JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR

ARMENIAN STUDIES
Avedis K. Sanjian t
Founding Editor

EDITOR
Joseph A. Kechichian
Nonresident Research Fellow
The Middle East Institute
Washington, D.C.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Vahakn Dadrian, Zoryan Institute
Richard G. Hovannisian, University of California, Los Angeles
Dickran Kouymjian, California State University, Fresno, Emeritus
Khachig- Tololyan,
- Wesleyan University

BOARD OF ACADEMIC ADVISORS

Anny P. Bakalian, CUNY
Nelida Boulgourdjian-Toufeksian, University of Buenos Aires
George Bournoutian, lona College
S. Peter Cowe, University of California, Los Angeles
R. Hrair Dekmejian, University of Southern California
John A.C. Greppin, Cleveland State University
Robert H. Hewsen, Rowan University, Emeritus
Marc Nichanian, Haigazian University
Dennis R. Papazian, University of Michigan-Dearborn, Emeritus
Simon Payaslian, Boston University
Rubina Peroomian, University of California, Los Angeles
Lome Shirinian, Royal Military College of Canada
Hovann Simonian, University of Southern California
Abraham Terian, St. Nersess Armenian Seminary
Boghos Levon Zekiyan, Universita Ca' Foscari Venezia

This issue of the JSAS, published under the auspices of the Society
for Armenian Studies, is made possible by a generous subvention
provided by The George Ignatius Foundation.
Trustees: George Phillips, Esq., Michael Amerian, Esq.,
and Walter Karabian, Esq.

Gerald E. Ottenbreit, Jr., Editorial Associate

® 2009, Society for Armenian Studies

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 18:2 (2009), pp. 71-81

AN ART HISTORY COMMENTARY ON QUEEN

GORANDUKHT IN THE ROYAL FAMILY
PORTRAIT MINIATURE PAINTING OF
KING GAGIK-ABAS AND His FAMILY'
Hazel Antaramian Hofman

Introduction
The eleventh-century Armenian royal portrait miniature2 of King Gagik-
Abas of Kars and his family has engaged the interest of a number of notable
twentieth-century Armenologists.3 The image was found in 1911 in a pile of
discarded manuscript bindings in the print shop of the Armenian Patriarchate
in Jerusalem.4 The miniature is the only known medieval painting of the Ar-
menian Bagratuni royal family. Its noteworthy survival is second only to its sig-
nificance as a visual document that evokes strong political and socio-economic
overtones.5 Much of the interpretative knowledge of the miniature portrait is
based upon a visual analysis of the image, as well as the identification of in-
dividuals in the composition. It is the work, iconography, and the artistic ap-
proach that distinctively characterize the subjects of the royal portrait.
What makes the composition so striking is the physical placement of its
figural members and their respective gesticulations. As a viewer looks at the
portrait in Figure 1, one sees the composition of the family as follows: King
Gagik of Kars is placed to the left of the center, Princess Marem is in the cen-
ter position but behind her mother and father, and Queen Gorandukht sits to
the right of the center. Equally noticeable are the king's hands that gesture to-
wards his daughter. While the queen holds a similar position with one of her
hands, she holds an object in her other hand. Finally, the daughter gestures to
the viewer, with her palms open and held close to her chest—parallel to the
picture plane. It is quite apparent from the composition and hand gestures that

Professor Dickran Kouymjian was kind enough to offer useful comments on an earlier
version of this paper. I also wish to thank professors Robert Hewsen and Keith Jordan for their
evaluations. The comments presented here were earlier expressed at various professional and
collegiate conferences, including California State University, Fresno and the University of Cal-
ifornia, Los Angeles, where I benefited from collegia! feedback.
2 Jerusalem MS 2556, folio 135v, Treasury of St. James, The Armenian Patriarchate of
Jerusalem.
Several prominent scholars include Sirarpie Der Nersessian, Thomas Mathews, Annie-
Christine Daskalakis, Lynn Jones, and Marielle Martiniani-Reber.
4 T.F. Mathews and A.-C. Daskalakis, "The Portrait of Princess Marem of Kars, Jeru-
salem 2556, fol. 135b," in From Byzantium to Iran: Armenian Studies in Honour of Nina
Garsoian, ed. Jean-Pierre Mahe and Robert W. Thomson (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997),
p. 475.
A larger study of this portrait including the socio-political implications of the image is
addressed by the author in her master's thesis.

