Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025): 30-106

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Late Umayyad Era: 
The Martyrdom of Vahan of Gołt‘n

Tim Greenwood, AlAsdAir GrAnT, KierAn HAGAn, 
leone Pecorini GoodAll, & lewis reAd

Abstract
The Armenian Martyrdom of Vahan of Gołt‘n, composed in 744 CE, offers a fresh perspective from which to study 
the Umayyad caliphate. A sophisticated literary composition assembled in a monastic context, the Martyrdom 
traces contemporary networks of power, communication, and knowledge within and beyond Armenia. As a 
product of the late Umayyad world, it constitutes a work of major significance for the study of the Umayyad 
caliphate at large and the caliphal North in particular during the first half of the eighth century. The Martyrdom 
reveals contemporary Armenian perceptions of Umayyad hegemony, including ʿaṭā (stipend) payments, public 
executions, conversions, apostasy, contemporary apologetics, and the nature of Caliph Hishām’s court at Ruṣāfa. 
At the same time, it portrays members of the Armenian elite, lay and clerical, reacting in different ways to 
new political circumstances. The present article provides the first annotated English translation and extensive 
thematic introduction to the Martyrdom of Vahan of Gołt‘n, with the aim of making the text accessible to 
Islamicists and thereby integrating this rich source into discussions of the late Umayyad era.

Introduction

Although the rich canon of medieval Armenian literature has become more widely 
appreciated in the last sixty years, principally through the transformative scholarship of 
Thomson, Garsoïan, Mahé, and others, it remains the case that its full potential is yet to be 
realized.1 There are many reasons for this state of affairs, ranging from practical matters 
of accessibility—in terms of both editions and translations—to broader historiographical 
and methodological issues. When the study of the Armenian past began in earnest in 
the nineteenth century, those compositions that projected an independent Christian 
kingdom of Armenia, apparently in control of its own destiny, cohered with contemporary 
ambitions for national awakening and self-determination and therefore attracted the 
greatest scholarly attention. A hierarchy of medieval Armenian literature developed, with 
the History of Movsēs Xorenac‘i at the pinnacle. This profile, once established, proved 

1.  For comprehensive bibliographies of these scholars, see T. W. Greenwood, “Publications of Robert William 
Thomson,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 77, suppl. (2023): 1*–7*; “Bibliographie de Nina G. Garsoïan” [to 2015]: 63–76; 
“Bibliographie des travaux de Jean-Pierre Mahé de 1970 à 2014,” in “Mélanges Jean-Pierre Mahé,” Travaux et 
mémoires 18 (2014): xv–xxxiii.
© 2025 Tim Greenwood, Alasdair Grant, Kieran Hagan, Leone Pecorini Goodall, & Lewis Read. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the 
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which allows users to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in 
unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the original authors and source.



31  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

remarkably resilient and continues to shape the contours of Armenian historical research. 
As a result, there has been less focus on those compositions that present a subordinated 
Armenia or a fractured Armenian elite, responding individually to the governance of an 
outside power. The Martyrdom of Vahan of Gołt‘n, with its representation of Armenia as 
an integral part of the caliphal North during the first half of the eighth century, is one such 
work.2 Although it has featured consistently in Russian-language scholarship and, more 
recently, in the studies of Jinbashian and Sahner in English, it has not received in-depth 
literary or historical analysis as an individual composition.3

In addition to this pattern in which certain texts and eras are privileged while others are 
downplayed, there has also been a tendency to separate medieval Armenian historiography 
from other traditions and treat its works as independent witnesses to the circumstances they 
record. It is almost as if the mountainous topography so often associated with Armenia served 
also to isolate its historiographical production, blocking the transmission of knowledge. We 
take a different approach. Armenian space, however defined, has always included the valleys 
separating the mountains, and the settlements within those valleys were always connected 
to wider political, economic, and spiritual networks. Armenian soldiers, scholars, pilgrims, 
and merchants were highly mobile throughout Late Antiquity and beyond, traveling far 
beyond the districts of historic Armenia and returning with knowledge and experiences 
acquired elsewhere.4 Furthermore, at different times, and no doubt to differing degrees, 
non-Armenians arrived in Armenia—some passing through, others settling permanently 

2.  For a sensitive and thoughtful definition of the caliphal North in terms of the provinces of Armenia 
(Armīniyya) and Albania (Arrān), see A. M. Vacca, Non-Muslim Provinces under Early Islam: Islamic Rule and 
Iranian Legitimacy in Armenia and Caucasian Albania (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), xiii–
xvi, 1–4, and 43–77; and the earlier, pioneering studies by D. A. Spellberg, “The Umayyad North: Numismatic 
Evidence for Frontier Administration,” American Numismatic Society 33 (1988): 119–27; and M. Bates, “The 
Dirham Mint of the Northern Provinces of the Umayyad Caliphate,” in “Essays Dedicated in Honor of Dr. Paul Z. 
Bedoukian on the Fortieth Year of His Contributions,” ed. Y. T. Nercessian, special issue, Armenian Numismatic 
Journal 15 (1989): 89–112.

3.  References to the Martyrdom in Russian-language literary and historical surveys include M. Abełyan 
[Abegyan], Istorija Drevnearmjanskoj Literatury (Erevan: Izvestija Akademii Nauk Armjanskoj SSR, 1948), 392–96; 
A. N. Ter-Łevondyan [Ter-Gevondyan], Armenija i Arabskij Xalifat (Erevan: Izdatel’stvo AN Armjanskoj SSR, 
1977), 83, 89, 230; a translation with a summary introduction in K‘. S. Ter-Davt‘yan [Ter-Davtyan], Armjanskie 
Žimija i Mučeničestva V–XVII vv (Erevan: Nairi, 1994), 289–307; A. K. Shahinyan, Armenija i Strany Yužnogo 
Kavkaza v Uslovijax Vizantijsko-Iranskoj i Arabskoj Vlasti (St. Petersburg: Aletejja, 2011), 18, 228 n4, 230, and 
371 n1; and A. K. Shahinyan, Rannesrednevekovaja Geografija Armenii i stran Yužnogo Kavkaza (St. Petersburg: 
St. Petersburg State University, 2014), 232, 245, 339. For treatment in English-language scholarship, see M. 
Jinbashian, Church-State Relations in Armenia during the Arab Domination: From the First Invasion to the Time 
of the Early ʿAbbāsids (Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 2000), 194–98; and C. Sahner, Christian Martyrs 
under Islam: Religious Violence and the Making of the Muslim World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 
2018), 41–44. In Armenian, see the entry on the text in K‘. Ter-Davt‘yan, Haykakan Srbaxosut‘yun: Vark‘er 
ev Vkayabanut‘yunner (V–XVIII dd.) (Erevan: Nayiri, 2011), 121–30. For previous specifically philological 
scholarship on the text, see the section below, “A Note on Editions and Translations.”

4.  J. Preiser-Kapeller, “Aristocrats, Mercenaries, Clergymen and Refugees: Deliberate and Forced Mobility 
of Armenians in the Early Medieval Mediterranean (6th to 11th Century A.D.),” in Migration Histories of the 
Medieval Afroeurasian Transition Zone, ed. J. Preiser-Kapeller, L. Reinfandt, and Y. Stouraitis, 327–86 (Leiden: 
Brill, 2020).



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   32

and bringing their own cultural practices, beliefs, and stories with them. Therefore, rather 
than treating medieval Armenian compositions as the products of an exclusively Armenian 
Christian milieu, we prefer to interpret them from a cross-cultural perspective, informed by 
engagements and exchanges across different linguistic and religious communities. Just as 
late antique Armenian literary compositions can be viewed as Sasanian sources, in that they 
were composed within the borders—real and conceptual—of Sasanian Iran (Ērānšahr) and 
were shaped by the political, social, and cultural contexts in which they were produced, so 
Armenian works composed in the eighth and ninth centuries may be treated as Umayyad or 
ʿAbbāsid sources, in that they, too, were composed inside the caliphate—the dār al-Islām.5 
Arguably, therefore, the perceived isolation of medieval Armenian compositions reflects 
the linguistic and disciplinary boundaries of modern scholarship rather than the original 
circumstances of their production.

We maintain that the Martyrdom of Vahan of Gołt‘n holds significant potential for 
scholars of the early Islamic world. We argue below that the longest version of this work 
was compiled in 744 CE and bears no obvious trace of later revision. It predates the bulk 
of Islamic historiographical material used by scholars to study the Umayyad caliphate, 
which was assembled after the ʿAbbāsid takeover and reflects ʿAbbāsid-era perspectives and 
conventions. The Martyrdom therefore constitutes a rare Umayyad-era source.

This does not mean that the Martyrdom comprises a simple account of what happened. 
It is a sophisticated composition, one that was framed around existing literary models, 
including the Bible as well as earlier Armenian historical and hagiographical works. The 
three opening sections of the Martyrdom are structured around prophetic sayings of 
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, as well as the extended account of the three Hebrews in the fiery 
furnace of Babylon preserved in the Armenian version of Daniel 3.6 Elements in sections 
8 and 9 reflect details found in the Greek Passio of Saints Sergius and Bacchus, a work 
that was translated into Armenian.7 Nor should we ignore the fleeting references to the 
visions of two prominent Armenian clerical leaders, Saint Sahak and Saint Grigor, preserved 
elsewhere in late antique Armenian literature, both of which are infused with prophetic and 
apocalyptic dimensions.8 At the same time, however, the Martyrdom comments extensively 

5.  G. Traina, “The Rise of the Sasanians: The Armenian Evidence,” in Sasanian Iran in the Context of Late 
Antiquity, ed. T. Daryaee, 107–19 (Irvine, CA: UCI Jordan Center for Persian Studies, 2018), 107–8 and nn. 3–5; T. 
W. Greenwood, “Armenian Sources,” in Blackwell Companion to the Sasanian Empire, ed. T. Daryaee and M. R. 
Shayegan (Abingdon: Wiley-Blackwell, forthcoming). For contemporary perceptions that Armenia was part of 
dār al-Islām, see Vacca, Non-Muslim Provinces, 107–11. 

6.  In both the commentary and the translation, we follow the section and sentence divisions established in 
Version 1 of the text: Artawazd Vanahayr Erašxawori, Patmut‘iwn ew Vkayabanut‘iwn Vahanay Gołt‘nac‘woc‘, 
ed. G. Tēr-Vardanean, in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ [MH in shortform references] 8 Dar, 6:855–945 (Ant‘ilias: Meci tann 
Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2007), 869–97.

7.  Greek (BHG 1624): I. van den Gheyn, “Passio antiquior SS. Sergii et Bacchi Graece nunc primum edita,” 
Analecta Bollandiana 14 (1895): 373–95; Armenian: “Vkayabanut‘iwn srboyn Sargsi ew Bagosi,” in Ł. Ališan, 
Vark‘ ew Vkayabanut‘iwnk‘ Srboc‘, 2 vols. (Venice: Tparan Mxit‘areanc‘, 1874), 2:272–79.

8.  Vision of Saint Sahak: Łazar, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘ ew T‘ułt‘ aṙ Vahan Mamikonean, ed. G. Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean 
and S. Malxasean (Tbilisi: Aragatip Mnac‘akan Martiroseanc‘i, 1904; repr. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1985), 
§17, at 34.4–6; repr. in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 5 Dar, 2:2197–2395 (Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 



33  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

on the contemporary Umayyad world and Armenian experiences within it. Instead of trying 
to disentangle the real from the imagined or the derivative, we prefer to approach the 
Martyrdom as a literary creation, situated in the recent past and constructed in accordance 
with the author’s ambitions. We contend that it represents a commentary on and response 
to contemporary concerns, pushing back against the threat of conversion to Islam as well 
as anxieties about emigration to the Eastern Roman Empire by providing its audience with 
collective and individual illustrations of Armenian resistance. In approving the faithful 
Christian witness of the Armenian nobles who were shut inside churches at Naxčawan and 
Xram and burned alive at the start of the eighth century, as well as the steadfast conviction 
of Vahan on his road to martyrdom in 737 CE, the author of the Martyrdom was reacting to 
present circumstances. As we shall see, some members of the Armenian elite participated 
in the political and social structures of the Umayyad caliphate, while others had decided 
to seek new lives in the Roman world. Through commemorating the actions of the holy 
martyrs, the Martyrdom affirmed that Christian belief and practice lay at the core of being 
Armenian. 

Since the principal value of the Martyrdom, for Islamicists and Armenologists alike, stems 
from its purported date of composition, 744 CE, this article will first set out the arguments 
in support of that dating. As will become evident, doing so also requires assessing the 
work’s authorship and structure. We shall then consider the Martyrdom as a product of its 
time, analyzing its representation of the late Umayyad caliphate and Armenian experiences 
within it. Finally, we shall introduce our translation by outlining in brief our editorial 
choices as well as identifying directions for future research. 

The Date of Composition, Authorship, and Structure 

The Martyrdom is a composite work, comprising two distinct narratives: a lament for the 
evils endured by Armenia at the hands of Arab Muslims in 703–4 CE, which culminated 
in the deaths of the Armenian nobles burned alive in the churches (sections 1–3); and a 
record of the life and martyrdom of Vahan, together with a series of posthumous miracles 
associated with his burial site outside the city of Ruṣāfa and the subsequent construction of 
a church with a martyrium at the same location (sections 4–8). This bifurcation is confirmed 
in the extended colophon at the end of the text (sections 9–10). Here we learn that an 
Armenian delegation travelled to Callinicum and that two of its members went on to visit 
the martyria of Saint Vahan and Saint Sergius in Ruṣāfa before rejoining their colleagues 

2003), 2225.1–2234.75; trans. R. W. Thomson, The History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 64–72. 
Vision of Saint Grigor/Gregory the Illuminator: Agat‘angełos, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, ed. G. Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and S. 
Kanayeanc‘ (Tbilisi: 1909), §731–55; repr. in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 5 Dar, 2:1289–1735 (Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy 
Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2003), 1654.1–65.4; trans. R. W. Thomson, The Lives of Saint Gregory: The Armenian, Greek, 
Arabic, and Syriac Versions of the History Attributed to Agathangelos (Ann Arbor, MI: Caravan Books, 2010), 
337–52; E. Petrosyan, “Grigor Lusavorč‘in Veragrvoł tesil harc‘umĕ (The Revelation Attributed to Gregory the 
Illuminator),” Banber Matenadarani 36 (2023): 212–50. For individual studies, see R. W. Thomson, “The Vision 
of Saint Gregory and Its Interpretations,” in The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition: A Comparative Perspective, 
ed. K. B. Bardakjian and S. La Porta, 285–95 (Leiden: Brill, 2014); and G. Muradyan, “The Vision of St. Sahak in the 
History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i,” in Bardakjian and La Porta, Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition, 296–312. 



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   34

and returning to Armenia, where the author “began to record, beginning from where it was 
appropriate, through joining to the same the testimony of Saint Vahan the martyr” (9.10). 
The colophon is unequivocal, therefore, in depicting “this book of martyrdom,” as it labels 
the whole work (10.2), as the fusion of two narratives. The lament is the point of departure, 
the “appropriate beginning,” to which the testimony about Saint Vahan has been joined. 
We shall consider the authorship and structure of the Martyrdom in further detail below.

The Martyrdom states that Vahan was martyred on the twenty-seventh day of the 
Armenian month of Mareri in the year 185 of the Armenian Era (AE), which fell on March 
18, 737 (7.21). The visit of the Armenians to Ruṣāfa is described as taking place seven years 
later (9.2). The return of the whole delegation to Armenia occurred “close to the feast of 
Epiphany” (9.8), which was celebrated on January 6 every year, and the author began his 
undertaking thereafter. This asserted date of composition, 744 CE, is wholly consistent with 
multiple internal features of the work. Let us examine these individually and collectively.

The first observation concerns the use of the Armenian Era dating system. Although 
year 1 of this chronology equates to July 11, 552–July 10, 553, it is only in the last decade 
of the seventh century that we find the earliest securely attested use of this system, in 
a colophon attached to the Armenian translation of Socrates’s Ecclesiastical History, 
whose synchronism refers to the year 144 of the era (June 6, 695–June 5, 696).9 Three other 
colophons from the first half of the eighth century also employ the Armenian Era system 
as their exclusive chronology.10 The earliest extant inscription to feature an Armenian Era 
date is that of Uxtaytur at T‘alin; its opening line refers to “232 of the Armenian Era,” which 
extended from May 15, 783, to May 13, 784.11 The appearance of two Armenian Era dates in 
the Martyrdom (3.4, 10.1) is therefore consistent with Armenian practice in the first half of 
the eighth century. 

A similar argument can be advanced with respect to the single Islamic date to appear in 
the text: “In the time of the tyranny of the Arabs, which followed the death of the originator, 
the raving Muḥammad, in their eighty-fifth year . . .” (2.1).12 One of the documents produced 

9.  A. S. Mat‘evosyan, Hayeren jeṙagreri Hišatakaranner 5–12dd (Erevan: SSH GA Hratarakč‘ut‘yun, 1988), 
no. 28; trans. R. W. Thomson, The Armenian Adaptation of the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 
(Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 9–11. 

10.  Mat‘evosyan, Hišatakaranner, nos. 36, 39; G. Yovsep‘ean, Yišatakarank‘ jeṙagrac‘ (Ant‘ilias: Tparan 
Katʿołikosutʿean Hayocʿ Kilikioy, 1951), no. 17. It is also striking that the canons of the Council of Manazkert 
employ an Armenian Era date: the year 175, on the 7th of the month Trē, which equates to September 2, 726: 
Girk‘ T‘łt‘oc‘, ed. Y. Izmireanc‘ (Tbilisi: Tparan T. Ṙōtineanc‘ and M. Šabajē, 1901), 223.

11.  T. W. Greenwood, “A Corpus of Early Medieval Armenian Inscriptions,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 58 
(2004): 27–91, at 87 (A.14).

12.  The hijri year 85 extended from January 14, 704, to January 1, 705. This sentence, however, is ambiguous 
and hard to interpret. It implies that the tyranny of the Arabs began only after the death of Muḥammad and 
that his death, rather than his migration to Medina on July 16, 622, marked the beginning of Islamic time. 
Alternatively, the writer was aware of the hijri date but mistakenly correlated it with the death of Muḥammad 
rather than his migration. For hijri dates in Syriac, see S. P. Brock, “The Use of Hijra Dating in Syriac Manuscripts: 
A Preliminary Investigation,” in Redefining Christian Identity: Cultural Interaction in the Middle East Since the 
Rise of Islam, ed. J. J. van Ginkel, H. J. Murre-van den Berg, and T. M. van Lint, 275–90 (Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 
277 and 283. It is notable that the second-oldest Syriac manuscript to preserve a hijri dating (London, British 



35  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

by the council of the Church of Ałuank‘ (Caucasian Albania) at Partaw is also dated to 
“the 85th year of the Arabs” and is correlated, impossibly, with Armenian Era year 148 
(June 5, 699–June 3, 700).13 Although there is no relationship between these canons and 
the Martyrdom, together they attest the emergence of Islamic time as a meaningful 
chronological mechanism in the first decade of the eighth century. In this respect, it is 
noteworthy that the first dirhams minted in the North are dated AH 78, reading Armīniyya, 
whereas the first to bear the mint name of the city of Dabīl/Duin—the provincial capital 
in the later Sasanian era—are dated AH 84.14 As Vacca has argued, the period of caliphal 
domination in the North began in the first decade of the eighth century, following the 
so-called Marwānid reforms, and this seems to be reflected in the Martyrdom, both in its 
perception that the conflagrations at Naxčawan marked “the beginning” and in its use of 
Islamic time.15 

The Martyrdom contains several surprising details about the world of the Umayyad 
caliphate that support 744 CE as the date of composition. We shall limit our analysis here to 
three of these. The first concerns the text’s awareness of caliphal succession. Not only does it 
record the correct sequence of caliphs from ʿAbd al-Malik to Hishām, omitting only Yazīd b. 
ʿAbd al-Malik, and not only does it provide a positive representation of ʿUmar b. Abd al-ʿAzīz, 
in line with contemporary Christian sources,16 it also reports Umayyad family relationships 
accurately. When in dialogue with Hishām, Vahan asks, “Where is the universal authority 
of your father or the tyranny of your four brothers?” (6.27). Hishām was indeed preceded 
as caliph by three brothers (al-Walīd, Sulaymān, and Yazīd) and one first cousin (ʿUmar, 
who was also a brother-in-law twice over) and before them by his father, ʿAbd al-Malik. 
The Martyrdom therefore demonstrates precise knowledge of the Marwānid succession, 
including an awareness that it functioned agnatically. Conversely, the Martyrdom shows no 
awareness of Marwān b. Muḥammad’s future accession as caliph. Instead, it refers to him as 
the “prince of the North” (7.1), currently based in Mesopotamia (6.31). This acknowledges 
the authority he was granted across the North, including Armenia and Mesopotamia, from 
732 CE onward.17 His prominence in Hishām’s regime is demonstrated through the caliph’s 
decision to instruct him to find out who Vahan was and report back. Once again, it is the 
representation of Marwān’s loyal service to Hishām that is meaningful, rather than the 

Library, MS Add. 14448, dated 699) refers to year 80 of the Ṭayyāyē—that is, the Arabs.
13.  Movsēs Kałankatuac‘i, Patmut‘iwn Ałuanic‘ Ašxarhi, ed. V. Aṙak‘elyan (Erevan: Haykakan SSH GA 

Hratarakč‘ut‘yun, 1983), 3:8, at 302.17–18; repr. in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 10 Dar, 15:25–437 (Ant‘ilias: Meci tann 
Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2012), 375.19; trans. C. J. F. Dowsett as Movsēs Dasxuranci, The History of the 
Caucasian Albanians (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 196.

14.  Bates, “Dirham Mint,” 94–95. AH 78: March 30, 697–March 19, 698; AH 84: January 24, 703–January 13, 704.
15.  Vacca, Non-Muslim Provinces, 83, 193.
16.  A. Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir: L’espace syrien sous les derniers Omeyyades et les premiers 

Abbassides (v. 72–193/692–809) (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 301–5; S. La Porta and A. M. Vacca, An Armenian Futūḥ 
Narrative: Łewond’s Eighth-Century History of the Caliphate (Chicago: Institute for the Study of Ancient 
Cultures, University of Chicago, 2024), 182.

17.  A. Vacca, “The Umayyad North (or: How Umayyad was the Umayyad Caliphate?),” in The Umayyad 
World, ed. A. Marsham, 219–39 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2021), 229–32.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   36

historicity of the action he performed. We propose that this knowledge about the caliphate 
originated outside Armenia, even if we cannot show precisely how it arrived in Armenia.

Second, the Martyrdom demonstrates significant knowledge about Hishām’s court in 
Ruṣāfa. It notes the presence of Christians among the royal advisers (8.11), including one 
from the Roman people named Theophilus, or “according to theirs, Abu Step‘an” (the father 
of Stephen).18 Ruṣāfa was undoubtedly home to a diverse confessional community, as is 
evident in Hishām’s construction of a mosque that shared its courtyard with the famous 
martyrium of Sergius. Elizabeth Key Fowden has interpreted their proximity as an attempt 
by Hishām to capitalize on the enduring popularity of the cult of Saint Sergius.19 Andrew 
Marsham similarly highlights the mosque/martyrium complex at Ruṣāfa as an indication 
of Hishām’s administrative and military dependence on non-Muslim groups resident in the 
region; Ruṣāfa was part of the frontier-facing Qinnaṣrīn district.20 The Martyrdom not only 
displays enthusiasm for worshiping at the martyrium of Saint Sergius but also reports that 
a royal palace was constructed near the site of Vahan’s martyrium (8.17) and hence outside 
the walls of the city. Hishām is known to have constructed several extramural palaces.21 
Furthermore, Vahan’s martyrium is described (8.22) as being “constructed with baked 
bricks and lime.” It is very rare to find descriptions of any brick-built structures in medieval 
Armenian texts, which tend to focus instead on walls of prepared stone.22 Late antique 
and medieval Armenian churches were built using single blocks or revetments enclosing 
a concrete core. By contrast, baked brick was a common building material at Ruṣāfa.23 In 
terms of people, places, and building materials, therefore, the Martyrdom corresponds 
closely with what is known about Hishām’s Ruṣāfa. 

Third, the temporary disappearance of Vahan’s body (8.11) is blamed initially on 
merchants who, on departing Ruṣāfa, are assumed to have traveled “through the region of 
Baʿalbek to the land of the Palestinians” (8.13). The city of Baʿalbek, Roman Heliopolis, was 
damaged in 746 CE, during the Third Fitna, and it partially collapsed in the earthquake of 
749 CE.24 It would be surprising if the merchants’ route were described by reference to a site 

18.  The meaning of “theirs” is ambiguous, since it could indicate either linguistic or cultural tradition. It 
implies that local patronymic naming practice was different. Abu (Abū) is Arabic rather than Aramaic. 

19.  E. K. Fowden, The Barbarian Plain: Saint Sergius between Rome and Iran (Berkeley: University of 
California Press, 1999), 175–82.

20. A. Marsham, The Umayyad Empire (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2024), 275.
21.  Fowden, Barbarian Plain, 175 n7; Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 427–29. 
22.  By way of illustration, problem 16 of Anania Širakac‘i’s Problems and Solutions discusses two stone-

cutters preparing stones at different speeds for the construction of a church: Anania Širakac‘i, [Yałags] 
harc‘man ew lucman, in Širakac‘u Matenagrut‘yuně, ed. A. G. Abrahamyan, 227–32 (Erevan: HSSR Matenadarani 
Hratarakč‘ut‘yun, 1944), 229; repr. in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 7 Dar, 4:617–23 (Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy 
Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2005), 619.48; trans. T. W. Greenwood, “A Reassessment of the Life and Mathematical Problems 
of Anania Širakac‘i,” Revue des études arméniennes 33 (2011): 131–86, at 164.

23.  Fowden, Barbarian Plain, 84; D. Genequand, “The Archaeological Evidence for the Jafnids and the Naṣrids,” 
in Arabs and Empires before Islam, ed. G. Fisher, 172–213 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 202–5. 

24.  According to Theophanes, Marwān II demolished the walls of Emesa (Ḥimṣ) and Heliopolis (Baʿalbek) 
after an uprising: Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols. (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1883), 1:422; trans. 
and comm. C. Mango and R. Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, 



37  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

that had recently been devastated. This incidental detail therefore supports the contention 
that the Martyrdom was composed before these events.

The representation of Armenia and members of the Armenian elite is also consistent 
with the stated date of composition. Again, we shall concentrate on three features. Although 
Vahan is not independently attested in contemporary works outside the Martyrdom,25 Esayi, 
bishop of Gołt‘n, and Sahak, lord (tēr) of Gołt‘n, both attended the council of Armenian and 
Albanian clerics and laymen held at Partaw in 768 CE.26 This, however, is the latest reference 
to the noble house of Gołt‘n or its episcopal see, and although the history of Gołt‘n in the 
ninth century is wholly obscure, the district had become an emirate by 900 CE.27 In our 
opinion, there would be little purpose in commemorating the spiritual heroism of a figure 
from a defunct noble family, so this feature again supports an eighth-century dating. 

Second, one of the ecclesiastical figures named in the Martyrdom, Sołomon, abbot of the 
monastery of Mak‘enoc‘ (5.45), is independently attested. It has now been more than fifty 
years since Sołomon’s life and career were pieced together from a range of sources by van 
Esbroeck.28 We can be confident that he attended the Council of Manazkert/Manzikert in 
726 CE because the list of attendees in the Syriac account preserved in Michael the Syrian’s 
Chronicle includes “Sołomon, abbot of Mak‘enoc‘.”29 A colophon attached to a florilegium 
dated AE 196 (May 24, 747–May 22, 748) records that “the man of God Sołomon, leader of the 
community of Mak‘enoc‘, in the district of Gełarkuni, assembled individual extracts from 
patristic theologians into a single collection for spiritual instruction.”30 Although several 
of the other works mentioning Sołomon date from much later eras, leaving their specific 

AD 284–813 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 584. For a collection of similar notices and their common origin, see 
R. Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011), 256, 259–61. For the 
earthquake, see Hoyland, Theophilus, 271.

25.  The date and authorship of a short poetic eulogy commemorating Vahan’s martyrdom remain contested. 
It is attributed by some to Xosroviduxt Gołt‘nec‘i, Vahan’s sister, and by others to another female poet of 
the eighth century, Sahakduxt Siwnec‘i. Remarkably, in several places it resonates with the language of the 
Martyrdom, most particularly in the phrase “included among the incorporeal ones by the peoples of the South,” 
yazgac‘n harawaynoy dasaworeal ěnd anmarmnakansn; for the text, which is not afforded a separate entry, see 
Ł. Ališan, Hayapatum, 2 vols. (Venice: S. Łazar, 1901), 2:18–19. For the description of Arab Muslims as the people 
of the South, see below and notes 32–34. If the eulogy is an eighth-century composition, it seems to depend on 
the Martyrdom.

26.  “Kanonk‘ Sioni Hayoc‘ kat‘ołikosi,” in Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘, ed. V. Hakobyan, 2 vols. (Erevan: Haykakan 
SSH Gitut‘yunneri Akademiayi Hratarakč‘ut‘yun, 1971), 2:3–18, at 5 and 6; trans. in A. Mardirossian, “Les canons 
du synode de Partaw (768),” Revue des études arméniennes 27 (1998–2000): 117–34, at 121. 

27.  A. Ter-Łewondyan, The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia, trans. N. G. Garsoïan (Lisbon: Livraria 
Bertrand, 1976), 72.

28.  M. van Esbroeck, “Salomon de Makenoc, vardapet du VIIIe siècle,” in Armeniaca: Mélanges d’études 
arméniennes, 33–44 (Venice: S. Łazar, 1969). 

29.  Michael the Syrian, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche, trans. and ed. J.-B. 
Chabot, 2 vols. (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1901), 2:497; van Esbroeck, “Salomon,” 37. The Armenian account partially 
overlaps with the Syriac one but contains an abbreviated list, which identifies eight Armenian bishops by name 
but otherwise refers generally to all the Armenian bishops, priests, deacons, and children of the covenant of the 
holy church. By contrast, the Syriac text names thirty-three Armenian attendees.

30.  Van Esbroeck, “Salomon,” 42–44; Mat‘evosyan, Hišatakaranner, no. 39.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   38

details open to question, there can be no doubt that Sołomon was a prominent Armenian 
scholar in the first half of the eighth century. 

Finally, it is striking that in the Martyrdom, the Armenian delegation is provided with 
a “Roman book” by leading Christians in Ruṣāfa. We understand this to refer to a written 
composition in Greek. Setting to one side for the present what work it comprised, this 
Greek text was then translated into Armenian by the bishop of Edessa as the party of 
pilgrims traveled home to Armenia (9.7). The apparent lack of knowledge of Greek within 
the delegation is surprising, but the revelation that the translation was accomplished by 
the bishop of Edessa is less so. At the Council of Manazkert, convened in September 726, 
a delegation of six Syrian Orthodox bishops met with the Armenian catholicos Yovhannēs 
Ōjnec‘i, his bishops, and other prominent Armenian clerics to discuss matters of doctrine 
and belief.31 They found themselves in agreement and issued a joint statement of faith, 
including ten anathemas. One of the Syrian Orthodox bishops who attended is identified 
as Constantius, bishop of Edessa. This is not to suggest that the Armenian party met 
Constantius or that the encounter took place in this way, or indeed at all—we have no way 
of knowing—but the delegation’s encounter with the bishop of Edessa occurred at a time 
when relations between the Armenian and Syrian Orthodox Churches were close. 

