Full text of "The Vale of Kola: A Final Preliminary Report on the Marchlands of Northeast Turkey"

See other formats

DUMBARTON OAKS 


The Vale of Kola: A Final Preliminary Report on the Marchlands of Northeast Turkey 
Author(s): Robert W. Edwards 

Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1988, Vol. 42 (1988), pp. 119-141 

Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University 


Stable URL: [https:/ / ww w.jstor.org/stable/ 1291592 


JSIOR isa not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide 
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and 
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact supportGjstor.org. 


Your use of the J'STOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at 
https://about.jstor.org/terms 


Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, 
preserve and extend access to Dumbarton Oaks Papers 





JSTOR 


The Vale of Kola: A Final Preliminary Report on the 
Marchlands of Northeast ‘Turkey 


ROBERT W. EDWARDS 


his Final Preliminary Report marks the end 

of my field surveys in the Marchlands. Collec- 
tively, these Reports were never intended to give 
the definitive, comprehensive picture of the 
medieval buildings and historical geography of the 
region. I intentionally selected specific valleys and 
sites that had been either misinterpreted or 
ignored. At present scholars in the United States 
and in Europe are preparing new studies on the 
churches of the Marchlands, and this material 
combined with my own research should provide 
the foundation for a general assessment of the ar- 
chitecture. Another goal of my project is to deter- 
mine how the history of an area so clearly defined 
and isolated by the topography was linked to that 
of its powerful neighbors. My conclusions on this 
subject are confined to the section “Observations 
on the Marchlands.” Preceding this section I dis- 
cuss the valley of Kola and the single fort that I 
surveyed in August 1983.! 

The vale of Kola (Armenian: Kol) is a small, 
triangular-shaped depression in the rugged east- 
ern flank of the Marchlands. The significant peaks 
in the enveloping ring of mountains are Kartal 


“This article was written during my tenure as an Associate 
Scholar at Dumbarton Oaks (1985—86). I was supported finan- 
cially during this period by a stipend from the Armenian Pro- 
fessional Society. Messrs. Peter J. Kasavan and Jack Herbert as- 
sisted in the preparation of the plan for Oğlı Kalesi. I would 
like to thank Profs. Alexander Kazhdan and Robert Thomson, 
as well as two anonymous readers, for their comments on the 
typescript. With the kind assistance of Profs. Nina Garsoian and 
Robert Hewsen I was able to obtain the map from which Fig. 3 
is reproduced. 

My research in the Marchlands of Turkey was funded by 
generous grants from the Armenian Educational Council, the 
Dr. Eliza Melkon Fund of the Armenian General Benevolent 
Union, and the Alex and Marie Manoogian Foundation. 

Throughout this paper I shall refer to my two previous Re- 
ports on the Marchlands in DOP 39—40 as the First Preliminary 
Report and the Second Preliminary Report. 


for Vazken L. Parsegian 


Tepe to the northeast and the Kabak Dağları (alt. 
3,051 m) with their adjacent spurs at the east and 
southeast (northwest of Kars on Fig. 2; Koyun 
Dağı marks the center of the eastern flank on Fig. 
3). Oğlı Dağ (marked as Kop Dağı at the bottom of 
Fig. 3) is the southern terminus of the valley. The 
summits forming the western barrier are (from 
south to north): Nazirvap, Ardavut, and Ziyaret. 
To the northwest the towering Zamp Dağı com- 
pletes the circuit (Fig. 3). Today the principal mu- 
nicipality in the valley is Göle, the pre-Atatürk 
Merdenik, now the site of a large army garrison. 
Situated below the base of Ogli Dag, this town 
commands three very strategic arteries which link 
Kars (via the Balcemsme Pass, Fig. 2), Ardahan, 
and Oltu (via the Agundir Pass and Penek).? The 
name Göle is derived from the Georgian designa- 
tion for the area’s major medieval settlement, 
Kola.’ The pre-Turkish district (i.e., the valley) re- 
ceived its name from that town.* Ironically, this 
original settlement is now the somewhat obscure 


village of Okam (Çayırbaşı). Although Okam is by- 


ZA. Bryer and D. Winfield, The Byzantine Monuments and To- 
pography of the Pontos, DOS 20 (Washington, D.C., 1985), I, 59; 
V. Minorsky, “Transcaucasia (1),” JA 217, no. 1 (1930), 109 f; W. 
Allen and P. Muratoff, Caucasian Battlefields (Cambridge, 1953), 
43, 119, 223, map 19; I. Kökten, “Kars'in Tarih Öncesi Hak- 
kında Ilk Kısa Rapor,” Belleten 7.1 (1943), 601-13; J. Brant, 
“Journey through a Part of Armenia and Asia Minor in the Year 
1835,” Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 6 (1836), 
198 ff. 

* According to Minorsky (ibid.), the name “Göle” evolved 
through the local folk etymology into Min [Bin]-gól (a thousand 
lakes). The toponym Bingöl survives to the south of Kola. See: 
E. Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 
1071 (Brussels, 1935), 80, 157 note 1, 195, 197; J. Markwart, 
Südarmenien und die Tigrisquellen (Vienna, 1930), 492—94, 507; 
R. Hartmann, "Zu Ewlija Tschelebi's Reisen im oberen Euphrat- 
und Tigris-Gebiet,” Der Islam 9 (1919), 243. 

*T. Wakhoucht, Description géographique de la Géorgie, publiée 
d'apres l'original autographe par M. Brosset (St. Petersburg, 1842), 
119. 


120 ROBERT W EDWARDS 


passed by the modern trunk road from Göle to Ar- 
dahan, in an earlier period it was the junction for 
travel to Kars and the north. Not far from Okam 
the road to Olur leads west via the Pirdanos Pass 
(through Dört Kilise, Fig. 3).5 The significance of 
Kola lay not with its road system but with the hun- 
dreds of small streams that converge near Okam 
to form the great Kur(a) River. From spring to fall 
the valley floor is abundantly fertile and sustains a 
moderate population. Around the entire valley a 
thick pine forest supports a burgeoning lumber in- 
dustry. Along with its smaller counterpart at Kö- 
rolu, this is one of the few surviving forests in the 
southern Marchlands. 

Depending on the amount of trust that one 
places in the pre-ninth-century narrative of Leonti 
Mroveli, Kola may have been part of Iberia in the 
early Pharnabazid period and administered by the 
Duchy of Tsunda (fourth to third centuries B.c.).7 
The earliest Georgian legends place Kola and Ar- 
tani among the original lands of Georgia. They 
may have fallen under the control of Artaxiad Ar- 
menia in the second century B.c. and then re- 
verted to Iberia in the first century. Two sources 
from the first century A.D. indicate that the land 
where the Kur(a) rises was briefly part of Greater 
Armenia 3 St. Gregory the Illuminator (first quar- 
ter of the fourth century) supposedly sent the 
bishop Bassos to Kot, but this association is uncer- 
tain, especially since Kot does not appear in any of 
the early lists of bishops.? At this same time, during 


*This road was built around 1878 by the Russians to facilitate 
their conquest of the Oltu region. See Allen and Muratoff, 
Battlefields, 223, 249 f, 259 f, 266, 275, 281. 

“There is much confusion about the actual location of this 
route. Allen and Muratoff (Battlefields, 119, map 19) place the 
Panaskirt Pass at Dört Kilise (Fig. 3; northwest of Okam on fig. 
1, Second Preliminary Report); on one recent map (Deutsche 
Heereskarte, Blatt-Nr. C-XV, 1:200,000, “Oltu,” 1941) the 
modern village of Paniskirt is placed at the same latitude as 
Göle. Unfortunately, the toponyms Panas-, Panis-, and Penek 
are repeated with such frequency in this area that it is difficult 
to determine if the modern Paniskirt is the medieval P'anaskert. 
By reason of their proximity to this area, I have tentatively con- 
cluded that the major sites of Kiz and Olan (First Preliminary 
Report, 32 f) are the historical P‘anaskert. The reader should 
be aware that dozens of forts still remain undiscovered in this 
region and that a more credible candidate for P'anaskert may 
be found. Cf. Honigmann, Ostgrenze, map 4, 219-21; D. Bak- 
radze, Arxeologiceskoe putesestvie po Gurü i Adtare (St. Petersburg, 
1878), map. 

"C. Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Wash- 
ington, D.C., 1963), 445 f note 37, 456 f, 498; cf. Movsés Xor- 
enac'i, History of the Armenians, trans. R. Thomson (Cambridge, 
Mass., 1978), 135, 145. 

Pliny, NH 6.10.25 f and Strabo, 11.3.2. Cf. Second Prelimi- 
nary Report, note 84; Plutarch, Pompey 34.2. 

?N. Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justinian, trans. and rev. 
N. Garsoian (Lisbon, 1970), 257 f, 466 f note 15; G. Garitte, 


the conversion of Iberia, there is specific mention 
in the Georgian sources of the princes of Kola.!º C. 
Toumanoff is probably correct in assuming that 
despite the changes in political boundaries the val- 
ley remained Georgian ethnically because of the 
ancient traditions embodied in the Martyrdom of the 
Nine Infants of Kola. In 1903 Nicholai Marr pub- 
lished an edition of this life that was based on the 
Mount Athos manuscript of the tenth century." 
Ostensibly, it is the brief description of nine pagan 
children who converted to Christianity and were 
stoned to death by their parents for refusing to 
apostasize. In this work there are important clues 
regarding the Georgian administration of this re- 
gion at some period between the early third and 
the late fourth century. What follows are extracts 
and the most literal translations that I could ren- 
der. The location of the events is certain. 


aym Lag jmo 9360»0 oo Mosgbs tai: coocoobs 
dob ፀርንዕኩኔቦነ6ዐሀፅሁዕ ፡ imagen bs 36 1256 IA mão. $3530» 
ርባባርጥሀሁኔዕ 33236 remoa: cos aym IMB mLa go 
Lagmoboa dob Gomdsmamos 4963o» Obsbwmo. co» 
mIR3MmaLO go Jok&gbg MAMMOL BLsbyYyMo: 


There was one large area at the head (source) of the 
massive river which was called Mtkuari (Kura), in the 
valley which was known as Kola. Most residents of this 
area were worshipers of the pagan idols, and the 
smaller group were Christians—God’s servants. 


c» 306366 39% Üymdengk [998350^99x0] 954068 
020 LoMPdybmyjd0a Tso: dogoçogb 90»30b» 
906599 dob godobobo. 5990077] aym 02030 FoMIsMoro. 


Coo wyg ymagmo 0830 ymgomo. qos ሀዕ88 
Jg(050»s0 dom: hmmm DorsgoMdob dsb indim doo. 


gombo ወ34፲ዕ566 5055: 4009030058 goJo. 
930 S239 3059535: bmmm Boor 3$ 193b. 6dsb5 


cos dmz fi3b0»555 cos 1300»» 3963436690 08060. 
MAM Ms Lbymobo ödddeenb: cos 606595555 


648646. 


. and as they could not [change] their (the chil- 
dren’s) strong faith, they went before the Mt‘avari 
(commander of the army, governor, prince) at that 
time, because he too was pagan. They reported all this 
that had happened and the deeds of their children. 


Documents pour l'étude du livre d'Agathange, ST 127 (Vatican City, 
1946), 103 (here the reference to Kot is derived from an early 
12th-century Greek recension). 

10 Toumanoff, Studies, 254. 

!! [bid., 92 f note 133, 456; “Mudenitestvo otrokov? Kolai- 
cev’,” in Teksty i razyskanija po armjano-gruzinskoi filologii, V, ed. N. 
Marr (St. Petersburg, 1903), 55 f, 59 f; M. Tarchniğvili, Ge- 
schichte der kirchlichen Literatur, ST 185 (Vatican City, 1955), 
402 f. 


(6161) 000'000'5፡፤ 'uerueurqorq;) ዝዝ Aq umosəzrq,p U01391 e| op 211e7) 


— UPDIWVEUU3IGO IYİ sed eauiSSap Jo 9055210) 














Sv vv Sp =+ : Or YIIMUIIID P IST Gç 
nig and ax we "T L — i on za ; / ` 


à. Wis 
O a * se ar L 


A 7 Tf ` 
aeo > d E 
1 hu v P 
EL É ntn ra ad į E 


| man qasa í Ó ኣ 
jiz rd à he A \ yau Bino xe E AR NV 4% PATRAS = E ~ > 
መ መሽት ED p c p)" ፌሩ ሺ p Ar እሬ 
፣ Ste" PA ፌሪ | 3 Of ፦ Ny / መል yes » | x i — 
-—2 o ia ay - i 
ቃል % Gif | ማይ ZA gL "ae 2 — 
RAN é ፌ OASIS My, ` 
Y MANSIS NUS > | SS “e “GL; 


r 

5 É v vw Z, < hb y መ 

7 UM É ` SUA / Ox e (reai MB, ` 
q ` . = 


2 ond ነካነነነ 





E et mi; Yu. 





seit 








z š 
ድኑ 


Am 
am 2 


TAN 
መላ 


($4249? 
(UNO MIMI 


db 
vi 
se 


ys) 
ቻ 















way ' UN K ! =2=>ላ 2 - መቻ ማማምመመ ás E 
Qe Ius TALI o" » SE iE P 7 ( Ec ነ AEN. gc 
: o at çişi x ዓ I ie i 
3 ~ 1M, ` ላ e Miu nM J, [ 
kk; ፣ ዘ መው ze ቻም yeme | 
i Zech og us Pe: | Vai m i 
<Q መረ ያደ vy) ase" Mmm AP H ge SO — ` 4 | 











` nina Uy a š à 
š x ን = S< ዊህ=ዛ6/ shi £ e š i AS ` b 
` TIT ^ ys ቦ ታራ. = dl Y v 
la me lili i RET e e E Tm cd “ምጫ... ምሬ. T MN ns 5 
lig L ል gs SON - 

























m RUN SO ኳያ Se 

y ን " a > ሰፈር p Saj 4 Cons EE = 

Crk TUM eM en Ma pt yi S 
ያፈ. d : x Lee Sa eh p^ === / i 





































: | 
4 ሃህ, JJ 5: E — v K 5 A. I 
1 | Se PRŞ ad ES ዶ.- o " ina, ቷ 
ከ HA, 3 e 22 ~ ነ F. ሚመ. መግ Thy, yn my 
} ኤቴ" ZA z: PS LAE = AW, r> y + = 23 4 ሪ ኢሚ 
ን À AAN 4 3 eit === E — err Ya 
Mad ለፌ ህ% ዘጭ” f d x ==: E » E A 
NS ni n 7 : £ j$ y: > 2 T 
eo s ረ > yılar ye, ER 3 == i- 7 > ra 
a sew ና PÇA (7 Wen.) ) DE BOS) > = = "ቻዎ ^ 
rene uy n ny ae SİZ ይ me Pg AMI MI, etd O ZE ERES . 1 
"ጃራ = h Mekki, anA ^ A š d = ፡ 
አረመ ፆ "MI | E - 


T 

w Kidini, 
ከ... 
dei 


e= b 
ABE. uğra "t Pu 
! ee ር / እ"! 













Ve ህዞ WN dew end Z 
raise ty ችለ E god nes. 
ım 


S a ^ : ERUNT 5f; A 2s te Qe e it Ef ; ° ES 
É SN ጠን : ten 4 QUIET 4 JE o : Mai we PA የ y? 160 





auo. 





j t> | 1 dens WS ሜሬ! 





Pd Ww N 
- : / ርን 
Sat ስግ" smiley, on S 





rine Ay ae, 


w^ f 
X "y, V Y 








i E ኣነ 
c DO # | 
LS ፻። ኣ 
$ °. uipeig = ` 
É Neqrog 


S PI o 
| PE eAouttteH 
p ^ 
ELT. Gx 


>: zqua j 
645894 ^ wi 
P' “So 4 “2ቂሥ 


“ht " | "ES yit WAC: | 
| : g 























NS 7 Mos te 
ድ ቸፍ. አበ A 


~qesiasoyy ; Kİ m 


* - 


N» 
E 








ዋ559.40:4) / ቃመ 


M 
w 
` 


, 
L2 











f ° E 
AYNA 7: PD RE N 7 
—— ^ ebe qu» h A, 


4 = a Nw vu 
LX ud. r a / ር 
` PR 2 Di 
የረጋ y g 


Oo eN ağ, fm! 
e” š me 25, 
XN, Li 


D 7, 
n `` z a : a 
fs ^ AATE ሀሬ መ 2 p nim Ie + 
m tura E E CODE, [odo 4puexe(v 


| ሕ miga 


ኒ y , 
ini! 
š "H ti Ax io 
5 ቓ» mu “ሃሪ Í ፊነ ደ ye” 
Se eS 
ጋር LL T _ z 


S ae em Maa Hi. EN MES 
ፍ (. 


yi 
Z 
At 
| 
K 1P 
toe 
a. . 
t 
É a 


Mhl 


^ 











"UTI 





[1 
s 
a 
q 
ሕሪ 
78 
« 





35 


ንኛ 
i 


ie 


) 
Ss 
mu 
9 Mit 
UN 
ነ 






A P » ኤ 
AU 7 
i e 5 
özi , `. PE 3 , 
DA ` y 5 > 
- ` ' ET. es i 4 à 
t p" - z E N AM 
c 5.2 - SS S AMAN Oen 
MALES, * - SS w NUTS a 
> ጨው መ= = ረ ENUS CAB AN 
a Š > y - . ` > 
: ^ > a z T E. : 3 
= key sildi PE io š Í ያያም 
- š Š xin P 
e N + : ፡ Ky 
, [ . = Ft " RI 
= “Ir? i ር = NW 
, Í 7 AF, | E Em 7 I o 
2 / . ሪኔ j s A 256 ; pv WERL Ç 
| M ur sas A ፡ VAS nó 
F, ENS . S "m. Tt ` e 
^ P ^ " 4^ We e 
- H Er J 4 = >= 
` apas 2 E 
` + > L 


m 
Mo 








Me 


"NL 
‘ny 





` 
Wu 
— 






DE ^h 
NM. 
< E ^ እ , — EN = 
a Es. - iS አላ = 
M TEA E - ` Y 
He r ` Y = 
E > Y J % wi t 
T f > * * E d 
ጻ di 


^ 

" 

DAE: 
au! yide 


` 
asi 
anne a 









> 
d 
yv e 
ENG 
eie 
: 3. E 
je 


a a 
Soy 


| 
Š 
nin pă 
> 
Sx. 
Ns ; 
6. 
ፈ 





š a eş 


ooo'ooo'g/ : መ[|[2ካ> ኋ 


WNONAZHAS NOIOIY - 


e| ep | 
3LHYO | 





N 
° 
> 


3 


ም E ^ Se maus, 


ne E O: 





E. x 
= = Seite say od + | e PY. ves 
` “A en ğa to ru oui ሳሲ 
q Kp silik... | *" 097. rta 


sv İsmil sy 


ጪ 
— 
q 


I 





2 Türkiye Karayolları Haritası (detail), 1:1,150,000 (revised 1981) 


EST | 


N T | 
PLI ni 


—— 
— 
‘ane 

sete 
de Se 


So i, 
uU የጅ a 
Sade 
za 


PIN S 


* 


ም — iy E SEM 
toge. Tap a, 
© # 
s 
< 


3 Map of Kola (detail), USAF Aeronautical Approach Chart, Sarıkamıs, 324 CIIIG— Turkey, 1:250,000 (St. Louis, 1954) 











0 5 10 15 20m 


4 Turkey, Göle. Plan of Oğlı Kalesi 


V JO 10119)X9 9y) 15 IsSaMYINOS SUN00] 52ሾቫ BOQ ና 





q Jo Jollajul au Ye 3s24 BuTYOO "52ሮቨቫ O 9 





< 
Ge 
° 
r 
z 
=: 
= 
O 
N 
ሠ 
Es 
Ce 
° 
£ 
2 
i 
ዌ 
X 
ሠ 
9 
< 
= 
+= 
q 
-5 
+ 
fea 
© 
c 
bo 
S 
E 
" 
ቴ 
ሟ 
x 
ão 
O 
፦ 


8 Ogh Kalesi, looking south at the interior of the south wall of A 








9 Ogh Kalesi, looking northwest from the interior of A at the jamb of one of the north windows 


THE VALE OF KOLA: FINAL PRELIMINARY REPORT 121 


Yet the Mt‘avari said to them: “they are your sons 
(children), you have the authority. Do to them all that 
you wish.” Then they said to him: “Give the order and 
come with us, and we shall crush them with stones so 
that others will not imitate them and be made into 
Christians.” 


dadob asbsfiobgU com ogo mypoFmobsa Foss 
dam AmPsdgoroa: Cd g50m3oços 8035356660 ogo. COs 
Boborsbs bo8$s3e»8 gMoboa moh. 


