Transformation of a Sacred Landscape around Lake Gilli, Armenia

Arsen Bobokhyan1 and Kristine Martirosyan-Olshansky2

Lake Gilli (also known as Lake Zodi, Tilli, Mazrayi, or Jili) and its basin once formed a unique ecological environment southeast of Lake Sevan in the Masrik Valley, Armenia (Figure 1).3º Lake Gilli was a shallow and swampy lake with a circumference of about 7.5 km (4.5 miles), surrounded by lush reed vegetation. Three rivers—the Akanic’, Karmir aġbyowr, and Kaler—once flowed into the lake. The Masrik River passed through it and flowed into Lake Sevan. Lake Gilli sustained unique flora and fauna, especially birds, but dried up completely in the mid-twentieth century due to the artificial lowering of the water level in Lake Sevan.4

The Gilli Reserve was later established to preserve the remaining swamps, along with the aquatic vegetation and endemic fish species in Lake Sevan (Figure 2; Ananyan 1952, 1961–1975; Hakobyan et al. 1986:863). This unique ecological niche has been a source of various folk tales and legends. These are best summarized in Vakhtang Ananyan’s 1951 novel On the Shore of Lake Sevan, which was later adapted into a film.5 According to legend, a dragon lived in the lake; roars and growls regularly heard from the lake were attributed to the dragon. For inhabitants of the Armenian highlands, the various folk tales, stories, and worldviews concerning dragons have long been associated with monolithic steles called višapak‘ar (dragon stones), which depict animal forms and images with specific symbolic meanings indigenous to the highlands (Ananyan 1952:17–18; Bagoyan 2019:269; Hovhannisyan 2019:80; Petrosyan 1987:64, 2015:14; Simonyan and Hovhannisyan 2019:170). The monuments, located between 1,200 and 3,000 m (4,000–10,000 feet) above sea level, date to the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (2300–1200 BCE). In Armenia, the two main višapak‘ar clusters are on Mount Aragats and in the Geghama mountain range (Hnila et al. 2019).

1. Director, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia. 2. Director, Armenian Laboratory, Cotsen Institute. 3. Archaeological surveys on the eastern shores of Lake Sevan are realized under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia and the Scientific Committee (Grant 21AG-6A080). They are partly supported by the Research Program in Armenian Archaeology and Ethnography at the Cotsen Institute. 4. The artificial drying of Lake Gilli began in 1959–1960. In 1978 the Armenian government decided to establish Sevan National Park and restore Lake Gilli within the park area. Studies on the restoration of Lake Gilli and project work resumed in 2000. The restoration program was presented as a global biodiversity conservation issue (Government of the Republic of Armenia 2002). In 2003 the government issued a restoration of Lake Gilli postage stamp (no. 285; designed by Albert Kechyan).

Višapak‘ar have long been associated with dragons

Figure 1. Location map of Armenia and Spitakavor Church.

from the field

Very little archaeological and ethnographic research was carried out in the Gilli Basin during the pre-Soviet and Soviet years (before 1991), primarily because the region was unwelcoming to researchers for ethno-political reasons (Smbateants 1895:631). Among the few studies of importance are the works of Yervand Lalayan and Sedrak Barkhudaryan, who studied the history, population, and monuments of the villages around Lake Gilli, in particular Geġamasar (Šiškaya), during the first half of the twentieth century (Barkhudaryan 1973:311–12; Lalayan 1910:21–30). More systematic research in the region, under the auspices of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, began after independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. This article presents some of the results of this research, detailing historical processes of the transformation of the area from a pre-Christian to a Christian sacred landscape, as exemplified by Spitakavor Church in the village of Geġamasar.

The LAke GiLLi BASin in The MiddLe AGeS And SpiTAkAvor ChurCh

There is very little information about Lake Gilli in medieval sources. The name is probably connected with the adjacent settlement of Gil (Basmajean 1927; Hakobyan et al. 1986:863), though some have proposed a connection to the archaic root geġ-, the basis of many historical toponyms of Geġark’ownik’ (Petrosyan 2015:14). Indirect information on the history of the Gilli Basin appears in various publications about the Lake Sevan Basin or Sotk’ Province. From these texts we know that during the Middle Ages (the fourth through eighteenth centuries CE), the Gilli Basin was within the province of Sotk’ (Alishan 1893:63–76; Grigoryan 2020:186–206; Orbelean 1910:514–15).