®2009 Society for Armenian Studies Printed in the United States of America
72 Hazel Antaramian Hofman

the daughter is in a crucial position within the image. The king's gesticulation
toward his daughter and the suggestion that they share tiraz bands6 found along
the upper portion of their robes have led Thomas Mathews and Annie-Christine
Daskalakis to conclude that the placement of Marem in the center was a polit-
ical reminder. These scholars contend that the iconographic elements in the
painting were artistically rendered to denote the political arrangement of a suc-
cessive "kingship."7 This finding, along with their notion that the miniature
came from an unknown manuscript,8 provided the impetus to open the icono-
graphic case for the portrait's provenance. It is at this point of departure that
Lynn Jones asserts her suggestions pertaining to female patronage.9

Figure 1: King Gagik-Abas and his family (fol. 135 v, Jerusalem MS 2556), Photo-
graph Ara Giiler, courtesy ofDickran Kouymjian, The Arts of Armenia (Accompanied
by a Collection of 300 Slides in Color) (Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation,
1992).

Jones's notions revolve around the prominence of the queen and the object
that she holds in the image. My own research of the miniature began in 2006,

6 Here the concept of tiraz implies the embroidered insignia cloth in the Islamic tradition;
see Mathews and Daskalakis, "Portrait of Princess Marem," p. 479.
7 Mathews and Daskalakis, "The Portrait of Princess Marem," pp. 475-484.
g

Mathews and Daskalakis, "The Portrait of Princess Marem," p. 476. See Mathews and
Daskalakis on conclusions regarding the discrepancy between the ruling of the fragmentary
colophon and paleography of the portrait, and the colophon ruling and paleography of the
gospel. Based on this information, these scholars believe that the royal portrait of King Gagik-
Abas comes from a "lost" manuscript.
Lynn Jones, "The Visual Expression of Bagratuni Rulership: Ceremonial and Portrai-
ture," REArm 28 (2001-2002), pp. 341-398. See also Lynn Jones, Between Islam and Byzan-
tium, Aght'amar and the Visual Construction of Medieval Armenian Rulership (Aldershot,
Hampshire and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 46-51.
 Queen Gorandukht in the Royal Family Miniature Portrait Painting 73

where I considered many of the suggestions offered by scholars, in particular

Jones's study alluding to female patronage, and the issue of dynastic inheri-
tance put forth by Mathews and Daskalakis. However, in 2007, I abandoned
the idea of female patronage due to the lack of viable visual evidence and not
on issues of plausibility. I believe that the evidence used by Jones to support
her suggestion did not quite fit the projected image of the queen.
This investigation assesses the soundness of Jones's idea that certain artis-
tic devices were employed by the anonymous painter of the portrait to denote
Queen Gorandukht as the patron of the miniature (and by extension the manu-
script). Several of the devices used by Jones as evidence to denote the queen's
command of patronage include the object held in the queen's right hand and her
suggested notions of hieratic presentation and frontality.10 In critical re-
sponses to these suggested artistic devices, I use evidence that includes estab-
lished scholarship, and comparative formal and iconographic analysis, as well
as survey data.
Identification of the Object in Queen Gorandukht's Hand
The singularity of the miniature prompted Lynn Jones to proffer female pa-
tronage to its provenance. Jones re-evaluated the image in her article, "The
Visual Expr ess ion of Bagratuni Ruler ship: Ceremonial and Portraiture,"" and
later in her book, Between Islam and Byzantium, Aght'amar and the Visual
Construction of Medieval Armenian Rulership,12 where she emphasized the
iconographic devices to show prominence of Queen Gorandukht as the patron
of the painting, thus directing her study toward an alternative social aspect of
the commission of the manuscript.13 Throughout, Jones believes that Queen
Gorandukht is holding a "rolled scroll."14 She uses the mosaics in the south
gallery of the Hagia Sophia, namely the image of Zoe and Constantine IX Mono-
machos, to support her claim about the object in the Armenian queen's hand.
She indicates that the rolled scroll in the hands of the Byzantine empress is a
document recording the empress's generous gifts, and continues along these
lines by citing another mosaic image,15 that of Empress Irene Komnenos in
Hagia Sophia. Sirarpie Der Nersessian makes no mention of a scroll in her
analysis of the image; rather, she states: "Elle [Queen Gorandukht] . . . tient
un mouchoir de la main droite."16 It may worth noting that Jones fails to

10 Jones, "Visual Expression," p. 389; Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium, p. 50.
11 Jones, "Visual Expression," pp. 341-398.

