1 tony granberg

8/12/2019 1 Tony Granberg

1/13

, . 10.

11

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 centresfrom the 8thto the 10thcenturies I realised that a remarkable change concerningthe language and the system of writing had taken place in the 10thcentury. Themultialphabeticand multilingual milieu known from the sites of importance forthe social activities during the 8th- 9thcenturies in the 10thcentury developed to amonoalphabeticand monolingual one. The creation of literacy continued in anenvironment 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 aimsto discuss the relationship between state formation and the development of writing. Itdeals with the relation between different alphabets under conditions ofmultilingualism 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 roleof literacy in developing identities as a part of the state formation process.

Establishing and developing the knowledge of writing corresponds to a newstage 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 religiousinstitutionsmonastic and cathedral milieus. The mainstays of literary culture weremonks or clerics. They were entrusted with the care and propagation of the writtenword 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 stateadministration during the process of state formation in Bulgaria starting with the 8 thcentury2. The social and political implications of literacy changed after theChristianisation of Bulgaria in the second half of the 9 th century. Christianity is a

religion of the Book and that meant a new kind of literacy for medieval Europe.

1This 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 ofExcellence.2Epigraphic texts were used for example for expressing information about the organisation of thearmy as well as for the communication on a diplomatic level. The contents of the inscriptions datedto the 8thand 9thcentury was published and analysed by Beevliev: Beevliev V.Prvoblgarskinadpisi.Sofia, 1979, p. 30-36.


2/13

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

12

The stabilisation in the Christian beliefs and dogma by writing them

down became a task of primary importance. The stabilisation however wenttogether with institutionalisation. The development in Bulgaria after the

conversion to Christianity could be compared to that in the Carolingian worldwhere, according to Anna Grotans one of the major achievements was to fixthe 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 ofexchange and communication. The culture of textuality, called textualcommunityby Brian Stock4was organised around the common understanding ofa script. That could probably be the reason for the development of a monolingualand monoalphabetic society in Bulgaria at the end of the 10thcentury.

2. Presentation of the different languages and scripts

Several scripts and languages were in use in Bulgarian society from theperiod 8th up until the 10th century. Two questions of importance for theunderstanding 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 9thand the 10th centuries indicates amultiscriptual and multilingualsociety.

2.1. The term runic.The terms runeand runicshould, strictly speaking, not be used for any other

writing system but thefuthark5. That is why Edward Tryjarski6uses the term tamgaswhile discussing the runic inscriptions from the Balkans. The Turkic alphabet used in

the inscriptions from Orchon and Yenisey is however commonly referred to as aTurkic runicalphabet

7. The terms runic

8, runiform

9and rune-like

10, has also been

3Grotans A. A.Reading in medieval St. Gall.New York: Cambridge University Press. 2006, p. 9.4 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. 80.6Tryjarski E. The Tamas of the Turkic Tribes from Bulgaria. In: Uralaltaische Jahrbuch 47, 1975,

p. 189-200.7SeeVasilev 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 profesorVeselin Beevliev. Veliko Trnovo: Universitetsko izdatelstvo. 1993, p. 141-162.9Georgiev 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.


3/13

, . 10.

13

applied when discussing the alphabets used in Central European and Balkan

medieval inscriptions. All these terms show a clear connection to the term runicthey allude to the status and function of the runes rather than on their origin.

Although the terms entirely connected to the futhark, rune and runiceventually determine any kind of alphabet used concomitant of the Latin and theGreek11alphabets at the border of the Roman world (se Fig. 2). To use the term

runesin that meaning is not completely wrong if the runes are part of writing asa form of cultural osmosis around the periphery of the Roman world12.

There are, though, some important differences between the runesof theFutharkand the runesfrom the Balkans. The Balkan runes were not inscribed ontree 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 roundedones in contrast tofuthark. In some of the runic inscriptions from the Balkans a

cursive-like style of letters can be observed.I prefer using runesas term for the Balkan script because rune corresponds to a

certain type of script, the runicscript. The term runic scripthas the same status as the

term alphabeton the theoretical level where we discus writing systems. That means therecould be many different alphabets as well as many different runic scripts (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Di ff erent kinds of wr iti ng 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 arefew in number and mostly very short, have not yet been deciphered and it is

10erbakA. M. O runieskoj pismennosti v jugo-vostonoj Evrope. - In: Sovetskaja tjurkologijanr. 4, 1971, p. 76-82.11Even the Glagolitic and the Cyrillic alphabets must be included here because their function isidentical to that of the Latin and the Greek alphabets.12Smith J. M. H .Europe after Rome. A New Cultural History 500-1000. Oxford. 2005, p. 32.


