Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Zakarid Armenia" in English language version.
By the 1260s, at which time Ani was under Ilkhanid rule, the gavit seems to have acted as a central deposit for legal affairs, especially those concerning taxes and import duties. The interior and exterior of the building are replete with inscriptions recording changes to levies – usually the alleviation of taxes, but occasionally impositions (such as the ban on Sunday street trading after the earthquake. These texts show a marked difference from the earlier Shaddadid inscriptions in the city about trade. Whereas those inscriptions were in Persian, these are all in Armenian, despite their ultimate authority coming from Iran. Indeed six of the inscriptions begin their texts with the words "[In the name of] the Ilkhan". They even adopt Mongolian terms, notably the word yarligh (imperial decree) which appears in the inscription of 1270.
…the political power of the Zakarids was formed and strengthened, heading the restored Armenian statehood in indigenous Armenia. The territory subject to the Zakarids was an Armenian state, vassal to the then reigning house of the Georgian Bagratids; The Zakharid government had the right to court and collect taxes. The main responsibility of the Armenian government to the Georgian government was to provide it with military militia during the war.
The inscription carved on the north wall of the church, shows the date of foundation in 1283, and the name of the donator, Prince Prosh.
The portrait of the founder as huntsman is an iconographic type common to Islamic art. Amir Hasan's costume, a long tunic drawn in at the waist by a belt decorated with stones, along with a three-pointed cap with two ribbons, is the same as that of the Mongol princes of the fourteenth century. The face itself, with heavy jowls and slightly slanting eves, also recalls that of the Mongols.
The years from 1236 to 1250, though not without conflict, did not witness radical changes in Armenia's governing structure. Apparently, prior to 1243 no permanent formal taxes had been imposed on Armenia, the conquerors contenting themselves instead with the rich booty and plunder to be had from the many areas taken by military force. But in 1243 by command of the Great Khan Guyuk himself, taxes amounting to between one-thirtieth and one-tenth of value were imposed on virtually everything movable and immovable, and a heavy head tax of 60 silver drams was collected from males. The severity of the taxes and the brutal manner of their collection triggered an abortive uprising of the lords in 1248-1249. This rebellion, which was discovered by the Mongols while still in the planning stages, was crushed at the expense of human and animal lives and crops in numerous districts of northeastern Armenia and southern Georgia. Some of the arrested Armenian and Georgian conspirators, unable to raise the huge ransoms demanded for their release, were tortured or killed.
The second invasion of the Caucasus took place immediately after the Mongol departure in 1222, and was caused by it. This time the participants were nomadic Kipchak Turks from the plains to the north. In their turn defeated by the Mongols, one sizable body of Kipchaks fled from them in a southward direction. These nomads pillaged and looted from Darband south to Gandzak in Azerbaijan. Atabeg Ivane mustered troops and went against them, but he was defeated, having underestimated their strength. What was worse, many nakharars were captured, then killed or ransomed for huge sums of money. The Kipchaks continued looting and raiding different parts of the Caucasus until 1223, when Ivane, in alliance with other Caucasian peoples, finally defeated them, killing or selling them into slavery. The Kipchak raids, though less serious than the invasions that preceded and succeeded them, nonetheless contributed to the continued unsettled state of affairs initiated by the Mongols, depleted the Armeno-Georgian military of some capable leaders, and undoubtedly weakened the army's morale.
4. Concerning the princes in eastern Armenia, Zak'are and his brother Iwane. During the reign of Lewon, king of the Armenians, in the East there were two brothers, sons of the pious prince Sargis, son of Vahram, son of Zak'aria, who had separated from the Kurds of the Babirakan xel. The name of the first son was Zak'are and the second was Iwane—brave men, rich in authority, honored by the queen of Georgia named T'amar who was the daughter of Georg the brave, son of Demetre.
The most influential lords of north-eastern Armenia were members of the Zakarian family. Hence, the first half of the thirteenth century is known as the Zakarid Period...Although of Armenian foundation, members of that family held eminent positions among the Georgian lords.
