« PrethodnaNastavi »
what they could to level and obliterate the work, the lines can be clearly traced, and it has been shown that the town could be entered by eleven gates. Near the centre of the enclosure was an inner stronghold, and within this again was the palace of the Khans, The stronghold, shaped like a trapezium, was surrounded by thick walls, which were demolished at an ancient date, and now present the appearance of a rampart about ten feet high. Four circular bastions protected the four angles, and two double rectangular bastions guarded each of the four gates, one of which pierced each of the four walls. The walls were further strengthened by eight other pentagonal bastions. The main entrance was on the eastern side.
Within this fortress stood a group of buildings, which is undoubtedly to be identified as the palatial residence of the Khans. The principal edifice, which may be distinguished as the Throne-palace, was curiously constructed. A large room
in the basement, to which there seems to have been no entrance from without, except perhaps a narrow issue underneath a staircase, points to the fact that the ground-floor was only a substructure for an upper storey. This storey consisted of a prodomos or entrance-hall on the south side, to which the chief staircase ascended, and a hall of audience. The hall was nearly square, and was divided by rows of columns into three parts, resembling the nave and aisles of a church. The throne stood in a round apse, in the centre of the northern wall. Not far from this building stood a rectangular temple, which in the days of Krum and Omurtag was devoted to the heathen cult of the Bulgarians, but was converted, after the adoption of Christianity, into a church.
The fortress and the palace, which seem to have been built much about the same time, certainly belong to no later period than the first half of the ninth century. The architecture of the Throne-palace bears the impress of Byzantine influence, and has a certain resemblance to the Trikonchos of Theophilus, as well as to the Magnaura. It was doubtless constructed by Greek masons. The columns may have been imported from Constantinople; it is recorded that Krum,
It resembled the Triklinos of the Magnaura by its throne-apse and the rows of columns in the "nave"; it resembled the Trikonchos in being
an upper storey and in being entered through the prodomos, as the Trikonchos was entered through the Sigma, to which external stairs ascended.
when he attacked that city, carried off works of art from the suburban buildings.
The title of the rulers of Bulgaria was kanas uvegé, "sublime khan," but even while they were still heathen, they did not scruple to have themselves described sometimes in their official monuments as "rulers by the will of God."" Of the political constitution of the kingdom little can be ascertained. The social fabric of the ruling race was based on the clan system, and the head of each clan was perhaps known as a Zapan. From early ages the monarchy had been hereditary in the clan of Dulo, but in the middle of the eighth century, Kormisos, who belonged to another family, ascended the throne, and after his death Bulgaria was distracted for some years by struggles for the royal power. We may probably see in these events a revolt of the clans against the hereditary principle and an attempt to make the monarchy elective. There were two ranks of nobility, the boilads and the bagains,' and among the boilads there were six or perhaps twelve who had a conspicuous position at the court. When a Bulgarian ambassador. arrived at Constantinople, etiquette required that the foreign minister should make particular inquiry first for "the six
1 κάνας υβηγή, proceeding the name (frequent in the inscriptions). ůšnyá has been satisfactorily equated (by Tomaschek) with the Cuman - Turk oweghi "high, glorious"; ep. Marquart, Streifzuge, 195; Chron. 10.
Omurtag in the Chatalar inscrip tion (A.p.821-822), ék Deoû áрxwv,.Ibobu, 545; and Malamir, ó ék u. ä., ib, 230 (C.1.6. 8691). The use of the title by Omurtag disproves Uspenski's conjecture (ib. 197-198) that the Roman government conferred it on Malamir because Christianity had spread in Bulgaria in his reign. Marquart's view is (Chron. 41-42) that the title was meant as a translation of the Turkish
Tangrida bolmy's gan, "heavencreated khan." It was the regular style of the Christian princes, ep. Constantine, Cer. 681.
