FLORIN CURTA

GAINESVILLE (FLORIDA)
QUAESTIONES MEDII AEVI NOVAE (2011)
LINEAR FRONTIERS IN THE 9
TH
CENTURY:
BULGARIA AND WESSEX
Linear frontiers are not in fashion among historians. Forty
years ago, Hans-Jrgen Karp maintained that linear frontiers
rst appeared not with large states, but with smaller territorial
entities, and no earlier than the 12
th
century
1
. By now, the idea
has been widely accepted that linear frontiers as articial
markings on the ground by means of border posts or some other markers never
existed before the modern age. In the Middle Ages, frontiers were supposedly
not lines, but zones or regions, and therefore imprecise
2
. According to Nora
Berend, on a conceptual level, even if not in a practical institutional sense,
the frontiers of the kingdom [of Hungary] could be, and in some contexts
were conceived of as linear in the Middle Ages
3
. While the debate is currently
reduced to a rather scholastic distinction between practical and conceived
frontiers, there has been almost no discussion of the reasons for which linear
frontiers may have been introduced, if only occasionally. Equally absent is
1 H.-J. Karp, Grenzen in Ostmitteleuropa whrend des Mittelalters. Ein Beitrag zur
Entstehungsgeschichte der Grenzlinie aus dem Grenzsaum, Forschungen und Quellen zur
Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichte Ostdeutschlands, IX, Kln-Wien 1972, pp. 113-114.
2 N. Berend, At the Gate of Christendom. Jews, Muslims, and Pagans in Medieval
Hungary, c. 1000 - c. 1300, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, Fourth Series,
L, Cambridge 2001, p. 14; eadem, Introduction, in: Medieval Frontiers: Concepts and Practices,
ed. by D. Abulaa, N. Berend, Aldershot-Burlington 2002, p. XIII. For the denition of linear
frontiers, see R. Schneider, Lineare Grenzen vom frhen bis zum spten Mittelalter, in: Grenzen
und Grenzregionen. Frontires et rgions frontalires. Borders and Border Regions, ed. by
W. Haubrichs, R. Schneider, Saarbrcken 1993, p. 55.
3 N. Berend, Introduction, p. 201. However, N. Berend, At the Gate of Christendom,
p. 14, also claims that the concept of linear frontiers existed in medieval Europe and so did
frontiers delineated by bordermarkers on the ground. N. Berend seems to have found it difcult
to reconcile historiographic fashions and historical evidence.
FLORIN CURTA 16
a re-assessment of the historical evidence for the early Middle Ages (ca. 500 to
ca. 1000) in a comparative approach similar to that adopted by H.-J. Karp
for the later period. He was particularly concerned with East Central Europe,
but there is also evidence of linear frontiers in Western Europe at a relatively
early age
4
. Were linear frontiers either practical or just conceived used
for similar purposes across early medieval Europe? What particular historical
circumstances invited the introduction of linear frontiers and what implications
did they have for political interactions within and across early medieval
polities?
In this paper, I intend to answer some of those questions through a comparison
between two famous, yet relatively neglected examples of imposition of linear
frontiers onto the landscape of early medieval Europe, both dated to the
9
th
century: the frontier between Bulgaria and Byzantium established through
the Thirty Year Peace of 816, and that separating the West Saxons from the
Vikings as agreed in the peace treaty between Alfred the Great and Guthrum
in the 880s (see: the map). I will rst discuss the written and (in the Bulgar-
-Byzantine case) archaeological evidence pertaining to those two frontiers, in
order to delineate problems of interpretation specically concerning frontier
lines. I will then turn to other stipulations of those two peace treaties and
compare their respective relations to the notion of linear frontier, in an attempt
to explain the latter in the context of the conditions set up by the negotiations
leading to the peace. My goal is to highlight the idea that linear frontiers were
dictated by specic political contexts in which they played a precise and rather
practical role. In that respect, early medieval (linear) frontiers were in fact
neither imprecise, nor zonal.
Several clauses of the Thirty Year Peace are known from an inscription on
half of a massive column, which was found in or near the Satma well next to
the village of Suleiman Ky (now Sechishte), a few kilometers to the northeast
from Pliska, in Bulgaria
5
. The inscription is damaged and both its beginning
4 A charter of Childebert I dated to 528 describes the borders of a property following
rivers, creeks, mountain peaks, valleys, and settlements, but mentions also cruces in arbore and
lapides xi as articial markers (Diplomatum Imperii, ed. by G.H. Pertz, in: Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Diplomatum, I, Hannover 1872, pp. 3-5). See R. Schneider, op.cit., p. 57,
who nonetheless notes that mglicherweise sind solche Grenzziehungen jedoch relativ selten
verwendet werden (p. 67).
5 V. Beshevliev, Die protobulgarischen Inschriften, Berlin 1963, p. 190; V. Beshevliev,
Purvobulgarski nadpisi, Soa 1992, p. 164. See also P. Soustal, Bemerkungen zur byzantinisch-
-bulgarischen Grenze im 9. Jahrhundert, Mitteilungen des Bulgarischen Forschungsinstitut in
sterreich VIII (1986), p. 150; K. Petkov, The Voices of Medieval Bulgaria, Seventh-Fifteenth
Century. The Records of a Bygone Culture, East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages,
450-1450, V, Leiden-Boston 2008, p. 7. The inscription was probably brought to Suleiman
Ky from Pliska at an unknown date. The Thirty Year Peace is also mentioned in the inscription
re-used as a tombstone in the Turkish cemetery in Shumen and believed to have been carved
LINEAR FRONTIERS IN THE 9
TH
CENTURY: BULGARIA AND WESSEX 17
and end are illegible. However, much can be reconstructed on the basis of the
remaining parts. For example, that those were the clauses of the peace of
816 results from the mention of thirty years in the third line, which has been
translated into English as following: And he sent the kavhan Iratais to make
peace for thirty years
6
. The rst clause of the treaty concerns the delimitation
of the frontier, the setting out of which is specically described as o0qoo
in the eighth line. That the frontier is referred to as oo, a word otherwise
meaning territory, while the inscription uses the word o0qoo to describe
the operation of setting up the boundary has been interpreted as an indication
that the rst clause of the treaty provided that a delimitation was about to be
made, while naming its extreme points
7
. Between oo, in line 4 and o0qoo
in line 8 there are ten or eleven place names, many of which were damaged
and had to be reconstructed on the basis of the possible number of missing
letters. For example, +ou in line 5 has been interpreted as referring to Develtos
( ..\+o), a major center for the Bulgar-Byzantine trade, as attested by
inscriptions on ninth- and tenth-century leaden seals referring to kommerkiaroi
of Develtos
8
. Similarly, Veselin Beshevliev has interpreted o... .\i as referring
to Potamoukastellion (o+oouio+.\i), a fort of an otherwise unknown
location mentioned in the 6
th
century by Procopius
9
. Given the number of
missing letters in line 5, it is however possible to read the damaged word(s) as
.oo, io+.\i, the fort beyond (the border)
10
. Following three other
during the reign of Malamir. See V. Beshevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 136; D. Ziemann,
Von Wandervolk zur Gromacht. Die Entstehung Bulgariens im frhen Mittelalter (7.-9. Jh.),
Klner Historische Abhandlungen, XLIII, Kln-Weimar-Wien 2007, p. 290.
