HOLY LAND PILGRIMAGE OF ARMENIANS BEFORE THE ARAB CONQUEST
Author(s): Michael E. Stone
Source: Revue Biblique (1946-) , JANVIER 1986, Vol. 93, No. 1 (JANVIER 1986), pp. 93110
Published by: Peeters Publishers
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44088796
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Peeters Publishers is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Revue
Biblique (1946-)
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
RB . 1986 -T. 93-1 (pp. 93-110).
HOLY LAND PILGRIMAGE OF ARMENIANS
BEFORE THE ARAB CONQUEST
Summary
The chief sources for pilgrimage of Armenians of the Holy Land down
to the seventh century except for Epiph. Haer 40, 291am, 292a-b which is
dealt with elsewhere) include: The Book of Letters (? 4th century), Cyril o
Scythopolis' Life of St. Euthymius (soon after 428), Sebeos' History of
Heraclius (soon after 615), Movses Dasxuranc'i's History of the Caucasian
Albanians (events of the late 630's). Pseudo-Elišē, On the Tiansfiguratio
(6th to 8th centuries), Anastatius of Sinai, The Holy Fathers of Sinai (even
of about 630), and the pilgrim graffiti from the Sinai (sixth to 13th centuries)
The chief points stressed in the conclusion include: (a) the extraordinary
role of the Armenians in pilgrimage and the relationship between pilgrimage
and monasticism (b) the tendency of the Armenians to travel in groups;
(c) the quite marked increase in Armenian pilgrimage (or of the evidenc
for it) in the early seventh century.
Sommaire
Examen des sources principales sur les pèlerinages arméniens en Terr
Sainte (sauf Epiph. Haer 40. 291-292, traité ailleurs). Elles comprennent
Le Livre des Lettres (ive s. ?), Cyrille de Scythopolis, Vie de St. Euthym
(peu après 428) ; Sebeos, Histoire ď Héraclius (peu après 615) ; Movses
Dasxuranc'i, Histoire des Caucasiens ďArvan (peu après 630) ; Pseudo-
Elišē, Sur la Transfiguration (vie-viiie s.) ; Anastase du Sinaï, Les Saints
Pères du Sinaï (vers 630) ; les graffiti des pèlerins du Sinaï (vie au xine s.).
On peut en tirer de nouvelles conclusions concernant : 1) le rôle exceptionnel
des Arméniens comme pèlerins et le lien entre pèlerinage et monachisme ;
2) la tendance des Arméniens à voyager en groupe ; 3) l'accroissement très
marqué des pèlerins arméniens (il y a des indices en ce sens) du début du
vne siècle.
Eutactus of Satala who is mentioned by Epiphanius of Salam
in Against the Heresies 40 (291a, 292a-b) visited the Holy Lan
shortly before 361 C.E. and is the first Armenian pilgrim assured
known to have done so. He came from Armenia Minor, via Egyp
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
94 MICHAEL E. STONE
and included visits to holy me
gnostic heretic while in the Ho
back with him to Armenia. 1 His visit is the earliest attested
instance of what became a very significant movement, and in
later days, even a regular annual event. A separate study has
been devoted to the pilgrimage of Eutactus which, it eventuates,
had very important implications. 2
There is one other piece of information relating to the possible
travel between Armenia and Jerusalem in the fourth century.
In the Book of Letters , a collection of correspondence relating
to the Armenian Church, there is preserved one epistle supposedly
written by Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem to St. Vrtanēs, Catholicos
of the Armenians. In this epistle, Macarius instructs the Armenians,
in response to their enquiry, in various aspects of church order.
The document clearly refers to the dispatch of letters from
Armenia to Jerusalem and also in the reverse direction, which
implies, obviously, persons carrying the letters. One might suppose
that these were official envoys, but they might have been pilgrims,
as perhaps were those who bore the correspondence between
Modestus, head of the Christians in Jerusalem, and Komitas,
Catholicos of the Armenians, in the seventh century. 8 Since
Macarius became Bishop of Jerusalem in 325, but Vrtanēs held
the throne of St. Gregory the Illuminator between 333 and 341,
we are forced to the latter date for this incident which Sawalaneanc'
would set into the context of the anti-Arian activity of Macarius. 4
This would then be the earliest recorded travel between Armenia
and Jerusalem, about twenty years before Eutactus. Doubts have
been cast, however, on the authenticity of the epistle, and while
its content is not prima facie surprising in any respect, it must
be regarded with a measure of doubt. 5
1 See the separate paper: Michael E. Stone, "An Armenian Pilgrim to the Holy
Land in the Early Byzantine Era", REArm 17 (1985), 173-178 (N. Bogharian Festschrift), where the pilgrimage of Eutactus is discussed in detail. Here only the basic
points have been rehearsed.
1 Other aspects of this incident are discussed by G. Stroumsa, "Gnostics and
Manicheans in Byzantine Palestine", Studia Patristica (Cistercian Publications,
forthcoming), and by B. Layton, Gnosticism (Doubleday: forthcoming).
