, . 10.

LITERACY AND THE STATE FORMATION PROCESS IN MEDIEVAL BULGARIA DURING THE 8th 10th CENTURIES Antoaneta Granberg (Gteborg, Sweden)

1. Introduction While studying the development of writing in Bulgarian political centres from the 8th to the 10th centuries I realised that a remarkable change concerning the language and the system of writing had taken place in the 10th century. The multialphabetic and multilingual milieu known from the sites of importance for the social activities during the 8th - 9th centuries in the 10th century developed to a monoalphabetic and monolingual one. The creation of literacy continued in an environment where one alphabet and one language were dominant. In this case state formation could be discussed in terms of literacy, where the choice of language and alphabet is part of the political identification. This study aims to discuss the relationship between state formation and the development of writing. It deals with the relation between different alphabets under conditions of multilingualism and multialphabetism in Bulgaria during the 8th 10th centuries. The present paper is part of a larger study of the role of writing and literacy for the legitimisation of political power in medieval Bulgaria1. The study discusses the role of literacy in developing identities as a part of the state formation process. Establishing and developing the knowledge of writing corresponds to a new stage of the state formation process. Building and organising centres of political power rely on the creation of religious centres and thereby on the establishment of centres for literacy. Literacy and textual culture were mainly centred in religious institutions monastic and cathedral milieus. The mainstays of literary culture were monks or clerics. They were entrusted with the care and propagation of the written word and some of them were also politically active at the royal court. How does the development of literacy indicate the shape of state structure? Epigraphic texts, being openly exposed and (almost) eternal in their existence, became more and more important for the communication used in the state administration during the process of state formation in Bulgaria starting with the 8th century2. The social and political implications of literacy changed after the Christianisation of Bulgaria in the second half of the 9th century. Christianity is a religion of the Book and that meant a new kind of literacy for medieval Europe.

This article summarises part of the research on developing literacy and state formation process in Bulgaria, performed at The Nordic Centre for Medieval Studies (NCMS) within Nordic Centre of Excellence. 2 Epigraphic texts were used for example for expressing information about the organisation of the army as well as for the communication on a diplomatic level. The contents of the inscriptions dated to the 8th and 9th century was published and analysed by Beevliev: Beevliev V. Prvoblgarski nadpisi. Sofia, 1979, p. 30-36. 11

A. Granberg. Literacy and the state formation process in medieval Bulgaria

The stabilisation in the Christian beliefs and dogma by writing them down became a task of primary importance. The stabilisation however went together with institutionalisation. The development in Bulgaria after the conversion to Christianity could be compared to that in the Carolingian world where, according to Anna Grotans one of the major achievements was to fix the written Word, the Scriptures and liturgy, by establishing canonical texts, by normalizing Latin, and developing a common script3. Medieval culture has been described as being neither oral nor literate, but textual. The rise of textuality amounted to a transformation of the system of exchange and communication. The culture of textuality, called textual community by Brian Stock4 was organised around the common understanding of a script. That could probably be the reason for the development of a monolingual and monoalphabetic society in Bulgaria at the end of the 10th century. 2. Presentation of the different languages and scripts Several scripts and languages were in use in Bulgarian society from the period 8th up until the 10th century. Two questions of importance for the understanding of the development of literacy in Bulgaria during this period are: how they related to each other and what their function was. The coexistence and usage of four different alphabets and at least three different languages in Bulgaria during the 9th and the 10th centuries indicates a multiscriptual and multilingual society. 2.1. The term runic. The terms rune and runic should, strictly speaking, not be used for any other writing system but the futhark 5. That is why Edward Tryjarski6 uses the term tamgas while discussing the runic inscriptions from the Balkans. The Turkic alphabet used in the inscriptions from Orchon and Yenisey is however commonly referred to as a Turkic runic alphabet7. The terms runic 8, runiform 9 and rune-like10, has also been
3 4