12 Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium, pp. 46-51.

13 Jones, "Visual Expression," p. 389.

14 Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium, p. 50; Jones, "Visual Expression," p. 389.

1 It seems that Jones miscommunicates information regarding the emperor pictured with
Irene Komnenos (see Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium, note 62, p. 50). She writes "Alexios"
rather than "John" who is shown with Irene and the Mother of God. Alexios is represented on
an adjoining pilaster (east wall) of the south gallery.
16 S. Der Nersessian, "L'Evangile du roi Gagik de Kars: Jerusalem, No. 2556," REArm
18 (1984), p. 90.
 74 Hazel Antaramian Hofman

reference Der Nersessian's finding.17 Rather, the depiction of a codex is

characteristically used to designate the commission of a manuscript in extant
Armenian donor portrait miniatures. An example of this is the thirteenth-
century Cilician portrait of King Levonand Queen Keran (Jerusalem MS 2660),
where the king presents Christ (and the church) with a codex as part of his
offering,18 as well as the donor portrait of Brnavor and Tlatikin, who are
kneeling in prayer before their donation. In the latter reproduction, there is a
clear depiction on the lower half of the folio below the portrait of St. Mark in
the thirteenth-century Gospel of Nor Jugha, which confirms that their pictorial
communication notes their manuscript gift to the Monastery of Khtskonkh.19
A more contemporary example is found at the Mekhitarist Library in San
Lazzaro (Cod. 887, fol. 7v-8r) in the Adrianople Gospels of 1007 where a
miniature shows the donor, Hovhannes (John the Protospatharios), head of the
Imperial Guard of Bard II, offering a codex to the enthroned Virgin and
Child.20

.:;

Figure 2. Detail21 Figure 3. Detail22 Figure 4. Detail23

Empress Zoe Empress Irene Queen Gorandukht

Dickran Kouymjian, e-mail message to author, 23 June 2007. Kouymjian corroborated

this information when I questioned him about the object. He indicated that the depiction of
scrolls was not that prevalent in medieval Armenian miniatures.
Levon Chookaszian, "On the Portrait of Prince Levon and Princess Keran " Journal of
Armenian Studies VI, no. 2 (Winter/Spring 2000-01).
Mesrop Janashian, Armenian Miniature Paintings (Venice: San Lazzaro, 1970), p. 166.
lohannis Spatharakis, The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts (Leiden- E J
Brill, 1976), plates 24-25. ' ~"'
21 Natalia B. Teteriatnikov, Mosaics ofHagia Sophia, Istanbul: The Fossati Restoration
and the Work of the Byzantine Institute (Washington D.C., Dumbarton Oaks Research Library
and Collection, 1998), p. 69.
Teteriatnikov, Mosaics ofHagia Sophia, p. 45.
Detail from high resolution digital photograph by Ara Giiler, see
http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/arts_of_armenia/index.htm. No. 69; image courtesy of
Dickran Kouymjian, The Arts of Armenia (Accompanied by a Collection of 300 Slides in Color
(Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1992)
 Queen Gorandukht in the Royal Family Miniature Portrait Painting 75

Figure 5. Drawing by author corresponding to Figure 2.

Figure 6. Drawing by author corresponding to Figure 3.

Figure 7. Drawing by author corresponding to Figure 4.

