Mamikonians - how far proven?
Steve Williamson
Just for the sake of argument, let's say we accept Byzantine Emperor Michael
III as father of Leo the Wise (debated still); & we accept Michael as son of
Theophilus & Theodora (proven?); & Theodora as dtr of Marinos Mamikonian &
Theokista (proven?). Starting from Marinos, at what points do we transition
from 'proven' to 'probable' to 'possible' to 'speculative'?
In other words, how far back can the Mamikonian line be considered reliable
from the point of view of a skeptic, not necessarily wanting to show a
POSSIBLE Descent from Antiquity (as in Settipani's work), but merely to
trace known/proven ancestors? Maybe at Hmayeak Mamikonian, b 700, son of
Artavazd (I think Settipani shows a dashed line from son to father at that
point)?
I'm of course referring to Christian Settipani's "Nos Ancetres de
L'Antiquite, Etudes des possibilites de liens genealogiques entre les
familles de l'Antiquite" Paris: Editions Christian, 1991.
Anyone want to take this up? Is it even a valid question?
Steve Williamson
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Paul K. Davis
> In other words, how far back can the Mamikonian line be considered reliable
> from the point of view of a skeptic, not necessarily wanting to show a
> POSSIBLE Descent from Antiquity (as in Settipani's work), but merely to
> trace known/proven ancestors? Maybe at Hmayeak Mamikonian, b 700, son of
> Artavazd (I think Settipani shows a dashed line from son to father at that
> point)?
I believe it's actually the earlier Mamikonians that are best
documented, not the later ones. There are considerable discussions of
this issue here in the archives of Gen-Medieval. I'll give a brief
summary of my own feelings.
Marinos' parentage is uncertain, but not unlikely.
Artavazd Mamikonian was a real person who was strategos of the
Anatolikon theme of the Byzantine Empire in 778. He is believed to be
the same person who led an insurrection in Armenia in 771, and was
defeated by Smbat Bagratuni, resulting in his fleeing to Georgia. See
the Cambridge Medieval History.
Artavazd's father may have been Hmayeak Mamikonian. See Adontz for
a modern analysis. Hmayeak's father may have been another Artavazd.
This Artavazd's father may have been Hamazasp 2nd Mamikonian who is
again a definite historical person. See Kirakos and Sebeos for
primary material, Cambridge Medieval History and Encycolpaedia
Britannica for respected secondary accounts.
Hamazasp's father was David or Dawith, according to Sebeos.
David's father is disputed between Vahan 2nd and a Mousegh. Vahan's
father is claimed to be this same Mousegh. Mousegh's father may have
been a Hmayeak. This Hmayeak's father may have been Vard, or an
unnamed son of Hamazaspian.
Vard is a definite historical person. See Ghazar, Kirakos and
Sebeos. His father was general Hmayeak Mamikonian, and his mother was
Dzoyk of Artsruni. General Hmayeak was quite famous, and called
"blessed" by Ghazar. See Ghazar, Kirakos and Khorenatsi (but note
Khorenatsi is tendentious and sometimes perpetrates fraud, especially
to marginalize the Mamikonians). His father was Hamazasp 1st and his
mother was a daughter of saint Sahak, who were also parents of Vardan
2nd and Hamazaspean. Her name is given as Sahakanoysh. From saint
Sahak (Isaac) back to king Tiridates, who converted to Christianity,
the ancestry is based on good historical sources.
[Where I say "may have been" I mean I have found it in secondary
sources but not in contemporary or near contemporary historical
material.]
I have not done a completely thorough search for original sources.
Others, such as Settipanni, whose work I have not yet consulted, may
have done much better.
- PKD [Paul K Davis - paulk...@earthlink.net]
norenxaq
> I have not done a completely thorough search for original sources.
> Others, such as Settipanni, whose work I have not yet consulted, may
> have done much better.
> - PKD [Paul K Davis - paulk...@earthlink.net]
Hello:
recently I learned through a private discussion that the Mamikonids claimed descent from the Han Dynasty, or one of
its successor states.
Has anyone heard of this claim?
If so, what is the purported descent line?
What is the origin of the claim, if that is known
Thank-you
Stewart Baldwin
>recently I learned through a private discussion that
>the Mamikonids claimed descent from the Han Dynasty,
>or one of its successor states.
>
>Has anyone heard of this claim?
"Exotic" descents were in vogue among the early medieval Armenian
aristocratic families. Thus, the Bagratids claimed descent from the
kings of Israel, the Mamikonids from the kings of China (but not any
specific Chinese dynasty that I am aware of - "Han" is probably a
guess that was added later by somebody who fell for the fiction), and
the Artsrunis claimed descent from the ancient kings of Assyria.
There is no good reason to believe any of these claims.
