GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

From: "Chris Bennett" <>
Subject: DFA: The Bagratids
Date: 28 Aug 1998 14:19:55 GMT

First, my thanks to both Ken Finton and to Stewart Baldwin for forwarding
the parts of Stewart's post that didn't show up on my newsreader. In this
commentary, the usual indents to show what is Stewart's and what is not are
missing for that reason. I hope it will be clear who is saying what. I
will separate my comments by a row of asterisks, and introduce them by CJB:

Second: this is a repeat post. The original never showed in my newsfeed
or DejaNews, nor to a couple of people I checked. I apologise for any
duplication.

Part 2 of 3

There is a DFA which I am prepared to accept as satisfying the DG
criterion. Since the Bagratid kingdom of Georgia lasted until the
early nineteenth century, there must be individuals living today who
can establish their descent from that family. (I have not checked
this, but it seems like a reasonable assumption, given the small
amount of time involved.)

************
CJB: Certainly true, they include one of the claimants to the Russian
throne.
************

>From there, a line can be traced back
through the Georgian and Armenian Bagratids to Samuel (Chmouegh) II,
head of the Mamikonid family who died in 775, and father-in-law of
Smbat Bagratuni of Armenia. (See LGA, p. 38, where "LGA" is M.
Settipani's abbreviation for "Nos Anctres de l'Antiquit", or without
accents for the benefit of those whose software can't handle the
French accents, "Nos Ancestres de l'Antiquite".)
*************
CJB: LGA stands for the subtitle: etudes des possibilites de Liens
Genealogique avec des famille de l'Antiquite. Christian tells me that this
was his own title, and is still how he thinks of the book -- "Nos ancetres
de l'antiquite" was given to it by the publisher, Francis Christian.

I mention the point because the original title is directly relevant to the
issue at hand: Settipani's work is and was a study of POSSIBILITIES. The
issue here is whether DFA studies can really be about anything more. I
take, in essence, a pessimistic position: I contend that they cannot --
that at best we can make balanced and reasoned judgements about whether
this path or that is likely or possible. I do also agree with you that we
can talk about the existence of a path between two nexus points, and that
such an existence conjecture is usually more probable than any individual
proposed path -- but we are still talking likelihoods, not certainties.

Here is your DG proposal:

:The "discontinuous genealogy" ("DG") position: Not all intervening
:generations need to be given in the case of uncertain descents, but
:each claim that A is an ancestor of B (possibly with unspecified
:missing generations) should be backed up by clear and convincing
:evidence.

Now, I read this (correct me if I am wrong) as saying that the existence
of an ancestral link in DFA research should be as solidly demonstrated as
we would normally expect for a parent/child link in more solidly documented
eras. Given certain basic precepts -- notably, that documentation
corresponds to actual genetics -- that is essentially a requirement of
near-certitude. So the test is: does the Bagratid DFA you propose here
live up to that definition?

*************
Now there are
numerous uncertainties in the exact line of descent of Samuel.
However, we can be reasonably certain that Samuel was a descendant of
the prince Hmayeak who died in 451. The reason for this is that
Samuel II was head of the family, Hmayeak was father or ancestor of
the heads of the family which immediately followed 451, and enough is
known about the Mamikonids that it is reasonably certain that the
leadership of the family was not taken over by a cadet branch that
branched off earlier than Hmayeak, even if the exact line of descent
is not known. (Of course, this cannot be said with certainty, but I
think it is correct to call it highly probable.)
***********
CJB: Here is the breakpoint in the DG. Taking Settipani's table as a
guide, he shows uncertainties in the early 6th century, also in the early
7th century and for much of the 8th. The first of these is particularly
troubling for the statement "highly probable", since it is only the second
generation after Hmayek. Reasonable (PL), certainly. But not a DG.

Personally I would like to see an in-depth prosopographical study of this
period of Armenian nobility. Apparently many of the sources are now
available in major Western languages. The diversity of the Mamikonians is
a critical issue to assessing this thesis, and I do not believe the
available evidence has been properly reviewed.
***********
Hmayeak's mother was
a member of the Gregorid family (confirmed by contemporary evidence of
high quality), and the line can then be traced back without difficulty
to the Gregorid Armenian patriarch Nerses the Great. From there, it
appears that Nerses had Arsacid descent through his mother and/or
grandmother. The documentation here is troublesome, because of the
obvious confusion of the Armenian sources during this period.
However, even though I am not convinced that the exact line of descent
can be deduced from the contradictory testimony, I am satisfied that
the tradition of Nerses's female-line descent from the Arsacids is
well founded. From there, we can be virtually certain of a descent
from king Phriapites of Parthia in the early second century BC (See
LGA, p. 94), even though a number of the individual links given in LGA
are weak. Of course, I know that we would like to get further back,
but the second century BC is pretty good, and, as I will argue below,
is about as good as we can get right now if we stick with the more
strict DG idea which I am advocating.
************
CJB: I'll agree with this portion of the analysis. In fact, I think its a
very plausible DG -- but only a PDG, not a DG.
************
Let us look at the attempts to get a DFA back to the Seleucids or
Achaemenids in relation to the "DG" philosophy which I advocated in
Part 1. First, a brief comment on the Mamikonids (see p. 38ff of LGA)
which form the claimed link to early European nobility through the
Byzantines. Now, there are enough Mamikonids in the records to
indicate that they did not necessarily form a single small family, but
possibly existed in several branches. The names of the Mamikonids who
are linked to the Byzantines are Hmayeak, Artavaxd, and Manouegh, and
there appears to be no direct evidence that they were close relatives
of the "main" line of the Mamikonids (as is the case for Samuel II
mentioned above in Part 1). Since these three names are known to have
already existed in the Mamikonid family prior to the crucial
Mamikonid-Gregorid marriage, there are no onomastic arguments for
regarding them as being members of the "main" branch. Thus, there
remains the very real possibility that these individuals were
Mamikonid cadets which branched off prior to the crucial Gregorid
marriage. Of course, if one does not insist on the early European
link, then we have the alternate route mentioned in Part 1 (and
briefly alluded to by M. Settipani in his comments which were passed
on by Chris Bennett), so let us drop that matter and proceed to the
earlier links.
****************
CJB: I feel you're flipping the "cadet line" hypothesis to your advantage
there. I don't see why it is a priori any more likely here than before.
It was Hmayek who established the family's core power (though they were
important in earlier times) why wouldn't it be his descendants who
benefitted.

Another argument for the prosopographical study proposed above....

****************

This thread:

• DFA: The Bagratids by "Chris Bennett" <>