6 K. Petkov, op.cit., p. 7. The reference to kavkhan Iratais a high-ranking military
commander of the Bulgar army known from another inscription dated to 813 (V. Beshevliev,
Purvobulgarski nadpisi, pp. 186-187) is in fact K. Petkovs interpretation of seven letters in the
third line NIPOTOC which V. Beshevliev interpreted as a name without, however, thinking
of Iratais from the Hambarli inscription (V. Beshevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 167).
7 J.B. Bury, The Bulgarian treaty of A. D. 814 and the Great Fence of Thrace, English
Historical Review XXV (1910), p. 281.
8 V. Beshevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 168. For seals of kommerkiarioi, see I. Yordanov,
Pechatite na komerkiariyata Debelt, Soa 1992; I. Yordanov, Pechatite na komerkiariyata
Develt. Addenda et corrigenda, in: Numizmatichni i sfragistichni prinosi kum istoryiata na
zapadnoto Chernomorie. Mezhdunarodna konferenciya, Varna, 12-15 septemvri 2001 g.,
ed. by V. Yotov and I. Lazarenko, Varna 2004, pp. 230-245. For early medieval Develtos, see
also M. Balbolova-Ivanova, Develt prez VIII-X vek, Vekove XX (1991) 1-2, pp. 50-57;
K. Gagova, Trakiya prez bulgarskoto srednovekovie (istoricheska geograya), Soa 1995,
pp. 158-159.
9 Procopius of Caesarea, Buildings, IV 11, ed. by H.B. Dewing, Cambridge 1940, p. 310.
See also V. Beshevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 168; P. Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini 6:
Thrakien (Thrake, Rodope und Haimimontus), Wien 1991, p. 414; K. Gagova, op.cit.,
pp. 227-228.
10 P. Georgiev, Bulgaro-vizantiyskata granitsa pri Han Omurtag i Erkesiyata, in:
Arkheologicheski i istoricheski prouchvaniya v Novozagorsko. Sbornik, Soa 1999, p. 133.
FLORIN CURTA 18
intact words translated as between the two comes another place name
beginning with A, which Beshevliev read as Auroleva (o\o), a place
name in Thrace mentioned by Theophanes
11
. He then identied the two
Aurolevas as two parallel ranges of hills to the southeast from the present-day
city of Yambol, the Small and the Large Bakadzhika
12
. The frontier line was
apparently supposed to go between the two of them, to reach [+] o\
y.[io], the many bridges (or fords), perhaps a reference to a local place
name in relation to one or more small rivulets or creeks between Develtos and
the Tundzha River
13
. Particularly difcult to interpret is []oo o\(qo,
i yo0[oiq,] in line 6. While Agathonikeia is known from other sources
and has been located at Polski Gradets near Nova Zagora, Balzena is only
known from the Suleiman Ky inscription
14
. Wherever it may have been
located, the text at this point seems to indicate that to the west of the Tundzha
River and until it reached the Maritsa, the frontier was not marked by any
particular place names, such as forts, which is why its delimitation is at this
point made as b e t we e n Balzena and Agathonikeia
15
. Great uncertainty
surrounds the interpretation of a single in line 7. Beshevlievs reconstruction
as A.ii in reference to a suffragan bishopric of Philippopolis has rightly
been seen as too far-fetched
16
. Pavel Georgiyevs alternative, (o, the old
name of the river Sazliyka may suit the topography, but is just as conjectural
17
.
Whatever the reconstruction of the missing word(s), it is beyond any doubt that the place to
which it/they referred was used as a marker, for it/they come(s) after the preposition , which
is preserved in its entirety.
11 Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia, ed. by C. de Boor, II, Leipzig 1885, p. 470;
English version from C. Mango and R. Scott: The Chronicle of Theophanes. Byzantine and
Near Eastern History, AD 284-813, Oxford 1997, p. 646.
12 V. Beshevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 169; P. Soustal, Tabula..., pp. 159-160;
K. Gagova, op.cit., p. 118.
13 P. Georgiev, Bulgaro-vizantiyskata granitsa, p. 133. The phrase may also refer to
the many fords across the Tundzha River in the vicinity of the modern village of Tenevo,
south of Yambol.
14 According to P. Soustal, Bemerkungen zur byzantinisch-bulgarischen Grenze, p. 152,
Agathonikeia is at Oryahovo (formerly known as Saranlii), on the southwestern slopes of the
Sakar Hills between the Maritsa, the Tundzha, the Sokolitsa and the Sazliyka rivers. See also
P. Soustal, Tabula..., pp. 168 and 382; K. Gagova, op.cit., p. 119. The excavations in Polski
Gradets have produced remains dated to the 9
th
and 10
th
century (P. Georgiev, Bulgaro-
-vizantiyskata granitsa, p. 134).
15 P. Georgiev, Bulgaro-vizantiyskata granitsa, p. 135 has suggested that since the
word Balzena is most likely derived from balta (swamp), the place name may in fact be the
name of the rivulet now known as Ovcharitsa, to the west from Polski Gradets. According to
P. Koledarov, Politicheska geograya na srednovekovnata bulgarska durzhava, Soa 1979,
pp. 36-37, Balzena is a stronghold by Glavan.
16 V. Beshevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 169; P. Soustal, Bemerkungen zur byzantinisch-
-bulgarischen Grenze, p. 150 (sehr gewagt).
17 P. Georgiev, Bulgaro-vizantiyskata granitsa, p. 135. For Arzos, see also K. Gagova,
op.cit., p. 133.
