Considerable controversy surrounds this work. Since the Georgian original which the medieval Armenian writer used has not survived, the very nature of the work is in question. Was the Armenian a translation, an abridgement, or a version of the Georgian? Based on currently available Georgian sources, this question cannot be resolved. This is because until relatively recently, the only complete Georgian text was an early 18th century revision (work of a commission appointed by King Vaxtang VI) which, regrettably, expanded some passages and removed and/or rearranged other passages. This 18th century text also incorporated additional documents from the 13-14th centuries. Fortunately, the individual books of the Chronicle (pre-Vaxtang revision) survived as separate works. However, as a result of the zeal of Georgian editors, no full, unadulterated Georgian text of the Chronicle predates the Armenian version. For this reason alone the Armenian version is valuable.
All eight extant Armenian manuscripts derive from a single exemplar made between 1279 and 1311 and housed at the Matenadaran in Erevan, Armenia. M.F. Brosset published a French translation of it in Additions et eclaircissements a l'Histoire de la Georgie (St. Petersburg,1851). The classical Armenian text, translated in the present volume, was published by At'. T'iroyan as Hamarhot patmut'iwn vrats' (Concise/Abridged History of the Georgians) in Venice in 1884. T'iroyan hlmself added the title, based on a colophon appearing in the Chronicle. All surviving copies are defective, terminating abruptly in mid-sentence. There is considerable variation in the spelling of names of people and places and occasional anachronlsms, such as references to "Baghdad", and the "Turks" and "hejub". To date the most detailed study of the Chronicle is Ilia Abuladze's comparatlve analysis of the Armenian text and the corresponding Georgian passages (Tbilisi,1953, in Georgian). Yustin Abuladze (1901) concluded that the Armenlan was a translation of the Georgian, and that since the Armenian is much shorter, the original Georgian must have been shorter. I. Javaxishvili, on the other hand, thought the Armenian was an abridgement. S. Kakabadze considered it a variant or version of the Georgian. Father Nerses Akinian suggested that the translator/adaptor may have been an Armenian diophysite, perhaps Simeon Pghndzahanets'i. Apparently the Armenian chroniclers Mxit'ar of Ani (12th century) and Mxit'ar Ayrivanets'i (13th century) used the Chronicle in its Armenian edition, while the historian Step'annos Orbelean (d.1304) referenced the Chronicle in Georgian.
Unlike the Georgian original, which was a collectlon of individual books written by different authors having different styles, the Armenian version is one man's work. The style is straightorward and more chronographical than literary. Occasionally, Armenian equivalents for Georgian words are provided parenthetically, and it seems that the translator/adaptor had Armenian sources such as Agat'angeghos and Movses Xorenats'i by his side and drew upon them for additional details.
The present translation follows C. Toumanoff's proposed chronologies for the regnal years of kings and other officials, and also his distinction between Iberia (or East Georgia) prior to 1008 and Georgia (the union of East and West Georgia) thereafter. For further information on Iberia/Georgia see C. Toumanoff's Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963), W.E.B. Allen's History of the Georgian People (New York, 1971, reprint of the 1932 edition), and D.M. Lang's Lives and Legends of the Georgian Saints (Crestwood, N.Y., 1976). The transliteration employed is a modification of the Library of Congress system.
The printed editions of these online texts show the page number at the top of the page. In the right margin the pagination of the classical Armenian (grabar) text also is provided. We have made the following alterations for the online texts: the page number of the printed English editions (Sources of the Armenian Tradition series) appears in square brackets, in the text. For example [101] this text would be located on page 101, and [102] this text would be on page 102. The grabar pagination is as follows. This sentence corresponds to the information found on page 91 of the classical Armenian text [g91] and what follows is on page 92.
Robert Bedrosian
New York, 1991