The clear representation of a hand-held scroll in the Hagia Sophia mosaics

stands in strong contrast to the ambiguous quality of the object held in Queen
Gorandukht's right hand. In Figures 2 through 4, I compare the detailed im-
ages of the hand-held objects, which is the subject of my comparative study.
Furthermore, in Figures 5 through 7, I show the corresponding outline draw-
ings that illustrate the formal differences of the objects held by the figures in
Hagia Sophia, and the one held by the queen in the royal portrait.24
Upon close visual examination of the royal portrait, the object in Queen
Gorandukht's hand indeed exhibits cloth-like characteristics and reflects the
same decorative pattern as the queen's shawl. That which appears to be a scroll-
like opening at the top of the object is, in effect, the bottom portion of a cor-
date motif.
The final commentary on the object held by the queen is provided by two
main tables and a subset to the second table. The first table offers survey re-
sults of hand-held objects in the corpus of portraits of represented nobles and
religious leaders found in lohannis Spatharakis's The Portrait in Byzantine Il-
luminated Manuscripts,25 while the second table is a tally of medieval Arme-
nian portrait miniatures for a general representation of codices and scrolls (a
subset of this table is also included to provide greater detail of an entry). Since
descriptive means of miniatures do not provide the minor detail of scroll-versus-
codex representation in the iconographic narrative of the images, for my sur-
vey methodology I used comparative analysis of data collected from texts ei-
ther general in scope or from a specific collection that provides plates of Ar-

4 Difference in the media used (mosaic versus pigment on parchment) does not affect the
conclusion that the hand-held objects are quite different in their intended symbolism.
25 Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976.
76 Hazel Antaramian Hofman

menian miniatures/260 Table 1 divides hand-held objects between males and

females. These objects include scepters and staffs (with or without surmounted
crosses); akakias; scrolls; codices; chrysobulls; models of churches, convents,
or monasteries; and other miscellaneous items, which include plaques, orbs,
keys, and crosses, among other objects.27

Portrait Scepter Akakia Other Scroll Codex Chrysobull Model of

Subject or Staff O = open O = open G= giving Church
C = closed C = closed H= holding Convent
Monastery

Male 29 11 7 C13 CIS G2 2

holding 02 O62
object
Female 7 0 5 Cl None Gl 3
holding
object

Table 1. Tally and Type of Hand-held Objects Represented in Spatharakis

Based on the information presented in Table 1, approximately 10 percent

of the objects are held by noble female figures, and only 1 of the 163 surveyed
hand-held objects (represented in 58 illuminations) was a scroll held by a no-
blewoman. Table 2 provides a broad assessment of codex and scroll represen-
tation in medieval Armenian manuscripts28 to confirm the weight of scroll and
codex representation in Armenian manuscripts. All of the figures in the min-
iatures were considered, including nobles, evangelists, the Virgin Mary and
Christ. Even when these figures were included in the survey, codices seem to
be the preferred method of text representation in medieval Armenia portraits.
Data in Table 2 show a predominance of codex representation in Armenian
miniatures. The columns noting general scroll and codex (or folio) counts only
include all figures holding such objects.

26 The dates of the miniatures are of the medieval time period for Armenia. For the pur-
poses of this paper this period is defined as the tenth to the fourteenth centuries.
7 Some illuminations included males holding a scepter and an akakia. No females were
found holding akakias; chrysobulls were depicted with a seal, a golden bull, and ribbon. The
survey count did not include those objects held by angel figures, apostles, Christ, or the Virgin
Mary; it included only those held by nobility, church officials, or donors.
Since the miniatures reviewed for the table come from secondary sources, there may
have been some overlap in the images used for the survey. However as I noted little duplica-
tion, this should not skew the data between the number of noted representations of codices or
scrolls. Moreover, except where noted, images taken from the texts were within several hun-
dred years plus or minus of the eleventh-century miniature. Only the codices and scrolls for
the Christ figure were teased out of the total count, and many of the portraits were of evange-
lists, except for the first study listed in Table 2 in, Astghik Gevorgyan, Haykakan manrankar-
ch 'ut 'yun, dimankar /Annianskaia miniatiura, portret /Miniature Armenienne, portrait (Ere-
van: Sovetakan Grogh, 1982), where there were a number of represented nobles and religious
leaders.
 Queen Gorandukht in the Royal Family Miniature Portrait Painting 77

Source of Armenian Total , Codex Scroll Christ Christ Unclear or

Miniatures Images (or folio) Figure Figure Both
Reviewed with with Represented
Codex Scroll
Haykakan 44 22 3 6 1 0
manrankarch 'ut 'yun,
dimankar9

Treasures in Heaven: 47 32 1 5 5 1
Armenian Illuminated
Manuscripts™

Armianskaia 33 21 4 7 2 3
Miniatiura XI veka^

Haykakan 17 10 0 0 5 2
manrankarch 'ut 'yuny~

Armenian 31 16 6 0 7 3
Miniatures"

"Arts of Armenia" 16 8 2 3 2 1
website
http : //www . armenian
studies, csufresno . edu

Table 2. Number of Armenian Miniatures with Representations of Scroll and Codex'"'

Table 2a provides a breakdown of the first study used in Table 2, Gevorg-

yan's Haykakan manrankarch 'ut'yun, dimankar. Since this text is a concentra-

Gevorgyan, Haykakan manrankarch'ut'yun, dimankar.