LINEAR FRONTIERS IN THE 9
TH
CENTURY: BULGARIA AND WESSEX 19
By contrast, the names Constantia (Koo++io) and Makri Livada (Moi
\ioo[]) in line 7 are very clear. Both can be located without any problems,
the former not far from the conuence of the Sazliyka and Maritsa rivers, near
present-day Simeonovgrad. Makri Livada is most likely a place in the valley of
the Maritsa to the west from Constantia/Simeonovgrad, possibly Merichleri
18
.
Beshevliev has also reconstructed o (Hebros, the ancient name of the river
Maritsa) in line 7, and o oo, in line 8 as o o,, the Haemus (Stara
Planina) range of mountains. However, and leaving aside the fact that Hebros/
/Maritsa is a pure conjecture, oo, in line 8 does not necessarily refer to
a mountain, as it may well be o,, boundary, frontier, or frontier mark
19
.
Despite claims to the contrary, the delimitation described in the rst clause of
the Thirty Year Peace, as preserved in the Suleyman Ky inscription is therefore
based on an articial line drawn across the landscape of northeastern Thrace,
in the modern Bulgarian districts of Burgas and Haskovo
20
. This is
substantiated by the conclusion drawn in line 8, at the end of the rst clause
of the peace treaty: o, i yyo. o0qoo, we agreed that this will be
the frontier
21
. The repeated use of the word oo shows that in the absence
of sites on the ground, the line was to be drawn in reference to two points,
presumably to the north and to the south of the frontier. Whatever and
wherever the Aurolevas were, there were most certainly two of them, as the
line of the frontier was supposed to cut right between them.
Was that line only an abstraction? From the rst clause of the Thirty Year
Peace, J.B. Bury has drawn the conclusion that the delimitation described in
the Suleyman Ky inscription was still to be made. To him the use of the word
o0qoo in the text of the inscription implied the construction of a material
boundary or fence to mark the frontier
22
. The fence which Bury had in mind
18 P. Georgiev, Bulgaro-vizaniyiskata granitsa, p. 136. According to P. Soustal,
Bemerkungen zur byzantinisch-bulgarischen Grenze, pp. 150-151, Makri Livada is the
present-day village of Uzundzhovo in the vicinity of Dimitrovgrad. For Constantia, see
Zh. Aladzhov and N. Dimko, Simeonovgrad ot drevnostta do 1885 godina, Simeonovgrad
1993, pp. 48-49.
19 P. Georgiev, Bulgaro-vizantiyskata granica, p. 137. From Constantia, the frontier
followed the old road between Adrianople and Philippopolis before crossing it in the direction
of the Sredna Gora and the region of present-day Soa.
20 According to P. Squatriti, Moving Earth and Making Difference: Dikes and Frontiers
in Early Medieval Bulgaria, in: Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis. Frontiers in Late Antiquity
and the Middle Ages, ed. by F. Curta, Studies in the Early Middle Ages, XII, Turnhout 2005,
p. 83: [...] each of the places mentioned in the inscription was taken to represent an area to
which the site mentioned conferred solidity and comprehensibility, but which lacked rm
boundaries. There is simply and absolutely no evidence to support such an interpretation.
None of the securely identied places (Develtos, Constantia, possibly Makri Livada) could be
understood as anything but a discrete location.
21 V. Beshevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 170; K. Petkov, op.cit., p. 8.
22 J.B. Bury, op.cit., pp. 281-283; P. Georgiev, Bulgaro-vizantiyskata granitsa, p. 138.
FLORIN CURTA 20
was known in the early 20
th
century as the Great Fence of Thrace, but now is
more often referred to as the Erkesiya Dike. He was denitely not the rst one
to make that connection. Ever since Karel Shkorpil linked the Suleyman Ky
inscription to the dike, scholars have accepted that the 131-kilometer long
earthwork stretching from the Black Sea (Bay of Burgas) to the Maritsa River
was erected shortly after the Thirty Year Peace
23
. In the 1960s, three trial
excavations across the dike in the vicinity of the village of Lyulin produced
remains of Grey Ware with burnished ornament, a ceramic category most
typical for eighth- to ninth-century assemblages in Bulgaria
24
. The earthwork
begins at Debelt, continues between the Sredetska and Rusokastrenska rivers
to the west from the Bay of Burgas, then turns to the west at Lyulin, to reach
the Tundzha River at Tenovo. From there it goes in a straight line across the
Manastirska and Svetiliyska lowlands until reaching the Ovcharitsa River to
the west from the village of Troianovo. After crossing the Sazliyka, a left-hand
tributary of the Maritsa River, the dike stops at a fort on the northern outskirts
of the modern city of Simeonovgrad
25
. Because of its ditch to the south, Erkesiya
is commonly regarded as a frontier fortication against Byzantium
26
. Despite
claims to the contrary, there are several points of overlap between the topography
of the Erkesiya and that of the frontier line of 816, as far as one can establish
it on the basis of the Suleyman Ky inscription
27
. The dike begins at Develtos
and reaches the Maritsa River at Constantia. Both are place names mentioned
in relation to the frontier line. Erkesiya also runs between the Small and the
23 K. Shkorpil was the rst to describe the Erkesiya in his Pohranini val v jinim Bulharsku,
Slovansk sbornk III (1884), pp. 464-471, and again in his Okopy i zemlianiya ukrepleniya
Bolgarii, Izvestiya Russkogo arkheologicheskogo instituta v Konstantinopole X (1905),
pp. 538-543. Despite the fact that he believed the Erkesiya to have been built by the Bulgar
ruler Kormisosh (721-738), K. Shkorpil nonetheless linked the dike to the treaty stipulations
appearing in the text of the Suleyman Ky inscription. See K. Shkorpil, O zemliannyh ukrepleniyah
i okopah, Izvestiya Russkogo arkheologicheskogo instituta v Konstantinopole X (1905),
p. 567. The rst to advance the idea that the Erkesiya was built in the early 9
th
century (i.e., after
the Thirty Year Peace) was K. Jirec ek, Archologische Fragmente aus Bulgarien, Archologisch-
-epigraphische Mitteilungen X (1886), pp. 186-187. J.B. Bury drew from Jirec ek the inspiration
for his own interpretation of the Suleyman Ky inscription.
24 D. Ovcharov, Nabliudeniya i arkheologicheski razkopki po pogranichniya val
Erkesiyata v yuzhna Bulgariya, Godishnik na Soyskiya Universitet Kliment Okhridski.
Istoricheski Fakultet LXIII (1970) 3, p. 453. The battle axe with asymmetrical blade found in
the vicinity points to a similar date (pp. 457 and 459, g. 12).