Historic sources and archaeological excavations in recent years show that the Lake Gilli Basin, and the region in general, reached its peak of urban development in the Middle Ages, when spiritual and secular infrastructures, defense systems, and settlements preserved from the previous periods were renovated, restored, and actively used. The single-naved Spitakavor Church (also known as Akk’ilisa, Axilisa, or Ag-Gilisē),6 located on the former shore of Lake Gilli, 4 km (2.5 miles) to the southwest of the village of Geġamasar, is first mentioned by Ghevond

6. The “List of Preservation of Monuments of the Republic of Armenia” describes a church located at 40.29361°N, 045.63374°E, and 1,929 masl, 4 km (2.5 miles) southwest of the village. The list says that to the right of its entrance, a xačk’ar (cross-stone) stands on the ground and that both the church and the xačk’ar appear to date to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries CE.

Alishan (1893:75), who writes, “On the shore by Šišgaya is the old church Ag-Gilisē, perhaps also a monastery, which is otherwise not known to me.” Yervand Lalayan (1910:24), describing the valley in front of the village of Šišgaya, which stretches for about 3 km (2 miles), writes that there is “a half-ruined small church here; there is a large xačk’ar (cross-stone) within it which bears a distorted epigraphic inscription” (Barkhudaryan 1973:311). Archaeologist Hovsep Yeghiazaryan (1942:5) mentions a medieval settlement around the church under the cultivated fields and notes the presence of pottery fragments dating to the tenth through thirteenth centuries CE. A church with the name Akkilisa also appears on Soviet maps.7

To date, our team has not found any information about the construction date of the church. However, its historical-archaeological context provides a rough estimate.8 Spitakavor Church is situated on the edge of a flat area, 1,929 m (6,329 feet) above sea level (Figures 3 and 4). Before excavavations, it was filled with soil and garbage (Figure 5). In 2021 the Sotk’ expedition of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography carried out excavation, conservation, and restoration work at the church under the direction of Avetis Grigoryan. After cleaning, it became clear that the church is a single-naved building with a rectangular plan (6.1 x 4.3 m [20 x 14 feet]; Figure 6). At one point, it had a vaulted roof, which has not been preserved. It is built of locally sourced, unworked white marl limestone and river stones, bonded together with lime mortar. Large chunks of conglomerates—sediments of fossilized lake sandstone—were also used in the wall masonry.

Entrance to the church is from the west (Figure 7). Twin windows have been preserved on the east facade, and there are small niches on the northern and eastern walls, one on each side. Slightly to the west of the north–south axis of the church, the remains of a vaulted arch have been preserved. The lower parts of the vaulted arch extend down the wall along a pilaster but do not reach the floor, ending 0.5 m (1.5 feet) above it. The inner facades of the church walls and the floor were lime plastered and have been preserved in some areas. It is perhaps because of the lime plaster that local Muslim populations called the church ag-Gilisē (the White Church). On the western side, a fragment of a wall abutting the church suggests that there used to be an anteroom, only the southern wall of which has been preserved. This structure, made with a much simpler construction technique, with walls having an earthen filling, was probably a later addition. The eastern part of the church is divided into two parts by a low partition wall (height and length about 0.9 m [3 feet]), separating the area into two niches, which probably served either as prayer rooms or as sacristies. In each niche, a centrally placed window would have lit the area.

There is little about Lake Gilli in the medieval sources

Figure 2. View of the Lake Gilli area. (Photograph by Arshaluys Mkrtchyan.)

7. Such as map number K-38-XXVIII, 1978. 8. We thank architect Artak Ghulyan for insightful discussions on the architectural elements of Spitakavor Church.

Figure 3. Aerial view of Spitakavor Church and its environs. (Photograph by Arshaluys Mkrtchyan.)

from the field

One fragment of a višapak‘ar (dragon stone) remodeled into a xačk’ar (cross-stone), discussed in more detail below, was likely the main sacred object of the church. It stood upside down (from the perspective of the višapak‘ar) in the center of the church. Examination of the placement and measurements of the fragment indicates that it also served an architectural function as a pillar bearing the load of the vaulted ceiling over that section of the church.