Grotans A. A. Reading in medieval St. Gall. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2006, p. 9. Stock B. Listening for the Text. On the Uses of the Past. The John HopkinsUniversity Press: Baltimore and London. 1990, p. 140-158). 5 Melnikova E. Skandinavskie runieskie nadpisi. Novye naxodki i interpretacii. Moskva: Vostonaja literatura RAN. 2001, p. 80. 6 Tryjarski E. The Tamas of the Turkic Tribes from Bulgaria. In: Uralaltaische Jahrbuch 47, 1975, p. 189-200. 7 See Vasilev D. Graffieskij fond pamjatnikov tjurkskoj runieskoj pismennosti aziatskogo areala (opyt sistematizacii). Moskva. 1983. 8 Georgiev P. Novoe napravlenie v tenii runieskich tekstov klada iz Nad-sent-Mikloa. In : Byzantino-slavica. LXII, 2004, p. 289-298; Popkonstantinov K. Runieski nadpisi ot srednovekovna Blgaria. In: Studia protobulgarica et mediaevalia europensia. V est na profesor Veselin Beevliev. Veliko Trnovo: Universitetsko izdatelstvo. 1993, p. 141-162. 9 Georgiev P. Lcriture runiforme de Murfatlar. Une experience de lire et de commenter. In : Prinos lui Petre Diaconu la 80 de ani. Editura istros, Clrai, Brila, 2004, p. 425-432; Nmeth J. The Runiform inscriptions from Nagy-Szent-Mikls and the runiform scripts of Eastern Europe. In: Acta Linguistica 21. 1971, p. 2-52. 12

 , . 10.

applied when discussing the alphabets used in Central European and Balkan medieval inscriptions. All these terms show a clear connection to the term runic they allude to the status and function of the runes rather than on their origin. Although the terms entirely connected to the futhark, rune and runic eventually determine any kind of alphabet used concomitant of the Latin and the Greek11 alphabets at the border of the Roman world (se Fig. 2). To use the term runes in that meaning is not completely wrong if the runes are part of writing as a form of cultural osmosis around the periphery of the Roman world12. There are, though, some important differences between the runes of the Futhark and the runes from the Balkans. The Balkan runes were not inscribed on tree but mostly on stone and on few occasions on metal. The runic script from the Balkans is exclusively epigraphic and do not occur in manuscripts (see, though, the rubric Environment below). That is why the shape of the letters did not depend on the tree structure but could have horizontal lines as well as rounded ones in contrast to futhark. In some of the runic inscriptions from the Balkans a cursive-like style of letters can be observed. I prefer using runes as term for the Balkan script because rune corresponds to a certain type of script, the runic script. The term runic script has the same status as the term alphabet on the theoretical level where we discus writing systems. That means there could be many different alphabets as well as many different runic scripts (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Different kinds of writing systems

Another interesting question that needs an answer is if the runes from the Balkans were part of an entire writing system or not. The inscriptions, which are few in number and mostly very short, have not yet been deciphered and it is
10

erbak A. M. O runieskoj pismennosti v jugo-vostonoj Evrope. - In: Sovetskaja tjurkologija nr. 4, 1971, p. 76-82. 11 Even the Glagolitic and the Cyrillic alphabets must be included here because their function is identical to that of the Latin and the Greek alphabets. 12 Smith J. M. H. Europe after Rome. A New Cultural History 500-1000. Oxford. 2005, p. 32. 13

A. Granberg. Literacy and the state formation process in medieval Bulgaria

therefore at the moment not possible to find out exactly how many runes the Balkan runic script consisted of. It is not clear whether all letters of the writing system were used in the inscriptions or if the system had local variants13. There are no preserved runic abecedaries from the Balkans that we know of. 2.2. The Balkan runic script. A number of approximately 100 runic inscriptions have been found on ten different locations on the Balkan Peninsula14. The majority of these inscriptions are located at the western coast of the Black sea, concentrated to a region stretching from Constana in Romania to Varna in Bulgaria (see Map 1). The descriptions by Popkonstantinov (1993) should be mentioned here as the first step in the process of cataloguing the Balkan runic inscriptions.