Zakare and Ivane Mqargrdzeli on the east facade at Harichavank, Armenia, 1201
In the period that preceded the creation of the Ilkhanate, i.e., 1236–1256, Subcaucasia was put under the control of a military governor, the first of which was Chormaqan. The Mongols organized Caucasia into five vilayets (provinces): Georgia (Gurjistan), Greater Armenia, Shirvan, Arran, and Mughan. Georgia was divided into eight tümen. Greater Armenia was composed of "quasi-independent" Armenian principalities, and included the territories of Sasun and Vaspurakan, with Karin/Erzurum at the center.
The frescoes of the Kobayr monastery (...) The frescoes of Kobayr refer to the second, i . e . to the Zakarian period. There has been a period when most of the structures of the monastery were covered with paintings. Now if we don't count the traces of painting on the other structures, only two monuments have preserved part of their decoration; and those are the Big Church and the Aisle adjoining it from the north. Thanks to the inscription referring to the construction of the building, we are informed of the date, which is the year 1282, and also the name of the donor, the monk George who was the son of Shahnshah, of the Zakarian family. Though we don't have documental informations concerning the paintings of the Aisle , the portraits of the donators whom we consider to be Shahnshah and his wife allow us to look upon the painting as one close to the date of the Big Church; the likeness in the artistic style confirms this suggestion. - From all the wall paintings of the Big Church only that of the altar has been preserved. As for the Aisle , here we can see not only the altar painting, but also remains of frescoes on the northern and western walls. The iconography of the altar paintings of the Big Church and the Aisle, on the whole, can be traced back to the Byzantine system of decoration. Having been already formed in the XI c., it has also some local peculiarities, the sources of which go back to the Armenian monumental art of earlier ages, beginning from the VII c. The set-up of both altar paintings are similar: the Church Fathers are in the lower rank, the Eucharist is in the middle. The difference lies in the upper circle, in the concha...
Vassal states such as the Uyghur kingdom of Qocho (until 1335), Zakarid Armenia, Cilicia, Georgia, and Korea similarly owed the empire taxes, troops, and loyalty, but were otherwise left to govern themselves.
That same year marked the clash between the Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate. Berke's claim on Transcaucasia, especially on the rich pastures of Azerbaijan, ended in a forceful attack in the north of the country. The Georgians were compelled to grant military support and a garrison was sent to preside over the fortress of Siba (today in the Iranian district of Kukherd) in 1263, and in 1265 an army comprising Georgians and Armenians defeated Berke in Shirvan.
According to Rashid al-Din, Alinaq was the son of Tügür Bitigchi, commander of a hundred at Hülegü's service.
The Armenian aristocracy supported Tegüder's rival, Arghun, Abaqa's elder son. The majority of the Georgian aristocracy, except for King Demetre (r. 1270–1289), was bound to Alinaq, Tegüder's son-in-law, and supported the latter. Tegüder was executed on August 10, 1284. The party of Arghun, championed by the Armenians, had won. Arghun (r. 1284–1291) was favorable to the Armenian nobles and to the church in particular. According to Stephannos Orbélian, 150 monasteries were tax-exempt.
The mixed confessional identities of the population of Ani and its surrounding region led to rising tensions. There are numerous references to disputes arising between the two communities on matters including taxation and liturgical/worship practice. The division was matched by a split within the Zakarid family itself. Zakare and Ivane were brought up to adhere to Armenian, Miaphysite Orthodoxy, but in the first years of the thirteenth century Ivane converted to Georgian, Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. According to the Georgian sources many Armenians joined him in converting. Ivane also forcibly converted some Armenian Miaphysite churches to Chalcedonianism, notably the monastery of Akhtala, where he built his mausoleum church. Ivane's conversion is, unsurprisingly, celebrated in Georgian texts and condemned in Armenian chronicles, which ascribed it to political or religious causes (or to Ivane's infatuation with Queen Tamar).
Kuirakos Gandzaketsi and Vardan the Great recount the origins of the Zakharid dynasty, one branch of which bore the name Mkhargrdzeli or Long Arm. It is clear from the accounts of these Armenian historians that Ivane's great grandfather "broke away from the Kurdish tribe of Babir" and settled in northern Armenia. There he became the vassal of the Kjurikid dynasty of Armenian kings which ruled Tashir Dzoraget from the 10th to the early 12th centuries. He was given a fortress and became a Christian of the Armenian Miaphysite Church. The first Zakharids may well have been related to the Kjurikids. In an inscription at the Aghartsin Monastery Zakare and Ivane refer to a tie of kinship with this Armenian branch of the Bagratids. After the decline of the Kjurikid state in the 12th century, the Zakharids went to serve the kings of Georgia in whose name they ruled part of the Armenian territories. In 1177 their position at the Georgian court was considerably strengthened when Sarkis Mkhargrdzeli went over to King George Ill's side during a revolt of his feudal lords.
