THE INSCRIPTION AT TAMRUT CASTLE: THE CASE FOR A REVISION OF ARMENIAN HISTORY1
Seldom has the discovery of a single inscription helped to rewrite his- tory. The dedicatory epigraph that is the subject of this study was installed over the entrance to the 13th-century baronial castle of T῾ambrowt (now Tamrut), in the heart of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (Fig. 1), which was a conduit for cultural, political, and military exchanges with the Crusader kingdoms, the Byzantine Empire, the Seljuks, the Mamluks, and the Mongols. The often-stated conclusion that Cilicia was at this time a client state dependent on the Mongols for protection must be revised with the discovery of the first evidence that the Armenians were building new military strongholds during this crucial period of history. The inscription from T῾ambrowt Castle, which was photographed in 1981, and destroyed shortly thereafter, is also an historically important source for redrawing the boundaries between the spheres of influence of the two rival dynastic fami- lies in the Armenian Kingdom, the Het῾umids and Ṙubēnids.
1. The History of the Tamrut Inscription and its Translation
In 1987 Robert W. Edwards published his Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia, the result of many expeditions to Cilicia which began in 1973 and culminated in this voluminous, detailed study of seventy-five sites2. In this publication, he mentions, among others, a fortress that had been hitherto unattested until his survey in 1981, alternatively known as Tamrut Kale and Alişekale/ Alişe Kale3. A number of factors made this fortress stand
1 With sincere thanks to Dr. Robert W. Edwards for allowing me to study his copy of the photograph he took before the destruction of the inscription at Tamrut Castle and his many comments that improved this article, and appreciation for his years of work to ensure that the Armenian monuments of Anatolia are studied and published. I would also like to express my heartfelt appreciation to Prof. Dickran Kouymjian for his encouragement over many years to find the original photograph of this inscription, which led me to locating it in the archives of Dr. Edwards, who first published it in his monograph (EDWARDS, Fortifica- tions). Additional thanks are due to Prof. Richard G. Hovannisian for his help in accessing the images of Tamrut in the PARSEGIAN, Armenian Architecture microfiche set at the Univer- sity of California – Los Angeles. Last, but not least, I would like to express special thanks to Dr. Agnès Ouzounian, without whose expertise of medieval Armenian epigraphy and grammar, and talent for pulling words out of weathered stone this article would not have been completed in its current form. 2 EDWARDS, Fortifications, p. ix. 3 EDWARDS, Fortifications, p. 241, n. 2.
Le Muséon 132 (1-2), 107-122. doi: 10.2143/MUS.132.1.3286535 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2019. 108 J. CHRISTIANIAN out in importance among all the sites Edwards surveyed, deserving it to be featured as the sole image on the dust jacket cover of his monograph: 1) until his first visit, its remote location had escaped the notice of modern travelers; 2) its general location made it a possible candidate for identi- fication as Barjrberd/Bardzrberd – one of the most strategic, renowned fortresses of Cilician Armenia; and 3) an extensive inscription carved in stone was preserved over its main entrance (Fig. 2). However, a few years after his visit to this site, the entrance gate was intentionally damaged, and the inscription was removed and likely destroyed (Fig. 2a). Another traveler, Mustapha Skalli, visited the site in 1982, and also photographed the fortress and inscription, although his photographs of it, taken from a distance, did not help in deciphering it (Fig. 3 and 3a). The website of the municipality of Aladağ, within the jurisdiction of which this fortress