vol. 40 iss. 1] Steven Grosby - Borders, Territory and Nationality (1997

10 STEVENGROSBY

of city-kingdoms which were formed in the face of the military threat of Assyria duringthe ninth and eighth centuriesB.C.? Was Arpadthe lead citykingdomof two otherwisedistinctArameanpowerblocs, "UpperAram,"under its direct control, and "LowerAram,"dominatedby Damascus,with Arpad's rival,Hamath,in the middle;26)or was it, afterthe relativedeclineof Damascus, the centerof an emergingAramaicnation,"all Aram"?

There is evidence from the Sefire Stele which may provide some understandingof the natureof the city-kingdomof Arpadand,hence,"all Aram."On Face A of Stele I at lines 35-6, we find the following curse againstany possible violation of the treaty,"Justas this wax is burnedby fire, so may Arpad be burnedand [hergr]eat27)[daughter-cities]!May Hadadsow in themsalt..."

The restorationof "daughter-cities"appearsreasonableparticularlygiven the lines which appearjust before the one quotedabove (lines 32ff.).

AndmayArpadbecomea moundto [housethe desertanimal]:thegazelleandthe fox andthehareandthewild-catandtheowl andthe [ ] andthemagpie!May[this]ci[ty]

notbe mentioned [nor]MDR'norMRBHnorMZHnorMBLHnorSharun <anymore>,

norTu'imnorBethelnorBYNNnor[... nor'Ar]nehnorHazaznor'Adam!

Apparently this concluding list of proper nouns designated the smaller towns which were dependentupon the more powerful city-kingdomof Arpad. We

know from	Tiglath-PileserIII's	Calah	5 that both Sharun
			SummaryInscription

and Hazaz were consideredby the Assyriansto be "townsof the land of the Bit-Agusi (Arpad)."28)Sharunwas located about 50 km northeastof the gen-

eralvicinityof Arpad;Hazazwas about13 km to the northnorthwestof Arpad; and 'Arnehcould be 20 km to the southwestof Arpad.29)If Tu'im is modern

Ta'um,30)which is		45 km southwestof	Aleppo,	then the territo-
rial	of	approximately
		itself would have extendednot			only	to the
	jurisdiction	Bit-Agusi/Arpad

east to include an area formerlyof the Bit-Adini, but also to the south into northcentralHamath.Were these smallertowns, each with its own "sheikh,"

26)For the conflict between Hamath and Arpad, see the Antakya Stele (Donbaz 1990, p. 7) where Adad-nerariIII is described as establishing the boundarybetween Zakurof the

land of Hamath and Atarsumki [father of Mati'el]; and the Zakir stele (Gibson 1975, pp. 8-13) where "Bargush"at line 5 is to be understoodas Arpad.

27)Italics indicate uncertainreadings.

28)Tadmor's correct reading (pp. 146-7, notes 5-7) of Bit-Agusi in place of Bit-Adini indicates that Arpad's power had extended to the north and east, incorporatingterritorypre- viously part of Bit-Adini.

29) Fitzmyer 1967, 51. For the location of azaz (modem 'Azaz) as north northwestof Arpad (modem Tell Refad) see Dussaud 1927, mapH. XII, and Hawkins 1973, p. 240. It seems unlikely that Bethel could have been the Israelite Bethel.

30) For the identification,see Astour 1963, p. 237; Dussaud 1927, Map X. MDR' might be Madyarato the east of Douma (Dussaud 1927, p. 305), and, if so, approximately25 km northeastof Hamath.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

		BORDERS,TERRITORYAND NATIONALITY							11
adapted fran:
Joseph Fitzmyer, The AramaicInscriptions
	of Sefire	(Rome1967)						oMe	b
								KUMMUH
				o Mar' sh				/atu*k(?}v
			MUSR	GURGUM
				SSam'aI
TAU	R US	QUE		Jo				Bit-Adini
	M T S.			U
				UPPER			ARAM
				ru		fA/eppo
				, "ill			/esphteo
								o
			'	7
				?adrach
				Samnath					Rabah
		Simirra
		6	*lr
		Byb/os ,.		/o	Yabrudo'
		Brat		"			LOWER ARAM
		S/ion	••.
				o Damascus
	e-0

Ashke/on

0

100 km

scale

Map 1. The AncientNear East with Referenceto the Sefire Inscriptions

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

12

STEVEN GROSBY

which were

centeredon

also, as such,

into the kin-

together

Arpad,

incorporated

ship

structureof

In

any

event, if these towns listed on

Bit-Agusi/Ben8-Gush?