At Harichavank the clothes have been updated to reflect contemporary fashion, with its sharbushes (the high, peaked hats) and bright kaftans, as can be seen when comparing the image with those in contemporary manuscripts, such as the Haghbat Gospels (Matenadaran 6288) of 1211 [Fig. 17].
Another inscription in Zakare's church in the town of Ani, which was reconquered in 1199 and regained the status of the capital of Armenia, calls the brothers "kings of Armenia".
The reconquest of Ani in 1199 by Zakare and Ivane revived the fortunes of the city and its surrounding region, but it placed it in a new political and cultural context. (...) However, other evidence suggests that this hierarchical structure may well have been purely nominal, leaving the brothers effectively as independent rulers of the region. Their subjects, such as Tigran Honents, refer to them alone as overlords, and the adoption of Shahanshah (king of kings) as both a name and title for their children demonstrates their appropriation of the trappings of both Christian and Muslim royal power. It has been argued, correctly I believe, that the Zakarids were trying to re-create the Armenian Bagratid kingdom of Ani of the tenth and eleventh centuries.
It is perhaps more useful to view the paintings in a more ambiguous way. The importance of the church may lie in the inability to ascribe it easily to one group. Such an approach would match the cultural and political policies of the Zakarids. The conversion of Ivane but not Zakare to Chalcedonianism was part of a pragmatic policy of deliberate religious ambiguity that enabled the brothers to avoid being drawn into factional battles between the two religious communities under their rule. It was implemented in a different way by Zakare, who attempted to reform the Armenian church after witnessing disputes between Georgian and Armenian troops under his command. His proposals were considered and agreed to at a church council at Sis, convened by Levon, the Armenian king in Cilicia, and his catholicos, Dawit. The eight demands concern only the outward expression of faith and technical and procedural points; none deals with matters of theology or dogma, the theoretical roots of the differences between the churches. Instead they are all concerned with the minimization of visible differences between the Armenians and the Georgians.
Seen in this light, the peculiarities of the church of Tigran Honents find a clearer context, if not a complete explanation. The paintings appear to blur distinctions between the two communities and to reflect the ambiguity and pragmatism of the Zakarids' policy, and they suggest that Tigran Honents played a part in the formation or execution of this policy. The combination of languages, cycles, and saints cannot simply be ascribed exclusively to any one religious confession.
p.114: In the first chapter historical evidence, epigraphic monuments and colophons were used to reconstruct the history of Akhtaia, a monastery transferred from the Monophysites to the Chalcedonians at the turn of the 13th century. In so doing the cultural environment in which the murals arose was more clearly elucidated. Particular attention was paid to the colophons of Symeon Plindzahanketsi: these writings by a monk of Akhtaia from the first half of 13th century revealed the worldview of the Armenian-Chalcedonians. For the first time a portrait was drawn of Ivane Mkhargrdzeli, the patron of the paintings, whose own historical destiny did much to determine the distinctive features of the frescoes. Finally, the juxtaposition of direct and indirect evidence proved that the paintings were executed between 1205 and 1216. This precise dating provides a firm point of departure for the study of other artistic phenomena of the period. (...) p.116 These findings confirm the importance of the Akhtaia murafs for the history of Byzantine, Armenian and Georgian art. Taken as a whole, the murals cannot be attributed to any single artistic tradition. They can only be correctly understood as a monument of Armenian-Chalcedonian art that achieved an original blend of elements drawn from Armenian, Georgian and Byzantine culture.
It has been suggested that the relative lack of a tradition of monumental painting in Armenia forced Tigran Honents to rely on Georgian artists to carry out the paintings, but this presupposes far too limited and exclusive abilities for both Armenian and Georgian craftsmen. Moreover, the wall paintings in the tomb of Tigran Honents on the outskirts of Ani employ Armenian inscriptions.
