The Turco-Mongol Invasions and the Lords of Armenia in the 13 ...

Toumanoff . Host important, the essence of the tern,
its real rather than literal meaning has been perceived
p
and described differently by these scholars . Adontz,
Nicholas Adontz placed the disintegration of clan
relationships in the time of political unrest in Armenia
under Zariadris and Artaxias (second century B.C.), and
the completion of this process during the reign of
Tigran the Great (first century B.C.) at which time
the greatest naxarar families, in his view, already had
emerged (Adontz, pp. 307, 310, 315). Manandyan challenged
this, suggesting that "a significant break in clan
relationships and the growth in power and authority of
clan leaders and chiefs had already occurred in this
ancient [Urartian] period" (Manandyan, Trade. also
Feudalism, pp. 250-51). It is Important to observe
(see note 2 below) that Manandyan was looking for the
"emergence of feudalistic features" in Armenian society,
automatically equating this with naxararism or "naxarar
customs"—which to my knowledge he nowhere defines.
Toumanoff places the appearance of dynasts before the
creation of the Urartian state, styling them the "immemorial
dynasts", Studies, pp. 50-52, 69, 74, 79, 136, and
note 2 below.
Adontz, pp. 303-26 viewed the naxarars as descendants
of tribal chieftains of different ethnic backgrounds
who held power by right of birth. Manandyan (to the extent
that it was and is possible given the scanty information
available) focussed on the class position of the naxarars
relative to the other classes in Armenian society!He,
as many Soviet scholars, was eager to associate the
naxarar "system" with Western European feudalism (See
Manandyan,, Trade, pp. 70-72; Feudalism, pp. 42-89;
also B. Harut rut"yur yunyah's " article"geod-in "
ey beneficium-in
hamaoataaxanol ji terminnera hay hayFe mifaadarvan __________ grakanut *yan
ne3 [Terms Corresponding to ?eod and Beneficium in
ledieval Armenian Literature!", PVIraber #12 tl2 U958) C1958) Jpp.
87—
95, and the remarks of Sukiasian in the forward to his
study on early "feudalism" in Armenia, Sukiasian pp. 15-27).
Toumanoff, in his classic Studies in Christian Caucasian
"' »tor%(Georgetown, 1963) has reexamined the entire history
of the Armenian highlands from Urartian times to the Bagratid
period. Toumanoff considerably elaborated and
took in new directions Adontz1 recognition that the
Armenian social system had a double aspect: one "feudal"
and one dynastic (Studies, pp. 34-144,154,188). According
to the author, the dynastic element pre-dated statehood
(be it Urartian statehood, Arsacid or other) and consequently
157