Face A of Sefire Stele I are

expressive

of the territorial

of the land

jurisdiction

of

as

III's

would seem to

Bit-Agusi/Arpad,

Tiglath-Pileser

SummaryInscription

indicate,then they mightbe furtherevidencefor understandingBit-Agusi/Arpad as the expanding,lead city-kingdomof the militarybloc of "UpperAram"and possibly "all Aram"ratherthan the capital of a unified state of "all Aram." Even so, we are still faced with the problemof how to understandthe appar- ent territorialdesignation"all Aram."It would seem that the weight of this

briefly	examined	evidence,	uncertain	it	is,	points	to	the
			though					understanding

term "all Aram"as indicatingthe existence of what MartinNoth describedas

a	which	has the	of a	unity,	but	internally
	"Sammelstaat,"	externally	appearance

consists of individual,relatively independentparts, some of which were still ruledby theirown dynasties,thoughall were subordinate(in a militaryalliance) to a centralkingdom,in this case possibly ArpadunderMaticeland previously DamascusunderBen HadadI, Hazael and Ben HadadII.31)

The problemwith the characterizationof the Arameansas respectivelyan episodic militaryconfederationor a federatedstate is the very existence of the

territorial		"all Aram."The existenceof this territorialdes-
apparent,	designation

ignationpoints to a collectivitywhich might have been somethingmore than a militaryconfederation,for it implies a greaterdegree of sociologicalhomoge- neity thansuch an alliance.Moreover,if, in fact, "all Aram"had ratherclearly designatedboundaries,then the case for "all Aram"as a territorialunit, and not just a militaryalliance of city-kingdoms,the membershipof which often changed,will be strengthened.However, a careful analysis of Aram's boundaries as describedin lines nine and ten of Face B of Sefire Stele I only raises furtherproblems.The lines describethe extentto which "thewords of the concludedtreatyare to be heard."

... from]'Arquto Ya'd[iand]BZ, fromLebanonto Yab[rud,fromDamascu]sto 'Aru

andM..W.,[andfr]omthe Valleyto KTK...

Joseph Fitzmyer thought that the phrase "from 'Arqu to Ya'd[i and] BZ" des- ignated respectively the southern and northern limits of the jurisdiction of the treaty. 'Arqu is probably the city Arqa on the coast of the Mediterranean men-

tioned several times in the	inscriptions	of	It	is,	along	with
			Tilgath-pileser 111.32)

Simirra directly to its north, also described there as a city of Hamath.33)Ya'di

31)Noth 1962, pp. 233-34.

32)TheCalahAnnal13, line 6; CalahSummaryInscriptions:4, line 2; 5, line 17;6, line

22.

33)CalahSummaryInscription5, lines20-4, Tadmor1994,p. 148. Does thereferenceto

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BORDERS,TERRITORYAND NATIONALITY

13

is to the northof Arpadwhere one assumesthe uncertainBZ is also located.34) It is, however, more likely, dependingupon how one understandsthe rest of lines 9-10, that the phrase"from'Arquto Ya'di and BZ" describesthe territorial extent of Upper Aram with 'Arqubeing its southwesterncornerand Ya'di its northernlimit, an areawhich would have encompassedmuchof Hamath.As to the phrase"fromLebanonto Yabrud,"if Lebanonis Mt. Lebanon,then this designation may indicate the northwesternborderbetween Upper and Lower Aram,with Yabrudbeing the northeasternlimit of Lower Aram.35)The likelihood of this latter possibility is strengthenedif, in fact, the restorationof Damascus in line 10 is justified;for the phrase"fromDamascusto 'Aru and M..W"might then indicatepartof the southernborderof LowerAram,leaving open the questionas to whetheror not Damascuswas actuallya partof Lower Aram.36)In any event, it must be admittedthat the uncertaintyof both the restorationof M..W (perhapsMansuate,and thus partof the southernboundary

of Lower Aram) and 'Aru greatly complicatesthe geographicalanalysis. The final phrase,"andfrom the Valley to KTK,"would then evidentlyreferto the territorialextent of the treaty,presumablyfrom the Beqa' valley in the south to KTK in the north if, in fact, KTK is a borderregion of Urartu;that is, the phrasedescribesthe entireterritorialextent of the area of "all Aram."37)If this is how the last phraseis to be understood,then it is more likely that the first phrase,"from'Arquto Ya'di and BZ" indicatesthe jurisdictionof "Upper

