UDC: 323.269.3(495.02)“1072/1087”
ALEXANDRU MADGEARU
THE PERIPHERY AGAINST THE CENTRE:
THE CASE OF PARADUNAVON
The “mixobarbarians” in Paradunavon, confronted with the force of Pechengs, entered under a new domination, a local and barbarian one, that replaced the central Byzantine administration. The centrifugal trends were expressed in this case by the set-tlement of a barbarian power in Paradunavon.
According to Attaliates,1 the financial reforms introduced by Nikephoritzes
were perceived as a threat by the townsfolk of Paradunavon. In fact, they lose the pay-ments previously sent from the centre in order to secure the defence of the frontier. Paul Stephenson has recently shown that Nikephoritzes tried to ensure the payments for the Pechenegs only by local means.2On the other hand, Scylitzes Continuatus said
that the stratiotaiwere dissatisfied because they were excluded from the administra-tion of the theme (dioikhsij).3This might refer to a prevalence of the civilian
aristo-crats in the towns — the same with those who lose the financial privileges.
The Paristrian rebellion started around 1072 when a great part of the Balkan Peninsula was troubled by internal and external conflicts. We can not overview here the events occurred in the Bulgarian theme, but we stress that the situation could be regarded as a single state of crisis that affected the northern Balkans, either or not the Paristrian mutiny would have any links with that of Constantine Bodin.
Previous scholars have usually insisted on the ethnic identity of the rulers and of the people involved in the events. They sometimes accept the Pecheneg origin of the chieftain Tatos and the importance of the Pecheneg warriors for the victory of the unrest, but they claim that the rebels were mostly Romanians or Bulgarians, ac-cording to the nationality of the historians.4Political interference is often obvious in
1 Michaelis Attaliotae Historiae, ed.I. Bekkerus, Bonnae 1853, 204–205.
2 P. Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900–1204, Cambridge 2000, 98–100.
3 Ioannes Scylitzes Continuatus, ed.E. Tsolakis, Thessaloniki 1968, 166.
both Romanian and Bulgarian studies. In the same way, Mathias Gyóni analysed the
events with the purpose to prove that Romanians came at the Lower Danube from the central parts of the Balkans after the 11th century.5This insistence on the ethnic
origin of the Paristrian population left other problems less analyzed.
For instance, which was the real role played by Nestor in the mutiny? Attaliates said that he wasoikeiotatwjand a formerdouloj of Constantine X. As for his ethnic origin, the same source calls him “Illyrian”. This archaism could refer to a native from the western or central parts of the Balkan Peninsula (Serbian or Vlach) and seems less probable to be equal to “Bulgarian”,6 as some historians
be-lieved.7Nestor was too a kind ofmixobarbaroslike the inhabitants of Paradunavon;
in this way could be explained another instance from Attaliates (Nestor joined the rebels because tw omotimJ toe genouj).8
Knowing the special significance of the word doulos in that period, we sup-pose that Nestor was a local aristocrate who has abandoned his possessions to the emperor Constantine X and who next became an intimate of Michael VII. Other lo-cal rulers have become douloi of the Byzantine emperors in the previous decades (for instance, Stephen Voislav of Zeta and the Armenian prince Senacherim).9 The douleiawas a kind of vassalage and this can explain the high rank ofvestarchosbore by Nestor. The titledoulos is confirmed by the seals of Nestor with the legend tJ
an(qrwp)J anakto(j) Douka (two of them found at Silistra). The title anthropos was too applied to these douloi.10
Nestor has sent messages to Dristra from another town in Paradunavon, short time after he was appointed as katepano of this theme. Otherwise, his seals would
de Bas-Danube, BNJ 3 (1922) 287–310;C. Necôulescu,Ipoteza formañiunilor politice române la Dunare
în sec. XI, Revista Istorica Româna 7/1–2 (1937) 122–151; I. Barnea–Ôt. Ôtefanescu, Din istoria
Dobrogei, III, Bucureôti, 1971, 139–147;R. Ciobanu, Puncte de vedere asupra formañiilor politice din Dobrogeaîn sec. XI, Peuce 2 (1971) 249–255;V. Tapkova-Zaimova,La population du Bas-Danube et le
pouvoir byzantin (XIe–XIIes.), Actes du XVeCongr. Intern. d’Ét. Byz. IV, Athènes 1980, 332–335;V. Spinei,Realitañile etno-politice de la Dunarea de Josîn secolele XI–XIIîn cronica lui Mihail Sirianul (II), Revista de istorie 37/2 (1984) 134.