Map 1. Localisation of the runic inscriptions on the Balkans

2.3. Balkan runic script was used for an unknown language in inscriptions dated from the middle of the 9th century up until the end of the 10th century in both secular and church surroundings. We could only build hypothesis about the Hunno-Bulgarian language being used in these inscriptions because they have not yet been deciphered. The usage of the runic script, registered mostly in single words or just single letters, was not as frequent as the other three alphabets and has never been used for writing texts or documents. 2.4. The Greek alphabet was in use from the beginning of the 8th century and up to the last quarter of the 9th century for texts in both the Greek and the Hunno13

Granberg A. On Deciphering Mediaeval Runic Scripts from the Balkans. In: Kulturnite textove na minaloto. Nositeli, simvoli i idei. Znatsi, textove, nositeli. Kniga 3. Materiali ot Jubilejnata mezdunarodna konferencija v chest na 60-godishninata na prof. d. i. n. Kazimir Popkonstantinov, Veliko Tarnovo, 29-31 oktomvri 2003. Sofia, 2005, p.128-139. 14 Only inscriptions which are three or more letters long are included in this amount. There is a large group of symbols, signs or isolated letters found on the Balkans which are not included in this study. 14

 , . 10.

Bulgarian languages. There are around 200 inscriptions preserved from this period. They were all made by representatives of the chancellery of Bulgarian rulers. These inscriptions are mostly inscribed in Greek, and only a few were in Hunno-Bulgarian15. Greek was still in use after the conversion to Christianity and both Greek and bilingual Greek-Slavonic inscriptions are found dated the 10th century 16. 2.5. The combination of the Glagolitic alphabet and the Slavonic language were in use, after the Christianisation, mostly in church environment, from the last decennium of the 9th century up until the middle of the 10th century and then sporadically up until the 12th century. 2.6. The combination of the Cyrillic alphabet and the Slavonic language were widely in use from the middle of the 10th century both in secular and in church milieu. Establishing the Cyrillic alphabet went through a process of text transliteration as part of the text transmission process17. The study of this multialphabetical and multilingual milieu gives us reason to believe that it was the same group of people that produced texts in different languages and used different alphabets for different purposes.
Chronology 8th 9th centuries Writing system One (two18) Greek Language Two Greek HunnoBulgarian Two (three20) Slavonic unknown21 One Cyrillic Slavonic

10 11 centuries

th

th

Three (four19) Glagolitic Cyrilic Runic One

After the 11th century

Fig. 2. The number of writing systems and languages in Bulgaria 8th-11th centuries

15 16

Beevliev V. Prvoblgarski nadpisi. Sofia, 1979. Smjadovski S. Blgarska kirilska epigrafika IX-XV vek. Studia classica 1. Sofia, 1993, p. 36. 17 Veder W. R. Utrum in alterum abiturum erat? A study on the beginnings of text transmission in church Slavic (The Prologue to the Gospel Homiliary by Constantine of Preslav, The text on the script and The treatise on the letters by anonymous authors). Bloomington: In. 1999. 18 There are many single runes but no inscription dating from this time. 19 The Greek alphabet was partly used during the first half of the 10th century. 20 The Greek language was partly used during the first half of the 10th century. 21 The runic inscriptions have not been deciphered and their language is still unknown. 15