Further, two linguistic features of the Martyrdom provide strong support for the proposed 
dating. First, the Arab Muslims are described as the “people of the South,” harawayin 
azgēn (in the title of the Martyrdom), and as “wind of the South,” awdovn harawoy (1.8). 
Similar terminology is found in the History attributed to Sebēos, a composition completed 
in the early months of 655 CE and then updated with brief notices recording the progress 
and outcome of the First Fitna around 661 CE.32 Turning to the core of seventh-century 
materials assembled in the 680s and preserved in book 2 of the History of Ałuank‘ attributed 
to Movsēs Kałankatuac‘i/Dasxuranc‘i, we find that Muʿāwiya is termed “king of the South,” 
t‘agawor harawoy (or harawaynoy), on no fewer than nine occasions, thereby connecting 
him directly to the figure who features so prominently in Daniel 11.33 This text contains 
further references to the “Southerners,” the “cruel rod of the South,” the “tyrant of the 
South,” and the “prince of the South.”34 However, such terminology is absent from the 

31.  Girk‘ T‘łt‘oc‘, 220–233; for a recent study and translation, see S. P. Cowe, “Yovhannēs Ōdznets‘i’s Canon 
on the Synod of Manazkert (726): End of an Era or New Beginning?,” St Nersess Theological Review 14, no. 2 
(2023): 7–112. 

32.  The History mentions zHarawayinn, “the one of the South,” and Ays č‘ors, yaruc‘eal i Harawoy 
kołmanē, Ismayelean t‘agaworut‘iwnn, “this fourth, which arose from the region of the South, the kingdom 
of Ishmael”: Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn Sebēosi, ed. G. V. Abgaryan (Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitut‘yunneri Akademiayi 
Hratarakč‘ut‘yun, 1979), 72, 142; repr. in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 7 Dar, 4:453–565 (Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy 
Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2005), 474.3, 534.36; trans. R. W. Thomson, comm. J. D. Howard-Johnston, The Armenian 
History attributed to Sebeos (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999), 13, 105. The three updating notices 
disrupt the chronological sequence at the end of the text, implying that they were inserted into the margins of 
the final folio of the autograph. 

33.  Movsēs Kałankatuac‘i, Patmut‘iwn, 2:27–28; repr. MH, 15:251.8, 251.10, 251.12, 253.24, 253.28, 254.36, 
254.1, 255.4, 257.12; trans. Dowsett, History, 124–27.

34.  For harawayinsn/harawaynoc‘n, “Southerners,” see Movsēs Kałankatuac‘i, Patmut‘iwn, 2:18, 27; repr. 
MH, 15:228.13, 251.8; trans. Dowsett, History, 110, 125. For zgawazann xstut‘ean harawynoyn, “cruel rod of the 



39  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

History of Łewond. Whether the latter is a late eighth-century composition, as most recent 
commentators maintain, or assembled a century later, it is evident that at the time of its 
composition, this conceptualization was no longer being applied.35 These “Southern” labels 
connect the Martyrdom powerfully to several other Armenian works composed in the 
formative era of Islamic-Armenian interactions, before the ʿAbbāsid caliphate.

The second linguistic marker is the use of the term Yakobik, “little Jacob,” a term 
applied to Syrian Orthodox Christians and derived from Jacob Baradaeus, the sixth-
century bishop of Edessa, who helped establish a separate Syrian Orthodox Church (whose 
members are hence sometimes called Jacobites). The term occurs twice in the Martyrdom. 
The priest who gave the sacrament to Vahan while the latter was imprisoned in Ruṣāfa 
(6.37) is described as a “truth-loving Yakobik,” and the crowd of Christians, both men 
and women, who collected the blood of the martyr are reported to have been “Roman 
and Yakobik and Nestorian” (8.7)—in other words, members of the Chalcedonian/Melkite, 
Syrian Orthodox, and Nestorian/Church of the East confessional communities. This term 
does not appear to have been used before 700 CE, at least not in Armenian. It is used to 
describe one of the lay lords who attended the council of the Church of Ałuank‘ at Partaw 
in 705 CE: “Vahan i Varaz Yohanean, from the stock of the Madianacik‘—perhaps those of 
al-Madāʾin (Ctesiphon)—Yakobik in faith.”36 Furthermore, the six Syrian Orthodox bishops 
who attended the Council of Manazkert in 726 CE, referred to above, are described by its 
convenor, Catholicos Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i, as being “from the Yakobik house.”37 The term is 
also used by Xosrovik t‘argmanič‘—Xosrovik/little Xosrov, the translator—who attended the 
Council of Manazkert and wrote a number of important dogmatic works.38 In one of these, 
addressed to Sargis, bishop of Geradekor, Xosrovik distinguishes between the theologies of 
Julian of Halicarnassus and Severus of Antioch, calling supporters of the former Yulianist 
and supporters of the latter Yakobiks and explaining, wrongly, that their name derived from 
Jacob, bishop of the city of Mcbin/Nisibis rather than Uṙha/Edessa.39 This concentration 
of references to Yakobik in several Armenian works dated to the first half of the eighth 
century supports the proposed date of composition of the Martyrdom.

South,” see Movsēs, 2:19; MH, 15:236.32; Dowsett, 115. For bṙnakaln harawoy, “tyrant of the South,” see Movsēs, 
2:27, 28; MH, 15:251.13, 254.Title; Dowsett, 125, 127. For išxann harawoy, “the prince of the South,” see Movsēs, 
2:35; MH, 15:289.33; Dowsett, 146.

35.  For recent assessments of this work, including its dating, see J.-P. Mahé, “Le problème de l’authenticité et 
de la valeur de la chronique de Łewond,” in L’Arménie et Byzance: Histoire et culture, 119–26 (Paris: Publications 
de la Sorbonne, 1996); T. W. Greenwood, “A Reassessment of the History of Łewond,” Le Muséon 125, no. 1–2 
(2012): 99–167; and La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, xix–lvii.

36.  Movsēs Kałankatuac‘i, Patmut‘iwn, 3:10; repr. MH, 15:378.1; trans. Dowsett, History, 197.
37.  i yakobik tanē: Girk‘ T‘łt‘oc‘, 224.
38.  The Syriac account of the council preserved in Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle refers to one Xosrov as the 

priest and vardapet of the Armenians: Michael, Chronique, 2:497.
39.  Xosrovik t‘argmanič‘, “T‘ułt‘ aṙ Tēr Sargis episkopos Geradekoray,” in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 8 Dar, 6:682–94 

(Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2007), 683.13–14. The identity of Bishop Sargis remains contested. 
The Syriac list of attendees at the Council of Manazkert identifies two bishops named Sargis, one whose see 
cannot be securely identified and another who is called the bishop of Sanasnaye, “those of Sasun”: Michael, 
Chronique, 2:497–98. The Armenian account refers to Sargis, bishop of Tayk‘: Girk‘ T‘łt‘oc‘, 223.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   40

In sum, the date supplied in the colophon, 744 CE, finds extensive support in the 
work’s representation of the Umayyad caliphate and of contemporary Armenian figures 
and experiences as well as in its use of distinctive chronological and linguistic markers. 
Collectively, these features demonstrate that the Martyrdom is a product of the late 
Marwānid era.

Although this cannot be proved definitively, in our view it is highly likely that Artawazd, 
also known as Abraham, the leader of the community at Erašxawor in Maseac‘otn (5.46), 
was responsible for the composition of the Martyrdom.40 He appears twice in the text. He is 
depicted receiving Vahan warmly for three days before providing him with what he needs 
for his onward journey south to Edessa and ultimately Ruṣāfa (5.46). Artawazd is therefore 
represented as the last Armenian cleric to encounter Vahan before the latter’s martyrdom. 
Furthermore, it is Artawazd who leads a group of brothers to Callinicum/Raqqa from 
where he travels on with a single companion to Ruṣāfa, seven years after the saint’s death 
(9.2–10). The pair worship at the martyria of both Vahan and Sergius before the whole party 
returns home via Edessa. Although it is possible that the Martyrdom was composed by his 
companion, or another member of the community at Erašxawor, the simplest solution is to 
accept that Artawazd was responsible.

In any event, the character of the work suits a monastic context of production. Aside 
from Vahan, no lay figure is identified by name. The Martyrdom is limited in its coverage 
of the lay elite. It reveals that Vahan’s wife was from the family of the lord of Siwnik‘ 
(5.7) and that his father-in-law controlled the district of Vayoc‘ Jor (5.10). An anonymous 
prince and commander of Armenia is mentioned in disparaging terms as someone who was 
inspired by a demon (5.18–19). The text’s treatment of the ecclesiastical elite is similarly 
meager. The only bishops to feature in it are located in Ruṣāfa and Edessa, outside Armenia. 
The Martyrdom does not promote the spiritual credentials of any noble family, nor does 
it highlight the support of the catholicos or any bishop in Vahan’s passion (in fact, as we 
shall see, it does quite the reverse), nor does it identify any location in historic Armenia for 
the commemoration of Vahan; his relics remain in Ruṣāfa. By contrast, several monastic 
communities in Armenia feature in the narrative. One unidentified community looks after 
Vahan for six months before requiring him to leave at the insistence of a prince’s wife 
(5.29–32). In obscure circumstances, Vahan is assisted by the leader of an unidentified 
monastery—possibly the same one—named Yovhannēs (5.40–41). We noted earlier that 
Vahan is portrayed meeting Sołomon, abbot of Mak‘enoc‘, in the district of Gełarkuni, south 
of lake Sewan (5.45), and encountering Artawazd, abbot of Erašxawor (5.46). Moreover, 
when Artawazd and his party journey south to Callinicum, they stay at a monastery in 
the city called Der Mar Zakk‘ē (9.2).41 Although Armenian nobles and ecclesiastical leaders 

40.  Three figures in the narrative bear two names: Artawazd/Abraham, Vahan/Vahap, and Theophilus/Abu 
Step‘anē. The alternative names denote new or different identities adopted by or attributed to the figures in 
question. The name of the monastery, Erašxawor, indicates that this community was located somewhere near 
the river Erašx/Araxes in the district of Maseac‘otn; this was probably its original location, although it later 
came to be situated at Širakawan in Širak.

41.  In Syriac, literally the monastery of Lord Zaccheus. The use of the Syriac name is noteworthy. The site of 
the monastery is located just to the northeast of the city, on the Tell al-Bīʿa: Stefan Heidemann, “The History of 



41  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

remain anonymous and their actions are sometimes criticized, the heads of identifiable 
monastic communities are named and their actions commended. For all these reasons, 
a monastic context of production for the Martyrdom seems most likely, with Artawazd 
responsible for its composition.

The individual responsible reveals something of his role and the remit of the work in the 
concluding colophon. Using familiar tropes of humility and self-abasement, he states that 
God has rendered his unworthiness “worthy of writing and giving this history in memory of 
those who have died” (10.2). This statement asserts that he personally wrote at least some 
part of the work. In commemorating “those who have died,” the colophon reveals that the 
composition addressed more than Vahan’s martyrdom. This final section refers specifically 
to the year 152 of the Armenian Era (703–4 CE) when “Armenia drank the cup of wrath” 
(10.1), and this is the same date supplied at the start of the composition (3.4), after the 
churches had been set on fire. We can be confident, therefore, that the Martyrdom included 
both narratives from the start. From a structural perspective, the lament introduces the 
circumstances in which Vahan came to be transported to Damascus as a four-year-old 
child and to adopt Islam (4.1). His childhood apostasy and upbringing outside Armenia are 
fundamental elements in the story of his path to conversion to Christianity and subsequent 
martyrdom.

The structure of the Martyrdom merits further comment. We proposed earlier that 
the Martyrdom comprises two distinct narratives: the initial lament for the evils endured 
by Armenia at the hands of Arab Muslims in 703–4 CE, culminating in the deaths of the 
Armenian nobles burned alive in the churches (sections 1–3), and the record of the life and 
martyrdom of Vahan. We also noted that when Artawazd and his companion visited Ruṣāfa, 
they were instructed by leading Christians “through a Roman book” (9.6). This implies that 
they were presented with a written work in Greek and that this was the text translated 
into Armenian by the bishop of Edessa in the course of the return journey (9.7). But what 
work was this? For a long time, our working hypothesis was that it was an account of the 
life and martyrdom of Saint Vahan.42 It has proved difficult, however, to demonstrate that 
a Greek original underlies the entire Vahan narrative in the Martyrdom. There are no clear 
borrowings or dependence on Greek syntax or morphology, and the scriptural citations, 
which tend to be paraphrases or allusions rather than direct biblical quotations, do not 
point to a Greek archetype. Moreover, it is hard to envisage the circumstances in which 
such a work would have been composed in Greek. It is, however, possible to envision an 
alternative interpretation of the “Roman book.”

In this analysis, the structure of the account describing the visit of Artawazd and his 
companion to Ruṣāfa takes on a particular significance. They are recorded as worshiping at 
the martyrium of Saint Vahan at the start and at the end of their visit (9.3, 9.7), supporting 
the proposition that this was an extramural church. The centerpiece of the narrative is the 

the Industrial and Commercial Area of ʿAbbāsid al-Raqqa, Called al-Raqqa al-Muḥtariqa,” Bulletin of the School 
of Oriental and African Studies 69, no. 1 (2006): 33–52, at 38.

42.  Both Abełyan, Istorija, 396, and Ter-Davt‘yan, Armjanskie Žimija, 291, maintain that the Martyrdom was 
based on a Greek original.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   42

description of their visit to the martyrium of Saint Sergius. It appears that they are able 
to meet the saints (plural) through the assistance of Theophilus/Abu Step‘anē (9.4). The 
next sentence reports that after worshiping at the martyrium of Saint Sergius—implying 
that this is where they encountered the saints—they meet the bishop (9.5) and the wise 
men, reportedly leading figures in the court of Hishām (9.6). These men instruct the 
Armenians about the martyrdom of the saint through a Roman book and present them with 
the testimony about the brave hero (9.6). This description is ambiguous and could apply 
equally to Saint Sergius or to Saint Vahan, but the context seems to favor the former. In 
other words, Artawazd and his companion are depicted as receiving specific information 
and a written account not about Saint Vahan but rather about the passion and cult of 
Saint Sergius. Coincidentally or otherwise, an Armenian translation of the Greek Passio of 
Sergius and Bacchus exists, and the account of Vahan’s death in the Martyrdom parallels 
several details in the deaths of both Sergius and Bacchus as recounted in that translation, 
specifically the gathering of the martyr’s blood in one place and the involvement of wild 
animals in guarding the holy body overnight (8.1 and 8.3).43 There is no direct linguistic 
correspondence, however, and the exact nature of the relationship between these works 
remains unresolved at present.

At this point, we need to remember that the Martyrdom is a work of hagiography, not 
reportage. Instead of seeking to establish exactly what the Roman book comprised and how 
it informed the writing of the Martyrdom, it may be more helpful to interpret the comment 
about the book from a broader perspective. The inclusion of this detail attests the ongoing 
authority of written testimony. It also confirms that Armenians of this time continued to 
believe that Christian truth could be preserved in other languages and that even if they 
were not able to translate the texts themselves, it was still important to gain access to them. 
Some Armenians, at least, were open to instruction through such writings, even works in 
Greek (if this is a correct understanding of the term “Roman”). To put it another way, this 
detail suggests that Armenian translation activity persisted into the middle of the eighth 
century.

In summary, the Martyrdom is a composite Armenian text, compiled in 744 CE in the 
monastery of Erašxawor in the district of Maseac‘otn in all likelihood by Artawazd/Abraham, 
the leader of the community. We contend that instead of being written to highlight the 
spiritual credentials of the princely family of Gołt‘n or the leaders of the Armenian church, 
or to promote the cult of Saint Vahan in some location in Armenia, the Martyrdom was 
written as a defense of Armenian Christian doctrine and teaching at a time when members 
of the Armenian elite, both lay lords and clerics, were becoming integrated into the political 
and religious culture of the Marwānid state and were seemingly at risk of compromising 
their Armenian identity. In addressing themes of conversion, apostasy, and religious 
polemic, the author sought to confront his present circumstances. In order to develop this 
contention further, let us consider the representation of the later Umayyad caliphate and 
then of Armenian experiences within that world.

43.  For the Greek Passio and its Armenian translation, see above, note 7, and below, notes 96–101.



43  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

The Representation of the Late Umayyad World

The previous section has shown that the Martyrdom preserves invaluable testimony about 
Umayyad rule. The text reproduces the caliphal sequence accurately, displaying precise 
knowledge of family dynamics and patrilineal descent. Its use of the hijri calendar (2.1) 
makes it one of the earliest works in Armenian literature to do so. It offers important 
reflections on the character of Hishām’s court in Ruṣāfa. Yet these features barely touch the 
surface. The Martyrdom is suffused with insights and observations about the political and 
religious culture of the late Umayyad world. We shall examine these under three headings: 
administration and hegemony, conversion and apostasy, and, more briefly, perceptions of 
Armenia. This survey is not intended to be comprehensive; rather, it provides an impression 
of the work’s potential.

I. Administration and Hegemony

The Martyrdom opens with an unequivocal statement about political transformation: 
“Foreign nations have taken the pleasure of this land, and the freedom and lordship and 
authority of the nobles has been overthrown as worthless” (1.4). This is presented as the 
fulfillment of biblical prophecy (1.1–3, 1.5), a time when the condition of Armenia was 
fundamentally altered.44 The statement also presages the conflagrations at Naxčawan and 
Xram, described in the following section (2.1–17), in which a large number of Armenian 
nobles—we are told neither how many nor who they were—were burned to death. The 
narrative states that these events occurred in the eighty-fifth year and in the sixteenth year 
of ʿAbd al-Malik, but that it was only in the first year of his son, al-Walīd, at Easter time, that 
the captives, identified as relatives of those who had been killed (3.1), were taken to Duin, 
where they were held until the autumn for dispatch to Syria (3.4–6). The text correlates the 
timing of these events with AE 152. The dates do not fit together perfectly, but they give a 
strong indication that the fires occurred in 703 or 704 CE and the surviving family members 
who had been seized were transferred to Syria in 704 or 705 CE.45

From the perspective of the author, therefore, it is only at the end of ʿAbd al-Malik’s 
rule that caliphal dominance in the North began to be asserted directly and systematically. 
Vacca has argued that this took place in the aftermath of the Marwānid reforms.46 Although 
this narrative of reform has recently been questioned by Legendre, the testimony of the 
Martyrdom corresponds with the numismatic evidence.47 As noted earlier, the earliest 

44.  The prophetic context is established through a complex combination of scriptural allusions to Ezekiel 
21:3, Nahum 3:10, Lamentations 1:1, and Jeremiah 1:5.

45.  For a wider assessment of the tradition, which incorporates the fires narrative found in the Martyrdom, 
see A. Vacca, “The Fires of Naxčawan: In Search of Intercultural Transmission in Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and 
Syriac,” Le Muséon 129, no. 3 (2016): 323–62. 

46.  Vacca, Non-Muslim Provinces, 38; La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, xx.
47.  M. Legendre, “The Translation of the Dīwān and the Making of the Marwānid ‘Language Reform’: 

Secretarial Agency, Economic Incentives and Regional Dynamics in the Umayyad State,” in Navigating Language 
in the Early Islamic World: Multilingualism and Language Change in the First Centuries of Islam, ed. A. Vacca, A. 
Borrut, and M. Ceballos, 89–166 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2024).



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   44

dirhams minted in Dabīl/Duin are dated AH 84 (January 24, 703–January 13, 704). In other 
words, the establishment of a provincial mint in Duin correlates with the detention of the 
Armenian captives in the same location, and both imply direct control of the city through a 
permanent military presence.

Three other specific features of the lament merit comment. In the first place, the reason 
given in the Martyrdom for the gathering of the nobles was the promise that “many gifts 
and presents would be granted to them from the royal treasury by distributing to them 
generous gifts of dahekans, the atayans of the year” (2.2). This implies that the Armenian 
nobles had been included in the dīwān al-jund, the military payroll, and were thereby 
eligible for annual stipends.48 As pointed out by Tēr-Vardanean, atayan is an Armenian 
rendering of the Arabic ʿaṭā, the term typically used for such payments.49 It is attested in 
Umayyad-era papyri from Egypt, such as P. Heid.Arab. I 1, dated AH 91 (November 9, 709–
October 28, 710).50 This is the first instance of this Arabic loanword in Armenian and an 
early example of any Arabic loanword in Armenian.51 Significantly, it is associated with the 
administration of military resources, the primary topic of negotiation between the caliphal 
authorities and the Armenian elite. 

Second, the lament concludes by noting that “all the celebrated military forces were 
beheaded by the sword and were hung on wood” (2.17). This account accords precisely with 
the form of execution known as ṣalb, the gibbeting of a beheaded corpse. Seidensticker has 
argued that “in the Islamic world, the normal case was crucifixion after death.”52 Anthony 
maintains that “crucifixion was a public and ritualized form of violence intended to conjure 
up an amorphous array of polyvalent symbols that . . . served the legitimizing effort of 
the Umayyad polity.”53 Marsham adopted a similar interpretation in his study of public 
executions in the Umayyad period, concluding that they communicated claims to legitimate 
authority.54 The Martyrdom comments specifically on this public dimension. It notes that 
those taken captive in the aftermath of the fires and executions were led past the wooden 
crosses at Naxčawan (3.1). The next sentence gives an impression of the effectiveness of 
this strategy: the sight of the crosses outside Naxčawan (3.2) was “not only terrifying to 
our fellow countrymen but also [one that] made their own bravery universally known.” 

48.  M. Legendre, “Aspects of Umayyad Administration,” in Marsham, Umayyad World, 133–57, at 139–40.
49.  Artawazd, Patmut‘iwn, ed. Tēr-Vardanean, in MH, 6:871 n32.
50.  P.Heid.Arab. I 1, 7–9 (Aphrodito); see A. Grohmann, From the World of Arabic Papyri (Cairo: Al-Maaref 

Press, 1952), 124–25.
51.  R. W. Thomson, “Arabic in Armenia before the Tenth Century,” in “Mélanges Jean-Pierre Mahé,” Travaux 

et mémoires 18 (2014): 691–706; A. Vacca, “Arabic and the Public Performance of Power in Medieval Armenia,” 
in Vacca, Borrut, and Ceballos, Navigating Language, 281–306.

52.  T. Seidensticker, “Responses to Crucifixion in the Islamic World (1st–7th/7th–13th Centuries),” in Public 
Violence in Islamic Societies: Power, Discipline, and the Construction of the Public Sphere, 7th–19th Centuries 
CE, ed. C. Lange and M. Fierro, 203–16 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), 210.

53.  S. Anthony, Crucifixion and Death as Spectacle: Umayyad Crucifixion in Its Late Antique Context (New 
Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 2014), 67.

54.  A. Marsham, “Public Execution in the Umayyad Period: Early Islamic Punitive Practice and Its Late 
Antique Context,” Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011): 101–36, at 104–5. 



45  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

Marsham’s study supplies a substantial list of descriptions of capital punishment, including 
crucifixion, during the Umayyad caliphate, but these are all drawn from Islamic narrative 
sources of the ʿAbbāsid era.55 By contrast, as a work of the late Umayyad era, the Martyrdom 
preserves the memory of violence and crucifixion in Armenia in the first decade of the 
eighth century. Its closest contemporary Armenian analogue is the little-studied account 
of the crucifixion of David of Duin, but this work’s date of composition cannot be narrowed 
further than to some point in the first three-quarters of the eighth century.56

The third detail also concerns the transportation of the captives. The Martyrdom reports 
(3.6) that “at the coming of autumn, they removed them from the place of imprisonment 
and sealed their necks, and they took them and had them conveyed to the land of Syria, 
enumerated and in writing.” Robinson and Vacca have both noted that the sealing of 
captives’ necks had late antique—primarily Sasanian—precedents, symbolizing both the 
imposition of legitimate authority and public humiliation.57 The practice of neck-sealing 
to indicate either payment of taxes or ongoing liability for payment was not, however, a 
direct Sasanian legacy but rather an adaptation of that earlier practice.58 Robinson and 
Legendre have both observed that there are no references to neck-sealing in Umayyad-era 
sources.59 The Martyrdom supplies such testimony, but it does so in the context of the 
original practice, not its post-Sasanian adaptation.

At this juncture, it is worth repeating that we do not interpret the Martyrdom’s narrative 
of the fires of Naxčawan and their aftermath as a description of what actually happened. We 
see it as a representation of what happened, one that was composed by or in 744 CE and 
was sufficiently plausible to contemporaries to be deemed meaningful and instructive. As a 
product of the late Umayyad era, it therefore offers insight into both present experiences 
and past memories that were familiar to its contemporary audience. We approach the 

55.  Ibid., 126–36. 
56.  “Xač‘azgeac‘ nahatakn ew k‘aǰayałt vkayn K‘ristosi,” in Liakatar Vark‘ ew Vkayabanut‘iwn Srboc‘, ed. 

M. Awgerean, 12 vols., 6:224–29 (Venice: Tparan Mxit‘areanc‘, 1810–15); Sop‘erk‘ haykakank‘, 22 vols., 1:985–96 
(Venice: Tparan Mxit‘areanc‘, 1853–61); Ališan, Hayapatum, 1:546–52. See also Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (John 
Catholicos), Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, ed. M. Emin (Moscow, 1853; repr. Tbilisi, 1912; repr. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 
1980), 91–94; repr. in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 10 Dar, 11:317–584 (Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 
2010), 413–16; trans. K. H. Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i: History of Armenia (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 
1987), 106–7. David’s execution is explicitly described as imitating the passion of Christ. He first willingly raised 
himself upon the cross and was then killed by a lance (or, according to John Catholicos, an arrow to the heart). 
Although the different versions of his martyrology disagree on the precise details, they are clear that his cross 
miraculously turned to face east.

57.  C. Robinson, “Neck-Sealing in Early Islam,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 48, 
no. 3 (2005): 401–41, at 412–17; Vacca, Non-Muslim Provinces, 207.

58.  Robinson, “Neck-Sealing,” 405; Vacca, Non-Muslim Provinces, 207.
59.  Robinson, “Neck-Sealing,” 428; Legendre, “Aspects of Umayyad Administration,” 144–45. The History 

of Łewond contains two references to the neck-sealing of Armenians: Łewond, Patmabanut‘iwn, ed. G. 
Tēr-Vardanean, in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 8 Dar, 6:711–854 (Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2007), 
at 822.4 and 850.10; La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 279 and 376; see also 283. Both instances 
take place in the ʿAbbāsid era, both refer to Syriac zuzē (coin), and both occur in the context of taxation, not 
captivity.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   46

account of the life and martyrdom of Vahan in the same way. Let us now consider the 
remainder of the composition for its perceptions of Umayyad administration.

Vahan is introduced as a four-year-old child, the son of Xosrov, lord of Gołt‘n, who was 
taken to Syria in the aftermath of the conflagrations (4.1). He was brought up as a Muslim 
at the royal court in Damascus (3.7) where he exceled in his studies of “their knowledge 
and law” (4.2, 4.5). He was given a new name, Vahap, and appointed a scribe of the royal 
diwan (diwanadpir ark‘uni).60 This narrative corresponds in several respects—noble birth, 
handsome appearance, superior intellectual gifts and knowledge, new name, entry into 
royal service—with the experience of the Old Testament prophet Daniel at the court of 
the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, described in Daniel 1. The key point of difference 
is that whereas Daniel remains faithful to his ancestral religion, Vahan does not. Vahan’s 
appointment in the royal diwan is striking, although not decisive for dating purposes. As 
Legendre has shown, this term held multiple meanings, which changed over time, and it was 
already in use in the late Sasanian era.61 The Armenian evidence confirms this. It is found 
as a loan word in the mid-seventh-century Armenian History attributed to Sebēos, both in a 
provincial context—a request by an Armenian lord to move the diwan of the land of Siwnik‘ 
from Duin to the city of P‘aytakaran (before 572 CE)—and in a metropolitan context—the 
award of the “lesser commerce diwan of the country” to Smbat Bagratuni by the šahanšah in 
615 CE.62 The latter has been interpreted in various ways. For our purposes, however, the key 
observation is that in Armenian tradition, diwan was an existing term associated with state 
administration, so its use in the Martyrdom does not necessarily signal specific knowledge 
of contemporary terminology in caliphal central government. Intriguingly, many years 
later, when trying to obtain an audience with Hishām prior to his martyrdom, Vahan is 
reported to have sought the assistance of the dprapet, the head scribe, who had taught him 
in his childhood (6.5). This implies the existence of a bureaucratic hierarchy with internal 
mechanisms of training. It also presumes that careers in government administration could 
last for many years and across successive caliphates. 

60.  The significance of his new name is unclear. Vahan means “shield” in Armenian. His new name, Vahap, 
could be read as a form of the theophoric name ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, meaning “servant of the All-Giver”; Wahhāb is 
one of the ninety-nine names of Allāh and appears in two suras of the Qurʾān, in three separate verses: Q. 3:8, Q. 
38:9, 36. It seems, however, unlikely that Vahan would have been given this name and the author should omit the 
“ʿAbd al-” component. Alternatively, the new name may have been Wahb, meaning “gift.” The name is attested 
in the pre-Islamic and early Islamic periods: the Prophet’s maternal grandfather was named Wahb, and at least 
three of his companions bore this name. It does not seem that this new name held any specific significance—it 
was not used to designate converts or slaves, for instance—and so it may simply denote knowledge on the part 
of the author of an Arabic name that sounds like Vahan. The adoption of similar-sounding names by converts 
appears to have been quite common, as in the case of the leader of the Banū Tayy who, upon converting to Islam, 
changed his name by one letter from Zayd al-Khayl (“abundance of horses”) to Zayd al-Khayr (“abundance 
of goodness”). On the adoption of a new Muslim name upon conversion, see Ayman S. Ibrahim, Conversion 
to Islam: Competing Themes in Early Islamic Historiography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 165–66. 
For Zayd al-Khayr, see Ibn Hishām, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, ed. M. al-Saqqā et al., 2 vols. (Cairo: Muṣṭafā al-Bābī 
al-Ḥalabī, 1955), 2:577.

61.  Legendre, “Translation of the Dīwān,” 112–19. 
62.  Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, 67–68 and 101; repr. MH, 4:471.29 and 499.11; trans. Thomson, Sebeos, 6 and 49, 

although the second instance of diwan is not apparent in the translation, being mentioned only in n309.



47  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

According to the Martyrdom, Vahan eventually secures a meeting with Hishām thanks 
to his Islamic education. Having failed to persuade the official responsible for entrances and 
exits (6.11) to intercede on his behalf, he manages to get the chief executioner, identified 
as K‘abš, prince of Himac‘ik‘ (perhaps Qabisa of Ḥamā or Ḥimṣ), to present the caliph with 
a letter (6.14).63 When Hishām receives the letter (6.15), “he was amazed at the beautiful 
forms and the clever and suitable position of the words.” The implication is that Vahan was 
gifted in Arabic composition and calligraphy. In the late Umayyad era, therefore, letters 
could be prized for their aesthetic and calligraphic as well as their linguistic qualities.64

The Martyrdom also offers occasional insights into the wider system of Umayyad 
governance. It names the person responsible for the fires at Naxčawan and Xram as Kasm/
Qāsim.65 He is described as someone who was “faithful to Muḥammad and appointed 
hramanatar [that is, commander] of Armenia through the command of ʿAbd al-Malik” 
(2.5). Although Qāsim is not attested in Arabic narratives, the History of Łewond observes 
that he was loyal to Muḥammad b. Marwān, the first governor of the North.66 Therefore, 
“faithful to Muḥammad” indicates in this instance a political relationship, not a religious 
conviction.67 It is notable that his appointment is described as being determined by the 
caliph rather than Muḥammad b. Marwān. A later passage introduces the future caliph, 
Marwān b. Muḥammad, as simply Marwān, reporting that he was located in Mesopotamia at 
the time (6.31) and that Hishām sought reliable information about Vahan from him. Shortly 
afterward he is referred to as the “prince of the North” (7.1), reflecting his wider authority 
in the region after 732 CE. 