is located, mentions the presence of a six-line inscription on a limestone block on the exterior of the gate, whose content is still not fully known. Curiously, though, the third photograph displayed on the web page shows that the inscription is missing over the entrance gate (Fig. 4)4. My own visit in July 2014 confirmed the absence of this inscription (Fig. 2a). Two local youths at the site, noting my interest in the missing stones over the arch of the gate, mentioned that people had years before intentionally destroyed the inscription tabela previously present there5. Edwards, prior to publishing his book, had Virgil Strohmeyer, Jr., and Dickran Kouymjian, both experts in medieval Armenian epigraphy, exam- ine his photograph of this inscription for assistance in reading and translat- ing it. Unfortunately, the steep grade outside the gate had made it very dif- ficult to take a good picture, such that Edwards’ photo was taken at a sharp angle to the wall. That angle, and the distance from which the photograph had to be taken, made it impossible to make out the inscription fully, as many of the letters were also quite worn. Edwards reported the inscription as: 1. šinec῾oł.a .. c῾ankm . (or, c῾anks .) the builder .. circuit walls 2. . bor anvani epł (or, t῾) ambrow … Lampron (or) by the famous bishopric 3. iyišatak hap . agior pr in the memory of (?) baron 4. …. b . cownoč῾i . orowt῾o ? 5. norogesc῾i ē : t῾v[….] I will renew 6. …. yišesc῾owk῾ ? We will remember6
4 http://www.aladag.bel.tr/index.php/tamrut-alise-kalesi [accessed February 5, 2017]. 5 Another recent study that references Tamrut makes no mention of the inscription: PETRE, Commonality, p. 250-251. 6 EDWARDS, Fortifications, p. 237. THE INSCRIPTION AT TAMRUT CASTLE 109
He further added that Strohmeyer included the following notes with his translation: “In the second line, the ept῾amb could stand for episkoposowt῾eamb or for episkopos t῾ambrow which might be a name of a person or place (see Hubschmann’s T῾ambarak῾). If this reading is accepted, row is possibly a dialectal form of ṙowben [sic: read ṙowbēn], but I think the initial r argues against this. Finally, if we read ł for t῾ we might have the word Tambrow [sic: read Łambrow?] or Lampron. The third line is fairly clear except for the name which seems to be in the genitive. The fourth line is impossible to translate. The fifth line has a clear t῾v which may be a phonetic rendering of the more normal t῾ow.. (number) in classical Armenian.”7
Edwards also wrote: “[Kouymjian] reads a date at the end of line 5: ‘in our era 682.’ The Armenian year 682 is equivalent to A.D. 1233. […] but it should be stressed that this reading is highly speculative.”8 The year 682 would be written as ՈՁԲ in Armenian. As it stood, the unen- hanced photograph referenced in The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia was simply too difficult to read. I was able to obtain the original 8 × 10 inch black & white enlargement from Edwards in 20169. Considering the challenges posed by the photo- graph, due to the picture-taking conditions experienced by Edwards, digi- tal manipulation of a scan of the image seemed likely to help. A high- resolution scan was made, and that image was treated with Photoshop to eliminate the perspective distortion and improve contrast and sharpness in the delineation of the letters. This final result showed much promise, and yielded the following reading, in six lines of text separated by horizontal lines, with raised letters carved in relief from the surrounding areas. The text is given below in the layout used on the stone face (Fig. 5 and 6):