5 M. Gyóni, Zur Frage der rumänischen Staatsbildungen im XI. Jahrhundert in Paristrion (Archaisierende Volksnamen und ethnische Wirklichkeit in der œAlexiasŒ von Anna Komnene), Archivum Europae Centro-Orientalis 9–10 (1943/44) 83–188.
6SeeP. Diaconu,Les Petchénègues au Bas-Danube, Bucarest 1970, 103–104.M. Angold,The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1204. A Political History, London — New York, 1984, 98 considers too that Nestor was perhaps a Vlach.
7 V. Tapkova-Zaimova, Quelques particularités dans l’organisation militaire des régions de Bas-Danube et la politique byzantine aux XIe–XIIesiècles, in:Études de civilisation médiévale (IXe–XIIe siècles). Mélanges offertsàE-R. Labande, Poitiers 1974, 672–673;eadem, La population du Bas-Danube et le pouvoir byzantin (XIe–XIIes.), Actes du XVeCongr. Intern. d’Ét. Byz., IV, Athènes 1980, 334.
8E. Malamut,L’image byzantine des Petchénègues, BZ 88/1 (1995) 131.
9J.-C. Cheynet,Pouvoir et contestationsàByzance (963–1210), Paris 1990, 287–288, 296–299; N. Garsoian,The Problem of Armenian Integration into the Byzantine Empire, in: Studies on the Internal Diaspora of the Byzantine Empire, edd. H. Ahrweiler, A. E. Laiou, Washington 1998, 119 n. 242.
bear the title ofduxorkatepanoof Paradunavon. Because Dristra was already mas-tered by Tatos, is obvious that Nestor took his first residence into another place, most probable in the northern Dobrudja, not yet rebelled (for instance at Isaccea). This area remained for some time under Byzantine administration, as can be inferred from the continuous activity of the regional mint in Isaccea. The coins were casted here until circa 1080.11It is true that this northern area was too affected by the
muti-nies in some moments. The seal of Nikephor Basilakes,duxof Dyrrachion, found at Nufaru,12 remembers that Basilakes sent messages to the Pechenegs when he
re-belled in 1078.13 We suppose that Nufaru was then the residence of a Pecheneg chieftain. Attaliates shows for 1072 a Pecheneg domination around Dristra, but fur-ther unknown events extended the rebelled area over a great part of Paradunavon. However, the theme was not entirely lost, as results from the minting of the signed coins of Michael VII.
If Nestor was an aristocrat of Serbian or Vlach origin, his actions in Paradunavon can be interpreted as an opportunity to acquire an independent territory for himself, during the crisis started among the Serbians and Bulgarians. A relation with the mutiny led by Constantine Bodin can not be excluded. Being a Byzantine aristocrate of barbarian extraction, Nestor was a suitable leader of the rebelled “mixobarbarians”. However, he was forced to share the power with Tatos. This dual power weakened the mutiny and the offensive against Constantinople.14 After six
years, the coming of Nikephor Botaneiates as new emperor changed the attitude of the mixobarbarians; their messengers to Constantinople promised they will not continue to attack the empire together with the Pechenegs.15 The initial reason of the Paristrian
mutiny ceased to exist, but the Pechenegs remained hostile to the Byzantine power.
The Pecheneg chieftain Tatos (calledexarconby Attaliates) has inherited the
authonomy granted to Pechenegs by the treaty closed by Constantine IX in 1053.16
A seal found at Silistra proves that the Byzantines recognized the authonomy of a territory named Patzinakia, located inside Paradunavon. The seal belonged to
Ioannej magistroj kai arcon Patzinakiaj.17 Either or not this Ioannes was the
same with Kegen (with the new name given by baptism), the legend shows the authonomy of this territory. This situation was also recognized into a later moment, because Scylitzes Continuatus and Zonaras said that Nestor returned to the “Pecheneg country” (twn Patzinakwn) after the attack against Constantinople.18
11 Gh. Manucu-Adameôteanu, Un atelier monetar dobrogean din secolul al XI-lea, Studii ôi
cercetari de numismatica12 (1997, ed. 1998) 119–149.