The most sustained coverage centers on Hishām’s court in Ruṣāfa. The presence of the 
dprapet, mentioned earlier, implies a functioning bureaucracy, and this is supported by the 
description of Hishām’s treasury. When in debate with Vahan (6.21), Hishām commands “the 
heads of the treasury to bring treasures of gold and silver and garments in silk of different 
colors. And he said to him, ‘Unfortunate and evil-loving man, take all that, and servants and 
maidservants and horses and mules and camels, and authority for you, whether here or in 
Gołt‘n, your own principality.’” The account may be formulaic, the list of movable assets 
intended to contrast with Vahan’s repudiation of the riches of this world, but it corresponds 
with the representation of Hishām in other sources as someone who was obsessed with 
material possessions.68 More surprising, perhaps, is the assertion later in the story that 
there was a chief eunuch within the palace entourage (8.4). This figure is reported to have 
come from the palace to direct the crowd of Christians who had gathered at the site of 

63.  This figure is otherwise unattested. 
64.  A. Gully, The Culture of Letter-Writing in Pre-modern Islamic Society (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University 

Press, 2008), 61.
65.  Vacca, “Fires of Naxčawan,” 340.
66.  Łewond, Patmabanut‘iwn, in MH, 6:755.13; La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 78.
67.  This phrase is not used in Armenian to define a Muslim.
68.  L. Pecorini Goodall, “‘The ʿAbbās after Whom Those Who Rule in Baghdad Are Named’: Al-ʿAbbās b. 

al-Walīd in Late Antique Accounts of the Marwānids and the Third Fitna,” Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022): 384–434, 
at 405–16.  

https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/alusur/article/view/uw30goodall
https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/alusur/article/view/uw30goodall


Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   48

Vahan’s execution but were nervous about removing the body and blood of the martyr. 
Employing eunuchs at the caliphal court is usually considered a convention introduced in 
the ʿAbbāsid era, although El-Azhari has recently challenged this view.69 This detail implies 
that eunuchs were indeed features of Umayyad-era court life. It could also be the case that 
the official was assumed to be a eunuch because there was already such a tradition in the 
imperial court in Constantinople; this interpretation would support the constructed quality 
of the representation of the court. Alternatively, it could be that nerk‘inapet retained a 
meaning equivalent to the Middle Persian (MP) ped-šabestān, master of the private/inner 
quarters. In any event, we do not find that this reference to a chief eunuch undermines the 
proposed dating.

This episode introduces an important dimension of Hishām’s Ruṣāfa for the author of 
the Martyrdom: the city’s Christian communities.70 The narrative refers to a multitude of 
Christians who follow the saint at a distance as he is being led to his place of execution 
(7.9) but who do not intervene. Further, we are told that members of the royal court were 
present at the execution and saw everything (8.1). The implication is that these were 
Christians, and two later comments confirm this impression. Theophilus, also known as 
Abu Step‘anē, is described (8.11) as being “from the royal officials, one who honored God 
and was from the Roman race.” The reference to the “Roman race” reveals his confessional 
identity as a Chalcedonian. Earlier (8.7), the Christians who collected the body and blood of 
the martyr are described as being “a multitude of men and women . . . Roman and Yakobik 
and Nestorian.” Since Yakobik and Nestorian denote distinct confessional communities, 
it follows that “Roman” does the same. The narrative comments that these communities 
were usually in conflict with one another but that in this instance they worked together to 
collect the relics and agreed that these should be buried at the burial site, “which is called 
‘for foreigners’” (8.8). Theophilus/Abu Step‘anē is also reported to have been the figure 
who greeted Artawazd and his companion after they had worshiped at the martyrium of 
Vahan and who enabled them to worship in the martyrium of Saint Sergius (9.4). He is not 
the same person as the true and God-fearing bishop who received them with love and who 
introduced them to “the wise men, those who were prominent at the royal court, those who 
were well informed about the martyrdom of the saint” (9.5–6). As discussed previously, this 
passage may be interpreted as a reference to the martyrdom of Saint Sergius rather than of 
Saint Vahan.

The Martyrdom therefore asserts that there was a significant Christian presence in Ruṣāfa 
under Hishām’s rule. Christians were present at and beyond the royal court. In addition to 
the multitude of Christians who watched Vahan’s execution and waited to recover his body 
and blood, the overseer of the construction of a new palace who fell from a high place but 
was saved thanks to the intervention of Saint Vahan was also, seemingly, a Christian, since 
he invoked Vahan as he fell (8.17). As already noted, these Christians belonged to three 
different confessional communities, presumably with their own hierarchies and places 

69.  T. El-Azhari, Queens, Eunuchs and Concubines in Islamic History, 661–1257 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh 
University Press, 2019), 69–73.

70.  On Hishām’s attitudes toward Christians, with a brief discussion of Vahan in the context of the late 730s, 
see Marsham, Umayyad Empire, 181–86 and 274–75.



49  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

of worship, since their collective action is presented as unusual. Aside from his position 
as a royal official, Theophilus/Abu Step‘anē apparently had a role in granting or securing 
access for those wishing to visit the martyrium of Saint Sergius inside the city. He is not, 
however, identified as a bishop. Intriguingly, the chronicler Theophanes, writing in Greek 
in the second decade of the ninth century but drawing on the earlier History of Theophilus, 
reports that Hishām was friendly with a Syrian monk called Stephen and allowed him to 
be elected patriarch of Antioch after a vacancy of forty years.71 Even if this person was not 
the son of Theophilus, it is noteworthy that other Christian sources, too, depict positive 
Christian interactions with Hishām.

II. Conversion and Apostasy

The Martyrdom reports that Vahan’s conversion to Islam took place at the royal court when 
he was held captive as a child. His youth is mentioned several times across the narrative 
and in different ways. Vahan is portrayed as repenting of his earlier conversion, calling it 
“childish ignorance” (5.5, 5.36, and 5.49). Hishām, too, reflects on Vahan’s childhood (7.2), 
but from the opposite point of view, interpreting his upbringing as the opportunity for 
Vahan to receive the “truth” from learned scholars (7.2). Although Vahan—and thus the 
author—challenges the legitimacy of his conversion to Islam on the grounds of his young 
age, Hishām is portrayed as deeming it effective and genuine. Vahan’s status as a slave 
attracts less comment (3.7, 4.4, and 4.8), but it is only if we accept that he was still a slave 
at the accession of ʿUmar II that the subsequent actions of the caliph reported in the text 
(4.4–5.2) become meaningful. 

According to the Martyrdom, “God inspired [ʿUmar’s] heart to remember the iniquity 
that [had been perpetrated] against the Armenians” (4.4). Since the next sentence reports 
that the captives were assembled and then dispatched, presumably back to Armenia, the 
“iniquity” can refer only to their capture and transportation south into northern Syria 
fifteen years or so earlier. What to do with Vahan, however, poses a dilemma for the caliph, 
because Vahan is such a gifted individual (4.5), “well instructed in their knowledge and 
law and clever and skillful in speech.” He is depicted as unequaled in wisdom, echoing the 
superior abilities displayed by the Old Testament prophet Daniel. ʿ Umar rejects the testimony 
of unspecified witnesses from Armenia (4.6), but further inquiries in Mesopotamia turn up 
fifteen Arabs who are acquainted with Vahan (4.8–9), and their evidence proves decisive. 
Although unstated, it seems that this testimony centers on proving who Vahan is, where 
he has come from, and under what circumstances he became a slave. ʿUmar offers Vahan 
worldly riches and high status to induce him to stay, but Vahan, while acknowledging all 
that he has received from ʿUmar, nevertheless asks to be released to go back to his ancestral 
home, which he would administer at ʿUmar’s command. This part of the account resonates 
with the story of the great-grandfather of the Isfahan-based scholar Muḥammad b. ʿIṣām 
b. Yazīd b. ʿAjlān, who was captured in Daylam and taken to Kūfa, where he converted to 
Islam; he was at some point freed and eventually returned to his estate.72 

71.  Theophanes, Chronographia, 1:416; trans. and comm. Mango and Scott, Theophanes Confessor, 577. The 
implication is that he was the Melkite/Chalcedonian patriarch, since Theophilus was “Roman.”

72.  R. W. Bulliet, “Conversion Stories in Early Islam,” in Conversion and Continuity: Indigenous Christian 



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   50

Several elements of this story merit comment. According to the Martyrdom, Vahan’s 
conversion to Islam was not accompanied by automatic manumission. He was still a slave 
when ʿUmar II became caliph and reportedly decided to free all the Armenian captives. 
This group included members of the military elite, who were kept at the royal court in 
Damascus; their sons, however, had been set to study (3.7). Everyone else went into captivity 
in locations and circumstances unknown, although the reference to ʿUmar commissioning 
a specific investigation in Mesopotamia (4.8) implies that this was where the majority 
had ended up. The author indicates that those who sought manumission had to prove 
who they were and that there was a difference in probative value between the testimony 
of Armenians (presumably Christians) and Arabs (presumably Muslims). Furthermore, 
ʿUmar’s manumission of Vahan may have created between them a relationship of clientage, 
walāʾ, in which Vahan became a client, mawlā, of ʿUmar. As Sijpesteijn, among others, has 
noted, in the early eighth century, many of the non-Muslim administrators disappeared and 
“whenever the names of new heads of the diwan are mentioned, they invariably are also 
mawālī.”73 In this respect, it is striking to note how Vahan defines his relationship to ʿUmar 
(4.11). He situates his service to and reward from the caliph in the context of the military 
service of his ancestors to the Persians—that is, the Sasanian šahanšahs. This framing 
attests the persistence of memories about Armenians participating in the world of Sasanian 
Iran a century after its collapse, and it correlates with repeated claims in Sasanian-era 
Armenian sources that they did so.74 The significance of the passage for our purposes lies 
in its connection of the past and present experiences of Armenians working within the 
institutions of a hegemonic power. Vahan is represented serving ʿUmar like his ancestors 
had served the šahanšahs.

At ʿUmar’s death, Vahan repudiates the terms of his appointment and refuses to return 
to “Arabia,” to be understood broadly as “the land of the Arabs” (5.5). It is at this time that 
he apostatizes, regretting his childhood conversion and experiencing a second baptism 
through his own tears. Both his conversion to Islam and his later apostasy fit well with 
Sahner’s notion of “cultural dislocation”: just as “a young Christian was likely to abandon 
his or her religion in captivity among Muslims, a slave could also lose his or her adopted 
Islamic faith by returning to an old Christian world.”75 In other words, Vahan’s move from 
Damascus to Gołt‘n precipitates the shift in his spiritual allegiance. Yet it is also worth noting 
that Vahan apostatizes only after the death of ʿUmar, his patron, and not upon arriving back 

Communities in Islamic Lands, Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries, ed. M. Gervers and R. J. Bikhazi, 123–33 (Toronto: 
Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1990), 126.

73.  P. M. Sijpesteijn, “Loyal and Knowledgeable Supporters: Integrating Egyptian Elites in Early Islamic 
Egypt,” in Empires and Communities in the Post-Roman and Islamic World, c. 400–1000 CE, ed. R. Kramer and W. 
Pohl, 329–59 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 343.

74.  T. W. Greenwood, “Adontz, Armenia and Iran in Late Antiquity,” in “Mélanges James Howard-Johnston,” 
Travaux et mémoires 26 (2022): 59–81, at 71–77. 

75.  C. Sahner, Christian Martyrs under Islam: Religious Violence and the Making of the Muslim World 
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018), 43–44. Sahner offers a brief account of Vahan’s life at 41–44. 



51  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

in his ancestral lands. The narrative represents a personal connection between Vahan and 
ʿUmar, which dissolves upon the death of one of the parties. This may challenge the general 
presumption that a walāʾ relationship did not terminate in such circumstances.76

The themes of conversion and apostasy feature strongly throughout the narrative. Some 
of the most significant discussion appears in the dialogue between Vahan and Hishām. Even 
though these conversations reflect the perceptions of the author rather than transcripts 
of what was said, they still possess great value, as they articulate Armenian knowledge of 
Islam in the middle of the eighth century. Hishām highlights the riches and power given 
to the Muslims by “our Prophet” as proof of the truth of Islamic belief, but he also refers to 
“the pleasure of the garden that has been prepared”—that is, paradise (6.22). A similar line 
of argument can be found in the words of the royal advisers who come and sit next to Vahan 
before his audience with Hishām (6.2): “Take for yourself your splendor and remember our 
Messenger, who gave the greatness of this world to us and keeps for us the pleasure of the 
garden that has been prepared.” Theological truth is thus connected to material wealth in 
this world and paradise in the next.77 

Vahan’s response is also instructive. In part it follows conventional lines of argument, 
stressing the humility and poverty of Jesus and his emulation of these traits. Vahan also 
maintains that he is fortified by knowledge of the Holy Books and the defense provided 
by the teachings of Christ, asserting (6.24) that he is “well trained and more learned than 
you in your erroneous fables.” This debate over textual authority has an Armenian spin to 
it, since the disparaging comment “erroneous fables” echoes the language employed by 
Movsēs Xorenac‘i to describe materials he has rejected as unhistorical.78 More intriguingly, 
the narrative reports (6.34) that “the tyrant did not stop sending teachers of their religion to 
him in prison for the purpose of discussion in order to overcome him by some books.” This 
attempt to persuade Vahan to recant corresponds to the legal notion of istitāba, a period, 
typically of imprisonment, in which the apostate is asked to repent. Although three days 
was later established as the length of this period, at this time there was no consensus as to 
its duration or even as to whether it was required.79 This passage implies awareness of this 
practice. A further implication is that theological debate between Muslims and Christians 
involved the use of written materials. Once again, however, we need to remember that 
this is the representation of an Armenian scholar. It may reflect the author’s experience of 
theological disputation, which could just as easily have been conducted between different 
Christian groups.

76.  A. J. Wensinck and P. Crone, “Mawlā,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., ed. P. J. Bearman et al. (Leiden: 
Brill Online, 2012). For an up-to-date discussion of the status of mawālī in the Umayyad Empire, see Marsham, 
Umayyad Empire, 169–70.

77.  For further discussion, see P. Crone, The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt and Local 
Zoroastrianism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 14; and Sahner, Christian Martyrs, 34–35.

78.  jerum aṙaspelakan molorut‘eand. Movsēs Xorenac‘i uses aṙaspel (and occasionally the verb aṙaspelabanel) 
for fables that are not to be taken literally because, according to Movsēs, they are exaggerated, nonsensical, 
false, or even obscene: R. W. Thomson, Moses Khorenats‘i: History of the Armenians (Cambridge, MA: Harvard 
University Press, 1978), 10. 

79.  J. Kraemer, “Apostates, Rebels and Brigands,” Israel Oriental Studies 10 (1980): 34–73, at 41.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   52

Vahan also makes pejorative comments about the Prophet Muḥammad (6.25), asserting 
that he is the corrupter-in-chief and a false prophet and that he “is dead, and his bones and 
tomb are next to you.” Whereas the first two charges could be considered conventional 
expressions of hostility, the latter is a novel claim, given the traditional association of the 
Prophet’s tomb with Medina. Hishām built a mosque in Ruṣāfa adjacent to the martyrium 
of Saint Sergius.80 One interpretation of this statement, therefore, is that it reflects a belief 
that just as the martyrium contained the relics of Saint Sergius, this mosque contained 
the relics of the Prophet Muḥammad. Vahan also gives the Prophet three names that are 
purportedly in contemporary use among Muslims (6.25): draxtapet, head of the garden/
paradise; tesanoł, seer (the one who sees or watches); and banber, messenger. Although 
the third (Ar. rasūl) is ubiquitous, the association made in the first appellation between the 
Prophet and paradise is extremely rare, if not unique. 

The Martyrdom thus contains a rich body of evidence about contemporary Armenian 
experiences of and attitudes toward childhood conversion to Islam and apostasy. It offers 
fresh perspectives on slavery, manumission, and mawālī. It also provides valuable insights 
into perceptions of Islamic belief, its challenge to Christian tradition, and Christian reactions 
to it.

III. Perceptions of Armenia

As is evident from the preceding discussion, the Martyrdom situates Armenia from about 
700 CE onward firmly within the world of the Umayyad caliphate. Armenians are presented 
as interacting with Arab Muslims in Armenia, Damascus, and Ruṣāfa as well as with fellow 
Christians in Edessa, Callinicum, and Ruṣāfa. The Eastern Roman Empire, by contrast, 
seems remote and distant. We shall examine these and other Armenian experiences in the 
following sections. Before doing so, however, it is worth noting that the Martyrdom offers 
two intriguing perceptions of Armenia. When debating with Vahan, Hishām comments on 
his appearance (6.15): “Why, Vahap, do you show yourself dressed as a poor man, contrary to 
your magnificence? So then, has the land of Armenia reduced you to that?” The implication 
is that Armenia is a poor land, at least in comparison with other territories in the caliphate, 
and liable to reduce those sent there to indigence and penury.81 Shortly afterward, Hishām 

80.  Fowden, Barbarian Plain, 175–82.
81.  Intriguingly, some ʿAbbāsid-era writers portray Armenia as rich, fertile, and productive. By way of 

illustration, see Ibn Ḥawqal, Kitāb Ṣūrat al-arḍ, ed. M. J. de Goeje and J. H. Kramers (Leiden: Brill, 1938), 331–55, 
at 347–48; trans. J. H. Kramers and G. Wiet, Configuration de la terre, 2 vols. (Beirut: Commission internationale 
pour la traduction des chefs-d’oeuvre, 1964), 2:325–48, at 341. Ibn al-Faqīh al-Hamadhānī notes that the Arabic 
historiographer al-Yaʿqūbī, who was thoroughly familiar with Armenia, knew no land richer in plants and other 
goods: Ibn al-Faqīh, Kitāb al-Buldān, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden: Brill, 1885), 290–91; trans. in J. Laurent, L’Arménie 
entre Byzance et l’Islam depuis la conquête arabe jusqu’en 886, ed. M. Canard (Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian 
Foundation, 1980), 506. Al-Iṣṭakhrī remarks on the low prices in Armenia, Albania, and Azerbaijan, singling 
out honey and sheep and noting the latter sometimes cost not even two dirhams. More generally, he states 
that there was such an abundance of goods in these lands that one would not believe it without having seen it: 
al-Iṣṭakhrī, Kitāb al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden: Brill, 1927; repr. Beirut: Dar Ṣādir, n.d.), 
190–91; trans. in Laurent, L’Arménie, 516. Vacca, in Non-Muslim Provinces, 20, notes that the author of a tenth-
century Persian geographical treatise, Ḥudūd al-ʿālam, describes Armenia, Albania, and Azerbaijan as “the most 



53  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

notes (6.17): “The evil demons of the ice-covered mountains of Armenia have surrounded 
you and deceived you to speak in this useless manner.” Here the caliph is represented as 
knowing not only that Armenia’s topography features snow-capped mountains but also that 
the land is inhabited by evil demons. Given that the text was composed by an Armenian 
author, the overwhelmingly negative impression it conveys of Armenia—poor, mountainous, 
and demon-possessed—is striking. Vacca has suggested, however, that this representation, 
rather than reflecting contemporary non-Armenian attitudes toward Armenia, coheres 
with descriptions of the northern quarter of Ērānšahr found in Middle Persian texts.82 Rapp 
has argued that Avestan tradition “imagined the North as the dominion of dark and cold, 
the abode of demons,” and he identifies clear resonances in Armenian literature.83 The 
History of Agat‘angełos likewise depicts the northern regions as mountainous and occupied 
by demons (expelled from the temple of Anahit at Artašat by Saint Grigor), and Movsēs 
Xorenac‘i situates the domain of Hayk, the progenitor of the Armenian people, in the 
northern region and in the icy cold.84 Such associations were therefore known in Armenian 
tradition, but the Martyrdom appears to be the first Armenian work to bring together all 
of these characteristics. Vacca has proposed that putting Avestan-inspired logic into the 
mouth of the caliph enabled the author to represent Hishām as a “neo-shāhanshāh.” We 
cannot know to what extent this connotation would have been recognized by an Armenian 
audience, but the caliph’s disdain for Armenia would have been obvious to everyone. 

The Martyrdom therefore establishes Armenia as both integrated into the wider Islamic 
world—Vahap is sent to govern it for ʿUmar II—and different from that world, distinct and 
distant in terms of wealth, topography, and religious culture, belonging and not belonging 
at the same time. The ambiguity of Armenia’s relationship with Sasanian Iran, captured by 
Garsoïan, continued to frame its relationship with the Umayyad world.85 

The Representation of Late Umayyad Armenia

Accepting a date of 744 CE for the composition of the Martyrdom has a transformative 
effect not only on our understanding of the late Umayyad world but also on our knowledge 
of Armenia in the first half of the eighth century. With notable exceptions, scholars working 
on the history of Armenia in this period have tended to focus their research on the History 

pleasant places in dār-i Islām.”
82.  This interpretation, with supporting references, was proposed by Professor Vacca in a personal email 

dated March 12, 2024. The authors acknowledge her insightful suggestions with grateful thanks.
83.  S. H. Rapp, The Sasanian World through Georgian Eyes (London: Routledge, 2014), 131. 
84.  Agat‘angełos, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, §780; repr. MH, 2:1676.10 (i bnakič‘s lerinn Kawkasu, i kołmans 

hiwsisoy); trans. Thomson, Lives of Saint Gregory, 375. Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, ed. M. Abełean 
and S. Yarut‘iwnean (Tbilisi: Aragatip Mnac‘akan Martiroseanc‘, 1913; repr. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1981; 
rev. ed. [with collations by A. B. Sargsean], Erevan: Haykakan XSH GA Hratarakč‘ut‘iwn, 1991), 1:11; repr. in 
Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 5 Dar, 2:1737–2121 (Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2003), 1777.2–3 (i kołman 
hiwsisoy . . . i mēǰ c‘rtut‘ean saṙnamaneac‘); trans. Thomson, Moses, 83.

85.  N. G. Garsoïan, “The Locus of the Death of Kings: Iranian Armenia—The Inverted Image,” in The Armenian 
Image in History and Literature, ed. R. G. Hovannisian, 27–64 (Malibu, CA: Undena, 1981); repr. in N. G. Garsoïan, 
Armenia between Byzantium and the Sasanians (London: Ashgate, 1985), no. XI.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   54

of Łewond and later Armenian compositions, sometimes in conjunction with Islamic and 
Byzantine literary sources as well as numismatic and epigraphic evidence.86 Whether written 
in Armenian, Arabic, or Greek, these textual materials present a common challenge: the 
significant distance between the events recorded and the date of composition. As a result, 
historians have relied heavily on ʿAbbāsid-era works in order to reconstruct the historical 
circumstances of Umayyad-era Armenia. The Martyrdom provides fresh insights into this 
world, insights that have not been shaped by later concerns or attitudes. After establishing 
its literary context, we shall examine its representation of late Umayyad Armenia under 
three headings: networks and mobility, resistance and participation, and the lordship of 
Gołt‘n. Again, we anticipate that there are further dimensions to this work that other 
scholars will identify as significant. Our intention, once more, is to give an impression of the 
work’s potential rather than a comprehensive analysis of it.

I. The Literary Context

Up to now, we have presented the Martyrdom as an exceptional composition of outstanding 
value for studying the wider late Umayyad world and Armenian experiences within it. We do 
not wish to undermine this thesis in any way. Nevertheless, the Martyrdom did not emerge 
from a literary vacuum. In this section we shall reflect briefly on the wider contexts within 
which the Martyrdom was composed, exploring its literary and intellectual backgrounds.

Like many works of Armenian literature, the Martyrdom is reticent when it comes to 
defining the specific circumstances of its composition and the literature that shaped it. 
We can, however, be confident about three of its dimensions. First, most of the medieval 
Armenian scholars whose works have survived envisaged their work as having a moral 
purpose, recording the operation of God’s providence in the world and the actions of 
Armenians, individually and collectively, as instruments of His divine plan. As a result, 
Armenian compositions with historical dimensions tend to shape their understanding of 
the past around biblical schemas, using scriptural imagery to depict, and hence affirm the 
truth of, their narratives.87 The Martyrdom describes the fires of Naxčawan and Xram (2.8) 
in terms that correspond to the account of the Three Hebrew Children in Daniel 3. However, 
the urgent statements and commands addressed to the land and people of Armenia are 
based on prophetic verses in the books of Ezekiel, Lamentations, and Jeremiah (1.1–8 and 
3.11–14). These record the violence and bloodshed that Armenia has experienced at the 
hands of the people of Ishmael, who are described as bringing about the eclipse of the noble 
elite. Unusually, the appropriation of biblical prophecy to depict the Armenian experience 
is explicitly acknowledged (1.3): “The prophecy was really in respect of Israel, but the voice 
directs it towards us as well; just as Jerusalem was demolished to its foundations, so this 
whole country of ours has been demolished and ruined.” 

86.  See, for example, Laurent, L’Arménie, 400–408. For notable exceptions, including Ter-Łevondyan, 
Ter-Davt‘yan, Shahinyan (in Russian), and Jinbashian (in English), see above, note 3.

87.  For an overview, see J.-P. Mahé, “Entre Moïse et Mahomet: Réflexions sur l’historiographie arménienne,” 
Revue des études arméniennes 23 (1992): 121–53; for a specific use, see R. W. Thomson, “The Maccabees in Early 
Armenian Historiography,” Journal of Theological Studies 26, no. 2 (1975): 329–41. 



55  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

Second, although the Martyrdom may be reticent about its literary context, it is not 
silent. It refers directly (1.9) to two Armenian prophetic works, the Vision of Saint Sahak 
and the Vision of Saint Grigor, preserved, respectively, in the History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i, 
composed around 500 CE, and the History of Agat‘angełos, whose earliest witness was 
compiled in about 470 CE.88 One of the sentences in Sahak’s Vision, interpreting “the 
covering of thick dark cloth” as “a representation of the heavy mourning that the whole 
country will experience,” corresponds both in content and in language to a sentence in the 
Martyrdom (1.8): “the thick darkness of the cloth was revealed, the dark thickness of this 
terrible blackness that shall take possession of all the countries of this land of Armenia.”89 
There is, however, no obvious textual correlation with Grigor’s Vision, at least in the form 
in which it has been preserved, despite its explicit mention. These references indicate that 
the author of the lament was aware of earlier prophetic works in the Armenian literary 
tradition and cited them to legitimize his own approach.

Lastly, the Martyrdom can be situated in the context of contemporary and historic 
martyrological writings. Peeters has suggested that the Martyrdom was directly connected 
to the Passion of Peter of Capitolias, which records his life and execution in Transjordan 
in 715 CE at the command of the caliph al-Walīd.90 There are clearly similarities between 
the two accounts: both saints are interrogated by the ruling Umayyad caliph; both saints 
articulate a range of reasons for why many had been seduced from the truth of the Christian 
faith and had converted to Islam, some of which overlap; both saints speak with boldness or 
audacity; both are suspected of delirium; and both are martyred in public before a crowd 
of Christians. However, we consider a direct intertextual relationship unlikely.91 Instead, 
we prefer to interpret the correspondences between the two works as evidence of similar 
contexts of production and modes of representation. Sahner has observed that al-Walīd 
objected not to Peter’s holding different religious views but to his public disparaging of 
Islam and undermining of Muslim dogma.92 The Martyrdom reveals the same anxiety. 
Hishām rebukes Vahan (7.5) for constituting “a bad example for us” and points out that “you 
have pronounced your words in public and broadcast them into the hearing of everyone, 
reducing ours to falseness.” It has been argued that the Passion was probably composed 
in Greek within a Greek-speaking Chalcedonian community in Transjordan or Palestine 
within a few years of Peter’s death, although it is only preserved in a Georgian translation. 
The numerous points of resonance between the two texts support the contention that both 
were composed in the late Umayyad era.

88.  See above, note 8.
89.  Łazar, Patmut‘iwn, §17 in MH, 2:2231.52–3: . . . zcp‘umn alēkocut‘ean ašxarhis Hayoc‘: K‘anzi ew t‘xagoyn 

t‘anjr ktawoc‘n cackumn, zōrinak berē zt‘anjramac sgoyn, or uneloc‘ ē zašxarhs amenayn; Martyrdom 1.8: ew 
yaytnec‘aw t‘xut‘iwn t‘anjrut‘ean ktawoyn. xawaramac t‘anjrut‘iwn anhnarin sewut‘eans goyn, or uneloc‘ ēr 
zamenayn ašxarhs Hayastan erkris. 

90.  P. Peeters, “La passion de S. Pierre de Capitolias († 13 janvier 715),” Analecta Bollandiana 57 (1939): 
299–333, at 330–33.

91.  S. J. Shoemaker, Three Christian Martyrdoms from Early Islamic Palestine: Passion of Peter of Capitolias, 
Passion of the Twenty Martyrs of Mar Saba, Passion of Romanus the New-Martyr (Provo, UT: Brigham Young 
University Press, 2016), 1–65; Sahner, Christian Martyrs, 130–40.

92.  Sahner, Christian Martyrs, 139.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   56

The Passion of Peter of Capitolias is not the only contemporary work with which the 
Martyrdom may be compared. In his Narrationes, composed around 690 CE, Anastasius of 
Sinai records the life and martyrdom of George the Black, which probably took place in or 
near Damascus in the later seventh century.93 George was born into a Christian family, was 
taken captive as a child, converted to Islam at the age of eight, apostatized as an adult, and 
worshiped in secret until betrayed by a fellow slave, a “Christ-hating apostate,” after which 
he was killed by his owner. The sequence of captivity, coercion, and conversion as a child 
followed by apostasy as an adult is paralleled in the Martyrdom, although the contexts are 
different.

The Armenian Passion of David of Duin supplies a different set of correspondences and 
distinctions. It depicts the conversion to Christianity of a soldier variously described as 
either Arab (tačik) or Persian (parsik) who arrived in Armenia while Hamazasp Mamikonean, 
curopalates, was the leading prince—seemingly, therefore, at some point between 655 and 
661 CE. He converted and was baptized by Catholicos Anastas while Grigor Mamikonean held 
sway—so between 661 and 668 CE—and then was martyred by crucifixion in the final years of 
ʿAbd al-Malik’s reign.94 Unlike Vahan, an Armenian who was martyred and commemorated 
outside Armenia at a newly constructed martyrium outside the walls of Ruṣāfa, David is 
represented as a foreigner who was martyred and commemorated inside Armenia at an 
existing martyrium in the city of Duin that was also dedicated to a foreigner: Yizitbuzit/
Yazdbōzid, a Persian. This is not to suggest that Vahan was intentionally constructed as the 
antithesis of David. We simply note that as in other traditions, martyrologies in Armenian 
overlap and diverge in multiple ways and invite close comparative analysis with one 
another. Marsham argues that these two martyrdoms reflect the unique nature of the North 
within the caliphate as a region that saw the “continued dominance of Christianity.”95

The Martyrdom also needs to be situated in the broader context of late antique 
martyrological compositions. A compelling case may be made for an interaction of some 
kind between the Martyrdom and the traditions surrounding Saints Sergius and Bacchus. In 
addition to the association with Ruṣāfa, the narratives include dialogue with the respective 
head of state (Maximian/Hishām) who is called a “tyrant,” bṙnawor.96 Two specific details 
bring the traditions into a proximate relationship. After Vahan’s execution, the Martyrdom 
reports (8.3) that dogs gathered around his body in a circle and guarded it overnight; when 
morning came, however, they returned to their savage state, started biting one another, 
and fled. Both the Greek Passio and its Armenian translation report that the dux Antiochus 
ordered that the body of Bacchus should not be buried but thrown outside the fort of 

93.  Ibid., 40–41. 
94.  For the text, see above, note 56; for the centrality of leading elites to the narrative, see below, note 107.
95.  Marsham, Umayyad Empire, 286.
96.  Martyrdom 6.15, 6.17, 6.28, and 6.34; “Vkayabanut‘iwn srboyn Sargsi ew Bagosi,” 273. Heightening the 

drama by including a dialogue between a head of state or senior official and the martyr was a well-established and 
common narrative element, which ultimately derives from the second-century martyr Polycarp’s interrogation 
before a Roman proconsul and may be traced back yet further to the biblical narrative of Christ before Pilate: G. 
Buschmann, Das Martyrium des Polykarp (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998); John, 18:28–40. 