A. Granberg. Literacy and the state formation process in medieval Bulgaria

3. Environment Most of the runic inscriptions on stone are from Orthodox monasteries or churches where inscriptions with other alphabets were engraved as well. Cyrillic, Glagolitic, Greek and runic inscriptions were found in cave churches in Murfatlar, inhabited by Orthodox monks hermits. Some of the pictures and ornaments from the cave churches in Murfatlar seem to have parallels to the ornamentation in manuscripts22. It has been claimed that there are Scandinavian traces there as well23. The churches were also used as a rest houses by pilgrims from the northern coast of the Black sea (Crimea) on their pilgrimage to Jerusalem24. The monastery of Ravna, in north-east Bulgaria, was consecrated in 889 CE and existed up to the end of the tenth century. Ca 210 Cyrillic, Glagolitic, Greek, and Runic inscriptions from this orthodox monastery have been found so far25. Approximately 3000 graffito-drawings were found in the church, the scriptorium with library and school, and the refectory and dormitory of this monastery. The authors of these images and their motives are unknown, but they might be monks26. The inscriptions from udikova and from the churches in the Bregalnica region are also from an Orthodox Church milieu where coexisting Glagolitic, Greek, Cyrillic and Runic inscriptions were found27. Some of the inscriptions have a secular archaeological context like these from Nagy-Szentmikls and some of the inscriptions from Bulgaria. These inscriptions are engraved on stone building material, gold vessels and on a bronze button. There are so far, with a single plausible exception, no traces of the runic alphabet in manuscripts. This plausible exception is an inscription in a Greek manuscript (10th century Oxford library, Roe27) containing texts of Johannes Chrysostomos and many Cyrillic inscriptions in the marginalia28. We can conclude that the Balkan runic script was in use in more or less secular environment as well as in church dominated centres of literacy at the same time as Greek, Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets.

22

Kostova R. Za biblejskija smisl na edin rannosrednovekoven simvol. - In: Blgarite v Severnoto Priernomorie. Izsledvanija i materiali. T. 3. Veliko Trnovo, 1994, p. 81-99. 23 Agrigoroaei V. Vikingi sau rusi. Noi cercetari asupra complexului Basarabi-Murfatlar. 2006. Electronically published: http://www.patzinakia.ro/StudiaPatzinaka/Agrig-VikingisauRusi.htm 24 Kostova R. Edna chipoteza za poklonniestvoto v Blgarija. Blgarite v Severnoto Priernomorie. Izsledvanija i materiali. T. 5. Veliko Trnovo, 1996, p. 149-173. 25 Popkonstantinov K. Das altbulgarische Kloster bei Ravna. In: La vie quotidienne des moines et chanoines rguliers au moyen age et temps modernes. Wrocaw, 1995, p. 691 -701. 26 Kostova R. Edna chipoteza za poklonniestvoto v Blgarija..., p. 149-173. 27 Aleksova B. Episkopijata na Bregalnica, prv slovvenski crkoven i kulturno-prosveten centar vo Makedonija. Prilep. 1989. 28 Granberg A. Pictures and Bulgarian Cyrillic Inscriptions in a Greek 11th Century Manuscript. In: A.-M. Totomanova and T. Slavova T. (eds.) Nst uenik nad uitelem svoim. Sbornik v est na prof. dfn Ivan Dobrev, len-korespondent na BAN i uitel. Sofija, 2005, p. 395. 16

 , . 10.

4. Writing as creating identities The relation between the runic script and literacy on one side and their relation to identity on the other side indicate a hierarchical system of relations (see Fig. 3). The frame of this system extends from a single rune to a comprehensive identity. Within this hierarchical system of relations, there are synchronic levels of coexistence, co-operation and influence. Runes here mean all registered runes both these used in different inscriptions and these carved as single runes in different places. Runic script means here a kind of writing system, runes with phonetic value, which could be used for graphically expression of some language and which were of great importance for creating religious, social and political identity. The question is if there was one kind of literacy or two different kinds of literacy in societies, like the Bulgarian society of the end of the identity 9th century and the 10th century, where the runic script was literacy coexisting together with one or two alphabets? Important literacy I? literacy II? distinctive criteria for the definition of different kind of alphabet runic script symbols literacy are the function and the status of writing as well as the letters runes other signs actors of writing and the organisation of the centres for Fig. 3. System of hierarchical and producing and reproducing synchronic relations within literacy and identity literacy.

5. Results 5.1. Relations between the runic script on the Balkans and the usage of the Greek, Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets. The coexistence of different kind of scripts in Bulgaria during the 8th th 10 centuries could leave traces in form of single runes in inscriptions with Greek alphabet, as that shown in Picture 1. The same rune could be seen in a runic inscription from Murfatlar dated to the 10th century (see Picture 2).