Although the Armenian Church did not ban wall paintings, they are much less common than in Georgia or Byzantium. Armenian sources reveal a suspicion of monumental art: to use paintings was to "become Georgian". Stepanos Orbelian's late thirteenth-century history of Siunik, the south-eastern province of Armenia, shows the ambivalence to paintings that existed. In chapter forty-nine he writes with admiration of the paintings that were commissioned from a Frankish artist at the monastery of Tatev in 930 (extraordinarily, some of these still survive). But three chapters later he records the expulsion in 969 of Vahan, the Catholicos of Armenia, for introducing images "like the Georgians" and thereby threatening to "insinuate the heresy of the Greeks" into the Church. The majority of paintings that survive in Armenia come from these two periods: either the sporadic flirtation with monumental art in the early period, or the more frequent occurrences in the Mqargrdzeli period in the thirteenth century
It was implemented in a different way by Zakare, who attempted to reform the Armenian church after witnessing disputes between Georgian and Armenian troops under his command. His proposals were considered and agreed to at a church council at Sis, convened by Levon, the Armenian king in Cilicia, and his catholicos, Dawit. The eight demands concern only the outward expression of faith and technical and procedural points; none deals with matters of theology or dogma, the theoretical roots of the differences between the churches. Instead they are all concerned with the minimization of visible differences between the Armenians and the Georgians. The most important for my purposes is the fourth demand, that "icons of the Savior and all the saints should be accepted, and not despised as though they were pagan images." This clause clearly opened the way for the paintings at Ani to be viewed and accepted by Monophysite as well as Chalcedonian viewers.
p.114: In the first chapter historical evidence, epigraphic monuments and colophons were used to reconstruct the history of Akhtaia, a monastery transferred from the Monophysites to the Chalcedonians at the turn of the 13th century. In so doing the cultural environment in which the murals arose was more clearly elucidated. Particular attention was paid to the colophons of Symeon Plindzahanketsi: these writings by a monk of Akhtaia from the first half of 13th century revealed the worldview of the Armenian-Chalcedonians. For the first time a portrait was drawn of Ivane Mkhargrdzeli, the patron of the paintings, whose own historical destiny did much to determine the distinctive features of the frescoes. Finally, the juxtaposition of direct and indirect evidence proved that the paintings were executed between 1205 and 1216. This precise dating provides a firm point of departure for the study of other artistic phenomena of the period. (...) p.115 In a number of cases stylistic analysis was confirmed by study of the inscriptions on the murals in Greek, Georgian and Armenian. (...) p.116 These findings confirm the importance of the Akhtaia murafs for the history of Byzantine, Armenian and Georgian art. Taken as a whole, the murals cannot be attributed to any single artistic tradition. They can only be correctly understood as a monument of Armenian-Chalcedonian art that achieved an original blend of elements drawn from Armenian, Georgian and Byzantine culture.
Although the paintings in the main body of the church follow Georgian precedents in terms of their style, their overall program, and their iconography, a number of features show that the church was significantly different from its Georgian neighbors. The most obvious of these is the concentration on the life of St. Gregory in the west arm of the church. Also, among the church fathers depicted in the apse are Sts. Aristakes and Vrtanes, the two sons of St. Gregory who succeeded him as patriarch of Armenia. Both men were venerated in the Armenian Orthodox Church, but not in the Greek or Georgian Church. These seem to indicate that the church adhered to Monophysite beliefs.
Interestingly, fragments of red underpainting that have emerged from beneath these figures give the artists' identifying labels in Armenian and Greek, a different linguistic competence.
Some khatchk'ars have sacred images on the top frame or beside the cross, and a donor image, such as that at the base of Grigor Khaghbakian's khatchk'ar (1233) on the grounds of Ēdjmiadzin Cathedral, where it was brought from Imirzek'.
Perhaps the most extreme case came when Armenians, including Avag, his cousin Shahnshah and his vassal Hasan Prosh, were required to besiege Mayyafariqin, the northernmost Ayyubid base in the Jazira before the capture of Akhlat. It took two years to reduce the city, leading to a situation far worse than that faced in Akhlat in 1229–30.