57  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

Barbalisus for dogs, wild animals, and birds to eat.97 Although a multitude of wild animals 
gathered around the body, the birds did not allow the animals to approach the saint’s 
remains and kept guard throughout the night until morning. The tradition is therefore 
associated with Bacchus, not Sergius, and it is the birds that prevent the wild animals from 
approaching the martyr’s body, not the dogs who guard the corpse overnight. Turning to 
Sergius, the Greek Passio records that when he was led away to be executed, a large crowd 
of men, women, and children followed him, and the wild animals of the region gathered 
together with the people and did not attack them, instead lamenting with inarticulate 
sounds the passing of the martyr.98 This detail is not found in the Armenian translation, 
which refers only to the multitude of people.99 Sergius’s final prayer, which opens by 
noting that the beasts of the field and the birds of the air recognize God’s authority and 
lordship, is common to both the Greek and Armenian versions but does not feature in the 
Martyrdom.100 The second detail relates to the blood of Sergius. The Greek Passio and the 
Armenian translation report that the place that received the blood of the martyr became a 
great chasm, as God intended.101 This frightened the pagans, who did not dare to approach 
or tread on the site. The Martyrdom records (8.1) that Vahan’s blood collected in one place 
and that (8.6) “a multitude of Christians assembled and collected the glorious blood of the 
martyr, and digging the earth, they made a trench.” Although there are no specific lexical 
correspondences, there is a common interest in the blood of the martyr and its miraculous 
collection in one place. The Martyrdom is related to the Sergius and Bacchus cycle of 
traditions, even if we are not able to establish the precise nature of that relationship nor 
how it came about.

The Martyrdom therefore sits comfortably in the context of contemporary and historic 
martyrological compositions preserved in Greek and Armenian. By contrast, its ties to 
extant Armenian historiographical works appear more distant. Although the linguistic 
correspondence with the History attributed to Sebēos in defining Arab Muslims as people 
of the South is significant, there is no direct connection between the two compositions. 
Furthermore, in displaying knowledge of the sequence of caliphs, their years in power, 
and their personal qualities, the Martyrdom resonates with the History of Łewond, which 
is structured around similar—although not identical—knowledge.102 Both histories also 
use scriptural prophecies to construct their narratives and interpret their times, but they 
do so on their own terms. Whereas the prophetic message of Sebēos is one of impending 
apocalypse, structured around the four beasts/kingdoms of Daniel 7, Łewond’s History 
interprets the Arab Muslim conquests as well as the Second and Third Fitnas as the 

97.  Van den Gheyn, “Passio antiquior SS. Sergii et Bacchi,” 389; “Vkayabanut‘iwn srboyn Sargsi ew Bagosi,” 
273.

98.  Van den Gheyn, “Passio antiquior SS. Sergii et Bacchi,” 393.
99.  “Vkayabanut‘iwn srboyn Sargsi ew Bagosi,” 277.
100.  Van den Gheyn, “Passio antiquior SS. Sergii et Bacchi,” 393–94; “Vkayabanut‘iwn srboyn Sargsi ew 

Bagosi,” 277–78. 
101.  Van den Gheyn, “Passio antiquior SS. Sergii et Bacchi,” 394; “Vkayabanut‘iwn srboyn Sargsi ew Bagosi,” 

278.
102.  Greenwood, “Reassessment of Łewond,” 121–30; Pecorini Goodall, “ʿAbbās,” 400, 413–16.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   58

fulfillment of scriptural prophecies.103 Łewond also looks forward to future liberation from 
Islamic rule.104 The Martyrdom does neither of these, instead invoking the prophetic mode 
to depict and inspire spiritual heroism, collectively and individually. We are consequently 
cautious about situating the Martyrdom in the context of these histories. They are both 
much longer works, with their own purposes, and date from eight decades before and 
several decades after the Martyrdom, respectively. In our view, the Martyrdom cannot be 
seen simply as a narrative bridge between them. 

One other difference stands out. When depicting Armenian affairs, both of the historical 
compositions tend to focus on the lives and conduct of members of the two leading princely 
houses, the Mamikoneans and the Bagratunis, as well as the behavior of individual catholicoi 
of Armenia. Other lay and clerical figures also appear, but members from one or the other 
of these houses are usually at the heart of the drama. The Martyrdom takes a completely 
different approach. It does not mention any member of either family by name. The closest 
it gets is when it reports that an anonymous prince and commander of Armenia, acting 
in concert with an anonymous catholicos, was frightened by a demon (5.18–19) and drove 
Vahan away, telling him: “Leave, go away, lest it become ruinous for us and anyone.” This 
is almost certainly a reference to the prince of Armenia, a title used by both Roman and 
Muslim authorities to designate their principal client, through whom they engaged with 
the Armenian elite.105 Several eighth-century catholicoi are also depicted interacting with 
caliphs or their representatives.106 It is, however, extremely rare, if not unprecedented, to 
find them represented as acting in concert against the interests of a Christian Armenian 
lord and future martyr, as here. The figures are anonymous but may be identified as the 
contemporary holders of these roles: Ašot III Bagratuni, prince of Armenia from 726 or 732 
to 748 CE, and Catholicos David I of Aramonk‘ in Kotayk‘ (incumbent ca. 728–41). Little is 
known about Ašot and almost nothing about David. Their specific anxieties are not defined, 
but the implication seems to be that they were both concerned about the consequences 
for themselves if Vahan were to carry out his plan of traveling westward to the city of 
Constantinople. In this episode, therefore, the Martyrdom depicts members of the Armenian 
elite pitted against one another, with the prince and the catholicos apparently acting in the 
interests of the caliph, and Vahan following his own path, which involved rejecting service 
to the caliph.107

103.  On Sebēos, see T. W. Greenwood, “Sasanian Echoes and Apocalyptic Expectations: A Re-evaluation of the 
Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos,” Le Muséon 115, no. 3–4 (2002): 323–97, at 375–88; S. La Porta, “The Sense 
of an Ending: Eschatological Prophecy and the Armenian Historiographical Tradition (7th–10th Centuries),” Le 
Muséon 129, no. 3–4 (2016): 363–93, at 364–72. On Łewond, see Greenwood, “Reassessment of Łewond,” 136, 146.

104.  Greenwood, “Reassessment of Łewond,” 112.
105.  A. Ter-Łevondyan, “Hayoc‘ išxaně arabakan tirapetut‘yan žamanakašrǰanum,” Patma-banasirakan 

Handes 2 (1964): 121–34; trans. as “Le ‘Prince d’Arménie’ à l’époque de la domination arabe,” Revue des études 
arméniennes 3 (1966): 185–200.

106.  For Sahak III in ca. 703 CE and Yovhannēs IV Ōjnec‘i, see Vacca, Non-Muslim Provinces, 170 and 183–84; 
for the sequence, see J.-P. Mahé, “L’Église arménienne de 611 à 1066,” in Histoire du Christianisme des origines 
à nos jours, vol. 4, Evêques, moines et empereurs (610–1054), ed. G. Dagron, P. Riché, and A. Vauchez, 457–547 
(Paris: Desclée, 1993), 476–89.

107.  The Passion of David of Duin (see above, note 56) offers an interesting counterpoint. This work has 



59  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

Finally, we note that the Martyrdom was composed during a time of lively Armenian 
intellectual production. A range of theological and liturgical works associated with several 
figures have been preserved, and although some of these have received recognition and 
attention from modern scholars, many others have not. By way of illustration, Yovhannēs 
Ōjnec‘i is best known in his role as catholicos (718–28 CE) for convening the Council of 
Manazkert in 726 CE, but he is also credited with a large number of writings, including 
the long treatises Ěnddēm Pōłikeanc‘ (Against the Paulicians) and Ěnddēm Erewut‘akanac‘ 
(Against the Phantasiasts [that is, aphthartodocetists]).108 As already noted, Sołomon of 
Mak‘enoc‘ and Xosrovik t‘argmanič‘ both attended the Council of Manazkert, and four 
little-studied dogmatic texts are associated with the latter.109 The writings of Step‘anos 
Siwnec‘i (d. 735 CE) are better known, and Dorfmann-Lazarev has recently offered a helpful 
comparative analysis of the writings of Yovhannēs, Xosrovik, and Step‘anos in relation 
to the contentious subject of Christ’s incorruptibility, highlighting points of similarity 
and difference.110 He sees Step‘anos as reacting directly to Yovhannēs’s interpretation 
and finds a difference of emphasis between Xosrovik and Step‘anos, on the one hand, 
and Yovhannēs, on the other, on the question whether human limitations are evidence 
of corruption.111 Therefore, although no narrative Armenian histories have survived from 
the first half of the eighth century, we find a wealth of other materials that collectively 
speak to the diversity of theological interpretations in Armenia at this time. Remarkably, 
the author of the Martyrdom shows little interest in situating his narrative in this context. 
Instead, through its hostile construction of the anonymous prince acting in concert with the 
equally anonymous catholicos, the Martyrdom attests a range of attitudes and responses to 
Umayyad governance. The political context seems to have held greater significance for the 
author.

an evident Mamikonean dimension. Named princes and catholicoi play important roles in the narrative and 
define its chronology. David was by origin the son of a Persian prince and thus already of high social standing 
at the time of his arrival in Armenia. As noted earlier, he was reportedly baptized by Catholicos Anastas, and 
Grigor Mamikonean served as his godfather. David obtained the estate of Jag, Kotayk‘, but is said to have resided 
in the nearby capital, Duin. After his death, his relics were collected and his cult fostered by members of the 
Mamikonean and Amatuni families. His credentials as an embedded member of the Armenian nobility are thus 
repeatedly stressed in his martyrology. Whereas Vahan appears as a somewhat liminal member of a fragmented 
constellation of nobles, David is presented as part of a coherent inner circle. 

108.  These have been assembled and republished under Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i, ed. Y. K‘ēosēan, in Matenagirk‘ 
Hayoc‘ 8 Dar, 7:21–707 (Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2007): Ěnddēm Pōłikeanc‘ at 37–44, and 
Ěnddēm Erewut‘akanac‘ at 45–66. 

109.  These, too, have been collected, but in the previous volume: Xosrovik t‘argmanič‘, Astuacabanakan 
vastakě, ed. Y. K‘ēosēan, in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 8 Dar, 6:627–708 (Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 
2007). 

110.  Step‘anos Siwnec‘i, Matenagrakan žaṙangit‘iwnĕ, ed. Y. K‘ēosēan, in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 8 Dar, 6:105–597 
(Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2007); see especially his Reply to Germanus, 521–42. See I. 
Dorfman-Lazarev, “Travels and Studies of Stephen of Siwnik‛ (c. 685–735): Redefining Armenian Orthodoxy 
under Islamic Rule,” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 68, no. 3–4 (2016): 255–92, especially 278–91.

111.  Dorfman-Lazarev, “Stephen of Siwnik‛,” 289–90.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   60

II. Networks and Mobility

The world of Umayyad-era Armenia as represented in the Martyrdom is constructed around 
political, social, and religious networks. It is also characterized by various forms of mobility 
within and between these networks. Vahan is the most mobile figure within this world, 
moving across space and time but also across confessional and kinship boundaries. He is 
not, however, the only figure to do so. Muḥammad b. Marwān (2.5), Marwān b. Muḥammad 
(6.31, 7.1), and Artawazd/Abraham likewise pass into and out of Armenian space (9.2), in 
different contexts and for different purposes. Furthermore, the narrative depicts networks 
with which Vahan is only distantly connected. By way of illustration, we learn of a rumor 
that merchants stole his body from Ruṣāfa and traveled through the region of Baʿalbek to 
the land of the Palestinians (8.13). The rumor turns out to be false, but that is less significant 
than is its underlying premise of a commercial network between these geographically 
distant locations within the Umayyad caliphate, probably involving Christian merchants, 
since non-Christians would not have appreciated the value of Vahan’s body.112 

Let us start with geography. The Martyrdom has a wide geographical scope, comprising 
principally Armenia and the lands and cities under Umayyad hegemony to the south. It 
also projects an adjacent but distant Roman Empire located to the northwest and accessible 
through Virk‘/Iberia (5.13) or Tayk‘ (5.17), as well as other unspecified northern regions 
engulfed in conflict, almost certainly against the Khazars (5.48). Conversely, the lands of 
western Armenia and the Roman territories of Anatolia as well as the territories to the east 
and southeast, including Ałuank‘/Caucasian Albania and Iran, are not mentioned. Siwnik‘ 
features only as the original homeland of Vahan’s wife (5.7). As a result, the Martyrdom 
highlights the connectivity of regions along the north-south axis and ignores the long-
standing ties with the Iranian and Roman worlds along the east-west axis. This spatial 
reorientation is significant, as it reveals the priority attached at the time to connections 
with Umayyad Syria.

These spaces are constructed in different ways in the text. Armenia is portrayed as a 
region of different districts, including Gołt‘n, Vayoc‘ Jor, Siwnik‘, Aragacotn, Tayk‘, Bznunik‘, 
and Maseac‘otn, which contain both villages and monasteries. It is also a region of cities, 
but it is noticeable that the urban spaces of Armenia named in the Martyrdom—Naxčawan, 
Xram, and Duin— are all depicted in terms of Umayyad control. Provincial government and 
military power are projected through these urban centers, as had been the case throughout 
Late Antiquity.113 The one exception appears to be the city of Vałaršapat, mentioned once in 
relation to the unnamed catholicos (5.24). As we have seen, however, this space may also be 

112.  G. B. A. Bingelli, “Annual Fairs, Regional Networks, and Trade Routes in Syria, Sixth to Tenth Centuries,” 
in Trade and Markets in Byzantium, ed. C. Morrisson, 281–96 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research 
Library and Collection, 2012). Bingelli notes the association between fairs and annual Christian festivals of 
commemoration, observing that a fair took place at Dayr Mār Sarjīs, the monastery of Saint Sergius, apparently 
at ʿĀna, to coincide with the saint’s festival on October 7. Ruṣāfa is not mentioned, but its absence may not be 
entirely surprising, given that the sources used by Bingelli date from the ʿAbbāsid era.

113.  N. G. Garsoïan, “The Early-Medieval Armenian City: An Alien Element?,” Journal of the Ancient Near 
Eastern Society 16–17 (1984–85): 67–83; repr. in N. G. Garsoïan, Church and Culture in Early Medieval Armenia 
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999), no. VII.



61  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

associated with Umayyad control through the representation of the hostile attitude of the 
catholicos, who threatens Vahan that he may suffer harm from others unless he departs. 
Historic regions to the south of Armenia, such as Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine, are 
mentioned in passing, but they obtain specific definition through their cities—Damascus, 
Edessa, Ruṣāfa, Callinicum, and Baʿalbek. Once again, urban spaces are associated with 
caliphal control, but their Christian communities also feature prominently. Vahan is 
represented worshiping the “salvific image” in Edessa (5.49) in a previously unnoticed 
reference to the Mandylion, and Artawazd and his party meet the bilingual bishop of Edessa 
on their return journey (9.7). Both Vahan and Artawazd also pass through Callinicum, south 
of Edessa, on their way to Ruṣāfa, and the latter is reported to have stayed at the monastery 
of Der Mar Zakk‘ē (9.2).114 Whereas monasteries in Armenia are associated with specific 
districts, Syrian monasticism is associated with cities. Finally, we have already encountered 
the diverse Christian communities and martyria of Ruṣāfa, both inside and outside the 
city. Christians are represented in multiple spaces, from Hishām’s court and palace (9.6) 
to the prison (6.37) and the building site (8.17), with their own hierarchies (the bishop) 
and archives (the Roman book). Whereas urban spaces outside Armenia are populated by 
Muslims and Christians, urban spaces inside Armenia are constructed only as centers of 
Umayyad administration. 

The Martyrdom attests multiple networks connecting these different spaces. Vahan’s 
forced movement from Duin to Damascus (2.4–7) reveals the primacy of this route 
southwards for communications between the caliphal court and provincial representatives 
in Armenia. Moving northward is less straightforward. When Vahan resolves to leave Gołt‘n 
and travel to the country of the Greeks, he makes use of his network of relatives, going first 
to his father-in-law in Vayoc‘ Jor (5.10) and then to unidentified relatives in Virk‘/Iberia 
(5.13). Vahan seeks advice from his father-in-law about the route he should take, implying 
that the latter knew how to get there. The History of Łewond reports that in the aftermath 
of the fires of Naxčawan, Smbat Bagratuni, who had previously been appointed curopalates 
and settled in Tayk‘, asked the emperor for further assistance and went to reside in the 
city of P‘oyt‘/Phasis in Lazica for six years with other unspecified figures.115 There are a 
number of challenging elements in Łewond’s narrative, including its dating, the identity 
of those seeking refuge, and their relocation to a single “city,” but it records the first in a 
series of Armenian migrations to the Roman Empire undertaken by figures from various 
noble houses—Mamikonean, Anjewac‘i, Amatuni—across the eighth century. These were 
not all permanent displacements; some Armenians, including Smbat Bagratuni and Tačat 
Anjewac‘i, returned and were reintegrated back into the caliphal North.116

And yet, in the Martyrdom, although Vahan considers and even attempts to move to the 
Roman Empire, he is not able to complete this journey. The precise reasons for his failure 
are not given, but we need to remember the literary character of this work. The physical 

114.  See above, note 41.
115.  Łewond, Patmabanut‘iwn, in MH, 6:757.28; La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 80, 92–96.
116.  See Łewond, Patmabanut‘iwn, in MH, 6:841.7–845.23; and La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 

329–33, 349–55, for Tačat’s career in Roman and then caliphal service. 



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   62

journey that Vahan embarks on is a manifestation of his spiritual journey. As he travels, 
he loses, in various circumstances, the outward expressions of his status: his entourage of 
cavalrymen (5.11–12, 16); his wealth, his horse, and his sword (5.21); his wife, sent away 
previously (5.23); and finally his signet ring (5.26). At the same time, however, he gains in 
spirituality and divine knowledge. This transition is reflected in the shift from reliance on 
a social network of relatives to engagement with a network of monastic communities, with 
varying degrees of success. For us, it is highly significant that the monastery where the 
monks are frightened by a demon (5.30) is also the community that is connected in some way 
to a prince’s wife, who instructs them that Vahan should leave the community, “otherwise 
he shall be a cause of destruction for himself and for you.” This implies a presumption on 
her part that Vahan’s actions, whether abandoning his position in Gołt‘n or apostatizing or 
both, have made him a danger to all he comes into contact with.117 At another level, it shows 
that within the narrative, all lay elite figures are now problematic. Finally, this episode 
suggests that not all Armenian monasteries were of equal merit, nor did they form a single 
network; at least in the mind of the author, some were evidently better than others. 

This transition is one of several that Vahan undergoes in the course of the narrative: 
from the son of an Armenian lord to a slave in the service of the caliph in Damascus, from 
Christian to Muslim, from trusted mawlā to ostracized apostate, from married lord to solitary 
ascetic, from wealth to penury, from human death to eternal life and commemoration 
as martyr. We shall not discuss these transformations individually. Instead, we propose 
that these multiple spaces, communities, and networks and the movements between 
them tell us about the various contexts in which Armenians could be imagined. If these 
had not been embedded in a social reality, the credibility of the Martyrdom would have 
been compromised. The Martyrdom does not deny that Armenians were forcibly taken 
into captivity or that Armenian children converted to Islam, suggesting that these were 
plausible lived experiences. It pushes back against the threat of conversion by offering 
a didactic illustration of its futility as well as a model for Armenian converts to Islam to 
recover their Christian faith on returning to Armenia. This is reminiscent of an episode 
recorded in an earlier Armenian historical work titled the Buzandaran, which was compiled 
in the 470s. In the narrative, Aršak, the king of Armenia, freely acknowledges his guilt and 
submission before the Sasanian šahanšah, Šapuh, when walking on Persian soil inside the 
royal tent, but haughtily dismisses the šahanšah from his presence, promising vengeance, 
when walking on soil and water secretly brought from Armenia and carefully laid on the 
floor of the tent.118 The allegorical meaning—namely, that Armenians profess loyalty to an 
external hegemonic power when outside Armenia but repudiate it when back on Armenian 
soil—is also reflected in the Martyrdom.

117.  Her rejection of the saint is described in terms similar to those applied to the hostile reactions of the 
prince of Armenia and the catholicos (5.18–19 and 5.24).

118.  P‘awstos Buzand, P‘awstosi Buzandac‘woy Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘ i č‘ors dprut‘iwns, 4th ed. (Venice: S. Łazar, 
1933) [henceforth Buzandaran], 4:54; repr. in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 5 Dar, 1:277–428 (Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy 
Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2003), 367.1–369.38; trans. N. G. Garsoïan, The Epic Histories (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘) 
Attributed to P‘awstos Buzand (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 170–73.



63  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

III. Resistance and Participation

Although the Martyrdom focuses on Vahan, it also provides insight into wider Armenian 
interactions with the caliphal North in the first half of the eighth century. These were 
characterized by both resistance and participation. Instead of envisioning these as discrete 
categories, with Armenians either clashing or cooperating with the caliphal authorities, 
we propose a more complex and dynamic model, in which individual Armenians 
resisted, participated, and responded in other ways all at the same time. Although no 
source represents the full spectrum of Armenian attitudes to Umayyad governance and 
administration, the Martyrdom addresses several forms of response.

As discussed earlier, the Martyrdom opens with a lament for the Armenian nobles, “the 
naxarars of this country” (1.6), who were consumed by the flames at Naxčawan and Xram. 
The identities of those who died are not revealed. Instead, the deaths are represented as a 
general catastrophe for the whole Armenian people at the hands of the people of Ishmael 
(1.3): “this whole country of ours has been demolished and ruined.” The disaster is defined 
further in the following sentence (1.4): “Foreign nations have taken the pleasure of this 
land, and the freedom and lordship and authority of the nobles has been overthrown as 
worthless.” Significantly, therefore, the destruction of the country of Armenia is portrayed 
in terms of the overthrow of its nobility. The spiritual implications are not ignored, as a 
subsequent passage (1.7) considers the wider impact: “the light of the glorious holy vessels 
and decorations of the churches has been corrupted and extinguished; the rejoicing of the 
spiritual festivals and the joy of spiritual songs to God, of priests and worshippers, and 
altogether the collective delight of this country [have been destroyed].” But this outcome is 
seen as a consequence of the ruin of the country. 

The narrative reports that the Armenian nobles assembled in anticipation of gifts from 
the royal treasury, in coin (dahekan), which are described (2.2) as “the atayans of the year.” 
In other words, they were expecting to receive payment for military services. Such payment 
represents a change in the arrangements. The History attributed to Sebēos, compiled 
fifty years earlier, depicts a tributary system largely predicated on military service in 
lieu of direct taxation.119 By contrast, the Martyrdom asserts that some Armenian nobles 
and their forces participated in caliphal structures of power and were rewarded through 
annual payments. This assertion finds support in Łewond’s narrative, which reports that 
on becoming prince of Armenia in 726, Ašot Bagratuni traveled to meet with Hishām and 
negotiated the reinstatement of stipends for the Armenian nobles and their cavalry after 
they had been withheld for three years.120 Łewond maintains that the stipends were paid at 
a rate of 100,000 dirhams a year for the remainder of Hishām’s reign. The Martyrdom was 
therefore composed at a time when such payments had become standard.

No explanation or context is given for the mass immolation in the churches beyond the 
allegorical “dark thickness and terrible blackness” (1.8) associated with the people of the 
South. It is simply a conspiracy, “a deceitful trick” (2.3), that reveals their bad faith and 

119.  Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, 164; repr. MH, 4:554.15; trans. Thomson, Sebeos, 136; Vacca, Non-Muslim Provinces, 
196–97.

120.  Łewond, Patmabanut‘iwn, in MH, 6:812.7–9; La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 214–15, 
238–41.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   64

catches the Armenians unawares. A later passage (2.17) reports that “the executioners were 
safe from fear, for many of them had been defeated many times by the few courageous 
and honorable naxarars; in the same way, all the celebrated military forces were beheaded 
by the sword and hung on wood.” This implies that some nobles had previously fought 
against the caliph’s representatives and that the mass executions constituted retaliation. 
The narrative thus shows Armenians both participating and resisting. But the author of 
the lament betrays little interest in establishing the precise circumstances in which the 
fires occurred beyond stressing that this was the moment when everything changed. The 
text then embarks on the account of Vahan’s life and passion (4.1, reflected at 9.10). Other 
narratives of these events offer their own interpretations. Łewond, for instance, traces 
the conflagrations to an Armenian revolt in 703 CE, in which Armenian nobles tried to 
flee to Roman territory but ended up—reluctantly, even apologetically—having to defeat 
a pursuing caliphal force at the battle of Vardanakert.121 Łewond also highlights the 
role of Muḥammad b. Marwān in deceiving the Armenian nobles and engineering the 
circumstances of their destruction. Instead of preferring one narrative over another, we 
concur with Vacca’s judicious comments: “Why and how traditions changed provide more 
fertile ground for enquiry than ‘what really happened’ when the churches burned down at 
Naxčawan. . . .Every text is a reliable indicator of what its author was trying to say.”122 By 
the time the Martyrdom was composed in 744 CE, the fires of Naxčawan were remembered 
as a formative moment in the relationship between the Armenian elite and Umayyad 
hegemony; the specific circumstances, whether Marwānid reform or Armenian rebellion 
or both, were not significant. For Łewond, however, themes of provincial administration 
and taxation, on the one hand, and Armenian resistance to and participation in the politics 
of the caliphate, on the other, were central to Armenian lived experiences and framed his 
historical reconstructions.

Evidence for a range of Armenian interactions is not confined to the opening sections 
of the Martyrdom. We have already noted the hostile portrayal of both the leading prince 
of Armenia and the catholicos as acting under demonic inspiration, and we interpreted it 
as a comment on their working in the interests of the caliphate (5.19). Immediately before 
traveling to Edessa, Vahan is depicted (5.48) meeting various contingents of cavalrymen 
on their way back from campaigns in the northern regions and debating the divinity of 
Jesus with them. Again, if we examine Łewond’s History, we find specific references to 
campaigns against the Khazars undertaken by Marwān b. Muḥammad with the support of 
Armenian nobles and cavalrymen under Ašot Bagratuni, the leading Armenian prince.123 
The identity of the cavalrymen who debate with Vahan is not revealed but the nature of 
the issue discussed suggests that they were Arab Muslims rather than Armenians. The 
Martyrdom maintains that they were persuaded by Vahan’s wisdom, indicating that they 
accepted his arguments. Armenia is therefore also represented as a site of religious debate. 

121.  Łewond, Patmabanut‘iwn, in MH, 6:748.24–751.29; La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 
46–48, 65–70.

122.  See Vacca, “Fires of Naxčawan,” 351, and generally for a meticulous presentation and analysis of the 
different narratives.

123.  Łewond, Patmabanut‘iwn, in MH, 6:813.1–6; La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 215, 238–41.



65  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

IV. The Lordship of Gołt‘n

Neither the district of Gołt‘n, nor its lay or ecclesiastical elite, nor its cultural traditions 
feature prominently in medieval Armenian literature. The Martyrdom is the only exception. 
It would be mistaken, however, to assume that nothing is known about this district or its 
inhabitants in earlier times. Koriwn’s Life of Maštoc‘ represents the saint traveling “to 
the lawless and incorrigible places of Gołt‘an” (sic) before he is inspired to formulate the 
Armenian alphabet.124 There, he encounters the prince of Gołt‘an, Šabit‘, “a reverent and 
God-loving man.”125 The implication is that Šabit‘, whose name is of Syriac derivation, is 
already a Christian. The saint subsequently returns to the district, specifically to the location 
of Ṙotastak, which is described as his first foundation or endowment (dastakert), and 
preaches the gospel in all the villages with the assistance of Giwt, the son of Šabit‘.126 Gołt‘n 
therefore has a surprising significance in one of the earliest extant Armenian-language 
compositions, completed in the mid-440s. Otherwise, the references tend to be extremely 
brief. Atom, prince of Gołt‘n, is mentioned once in the Buzandaran in a mid-fourth-century 
context as one figure in a list of Armenian princes who accompanied Yusik to Caesarea in 
Cappadocia for his ordination as patriarch.127 In the sixth century, Yoys, bishop of Gołt‘an 
(sic), attended the second Council of Duin in 555 CE; at the start of the seventh century, 
Siovn, bishop of Gołt‘n, is attested in three documents dated 607 CE; and Esayi, bishop 
of Gołt‘n, was present at the Council of Manazkert in 726.128 The canons of the Council of 
Partaw in 768 CE record the presence of both Sahak, lord of Gołt‘n, and Esayi, bishop of 
Gołt‘n, who may or may not be the same figure as the Esayi at Manazkert.129 Bishop Esayi 
succeeded Sion Bawonac‘i as catholicos of Armenia in about 775 and held office for thirteen 
years; he features briefly at the end of Łewond’s History, although his association with 
Gołt‘n is not mentioned.130 Sahak and Esayi are the last figures to be identified with the 
district before it reemerges in the historical record at the start of the tenth century as an 
emirate.131

These terse notices are supplemented by several passages in the History of Movsēs 
Xorenac‘i. According to Movsēs, the inhabitants of the wine-abounding (ginewēt) district of 
Gołt‘n had preserved rhythmic songs about Artašēs and his sons as well as about Aždahak 
the Mede, and he quotes from these directly.132 Elsewhere, he refers to the songs of the 

124.  A. Terian, The Life of Mashtots‘ by His Disciple Koriwn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022), 5.1, at 
68–69. 

125.  Ibid., 5.2, at 68–69. 
126.  Ibid., 13.3–5, at 82–83. 
127.  Buzandaran 3:12; MH, 1:292.3; trans. Garsoïan, Epic Histories, 82.
128.  For Yoys, see Girk‘ T‘łt‘oc‘, 73; for Siovn, see Girk‘ T‘łt‘oc‘, 146, 149, and 151; and for Esayi, see Michael, 

Chronique, 2:497.
129.  See above, note 26.
130.  Łewond, Patmabanut‘iwn, in MH, 6:849.6–851.10; La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 

376–77, 388–89.
131.  Ter-Łewondyan, Arab Emirates, 72.
132.  Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Patmut‘iwn, 1:30, 2:50; repr. MH, 2:1827.4–1829.12 and 1926.1–1929.18; trans. 



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   66

storytellers of Gołt‘n and the singers of Gołt‘n.133 These passages therefore associate Gołt‘n 
with oral epic traditions, both spoken and sung. Intriguingly, the short recension of the 
seventh-century Armenian geographical text Ašxarhac‘oyc‘ also describes Gołt‘n as wine-
abounding (ginewēt).134 It is tempting to locate both performative recitation and wine in 
the context of elite feasting and dining in Gołt‘n, but the details of such occasions—when, 
where, and for whom they might have occurred—are wholly obscure.

The Martyrdom offers several insights into the affairs of the noble house of Gołt‘n. 
Vahan is identified as the son of Xosrov, lord (tēr) of Gołt‘n (4.1). This title was used to 
identify the head of a noble family in whom control of the family’s ancestral and inalienable 
property was vested. There were several legal mechanisms by which noble houses could 
generate legal heirs and thereby ensure continuity of possession.135 Elite Armenian tradition 
abhorred a legal vacuum; only when an entire family had been wiped out could a transfer 
of their property assets take place. We suggest that it is for this reason that the Martyrdom 
presents the return of Vahan to Gołt‘n in terms of his people (5.7), whether relatives or not, 
trying to arrange his marriage, “lest he should remain without an heir through lacking a 
family.”136 The narrative does not reveal how the lordship of Gołt‘n had been maintained 
while Vahan was in Damascus, nor how it continued to exist after his martyrdom, but 
we should remember that such worldly concerns were not central to the purposes of the 
composition, with its focus on his spiritual transformation. Nevertheless, it is striking that 
his return should be represented as prompting immediate action to secure the continuity of 
the family line through marriage. 

As discussed previously, Vahan is reported to have left Gołt‘n with the intention of 
traveling to the land of the Greeks and the city in which the king resided (5.18), 
Constantine’s city/Constantinople. But his plans gradually change as he begins to pursue a 
spiritual path instead. Vahan is represented as settling in Virk‘/Iberia and later intending 
to move to Tayk‘, both regions adjoining Roman territory, but for unspecified reasons he 
does not make the crossing. The chronology of his movements is also vague. The narrative 
indicates he spends more than a year in Iberia (5.15), at least six months in the unidentified 
monastery (5.29), and four years wandering with a single companion (5.42). There are 
further unspecified periods of time spent at other locations. We have already proposed 

Thomson, Moses, 117–18 and 189–90.
133.  Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Patmut‘iwn, 2:49 and 61; repr. MH, 2:1925.1–3 and 1941.4; trans. Thomson, Moses, 

187 and 200–201.
134.  Ašxarhacoyc‘ Movsesi Xorenac‘woy, ed. A. Soukry (Venice: Tparan Mxit‘areanc‘, 1881); repr. in 

Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 5 Dar, 2:2138–92 (Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2003), 2188.100; trans. R. H. 
Hewsen, The Geography of Ananias of Širak (Ašxarhac‘oyc‘): The Long and the Short Recensions (Wiesbaden: 
Ludwig Reichert, 1992), 63A.