12I. Barnea, Sceaux byzantins inédits de Dobroudja, Studies in Byz. Sigillography 3, ed. N. Oikonomides, Washington 1993, 61–65 No. 9.
13Ioannis Zonarae epitomae historiarum, ed.Th. Büttner-Wobst,Bonnae 1897, III, 723.
14See the remarks ofE. Stanescu,La crise du Bas-Danube byzantin au cours de la séconde moitiédu XIesiècle, ZRVI 9 (1966) 57–59.
15Michael Attaliates, 302–303. SeeStanescu,op. cit., 59–60.
16Stephenson,op. cit., 93.
This area should be located only in Paradunavon, because Attaliates wrote that Nestor returned “to the regions and camps near the Danube”.19
It follows that Tatos was an ally of the Byzantine Empire, who seized the op-portunity to rebel together with the “mixobarbarians”.
The so-called Patzinakiacould be identified with the region Hekaton Bounoi (located in the northeastern region of present Bulgaria), the base of the Pecheneg in-roads of 1049–1053.20The settlement of the Pechenegs within this area is proven by
the cemetery of Odarci, where 36% of the skeletons can be ascribed to the Pechenegs, because thay have trepaned skulls. This cemetery appeared around the middle of the 11th century.21
The Pecheneg mutiny transformed the area between Danube and the Balkans into an independent territory. This situation was recognized by Alexios I by the treaty closed after the defeat of autumn 1087.22
The Pechenegs lived in many parts of Paradunavon after 1045. A proof is given by the gold and silver coins found in Dobrudja, came here as payments for the Pechenegs and for Byzantine military and civilian officers. The stray finds and the treasures with coins dated between Michael IV and Nikephor III are presented in
Map 1.23
The accumulation of the hoards Garvan I and Kalipetrovo began before Mi-chael IV. They are the richest and by their structure they can be ascribed to some Byzantine aristocrats. The Kalipetrovo treasure was however hidden after the end of the Paristrian crisis, because the Cuman invasion of 1094.24 The other coins and
hoards could belong to the Pechenegs, but not only to them.
From Map 1 results a grouping in two areas: at south and southeast from Dristra and in the northern part of Dobrudja. It is very interesting that no gold and silver coins were found inside Dristra. This might signify that such pieces were dis-tributed especially to the Pecheneg allies and to thestratiotaisettled in countryside or in small fortifications like Garvan.
The archaeological researches have been established a type of objects specific for the Pechenegs and only for them: the leaf-shaped pendants, made of bronze.25
Their distribution in Dobrudja is presented in Map 2.
19Michael Attaliates,209.
20Diaconu,op. cit., 66–69 forHekaton Bounoi.
21 L. Don~eva-Petkova, Srednovekoven nekropol pri selo Odar~i, Dobri~ko (Prednaritelno
saob{tenie), Dobrud`a 10 (1993) 134–144.
22Stephenson,op. cit., 102;idem,Byzantine Conceptions of Otherness after the Annexation of Bulgaria (1018), in: Strangers to Themselves: The Byzantine Outsider, Aldershot 2000, 248.
23 Data gathered from G. Custurea,Circulañia monedei bizantine în Dobrogea (sec. IX–XI), Constanña 2000, 131–168. For Cloôca:Gh. Manucu-Adameôteanu — I. Poll,O moneda de aur de la
Constantin X descoperitaîn Dobrogea, Pontica 32 (1999) 343–346.
24 E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Numismatic and Historical Remarks on the Byzantine Coin
Hoards from the 12th Century at the Lower Danube, RESEE 30/1–2 (1992) 42–43, No. 1.
