AT ORGANIZATION THELOWER THECHURCH 9N BETWEEN AND 1()2() DANUBE

MADGEARU ALEXANDRU

Severalstudieson the ByzantineChurchorganizationat the Lower Danube were werefoundand oldersources New seals in werepublished the last25 years. Austrian Byzantinistwemer seibt in was openby the The discussion reinterpreted. that of and paperon the interpretation chronology the leadseals belonged his shoit was the the He expressed ideathat George of George Bulgarial. to the archbishop at by created Tzirniskes Dristrawith the purposeto replace headof the archbishopric A similar point of view was independently the former Bulgarian pahiarchate. paperfrom 1980 in PavelGeorgiev his special historian by proposed the Bulgarian landsin of organization theBulgarian to andnextinihe studtdedicated theChurch Adrian Gaboralso studiedthe theologian The Romanian period2. the Byzantine by was policyof BasilII3.A tuming point in the research represented ecclesiastical and in Romanian next in Frenchl' first published the largestudy of PeheDiaconu, -polemic as P. with P. Georgiev, Diaconuput forward new conclusions In his Churchorganizationof the Lower Danubian occurredin the the concerns changes in werepublished oaks collection from the Dumbarton regionafter971.Twoseals sometime seat of 191s.Theyareprovingthe existence a metropolitan at constanta repetition In duringthet0utlth centuries. thepastwasknownonly theunchanging Ion of thJ nameTomis in the bishopriclists written down along the centuries'

uiihrmd der fus 1 W. Seibt,Georgios rchiepiskopos zur Boulgaias. ldentifzierung bulgaixlrm,Enbischofs A 55"59' mit Tzimiskes hillezweiuSiegeltypm'JOB'24'1975'.p des Hmscluft lohannes "\6, de de de z p. G;rgiev, Au sujet I'interprttationdessceaux ?lomb I'archatqueGeorges Bulgarir'EB, de du bulgwes Nod-Estrpris I'an 971"in dans rcligieuse lesterres 1%0,3, ;.'\20-729; Idem, L'organisation hfia' ttudi! ethno-c1llturc\Ies, 1987' 147. Dobtltdzo. P i a 3 A. Gabor,organizatu adminishatiad rcIigioasi lmpeiului Bizantindatddc vqsilelI Mrcedonunul ti 16, rcmin, gl, 47,1989, p 9&117 The PaPe!of N V Duid' Rdolile peitn istoia popotului imprtata ei din episcopole sudulDundii,l,tB, 36,I98fl' 2"p, 39-,8 w alc snonice bisericiirontin ti nord-dunirene swunele confwionsand cannot b€takeninto consideration several contains a a P. Diaco\\t, Despre a eclesiasticdregiuniiDundii de los (ultimatreime xcolului x secolul oryqnizarca (demin dans tigion du Bas-Danube Io ecclisi'shque NI),5T , A,7990,1, p. i0u20; Idem,5r r I'o rSqnisotion p. 73-89. du tiers )k siicle-Xll,siicle),nEBP,ll,199-l ' Museunof Oaks in llu Fogg and at 5J. Nesbitt,N. Oikonomjdes,Catatogue ofbyzonlineseals Dumbarton Oaks,Washingtoo191, p 181' Sea,Dtmbarton Northof theBlack of vol. L ltalt, Noi/lh theBalkans, Art,

Some powerfrom this area. by established John Churchorganization of the muchto do asconcerns knowledge the Church thereis still However. kansformed it into a patriarchatein 918. 277 Noi desprc . true survivalof thetown life couldbeaccepted southof the to continued exist The in Balkans. aboutthe the he paper. The organizationand with no relationswith the Constantinopolitan conversion Bulgariain the mid 9thcenturywas the first stePtoward a new of Church organizationat the Lower Danube. the Basil hascreated autocephalous II and the ceased existbetween LowerDanube to Theold Churchorganization of life. Pontica" 24. VII-VI . MM52. seat survivalof the city Tomisand to its metroPolitan dudng the 7th-10th who made someremarkson Finally. new sources the new interPretations regions conquered when 971 of another approach theperiodbetween andthemoment makingpossible of archdiocese Ochrida. p. au ecclisiasfique Bas-Danufu Points oue sur|oryanisation de 194-795.The single found at Preslav Two bishopwas a certainStephanos. seems be clearthat the first Accordingto the last discovered moment of the new ByzantineChurch organizationwas the creation of a to gavehis name(Ioannoupolis) in seat metropolitan at Preslav 971.Alexandiu Madgearu to into a shortpaperdedicated the this Bamea pointedout immediately discovery centuries6. Byzantine and PerhaPs Durostorum/Silistra. the last opinion belongsto P. present in by established the Byzantines the fi$t period of the Churchorganization of the are and The from Bulgaria. -232. view The studytriesto Sivea comprehensive in organization Paradunavon. dote p. Diaconuz.The Bulgarian church became was The tzar Simeon in autocephalie 870 when an archbishopric set at Preslav. de cultunlaIs Dundrca losin secolele Continuitate discontinlitate si 1997. seals known metropolitan " 6L Barnea." Dacia". Thraceand Macedonias. ChtistianPoPulation between the Danube and the Balkans. MilropolioTolnisului. Madgearu. . JohnTzimiskes the former Bulgariancapital. 8 A.With this occasion resumed previousdiscussion Barnea's Tzimiskes. Byzantine-Bulgarian to lead seals. but these are exceptions(Odessos/Varna. but Constantinoplerecognized this of whenthecoming TzarPeter an endto the patriarchate in 927.He kept herethe centerof the church.The Avar and Slavic invasionsled to the gradual withdraw of the citiessurvivedduring the 70'10scenturies.7991. D."l"l2-"n4. only A Bononia/Vidin). Bucure$ti. 7 P Diacgnu" (XLW siidts).but without any superior Church church.N9 3&39. in the fust decades the 7o the Balkanrangein the sametime with the town century. only Bulgarian Put conJlict.