7 EDWARDS, Fortifications, p. 241, n. 4. 8 EDWARDS, Fortifications, p. 241, n. 4. 9 Having failed to find the inscription on-site to confirm and complete its reading and translation, I searched for Edwards’ photograph and his extensive archive, which he had entrusted to the late Vazken L. Parsegian, Professor Emeritus of the School of Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Troy, NY. Parsegian was also Chairman of the Armenian Educational Council and Director of the Armenian Architecture Photographic Archives Project. However, while an extensive archive of photographs and other docu- ments on Armenian architecture is indeed located at RPI, I was assured by Ms. Jeanne M. Keefe, the Graphics Curator at the RPI Architecture Library (since retired), that Edwards’ files were not there. Their whereabouts remain a mystery. My search was finally rewarded when, having contacted Edwards, I was informed that he still had a copy of the image. While he did not have the original negative, he fortunately had an 8×10 inch enlargement he shared with me, as well as a duplicate of a 35 mm color slide he had taken, which unfor- tunately did not contribute any further details. 110 J. CHRISTIANIAN
± ՇԻՆԵՑԱՒ ԴՂԵԱԿՍ ՑԱՆԿԱ ԼԻ : ՈՐ Է ԱՆՎԱՆԻ ԲԵՐԴ ԹԱՄԲՐՏԻ . (. used instead of :, or : touching the Ի?) Ի ՅԻՇԱՏԱԿ ՀԱՒՐ ԹԱԳԻ : ՈՐ ՊՐ ԿՈՍՏԻՆ ԱՆՈՒՆ ԿՈՉԻ : ՈՐՈՒՄ +ՏՐ 10 Ն ՈՂՈՐՄԵՍՑԻ ԱՄԵՆ 11 : ԹՎԻՆ ՉԲ12 : + ԵՒ ԾՆ[Ո]ՂԴ ԳԼԽԱՎՈՐ ՅԻՇԵՍՑՈՒՔ Ի ՔՍ 13
A number of punctuation marks appear in the inscription, in the form of the sentence-ending period mark, the vertically-arranged two dots (:). Using this punctuation allows us to rearrange the words of the inscription as intended to be read. It is given again below in this form, with missing letters added – or abbreviated words expanded – in square brackets ([ ]); with single- or double-underlines used to differentiate juxtaposed sets of ligatures or “nested” letters – where a letter is “nested” above, below, or inside part of another. Finally, the wavy underlines are used to indicate the use of the patiw, the Armenian mark of abbreviation, above the corresponding letters. It becomes apparent that each of the first five lines ends in the letter Ի, an attempt at a simple rhyme. The num- ber of syllables in each line is also shown in the left column below. As these numbers seem to indicate, some attempt was also made at metered rhythm: 9 ± ՇԻՆԵՑԱՒ ԴՂԵԱԿՍ ՑԱՆԿԱԼԻ : 9 ՈՐ Է ԱՆՎԱՆԻ ԲԵՐԴ ԹԱՄԲՐՏԻ : 9 Ի ՅԻՇԱՏԱԿ ՀԱՒՐ ԹԱԳ[ԱՒՈՐ]Ի : 10 ՈՐ Պ[Ա]Ր[ՈՆ] ԿՈՍՏ[ԱՆԴ]ԻՆ ԱՆՈՒՆ ԿՈՉԻ : 10 ՈՐՈՒՄ ՏԷՐՆ ՈՂՈՐՄԵՍՑԻ ԱՄԵՆ :
10 While the symbol of a cross, +, appears above the Մ of the preceding word ՈՐՈՒՄ, I believe it is meant to be preceding the letters ՏՐ, the abbreviation of the word for Lord, meaning God. This is indicated by the break in the separating horizontal line between this and the row of letters above, and also by the upper, right-extending bend of the letter Մ, which prevents it from being placed closed to the ՏՐ. 11 Sic, for ԱՄԷՆ. 12 These two letters are engraved in a substantially different fashion from the rest: the strokes are thicker, and have an additional groove carved along the centers of their lengths. I would like to thank Prof. Dickran Kouymjian for his reading of this date. The facts that these two letters represent one letter for hundreds and one for units (the first of them is not a Ձ, with a numerical value of 80, since that would imply the need for a third letter preceding it for the hundreds, clearly missing in this form of carved lettering), and that the date rendered fits the rest of the inscription content (see further below), limits the possible options. 13 Agnès Ouzounian generously contributed in deciphering parts of the inscription; her input is indicated in italics. THE INSCRIPTION AT TAMRUT CASTLE 111
9 ԹՎԻՆ ՉԲ : [read as: թվին եաւթն հարիւր երկու-ին?] (702 AE = 1253 AD) 13 + ԵՒ ԾՆ[Ո]ՂԴ14 ԳԼԽԱՎՈՐ ՅԻՇԵՍՑՈՒՔ Ի Ք[ՐԻՍՏՈ]Ս
This translates as: ± This desirable fortress was built Which is the renowned castle of T῾ambrowt In memory of the king’s father Who is called by the name of Baron Kostandin For whom may the Lord have compassion, Amen In the year 702 (702 AE = 1253 AD) + And your main parent let us remember in Christ.