* The text is in Girk ' Tłtoć (Tiflis: 1901), 407-412.
4 T. Sawalaneanc', PatmuViwn Erusaiemi (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1931),
213-217.
• See Sawalaneanc , ibid., 217 note. The chief argument that he adduces is
stylistic, the style of the letter being incongruent with a very early date. It might be
observed, however, that since Armenian was not written in the fourth century (and
even if it were, it is not likely that it would have served as the medium of communi-
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HOLY LAND PILGRIMAGE OF ARMENIANS 95
Regardless of the authenticity of this epistle, the v
rable part played by Armenians in pilgrimage from e
seems to be an assured fact and, moreover, their g
pilgrims is paralleled by their prominent position in
monasticism. Not only were the famous monks St.
and St. John Hesychast Armenians, but the numbe
countrymen in the Great Lavra of St. Sabas ( V . S. Sa
of Scythopolis, 117.20-118.10) and in the Monastery o
sius at Deir Dossi [V. S. Theodosii by Theodore of Petr
were so large that separate chapels were set aside for
they conducted their services in Armenian. 6
In this article, other accounts of Armenian pilgri
the seventh century will be re-examined in order to dr
and more detailed picture of this interesting phenome
The Armenian Pilgrims in the Time of St. Euthymius
In his Life of St. Euthymius who was one of the foun
Palestinian monasticism, and himself an Armenian from
in Armenia Minor, Cyril of Scythopolis relates the fo
Some time not long after 428, when Euthymius found
Lavra, a group of 400 Armenian pilgrims visited their
fellow-countryman at his monastery on their way to Jer
These four-hundred or so travellers were, thus Cyril re
on their way to the Jordan river. He does not state ex
that they were pilgrims, but just describes them as Ar
Yet, considering both their number and the route that th
travelling, it does not seem to be an unwarranted assump
cation between the Bishop of Jerusalem- not an Armenian- and the Cathol
style of the letter is more a witness to the time of its translation into Arm
to the time of its composition.
• This matter is complex and there is further evidence for Armenians in Palestinian
monasteries; see Stone, "An Armenian Pilgrim", note 15.
7 V. S. Euthymii, 27:8ff = A. M. Festugière (tr), Vie de S. Eulhyme (Moines
d'Orient 3/1, Moines de Palestine; Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1962), 81. K. Hintlian,
History of the Armenians in the Holy Land (Jerusalem; St. James, 1976) refers to these
as "an Armenian party of pilgrims from Melitene" (p. 7). We cited his evaluation in
The Armenian Inscriptions from the Sinai (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, 6;
Cambridge MA: Harvard University, 1982), 32. The re-examination of Cyril's text,
however, shows that this assumption is unwarranted. In Festugière's translation the
passage reads: "une foule d'Arméniens au nombre d'environ quatre cents". No mention
is made of their putative origin in Melitene. This incident is not discussed in detail by
R. Génier, Vie de S . Euthyme le Grand (Paris, 1909). On p. 62 he discusses the role of
Armenians in certain monasteries.
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
96 MICHAEL E. STONE
say that they were indeed pilg
much on the circuit of travel
clearly because of its associatio
is more, another group of Armenia
as travelling to the Jordan to im
The conclusion that the four
confirmed by the very visit the
travels, Eutactus, too, had visi
(presumably) also in Egypt. 9
pilgrims, and is amply illustra
relating to the Palestinian mo
Desert Fathers. 10 Visits to sai
important as visits to sacred places. For Western Christian
travellers in the second half of the fourth century, as Wilkinson
comments:
... Holy places and holy men gave the East a double attraction... They
would ... be within reach of living heroes of their faith, whose discipline,
holiness, and sufferings had rendered them famous throughout the Christian
world. These too, at least as monks and confessors, were a relatively new
phenomenon, since the great Egyptian pioneers of monasticism, Paul the
first hermit (228-343) and his famous successors, Anthony (251-356) and
Pachomius (c. 275-c. 349), had still been alive, all three of them, only
forty years before Egeria's journey. 11
And, we may add, scarcely a decade before Eutactus' visit towards
the end of the 350's. Moreover, there is no reason to assume that
the fascination with holy men was limited to Western Christians.
One rather surprising aspect of this incident is the size of the
group- 400 was a very considerable number indeed. This is an
indication of the position that pilgrimage held among the Armenians, for the greatest part of the journey was doubtless made,
wearisomely, overland, 12 beset by difficulties and dangers, as is
stated in the correspondence of Komitas and Modestus at a later
8 See below, p. 98.
• See already Stone, "An Armenian Pilgrim", p. 174.
10 Thus, to select an obvious example, a good part of Egeria's travels were devoted
to visits to holy men: see J. Wilkinson, Egeriďs Travels (rev. ed.; Jerusalem, Ariel,
1981). The very genre of the story told about St. Euthymius, including the miracles
surrounding the hospitality he offered the travellers, is itself a function of the
numerous pilgrims whose visits to the holy men are recorded by the sources. The word
for "visit" is 7rapa8áXXcú on which see the note of Festugière 3/1, p. 82.