30 Thomas F. Mathews and Roger S. Wieck, eds., Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Illumi-
nated Manuscripts (New York: The Pierpont Morgan Library, 1994).
31 T. A. Izmailova, Armianskaia rniniatiura XIveka (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1979). The mini-
atures in this text are from the eleventh century.
2 L.A. Durnovo, Haykakan Manrankarch 'ut'uwn /Armianskaia miniatiura /Miniatures
Armeniennes (Erevan: "Hayastan Hratarakch'ut'yun, 1967). The miniatures from this text are
from the tenth to the fifteenth century.
33 Lydia A. Dournovo, Armenian Miniatures (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1961).

34 Note a caveat of the data presented in Table 2: the cursory information collected on the
miniatures were primarily obtained from texts on Armenian miniatures, which included collec-
tions from repositories. This application of research method was selected because of the ready
accessibility to illuminations of significance. The ideal method, which is both time-consuming
and resource intensive, would be to review primary texts of Gospels or other codices with il-
luminations. The author does aspire to review portraits in Armenian miniatures from primary
texts; however, such an endeavor is beyond the scope of this study.
78 Hazel Antaramian Hofman

tion of Armenian miniature portraits, it was important to further review the

types of hand-held objects found in the depictions.

Source of Total Cross, Candle35 Cloth36 Serving Tool or Uniden-

Armenian Images Scepter or or vessel Pen tifiable
Miniatures with Scepter- Cloth- or Fish Object
cross, like like
Orb-like object object
base
with
cross
Haykakan manran- 18 7 3 4 3 3 4
karch 'ut 'yun,
dimankar

Table 2a. Breakdown of Hand-Held Objects in Gevorgyan

The representations reviewed in Gevorgyan were those from the eleventh

to the fourteenth centuries. From her main miniature plates of the noted time
period, 44 images were reviewed for this paper. The breakdown shown in Ta-
ble 2a illustrates hand-held objects other than codices or scrolls in 18 of the 44
pictures studied.

Hieratic Presentation and Frontality

Both in the Near East as well as in the West the use of hieratic scale is
prevalent in medieval art, so it is not unusual for Jones to use figural size as
a criterion with which to denote prominence to Queen Gorandukht. However,
does the queen truly have a markedly larger body size than the king? Jones in-
dicates that the queen's figure is significantly wider than the king's across the
shoulders and knees,37 as well as being slightly taller.38 Jones further states
that the queen's posture is more frontal than the king's body, and that the fron-
tality of the queen is conveyed by the angle of her shoulders as well as the po-
sition of her hands, which are held in front of her chest but slightly to the left
of her body's central vertical axis. This assessment includes the queen's facial
features that Jones says corresponds linearly with the vertical axis of her
body.39 When Jones made her initial assessment of hieratic scale, she based
her measurements on a reproduced image where Gorandukht measured 5.5
cm. (2.2 in.) across the shoulders, 8.9 cm. (3.5 in.) across the knees, and 9.8

Gevorgyan, Haykakan manrankarch 'ut'yun, dimankar, Plate 12. Of those portraits with
recognizable noblewomen holding objects, Queen Keran in MS 2660 holds what seems to be
a candle.
6 Ibid., Plate 2: this miniature in this text is that of the royal family portrait of King Gagik-
Abas. Queen Gorandukht's hand-held object is one of a few cloth items counted in Table 2a.
Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium, p. 50, note 60.
Jones, "Visual Expression," p. 389.
39
Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium, p. 50.
 Queen Gorandukht in the Royal Family Miniature Portrait Painting 79