The last line is problematic. Its first three words are deciphered tenta- tively, due to the fact that this part of the stone surface appears to be more weathered, in addition to the whole last line being engraved in smaller letters. However, the ending, and especially the conjugation of the verb as “let us remember”, do provide some clues. First, since it is given in the first person plural of the subjunctive, it gives an indication that it is not the builder or sponsor of the construction (and by extension, author of the inscription), whom readers are to “remember in Christ”. If that had been the case, the conjugation would have been in the second person plural. Additionally, since we are already told in the third line that the fortress of T῾ambrowt was built in memory of Kostandin, Lord of Papeṙōn and father of King Het῾um I, it seems possible that the last line would be offering another entreaty to remember the same person15. It should be noted that the following words in the inscription use incorrect orthography16: ԱՆՎԱՆԻ for ԱՆՈՒԱՆԻ ԱՄԵՆ for ԱՄԷՆ
14 I would like to thank Professor Bernard Coulie for this reading. Despite the awk- ward sentence and ambiguity as to whose parent, and ultimately who, is to be remem- bered, the visible letters do not allow for a more likely alternate interpretation. 15 Baron Kostandin was still alive in 1253; he died in 1263. See MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant, I, p. 347. 16 Incorrect orthography is not uncommon in medieval Armenian inscriptions of Cili- cia. See, for example, the use of ԹԱԳՎՈՐ for ԹԱԳԱՒՈՐ in the transcription reported for the inscription (current whereabouts unknown) of the fortress of Dełnkar/Teghnkar, which was attested in the 1860s, in HOVHANNESIAN, Fortresses, p. 94-95. This inscription was also mentioned by Victor Langlois in LANGLOIS, Inscriptions, p. 27-28, though perhaps not as accurately transcribed. Numerous additional orthographic errors are reported by Agnès Ouzounian for the inscription of the monastery of Kız near Papeṙōn, in GOEPP – MUTAFIAN – OUZOUNIAN, Constantin de Papeṙōn, p. 260-262. 112 J. CHRISTIANIAN
ԹՎԻՆ for ԹՈՒԻՆ (but commonly used in this form from medieval times) ԳԼԽԱՎՈՐ for ԳԼԽԱՒՈՐ
The current, locally-used name of Tamrut appears therefore to be a derivation of the medieval name of T῾ambrowt, Թամբրուտ, the genitive of which is given in the inscription as Թամբրտի17. T῾ambrowt is other- wise unattested to-date. It would be curious to know whether the local Turks’ designation of the fortress by this name proceeds from an oral transmission of the name that transcended the end of the local Armenian population presence, or if later visitors able to read the Armenian inscrip- tion had revived its name and passed it on to the locals18. The answer may lie in Ottoman maps from the 17th-19th centuries, assuming they report the site, and the name they associate with it19. The name of the fortress appears curious at first, but may have an explanation. Many of the Armenian fortresses in Cilicia bear names that are descriptive in nature (e.g., Դեղնքար = դեղն + քար, medicine stone, or դեղին + քար, yellow stone; Դարպսակ = դարպաս + -ակ, small palace; Բարձրբերդ = բարձր + բերդ, high fortress). This one fits that pattern as well. Թամբրուտ may in fact have derived from Թամբարտ, that word in turn from Թամբարդ20, to signify a geographic feature resembling a riding saddle, which may have been based on the appearance of the fortress over the site on which it was built (Fig. 7). In fact, the topographical lines on Edwards’ plan of Tamrut, and this author’s personal inspection of the site, confirm that the fortress surrounds a slight topographic low, with the two towers flanking the entrance forming the pommel, while the
17 Agnès Ouzounian, in an email dated February 14, 2017, noted: “Peut-on lire Թամբրտի ? On aurait ainsi une forme de génitif de Թամբրուտ qui serait une variante de Թամրուտ (comme Thompson est une variante de Thomson)”. This observation, taking into consideration the shift of Բ from the Classical Armenian b into its Western variant of p, reconciles the name given in the inscription as the genitive of the original medieval name of T῾ambrowt, which would have evolved into the current Tamrut. 18 Robert Edwards commented, about my suggestion, in an email dated March 30, 2017: “it is highly likely (Edwards’ emphasis) that resident Armenians in the post-medieval period transmitted the toponym to the local Turks. It is probable that Alişe (or Alise) is a recent contrivance.” 19 I was unable to find any such references on the maps I consulted. 20 I would like to thank Samvel Grigoryan for sharing this possible explanation with me in an email dated April 2, 2017, suggesting that Թամբարտ could be based on the way the fortress saddles the outcrop, or on the topographical feature describing a lower area between two peaks. This type of topography is however not unique to Tamrut, and is in fact rather common, being much more pronounced for example at Meydan Kalesi and, of course, Sis. For the topography of Tamrut, see EDWARDS, Fortifications, Fig. 70, Pl. 221b, 223b; for Meydan, Fig. 56; for Sis, Fig. 69. THE INSCRIPTION AT TAMRUT CASTLE 113 fortification walls built on the topographic high separating the fortress from the cliffs at the back (east) would form the rise at the back of a saddle. The natural rock formations and sheer cliffs at the “sides” (west- northwest and south-southeast) eliminated the need for the construction of defensive walls in those locations. The overall effect may have been such as to substantiate this saddle-shape interpretation. The date of 1253 AD given in the inscription would cause the fortress to have been built during the reign of King Het῾um I, whose father Kostandin, Lord of Papeṙōn, is therefore the Baron Kostandin named in the inscrip- tion, in whose memory T῾ambrowt castle was apparently built. Conversely, the fact that this fortress was built in memory of the King’s father, Baron Kostandin, would confirm the reading of the date as 702 of the Armenian Era, or ՉԲ (although the previously-suggested reading of 1233 would also have fit Het῾um I’s regnal years).
