First Results and Perspectives of a New Archaeological Project in the Armenian Capital Artaxata: From Artashes-Artaxias I to Roman Imperialism

The paper deals with the first results of the Armenian-German Artaxata Project which was initiated in 2018. The city of Artaxata was founded in the 2nd century BC as the capital of the Artaxiad kingdom. The city stretches over the 13 hills of the Khor Virap heights and the adjacent plain in the Ararat valley. The new project focusses on Hill XIII and the Lower city to the south and the north of it. This area was investigated by magnetic prospections in 2018 and on the basis of its results, in total eleven 5 × 5 m trenches were excavated in 2019. On the eastern part of Hill XIII several structures of possibly domestic function were uncovered. They were laid out according to a regular plan and in total three phases could be determined. According to 14C data, the first phase already dates to the 2nd century BC while the subsequent two phases continue into the 1st/2nd century AD. In the 2019 campaign, the overall layout and exact function of the structures could not be determined and more excavations will be undertaken in the forthcoming years. North of Hill XIII the foundations of piers of an unfinished Roman aqueduct on arches were excavated. This aqueduct is attributed to the period 114–117 AD when Rome in vain tried to establish the Roman province of Armenia with Artaxata being the capital.

Armenia and Armenians in Roman Numismatics

Ancient Armenian sources are very scarce and do not permit a thorough understanding of Ancient Armenia. For this reason, all available sources relevant to Armenia need to be consid­ered and studied. This is notably the case for Roman Coinage, where issues related to Armenia were struck over the course of 200 years. This paper examines how Roman coinage is able to in­fluence our understanding of Roman, Armenian and Parthian relationships. The study begins with the analysis of the monetary iconography of Armenia and Armenians on Roman coinage through their attributes and postures. Following the first part, the study questions the Roman coinage as a source of ideological representations of the events. Indeed, the issues do not reflect the intricate relationships of the Romans, Armenians and Parthians, but rather highlight Roman victories and the image of the Emperor. Despite this Roman prism, the last part of the article shows that it is possible to use the coinage as a source for Roman, Armenian and Parthian reationship studies.

Ancient Armenia: Evidence and Models

The history of the kingdom of Greater Armenia (after 188 BCE–428 CE) has been generally interpreted from two different standpoints, an ‘inner’ and an ‘outer’ one. Greater Armenia as a marginal entity or a sidekick of Rome during the endless war with Iran, and even Iranian scholars neglected or diminished the role of Armenia in the balance of power. This paper discussed some methodological issues.

The Archives of Artaxata: Archival Practice in the Capital of Ancient Armenia

This article examines the seal impressions from Artaxata discovered in 1979/80 during excavations carried out by the Armenian Academy of Sciences on Hills V and VIII. As the archive on Hill VIII is quite small with only 20 to 25 seal impressions, the focus of this paper lies on the approximately 8,000 seal impressions found on hill V. The complex was dated to the period from 180 BC to 59 AD and it was assumed that it was a “private” archive or a kind of “chancellery.” An analysis of the finds in a wider context and the comparison with other archival complexes of the Hellenistic period as well as an examination of the characteristic features of “official” seals (size, image, shape, number of impressions) leads to the conclusion that it must have been a public archive, most probably it is the city archive of Artaxata.

Armenien und Iberien zwischen Rom und Iran: wechselseitige Bezüge, parallele Entwicklungen