'Arqu indicate that Arpad had gained control over Hamath at this time? For Arqa and Simirra,see Oded 1974, pp. 42-5.

34) For the relation between (the land?) Ya'di and (its capital?) Sam'al, the latteris mentioned in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (Calah Annal 13, line 12; Annal 27, line 4; Stele IIIA from Iran, line 17; and SummaryInscription7, line 8) with Panammuas its king; while in the Hadad inscription (Gibson 1975, pp. 65-86), Panammuis known as the king of Ya'di.

35)For Mount Lebanon as one of the border points of Aram-Damascus, see Tiglathpileser III's Calah Summary Inscription9, reverse, line 3 (Tadmor 1994, p. 186).

36)Such an interpretationis likely if 'Aru is the 'Ar'aru (Aroer) near, so one presumes, Damascus as mentioned in Isaiah 17:1-2, Biblica Hebraica (and, thus, not the Aroer in the

Transjordan),"Behold Damascus shall cease to be a city; it shall become a heap of ruins. The towns of Aroer shall be deserted."Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that this one line from Isaiah, which is not in the Septuagint,is the only evidence for this Aroer. For the textual difficulties involved in such a restoration,see Fitzmyer 1967, p. 64. Fitzmyer's location of 'Aru south of Aleppo seems odd. It is based on 'Aru = Ara of north central Hamath (perhaps modern Ma'arret en-No'man, see Dussaud 1927, pp. 182, 188; Weippert 1973, p. 43) mentioned in the Calah Summary Inscription5 of Tiglath-pileserIII (Tadmor 1994,

p. 148).

37) Are lines 20-23 of Tiglath-pileser III's Calah Summary Inscription6 (Tadmor 1994, p. 152) confirmationof the territorialextent of "all Aram"?"Over Unqi in its entirety and Bit-Agusi to its full extent I ruled; I placed my eunuchs over them as governors.From the city of Kashpuna on the shore of the Upper Sea, the cities of Simirra,Arqa... as far as Anti-Lebanon."

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

14	STEVEN GROSBY

Aram."One tentatively concludes that the boundarypoints of these phrases probablydesignate the territorialextent of an Arameanmilitarycoalition, for example,from point A to point B, ratherthan as a detaileddescriptionof the boundariesof a unifiedstate "all Aram."38)

Nonetheless,once again, the very existence of the term"all Aram"can not be easily dismissed. Indeed,even if the boundariesdiscussed above delineate the territorialextent of an Arameanmilitary coalition, it was still Aramean. Here, again, is the problem:how to understandour apparentlyjustifieduse of the adjectiveAramean,as impliedby the term"all Aram?"Ourinvestigationof what "all Aram"mighthave designatedbecomes more intriguingwhen we reconsiderthe previouslyquotedlines 4-5 from face B of Stele I.

... and with [all] Ar[am; and the trea]ty of KTK with the treaty of Arpad; and the treatyof the lords of KTK with the trea[tyof the lords of Ar]padand with its people ...

(my emphasis)

Here we observe that the treaty was made not only between KTK and "all Aram,"not only betweenthe kings of KTKandArpad(line 1, face B), not only betweenthe lords, b'ly, of KTK and Arpad,but also with the people, 'mh.Of course, by including not only the king, but also "the people,"everyone was understoodto be boundby the swornoaths.Still, one wondersif thereis greater significanceto the inclusionof "its people."Such a formulationremindsus of 2 Kings 23 whereJosiahis depictedas having made a covenantnot only in the

presenceof the elders, but also in the presenceof "all the people,"kl h'm.Was the inclusionof "withits people"in the Sefire treatyin some way an anticipa- tion of, or an indicationof certainpoliticaland religiousideas emergingat that time in the ancient Near East which we find so developed in the theology of