2. The Historical Significance of the Tamrut Inscription
The Armenian presence in Cilicia was the indirect result of the policy of forced migration instigated by Byzantine emperors in the first quarter of the 11th century. This migration had followed decades of Armenians, who had already established a presence in the Anatolian interior, partici- pating in the affairs of the Byzantine Empire in both military and civilian administration. Eventually, this presence evolved into an organized estab- lishment, which, with its feudal-military hierarchy, allowed the Armeni- ans to become a force to be reckoned with. Two families rose to positions of prominence within the Armenian presence in Cilicia: the Het῾umids, based in Papeṙōn/Baberon (now Çandır Kale), generally in the west (but also with a branch also settled in the southeast)21, and the Ṙubēnids based in Kapan/Gaban (now Geben Kale) and Vahka/Vahga (now Feke) in the east22 (Fig. 1). While the former had close relations with Constantinople, the latter pursued a more nationalistic policy, such that these differences often caused conflicts to erupt between them. A scion of the Ṙubēnids, Prince Lewon II, would eventually become recognized as King Lewon I of Armenia by the Holy Roman Empire as well as the Byzantine Emperor in 1199, prompting a consolidation of power and new strategic alliances with the Crusaders and, through the following two centuries, various powers at play in the Levant, including the Mongols.
21 MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant, I, p. 337-364 ; II, Map 37. 22 See DÉDÉYAN, Les Arméniens, for a detailed historical narrative and analysis of the period of the Armenian presence in Cilicia preceding the establishment of the kingdom. 114 J. CHRISTIANIAN
Lewon I had designated his daughter Zapēl as his heiress. Baron Kostandin, Lord of Papeṙōn/Baberon and of Koṙikos/Gorigos (now Korikos or Kiz Kale), a skilled leader and strategist, arranged for his son Het῾um to marry Zapēl and become the next King of Armenia. This union of the two hereditary families stopped for a while the feuding among various Armenian factions, and united the population at a time that was marked by increasing external threats, including the arrival of the Mongols in the Near East. The resulting peace within the kingdom brought a period of prosperity, which witnessed a revival of arts and ecclesiastical activity23. However, the previous three decades also had witnessed increasing incur- sions by the Seljuks, with many Armenian losses to them in the west and north. The construction of the castle of T῾ambrowt must therefore be viewed in the context, and as a manifestation, of this prosperity, against the backdrop of increasing Seljuk attacks, especially as T῾ambrowt guards the critical northern approaches to the Armenian Kingdom. However, medieval fortifications in Cilicia had two primary functions: they secured strategic roads, but also protected nearby civilian settle- ments24. To the west of the ancient north-south road that connects Tarsus to the Cilician Gates, the Het῾umids constructed two major fortresses, Lampron (now Namrun25) and Papeṙōn (now Çandır), to protect, in con- junction with smaller fortified sites, trade routes and settlements in the agricultural valleys. To the east of this north-south road, the large Vale of Karsantı (recently renamed Aladağ) was controlled by two important cas- tles, Meydan at the east end, and T῾ambrowt/Tamrut, about 16 km WSW of Meydan. It is also significant that this inscription eliminates this fortress from the list of possible candidates to be reckoned as Barjrberd/Bardzrberd, allowing me to conclude that Meydan Kale has to be identified as Barjrberd/Bardzrberd26. The fact that the name of T῾ambrowt, a large
