wwuMÜNSTERInstit. ut .ur Klassische Archäologieund Chnsthc. he Archäologie /Areh.aologisches Muse u minstitutuniversitairede FranceSORBONN UNIVERSITE

TABLE OF CONTENTSOutline . 5Programme . 6Abstracts . 9Giusto Traina. 9Klaus Geus . 11Edward Dąbrowa . 12Carlo G. Cereti . 13Touraj Daryaee . 14Pierangelo Buongiorno . 15Anahide Kéfélian . 16Michael Speidel . 17Michał A. Marciak . 18Hamlet Petrosyan . 19Timo Stickler . 20Murtazali Gadjiev . 21Lara Fabian . 22Mkrtich Zardaryan . 23Achim Lichtenberger / Mkrtich Zardaryan . 25Torben Schreiber . 26Conveners . 27Venue . 28

OUTLINEInternational ConferenceANCIENT ARMENIA IN CONTEXT (II BCE – III CE)26 June – 28 June 2019, MünsterThe Kingdom of Great Armenia was located in the South Caucasus betweenAnatolia and Iran. For European and North American research, ancient Armeniais a relatively neglected state, usually known as a point of controversy or as a"buffer state" between Rome and Iran. The conference, co-organized by AchimLichtenberger (Münster University) and Giusto Traina (Sorbonne) aims tosituate ancient Armenia in a larger geopolitical context as a case study ofglobal history. For the classical studies usually consider the Kingdom of GreatArmenia as a marginal state. They refer mostly to Armenia only if the countrywas involved in a military crisis between East and West. In fact, this countryhad not only an important geostrategic position,but also a vast territory and rich ng empires to establish military controlover Armenia. The conference will focus on thepre-Christian period, with views on ChristianArmenia; but these views are always in a longuedurée perspective.The conference is divided in four sections, whichbuild on each other, and relate and interlinkliterary and material sources. Central to theconference is the contextualization of Armenia ina broader geopolitical context.5

6PROGRAMMEWednesday, 26 June 201913:00Registration13:45-14:15Welcome and IntroductionState of the Art and Methodology14:15-15:00GIUSTO TRAINA (Paris)Ancient Armenia: Evidence and Models15:00-15:45KLAUS GEUS (Berlin)Armenia in Ptolemy’s Geography15:45-16:15coffee breakArmenia and Iran16:15-17:00EDWARD DĄBROWA (Kraków)Parthian-Armenian Relations from Second Century BCto the End of First Century CE17:00-17:45CARLO CERETI (Roma)Narseh, Armenia and the Pāikūlī Inscription18:00-19:30Keynote Lecture:TOURAJ DARYAEE (Irvine)Armenia and Iran: The Birth of Two Nations in Late Antiquityvenue: Fürstenberghaus, Domplatz 20-22, F 420:00Dinner for Speakers

PROGRAMMEThursday, 27 June 2019Armenia and Rome9:15-10:00PIERANGELO BUONGIORNO (Lecce/Münster)The Roman Senate and Armenia10:00-10:45ANAHIDE KÉFÉLIAN (Paris)Armenia and the Armenians in Roman Coins10:45-12:00coffee break11:15-12:00MICHAEL SPEIDEL (Warsaw)Provincia Armenia in the Light of the Epigraphic Evidencefrom ArmeniaThe Borders of Armenia12:00-12:45MICHAŁ MARCIAK (Kraków)The Upper Tigris Region between Rome, Iran and Armenia12:45-13:45lunch14:00-14:45HAMLET PETROSYAN (Erevan)Politics, Ideology and Landscape:Early Christian Tigranakert in ArtsakhArmenia and the Caucasus14:45-15:30TIMO STICKLER (Jena)Armenia and Iberia15:30-16:15MURTAZALI GADJIEV (Makhachkala)Armenia and the Land of Maskutes (3rd – 5th century AD):Written Sources and Archaeological Data16:15-16:45coffee break7