The Armenian brothers Ivane and Zak'are served the Georgian Queen Tamar (reigned 1184-1213). Rising to the heights of the Georgian army and court, they achieved for themselves the status of a nakharar family, called the Zak'arians, in honor of Zak'are. Queen T'amar gave the Zak'arians control of almost all her Armenian territories, including the former Armenian capital Ani. The Zak'arians established their own vassals, comprising both surviving nakharars and new men — from among their own Armenian generals — raised to nakharar status, each with smaller territories as their own fiefs. Among the new nakharars was the Proshian clan, who were particularly important for the history of the Gladzor Gospels.
Outre ces figurations, à partir du début du XIIIe siècle, une autre représentation humaine apparaît, soit sous la croix, soit sur le piédestal du khatchkar : l'image du donateur, ou plus exactement du défunt à la mémoire duquel le khatchkar a été érigé. Ce personnage est représenté en tenue d'apparat, armé et à cheval, rappelant le schéma iconographique sassanide de la chasse royale ou princière que l'architecture arménienne pratiquait depuis la période paléochrétienne.
The mixed confessional identities of the population of Ani and its surrounding region led to rising tensions. There are numerous references to disputes arising between the two communities on matters including taxation and liturgical/worship practice. The division was matched by a split within the Zakarid family itself. Zakare and Ivane were brought up to adhere to Armenian, Miaphysite Orthodoxy, but in the first years of the thirteenth century Ivane converted to Georgian, Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. According to the Georgian sources many Armenians joined him in converting. Ivane also forcibly converted some Armenian Miaphysite churches to Chalcedonianism, notably the monastery of Akhtala, where he built his mausoleum church. Ivane's conversion is, unsurprisingly, celebrated in Georgian texts and condemned in Armenian chronicles, which ascribed it to political or religious causes (or to Ivane's infatuation with Queen Tamar).
The reconquest of Ani in 1199 by Zakare and Ivane revived the fortunes of the city and its surrounding region, but it placed it in a new political and cultural context. (...) However, other evidence suggests that this hierarchical structure may well have been purely nominal, leaving the brothers effectively as independent rulers of the region. Their subjects, such as Tigran Honents, refer to them alone as overlords, and the adoption of Shahanshah (king of kings) as both a name and title for their children demonstrates their appropriation of the trappings of both Christian and Muslim royal power. It has been argued, correctly I believe, that the Zakarids were trying to re-create the Armenian Bagratid kingdom of Ani of the tenth and eleventh centuries.
It is perhaps more useful to view the paintings in a more ambiguous way. The importance of the church may lie in the inability to ascribe it easily to one group. Such an approach would match the cultural and political policies of the Zakarids. The conversion of Ivane but not Zakare to Chalcedonianism was part of a pragmatic policy of deliberate religious ambiguity that enabled the brothers to avoid being drawn into factional battles between the two religious communities under their rule. It was implemented in a different way by Zakare, who attempted to reform the Armenian church after witnessing disputes between Georgian and Armenian troops under his command. His proposals were considered and agreed to at a church council at Sis, convened by Levon, the Armenian king in Cilicia, and his catholicos, Dawit. The eight demands concern only the outward expression of faith and technical and procedural points; none deals with matters of theology or dogma, the theoretical roots of the differences between the churches. Instead they are all concerned with the minimization of visible differences between the Armenians and the Georgians.
Seen in this light, the peculiarities of the church of Tigran Honents find a clearer context, if not a complete explanation. The paintings appear to blur distinctions between the two communities and to reflect the ambiguity and pragmatism of the Zakarids' policy, and they suggest that Tigran Honents played a part in the formation or execution of this policy. The combination of languages, cycles, and saints cannot simply be ascribed exclusively to any one religious confession.
It has been suggested that the relative lack of a tradition of monumental painting in Armenia forced Tigran Honents to rely on Georgian artists to carry out the paintings, but this presupposes far too limited and exclusive abilities for both Armenian and Georgian craftsmen. Moreover, the wall paintings in the tomb of Tigran Honents on the outskirts of Ani employ Armenian inscriptions.