17

A. Granberg. Literacy and the state formation process in medieval Bulgaria

Picture 1. Traces from runic script in an inscription with Greek letters in HunnoBulgarian from Dlako, 9th century. Ed. Beevliev29.

Picture 2. Runic inscriptions from cave churches in Murfatlar, 10th century. Ed. Popkonstantinov30.

In the runic inscriptions from the Balkans there are rather many runes which have parallels in letters from the alphabets in use at that time, mainly the Greek alphabet and the Cyrillic alphabet, and in some few occasions the Glagolitic alphabet (see Pictures 3-6).

Picture 3. Runic inscription from cave churches in Murfatlar, 10th century. Photo: Toni Cartu31

29 30

Beevliev V. Prvoblgarski nadpisi..., P. 133. Popkonstantinov K. Runieski nadpisi ot srednovekovna Blgaria..., P. 141-162. 31 http://www.patzinakia.ro/MonografiaBasarabi-Murfatlar/basalbumINTRO.htm 18

 , . 10.

Pictures 4, 5 and 6. Runic inscription from cave churches in Murfatlar, 10th century. Photo: Toni Cartu

It is really not surprising that the alphabets which were in use in Medieval Europe hade some letters in common. There are even runes which have parallels with the Latin and the Greek alphabets, which is not surprising when it comes to the futhark. Its origin is tightly connected to the Latin alphabet32. It is, however, not so easy to define the character and the origin of the parallels between the Balkan runes and the Greek, the Cyrillic and the Glagolitic alphabets (see Fig. 4). When discussing the situation on the Balkans we should take in to consideration that the Greek alphabet is older than the Balkan runic script and that is why the parallels between some runes and some letters could only be explained as an
32

Page R. I. An Introduction to English Runes. The Boydell Press. 1999, p. 212-225. 19

A. Granberg. Literacy and the state formation process in medieval Bulgaria

influence from the Greek alphabet on the runic script. This phenomenon could also be compared to the influence of the Greek alphabet on Wulfilas gothic alphabet33 and the influence of the Latin alphabet on the futhark. How should we explain the parallels between some of the specific Cyrillic letters and some runes on the Balkans? There is no definite answer to this question but it is quite remarkable that the letters in question are letters for some specific Slavic sounds, both consonants and vocals, which are not to be found in the Greek alphabet. In addition, it should be mentioned that the connection between the runic script on the Balkans and the runic scripts used in inscriptions from the Caspian and northern Black sea areas during the 8th century is not completely clear. As far as I know there are no runic inscriptions, but only single runes from Caspian and northern Black sea areas. These can be dated to a time not later than the late 8th century34. That is why it is difficult to connect the runic script on the Balkans to a plausible runic tradition of the Bulgars before they settled on the Balkans.

Fig. 4. Parallels between Balkan runic script and the Greek, the Cyrillic and the Glagolitic alphabets
39 40 41

37 38

33 34

Martin H.-J. Histoire et pouvoirs de lcrit. Librairie Acadmique Perrin : Paris. 1988. P. 52. Kyzlasov I. Runieskaja epigrafika drevnich bolgar. Tatarskaja archeologija, 1-2 (6-7). Kazan. 2000, p. 5. 35 This letter was used in Cyrillic only in loanwords and as a number. 36 This letter was used in Cyrillic only in loanwords and as a number. 37 The Cyrillic letter has different value from the Glagolitic letter , but it is the shape of the letter which is important when comparing the runes with alphabets which were in use at the same time and at the same place. 38 This is one of the letters used as a variant of the Greek letter A in the stone inscriptions made in Greek by the Bulgars during the 8th-9th centuries (Beevliev V. Prvoblgarski nadpisi..., . 43, tab. 21, letter A6). 39 This letter was used as a ligature of the Greek letters O in the stone inscriptions made in Greek by the Bulgars during the 8th-9th centuries (Beevliev V. Prvoblgarski nadpisi ..., . 43, tab. 21, letter X). 20

 , . 10.