Stewart Baldwin
norenxaq
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> On 28 May 2002 16:06:01 -0600, nore...@nethere.com (norenxaq) wrote:
>
> >recently I learned through a private discussion that
> >the Mamikonids claimed descent from the Han Dynasty,
> >or one of its successor states.
> >
> >Has anyone heard of this claim?
>
> "Exotic" descents were in vogue among the early medieval Armenian
> aristocratic families.
understood
> Thus, the Bagratids claimed descent from the
> kings of Israel, the Mamikonids from the kings of China (but not any
> specific Chinese dynasty that I am aware of - "Han" is probably a
> guess that was added later by somebody who fell for the fiction),
it also became a cultural designation at some point in Chinese History.
Could this non-specificity be a result of merging the dynasty with the
concept of Han Chinese as an ethnic group?
> and
> the Artsrunis claimed descent from the ancient kings of Assyria.
>
> There is no good reason to believe any of these claims.
>
understood. thank-you
>
> Stewart Baldwin
Todd A. Farmerie
> On 28 May 2002 16:06:01 -0600, nore...@nethere.com (norenxaq) wrote:
>
>
>>recently I learned through a private discussion that
>>the Mamikonids claimed descent from the Han Dynasty,
>>or one of its successor states.
>>
>>Has anyone heard of this claim?
>>
>
> "Exotic" descents were in vogue among the early medieval Armenian
> aristocratic families. Thus, the Bagratids claimed descent from the
> kings of Israel, the Mamikonids from the kings of China (but not any
> specific Chinese dynasty that I am aware of - "Han" is probably a
> guess that was added later by somebody who fell for the fiction), and
Or else mistakes the name of the people ruled for the family name
of the rulers - Emperor of the Han vs. Emperor of the Han dinasty.
taf
Albert B. Bach
No.1-133(1981) pp.17-24, "China and the Chinese according to 5-13th
Century Classical Armenian Sources" covers this.
http://rbedrosian.com/china.htm
---Excerpt from that article:
The Chinese origin of the Mamikoneans is alluded to twice in the 5th
century History of Armenia by P'awstos Buzand. In the first instance,
the Armenian king Pap (A.D. 367-374) told prince Mushegh Mamikonean
that the Mamikoneans were as respect-worthy as the Armenian royal
house itself. For, he says, "their ancestors left the kingship of the
land of Chenk', and came to our ancestors [in Armenia] (13). The
second reference to the Chinese ancestry of the Mamikoneans appears
later in the same History. In this episode, the Mamikonean prince
Manuel boldly informed king Varazdat of Armenia (374-378) that the
Mamikoneans were not the vassals of the royal house, but its equals.
"For", he said, "our ancestors were kings of the land of Chen. Because
of a quarrel among brothers, to prevent great. bloodshed we left [that
land]. And to find rest, we stopped here [in Armenia] (14).
Armenists have interpreted the information found in the Primary
History and in P'aswtos in a variety of ways. For example, Nicholas
Adontz in 1908 speculated that when the early sources spoke of "the
Chenk"' they referred not to the Chinese, but to the Tzans, a warlike
people of the Caucasus who lived near the Mamikoneans' hereditary
lands in northwestern Armenia. He derived the name Mamikonean from
Georgian mama (meaning "father") plus the Armenian deminuitive ending
ik (15). Adontz was challenged by Michael Toumanean who, in an article
published in 1911, sought to identify Armenian Chenk' with the house
of Cheng which ruled south of Lo Yang in the 5-4th centuries B.C.
According to Toumanean, the Mamikonean emigration from Cheng took
place around 221 B.C., at the time of the Qin conquests, when the Man
people were expelled. To Toumanean, the name Mamikonean derives from
Gun-Man or Xu-Gun Man which was the hereditary title of the head of
the house of Cheng (16). The orientalist H. Skold in 1925 expressed
the view that the Chenk' were not Chinese, but a Turkic group dwelling
by the Syr-Darya river (17). H. Svazyan, who placed the Chenk' between
the Amu-Darya and Syr-Darya rivers, suggested that the Mamikoneans may
have come from Bactria (18). Finally, Cyril Toumanoff pointed out that
the Mamikoneans' claim of exotic royal origins was nothing unusual
within the Armenian political reality. For other families too claimed
distinctive foreign origins. The Bagratids, for example, considered
themselves descendants of the Biblical king David of Israel, while the
Artsrunids claimed descent from the ancient kings of Assyria (19).
Nonetheless, Toumanoff notes that the Mamikonean legend does concern
China, even though the legend may not be true (20).
The origin of the Mamikoneans remains an issue of debate which
probably will not be definitively resolved--at least based on the
presently available Armenian historical sources (21). As for the
geographical sources, for them China was a land of fantastic wealth;
acknowledged, but not well known.
--end excerpt
nore...@nethere.com (norenxaq) wrote in message news:<3CF3FF58...@nethere.com>...