It was implemented in a different way by Zakare, who attempted to reform the Armenian church after witnessing disputes between Georgian and Armenian troops under his command. His proposals were considered and agreed to at a church council at Sis, convened by Levon, the Armenian king in Cilicia, and his catholicos, Dawit. The eight demands concern only the outward expression of faith and technical and procedural points; none deals with matters of theology or dogma, the theoretical roots of the differences between the churches. Instead they are all concerned with the minimization of visible differences between the Armenians and the Georgians. The most important for my purposes is the fourth demand, that "icons of the Savior and all the saints should be accepted, and not despised as though they were pagan images." This clause clearly opened the way for the paintings at Ani to be viewed and accepted by Monophysite as well as Chalcedonian viewers.
Although the paintings in the main body of the church follow Georgian precedents in terms of their style, their overall program, and their iconography, a number of features show that the church was significantly different from its Georgian neighbors. The most obvious of these is the concentration on the life of St. Gregory in the west arm of the church. Also, among the church fathers depicted in the apse are Sts. Aristakes and Vrtanes, the two sons of St. Gregory who succeeded him as patriarch of Armenia. Both men were venerated in the Armenian Orthodox Church, but not in the Greek or Georgian Church. These seem to indicate that the church adhered to Monophysite beliefs.
The Mongols only completed their conquest of Armenia after three campaigns from 1239 to 1244. (Note 41:The first Mongol campaign took Ani and Kars in 1239, the second took Karin in 1242, and the third with the defeat of the Seljuk Sultan in 1244) The Mongols richly rewarded those who submitted (this acted as an inducement to the hesitant) while simultaneously devastating the lands of those who still resisted.
The devastation caused by the Mongols is recorded in the colophons of many manuscripts of the period. Some Armenians, however, prospered as allies of, and soldiers and merchants for, the Mongols, including the Zakarian, Orbelian, and Proshian families. They continued or extended their existing trade routes into China, now controlled by the Mongols. Examples of Proshian success are seen at the church of the White Virgin (Spitakavor Astuatsatsin) with its relief carving of Amir Hasan (cat. 35) and in the exquisite, richly gilded reliquary presented by his father (cat. 36).
Following the custom of the time, a representation of the commissioner, Each'i Proshian, is engraved at the bottom center of the frame. His hands are upraised in the ancient Christian orant prayer pose, and his clothing recalls Mongolian royal dress.
Shown mounted and turning back to shoot his arrow at a deer, he wears a tall hat and a wrapped, close-fitting garment, cinched by an ornate belt. This costume, together with Amir's round cheeks and almond-shaped eyes, finds close parallels in other princely portraits from Mongol-era Armenia, and in particular that of his father on the reliquary of the "Holy Cross of Vegetarians" (Khotakerats').
The region at the time was under Georgian suzerainty, but the Zakarid princes, Zakaré and Ivané, maintained local Armenian independence.
Some khatchk'ars have sacred images on the top frame or beside the cross, and a donor image, such as that at the base of Grigor Khaghbakian's khatchk'ar (1233) on the grounds of Ēdjmiadzin Cathedral, where it was brought from Imirzek'.
In 1256 a fifth Mongol ulus was created, with the ilkhan Hulagu, the Great Khan's brother, as its governor. His task was to develop the Mongol Empire in the Near East. The historical territories of Armenia became part of the Ilkhanate of Persia.
The prosperity of the monastery in the thirteenth century was due to the patronage of the Proshyan prince, who carved out the second cave church in 1283, reached through a rock-cut antechamber which served as their mausoleum. The burials are in a recess behind twin arches, over which two felines on leashes and an eagle with a lamb in its talons, the family's armoured bearings have been sculpted in bold relief.
The mixed confessional identities of the population of Ani and its surrounding region led to rising tensions. There are numerous references to disputes arising between the two communities on matters including taxation and liturgical/worship practice. The division was matched by a split within the Zakarid family itself. Zakare and Ivane were brought up to adhere to Armenian, Miaphysite Orthodoxy, but in the first years of the thirteenth century Ivane converted to Georgian, Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. According to the Georgian sources many Armenians joined him in converting. Ivane also forcibly converted some Armenian Miaphysite churches to Chalcedonianism, notably the monastery of Akhtala, where he built his mausoleum church. Ivane's conversion is, unsurprisingly, celebrated in Georgian texts and condemned in Armenian chronicles, which ascribed it to political or religious causes (or to Ivane's infatuation with Queen Tamar).