135.  T. W. Greenwood, “A Contested Jurisdiction: Armenia in Late Antiquity,” in Sasanian Persia: Between 
Rome and the Steppes of Eurasia, ed. E. Sauer, 199–220 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017), 206–9; L. 
Read, “Fostering in Early Medieval Armenian Sources from the Fifth to the Seventh Century,” Journal of Late 
Antique, Islamic and Byzantine Studies 3, no. 1–2 (2024): 46–80, at 75–77.

136.  Notably, Łewond comments that the events at Naxčawan “rendered this land heirless (anžaṙang)”: 
Łewond, Patmabanut‘iwn, in MH, 6:756.25; La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 80.



67  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

that the physical journey undertaken by Vahan through space and time is an outward 
expression of his inner spiritual transformation. Over time, Vahan moves from a network of 
lay supporters—involving his father-in-law and then other unspecified relatives in Iberia—
to a monastic one. This transformation is also attested through the gradual shrinking of 
Vahan’s entourage. When he sets out from Gołt‘n (5.9), he is accompanied by his wife, 
an armed retinue of twenty cavalrymen, and his t‘ošak; although this last term is usually 
understood in terms of provisions or resources, it may also identify a group of people. In 
stripping Vahan of all the outward symbols of lordship, the narrative establishes what those 
symbols were. The loyalty of the twenty cavalrymen with whom Vahan travels is shown 
to be conditional rather than absolute. When Vahan arrives in his father-in-law’s district, 
some of them reportedly voice their dismay (5.11–12). After high expectations of his return 
to Gołt‘n, several of them disagree with his decision to go to the country of the Greeks. They 
assume that they will be asked to go with Vahan “to live and die in a foreign land,” and 
therefore leave his service. Evidently, a lord who acted arbitrarily or failed to take counsel 
ran the risk of losing support. The remaining cavalry abandon Vahan a year later. He is then 
deserted by his remaining entourage (5.16) and sends his wife back to her father (5.23). Even 
this is not enough: he gives his horse and his sword to one of his beloved ones (5.21) and 
finally his gold signet ring to a stranger (5.26). 

Whether or not these episodes took place in the ways described or even at all, there is no 
reason to doubt that they represent ideals of contemporary Armenian lordship. According 
to the author of the Martyrdom, the ideal Armenian lord was married into a powerful 
family, had a loyal body of armed supporters who attended to him when traveling, rode a 
horse, carried a sword, and wore an authentic (vawerakan) gold signet ring (5.26).137 The last 
detail is significant because no eighth-century documentation containing the signatures of 
lay Armenian lords has been preserved. A document dated AE 288 (May 1, 839–April 29, 840), 
recording the purchase of Arciv by Lord David, bishop of Siwnik‘, from Lord P‘ilippē, son of 
Vasak, lord of Siwnik‘, was sealed by both of them using their rings: “And we have sealed 
this deed, Lord David and Lord P‘ilippē, with our rings.”138 Another document recording the 
donation of property in AE 316 (April 24, 867–April 22, 868) by K‘upłiduxt, daughter of Vasak, 
lord of Siwnik‘ (and hence probably P‘ilippē’s sister), was confirmed by the “the authentic 
signet ring of the spiritual lord Sałomon, honored by God, bishop of Siwnik.”139 The addition 
of vawerakan to the description of Vahan’s ring in the Martyrdom connects its use to legal 
documentation and supports the contention that written records, including but not limited 
to property transactions, were being produced for local Armenian lords in the middle of 
the eighth century. This supplies a useful context in which to interpret the assertion of 
the Arab Muslim historiographer Ibn Aʿtham that it was Mušeł Mamikonean’s refusal to 
hand over his ancestral signet ring to the ʿAbbāsid governor that precipitated the revolt 

137.  The Armenian term used here, vawerakan, is a transliteration of the Middle Persian word vāvarīkān, 
“trustworthy, valid, authentic.”

138.  Step‘annos Episkopos Siwneac‘, Patmut‘iwn tann Sisakan (Moscow: Tparan Lazarean Čemarani 
Arewelean Lezuac‘, 1861), 150.

139.  Ibid., 160, zvawerakan matanin.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   68

of 774–75 CE.140 Signet rings symbolized the authority of leading Armenian lords to control 
the assets and resources within their jurisdictions; giving such an object to the provincial 
governor would have been tantamount to transferring those rights and responsibilities in 
perpetuity. The act of handing over his ring therefore marks the moment in which Vahan 
divests himself of secular lordship and worldly power. 

Conclusion

In line with many other medieval Armenian hagiographical and martyrological works, 
the Martyrdom of Vahan of Gołt‘n has remained at the margins of scholarly research for 
a very long time. With the notable exceptions of the studies by Jinbashian, Ter-Davt‘yan 
and Sahner, it has largely been confined to a subsidiary role.141 Its rediscovery and 
scholarly rehabilitation as a distinct witness, offering its own perspectives and insights, 
is overdue. This study seeks to start this process and bring the work to the attention of a 
wider audience. We propose, on multiple grounds, that the Martyrdom was completed in 
744 CE. Although composed in Armenian, informed by Armenian literary traditions, and 
attentive to contemporary Armenian concerns, it is also a product of the caliphal North 
and completed during the Umayyad era. It therefore possesses a particular significance. 
Even if the distinction between Umayyad and ʿAbbāsid sources has been exaggerated, 
since traditions were fluid and subject to change from the moment they crystallized, the 
overwhelming majority postdates the ʿAbbāsid Revolution. As a result, whether knowingly 
or otherwise, ʿAbbāsid-era concerns shaped the extant accounts of Umayyad-era events.142 
By virtue of its date of composition, the Martyrdom stands outside these epistemological 
challenges.

It does not follow, however, that the Martyrdom can be approached uncritically, as if 
it were a simple record of what happened. We prefer to see it as a sophisticated work of 
literature, shaped by the conventions of its genre and the choices of its author, which led 
it to emphasize Vahan’s spirituality when alive, his fortitude when facing death, and his 
effectiveness as an intercessor after martyrdom. The “real” Vahan is always going to be out 
of reach. But this does not mean that the Martyrdom lacks historical insight. The credibility 
of the Martyrdom depended on its proximity to contemporary experiences, attitudes, and 
expectations. If its account of Vahan’s life and death had been entirely fanciful, beyond 
the realm of possibility, its potential to instruct and encourage—its meaningfulness—
would have been diminished. We do not, therefore, need to agonize over the accuracy of 

140.  Ibn Aʿtham, Kitāb al-Futūḥ, 8 vols. (Hyderabad: Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyya, 1968–75), 8:234–35; 
Vacca, “Arabic and the Public Performance of Power,” 297.

141.  For references, see note 3 above.
142.  On source criticism, see the seminal works of A. Noth: The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A 

Source-Critical Study (with Lawrence Conrad), trans. M. Bonner, 2nd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1994); 
“Die literarisch überlieferten Verträge der Eroberungszeit als historische Quellen für die Behandlung der 
unterworfenen Nicht-Muslims durch ihre neuen muslimischen Oberherren,” in Tilman Nagel et al., Studien 
zum Minderheitenproblem in Islam, 282–314 (Bonn: Selbstverlag des Orientalischen Seminars der Universität 
Bonn, 1973); and “Futūḥ-History and Futūḥ-Historiography: The Muslim Conquest of Damascus,” Al-Qanṭara 10 
(1989): 453–62.



69  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

the reported conversations between Vahan and Hishām or establish the means by which 
they were preserved; rather, we can accept that these encounters convey eighth-century 
understandings and perceptions, whether real, imagined, or derivative, about the character 
of the caliph and the arguments he might have advanced. Through its construction, 
the Martyrdom reveals the issues that mattered to its author and the ways in which he 
articulated them.

This study has analyzed the Martyrdom in terms of its construction of the Umayyad 
world and Armenian experiences within it. The work reveals an extraordinary breadth of 
knowledge, from the complicated relationships between successive Marwānid caliphs to 
awareness of the communities, spaces, and built environment of Ruṣāfa during the reign of 
Hishām, and from contemporary names of the Prophet to hostile perceptions of Armenia 
with its snow-capped, demon-possessed mountains. Its representation of Armenia in the 
first half of the eighth century is no less significant. The Martyrdom depicts a complex, fluid, 
and fractured society in which some members of the elite serve the Umayyad authorities 
and are rewarded with stipends (ʿaṭā) but others suffer brutal reprisals. The catholicos 
and the prince of Armenia are both depicted as repudiating Saint Vahan, their actions 
reportedly inspired by a demon. Such negative projections are very rare, and therefore 
invaluable, since they attest a greater diversity of opinion than is usually recorded. Whereas 
the established church is criticized or ignored, some, though not all, monastic communities 
are commended for their treatment of the saint. Within the narrative, Vahan acts as a 
transitional figure, shifting between spaces, identities, and roles. As such, he seems to 
embody many of the possibilities as well as the anxieties of the age.

A Note on Editions and Translations

The most recent edition of the Martyrdom was prepared by Tēr-Vardanean and published 
in 2007.143 Tēr-Vardanean offers five different versions of the martyrology, each briefer 
than the last.144 We have chosen to present a translation of his first and longest version, 
supplying in the footnotes any material of substantial importance not included in the 
main text of the edition but found either in the manuscripts consulted for Version 1 or 
elsewhere in the texts of Versions 2–5. Version 1 is primarily based on the text preserved 
in a manuscript of hagiographical texts held in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris 
(arm. 178, at fols. 556v–561v), written in Sebasteia by Pawłos the scribe and dated to the 
twelfth century.145 Tēr-Vardanean identifies this as Manuscript Ա/A. The same manuscript 
(henceforth P178) was used for the first of two versions published (anonymously) by Ališan 

143.  Artawazd, Patmut‘iwn, ed. Tēr-Vardanean.
144.  Version 1: MH, 6:869–897; Version 2: 898–912; Version 3: 913–928; Version 4: 929–936; Version 5: 937–945. 

They are described by Tēr-Vardanean in his introduction, at 861–63. 
145.  MH, 6:859. Although this manuscript has been digitized, unfortunately folios 1–297 have been uploaded 

twice and folios 298–598 are missing. For a full description, see R. Kévorkian and A. Ter-Stépanian, Manuscrits 
arméniens de la Bibliothèque nationale de France: Catalogue (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France, 1998), no. 
178, at 589–604. 

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b100874360/


Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   70

in Sop‘erk‘ Haykakank‘ in 1854.146 Although he did not specify his source, we can be confident 
it was P178, since this was one of the manuscripts copied by Ališan during his extended stay 
in Paris between 1850 and 1860.147 In giving priority to the longest version, Tēr-Vardanean 
followed the rationale previously proposed by Ališan, who maintained that the text was 
abbreviated rather than lengthened over time, as copyists progressively omitted details not 
deemed essential to recording Vahan’s martyrdom.148 

In his introduction, Tēr-Vardanean identifies twenty-two manuscripts aside from P178 
that contain different forms of the text, all located in the Matenadaran’s collection in Erevan, 
and reveals that he consulted thirteen of them in the preparation of the five versions.149 It 
seems clear, however, that his list is incomplete. Tēr-Vardanean himself identifies one 
further manuscript, found in the Mekhitarist Library in Vienna (W224, fols. 143r–153v), 
which he used in preparing his edition of Version 1.150 Furthermore, Thomson identifies 
two additional manuscripts that also preserve the text in the library of the monastery of St. 
James in the Armenian patriarchate in Jerusalem (J97, fols. 410v–427r, and J3152, fols. 158r–
175r) and a third in the Armenian library in New Julfa (NOJ229, fols. 67r–75r), although it is 
not clear which versions they contain.151 Thomson also notes that there are “innumerable 
brief accounts [of Vahan’s life and martyrdom] in synaxaria and miscellanies in all major 
Armenian collections.” It is beyond the scope of this study to trace the reception and 
transmission of the traditions found in the Martyrdom. These await separate study in the 
future, but it will be no small task to determine how, when, and why they developed in the 
ways that they did.

To our knowledge, two translations of the Martyrdom have been published. The earlier 
of these is that prepared by Gatteyrias in 1880, using the first of the two versions published 
in Sop‘erk‘ Haykakank‘.152 This French translation has been consulted recently by several 
scholars.153 The second is the Russian translation (with introduction) of Ter-Davt‘yan, which 

146.  Ołbk‘ vasn čareac‘n ašxarhis Hayoc‘ ew vkayabanut‘iwn srboyn Vahanay Gołt‘nac‘woy, in Sop‘erk‘ 
Haykakank‘, vol. 13 (Venice: Tparan Mxit‘areanc‘, 1854), 11–59. The first edition of the text was published by M. 
Awgerean in Liakatar Vark‘ ew Vkayabanut‘iwn Srboc‘, 12 vols. (Venice: Tparan Mxit‘areanc‘, 1810–15), 1:188–
216.

147.  Kévorkian and Ter-Stépanian, Manuscrits arméniens, xvii.
148.  See Tēr-Vardanean’s discussion of his rationale in MH, 6:857.
149.  MH, 6:859–61, 867 (conspectus). These date from the twelfth to seventeenth centuries.
150.  For the reference in the introduction, see MH, 6:858 n19; for its contribution to the edition, see 895 n33, 

at section 9.2.
151.  R. W. Thomson, “The Martyrdom of Vahan,” in Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, 

vol. 1, 600–900, ed. D. Thomas and B. Roggema, 281–83 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 282.
152.  J. A. Gatteyrias, “Elégie sur les malheurs de l’Arménie et le martyre de saint Vahan de Koghten: Episode 

de l’occupation arabe en Arménie, traduit pour la première fois de l’arménien littéral, sur l’édition des RR. 
PP. Méchitaristes,” Journal asiatique, 7th ser., 15, Aug–Sept (1880): 177–214. In his brief introduction, at 178, 
Gatteyrias records that he searched for a manuscript in the Bibliothèque nationale de France that might assist 
him with problematic readings but that he was unsuccessful. Evidently, he did not manage to locate P178. 

153.  R. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian 
Writings on Early Islam (Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 2007), 373–75; Sahner, Christian Martyrs, 41–44; Vacca, 
“Umayyad North,” 225–26. 



71  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

was based on the same Armenian text and originally published in 1973, and which has 
provided the point of departure for much of the Russian-language scholarship that has 
touched on the text.154 The Martyrdom has also been mentioned briefly by others, but there 
is no recent assessment of the work as a whole.155 It is in the light of this interest, and our 
assessment of the significance of the Martyrdom for Islamicists and Armenologists alike, 
that we have prepared the following annotated translation.156 Although every translation 
negotiates the balance between faithfulness and meaning in its own way, we have preferred 
to stay close to the original text, even if this sometimes comes at the expense of clarity of 
expression. This is a rich, complex, and occasionally obscure text whose meaning is not 
always clear and straightforward; our translation reflects these qualities.

154.  Ter-Davt‘yan, Armjanskie Žimija, 289–307. For the scholarship in question, see note 3 above.
155.  S. P. Cowe, “Armenian Hagiography,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography, 

ed. S. Efthymiadis, 1:299–322 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), 310; Vacca, “Fires of Naxčawan,” 329.
156.  Fowden, in Barbarian Plain, 183, commented twenty-five years ago that “the martyr Vahan is 

remembered by Armenian Christians and not usually by students of Rusafa.”

Fig. 1. Map of locations referenced in the Martyrdom (prepared by Tim Penn). 



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   72

Translation

[869]157 Lament for the evils that came to pass across this country of Armenia in one 
hundred and fifty-two of the era158 through fire and captivity by the southern people of 
Ishmael,159 along with the martyrology of Saint Vahan, who was the son of Saint Xosrov, 
lord of Gołt‘n.160 And after thirty-three years of the captivity of Armenia Saint Vahan was 
martyred, in one hundred and eighty-five of the era.161

(1.1) Behold the sharp sword has been drawn from the sheath, which the seer and prophet 
lamented when it threatened previously.162 (1.2) The people of Ishmael lifted a sword thirsty 
for blood against us, roaring like a lion through the four regions of the earth or striking 
like the four winds the whole of this country.163 (1.3) The prophecy was really in respect of 
Israel, but the voice directs it towards us as well; just as Jerusalem was demolished to its 
foundations, so this whole country of ours has been demolished and ruined.

(1.4) Foreign nations have taken the pleasure of this land, and the freedom and lordship 
and authority of the nobles has been overthrown as worthless. (1.5) Young children have 
been stoned there,164 and we ourselves, parents and children alike, [have been taken] [870] 
into captivity. Jeremiah also lamented over the mothers who had been taken, and these 
things, too, happened to apply to us as well.165

(1.6) Now, you who are great and active in terms of compassion, you who were known to 
God when still without form, being conceived in the womb,166 and before being born were 
sanctified through the true law of our Christ, you who summoned the Holy Spirit to yourself 
from the seat of wisdom and having become a temple for Him—you were prophesying, 
like the holy Habakkuk.167 (1.7) Now, just as then, in the same way and now for us, the 
ways of Sion are mourning;168 the light of the glorious holy vessels and decorations of the 

157.  Numbers in bold in square brackets refer to the page numbers in Tēr-Vardanean’s edition of Version 1: 
MH, 6:869–897. Numbers in parentheses indicate the section and sentence divisions supplied in Tēr-Vardanean’s 
edition for ease of reference; they do not feature in the manuscripts.

158.  AE 152: June 4, 703–June 2, 704 CE.
159.  Manuscripts Է/Ē (M1523, thirteenth century) and Հ/H (M993, 1436 CE) omit Ismayeli, “of Ishmael,” 

identifying the captors merely as “the people of the South.” See above, at notes 32–34, and below, note 169.
160.  Both these manuscripts omit the qualifying srboyn, “Saint,” for Vahan and his father Xosrov.
161.  AE 185: May 26, 736–May 25, 737 CE.
162.  Ezekiel 21:3. All biblical references are to the Armenian Bible.
163.  We prefer here the reading in manuscript Է/Ē, which omits zcov, “the sea.” For Armenian awareness 

of the symbolism of the number four, including the four elements and their properties and the four cardinal 
points, see R. W. Thomson, “Number Symbolism and Patristic Exegesis in Some Early Armenian Writers,” Handes 
Amsorya 90 (1976): 117–38, at 120–24.

164.  Nahum 3:10.
165.  An allusion to Lamentations 1:1.
166.  Jeremiah 1:5. This sentence is addressed to the prophet Jeremiah.
167.  The Old Testament prophet, Ambakum in Armenian.
168.  Lamentations 1:4.



73  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

churches has been corrupted and extinguished; the rejoicing of the spiritual festivals and 
the joy of spiritual songs to God, of priests and worshippers, and altogether the collective 
delight of this country [have been destroyed]. (1.8) Because a burning, grief-making storm 
blown by the wind of the South169 has removed the veil of salvation, having destroyed the 
excellent and holy covering, furnished with light, which in place of the garden was granted 
to us by the living wood of the cross of Christ;170 and the dense darkness of the cloth was 
revealed, the dark thickness of this terrible blackness that shall take possession of all the 
countries of this land of Armenia.171 (1.9) As previously, it appeared in the vision of the 
blessed and prophetic man of God, Saint Sahak, the extremely diligent shepherd of his 
sentient flock and overseer of this country of Armenia; or as previously, it was observed 
through the wonderful illumination of his ancestor, the apostle-like man, the thrice-blessed 
Saint Grigor.172

[871] (2.1) In the time of the tyranny of the Arabs, which followed the death of the 
originator, the raving Muḥammad, in their eighty-fifth year,173 they write at this time,174 
during the oversight of ʿAbd al-Malik, son of Marwān,175 they set fire to us, Satan having 
inspired anger in them.176 And they discussed and devised an impious plan against us, 
poisonous and death-producing in its wickedness, so that after various other evils, they 
would completely destroy and exterminate the soldiers and commanders, the leaders and 
princes, the azats and naxarars,177 through a brutal massacre.

(2.2) Therefore, they quickly dispatched messengers to various regions with a false 
report, using deceitful, convincing words and promises, that everyone should assemble 
in one place,178 that many gifts and presents would be granted to them from the royal 

169.  The Arab Muslim raiders are first identified with “the South” in Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, 72, 142; repr. MH, 
4:474.3, 534.36; trans. Thomson, Sebeos, 13, 105. For discussion and further references, see above, at notes 32–34. 
Strikingly, this identification does not feature in Łewond’s History.

170.  In other words, reconciliation with God, experienced in the garden of Eden before the Fall, had again 
become accessible through the death and resurrection of Christ, but this hope of salvation was now removed.

171.  This sentence corresponds both in content and in language to a sentence in the Vision of Saint Sahak 
(Sahak I, head of the Armenian Church, 372–77 CE), preserved in Łazar, Patmut‘iwn, §17, at 34.4–6; repr. MH, 
2:2225.1–34.75; trans. Thomson, History of Łazar, 64–72, at 69. The whole vision describes the shaking of the 
golden throne that will introduce the famines, earthquakes, and tribulations associated with the Last Days. 

172.  Saint Grigor/Gregory the Illuminator (d. 328 CE), the principal architect of the conversion of Armenia 
and founder of the Armenian Church, is referred to by Saint Sahak as his ancestor in Łazar’s History: Łazar, 
Patmut‘iwn, §17; repr. MH, 2:2228.35; Thomson, History of Łazar, 67. For Gregory’s vision, see Agat‘angełos, 
Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, §731–55; repr. MH, 2:1654.1–1665.41; trans. Thomson, Lives of Saint Gregory, 337–52. 

173.  AH 85: January 14, 704–January 1, 705. For discussion of this date, see above, at note 12.
174.  This mysterious comment could indicate a preexisting written composition. 
175.  “Abdlmelik‘, son of Mruan”: ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān, who ruled between 685 and October 9, 705. 
176.  For a recent study of the complex and multiple traditions recording this event, see Vacca, “Fires of 

Naxčawan.”
177.  azat, “the free,” probably in both a social and a fiscal sense; naxarar, “noble,” originally denoting status 

in Iranian society. These collective nouns define the elite in different ways; they do not represent different 
social groups or constituencies.

178.  A similar narrative element is found in the Passion of David of Duin. In that narrative, the Armenian 



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   74

treasury by distributing to them generous gifts of dahekans,179 the atayans of the year.180 
(2.3) Through a deceitful trick they completely removed from them those who were armed, 
as if protecting themselves against them, from fear of the sword; “You are not like us, 
trustworthy in an oath.” (2.4) And having brought them to one place, they consigned them 
to two sites, some to the city of Naxčawan and the rest to the awan of Xram.181 (2.5) And 
the person in charge of these evildoers was named Qāsim, one faithful to Muḥammad, and 
hramanatar of Armenia through the command of ʿAbd al-Malik.182

(2.6) And having assembled the naxarars of this country in the aforementioned places, 
they put them into the holy churches and closed and shut the doors and said, “May no 
one from this great crowd go outside.” [872] And they secretly equipped themselves with 
weapons, as they were instructed,183 and they rushed up to the doors and they blocked up 
the exits of the places with bricks.184 (2.7) And they [those trapped inside] cried out, singing 
the hymn of the holy young men who were in the furnace185 and then the songs of the 
angels, and they were glorifying the angels above with the shepherds.186 (2.8) And when 
they had demolished the roofs, they set [them] on fire, and through flammable materials 
they caused it to go up higher than that of Babylon.187 (2.9) Here, fear of the tyranny of 
the king, and there, a legion of demons, entered into the men, and becoming infuriated 

elite was assembled in Duin under false pretenses and then taxed heavily: Aucher, Liakatar Vark‘, 6.225.
179.  dahekan in Armenian traditionally identified a gold coin but was increasingly used as a generic term 

for coin.
180.  atayans, Ar. ʿaṭā, “gift.” This seems to refer to the annual stipends granted to Armenians who served 

the Umayyads as cavalry. Łewond refers to such payments as hṙog: Łewond, Patmabanut‘iwn, in MH, 6:755.13; 
La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 78, 90–92, 238–39. The terms under which Armenians provided 
military service varied over time. According to Sebēos, in the conquest era, such service was supplied in lieu of 
tribute or taxation: Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, 164; repr. MH, 4:554.14–15; trans. Thomson, Sebeos, 136. For a recent 
reinterpretation of the agreement, see Greenwood, “Negotiating the North,” 605–10. 

181.  Naxčawan: a strategic fortress on the river Araxes, repeatedly contested by Armenians, Persians, 
Romans, and Arabs. Xram (Hram in the text): a fortress on the Araxes downstream from Naxčawan. Awan is 
usually translated as “town,” something less than a city but more than just a fortress. For an earlier association 
between the two sites, see Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, 146; repr. MH, 4:538.17–19; trans. Thomson, Sebeos, 111.

182.  Kasm/Qāsim has not been identified, but following Łewond, we understand his description as someone 
faithful to Mahmet/Muḥammad to reflect his loyalty to Muḥammad b. Marwān rather than the Prophet: Łewond, 
Patmabanut‘iwn, in MH, 6:755.13; La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 78, where he is described 
as Muḥammad b. Marwān’s representative in Naxčawan. Hramanatar: cf. MP framatar, usually interpreted as 
commander but here denoting an unspecified capacity.

183.  We prefer here the reading in Manuscripts Է/Ē and Հ/H, which read irazgack‘ for srazgack‘. 
184.  ałiwsov, “with brick.” This is a very rare reference in Armenian to this building material; see also 8.22 

and note 362 below.
185.  Daniel 3 describes the events. This is a reference to the Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy 

Children (sometimes called Hebrew Youths), included in the Septuagint and the Armenian Bible at Daniel 3:26–88 
but rejected outside Orthodox tradition. This canticle features in the various readings collected at the end of 
Armenian Psalter after Psalm 151; see also S. P. Cowe, “The Reception of the Book of Daniel in Late Ancient and 
Medieval Armenian Society,” in Bardakjian and La Porta, Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition, 79–125, at 85–87. 

186.  Luke 2:13–14.
187.  Cf. Daniel 3:46, for the flammable materials added to the furnace in Babylon.



75  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

and rushing around, they were flashing their swords. (2.10) Pity burned the insides of the 
fathers of children,188 and the flames fell from above from the ceiling, and the fire consumed 
the clothing of the children; the fathers were completely annihilated because they did not 
have in mind their own piteous death for themselves, and they were all burned together, 
equally. 

(2.11) Now weep for us, O holy one of God, you who said, “Do not send me to this 
crowd,”189 for it has confined yours within burial sites and your eyes have overflowed with 
tears for us.190 (2.12) Open your mouth in intercession, for God has rendered your state of 
being dead more valuable than our state of being alive.191 (2.13) Cry out, O earth, and weep, 
you heavens; groan together, howl like the prophet, because behold, mist and fog have 
spread over you. (2.14) Do not torment yourself, Jeremiah, with manifold tears, you who 
sought fountains as eyes, 192 for fountains of tears have covered this land of ours like a sea.

(2.15) As a result of all that perilous fire being increased by mortal human hands, the 
wooden roof caught fire [873] and was burned. The soot of the fire dropped from above 
with the fire mixed with smoke, bringing a deadly end to all of them through a suffocating 
and cruel punishment; it hid that multitude without assistance from above. (2.16) And their 
ceaseless praise ceased when their spirits perished. (2.17) And the executioners were safe 
from fear, for many of them had been defeated many times by the few courageous and 
honorable naxarars; in the same way, all the celebrated military forces were beheaded by 
the sword and hung on wood.193 And in this way they accomplished the deed.

(3.1) And then the evildoing foreigners194 spread across the land and investigated the 
families of those who had been killed. And through these ones, they took all the treasures195 
of this whole country, seizing both the families of cavalrymen and the chosen men, and, 
taking them in this way, they brought those taken captive to Naxčawan. (3.2) And at this 
news, [everyone] was disheartened, and the country expressed heartfelt laments; while 
being led away, they showed compassion to those who were upon the wooden crosses, [a 
sight] not only terrifying to our fellow countrymen but also [one that] made their own 
bravery universally known. 

(3.3) And this wicked plan occurred in the sixteenth year of the authority of ʿAbd 
al-Malik,196 since through such evils he destroyed this land of Armenia, until the day of his 

188.  A rhetorical conflation (zeugma): the fathers are consumed by both pity and the flames.
189.  An allusion to Jeremiah 1:7.
190.  Based on Jeremiah 9:18.
191.  The contrast is between “deathness” and “aliveness.”
192.  Jeremiah 9:1. This may foreshadow Vahan’s self-baptism; see 5.5 and note 222 below.
193.  This practice of gibbeting a beheaded corpse is known as ṣalb in Arabic and is attested under the 

Umayyads: see Marsham, “Public Execution.”
194.  aylazgik‘, originally applied to the Philistines in the Old Testament; the term came to mean Muslims but 

may not have held that meaning at the time of composition.
195.  The implication is that the treasures comprised both material resources and family members.
196.  By convention, this corresponds to 700–701 CE, but this dating is approximate rather than absolute, 



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   76

death. And these evils were accomplished through his command. (3.4) After his death, in the 
first year of the authority of Walīd his son,197 which was one hundred and fifty-two of the 
Armenian Era, during the days of the festival of Easter,198 they took and led the multitude of 
captives to the metropolis of Duin.199 (3.5) And during days of heat [874], they were kept in 
prison, to the point that I estimate the number of those who died to be greater than those 
who remained alive. (3.6) And at the coming of autumn, they removed them from the place 
of imprisonment and sealed their necks, and they took them and had them conveyed to the 
land of Syria, enumerated and in writing.200 (3.7) And when they arrived in Damascus, they 
kept the military elite at court and set their children to study, and the rest they split up in 
captivity.201 (3.8) And [as for] those who died on the road, I do not know whether a tomb 
received them or whether they remain in the places where they fell. 

(4.1) In that place, among the crowd of those who had fallen, a child was found from 
the district of Gołt‘n, named Vahan, son of Xosrov, lord of Gołt‘n,202 a young boy about four 
years old, good-looking in appearance; he was ordered to the royal court, and, being turned 
from the truth of our great mystery to error, he denied the hope of our truth.203 (4.2) And 
when they did that, they called him Vahap, and he went and grew wise and was found to be 
superior to all the counselors204 and became vardapet of those of the same age, and a scribe 
of the royal diwan.205 (4.3) And then, after the passing of the time of ʿAbd al-Malik and Walīd 
his son and Sulaymān his brother, this rumor of the Arabs became popular, that he had 
become a proof of falseness for us. 

given the complex circumstances of his accession. Responsibility for the massacre is once more attributed to 
ʿAbd al-Malik.

197.  Vlit‘, al-Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik, ruled from October 705 until January or March 715. 
198.  AE 152: June 4, 703–June 2, 704. This implies Easter 704.
199.  mayrak‘ałak‘, “mother-city,” a calque on the Greek μητρόπολις. Duin was the seat of the Persian 

governor or marzpan in Late Antiquity and later served as the seat of the Arab governors of Armenia. 
200.  See Robinson, “Neck-Sealing”; Vacca, Non-Muslim Provinces, 204–8; and above, at notes 57–59.
201.  azatagund, military elite, literally the “free contingent.”
202.  Xosrov, lord of Gołt‘n, is not otherwise attested in contemporary sources. For discussion and further 

references, see above, at notes 124–34. The last reference to a lord of Gołt‘n is dated 768 CE; at the start of the 
tenth century, Gołt‘n was under the control of a Muslim emir: Ter-Łewondyan, Arab Emirates, 72.

203.  That is, he was converted from the Christian faith to Islam. Like the prophet Daniel, he was also given 
a new name.