Das Ziel der Aufsätze in diesem Sammelband ist es, die Kontexte aufzuzeigen, innerhalb derer sich die Geschichte (Groß-)Armeniens in den Jahrhunderten vor und nach Christus entfaltet hat. Es handelt sich um geographische, politische und kulturelle Kontexte. Der folgende Beitrag unternimmt es hierbei, den Blick auf die Beziehungen zwischen Armenien und dem Königreich Iberien (Kʽartʽli) zu richten. Iberien, gelegen zwischen Kolchis und Albanien, war die mittlere der drei antiken südkaukasischen Landschaften, die sich nördlich von Armenien zwischen dem Schwarzen und dem Kaspischen Meer erstreckten. Heute befinden sich hier die Staaten Georgien und Aserbaidschan. In meinem Aufsatz richte ich den Fokus auf die wechselseitigen politischen Bezüge zwischen Armenien und Iberien in der Zeit der späten römischen Republik und der Kaiserzeit (1. Jh. v. Chr. bis 3. Jh. n. Chr.). Es geht mir insbesondere darum, auf Grundlage der griechisch-römischen, der iranischen und der kaukasischen (armenischen, georgischen) Quellen strukturelle Gemeinsamkeiten herauszuarbeiten, die unsere Überlieferung insgesamt kennzeichnen.

Bridging the Divide: Marriage Politics across the Caucasus

The early relationships between the polities of Armenia and K‘art‘li in the South Caucasus and their neighbours in the North Caucasus is a central, but underappreciated, factor in the development of the South Caucasus’ social and political world in the Hellenistic period. Typically, only military aspects of these interactions are considered (e.g., Alan raids and control thereof). Hazy evidence of cross-Caucasus marriage alliances preserved in both the Armenian and Georgian historiographic traditions, however, hints at a far wider sphere of interaction, despite the inherent challenges in gleaning historical reality from these medieval accounts. This paper contextualizes two stories of cross-Caucasus marriage related to foundational dynastic figures in the Armenian and Georgian traditions, Artašēs and P‘arnavaz respectively, within a wider body of evidence for and thought about North-South Caucasus interaction. Taken as a whole, this consideration argues that North-South relationships should be seen as integral to the political development of the South Caucasus.

Narseh, Armenia, and the Paikuli Inscription

Narseh son of Šābuhr I reigned from 293 to 302, once he had won the dynastic war that saw him opposing his grand-nephew, Wahrām III, he narrated the events in the great Paikuli inscription, which also contains the names of a long list of nobles and magnates, who paid obeisance to the new king. In Šābuhr’s inscription at Naqš-i Rustam Narseh bore the title of « King of Hindestān, Sagestān and Tūrān up to the seashore,” while later, likely under either Ohrmazd I or Wahrām I, he became King of the Armenians and stayed in office until 293, when he moved south to challenge his nephew’s right to the crown. Crossing the lower ranges of the Zagros mountains on his way to Mesopotamia, Narseh met the nobles loyal to his cause near the pass of Paikuli, about one hundred kilometres south of the modern city of Sulaimaniya. Recent archaeological excavations on the site have brought to light a number of new inscribed blocks that allow for a better understanding of the structure of the monument. In this paper the passages relative to Armenia will be presented and discussed, together with those containing the name of the goddess Anāhīd, whose cult was widely spread in Armenia.

The Upper Tigris Region between Rome, Iran, and Armenia

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the geopolitical status of the Upper Tigris area in antiquity, with a special focus on the period between ca. 401 BCE and the 6th century CE. Despite the popular impression that this area had a distinctly Armenian character, a closer look at its history shows that it was rather a territory with many local geopolitical entities that many neighboring countries periodically fought to possess. This area was strategically significant as a transit region located on the crossroads of important long-distance communication lines. Likewise, its natural resources were undoubtedly crucial to the neighboring countries. Indeed, powerful neighbors around the Upper Tigris area, including Armenia, the Iranian kingdoms of the Parthians and Sasanians, and Rome, sought to control this area, which was often located on the fringes of their states and as such was inevitably doomed to be contested by these empires onmany occasions. This situation can be acutely seen in the conflict between Rome and the Iranian kingdoms of the Parthians and Sasanians, when northern Mesopotamia became a real battleground between the competing empires. In particular, the paper will sketch the development of the geopolitical status of several small geopolitical entities in this region—Sophene, Osrhoene, Gordyene, and Adiabene.