Then they designated the day of the contest for the 
holy martyrs, and the Mt‘avari along with the count- 
less multitude of the people went out... 


The Georgian governor of the district is undoubt- 
edly the final arbiter in disputes that involve the 
life and death of adults, but the jurisdiction over 
the nine children of Kola rests with their immedi- 
ate guardians. Unlike the Jewish priests with the 
prefect Pilate, the elders here insisted on the phys- 
ical presence of the Mt'avari to give a legal sanction 
to their acts.!? 

At some period prior to the eighth century Kola 
reverts to Armenian control since it is listed within 
the lands of Hayk‘ in the Asxarhac'oyc*. As the Ar- 
menian Kot, this valley became the northernmost 
gawar in the province of Tayk'.5 Lewond implies 
that in 788 Kotis still part of Armenia for it is men- 
tioned as being near (or on) the Georgian fron- 
tier.'* By the early ninth century the vale is firmly 
within the realm of Asot I (the son of Adarnase I, 
founder of the Georgian Bagratids) and appears 
to stay for a considerable period in Kartvelian 
hands. Kola was certainly among the possessions 
that Bagrat I (842/3—876) passed on to his heirs.!° 


2]. Karst, Code Géorgien du Roi Vakhtang VI, Commentaire, 1.2, 
Corpus Juris Ibero-Caucasici (StraBburg, 1935), 175 f, 245 note 
4; idem, Littérature géorgienne chrétienne (Paris, 1934), 71—73. 

*H. Hübschmann, Die altarmenischen Ortsnamen (StraBburg, 
1904), 355—59, 455; Adontz, Armenia, 173, 436 note 20; S. Er- 
emyan, Hayastana ast "A3xarhac oyc^"-i (Erevan, 1968), 59, 63, 84, 
118; Pseudo-Movsés Xorenac'i, Asxarhac'oyc',, trans. A. Soukry 
(Venice, 1881), 38, 46; “Kot,” Haykakan Sovetakan Hanragitaran 
5 (Erevan, 1979), 529. The composition of the Ašxarhac°oyc° pre- 
dates the 690s; see my Second Preliminary Report, note 111. 

“Lewond, History of Lewond, the Eminent Vardapet of the Arme- 
nians, trans., intro., and comm. Z. Arzoumanian (Philadelphia, 
1982), 149; Toumanoff, Studies, 498. The borders of Kol are 
mentioned as mere geographical features during the period of 
Arab occupation; see Asotik (Stephen of Taron), Patmut'iwn tiez- 
erakan, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1885), 134. 

5 Toumanoff, Studies, 486, 489, 492 notes 247 and 249. If we 
can accept the exaggerated claims of Yovhannes Drasxanak- 
ertc'i (History of Armenia, trans. and comm. K. Maksoudian, diss. 
[Columbia University, 1973], 135, 149, 323, 330) regarding the 
domains supposedly controlled by King Smbat I of Armenia, 
then Kola may have briefly come under his control in the last 
decade of the 9th century. However, the more weighty evidence 


Kola probably was counted among the lands of 
David Curopalate (d. 1000), but may have fallen 
briefly under the control of Basil II.'5 In 1021 
King Georgi attacked Oltu unsuccessfully and was 
pursued by Basil through Kola. After 1025 we 
have evidence of a strong Georgian presence there 
and new construction.” David the Builder (1089— 
1125) is said to have cleared out Turkish invaders 
from Jawaxk' and Kola. This valley seems to have 
played no significant role in Seljuk or Ottoman his- 
tory. At first it was placed in the Eyálet of Cildir;'® 
after the Russian withdrawal in 1920 the vale was 
administered from Kars. Between 1701 and 1705 
we know that the insubordinate pasa of Kola was 
put to 1681ከ.?* In the eighteenth century the Geor- 
gian bishop of Kola resided in the monastic com- 
plex of Dadech(i) (the modern Dört Kilise; fig. 1 in 
the Second Preliminary Report), about 20 km 
northwest of Okam.?? 

Relying on the information supplied by the local 
herdsmen, I undertook a field survey of the pre- 
modern military sites in the vale. Although I was 
unable to explore every possible lead, it appears 
that the valley has at least two fortifications, both 
of which are located on the southern perimeter. 
Sagoman Kalesi, which is adjacent to Ziyaret Dag 
at a lofty point between the Oltu-Penek Valley?! 
and the vale of Góle, was placed off limits by the 
Turkish army during both of my visits. It is certain 
that Sağoman is the "Koumourlou" described by 
Wakhoucht.?? This “citadelle forte et inaccessible" 
he believes to be Bedchis-Tzikhe.? About 11 km 
southeast of Góle there is a small fort on the sum- 


suggests that Kola did not leave the Iberian sphere until A.D. 
1000. 

According to al-Mas'üdi, the Kur River comes from the land 
of King Gurgen of Georgia; see V. Minorsky, A History of Shar- 
van and Darband in the 10th—11th Centuries (Cambridge, 1958), 
164 f. 

16 Toumanoff, Studies, 497 note 269; Honigmann, Ostgrenze, 
161, 165. 

7 Histoire de la Géorgie, 1, Histoire ancienne, trans. M. Brosset 
(St. Petersburg, 1849), 306, 309 f; Honigmann, Ostgrenze, 163. 

^D. Pitcher, An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire (Lei- 
den, 1972), map 31. 

I? Histoire de la Géorgie, 11.1, Histoire moderne, trans. M. Brosset 
(St. Petersburg, 1856), 234; Wakhoucht, Description, 107. 

"The location of these sites is slightly confused by Wak- 
houcht (Description, 107 and map 1); Tarchnisvili, 71. 

?! First Preliminary Report, 15 ff. 

>Wakhoucht, 107. The precise location of Sa&oman Kalesi is 
given on the Deutsche Heereskarte, above, note 6. 

? It is remotely possible that Sa&oman is the fortress of TGA- 
LİTEOT; see N. Oikonomides, "L'organisation de la frontiére 
orientale de Byzance aux X*-XI: siècles et le Taktikon de 
PEscorial” XIV: Congres International des Etudes Byzantines, Rap- 
ports, II (Bucharest, 1971), 75 f. 


122 


mit of Oğlı Dağ. Oğlı Kalesi proved to be one of 
my most important discoveries in the Marchlands. 


Oğl 


To reach Oğlı Kalesi one must hire a jeep andan 
experienced driver in Göle. Motoring south- 
southeast past a Kurdish yayla, our driver created 
his own trail by following arroyos until he reached 
the base of Oğlı Dağ (alt. 2,629 m). 

What is immediately apparent from the plan 
and masonry of this small fort is that this site is not 
a medieval construction. At the extreme north 
edge of the summit stands the somewhat trapezoi- 
dal perimeter of a keep-like structure (A on Fig. 
4). It is the largest building in the Oğlı complex. 
Because of the uniformly steep cliffs below the 
north, east, and west flanks of A (Fig. 5), the walls 
average 2 m in thickness. At the south, where the 
lines of access are quite direct and easy, the wall is 
almost 5 m thick. Directly below and to the west of 
A are the outlines of building B (Fig. 6) and 
tower(?) C. Farther down the slope to the south 
and west are the fragmentary remains of dozens of 
other buildings. These were probably part of a 
settlement; there is no evidence that the whole site 
was surrounded by a continuous circuit wall. 

The masonry throughout the entire complex 
consists of a dry wall construction (“trockenmauer- 
werk”). The walls are composed of an exterior 
(Fig. 7) and an interior (Fig. 8) facing with a 
packed core of dry, uncut rubble and rock chips 
(Fig. 5). In those areas where the facing is not 
wedged between natural crevices in the rock, the 
attempts at aligning the stones in neat courses 
meet with varying degrees of success. Almost cy- 
clopean boulders, which are roughly cut in rectan- 
gular shapes, are used as quoins (Fig. 5) for the 
lower courses of the exterior facing and as headers 
elsewhere (Fig. 7). The soffit for a window (or pos- 
tern) below the northeast corner of A (Fig. 5, cen- 
ter right; Fig. 4) is a slightly bowed monolith. The 
jambs of the two straight-sided windows in the 
north wall consist of flat, horizontally aligned rocks 
(Fig. 9). Similar stones are used for the interior 
facing of A (Fig. 8) and to frame the four rectan- 
gular niches, although in this area the stones are 
tilted on their diagonal axes in a herringbone pat- 
tern. Surprisingly, the walls maintain on the aver- 
age a consistent height of 1.7 m and consequently 
they mirror the abrupt rise in the rocky founda- 
tion of A from north to south (Fig. 5). The short 
height and broad tops of these almost untapered 


ROBERT W. EDWARDS 


walls indicate that they functioned as a socle (1.6., 
a foundation) for a more extensive (and now van- 
ished) mud brick barrier above. Considering the 
numerous examples of fortified buildings (within 
a 300 km radius to the east and south) that are 
almost identical to A at Ogh, I am obliged to con- 
clude that this site is an Urartian construction.2 
Part of the mud brick facade must have disap- 
peared in the medieval period, for in certain areas 
(Fig. 9) just the tops of the walls have been sealed 
with the same mixture of limestone mortar and 
rock chips that is the principal adhesive of Arme- 
nian and Georgian fortifications. 

In the mid-ninth century B.c. the Urartian king- 
dom of Van was devastated by the Assyrians in- 
vading from the south.” Recovery was slow, but 
eventually the Van region was refortified and pros- 
pered. However, a new threat from the Caucasus 
in the form of Cimmerians and Scythians forced 
King Rusa I (735—713) and his son Argishti II 
(713—685) to extend their defensible frontier to 
Erzincan (Altıntepe) at the northwest and to Ho- 
rosan at the north. The land of the Diauehe,?’ 
which supposedly bordered on the regions east of 
Kars, was occupied by Scythian hordes. The Ur- 
artians refer to one of these groups of invaders as 
“Kulha,” which ultimately may be the origin of the 
Georgian toponym Kola. Since no Urartian forts 
have yet been found to the north and west of Góle, 
Ogh Kalesi must be a frontier post. Its location is 
most suitable for watching traffic on the Góle-Oltu 
highway and communicating information to the 
south. For this reason the fort was reoccupied in 
medieval times, probably without a civilian settle- 
ment. However, its new occupants may have been 


^C. Burney, "Urartian Fortresses and Towns in the Van Re- 
gion," AS 7 (1957), 37 ff; idem, "A First Season of Excavation at 
the Urartian Citadel of Kayalidere,” AS 16 (1966), 55-111; 
idem and G. Lawson, “Measured Plans of Urartian Fortresses,” 
AS 10 (1960), 177 ff; W. Kleiss, “Urartâische Plâtze in Iranisch- 
Azerbaidjan,” IM 18 (1968), 1-44; idem, Bastam, I (Berlin, 
1979), 11 ff, pls. 7-19; idem, "Darstellungen Urartâischer Ar- 
chitektur,” AMIran, N.F. 15 (1982), 53-77; E. Bilgiç and B. 
Ogun, “1964 Adilcevaz Kef Kalesi kazilari” Anadolu 8 (1964), 
65-92; T. Ozgüc, Altıntepe kazıları,” Belleten 25 (1961), 253— 
67; B. Piotrovskii, Urartu, trans. J. Hogarth (London, 1969), 69 
ff, 133 ff. 

^ H. Russell, “Shalmaneser’s Campaign to Urartu in 856 s.c. 
and the Historical Geography of Eastern Anatolia according to 
the Assyrian Sources,” AS 34 (1984), 171, 177 ff. 

6 Piotrovskii, Urartu, 84—132. 

7 Diauehe may be cognate to Dayaeni; see Russell, “Shalma- 
neser’s Campaign,” 186 f and note 56; note 44 below. 

SW. Allen, “Ex Ponto V. Heniochi-Aea-Hayasa,” BK 8—9 
(1960), 80-83. Cf. note 3 above and R. Hewsen, “Ptolemy’s 
Chapter on Armenia: An Investigation of His Toponyms,” 
REArm, n.s. 16 (1982), 120 f. 


THE VALE OF KOLA: FINAL PRELIMINARY REPORT 123 


concerned with incursions from the east and 
south. 


OBSERVATIONS ON THE MARCHLANDS 


In this preliminary assessment of the March- 
lands I have made a conscious attempt to depart 
from certain methods of orthodox historiography. 
The expected approach for an evaluation of the 
marches would have involved simply the careful 
arrangement, comparison, and analysis of appro- 
priate references in texts. Problems regarding top- 
onyms would be solved by applying geographical 
terms in the manuscripts to contemporary topo- 
graphical charts. If toponyms in the latter have sig- 
nificant phonetic similarities to the names of 
ancient and medieval sites, then the physical di- 
mensions and locations of historical events could 
be deduced. Any assessment of the general topog- 
raphy might be relegated to a supplemental map 
which displays a few key rivers and places the top- 
onyms in their relative positions. 

Because so much of what is significant about the 
Marchlands in northeast Turkey is topographical 
and because the references from our premodern 
sources are neither as specific nor abundant as for 
the surrounding regions, I decided to stress the 
geographical imperative and hiked through as 
many of its valleys as possible during two field sea- 
sons (1977, 1983). Also, I wanted to examine the 
architecture critically and extract its untapped po- 
tential as a historical source. The final shape that 
any particular type of building assumes is always a 
response to dozens of psychological and environ- 
mental factors. Despite the limitations of money, 
time, function, location, construction materials, 
engineering skills, and the idiosyncrasies of archi- 
tects and patrons, the churches and fortresses of 
the Greeks, Armenians, and Georgians tend in 
most Cases to possess architectural features that are 
peculiar to their cultures. Even in the absence of 
inscriptions and specific references in manu- 
scripts, it is possible to identify the origin of any 
particular edifice. When the spacial distribution of 
these sites is evaluated with the topography, one 
can illuminate and even supplement the shadowy 
and often fragmentary historical picture in our 
texts while offering new explanations for change 
or the lack of it. 

“Marchland” denotes a region that functions as 
a boundary or frontier between two countries. The 
word march is derived from the French marche; 
originally of Teutonic origin, it appears in Old En- 


glish as mearc and in modern English as “mark.” ?? 
The term is first used to describe the borders of 
the Carolingian Empire in the eighth century. 
Thereafter districts in Italy, France, Prussia, Scot- 
land, and Wales became famous as marches.?? The 
march is usually a zone between the major settle- 
ments of two combatants. Occasionally, the dimen- 
sions of this region are determined by a negotiated 
settlement, but in many cases a sparsely inhabited 
mountainous terrain provides a natural buffer 
which can be supplemented by strategically placed 
garrisons. It is the latter that characterizes the re- 
gion of my three Preliminary Reports. The term 
Marchlands has been applied to northeast Turkey 
only in recent publications and often with little or 
no attention to the geographical constraints im- 
posed by the concept.?! W. Allen claims that "all the 
march-country" which is a "confused mass of 
mountains and valleys," is the Georgian region of 
Samts'khe.? However, the traditional lands 
of Samts'khe are located north of Ardahan and 
east of the Arsiani Mountains, outside the region 
of my Preliminary Reports and within the tradi- 
tional boundaries of Iberia.” C. Toumanoff avoids 


?]. Adelung, Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der hoch- 
deutschen Mundart, rev. F. Schónberger (Vienna, 1811), 72 ff; F. 
Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 20th ed., 
ed. W. Mitzka (Berlin, 1967), 462; Oxford English Dictionary 6 
(Oxford, 1933), 154. 

* Encyclopaedia. Britannica 17—18 (New York, 1911), 688 ff; 
Shakespeare, Henry V, 1.2.140, (3) Henry VI, ii.1.140. 

51M. Kiessling, ““Hvioxo.,” RE 8 (1913), 263; W. Allen, “The 
March-Lands of Georgia,” GJ 74 (1929), 135 ff; Toumanoff, 
Studies, map 3; D. Lang, The Georgians (New York, 1966), 105 ff. 
Markwart' attempt to assess this area was only partially success- 
ful, since he saw just a single border and not a three- 
dimensional march (Erânsahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Moses 
Xorenac'i [Berlin, 1901], 116, 168 ff). 

As I discuss in my narrative, the Marchlands consists of a 
series of interconnecting valley-marches which together form a 
high mountainous perimeter along the borders of various na- 
tions. Because the historical geography of these marches can 
only be evaluated as an undivided unit, I am treating the term 
"Marchlands" as a collective singular. It should also be under- 
stood that near arid within the historical regions of Georgia and 
Armenia there are other marches worthy of investigation which 
are beyond the scope of this study. 

> Allen, “March-Lands,” 137; cf. B. Limper, Die Mongolen und 
die christlichen Völker des Kaukasus, diss. (University of Köln, 
1980), 32 f. 

Toumanofİ, Studies, 103 note 159, 445—47, 490, 492; Wak- 
houcht, Description, 95; Ch. Badridzé, “Contribution à l'histoire 
des relations entre le Tao et Byzance (les années 70 du X: siè- 
cle)" BK 33 (1975), 186 note 74; Second Preliminary Report, 
45. It is only in the very broad sense of including Samts‘khe in 
Mesxet'i/Moschica that the boundaries of the former can ex- 
tend into the Marchlands; see Wakhoucht, Description, 77 and 
maps; Toumanoff, Studies, 183, 439. In the 13th century and 
from the late 15th to the early 16th centuries much of the 
Marchlands was administered from Samts'khe, but the latter is 
actually a small, defined province. Consult V. Beridze, Arxitek- 


124 


any discussion of the specific geography of the 
Marchlands, but his map entitled the “Armeno- 
Georgian Marchlands” extends from Bayburt and 
Bardani in the south to the Phasis (Rioni) River in 
the north. 4 Unfortunately, specific borders are not 
drawn on his chart. 