23 Another example is the construction of the Holy Savior church at Kız near Papeṙōn, which is possibly to be identified as the medieval Armenian monastery of Mlič/Mlidch, with an inscription dated 1241 AD and indicating its construction was sponsored by the same Baron Kostandin. See GOEPP – MUTAFIAN – OUZOUNIAN, Constantin de Papeṙōn. 24 EDWARDS, Settlements, p. 185-186. 25 Note the dropping of the p in the Turkification from Lampron, as also for the b/p in T῾ambrowt (see footnote 17). 26 Following Robert Edwards’ conclusion that Meydan and Tamrut were likely the only two candidates for Barjrberd (see EDWARDS, Fortifications, p. 280, n. 7), this elimination now leaves Meydan as the only possible choice for Barjrberd. Personal inspection of the sites of Meydan and Bostan/Ergenusaği (another possible candidate for Barjrberd) also allowed me to conclude that Meydan, rather than Bostan/Ergenusaği, has to be Barjrberd, leaving the latter as the prime candidate for the medieval Armenian stronghold of Kopitaṙ. These conclusions mirror those of HILD – HELLENKEMPER, Kilikien, (map), although, according THE INSCRIPTION AT TAMRUT CASTLE 115 and strategically-located fortress, appears to be unattested in the known medieval chronicles and colophons, or indeed in any Armenian geogra- phies, seems at first very strange. However, when we view this in the light of the numerous Armenian fortresses in Cilicia whose medieval names are unknown, this observation becomes less problematic27. Conversely, many of the fortresses and most of the monasteries known from the medieval chronicles and colophons cannot yet be identified with known sites. The reference of respect to Baron Kostandin in this inscription proves that this region was in the area of control of the Het῾umids. T῾ambrowt castle, being about 75 km northeast of Papeṙōn, would significantly expand, in an easterly direction, the area previously believed to have been controlled by the Het῾umids28. Additionally, in 1219, after the death of King Lewon I, Baron Kostandin, the father of King Het῾um I, became Lord of Barjrberd/Bardzrberd, which he turned into a dynastic property29. This fact would further substantiate the theory of expansion of the Het῾umid- controlled lands eastward after the death of King Lewon I. It is noteworthy that the year the castle of T῾ambrowt was completed, 1253, as given in the inscription, corresponds to the year that King Het῾um I started his three-year round-trip travel to the land of the Mongols, to meet with and sign a treaty with the Great Khan Mangu30. This coincidence has many ramifications. Most striking among them is that the king, in order to take this extended leave from his throne, must have believed his land’s borders secure. The recent completion of the Castle of T῾ambrowt, and possibly others he had sponsored simultaneously, may have contributed to his ability to take on this long absence. While Het῾um I was a vassal of the Mongols, this inscription provides, for the first time, an indication of the fact that the Armenian Kingdom was expanding its defenses through the renewed construction of major fortifications during this period, while exercising a very active diplomatic policy on the regional stage. Furthermore, while the Armenians had engaged the Hospitaller Knights in the protection of the kingdom’s southwestern border by granting them to Edwards, they did not provide reasonable evidence to support them (see EDWARDS, Settlements, p. 213-214, 218-219). 27 EDWARDS, Settlements, p. 205. 28 Alternatively, the memorial dedication to Baron Kostandin, “the father of the king”, in the T῾ambrowt inscription, informing the reader that this fortress was built during the reign of the latter, may indicate that it had been part of the royal domains (generally believed to have extended from the Cilician Plain north through Sis to Vahka), rather than an extension of Het῾umid-controlled territory. However, as T῾ambrowt/Tamrut is located rather far to the west of that traditional region, the previous hypothesis appears to be more probable. 