11 Wilkinson, Egeria. 14.
18 On conditions of travel, see J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades
(2 ed.; Jerusalem, Ariel, 1977), 16-20; E. D. Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later
Roman Empire AD 312-460 (Oxford, Clarendon, 1982), 50-82.
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HOLY LAND PILGRIMAGE OF ARMENIANS 97
time. For such a large number to have braved it is tru
Moreover, this is only the earliest of a number of
speak of groups or caravans of Armenian pilgrims, an
cations of this fact will be explored below.
So this witness is notable for a number of points. It
the interrelationship between pilgrims and monks, to
have already pointed above, and it shows that the v
men formed an important element of early pilgrim
example, furthermore, of the Armenian penchant fo
in groups and it shows that the river Jordan was on
itinerary. Finally, it is a graphic example of the ro
pilgrimage in Armenian realities.
St. Euthymius was from Armenia Minor, as Eutactus had
been. Another Armenian, from Zomeri near Sebastia, is related
to have succeded St. Theodosius as the head of his monastery in
529 C.E. 13 Greek-speaking Armenians left inscriptions in the
Sinai peninsula, probably even later. 14 This means that Armenians
from Armenia Minor, and consequently from within the Byzantine
Empire, played a substantial role in early Armenian pilgrimage
and monasticism. 15
Sebêos
History of Heraclius
The customary character of Armenian pilgrimage is a promine
characteristic emerging from study of the documents preserve
in the History of Heraclius attributed to Bishop Sebēos. Am
other matters, one of the chief subjects of this writing are th
events surrounding the Persian conquest of Jerusalem that too
place in the year 614 G.E. At the beginning of their occupat
of the city, the Persians directed their policy against the Christians
although as time passed they changed it. Sebēos preserved corr
18 V. S. Theodosii, 241. Iff = Festugière 3/2, p. 61.
14 M. E. Stone, "The Greek Background of some Armenian Pilgrims to the Sinai
and Some Other Observations", Classical Armenian Culturey ed. T. J. Samuelian and
M. E. Stone (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies, 6; Chico:
Scholars, 1984), 194-202.
18 See Stone, "An Armenian Pilgrim", p. 177f for a discussion of this. A further
instance of Armenians in Palestinian monasteries are Jeremiah, Peter and Paul and
their followers whom St. Sabas received into his monastery ( V . S. Sabae, 105.1 =
Festugière 3/2, p. 32).
4
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
98 MICHAEL E. STONE
pondence between the man in cha
in Jerusalem under the Persians
Catholicos of the Armenians, who
the Illuminator from 615-628. 16
In his epistle, Modestus thanks Komitas for the arrival of a
group of Armenia pilgrims in Jerusalem. He goes on to say that
they came from Armenian and returned there (they seem to have
carried his letter with them) and that they can witness to the
reconstruction of the churches in Jerusalem that had been destroyed
in the course of the preceding events. He rejoices in the arrival
of the pilgrims which recalled to mind the previous traffic back
and forth between the Holy Land and Armenia. These words
clearly imply that there had been a fixed pattern of Armenian
pilgrimage to the Holy Land, which was disturbed by the events
ensuing on the Persian incursions. Since the beginning of the
Persian occupation had brought about considerable damage to
Christian sites and persecution of the Christians in the city,
Modestus was particularly happy to see the renewal of pilgrimage.
That was a sign of the return of normalcy, to some extent at least,
in the holy places. This clear evidence for the customary character
of the travel of Armenian pilgrims, indeed apparently of groups
of pilgrims, is very important. A similar pattern emerged from
the study of the V. S. Euthymii and its prevalence is confirmed
by the words of Anastasius Sinaïta which will be discussed below.
Komitas' answer to this epistle contains some further details
about the patterns and character of Armenian pilgrimage. He
emphasizes the difficulty of the route they had to travel, and the
devotion demanded by it. This he puts into the context of repen-
tance for sins; the vicissitudes of the journey constituted a
penance. 17 The same aspect of the pilgrims' immersion in the
Jordan is emphasized- its purifying character. Again, when he
discusses their visit to Mount Sinai he reiterates the penitential
aspect of prayers said around the holy mountain. This is, as far
as we know today, the oldest source which relates Armenian
pilgrimage to the atonement of sins. It is also a good source for
the internal travels of the pilgrims once they arrived. They visited
the Jordan river to immerse themselves and went to Mount
16 PatmuViwn Sebēosi ed. G. V. Abgaryan (Erevan, Academy of Sciences, 1979),
116-121.
17 C. Vogel, "Les pèlerinages pénitentiels", FteuScR (1964), 113-145 emphasizes
this aspect of pilgrimage.