"147 r3P. p. suiet. seat to The existence a bishopricat Drisha since971seems be very likely. p... rr P. Sli n W.The Byzantine reconquista implied the integration of the local church into the of PaFiarchate Constantinople.74-77.Peistiteot stntegijatau Prcslao (971. do not agree point of view that the at established archbishopric Drisha. 154.Thestatusof the Bulgarianeparchy actedagainstall that his enemyTzimiskes was lessened from an autocephalouspatriarchate to a mehopolitan seat The of to subordinated Constantinople..450. &e "Numismatikai na alsoR. 183. 10 Diaconu.cir.. p. atdtiepisl<opos Boulgaias could not be dated after 971. . M. followsthat George archbishop Bulgaria It churchhad this ranktr. 870 one12.-1. r l'ol8anisation.. Au p. Sone Notes anlnsniption Medimal on Silistra 976).4n4%. in his e I.Daconqrl.as sustained Seibt and P. (c...L'organisation. p. systematically didto. p. Noooo olsumpecal athiEiskop *it Cmrgii Pliska. Diaconu sustained Tzimiskes was cancelledby Basil II alter a short time. -82..088). Idem. p.. P.7-2"p.7%. P.C. Georgiev. Diaconualsoremarked of half of the 96 centuryand for the first hall of the next is seals typical for the second was of sometime between and 918. The contextof the seals Georgiw (who locatedthe seatat la Drisha)1l. 16 Salamon. t'orgoniwtionL..nr. P.Sofia. 792. Jordanov.@rgiev p.Th€ Chur. "193. Dristrawasrecorded episcopal in the lastyearsof BasilII.Sri/ p..P. ftom .. p. 77 P. It is of known that a churchfrom this town wasrebuilt sometime between976and 981(the chronology results from the interpretation of an inscription found at Silistrayt.fia.h Orqanizrtion at th€ Inwer Drnube between97l and 1m0 ruled belore976. L'oryanisation. 389.RE5EE. foundat Pliska). archaeological of found at Pliskaprovesthat they weredatedbeforethe end of monastery Pliska(the that the iconography the feginning of the 10dcentuy).. . &ibt. . as seat However. 5&59.3.His abeence the in in theperiodwhen theruler of theBulgarian we written sources does disprove not this. He supposedthat the On metropolitanseatwas movedfrom Preslavto Dristra after976tr.Poinls.2G29(another seal.Therefore.because is known that BasilII it and Pliskaattesthime. p..452.. an JohnTzimiskes that the Churchorganizationestablished by The sameP. 151. sfragistika". political significance this act is obvious... Vassilev.76. op.. Idem. 15 DiaconqPoirts...9. Diaconu. 12 Daconu Surl'organisatiun.. 450.P. the other hand since971to he expressed idea that Dristra wasthe placeof a bishopricsubiected the themehopolitan of loannoupolisls. footnoteg. S!tl p.Stephanos in He changed from the very beginningthe namelonrnoupolis Preslao....12G729. whichbelonged a certainGeorgios to PeEe Diaconuhasshownthat thefour seals W. 82-83and. / i'olganisation.

89. de doctomt 6u 111e z Li. Revenirea Oryaniutionol Ptradunnon.. rs Foi details on the Byzantineadministrativeand military olSanizationb€tween9n-1m8.1983. silistra) p.tu On of grantsdto the archbishopric OchridalT. Uz dmi-siicle de I'hisloirede Ia Macidoine "1"1'. suwived until the Bulgarian The meboPolitanseatof loannouPolis-Preslav of conquest this city.The tzar Samuelcreatedsince980 another organization for the Bulgarian church in the recovered territory' He The seatwas at established Sofia a new Bulgarianpatriarchateled by Germanos. ' Institut National deslangues et Gvilizations Oriental Pais. We supposethat the seatof Preslavwas moved at Tomis (Constan6)after 976or alter 9bOwttett the city was lost.lcr. P.P. 39. The sealsof Theodore. BZ" 2" und p' p. Thr Military &. de ('..St.Another stroteSos Dristra was recordedby that It seems the provinceof Dristra was ruled in the SkyliEesin 1017(Tzitzikios)m. 16. because official seals the letteF. Markov. see A' "Anuar.P. 109..The name greater province together with the former The was Pandunauon not yet established.They could be der 17H.p.44tf5. 1693.M. Ul. L'organisstion. nr.1. Barnea. studii de securitate. finally it was establishedat Ochrida around 990. themeof Drisha was detached Westem Mesopotamia.799.176.'19n. Varna.op. Steftn€6cqq.l:y'. N. 8' . of two decadesof the 11s centuryle. Eucuregti. datedmostprobablein 986. N@N*rit prds'en'W' ns viTrntii'ki " Arbnlogj{'.nr. 6&66)r. (975'1025). whosesealwasrecentlyPublished2r. 65.. ae-Vos. Din istoia Dobtogei.Neizd\dai oi2lntiish olwni rycoli ot silishs a. the from edict(sigilli. "19Zr. 150.2.The themeof Drisha was later unified with the province of Thrace. I. p..Few years after the Byzantine from Thraceand formeda the offensiveof 1000-1001. 93 Tlre third seal (from 1. a.By6l' istorie militarn".. p. provincekept the nameof the residence ol and pimil.. bfia.5lr I'organimtion. cit. we do not agreethe restitution "Paradunavon" form aregiving only the cycle. aPlrar€nationau $ biuntine la Dunrit€.in doninoliei Nl&garu.on) May 1020 second eparchy' the of bishopric Drista inherited formerBulgarian otherhan4 the Byzantine residenceof a theme commander'John Tzimiskes Drisha was also the (in two provincesat the Lower Danubein 971:WestemMesoPotamia established the northem Dobrudja)and Dristra (in the southernregion). Cr':lz'5. Nesbitt.From the name of the provine only the "Paristrion". Oikonomides. Jordanov. Tl..'1977p- .Diaconu.ros sttategu Dristra aredatedin the fust citys.. $tefnnescu. cit. woni*. Aniketos and Basil. next moved southwards and wheresurvivedundl 101822. Lil. p. Bucuetti 199&P.Geor6ev. Two recently published sealsattest the namesof two metropolitanbishopsof Tomis.p'.19 (34).p.. 20 Bane4 gt. 15U54 and ldem.. were prcerved. "Izvestiia na is recorded by I.Ungedne*le wnig bekennte Bisti)ttun)eneichnisse ointalis&en Kirdlt I\. zr J.) sameperiod by a certain Constantine Politet patikios and kntcpano Drjsba.A finger-ringwith sealof the samepersonwas recently found it Slaveevg Varna dePa*ment (R.4214?3. I. . NarodnilaMuzei".Alarndru Madge.

Diacoru" op. it is clear that this settlementhas a great developmentof Ion believedthat Tomissurvived asa revivedaroundthe mid 10t' cenfury2'."Pctr.I. Bamea centuries2s.I/*2f1.24.p.. ry.n 97l md lom of datedin the last decades the 10tt'centuryand at the beginningof the nexta. cit. cit. Bamea We seatexisteduntil the rebellion of the Asan brotherszp. is still possiblethat bansfer from Preslav.2El. "Sud+shrl contexhrlevqeari' p.. p. 23J. because II.9.80.m-r31. op. t LBaxrca. Churh Orgddz.However. p. 3@3S. cil.tion 4 th. not for a when Constantia(tomis.The wual but the 7dL10th town during of argumentof the presence the nameforris in the chronicleof Nikephor in relation with evenb occurredat the beginningof the 8h centuryis mistakenx. hh'rfiutii dcsprc piwr deIa sfirsrtul vcoluluial XII-lu (cu. p.A later date in full 11th the century...after the reign of BasilII. It seems around10354. the seat of Tomis was founded by a of Constantia(Iomis) remainedunder ByzantinePowerafter the conquest Preslav place was defended by the earthen walls between by the Bulgariaru.t.7741..80.t DaNbt hw.fica" .The did madeat Constanla not displayedrelicsableto confirm researches archaeological this center. N. lorv.because sealstyPology.. Mtrnucu-Adamettean!.It is not the purpose of this paper to discusstheir cluonology..Diaconu. Constanla) invasiors washardly struckby the Pecheneg that this settlement long time. and i. Poirb.The restoration the metropolitanseatof Tomis(whichexistedin the 5tt'century)could of be taken into considerationonly since |ohn Tzimiskes. N6bitt. dot agreethis....? Bamea. 31&323.. Tomivconstonti!-Constwtq.45L . Diaconusupposed JohnTzirniskes created mehoPolitans€atof It Tomis in the sametime with that of Ioannoupolis-Preslavz.By this reasonwe considerthat the religious center was movedinto the sametown Dristsa.decided by Basil II.Tb.Theperiod of BasilII is the singleone but reacheda certain develoPment.hrrca. d .P.191. Diaconubelievedthis. op. This Cemavodaand Constanla. p.It is howeversurethey existthen.It is clearthat the main placein Paradunavon takenover by Dristra after 1018. cil. cit. zrGh. a Gh"Mlnucu-Adametteanu. centuryis not possible.as could be inferred from a recent was publishedportolanoo. p... is lessprobable. 18G181. c\st6.1. 1200). p. The survival of the metopolitan seat of Tomis until the middle of the 11th thought eventhat the P.451. has the that P. u P. It seemsthat a new revival of this settlement Constantiadeclined after Basil occurredat leastat the end of the 12tt'century. fulatu Nugrd inh-un portulan "19%.with previousbiblio8raPhy.Oikonomides.p.45\.DiaconqPotrls. . ap. ?6 l\Madgear. I. his point of view is not founded.cit.op. Poinb. D P. { o.4fi. 113.. p.452.p. nr.

1. to includingtax exemptions priests andparoikoi.. This wasdecided whentheconquest Bulgaria finished(1018).. de Vos. 1976.. most probable the sametime with the creation the provinces in of Bulgariaand Serbia. John Tzirniskes organized a mehopolitan seat at preslav (Ioannoupolis) the territoryconquered him from Bulgaria. Amsterdam. of was BasilII accomplished secondstageof the ByzantineChurchorganization the in the Lower Danubianarea. The territory former subjected Samuel to wasincludedin this archbishopric 1019. A. 3. the new archbishopric Ochridawill be considered a ievival of the formerJustiniana of as Prima (createdin the 5thcentury by the samewill of an emperorand in near the sameteritory). for FIealsoappointedasardrbishopa Bulgana&Johnof Debdror. .1'13. Gabor.. Kirdrmgeschichtliche Glossen denpomKaiserBasileios den AutokepfuImErzbistum zu ll wn "Byzantion". 3t B. 12."Etudesslaves roumainey. 115-11E.XW p. p.as an eparchvof the in province Westem Mesopotamia. Ihe emperortried to obtainthe supportof the conquered people. 0p.p. p. p. not alsoafter1020.The paradunavon of theme replacedthe previous themesof Dristra and WestemMesopotamia.Achris XI. 1937. when the metropolitanbishopricof Tomiswas abolished. suppose in by We that this seatwas moved at Constanta 986 or even in 976. Cztlturies. . i.siicles BlzAfltiu on theBalkans. Granic. grantedseveral He privileges this archbishopric. 381. The archbishopric Ochridawas removedfrom the iurisdiction of of the Constantinopolitanpatriarchy. Studies theBrzantine tinistrction on Ad ond tlleSouttum Slaoi fron tlw Wi to thc p. ltnida verli&mm Ptu)ilegien.cif. 1 . (Thisedictmentions Dobrudia for onlv thebishopric Dristra). Faluga.Alexandrn Madcearu The bishopric of Dristra was subordinatedto this metropolitan seat and remainedin this structureuntil 1020. 396401. Gy6ni.-XIV.In the future. that seat in afterttre establishment the provinceParadunavon in relationwith the changes of and occurred in the organizationof the archbishopric Ochrida (seebelow). et J. L'6n6chiotuue de lMsfcle bulry d' aux (I). cit. This mehopolitan seatsurvivedalter 1000. p. M..M. . 149-150.op. of We consider the mehopolitan of Tomiswasabolished 1020.The first step was the replacement the Bulgarian of autocephalous pahiarchy with an archbishopric located too at Ocfuida. Dristranextbecame mainurbanand relieious the cent. which remained ByzantineafLr SiO. This decision taken by Basil II was certairrly influencedby his bad relationswith the patriarchSergiosII (1001-1019). in The emperor gtanted an autocephalicstatus to this eparchy.2. but because edict of the BasilII datedMay 1020 doesnot recordii. 150.organisation..r in the province of Paradunavory while Tomis/Constantia declined soonl Therefore. Georgiev.

op. Unfortunately. cit.Granic. See op.1967. op. p. edictswereissued The at the supplication the archbishop of He requested exactdelimitation his the of John. cif. thisreason could By one suppose somenames that wereerroneously transmitted. 115-116.. "t15.. In this way were and in recordedthe namesoI the bishopricsand of the main parishes(enoiai) ftom the archbishopric Ohrida. 3abnd tax inherited ftom the former Bulgarianstate. Aa p.p. sujet.payedby all the familieswho owned a pail of oxes.. The provinceParadunavon enteredunder the jurisdictionof Ochrida.151-152. in presewed in its turn in threecopies writtenin the16th-17th centuriess. Gy6nt. givenby Samuel. none of them was preservedin original..5) bn (Swial4konomische Vethiiltnisse). cit.148-'149. theseexemptionsrepresented kind of erkrssa'. Gelzer.. John (Dyrachion.cit. Gabot. M. to of includingthe southones. ln this way the archbishopric Ohridareached extension Bulgariaduring of the of the reignoI Peter. See op. p. emperor in viewto be The had mercilul with the Bulgarians after he defeated them. 156)..p.cit. 115. deYa. exemptiors The grantedby BasilII confirmedtheolderones.Georgiev. tuIgariulu Volkin denClenrcn byzantiisclutt das des Reiches y\l-Nl. datedMay 1020. A. p.. Gelzer..by virtueof thesecond edictof BasilII.13bishoprics wereadded. Gabor. p...55. 396.The ChurchOrganizationat th€ Lower Drnube between971and 1020 The actionsdecidedby BasilII are known from the threeedictsissuedin 7019-102032. diocese and the approvalfor exemptionfuomoikomodion certainnumbersof for priests (/<lenl<or) peasants@aroikoi) each bishopric:l. the second By edict.op. x M.op. p.150. Gabo\ op. op. It is known only theconlirmation givenby Michael VIII Palaeologus August1272. suiet. Proceedings tl! XI thIftemational Congress Byuntine Studies. .Gy6n.-ll8. Naupacta. Al1 p.M. Gy6ni. a4a5.A. A.p. p. cit. Angelov.Basil II accepted the integrationin the archbishopric of Ochridaof all the regions that belonged the formerstate TzarPeter(927-969).WhenMichael has IV rzEditedby H.cit. cit.. op.P. p.. Georyiev. af.M. cit. op.1 a (Die bulgansdc bnd$ und.He thus accepted new the requests the archbishop of claimed that the neighbor mehopolitan seats John.. resultwas the establishment an archbishopric The of composed from seventeen bishoprics the areaof the former Bulgarian in patriarchate during the reignof Samuel3s..p.According to D.Thefirst edict(issued L019. s B.. 126. ]ahrhunde ('l0i&11i. of in perhaps 1018) in approved the requests.Larissaand Thessalonic) have been armexedformer Bulgarianterritories. to Theintegration the churchof of the new provinceParadunavon the archbishopric Bulgaria in of was a part of the wiseBulgarian policyof BasilII. 16 H. 40-57. It wasindeeda wisepolicy. Thethird edict(issued in 1020) archbishopric Ohridareceived too the of othertwo diocesesr.according the wish of John. in of of London0xford. p.725.

in It seems likely that all the territory conquered 1000-1004 organized a in was as Bingleadministrativeand religious unit. other than Dristra. are but it is specifiedthat this diocese has severalkasfra. p. of The bishop of Dristra had had the right to havein his service40 kterikoiand 40 paroikoi exempted from the land tax. of seat until its abolition 101g. 5-12. {oA.421438. op. " Ungoriei. We do not agreethe hypothesisro the bishopric of that Vidin belongedto the metropolitanseatof Drisha.. fohn with the GreekLeorythe Bulgarians According to the edict of May 1020. 2. We to it. Daconq Sur t'oryanicltiofl."194. op. r f.. of Like Dristra.Vidin was addedby the secondedict of May 1020.'12. P. :s E Popescu.Dristra was the single bishopricin the eastem part of the Paradunavon theme. mlder..enhrr!: Br*qtic q Ari@is..The bishopricof Axiopolis (attestedto the end of the of 1ltt' centurys)was most probable created later.p.Vidin was aftestedin 1020as a bishopricdependent Ohrida (Bodfv4q). Br&lafrca". C. 7998. Nrres 6ha ofl HisnryofDobwudja fu fin C. Foluga. Sar l'organisation. However.Some Budin timeagowe expressed our opinion about the chronologyoI the war betweenAchtum and King StephenI of Hungarylt. lv{adg€aru. continue sustain asfollows. a duke who ruled in the Banat. The bishopof Vidin had in his service40klerikoiand40 paroil<oi exernpted from the land hx. because Dristra will became a mehopolitanseatmuch morelately. 3 See Daconu. p.ihs in tle p DwRannt Floilcgiunsrdiorun..Alanndru Madgearu decidedto abrogatethe privilegesgrantedby BasilII and to replacethe Bulgarian archbishop revoltedagainsthim in 104@7. The western part of Paradunavonwas put under the jurisdiction of the bishopric of Vidiru inherited too also from the former Bulgarian pahiarchy.Accordingto Legenda Gerhardi. ttls sedrndum itum Graecorumciaitate in (Vidin). U1. There are no proofs for the existenceof other bishoprics in Dobrudja.Thesubordination Vidin b*ween 100L1020 of it is not certainly known.g\. p. p..It is moreprobablethat both seats Vidin and of Dristraweresuffragans themetropolitan of Tomis.p.It is a heavy reasonto consider that both dioceses belonged beforeto the sameshucture(theformer mehopolitanseatof Tomis).. . 8687. cit..ontibutiiprbind datarea conflictuluidintreducele gtefinI al bdndlean Ahtumg rcgete :14. 383-389. Gabor. No namesof parishes given in his case. Onisti4i. The bishopric of Vidin was involved in the christeningof Achtum. aslike ashis colleague from Dristra.while the westemareawassubiected the to bishopric Vidin. in the first two decades the 11thcentury.cif. princewas baptized St.when the town life developed in Paradunavon No dear proofs exist for a bishop at Carvtr4 not even hb (as supposed some researchers)3e.Bw:tqn.

in p. \4rhat reasons would havethe Byzantines supportan enemy to of their ally Stephen. Realitdietniceti V. when Stephen at Vidin helpedBasilII.ongr. the Byzantinearmy conqueredVidin in 1002. secolele I.The big problem is iust this: was indeed Achtum allied with the ByzantineEmpire?Things are not simple. Belgrad 1964. p.in the periodafter1025. because relationrecordedin the tenth chapterof Legenda the Major Sancti Geru ihas severalconfusionsand anachronisms. Orientalis".68. "Archivum o C. thereforein 1022 a striking Pecheneg invasionreachednot only the Byzantine territories front of the Banat Oltenia. Bucure$ti. not theHungarians. 128. As a consequence/ considerthat the war againstAchtum was possibleonly in the they period of decline of the Byzantinepower. whenbothfortresses belonged Hungary. 4&.This meansthat it is not possiblethe mastership AchtumoverVidin after1002. S dungom 10. R. ally who foughi against an Bulgaria together with BasilIIar? The virtual enemyof the Byzantine Empireat the Danube after1018werethe Pechenegs. On the other in and but hand. X-X 1985. were of By thesereasons consider we that the Byzantine Empirehad no interest to supportan enemyof Hungary.11. Ca piuire la istoical pArflor afidenein epoca E.hte Eroberung der Ochids durch liasileiu lI. A.lggl.ronism and cread by hansposing realities from the 13o-14n centuries. Spinei.Bucurel[ 1984. Cenad.ln Studii piaind istoiaArudului.A. Constantinescq p. 12&130. {3 S€eG. .(As a mafterof to fact.t lh€ Lower Danubebetween971rnd 1m0 Two points of view were expressed the date of the war: 1003-10M on or 1028-1034.However. Rominisi turonici.thePechenegs thehaditionalenemies theHungarians. 456-507. in Budapest. yearbefore One 1028 (whensome researchers datingthedefeat are of Achtum). qu Bucurelti. no fortsessexisted at Severin during the 10trL11tt' centuries).The ChurchOrganization. after 1025. n Actes XIk C. 4. Gmen staluluimediaalin Trunsibanio.Rominii9imaghisritn *colele I.as du Intemational d'Etudes Byantinu. suppose We instead that Achtum wasan ally of theBulgarian Samuel. on Euopae Cenho-1938. Gyd1fiy. tzar before 1002.p.laSi.For instance. p. 2. 3942 C. s P. dn Armonia lunrii.c-xlrard. Thisis an anach. alsoHungarf. Zur Ceschi. din Czntd. same The alliance remains also unlikely for 1002. Cluj-Napoca. Diacontt lrs Petchinigues Bas-Danube. Budapesl 4. Pop. lX-XlV. 149-154. &r$d. p. 1970. politice Moldooa in neidionald. 176-'117. which are distorting the chronologyand the contextof the events. WEn. Macfrtney. doubtful informationsaysthat Achtum owned a the forhesses Severin Vidin. .lnhthundert. 196. Some researchersrz supporting the later chronology becausethis are accords with the informationthat Achtum was allied with the "Greela". 1980. mostimporhnt objection of The concems the intemational relations.p. un Kriitor al aruiui lM. duutului lui lrhtun. lr:. Studies the Eo iestHutlgarianHistoricalSources. p. Gliick. No war existed I between Hungaryand the Byzantine Empirein 1002-1038 maximalinterval (the when the conflictwith Achtumcouldbe dated).

35.On the other side was Bulgaria."Starinal'.l16rmn. GoditnjakGradaBeognda".-NI. their opinion.G. cit. Budapest. 172. op. 1968. Bothintendedto take over the conhol over this area.lvlsr the region belongedto Bulgariao.eSeeM. p. fuimc for b bpttin dcSirniun-kftie nr XI etXIIt siids.p.2.4$4e" " + V. 1988.Kostolac) it had a greatimportance the and in 10th-13rh centuries4e.Although possible. fortercsss systinedefercif . B. I Two coalitions were formed in the Danubian area in 1000-1002.neitherbefore1002. . Beziehungen in den V-Xl latuhundotn.25. We support the earlier date around 1002for the war betweenAchtum and Stephen. In this conllict. when he was allied with Samueland when Vidin belongedto the Bulgarianpahiarchy of Ochrida. on the right bank of the Danube. the attackagainstAchtum wasjust an episode a greatercampaignled of by Stephen againstBulgariain 1002. Wasilewski. ibidtm. 1921. nor The extension the archbishopric Ochridain the Banatwas alsosusiained of of on the basisof anotherinformation lrom the fi$t edict of Basil II.191.1940. Berlin.p. Popovic.without ethnic traits. M. Gy'fiy. In the sameway.. the place of the duchy led by Achtum in the Banat was on the Bulgarian sideft.V.Bulgois&-ungarisdu p.ru Somehistoriansrs sustainindeedthat the relationfrom chapter10 oI kgenda Ma. 16 intend to write a particularstudyabouttheByzantineBulgarian-Hungarian We relations %91018.I. 152-'155.42.1'or containsa grave anachLronism. Onciul.most probablyhelpedby the Pechenegs.the iurisdiction of the seatof Vidin over the Banatis not proved. G. BucureSti. The agglessorswere the Byzantine Empire and Hungary (a young state whose expansional ambitionshaveiust began). 584585. in rzSee thisT. Scrieriisfonte. ftte forh€ss Bxanidevo was located in tte fonrer Romantown Viminacium(today. Popovic.. Iyanlsevic.7%4.125-179. I The attackagainstGlad (934)was the first part of a south-Danubian offensivedirectedtoward the Morava valley.GrcdBraniiew u srcdnjetn r.veen bishopricsof the Branidevq Belgradeand Sirmium all of them being deperrdentof fthrida The bishopricof Branidevo hherited Nlorava a bishop'ric foundedbdore 879. ungqris{hen Mittelolterc. the "Greeks" in fact the In are Bulgarians. whosenamewas replaced because former Bulgarianstatewas for a ihe long time a Byzantineterritory when the text was written (the end of the 11tt century). after. R\ry.the Set bistopric of Branidevo six parishe attesEdin tte edict. p.Les du byuntin enSeftiew N.149. C*sdti&tedcs p.vkx.39. Feh€r. From thee.The name"Greeks" was in this casea genericdesignation the eastern for monks. p. It follows that the date of the war betweenAchtum and Stephen should be placedaround1002.Episkopiskt xdnatau SrbijiodIX doXI ueko. The territory of the new theme Serbia/Sirmiumrz was divided in 1019betr. Popovic.Alct|ndtu M.l.dg. siicle.in front of the Banat. four were had o D. 16&169. p. NS.Achtum was baptized at Vidin before the Byzantineconquestof this Bulgariantown.1978.8.

.siidts.. 52 Gy6nr. Qrilii". Onecould observe that this town was recorded the sources. A See Nesbitt. . 167-168. Balcani. p.locatedat the mouth of the homonymous river.op. p. whosenameevolvedin other way.l. 77. 4546. 127-129. or Constantine Porphyrogenitus transmittedthe sameform of the rivels nameat the middle of the 10thcentury(Trpionq)s. 56 ConstantinePorphyrogenitus. Suciu.5.196. 195-196.40.tdapt.E GlrJcl" ri op.For the evolution of the name. $ N.. Temeq Tymesss. L.1967.rdiesin Byzantine m du Sigillography".R. Deili.m s C.[t is not known when the bishopric of Morava was moved to Branicevo. rtgion dtnubienne Sefuie. place Iarpud). 2225-2250. M byzantins Ia de J.This means that the name of the river was already hansformedfuom Tibisclsin Tinuq.who madea careful or M. 1.lL Le collection Musie Nationalde Relgndc.A\. I. Timigoara.P.1968. Byzantinefortification with an areaof 10 ha existedat Monva during the 116 century. N. . Bucure*i 1974.Di4ioncristoic al localitdlilor Trarsiloan Il. Muntean Caetdi tilvolo$a Ia obiectioul p..ctf. The location at Jupa-fibiscum was sustainedby many Hungarian and Romanianhistorianss3.p. RdI. D. 215tG. ad Bucule{ti.n Studiaindoeuropea Dacoromanos pertinentis.nd 10m id€ntifid in tle neighbourhoodof Branitevo:Moptiproro6(Morava/Moraviite)s. siicle. p.The ChurchOrganizationrt the Lower Danubeb€tw€eng7l . p. t)ibiskc was searcld sonewherenear the river Timig (Tibiscus). Si Rdl.Its sceoux L. lp6rc (Grocka) and Bpoddproxog (Brodskopolje).Studiidt hacotogz.127 cit. s It is the city of Morava. Oikonomides.34. MB..see D. C. 19ff.Gelzu.uyyuwas not identified.13.19. '1958. p. proposed location Cuvin. s L D. p. Dumbarton ed. Maksimovic. p. R. Muntean. N.cit. Doflmezte pripitonrc istorisMitropoliei to Banrtului.lg'. 1993. 151. Oaks. Byunlun andtlu Magpn. Popovic. 3. 29. p. B. Gy6ni.'nl.341w"1"1.based arguments will bepresented its at on that below. because wasan importanttown.1976.The sixth parish is The Bfororog Arpforcogst.Banafill Biuntul (&colele p." Retue d'HistoireCompar6e". studyof the edict. with the names Thcmes.1977. p. feudalismului.1980. . din ia. Tabula Peutingeiana "Tiaisa"-Timgwn.p.3941. Others believed that Dibiskos should be placed at Timi$oarasl. I. Gy6ni M. fini . fi2. Bim4. Gy6ni.op.Iambor. op.The name Dibiskos shouldbe linked with anotherplace.with some mistakes:prloit i is trarulated"parohi" = vicarsl). Elnunte biznntineinviolapopulalieiqulohtonadinBflnat$iTrunsilwniainxc.3.38. Suciu.p. "Cetcetii arheologice jud. 21 (the translation of the source.30.TimiSoara. 151-165. Theodorescu. S*kely.l*1. 5L H.. G. Riileanu. p.Contibulii documenkve pioind unele agudrirominEti din oestul " It b tnceputul AIfr'1. san Vdtddia.VII-X. oientaledans Hongie du XI.Con baSii problema In la mntinuitiii: castrul Titili .2.17 1980. on the placeof the Roman town Margum (today. u. 193. BucurEti.lv'f.cif.Moravaik. XOevtdpopoq(Smederevo/Semendria).|W. @tt)k-) 1.L'Eglise M.Occident tnctputuile cultuii medievole Ia rcminEti (scolek X-XIW.V.supposed thatDiblskos a nameinherited has from theancient Tibiscass2. Okonomides..DeAdninistrandoImperio. p.12. 1066. s. h Hongrie Btznce et Wzantino-rcumains.p. n. Suciu. 6. . C. Constantinescu. 26.M.1976p. MNI". Monografa MitropolieiBandullti.. since 12tt' this the century. Xl-X ). Tisa-Tl n$-Prahwa. Dubravica).1942 le 25.p.-"12"p. in since1212. vol.N. Ella! bs rapports RyzSl."Sh.4.aroq-Seoerin. Sluganschi. 7 ldem.43.

P. Dbiskostuvin was tlmefore a parish from the bishop'ricof Branidevo.Bona.dcearu More suitableseems be the locationat Jupa-Tibiscum. We previouslyadmittedse locationof Dibiskos Jupaasit wassustained the at in thosestudiesmentioned above. S[M.1%6..from ko "stone"). @ Gy6ni. .Cnransebe.35U370. most the importantRomarrian in centre the mediaeval Banat(aflourishingtown during the 140' Placed the crossing two roadsihat reached south-Danubian cmtury)s7. The locationof Dibiskosat |upa seems morelikely than at Timigoara.See p. e A-MadBeaN. Gumtr. 9i (Confibufii islorice).oarawould be hinderedby the marshyzonethat existedbeforethe Modem Ages southwardsof Timiqoara.the archaeological researches brought anyproofsfor the locationof this chuch cenheat Jupas.A Greekchronicle from 1519 recorded has a placeMmed Timbisko.nl. of It seems that Timbisko anothernamefor Cuvin. One could observethat all the parishesof this bishopricare locatedinto a small area. 33. Branidevoffoueer.II. 28. the relationsof the Hungarian-Ottoman n wars of 1439and 1t[43. Groza. 40. L' Eglise. a namereplacedby the was Hungarian official name Cuain ((tewe. alsoldem.in lstoria milits a poporulti roruir. p.N. 4164u. not toward the Danube)..196. 10.Seealso P. Bucureqti. Gy6ni.p.M. $ Seenow A. Studii de politici de apirare Si istorie militad".a carefulinquiry showsthat the mostprobable In solutionwasthat firct givenby M. Decrye situatid geopolilcia Banatului ycolele in IV-X . 4.Al€xandruM. p. Gy6ni haslocatedDibiskosat Cuvin. fact.L.. at of the area Caransebeg not very far from is @y Cema valley and by the basin Carag-Ezeriq). Timigoarawas oriented toward the Muregvalley. deani dr atestarc (cnbibugii 700 docltnmtard naffig aflce). p. Atd$. v R. (We should remark that a comrumicationBranidevo Timi. Fromthe contextresultsthat Timbiskowaslocated somewhere the lelt bank on (Smederovo). of the Danube. M. Cuvin is locatedwithin this area.Contribafi. VeziC. 25). Popa. Bona. "Anuar. This is the nameof the islandbetweenCuvin and Palankaeo.Bucuresti. However. They are clearly showingthat the hoops of the Hungarianking Vladislavwerecalledup at Cuvin beforethecrossing theDanubdl. to This suppositionwas not argued.'l99lJ.197. Murqan.1989. ISPAM. 158 (where I acc€pd the locationat Cuvin).. Jupais located nearCaransebeg.He observed the nameTazes that survivesuntil now at Cuvin.vis-d-visof Semendria Basedon this information. Ia Xn-nV. p. it is rrue rear than Timitoara. 61 p. Cercetii orheologice bisuicanedinali de la Arbunai-trgdnqti (sec. (who supposes Dibiskoswasjust at Cannsebeg 1989 that p. can We add here that this idea is supportedby comparisonwith other relations of the campaignof lt{tL}. Canrtsebet.arunsebqdistictul sdurcmLnesc secolele ifl X-XIV. AMN. The name Timbislo disappeared afterthe 16scentury. 4649.C.althoughsomefactscansupportit. C-ormsebe$ CaransebeS. I.

p. Geneza a)oluliaaoiepodatului bindlean xcolul al X-lu.A propw da relations ecclesitstiques Blunce et Ia Hongy''e N" siicle:It entre au metrcpolite Turquie. 9. is muchmoreprobable the It that eastemChristianswho lived in the Banatin 1020were the flock of the metroDolitan bishop Tourkia.N. SN. Csntibutii la istotiaTransihaniei lJngaieiin xcolvl al ti 'l-2. N.of Greek (asu{fragane the Constantinopolitan of rite of patriarchy and not of the archbishopric oI Ochrida).ru. Marlei I Comnetus.in the mid 10tn century. 1.1. p.If one suppose all of that Achtum reigned in the Banatalter 1020(a fact which we deny). this would mean that his duchy was religiously integratedin the ByzantineEmpire and that the dependent peasants from Dibiskos paid taxes the archbishop Ochrida.p.S.Bucuref0 1998. J.1998. Constantinesc\.inceputuilea ei medimale op.. epkapului Hierofluos. to the parishof Dbiskm betonged the Bulgariandiocese Branidevgat the end of the to of 10o century and in the first years of the 1lth century. cit. 35. 6 A. Gliidt op. "19816.The diocese Tourkiafounded by Hierotheosin this of areasurvived for a certainperiod and later acquiredthe metropolitanrank. of the nost diocese one important mediaeval citiesin southem Hungarya. Stepheruon.ctt.The ChurchOrganiz:tion. 4344.p. of 1152-1167. Oikonomides.. Oikonomides.Misianeo. Ior of Even the existenceof a kind of Byzantine paroikoi in the 11th century Banat is aE. . We have been already shown into another study that the tenitory of the Hungarian chieftainbaptized at Constantinople 953was locatedin this areabetweenTis4 in the Crig rivers and Mureq6. 57.In this case.Heitel.nube between97l rnd 1020 We would like to rernind that the edict of Basil II conffumeda previous situatiorLwhich is said to be contemporary the reign of Samuel. was a participani at the patriarchalconcilium of 1028. de RESEE. 527-530. ldem. This mehopolitan seat inherited the older bishopricfounded by Hierotheos.the existence this parish is not of of insidethe Banat.'147-754. 5. Because Cuvin is only a bridgeheadin front of Smederevo and Morava. He was synkellos proedros Tourkia. Byz$. X-ka RI. Mocte4 Pecica.124125. Sdvdniru Miniq.t the lrwer D.R. din ti SMM. Szitreg)62 under the careof the was mehopolitan bishopric Tourkia. p. Madgearu.. op.the seatof this metropolitan was set at BAca. ableto prove the extension this diocese On the other han4 it is more probablethat the Banat(or at leastits northem part. 35. 203-204. In the mid 12tt and of century. PAncota. of The historiars who admittedthe extension the archbishopric Ochridain of of the Banatdid not analyzed the consequences this idea. Nesbitt. cir. p. P. Hungarian the Cmtn andthe"t'cudol subjection" Hungary. Joh& a metropolitanbishop of Tourkia. in bninul inferioral Murq !fui (tezi de doctolat). p.. 103.It is also known the lead seal of another metropolitanbishop of Tourki4 Antonios (11s century). t 194. 1971. where severalorthodox churchesfrom the 11th-12th centuriesare known at Cenad. 16. 3.

of of A last remark concerns disparity in the numberof bishopricsbetweenthe the cental and southemparts of the archbishopric Ochrida. the Banat.83. they established bridgeheadat Cuvin55..Idem. 757 p.. pe{rovic.1&730. p.452.at Recidivaand in Litterata(bothwerelocatedeastof Cuvin). P.p. This large Church organizationsEucture was establishedinside the boundaries the former Bulgarianstateand only there. of By this reasonswe consider that Dibiskos (Cuvin) was under Byzantine domination in 1020.. L'orgmixticl. The Romansacted into a similar way. Daw des de 2). the Utshopric Dristsawas raisedat the meEopolitan of rank in view to a betterecclesiastic administationof theprovince Paradunavone. Budapest AMN: "Acta MuseiNapocensis". the raising of the dioceseof Drisha at the mehopolitan rank suggests progress the urbanizationin Dobrudiain the northem Bulgaria. .by p. was Aroundthemiddleof the11t'century. 65 Diaconu.Aler. a of {BBREVIATIONS: AH: "Acta HistoricaAcademiae Scientiarum Hungaricae".Contibutions tlu Study theRomnLimes South to of in Banat. shows otherreorganizationsthebishoprics made thesame that of were in period.Nothing surprising because Hungary was still iveak in this zone. Belgrade 19%. of Thesmallnumberof bishoprics the themes in Paradunavon Serbia and was due to a lessurbanizatioryin comparison with the southemregionsof the BalkanPeninsula.and its northem area. anything provesthat the archbishopric Ohrida was extendedin of the Banat. Cluj-Napoca " ByzSL Byzantinoslavica". Wecanconclude thenew Churchorganization that achieved BasilII led to the by integrationof all the territodesconquered the Lower Danubeinto a single great at archbishopric which had approxtnatelythe maximalboundaries the first Bulgarian of tsardom.Monogaphies ed.Poirts. haga o M DEcdtevic.ndruMrdtearu unthinkable. From this point of view. Lower be(Cahiers Portes Fer. is a It interestingto observethat alsothe archbishopric Justiniana of Prima had in the 6h centurysomeparisheson the left bar <of the Danube..P C*orgiev. Sw p. I'orgo:nivtion.. Rtntn Linus frv n on Midle and.All the socialand ecclesiastic that we canfind out from the edicts data issuedby BasilII aretypical only for the Byzantine milieu.The Byzantine authoritieshad insteadthe interestto ensurethe defence the of fortressesMorava and Branidevq especiallytheir connectionto the north. $is way. Therefore.. Thisorganization not practical....theParadunavon In themewas removed from theiurisdiction thearchbishopric Ochrida..

Bucuregti SMIM: Bucue$ti ST:"Studiiteologice". "Zbomik Radova Instituta". L.Th€Chul.t th.Mtinchen "fiudes Balkaniques".tion . Bucure$ti de "Revue Etudes des Sud-Est Euop6ennes". Bucuregti RI: de SCIVA:"Studii qi cercetari istorievechegi arheologie".h Orgriiz. RdI: " Revista istorie". Bucuretti EBP: Etudes Wzantinis "Jahbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik". Sofia EB: etposFbyzantires.Wien JOB: Timitoara MB:"MitropoliaBanatului". Vizantololkog Belgad ZRVI: . Bucue$ti RESEE: "Revistaistorici".owcr Dr[sb.cn 97l . Hw.nd lom 65 BZ:" Bvzantinische ZeitschriJt".Bucuregti "Studii qi materialede istoriemedie".