204.  xorhrdakc‘ac‘n, “sharers of knowledge.”
205.  vardapet: a term whose meaning shifted over time but that usually denotes a spiritual teacher or 

instructor in late antique Armenian contexts; here it is used in a nonreligious context. The classic study of 
the term remains R. W. Thomson, “Vardapet in the Early Armenian Church,” Le Muséon 75 (1962): 367–84. 
Diwanadpir: scribe of the diwan. Diwan is another transliterated term in Armenian, from MP dīvān, with a 
range of meanings; dpir, from MP dipīr, means a scribe. The term diwan is found in seventh-century Armenian 
compositions and seems to refer to various state institutions in Sasanian Iran that relied on written records; see 
Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, 67, 101; repr. MH, 4:471.29, 499.11; trans. Thomson, Sebeos, 6, 49. For discussion, see above, 
at note 62.



77  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

(4.4) And when ʿUmar was installed in the headship of the Arabs,206 God inspired his 
heart to remember the iniquity that [had been perpetrated] against the Armenians.207 
He commanded the captives to be assembled with great care, and at the gathering he 
dispatched [875] each one of them. (4.5) And that Vahan, who had been named Vahap, came, 
and he had been well instructed in their knowledge and law and [was] clever and skillful in 
speech, and he was aware of his difficulty.208 (4.6) Those words were reckoned difficult for 
the great ʿUmar because he saw that there was no one equal to him in wisdom. He sought 
witnesses and did not want anyone to testify concerning him, and he rejected those who 
came from Armenia as witnesses.209 (4.7) This obstinacy was due to the value of the man; but 
he kept his order firm out of the moral nature that he had and did not alter it.

(4.8) Then he sent envoys by horse for the purpose of investigating the captives in 
Mesopotamia and [making] a very diligent search, which was not obstructed, as if it were 
the contemplation of God. (4.9) And there fifteen men were found, Arabs who were well 
acquainted with that time and had known the blessed young man. And they presented all this 
information to ʿUmar as testimony. (4.10) Now ʿUmar, having seen the circumstances, did 
not want to act in a violent manner but entreated the young man with delectable words:210 
“Do not leave us, O young man, and if you believe that there is anything lacking in your life, 
I shall make you celebrated in my kingdoms, glorious in authority and treasures.” (4.11) And 
that man, who was bubbling with the spirit of God211—no worldly desire consumed him—
and reflecting deeply, confessed in his reply: “At the time when my ancestors advanced 
the dominion of the Persians, laboring with spear and bow, they were rewarded with more 
treasure than many of the azats who were in my land.212 Now this captivity of mine has 

206.  ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-Azīz, caliph between September 717 and February 720. 
207.  At this point, Manuscripts Է/Ē and Հ/H supply an additional sentence: He recalled the impiety that 

there had been across this country of Armenia, and after he had learned of all the harm that had been inflicted 
by the impious Abdlmelik‘, God loosened his heart, and compassion for higher concerns returned. The added 
passage elucidates ʿUmar’s motivations and casts ʿAbd al-Malik as “impious,” a derogatory epithet applied 
regularly to Sasanian rulers by Armenian authors. The positive depiction of ʿUmar is noteworthy.

208.  The final phrase is hard to interpret. Considered alongside the repetition of difficulty/difficult 
(džuarut‘iwnn/džuarin t‘uēin), it indicates a possible interruption or lacuna at this point. Again Manuscripts 
Է/Ē and Հ/H offer a helpful alternative, including the following: and he was aware of his patrimonial inheritance 
and lordship, and he begged to go to his native district, having been moved by the bubbling of his spirit [šaržeal i 
hogwoyn eṙac‘manē] to recognize the true faith that is in Christ, of which he had been ignorant since childhood. 
This provides the context for the words that ʿUmar allegedly found difficult. This additional sentence therefore 
asserts that Vahan had secretly converted back to Christianity before he was sent back to Armenia. A very 
similar phrase is used at 4.11 below to describe his bubbling spirit.

209.  This is a challenging passage. One possible interpretation is that ʿUmar sought evidence to prove the 
identity and/or circumstances of the Armenians who had been transported prior to their release but that he 
rejected the testimony of Christian witnesses from Armenia. The following passage asserts that the testimony of 
Arab witnesses was accepted; unfortunately for ʿUmar, they supported the case for Vahan’s repatriation.

210.  This implies that the process yielded no grounds to deny Vahan’s return to Armenia. ʿUmar therefore 
adopted a different approach.

211.  astuacayin eṙayr hogwov, very similar to the phrase discussed in note 208 above.
212.  Vahan is asserting here that his ancestors had served in the Sasanian forces and been rewarded more 

than many other Armenian nobles had been. Such military service by Armenian nobles is very well attested 



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   78

returned everything to me double, [876] which was in the time of your Majesty,213 and you 
have loved me and promised me greatness; however, now it is not possible for me to grow 
old in these places.214 (4.12) Now, since God in his mercy has softened your care for me, 
release me so that I may see the ruinous condition of my ancestral land and, having made 
me representative by your command,215 I shall attend on you.”

(5.1) And after these wise words, the hardness of his heart was softened, and he wrote 
a command that was firm and irrevocable. (5.2) He arrived in his district of Gołt‘n216 and in 
the position of overseer217 in accordance with the command.218 (5.3) But as the pattern of the 
events seemed to us, that ray that should be interpreted as the light of faith, he truly sought 
from God to be delivered from them.219 (5.4) Therefore, when the news rapidly reached him 
that ʿUmar had died, (5.5) he did not want to leave in accordance with his firm command220 
and his comfort, which was in Arabia; he repented of his conversion in the years of his 
childhood221 and rendered his tears a second font,222 a thing that, in his mind, matched the 
depth of his feeling.

(5.6) Now You, Holy Father, who [exist] in grandeur yet are not distant from our own 
humble condition; You [who] offered to us Your Only Begotten through the altar of the 
cross and Your Holy Spirit to guide Your faithful correctly on earth—now look on me, at the 
broken things in my heart, because You alone are Lord and [877] Your care is never limited 

in the fourth to seventh centuries, but none of the surviving accounts refer specifically to any participants 
from the house or district of Gołt‘n. For an older, but still significant, survey of Armenian military potential 
and service, see N. Adontz, Armenia in the Age of Justinian, trans. N. G. Garsoïan (Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian 
Foundation, 1970), 183–234.

213.  jer k‘aǰut‘ean, a difficult phrase to interpret. If we insert žamanaki so that it reads “in the time of your 
Majesty,” the passage indicates that the material rewards Vahan had enjoyed during ʿ Umar’s rule as caliph were 
double what his ancestors had received under the Sasanian šahanšahs. This is a rhetorical rather than literal 
assertion.

214.  Again, Manuscripts Է/Ē and Հ/H appear to preserve an additional passage here: in the place of my 
captivity by your Majesty; you love me and promise me greatness.

215.  gorcakal, a general term for someone with authority; it does not denote a specific office.
216.  Manuscripts Է/Ē and Հ/H add: And then he set out and arrived in the land of Armenia, in the district of 

Gołt‘n, and the inhabitants of the land were assembled and greeted the son of their original lord.
217.  kargaworut‘iwn verakac‘uac‘n: again, this refers to a general power of oversight rather than a specific 

appointment.
218.  Manuscripts Է/Ē and Հ/H: Then they reminded him of the previous misfortunes that had come upon 

the land of Armenia and with them his rebellion as a child from the Christian faith, and they sighed; he became 
tearful and wept for the loss of himself, and everyone was moved to tears. This overlaps partially with the above.

219.  Manuscripts Է/Ē and Հ/H: because he was not willing to return in accordance with the king’s command 
for the sake of delight in Arabia. Again, this overlaps partially with the above.

220.  The implication seems to be that Vahan’s appointment ended with ʿUmar’s death.
221.  Manuscript Է/Ē: and he wept day and night that he had abandoned Christ in his childhood.
222.  Self-baptism through tears is a striking image. For the development of this tradition in both East 

(specifically in Origen and Gregory Nazianzus) and West, see T. O’Loughlin and H. Conrad-O’Briain, “The 
‘Baptism of Tears’ in Early Anglo-Saxon Sources,” Anglo-Saxon England 22 (1993): 65–83.



79  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

by boundaries, and if it should be pleasing for You that we die, may we never be rejected by 
Your love and it shall not be equal to Your goodness.223

(5.7) And when his people saw all this and the conviction of his mind, they wanted to 
bind him with this country in love [and] forced him into marriage, lest he should remain 
without an heir224 through lacking a family, and to fulfill their wishes, they took [a bride] 
from the family of the lord of Siwnik‘.225 (5.8) But he did not turn from his love of God, 
so that the great things of this world would not consume him, and so that he would not 
appear to be worshiping God in secret,226 but so that he might openly confess Christ and so 
that he would not be living like an apostate in fear. (5.9) Then, elevating his mind from the 
transitory affairs of this world, he set aside all his wealth and authority and, taking with him 
his resources227 and twenty cavalrymen, and his wife, he resolved to go to the country of the 
Greeks.228 (5.10) And when he reached Vayoc‘ Jor,229 he revealed his secret plan to his father-
in-law so that he might obtain assistance with his proposed route.230 (5.11) Then they, [like] 
easily moved women, showed their inner turmoil through tears, saying, “When you took 
possession of your ancestral principality, [878] you accordingly became a great hope for us; 
now we have realized your intention, and we are estranged. And you have become for us 
neither alive nor dead.” (5.12) And while they were sitting around in tears, several slipped 
away and said, “Think about the impossibility of this life for us. Perhaps you shall ask us to 
go231 with you to live and to die in a foreign land. Having lamented together with you, let us 
go away, with tears that cannot be dried up.”232

223.  This prayer appears without introduction but should be associated with Vahan. 
224.  Manuscript Ա/A has anžamayn, “without time,” but the reading anžaṙang should be preferred. This 

anxiety finds correspondence in Sasanian-era Iran, where multiple means of generating legal heirs were 
recognized to ensure continuity of the family line and hence ownership and control of family assets: M. Macuch, 
“Incestuous Marriage in the Context of Sasanian Family Law,” in Ancient and Middle Iranian Studies: Proceedings 
of the Sixth European Conference of Iranian Studies of the Societas Iranologica Europe in Vienna, September 
19–22, 2007, ed. M. Macuch, D. Weber, and D. Durkin-Meisterernst, 133–48 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010).

225.  Coterminous with Gołt‘n. In the middle of the seventh century, the prince of Ałuank‘ Juanšēr also 
married a daughter of the prince of Siwnik‘ (“the daughter of the prince of the Sisakanean country”): Movsēs 
Kałankatuac‘i, Patmut‘iwn, 2:19; repr. MH, 15:234.21–22; trans. Dowsett, History, 114. 

226.  This is complex, but it seems that the text here portrays Vahan as a Muslim who was dispatched to 
Armenia by the caliph and who secretly converted back to Christianity but did not practice his faith openly out 
of fear of being accused of apostasy. His decision to leave is represented as inspired by a determination not to 
worship God in secret any longer.

227.  t‘ošak: MP tōšag, usually “provisions or resources,” but arguably here and below (5.21) a group of 
people—that is, an entourage.

228.  This representation of the East Roman Empire as a refuge and alternative source of patronage and 
employment for Armenian nobles is found throughout Łewond’s record of the eighth century, from Smbat 
Bagratuni curopalates in ca. 705 CE, to Tačat Anjewac‘i in ca. 753 CE and Šapuh Amatuni in ca. 790 CE: Łewond, 
Patmabanut‘iwn, in MH, 6:757.28, 843.5–4.7, 850.3–7; La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 80, 330–33, 
and 376.

229.  Vayoc‘ Jor: a region adjoining Gołt‘n to the north and under the control of Vahan’s father-in-law, who 
was from the princely house of Siwnik‘. 

230.  This implies that his father-in-law knew the way to Roman territory.
231.  Manuscript Ա/A reads gamk‘, but we prefer gal.
232.  The implication seems to be that some of Vahan’s party resolved to break away at this point.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   80

(5.13) When the blessed one heard that, he left the things that were encumbering and 
impossible and used up resources. Acting controversially,233 like the weapon of the Spirit, 
he arrived straightaway in the country of Virk‘234 through the provision of faith, since those 
azats who were there were relatives of his,235 in order that through them, he might find the 
proposed route.236 (5.14) And there, he undertook still more repentance and nightly prayers 
without rest, calling God to his assistance with fasts, (5.15) and having spent the days of 
more than one year there, again he came back to Armenia, to Aragacotn.237 (5.16) And 
his supporting cavalry deserted him completely out of annoyance. (5.17) And among the 
princes of the district, there were sympathetic238 azats who resolved that having crossed the 
remote country of Tayk‘, they should travel to the city where the king resided.239 (5.18) His 
ones not reckoning this sufficient, they made the prince and the catholicos parties to the 
plan.240 (5.19) And [879] as I surmise, that demon who is very active in everything, through 
ill-intentioned thoughts, suddenly arrived. He frightened the commander and the overseer 
of the Christians241 to the point that they said, “Leave, go away, lest it become ruinous for us 
and anyone.” (5.20) [This was] so that perhaps he242 might be able to lead the blessed man 
into denial of our Christ.

233.  yandēps, literally “unsuitably” or “unbecomingly” but here with a positive rather than negative 
meaning, since he is described as acting like the sword of the Spirit.

234.  Virk‘: Iberia, the lands to the north of historic Armenia, often termed Georgia. Vahan was therefore 
moving north from Gołt‘n toward districts contiguous with the East Roman Empire. 

235.  It is not clear how they were related.
236.  Again, this suggests that Vahan sought guidance from relatives in Georgia on how to reach East Roman 

territory.
237.  One year: the actual timing is impossible to pin down beyond its being after the death of ʿUmar in 720 

and before ca. 730 CE. Aragacotn: south of Virk‘ and further away from East Roman territory. No reason is given 
for this movement.

238.  mōtawor: literally “neighboring” or “adjacent,” but here “close” in the sense of sympathetic.
239.  The city of Constantinople, which literally meant “Constantine’s city.” Tayk‘: a mountainous and remote 

region of Armenia adjoining Roman territory, west of Aragacotn. Łewond records that both Bagratuni and 
Mamikonean princes traveled to Tayk‘ when seeking refuge, Smbat Bagratuni curopalates in ca. 705 and Grigor 
Mamikonean in ca. 748: Łewond, Patmabanut‘iwn, in MH, 6:750.27–9, 819.10; La Porta and Vacca, Armenian 
Futūḥ Narrative, 80, 92–95, 257.

240.  This part of the narrative represents the leading prince of Armenia operating in concert with the 
catholicos, the head of the Armenian Church. The title “prince of Armenia,” išxan Hayoc‘, emerged in the 630s 
and was used by both Roman and Muslim authorities to designate their principal client. For a list of princes 
of Armenia, see Laurent, L’Arménie, 400–408; Ter-Łevondyan, “Hayoc‘ išxaně,” 121–34. Several eighth-century 
catholicoi are also depicted interacting with caliphs or their representatives. It is extremely rare to find a prince 
and a catholicos working together and seemingly against the interests of a Christian Armenian lord, as here. 
The figures are anonymous but may represent Ašot III Bagratuni, prince of Armenia from 726 or 732 to 748 CE, 
and Catholicos David I of Aramonk‘ in Kotayk‘ (ca. 728–741). For Ašot’s support of Marwān b. Muḥammad, see La 
Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 238–41. See also below, note 278. It is unclear whether “his ones” 
refers to Vahan’s relatives (5.13) or his cavalrymen who have just deserted him (5.16).

241.  Different ways of describing the prince of Armenia and the catholicos. Frightened: Vahan was by this 
time a known apostate, and under Islamic law this was worse than being a Muslim political rebel: Kraemer, 
“Apostates.”

242.  That is, the demon.



81  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

(5.21) And they provoked the saint still more, and then he was deserted by everyone, by 
his supporters and entourage,243 apart from one man whom he had, one of his beloved ones; 
however, the demon did not pass over that man. He said, “I am following my companions, 
but give me your horse and your sword, and I shall not betray you to those who are seeking 
your blood.”244 (5.22) And he [Vahan] perceived the deceit in him and gave [them] to him, 
and he contemplated [him] in a loving manner. (5.23) And previously he had given the 
few remaining members of his entourage245 to his wife and sent [them] to the house of her 
father, so he had nothing for himself. (5.24) He went and traveled on foot, having put on 
his faith as armor,246 and went and arrived in the city of Vałaršapat, and the catholicos247 
encountered him and said to him, “Go, travel to some deserted place, so that no harm shall 
befall you from others.”248

(5.25) Being unrecognized by everyone, he traveled with laborious exertion; and drained 
of energy, he fell down on the ground. (5.26) And straightaway a man appeared with a pack 
animal; he looked [at him] and did not see anything apart from a gold ring, his signet ring,249 
which he removed and gave to the man; [and he said,] “Take me to somewhere deserted.” 
(5.27) In taking counsel with God, these words came out in a fitting way: “Lord, You who do 
not recall evil, You are that one who was sold with Joseph, [880] when through the blood 
of a kid and the tearing of his coat by the teeth of wild animals his brothers caused the 
weeping of his father.250 You also kept Daniel alive in the lion’s den, and You rescued the 
three children from the furnace.251 (5.28) Now, O immutable God, [as to] my iniquities, may 
they not be remembered by You, and because Your benevolence cannot be overcome, take 
me away from these bitter cares and this affliction.”

(5.29) And then the days of Great Easter drew near, and he entered some monastery252 and 
stayed there for six months; he made a pool of tears, and his thoughts became God-speaking 
through lips that did not move, and he obtained a higher wisdom. (5.30) But the evil-loving 

243.  i t‘ošakēn; see above, note 227.
244.  This is the first representation of Vahan as a fugitive being pursued. 
245.  zsakaw mnac‘eal t‘ošakn.
246.  Ephesians 6:10.
247.  Vałaršapat, the older name for Ēǰmiacin, the site of notable churches including the Church of Zuart‘noc‘, 

built by Nersēs III Tayec‘i, catholicos between ca. 641 and 661 CE. According to Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, 
David I was forced to leave the city of Duin and settled in the village of Aramonk‘ in Kotayk‘. This is just 25 
km northeast of Vałaršapat. See Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (John Catholicos), Patmut‘iwn, 105; repr. MH, 
11:422.1–4; trans. Maksoudian, History, 112. 

248.  A second indication that Vahan is being pursued.
249.  matani mi oski, zvawerakann. Having given away his horse and sword, Vahan now divested himself 

of the last symbol of his noble status. For the use of seals to execute legal documents in the ninth century, see 
Greenwood, “Contested Jurisdiction,” 214. According to Ibn Aʿtham, it was Mušeł Mamikonean’s refusal to give 
his ancestral signet ring to the ʿAbbāsid governor that precipitated the revolt of 774–75 CE: Ibn Aʿtham, Kitāb 
al-Futūḥ, 8.234–5; La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 325.

250.  Genesis 37:12–35.
251.  Allusions to Daniel 6 and Daniel 3, respectively. Manuscript Ա/A lacks the reference to the den of lions.
252.  In light of what happens, the anonymity of this monastery is unsurprising!



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   82

demon, who is accustomed to inspiring human senses, spread fear among the monks. It was 
made known through them that a prince’s wife was close; she sent to the hermitage, saying, 
“May he depart and go from you; otherwise he shall be a cause of destruction for himself 
and for you.”253 (5.31) And he arose and praised God and said, “At the rising of the evil one 
in battle against me, I have trusted in You; and in the shadowy places of death, make me 
fearless, and do not make the rod and staff of Your holy cross distant from me.254 (5.32) 
Behold, I have been wounded by the teeth of the wolf, just as the man who was [going] to 
Jericho fell into the hands of thieves; do not leave me half-dead, because I have need of 
bandages and soothing oil.”255

(5.33) He left and arrived in a hidden desert and sparsely populated places, and he passed 
the year, until the same autumn, with a single piece of clothing and one cloak, but with a 
heart that was not dispirited, [and] through endeavor; just as [881] a very thirsty stag longs 
for spring waters, so he longed for the love of God.256 And his tears were rendered food, like 
[those] of Saint David,257 and he reckoned it pleasing. (5.34) From that time on, he completely 
removed his hope from the world, and existing outside the body like the spiritual ones, he 
soared above against his enemy, Satan.

(5.35) He decided to go to the prince of the Arabs258 in order to test the boldness of his 
faith, especially because he had become learned in the holy scriptures since the divine 
Holy Spirit had met every need of assistance, as if he were a vardapet in a temple,259 and he 
was trained in the Ishmaelite fables.260 (5.36) He went, not running toward death in some 
foolhardy manner, but rather seeking to confirm the truth of his faith and to repudiate 
completely the falseness of theirs. “Because I did not have a mature mind when I accepted 
theirs,” the saint said, “but was in childhood; and upon growing up, the truth has been 
revealed to me, and I have come to recognize the falseness. And the words of the sermon 

253.  Even if this interaction is fictitious (and critical), the passage supplies early evidence of a direct 
connection between an elite woman and a monastic community. Mariam, daughter of Ašot I Bagratuni and wife 
of Vasak, lord of Siwnik‘, was renowned for her generous support of churches and monasteries in the second 
half of the ninth century, but there is little earlier evidence of female endowments in Armenia—as opposed to 
female asceticism, for which see Z. Pogossian, “Female Asceticism in Early Medieval Armenia,” Le Muséon 125, 
no. 1–2 (2012): 169–213; and D. Zakarian, Women, Too, Were Blessed: The Portrayal of Women in Early Christian 
Armenian Texts (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 105–33.

254.  A clear allusion to Psalm 22:4, interpreted in the light of the cross of Christ.
255.  Luke 10:30–34.
256.  Psalm 41:2.
257.  Psalm 41:4, presented as a psalm of David.
258.  išxann tačkac‘, “prince of the Arabs.” The edition amends the reading in Manuscript Ա/A to hanur, 

“universal,” but this seems unjustified since tiezerakal is the contemporary Armenian term for universal 
authority. 

259.  Since Vahan had been brought up as a Muslim and was now a wandering ascetic, he had received no 
formal instruction. He is therefore depicted as acquiring his knowledge directly from the Holy Spirit.

260.  Ismayelakan aṙaspelabanut‘eanc‘n: a disparaging comment on Islamic belief. Thomson has noted that 
Movsēs Xorenac‘i uses aṙaspel (and occasionally the verb aṙaspelabanel) for fables that are not to be taken 
literally because, according to Movsēs, they are exaggerated, nonsensical, false, or even obscene: Thomson, 
Moses, 10.



83  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

seem to me just.261 (5.37) If their violence torments me and justice does not favor me, still 
I shall not be aggrieved. Christ has died for me and for the sake of His love I am ten times 
more eager; insults in exchange for insults, persecution in exchange for persecution, bonds 
in exchange for bonds, judgment in exchange for the tribunal, just witness that I am a 
Christian in exchange for false witnesses, [882] suffering in exchange for suffering.262 I shall 
carry my cross with the man of Cyrene,263 a sword in exchange for the lance.264 (5.38) And so, 
in accordance with the zeal of Paul,265 I shall fulfill in my own body the want of afflictions of 
Christ, if only God shall make me worthy.”

(5.39) And there were some who were obstructing him, to weaken his resolve, but he took 
delight in their reprimands; other brothers were encouraged at what they had heard and 
he was emboldened on a daily basis.266 (5.40) And when the time of his departure arrived, 
a great sadness came upon a certain monk who was the leader of the community, named 
Yovhannēs.267 He provided him with a mount and a cloak for the needs of the journey, for 
they had become fellow brothers in divine worship and love. (5.41) And he urged one of 
the younger brothers to go after him in his place, in service to the saint. (5.42) And for four 
years268 he traveled, continually afflicted, but God was with him. On three occasions he saw 
the manifestation of a miracle that I am not capable of describing and that the one from 
Tarsus said was his, seeing the light but not hearing the voice,269 and hearing the voice but 
not seeing the light;270 on both occasions it was incomprehensible. (5.43) Now such a thing is 
not dissimilar to seeing the Lord Himself through the eye of the Spirit and hearing, “Do not 
delay, for I am with you and I will make your words invincible and I shall set you among the 
first of the saints.”271

(5.44) And having come to the feast of the Holy Cross, with much contrition he entered 
the temple of God and shared in the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord.272 (5.45) 

261.  Given the following biblical reference, this appears to refer to the Sermon on the Mount.
262.  Based on Matthew 5:11. Vahan is imagining taking upon himself the experiences of Christ’s passion.
263.  Variously Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26.
264.  Perhaps the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Ephesians 6:17), in opposition to the lance 

that pierced Christ on the cross (John 19:34). This is very compressed.
265.  Acts 22:3.
266.  It is not clear where this occurred. When the narrative broke off at 5.34, Vahan was living alone in a 

deserted place, having been compelled to leave a monastery. Here he is once again in a monastic community. 
Evidently some elements have been lost or the sequence of the narrative has been disrupted.

267.  The location of the monastery and the identity of Yovhannēs are both obscure.
268.  This laconic statement about the passage of time sits uneasily with Vahan’s express intention above 

(5.35) to go and confront the caliph.
269.  Acts 22:9. The perspective here is that of the companion, not Vahan.
270.  Acts 9:7. Again this is the perspective of those accompanying Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus. This 

sentence combines details from the two accounts of Paul’s conversion.
271.  Isaiah 43:5 for the first part of this sentence, but the verse has “fear,” not “delay” or “slumber.”
272.  According to van Esbroeck, this occurred on September 14, 736: van Esbroeck, “Salomon de Makenoc,” 

41–42. 



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   84

And a certain man—the abbot of the monastery, which [883] was called Mak‘enoc‘273—
whose name was Sołomon had brought to him a book of consolation and a garment for 
the purposes of provision.274 (5.46) Then this blessed man, with many tears from many 
people, searched for the irrevocable road, just as the evangelist of the world [had searched] 
for Rome.275 He went and arrived in the district of Bznunik‘, at a village called Arckē;276 he 
went to the hermitage in Maseac‘otn that they call Erašxawor, whose leader was an abbot 
named Artawazd, also known as Abraham.277 He received him with love for three days, and 
at his departure he supplied him with the needs of his journey. (5.47) And God’s miracles 
accomplished this, because he subsequently attracted everyone’s minds with love, and he 
departed and became praiseworthy.

(5.48) And a multitude of cavalrymen returned from conflict in the northern regions,278 
and various contingents approached him afterwards for the purpose of debating with him, 
and they were not able to endure the wisdom through which he spoke to them from the 
divine scriptures, revealing the truth about Christ—that He is the Son of God.279 

(5.49) And having arrived in the metropolis of Edessa, he worshiped the salvific image 
and sought pardon for his childish ignorance.280 (5.50) And from there he went to Callinicum 
and crossed the Euphrates River; and finishing the journey with great effort, he came and 
arrived in the city of Ruṣāfa, which was the residence of Hishām, the prince of the Arabs.281 

273.  The monastery of Mak‘enoc‘ was located south of lake Sewan. If it is the same figure, Abbot Solomon of 
Mak‘enoc‘ was the learned teacher of Step‘anos Siwnec‘i, one of the most prominent clerics and scholars of the 
first half of the eighth century; see van Esbroeck, “Salomon de Makenoc,” for a presentation and analysis of the 
disparate references.

274.  We prefer the reading in Manuscript Ա/A, patčars, “causes, purposes,” rather than pēts, “needs”; 
t‘ošaki, provision.

275.  The apostle Paul. Vahan’s search for the right road (to martyrdom) contrasts with his struggle to find 
the way to the East Roman Empire earlier in the narrative and his need to take advice (5.10, 5.13).

276.  Arckē: a settlement on the northern shore of Lake Van, more commonly identified as an awan, “town,” 
in later works.

277.  The monastery of Erašxawor is usually identified as being located at Širakawan in Širak. The suggestion 
that it was in Maseac‘otn—the “foot of Masis,” the territory extending north from Mount Ararat (Masis) to 
the Araxes River—is surprising but may indicate an earlier location. Vahan’s movements are hard to explain. 
Artawazd/Abraham also features at the end of the composition (9.2), and he is presented as the author of the 
narrative (10.2). 

278.  This passage appears to be connected to the series of campaigns undertaken by Marwān b. Muḥammad 
after 732 CE against the Khazars in the northern Caucasus. These involved both Arab and Armenian troops, the 
latter under Ašot III Bagratuni: see La Porta and Vacca, Armenian Futūḥ Narrative, 238–41.

279.  Such a debate implies that there was disagreement over the status of Jesus and hence that the 
cavalrymen involved in the debate were Muslim, not Christian.

280.  Uṙha, the Armenian name for the city of Edessa. This is a previously unacknowledged reference to the 
Mandylion, on which there is a substantial secondary literature; see M. Guscin, The Image of Edessa (Leiden: 
Brill, 2009).

281.  Kałinikos: Roman Callinicum, modern Raqqa. Ṙucap‘: Resafa/al-Ruṣāfa, Sergiopolis. Šam: Hishām b. 
ʿAbd al-Malik, caliph between January 724 and February 6, 743. Hishām invested heavily in this site and spent 
much of his reign here: Borrut, Entre mémoire et pouvoir, 427–29. 



85  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

(5.51) And then he sent the servant who was with him back to his place. And he himself 
stopped outside the city for a few days, reflecting on who might notify the palace about 
him.282

[884] (6.1) But it seems to me that that demon was moving there and said to his 
advisers,283 “I shall separate this man from Christ and bring him near hell; but you, my 
fellow combatants, provide assistance because he has greatly weakened me.” (6.2) And the 
multitude of royal advisers came and sat around [Vahan] and said, “Do not abandon comfort 
for difficulty.284 Take for yourself your splendor and remember our Messenger,285 who gave 
the greatness of this world to us and keeps for us the pleasure of the garden that has been 
prepared, and your Christ has increased death for you.”286

(6.3) Now he, strengthened in the Holy Spirit, said, “The one who speaks with me through 
you [is the same as] those who, in the land of the Gergesenes, asked to take control of the 
pigs and were plunged into the sea, in the multitude of the waters.287 Your words shall die 
in you, in accordance with that vain and malicious advice.” (6.4) And they were defeated by 
him and were tripped up by their error.

(6.5) And he relied on God and went to the dprapet who had previously been his vardapet 
and disclosed his intention.288 “Through true hope, I am without fear. I beg you; relate my 
circumstances to the amirapet.”289 (6.6) And he recognized his boldness and the contempt 
that he had for their faith, and he rebuked him severely with threats and showed the 
danger of unendurable things, worse than death by torture, and after that becoming food 
for birds, always pitiable for Christians.290 (6.7) Then the joy of his heart caused the color of 
his face to shine, and he was not downcast as one frightened. (6.8) When the dprapet saw 
that, he entreated [him] and promised presents from the royal treasury and power, if only 
he would be persuaded, and having sworn, [885] he gave to him thirty silver coins and sent 

282.  This implies that access to the court was controlled and Vahan was trying to work out how to bring 
himself to Hishām’s attention.

283.  That is, Hishām’s advisers.
284.  Given Vahan’s travails up to this point, this injunction seems misplaced. It echoes previous arguments 

advanced by al-Walīd at 4.10 above.
285.  patgamawor, i.e., the Prophet Muḥammad; see also below, 6.25 and note 311, for other names for the 

Prophet.
286.  The garden: paradise. The Qurʾān contains multiple references to the garden as paradise, including Q. 

2:25 and 5:85. This may also be an inversion of Matthew 25:34.
287.  Luke 8:26–39. Gergesac‘ik‘, i.e., Gergesenes, is used in the Armenian Bible at vv. 26 and 37.
288.  dprapet: head scribe. See 4.2 and note 205 above.
289.  Vahan is still searching for someone to bring his case before Hishām (5.51). The use of amirpet here and 

in two later passages (6.32 and 7.6), as well as amir momin, Ar. amīr al-muʾminīn, at 9.1, may be contrasted with 
the absence of such terms in the narrative reporting the fires of Naxčawan (1.1–4.2) and provides weak evidence 
for the combination of two separate compositions.