4/13


14

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 writingsystem were used in the inscriptions or if the system had local variants

13. There

are no preserved runic abecedariesfrom the Balkans that we know of.

2.2. The Balkan runic script.A number of approximately 100 runic inscriptionshave 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 inBulgaria (see Map 1). The descriptions by Popkonstantinov (1993) should bementioned here as the first step in the process of cataloguing the Balkan runicinscriptions.

Map 1. Localisation of the runi c inscri ptions on the Balkans

2.3. Balkan runic script was used for an unknown language in inscriptionsdated 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 theHunno-Bulgarian language being used in these inscriptions because they have notyet 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 andhas never been used for writing texts or documents.

2.4. The Greek alphabetwas in use from thebeginning of the 8th century andupto the last quarter of the 9th century for texts in both the Greek and the Hunno-

13

Granberg A.On Deciphering Mediaeval Runic Scripts from the Balkans. In: Kulturnite textovena minaloto. Nositeli, simvoli i idei. Znatsi, textove, nositeli. Kniga 3. Materiali ot Jubilejnatamezdunarodna konferencija v chest na 60-godishninata na prof. d. i. n. Kazimir Popkonstantinov,Veliko Tarnovo, 29-31 oktomvri 2003. Sofia, 2005, p.128-139.14Only 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.


5/13

, . 10.

15

Bulgarian languages. There are around 200 inscriptions preserved from this

period. They were all made by representatives of the chancellery of Bulgarianrulers. 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 andboth Greek and bilingual Greek-Slavonic inscriptions are found dated the 10thcentury 16.

2.5. The combination of theGlagoli tic alphabetand the Slavonic languagewere

in use, after the Christianisation, mostly in church environment, from the lastdecennium of the 9th century up until the middle of the 10th century and thensporadically up until the 12thcentury.

2.6. The combination of theCyri ll ic alphabet and the Slavonic languagewerewidely in use from the middle of the 10th century both in secular and in churchmilieu. Establishing the Cyrillic alphabet went through a process of text

transliteration as part of the text transmission process

17

.The study of this multialphabetical and multilingual milieu gives usreason to believe that it was the same group of people that produced texts indifferent languages and used different alphabets for different purposes.

Chronology Writing system Language

8th9thcenturies One (two18)Greek

Two

Greek

Hunno-

Bulgarian

10th11th centuries

Three (four19)

GlagoliticCyrilic

Runic

Two (three20)

Slavonic

unknown21

After the 11thcenturyOne

Cyrillic

One

Slavonic

F ig. 2. The number of wri ting systems and languages in Bu lgari a 8th-11

thcentur ies

15Beevliev V.Prvoblgarski nadpisi.Sofia, 1979.16Smjadovski S.Blgarska kirilska epigrafika IX-XV vek. Studia classica 1. Sofia, 1993, p. 36.17Veder 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 thescript and The treatise on the letters by anonymous authors). Bloomington: In. 1999.18There are many single runes but no inscription dating from this time.19The Greek alphabet was partly used during the first half of the 10 thcentury.20The Greek language was partly used during the first half of the 10 thcentury.21The runic inscriptions have not been deciphered and their language is still unknown.


6/13


16

3. Environment

Most of the runic inscriptions on stone are from Orthodox monasteries orchurches 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 thecave 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 housesby pilgrims from the northern coast ofthe Black sea (Crimea) on their pilgrimage to Jerusalem24.

The monastery of Ravna, in north-east Bulgaria, was consecrated in 889CE 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 sofar25. Approximately 3000 graffito-drawings were found in the church, the

scriptorium with library and school, and the refectory and dormitory of thismonastery. 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 areengraved on stone building material, gold vessels and on a bronze button.

There are so far, with a single plausible exception, no traces of the runicalphabet in manuscripts. This plausible exception is an inscription in a Greekmanuscript (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 thesame time as Greek, Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets.