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HOLY LAND PILGRIMAGE OF ARMENIANS 99
Sinai. 18 It is the first witness to Armenians at Mount Sinai and
is roughly contemporaneous with the oldest Armenian pilgrim
graffiti known to date. 19
This correspondence, then, supplies us with a good deal of
essential information about Armenian pilgrimage. First, we learn
that such pilgrimage was habitual and we can infer that it was
generally groups of pilgrims who came. Second, we learn that the
route was arduous. Third, we learn that penitence was an important
aspect of the purpose of pilgrimage. Relics are not mentioned in
this document and the visit to holy men seems to have receded
into the background by this time. This is perhaps natural, for
by the seventh century the great days of ascetic virtuosity were
a thing of the past. Fourth, we can learn something about the
pilgrims' route- as well as Jerusalem they went to Mount Sinai
and to the Jordan river.
Additionally, the cordial correspondence between the Chalcedo-
nian Modestus and the anti-Chalcedonian Komitas is notable.
Indeed, it might be speculated that Komitas was able to ex
influence to renew the pilgrimages because of the position of
Armenian church which, being anti-Chalcedonian, was usua
at odds with the Byzantine Greek church. As head of the Armen
church, he may, therefore, have been regarded more favor
by the Persians. Consequently, Komitas may have been able
to intercede on behalf of the Christian interests in a way
which Modestus could not. This too might have contribute
the friendly tone of Modestus' letter to him. 20 There is o
evidence concerning relations between anti-Chalcedonian Ar
nians and Chalcedonian Christians in seventh-century Jerusale
Two accounts preserved by Moses Dasxurancai are to the po
Movses Dasxuranc'i
History of the Caucasian Albanians
In the History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movses Dasx
valuable information is preserved about Armenian pilg
This work is a collection of various sources, the latest of
18 See further on this, Stone, Armenian Inscriptions. 36.
18 See below for the dating of the Armenian graffiti from the Sinai.
80 See further Stone, Armenian Inscriptions , 36.
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
100 MICHAEL E. STONE
stem, apparently, from the elevent
a document is presented which is
an author named Joseph of Arc
passed, some time between 630 a
which he was living an eremetic
There he constructed a church in which he served. He lived and
officiated in Arcax under the authority of Mihr, his bishop, for
twelve years. Subsequently his superior for eleven years was
bishop Andrew who reconfirmed Joseph's position in his church.
At a point in time that is not specified, but in our opinion close
to the beginning of Joseph's ministry in the church in Arcax,
a certain solitary monk named Mexit'ar, together with two
companions, travelled to Jerusalem from Arcax. In Jerusalem he
prayed and then, with the aid of a certain Roman citizen,
he managed to obtain relics of two saints, St. George and
St. Stephen. 23 This Roman citizen had received the relics for
safekeeping and wished to transmit them to his family. However,
because of "threats" he decided to entrust them to Mexit'ar so
that the latter could take them safely to Armenia. Since the
Roman citizen says to Mexit'ar: "Take them to our (my italic
MES) country" it may be inferred that he was an Armenian
This Roman citizen of the Armenian nation apparently lived
Jerusalem. Mexit'ar indeed did as he had been bidden, the narrat
adds, and was careful to travel with his precious burden on
through Byzantine territory, from fear of the enemy. Eventual
he reached the Taurus mountains, the site of the death of
St. Andrew. His relic collection was completed there when he
also received some relics of St. Andrew. He took all these precious
remains home to Arcax. 24
21 The work was translated into English by C. J. F. Dowsett, The History of the
Caucasian Albanians by Mouses Dasxuranc'i (London Oriental Series, 8; London,
Oxford, 1961). The best edition of the Armenian text is K. Šahanzarian, Patmuťiwn
Aluanić (Paris: 1860). For further comments on the textual tradition, see Dowsett,
ibid., xi-xv, while on pages xv-xx he discussed the date of the whole writing. A
fragment of the text, translated into English from Patkanov's Russian version, was
discussed by R. N. Bain, "An Armenian Description of the Holy Places in the Seventh
Century", PEFQ (1876), 346-349.
22 The date is established by the synchronizations that he gives there. See below
note 28.
28 On the discovery of the tomb of St. Stephen Protomartyr, see Hunt, Holy Land
Pilgrimage , 214-218. On the subsequent diffusion of his relics, see ibid., 223, 228-9.
24 On the development of the cult of relics, see the perceptive comments of
P. Brown, The Cult of Saints (Chicago, University of Chicago, 1981). Although he is
discussing the West, there is much in his observations that is of broader relevance.
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HOLY LAND PILGRIMAGE OF ARMENIANS 101
An important study discussing this text in detail
the 60's of the seventh century, a date apparently
fixing the pilgrimage after the time of the two bishops. 2
our view differs. The text clearly states that Mexi
home on Byzantine territory and mentions the Tauru
as, apparently, the end of that stage of the journey h
Jerusalem during which there was concern as to who
the travel routes. This concern emerged doubtless
expanding areas under Moslem rule. Although the Tau
tains remained within the Byzantine orbit until th
century, that was not true of the areas east and sout
There could have been Byzantine territorial control of
route from the Holy Land to the Taurus mountains
to the late 630's. 26 After that, the Moslem conquest w
in these areas and territorial contiguity no longer
follows that Mexit'ar's journey took place in the b
the 30's of the seventh century, just prior to the Mosl
or in its earliest stages.