290.  Psalm 78.9. Exposure rather than burial was also a Zoroastrian practice and features in earlier Armenian 
works. See, for example, the description of the corpses of the holy Łewondeank‘, left to be devoured by birds and 
dismembered, as reported by Łazar, Patmut‘iwn, §57; repr. MH, 2:2297.12; trans. Thomson, History of Łazar, 151.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   86

him away from himself.291 (6.9) He received it on account of the oath and distributed it to 
the poor in his presence. (6.10) And he himself lived outside during the season of the bitter 
cold of winter, with little clothing and food, as if he was incorporeal.

(6.11) Then he went to a certain prince who had responsibility for the entrances and 
exits.292 Out of fear of Hishām, he declared that the matter could not be discussed and that 
his ears would not stand for it because “that discourse is deadly, trouble for me and death 
for you.” He also told him to leave and go away, because “there is a sword pointing at your 
body; perhaps you shall cause it to be raised at others.” (6.12) Now, he [Vahan] did not 
reckon the advice pleasing to God, since he would be fleeing from the battle like a coward. 
(6.13) When he did not find a solution, he fell before God in entreaty. We have found his 
prayer in writing,293 and he spoke in this way: 

“Almighty Son of God, you who have been called the shepherd of the lost sheep and 
having found it, you lifted it onto your shoulder294 and, stretching out your arms, you have 
gathered the whole world to yourself—do not leave me without assistance among strangers; 
wash away my transgressions through your blood and life-producing body, you who are that 
manna of immortality, you who descended from heaven and were presented as bread for 
us,295 my Jesus, savior of the world, who, through the will of the Father and the Holy Spirit 
and yourself, became a sacrifice for us and a guide on the road of life. Holy Father, Holy Son, 
Holy Spirit, who are the Trinity of our confession and one God, you who are one in three 
persons, distant from everyone and near to everyone, whose glory is forever, Amen.”296

(6.14) And after the praise and the prayer, he went to the chief executioner,297 whose 
name was K‘abš and who was prince of Himac‘ik‘,298 and being made known to him, he 
became very eager to relate [Vahan’s arrival to Hishām]. (6.15) And he took {the document}299 
and conveyed it to the tyrant, and when he received [886] the letter, he was amazed at the 

291.  The nature of this oath is unclear, but it could be a promise on oath by the dprapet to Vahan that he 
would speak on his behalf to Hishām. The payment of thirty silver coins recalls the sum received by Judas for 
betraying Jesus (Matthew 26:15), but who is paying whom and why is unclear. It seems more likely that the 
dprapet paid Vahan, who then gave the money away. In any event, it seems that the dprapet did not carry out 
his side of the agreement.

292.  The dprapet having failed him, this is the second person Vahan approached to try and secure an 
audience with Hishām.

293.  The implication is that this is the prayer of Vahan preserved separately in written form. No explanation 
as to how this might have been achieved is offered.

294.  Luke 15:3–6.
295.  An allusion to John 6:58.
296.  The stress on the Trinity is noteworthy, given the sharply anti-Trinitarian stance of Islam.
297.  Dahčapet, based on MP dahīč + pet, head executioner.
298.  K‘abš: an unknown figure, perhaps Qabisa. Himac‘ik: perhaps “those of Ḥamā” or “those of Ḥimṣ,” Gk. 

Emesa, although it is also possible that a form of Yamanī (that is, Yemeni) lies behind this term. He is the third 
person to be approached by Vahan; his office seems more than coincidental, given the role he plays later in the 
narrative, at 7.8ff.

299.  yetkar, “document,” is not found in manuscript Ա/A and has been inserted by Tēr-Vardanean on the 
basis of manuscript Գ/G. The sentence refers to the caliph receiving the letter, zgirn, and not the saint in 
person, which suggests that the addition of yetkar is unnecessary.



87  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

beautiful forms and the clever and suitable position of the words300 and gave an order to 
bring [him] into his presence. And looking at him, he spoke gentle words: “Why, Vahap, 
do you show yourself dressed as a poor man, contrary to your magnificence? So then, has 
the land of Armenia reduced you to that?”301 (6.16) The saint replied and said, “My Lord 
humbled himself in the appearance of a servant and came down into poverty for our sake 
and became obedient to death on a cross.302 Now I shall not renounce what he suffered 
for my sake.” (6.17) The tyrant said, “The evil demons of the ice-covered mountains of 
Armenia have surrounded you and deceived you to speak in this useless manner.”303 (6.18) 
The martyr304 said, “What I used to have previously in accordance with your religion I 
have purged from myself, since just as dark is driven away by light, likewise yours [is 
driven away] from me.” (6.19) The judge said, “The wise ones of your false religion say that 
when demons are cast from a good person,305 they become the evil of others. And it is true, 
because they have become yours here and you have gone to what you have trusted in. (6.20) 
As a man who hates the good, why do you cast the glory of your life away from yourself like 
a mad person?”

(6.21) And he gave an order to the heads of the treasury to bring treasures of gold and 
silver and garments in silk of different colors.306 And he said to him, “Unfortunate and evil-
loving man, take all that, and servants and maidservants and horses and mules and camels, 
and authority for you, whether here or in Gołt‘n, your own principality. (6.22) And bear 
in mind our Prophet, who has given all this greatness to us and keeps for us the pleasure 
of the garden that has been prepared.”307 (6.23) And the saint replied, saying, [887] “In the 
past I listened to the report of your subtle, false, and cunning counsel, through which you 
have seduced many from the truth into the abyss of destruction, making them companions 
with you in Gehenna, some by using a frightening voice and others with persuasive and 
flattering words, some with pointless goods and other possessions; some you rendered 
glorious with transitory power and honors and others you fooled with false hope of eternal 

300.  For Armenian knowledge of Arabic, see Thomson, “Arabic in Armenia”; and Vacca, “Arabic and the 
Public Performance of Power.”

301.  The note of disdain in the caliph’s voice could be indicative of Armenia’s contemporary reputation.
302.  Philippians 2:7–8. The reference to poverty is not found in the standard Armenian or Greek texts of 

Philippians.
303.  For analysis of this intriguing comment, see above, at notes 81–84. It appears to reflect Avestan 

tradition and Sasanian administrative and geographical knowledge, all of which feature in earlier Armenian 
literature, although not in this specific combination. For reflections on the North (abāxtar) in Sasanian Iran, 
see A. Tafazzoli, “Bāktar (1),” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, online ed., 1988; and idem, Sasanian Society (New York: 
Bibliotheca Persica Press, 2000), 8–9. The caliph is therefore being represented as a Sasanian šahanšah. But even 
for those who did not grasp this connotation, the disdain with which Armenia is mentioned would have been 
obvious.

304.  vkayn, literally witness.
305.  Manuscript Ա/A lacks i barwoyn, “from the good,” but this has been added by Tēr-Vardanean on the 

basis of the reading baroyn in Manuscripts Գ/G and Ձ/J. This may be an allusion to Matthew 12:43–45, but it 
displays a different logic and language.

306.  metak‘saṙēš; cf. Manuscript Ա/A, which has metak‘s aṙaǰi, Gk. μέταξα.
307.  Compare 6.2 and note 286 above.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b100874360/


Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   88

life, promising that they would become heirs of paradise. And in every case, you have 
attempted to divert the fickle-minded by your clever wisdom from the broad highway, and 
through rebellion and apostasy you have cast [them] into the abyss of destruction. You 
shall answer with them in the eternal torments through the fire of Gehenna.308 (6.24) But 
you are not able to defeat this servant of God through your cunning devices; I am protected 
by the fear of God and fortified with the knowledge of the Holy Books and the defense of 
the precepts of Christ, and I am well trained and more learned than you in your erroneous 
fables.309 (6.25) As a result, your corrupter-in-chief, whom you falsely call a prophet, is dead, 
and his bones and tomb are next to you.310 And you elevate [him] next to God and call him 
head of paradise,311 about whom the sayings of your erroneous belief are seer or messenger. 
(6.26) But if you were to do good for me, may it be this: grant me freedom in accordance 
with the practice of Christians, for me to have my traditional religion.312 And I have no need 
of transitory wealth; and if you wish, you may take my district from me because I shall be 
leaving, like all men. (6.27) Where is the universal authority of your father or the tyranny 
of your four brothers?313 [888] Did they not in fact become covered in shadow in an instant, 
just as you will be transformed in the same way?”314

(6.28) Then the tyrant was filled with anger and ordered him to be taken out and thrown 
into prison and for his feet to be bound with fetters. (6.29) And when they conveyed him to 
throw him into jail, he requested that both his feet be bound in the fetters. (6.30) And they 
were amazed at his natural courage and acceded to his request. (6.31) And they rapidly sent 
messengers to Marwān,315 who at the time happened to be in Mesopotamia, so that he might 
learn truly from him about the holy man.316 (6.32) And he found well-informed men and 
sent [them] quickly to the amirapet, so that he might be informed by them.317

308.  Possible allusion to Matthew 5:22, i gehen hroyn, or to Mark 9:43, i gehen i hurn anšēǰ, both of which 
connect Gehenna with fire, but here the term used for fire is ayrmamb.

309.  jerum aṙaspelakan molorut‘eand; compare 5.35 and note 260 above.
310.  This is a surprising claim about the location of the tomb of the Prophet.
311.  draxtapet, “head of paradise.” The Prophet is here given three names that were apparently in 

contemporary use: “head of paradise” as well as tesanoł, “seer,” and banber, “messenger” or “envoy”—literally 
“word-bearer”; compare above, 6.2 and note 285.

312.  This is a familiar request made by Armenian lords and clerics alike to Sasanian šahanšahs in late antique 
Armenian sources, as discussed, for example, in Thomson, History of Łazar, 14–17 and especially 25–30. In this 
instance, the language used to express the demand is different, as it avoids claims that Armenian tradition is 
hayreni, “patrimonial,” or bnik, “natural, original”; the term awrēnk, “Christian religious practice,” is also not 
used. 

313.  tiezerakan išxanutiwnn; compare 5.35 and note 258 above. His father: ʿAbd al-Malik. His four brothers: 
al-Walīd, Sulaymān, and Yazīd II were all brothers, but ʿUmar II was a nephew of ʿAbd al-Malik. The memory of 
four caliphs between ʿAbd al-Malik and Hishām is correct; only Yazīd II is missing from the narrative.

314.  That is, they proved to be mortal and died, just as Hishām will.
315.  Mruan, Marwān b. Muḥammad, nephew of Hishām, a powerful figure in the 730s and later the last 

Umayyad caliph (744–750 CE). Marwān is introduced without explanation, suggesting that the original audience 
knew exactly who he was.

316.  This echoes the earlier investigation ordered by ʿUmar, described at 4.8 above.
317.  This final phrase is not found in Manuscript Ա/A.



89  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

(6.33) And he stayed in prison for eight days; he completely ignored ease of the body, 
with eyes that did not sleep and eyelids that did not slumber, without rest, so that the 
Holy Spirit would strengthen him to elevate his earthly nature and to make him a sharer 
of Christ’s cross. (6.34) Now, during those days the tyrant did not stop sending teachers of 
their religion to him in prison for the purpose of discussion in order to overcome him by 
some books.318 (6.35) But they were overcome by him, and they returned ashamed to their 
prince and said, “He is impossibly eloquent and expert in speaking and sharp-eared at the 
recitation of the books, so it is not possible for anyone to speak a word to his replies; but [he 
is like] a sword that lays bare the language of words.” (6.36) He commanded [them] not to 
tell this to anyone.

(6.37) And then a certain truth-loving Yakobik319 came to him in the prison and said to the 
saint, “On the last day of your life, [889] receive the body and blood of Christ, our provision 
for your salvation,320 because it has happened at this time of my priesthood.”321 (6.38) And he 
said, “I shall be baptized in this blood; through this last cup, I shall depart from this world.” 
(6.39) And when the festival that is called Palm Sunday arrived, a blessed day, he blessed 
God on that day through reflection and said to the head of the prison,322 “I shall leave you in 
peace after my departure from this world because you have treated me with compassion.” 
(6.40) The man was astonished and said, “What is the prison of which you speak? I did not 
create for you some place of leisure because you have completely rejected such a thing. For 
since I did not have power in other matters, I wanted in some small way to share in your 
affliction, through clothing, food, or perhaps some other means, but you have not allowed 
consolation for the body in any way, because some gift has appeared to you, not only in 
the daytime but also in the nighttime, and you have been in some glorious place that has 
appeared. (6.41) But now you are showing the signs323 of a departure, something that I have 
never heard.” (6.42) And having given thanks concerning him, he said, “The distributor of 
good things is not far away. And behold, the travelers who went beside me have departed.”

(7.1) And on the following day, they came back from the prince of the North324 on their 
swift horses to relate the information that he had examined everything truthfully and to 
say concerning him that “he is no stranger to knowledge and from a good family and is not 

318.  The apparent use of written testimony in the debate is striking, and it is repeated in the following 
sentence (6.35). See also Kraemer, “Apostates,” 41, for discussion of whether apostates would be given a chance 
to recant and how long that period of possible repentance was (istitāba). This account seems to be aware of the 
practice and approves it. See above, at note 79.

319.  Yakobik: a contemporary term for a Miaphysite, literally “a little Jacob,” one who followed Jacob 
Baradeus, hence Jacobite. For analysis and discussion, see above, at notes 37–39. This term does not appear to 
have been used before about 700 CE, at least not in Armenian. See also 8.7 and note 344 below. 

320.  The implication is that Vahan accepts his final sacrament from a Syrian Orthodox priest.
321.  Manuscript Ա/A reads handipec‘aw; Tēr-Vardanean prefers handipec‘ar, “you have encountered.”
322.  bandapet, “head of the prison.”
323.  irs, used repeatedly with a wide range of connotations; here “signs.”
324.  Marwān b. Muḥammad, mentioned above at 6.31. This title recognizes his broad northern command, a 

role he held from 732 or 733 CE. 



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   90

someone who is sick other than being of another people and of foreign learning.”325 (7.2) And 
he [Hishām] commanded the blessed one to be brought, imagining that he would yield as a 
result of the onerous affliction and imprisoning bonds. And he inquired, “Have you come 
out of your madness [890] to the truth, the things of ours that you learned in childhood 
through the tuition of erudite ones, or do you remain confirmed in the same perversity?” 
(7.3) And he said, “It is not permitted to speak of anything else as truth, or to speak of the 
light as darkness or of the darkness as light. But you shall do whatever is your will.”

(7.4) The prince said to him, “One of my elite has undertaken a thorough investigation 
and has not seen any falseness in you, nor in your family since they became wise.326 And if 
they had some dealings with foreign kings, they did not change from their own tradition.327 
(7.5) But you have become a bad example for us, because in contemplating you, others will 
fall into the same.328 Now, it is not appropriate to do good to you, since you have pronounced 
your words in public and you have broadcast them into the hearing of everyone, reducing 
ours to falseness. You had received that gift not from yours but from ours, and that audacity 
of yours derives from my indulgence.”329

(7.6) Then everyone, all those who were around him, acted in unanimity. Everyone 
shouted out that he should be removed from the living promptly and quickly. And the 
evil spirit inspired everyone together; he changed the color of the amirapet’s face, and 
he commanded that he be taken outside and killed. (7.7) And he left meekly, with a joyful 
expression, singing the psalm, “To You, O Lord, I have lifted the eyes of my soul; just as 
the eyes of a servant look to the hand of the master, in the same way the sight of my 
mind looks to You.”330 And the psalms that are after this, up to the place and the endpoint 
of these, “My weakness, like a sparrow, has sought refuge from their traps.”331 (7.8) And 
Hishām summoned the chief executioner332 and said, “Go, [891] take him outside the city 
and implore that perhaps he shall convert, but if [he does] not, intimidate him with that 
sword of yours and, getting close to him, say ‘Do not perish in vain.’”333

325.  For prospective martyrs needing to be of sound mind, see Sahner, Christian Martyrs, 169. Marwān b. 
Muḥammad’s report is remarkably neutral, acknowledging Vahan’s noble background and his difference but 
refraining from denouncing him. The joint Arab-Armenian operations under Marwān’s command in the 730s 
would have provided an ideal context for the representation of such an assessment; see above, 5.48 and note 
278.

326.  imastun: “wise” or “prudent,” possibly in a political rather than religious sense.
327.  This implies that although Vahan’s family had had dealings with other kings—most probably Sasanian 

šahanšahs—in the past (see above, 4.11), they had remained faithful to their own religious tradition. This is a key 
theme in earlier Armenian literature: see above, note 312. 

328.  Vahan’s public repudiation of Islam is deemed to threaten upsetting the political and religious consensus 
and Armenian quiescence. 

329.  Is the gift eloquence or learning in Arabic? This verbal joust is very compressed. Hishām seems to want 
to have the last word, claiming that even Vahan’s boldness in speaking out is thanks to his own forbearance.

330.  Psalm 122:1–2, with additions that are not obviously from the Septuagint. 
331.  Psalm 123:7. This sentence identifies a longer reading from start to finish by citing the opening and 

closing verses. It may therefore be a later interpolation.
332.  dahčapet: see above, 6.14 and note 297.
333.  See above, notes 79 and 318, for discussion of the period within which an apostate might recant (istitāba).



91  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

(7.9) And a multitude of Christians went out after them at a distance.334 And the laments 
of the compassionate ones streamed with tears. (7.10) And on arriving at the place of 
destruction, filled with rejoicing, he stretched his arms to heaven and said, “I thank You, 
Lord, You who have received my daily groans and have fulfilled my desires and have 
transformed the breaking of my joints and have rendered it equal to the death of Your 
holy martyrs and have made me worthy to die for the sake of Your great name. (7.11) 
Now, remember us, O Lord, us who die every day for Your sake, and put to shame those 
foolish ones, who have taken pride in their worldly achievements by means of the deceptive 
pleasure-loving distraction of the left side.335 And keep the children of Your holy church 
innocent and unshakable on Your rock of faith, and render them worthy at Your glorious 
return to advance with You along Your heavenly highway to the vaults of heaven as sons 
of light, glorifying the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and always and forever, 
Amen.”

(7.12) Then the chief executioner, in furious anger, said to him, “You have not wanted to 
be persuaded by my words; now, having gone out, I shall carry out the things commanded 
concerning you.” (7.13) And the saint replied, saying, “Even if it is perhaps usual for you to 
refuse the commands of your superiors, it is impossible for me to violate the injunctions 
of my heavenly king.” (7.14) Then the chief executioner seized him, drew his sword, and 
caused it to shine in accordance with the royal command, showing the bloodiness,336 [892] 
but he was not at all afraid. (7.15) He said to him again, “What do you want?” (7.16) The 
saint said, “Do what you want.” (7.17) And from this point on, he did not say anything. (7.18) 
Again, the killer spoke: “O unfortunate one, behold, the day of grief has arrived for you, or 
life once more, if you should wish. Now why have you not chosen life but preferred death?” 
(7.19) The saint said, “I have chosen death for the sake of Christ over this transitory life.”337

(7.20) And then the killer held his neck in front of him, and having raised his sword, he 
cut off his head. And he left immediately and went away.

(7.21) The blessed martyr of Christ, Saint Vahan, was killed on the eighteenth day of the 
month of March and the twenty-seventh [day of the month of] Mareri in the week of the 
Easter fast, on a Monday, at the ninth hour.338

(8.1) Those from the royal court who were there heard and saw everything, that the 
blood of the confessor of Christ, which had been shed, collected in one place.339 Those who 

334.  The first reference to large numbers of Christians being present in Ruṣāfa; see above, at note 70, and 
below, 8.1–10.

335.  jaxakołmann: “of the left side”; cf. Matthew 25:41.
336.  Manuscript Ա/A has zariwnac‘aytsn; Tēr-Vardanean prefers zariwn ačac‘n. See 7.8 above.
337.  This contradicts 7.16, where Vahan is reported to have said his last words.
338.  This corresponds to March 18, 737 CE: van Esbroeck, “Salomon,” 42. Tēr-Vardanean prefers k‘san ew 

hing Mareri, “twenty-fifth [day of the month of] Mareri,” but Manuscript Ա/A reads “27 of Mareri,” which 
corresponds to March 18. Confusion between the Armenian numerals 5 and 7, Ե/E and Է/Ē, is very common.

339.  Elements in the following narrative correspond to features preserved in the Armenian Life of Saints 
Sergius and Bacchus, which itself is closely modeled on the Greek Passio. For the gathering of the blood of Saint 
Sergius in one place, see van den Gheyn, “Passio antiquior SS. Sergii et Bacchi,” 394; see also “Vkayabanut‘iwn 
srboyn Sargsi ew Bagosi,” 278, where the location is called a “great chasm,” vih mec. For a wider study of the 



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   92

watched the miraculous events at the time of his execution reported that his face was 
glorified with a marvelous radiance. (8.2) Then the Christians who were waiting diligently 
to take some relics did not dare approach out of fear, and the holy body fell and remained 
in the place where they threw those condemned to death. (8.3) And it was usual for dogs to 
gather in that place. Now, when night fell, they came and straightaway made a big circle 
and stayed there on guard during the night, and then suddenly they started biting one 
another with their teeth and fled away.340

(8.4) And on the next day—I do not know whether it happened as a vision at night 
or through some other means—the chief eunuch341 came out from the palace [893] and 
announced, “If there should be anyone here from the Christians, come forward and remove 
the body, and after conveying [it], act in accordance with their custom.” (8.5) Now some 
Christians came forward and showed their dread and fear. And he said, “There is no sedition 
in these acts; remove in peace.”342

(8.6) And when the news spread, a multitude of Christians assembled and collected the 
glorious blood of the martyr, and digging the earth, they made a trench. And from the ardor 
of their passion, countless conflicts used to be stirred up.343 (8.7) And a multitude of men 
and women was found there, Roman and Yakobik and Nestorian,344 and taking relics from 
the blood and clothing, they were at peace. (8.8) And they were of one mind in relation to 
the matter of the holy body, saying, “Let us now take and bury this martyr345 at the burial 
site,346 which is called ‘for foreigners,’ and let us reckon it to be at an end.” (8.9) And when 

traditions, see Fowden, Barbarian Plain, 7–29.
340.  In the Greek Passio, a crowd of animals gathers around the body of Bacchus, but it is protected by the 

birds until the following morning: van den Gheyn, “Passio antiquior SS. Sergii et Bacchi,” 389; Fowden, Barbarian 
Plain, 10. Before Sergius is martyred, animals and birds assemble to mourn his passing and Sergius commends 
their obedience and recognition of God’s power, but there is no sense that they guard the body: van den Gheyn, 
“Passio antiquior SS. Sergii et Bacchi,” 393; Fowden, Barbarian Plain, 11. The Armenian version of the Passio is 
broadly similar, but the animals are not described as guarding the body of either saint: “Vkayabanut‘iwn srboyn 
Sargsi ew Bagosi,” 273, 277–78. By contrast, here the dogs form a circle around Vahan’s body overnight. This 
seems closer to the description of the martyrdom of Bacchus, which occurred at Barbalissos, not Ruṣāfa. The 
gathering of the blood in one place, however, is reserved for Sergius.

341.  nerk‘inapet. This term is challenging to interpret, since employing eunuchs at court has usually been 
considered an ʿAbbāsid-era practice; see, however, El-Azhari, Queens, Eunuchs and Concubines, 69–73. It could 
be that the official was assumed to be a eunuch because this was already the tradition in the imperial court 
in Constantinople. Alternatively, it could be that nerk‘inapet may have retained a meaning equivalent to MP 
ped-šabestān, “master of the private/inner quarters,” of which it is a calque.

342.  This is a surprising statement. Collecting relics on this occasion was not deemed to be a seditious act, 
but one might infer that previously it had been, hence the fear of the Christians to act.

343.  That is, these communities were normally in conflict with one another, but the gathering of the relics 
afforded a rare instance of unity.

344.  Roman: Chalcedonian or Melkite; Yakobik: Jacobite, Miaphysite, or Syrian Orthodox (see above, note 
319); Nestorian: Church of the East. The representation of all three communities in Ruṣāfa is striking, as is the 
detail that both men and women were reportedly involved in gathering the relics.

345.  vkayd: “this martyr.”
346.  gerezman: “tomb,” “grave,” or “burial site.” The implication is that there were several graveyards, 

including one for foreigners—that is, for those who died while visiting Ruṣāfa and had no family tomb there.



93  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

they had conveyed and set it there, they carved a four-sided stone from the rocks and 
placed it as a gravestone, and then they went, each to their own places.347 (8.10) And later 
it was believed that this may have been done so that no one could steal the precious body.

(8.11) Then a certain man from the royal officials—one who honored God and was 
from the Roman race348—named Theophilus, who according to their [custom] was called 
Abu Step‘an,349 came together with four of his men to seize the precious treasure, and he 
commanded [them] to make a box350 in secret.351 And at the darkening of the day, he came 
with four men, and after taking it from the tomb, they placed it in the box and took it and 
secured it in his chamber. (8.12) And during the same night, it was revealed to the bishop 
of the city,352 and when it grew light, he summoned those who had lifted [the body] and 
described to them the things that they had done in secret according to his vision. (8.13) 
When it became known [894] that [the body] was not at the site of the grave, a rumor went 
around that merchants had stolen the body of the blessed man and had gone down through 
the region of Baʿalbek to the land of the Palestinians;353 and the truth was revealed openly to 
those who were uncertain.354

(8.14) There was a certain person who was ill and near death. He saw someone in a vision 
who said to him, “Be quick; seek soil from the site of the tomb355 of the marvelous man 
Vahan, and once you have been consecrated through it, you shall live.” (8.15) Straightaway, 
he commanded that this be carried out and that he be conveyed to the place, and he returned 
to his house healthy. (8.16) When they saw that, they were inspired by his courage, and in 
honor of the saint they built a martyr’s shrine356 over him in an operation that required 
little effort.357

347.  This could describe a stele or an early form of xač‘kar.
348.  “Roman” was used above as a religious marker. Here it qualifies azg, “people” or “race.”
349.  T‘eop‘ilē, Theophilus; Abu Step‘an, “father of Step‘anos.” The meaning of “their [custom]” is ambiguous, 

since it could indicate either linguistic or cultural tradition. Either way, it implies that local patronymic naming 
practice was different. Abu is Arabic (Abū) rather than Aramaic. 

350.  tapan: box.
351.  The Greek Passio of Saints Sergius and Bacchus records that some religious men later tried to steal the 

body of Saint Sergius, described as a precious treasure, but were thwarted: Fowden, Barbarian Plain, 11, 21. This 
is not mentioned in the Armenian version.

352.  Manuscript Ա/A lacks i tesleann, “in a vision,” inserted by Tēr-Vardanean, but the same phrase appears 
in the manuscript at the end of the sentence. The identity of the bishop is unknown; conceivably there were 
several bishops in the city, of different confessions, each ministering to his own community. It seems clear that 
Theophilus was not a bishop.

353.  Bałbag: Baʿalbek, Roman Heliopolis, north of Damascus. The city was badly damaged in the Third Fitna, 
suggesting that the text may have been composed before its destruction in 748 CE. Although the rumor was 
untrue, one of the implications of this passage is that the merchants were Christians.

354.  The passage ends without any clear statement of what happened to Vahan’s body. The bishop’s vision, 
his confronting the perpetrators, and the revelation of the truth all suggest that it was returned to its original 
location. 

355.  tapanavayr: “place of the box.”
356.  matuṙn: “martyr’s shrine” or “chapel.”
357.  Again, it is not clear whether this happened at the original site of his tomb or the site to which his relics 



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   94

(8.17) And they built a royal palace near the site of the saint.358 And one of those who had 
removed the body of the saint, on becoming one of the overseers, fell to the ground from 
one of the very high places, and letting out a cry and in a loud voice, he said, “Save me, 
Saint Vahan!”359 And having come down, he got up on his own feet. (8.18) And those who 
had seen him and heard him coming down saw the man standing up. (8.19) And he said, “I 
saw this marvelous person and was very amazed, for it seemed as if he came beside me to 
hold me. When I realized this, I stretched out my hand and held him, even though he was 
not there beside me. (8.20) And you all see me, that I am well, without injury.”

(8.21) When they saw all these miracles, without delay they built a wonderful church over 
him, with a martyrium, without fear.360 (8.22) And they placed the martyr not in the church 
[895] but in the martyrium on the north side, in the holy chamber;361 they constructed 
it with baked bricks and lime, they made it shine with lamps, and they decorated it with 
other vessels.362 (8.23) And from then on, many sick and ill people were healed. (8.24) And 
the news spread round all the regions. And those who arrived from the provinces and went 
across to the court fell in front of the holy martyr and worshiped the Holy Trinity.

(9.1) This was accomplished in the days of Hishām, amīr al-muʾminīn, on that side of the 
river Euphrates, in the city of Ruṣāfa.363 

(9.2) Then, seven years later,364 the abbot Abraham, who was also [known as] Artawazd,365 
took with him some of the brothers366 and went down to Syria, and they arrived at the city 
of Callinicum. There, in the city, they lodged in the monastery, which was called Der Mar 
Zakk‘ē,367 which received us with much love368 and advised that we should depart for the 
place with great caution, lest we be seized by the enemy and suffer punishment and death.369 

had been taken by Theophilus; but see 9.3 and 9.7 below, which suggest the former.
358.  At least one of Hishām’s palaces was apparently located outside the city walls: Fowden, Barbarian Plain, 

175 and n7. 
359.  This implies that Christians were involved in the construction of Hishām’s palace. 
360.  vkayaran: “martyrium.” This seems to refer to the original site of Vahan’s tomb. It is not clear how this 

construction activity relates to the construction of the matuṙn at 8.16, but it seems that the original structure 
was replaced with a church and a separate chamber.

361.  i srboy senekin: “in the holy chamber.” The same term is used to describe where Theophilus put the 
body, but this could be coincidental.

362.  t‘rceal ałiwsov ew krov: “with baked bricks and lime.” It is very rare to find any brick-built construction 
being described in Armenian texts, but baked brick would have been used at Ruṣāfa; see above, at notes 22 and 
184.

363.  Šam amir momim: Hishām amīr al-muʾminīn.
364.  In 743–44 CE. Hishām died on February 6, 743.
365.  See above, 5.46.
366.  Manuscript Ա/A lacks the following, inserted by Tēr-Vardanean: and the aforementioned young man 

who was the servant of the saint.
367.  Monastery of Saint Zaccheus in Callinicum (modern Raqqa). The use of the Syriac name of the monastery 

is striking.
368.  An important addition in V224, fol. 153a. Manuscript Ա/A switches between first and third person.
369.  This could be referring to the early stages of the Third Fitna. 



95  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

(9.3) He therefore left the brothers and packhorses there and, taking a certain one with him, 
traveled by day and night with great endeavor and arrived at the site of completion370 at 
first light; and entering the martyrium371 of the holy martyr, [896] we offered worship and 
blessing to Christ. (9.4) And that Theophilus, who was also [known as] Abu Step‘anē, met 
us and greeted us and received us with much love and compassion. And through him, God 
caused us to go in to [meet] the saints. (9.5) And after worshiping the Lord at the martyrium 
of Saint Sargis, we saw the bishop, a true and God-fearing man, and he received us with 
much love and amazement.372 (9.6) And then he summoned all the wise men, those who were 
prominent at the royal court and well informed about the martyrdom of the saint; we were 
instructed by them securely through a Roman book, and they gave to us the testimony of 
the brave hero.373                                                                                                                                                      

(9.7) Having been honored with love, we departed from the bishop and the others, and 
after praying in the martyrium of Saint Vahan,374 we gave thanks for the mercy of Christ; 
returning from there, we crossed the river Euphrates, took the brothers, and came to 
the city of Edessa,375 and we implored the bishop and we translated376 the book into the 
Armenian language.377 (9.8) And we left there and came to Armenia close to the feast of 
Epiphany. (9.9) And finding our brothers healthy and at peace, we praised God in unison, 
who had rendered our unworthiness worthy of attaining this gift. (9.10) And then we began 
to record, beginning from where it was appropriate and joining to the same the testimony 
of Saint Vahan the martyr378 for the encouragement of all believers and to the glory and 
praise of God, to whom be honor and blessing for ever and ever, Amen.

370.  Manuscript Ա/A has i tełin katarmann, “at the site of completion” (or “death”). This suggests that the 
martyrium of Saint Vahan was located outside the city, at the original burial spot.