38) As to the latter possibility, see Mazar 1962, pp. 116-20. Mazar understoodthese lines

to designate the "detailed boundariesof all Aram which were patternedafter parallel biblical descriptionthat delineated the boundariesof Canaan and the land of Israel." For exam-

ple, according to Mazar, "fromLebanon to labrud, and Damascus, and Aroer and Mansuate"

are the names of four provinces of "Lower Aram"which provided the detailed extent of the territoryof "Lower Aram."The primaryobjections to Mazar's analysis are that it rests upon both the doubtful assumption of the existence of a unified Aramean state in the mid-ninth

century B.C., whose area reached from Mansuate in the south to Ya'di in the north, as a

basis for the historically subsequent"all Aram" of the Sefire Stele; and the (perhaps idealized) description of the boundaries of Israel as a patternfor "all Aram." Nevertheless, the use of both pihatu, "district,"in lines 6-7 of Tiglath-pileser III's Calah Annal 19 (Tadmor

1994, p. 60 and note 7, p. 61) and nagu, "district," "province," (used in inscriptions of Assyrian kings from Tilgath-pileserIII on, see CAD, vol. N, part I) at, for example, line 17 of Calah Annal 23 (Tadmor 1994, p. 80), "the 16 districts of Damascus," makes one won-

der if provinces or districtswere, in fact, being described in lines 9-10 of face B of Sefire I, irrespective,of course, of any biblical parallel. Pitard(1987, p. 179) believes that "all Aram"

and "Upperand Lower Aram"refer to an Aramean state dominatedby Arpad,but that it did not contain Damascus.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BORDERS,TERRITORYAND NATIONALITY

15

the covenantbetween kol yiLra'el,"all Israel,"and Yahweh in Deuteronomy? Furthermore,is there particularsociological significance,indicatingsome kind of uniformity,to the use of "all"?Does the use of "all"as in "all Aram"indicate an anticipationof, or the early stages in the formationof a bounded,territorialcollectivityboth more extensiveand more sociologicallyuniformthan a city-kingdomwith its dependenttowns and more stable than a transientmili- tary alliance?In the case of ancientIsrael,it appearsthatthe term"all"of "all Israel" emphasized a unity of the land, "all Israel from Dan to Beersheba,"

which was inseparablefrom the unity of the people, "all Israel.""39) Perhapswith time, "all Aram"wouldhave developedinto a moredefiniteter-

ritorialentity other than the apparentarealjurisdictionof a militaryalliance. Perhapswith time, "all Aram,"thatis, a collectivityencompassingthe territory from the Beqa' Valley to Ya'di, would have developed an ascendantcenter

capable,as such, of unifyingthe relativelyheterogeneouscity-kingdomsof Damascus, Hamath,and Arpad into a relatively homogeneousnation. However, such a developmentwas cut shortby the final victory of the Assyrians.What can be said of the people of the area of "all Aram"beyond presumablybeing Aramaicspeaking?We do not know for certainof any developingbelief in an ancestrycommonto "all Aram"similarto the putativegenealogyof Abraham- Isaac-Jacobfor "all Israel."Nevertheless,MartinNoth was probablycorrect

when he stated that the Arameans	remainedaware of	being	ethni-
apparently

cally related(that is, where thereis a fiction of relationby ties of blood); for even where they divided themselves structurallyinto several city-states, the names of these states maintainedthe commongeneraldesignationof Aram-at least that is how they were viewed by the Israelites:the Hebrew Bible men-

tions Aram-Naharaim,Aram-Zobah,Aram-Beth-Rehob,and Aram-Damascus.40) While the latterthreedesignatedareasfall withinthe domainof "LowerAram,"

Aram-Naharaimwas locatedaroundthe	great	bend of the	thatis, in
			Euphrates,

the general vicinity east of Arpad.Thus, at least from the perspectiveof the HebrewBible, some kind of ethnic similaritywas perceivedto exist throughout

a	area	fromBit-Adini,east northeastof	to Aram-
	geographical	stretching	Arpad,

Beth-Rehob,southwestof Damascus.Perhapsone basis of this perceivedsimilarity was the apparentlycommon use of the Aramaiclanguagethroughouta geographicalarea encompassingYa'di in the northto Damascusin the south, so one concludeson the basis of, respectively,the Hadadstele erectedby Panammuand the Barhadadstele.41)Mentionshouldalso be made of the curious

39)Consider,for example, 1 Samuel 3:20; 2 Samuel 16:21,22; 17:11; 24:2; Ezekiel 11:15.