cm. (3.9 in.) from her chin to the lowest margin of her robes, while the corre-
sponding measurements for the king were 4.4 cm. (1.7 in.), 8.0 cm. (3.1 in.),
and 9.4 cm. (3.7 in.), respectively.40 To test Jones's hypothesis of hieratic
scale for the figural representations of the king and queen, I applied an al-
terative method for comparison. Using the photographic representation of the
two figures,411 carefully traced and cut the two figures true to what I consid-
ered to be their represented bodies in the image. I followed this exercise with
a comparison of the two in a superimposed image (see Figures 8 and 9).42 At
a given anchor point, the superimposed imagery test was conducted first with
the queen's figure over the blackened image of the king, and the second time
with the blackened king's image over the queen's. While certain parts of their
respective bodies extended beyond each other, the exercise did not reveal the
significant display of hieratic scale as suggested by Jones. Furthermore, anoth-
er graphic experiment was conducted by drawing three horizontal anchor lines
to intersect key juncture points: neck, waist, and ground line upon which the
figures sit, as provided in Figure 10. These intersections showed that the bod-
ies of the king and queen were uniformly represented. Figure 10 further shows
that both the king and queen have one slightly elevated shoulder, as would be
the case when there is a slight twist or turn to the body in deference to the cen-
trally placed princess. This finding equally contests the issue of frontality of
the queen as a major artistic device to denote prominence. From this experi-
mental information, it is possible to infer that the figures of the king and queen
do not exhibit a meaningful symbolic size differential; rather, they show equal-
ity in visual representation.
While the queen's representation does not pictorially suggest patronage,
she may be representing a significant situation.43 If all the evidence in this in-
vestigation is considered in tandem,44 what is revealed is a symbolic link be-
tween the queen and the importance of cloth in the image. Is this, perhaps, a
pictorial method to show affluence?45 Although difficult to ascertain, it seems
quite likely that the queen's role in the portrait communicates something other
than what is suggested by Jones.46

Jones, "Visual Expression," p. 389, footnote 165.

1 Photograph by Ara Giiler, at http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/arts_of_armenia/
index.htm
For purposes of conducting the comparison, the image of the king was blackened.
43 See the author's master's thesis for a discussion of the queen's role in the painting.

44 It is interesting to note that the queen holds the "kerchief" in her right hand, which car-
ries connotations of its own. The issue of the right hand in iconographic terms is not discussed
here, but may be worthy of discussion at a later time.
45 The author brought forth this notion in the initial steps of her research on the royal por-
trait, when she presented the topic at the MESA November 2008 conference in Washington,
B.C. and at the Seventh Annual UCLA Graduate Colloquium in Armenian Studies in 2009.
46 Lynda Garland, Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium, AD 527-1204
(New York: Routledge, 1999), p. 153.
80 Hazel Antaramian Hofman

Figure 8. Queen Overlay Figure 9. King (Darkened) Overlay

Figure 10. Three Horizontal Anchor Lines41

Conclusion
Negating the idea of a represented scroll in the royal portrait does not nec-
essarily argue for or against the historical plausibility that Queen Gorandukht
may have commissioned the manuscript that included the painting of the family
portrait. There are a number of samplings of architectural inscriptions, colo-
phon dedications, and other historical evidence to support the existence of fe-
male patronage in medieval Armenia. However, based on the evidence shown,
the notion of female patronage suggested by this painting is put into a mode

Note that most of the King's face is missing and only the lower half of his jaw is dis-
cernible; whereas most of the lower half of the queen's face still survives.
 Queen Gorandukht in the Royal Family Miniature Portrait Painting 81

of contention.48 While Jones's analysis of the royal portrait offers an intrigu-

ing direction by which to study the miniature painting, her conclusion regard-
ing the presence of a hand-held scroll in the portrait may well be incorrect. In
fact, the graphic demonstrations in this research effort provide discernible dif-
ferences between the object that Gorandukht holds in the royal portrait, and
the mosaic-rendered scrolls as held by contemporaneous Byzantine empresses.
Along with the evidence provided by tally surveys, the rejection of the scroll
idea is further supported by the 1984 Der Nersessian research as well as Kouym-
jian's assessment of the matter. Furthermore, the experimental graphics pres-
ented here question the notion of hierarchy of form, and frontality between the
images of the royal couple. Establishing visual clarity of the image and its
elements along with the appropriate analysis of artistic devices are important
steps in recognizing the major symbolic contextual markers found in the royal
portrait of King Gagik-Abas of Kars.

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO

The author intends to expand upon the idea that queen's hand-held object is a kerchief
that matches her shawl in design, and to conceptually link the piece of cloth to the overall sig-
nificance of cloth in the image and to the relationship between the queen and her daughter.