8PROGRAMME16:45-17:30LARA FABIAN (Freiburg)The South Caucasus and the Steppe, 500 BCE–300 CE17:30-18:15General Discussion19:00Dinner for SpeakersFriday, 28 June 2019Artaxata9:15-10:00MKRTICH ZARDARYAN (Erevan)Artashat-Artaxata:Armenian City on the Crossing of Trans-regional Interactions10:00-10:45ACHIM LICHTENBERGER (Münster) / MKRTICH ZARDARYAN (Erevan)The Armenian-German Artaxata Project10:45-11:15coffee break11:15-12:00TORBEN SCHREIBER (Istanbul)The Archives of Artaxata.Archival practice in the capital of ancient Armenia12:00-12:45ACHIM LICHTENBERGER / GIUSTO TRAINAGeneral Conclusions and Final Discussion13:00-14:00lunch

ABSTRACTSGIUSTO TRAINASorbonne Université, ParisANCIENT ARMENIA: EVIDENCE AND MODELSThe history of the kingdom of Greater Armenia (II BCE- V CE) has been generallyinterpreted from two different standpoints, an “inner” and an “outer” one. Thelatter is more familiar to the historians of Rome, and mostly concerns the roleof Armenia in a general geopolitical context. Roman historians have been littleattracted by the “inner” standpoint, which concerns the balance of powerwithin Armenian kingship and the subject principalities (naxarar), except whenit encroaches on their understanding of Armenian international relations.Armenology has mostly developed this situation, although, for the PreChristian period, i.e. before the fourth century CE, evidence is morefragmentary, or is conditioned by the peculiar standpoint of Armenian sources,that follow different logics. Therefore, it is very difficult to evaluate the realstakes of the balance of power.As a matter of fact, a very few moments of the history of pre-Christian Armeniacan resist to the critical sieve of a rigid positivistic method. Our chronologicaland dynastic data are often imprecise. The literary and epigraphic sources onthe kingdom of Armenia, and on its relations with the other kingdoms andpowers, are relatively scarce. Over all, we lack a “guide-text” which couldprovide the historian with a space-temporal web of some precision. Even themost elaborated and thoughtful reconstruction -which Hakob Manandyancalled the “critical history” of Armenia- necessarily stops in front of the limitednumber of sources.The value of Armenian historiographical sources is one of the most delicateissues. In fact, it is difficult to compare the Greek and Roman sources withArmenian authors such as Agat‘angełos, the Epic Histories or MovsēsXorenac‘i. The latter is particularly complex, as he usually mixes local oraltraditions with heterogeneous Greek and Roman sources; the result is achronological hodgepodge. Such a documentary chaos aroused harsh9

10criticisms, leading many scholars, especially in the West, to reject hishistorical value; an authoritative voice, such as the late Robert Thomson,remarks that Xorenac‘i’s History is not only controversial, but also basicallyuntrustworthy.However, the Armenian sources can represent a most valuable contribution tofill the gaps in the puzzle of the history of the kingdom. Of course, it would beabsurd to put together in a positivistic frame the elements provided by, say,Strabo, Tacitus, or Movsēs Xorenac‘‘i, without a thorough examination of allthe problems presented by these texts. Moreover, the gaps in the historicalnarrative would never allow us to create a continuous account. In my opinion,Xorenac‘i’s History of Armenia is a still misunderstood masterwork of lateantique historiography. By disavowing the Armenian “Father of History”, weactually throw the baby out with the bath water. To exclude this “disturbing”source, as several Western scholars do, is not a solution. In fact, onceXorenac‘i’s History is properly “decoded”, its historical value can bereassessed, as it actually yield solid factual information on the politicalhistory, on the social system of ancient Armenia, and also on some episodesof non-Armenian history.