40)Noth 1962, p. 220.

41)Gibson 1975, pp. 3, 65. For an overview of the controversysurroundingthe Barhadad stele, see Pitard 1987, pp. 138-44.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16 STEVEN GROSBY

designationfound at line 1 in Stele IIIA from Iranof Tiglath-pileserIII, "The kings of the land of Hatti,(and of) the Aramaeansof the westernseashore."42) Does this use of the term Aramaeansrefer to the inhabitantsof the area of

Kashpuna,Simirra,and Arqa?Does it indicatethat the Assyriansalso recognized a trans-localrelation"Aramean"?An answerto this last questionis, of course, greatly complicatedby the numerousAssyrianreferencesto Arameans far to the east of "all Aram,"includingin the generalvicinity of Babylonia.43) In any event, it would appearfromthe termsof the SefireStele thatat least the Arameansof Arpadperceivedsome kind of similaritybetweenthe "Aram"of Ya'di, Sharun,'Arqu, Yabrudand probablyDamascus.This commondesignation of "Aram"in the terms "all Aram,""UpperAram,"and "LowerAram" would appearto indicatethe developingsociologicaluniformityof a collective self-consciousnessof a nation.") An element of this uniformitymay also be seen in the fact thatHadadappearsto have becomethe leadinggod of the Ara-

mean pantheon.45)

In conclusion,it would appearfrom the Sefire Treatythat around745 B.C. the Arameancity-kingdomof Arpademergedas the leaderof "all Aram."The emergence of Arpad as the leader of an anti-Assyrianmilitary alliance may have been predicatedupon the relative decline of Damascusas the prominent Arameanpower in the first quarterof the eighth centuryB.C., especially fol- lowingthedefeatof Damascusin 773 B.C.atthehandsof theAssyrianShalmaneser IV. The emergenceof "all Aram"may also have been predicatedupon a century and a half long historyof militaryalliances of differentcity-kingdomsin

to thewestern		of	As to thediffusionof theAramaic
opposition	expansion		Assyria.46)

languageamongthese differentkingdomsas well as the natureof and salience

42)Tadmor 1994, p. 106, where the determinativefor land modifies A-ri-me, Aramaeans.

43)For an overview of the problem, see Forrer 1932.

44)The sociological problem of the significance of the term "all Aram"remains even if one follows Na'aman (1978) in interpretingthe bordersdescribedin lines 9-10 on face B of Stele I as those of an "all Aram" to the south of Hamath.

45)ForHadad,see Greenfield1987. Note thatthenamesof thekingsBarhadadandHadadezer of Damascus contained the divine name Hadad; Hadad is called upon by Mati'el of Arpad

to carry out the curses of the Sefire treaty; and the inscriptions of Zenjirli (Gibson 1975, p. 65), where Hadad is described as having given to Panammu of Ya'di authorityto rule. Thus, it would appear that Hadad had become the god of Damascus, Arpad and Ya'di. However, in the Barhadadstele (Gibson 1975, p. 3), the god Melqartis referredto as Barhadad's lord; and in the Zakir stele (Gibson 1975, p. 9), Zakurof Hamathis describedas hav-

ing received his authorityto rule from Baalshamayn. [In the new inscriptionfrom Tel Dan, the king (presumablyHazael of Damascus) names Hadadas the god who made him king and went in front of him into battle (A. Biran and J. Naveh, Israel ExplorationJournal 45 (1995)

pp. 1-18.-Ed.].