Brooks is one of those who set Mexit'ar's journey
time of Bishop Andrew. He attributes Joseph's aban
his hermitage to the "Saracen" incursions into Arm
year 640. The language of Dasxuranc'i's text, howe
specific. He refers to the "grievous trouble of the tim
men became enraged and trampled the churches u
extracted tribute from the oppressed, and laid waste
their lawless path." 27 If Joseph moved to Arcax i
Bishop Mihr's death took place in 653 and Bishop Andrew's
incumbency was between 653 and 664. This would mean that
Mexit'ar could not have undertaken his journey before 653. Now
there are difficulties with this view for it ignores the important
point, stressed by the text, that the Byzantines controlled all
M E. W. Brooks, « An Armenian Visitor to Jerusalem in the Seventh Century",
English Historical Review, 11 (1896), 93-97.
M A most recent study of the Moslem conquest of the Holy Land and Syria is
F. M. Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton: 1981), particularly Chapter 3,
pp. 91-155. There remains much unclarity about the exact stages of the Moslem
conquest, but clearly by the very end of the 630's or the start of the 640's the situation
that Joseph describes in the story of Mexit'ar no longer exists. A date somewhat
earlier is probably thus indicated.
*7 Dowsett, Caucasian Albanians , 181. The date of 640 would be just within the
limits set by the synchronizations, if Dowsett's identification of Mušel sparapet as
Mžež Gnouni who governed Byzantine Armenia between c. 630-635 is rejected. If it is
accepted, then the date of 640 cannot be maintained. See Dowsett, ibid., 181 n. 1. It
will emerge below that we do not accept 640 on other grounds.
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
102 MICHAEL E. STONE
Mexit/ar's route home. The chrono
been examined above. It is our v
a very clear last date for Mexit'a
late 630's.
What then of the "grievous troubles" that forced Joseph to
move from his desert to Arcax? These do not have to be the
Arab invasion of 640 which in any case affected chiefly so
western Armenia. Armenia was unsettled for many years bef
this. It was a bone of contention between Byzantium and P
and parts of it changed hands in 591 and again in 628. Alm
unceasing military activity in Armenia typify the period
the late sixth century to the Arab invasions. 28 As Lilie puts
Armenia was "im 6. und 7. Jhd. fast ununterbrochen Kreigsc
platz und in einem dem entsprechend Zustand war." Thes
conditions may well have engendered that situation described
Joseph and thus the identification of the events mentione
Joseph with the Arab invasion is not compelling.
If this conclusion is accepted, it also fits with what we sugg
above, i.e. that there is no need to set the pilgrimage of Mex
after the periods of rule of both bishops he mentioned. In
it is much more reasonable to associate the pilgrimage w
climaxed in the bringing of the relics back to Arcax very clo
with the founding of the church by Joseph, not long af
he moved there. 29 It follows that the "threat" mentioned by
Roman citizen can probably be identified as his concern for t
fate of the relics under the imminent Moslem conquest. Th
was that motivated him to entrust them to Mexit'ar, to ta
his distant homeland. Moreover, the anti-Chalcedonian Armen
28 Compare R. Lilie, Die byzantinische Reaktion auf der Ausbreitung der Arab
Studie zur Strukturwandelung des byzantinische Staates im 7. und 8. Jhd. (Misc
Byzantina Monacensia; Munich, Institut für Byzantinistik der Univ., 1976), p. 5.
He details the Arab campaigns against Armenia on pages 54-56. See further
H. Manandian, "Les Invasions arabes en Arménie », Byzantion 18 (1946-48), 163-195.
The general situation is described by A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire
324-1453 (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin, 1952), 170-171 and 194-8. The difficult
situation in Armenia in the 630's is stressed by E. L. Danielian, "The Arab Invasion
of Armenia in 647", Palmabanasirakan Handēs No. 2 (1982), 106-116, especially
106f. (in Armenian).
" The synchronisms for the building of the church in Arcax are the reign of
Heraclius (610-641); of Yazdakert III (632-651); and of Catholicos Ezr I (630-641).
These produce a range between 632 and 641. The other two dates mentioned in this
connection in the text of Dasxuranc'i are in accordance with this, although they are
less certain; see note 27 above.
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HOLY LAND PILGRIMAGE OF ARMENIANS 103
clearly felt far safer travelling home over Byzantin
than over Moslem-held lands.
This text, then, casts light upon the travel of pilgrims and
attitudes held by them on the eve of the Moslem conquest of
the Holy Land. The imminence of the invasion pervaded all aspect
including the disposal of relics and the selection of routes. Moreover,
we learn that there was at least one Armenian resident in Jerusalem
who was a Roman citizen. He presumably was not the only one.