29 HOVHANNESIAN, Fortresses, p. 119 (French transl., p. 573). 30 DÉDÉYAN, Smbat, p. 98-99. 116 J. CHRISTIANIAN the fortresses of Norberd (now Tokmar?), Seleukeia (now Silifke) and Camardias (another possibility for the fortress now called Tokmar) and the Teutonic Knights in the protection of the southeastern border with the granting to them of the fortresses of Amuda (now Hemite) and Haroun (now Harun Reşit), they had to make changes to this policy in the mid- 13th century in the face of weakened Crusader power. Their solution appears to have been the construction of additional fortresses, perhaps surrounding the mountainous heartland of the kingdom, to consolidate their power while defending it from the latest emerging threats. This new defensive construction activity also calls into question the level to which King Het῾um I trusted, or depended upon, the Mongols. While the alliance he had forged provided certain benefits – as well as obligations – to the Armenian Kingdom, it appears Het῾um I certainly had the means to expand and strengthen the kingdom’s fortifications. Het῾um I ruled 44 years, from 1226 to 1270, longer than any other ruler of Cilician Armenia. Until 1266, much of his rule was marked by military successes and diplomatic overtures that allowed the Armenian Kingdom to shake off the Seljuk vassalage he had inherited, and to score victories, together with his new Mongol suzerains and Frankish allies, against the neighboring Moslem states. Het῾um I’s long reign was economically pros- perous, as indicated by the extensive series of silver and copper coins he issued, comprised of more coin types than those of any of the later kings, and richer even than the coinage of Lewon I31. While it is often stated that many of the fortresses in Cilician Armenia were probably built by Lewon I, the founder of the kingdom, or even by the barons who preceded Lewon I’s royal coronation, it seems likely that Het῾um I should have built, or at least renovated, many of the fortresses in his kingdom32. The royal person depicted in the sculpted relief placed over the gatehouse at Yılan Kalesi, while not identified, resembles the “Oriental”-style seated, or cross-legged, posture seen on many of the coins of the Cilician Armenian Kingdom, including some of the copper coins of Het῾um I33. The fact that Yılan Kalesi has evidence of reconstruction34, combined with this similarity of
31 CHRISTIANIAN, Hetoum I. 32 The partially preserved inscription in the large southern tower hall at Sis appears to mention a Het῾um, who may very possibly be Het῾um I, since, as Edwards mentions “During the reigns of King Levon I and his eventual successor, Het῾um I, much ecclesi- astical and military construction was undertaken. […] Since Het῾um had a reputation as a builder, it is quite possible that he is responsible for enlarging the castle.” (EDWARDS, Fortifications, p. 234). 33 CHRISTIANIAN, Hetoum I; NERCESSIAN, Armenian Coins, p. 136, catalog No. 363 (Pl. 30). 34 EDWARDS, Yılan Kalesi, p. 30, Fig. 5. THE INSCRIPTION AT TAMRUT CASTLE 117 the royal figure’s posture in the sculpture, may weigh in favor of attrib- uting that reconstruction, and therefore the royal figure prominently dis- played over the gate, to Het῾um I. The deductions made from the Tamrut Castle inscription with regards to a period of construction activity initiated by Het῾um I would further support this conclusion. It would therefore seem that the act of vandalism that resulted in the removal and apparent loss of the inscription from its original site did not forestall its further research. This new study of Edwards’ photograph, aided by advanced digital image processing, brings a fresh perspective to the complex political history of this region, adds valuable information about toponyms in Cilician Armenia, and certainly modifies the traditionally- accepted delineation of the boundary between the Het῾umid and Ṙubēnid holdings.