22Kostova R.Za biblejskija smisl na edin rannosrednovekoven simvol. - In:Blgarite v SevernotoPriernomorie. Izsledvanija i materiali. T. 3. Veliko Trnovo, 1994, p. 81-99.23

Agri goroaei V. Vikingi sau rusi. Noi cercetari asupra complexului Basarabi-Murfatlar. 2006.Electronically published: http://www.patzinakia.ro/StudiaPatzinaka/Agrig-VikingisauRusi.htm24 Kostova R. Edna chipoteza za poklonniestvoto v Blgarija. Blgarite v Severnoto

Priernomorie. Izsledvanija i materiali. T. 5. Veliko Trnovo, 1996, p. 149-173.25Popkonstanti nov K. Das altbulgarische Kloster bei Ravna. In: La vie quotidienne des moines et

chanoines rguliers au moyen age et temps modernes. Wrocaw, 1995, p. 691-701.26Kostova R.Edna chipoteza za poklonniestvoto v Blgarija..., p. 149-173.27Aleksova 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.


7/13

, . 10.

17

4. Writing as creating identities

The relation between the runic script and literacy on one side and theirrelation 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 acomprehensive identity. Within this hierarchical system of relations, there aresynchronic levels of coexistence, co-operation and influence.

Runes here mean all registered runes both these used in differentinscriptions and these carved as single runes in different places.

Runic script means here a kind of writing system, runes with phoneticvalue, which could be used for graphically expression of some language andwhich 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 theBulgarian society of the end of the

9th century and the 10th century,where the runic script wascoexisting together with one or

two alphabets? Importantdistinctive criteria for the

definition of different kind ofliteracy are the function and thestatus of writing as well as theactors of writing and theorganisation of the centres for

producing and reproducingliteracy.

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 8 th -10th 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 arunic inscription from Murfatlar dated to the 10thcentury (see Picture 2).

identity

literacy

literacy I? literacy II?

alphabet runic script symbols

letters runes other signs

Fig. 3. System of hierarchical and

synchronic relations within literacy and

identity


8/13


18

Picture 1. Traces fr om run ic script in an

inscripti on with Greek letters in Hunno-

Bulgarian from Dlako, 9th century. Ed.Beevliev

29.

Picture 2. Runic inscriptions from cave churches in Murf atlar, 10thcentur y.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 theGreek alphabet and the Cyrillic alphabet, and in some few occasions theGlagolitic alphabet (see Pictures 3-6).

Picture 3. Runic inscription from cave

churches in M urf atlar, 10thcentur y.

Photo: Toni Cartu31

29Beevliev V.Prvoblgarski nadpisi..., P. 133.30Popkonstantinov K.Runieski nadpisi ot srednovekovna Blgaria..., P. 141-162.31http://www.patzinakia.ro/MonografiaBasarabi-Murfatlar/basalbumINTRO.htm
http://www.patzinakia.ro/MonografiaBasarabi-Murfatlar/basalbumINTRO.htmhttp://www.patzinakia.ro/MonografiaBasarabi-Murfatlar/basalbumINTRO.htmhttp://www.patzinakia.ro/MonografiaBasarabi-Murfatlar/basalbumINTRO.htmhttp://www.patzinakia.ro/MonografiaBasarabi-Murfatlar/basalbumINTRO.htm


9/13

, . 10.

19

Pictu res 4, 5 and 6.

Runic inscription

fr om cave chur ches

in Murfatlar, 10th

century.Photo:

Toni Cartu

It is really not surprising that the alphabets which were in use in MedievalEurope hade some letters in common. There are even runes which have parallels withthe 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 soeasy to define the character and the origin of the parallels between the Balkan runesand the Greek, the Cyrillic and the Glagolitic alphabets (see Fig. 4).

When discussing the situation on the Balkans we should take in toconsideration that the Greek alphabet is older than the Balkan runic script and that iswhy the parallels between some runes and some letters could only be explained as an

32Page R. I .An Introduction to English Runes. The Boydell Press. 1999, p. 212-225.


10/13


20

influence from the Greek alphabet on the runic script. This phenomenon could alsobe compared to the influence of the Greek alphabet on Wulfilasgothic alphabet33and the influence of the Latin alphabet on thefuthark.