ABSTRACTSKLAUS GEUSFreie Universität BerlinARMENIA IN PTOLEMY’S GEOGRAPHYPtolemy’s Geography (ca. AD 150) consists mainly of a huge list of cities andpeoples. Of the more than 8,000 toponyms, ca. 6,400 are defined bycoordinates, i.e. longitudes and latitudes. This makes the Geography the mostcomprehensive repositorium of geographical knowledge in antiquity.Nevertheless, modern scholarship casts doubts on the usefulness of this work,pointing to Ptolemy’s many “errors”, among them doubles of cities, switchesin the sequential description of harbors along coastlines, displacements oftoponyms to neighboring provinces, “90 degree rotations” of whole regions etsim.The present author considers it improbable that a scientist of Ptolemy’s calibercould have committed such many mistakes. Instead, he advances thehypothesis that nearly all errors, attributed to Ptolemy, boil down to a singleone: the wrong circumference of the Earth. The paper will discuss themathematical and cartographical consequences of Ptolemy’s use of 180,000stades instead of the traditional (Eratosthenic) number or 250,000 stades forthe circumference of the Earth. Ptolemy’s description of Armenia is used hereas a prime example in order to show that, based on trigonometricalrecalculations, a reconstruction of the original geographical data, to whichPtolemy had access, is not only possible but also confirms (and sometimesrefutes) some traditional identifications. It will also be shown that Ptolemy’ssource material for Armenia is based on (probably unpublished) data collectedby the Roman military and administration.11

12ABSTRACTSEDWARD DĄBROWAJagiellonian University in KrakówPARTHIAN-ARMENIAN RELATIONS FROM SECOND CENTURY BCTO THE END OF FIRST CENTURY CEThe aim of this paper is to present Parthian-Armenian relations from the end ofthe second century BCE to the treaty of Rhandeia (63 CE). This covers the timefrom the first contact of both states to the final conclusion of long period ofmilitary conflicts between the Arsacids ruling the Parthian empire and Rome,over Armenia. The author discusses reasons for the Parthian involvement inArmenia during the rule of Mithirdates II and various efforts of the Arsacids towin control over this area. He also identifies three phases of their politicalstance towards Armenia in the discussed period.

ABSTRACTSCARLO G. CERETISapienza University of RomeNARSEH, ARMENIA AND THE PĀIKŪLĪ INSCRIPTIONNarseh son of Šābuhr I reigned from 293 to 302, once he had won the dynasticwar that saw him opposing his grand-nephew, Wahrām III he narrated theevents in the great Pāikūlī inscription, which also presents the names of a longlist of nobles who payed obeisance to the new king. In Šābuhr’s inscription atNaqš-ē Rostam Narseh bore the title of « King of Hindestān, Sagestān andTūrān up to the seashore », while later, perhaps already under Wahrām I, hebecame King of Armenia where he stayed in office until 293, when he movedsouth to challenge his nephew’s right to the crown. Crossing from the lowerranges of the Zagros on his way to Mesopotamia, Narseh met the nobles loyalto his cause near the pass of Pāikūlī, about 100 Km south of the modern cityof Sulaimaniya. Recent archaeological excavations on the site have brought tolight a number of new inscribed blocks that allow for a better understanding ofthe structure of the monument, of the position of the two inscriptions as wellas of Narseh’s royal ideology and of the ideological continuity between ŠābuhrI and Narseh, underlined in many a passage of the inscription. Furthermore,Narseh’s itinerary from Armenia to Mesopotamia will be briefly presentedtogether with the geographical context of the monument.13

14ABSTRACTSTOURAJ DARYAEEIrvineARMENIA AND IRAN:THE BIRTH OF TWO NATIONS IN LATE ANTIQUITYThis essay discusses the importance of the relations between the SasanianIranshahr and Armenia in the third century CE which brought about newidentities for both civilizations. It is suggested that in the third century the ideaof an Iranian and Armenian identity rose based on a complex set ofunderstandings on the Iranian Plateau and the Caucasus. The Sasanians notonly created an idea of Iranshahr, but also saw Armenia and the Caucasusdifferently which was at odds with the Armenian historical tradition.Furthermore, it was not Christianity that brought about the break between Iranand Armenia, but rather the nature of Zoroastrian practice in the former“Parthian Commonwealth,” and the militant piety of Sasanian Zoroastrianism.

ABSTRACTSPIERANGELO BUONGIORNOUniversità del Salento, Lecce / Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterTHE ROMAN SENATE AND ARMENIAThe Senate was the institution that, during the libera res publica, addressedthe foreign policy of Rome. Thus, already appeared in the eyes of Polybius(VI.13.8-10). In the 2nd Century B.C. the Greek historian observe