Some of the runes from the Balkans have parallels with the letters used in the bark letters from Novgorod42 for example: runic runic , . (= Cyr. ) and runic , (= Cyr. but also for ) and (= Cyr.) and runic , (= Cyr. 9) and

If we accept that the Balkan runic script consisted of ca 30 letters we could analyse the proportion of the similarities shown in Fig. 4 as follows: 1) 15 runes (ca 50 % of the runes in the runic script) have parallels to the letters which are common for the Greek and the Cyrillic alphabets. Since the runic inscriptions have not yet been satisfactory deciphered, it is the form of the letters and not their phonetic value which are under consideration here. 2) 5 runes (ca 17 %) have parallels to the letters from the Cyrillic alphabet. 3) 3 runes (ca 10 %) have parallels to the letters from the Glagolitic alphabet. 4) 3 runes (ca 10 %) have parallels to the Greek alphabet these are mostly letters used in the epigraphic). 5) 1 rune (ca 3 %) has parallels to the letters which are common for the Cyrillic and the Glagolitic alphabets. 6. Discussions The connection between the runic script on the Balkans and the Glagolitic alphabet is not as strong as the connection between the runic script on one side and the Greek and the Cyrillic alphabet on the other. The group of letters that were common for both the runic script and the Greek/Cyrillic alphabet - i. e. Cyrillic with most of the Greek alphabet incorporated- is the big group, but there are also two other groups of letters one with runes and Greek letters and another with runes and Cyrillic letters. These groups are of great importance because they show that the Balkan runic script had an independent connection both to the Greek alphabet and to the Cyrillic alphabet. The letters common to the Greek alphabet and to the runic script, but not to the Cyrillic alphabet, are to be found in the epigraphic sources from Bulgaria, dated to the 8th-9th centuries. When it comes to the parallels between the Balkan runes and the Cyrillic alphabet, further analyse of the chronology of the runic inscriptions may show if the common letters came from the Cyrillic alphabet or vice versa. The most important finding of this study is the existence of common letters between the runic alphabet and the Greek and the Cyrillic alphabet.
40

This letter was used as a variant of the Greek letter O in the stone inscriptions made in Greek by the Bulgars during the 8th-9th centuries (Beevliev V. Prvoblgarski nadpisi..., . 43, tab. 21, letter O5). 41 A variant of the Cyrillic letter , used in the inscription of Anani (Goev I. Staroblgarski glagolieski i kirilski nadpisi ot IX i X v. Sofia, 1961, p. 79-83). 42 Janin V. L. Ja poslal tebe berestu. Moskva, 1998. 21

A. Granberg. Literacy and the state formation process in medieval Bulgaria

The Balkan runic script is preserved in around 100 inscriptions from the Balkan Peninsula. These inscriptions belong to the culture of the First Bulgarian Empire and were engraved mostly in the period after the organised Christianisation of the Bulgarian society which began in 864. 7. Conclusions Most of the Balkan runic inscriptions on stone are from orthodox monasteries or churches where inscriptions with other alphabets and in other languages were engraved as well. The coexistence of the Greek, the Glagolitic, the Cyrillic alphabet together with the Balkan runic script and the usage of the Greek, the Slavonic and the Hunno-Bulgarian languages in the same literary milieu could be characterised as multi-alphabetical and multilingual. It is plausible that the authors of at least part of the runic inscriptions were using Greek and/or Cyrillic in their work. Some of the paintings around the runic inscriptions indicate that the authors of the runic inscriptions were used to work with manuscripts or at least had enough knowledge to decorate them. The 11th century seems to be a turning point for the development of literacy in Bulgaria the multilingual and multialphabetical society became gradually monolingual and mono-alphabetic. It was the language of the Bible and the Cyrillic alphabet (which had adopted most of the Greek letters), that created a major part of the identity of medieval Bulgaria.

8-10 (, ) () . : ; ; ?
22

 , . 10.

, . : , , , .. ; ; - ; .

23