46) Based on 1 Samuel 14:47 and 2 Samuel 8:3, Malamat (1973, p. 141) concluded that as early as 950 B.C. the Aramean Hadadezer of Damascus had unified Aram-Beth-Rehob with Aram-Zobah.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

	BORDERS,TERRITORYAND NATIONALITY				17
of the	of "Aram"		not muchcan be saidotherthan
	self-designation	amongthem,
thatit	occurredand	existed. This		linguistic	diffusionand
	respectively	apparently

terminologicalself-designationare indicativeof what FriedrichMeineckecalled a Kulturnation,47)and what BenjaminMazar called an "ethnic-territorial"col-

lectivity.48)Neither term is satisfactory for distinguishing between empire, nation, and city-kingdom,and especially their apparentlydifferentconstitutive territorialreferents.In any event, we lack the evidence to investigatefurtherthe extent to which the differentmilitaryalliancesof the ninthand eighthcenturies B.C. may have overcome previous conflict between Arameancity-kingdoms, therebyfacilitatingthe emergenceof an "Arameanpeople" and a territoryof "all Aram."

Althoughit appearsfrom our readingof the Sefire Stele that Arpadwas the leader of a militarycoalition, the terms"UpperAram"and "LowerAram"as

of "all Aram"		indicatethata	boundednationof Aram	may
part	may		territorially

have been in the process of emergingbefore that processwas cut shortby the final victory of the Assyrians.However, if this were the case, the stabilityof the image of a boundedterritoryof "all Aram"was still to be achieved. To describe Aram and the Arameansas merely an alliance of city-kingdomsor tribes, as is usually the case, is to ignore the apparentterritorialdesignations discussedabove. On the otherhand, to describe"all Aram"as a nationalstate

is	evidently	to	go	too far. Here we have an	example	of the	of our
							permeability

categories of analysis in the face of actual reality. This permeabilityis to be observed for modem collectivities as well; consider such modernsocieties as

Germanybefore unificationunderBismarck,the confederatednations of Bel- gium or Switzerland,or the "national,""tribal"societies of Africa.

Ancient Armenia

The evidence for the existence of a boundedArmenianterritoryand, indeed, a nation of Armenia (GreaterArmenia) of the fourth century A.D. is to be found in abundancein the following works: Faustus' Epic Histories which, while coveringthe historyof Armeniafrom the deathof King TrdatIII in 330 to the division of the country in 387 between Rome and Iran, was probably written or revised during the last half of the fifth century;49)Agathangelos' History of the Armenianswhich, while describingthe conversionof Trdatto

314	A.D.)	andthe	workof St.	theIlluminator
Christianity(circa			missionary	Gregory

47)Meinecke 1970.

48)Mazar 1962, p. 119.

49)See Garsoian's introductionto P'awstos 1989, p. 41.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

18			STEVENGROSBY
in		was	writtenin the last half of the fifth	Elishe's
	Armenia,		probably	century;5")

History of Vardan and the Armenian War which, while recounting the unsuc- cessful Armenianrevoltof 450/51 againstSasanianIranandthe subsequentfate of the Armenianprisoners,was probablywrittenat the end of the sixth cen-

and Moses Khorenats'i's		the Armenians	while cover-
tury;51)	Historyof	which,

ing the historyof Armeniafromprimevaltimes down to the deathof Mashtots', the missionaryresponsiblefor the inventionof the Armenianscript(circa 400 A.D.), was possibly writtenas late as 750 A.D.52) The evidence providedby these variousearly historiesof ancientArmeniafor the existenceof a nationof

Armeniawithitsbounded	is so abundantandincisivethat		Toumanoff
territory		Cyril

was fully justifiedto refer to these works as being nothingless than "national literarymonuments.""53)

Despite the abundanceand clarityof this evidence, which we will examine in a moment,it is of questionablereliability;for the image of single, unified Armeniaof the fourthcenturyis primarilythe ideal of ArmenianChristianhistoriography,characteristicof all these works, and not necessarily historical fact.54)Eventhoughtheboundariesof ArsacidArmenia(GreaterArmenia)remained more or less the same for over four hundredyears, from 95 B.C. to 363/87 A.D., the actualstructureof Armeniaduringthis periodwas feudal;it consisted

of a networkof	territorialunits or	separateprincipalities
	relativelyindependent

known as the naXarar system.55)Even the structureof the early Armenian churchwas dominatedby the naXararsystem: its leadershipwas, for several generations,drawnfrom the family of Gregoryas if the office of chief bishop was a hereditaryfief.56)Moreover,westernArmenia(LesserArmenia)was an-

nexed	by	the Romansin 72 A.D., while the eastern						was
						part(GreaterArmenia)
much influenced			division		only	accentuated	the formaldivision
		by Persia--a				by
of GreaterArmeniabetweenRome						andPersiaafter387		A.D.57)
				(Constantinople)

Nonetheless, the dynastic lords or princes (the naXarars)of these relatively

territorial		or	were	over		the	"super-
independent	principalities		"satrapies"	presided	by

50)See Thomson's introductionto Agathangelos 1976, p. xvi.