How should we explain the parallels between some of the specific Cyrillicletters 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 specificSlavic sounds, both consonants and vocals, which are not to be found in the Greekalphabet. In addition, it should be mentioned that the connection between the runicscript on the Balkans and the runic scripts used in inscriptions from the Caspian andnorthern Black sea areas during the 8thcentury is not completely clear. As far as Iknow there are no runic inscriptions, but only single runes from Caspian and northernBlack sea areas. These can be dated to a time not later than the late 8 thcentury34. Thatis why it is difficult to connect the runic script on the Balkans to a plausible runictradition of the Bulgars before they settled on the Balkans.

Fig. 4. Parallels between Balkan runic script and the Greek, the Cyril li c and the Glagolitic alphabets3738394041

33Martin H.-J.Histoire et pouvoirs de lcrit. Librairie Acadmique Perrin: Paris. 1988. P. 52.34Kyzlasov I .Runieskaja epigrafika drevnich bolgar. Tatarskaja archeologija, 1-2 (6-7). Kazan. 2000, p. 5.35This letter was used in Cyrillic only in loanwords and as a number.36This 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 isimportant when comparing the runes with alphabets which were in use at the same time and at the same place.38This is one of the letters used as a variant of the Greek letter Ain the stone inscriptions made in Greek bythe Bulgars during the 8th-9thcenturies (Beevliev V.Prvoblgarski nadpisi..., . 43, tab. 21, letter A6).39This letter was used as a ligature of the Greek letters Oin the stone inscriptions made in Greek by theBulgars during the 8th-9thcenturies (Beevliev V.Prvoblgarski nadpisi..., . 43, tab. 21, letter X).


11/13

, . 10.

21

Some of the runes from the Balkans have parallels with the letters used in the

bark letters from Novgorod42for example: (= Cyr. but also for ) and

runic , (= Cyr. ) and runic , (= Cyr.) and runic , (= Cyr.9)and

runic .

If we accept that the Balkan runic script consisted of ca 30 letters wecould 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 therunic 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 mostlyletters used in the epigraphic).

5) 1 rune (ca 3 %) has parallels to the letters which are common for theCyrillic and the Glagolitic alphabets.

6. DiscussionsThe connection between the runic script on the Balkans and the

Glagolitic alphabet is not as strong as the connection between the runic script onone side and the Greek and the Cyrillic alphabet on the other.

The group of letters that were common for both the runic script and theGreek/Cyrillic alphabet - i. e. Cyrillic with most of the Greek alphabetincorporated- is the big group, but there are also two other groups of lettersone

with runes and Greek letters and another with runes and Cyrillic letters. Thesegroups are of great importance because they show that the Balkan runic scripthad an independent connection both to the Greek alphabet and to the Cyrillicalphabet. The letters common to the Greek alphabet and to the runic script, butnot to the Cyrillic alphabet, are to be found in the epigraphic sources from

Bulgaria, dated to the 8th-9thcenturies.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 ifthe common letters came from the Cyrillic alphabet or vice versa. The mostimportant finding of this study is the existence of common letters between the

runic alphabet and the Greek and the Cyrillic alphabet.

40This letter was used as a variant of the Greek letter Oin the stone inscriptions made in Greek by the

Bulgars during the 8th-9thcenturies (Beevliev V.Prvoblgarski nadpisi..., . 43, tab. 21, letterO5).41A 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).42Janin V. L.Ja poslal tebe berestu. Moskva, 1998.


12/13


22

The Balkan runic script is preserved in around 100 inscriptions from the

Balkan Peninsula. These inscriptions belong to the culture of the First BulgarianEmpire 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 orthodoxmonasteries or churches where inscriptions with other alphabets and in otherlanguages were engraved as well. The coexistence of the Greek, the Glagolitic,the Cyrillic alphabet together with the Balkan runic script and the usage of theGreek, the Slavonic and the Hunno-Bulgarian languages in the same literary

milieu could be characterised as multi-alphabetical and multilingual. It isplausible 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 runicinscriptions indicate that the authors of the runic inscriptions were used to work

with manuscripts or at least had enough knowledge to decorate them.The 11thcentury seems to be a turning point for the development of literacy

in Bulgaria the multilingual and multialphabetical society became graduallymonolingual and mono-alphabetic. It was the language of the Bible and theCyrillic alphabet (which had adopted most of the Greek letters), that created a

major part of the identity of medieval Bulgaria.

8-10

(, )

()

. :

; ; ?


13/13

, . 10.

23

, .

:

, , , .. ; ; - ; .

1 tony granberg

Documents