as Caspian) areas, the paper will thus explore the general problem of sectarian identity formations in these regions (as part of the greater sphere of  Balkan-Caucasian religious interchange) and its implications for contemporary identity claims, the politicization of sectarian identities and their possible future role in the religio-political processes in these peripheral zones (and meeting places) of the European-Mediterranean civilization and the Near East – one of the main aims of the conference.

An archaeological survey has been conducted in Ardahan, one of the eastern Anatolian city. Although the researches in the area have begun in 1940's by Prof. İ. Kılıç Kökten, they were not continued. The archaeological survey project conducted by the present author, is begun in 2013 and aimed to achieve an archaeological base for the whole area of Ardahan. The archaeological surveys of 2013 are carried out in the central district of Ardahan which contains about 19 villages and their neighbourhoods. City of Ardahan is also known as “a city of fortresses and towers”, and during our researches we have encountered several defensive structures and settlements in the area. These structures had the traces of Bronze and Iron Ages which will solidate the archaeological structure of the region, besides the churches and chapels. Medieval religious architecture of Ardahan has also been studied as a second focus of our surveys.

This paper deals with the diplomatic relations between the Armenian aristocracy (as a whole and as individuals respectively) and the most important neighboring Christian monarch, the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor. The study concentrates on the period from the partition of Greater Armenia (387 AD) between Rome and Persia and the end of the Arsacid rule until the renewal of the Armenian monarchy under the Bagratids. During these centuries characterized by the absence of an Armenian King, foreign powers came to terms on the one hand with individual powerful noblemen, who were appointed to represent the entire Armenia, bearing the title of marzpan, sparapet, patrik and others, while on the other hand they negotiated directly with various aristocratic houses (as they did in former times). Based on contemporaneous Armenian, Greek, and other sources the paper aims to analyze the contents of the covenants between Armenian aristocrats and Byzantine Emperors (declaration of allegiance, bestowal of titles, military assistance, etc.), the diplomatic means and customs (oath, presents, charters – the “diplomatics of diplomacy”), the sources’ terminology and the interpretation of the relations between the Emperor and the Armenian aristocracy given by the sources. The description of these relations in the Armenian sources is consequently compared to the depiction of those of the Armenian aristocrats’ to the Sasanian Great King and the Arab Caliph. In that way, a “Byzantinocentric” interpretation of Armenia’s foreign relations during this period should be avoided, while at the same time efforts are made to detect specific elements of the Armeno-Byzantine political relations in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages.

Die Geschichte der „Zweihundert Jahre zusammen“ von Russen und Juden ist bereits geschrieben worden. Die vorliegende
Monographie hat einen wichtigen Beitrag zu den zweihundert Jahren Zusammensein von Russen und Georgiern geleistet.

Erschienen in: Georgica Nr. 35 (2012). Zeitschrift für Kultur, Sprache und Geschichte Georgiens und Kaukasiens

The article assesses changes in land use and their impact on rural incomes in Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. It compares developments in these countries with core CIS (Russia, Ukraine) and Central Asian states of the FSU. The author’s premise—that agricultural growth, and hence higher well-being of the rural population are positively linked to individualization of farming structure and commercialization—is tested on the basis of survey results linking increases in farm size with higher rural incomes and accelerated sales of farm products.

This seriation shows a selection of objects from graves of the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron I, and early Iron II from Hasanlu, Dinkha, Geoy, Hajji Firuz, and Yanik. A version of the document will appear as a foldout in Hasanlu V: The Late Bronze and Iron I Periods. Hasanlu Excavation Reports III.  University Museum Monograph. University of Pennsylvania Press.  Relevant material from occupation deposits is also shown.