2085 Stony Hill Road Jirair CHRISTIANIAN Boulder, CO 80305 USA [email protected]
Bibliography
CHRISTIANIAN, Hetoum I = J. CHRISTIANIAN, A Seljuq Overstrike of Kaika’us II and a New Kardez Type for Hetoum I of Cilician Armenia, in Armenian Numismatic Journal, Ser. II, 8 (38) (2012), p. 81-87. DÉDÉYAN, Les Arméniens = G. DÉDÉYAN, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musul- mans et Croisés : Étude sur les pouvoirs arméniens dans le Proche-Orient méditerranéen (1068-1150), 2 Vol., Lisbon, 2003. DÉDÉYAN, Smbat = G. DÉDÉYAN, La Chronique attribuée au Connétable Smbat, French annotated translation, Paris, 1980. EDWARDS, Fortifications = R.W. EDWARDS, The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 23), Washington, DC, 1987. EDWARDS, Settlements = R.W. EDWARDS, Settlements and Toponymy in Armenian Cilicia, in Revue des Études Arméniennes, N.S., 24 (1993), p. 181-249. EDWARDS, Yılan Kalesi = R.W. EDWARDS, On the Supposed Date of Yılan Kalesi, in Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 1 (1984), p. 23-33. GOEPP – MUTAFIAN – OUZOUNIAN, Constantin de Papeṙōn = M. GOEPP – C. MUTA- FIAN – A. OUZOUNIAN, L’inscription du régent Constantin de Papeṙōn (1241): Redécouverte, relecture, remise en contexte historique, in Revue des Études Arméniennes, N.S., 34 (2012), p. 243-287. HILD – Hellenkemper, Kilikien = F. HILD – H. HELLENKEMPER, Kilikien und Isaurien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 5), Vienna, 1990. HOVHANNESIAN, Fortresses = M. HOVHANNESIAN, Հայկական Կիլիկիոյ Բերդերն ու Բերդաքաղաքները (Fortresses and Fortified Cities of Armenian Cilicia), Venice, 1989, (Armenian, with extensive French summary). 118 J. CHRISTIANIAN
LANGLOIS, Inscriptions = V. LANGLOIS, Inscriptions grecques, romaines, byzan- tines et arméniennes de la Cilicie, Paris, 1854. MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant = C. MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant (XIe- XIVe Siècle), 2 Vol., Paris, 2012. NERCESSIAN, Armenian Coins = Y.T. NERCESSIAN, Armenian Coins and Their Values, Los Angeles, CA, 1995. PARSEGIAN, Armenian Architecture = Armenian Architecture Photographic Archives Project, Zug, 1980-1990. PETRE, Commonality = J. PETRE, Commonality in Crusader Castle Construction in Armenian Cilicia and Cyprus: The Case for Kantara and the Catalyst of Korykos, in Crusader Landscapes in the Medieval Levant: The Archaeol- ogy and History of the Latin East, M. SINIBALDI, K.J. LEWIS, B. MAJOR and J.A. THOMPSON, eds., Cardiff, 2016, p. 241-260.
Abstract — In 1981, Robert W. Edwards had discovered a six-line Armenian inscription in the previously unreported castle of Tamrut of the Armenian Kingdom in Cilicia. Unfortunately, picture-taking conditions made it difficult to obtain a photograph that would allow for a full reading of the inscription. A high-resolution scan and digital image processing have now allowed the author to interpret the important parts of the inscription. These include the medieval name of the castle, T῾ambrowt – thus establishing a link with the modern name of the castle, the year of construction of 1253 AD, and references to King Het῾um I and his father Kostandin, Lord of Papeṙōn, in whose memory the castle was built. This information allows us to conclude that despite agreements with the military Crusader orders to protect the southern flanks of the kingdom, and the treaty of vassalage to the Mongols, Het῾um I was in a position to build new fortifications to protect his kingdom, and exercised an autonomous policy of military activity. Evidence of construction – or renovation – preserved in other castles of the kingdom may be dated to Het῾um I’s reign, in which case it would support these conclusions, even though much of the military construction of Cilician Armenia is traditionally ascribed to King Lewon I or the baronial period which preceded his coronation. THE INSCRIPTION AT TAMRUT CASTLE 119
Fig. 1. Map of the approximate boundaries of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia at the beginning of King Het῾um I’s reign (by author, with boundaries from MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant, II, Map 25).
Fig. 2 and 2a. Photographs showing the original entrance gate (left, by Robert Edwards, June 1981) and damaged, with inscription removed (right, by author, July 16, 2014). 120 J. CHRISTIANIAN
Fig. 3 and 3a. Two photographs taken by Mustapha Skalli of the Tamrut inscription in 1982.
Fig. 4. Photograph showing the damaged arch of the main entrance gate (from Aladağ Municipality website, date unknown). THE INSCRIPTION AT TAMRUT CASTLE 121
Fig. 5. Photograph of the Tamrut inscription by Robert Edwards, taken June 1981, after perspective and contrast corrections by author.
Fig. 6. Tracing of the letters on the Tamrut inscription, by author (first two words of last line conjectural, unintelligible). 122 J. CHRISTIANIAN
Fig. 7. Tamrut Fortress, Google satellite view showing overall saddle-shaped layout of site.