25 For the topography of the Erkesiya Dike, see R. Rashev, Starobulgarski ukrepleniya
na Dolniia Dunav (VII-XI v.), Varna 1982, pp. 61-62.
26 U. Fiedler, Zur Datierung der Langwlle an der mittleren und unteren Donau,
Archologisches Korrespondenzblatt XVI (1986), p. 461.
27 P. Squatriti, Digging Ditches in Early Medieval Europe, Past and Present CLXXVI
(2002), p. 57 believes that the border as described in the Suleyman Ky inscription corresponds
only tenuously to the line of the Erkesiya.
LINEAR FRONTIERS IN THE 9
TH
CENTURY: BULGARIA AND WESSEX 21
Large Bakadzhika, the only major elevations in the lowlands between the
Tundzha River and the Bay of Burgas, which may well be the two Aurolevas of
the reconstructed portion of the inscription. There are therefore good reasons
to believe that, if Bury was right and the Erkesiya was built after the Thirty
Year Peace, then the dike was truly a linear frontier between Bulgaria and
Byzantium. But why was this frontier marked in such a way?
The circumstances of the Thirty Year Peace are better known now than they
were to Bury in the early 20
th
century. There seems to be a general agreement
that following the death of Krum in 814, and before Omurtag seized power
in 816, at least two Bulgar rulers followed each other in rapid succession. The
martyrdom on January 22, 815 of Manuel, Archbishop of Adrianople (who
had been taken prisoner by Krum and brought to Bulgaria) is associated with
one of those rulers, named Dichevg. The persecution of Christians became
even stronger under Omurtag, who reputedly ordered the execution of some
400 Byzantine captives who refused to deny Christ
28
. Perhaps emboldened by
the military inactivity of the Byzantines, the Bulgars have raided Thrace in the
winter of 813/814
29
. According to Theophanes Continuatus, an unnamed
ruler of the Bulgars, possibly Krum, refused Emperor Leo Vs offer of peace.
Leo then moved against the Bulgars in late autumn or early winter 814 and
obtained a major victory near Mesembria on the Black Sea coast, at a place
later called Leos Hill. Theophanes claims that the victory was obtained by
means of a stratagem, which Emperor Leo used to deceive the Bulgar spies
inside the Byzantine army. Together with a few soldiers, the emperor withdrew
outside the fortied camp of his own army, only to make the Bulgars believe
that he had ed. He then fell upon the Bulgars and massacred many of them.
Following the victory at Leos Hill, the emperor conducted a raid inside
Bulgaria, during which he captured and killed many civilians, including
children
30
. Genesios has a different version of events, in which Leo used the
feigned retreat stratagem to ambush and defeat the Bulgars. He then raided
the lands of the Bulgars, where he killed their children, some of whom were
smashed against rocks
31
. The purpose of showing the brutality of the Byzantine
28 E. Follieri and I. Duychev, Unacolutia inedita per i martiri di Bulgaria dellanno 813,
Byzantion XXXIII (1963), pp. 71-106; D. Ziemann, op.cit., pp. 293-298.
29 P. Sophoulis, When Did the Battle of Leos Hill Take Place? A Note on the History of
Byzantine-Bulgar Relations in the Early Ninth Century, Vyzantinos domos XVI (2007-2008),
p. 203. For a slightly later chronology of events, see W. Treadgold, The Bulgars Treaty with
the Byzantines in 816, Rivista di studi bizantini e slavi IV-V (1984-1985), pp. 214-215
and 220.
30 Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus,
ed. by I. Bekker, Bonn 1838, pp. 24-25.
31 Byzanz am Vorabend neuer Gre. berwindung des Bilderstreits und der
innenpolitischen Schwche (813-886). Die vier Bcher der Kaisergeschichte des Ioseph
FLORIN CURTA 22
victory seems to be a double one. On one hand, both Genesios and Theophanes
Continuatus were hostile to the iconoclast emperor. On the other hand, both
seem to be concerned with conveying the idea of the crushing defeat, which the
Bulgars suffered at Leos Hill. Both Theophanes Continuatus and Genesios
wrote in the 10
th
century, much later than the events narrated, but there is no
reason to question the authenticity of their respective accounts of the battle
32
.
In other words, there is no reason to doubt that the Bulgars, who had previously
and haughtily rejected Leos offer of peace, were forced to accept the Thirty
Year Peace in late 816.
It is no doubt in response to the imposition of that peace on Bulgaria that
Omurtag may have taken the decision to erect the Erkesiya on the border
with Byzantium. During the subsequent decade, Omurtag showed an unusual
preoccupation with clear-cut and precisely delineated frontiers. In 824, Bulgar
envoys surprised Louis the Pious when showing up at his court. The message
they were carrying from Omurtag to the emperor was very simple: peace and
the establishment of a frontier between the two states
33
. Shortly before Christmas
824, another Bulgar embassy came to Francia with demands for the rectication
of the frontier. Three years later, the Bulgars raided southern Pannonia in
response to Louis the Piouss indifference
34
. They returned in 829, when they
put to re a number of Frankish estates on the banks of the river Drava
35
.
Uwe Fiedler suggested that it is under such circumstances that the dike known
as the Great Roman Ditch was erected across the southwestern part of
Vojvodina closing the angle between the river Danube and the lower course
of the Tisza
36
. If so, then the building of the Great Roman Ditch was little
Genesios, ed. by A. Lesmller-Werner, in: Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber, XVIII, Wien
1989, p. 10.
32 W. Treadgold, op.cit., p. 218. J. Signes Codoer, El periodo del segundo iconoclasmo
en Theophanes Continuatus. Anlisis y comentario de los tres primeros libros de la crnica,
Classical and Byzantine Monographs, XXXIII, Amsterdam 1995, pp. 113-115 believes that both
authors used at this point a common, but now lost source going back perhaps to the 9
th
century.
By contrast, P. Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831, Leiden 2011 (forthcoming), p. 48
suggests that only Genesios reproduced an ofcial communiqu commissioned by the imperial
government shortly after the battle, possibly in connection with the triumphal procession in
Constantinople.
33 Royal Frankish Annals, s.a. 824, ed. by F. Kurze, in: Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, VI, Hannover 1895, pp. 164-165. Louis dispatched a certain
Bavarian named Machelm, who then went to Bulgaria together with Omurtags envoys.
34 Royal Frankish Annals, s.a. 824, p. 165.
35 Annals of Fulda, s.a. 829, ed. by F. Kurze, in: Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, VII, Hannover 1826, p. 27.
36 U. Fiedler, op.cit., p. 462. The Great Roman Ditch was built on top of earlier
earthworks with a different orientation. See S. Nagy, Izvetaj o rezultatima istraivanja
uzdunih saneva na podruju Vojvodine, Rad Vojvodanskih Muzeja XV-XVII (1966),
pp. 103-108.
LINEAR FRONTIERS IN THE 9
TH
CENTURY: BULGARIA AND WESSEX 23
more than a replay of the drama surrounding the Thirty Year Peace. For
drama is what Omurtag most certainly had in mind.
It has long been noted that neither the Erkesiya, nor indeed the Great
Roman Ditch could have served any real, military needs. Both could be easily
bypassed by horsemen or simply stormed by infantry troops. In fact, with the
exception of Lyulin, there is no evidence of either forts or garrisons along the
Erkesiya Dike, which does not seem to have ever served as a defensive, military
installation. What then was its purpose? According to Paolo Squatriti, digging
to build the Erkesiya could have well been a statement of power, in which
case its symbolic value was far more important than any practical need the
earthwork may have been thought to fulll
37
. The Erkesiya was built in the
middle of a territory long contested by the two neighboring powers, and its
erection required the participation and labor of numerous people for whom
Omurtags overlordship was new and alien. Early medieval earthworks in
Bulgaria offered a unique occasion for rulers to exercise power over the bodies
of those whom they ruled by having them handle the soil
38
. The construction
of the dike marked the frontier line not only in the landscape, but also in the
minds of the local population. While the abstract line described in the Suleyman
Ky inscription mattered mostly for the elites in Pliska and Constantinople,
Erkesiya represented a tangible, solid reminder to the ninth-century inhabitants
of northeastern Thrace that they were now inside the polity ruled from Pliska
and outside the dominium of the Byzantine emperor.
Something of a similar nature may have been at work in the case of the
frontier line established through a peace treaty by King Alfred the Great and
a Viking chieftain named Guthrum at some point between 880 and 890
39
.
The terms of the treaty survive in two Old English versions, one shorter than
the other, but both preserved in a late eleventh-century or early twelfth-century
manuscript now in Corpus Christi College in Cambridge
40
. The rst clause of
the treaty denes the boundary between the territory under Viking control and
that of Alfred: First concerning our boundaries (landgemra): up the Thames,
and then up the Lea, and along the Lea to its source, then in a straight line
37 P. Squatriti, Digging ditches, p. 49.
38 P. Squatriti, Moving earth, p. 90.
39 In the text of the treaty, the agreement between Alfred and Guthrum is called a fri
(peace). For the date of the treaty, see P. Kershaw, The Alfred-Guthrum Treaty: Scripting
Accommodation and Interaction in Viking Age England, in: Cultures in Contact. Scandinavian
Settlement in England in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, ed. by D.M. Hadley, J.D. Richards,
Studies in the Early Middle Ages, II, Turnhout 2000, pp. 46-47.
40 The Old English text of both versions of the Alfred-Guthrum treaty has been published
by F. Liebermann, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, Halle 1903, pp. 126-129. The modern English
translation is from S. Keys and M. Lapidge, Alfred the Great. Assers Life of King Alfred and
Other Contemporary Sources, Harmondsworth 1983, pp. 171-172.
FLORIN CURTA 24
(on gerihte) to Bedford, then up the Ouse to Watling Street
41
. There are no
apparent problems with identifying any of the river or place names mentioned
in the text. The frontier most likely started on the northern shore of the Thames
Estuary, perhaps in the vicinity of present-day Southend-on-Sea, then followed
upstream the river Thames to its conuence with the Lea near Southwark.
Leaving (early medieval) London in the hands of Alfred, the frontier then
followed upstream the river Lea to its source. This seems to indicate that
the frontier approached the old Roman road known as the Watling Street
somewhere in the vicinity of Chalgrave. From this topographically ill-dened
point, the frontier then crossed the eastern end of the Chiltern Hills straight
(on gerihte) in the direction of Bedford on the river Ouse, which it then followed
upstream all the way back to the Watling Street
42
. Even though, unlike the
border dened in the Suleyman Ky inscription, the frontier between the West
Saxons and the Vikings follows the main rivers in the area (as opposed to
crossing or abutting them), there can be no doubt about its linearity. First, the
Old English word employed for frontier is land limits (landgemra).
Second, in the only segment on which the frontier does not follow any river
course, its line goes straight from one point in the landscape (the source of the
river Lea) to another (Bedford). This reminds one of the linearity of the frontier
in northeastern Thrace running b e t we e n the two Auroleva or b e t we e n
Balzena and Agathonikeia.
The circumstances of the Alfred-Guthrum treaty are well known. In May
878, Alfred moved out of his fortied seat of power at Athelney and reached
Egberts Stone, which is in the eastern part of the Selwood Forest, where he
gathered support from the local population
43
. With his army thus reinforced, he
arrived in Edington in Whiltshire and ghting ercely with a compact shield-
-wall against the entire Viking army, he persevered resolutely for a long time;
at length he gained the victory through Gods will
44
. Like Emperor Leo V,
Alfred showed no mercy to the defeated: large numbers of Vikings were
41 F. Liebermann, op.cit., p. 126; S. Keys and M. Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 171.
There are only spelling differences between the two versions of the rst clause (e.g., on gerihte
as opposed to on gerihta).
42 Some scholars have wondered why the rst clause of the Alfred-Guthrum treaty does
not give any indication as to how far along the Watling Street the frontier was meant to continue.
However, it has been rightly suggested that the further extension of the frontier in that direction
was the concern of the Mercians, not of the West Saxons. See R.H.C. Davis, Alfred and Guthrums
Frontier, English Historical Review XCVII (1982), pp. 806-807.
43 Assers Life of King Alfred, Together with the Annals of Saint Neots Erroneously
Ascribed to Asser, ed. by W.H. Stevenson, Oxford-New York 1998, p. 45; English translation
from S. Keys and M. Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 84.
44 Assers Life of King Alfred, p. 45; English translation from S. Keys and M. Lapidge,
Alfred the Great, p. 84.
LINEAR FRONTIERS IN THE 9
TH
CENTURY: BULGARIA AND WESSEX 25
slaughtered outside the stronghold at Chippenham before Alfreds army made
camp right in front of that strongholds gate. According to Assers Life of King
Alfred, after two weeks, thoroughly terried by hunger, cold, and fear, the
Vikings were ready to negotiate a peace agreement, and even offered as many
hostages as the king wanted, while Alfred had to give none. Never before,
indeed, had they made peace with anyone on such terms
45
. Under those terms,
the Vikings agreed to leave Wessex immediately, but a few weeks later, their
King Guthrum, together with thirty men, came to Alfred at Aller near Athelney
and requested baptism. Guthrum remained with the king for twelve nights
after he had been baptized, and the king freely bestowed many excellent
treasures (benecia) on him and all his men
46
. In the years following the victory
at Edington, Alfred was recognized as overlord of Mercia and in 886 he besieged
the Vikings in London and took the city. The capture of London further
enhanced his prestige. According to Asser, who wrote in 893 for a Welsh
audience whom he wanted to convince of Alfreds merits as an English king,
all the Angles and the Saxons those who had formerly been scattered
everywhere and were not in captivity with the Vikings turned willingly to
King Alfred and submitted themselves to his lordship
47
. Because the frontier
delineated by the Alfred-Guthrum treaty leaves London within the territory
under Alfreds control, the treaty is sometimes dated during the later years of
the 880s, in any case after 886
48
. Moreover, the prologue of the Alfred-Guthrum
treaty has the peace conrmed with the oaths, among others, of the councilors
of all the English race (ealles Angelcynnes), an echo of Assers description of
Alfreds political position in southern and central England in the aftermath of
his conquest of London
49
. It is therefore possible to see the treaty as the rst
in a series of legal enactments which transformed Alfreds mode of power
representation in the last two decades of the 9
th
century. Much like the Erkesiya
marked the boundary between Bulgaria and Byzantium in the minds and hearts
of Omurtags new subjects, the landgemra of the Alfred-Guthrum treaty
45 Assers Life of King Alfred, p. 46; English translation from S. Keys and M. Lapidge,
Alfred the Great, p. 85.
46 Assers Life of King Alfred, p. 47; English translation from S. Keys and M. Lapidge,
Alfred the Great, p. 85.
47 Assers Life of King Alfred, p. 69; English translation from S. Keys and M. Lapidge,
Alfred the Great, p. 98.
48 However, M. Blackburn, The London Mint in the Reign of Alfred, in: Kings, Currency
and Alliances. History and Coinage of Southern England in the Ninth Century, ed. by
M. Blackburn, D.N. Dumville, Woodbridge 1998, pp. 105-125, has demonstrated that the
Viking control over London had already dissipated in the late 870s.
49 F. Liebermann, op.cit., p. 126; S. Keys and M. Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 171.
See also S.D. Keynes, King Alfred and the Mercians, in: Kings, Currency and Alliances...,
pp. 23-26. As P. Kershaw, op.cit., p. 47 notes, the phrase ealles Angelcynnes in the prologue of
the Alfred-Guthram treaty resonates with the language of the royal charters of the late 880s.
FLORIN CURTA 26
neatly separated the Danes (Deniscne) from the English (Engliscne), the latter
now dened as those who had taken oaths of loyalty to King Alfred.
It is perhaps no accident that the clauses immediately following the
delineation of the frontier deal with the compensation system, the purpose of
which was to allow any future problems between the English and the Danes
to be settled peacefully and to avoid any fresh hostility: if a man is slain, all
of us estimate the Englishman and Dane at the same amount, at eight half-
-marks of pure gold
50
. Furthermore, the value of a ceorl who occupies
rented land is set at the same amount 200 shillings as that for freedmen
of the Danes (liesengum)
51
. At a quick glimpse, the Alfred-Guthrum treaty
deals with wergilds to be paid for men from different social groups. Eight
half-marks of gold was the equivalent of 1,280 shillings, a considerable sum
indicating that the Englishman in question was one of high standing, given
that in contemporary Wessex, 1,200 shillings was the wergild of the highest
social class (eorls)
52
. The wergild for commoners (ceorls) was six times lower.
However, there is more to the second clause of the Alfred-Guthrum treaty than
meets the eye. Its purpose was clearly to establish equivalent wergilds for
different social categories on both sides of the frontier delineated in the rst
clause. That the wergild for a ceorl occupying rented land is the same as that
for Danish leysingi implies an effort to align social categories in two differently
structured societies. In this respect, the Alfred-Guthrum treaty is remarkably
similar to the Thirty Year Peace between Bulgaria and Byzantium. The fourth
clause of that peace deals with Christian (i.e., Byzantine) prisoners of war and
other categories of captives
53
. Although the Suleyman Ky inscription is badly
damaged at this point, it appears from the surviving fragments that its text
referred to the release from Bulgar captivity of various Byzantine army ofcers,
from turmarchs and spatharioi to mere counts. At the bottom of the hierarchy
established by such means were simple or poor warriors ([+o]_o \oo),
who were to be released in exchange for Bulgars in Byzantine captivity, life
for life (u_ + u_,)
54
. This exchange of prisoners may have been
50 F. Liebermann, op.cit., p. 126; English translation from S. Keys and M. Lapidge, Alfred
the Great, p. 171; N. Lund, Peace and Non-Peace in the Viking Age Ottar in Biarmaland,
the Rus in Byzantium, and Danes and Norwegians in England, in: The Tenth Viking Congress,
ed. by J. Knirk, Oslo 1987, p. 261 believes the second clause to illustrate a key endeavor of all
medieval peace legislation.
51 F. Liebermann, op.cit, p. 126; English translation from S. Keys and M. Lapidge, Alfred
the Great, p. 171. For the meaning of the word leysingi in Old Norse law, see P. Kershaw,
op.cit., p. 55. It remains unclear why ceorls occupying their own land were counted as noble.
52 S. Keys and M. Lapidge, Alfred the Great, pp. 166 and 312.
53 V. Beshevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 164; K. Petkov, op.cit., p. 8.
54 V. Beshevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 164. K. Petkov, op.cit., p. 8 has a man for
a man, most likely because the clause refers here to soldiers. V. Beshevliev, Purvobulgarski
LINEAR FRONTIERS IN THE 9
TH
CENTURY: BULGARIA AND WESSEX 27
needed after several years of continuous war between the empire and Bulgaria
55
.
That soldiers were exchanged against each other suggests that some form of
quid pro quo may have operated for the higher-ranking ofcers as well
56
. In
other words, just like the Alfred-Guthrum treaty, the Thirty Year Peace
established a linear frontier in order to create a legal basis for equivalent
categories in two very differently structured societies. This also results from
the second and third clauses of the Thirty Year Peace: The second chapter is
about the Slavs under imperial rule. They should stay where they were when
the war began. The third chapter is about the Slavs who live along the sea coast
([o]\io o,) and are not ruled by the emperor. He should send them
back to their settlements
57
. The implication is that there were Slavs living on
both sides of the frontier drawn in 816. Some of them, those who were under
imperial rule, were required to remain under that rule, a sign that some, at
least, may have preferred to move into Bulgaria during the war. Others, who
lived in the coastal region (most likely by the Black Sea shore
58
) had been
displaced by the military campaigns were now allowed to return to their
abodes. That they were not under the rule of the emperor suggests that their
settlements were now on the Bulgar side of the frontier. In that case, the
second and third clauses of the Thirty Year Peace refer not to an exchange of
population in the border region, but to defectors. Emperor Leo V seems to
have been particularly concerned with Slavs defecting to the Bulgar side, and
requested their return. If at the time of the peace treaty the other Slavs, who
were from the coastal region, were within the Empire, then the Bulgars may
nadpisi, p. 173 notes that life for life is a Biblical phrase (Leviticus 24:18). This may indicate
that the inscription of Suleyman Ky contains excerpts of the Thirty Year Peace as drafted by
Byzantine authorities, a hypothesis substantiated by the reference to Christian (instead of
Greek) prisoners of war.
55 The exchange of prisoners of war is conrmed by other sources. According to the Life
of St. Niketas of Medikion, written at some point before 845, among those freed in 816 or
shortly after that was a curator of imperial estates named Zacharias. He had been captured
during the raids into Thrace under one of the rulers following Krum. See Acta Sanctorum,
April I, appendix XXVII; W. Treadgold, op.cit., pp. 216-217; D. Ziemann, op.cit., p. 288 and
note 1417.
56 Below the level of the mere soldiers, ransom may take the form of in-kind payments:
Two water buffaloes will be given for those captured in a fortress (V. Beshevliev, Purvobulgarski
nadpisi, p. 164; K. Petkov, op.cit., p. 8).
57 K. Petkov, op.cit., p. 8.
58 F. Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250, Cambridge Medieval
Textbooks, Cambridge 2006, p. 154 wrongly identies the coastal region as the northern shore
of the Aegean Sea, because it was in that region that some of the most violent revolts of the Slavs
against the Byzantines took place in the 9
th
century. However, there is nothing in the surviving
text of the Suleyman Ky inscription to suggests that the Slavs who live along the sea coast
were rebellious. They were in fact specically mentioned as not under imperial rule (i.e., they
were under Bulgar rule).
FLORIN CURTA 28
have also claimed those Slavs back. It is a tempting hypothesis, but no more
than that. However, there can be no doubt about the fact that those Slavs who
had been under imperial rule before the war were now to return under that
rule. This is strikingly similar to the fth and last clause of the Alfred-Guthrum
treaty, which also deals with defectors: And we all agreed on the day when
oaths were sworn that no slaves or freemen might go over to the army without
permission, any more than any of theirs to us. If, however, it happens that
from necessity any one of them wishes to have trafc with us or we with
them for cattle and for goods, it is to be permitted on this condition, that
hostages shall be given as a pledge of peace and as evidence whereby it is
known that no fraud is intended
59
.
The reference to the army (here) suggests that the main concern here was
with individuals throwing in their lot with the Vikings, even though the
possibility of defections in the opposite direction cannot be excluded. The fth
clause is in fact the only one of the Alfred-Guthrum treaty to explain, if only
indirectly, why the rst clause was about the delineation of the frontier. Not
allowing the crossing of that frontier without permission most certainly was
a measure to prevent defection, but also conicts resulting from such incidents
60
.
Just where the limits of Alfred and Guthrums authority were, depended upon
the denition of the frontier line. That Alfred had a territory in which he
exercised control over both land and people results from a charter of 901.
The charter conrms the grant of an estate, which has previously belonged to
a certain Wulfhere, known to have deserted both his lord Alfred and his
patria, thus breaking his oath of loyalty to the king
61
. The slaves and freemen
of the Alfred-Guthrum treaty are therefore directly comparable to the Slavs
of the Thirty Year Peace. The latter most likely dealt with high-prole defectors
as well. The last legible line of the Suleyman Ky inscription begins with the
following words: o,, o oyi o+o+qy,
62
. The reconstruction of the
rst word remains problematic, but the last three words are clear and have
been correctly translated as If a strategos (general) defected
63
. Unlike the
Thirty Year Peace, however, the Alfred-Guthrum treaty also deals with trade,
most likely because of the dangers associated with commercial relations with
the Vikings. That hostages were also required for continuing trade relations
59 S. Keys and M. Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 172.
60 N. Lund, op.cit., p. 262 notes that those most likely to cross that frontier in search of
new lords were young, landless retainers with more to gain than to loose.
61 P. Kershaw, op.cit., p. 53.
62 V. Beshevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 164.
63 K. Petkov, op.cit., p. 8. Several Byzantine generals are known to have defected to the
Bulgars. Five of them Leo, Vardan, John, Kordilas and Gregory appear as commanders in the
Bulgar army in the Hambarli (Malamirovo) inscription dated to the reign of Krum (ca. 803-814).
See V. Beshevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, pp. 164-165.
LINEAR FRONTIERS IN THE 9
TH
CENTURY: BULGARIA AND WESSEX 29
between the two sides across the frontier established by the rst clause of the
treaty is an indication that from Alfreds point of view the danger was
presumably that Viking raiders might try to pass themselves off as traders
64
.
In any case, this clause may also be regarded as based on the delimitation of
the frontier, since it separates the two territories by attempting to limit, or at
least to monitor, rather than to encourage trade
65
.
There is no comparable clause in the surviving text of the Suleyman Ky
inscription concerning the Thirty Year Peace. However, according to Theophanes
Confessor, Krum had sent in 813 an envoy to Constantinople to demand the
renewal of the 716 treaty between Byzantium and Bulgaria and the addition
of new clauses. One of them reminds one of the defecting generals in the
Suleyman Ky inscription, for it concerned the reciprocal agreement for the
return of all refugees, even if they had plotted against their own rulers. The
other demanded that those who traded in both countries be certied by means
of diplomas (oiy\\io) and seals (oyioo). In case the merchants cannot
produce the required seals, their property will be conscated
66
. As Nicholas
Oikonomides has demonstrated, one of the new clauses of 813 most likely
referred to those commodities, the export of which was ofcially prohibited.
The Byzantines agreed to allow Bulgars the access to such merchandise, the
total value of which could not however exceed thirty pounds of gold
67
. Could
then the seal clause proposed by Krum be explained in terms of the Byzantine
states concern with the smuggling of forbidden goods? Leaving aside the
fact that it would make no sense for Krum to propose a clause limiting his
access to forbidden goods, the clause explicitly refers to merchants from
both Bulgaria and Byzantium (., io+o, _o,). As nothing is known
about the production of any forbidden commodities in Bulgaria, the export
64 S. Keys and M. Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 313.
65 R. Lavelle, Towards a Political Contextualization of Peacemaking and Peace Agreements
in Anglo-Saxon England, in: Peace and Negotiation. Strategies for Coexistence in the Middle
Ages and the Renaissance, ed. by D. Wolfthal, Arizona Studies in the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance, IV, Turnhout 2000, p. 51. The fourth clause of the Alfred-Guthrum treaty requires
that any commercial transaction involving slaves, oxen or horses be conducted before a witness
who might afterwards be vouched to warranty (getyman). See F. Liebermann, op.cit, p. 128;
S. Keys and M. Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. 172.
66 Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia, p. 497; English version from C. Mango
and R. Scott: Chronicle of Theophanes, p. 681. For the clause concerning diplomas and seals
as Krums proposed addition, see G. Cankova-Petkova, Deux contributions lhistoire des
rapports bulgaro-byzantins au IX
e
sicle, Byzantinoslavica XXXVII (1976) 1, pp. 37-40.
67 N. Oikonomides, Tribute or Trade? The Byzantine-Bulgarian Treaty of 716,
in: Issledovaniya po slaviano-vizantiyskomu i zapadnoevropeiskomu srednevekoviu.
Posviashchaetsia pamiati Ivana Duicheva, ed. by P. Dinekov et al., Soa 1988, pp. 29-31. For
the forbidden commodities, see A.E. Laiou and C. Morrisson, The Byzantine Economy,
Cambridge Medieval Textbooks, Cambridge 2007, pp. 54-55.
FLORIN CURTA 30
of which to Byzantium would have been prohibited, a different explanation is
required. Such an explanation would have to account both for the existence of
Bulgar seals (some with runic signs) and for the presence of early ninth-century
Byzantine seals in Bulgaria
68
. In my opinion, the seal clause proposed by
Krum has nothing to do with the regulation of trade. As Panos Sophoulis has
noted, one of Krums main concerns may have been to prevent Byzantine spies
from entering Bulgaria as merchants
69
. In this respect, the treaty of 813 was
therefore very similar to the Alfred-Guthrum treaty and it is likely that the
Thirty Year Peace concluded just three years later conrmed and renewed the
clause concerning the monitoring of traders, who crossed the linear frontier
between the Bay of Burgas and the Maritsa River
70
.
It is time for a conclusion to be drawn from the analysis of the two treaties.
There are many striking similarities between them. They are both concerned,
rst and foremost, with the establishment of linear frontiers. In the case of the
Thirty Year Peace, the frontier line was marked on the ground by means of
a 131-kilometer long dike. Both treaties then use the frontier line to establish
some form of equivalence between social (Alfred-Guthrum treaty) or military
ranks (Suleyman Ky inscription) on either side of the border. The purpose of
such dealings is highly practical: the regulation of wergilds (crime compensations)
in the case of the Alfred-Guthrum treaty, and the exchange of prisoners in the
case of the Thirty Year Peace. The frontier line serves a political goal as well,
namely as a basis for a set of rules meant to prevent defections to the other side.
Finally, the linear frontier fullls a practical military role, as a rst line of defense
against surprise attacks or spies. Whenever crossing that frontier, merchants
would have to produce hostages (Alfred-Guthrum treaty) or certicates and
seals (the 813 treaty, presumably conrmed in 816) as a warranty against
hostile actions and as evidence whereby it is known that no fraud is intended
(t man wite, t man clne bc hbbe)
71
. Common denominator for
68 For ninth-century Bulgar seals, some with runic signs, see T. Gerasimov, Bulgarski
oloven pechat ot IX vek, Izvestiya na arkheologicheskoto druzhestvo VIII (1951), pp. 73-76;
I. Yordanov, Nov anonimen pechat na bulgarski vladetel ot IX vek, Pliska-Preslav VI (1993),
pp. 128-131; P. Georgiev, Olovni pechati s runopodobni znaci, Numizmatika i sfragistika VI
(1999) 1, pp. 81-90; P. Georgiev and Zh. Aladzhov, Pechat-tsilindur s purvobulgarski nadpis
ot Pliska, Arkheologiya XLIII (2002) 1, pp. 63-68. For seals of kommerkiarioi of Develtos,
see above, note 8.
69 P. Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria, p. 238. The fact that according to Theophanes
Continuatus, on the eve of the battle at Leos Hill Emperor Leo V was concerned with the
presence of Bulgar spies in the Byzantine army strongly suggests that the seal clause of the
813 treaty was introduced as a result of concerns on both sides.
70 As demonstrated by stipulations regarding defectors, clauses from one treaty could be
and were in fact adopted and conrmed by the subsequent treaty.
71 F. Liebermann, op.cit, p. 128; English translation from S. Keys and M. Lapidge, Alfred
the Great, p. 172. The phrase clne bc hbbe actually means (to have) a clean back.
LINEAR FRONTIERS IN THE 9
TH
CENTURY: BULGARIA AND WESSEX 31
comparison and equivalence between differently structured societies; legal
barrier against defections, surprise attacks, or spies linear frontiers in the
early Middle Ages were neither abstract, nor conceived, but served a very
practical, if ephemeral purpose, namely to establish a reasonable basis for the
peaceful regulation of relations between warring polities. Such frontiers were
established as a result of the imposition of peace on one party (Vikings or
Bulgars) in the aftermath of some disastrous defeat. The intention of both
parties, however, was to turn the state of endemic warfare into a lasting
alliance built on reciprocal trust and highly regulated trafc of personnel and
goods. With Guthrum turning into thelstan, and Omurtag providing
assistance against the rebel Thomas the Slav, the linear frontiers in northeastern
Thrace and central-southern England functioned not as segregating, but as
converging directions of political action.
Although without any analogue in the Old English corpus, underlying this phrase was the
Scriptural linkage of cleanliness and innocence, perhaps also that between purity and
peacefulness. See P. Kershaw, op.cit., p. 54.
FLORIN CURTA 32