Two Armenian Historians: Kirakos of Gandzak and Ukhtanes of Edessa

XII
INTRODUCTION.

the same as the Dzodéatsi, mentioned in Moses of Khoren, book II, ch. VIII. They descended from Arhan, the first known governor of the lands in northern Armenia, appointed by the Arsacid king Vagharchac. They must also be identical to the Dzodek, mentioned in Eghiché’s History of Vardan and the Armenian War a 5th-century historical account of the Armenian rebellion against Sassanid Persia, p. 8, 42 1, among the distinct tribes of northern Armenia. As descendants of Arhan, they undoubtedly resided outside of Siounie, to the east of Outi or within Outi itself, i.e., on one of the banks of the Kour, at the place where it leaves Iberia to flow toward the Caspian Sea 2. I even suppose, without being able to demonstrate it, that some remnant of this tribe still exists in the two villages of the government of Chamakhi where the language of the Outiens 3, which is of enigmatic origin, has been preserved. Moreover, their conversion to Christianity must be very ancient, since our author was aware of it. It seems that their perseverance in remaining united with the Greek Orthodox rite drew upon them the enmity of the Armenians, known as Gregorians, and this is, I have no doubt, the reason why the 3rd Part of the history of Oukhtanès, which remains a unique manuscript to this day, has been lacerated 4. As for the Dzanars, whom our author, § 18 of the 2nd Part, regards as Jews, just like the other Iberians, this is almost the opinion of the Muslim writers cited by M. S.-Martin, Mémoires Memoirs, vol. I, p. 233. Thoma Ardzrouni provides long and valuable information about them, p. 196, as do Vardan (Moscow ed., p. 135; Venice ed., p. 101; Russian trans., p. 134). This is a historical question to be clarified.

There is no good pragmatic history without chronology, even if it is only some system, whether one of those that are generally accepted, or some other, created by the author according to his own views. Since Oukhtanès is not, strictly speaking, a historian, or even a compiler, but a simple and very slight abbreviator, it is not surprising that he does not have original opinions on chronology. Still, he should have stuck to some approved account. Now, apart from the date of his Introduction, which is regular, though incomplete, one finds in his 1st Part only five or six chronological notices, which are very vague and uncertain.

For the antediluvian era, the years of paternity of the patriarchs are, according to Oukhtanès, in accordance with those given by Eusebius, except for that of Mathousala, 165 years instead of 167, a variant very frequent in Armenian manuscripts. By adding the 600 years of Noah until the flood, they actually reach the year 2242 of the world. But despite the coincidence of this figure with the Eusebian date, our author ends his § 1 by saying that "Noah was the 10th patriarch since Adam, over an interval of 2000 years." Thereby he contradicts himself and does not align with any known chronologist.

1. Eghiché, Complete Works, Venice.
2. Fr. Alichan also speaks in passing of the Dzodik, § 186 of his Description of Greater Armenia.
3. See Schiefner, "Attempt on the Languages of the Udi," in Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, 7th Series, vol. VI, No. 8.

4. In Mkhithar of Aïrivank, year 821, we find the notice that a certain priest Pharsman, formerly an Armenian Gregorian, had converted the inhabitants of Dzad, who were still Greek in the 13th century, to the rite of the Iberians.