…the political power of the Zakarids was formed and strengthened, heading the restored Armenian statehood in indigenous Armenia. The territory subject to the Zakarids was an Armenian state, vassal to the then reigning house of the Georgian Bagratids; The Zakharid government had the right to court and collect taxes. The main responsibility of the Armenian government to the Georgian government was to provide it with military militia during the war.
The reconquest of Ani in 1199 by Zakare and Ivane revived the fortunes of the city and its surrounding region, but it placed it in a new political and cultural context. (...) However, other evidence suggests that this hierarchical structure may well have been purely nominal, leaving the brothers effectively as independent rulers of the region. Their subjects, such as Tigran Honents, refer to them alone as overlords, and the adoption of Shahanshah (king of kings) as both a name and title for their children demonstrates their appropriation of the trappings of both Christian and Muslim royal power. It has been argued, correctly I believe, that the Zakarids were trying to re-create the Armenian Bagratid kingdom of Ani of the tenth and eleventh centuries.
It is perhaps more useful to view the paintings in a more ambiguous way. The importance of the church may lie in the inability to ascribe it easily to one group. Such an approach would match the cultural and political policies of the Zakarids. The conversion of Ivane but not Zakare to Chalcedonianism was part of a pragmatic policy of deliberate religious ambiguity that enabled the brothers to avoid being drawn into factional battles between the two religious communities under their rule. It was implemented in a different way by Zakare, who attempted to reform the Armenian church after witnessing disputes between Georgian and Armenian troops under his command. His proposals were considered and agreed to at a church council at Sis, convened by Levon, the Armenian king in Cilicia, and his catholicos, Dawit. The eight demands concern only the outward expression of faith and technical and procedural points; none deals with matters of theology or dogma, the theoretical roots of the differences between the churches. Instead they are all concerned with the minimization of visible differences between the Armenians and the Georgians.
Seen in this light, the peculiarities of the church of Tigran Honents find a clearer context, if not a complete explanation. The paintings appear to blur distinctions between the two communities and to reflect the ambiguity and pragmatism of the Zakarids' policy, and they suggest that Tigran Honents played a part in the formation or execution of this policy. The combination of languages, cycles, and saints cannot simply be ascribed exclusively to any one religious confession.
It has been suggested that the relative lack of a tradition of monumental painting in Armenia forced Tigran Honents to rely on Georgian artists to carry out the paintings, but this presupposes far too limited and exclusive abilities for both Armenian and Georgian craftsmen. Moreover, the wall paintings in the tomb of Tigran Honents on the outskirts of Ani employ Armenian inscriptions.
It was implemented in a different way by Zakare, who attempted to reform the Armenian church after witnessing disputes between Georgian and Armenian troops under his command. His proposals were considered and agreed to at a church council at Sis, convened by Levon, the Armenian king in Cilicia, and his catholicos, Dawit. The eight demands concern only the outward expression of faith and technical and procedural points; none deals with matters of theology or dogma, the theoretical roots of the differences between the churches. Instead they are all concerned with the minimization of visible differences between the Armenians and the Georgians. The most important for my purposes is the fourth demand, that "icons of the Savior and all the saints should be accepted, and not despised as though they were pagan images." This clause clearly opened the way for the paintings at Ani to be viewed and accepted by Monophysite as well as Chalcedonian viewers.
Although the paintings in the main body of the church follow Georgian precedents in terms of their style, their overall program, and their iconography, a number of features show that the church was significantly different from its Georgian neighbors. The most obvious of these is the concentration on the life of St. Gregory in the west arm of the church. Also, among the church fathers depicted in the apse are Sts. Aristakes and Vrtanes, the two sons of St. Gregory who succeeded him as patriarch of Armenia. Both men were venerated in the Armenian Orthodox Church, but not in the Greek or Georgian Church. These seem to indicate that the church adhered to Monophysite beliefs.
![[Fig. 17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canon_tables_from_the_Haghbat_Gospels;_1211_(Yerevan,_Matendaran,_MS_6288,_fols._8v_(upper_left_and_lower_left_figures).jpg){kind=link}