Excavations revealed a clay-plastered floor, which was preserved throughout the interior, apart from the area immediately around the višapak‘ar-xačk’ar (a dragon stone remodeled into a cross-stone), where the floor was damaged when the stone was embedded into it. The lower fragment of another finely carved xačk’ar was found near the entrance of the church, embedded into the lower masonry of the outer wall (Figure 8). The fragment depicts interlaced patterns and a pair of pigeons facing one another under a palmetto. The pigeons probably symbolize those who prayed for the salvation or intercession of the soul of the deceased. Based on the characteristics of the iconography, this xačk’ar should date to the thirteenth century (Figure 9; Petrosyan 2008, 294–97). Inside the church, near the entrance, three reliquaries filled with ashes were found. The middle one was built with roughly worked slabs, the western one was simply dug into the ground, while four roughly rectangular stones with furrows were used to line the walls of the eastern reliquary. The latter stones likely belonged to an older structure in the vicinity. The reliquaries were looted, so the details of their initial contents remain unknown (Figures 8 and 9).

With its architectural design (Figure 10), Spitakavor Church has a number of parallels in the eastern basin of Lake Sevan, such as a small church on the eastern peak of Šorža, the Ada Monastery on the Artaniš Peninsula, the church of Gill, the St. Astvaçaçin (Mother of God) and St. Gevorg Churches of Ayrk’, and others. In Arc’ax, parallels include the old part of the single-naved Basilica of Hoṙekavank’, the churches of Jrvštiki, the Monastery of the Apostle Eġiše, and the church-tomb of Vačagan the Pious (Ayvazyan and Sargsyan 2013:1–11; Barkhudaryan 1982:104–5). It cannot be excluded that Spitakavor Church could have been a church-tomb. Judging from the architectural elements of the church and the geopolitical environment of the region, the church was most likely constructed in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. The discovery of building stones of

Figure 4. Digital elevation model of Spitakavor Church and its environs. (Image created by Arshaluys Mkrtchyan.)

secondary use within Spitakavor Church, an assortment of pottery dated to the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries, a fragment of an ornately decorated xačk’ar, and an inscription on the višapak‘ar-turned-xačk’ar attest to the existence of an earlier sanctuary here, on the base of which perhaps the present church-reliquary was built. Spitakavor Church fell out of use sometime in the second half of the nineteenth century, when the region was emptied of its Indigenous Armenian population (Smbateants 1895:592–631).

The thick wall constructed of roughly worked, large stones that surrounds the church was part of the medieval landscape of Spitakavor (Figure 6). In its style and masonry, it is more like Bronze and Iron Age structures in the vicinity. Stone structures of indeterminate use found within the parameters of the wall, a roughly worked stone with a simple cross carved on one face found near the northern wall of the church, and a primitive xačk’ar bearing a cross with two-lobed wings, typical of the ninth and tenth centuries, were part of the medieval church complex. The latter is now around 1.5 km (1 mile) northeast of Spitakavor, in the middle of a field, near a large apple tree. It is now a sacred place and frequently visited by locals. The Xačk’ar of SpiTakavor ChurCh and iTS inSCripTion

The xačk’ar was erected in the center of Spitakavor Church and, at the time of our visit in 2020–2021, was broken into three fragments. Village inhabitants recently placed one fragment in front of the entrance to the church. One of the two fragments that remained within the church leaned against the eastern wall. The other fragment was embedded in the floor of the church (Figure 5). Two of these fragments show a relief of a cross erected on a stepped pedestal, linear crosses on the lateral faces, and an Armenian inscription (Figures 11 and 12). The arms of the main cross have a simple double-branched ending, with each branch ending in three spheres. This is one of the earliest examples of the transition from two spheres to three spheres typical of the early iconography of the cross.9 The stepped pedestal into which the cross was placed, as a rule, symbolizes not only the important, sacred status of the cross in Christian art but also the hill of Calvary (Golgotha), on top of which stood the

Figure 5. Aerial view of Spitakavor Church before excavations. Locations of the three fragments of the višapak‘ar-xačk’ar (a dragon stone remodeled into a cross-stone) are indicated by numbers. (Photograph by Arshaluys Mkrtchyan.)

from the field

Figure 6. Aerial view of Spitakavor Church after excavations. (Photograph by Arshaluys Mkrtchyan.)

Figure 8. Oblique aerial view of Spitakavor Church after excavations. (Photograph by Arshaluys Mkrtchyan.) Figure 7. Architectural details of Spitakavor Church, seen from above. (Photograph by Arshaluys Mkrtchyan.)

cross used for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (Petrosyan 2008:278.) The symbolism of a stepped pedestal and a circular rosette, not present on this xačk’ar, is usually the same. Thus in the presence of a stepped pedestal, a rosette is absent and vice versa (Petrosyan 2008:279). The inscription, with its asymmetric letters and lines, gives the impression that an inexperienced hand carved them into the xačk’ar (Figure 13). The average height of the letters ranges between 10 and 15 cm (4–6 inches). The inscription consists of nine lines and was carved to the right of the cross, near the bottom of the xačk’ar. Yervand Lalayan (1910:24) wrote, “I found out only the year 1251.” More than half a century later, Sedrak Barkhudaryan (1973:311), in his discussion on the history of the region, quoted Lalayan; thus we assume that he did not see the xačk’ar himself. The inscription was finally deciphered in 2021 by Arsen Harutiunyan, who also noted that Lalayan had misread the 1251 date. The inscription, which is published here for the first time, reads: “The Holy Cross was erected in memory of Abgar’s son, Gregory and the latter’s son, let them be remembered in glorifying God, 936.”

The višApAk‘Ar Turned inTo A XAčk’Ar

During initial examination of the stone in 2020, our team noted that certain characteristics—such as the style of processing the stone and the type of rock—are more typical of pre-Christian steles. A detailed examination of the individual fragments revealed an outline of a bull’s head carved onto one of them. It became clear that the fragments once formed a complete, even if not finely executed, bull-headed višapak‘ar. The stele is not described as a višapak‘ar in any historical texts dealing with the region or this monument in particular. Despite having been broken into three pieces, the stele is relatively well preserved. When joined it measures 360 x 107 x 55 cm (142 x 42 x 22 inches). The freestanding fragment measures 123 x 85 x 46 cm (48 x 33 x 18 inches), the fragment inside the church is 137 x 104 x 50 cm (54 x 41 x 20 inches), and the

Figure 9. Fragment of a thirteenthcentury xačk’ar (cross-stone, unrelated to the višapak‘ar-xačk’ar in Figure 8) incorporated into masonry of the outer wall, north of the entrance to Spitakavor Church. (Photograph by Avetis Grigoryan.)

Figure 10. Plan and architectural drawings of Spitakavor Church. (Drawings by Artak Hakhverdyan.)

from the field

fragment embedded in the ground is 115 x 107 x 55 cm (45 x 42 x 22 inches). Although the relief is incomplete, a bull’s head and front legs can be made out on the obverse of the stele (Figures 11 and 12).

One question is whether the višapak‘ar-turnedxačk’ar is in its original location or was moved to its current location from elsewhere. At present this question cannot be answered with any certainty. The wall surrounding the church is typical of megalithic structures of the Bronze Age, such as cromlechs and Cyclopean structures, made during a period when višapak‘ar steles became widespread in the Armenian highlands. It is thus possible that the višapak‘ar is in its original location and was placed on a small hillock or a barrow, which was there until Spitakavor Church was built. However, we cannot completely exclude the possibility that the stele was brought to its current location from the surrounding plain sometime during the Middle Ages. The area around the village of Geġamasar is famous for various Bronze and Iron Age sites, as well as for a Cyclopean fortresssettlement (Biscione et al. 2002:63–65). From the point of view of secondary use, in addition to the already

Figure 11. Close-up of the višapak‘ar-xačk’ar of Spitakavor Church. (Photograph by Arsen Bobokhyan.) mentioned crosses and inscription, there are cup-marks on two of the fragments of the višapak‘ar. 10 These are often found on višapak‘ars and were often made after the fall of a monument, likely during the Iron Age.

From the description of Yervand Lalayan above, it is clear that during his visit in the first years of the twentieth century, the “big xačk’ar” was standing in one piece and was not broken. The break must thus be recent, likely dating to the Soviet period (1922–1991), when the church was closed and filled with debris. According to a local inhabitant, in 2010 only the upper part of one of the freestanding fragments was visible on the surface. It was cleared, removed, and placed in front of the church as a xačk’ar, while the second stone was cleaned by the villagers in 2015 and was left inside the church (personal communication with Gurgen Abrahamyan, resident of Geġamasar). After excavation of the church and its surroundings, the three fragments were joined by our team in 2021 and placed to the east of the church (Figure 6).

Petrographic analysis of the rock of the višapak‘arxačk’ar to determine its mineral composition was undertaken by Arshavir Hovhannisyan of the Institute of Geological Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia. The sample was taken from the central part of the višapak‘ar, directly from the edge of the broken fragment, away from the face of the stele. Analysis determined that the rock is an andesite-basalt, with 1.5, 2, and

Figure 12. The višapak‘ar-xačk’ar of Spitakavor Church. (Drawings by Artak Hakhverdyan.)

Figure 13. Inscriptions of the višapak‘ar-xačk’ar of Spitakavor Church. (Photograph and drawing by Arsen Harutunyan.)

from the field

3.5 mm–long crystals of long prismatic hypersthene, rich in mineral inclusions and micro-dendrites. Based on these characteristics, the raw material used to carve the stele can be sourced to the Quaternary-period andesite-basalt lava flows of the Geghama and Vardenis mountain ranges. A defining feature of the višapak‘ar rock is the adhesion of biotite crystals to the walls of its pores. This is typical of the lava flows of P’orak, a volcano in the Vardenis mountain range. The lava flows of P’orak reach the southern shores of Lake Sevan and occupy a significant area. These lava flows are the closest to the current location of the višapak‘ar, 13 km (8 miles) in a straight line across the lake. If we take into account that the water levels in Lake Sevan were 15–20 m (50–65 feet) higher at the time of the creation of the višapak‘ar and that the current location of the višapak‘ar then also must have been on the shore of Lake Sevan, then the most optimal route for transporting the višapak‘ar, or its raw material, to Spitakavor was across Lake Sevan (Figure 14). Alternatively, the višapak‘ar could have crossed a land route of about 25 km (16 miles) through unfavorable terrain. In all probability, rafts were used to transport the rock across the lake to its final destination, where it remained for centuries until it was appropriated, remodeled, and incorporated into Spitakavor Church. diSCuSSion Lake Gilli was a unique ecological environment in ancient times and became an important and sacred center of collective memory. The višapak‘ar, or its raw material, was likely brought to its current location at Spitakavor, across Lake Sevan from the lava flows of Mount P’orak, sometime during the second millennium BCE. During the first half of the tenth century, the stele was remodeled into a xačk’ar by adding symbols typical of Christian iconography, mostly crosses of various types. An inscription haphazardly carved near the central cross identifies the time of the event and the persons associated with it. A few centuries later, probably during the sixteenth or seventeenth century, a church-reliquary was built around the xačk’ar, so it appeared in the center of the structure, serving a dual purpose as both a sacred object and a pillar supporting the vaulted roof.11

11. A remarkable historical-ethnographic parallel of this connection between pre-Christian and Christian monuments is known from the Javakheti region in Georgia. At the end of the nineteenth century, local Armenians worshipped a stone measuring 1 m (3 feet) in length on the top of Mount Great Abuli, under which a saint was said to be buried. According to legend, previously the idol of Apollo was on Mount Great Abuli, from which the name Abuli may have derived (Melikset-Bekov 1938:117; Rostomov 1898:23–24).

Figure 14. Coastal boundary of the lava flow of P’orak (Karchaghbyur) and possible routes for transport of the višapak‘ar found at Spitakavor. (Map created by Arshavir Hovhannisyan.)

Spitakavor Church probably fell out of use in the second half of the nineteenth century, when the region was emptied of its Indigenous Armenian population. According to modern accounts, the višapak‘ar-xačk’ar was broken during the Soviet period, though it is unclear if this was an intentional act or an accident. During the earliest appearance of xačk’ars, in the ninth through eleventh centuries, many pre-Christian and early medieval steles, including višapak‘ars, were remodeled into xačk’ars by carving a cross or crosses into them. Inscriptions were often added to commemorate those who had commissioned or carved the cross-stones (Harutyunyan 2019:504). The probable reason for such a phenomenon was the destruction of pagan steles, viewed as a form of idolatry, through application of a cross (Muradyan 1985:22–23), although, in the case of višapak‘ars, the destruction was a symbolic one, as the parameters of steles were ideal for turning them into xačk’ars. That is, in the early years, when xačk’ars began to be created and used, višapak‘ars were perceived as ready-made steles that could be repurposed by simply carving Christian symbols—crosses, rosettes, birds, palmettos, stepped pedestals, and so on—into them.12

One more reason can be singled out in the context of the stability of collective memory. In particular, in the case under discussion, the act of turning a višapak‘ar into a xačk’ar after the adoption of Christianity and the act of “destruction” of a višapak‘ar-turned-xačk’ar after the appearance of non-Christian nomadic tribes in the region clearly illustrate points of connection and breaks of collective memory and value systems during transformation of the sacred landscape. The nomads broke the višapak‘arxačk’ar, destroyed the church, covered it with soil, and actively leveled the surroundings, trying to cover up the existence and long history of the sanctuary as much as possible (for similar cases, see Korkotyan 1932:26–7, 112–13) This implies a radically different approach to perception of space compared to the former Indigenous population. Though the natives did not have a direct memory of the makers of the višapak‘ar, they nevertheless felt a connection to the sacred space and perhaps even the stele. It is also not by chance that the axis of visibility of the višapak‘ar-xačk’ar is Mount Aragats, which is visible beyond Lake Sevan and is home to the highest accumulation of višapak‘ars on the Armenian Plateau.

12. The fragment of the xačk’ar near the entrance to Spitakavor Church is remarkable, as there are pairs of pigeons facing each other, which is an iconographic style typical of višapak‘ars.

The three fragments were joined by our team in 2021

referenCeS CiTed

Alishan, Ghevond. 1893. Sisakan: Topography of the Syunik Region. [In Armenian.] Venice: St. Lazarus. Ananyan, Vakhtang. 1952. On the Shores of Lake Sevan. [In Armenian.] Yerevan: State Publishing House. –——. 1961–1975. Fauna of Armenia: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, vols. 1–5. [In Armenian.] Yerevan: State Publishing House. Ayvazyan, Samvel, and Gagik Sargsyan. 2013. Excavations of Horekavank “Vardsk.” [In Armenian.] Foundation for Research on Armenian Architecture 9:1–11.

Bagoyan, Alla. 2019. Motif of Dragon in the New Armenian Literature. In Vishap between Fairy Tale and Reality. [In Armenian.] Edited by A. Bobokhyan, A. Gilibert, and P. Hnila, pp. 257–72. Yerevan: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, National Academy of Sciences. Barkhudaryan, Sedrak. 1973. Corpus of Armenian Epigraphy. Vol. 4, Gegharkunik: Regions of Kamo, Martuni and Vardenis. [In Armenian.] Yerevan: National Academy of Sciences.

———. 1982. Corpus of Armenian Epigraphy. Vol. 5, Artsakh. [In Armenian.] Yerevan: National Academy of Sciences. Basmajean, Karapet. 1927. New Armenia and Neighboring Countries. [In Armenian.] Paris: Palents Publishing House.

Biscione, Raffaele, Simon Hmayakyan, and Neda Parmegiani (editors). 2002. The North-Eastern Frontier: Urartians and Non-Urartians in the Sevan Lake Basin. Rome: CNR, Istituto di studi sulle civilta dell’egeo e del vicino oriente.

Government of the Republic of Armenia. 2002. The Decision of the RA Government on Reorganizing the “Sevan National Park” State Institution, Approving the Statutes of “Sevan” National Park and “Sevan National Park” State Non-Commercial Organization, no. 927-N. [In Armenian.] Yerevan: Government of the Republic of Armenia.

Grigoryan, Avetis. 2020. Memoirs of Medieval Armenian Historians on Historical Sotk. [In Armenian.] HistoricalPhilological Journal 2:186–206. Hakobyan, Tadevos, Stepan Melik-Bakhshyan, and Hovhannes Barseghyan. 1986. Dictionary of Toponyms of Armenia and Adjacent Regions, Vol. 1. [In Armenian.] Yerevan: Yerevan University Press. Harutyunyan, Arsen. 2019. The Epigraphic Inscriptions on Dragon-Stones Turned into Cross-Stones. In Vishap between Fairy Tale and Reality. [In Armenian.] Edited by A. Bobokhyan, A. Gilibert, and P. Hnila, pp. 505–17. Yerevan: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, National Academy of Sciences. Harutyunyan, Khachik. 2019. Memoirs of Armenian Manuscripts. [In Armenian]. Yerevan: Matenadaran. Hnila, Pavol, Alessandra Gilibert, and Arsen Bobokhyan. 2019. Prehistoric Sacred Landscapes in the High Mountains: The Case of the Vishap Stelae between Taurus and Kaukasus. In BYZAS 24: Natur und Kult in Anatolien, edited by B. Engels, S. Huy, and C. Steitler, pp. 283–302. Istanbul: Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Istanbul. Hovhannisyan, Karen. 2019. Manifestation of the Archetypal Image of Dragon in the Armenian Worldview. In Vishap between Fairy Tale and Reality. [In Armenian.] Edited by A. Bobokhyan, A. Gilibert, and P. Hnila, pp. 75–107. Yerevan: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, National Academy of Sciences Korkotyan, Zaven. 1932. The Population of Soviet Armenia during the Last Century (1831–1931). [In Armenian.] Yerevan: State Publishing House. Lalayan, Yervand. 1910. New-Bayazet Province or Gegharkunik: Topography, Rural Society of Mazra. [In Armenian.] Ethnographic Journal 19(1):21–30. Melikset-Bekov, Levon. 1938. Megalithic Culture of Georgia. [In Georgian.] Tbilisi: Federation. Muradyan, Paruyr. 1985. Turned into Xačk’ar Vishap Stelae from Eghegnadsor. In Artistic Monuments and Problems of Culture of the East. [In Russian.] Edited by B. Lukonin, pp. 20–26. Leningrad: Nauka. Orbelean, Stepannos. 1910. History of Sisakan Province. [In Armenian.] Tbilisi: N. Aghanean Press. Petrosyan, Armen. 1987. Reflection of Indo-European Root *wel- in Armenian Mythology. [In Russian.] Herald of Social Sciences 1:56–70.

———. 2015. Thirty Years Later: Vishap Stone Stelae and the Myth of Dragon Slayer. In Vishap Stone Stelae. [In Armenian.] Edited by A. Petrosyan and A. Bobokhyan, pp. 13–52. Yerevan: Science. Petrosyan, Hamlet. 2008. Khackar: The Origins, Functions, Iconography, Semantics. [In Armenian.] Yerevan: Printinfo.

———. 2015. Some Remarks on Vishap Stelae. In Vishap Stone Stelae. [In Armenian.] Edited by A. Petrosyan and A. Bobokhyan, pp. 81–98. Yerevan: Science. Rostomov, Ivan. 1898. Akhalkalak District in Archaeological Terms, Collection of Materials on the Description of Localities and Tribes of the Caucasus. [In Russian.] Tbilisi: Directorate of the Caucasus Educational District Press.

Shahinyan, Abraham. 1984. Medieval Monumental Stelae in Armenia: Xačk’ars of the 9th–13th Centuries. [In Armenian.] Yerevan: National Academy of Sciences. Simonyan, Lilit, and Karen Hovhannisyan. 2019. Ancient Water Supply Systems, Minor Mher and Vishap-Stones. In Vishap between Fairy Tale and Reality. [In Armenian.] Edited by A. Bobokhyan, A. Gilibert, and P. Hnila, pp. 164–79. Yerevan: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, National Academy of Sciences. Smbateants, Mesrop. 1895. Topography of See-Surrounded Province of Gegharkunik, Which Is Now Nor-Bayazet Province. [In Armenian.] Vagharshapat: Publishing House of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin). Yeghiazaryan, Hovsep. 1942. Report of H. Yeghiazaryan, the Collaborator of the Committee for the Preservation of Monuments in Armenia of the Armenian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences on the Results of Archaeological Survey in Nor-Bayazet, Martuni and Basargechar Regions. [In Armenian.] National Archives of Armenia, Collection 1063, List 1, Folder 1421, p. 5.