This Roman citizen is not characterized as holding any ecclesiastical
position and may well not have been a cleric at all. If this is true,
this would be the first known evidence for a lay Armenian commu-
nity in Jerusalem. It would also seem likely that the "Roman
citizen" was not a monophysite; in its freedom from any antiChalcedonian comments the story of Mexit'ar contrasts with the
tale of Joseph to which we must now direct our attention.
In the History of the Caucasian Albanians, another interesting
pilgrimage narrative is appended to Mexit'ar's tale. This second
story makes a clear impression of coming from a different source
to the story of Mexit'ar. It is told in the first person by the narrator
of the whole text, i.e. Joseph the Hermit of Arcax and it relates
his own journey to the Holy City. Three years after Mexit'ar's
return, he himself travelled there in order to bring back with
him some relics of John the Baptist. However, since he discovered
that all people in Jerusalem were affected by the contagion of
Chalcedon, he returned home empty-handed and eventually
received relics of the Forerunner of Christ from someone in Armenia.
The contrast between the "Roman citizen" from whom Mexit'ar
received his relics and the Chalcedonian taint discerned in all the
Christians of Jerusalem by Joseph is striking. Mexit'ar was very
careful, as we have noted, to stay in Byzantine territory. Moreover,
Mexit'ar's story is provided with fairly abundant detail which
helps to set it in time and place. Joseph's, however, is not; he
tells the whole of his pilgrimage in a few, spare sentences, with
no details whatsoever concerning Jerusalem, the Holy Land, or
his doings there. Nor does he mention the military or political
situation which must have been acute. This difference is doubtless
a result of the character of his narrative and he may well have
drawn Mexit'ar's tale from an existing source. However, without
finally determining this issue, we can safely say that Mexit'ar's
pilgrimage probably took place in the last years before the Moslem
conquest, and Joseph's either just before or immediately after it.
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
104 MICHAEL E. STONE
The implications of these two
Armenian pilgrimage are numero
to the very final days of Byzanti
indeed, we may add, even later
witness clearly the continuity of
beginnings down to the twelfth
story of Mexiťar indicates the
between Armenians who came to the Holy Land and local
Christians, or at least local Armenian Christians. Yet, even though
apparently an Armenian, Mexiťaťs benefactor was a Roman
citizen and might be assumed to be orthodox. These cordial
relationships are also borne out to some extent by the correspondence of Modestus and Komitas. 31 Yet, Joseph's own story serves
to remind us that these relationships and these attitudes were
not shared by all Armenians. It is, of course, possible that the
"Roman citizen" was a monophysite, of whom there was no
shortage also in the Holy Land. Yet it is also possible that relations
were in fact complex.
An additional point arising from these stories is that Mexiťar
and his companions, as well as Joseph himself, are situated in the
eastern part of Armenia Maior, far from Melitene and Armenia
Minor, which areas figured so prominently in the material relating
to Eutactus and Euthymius. Additionally, this narrative confirms
our supposition made above that these people travelled by land,
for the question of territorial contiguity is clearly only relevant
in that context. Moreover, they sought carefully to find secure
routes to travel. It is notable, moreover, what a large role the
question of relics plays in these stories; prayer is also mentioned;
while visits to holy men do not figure in them at all. These
emphases while largely determined by objective historical circumstance, may also reflect the differences not in the interests of the
pilgrims but of the authors of the sources. Joseph, a priest seeking
to dedicate a church and desiring relics, is going to look at what
can be gained from a visit to the Holy Land differently from Cyril
of Scythopolis in writing the life of St. Euthymius. In a hagiography, the mention of visits to holy men is the most natural
thing in the world. 32 Finally, it should be noted that Mexiťar
80 Stone, Armenian Inscriptions , 7-18.
81 See above on the correspondence of Modestus and Komitas.
88 In his F. S. Sabae 17, Cyril says that pilgrims came "pour lui faire des offrandes,
mais surtout pour voir ses vertus angéliques et son genre de vie tout immatériel" (tr.
Festugière 3/2, p. 30).
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HOLY LAND PILGRIMAGE OF ARMENIANS 105
came with three companions and not on his own and th
modern jet-age visitors, he stayed for a whole year,
still two years less than Egeria had done before him
Travels 17.1).
Pseudo-Elišē
On the Transfiguration
Another source exists referring to a pilgrim who c
Armenia to the Holy Land, according to scholars about the
year 630 C.E., i.e. about the same time as the pilgrimages mentioned
by Movses Dasxuranc'i. His name is unknown, but the record of
his journey is preserved in the treatise On the Transfiguration ,
falsely attributed to Elise vardapet a famous Armenian historian.
Elise is traditionally dated to the fifth century; however On the
Transfiguration must be later than that, since it cites the Armenian
version of Philo of Alexandria. At the earliest, Philo was translated
into Armenian by the early sixth century and could not have
come into the hands of the author of On the Transfiguration before
then.