So among the Magyars (ixa dè ékáσrη reveà äpxorra, Const. De adm. imp. 174). Besides the clans of Dulo, Ukil, and Ugain, mentioned in the Regnal list, we have various gereal recorded in ninth cent. inscriptions, 4.4. Κυριγής, Κουβάρης (Hoba, 190
192). Okhsun, of the family of Kuri. ger, is described as ó Covráv (190); Okorses as ó KоTavós (where seems to be an error for , ib.); and in another inscription (No. 7, p. 192) in honour of some one γενεάς Ερ. . . άρης, I would supply at the beginning Κουπαντος. As the title Zhupan was used by South Slavonic peoples for the head of a tribe, it is a reasonable conjecture that it designated a tribal
among the Bulgarians. See ki, ib. 199. The word is sup posed to occur in the form foarav in the early inscription of Marosh in Hungary, which is believed to relate to the Gepids (ib.).
· Εp. C. 1.61. 86910, καὶ τοὺς βοιλάδας καὶ βαγαίνους ἔδωκεν μεγάλα ξένια.. (γ. Uspenski, boba, 201-202. Borlas, in Mansi, xvi. 158, has been rightly corrected to boclus (Bonλâs, usual form in the inscriptions) by Marquart (Chron. 41). Vagantus or vagantus, in the same passage, is doubtless vayanins (Bayaïvos), ep. Uspenski, op. cit. 201. Bonhas passed into Slavonic as boliarin (the Russian bolar).
great boilads," and then for the other boilads, "the inner and the outer." There were thus three grades in this order. We do not know whether the high military offices of tarkan and kaukhan 2 were confined to the boilads. The khan himself had a following or retinue of his own men, which seems to have resembled the German comitatus. The kingdom was divided into ten administrative divisions, governed by officers whose title we know only under the equivalent of count.*
The Bulgarians used the Greek language for their official documents, and like the ancient Greeks recorded their public acts by inscriptions on stones. Mutilated texts of treaties and records of important events have been discovered. They are composed in colloquial and halting Greek, not in the diplomatic style of the chancery of Byzantium, and we may guess that they were written by Bulgarians or Slavs who had acquired a smattering of the Greek tongue. Among these monuments are several stones inscribed by the khans in memory of valued officers who died in their service. One of them, for instance, met his death in the waters of the Dnieper, another was drowned in the Theiss. This use of the Greek language for
In Constantine, Cer. 681, we find the six great boilads (tenth cent.), but in De adm, imp. 154, we learn of the capture of "the twelve great boilads" by the Servians (ninth cent.). It seems plain that inner and outer simply mean a higher and lower grade. For we find exactly the same terms, great, inner, and outer applied to the three Bulgarias. There were the Great Bulgarians on the Danube, the Inner Bulgarians on the Sea of Azov, and the Outer Bulgarians on the Volga. See below, p. 410 sq.
2 The rapkávos (inscriptions) was undoubtedly a military commander. We meet this Turkish title in Menander's account of an embassy of the Turkish Khan Dizabul to Justin II. (fr. 20). The ambassador's name was Tagma, ἀξίωμα δὲ αὐτῷ Ταρχάν. See also Cont. Τh. 418, καλουτερκάνος (leg. Καλού TEрKávos), and Const. Cor. 681, o βουλίας ταρκάνος. See Uspenski, op. cit. 199-200; Marquart, Chron. 43-44. For the Kavxávos see inscriptions, Ababa, 220, 283, and Simeon "(Cont. Geory, ed. Muralt, 819, ed. Bonn 893), ἅμα καυκάνῳ, Other dignities were βαγατουρ οι βαγοτορ (inscriptions; also
Const. Porph. De adm. imp. 158, άλο βογοτούρ, αs Marquart corrects for dλoyosoroip), the Turkish bagadur, from which the Russian bogatyr (hero) is derived; and foupyov (zereo, in Mansi, xvi. 158; see Uspenski, ib. 204), κολοβρος (κουλούβρος) scelus to have been a title of rank, not a post or office; Tomaschek equates it with Turkish qolaghuz, a guide, and Marquart (Chron. 41) compares poekoλappas in Theoph. Simocatia, i. 8. 2, who explains it as mayos or lepers.
θρεπτοὶ ἄνθρωποι, frequent in the inscriptions. See Uspenski's long discussion, ib. 204 sqq.