Unlike most marches, which divide only two 
neighbors, this Anatolian example was sur- 
rounded by at least five nations, principally: Kol- 
chis, Iberia (both of which became the core of a 
unified Georgia in the medieval period), Armenia, 
the late Roman Empire/Byzantium (including sub- 
ject tribes), and Lazistan. Like spokes radiating 
from the center of a wheel, the mountain passes 
became highways whereby neighbors could cross 
into and settle the Marchlands. The result of these 
mixed migrations was that this massive buffer zone 
was never unified ethnically or called by a single 
name. Despite these limitations, it is possible not 
only to determine the history of the Marchlands, 
but to draw its borders using the information in 
my preliminary surveys combined with a careful 
analysis of previous scholarship. By the late nine- 
teenth century improvements in ground survey 
techniques and cartography resulted in reasonably 
accurate topographical charts of eastern Anatolia. 
To illustrate Macler’s translation and commentary 
for a seventeenth-century topographical study 
by Hakob Karnec'i, R. Chichmanian drew a some- 
what stylized map of northeast Turkey (Fig. 1) 
based on the previous work of H. Kiepert.5 Al- 
though Karnec'i mentions only a few sites in the 
Marchlands, the latter is geographically the most 
distinct unit on the map. The east flank of the 
Marchlands is an almost vertical line of mountains 
positioned midway between 42° and 43° longitude. 
This barrier terminates at Sarikhamich (Sarikamis) 
where another chain of mountains extends west 
above the Passin (Pasinler) Valley to Ovadjoukh 
(Ovacik), northwest of Erzurum. This southern 
flank of the Marchlands is completed at the south- 
west by a series of peaks which cross the meander- 
ing headwaters of the Djorokh (Çoruh) to join the 
Pontic range near the city of Ispir. From this area 
the Pontic Alps form the entire eastern side of 


tura Samcxe 13th—16thc. (Tbilisi, 1955), 242; idem, “Larchitec- 
ture géorgienne de la limite des XIII-XIV" siécles,” Rayonne- 
ment grec: Hommages à Charles Delvoye (Brussels, 1982), 484; 
Pitcher, Geography, 140. 

4 Toumanoff, Studies, 179, 186, 470, map 3. 

5H. Karnec'i, Erzeroum ou Topographie de la haute Arménie, 
trans. and comm. F. Macler (Paris, 1919), map. 


ROBERT W. EDWARDS 


the Marches until they diminish at a point south- 
west of Batoum (Batum). Although the units (or 
“lands”) that compose this region are delineated by 
mountains, the perimeter of this conglomerate 1s 
consistently higher and more united than any of 
its subordinate parts. 

Spanning a period of over twenty-five years 
from the late 1930s, cartographers from Germany, 
Britain, and the United States produced a series of 
integrated maps at a scale of 1:200,000 for eastern 
Turkey (e.g., Fig. 3)?9 More general charts (e.g., 
Fig. 2) based on these maps show quite distinctly 
that the almost unbroken mountainous perimeter 
of the Marchlands lies entirely within the present 
borders of Turkey. Beginning in a clockwise direc- 
tion from Ispir, whose location on the Çoruh 
marks the only practical entrance for vehicular 
traffic into the Marchlands from the east or south- 
east, the long elevated spur of Cimil Dag connects 
the lower Goruh Valley to the summit of the Pontic 
Alps near Dilek Dag. The unbroken line of Alps is 
oriented on a northeast axis and is punctuated oc- 
casionally by sharp peaks (e.g. Tatos, Goller, 
Kaçkar, Bulut, Gül, and Çomak) until it plunges 
into the Black Sea 10 km north of Kemalpaşa Köy 
(Makrai) on the border of the modern republic of 
Soviet Georgia. Through the medieval period 
most of the regions controlled by the Lazic tribes 
were on the left (i.e., north) flank of the Pontic 
Alps. The Hopa Suyu cuts a path through the west 
flank of the Çomak Dağları and forms the most 
southerly of the two northwest entrances into the 
Marchlands. It is near the estuary of the Coruh 
just southeast of Batum that a paved road traverses 
the northwest corner of the Marchlands toward 
the eventual junction at Borcka. The entire south- 
ern border of Kolchis, and consequently the 
northern border of the Marchlands, is formed by 
a series of peaks on the southern flank of the Acari 
(Acara/Adzhari) Suyu. This river feeds into the 
Goruh 22 km southeast of Batum. Since the mod- 
ern Iurko-Soviet border is aligned with the same 
peaks, it is impossible, because of present political 
conditions, to evaluate this frontier. In the eighth 
and ninth centuries, when Georgian clerics de- 


* Deutsche Heereskarte, Blatt-Nr. C-XV, 1:200,000, “Oltu,” 
1941; idem, Blatt-Nr. C-XIV, 1:200,000, "Ispir, 1941; idem, 
Blatt-Nr. B—XIV, 1:200,000, “Rize,” 1941; idem, Blatt-Nr. B— 
XV, 1:200,000, “Artvin” 1941; idem, Blatt-Nr. D-XIV, 
1:200,000, “Erzurum,” 1941; Maps of the War Office (U.K.), 
Sheet C-15, 1:200,000, “Pasinler,” 1941 (revised by U.S. Army 
Map Service, November 1943); idem, Sheet B—16, 1:200,000, 
"Kars," 1943. 


THE VALE OF KOLA: FINAL PRELIMINARY REPORT 125 


scended from the north into the Savset'i and Klar- 
jeti to construct monasteries, the psychological im- 
pact of this mountainous barrier was certainly 
diminished. The eastern terminus of the northern 
border of the Marchlands is at the Arsiani Moun- 
tains (west of Posof). South from this point the 
eastern flank is simply formed along the spine of 
the Arsiani until they terminate at Harasan Dag 
(fig. 1 in the Second Preliminary Report). From 
here the barrier pivots to the east along Alagöz 
Dağ (Fig. 2) and then turns to the Kabak Dağları 
(above Kars) to form the concave eastern half 
of the vale of Kola. From the Kabak the mountain- 
ous border snakes to the south over the back of 
the Allahüekber Dağları, whence it pivots in a 
southwesterly direction at Gamurlu Dag and across 
to Topyolu Tepe. Directly south of the latter (and 
above Pasinler) the line of peaks runs in a west- 
ward direction as far as Kargapazar Dag to form 
the northern flank of the Basean Valley, through 
which the Aras flows. To the southwest of Karga- 
pazar is the city and plain of Erzurum. The moun- 
tain directly north of the latter, Dumlu Dag, forms 
the bulbous southwest corner of the Marchlands. 
The deep ravine, which divides Kargapazar from 
Dumlu, accommodates the only major road in 
modern times on the south flank of the March- 
lands, the Erzurum-Tortum-Artvin highway. A 
much more difficult trail just east of Pasinler (high- 
way 955) ascends the west flank of Cilligül Dag and 
joins the Tortum-Oltu road near Narman. Dumlu 
Dag marks the point where the March boundary 
shifts abruptly to the northwest along the backs 
of Naldöken Tepe and Mescitdağ Tepe until it 
merges with the Mescit Dağları; from the latter a 
spur descends to Ispir completing the formidable 
west barrier and insuring the isolation of the area. 

The political and cultural orientation of any re- 
gion is always determined by the nature of the to- 
pography.97 It is no accident that the two civiliza- 
tions that had the most profound impact on 
Armenian society, Syria and Iran, were the recipi- 
ents of the Euphrates, Tigris, and Aras. These 
three rivers and their sprawling tributaries not 
only encompassed and watered Armenia, but they 
oriented its commerce and cultural intercourse 
to the south and east. In the adjacent Marchlands 
watercourses surge into the Çoruh, which in turn 


* Cf. D. Obolensky, “Byzantine Frontier Zones and Cultural 
Exchanges,” Actes du XIV: Congrès International des Etudes Byzan- 
tines (Bucharest, 1971 [1974]), 305-13. 


flows north toward the lands of Georgia. This ex- 
plains why the majority of the March inhabitants 
were Kartvelian speakers throughout the ancient, 
late antique, and medieval periods. Within this re- 
gion’s lofty borders there is a paucity of rain and 
flat terrain; the chance occurrence of both seldom 
produces land suitable for agriculture since the 
rocky soil has few nutrients. With the exception of 
Lake Tortum and the areas east of Olur and west 
of Yusufeli, the environment sustains few dense 
conifer forests. Despite its clear orientation to 
Georgia and the proximity of other powerful 
neighbors, this landlocked zone, which produced 
no surplus food nor any valuable commodity of 
trade, attracted few settlers.? To a large extent the 
social impact of the Turkish invasions bypassed 
this region because the nomads could find little 
fodder for their sheep. Even today the population 
within the Marchlands is smaller than in any equiv- 
alent region of Turkey, and a large quantity of 
sheep, as well as produce, has to be imported from 
Erzurum, Kars, and Hopa. The isolation of this re- 
gion is compounded by a certain irony in that the 
high outer flanks of the southern and eastern bor- 
ders of the Marchlands provide sufficient runoff 
and divert enough rain to give rise to three of the 
great rivers of eastern Anatolia: the Euphrates, 
Aras, and Kur(a). The first, called the Karacay be- 
fore it joins a major tributary of the Firat (= Eu- 
phrates), is formed on the west side of Kargapazar 
Dag; the second, initially called the Hasan Kale 
Çay before it joins the major Aras tributary at Cob- 
andede, flows east through the Pasinler (Basean) 
Ovası from the east flank of that same mountain; 
and the third meanders north from Kola and 
turns at Kintsvisi on its long southern journey. All 
three rivers are navigable waterways, whereas no 
section of the Çoruh (below Borçka) is passable by 
a flat-bottomed barge for more than 10 km.” Al- 
though the Marchlands is strategically located, 
premodern traffic from Trabzon and Bayburt to 
Georgia and northern Iran (whether it consisted 
of an invading army or trade caravans) was routed 
around the outer edges of this barrier. Despite 
its unified appearance on the exterior, internal 
ranges of mountains formed pockets where vari- 


"The northern extremities of the Marchlands as well as the 
mountainous areas in Soviet Georgia seem to be more produc- 
tive with respect to agriculture. See G. Tschitaia, “Sur l'agricul- 
ture de montagne en Géorgie,” BK 15-16 (1963), 51 ff. 

? Northeast of Ispir and northwest of Artvin I have seen 
small rowboats travel long distances. Unfortunately, the rapids 
create too much instability for heavy, commercial boats. 


126 ROBERT W EDWARDS 


ous tribes and neighboring civilizations had 
sparsely settled. A caravan insured of safety when 
entering at one point may not find equivalent hos- 
pitality in other areas of the Marchlands. From 
1829 to 1914 the Turkish and Russian troops* re- 
learned what the fleeing battalions of Xenophon’s 
Anabasis discovered in the fourth century B.c.— 
that the high cliffs of this desolate region provided 
at every turn a convenient place for ambush. 

Prior to the sixteenth-century Ottoman consoli- 
dation of the Marchlands, the region was unified 
only once during the golden age of the Iberian Ba- 
gratids. It was during this brief period of Georgian 
hegemony (ca. 820—1000) that Ardanuç became 
the epicenter of a direct and profitable trade route 
with Trabzon.“ This metamorphosis involved a pe- 
culiar paradox in that prior to the late eighth cen- 
tury the denizens of the traditional lands of Geor- 
gia (Kolchis and Iberia to the north and northeast 
of the Marchlands) always regarded the southern 
sparsely populated regions which they periodically 
controlled as slightly backward and potentially 
hostile, despite the dominant presence of Kartve- 
lian speakers. As poor relatives in exile, the Ib- 
erian Bagratids used the Marchlands as a political 
and military base to unite many of the divided 
Georgian kingdoms into a monolithic state. Per- 
haps out of a sense of geographic loyalty, they not 
only maintained their administrative centers in the 
Marchlands but under their patronage ignited an 
explosion of artistic creativity which resulted in the 
construction of the great basilicas at Bana, Osk, 
Haho, and Ishan. To this day these churches, as 
well as the magnificent fortresses, represent the 
apogee of Georgian civilization in eastern Anato- 
lia. When the Greeks converted Tao and Tayk' into 
the theme of Iberia, the political center of Georgia 
moved north, as did most of the Georgian nobility. 
10 better understand how the Marchlands holds a 
unique position in Anatolian history, it is neces- 
sary to review the principal pre-Ottoman accounts 
of this area. 


* Allen and Muratoff, Battlefields, 249 ff. 

© Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, ed. 
and trans. G. Moravcsik and R. Jenkins, DOT 1 (Washington, 
D.C., 1967), 214-22; H. Manandian, The Trade and Cities of Ar- 
menia in Relation to Ancient World Trade, trans. N. Garsoian (Lis- 
bon, 1965), 145 f, 155. 

“Georgii Mertul, Zitie Sb. Grigorija Xandztiiskago, intro., 
trans., and comm. N. Marr (St. Petersburg, 1911), 91 ff (trans.). 

“For a general view of the rise and consolidation of the 
Georgian and Armenian states see C. Toumanoff, “Introduc- 
tion to Christian Caucasian History," Trad 15 (1959), 1—106. 


Ancient 


With the exception of Oğlı Kalesi, we have no 
reliable information on any Bronze Age or pre- 
classical settlements in the Marchlands;** modern 
archeologists have never been permitted to exca- 
vate in this region. The first eyewitness account of 
the Marchlands comes from the Anabasis of Xeno- 
phon; he describes in the early fourth century s.c. 
just how the Greek forces retreated to the Black 
Sea from their ill-fated expedition against Artax- 
erxes II. At a location in Armenia west of Lake Van 
(and probably north of Mus and the modern 
Varto, Fig. 2) they proceeded along the Phasis 
River for seven stathmoi at a pace of five parasangai 
a day. From the point where they completed this 
journey they marched two stathmoi, equivalent to 
ten parasangaı, to a pass leading into.a plain. At this 
pass they came face to face with indigenous Chal- 
ybians, Taochians, and Phasians (4.6.4—5): Metà 
TOÜTO &xoosóO0ncav éEnta otaduodc ava mévte 
MAQACAYYAS TİG tjuépac xaoà TOV DÃO mOTANÓV, 
50005 mÀe0Quatov. ዩሃፒዩህ6ዩሃ êxopeúbncav otað- 
Lovs OVO ፔዐዐዐዐዕሃሃዐር 66#6- ETİ ÖR t eic TO =ዩፅ( 
ov ፲፲ዩ0ይ0እሽ ânivındav avútoiç XdAvBeç xoi 
Táoyo xai Paovavot. Because the idée-fixe of the 
retreat was the Euxine shore, we should expect the 
Greeks to follow only those routes that lead di- 
rectly north. Some have assumed that Xenophon 
actually marched east along the banks of the Aras 
from the vale of Pasinler to Kars. The modern 
toponym Pasinler is derived from the classical Ar- 
menian Basiané/Phasiané, and it is almost certain 


“A few have speculated on the occupation of part of this 
region by the people of Aea, Diauehe (Dayaeni), He(n)i, Igani, 
Hayasa, and Azzi. See: E. Herzfeld, The Persian Empire (Wies- 
baden, 1968), 118 f; P. Ushakov, “K pokhodam Urartiitsev v 
Zakavkazye v IX i VIII wv. do SZ,” Vestnik drevnei istorii 2.16 
(1946), 31 ff; E. Forrer, “Hajasa-Azzi,” Caucasica 9 (1931), 1-24; 
F. Cornelius, “Neue Arbeiten zur hethitischen Geographie,” An- 
atolica 1 (1967), 62—77; 1. Diakonoff, The Pre-history of the Arme- 
nian People, trans. L. Jennings (New York, 1984), 48 ff; R. Hew- 
sen, "North Central Armenia I: The Principality of Tayk” 
(forthcoming); J. Garstang, “Hittite Military Roads in Asia Mi- 
nor,” AJA 47.1 (1943), 47 ff; idem and O. R. Gurney, The Geog- 
raphy of the Hittite Empire (London, 1959), 32—39; A. Goetze, Kul- 
turgeschichte des alten Orients, Kleinasien, 2nd ed. (Munich, 1957), 
102, 190; cf. K. Salia, History of the Georgian Nation (Paris, 1983), 
13 ff. There is simply insufficient evidence to prove that the 
territory of the Igani in the 9th/10th century Urartian inscrip- 
tions is the land of the classical period Heniochoi (i.e., the 
Marchlands). Also see K. Salia, “Origine des tribus géorgiennes 
au sein de l'ensemble Ibéro-Hittite,” BK 37 (1979), 216-28. 

^ M. Cary and E. Warmington, The Ancient Explorers (Lon- 
don, 1929), 140; J. Thomson, History of Ancient Geography (Cam- 
bridge, 1948), 84; W. Tarn, CAH 6 (1927), 4—19. 


THE VALE OF KOLA: FINAL PRELIMINARY REPORT 127 


that the Aras bore the name Phasis in this region. 
The recent assumption that the Greeks believed 
this to be the great Phasis of north Kolchis, which 
empties into the Black Sea below the Caucasus, is 
unsupportable since Xenophon makes no mention 
of this association nor does he indicate he is lost. I 
believe that Xenophon did march along the Aras, 
which is called the Phasis near its second source, 
but in a northerly direction. The southern half of 
the road connecting Mus (via Varto) to Gobandede 
in the Pasinler Valley crosses dozens of small 
streams oriented on an east-west axis. But the mo- 
ment one descends north over the Akveren Gecidi, 
runoffs from the Manga Dag and Ak Dag quickly 
converge to form the Aras (Fig. 2, just north of 
Hınıs on highway 955). From this pass to the junc- 
tion with the Hasan Kale Çayı in the Pasinler Val- 
ley the Phasis (1.6., Aras) and its adjoining road ex- 
tend about 85 km. The average ratio of stathmo: to 
parasangai tor Xenophon’s army in northeast Tur- 
key (Ana. 4.5.1—4.8.22) is about 1:5.2. Thus the 
Greeks spent slightly over seven days to make the 
trip along the Phasis. In 1977 I made the same 
trek with a well-furnished backpack in four days. 
Considering the logistics of moving a large army 
along this meandering route, a journey of one 
week should be expected. At the modern Goband- 
ede, where the river abruptly changes its course to 
the east, the Greeks naturally sought to continue 
north. The only pass that leads into a plain and is 
roughly a two-day march from Gobandede ex- 
tends along the minor road directly north from 
Bekbad (between  Pasinler and  Cobandede) 
through the Cilligül Pass and into the Narman Val- 
ley.*' To encounter indigenous Chalybians, Taochi- 
ans, and Phasians in this pass would not be un- 
usual. The Phasians obviously controlled the long 
valley to the north of Cilligül Dag,*? the Chalybians 
inhabited the regions south of Dumlu Dag and 
east of Mescit Dağ,” and the Taochians (probably 
the preclassical Dayaeni), deriving their Kartvelian 
name from the region on the north flank of the 


46 Adontz, Armenia, 21 f, 206—8, 236—69; Hübschmann, Orts- 
namen, 208, 362; H. Tozer, A History of Ancient Geography (Cam- 
bridge, 1897), 117; idem, Turkish Armenia and Eastern Asia Minor 
(London, 1881), 286 ff. 

47 ላ. Şerif Beygu, Erzurum tarihi (Istanbul, 1936), 210 ff. 

SA most authoritative study on the Phasians is by T. 
Mik'eladze in Masalebi Sak'art'velosi da Kavkasiis istoriisa?vis 32 
(1955), 23-37. 

1 Pliny distinguishes the Armeno-Chalybians (NH 6.11.29) 
near the Marchlands from the Chalybians in the central Pontos 
(NH 6.4.11). Cf. Strabo (12.3.19). 


upper Oltu Suyu (the medieval Taoskari), lived in 
the valleys of Oltu, Narman, and Tortum. The 
laochians, who inhabited this region for over 
2,300 years, are mentioned in the Yonjalu inscrip- 
tion.” This pass into the Marchlands marked the 
southern limit of a region outside of Persian con- 
trol, where all intruders, regardless of affiliation, 
were swiftly challenged.*! 

After the Greeks outmaneuvered and routed 
the local militia, they advanced into the country of 
the Taochians five stathmoi, thirty parasangai (Ana. 
4.7.1 ff). The Greeks found a form of habitation 
which they had not seen hitherto, merely a series 
of strongholds on precipitous outcrops stocked 
with provisions. The population, together with its 
cattle and sheep, could gather within these places 
in times of emergency. These sites appear to be 
natural formations without masoned walls; nor- 
mally, the Taochians lived in collapsible tents. Since 
towns and houses were not to be found, the Greeks 
laid siege to an unnamed stronghold in search of 
food. It is possible to guess the identity of this area. 
Xenophon’s advance scouts found that the Sivri 
Suyu in the Narman Valley flowed northeast into 
the Oltu-Penek Valley and potentially away from 
the Black Sea. Considering that they marched 
thirty parasangai, the Hellenic army probably 
turned west around the south flank of Kara Dag 
through the Kireçli Geçidi to Tortum.? The 
stronghold mentioned here may be one of many 
fortified sites in that region. The only defense the 
Taochians employed was to roll stones from the 
precipitous heights. When the site was captured 
most of the natives committed suicide. From the 
land of the Taochians they marched seven stathmoi, 


Stephen Byz., ed. A. Meineke (Berlin, 1849), 602.11—18; 
idem, FHG 2, ed. K. Miiller (Paris, 1848), 75; Herzfeld, Empire, 
121; Toumanoff, Studies, 441 f note 21; E. Honigmann and A. 
Maricq, Recherches sur les Res Gestae Divi Saporis (Brussels, 
1953),79 f note 1. 

?! [ cannot accept the itinerary of Tarn (CAH 6, 12 and map 
1). He places the Taochoi in the immediate vicinity of Kars with- 
out justification. Considering the nature of the topography, his 
route 15 too long and convoluted. Also see: Toumanoff, Studies, 
445 note 27; F. Segl, Vom Kentrites bis Trapezus (Erlangen, 1925), 
36. The itinerary established by A. Safrastian (“The Itinerary 
of Xenophon's Retreat,” The Asiatic Review 30 [1934], 681—983), 
which routes Xenophon around the eastern flank of Lake Van 
as far north as Dogubeyazit, is simply not supported by the nar- 
rative in the Anabasis. 

This route connecting Çobandede with Tortum remained 
an active thoroughfare through the Middle Ages and was the 
route followed by de Clavijo. See E. Zdanevitch, “Ruy Gonzales 
de Clavijo en Géorgie," BK 40 (1982), 245-52 (first published 
in Actes du XII* Congrès International d'Etudes Byzantines, II [Bel- 
grade, 1964], 249-55). 


128 ROBERT W. EDWARDS 


fifty parasangai, through the land of the Chalybi- 
ans (Ana. 4.7.15 ff). From that region they crossed 
the Harpasus River traveling over a plain through 
the region of the Scythians for four stathmoi, 
twenty parasangai, until they reached a group of 
villages and collected provisions.? From here they 
marched four stathmo:, twenty parasangai, to the 
large and impressive city of Gymnias. An addi- 
tional journey of five days to the north brought 
them to a mountain whence they could see the 
Black Sea (Ana. 4.7.20). 

One can make an intelligent guess at the route 
from Tortum. Advance scouts probably informed 
the Greeks that the Tortum Suyu merged into a 
larger river (the modern Coruh) and flowed to the 
northeast (away from their intended destination). 
Since the land of the Chalybians is in the area of 
Ispir, we can assume that the Greeks took the di- 
rect route to the northwest, marching into the val- 
leys of the Mescit Daglari. Mescitdag Tepe (Fig. 2) 
channels the runoff as well as the westward ori- 
ented traffic to the region of Kırık. It is here that 
the largest tributary of the Çoruh forms and flows 
to the west. Most commentators believe that the 
Harpasus is the Akampsis/Çoruh.5© From this 
point they marched forty parasangai to Gymnias. It 
is likely that they followed the Harpasus and its 
adjoining road to the modern Bayburt, which can 
probably be associated with Gymnias.5* From Bay- 
burt a small army could easily hike to the summit 
of Soğanlı Dağ (2,856 m) by following the well- 
worn and still active road to Araklı. On a clear day 
the Black Sea is visible from Soğanlı Dag. 

Both Strabo, who composed his Geographia be- 
tween 30 B.c. and A.D. 21, and Pliny the Elder, who 
compiled his Naturalis Historia in the mid-first cen- 
tury A.D., make specific comments about the dis- 
position of the Marchlands. Strabo's knowledge of 
the region was gained for the most part from sail- 
ing along the Euxine coast, from interviews with 
local Greeks, and from the now lost narratives of 
Theophanes of Mytilene, who accompanied Pom- 
pey on his campaign against Mithridates Eupator. 
As a native of Amasya, we should expect Strabo's 
acquaintance with the Pontos to be exceptional. He 


5 Honigmann and Maricq, Res Gestae, 75 f notes 4—5. 

9$ Tozer, Geography, 117. 

5 Below Bayburt the river begins a 180? turn which eventu- 
ally changes the direction of flow from west to east. Bayburt is 
the major junction for travel to Trabzon (the destination of 
Xenophon's army) from the east and southeast. 

511. Vogt, "Remarques sur noms de lieux du Caucase,’ BK 
39 (1981), 34; cf. Bryer and Winfield, Pontos, 38 note 206, 55 
note 390. 


concludes that certain tribes not only occupied the 
coast but extended their influence deep into the 
inland regions as well. When moving east from 
Trabzon toward the Caucasus the tribes are: the 
Achaeoi, Zygoi, Heniochoi, Kerketai, Moschoi, 
and Kolchoi (11.2.14; cf. 11.2.1-2, 2.5.31). He 
notes that the land of the Heniochoi as well as its 
environs is generally without good harbors, being 
described as a mountainous extension of the Cau- 
casus (11.2.12). Those that are not pirates on the 
coast follow a nomadic life in narrow sterile lands 
(17.3.24). The Heniochoi supposedly descended 
from the two Laconian leaders, the charioteers of 
the Dioscuri (“heniochoi”), who were members of 
Jason’s crew (11.2.12). The sizable region con- 
trolled by this tribe was divided into "sceptu- 
chies”; the districts administered by the “sceptre- 
bearers” were in turn grouped into the realms of 
each of their four kings (11.2.13; cf. 11.2.18): dv- 
vaotevovtat ÖR xai OÜTOL ÜNÖ TOV xoAovuévov 
OKNTTOÜYOV* xai MÜTOL ÖĞ OÜTOL ÚMO TUDAVVOLÇ ኻ 
86ዉጢእዩህዐርሃ glow. ol yoüv “Hvloyou ፔዩ፲ፔፒዐ0ዐሮ ELYOV 
Baoéac, viza Mibordatys 6 EüTdTWE, hHeüyov 
èx THS MEOCYOVLuNs eic Boonooov, Sujet tiv ydoav 
avtav: Unfortunately, Strabo tells us nothing spe- 
cific about the inland geography of the Heniochoi. 
He mentions that directly south of the Trabzon re- 
gion (and thus west of the Marchlands) are the 
lands of the Tibaranoi, Chaldaioi, and Sannoi; “in 
previous times" the latter were called the Mak- 
ronai. Below the Sannoi is Lesser Armenia and the 
land of the nearby Appaitai, who were once known 
as Kerkitai (12.3.18). In this general area there are 
two mountains which are connected by spurs to the 
eastern ranges: Skydises and Paryadres. The for- 
mer joins the Moschikoi Mountains (the Arsiani) 
which extend from the Caucasus to separate Kol- 
chis from both Iberia and Armenia. The exact lo- 
cation of Mount Skydises is uncertain, but it is 
likely that it attaches to the Mescit Dağları. Mount 
Paryadrös is almost certainly one of the lofty peaks 


> Pomponius Mela, 1.19.111; Eustathios, Parekbolai in Geogra- 
phi Graeci Minores, II (Paris, 1882), 339 f. The origin and ethnic 
composition of the Heniochoi are somewhat problematic; see 
Kiessling, ““Hvéoyou,” 259—62. Less specific references have the 
"most savage" Zygoi, Achaioi, and Heniochoi as descending 
from the Pelasgoi (Greeks); see: the Fragmenta of Charax Per- 
gamenus, FHG 3, ed. K. Müller (Paris, 1849), 639; Aristotle, Pol. 
38b 22; Heraclides Ponticus, FHG 2, ed. K. Müller (Paris, 1848), 
218. 

58 Skēþtouchoi may simply be a term of convenience applied 
rather arbitrarily by Strabo. There is no indication that the 
Heniochoi were under Kolchian or Persian suzerainty; see N. 
Lomouri, “History of the Kingdom of Ergissi (Lazica) from Its 
Origins to the Fifth Century A.D.,” BK 26 (1969), 211. 


THE VALE OF KOLA: FINAL PRELIMINARY REPORT 129 


in that section of the Pontic range northwest of 
İspir (12.3.30).°° Both Skydisés and Paryadrés 
formed part of the border for Lesser Armenia 
(11.14.1). When Mithridates captured Trabzon, 
Chaldia, the region west of Ispir (near modern Gi- 
müşhane), and the northern portions of Lesser 
Armenia, Mount Paryadrés was extensively forti- 
fied. Simultaneously, this Pontic king became mas- 
ter of Kolchis, but there is no mention in Strabo’s 
text (12.3.28) that he controlled the intervening re- 
gion (i.e., the Marchlands) or that he subjugated 
the Heniochoi. According to Appian (Mithr. 
69,102), Mithridates made an alliance with the 
Heniochoi and passed through their territory 
quietly (ca. 66 B.c.). More than a century later an 
inscription from the reign of Vespasian (A.D. 75) 
records the dispatch of Roman engineers to a site 
near Mtskheta in Iberia for the purposes of build- 
ing a fort against the Scythians and Sarmatians 
and to protect the route over the Daryal Pass. Cu- 
riously, there is no record of any Roman occupa- 
tion of the Marchlands or contact with its inhabi- 
(30(5.” 

lo a certain extent the gaps in our information 
can be filled by Pliny’s narrative. He notes that on 
the coast, before reaching Trabzon from the 
northeast, is the river Pyxitos; beyond the latter is 
the race of the Heniochoi Sannoi, followed then by 
the river and fortress of Absarros, 140 miles from 
Trabzon (NH 6.4.12): “in ora ante Trapezunta flu- 
men est Pyxites, ultra vero gens Sannorum Heni- 
ochorum, flumen Absarrum cum castello cogno- 
mini in faucibus, a Trapezunte CXL.” In the line 
immediately following he seems to sum up the re- 
gion between the Pyxitos and Apsarros with eius 
loct: “eius loci a tergo montium Hiberia est, in ora 
vero Heniochi, Ampreutae, Lazi, flumina Acamp- 
seon, Isis, Mogrus, Bathys, gentes Colchouum, 
... According to the very precise list of rivers 





° That part of the Pontic range east of Trabzon bears the 
name Parhar/ParXar/Bolhar. Hence comes the name for the 
Georgian church of Parhal (west of Yusufeli). See: Adontz, Ar- 
menia, 23, 51-53, 307, 384 note 43a, 385 note 45; Toumanoff, 
Studies, 445-51; Herzfeld, Empire, 315-17. 

“Lang, Georgians, 86. In A.D. 58 Cn. Domitius Corbulo, as- 
signed to command the Roman army for its invasion of Ar- 
menia, may have persuaded the Heniochoi to raid Armenia from 
their homelands north of Erzurum. This assumes that the “In- 
sochi” in Tacitus (Ann. 13.37), who “were won over for the first 
time” and became the “most loyal friend of Rome,” can be iden- 
tified with the Heniochoi. The problem with accepting this as- 
sociation is that elsewhere (Ann. 2.68) Tacitus refers to the Hen- 
iochoi by name. Cf. J. Anderson, “The Eastern Frontier from 
Tiberius to Nero,” CAH 10 (1934), 761, 880 note 5; M. Caspari, 
“Notes of Tacitus, Annals 13.37.4” CR 25 (1911), 107 f; D. Ma- 
gie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, LI (Princeton, 1950), 1413. 


given by Arrian (ca. A.D. 141; Perip. 7.4), the Pyxi- 
tos is northeast of the city of Athénai (probably the 
modern port of Pazar or perhaps Ardesen);?! the 
Apsarros is almost certainly the present river and 
town of Arhavi (Fig. 2).” Beyond the Apsarros 
(continuing in an easterly direction) there are 
more Heniochoi as well as Ampreutae, etc. That 
the border of the Heniochoi extends as far inland 
as the mountains of Iberia is certain for Pliny says 
that the Kur(a) River rises in the Heniochoi Moun- 
tains (which are also called the Coraxici): “Cyrus 
oritur in Heniochis montibus quos alii Coraxicos 
vocavere" (NH 6.10.26). Since the Kur(a) is formed 
in Kola and along the east flank of the lower Arsi- 
ani Mountains, the Marchlands seem to be under 
the control of the Heniochoi.™ Since the Heni- 
ochoi are part of the Tzanoi (Sannoi) and possess 
settlements as far north as Kolchis, they are prob- 
ably Kartvelian speakers. 

According to Pliny (NH 6.11.29), another tribe, 
the Mak(e/o)rones, occupied the edges of the 
Marchlands. Like the Heniochoi, this Caucasian 
group migrated south into Asia Minor and had a 
reputation as uncivilized brigands.9 However, 
Strabo’s account differs from Pliny’s in that the for- 


© Bryer and Winfield, Pontos, 11, 55 f, 336, 338—42. Kiessling 
(“Hvtoxou,” 267) is mistaken about the location of the Pyxitos. 
By placing it 3 km east of Trabzon he is at variance with the 
information from two ancient explorations in that area. In what 
survives of the anonymous (probably post-4th century) Periplus 
Ponti Euxine (FHG 5 [1883], 174) there is a specific mention that 
the tribe once called Ekcheireis and “now” called the Mache- 
lones and Heniochoi inhabit the regions between the Ophis (at 
the west) and Archabis (at the east) rivers. Even with the addi- 
tion of the western neighbor of the Heniochoi, the Machelönes, 
the Ophis (i.e., the modern Of) is still 59 km east of Trabzon! 
The anonymous Periplus has contracted slightly the northeast 
border of the Heniochoi and placed the Zudreitai farther south 
in the Marchlands between the Akampsis and Archabis rivers. 
Arrian (Perip. 7.1—4) places the toponyms in a similar align- 
ment. Compare map 3 in F. Arrianus, Scripta Minora et Frag- 
menta, II, ed. A. Roos (Leipzig, 1967) and map 18 in Geographi 
Graeci Minores, Tabulae, ed. K. Müller (Paris, 1882). 

2G. Thomas, Der Periplus des Pontos Euxinus nach münchener 
Handschriften (Berlin, 1863), 250, 269; A. Baschmakoff, “La 
synthèse des périples pontiques,” Etudes d'ethnographie, de socio- 
logie et d'ethnologie 3 (1948), 41, 56 f, 66, 124; T. Oauhöiğvili, 
Berjeni mcerlebis c'nobebi sak'artvelos Sesabeb, 1, Skilak‘s kariandeli, 
Skimnos Kioseli, Dionisios periegeti (Tbilisi, 1967), 47 ff, 148 f. 

6 Hecataeus, FHG 1, ed. K. and Th. Müller (Paris, 1841), 12; 
Stephen Byz. 688.18—19. The Coraxi are a tribe south of the 
Caucasian Mountains (Pliny NH 6.5.15). Also see: Plutarch, 
Pomp. 34.1--2; and Pomponius Mela, 3.5.41. 

“That the territory of the Heniochoi extends far inland 
from the sea is confirmed by the anonymous Periplus (177 f). 
The initial streams that feed the Coruh are in the territory of 
the Sannoi (Procopius, BG 4.1, 8.2—5); also see Kiessling, 
“Hyvtoxou,” 272 f. 

$5 Allen, “Ex Ponto V;" 80 ff. 

“A. Herrmann, “Makrones,” RE 14 (1930), 815. 


130 ROBERT W EDWARDS 


mer (12.3.18) defines Makrones as merely the an- 
cient name for the Sannoi, a people whom he 
places south of Trabzon in the region of Chaldia.5 
Pliny mentions that the Sannoi come from a dis- 
trict of the Pontos near Heraclea® (NH 21.45.77) 
and that a subdivision of their group are the Hen- 
iochoi (NH 6.4.12).” What Pliny either forgot to 
mention or did not realize is that the Makrones are 
another subdivision of the Sannoi.”? The Mak- 
rones probably resided along the border of an- 
other Sannic tribe, the Machelones. This group 
may be the Machorones of Pliny (NH 6.4.11); they 
lived between the Ophis and Prytanis rivers.”! Un- 
fortunately, Lucian’s comments in the Taxarıs (44— 
50) about the Machlyai and their ruler are purely 
fictional. Ptolemy, who writes in the first half of the 
second century A.D., lists the town of Mechlessos 
on the border of Kolchis,? but he adds nothing 
substantive. Arrian, a contemporary of Ptolemy, 
lists on a west to east orientation the Sannoi, Dri- 
lae, Machelonoi, Heniochoi, Zudreitai, and Lazoi 
(Perip. 11.1-2). The Machelonoi and Heniochoi 


6 Later, this identification is repeated by Stephen of Byzan- 
tium (429.5). Cf. Arrian, Perip. 11.1; Procopius, BG 4.1.8 f; Eu- 
stathios, Parekbolai, 349. 

68 Bryer and Winfield, Pontos, 328 f; T. Brown et al., "Cities of 
Heraclius,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 4 (1978), 22-30. 

9 Procopius, De Aed. 3.6.18. P. Ingoroqva (Giorgi Mer&ule 
(Tbilisi, 1954], 134-37) accepts the identification of Sannoi and 
Heniochoi. Sannoi being a term that comes to prominence in 
the late classical period. The classical references to Saniges/ 
Suanes/Soanes probably refer to subdivisions of the Heniochoi. 
Allen (“‘Ex Ponto’ I and II,” BK 30—31 [1958], 39 ff, 51; idem, 
“Ex Ponto V” 79 f, 82 f) rightly rejects the assertion of M. In- 
adze (in Masalebi Sak’art velosi da Kavkasiis istorüsat'vis 32 [1955], 
14—21) that the Sannoi and Heniochoi are mixed tribes. Inadze 
may be right to assume that the Heniochoi are among the oldest 
inhabitants of west Georgia, but from our classical sources they 
appear to have occupied the regions south of Kolchis (i.e., the 
Marchlands). It is quite possible that the Heniochoi could have 
migrated south from Kolchis before the 7th century s.c. There 
is no evidence to show that the Marchlands and Kolchis were 
jointly administered before the rise of the Georgian Bagratids. 

Cf. Theodoret, Thérapeutique des maladies helléniques, ed. and 
trans. P. Canivet, II (Paris, 1958), 339 f. An alternate spelling 
for Sannoi is preserved in Memnon (FHG 3, 555): Sanegai. 

nA. Herrmann, *Machelones," RE 14 (1930), 154. 

? Honigmann and Maricg, Res Gestae, 70 ff. 

? [n general Ptolemy's discussion of the Marchlands is quite 
inadequate; he has no sense of its topography. The major geo- 
graphical divisions he lists are Armenia Major, Kolchis, Iberia, 
and Armenia Minor (Cappadocia). He does describe the Kur(a) 
as forming the borders of Iberia and Armenia Major; the latter 
extends to Kolchis, whose borders are defined by the Moschi- 
koi, which connect with the Pontic ranges. See: Ptolemy, Geog. 
1.2, ed. and comm. K. Müller (Paris, 1901), 866, 925, 932, 934, 
. 937 f; idem, Geographia, ed. C. Nobbe (Leipzig, 1843—45) [rpr. 
Hildesheim, 1966], 8.17.2, 8.18.2, 8.19.1, 5.9.7, 5.10—13, 5.7.1 
ff; W. Kubitschek, Studien zur Geographie des Ptolemâus, 1, Lânder- 
grenzen (Vienna-Leipzig, 1934), 98—102, 130—33, 156 f; A. For- 
biger, Handbuch der alten Geographie, II (Leipzig, 1843), 98, 408, 
440—45; Hewsen, "Ptolemy's Chapter on Armenia,” 111 ff. 


are ruled by a single king, Anchialos."* Writing in 
the early third century about an event a hundred 
years earlier (A.D. 117), Dio Cassius (68.19) tells us 
that Trajan came to Satala (modern: Sadak?) and 
rewarded Anchialos, the king of the Heniochoi 
and Machelones. Thus from the time of Strabo 
some sort of consolidation of the local kings seems 
to have taken place.” Arrian adds that the Prytanis 
River is still the boundary for the kingdom (or one 
of two kingdoms?) of Anchialos (Perip. 7.3). No 
matter what contact the Greeks and Romans had 
with the Heniochoi, they always regarded the lat- 
ter as barbarians in an inhospitable land. For Sen- 
eca has Thyestes (1048 f) say: "quis inhospitalis 
Caucasi rupem asperam Heniochus.” 

' The Moschoi, who inhabit eastern Kolchis and 
western Iberia near the eastern flank of the March- 
lands, are not mentioned by Arrian. Their name is 
identical to the well-attested mountain range (the 
Moschikoi or modern Arsiani) which separates 
Kolchis, Iberia, and Armenia.” The central and 
northern extensions of these mountains give rise 
to the Rion (Phasis) River (NH 6.4.13; cf. 6.11.29). 
While there is wide-ranging speculation about the 
origin of this group, their historical past is ori- 
ented to these mountains." Herodotus in the fifth 
century B.C. (3.94; cf. 7.78) tells us that the Mos- 
choi and Makrones along with the Tibareni, 
Mares, and Mossynoikoi were grouped into the 
nineteenth satrapy of the Persian empire and col- 
lectively paid a tribute of three hundred talents.” 
Strabo associates the Makrones with the “ancient” 
Sannoi, a people like the Tibareni, who inhabit the 
regions south of ‘Trabzon and portions of the Pon- 
tic shore (cf. Xen. Ana. 4.8.1—9). It appears that 


"^ Anonymous, Perip. 175-77; Toumanoff, Studies, 448 note 
39. 

Pliny, a near contemporary of Strabo, indicates that the 
tribes of the Heniochoi were numerous and had various names 
(NH 6.4.14, 6.7.30). Cf. Dio Cassius, 62.14. See also: Magie, Ro- 
man Rule, 1, 607, 11, 1465; T. Mitford, “Cappadocia and Asia 
Minor: Historical Setting of the Limes," Aufstieg und Niedergang 
der römischen Welt 2.7.2 (1980), 1198. 

ê Strabo, 12.3.18, 11.2.14 f; Procopius, BP 8.2.24—26; Pliny, 
NH 6.10.29; Herzfeld, Empire, 125; Second Preliminary Report, 
44 f. 

7 A. Herrmann, “Moschoi,” RE 6 (1935), 351 f; Toumanoff, 
Studies, 49—64, 80. 

"Cf. Hecataeus, FHG 1 (1841), 13. It is quite possible that 
this is a list of tribes in the Persian Empire and not specific sa- 
trapies; see G. Cameron, “The Persian Satrapies and Related 
Matters,” JNES 32 (1973), 47-56. The "19th satrapy” was prob- 
ably a ae of Herodotus; consult Herzfeld, Empire, 295 ff, 
313-17. 

A. Herrmann, “Makrones” RE 14 (1930), 815; idem, “Ti- 
barenoi” RE 6 (1937), 764. Xenophon places the Chalybai, 
Makrones, and Tibarenoi as neighbors on the Pontic coast west 


THE VALE OF KOLA: FINAL PRELIMINARY REPORT 131 


the Mossynoikoi inhabit part of Chaldia (Strabo 
11.14.5), and the Mares controlled sections of the 
Pontic coast.8 It is apparent from this list that the 
Persians controlled only the periphery and not 
the Marchlands. This explains why Xenophon 
more than a century later found no evidence of 
civil authority amid the Taochoi.?! Nor is there any 
indication in later periods that the pre-Sasanid 
Persians occupied the region. Even in the so-called 
Res Gestae Divi Saporis, the mid-third-century A.D. 
trilingual inscription concerning the political, mil- 
itary, and religious activities of Shapuhr I, only 
Machelonia is mentioned.? A. Maricq has shown 
convincingly that Machelonia is located on the 
southeast edge of the Black Sea and in the tradi- 
tional regions of ancient Kolchis.8 


Late Antique 


The tribal designation “Lazoi” is first mentioned 
in the Christian era,8* and it is only after the third 
century A.D. that the concept of Lazica comes into 
prominence. The latter includes certain geograph- 
ical regions that were occupied by speakers of a 
particular Kartvelian dialect, which is related to 
Mingrelian.8 In the sixth century both Procopius? 
and Agathius*” believe that the ancient and tradi- 
tional lands of the Laz were in Kolchis, a region 
that the ancients call Egris(s)i*? and the medieval 


of Trabzon (Ama. 5.4.2--34, 5.5.1-3). Cf. Ephorus, FHG 1 
(1841), 259; A. Bryer, "Some Notes on the Laz and Tzan (1)/ 
BK 21—22 (1966), 175; R. Eisler, "Die 'Seevólker' Namen in den 
altorientalischen Quellen," Caucasica 5 (1928), 81-102. 

80 ላ. Herrmann, “Mares,” RE 14 (1930), 1680. 

8! Xenophon, Ana. 5.5.17; Toumanoff, Studies, 443 note 27. 
Dumlu Dağ appears to be one of the boundaries of Persian Ar- 
menia; see R. Hewsen, "Introduction to Armenian Historical 
Geography, II: The Boundaries of Achaemenid “Armina,” 
REArm, n.s. 17 (1983), 139. 

5 A. Olmstead, "The Mid-third Century of the Christian Era 
I and II,” CPh 37 (1942), 398—420, 641—62; M. Rostovtzeff, 
"Res Gestae Divi Saporis and Dura;" Berytus 8.1 (1943), 17—60; 
Herzfeld, Empire, 314 note 2. 

Unfortunately, the so-called "historical atlases" of this region 
provide no specific data on the occupation of the Marchlands 
and environs; they are based largely on guesswork. See: H. Kie- 
pert, Atlas Antiquus: Zwölf Karten zur alten Geschichte (Berlin, 
1902), pl. rv; F. Schrader, Atlas de géographie historique (Paris, 
1896), maps 10, 12, 14, 15, 16; K. Miller, Mappaemundi: Die 
âltesten Weltkarten, VI (Stuttgart, 1896), pls. 6, 7, 20, 30. 

33 Honigmann and Maricq, Res Gestae, 63 ff. If Xenophon’s 
account is to be trusted (Ana. 4.8.8—24, 5.3.2), the Kolchians 
possessed areas of the Pontic coast at and near Trabzon. The 
"traditional coast" of the Kolchians is north of Batum. 

s V. Minorsky, “Laz,” EI (1936), 20. 

55 Ibid., 21 f; A. Herrmann, “Lazai” RE (1925), 1042 f. 

ይ Procopius, BP 1.11.28, 2.15.1—6; BG 8.1.7 ff. 

87 Agathias, 2.18.4, 3.5.1. 

* Lomouri, “History,” 211—106. 


Georgians place between Guria and Abkhazet'i.? 
Kolchis is located north of the Acara (Adzhari) 
River. Lazic settlements and border fortresses 
(e.g., Archaeopolis, Sebastopolis, Pitius, Scanda, 
Sarapanis, Petra, Rhodopolis, and Mochersis)?? ex- 
tended west from the frontiers of Iberia?! so as to 
encompass and overreach the Phasis (Rion) River 
from its source to the Black Sea. Less civilized La- 
zic tribes migrated into the coastal regions from 
Batum to Rize; for the most part they were con- 
fined to the north flank of the Pontic range 
(i.e., northwest of Paryadres/Parhal). The evidence 
from our premedieval sources indicates that few of 
the Lazic regions fall within the confines of the 
Marchlands. In the late Roman and Early Byzan- 
tine periods the Greeks of Anatolia viewed the La- 
zic and Iberian kings, such as G(o)ubazes and 
G(o)urgene, as clients of dubious loyalty and abil- 
ቪነ.” Their lands had to be occupied to prevent the 
spread of Persian influence.? Although the Arab 
invasions were to erase the Laz of Kolchis as a po- 
litical and cultural force in the formation of medie- 
val Georgia, they prospered as independent herds- 
men and farmers along the Pontic ranges, first as 
subjects of the Byzantine and Trebizuntine em- 
pires, and finally as converted Muslims in the Ot- 
toman/Turkish state. 

From the remarks in the text of Procopius it 
seems that the principal occupants of the March- 
lands in the time of Justinian I are the San(n)oi/ 
Tzanoi. As early as the first century A.D. Pliny the 
Elder places the Heniochoi, a subdivision of the 
Sannoi, in the Marchlands. Procopius, who views 
the Tzanoi as a distinct nation from the Lazol,* 
places the boundaries of the former nearest to the 


89 C. Toumanoff, “Caucasia and Byzantium,” Trad 27 (1971), 
119. 

* Procopius, BP 2.29.17 ff; Agathias, 2.19.1 ff. The location 
of most of these sites is in dispute; see: Toumanofİ, Studies, 257 
note 359; Adontz, Armenia, 81 f, 134, 137, 409 note 19. 

9! Although Procopius and Agathias use the designations “Ib- 
erlans,” “Lazi,” and “Kolchians” interchangeably to describe 
various Kartvelian speakers, they have a clear sense that Iberia 
and Kolchis/Lazica are two distinct geographical regions. Nei- 
ther writer should be chided for this lack of consistency. See: 
Procopius, BP 1.12.2—5, 2.17.1—2, 2.28.17 ff; Agathias, 2.18.1— 
4, 2.22.3 ff, 3.5.1; cf. A. Cameron, Agathias (Oxford, 1970), 82. 
Today scholars use interchangeably the terms “Turkey” and 
"Asia Minor” to describe the same land mass, yet they know that 
historically Asia Minor refers to the more westerly regions in 
Anatolia. See: D. Georgacas, The Names for the Asia Minor Penin- 
sula (Heidelberg, 1971), 27—99. 

2 Toumanoff, Studies, 255 note 355, 360—82; Procopius, BP 
2.17.1--3, 1.12.4--13, 2.15.1--18; Agathias, 2.18.6; 3.2.3 ff. 

% Bryer, “Notes (1),” 176 ff; C. Toumanoff, CMH 4.1 (1966), 
600 ff. 

*! Procopius, BP 1.15.19—25, 2.29.14. 


132 ROBERT W EDWARDS 


Boas (Çoruh) River as it flows out from among the 
Armenians who dwell around Pharangion (1.6., 15- 
pir). From here it proceeds to the right (1.e., the 
northeast) for a great distance as a shallow and eas- 
ily traversable stream up to the point where Iberia 
lies on the right and the mountainous extensions 
of the Caucasus are directly opposite. The text re- 
cords (BP 2.29.14): Bóac ó motaudç Egor 
ÖYXLOTA nn TAV Tüeovuxñç dotwv Ev AouevloLg ot ፅከ 
audi Tô baodyytov dxnvvav. xai và uev TOMTA EV 
68540. Ext TÂELOTOV ywost, Booxúç TE lòv xai ፔዕሃህ 
ovdevi yiv6uevoc ዩዐይዐቨፔዕር Gao Üyor EÇ ሂወዐዐሃ OU 
6ከ Ev 6ዩ506 uev "Ifrjoov và ÖOLA ÊOTL, KOTOVTLKOÜ 
ÖĞ TeAEvTG Ópoc ó Kaúxagoç. At this point the ac- 
count of Procopius becomes somewhat muddled, 
for as the Coruh changes course to flow northwest 
into the Black Sea, he claims that it is called the 
Phasis (Rion), which in reality is 70 km to the 
north. He is correct in that the Çoruh becomes 
partially navigable near Artvin because of the in- 
creased flow from the Merehevi Suyu. Confusing 
the Phasis and the Çoruh north of Artvin, he spe- 
cifically places the Tzanoi southwest of Iberia in 
that mountainous district from which his Phasis 
River flows and eventually passes into Kolchis (BP 
1.15.20—22): . . . &vOev &Evov MotAapds Pâoıç ቀዩር- 
etat EÇ YAV tiv ፲ኗ0እሂ(60. tatty ፔስ & àoyíic Báo- 
Bagot, tò Tlavixôv ፻6ህ0ር, ዐ፻6ዩሃስር xwoqTñxoou 
OKNVTO, ZÁVOL Ev toig ÖV XoóÓvouç xaAovpEVOL, 
... When a group of Tzanic mercenaries deserted 
from the Greek army, they sailed directly to the 
port of Rhizaios (modern: Rize), whence they trav- 
eled by land to the nearby port of Athenai (the 
modern Pazar), which bordered on both the Greek 
and Lazic territories.” From there they marched 
southeast through Greek enclaves across the Pon- 
tic Alps into their own homeland. Procopius be- 
lieves that the Tzanic lands extended for a consid- 


% Adontz, Armenia, 22 f, 50; cf. A. Bryer, “Some Notes on the 
Laz and Tzan (I1)” BK 23-24 (1967), 161 f; idem and Winfield, 
Pontos, 15, 54—56; Procopius, BP 1.15.18; BG 8.2.6. 

Ispir is one of the few cities that actually sits on the edge of 
the Marchlands. Consequently, it is a site that has changed 
hands on numerous occasions. See: D. Winfield, “A Note on the 
South-eastern Borders of the Empire of Trebizond in the Thir- 
teenth Century” AS 12 (1962), 163-72; Bryer and Winfield, 
Pontos, 14 f, 38, 54-56, 352-55. 

% Procopius seems to correct himself in a later passage (BG 
8.2.6—9), when he mentions that the Boas becomes the Akamp- 
sis at the point where it changes direction (near Artvin) and 
flows into the Black Sea. For information on the Akampsis see 
J. Tischler, Kleinasiatische Hydronymie (Wiesbaden, 1977), 23. 

9 Procopius, BP 2.30.14; BG 8.2.10. In another passage 
(8.2.17—19) Procopius says that the residents of Athenai are in- 
dependent and have agreements to provide escorts to their 
neighbors traveling from one country to another. 


erable distance on the inland side of the Pontic 
range just north of their Armenian allies (BG 
8.2.5): TOÚTWV dé 07) TOV ሂወዐ(ዐ)ሃ (1.6., Trabzon, 
Rize, and the Lazic coast) ዩሃ deELa và TCavixijs Gon 
ሜሺ፲ነሃፒ[.- ÖVEYEL, ETEKXENA TE MÜTOV "Aouéviot 
"Poua(ov xotñxoo, ዕ)ሄኻሃፒር(. Later he character- 
izes their land as xoa. ፻0ካህ0ር (BG 8.2.20). Else- 
where Procopius states that the Tzanoi are not 
neighbors of the Trebizuntines, and he gives a suc- 
cinct definition of their habitat in the Marchlands 
(BG 8.1.8—10): TCdvou uev yao Tiç xapooA(ac ወር 
ANWTATW OVTES TPOCOLKODOL TOUS ' Aouev(ovuc £v TT] 
ueooye(a xai ዕዐካ TONA WETAED ዕሜዐ50ዩዜቨፒ01, Atav 
te Bata xai SAWS xonuvóón, XÓQA TE TOM) 
Eonuos avOodmwv és det oðoa xai yaoddoat Avéx- 
Bator xai እዕቁ04 ህእጩወጩ6ዩ(ር xai oñooyygç GdiEEOSOL, 
oic 6ከ dao. ph êmbBalácooL eivat ÖLECEYOVTAL 
፲ሂፅፊሃ0(. He also notes (De Aed. 3.6.4—6) that any 
sort of husbandry is impossible in their inhospita- 
ble country: 
ov vAooor EÉ ciot tà ExavEoTHROTA TİG ሃኻር OVO 
yedön ovdé ola xapzobc doetvat, ek tic GÜTÜV ÖTLUE- 
Lotto, ANA toox£a TE oxeoBoAAóvvoc xai oxÀnoà ûn- 
£ocyav xai KAOTOV andvtiwv ÖEWOÇ 89000. xai OÜTE 
Qoóoou tijv yv OÜTE àujooo0at Atov OÜTE Aeuidvt 
ዩሃፔህሂዩ[/ evtavdd ny Suvata yivetTaL GAAG xai ፔዐ(ር 
ö€vöpolç, oloxeo ኻ TGavuxi) véOnAev, Qxdonmouç TE 
ovo avOet xai Saws &ydvotc, ETEL OS ፅእእኻእዐህር èx- 
6ዩ፪0ሃፔርዚ xaLoot £x TOU ENİ mAsiotov, OSE Viv pv À 
YÜ TO Tis pac VE TE xai puyow ይሪኢእዩፒርዚ, vóv 6ኔ 
ÖN GÜTÜV TJ TOD HACov 0€oun övívnow, GAAG XELUÓVI TE 
üxeoávto ĞUVOXLOTAL T xoa xai yudow ĞLÖCOLÇ 
KOATÂOOUTÖÇ EOTL. 


Unlike the Lazoi, the Tzanoi were not brought into 
the status of a client state; initially they were paid 
a fixed amount of gold each year by the emperor 
not to plunder the Greek and Armenian regions 
outside their lands.’ 

In the reign of Justinian I this barbarous race 
was won over by military prowess and kindness; 
they became Christians, and many even enlisted in 
the Byzantine army.” Justinian opened roads into 
the Tzanic region, built a church at the presently 
unidentified site of Schamalinichön, and erected 
or repaired the following fortresses: Horonon, 
Charton, Barchon, Sisilisson, Bourgousnoés, Scha- 
malinichon, and T'zanzacôn.!º Of these fortifica- 
tons only Horonon can be identified with a mod- 
ern locale. According to Procopius, Horonón was 
the point from which the Greeks first entered Tza- 


?? Procopius, BP 1.15.21—23. 

“Cf. Agathias, 5.2.2—5; Procopius, BP 2.3.39, 1.15.24 f; 
idem, De Aed. 3.6.6. 

1? Procopius, De Aed. 3.6.14—26. 


THE VALE OF KOLA: FINAL PRELIMINARY REPORT 133 


nike. This fortress was positioned at the bounda- 
ries (và 0016) between the Greek, Persarmenian, 
and Tzanic lands, near the point where three ma- 
jor roads meet. The site was of such importance 
that a military commander was established there. 
The only area that fits the physical criteria is 
Horum Dag. The road east from Erzurum passes 
through the Pasinler vale via Gobandede and Hor- 
asan. From the latter a major road leads directly 
north to Aşağıbademözü (Fig. 2), which is on the 
south flank of Horum Dag. Directly north of this 
mountain the Horasan road joins a route that 
eventually bifurcates, with one branch leading into 
the Kars highway and the other reaching Göle via 
Gaziler and Senkaya. On the west flank of Horum 
a major trail of some antiquity leads into the Nar- 
man Valley via Kıslaköy. Below the northeast flank 
of Horum Dag near the village of Zivin is a late 
antique/medieval fortress.! The Greeks probably 
placed their forts around the periphery of the 
Tzanic lands in order to control the roads, rather 
than administer the population from the interior. 
The Tzanoi of the Marchlands slowly sink into ob- 
livion; those in the western Coruh valleys are dis- 
placed by the continued migration of Armenians 
into İspir and Hamšēn, while others in the south- 
west are absorbed into the Mamikonean principal- 
ity. Their cousins in the central and northern re- 
gions quietly succumb first to the armies of King 
Vakhtang I Gorgasal and finally to the Georgian 
Bagratids in the late eighth century.’ Certain 
tribes of the Tzanoi, whom our ancient authors 
position directly south and east of Trabzon, survive 
into the fourteenth century. In the tenth century 
al-Mas'üdi mentions the Goumiks/Ghumiks, who 
live as Christians in obedience to local chieftains 


*'Allen and Muratoff, Battlefields, map 12. To the west of 
Horum Dag and within a distance of 20 km there may be two 
medieval forts at Sican and Kızlar; see the Deutsche Heeres- 
karte, “Oltu.” There is insufficient evidence to support the iden- 
tification of Horonön with Halane, south of Trabzon; see 
Adontz, Armenia, 51, 398 note 311. Procopius (BP 1.10.18, 
1.15.32) places the border of Persarmenia east and south of 
Theodosioupolis and the Pasinler Valley, which leaves Halane 
very far from Trabzon. 

“There is no evidence until the llth century that the 
Greeks extended their influence across the western border of 
the Marchlands; Bryer notes that “from Justinian’s reign the 
Byzantine border seems to have included Bayburt, but excluded 
Ispir.” Cf. Bryer, “Notes (I),” 178; N. Marr, “Iz poezdki v turet- 
skij Lazistan,” Bulletin of the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. 
Petersburg (1910), 547-70, 607-32; J. Forsyth, The Byzantine-Arab 
Chronicle (938—1034) of Yahyâ b. Sa'id, diss. (University of Mich- 
igan, 1977), 370 ff. The Aras River seems to have marked the 
limit of Byzantine influence in Basean. See: Constantine Por- 
phyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, 189 ff; Oikonomides, 
"L'organisation," 81—90. | 


and at peace with their Lazic neighbors.'? What 
we know of these Chaldian Tzanoi is derived 
largely from the histories of the Tzanichon dy- 
nasty.’ 

With the exception of Tayk', which became the 
Armenian foothold in the southern Marchlands 
and the conduit for a nominal claim of Sasanid sov- 
ereignty there from 387 to 591, there is no evi- 
dence that the Persians occupied or controlled the 
Marchlands during the late antique period. Ac- 
cording to the so-called a&mégavtos ዩ10ኻሃኻካ of A.D. 
532, the Persians kept Iberia and received Phar- 
angion (Ispir) and Bolum (east of Theodosiou- 
polis), while they relinquished all the strongholds 
of Lazica to the Greeks.!% Those fifth- and sixth- 
century writers who discuss the conflicts between 
Greek and Persian troops in the regions of Lazica 
and Theodosioupolis never mention the invasion 


“or occupation of the Tzanic Marchlands.!9© The 


Tzanoi seem to treasure their isolation; those who 
are credited with invading Cappadocia, Cilicia, 


103 Al-Mas'üdi, Les prairies d'or, ed. and trans. C. de Meynard 
and P. de Courteille, II (Paris, 1914), 40. 

104 Bryer, “Notes (1),” 189—95; idem, "Notes (ID, 161—68. 

105 Procopius, BP 1.22.17 ff. After the peace of 591 Emperor 
Maurice reorganized Armenia. There is no evidence to support 
Toumanoff's conclusion that the principality of Tayk' was re- 
named “Deep Armenia.” We know only that the line of partition 
between Byzantium and Persia ran through Tbilisi. Certainly, 
the Marchlands fell under the Greek sphere of influence, but 
we know nothing specific of its administration. The Mamiko- 
neans of Tayk' would probably retain close ties with a central- 
ized Greco-Armenian authority. See Toumanoff, Studies, 384; 
idem, "The Background to Mantzikert,” Proceedings of the XIIIth 
International Congress of Byzantine Studies (Oxford, 1966 [1967]), 
414. 

19 (Ps.-) Zachariah of Mitylene, The Syriac Chronicle Known as 
That of Zachariah of Mitylene, trans. F. Hamilton and E. Brooks 
(London, 1899), 153, 297, 315, 328; Joshua the Stylite, The 
Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite, ed. and trans. W. Wright (Cam- 
bridge, 1882), 37—41; John of Ephesus, The Third Part of the Ec- 
clestastical History of John Bishop of Ephesus, trans. R. Payne Smith 
(Oxford, 1860), 118, 124, 391 ff, 436; Menander Protector (Ex- 
cerpta), ed. Bekker and Niebuhr, Bonn ed. (1829), 321 f, 344, 
395 f, 410, cf. idem, FHG 4, ed. K. Müller (Paris, 1851), 202 f, 
206—17, 243; Theophanes (Excerpta), ed. Bekker and Niebuhr, 
Bonn ed. (1829), 485; Priscus, FHG 4, 102 f, 109, 164 f, 217; 
Eustathius of Epiphaneia, FHG 4, 142; Chronicle of John Malalas, 
trans. M. Spinka and G. Downey (Chicago, 1940), 122 f, 137; 
Evagrius, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius, ed. and notes J. 
Bidez and L. Parmentier (London, 1898), 5.7, 5.12-13; Theo- 
phylact Simocatta, History, ed. de Boor (Stuttgart, 1972), 117, 
121-23, 309; L. Whitby, The Historiae of Theophylact Simocatta, 
diss. (Oxford, 1981), 143 f, 178. 

Later, during the campaigns of Heraclius against the Per- 
sians, the Greek forces always traveled along the eastern and 
northern flanks of the Marchlands but never through the re- 
gion. See E. Gerland, "Die persischen Feldzüge des Kaisers 
Herakleios,’ BZ 3 (1894), 348—73; A. Stratos, Byzantium in the 
Seventh Century, I, A.D. 602—643, trans. M. Ogilvie-Grant (Am- 
sterdam, 1968), 198 ff; Histoire de la Géorgie, 1, 225—35. 


134 


and Syria during the reign of Theodosius II may 
actually be from Chaldia.!97 

The Armenian house of the Mamikoneans, 
which ruled Tayk' until A.D. 772, has its origins in 
the Kartvelian Tzanoi. In the narrative of P'awstos 
Buzand, the Mamikoneans themselves trace their 
lineage back to the kings of the nation of Cenk‘.!% 
Cenk‘, which is mistakenly associated with China 
in the more flamboyant genealogies of the Mami- 
koneans, actually refers to the Tzanoi (46h ; 
&ut-, &ut-p]) 99 Their integration and even- 
tual absorption into Armenia is a gradual process 
that begins with military alliances, intermarriage, 
and the attainment of certain hereditary offices 
from the Armenian monarchy (e.g., sparapet). 
Mancaeus, who helped to lead the defense of Ti- 
granokerta in 69 B.c., is the first Mamikonean to 
appear in history. In the mid-fifth century Vardan 
I led a revolt against the Persians in which he lost 
his life; his immediate relatives and collaterals as- 
cended to many princely houses in Armenia.!!? 

Simultaneous to the rise of the Mamikoneans, 


107 Malalas, Chron., Bonn ed. (1831), 12.129, 13.40. 

108 Pawstos Buzand, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc“ (Venice, 1933), 5.4, 
5.37; cf. Movses Xorenac'i, Matenagrut‘iwnk« (Venice, 1865), 
2.76, 2.81. 

109 Adontz, Armenia, 47, 313; Toumanoff, Studies, 210 f; Xor- 
enaci, History, trans. Thomson, 224 note 11, 230 notes 2, 4. 

110 Ehse, Ekšēi vasn Vardanay ew Hayotc* Paterazmin, ed. E. Tér- 
Minasean (Erevan, 1957); ፲፲ከ56, History of Vardan and the Arme- 
nian War, trans. and comm. R. Thomson (Cambridge, Mass., 
1982); Toumanoff, Studies, 132 ff, 223 ff, 209-11 note 238, 452 
f. I cannot accept the conclusion of Ingoroqva (Giorgi Merc'ule, 
489 f) who believes that Tayk' did not belong to the Armenians 
because the Mamikoneans were of Georgian ancestry. Their 
Kartvelian heritage would lead them to tolerate a large Geor- 
gian population in an Armenian Tayk'. At the other extreme, 
the Armenian author of the Asxarhac‘oyc’ exaggerates the size of 
Tayk* and the Armenian presence in the Marchlands out of a 
sense of nationalism and a misunderstanding of Mamikonean 
influence. I can find no evidence that this Armenian geography 
is based on a Byzantine occupation of this region in the late 6th 
century. Cf. R. Hewsen, “Introduction to Armenian Historical 
Geography,” REArm, n.s. 13 (1978-79), 89; Honigmann, Ost- 
grenze, 28-34; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen, 228-33. 

In his forthcoming article “North Central Armenia, I: The 
Principality of Tayk'” R. Hewsen accepts Adontz's identification 
(Armenia, 21 f, 68*) of Buxa in the Gahnamak with the gawat of 
Botxa in the Asxarhac‘oyc‘ to conclude that the Dimak‘seans con- 
trolled one of the three principalities of Tayk*. In my opinion 
there is simply not sufficient evidence to make this association. 
Toumanoff (Studies, 204, 458 note 93) distinguishes the Di- 
mak‘sean Bukha, “a canton of Ayrarat, due south of Tayk'” 
from the canton in southern Tayk'. The phonetic dissimilarity 
between Buxa and Botxa as well as the fact that the Dimak‘seans 
are not attested in Buxa in any documents prior to the late 8th- 
century Gahnamak, should lead to the more cautious appraisal 
that the Tayk' of 591 was a neutral zone controlled by the Ma- 
mikoneans. The nature of the separate districts (gawais) in 
Tayk* is detailed by Professor Hewsen in his forthcoming ar- 
ticle. 


ROBERT W. EDWARDS 


both the Iberians and Abkhazians periodically ex- 
tended their influence south into the northern 
quarters of the Marchlands, but with no lasting ef- 
fect. The most significant penetration occurred 
during the reign of King Vakhtang I Gorgasal (ca. 
445—510) when the fortresses of Ferhatli (Akhiz) 
and Ardanuç were (re)built and bishops were ap- 
pointed to those regions. King Vakhtang is cred- 
ited with building the church and monastery at 
Opiza.!!! By the second quarter of the sixth cen- 
tury it is likely that the clerics abandoned these 
sites during the period when the Persians made an 
unsuccessful attempt to replace Christianity with 
Mazdaism. The Georgians were partially freed 
from their Iranian bondage in the revolt of 572.112 
Almost a century later the Arabs were to conduct 
punitive raids in the Marchlands, but they made 
no attempt to colonize the interior, since the roads 
from Trabzon to the east curved around this re- 
gion.!!3 


Medieval 


The mid-eighth century witnessed a decline of 
the Arab threat and a new religious colonization of 
the sparsely populated northern Marchlands. The 
movement was led by St. Gregory of Khandzta/ 
Xanjta (759-861), a proselytizing monk who re- 
built the monastery at Opiza and founded over a 
dozen similar cloisters, five of which he established 
personally. His life and semimythical exploits are 
chronicled in the mid-tenth century by Giorgi 
Merc'ule.!^ On the heels of this religious move- 
ment the Georgian Bagratids, under the leader- 
ship of Adarnase I and his son Asot I (d. 830), con- 
solidated the Marchlands (including northern 
Tayk'= Upper Tao) into what is commonly re- 
ferred to as the third kingdom of medieval Geor- 


HH Ingoroqva, Giorgi Merc'ule, 340. It is not certain whether 
Asot I built or repaired the church of St. John the Baptist at 
Opiza. Guram (d. 882) is also credited with rebuilding the site; 
see Toumanoff, Studies, 328 note 104. 

12C. Toumanoff, “Christian Caucasia between Byzantium 
and Iran: New Light from Old Sources,” Trad 10 (1954), 172 fF; 
P. Goubert, Byzance avant Islam, I (Paris, 1951), 226-38. 

13 Second Preliminary Report, note 40; B. Martin-Hisard, 
“Les Arabes en Géorgie occidentale au VIII s.: Etude sur l'i- 
déologie politique géorgienne” BK 40 (1982), 105-38; A. Mi- 
quel, La géographie humaine du monde musulman jusqu'au milieu du 
11* siècle, II (Paris, 1975), 43, 259—72, 392—98, 403, 410. 

MH Georgii Mercul', Zitie Sb. Grigorija Xandztiiskago, intro., 
trans., and comm. N. Marr in Teksty i razyskanija po armjano- 
gruzinskoi filologii 7 (St. Petersburg, 1911); Ingoroqva, Giorgi 
Merc'ule; Tarchnisvili, Geschichte, 98 f, 105—7; P. Peeters, Histoires 
monastiques géorgiennes, AB 36-37 (1917—19), 207—309. 


THE VALE OF KOLA: FINAL PRELIMINARY REPORT 135 


gia, Tao-Klarjeti.5 The late ninth, tenth, and 
early eleventh centuries marked an unprece- 
dented period of construction in the region; great 
basilicas and castles, as well as monasteries with 
scriptoria and fine works of art, were erected in the 
various districts.!º Although the castles func- 
tioned as centers for both military and civil admin- 
istration, the monasteries too controlled vast tracts 
of land, which they held by treaty. The large clois- 
ters managed the local peasants, agriculture, and 
transportation." The development of a village 
civilization certainly attracted immigrants into the 
once deserted areas. The monks found a natural 
shelter in this mountainous region, which in many 
respects resembles Mount Athos. Many of the 
monasteries were built under royal patronage.!!8 
In Sav£et'i, Klarjeti, and Tao there were fifteen 
major monasteries: Tbethi, Opiza, Khandztha, 
Satberdi, Parekhi, Bertha, Mindzadzori, Isgaros- 
tani, Anci, ISkhani, Oski, Khakhuli (Haho), Park- 
halı, Bana, and Kalmakhi.!!? 

Although the fragmentary nature of our written 
sources has left many gaps and consequently con- 
troversies throughout the entire narrative of Ba- 
gratid Georgia, certain unresolved questions have 
made the reign of David Curopalate the most 
problematic period. For his services rendered to 
the Byzantine crown during the revolt of Bardas 


' For the history of the Georgian Bagratids see: Toumanoff, 
Studies, passim; idem, “The Fifteenth-century Bagratids and the 
Institution of Collegial Sovereignty in Georgia,” Trad 7 (1949— 
51), 169—221. Frequently, different Bagratid princes adminis- 
tered Tao and Klarjet'i separately. 

116 First Preliminary Report, 19 note 22, 21 note 30; Second 
Preliminary Report, 165 note 2; W. Dchobadze-Zizichwili, *Los 
esmaltes del Icono de Jajuli,” Archivo español de arte 25 (1952), 
25—51; G. Peradze, "Die altgeorgische Literatur und ihre Prob- 
leme” OC 2 (1927), 213, 218 f, 221; M. Tarchniğvili, “Die geist- 
liche Dichtung Georgiens und ihr Verháltnis zur byzantin- 
ischen,” OC 41 (1957), 76-78, 90-92; N. and M. Thierry, 
"Peintures du X* siécle en Géorgie méridionale," CahArch 24 
(1975), 73—113; B. Gigineiğvili and E. Giunağvili, Satberdis kre- 
buli X saukunisa (Tbilisi, 1979). 

17 B. Martin-Hisard, "Du T'ao-K'lardzheti à "Athos: Moines 
géorgiens et réalités sociopolitiques (IX*—XI* siècles)” BK 41 
(1983), 39—42; cf. J. Karst, ed., trans., and comm., Corpus Juris 
Ibero-Caucasici: I!, Code de Vakhtang VI (StraBburg, 1934), 295 
ff; I? (StraBburg, 1935), 260 ff; II, Code d'Aghbougha (StraBburg, 
1938), 85-111; IP, Code d'Aghbougha, Code du Roi George V 
(StraBburg, 1939), 159 ff; IB, Code du Roi George V, Nomocanon 
du Catholicat d'Ibérie (StraBburg, 1940), 25 ff, 61 ff. 

"8 The very close (almost symbiotic) relationship between the 
state and church has been outlined in M. Tarchniğvili, “Das Ver- 
háltnis von Kirche und Stadt im Königreich Georgien," OC 39 
(1955), 79—92. 

SM. Van Esbroeck, "Eglise géorgienne des origines au 
moyen age,” BK 40 (1982), 196 f; First Preliminary Report, 19 
note 22; Second Preliminary Report, 165, note 2; K. Salia, "La 
Tao-Klardjetie et ses monastéres, II,” BK 13-14 (1962), 40—46. 


Skleros, David received in 979 the following re- 
gions (adjacent to his realm), which he was allowed 
to administer during his lifetime: Theodosioupolis 
(Karin/Erzurum) with its environs (K'aloyaric', 
Ktêsurawn, and C'ormayri) extending to the bor- 
ders of Erzincan, the vale of Basean (Pasinler), and 
regions directly to the south and southwest of the 
latter (Sewoukberdak, Mardali, Hark‘, and Apa- 
hunik^).'?? Just prior to Skleros’ revolt, David, who 
was childless, was persuaded by a certain Ioane 
Marusije, duke of K'art'li, to adopt Bagrat III as 
his heir. Bagrat was the son and immediate succes- 
sor of King Gurgen II of K'artli, who died in 
1008. His mother, Gurunduxt Ancabaje, the 
daughter of the king of Abkhazeti, passed that 
kingdom on to Bagrat at the death of her father. 
Thus in the early 980s Bagrat III was the titular 
ruler of a united Georgia and one in fact by 
1008.21 Yet, why did Bagrat's kinsmen refuse to 
accept the Greek reoccupation of David's land 
grant, when such action was apparently legal? 
How and why did David help the Byzantine em- 
peror? 

During the struggle with Bardas Skleros it is 
generally agreed that Basil II sent T'ornik, an 
Armeno-Georgian monk from Mount Athos, to re- 
quest aid from David Curopalate.!2 The Georgian 
and Armenian sources support this view;!? it con- 
tradicts the report in Skylitzes that Bardas Phocas, 


None of the regions bestowed corresponds to the gawais 
or traditional place names in Tayk'. See: Eremyan, Hayastana, 
118; Honigmann, Ostgrenze, 151; Z. Avalichvili, “La succession 
du curopalate David d'Ibérie, dynaste de Tao,” Byz 8 (1933), 177 
ff; N. Oikonomides, “Un taktikon inédit du X: siécle,” Actes du 
XII Congrès International d'Etudes Byzantines, II (Belgrade, 1964), 
181; idem, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IX: et X: siècles 
(Paris, 1972), 260, 269, 355, 362 f; Aristakös Lastivertc'i, Récit 
des malheurs de la nation arménienne, trans., intro., and comm. M. 
Canard and H. Berbérian (Brussels, 1973), 21 note 1; Asolik, 
Histoire universelle, trans. F. Macler (Paris, 1917), 59 note 7, 60 
notes 1-7. 

121 Histoire de la Géorgie, 1, 292—302; Toumanoff, Studies, 497 
f. The only Georgian lands outside this united kingdom are: 
Kaxet'i, Lori, and the Emirate of Tbilisi. 

7? N. Adontz, “Tornik le moine,” Byz 13 (1938), 143—64 (rpr. 
in N. Adontz, Etudes armeno-byzantines [Lisbon, 1965], 297—818); 
Badridzé, “Contribution,” 163—71; M. Tarchniğvili, “Die An- 
fánge der schriftstellerischen Tátigkeit des hl. Euthymius und 
der Aufstand von Bardas Skleros” OC 38 (1954), 120—24; P. 
Peeters, "Un colophon géorgien de Thornik le moine” AB 50 
(1932), 363—71; Aristakös, xix; G. Schlumberger, L'épopée byz- 
antine à la fin du dixième siecle, Y (Paris, 1896), 415 ff; F. Dólger, 
Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565—1453, 
I.1 (Munich, 1924), 978. On the ensuing relations between Basil 
II and David Curopalate see Dólger, Regesten, 979—1000. 

155 Asolik, 59 f; Peeters, "Histoires," 20—922; cf. Forsyth, 
Chronicle, 338 f, 449—51; R. Blake, “Some Byzantine Account- 
ing Practices Illustrated from Georgian Sources," Harvard Stud- 
tes in Classical Philology, 51 (1940), 15 ff. 


136 ROBERT W. EDWARDS 


whom Basil released from his imprisonment, was 
sent to David.!?* T“ornik had followed his kinsman 
John to Mount Athos, where a small Georgian 
community was building a monastery. T'ornik, 
who had previously served with distinction in the 
Greek army, was summoned by the paracoemomenus 
and Theophano, the emperor’s mother, to Con- 
stantinople, whence he was dispatched to ‘Tao. 
This embassy met with success, and David sent 
twelve thousand troops (possibly under T“ornik's 
command) to join the Greek forces at the second 
battle of Pankaleia, where Bardas Skleros was de- 
feated on 24 March 979.125 At the time of the em- 
bassy the agreement must have been made to cede 
the aforementioned lands with the proviso that 
such territories would return to Byzantine sover- 
eignty on David's death.!2º Since none of these 
lands are in Tayk', this can only mean that the 
province was entirely in the hands of David prior 
to 979. Before this date it is likely that Hark' and 
Apahunik were partially under the de facto con- 
trol of David. Thus the grant gave legal possession 
of disputed territories as well as the attainment of 
new lands (e.g., Karın).!2” 

If this arrangement was so public and straight- 
forward, why did Basil II in 1000 invade and oc- 
cupy Oltu and Thither (i.e., Upper) Tao, a region 
which was not included in the agreement? J. For- 
syth attempts to solve this riddle by relying on the 
uncorroborated account of Yahya B. Sa'id of An- 
tioch.'2º In his revolt against Basil II and Constan- 
üne VIII Bardas Phocas sent his son Nikephoros 
to David's court in search of military aid (ca. 988). 
David sent a force of one thousand, far smaller 
than his earlier commitment to Basil, “because 
supporüng neither Phocas nor Basil wholeheart- 
edly offered a possible means of escaping from this 
dilemma.”!2 The force of one thousand, under 
the leadership of the two sons of Bagrat, fought 
briefly at the side of Nikephoros Phocas and re- 
turned home. According to Yahyâ B. 5310,” Da- 


14 Skylitzes, ed. J. Thurn, CFHB (Berlin, 1973), 326 = Ced- 
renus, II, Bonn ed. (1839), 431 f. 

125 W. Seibt, Die Skleroi (Vienna, 1976), 44 ff. 

126 See above, note 123; Aristakes, 21; Avalichvili, “La succes- 
sion," 177; Schlumberger, II (Paris, 1900), 163 f; R. Grousset, 
Histoire de l'Arménie des origines à 1071 (Paris, 1947), 504—8; V. 
Arutjunova-Fidanjan, "Administrativnye peremeny na vostoke 
vizantii v X-XI vv," VizVrem 44 (1983), 68—80. 

27 Forsyth (Chronicle, 389, 450 note 47) believes that eastern 
Basean was already one of David's possessions. 

28 Ibid., 435—78. 

12 Ibid., 438, 461 note 143. There is no fully adequate expla- 
nation as to why David gave any support to Bardas Phocas. 

139 As cited by Forsyth (ibid., 465, 516 note 3). 


vid asked for Basil's pardon (ca. 991), and since he 
was without an heir, he offered to will all of his 
lands to the Greek emperor. Basil accepted this of- 
fer and at David's death occupied all his lands. Fur- 
ther, Forsyth adds that the adoption of Bagrat III 
by David must have been abrogated for "neither 
the Georgian Royal Annals nor any other Georgian 
source suggests that when the Emperor occupied 
the lands which had formed the core of David's 
state, he was usurping Bagrat III’s rights. More- 
over, Basil II met no resistance from Bagrat III in 
carrying out the annexation.” ?! In my opinion, Ya- 
hya’s account is fictional and cannot be reconciled 
with the events that both preceded and followed 
the death of David Curopalate. First, relying on 
the silence of the Georgian Royal Annals to prove an 
argument is analogous to carrying water in a co- 
lander. The Annals are a rather ad hoc collection 
of chronicles which was formed around what sur- 
vived of the histories of Leontius and Juanšer; to 
this a myriad of emendations and supplements 
have been added through the centuries. Merely 
because this chronicle and a few others mention 
that David died without a son or brother and that 
the Greeks took possession of his lands??? is no in- 
dication that the adoption of Bagrat III was void 
in the eyes of the Georgian monarchy. It should be 
remembered that in 989 David became estranged 
from Bagrat but that good relations were quickly 
restored by King Smbat of Armenia.!*? 

Rather than judge the motives of the partici- 
pants by lacunae in the texts, their actions should 
be followed. The news of David's death reached 
Basil in Tarsus, where he had wintered his army. 
From Cilicia the emperor proceeded, on 31 March 
1000, through the Amanus Pass to Maras and Mal- 
atya. His entourage reached Erzincan in early July, 
whence he traveled to Havcic near the flank of 
Bingöl Dag on the Iberian-controlled border of 
Tayk'.* Here he met with and received homage 
from the assembled kings of the adjoining regions; 
at this time he conferred on Bagrat III (now king 
of Abkhazet'i) the title of curopalate and on his 
father, Gurgen II of Iberia, the title of magister. 
But the scene that follows this ceremony is far 
from harmonious, and it bespeaks extreme tension 


131 Ibid., 468. 

132 Cf. Histoire de la Géorgie, 1, 297; Asotik, 162; Skylitzes, 339. 

133 Histoire de la Géorgie, 1, 296 f; Asotik, 134 f. 

134 Asotik, 163 f; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen, 286, 444; Honig- 
mann, Ostgrenze, 156 f; Markwart, Südarmenien, 492 f; W. Felix, 
Byzanz und die islamische Welt im früheren 11. Jahrhundert (Vienna, 
1981), 48 note 11. 


THE VALE OF KOLA: FINAL PRELIMINARY REPORT 137 


between the Greeks and Georgians. It seems that 
the nobles from the court of the deceased Curo- 
palate David had encamped near the Greeks and 
one of these Georgians sought to harvest some 
fodder from the adjacent lands. ‘The Greek contin- 
gent, which consisted of six thousand Russian in- 
fantry, thought this a sufficient excuse (undoubt- 
edly with the encouragement of Basil) to attack the 
heavily outnumbered Georgians en masse and 
inflict substantial casualties.! From here Basil 
marched (via Vatarsakert) to Oltu where he sys- 
tematically proceeded to replace David's adminis- 
tration in northern Tayk' with Greek officials and 
perhaps a few Georgians and Armenians.'?? Many 
of the resident Georgian nobles were deported to 
other parts of the empire. It is clear that Basil, who 
returned to Constantinople in the late summer of 
1000, never intended to accommodate the Geor- 
gian nobility, and their reaction was swift. Early in 
the spring of 1000 Gurgen II and his army in- 
vaded Tao. Although he failed to capture the heav- 
ily fortified site of Oltu, he created havoc in the 
region and established his base in the Narman Val- 
ley. Basil dispatched his kanikleios, Nikephoros 
Uranos,?? with instructions to crush the revolt. 
However, Uranos halted his force and made camp 
in the gawar of Basean. Asohk says that both ar- 
mies stayed in the same area until winter. Since 
Gurgen controlled Narman, he obviously con- 
trolled the strategic defile in the pass from Cor- 
bandede to Narman, forcing Uranos to camp near 
the former.?? The Greeks did not have sufficient 
support in the vale of Narman or the Oltu-Penek 
Valley to dislodge Gurgen, and they were forced to 
break the stalemate by granting many of his de- 


135 Asotik, 164 f; cf. Aristakés, 4—6. 

156 Aristakés, 6; Asotik, 165; P. Lemerle, Prolégomènes à une 
édition critique et commentée des "Conseils et Récits" de Kékauménos, 
Mémoires, Académie Royale de Belgique 44 (Brussels, 1960), 
33; Felix, Byzanz, 132 note 3. Basil probably felt secure in his 
actions, expecting to receive support from his "natural allies" in 
this area, the Chalcedonian Armenians. Like the earlier semi- 
civilized tribes, who protected their benign isolation in the 
Marchlands, these Armenians could exercise a certain indepen- 
dence within the mountainous barriers. See V. Arutjunova- 
Fidanjan, Armjane-Xalkidonity na Vostoényx Granicax Vizantiiskoi 
Imperu (XIV) (Erevan, 1980), 90 ff; First Preliminary Report, 17 
note 14; Gregory of Narek, Le livre de priéres, trans. I. Kéchi- 
chian, preface by J. Mécérian (Paris, 1961), 34. 

17 Forsyth, Chronicle, 558; Felix, Byzanz, 135 note 10. This is 
the same Uranos who revised the Praecepta Militaria of Nike- 
phoros Phocas and whose name appears on two presently un- 
published seals in Dumbarton Oaks (F 1509; F 1576). See also: 
Epistoliers byzantins du X* siécle, ed. J. Darrouzés, AOC 6 (Paris, 
1960), 226. 

15511 is obvious that Gurgen too did not encamp in the plain 
of Basean. This would have led to an immediate confrontation. 


mands. The terms of the settlement are not speci- 
fied, but we can assume that some semblance of 
Georgian authority was reestablished in Tayk (al- 
lowing the Greeks to stay at Oltu), including per- 
haps concessions to David’s exiled nobility and of- 
ficial recognition of Gurgen’s status by granting 
him the title of curopalate.!?? 

The course of events does much to illuminate 
Basil's original intentions. By the late tenth century 
the "traditional" lands of Tao consisted of the orig- 
inal Georgian core of Hither (i.e., Lower) Tao 
(stretching from the Tortum Valley to the Goruh 
east of Ispir, including the lands south of Taos- 
kari), combined with northern Tayk' (i.e., Thither/ 
Upper Tao = the Oltu-Penek Valley = the Arme- 
nian gawar of Bolxa), and the adjacent valleys of 
Tayk' (e.g., Narman, Bardiz, and Zanzak). Collec- 
tively, these districts form the southwest corner of 
the Marchlands, and they are separated from Ba- 
sean at the south by a mountainous border. David 
expanded to the east, south, and west beyond his 
natural frontiers, initially to capture lands under 
an ambiguous Greek suzerainty, and later to re- 
ceive a formal (but temporary) grant from a grate- 
ful Byzantine emperor. However, when David 
openly supported the revolt of Bardas Phocas, 
Basil feared that his onetime ally had grown too 
powerful, and his death would provide the appro- 
priate moment to eliminate any potential threat. 
At the Erzincan conference Gurgen, Bagrat, and 
the nobles of Tao must have become aware of Bas- 
il’s plans not only to reoccupy the lands granted 
provisionally but also the Oltu-Penek Valley in the 
heart of Tao. The emperor believed that a perma- 
nent Greek presence in the Marchlands would 
help to blunt any Georgian interference in Byzan- 
tine affairs.!^^ Basil could justify this seizure for in 
591 the Greeks assumed nominal suzerainty over 
the Armenians of Tayk', whose fortified north bor- 
der ran along a diagonal axis (roughly from Oltu 
to Tortum) so as to include the valleys of Narman 
and Oltu-Penek. The Georgians could assert their 
rightful claim for in the early ninth century Asot I 
had consolidated northern Tayk' and its adjacent 


139 Asolik, 166 f; Honigmann, Ostgrenze, 160 f; First Prelimi- 
nary Report, 36; M. Lort*k‘ip‘anidze, Istorija Gruzii XI-nacala 
XIII veka (Tbilisi, 1974), 48 ff. Lort'k'ip'anidze provides not 
only a valuable summary of the relations between the Greeks 
and the Georgian crown for control of the Marchlands, but an 
assessment of the complicated feudal system and the often re- 
bellious nobility. 

14911. Ahrweiler, "La frontière et les frontières de byzance en 
orient,” Actes du XIV: Congrés International des Etudes Byzantines 
(Bucharest, 1971), 211-19; Toumanoff, “Caucasia 127. 


138 


gawars behind the barrier of the Marchlands. In 
1001 Gurgen did not attack Theodosioupolis, 
Hark‘, or any other region outside the Marches. 
He laid siege to Oltu, the principal city of Tao, and 
encamped at Narman to block the Byzantine as- 
sault. Gurgen did not remove the Greeks from the 
southern Marchlands, and subsequent attacks in 
1014 and 1021 did not succeed.!*! The statement 
that Gurgen invaded solely because he was jealous 
of the superior title held by his son (i.e., curopa- 
late) is illogical.'? Georgian kings traditionally 
held Byzantine titles in contempt, regarding their 
acceptance as a method to placate an annoying 
neighbor to the west. It provided only an external 
recognition of the authority that they held at 
home. If Gurgen wanted to harm his son, he 
would have remained inactive, allowing the Greeks 
to usurp Bagrat’s inheritance in Tayk'. Certainly 
any lands captured by Gurgen would be included 
in the regions passed on to his heir. In part, Gur- 
gen's actions may have been motivated out of a 

sense of betrayal. The twelve thousand troops sent 
“by David to crush the revolt of Bardas Skleros 
came not only from Tao but from the central and 
northern regions of Georgia (Abkhazeti and 
K'artli). The inscription from the church at 
Zarzme testifies to (ከ15.!* Gurgen may have played 
no part in David's support of the revolt of Bardas 
Phocas (perhaps explaining why such a small con- 
üngent was sent), and consequently he believed 
that his son deserved the patrimonial lands of Ba- 
gratid Tao. 


There is some evidence to show that the diago- . 


nal axis of fortifications, which separated Arme- 
nian Tayk' from Georgian Tao before the ninth 
century, was also the north and northwest bound- 
ary for the theme of Iberia. The theme was prob- 
ably created immediately after the annexation of 
David's lands.'^ No extant documents mention a 
Greek presence in the regions north of the diago- 


^! Northern Tayk' was integrated into a Greek theme not be- 
cause of a "pro-Byzantine party" there (an inappropriate label 
for the Chalcedonian Armenians) but by the settlement of 
Greeks into certain depopulated areas. The abortive attempt in 
1021 by Göorgi I to enlist the Fâtimid Caliph of Egypt, al- 
Hakim bi Amr 1113ከ, into an alliance against Basil shows how 
desperate was the Georgian situation. See Forsyth, Chronicle, 
223, 309, 314, 476 f, 521 note 35, 549, 561 ff. 

42 [bid., 598 note 55; Histoire de la Géorgie, 1, 297; Asotik, 166. 

14 E, Takaiğvili, Arxeologiceskija ökskursü, razyskanija i zametki, 
pt. 1 (Tbilisi, 1905), 17—22; Histoire de la Géorgie, I, 293 f note 2; 
P. Tarchnichvili, “Le soulèvement de Bardas Skléros” BK 17-18 
(1964), 96; Badridzé, “Contribution,” 186 f; Peeters, Histoire, 
162; Schlumberger, I, 426 f. 

'44Qur earliest evidence for a specific Greek administrator 
in the theme is 1023; see K. Juzbağjan, "L'administration by- 
zantine en Arménie aux X<-XI  siécles" REArm, n.s. 10 


ROBERT W. EDWARDS 


nal frontier. In the tenth century there was a 
small, fortified outpost at Soteroupolis (near the 
modern Borçka/Yeniyol).46 The strategos and 
troops stationed there were intended to protect the 
Byzantine port facilities at Hopa and Batum from 
an inland attack, and they had no jurisdiction in 
the Marchlands. Of the thirteen toponyms in the 
will of Eustathios Boilas (1059), three can be iden- 
tified, and these are on the-east flank of the diag- 
onal frontier. Boilas’ Kopteriou is probably the 
site of the famous battle (1048/49) in the gawar of 
Basean.! His Kalmouche is likely to be the for- 
tress of Kalmak, which I tentatively place south of 
Olur.!? The proasteion of Barta should be the mod- 
ern Bardez (Bardiz/Bardus).!59 It is only at the ex- 
treme south, near the strategic junction at Tortum, 
that the Greeks marginally extended their physical 
occupation beyond the diagonal frontier. About 15 
km northwest of Tortum a now missing Greek in- 


(1973-74), 156-83; cf. V. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, “The Social- 
Administrative Structures in the East of the Byzantine Empire,” 
JOB 32.2 (1982), 24 f. Unfortunately, the few Greek seals from 
the theme of Iberia or from the ambiguous “Interior Iberia” 
can seldom be dated precisely. For example, see: N. Oikonom- 
idés, Byzantine Lead Seals (Washington, D.C., 1985), 24 (fig. 80), 
28; G. Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, ed. J. Nesbitt, II (Bern, 1984), 
220, 333 f, 449 f. 

145 Ibid., 171 f. What the Greeks envisioned as the “theme of 
Iberia” was never understood by Armenian historians, nor did 
the latter use the term “Iberia” to describe specifically the lands 
of that theme. They simply referred to places “in the gawar (dis- 
trict) of Vrac“ (Georgia)"; at one time Oltu is said to be in the 
gawar of Theodosioupolis. The Armenian misunderstanding is 
probably due to the short duration of the Iberian theme and its 
fluctuating boundaries. The asxarh of Tayk' remains a specific 
geographical region. Cf. W. Seibt, “Miszellen zur historischen 
Geographie von Armenien und Georgien in byzantinischer 
Zeit,” Handes Amsorya 90 (1976), 633—42. 

146 Second Preliminary Report, 165 note 4. 

'47 By placing at least part of the Boilas estate in the March- 
lands, I am in complete agreement with the geographical set- 
ting proposed by Speros Vryonis, Jr. (“The Will of a Provincial 
Magnate, Eustathius Boilas [1059]," DOP 11 [1957], 275 f). The 
arguments provided by Paul Lemerle (Cinq études sur le XI siecle 
byzantin [Paris, 1977], 38—63) for locating the lands of Boilas 
within the regions administered from Edessa are circumstantial 
at best. The ten to eleven days that Boilas traveled from an un- 
specified locale in Cappadocia would be more than sufficient to 
reach Theodosioupolis and its environs. 

148 Also known as Kaneroöv, Kaputru; see Felix, Byzanz, map, 
129, 167 note 103, 168 note 107, 172 note 115; J. Shepard, 
"Scylitzes on Armenia in the 1040s and the Role of Catacalan 
Cecaumenos," REArm, n.s. 11 (1975—76), 270 ff; First Prelimi- 
nary Report, 23 note 43; Honigmann, Ostgrenze, 180, 214. Cf. 
Lemerle, Cinq études, 44 ff. 

1 First Preliminary Report, 36 note 103. 

59 Located between Kars and Olti on Fig. 1; cf. I. Zdanévitch, 
L'itinéraire géorgien du Ruy Gonzales de Clavijo et les églises aux con- 

fins de l'Atabégat (Paris, 1966), 14. Certain officials of the theme 
of Iberia occasionally inhabit the fortress of Hawatic', which is 
located near Theodosioupolis. Yovhannésean (First Preliminary 
Report, 36 note 105) mislocated this site and associated it with 
the Georgian monastery in the Tortum Valley at Haho. See 
Honigmann, Ostgrenze, 80, 157, 194 f. 


THE VALE OF KOLA: FINAL PRELIMINARY REPORT 139 


scription on the church at Egrek/Ekek was found 
by Father Sargisian in the mid-nineteenth cen- 
tury.!5! Since the epigraph dates to 1006/7, we can 
assume that Basil’s troops (and perhaps a few civil- 
lan settlers) quickly established a small outpost 
here. To the north in the Tortum Valley there is 
no evidence of a Byzantine occupation, but the 
Greeks did maintain good relations with their im- 
mediate Georgian neighbors through occasional 
largesse. At Osk two presently lost Georgian in- 
scriptions, which were transcribed by Takaiğvıli, 
specifically mention Basil II. The first (1021/22) 
describes the repair of the monastic church, and 
the second (1025) mentions his death.!52 Elsewhere 
in the Tortum Valley and its northern environs 
Georgian authority is unchallenged. At Ishan a 
chapel (1006) and the cathedral (1032) are built 
under Iberian patronage. For the most part, the 
Greek occupation is confined to the lands of north- 
ern Tayk' (= Upper Tao). 

. There is no evidence that the Georgian popula- 
tion in the Greek-controlled areas of ‘Tao (part of 
the theme of Iberia) suffered initially under the 
new military administration. The great ecclesiasti- 
cal center at Bana seems to have functioned nor- 
mally between 1001—22. The attempts by Georgian 
monarchs in the north to capture their ancestral 
holdings in Tao (1001, 1014, 1021-22) met with 
limited success or failure. By the third decade of 
the eleventh century the Greeks retreated from 
some of their Iberian holdings. In late 1025 (or 
early 1026) the young Bagrat IV was returned 
from his Greek captivity to the Iberian regents as- 
sembled in the cathedral at Bana, where the Geor- 
glans now maintained a military presence. Within 
seven years Bagrat was crowned and married, and 
by 1034 he had reoccupied most of the fortresses 
of Upper Tao.! The commemorative paintings 
added to the church at Osk in 1036 may repre- 
sent a reaffirmation of Bagrat’s authority in the 


51M. Brosset, Inscriptions géorgiennes et autres recueillies par le 
Pére Nersös Sargistan et expliquées, in Mémoires de l'Académie Impé- 
riale des Sciences de St.-Petersbourg, ser. 7, vol. 8, no. 10 (1864), 13; 
E. Takaiğvili, Arxeologiceskaja ekspedicya 1917-go goda v juXnye 
provincii Gruzii (Tbilisi, 1952), 77, pls. 109—13; Honigmann, Ost- 
grenze, map 4; Lemerle, Prolégomênes, 29 ff; H. Bartikian, “La 
généalogie du Magistros Bagrat, Catépan de l'orient, et des Ké- 
kauménos," REArm, n.s. 2 (1965), 262 f; Zdanévitch, L'itinéraire, 
6; N. Adontz, "Notes arméno-byzantines," Byz 10 (1935), 194 f. 

15? Takaišvili, 1917, 63. This type of imperial patronage out- 
side the formal boundaries of Byzantium, especially to a state 
religion with such close ties to Constantinople, is not unusual. 
Emperors after Basil sponsored ecclesiastical construction in Je- 
rusalem. 

153 Histoire de la Géorgie, 1, 306 ff; Zonaras, III, ed. M. Pinder, 
Bonn ed. (1897), 557, 568, 575, 580, 590; Skylitzes, 396 f; Ar- 
istakes, 20 f; Schlumberger, II, 475—90. 


south.!5^* By the early 1040s the Greeks succeeded 
in recapturing most of the regions east of the di- 
agonal frontier, while Bagrat IV (d. 1072) resided 
considerably north of his holdings in Tao. After 
the annexation of Ani and Sirak (ca. 1045), the 
theme of Iberia was administered jointly with that 
of Greater Armenia.!' During the reign of Con- 
stantine IX Monomachus (1042—55) a certain Ser- 
blias was sent to Iberia to conduct an inventory and 
to exact taxes that had never been demanded pre- 
viously. The resident Greeks, as well as the remain- 
ing Armenians and Georgians, defected to the 
Turkish side.!55 Prior to Serblias, an indigenous 
army of peasant soldiers guarded the area and re- 
ceived in turn an allotment of tax-free government 
land. Also, regular troops may have been removed 
from the region, first to crush the revolt of Leon 
Tornicius (1047) and later to stop invading Patzi- 
naks.!57 By the time Boilas arrived much of the Ib- 
erian theme was deserted: “I received this land, 
and it was foul and unmanageable . . . inhabited by 
snakes, scorpions, and wild beasts, so that the Ar- 
menians who dwell opposite here were not able 
to have even a little rest.”!58 Seven of his eleven 


The Georgian administration of most of Lower Tao (the re- 
gion west of the diagonal frontier) remained constant during 
the period of the Iberian theme (cf. Avalichvili, “La succession,” 
198—201; Honigmann, Osigrenze, 164 f; 'Takaisvili, 1917, 63 f). 
Because of the nature of the topography in this region, it would 
be naive and inaccurate to place the boundary between Lower 
and Upper Tao (ie., the respective areas of Georgian and 
Greek control) on a single east-west axis. For example, to em- 
ploy the northern half of the Oltu Suyu as a border (First Pre- 
liminary Report, fig. 1) would leave almost all of the significant 
settlements and lands of Tao in Greek hands. The regions 
above Taoskari/Nikoma are generally uninhabited until the 
lands of Kola at the northeast and Klarjet‘i to the north. Due to 
Bana’s exposed position in a valley, it would be logically admin- 
istered by those in control of Penek. 

541 would like to thank Prof. Nicole Thierry for sharing 
some of her presently unpublished views on the 11th-century 
paintings at Osk and for advice on the church at Egrek/Ekek. 

155 From 1033 through the 1040s there are specific references 
simply to the dov§ 'Ifno(ac; see Felix, Byzanz, 154 note 62, 159 
f, 163 note 93, 164. Cf. Shepard, "Scylitzes," 299—310; Skylitzes, 
434-37; Grousset, Histoire, 556—87; J. C. Cheynet, “Du stratége 
de théme au duc,” TM 9 (1985), 185—87; First Preliminary Re- 
port, 17 note 12; V. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, “Vizantiiskie praviteli 
femy Iverija,” Akademija Nauk Armjanskoi SSR, Vestnik Obséestven- 
nyx Nauk 2 (1973), 63—78; E. Cagareisvili, "Somhuri c'karoebi 
sakartívelo-bizantiis urt‘iert‘obis Sesaheb X-XI saukunoeb3i,” 
Mravalt‘avi 2 (1973), 157—208; H. Bartikian, “Gia ton ‘ibériko 
strato’ kai to buzantino thema ‘Ibéria’,” Byzantina 13.1 (1985), 
467-77. | 

156 Cecaumenus, Stratégikon, ed., trans., and comm. G. Lita- 
vrin (Moscow, 1972), 152—54; Attaleiates, ed. Bekker, Bonn ed. 
(1853), 44; Lemerle, Prolégomènes, 70 f; idem, Cinq études, 268 f; 
Skylitzes, 476. The extortion and expropriation of the property 
of the wealthy began when Niketas was governor(?) of Iberia; 
cf. Aristakes, 27; and Juzbağjan, “L' administration” 157 f. 

157 Vryonis, “Will” 276. 

158 Ibid., 265 f. 


140 


villages were abandoned when he arrived. The 
Greeks had no base of support to defend them- 
selves from the first Turkish penetration of this re- 
gion by İbrâhim Inâl (1048—49).159 The theme of 
Iberia died as quickly as it was born. Ironically, this 
theme was created out of the Armenian province 
of Tayk' and bore the name Iberia merely because 
those lands had been incorporated into one of the 
expanding Bagratid provinces of Georgia in the 
early ninth century. 

The formal return of northern Tayk' (= south- 
ern or Upper Tao; ca. 1074) to the Georgian crown 
by the Armeno-Georgian governor, Grigor Baku- 
rian, did not help to stem the Turkish advance.!9? 
An incompetent Georgi II, the son of Bagrat IV, 
quietly accepted Altaic vassalage. He abdicated in 
1089 in favor of his son David II, who won a series 
of victories over the Turks and reestablished a 
powerful Georgian monarchy in the new capital at 
Tbilisi. His troops penetrated as far south as Tao 
and İspir, but he made no attempt to resettle the 
southern Marchlands. Although he carries the epi- 
thet “the Builder” all of his constructions are north 
of Klarjet'i.!º! His granddaughter, Queen Tamar 
(1184—1213), was renowned for her patronage of 


159 Honigmann, Ostgrenze, 179 f. 

After the llth century the lines of transportation again 
passed around or simply stopped at the Marchlands. See: Felix, 
Byzanz, 174 note 121, 176 note 127; Ibn Bibi, Die Seltschukenge- 
schichte des Ibn Bibi, trans. H. Duda (Copenhagen, 1959), 33 f, 
174—77; The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulüb composed by 
Hamd-Allâh Mustawfi of Qazwin in 740 (1340), trans. G. Le 
Strange (London, 1919), 94-97, 202, 205, 211; Nasüh Ma- 
trâkçi, Beyân-ı Menâzil-i Sefer-i “Trakeyn-i Sultân Süleymân Han, ed. 
and comm. H. Yurdaydin (Ankara, 1976), 168—73; A. Gabriel, 
“Les étapes d'une campagne dans les deux “Irak,” Syria 9 (1928), 
328—49; F. Taeschner, Das anatolischen Wegenetz nach osmanischen 
Quellen, II (Leipzig, 1926), 2 ff; R. Bedrosian, The Turco-Mongol 
Invasions and the Lords of Armenia in the 13th-14th Centuries, diss. 
(Columbia University, 1979); William of Rubruck in Contempo- 
rartes of Marco Polo, ed. M. Komroff (New York, 1928), 138, 200, 
214. 

It was not until the early 15th century, when Timür Leng 
briefly united the Marchlands with the neighboring regions, 
that travelers like de Clavijo routinely passed through the Tor- 
tum Valley. It is most significant that in de Clavijo's time (Emba- 
jada a Tamorlân, ed. F. Estrada, I (Madrid, 1943], 243 f) the 
frontier between "Georgia" and the lands of the Greeks was still 
near Ispir. 

1691ከ185 is probably why Grigor Bakurian (Tonyógioç 
Ilaxovowdvoç), a native of Tao and a Byzantine general, 
founded a monastery in Bulgaria (1083) rather than return to 
his homeland. See: A. Chanidzé, "Au sujet du bátisseur de mon- 
astére de Petritsoni Grigol Bakourianis-dzé (en Bulgarie)" BK 
38 (1980), 36; idem, "Le grand domestique de l'occident, Gre- 
gorii Bakurianis-dzé, et le monastére géorgien fondé par lui en 
Bulgarie," BK 28 (1971), 134; A. Kazhdan, Armjane v sostave gos- 
podstvujustego klassa vizantiiskot imperi v XI-XIII vv. (Erevan, 
1975), 60—66, 143 ff. 

6! In 1116 he was victorious over a Turkish contingent in Ba- 
sean. Five years later his 60,000 troops supposedly defeated 
400,000 Turks at Did-Gord. His successor Dimitri I (1125—54) 


ROBERT W. EDWARDS 


ecclesiastical and military construction, but all of it 
was north and east of the Acara (Adzhari) River. 
Her political interests in the south were confined 
to the newly created empire of 'Irabzon. The few 
Georgian princes who remained in the March- 
lands lived quietly as vassals of the Turks;!® the 
others fled north of the Açara into Guria- 
Mingrelia, Imeretia, K'art'li, and Kakheti. In 1235 
the Mongols penetrated as far as Ardahan, but the 
poor, underpopulated Marchlands were generally 
ignored.1 In 1260 Georgian troops from Savset'i 
and Klarjeti were mobilized against these invad- 
ers. Eventually, Georgian nobles made alliances 
with and married into the ruling Mongol clans.!6* 
We hear in 1302 of a certain T'aqa P'anaskerteli, 
the duke of Tao, who decisively defeated a group 
of Turkmen at Tortum Kalesi.'55 But such military 
actions appear to be exceptional. Georgi V and his 
army made only a brief foray through this area in 
1334. 

By the fifteenth century the cultural links be- 
tween the Georgians of the marches and their 
counterparts to the north quickly eroded. In 1469 
Georgia was divided into three kingdoms and five 
principalities. Akhaltzikhe became the capital of 
the Georgio-Muslim principality of Samts'khe or 
Saatabago (= country of the atabeg).!©©“ Under the 
leadership of Kvarkvare II (1451—98) and his 
eventual successor Mze-Cábük (1500—1515), Saa- 
tabago maintained an official vassalage under the 
Ottomans and still managed to play off the Geor- 


made half-hearted attempts to repopulate Tao. See Histoire de la 
Géorgie, I, 381. Regarding the lack of new Georgian construc- 
tion south of the Acara River, see Béridzé, “Larchitecture,” 
483—94. 

162 According to Ibn Bibi (174), Oltu and many other castles 
in “Georgia” were brought under the suzerainty of the Seljuks 
by 1230. The Sultans of Rum merely replaced the Saltuks and 
Menguçeks, who held authority here in the previous century. 

163 The most significant Mongol penetration occurs in 1402, 
when Timur Leng orders the capture of Tortum. He intended 
to use this site as a base in his campaign against Sultan Bayazid. 

64 Limper, Mongolen, 79 ff, 165, 197 ff. These nobles appear 
to have asserted considerable independence, for the code of 
Georgi V (1318—46) does not include the Marchlands within its 
territorial limits; see G. Charachidzé, Introduction à l'étude de la 
féodalité géorgienne (Geneva, 1971), 37—47. 

Toumanofi, “Collegial Sovereignty,” 169 ff. 

166 V. Minorsky, Persia in A.D. 1478-1490: An Abridged Trans- 
lation of Fadlullah b. Rüzbihân Khunjts ‘Tarikh-1 “Alam-ârâ-yı Amin? 
(London, 1957), vi, 120; idem, “Akhiskha,” EP (1960), 325; His- 
toire de la Géorgie, 11.1, Histoire moderne, trans. M. Brosset (St. 
Petersburg, 1856), 199—238; M. Kırzıoğlu, Osmanlılar'ın Kafkas- 
Elleri'ni fethi (1451—1590) (Ankara, 1976), 85 ff; idem, Kars tarihi 
(Istanbul, 1953), I, 507; Bryer and Windfield, Pontos, 346 ff; 
J. L. Bacqué-Grammont and Ch. Adle, “Notes et documents sur 
Mzé-Cábük, atabeg de Géorgie méridionale (1500—1515), et les 
Safavids. Etudes Turco-Safavides V," Studia Iranica 8 (1978), 
213—49. 


THE VALE OF KOLA: FINAL PRELIMINARY REPORT 141 


gians and the new Safavid empire. The vigorous 
efforts of Uzun Hasan and Ya‘qub (d. 1490) could 
not prevent the abrupt decline of the Akko- 
yunlu,!?? which allowed Mze-Câbük to consolidate 
his hold throughout the Marchlands. For the 
Greek world of the late fifteenth century the 
Marchlands was simply described as being Turk- 
15ከ.!* The Ottomans consolidated their hold on 
the region in the mid-sixteenth century.!? From 
the late Mongolian period to the 1680s the Geor- 
gians of the marches converted en masse to Islam. 
This explains why the majority of the Christian 
population in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and 
nineteenth centuries is Armenian.!7? 


Dumbarton Oaks 
March 1986 


67). Woods, The Aqquyunlu, Clan, Confederation, Empire (Chi- 
cago, 1976), 90 ff. 

168 Chalkokondyles, ed. A. Darko, II (Budapest, 1923—27), 
223. 

1? C. Abuladze, Tureckie istoéniki istorii Samcche-Saatabago per- 
voj Cetverti XVIv. (Tbilisi, 1983), 19 ff. 

J 
170 Second Preliminary Report, note 15. 


Addendum: Regrettably, Nicole Thierry’s superb article 
"Les peintures historiques d'Osk! (T’ao)” (Revue des 
études géorgiennes et caucasiennes 2 [1986], 135—71) had 
not been published when I wrote these Preliminary Re- 
ports on the Marchlands. Her views on the cathedral at 
Penek (Georgian: Bana) are important. 7f the circular 
building depicted in the church at Osk is the surviving 
structure at Penek, then it is certain that the outer shell 
of the latter had a continuous second level with windows 
and a two-tiered roof before the second major period of 
construction (cf. First Preliminary Report, 30). I found 
no evidence there in the presently unexcavated remains 
to show that the external buttress at the east encom- 
passes an apsidal chamber. In fact the rather clumsy sup- 
porting wall separating the outer shell from the east apse 
in the ambulatory (certainly added before the nine- 
teenth century) blocks completely any potential entrance 
to the chamber from the inside (cf. First Preliminary Re- 
port, figs. 38 and 48). Also, if such a chamber existed 
within the present buttress, it would not only be far 
smaller proportionally than similar examples in the 
other tetraconches (e.g., Apamea, Zvart'noc', and the 
Gagikasén at Ani), but less significant architecturally 
than even the simple porch of Penek's west entrance 
(only the porch's west wall survives extending from pi- 
laster 10; see First Preliminary Report, figs. 38 and 41).