The settlement of the Pechenegs in Dobrudja is also attested by two place-names Peceneaga (see Map 2). Of Pecheneg origin are the placenames Bugeac, Galiña,DerventandCanlia, all of them located near Dristra and near Balta Ialomiñei (where the tribe of Kegen took refuge before its settlement in Paradunavon).26
A comparison of the maps shows two Pecheneg concentration areas in the far north of Dobrudja and near Dristra. The city of Vicina recorded by Anna Comnena could be searched in that northern area, where the Pechenegs hold the power for some time, as can be inferred from the discovery made at Nufaru (the seal of Basilakes). Vicina might be the residence of Sesthlav or Satza, the other rulers men-tioned by Anna Comnena.27These new centers of power are showing that other parts
of Paradunavon have been conquered by the anti-Byzantine forces. The mint of Isaccea disappeared in these circumstances.
The state of crisis in Paradunavon determined a reorganization of the neigh-bouring Byzantine territories. Akatepanikionis attested at Mesembria in the ’70-ies. In this province was included the city of Preslav, which became a frontier town, as results from the settlement of akommerkiarios office at Presthlavitza (= Preslav).28
This new province covered a small part of the rebelled theme of Paradunavon. The relations between the Paristrian people and the Pechenegs evolved from cooperation against the centre to the mastership of the latter. Confronted with the force of these warriors, the “mixobarbarians” entered under a new domination, a lo-cal and barbarian one, that replaced the central Byzantine administration. The cen-trifugal trends were expressed in this case by the settlement of a barbarian power in Paradunavon. In this light, the peace closed in 1087 between Alexios I and the Pechenegs recognized the new political situation of the Lower Danube: a Pecheneg realm, the independentPatzinakia. The master of this territory was in that moment the Pecheneg Tzelgu. This chieftain made an alliance with the former Hungarian king Solomon. In this way a powerful anti-Byzantine coalition was established.29
The Pechenegs from Paradunavon were already allied with the Manicheans from
Oberländer-Târnoveanu,Stañiuni antice pe raza comunei Mahmudia (jud. Tulcea), Peuce 8 (1980) 66;G.
Atanasov,Srednovekovni amuleti ot Silistra, Izv. na Narod. Muzej Varna 22 (37) (1986) 78–79, Tabl. II/1, 4;P. Diaconu,Douapandantive foliforme de bronz de la Pacuiul lui Soare, Culturaôi civilizañie la
Dunarea de Jos 3–4 (1987) 113–114;T. Papasima,Pandantiv foliaceu descoperitîn Dobrogea, Pontica 23 (1990) 359–361;Gh. Manucu-Adameôteanu,Aspecte ale culturii materiale vechi româneôtiîn lumina descoperirilor de la Bucureôti (secolele IX–XI), Cercetari arheologice în Bucureôti 4 (1992) 64; V. Èotov,Listovidni a`urni amuleti otXIv., in:Pliska–Preslav, [umen 8, 2000, 242–246.
26P. Diaconu,Câteva considerañii pe marginea unor toponimice din dreapta Dunarii de Jos (zona
Ostrov–Cochirleni), Pontica 10 (1977) 61–63.
27Anna Comnena, Alexiada, VI. 14.1. Hypothetical locations of Vicina between Garvan and
Nufaru were sustained byA. Kuzev,Zur Lokalisierung der Stadt Vicina,Ét. Balk. 13/3 (1977) 112–125; C. Cihodaru, Observañiiîn legaturacuporturile de pe cursul inferior al Dunariiîn secolele XI–XIV, Cercetari Istorice, SN 9–10 (1978/79) 285–295;M. Rada, N. Cochina, G. Corcodel, M. Iuga,Aôezari
antice dobrogene identificate cu ajutorul fotografiilor aeriene, Thraco–Dacica 9 (1988) 197–205; M. Botzan, Pour localiser Vicina: histoire et milieu géographique, RESEE 30/1–2 (1992) 61–73; G. Atanasov,La Vicina médiévale et la forteresse de Nufaru,Ét. Balk. 30/1 (1994) 109–128.
28A. Madgearu,The Military..., 429.
Aleksandru Madgearu
PERIFERIJA PROTIV CENTRA: SLU^AJ PARADUNAVONA