Ann. Bert., suba, 866 (p. 85), “intra decem comitatus." Silistria was the chief place of one of the counties: inscription, Simeon, I:v. Kpl, ini. 186, Κόμης Δρίστρου. Cp. also Theophy lactus, Hist. mart., P. G., 126, 201, 213. See Aboba, 212.
Some mysterious epigraphic frag ments have also been discovered, written, partly at least, in Greek letters, but not in the Greek tongue. They are very slight and little can be made of them. See Aboba, c. viii.
their records is the most striking sign of the influence which was exercised on the Bulgarians by the civilization of Constantinople. We can trace this influence also in their buildings, and we know that they enlisted in their service Greek engineers, and learned the use of those military engines which the Greeks. and Romans had invented for besieging towns. Notwithstanding the constant warfare in which they were engaged against the Empire, they looked to Constantinople much as the ancient Germans looked to Rome. Tervel had been created a Caesar by the gratitude of Justinian II., and two of his successors found an honourable refuge in the Imperial city when they were driven by rivals from their own kingdom. Tserig fled to the court of Leo IV. (A.D. 777), accepted baptism and the title of Patrician, and was honoured by the hand of an Imperial princess. It might be expected that the Bulgarians would have found it convenient to adopt the Roman system of marking chronology by indictions or even to use the Roman era of the Creation of the world, and we actually find them employing both these methods of indicating time in their official records." But they had also a chronological system of their own. They reckoned time by cycles of sixty lunar years, starting from the year A.D. 659, memorable in their history as that in which they had crossed the Danube and made their first permanent settlement in Moesia. For historical purposes, this system involved the same disadvantage as that of Indictions, though to a much smaller degree; for instance, when an event was dated by the year shegor alem or 48, it was necessary also to know to what cycle the year referred. But for practical purposes there was no inconvenience, and even in historical records little ambiguity would have been caused until the Bulgarian annals had been extended by the passage of time into a larger series. It is possible that the Bulgarian lunar years corresponded to the years of the Hijra, and if so, this would be a remarkable indication of Mohammadan influence, which there are other reasons for suspecting. We know that in the ninth century there must have been some Bulgarians who were acquainted with Arabic literature.
Kram's sister married a Greek deserter.
2 See Aboba, 227 and 546.
See Bury, Chronol. Cycle.
* Responsa Nicolai, § 103, "libri profani quos a Saracenis vos abstulisse apud vos habere perhibetis." Cp. Jireček, Geschichte, 134.
But the Bulgarians had other neighbours and foes besides the Romans, and political interests in other directions than in that of Constantinople. It is recorded that the same prince who crossed the Danube and inaugurated a new period in Bulgarian history, also drove the Avars westward,' and the record expresses the important fact that in the seventh century the Bulgarians succeeded to the overlordship which the Avar khans had exercised over Dacia in the reigns of Maurice and Heraclius. This influence extended to the Theiss or beyond. Eastward, their lordship was bounded by the Empire of the Khazars, but it is impossible to define the precise limit of its extent. There can be no doubt that in the seventh and eighth centuries Bulgaria included the countries known in later times as Walachia and Bessarabia, and the authority of the khans may have been recognised even beyond the Dniester. At all events it appears to be certain that in this period Bulgarian tribes were in occupation of the coastlands from that river wellnigh to the Don, and this Bulgarian continuity was not cleft in twain till the ninth century. The more easterly portion of the people were known as the Inner Bulgarians, and they were probably considered to belong to the Empire of the Khazars. But we cannot decide whether it was at the Dniester or rather at the Dnieper that the authority of the Khazars ended and the claims of the Great Bulgarians of Moesia began.
South of the Danube, the kingdom extended to the Timok, which marked the Servian frontier.3 The Bulgarians lived on terms of unbroken friendship with the Servians, and this may perhaps be explained by the fact that between their territories the Empire still possessed an important stronghold in the city of Sardica.
For the greater security of their country the Bulgarians reinforced and supplemented the natural defences of mountain