Thomson, who first drew attention to this pilgrim account
dates it to about 630. On the basis of the Armenian version of
Philo, however, we can today only talk of a date in the sixth
century or later, and other criteria for more precise dating mus
sought. 33
The document describes an ascent of Mount Tabor and the
existence of three churches and a monastery on the peak
the mountain is noted. This form of construction on the mountain
was first described by the Piacenza Pilgrim. 34 That was about
570 C.E. while A. Ovadiah sets the remains of church buildings
on the site to the fourth or fifth century, but the number of
edifices involved is not certain. 35 The Piacenza Pilgrim, however,
83 See Robert W. Thomson, "A Seventh-Century Armenian Pilgrim on Mount
Tabor", J TS 18 (1967), 27-33. Thomson dates the account by Philo Armenus, which
he sets at the end of the sixth century. More recently, as Thomson himself admits in a
later publication, doubt has been cast on this late date for the Armenian translation
of Philo, see Elishe , History of Vardan and the Armenian War, tr. and comm.
R. W. Thomson (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, 5; Cambridge MA, Harvard,
1982), 22.
84 Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims , 81.
85 See A. Ovadia, Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land (Theophaneia,
22; Bonn: Hanstein, 1970), no. 60, p. 71, and Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims , 173 and
further bibliography there.
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
106 MICHAEL E. STONE
mentions three churches, while e
exception, do not mention any at a
three churches and also guest-hou
establishment. Even though a mon
cally, the descriptions of the mon
of life seems to imply some sort o
(c. 808 C.E.) lists four churches
to set a tentative post quem non d
church, and this must be the en
range for On the Transfiguration
(sixth century) and the Commem
to eighth centuries. It may well
than an early seventh century da
Armenian pilgrims are known p
not a necessary conclusion, howev
It is worth observing that the
is included in On the Transfigura
event was traditionally located on
detailed, providing much inform
their way of life, etc. It could onl
justly observes, by an eyewitnes
Transfiguration , however, as an
it can provide us with is indirect
to holy places. By way of a foot
in later Armenian tradition three mountains were a standard
part of pilgrim itineraries - Mount Tabor, Golgotha, and Mou
Sinai. Stones from the three are still kept in a chapel of th
Armenian Cathedral of St. James in Jerusalem as a "lazy ma
pilgrimage". Mount Tabor is not mentioned in the other ear
Armenian pilgrim accounts.
Anastasius of Sinai
The Holy Fathers of Sinai
We know of another group of Armenian pilgrims at thi
that included the journey to Mount Sinai on their rout
exists a collection of stories attributed to Anastasius, w
86 Thompson, "Tabor", 29 for a list of sources.
87 Section 47; see translation in Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims , 138.
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HOLY LAND PILGRIMAGE OF ARMENIANS 107
a monk at Mount Sinai and who wrote about the middle of the
seventh century. His life span embraces the Moslem conquest
In one of his stories, Anastasius tells about a group of Armenian
who came, as was their custom, to the Holy Mountain, about
twenty years so he says, before the time of writing, i.e. about th
year 630 C.E. That group numbered eight hundred persons an
they ascended the mountain to its peak, and there miracles took
place. These miracles, so Anastasius says, witness that even today
miracles happened on Mount Sinai. 38
There are three particularly important aspects of this story
а, - It was a fixed custom of the Armenians to make pilgrimag
to Mount Sinai. This is also the clear implication of the Epistl
of Modestus. Consequently, at least in the seventh century, an
probably earlier there was a fixed practice of pilgrimage fro
Armenia.
б. - The group of pilgrims was notably large. This is the third
such large group of which we hear in this period: first the visitors
of Euthymius, then the group at the time of Komitas and Modestus,
and finally the group in Anastasius' story. The size of the two
groups of which we have numbers is extraordinary and, even if
we bring possible exaggeration into account, it remains so. As we
have already noted, the journey was overland, and often crossed
the boundaries of empires, and it was doubtless a perilous one.
This may have led to the formation of caravans. Furthermore,
the size of the caravans is a clear witness to the enthusiasm
displayed by the Armenians for pilgrimage to the Holy Land
and the holy places.
In this connection, it should be further noted that the logistics
of bringing a group of this size across the desert were very complex
The implications of this being an annual event are very considerable and include the creation of an economic and logistical infrastructure which would facilitate it. Indeed, there is information
which shows that such an infrastructure did exist. 89
88 F. Nau, "Le texte grec des récits du moine Anastase sur les saints pères du
Sinai", Oriens Christianus 2 (1901), 81-2.
88 Information concerning part of this infrastructure may be found in the Nessana
papyri in which mention is made of arrangements for guides and beasts of burden for
caravans of pilgrims setting out from this staging-post in the Negev for Mount Sinai.