51)See Thomson'sintroductionto Elishe1982,p. 29.

52)See Thomson's introductionto Khorenats'i 1978, pp. 59-60.

53)Toumanoff 1963, p. 106. Three other works in English on the social history of ancient

Armeniaare	the	Adontz	andGarsoian's
	particularlyimportant:	incomparable	1970;Garsoian1985;

introduction,commentaryand various appendices in P'awstos 1989. See also Hewsen's com- mentaryand appendices to Ananias 1992.

54) Garsoian 1985a, p. 342. For example, Faustus never acknowledges the existence of the Persian influenced southern principalities which were independent of Greater Armenia during the fourthcentury.

55)Adontz 1970, p. 235.

56)Toumanoff 1963, pp. 138-39.

57)For the influence of Persia on Armenia, see Strabo 1854, Book XI, ChapterXIV.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BORDERS, TERRITORY AND NATIONALITY

19

dynastic"king of (Greater)Armenia.Thus, with Armenia,certainlyafterTrdat

I ascendedthe Armenianthrone		(circa	50	A.D.),			therewas a remarkable
							sym-
biosis of	centrifugaltendencies--aboveall,				the		territorial
						relativelyindependent

units of the naXarars-and centralizing tendencies--above all, the dynastic

royal	house andthe	of a trans-local		This remarkable
		emergence	nobility.58)		sym-

biosis properlyremindsus of feudal Europe;thus, our analysis of the bound-

aries and	of	Armenia	during	this		period	shouldalso		provide
	territory	(Greater)
	for	theexistenceof					the
conceptualinsights		ascertaining			nationalityduring			European

middle ages.59)

The evident partialityof the early, ChristianArmenianhistoriographyby no meansinvalidatesits usefulnessfor providingevidencefor the existenceof con- ceptions of boundariesand an Armenianterritory.Even if the accountsof the earlyChristianArmeniansare to some degreetendentious,the termswhich they employedmay be takenas reliableevidencefor the existenceof the conceptions of theirday;for languageandterminologyare not the creationsof a single individual. They have their own history;theirexistence is itself fact for our analy- sis. It is to an examinationof these termsthatwe now turn.60)

There appearsrepeatedly throughoutthese early histories of Armenia the phrase"landof Armenia,"erkir(land)Hayoc' (of Armenia/Armenians)The. significanceof this term may initially be seen by consideringwhat it is not: it is

not a geographicalterm explicitly signifying the areal possession of the royal house; nor does the term signify primarilya polity, for the latteris designated repeatedlyby the term "realmof Armenia,"asXarh (realm,kingdomor state)

Hayoc', or "realm of the land of Armenia," asXarh hayastan erkin.61) The term erkir Hayoc', "landof Armenia,"appearsto signify the territoryof Armenia, that is, it appearsto signify a relation, one of whose referentsis a bounded locational proximity. It should be noted here that the existence of separate terms,"landof Armenia(of the Armenians)"and "realm(of the land)Armenia" may prefigure our own terminological and conceptual distinction between "nation"and "state."

in	the existence of	a trans-localterritorial	in
Certainly	antiquity,	designation

contrastto a descriptionof the geographicalpossession of the king, for exam- ple, the "landof Israel from Dan to Beersheba"in contrastto the land of the

58)See Adontz 1970, pp. 235, 307-10; Toumanoff 1963, p. 112.

59)For recent discussions of nationality in the middle ages, see Reynolds 1984, and the fine series Nationes, Historische und Philologische Untersuchungenzur Entstehungder europdiischenNationen im Mittelalter (Sigmaringen:Thorbecke-Verlag).

60)For much of this analysis, I am indebted to Garsoian's superbappendicesto P'awstos

1989.

61)P'awstos 1989, p. 524. "astan"of hayastan is the locative suffix.

This content downloaded from 91.105.18.94 on Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions