Suchergebnisse

Introduction. Until now, the issue of four Byzantine (Justinian) Armenias in historiography has been considered according to the data of the Byzantine historian of the 6th century Procopius of Caesarea, which does not give grounds for a final answer to the questions posed. Analysis. When comparing the data of Procopius with the information of "Ashkharatsuyts" ("Ancient Armenian Geography"), we find many discrepancies (especially when considering the contour of the borders of I, II and III Armenias). According to the "Ancient Armenian Geography", the territory of I Armenia was expanded both at the expense of the other two, and at the expense of Cilicia and northwestern Syria. Results. So, under Emperor Justinian, a new defensive line was created, which we for the first time in historiography called the "Mamikonyan line". One can rely on the information of Ashkharatsuyts almost without hesitation, since this work was written in the 5th – 7th centuries, and the lion's share of the information was supplemented by the second author of the work, Anania Shirakatsi (it is convincingly proven that the first author was the father of Armenian historiography, Movses Khorenatsi). Justinian trusted the Mamikonyan family, being convinced that they had previously faithfully served the kings of Greater Armenia, the Arshakids, and was practically not mistaken in his calculations.

"Ancient Armenian Geography" (or "Ashkharatsuits", literally — "World Map") calls Phrygia the fifth among all the countries of Universal Asia, which is located between Lycia and Paphlagonia. Partly based on "The Geography" by Ptolemy, "Ancient Armenian Geography" complements the Greek author with its information. Outlining the borders of Phrygia, "Ashkharatsuits" shows the territorial limits that this state reached in the first half of the I millennium BC (especially in the 8th–6th centuries). These centuries can be characterized as the "golden era" of Phrygia since almost all of western Asia Minor was part of this kingdom, and Phrygia reached its apogee during this period. The authors of the Armenian source do not mention any historical person and speak exclusively about geography (administrative territorial divisions, urban map orography, hydrography, plains, etc.). All the data of the Armenian text have been scrupulously examined and compared/collated with the information of Ptolemy, as well as with the information ranging from the Bible and Strabo's "Geography" to the works of the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus. Only a hermeneutic approach to the issue will make it possible to remove all the "brackets" since if the main text of "Ashkharatsuits" was written in the 5th century by Khorenatsi, then from a geographical perspective the source was supplemented in the 7th century by Shirakatsi. Information about the administrative division of Onoratia is also important, as well as its historical and geographical description — all this sheds light on the problem of studying both Onoratia and Phrygia. "Ashkharatsuits" traces the evolution undergone by Phrygia during its history.

For the first time in historiography, we have made an attempt to consider the historical geography of the region of Lycaonia, which was located on the territory of the modern peninsula of Asia Minor. This area can be called the «Forgotten Territory», since so far not a single scientist has turned to the study of this important part of Asia Minor (except for articles in encyclopedias). Despite the fact that Lycaonia never had its own statehood, from ancient times it played an important role in the relations of the great powers of the ancient world. Comparing the data of «Ancient Armenian Geography («Ashkharatsuyts»/«Աշխարհացույց»), first of all, with the data of Strabo and Ptolemy, we found out how the boundaries of this region have changed in relation to neighboring states. Consideration of the issue of the territory of Lycaonia is possible on the basis of identifying and studying the orography and hydrography of this region. At the same time, «Ashkharatsuyts» Lycaonia should be compared with the description of this country by Strabo and Ptolemy, and also, in part, with the descriptions of Pliny and other ancient authors (in particular, Herodotus and Xenophon). We analytically examined the issues of urbanization, about which the historian-geographer Claudius Ptolemy presented detailed information. The study of this text requires a hermeneutic approach. It is necessary to analyze literally every word of this message in order to obtain the desired result, which we tried to do in our study within the framework of this article.

1918 թ. փետրվարի 10-ից Կովկասյան ճակատում հաջողությամբ ծավալված թուրքական հարձակումը հանգեցրեց 1918 թ. մարտի 3-ին կնքված Բրեստ-Լիտովսկի պայմանագրին։ Օսմանյան կայսրությունը շարունակեց առաջխաղացումն Անդրկովկասում և 1918 թ. հունիսի 4-ին Վրաստանի, Ադրբեջանի և Հայաստանի հանրապետություններին պարտադրեց շատ ավելի ծանր Բաթումի պայմանագիրը, որտեղ հայտարարվեց Նախջիևանը թուրքական բանակով բռնանվաճելու մասին։ Թեև հայ ազգային հերոս, գեներալ-մայոր Անդրանիկ Օզանյանը մերժեց Բաթումի պայմանագիրը և 1918 թ. հունիսի 7-ից մինչև հուլիսի 20-ը կատաղի կռիվներ մղեց թուրքերի դեմ, բայց նրա Հայկական առանձին հարվածող զորամասին չհաջողվեց Պարսկաստանում միանալ բրիտանական զորքերին կամ թուրքերից փրկել Նախիջևանի հայությանը։ Զորամասը 1918 թ. հուլիսի 23-ից մինչև նոյեմբերի 28-ը Զանգեզուրում էր և կարողացավ այս երկրամասը փրկել օսմանյան ներխուժումից ու կոտորածից։ Տեղի մահմեդական բնակչությունը Նախջիևանում փորձ արեց 1918 թ. մարտին անկախություն հռչակել: 1919 թ. հունվարի 17-ին, թուրքական հսկողության ներքո, Շարուր-Նախիջևան-Սուրմալուում ստեղծվեց «Արասդայանի հանրապետությունը»։ Քանի որ «Արաքսի հանրապետությունը» չափազանց թույլ էր, այն փոխարինվեց մարիոնետային այլ՝ թուրքական սահմաններում հայտարարված ինքնավար միավորով։ Успешное турецкое наступление на Кавказском фронте 10 февраля 1918 г. привело к Брест-Литовскому договору от 3 марта 1918 г. Османская империя не придерживалась пунктов этого документа, продолжая свое наступление в Закавказье. 4 июня 1918 г. с новообразованными независимыми республиками Грузии, Азербайджана и Армении был заключен более тяжелый – Батумский договор. Его текст гласил об аннексии Нахиджевана турецкими войсками. Хотя и армянский национальный герой, генерал-майор А. Озанян обоснованно отверг Батумский договор и с 7 июня до 20 июля 1918 г. развернул боевые действия против турок, но его Армянский особый ударный отряд не смог объединиться с британскими войсками в Персии и спасти нахиджеванских армян от турок. В марте 1918 г. местное мусульманское население Нахиджевана попыталось установить независимость. Затем в Шаруре-Нахиджеване-Сурмалу была создана марионеточная «Арасдаянская республика» под турецким контролем. Поскольку «Аракская республика» была слишком слабой, она была заменена другой марионеточной, уже автономной единицей в турецких границах. The successful Turkish advance on the Caucasus Front from February 10, 1918, re-sulted in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, signed on March 3, 1918. The Ottoman Empire did not respect this document, continued its advance into the Transcaucasia and concluded on June 4, 1918, much more heavy Treaty of Batum with newly-independent republics of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. Its text announced annexation of Nakhijevan by the Tur-kish forces. Their invasion had been fulfilled by the 36th, 11th and 33rd Divisions on July 10-19, 1918. Though the Armenian national hero and General Major A. Ozanian reasonably rejected the Treaty of Batum and waged his fights from June 7 till July 20, 1918, his Arme-nian Special Striking Detachment could not unite with the British troops in Persia or save the Nakhijevan Armenians from the Turks. On July 14, 1918 he subordinated this district to Soviet Russia, but without any support from the Red Army. His Armenian Special Striking Detachment of 1.400-3.000 men had to evacuate with 35.000 Western and local refu-gees. His further stay in Zangezur on July 23 – November 28, 1918, gave better results and saved the district from the Ottoman invasion and massacre. The local Muslim population first attempted its independence on March 7-25, 1918. Then it proclaimed in Sharur-Nakhijevan-Surmalu a puppet "Republic of Arazdayan" under the Turkish control on De-cember 5, 1918 – January 17, 1919. Since the "Republic of Araxes" could not stand Arme-nian demands, it was replaced by another puppet, now autonomous unit in the frontiers of Turkey, troops of which evacuated from Goghtan on November 25, 1918, and from the whole Nakhijevan on January 26, 1919. During this period the Republic of Armenia ap-pointed its commissar of the district on November 27, 1918, and established a Military Go-vernorship under General Major G. Shelkovnikian on January 14, 1919. On the insistence of British, it was replaces on January 26 by their own Military Governorship; so on Febru-ary 3, an agreement with the Republic of Armenia was signed and on February 10, 1919, the Armenian army was called back to the northern borders of the district.

The present paper reveals aspects of the rural landscape of the Maltese islands, situated in the central part of the Mediterranean Sea. This landscape is endowed with a unique vernacular heritage which comprises a variety of ethnic structures including the razzett (farmhouse), the mitħnatar-riħ (windmill), numerous troglodyte dwellings, an extensive number of masonry dwellings and wayside churches, amongst others. Two specific examples of native structures are considered: the girna (corbelled stone hut) and the hybrid hovel, the latter consisting of two principal parts: a masonry façade and a troglodyte interior. The archaeological evidence and historical records suggest that, since the late Middle Ages, both examples were apparently used as abodes, where humans and animals coinhabited the same domestic spaces. The analysis demonstrates that the girna and the hybrid hovel, despite their restricted internal spaces, were an arena of vibrant socio-economic human activity.