371.  vkayaran: “martyrium,” as in 8.21 and 8.22 above.
372.  This is the vkayaran, the martyrium of Saint Sergius, situated inside the city. It is apparently only 

through Theophilus that they gain access. For the close relationship between this famous martyrium and the 
mosque constructed by Hishām, see Fowden, Barbarian Plain, 174–83 and fig. 15. 

373.  hoṙom grov: “Roman book.” The impression is that the local Christians supplied written testimony in 
the form of an existing text. The following sentence (9.7) implies that the text was in Greek.

374.  vkayaran. The fact that they could do so as they departed again suggests that the martyrium was located 
outside the city.

375.  Uṙha: Edessa. One of the six Syrian bishops who attended the Council of Manazkert in 726 was 
Constantine, bishop of Edessa: Girk‘ T‘łt‘oc‘, 224.

376.  t‘argmanec‘ak‘: “we translated,” when perhaps t‘argmaneac‘, “he translated,” would have been 
expected. Perhaps the bishop translated the book orally from Greek into Armenian and Artawazd or one of 
his companions wrote down his translation. For simultaneous translation from Greek into Armenian in the 
seventh century, see Anania Širakac‘i’s description of his teacher Tychikos: Vasn orpisut‘ean kenac‘ irwoc‘ 
(Ink‘nakensagrut‘iwn), in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 7 Dar, 4:593–95 (Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 
2005), 594.24; trans. Greenwood, “Reassessment,” 140: “Through the favor of the Holy Spirit, he had an 
extraordinary gift for translating, such that when he wanted to translate books written in Greek, he did not 
hesitate like other translators but he used to read out the Armenian as if it had been written in Armenian.” This 
implies that his translation was written down by someone else.

377.  i hay lezu: “into the Armenian language.”
378.  This indicates that it was a composite work from the outset, comprising an account of the fires of 

Naxčawan to which the martyrology of Vahan was added.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   96

(10.1) Now, this occurred thirty-three years after this country of Armenia had drunk 
the cup of wrath,379 in one hundred [897] and fifty-two of the Armenian Era.380 And in the 
one hundred and eighty-fifth [year], the martyrdom of Saint Vahan occurred through 
confessing Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God. (10.2) Now in return for this testimony, O you 
fathers and brothers, I, this miserable person,381 one [who is] constantly sick and protecting 
the memory of the holy martyr, and again by reason of the encouragement of this book of 
martyrdom, I implore [you] to make prayers on my behalf [to the one] who rendered my 
unworthiness worthy of writing and giving this history in memory of those who have died, 
so that perhaps through your prayers I shall be snatched from the rank of the wicked and 
placed among those of whom they say, “Come, blessed ones of my Father”382—those who 
become worthy—and Christ shall act to meet, both us and all those who have confessed His 
name, to whom be glory and worship with the Father and the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever, 
Amen.

Acknowledgments

This article is the product of collaboration between Tim Greenwood and four students who 
commenced the study of Classical Armenian with him in September 2019. The authors would 
like to offer their grateful thanks to the anonymous peer reviewers for their perceptive 
comments and recommendations, and to Tim Penn, another onetime member of the class, 
for preparing the map. Alasdair Grant acknowledges the funding of the Emmy Noether 
Junior Research Group “Social Contexts of Rebellion in the Early Islamic Period” (SCORE) 
at the Universität Hamburg, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft project number 437229168. 
Leone Pecorini Goodall acknowledges the funding of the Scottish Graduate School for Arts 
and Humanities (SGSAH) Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Doctoral Training 
Partnership. Lewis Read acknowledges the funding of the ERC Project “Re-Evaluating the 
Eleventh Century through Linked Events and Entities” (RELEVEN) at the University of 
Vienna, Grant Agreement 101002357.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Arabic
Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī. Kitāb al-Futūḥ. 8 vols. Hyderabad: Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyya, 

1968–75.

Ibn al-Faqīh al-Hamadhānī. Kitāb al-Buldān. Edited by Michael J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill, 1885.

379.  zbažak patuhasi: “cup of punishment.” For “cup of anger,” “cup of destruction,” and “cup of wrath” 
(bažak barkut‘ean, bažak korcanman, bažak srtmtut‘ean), see Isaiah 51:17.

380.  AE 152: June 4, 703–June 2, 704. AE 185: May 26, 736–May 25, 737.
381.  This is a standard trope of humiliation.
382.  Matthew 25:34.



97  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

Ibn Hawqal. Kitāb Ṣūrat al-arḍ. Edited by Michael J. de Goeje and Johannes H. Kramers. Leiden: 
Brill, 1938. Translated by Johannes H. Kramers and Gaston Wiet as Configuration de la 
terre. 2 vols. Beirut: Commission internationale pour la traduction des chefs-d’oeuvre, 
1964.

Ibn Hishām. Al-Sīra al-nabawiyya. Edited by Muṣṭafā al-Saqqā et al. 2 vols. Cairo: Muṣṭafā 
al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1955.

al-Iṣṭakhrī. Masālik wa-l-mamālik. Edited by Michael J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill, 1927. Reprint, 
Beirut: Dar Ṣādir, n.d.

Armenian
Agat‘angełos. Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘. Edited by Galust Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Stepan Kanayeanc‘. 

Tbilisi, 1909. Reprinted in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 5 Dar, 2:1289–1735. Ant‘ilias: Meci tann 
Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2003. Translated by Robert W. Thomson as The Lives of Saint 
Gregory: The Armenian, Greek, Arabic, and Syriac Versions of the History Attributed to 
Agathangelos. Ann Arbor, MI: Caravan Books, 2010. 

Anania Širakac‘i. Ašxarhacoyc‘ Movsesi Xorenac‘woy. Edited by Arsène Soukry. Venice: 
Tparan Mxit‘areanc‘, 1881. Reprinted in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 5 Dar, 2:2138–92. Ant‘ilias: 
Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2003. Translated by Robert H. Hewsen as The 
Geography of Ananias of Širak (Ašxarhac‘oyc‘): The Long and the Short Recensions. 
Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1992.

———. Vasn orpisut‘ean kenac‘ irwoc‘ (Ink‘nakensagrut‘iwn). In Širakac‘u Matenagrut‘yuně, 
edited by Ašot G. Abrahamyan. Erevan: HSSR Matenadarani Hratarakč‘ut‘yun, 1944. 
Reprinted in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 7 Dar, 4:593–95. Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy 
Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2005.

———. [Yałags] harc‘man ew lucman. In Širakac‘u Matenagrut‘yuně, edited by Ašot G. 
Abrahamyan. Erevan: HSSR Matenadarani Hratarakč‘ut‘yun, 1944. Reprinted in 
Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 7 Dar, 4:617–23. Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2005.

Artawazd Vanahayr Erašxawori. Ołbk‘ vasn čareac‘n ašxarhis Hayoc‘ ew vkayabanut‘iwn srboyn 
Vahanay Gołt‘nac‘woy. In Sop‘erk‘ Haykakank‘, 13:11–59. Venice: Tparan Mxit‘areanc‘, 
1854. Translated by J. A Gatteyrias as “Elégie sur les malheurs de l’Arménie et le martyre 
de saint Vahan de Koghten: Episode de l’occupation arabe en Arménie, traduit pour la 
première fois de l’arménien littéral, sur l’édition des RR. PP. Méchitaristes.” Journal 
asiatique 15, Aug–Sept (1880): 177–214.

———. Patmut‘iwn ew Vkayabanut‘iwn Vahanay Gołt‘nac‘woc‘. Edited by Gēorg 
Tēr-Vardanean. In Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 8 Dar, 6:855–945. Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy 
Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2007.

Girk‘ T‘łt‘oc‘. Edited by Yovsēp‘ Izmireanc‘. Tbilisi: Tparan T. Ṙōtineanc‘ and M. Šabajē, 1901.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   98

Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘. Edited by Vazgen Hakobyan. 2 vols. Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitut‘yunneri 
Akademiayi Hratarakč‘ut‘yun, 1971. 

Koriwn. The Life of Mashtots‘ by His Disciple Koriwn. Edited and translated by Abraham 
Terian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022.

Łazar P‘arpec‘i. Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘ ew T‘ułt‘ aṙ Vahan Mamikonean. Edited by Galust 
Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean and Stepan Malxasean. Tbilisi: Aragatip Mnac‘akan Martiroseanc‘i, 
1904. Reprinted in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 5 Dar, 2:2197–2395. Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy 
Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2003. Translated by Robert W. Thomson as The History of Łazar 
P‘arpec‘i. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. 

Łewond. Patmabanut‘iwn Łewondeay. Edited by Gēorg Tēr-Vardanean. In Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 
8 Dar, 6:711–854. Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2007. Edited and 
translated with commentary by Sergio La Porta and Alison M. Vacca as An Armenian 
Futūḥ Narrative: Łewond’s Eighth-Century History of the Caliphate. Chicago: Institute 
for the Study of Ancient Cultures, University of Chicago, 2023.

Movsēs Kałankatuac‘i. Patmut‘iwn Ałuanic‘ Ašxarhi. Edited by Varag Aṙak‘elyan. Erevan: 
Haykakan SSH GA Hratarakč‘ut‘yun, 1983. Reprinted in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 10 Dar, 
15:25–437. Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2012. Translated by Charles 
Dowsett as The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movsēs Dasxuranci. London: 
Oxford University Press, 1961. 

Movsēs Xorenac‘i. Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘. Edited by Manuk Abełean and Set‘ Yarut‘iwnean. Tbilisi: 
Aragatip Mnac‘akan Martiroseanc‘, 1913. Reprint, Delmar, NY: Caravan Books 1981. 
Rev. ed. [with collations by A. B. Sargsean], Erevan: Haykakan SSH GA Hratarakč‘ut‘iwn, 
1991. Reprinted in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 5 Dar, 2:1737–2121. Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy 
Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2003. Translated by Robert W. Thomson as Moses Khorenats‘i. History 
of the Armenians. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.

P‘awstos Buzand. P‘awstosi Buzandac‘woy Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘ i č‘ors dprut‘iwns. 4th ed. 
Venice: S. Łazar, 1933. Reprinted in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 5 Dar, 1:277–428. Ant‘ilias: 
Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2003. Translated by Nina. G. Garsoïan as The Epic 
Histories (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘) Attributed to P‘awstos Buzand. Cambridge, MA: 
Harvard University Press, 1989.

Sebēos. Patmut‘iwn Sebēosi. Edited by Gevorg V. Abgaryan. Erevan: Haykakan SSH 
Gitut‘yunneri Akademiayi Hratarakč‘ut‘yun, 1979. Reprinted in Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 
7 dar, 4:453–565. Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2005. Translated by 
Robert W. Thomson with commentary by James Howard-Johnston as The Armenian 
History Attributed to Sebeos. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999.

Socrates Scholasticus. The Armenian Adaptation of the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates 
Scholasticus. Translated by Robert W. Thomson. Leuven: Peeters, 2001.



99  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

Step‘anos Siwnec‘i. Step‘anos Siwnec‘in ew nra matenagrakan žaṙangit‘iwnĕ. Edited by 
Yakob K‘ēosēan. In Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 8 Dar, 6:105–597. Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy 
Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2007.

Step‘annos Orbēlean. Patmut‘iwn tann Sisakan. Moscow: Tparan Lazarean Čemarani 
Arewelean Lezuac‘, 1861.

“Vkayabanut‘iwn srboyn Sargsi ew Bagosi.” In Vark‘ ew Vkayabanut‘iwnk‘ Srboc‘, edited by 
Łewond Ališan, 2 vols., 2:272–79. Venice: Tparan Mxit‘areanc‘, 1874.

“Xač‘azgeac‘ nahatakn ew k‘aǰayałt vkayn K‘ristosi.” In Liakatar Vark‘ ew Vkayabanut‘iwn 
Srboc‘, edited by Mkrtič‘ Awgerean, 12 vols., 6:224–29. Venice: Tparan Mxit‘areanc‘, 
1810–15. In Sop‘erk‘ haykakank‘, 22 vols, 19:85–96. Venice: Tparan Mxit‘areanc‘, 1853–61. 
In Hayapatum: Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, edited by Łewond Ališan, 2 vols., 1:546–52. Venice: 
S. Łazar, 1901.

Xosrovik t‘argmanič‘. “T‘ułt‘ aṙ Tēr Sargis episkopos Geradekoray.” Edited by Yakob K‘ēosēan. 
In Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 8 dar, 6:682–94. Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 
2007.

Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i. Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘. Edited by Mkrtič‘ Emin. Moscow, 1853. 
Reprint, Tbilisi, 1912. Reprint, Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1980. Reprinted in 
Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 10 dar, 11:317–584. Ant‘ilias: Meci tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 
2010. Translated by Krikor H. Maksoudian as History of Armenia. Atlanta: Scholars 
Press, 1987.

Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i. Ěnddēm Pōłikeanc‘. In Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 8 Dar, 7:35–44. Ant‘ilias: Meci 
tann Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2007.

———. Ěnddēm Erewut‘akanac‘. In Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ 8 Dar, 7:45–66. Ant‘ilias: Meci tann 
Kilikwoy Kat‘ołikosut‘iwn, 2007.

Greek
Theophanes the Confessor. Chronographia. Edited by Carl de Boor. 2 vols. Leipzig: B. G. 

Teubner, 1883. Translated and with commentary by Cyril A. Mango and Roger Scott 
as The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 
284–813. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.

van den Gheyn, I. “Passio antiquior SS. Sergii et Bacchi Graece nunc primum edita.” Analecta 
Bollandiana 14 (1895): 373–95.

Syriac
Michael the Syrian. Chronique de Michel le Syrien. Edited and translated by Jean-Baptiste 

Chabot. Vol. 2. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1905.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   100

Theophilus of Edessa. Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical 
Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Translated by Robert G. Hoyland. Liverpool: 
Liverpool University Press, 2011.

Secondary Sources

Abełyan [Abegyan], Manuk. Istorija Drevnearmjanskoj Literatury. Erevan: Izvestija Akademii 
Nauk Armjanskoj SSR, 1948. 

Adontz, Nicholas. Armenia in the Age of Justinian. Translated by N. G. Garsoïan. Lisbon: 
Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1970.

Anthony, Sean. Crucifixion and Death as Spectacle: Umayyad Crucifixion in Its Late Antique 
Context. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 2014.

Ayman, Ibrahim. Conversion to Islam: Competing Themes in Early Islamic Historiography. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.

Bates, Michael L. “Dirham Mint of the Northern Provinces of the Umayyad Caliphate.” 
In “Essays Dedicated in Honor of Dr. Paul Z. Bedoukian on the Fortieth Year of His 
Contributions,” edited by Y. T. Nercessian, special issue, Armenian Numismatic Journal 
15 (1989): 89–111.

Bingelli, Andre. “Annual Fairs, Regional Networks, and Trade Routes in Syria, Sixth to 
Tenth Centuries.” In Trade and Markets in Byzantium, edited by C. Morrisson, 281–96. 
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2012.

Borrut, Antoine. Entre mémoire et pouvoir: L’espace syrien sous les derniers Omeyyades et 
les premiers Abbassides (v. 72–193/692–809). Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Brock, Sebastian P. “The Use of Hijra Dating in Syriac Manuscripts: A Preliminary 
Investigation.” In Redefining Christian Identity: Cultural Interaction in the Middle 
East Since the Rise of Islam, edited by Jan Jacob Van Ginkel, Heleen J. Murre-Van Den 
Berg, and Theo Van Lint, 275–90. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.

Bulliet, Richard W. “Conversion Stories in Early Islam.” In Conversion and Continuity: 
Indigenous Christian Communities in Islamic Lands, Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries, 
edited by Michael Gervers and Ramzi Bikhazi, 123–35. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of 
Mediaeval Studies, 1990.

Buschmann, Gerd. Das Martyrium des Polykarp. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.

Cowe, S. Peter. “Armenian Hagiography.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine 
Hagiography, edited by Stephanos Efthymiadis, 299–322. London: Routledge, 2011.

———. “The Reception of the Book of Daniel in Late Ancient and Medieval Armenian Society.” 
In The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition: A Comparative Perspective, edited by Kevork 
B. Bardakjian and Sergio La Porta, 79–125. Leiden: Brill, 2014.



101  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

———. “Yovhannēs Ōdznets‘i’s Canon on the Synod of Manazkert (726): End of an Era or New 
Beginning?” St Nersess Theological Review 14, no. 2 (2023): 7–112.

Crone, Patricia. The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt and Local 
Zoroastrianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 

Dorfman-Lazarev, Igor. “Travels and Studies of Stephen of Siwnik‘ (c.685–735): Redefining 
Armenian Orthodoxy under Islamic Rule.” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 68, no. 
3–4 (2016): 255–92. 

El-Azhari, Taef. Queens, Eunuchs and Concubines in Islamic History, 661–1257. Edinburgh: 
Edinburgh University Press, 2022. 

Fowden, Elizabeth Key. The Barbarian Plain: Saint Sergius between Rome and Iran. Berkeley: 
University of California Press, 1999.

Garsoïan, Nina G. “Bibliographie de Nina G. Garsoïan” [to 2015]. AIEA Newsletter, no. 52 
(July 2017): 63–76. https://sites.uclouvain.be/aiea/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/
Newsletter-n%C2%B052.pdf 

———. “The Early-Medieval Armenian City: An Alien Element?” Journal of the Ancient Near 
Eastern Society 16, no. 1 (1984): 67–83. Reprinted in Nina G. Garsoïan, Church and 
Culture in Early Medieval Armenia, no. VII. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999.

———. “The Locus of the Death of Kings: Iranian Armenia—The Inverted Image.” In The 
Armenian Image in History and Literature, edited by Richard G. Hovanissian, 27–64. 
Malibu: Undena, 1981. Reprinted in Nina G. Garsoïan, Armenia between Byzantium and 
the Sasanians, no. XI. London: Ashgate, 1985.

Genequand, Denis. “The Archaeological Evidence for the Jafnids and the Naṣrids.” In Arabs 
and Empires before Islam, edited by Greg Fisher, 172–213. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press, 2015.

Greenwood, Tim. “Adontz, Armenia and Iran in Late Antiquity.” In “Mélanges James Howard-
Johnston,” Travaux et mémoires 26 (2022): 59–81.

———. “Armenian Sources.” In Blackwell Companion to the Sasanian Empire, edited by Touraj 
Daryaee and M. Rahim Shayegan. Abingdon: Wiley-Blackwell, forthcoming.

———. “A Contested Jurisdiction: Armenia in Late Antiquity.” In Sasanian Persia: Between 
Rome and the Steppes of Eurasia, edited by Eberhard Sauer, 199–220. Edinburgh: 
Edinburgh University Press, 2017.

———. “A Corpus of Early Medieval Armenian Inscriptions.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 58 
(2004): 27–91. 

———. “Negotiating the North: Armenian Perspectives on the Conquest Era.” In The Historian 
of Islam at Work: Essays in Honor of Hugh N. Kennedy, edited by Maaike van Berkel and 
Letizia Osti, 592–614. Leiden: Brill, 2022.

https://sites.uclouvain.be/aiea/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Newsletter-n%C2%B052.pdf
https://sites.uclouvain.be/aiea/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Newsletter-n%C2%B052.pdf
https://sites.uclouvain.be/aiea/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Newsletter-n%C2%B052.pdf
https://sites.uclouvain.be/aiea/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Newsletter-n%C2%B052.pdf


Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   102

———. “Publications of Robert William Thomson.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 77, supplement 
(2023): 1*–7*.

———. “A Reassessment of the History of Lewond.” Le Muséon 125, no. 1–2 (2012): 99–167.

———. “A Reassessment of the Life and Mathematical Problems of Anania Širakac‘i.” Revue 
des études arméniennes 33 (2011): 131–86.

———. “Sasanian Echoes and Apocalyptic Expectations.” Le Muséon 115, no. 3 (2002): 323–97.

Grohmann, Adolf. From the World of Arabic Papyri. Cairo: Al-Maaref Press, 1952.

Gully, Adrian. The Culture of Letter-Writing in Pre-modern Islamic Society. Edinburgh: 
Edinburgh University Press, 2008.

Guscin, Mark. The Image of Edessa. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Heidemann, Stefan. “The History of the Industrial and Commercial Area of ʿ Abbāsid al-Raqqa, 
Called al-Raqqa al-Muḥtariqa.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 
69.1 (2006): 33–52.

Hoyland, Robert G. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish, 
and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1997.

Jinbashian, Manuel. Church-State Relations in Armenia during the Arab Domination: From 
the First Invasion to the Time of the Early ʿAbbāsids. Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian 
Foundation, 2000. 

Kévorkian, Raymond, and Armen Ter-Stépanian. Manuscrits arméniens de la Bibliothèque 
nationale de France: Catalogue. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France, 1998. 

Kraemer, Joel. “Apostates, Rebels and Brigands.” Israel Oriental Studies 10 (1980): 34–73.

La Porta, Sergio. “The Sense of an Ending: Eschatological Prophecy and the Armenian 
Historiographical Tradition (7th–10th Centuries).” Le Muséon 129, no. 2–3 (2016): 
363–93.

Laurent, Joseph. L’Arménie entre Byzance et l’Islam depuis la conquête arabe jusqu’en 886. 
Edited by Marius Canard. Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1980.

Legendre, Marie. “Aspects of Umayyad Administration.” In The Umayyad World, edited by 
Andrew Marsham, 133–57. Abingdon: Routledge, 2021.

———. “The Translation of the Dīwān and the Making of the Marwanid ‘Language Reform’: 
Secretarial Agency, Economic Incentives, and Regional Dynamics in the Umayyad State.” 
In Navigating Language in the Early Islamic World: Multilingualism and Language 
Change in the First Centuries of Islam, edited by Alison Vacca, Antoine Borrut, and 
Manuela Ceballos, 89–166. Turnhout: Brepols, 2024.



103  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

Macuch, Maria. “Incestuous Marriage in the Context of Sasanian Family Law.” In Ancient 
and Middle Iranian Studies: Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference of Iranian 
Studies of the Societas Iranologica Europe in Vienna, September 19–22, 2007, edited by 
Maria Macuch, Dieter Weber, and Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst, 133–48. Wiesbaden: 
Harrassowitz, 2010.

Mahé, Jean-Pierre. “Bibliographie des travaux de Jean-Pierre Mahé de 1970 à 2014.” In 
“Mélanges Jean-Pierre Mahé,” Travaux et mémoires 18 (2014): xv–xxxii.

———. “L’Église arménienne de 611 à 1066.” In Histoire du Christianisme des origines à nos 
jours, vol. 4, Evêques, moines et empereurs (610–1054), edited by Gilbert Dagron, Pierre 
Riché, and André Vauchez, 457–547. Paris: Desclée, 1993.

———. “Entre Moïse et Mahomet: Réflexions sur l’historiographie arménienne.” Revue des 
études arméniennes 23 (1992): 121–53. 

———. “Le problème de l’authenticité et de la valeur de la chronique de Łewond.” In L’Arménie 
et Byzance: Histoire et culture, 119–26. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2015.

Mardirossian, Aram. “Les canons du synode de Partaw (768).” Revue des études arméniennes 
27 (1998–2000): 117–34.

Marsham, Andrew. “Public Execution in the Umayyad Period: Early Islamic Punitive Practice 
and Its Late Antique Context.” Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011): 101–36. 

———. The Umayyad Empire. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2024.

Mat‘evosyan, Artašes S. Hayeren jeṙagreri Hišatakaranner 5–12dd. (Colophons of Armenian 
Manuscripts, 5th–12th centuries). Erevan: SSH GA Hratarakč‘ut‘yun, 1988. 

Muradyan, Gohar. “The Vision of St. Sahak in the History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i.” In The Armenian 
Apocalyptic Tradition: A Comparative Perspective, edited by Kevork B. Bardakjian and 
Sergio La Porta, 296–312. Leiden: Brill, 2014. 

Noth, Albrecht. “Futūḥ-History and Futūḥ-Historiography: The Muslim Conquest of 
Damascus.” Al-Qanṭara 10, no. 2 (1989): 453–62.

———. “Die literarisch überlieferten Verträge der Eroberungszeit als historische Quellen für 
die Behandlung der unterworfenen Nicht-Muslims durch ihre neuen muslimischen 
Oberherren.” In Tilman Nagel et al., Studien zum Minderheitenproblem in Islam, 
282–314. Bonn: Selbstverlag des Orientalischen Seminars der Universität Bonn, 1973.

——— and Lawrence Conrad. The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A Source-Critical Study. 
Translated by Michael Bonner. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1994.

O’Loughlin, Thomas, and Helen Conrad-O’Briain. “The ‘Baptism of Tears’ in Early Anglo-
Saxon Sources.” Anglo-Saxon England 22 (1993): 65–83.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   104

Pecorini Goodall, Leone. “‘The ʿAbbās after Whom Those Who Rule in Baghdad Are Named’: 
Al-ʿAbbās b. al-Walīd in Late Antique Accounts of the Marwānids and the Third Fitna.” 
Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022): 384–434.  

Peeters, Paul. “La passion de S. Pierre de Capitolias († 13 janvier 715).” Analecta Bollandiana 
57 (1939): 299–333.

Petrosyan, Esther. “Grigor Lusavorč‘in Veragrvoł tesil harc‘umĕ (The Revelation Attributed 
to Gregory the Illuminator).” Banber Matenadarani 36 (2023): 212–50. 

Pogossian, Zara. “Female Asceticism in Early Medieval Armenia.” Le Muséon 125, no. 1–2 
(2012): 169–213.

Preiser-Kapeller, Johannes. “Aristocrats, Mercenaries, Clergymen and Refugees: Deliberate 
and Forced Mobility of Armenians in the Early Medieval Mediterranean (6th to 11th 
Century A.D.).” In Migration Histories of the Medieval Afroeurasian Transition Zone, 
edited by Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, Lucian Reinfandt, and Yannis Stouraitis, 327–86. 
Leiden: Brill, 2020.

Rapp, Stephen H. The Sasanian World through Georgian Eyes: Caucasia and the Iranian 
Commonwealth in Late Antique Georgian Literature. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014.

Read, Lewis. “Fostering in Early Medieval Armenian Sources from the Fifth to the Seventh 
Century.” Journal of Late Antique, Islamic and Byzantine Studies 3, no. 1–2 (2024): 46–80.

Robinson, Chase F. “Neck-Sealing in Early Islam.” Journal of the Economic and Social History 
of the Orient 48, no. 3 (2005): 401–41.

Sahner, Christian C. Christian Martyrs under Islam: Religious Violence and the Making of the 
Muslim World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018.

Seidensticker, Tilman. “Responses to Crucifixion in the Islamic World (1st–7th/7th–
13th Centuries).” In Public Violence in Islamic Societies: Power, Discipline, and the 
Construction of the Public Sphere, 7th–19th Centuries CE, edited by Christian Lange 
and Maribel Fierro, 203–16. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009.

Shahinyan, Arsen K. Armenija i Strany Yužnogo Kavkaza v Uslovijax Vizantijsko-Iranskoj i 
Arabskoj Vlasti. St. Petersburg: Aletejja, 2011. 

———. Rannesrednevekovaja Geografija Armenii i stran Yužnogo Kavkaza. St. Petersburg: St. 
Petersburg State University, 2014.

Shoemaker, Stephen J. Three Christian Martyrdoms from Early Islamic Palestine: Passion of 
Peter of Capitolias, Passion of the Twenty Martyrs of Mar Saba, Passion of Romanos the 
Neo-Martyr. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2016. 

https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/alusur/article/view/uw30goodall
https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/alusur/article/view/uw30goodall


105  •  Tim Greenwood eT Al.

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

Sijpesteijn, Petra M. “Loyal and Knowledgeable Supporters: Integrating Egyptian Elites in 
Early Islamic Egypt.” In Empires and Communities in the Post-Roman and Islamic 
World, c. 400–1000 CE, edited by Rutger Kramer and Walter Pohl, 329–59. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press, 2021.

Spellberg, Denise A. “The Umayyad North: Numismatic Evidence for Frontier Administration.” 
American Numismatic Society 33 (1988): 119–27.

Tafazzoli, Ahmad. “Bāktar (1).” In Encyclopaedia Iranica, online ed. 1988.  

———. Sasanian Society. New York: Bibliotheca Persica Press, 2000.

Ter-Davt‘yan [Ter-Davtyan], K‘narik S. Armjanskie Žimija i Mučeničestva V–XVII vv. Erevan: 
Nairi, 1994.

Ter-Davt‘yan, K‘narik S. Haykakan Srbaxosut‘yun: Vark‘er ev Vkayabanut‘yunner (V–XVIII 
dd.) (Armenian Hagiography: Lives and Martyrologies (5th–18th centuries)). Erevan: 
Nayiri, 2011.

Ter-Łevondyan [Ter-Gevondyan], Aram N. The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia. Translated 
by Nina G. Garsoïan. Lisbon: Livraria Bertrand, 1976.

———. Armenija i Arabskij Xalifat. Erevan: Izdatel’stvo AN Armjanskoj SSR, 1977. 

———. “Hayoc‘ išxaně arabakan tirapetut‘yan žamanakašrǰanum.” Patma-banasirakan Handes 
2 (1964): 121–34. Translated as “Le ‘Prince d’Arménie’ à l’époque de la domination 
arabe.” Revue des études arméniennes 3 (1966): 185–200.

Thomson, Robert W. “Arabic in Armenia before the Tenth Century.” In “Mélanges Jean-Pierre 
Mahé,” Travaux et mémoires 18 (2014): 691–706.

———. “The Maccabees in Early Armenian Historiography.” Journal of Theological Studies 26, 
no. 2 (1975): 329–41.

———. “The Martyrdom of Vahan.” In Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, 
vol. 1, 600–900, edited by David Thomas and Barbara Roggema, 281–83. Leiden: Brill, 
2009.

———. “Number Symbolism and Patristic Exegesis in Some Early Armenian Writers.” Handes 
Amsorya 90 (1976): 117–38. 

———. “Vardapet in the Early Armenian Church.” Le Muséon 75 (1962): 367–84.

———. “The Vision of Saint Gregory and Its Interpretations.” in The Armenian Apocalyptic 
Tradition: A Comparative Perspective, edited by Kevork B. Bardakjian and Sergio La 
Porta, 285–95. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

Traina, Giusto. “The Rise of the Sasanians: The Armenian Evidence.” In Sasanian Iran in the 
Context of Late Antiquity, edited by Touraj Daryaee, 107–19. Irvine, CA: UCI Jordan 
Center for Persian Studies, 2018.

https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baktar-west-in-modern-persian


Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 33 (2025)

A Neglected Armenian Source of the Umayyad Era    •   106

Vacca, Alison M. “Arabic and the Public Performance of Power in Medieval Armenia.” In 
Navigating Language in the Early Islamic World: Multilingualism and Language Change 
in the First Centuries of Islam, edited by Alison Vacca, Antoine Borrut, and Manuela 
Ceballos, 281–307. Turnhout: Brepols, 2024.

———. “The Fires of Naxčawan: In Search of Intercultural Transmission in Arabic, Armenian, 
Greek, and Syriac.” Le Muséon 129, no. 3–4 (2016): 323–62.

———. Non-Muslim Provinces under Early Islam: Islamic Rule and Iranian Legitimacy in 
Armenia and Caucasian Albania. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.

———. “The Umayyad North (or: How Umayyad Was the Umayyad Caliphate?).” In The 
Umayyad World, edited by Andrew Marsham, 219–39. Abingdon: Routledge, 2021.

van Esbroeck, Michel. “Salomon de Makenoc, vardapet du VIIIe siècle.” Armeniaca: Mélanges 
d’études arméniennes, 33–44. Venice: S. Łazar, 1969.

Wensinck, Arent J., and Patricia Crone. “Mawlā.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., edited by 
P. J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W. P. Heinrichs. Leiden: 
Brill Online, 2012.

Yovsep‘ean, Garegin. Yišatakarank‘ jeṙagrac‘ (Colophons of manuscripts). Ant‘ilias: Tparan 
Katʿołikosutʿean Hayocʿ Kilikioy, 1951.

Zakarian, David. Women, Too, Were Blessed: The Portrayal of Women in Early Christian 
Armenian Texts. Leiden: Brill, 2021.