See papyri nos. 72 and 73, both from the eighties of the seventh century. They were
published by G. J. Kraemer Jr., Excavations at Nessana: III Non-Literary Papyri
(Princeton, 1958).
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
108 MICHAEL E. STONE
c. - A final point arising in this
specifically states that the carav
returned there.
The information about Armenian pilgrimage is not very plentiful
at all, but it is worth noting that most of it stems from the seventh
century. It is chiefly concentrated on the period of the Persian
conquest of the Holy Land and the following years. Hintlian
suggests that in the background of the letter of Modestus to
Komitas lay services rendered Modestus by Komitas through
intercession at the Persian court. This is indeed possible. Moreover,
it should be remarked that there also exists additional information
about Armenian monks in the Holy Land and in Sinai during the
same period. 40
The Evidence of the Inscriptions
The final piece of evidence to be adduced in the context
paper here enters into play- the Armenian pilgrim graff
were discovered in the Sinai peninsula. Up to the present
such inscriptions have been noted at various sites in t
They have been nearly all found in six concentration
wadis forming the main route of travel to the high m
region from the west (5 inscriptions); in Wadi Haggag on t
to the high mountains from the east (73 inscriptions); an
area of Mount Sinai and St. Catherine's monastery (31 insc
Some of those inscriptions, about 10 in number, stem f
period before the seventh century. This determination
on palaeographic grounds. Nearly all this group of oldest
were discovered at Wadi Haggag. This seems to indicate
eastern route was more frequented by the Armenian pilgr
the inscriptions were indeed written by pilgrims as is cle
their location as well as from their contents. 41
To the evidence provided by these inscriptions for Armenian
pilgrims we may add the evidence that exists for Armenians
playing a role in Sinai monasticism. 42 A considerable part of
40 Stone, Armenian Inscriptions, 24-36.
41 Ibid., see also Michael E. Stone, "Armenian Inscriptions in Southern Sinai",
Researches on Southern Sinai, ed. A. Lachish and Z. Meshel (Jerusalem: Sinai
Administration & Nature Protection Society, 1982), 48-50 (in Hebrew).
48 See Stone, Armenian Inscriptions, 31.
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HOLY LAND PILGRIMAGE OF ARMENIANS 109
this evidence belongs to the same period that we ment
seventh century. The concentration of sources in th
of that century raises questions in our minds. If it w
matter of the Sinai we might be led to see a relationsh
this phenomenon and the beginning of the Moslem
in the 30's of the seventh century. 43 This explana
clarify the change of routes in the Sinai leading to the
of our inscriptional series and to other phenomena but
hold the stage alone and unmodified once the eviden
Palestine is also brought into account. The increase o
the Sinai can, without any doubt, be related to the con
of St. Catherine's monastery (between 548 and 565 C.E.
to improved security for the monks and for the pilgri
and strengthened and enhanced the position of Mou
the itinerary of pilgrims. Yet, the overall picture of the
of Armenian pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the ear
century is surely independent of this. The possible spec
ship between the Armenian Church and the Persian
because of the former's conflict with Byzantium ma
contributed to the increase of the stream of Armenian travellers
in the early seventh century.
Conclusions
1. The Armenians were devoted to pilgrimage in a most prof
fashion and Armenian pilgrims are mentioned by the so
from the fourth century on.
2. At least at the end of the sixth century and in the first
of the seventh century the number of sources relating to Arm
pilgrimage increases dramatically. A number of possible expl
tions of this phenomenon have been suggested.
3. Armenian pilgrimage was typically carried in group
they larger or smaller. At least towards the end of the perio
are discussing it was a regular, annual event.
4. The pilgrim itinerary in the Holy Land included, in addi
to Jerusalem, also the Jordan river (where they used to imm
" See P. Mayerson, "The first Mulsim Attacks on Southern Palestine", TAPA
(5964), 155-199. See also Stone, Armenian Inscriptions , p. 36, n. 30.
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
110 MICHAEL E. STONE
themselves) and Mount Sinai, as
they visited other holy sites as w
in our sources.
5. The declared purposes of the pilgrimage included prayer,
penitence, gathering of relics, and, of course, the actual visit in
the holy places.
6. Furthermore, there was a notable number of Armenians
in monastic establishments throughout the country, in spite of
the Armenian Church's anti-Chalcedonian stance. These monks
were doubtless, for the main part, of the Chalcedonian persuasion
On this point, in spite of these doctrinal differences, we fin
certain evidence for co-operation between Armenians and loc
Jerusalem Christians. There is, without any doubt, a relationshi
between Armenian monasticism in the Holy Land and Armeni
pilgrimage, and that already from the days of St. Euthymiu
7. Consequently, Armenian pilgrimage should be regarded a
most significant in the context of the pilgrimage of variou
Christian groups. Its role is an expression of the special value
cherished by the Armenian Church, which seems from earlie
times to have cultivated a deep connection with the holy plac
and the Holy Land.
Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Michael E. Stone.
This content downloaded from
132.174.254.12 on Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:45:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms