PECHENEG CHIEFTAINS IN THE BYZANTINE

ADMINISTRATION IN THE THEME OF PARISTRION IN

THE ELEVENTH CENTURY

Teodora Krumova

Introduction

The aim of this contribution is to shed light on the situation on the Lower
Danube at the time of the mass arrival of the Pechenegs in the eleventh century.
This article will not follow all the changes the group or groups of Pechenegs
underwent upon their settlement in the theme of Paristrion,1 since this is a part
of a larger work.2 It will, however, attempt to follow those transformations that
led to a shift or change in their identity and the way these changes were reflected
in the political participation of Pechenegs in the Byzantine theme of Paristrion.
The shift in identity will be discussed in the context of a frontier situation: Was
it integration, assimilation or transformation? The approach towards these
questions will be based on archaeological evidence backed by written sources.
In order to build an objective picture of the situation on the Lower
Danube, the article will try to find answers to two sets of questions. First, how
did these people perceive themselves? How did they act in regard to their own
people and in regard to other ethnic groups? Second, how did the Byzantine
administration perceive these people and their chieftains? Or, in other words,
was the prevailing concept “we among the Others” or “the Others among us?”

Background Information

At the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century, political
changes in the Balkans led to a serious re-making of the political map. The

1
A debate in the scholarship was initiated in the 1970s concerning both the time and
place of establishing the new theme. For more information see: Vassilka Tâpkova-
Zaimova, Dolen Dunav – granichna zona na vizantijskia zapad (The lower Danube: A
frontier zone of the Byzantine west) (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Balgarskata Akademiana
Naukite (hereafter: BAN), 1976), 34–70 (hereafter Tâpkova-Zaimova, Dolen Dunav).
2
My doctoral dissertation project on “The Migration of the Pechenegs and Distribution
of Stylistic Elements in their Fine Metalwork” (to be defended at Central European
University, Budapest).

207
Teodora Krumova

changes were marked by the end of the independent Bulgarian state under the
power of the Byzantine Empire and numerous raids by different nomadic tribes.
Consequently, at the end of the tenth century the Byzantine administrative
system was established and developed in the former Bulgarian lands. The theme
of Paristrion was established between the Balkan Mountains, the Black Sea and
the Danube (Fig. 1). Because Paristrion was a frontier zone for the Byzantine
Empire, it soon turned into a territory with weak administrative power left to
the mercy of the nomadic newcomers. This also led to serious demographic
changes: the inner parts of Dobrudzha were depopulated and abandoned. The
local population that survived the invasions preferred to emigrate to better-
defended territories such as the Balkan Mountains and the fortresses along the
Danube and the sea coast.
The Pecheneg raids in Misia (Paristrion) started in the 1020s. Scyilitzes-
Cedrenus and Zonaras describe a Pecheneg mass invasion in 1026 (or 1027),
directed towards the western Bulgarian lands, which largely depopulated these
parts of the new Byzantine provinces. In 1034 the Pechenegs reached
Thessalonica; the next year they devastated the theme of Macedonia. Three
more raids were registered in the following year (1036) alone, when probably
one of the victims was the island of Păcuiul lui Soare.3
One can imagine the dimensions of the Pecheneg invasion based on coin-
dated fires in Capidava, Dinogetia, Skala, Odartzi, Drastar, and so on.4 This was
the time when all the fortified settlements in the inner parts of Dobrudzha and
northeastern Bulgaria were abandoned. Some of the fortresses along the
Danube had a similar fate, the dating also supported by coin distribution. The
latest coins found in those territories are anonymous Byzantine follises class A-2
(978–1030/35) and class B (1030/35–1042),5 which means that life in these

3 Tâpkova-Zaimova, Dolen Dunav; Georgii Cedrini Compendium Historiarum, 2 vols.,

Patrologia Graeca 121 (1864), 49813–48810, II, 5122-4, II, 51417–5155, in Gratzki izvori za
balgarskata istoria (hereafter GIBI) (Greek sources for Bulgarian history) 7 (Sofia: BAN,
1965), 299–300; Th. Buttner-Wobst, Joannis Zonarae Epitome historiarum libri XIII – XVIII,
Corp. Bonn, 1897, 5719–5722, 58911–5908, GIBI 6, 190–191.
4 Georgi Atanasov, “Etnodemografski promeni v Dobrudzha (Х–ХІV v.)” (Ethno-

demographic changes in Dobrudzha from the tenth to the fourteenth century),

Istoricheski pregled 2 (1991): 79–80 (hereafter Atanasov, “Etnodemografski promeni”).
5
The appearance of the anonymous Byzantine follises is connected with the reign of
John I Zimisces, when the first coins of this type were minted. The major characteristics
of the type are that neither the depiction nor the name of the sovereign are given.
Instead, they are replaced by the bust of Christ giving a blessing (in later versions the
Mother of God replaces Christ). Alexius I Comnenus is the last emperor who cast
anonymous follises in the period before monetary reform (1092). In the theme of

208
 Pecheneg Chieftains in the Byzantine Administration

fortresses ceased at the very beginning of distribution of follises class B, in the

early 1040s.6 At the same time, the fortified settlements along the Danube and
the Black Sea coast did not share the same fate and continued to exist.7

Fig. 1. Map of the Byzantine theme of Paristrion in the eleventh century

(after Atanasov, “De nouveau pour la date initiale”, map 2).

Paristrion the nomadic invasions are usually connected with the distribution of follises
from classes A (976–1028), B (1030/1035–1042), and C (1042–1050). For additional
information on the distribution of follises see Georgi Atanasov, “De nouveau pour la
date initiale de folles Byzantins anonymes classe ‘B’,” in Numizmatichni i sfragistichni prinosi
kam istoriyata na zapadnoto Chernomorie (Numismatic and sphragistic contributions to the
history of the Western Black Sea coast) Acta Musei Varnaensis 2 (2004), 289–298.
6 Georgi Atanasov, “Nov pogled kam demografskite y etnokulturnite promeni v

Dobrudza prez srednovekovieto” (A new look at the demographic and ethnocultural

changes in Dobrudzha during the Middle Ages), Izsledvania v chest na chl.-korespondent
professor Strashimir Dimitrov (Studies in honour of Professor Strashimir Dimitrov), (Sofia:
Akademichno izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov,” 2001), 185–214.
7
Atanasov, “Etnodemografski promeni,” 80.

209
Teodora Krumova

Kegen, the “Archon” of the Pechenegs in Paristrion

The nomadic raids were accompanied by the steady settlement of nomadic

groups. This is the case of Kegen, one of the Pecheneg chieftains. Kegen and
his 20,000 people (according to Cedrenus) appeared under the walls of Drastar
asking for Byzantine citizenship.8 He insisted on becoming a Byzantine
“foederatus.” As a result, following the traditional Byzantine policy towards
barbarian newcomers, Kegen was baptized and awarded the title of patrikios (εις
πατρικιότητά τε ’ανήχθη). In addition, he received three fortresses along the
Danube (φρούρια τρία).9 In this case the written sources are supported by
archaeological data: a lead seal of Kegen (Fig. 2) found a decade ago shows the
assignment of his new position.10 The seal was found in Silistra and its reading
and interpretation have been facilitated by a similar find from a private
collection in Germany. On the front side one can see a depiction of John the
Baptist holding a cross in his left hand and giving a blessing with his right. The
inscription on the reverse side says:
+ Κ(ύρι)ε β(οÂ)[θ(ει)] ’Ιω(άννη) µαγίστρ(ω) (καί) àρχ(ο)ντ(ι)
Πατζ(ι)νακία(ς) τω Κ(ε)γέν(η).
“God, help John Kegen, Magistros and Archon of Pechenegia”

Fig. 2. The seal of Kegen, “Magistros and Archon of Pechenegia”

(after Yordanov, “Pechati na Yoan Kegen”)

8
Georgii Cedrini Compendium Historiarum, 58120 – 5906 –GIBI 6, 312–313.
9
Georgii Cedrini Compendium Historiarum, 58120 – 5906 –GIBI 6, 313.
10
Plamen Pavlov, Buntari i avantyuristi v Srednovekovna Bulgaria (Rebels and adventurers in
medieval Bulgaria) (Veliko Turnovo: IPK “Sv. Patriarh Evtimij Patriarh Turnovski,”
2000), 138–139; Ivan Yordanov, “Pechati na Yoan Kegen, magistar i arhont na
Pechenegia (1050–1051)” (Seals of John Kegen, Magistros and the Archon of
Pechenegia (1050–1051),” Numizmatika i sfragistika 1 (1998): 96–101.

210
 Pecheneg Chieftains in the Byzantine Administration

One has to bear in mind a discrepancy in the title of the Pecheneg chieftain in
the written sources and on the seal. While in Scylitzes-Cedrenus he is called
patrikios, the seal clearly states that he is magistros and archon. If he was really
assigned the latter title, it means that he was provided with autonomous power
over his fellows settled in the territory of the empire.11
What was his place, however, within the Byzantine administrative system?
Did he turn into a loyal imperial citizen or was assigning the aristocratic title
only a temporary solution to a pending problem? At the same time other
questions can be posed: What was the attitude of the surrounding population?
What was the attitude of his fellows? Answers to these questions are presented
below, after a brief survey of the characteristics of the population that inhabited
the region where Kegen settled.
Regarding the events of that time, one must also consider the role of
another person, Kegen’s rival, Tirah. Tirah was the supreme chieftain (’άρχων)12
(whatever that meant at that time) of the eleven Pecheneg clans that were left in
the steppes of “Pechenegia.” In the winter of 1048–1049 (or 1046–1047),13
Tirah followed Kegen in quest of new lands for his people. The former took
advantage of the frozen Danube, crossed the river and tried to settle to the
south of it, fighting Kegen. The behaviour of the Byzantine authorities in this
case shows that in spite of the situation in the frontier zone, Kegen was
accepted as an imperial subject and received support as such. Byzantine troops
from eastern Thrace were sent to help him. As a result, Tirah was defeated and
his people14 resettled in the area of Sofia, Nish, and Ovche Polje.

11
Yordanov, “Pechati na Yoan Kegen,” 100.
12
Joannis Zonarae Epitome historiarum libri..., 6414 – 64412, GIBI 7, 197.
13
The dating of the invasion of Tirah’s Pechenegs is based on the letter written by
Michael Psellus in the name of Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus addressed to
Kegen (Κ. Σάθας, ‘Ιστορικοί λόγοι,’επιστολαί καί άλλα ’ανέκδοτα, Μεσαιωνική
βιβλιοθήκη, V, ’εν Βενετία, 1876). Vassilka Tâpkova-Zaimova, Ivan Dujchev and other
Bulgarian scholars date it to 1048 (see translation and comments in GIBI 6, 122–123).
At the same time, Kazhdan refers to the year 1047 and dates Tirah’s invasion to 1046
(see A. Kazhdan, “Ioan Mavropod, pechenegi i russkie v seredine 11 veka” (John
Mauropod, Pechenegs and Rus in the middle of the eleventh century) Zbornik radova
Srpske akademije nauke, Vizantoloshki institute 8, no.1 (1963), 181. I will not go into
details in this discussion since it is not relevant for the content of the article.
14
According to Scylitzes, Tirah’s Pechenegs numbered 800,000 people. This, however, is
probably an overestimate, as is the case later with the Ghuzz. They numbered 600,000
according to Attaleiata (Michaelis Attaliotae Historia, ed. Bonn, 832 – 903, in GIBI 6, 175–
176, but this was corrected to 60,000 by the twelfth-century historian Zonaras (Joannis
Zonarae Epitome historiarum libri..., 7131 – 7142, GIBI 7, 200). In any case, the territory of

211
Teodora Krumova

The Byzantine power had no other choice to cope with the new Pecheneg
threat but to make it part of the system; thus, the empire’s tried and true
“ethnic” strategy was applied again. 140 Pecheneg chieftains, led by Tirah
himself, were taken to Constantinople and baptized there. They received
aristocratic titles and a place in the administrative system of Paristrion. If one
can rely on the reading of a lead seal found in Vetren, in the Silistra region,
Tirah received the high military dignity of protospatharios.15
To sum up the situation, a system similar to the former stratiotes system was
established in the frontier zone of Paristrion.16 The Pecheneg chieftains received
places within the administration of the theme, preserving their independence to
a great extent. In addition, their autonomy within the tribal groups was
preserved. These people were defenders of the borders, but only to the point
when this coincided with their own interests. This can be clearly observed in
several events from the history of the eleventh century and shows the weakness
of Byzantine power in the region. Moreover, non-Byzantine elements (including
nomads) managed to penetrate even the higher ranks of the military hierarchy.
The names of Kegen, Tirah, Selte, and so on are often mentioned in the sources
when problems arose in the theme of Paristrion. Yet, at the first sign of trouble
the support of the Pecheneg chieftains was sought against their fellows. This
creates the impression that Byzantine power alone was unable to deal with the
situation in its Danubian borderland. At the same time, the position of the same
Pecheneg chieftains was never consistent; from Byzantine allies at the beginning
of an event they often ended as the emperor’s major enemy. This is another sign
of the regression of Byzantine power in the region, as was the “turkization” of
the eastern acrites regions where Byzantine power also gradually weakened.17
At the time of the arrival, movement, and settling of the nomads, dynamic
interactions took place between the local people and the newcomers. This
resulted in the appearance of a new group of people defined in Byzantine

the northeastern Bulgarian lands was threatened by a serious demographic blow that
could have changed not only the character of the local population but the political
situation as well.
15
Georgi Atanasov, I. Yordanov, Srednovekovniyat Vetren na Dunav (Medieval Vetren on
the Danube) (Shumen: Izdatelska Kasta “Slavcho Nikolov i sie,” 1994), 41, 63, table
XIII-118. The seal is only partially preserved and only the last two letters of the name
can be read: AX or HX. The reading of the inscription provided by the authors is:
[+Κ(ύρι)ε β(οή)θ(ει) Τυ]ράχ Τουτ]άχ (πρωτο)σπαθ(αρίω) κ(αί) επ[άρχω].
16
Petar Mutafchiev, “Etnografski promeni po Dolni Dunav prez XI vek”
(Ethnographic changes on the Lower Danube in the eleventh century), in Silistra and
Dobrudzha, (Sofia, 1947), 103–105; Tâpkova-Zaimova, Dolen Dunav, 89.
17
Tâpkova-Zaimova, Dolen Dunav, 89

212
 Pecheneg Chieftains in the Byzantine Administration

sources as the µιξοβάρβαροι, (mixobarbarians, semi-barbarians). The written

sources do not provide information about the demographic situation in the
theme of Paristrion at the end of the tenth and beginning of the eleventh
century and the way the mixobarbarians appeared because there was no strong
administrative power in this region to register these processes. Archaeological
evidence from the eleventh century, however, allows us to draw some
conclusions about the development of this group of people and the changes the
Pechenegs underwent after settling on the Lower Danube, including their
interaction with the local population and their contribution to the local political
power. The gradual mixing of the local and new populations resulted in the
creation of new administrative structures, which is registered by a number of
seals and the appearance of new numismatic types: the anonymous follises class
A and B.

The Mixobarbarians

In the eleventh century (usually dated around the time of the riot of Nestor in
1074), Byzantine authors already speak of the population in the theme of
Paristrion as a group of people not belonging completely to the “civilized
Byzantine population.” They use the term mixobarbarian as a terminus technicus.18
At the same time, they mention the mixobarbarians in the towns as people
possessing the characteristics of a settled population. The ethnic characteristics
of this mixed population have already been discussed extensively in the literature
by E. Stanescu, Vassilka Tâpkova-Zaimova and others.19 However, some obser-
vations can be added to the existing picture. Although nominally the territory
belonged to the Byzantine Empire, situated on its fringe, the Byzantine ad-
ministration and authors never referred to these people as integral parts of the
empire’s population. The term βάρβαροι indicates that they persisted in being
different from the core of the Byzantine population: different in language and
modus vivendi, conveying cultural dissimilarities. In his Historia Michael Attaleiata
points out that “the Scythians brought the Scythian way of life” (Σκύθαι τό

18
Michaelis Attaliotae…, 204, GIBI 6, 183.
19
Tâpkova-Zaimova, Dolen Dunav, 71–96, E. Stănescu, “Les ‘mixobarbares’ du Bas-
Danube au XIe siècle,” in Nouvelles Etudes d’Histoire publièes a l’occasion du XIIe Congrès des
Sciences Historiques, (Bucharest, 1965), 45–53; Hélène Ahrweiler, “Byzantine Concepts of
the Foreigner: The Case of the Nomads,” in Studies of Internal Diaspora of the Byzantine
Empire, ed. Hélène Ahrweiler and Angeliki E. Laiou Washington DC: Dumbarton
Oaks,1998 (hereafter Ahrweiler, “Byzantine Concepts”).

213
Teodora Krumova

πρότερον τόν Σκυθικόν ’επιφέρουσι βίον).20 The consistent use of the term
µιχοβάρβαροι for the population of Paristrion shows that the Byzantine
administration admitted its failure to cope with the existence and penetration of
new (different) political ideas and institutions. A clue to this conclusion is the
fact that Byzantine authors did not use foederati for the Pechenegs although they
came and were resettled as such. Instead, the nomads were soon “melted” into
the general term µιχοβάρβαροι. The Pechenegs were only called foederati at the
beginning, when they were assigned this position within the military and admin-
istrative system of the empire, but they soon became only the µιχοβάρβαροι since
they failed to become true socii populi Romani. Moreover, Obolensky points that
“this term applied equally to Byzantine citizens who were forgetting their
civilized habits and becoming contaminated by contact with true ‘barbarians,’ and
to foreigners who had gone some way towards absorbing Greek civilization.”21
Doubtless, the “mixed” part of µιξοβάρβαροι was former nomads who had
settled and already changed their way of life. Pecheneg traces can be detected in
this mixed population in the archaeological evidence. This is seen not just in the
so-called “nomadic” pottery (clay cauldrons which can hardly be regarded as
simply Pecheneg), but also other objects found in settlements and cemeteries,
slight changes in burial rites and grave goods, types of weapons, the distribution
of coins, and so forth.
Several examples may serve to illustrate the material culture of the
mixobarbarians. Charcoal was found covering the skeletons in graves No. 121,
123, and 278 in the cemetery of Odartzi (northeast Bulgaria). Placing charcoal or
lime in the graves was a typical feature of nomadic (Pecheneg) burial rites in the
south Russian steppe regions. Two other graves from the same cemetery (No. 1
and 495) were marked by small stones. The burial rite of the cemetery bears
Christian characteristics,22 but with numerous deviations: trephinated skulls,
bodies under stone slabs, stones framing the grave pit, charcoal all over some
skeletons, and so on.23 The excavator, Doncheva-Petkova, defines the popu-

20
Michaelis Attaliotae Historia, 2011 – 21023, GIBI 6, 183.
21
D. Obolensky, “The Byzantine Frontier Zone and Cultural Exchanges,” in D.
Obolensky, The Byzantine Inheritance of Eastern Europe. Variourum Reprints (London:
Ashgate, 1982), Vol. 1, 310.
22
This is also the opinion of the excavators.
23
L. Doncheva-Petkova, “Srednovekoven nekropol pri s. Odartzi” (A medieval
necropolis near the village of Odartsi), Dobrudzha 10 (1993), 134–144; L. Doncheva-
Petkova, “Adornments from an Eleventh-Century Pechenegs’ Necropolis by Odartsi
Village, Dobrich District (North-Eastern Bulgaria),” Archeologia Bulgarica 2, no. 3 (1998):
126–138, as well as personal communication from the excavator.

214
 Pecheneg Chieftains in the Byzantine Administration

lation of the cemetery as one “converted to Christianity not long before their
burials ... still keeping the old burial practices tenaciously,” and infers its
Pecheneg ethnic identification.24

Fig. 3. Pliska, the cemetery in front of the Eastern Gate

(figure provided by the excavator Yanko Dimitrov)
The situations in the cemetery in front of the Eastern Gate of Pliska and
around the church of Mostich (Preslav) are similar. In Pliska the graves are
situated around a church from the end of the tenth to the eleventh century.
Some of them were contemporaneous with the church, but a great number of
them were made after it was destroyed, using its building material for the grave
constructions. Remnants of pagan behavior can be suggested in the basic
Christian rite of the people buried in this cemetery: the contracted or semi-
contracted positions of the skeletons, brick or stone chambers, deliberately
damaged skeletons, and so on (Fig 3). Although the excavator, Yanko Dimitrov,
does not state any firm ethnic interpretation of the cemetery, he points out
analogies for these deviations in the necropolis of Odartzi.25 Moreover, the data

24
Doncheva-Petkova, “Adornments,” 136.
25
Yanko Dimitrov, “Tsarkva i nekropol vav Vanshnia grad na Pliska (kraia na 10–11
vek)” (A church and a cemetery in the External City of Pliska), Pliska – Preslav, vol. 7
(Shumen: Arheologicheski Institut s Muzej, Filial Shumen, 1995), 45.

215
Teodora Krumova

from coins show that the church ceased to be used between 1030/35 and
1040/42, during the first wave of a Pecheneg mass invasion.26 The forty graves
of the cemetery were dug into a layer formed by the destroyed city wall. The
necropolis is dated to the eleventh century, when Pliska was devastated by the
Pechenegs.27
The necropolis in Preslav consists of twenty graves,28 fifteen of them
found east of the church. Stones, bricks, and spolia from the church surrounded
some of the grave pits. The graves destroyed three buildings from the eleventh
century. The burial rite is similar to Christian rites, although bridle bosses
(originally used on horse harness)29 were found around the skull of a child in
grave No. 7 (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Objects from the cemetery in front of the Eastern Gate of Pliska
(after Dimitrov, “Tsarkva i nekropol vav”)
The picture from the settlements and the fortresses of Paristrion is similar.
A new population inhabited the fortress of Skala in the last stage of its existence.
This last stage is marked by traces of fire and changes in the material culture

26
Dimitrov, “Tsarkva i nekropol,” 51.
27
Vera Antonova and Stoyan Vitlianov, “Pliska. Zapadna krepostna stena – sektor Sever
(Arheologicheski razkopki 1973–1975)” (Pliska. The western fortification wall – north
sector: Archaeological excavations from 1973 to 1975), Pliska – Preslav, vol. 4 (Sofia:
Izdatelstvo na BAN, 1983), 65–67.
28
I thank Prof. Kazimir Popkonstantinov (SS Cyril and Methodius University of Veliko
Turnovo) for providing me with information about this necropolis.
29
For additional information on the usage of bridle bosses see Teodora Krumova,
“Secondary Usage of Pecheneg Bridle-Bosses as Dress Decoration,” Archaeologia
Bulgarica 3 (2001): 65–70.

216
 Pecheneg Chieftains in the Byzantine Administration

previously typical for the settlement.30 Doncheva-

Petkova infers that the settlement of Odartzi was
devastated by the Pechenegs between 1032 and 1036,
and supports this with the data from the excavations:
traces of a great fire, coins, and fatal trauma on some
of the buried skeletons. In addition, she states that the
Pechenegs were next to inhabit the settlement.31 This
statement is supported by data from another site: the
village of Stan (Novi Pazar region, northeastern
Bulgaria). This is approximately the place where a
strap-end (a stray find) (Fig. 5) was found that can be
related to the Pechenegs. The composition on the
surface of the strap-end, organized in rhombic figures
connected to each other, is dominated by the
longitudinal axis. A typical feature of the decoration of
the object that relates it to Pecheneg material culture is
the combination of an interlaced design and a ribbed
Fig. 5. The strap-end background. The same feature can also be seen on
from Stan objects from bridle sets from Sarayly Kiyat, Novo
Kamenka, and Kalanchak. Preliminary research in the
area registered a cultural layer from the tenth and eleventh century with contexts
similar to those at Skala. Several pits with traces of fire were found, which
points to the existence of a settlement there, destroyed at the beginning of the
eleventh century.32
If, in the middle and the second half of the eleventh century, these former
nomads were already settled and on such good terms with the local population
that they could form an integral part of it, this means that they belonged to the

30
Georgi Atanasov and Ivan Yordanov, Srednovekovnia Vetren na Dunav (Medieval Vetren
on the Danube) (Shumen: Slavcho Nikolov i sie, 1994); Valery Yotov and Georgi
Atanasov, Skala, krepost ot 10 – 11 vek do selo Kladentsi (Skala, a fortress from the tenth
and eleventh centuries near the village of Kladentzi) (Sofia: Pensoft, 1998), 37–45, 54.
31
L. Doncheva-Petkova, Lazar Ninov, and Veselin Parushev, Odartsi: Seliste ot Parvoto
balgarsko tsarstvo (Odartsi: A settlement from the First Bulgarian Kingdom), Vol. 1 (Sofia:
Akademichno izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov”, 1999), 139–140.
32
The preliminary field research was carried out in 1986 by Todor Balabanov (National
Archaeological and Historical Reserve, Preslav) and Georgi Atanasov (Regional Museum
of History, Shumen). Besides the traces of pits they registered material that can be
related to the Late Nomads and dated to the beginning of the eleventh century.
Probably the strap end from Stan is also connected to this settlement in some way. The
excavations have not been published to date.

217
Teodora Krumova

first waves of the Pecheneg invasions or to the sporadic raids to the south of the
Danube in the tenth century. Of course, it is likely that other nomadic tribes
also contributed to the mixed character of the semi-barbarians, but it is beyond
doubt that the Pechenegs were the prevailing group and the facts mentioned
above support this statement.

Tatush and the Mixobarbarians’ Political Power in the Theme of

Paristrion

In 1072, when the Danubian frontier (acrite) population rose against the official
Byzantine power, the Byzantine chronicler Michael Attaleiata mentions that “the
local people paid little or no attention to the Roman Basileus and surrendered
the power over the fortress (Drastar) into the hands of their chieftain Tatush.”33
Tatush (Tatos) or Hallis is rather a curious personality. He appeared on the
political scene in connection with the riot of Nestor in Drastar. The written
sources do not point out an explicit connection of Tatush with the Pechenegs.
He is described merely as belonging to the local mixobarbarians. Moreover, he
is distinguished from the rest of the Pechenegs who resettled in the 1050s.
Barthold has noted that in Central Asia the term “tat” was used to define
“people of settled culture.” Moreover, he is called also by the name of Hallis,
which coincides with the ethnonym hallisi, used for the inhabitants of Choresm
who were of Iranian origin and allies of the Pechenegs. In the sources he
appears as a unifying figure of the residents of Drastar, one of the most
important Paristrionian cities at that time. He was legitimized (at least by the
local population) as a representative of the local (not Byzantine) authorities. As
such, he appeared a real menace to Byzantine sovereignty in the region, which
required decisive actions on behalf of Emperor Michael VIII, and this led to the
riot of Nestor. Later he appears in the sources connected with another riot, that
of Travel the Paulician.34 In both events he was supported by a number of
Pecheneg chieftains, but at the same time there was a clear distinction between
the settled “civilized” Tatush and his fellows who were camping in the fields of
northeastern Bulgaria.
Bulgarian scholarly literature connects Tatush with the Pechenegs coming
from the region of Choresm. Furthermore, he may have belonged to the first
wave of nomadic invasions, since in the second half of the eleventh century he
was part of the “urban element” in the Pecheneg community, which had already

33
Michaelis Attaliotae Historia, 205, GIBI 6, 183.
34
Annae Comnenae Porphyrogenitae Alexias, rec. A. Reifferscheid, 2 vol., Lipsiae, 1884, VI,
14, GIBI 8, 54.

218
 Pecheneg Chieftains in the Byzantine Administration

found its place in the ruling local mixobarbarian structure.35 The still-nomadic or
semi-nomadic Pechenegs, although acting independently, recognized Tatush as a
leader (or representative of official power) when a wider organization was
needed, and at the same time accepted him as “one of us.”
The development that took place in the theme of Paristrion in the eleventh
century exemplifies the processes in a frontier zone. After migrating to the
Balkans, the Pechenegs kept up a connection with their heritage, but adapted
and applied their traditions to their new environment. In the tenth and eleventh
century the political situation in the Balkans was not stable; thus, the local
population was more open to the innovations of the newcomers. The local
group had more deeply rooted historical traditions and culture than a nomadic
people, which helped the easier adaptation of the Pecheneg groups while at the
same time introducing new elements into the mixed Balkan culture.36 For the
Pechenegs, the periphery of the Byzantine empire was a new territory; they were
already aware of it, but it was new to them as a place where they could (and did)
settle down. At the same time, for Byzantium this was not a new territory, but
one outside its law (therefore, Byzantines continued to call its inhabitants
βάρβαροι, a keyword to describe “a quintessential cultural otherness”37). The
situation becomes more complicated when we introduce the third point of view,
that of the Balkan population (non-Byzantines), for whom the periphery was
also already an established “core.”
Two factors facilitated the interaction between the newcomers and the
local population. The first factor was the participation of the former nomads
among the local authorities, whom the Pechenegs recognized as their own
representatives no matter how much their material culture and way of life had
changed. Tatush is just one example; the sources also mention Seslav, Sacha,
Chelgu, and so on. The second important factor was the common need for
defense that unified the local and new populations. Both perceived Byzantium
as the “common enemy.” When the new waves of nomads arrived, the
Pechenegs, who had already settled some time earlier, played the role of

35
Plamen Pavlov, “Belezhki za niakoi lichnosti ot balgarskoto srednovekovie s ogled
istoriyata na Dobrudzha prez XI–XIII vek” (Remarks on some individuals from the
Bulgarian Middle Ages with reference to the history of Dobrudzha from the eleventh to
the thirteenth Century), Dobrudzha 9 (1992): 169–177.
36
For more information on the historical situation in the Balkans see Tâpkova-Zaimova,
Dolen Dunav; Atanasov, “Etnografski promeni,” and also Georgi Atanasov, “Pogled kam
Dobrudzhanskia Dunavski briag ot 11–15 vek” (A look at the Danubian shore in
Dobrudzha during the period between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries), Istoricheski
pregled 8 (1992): 13.
37
Ahrweiler, “Byzantine concepts,” 11.

219
Teodora Krumova

facilitators for the infiltration of the newcomers. The former were already
integrated and even occupied significant administrative positions but they were
not yet assimilated, preserving elements of their former material culture and
some connections with their fellows.
On the other hand, discussing the relationships between the different
nomadic groups, especially those who settled at different times, one should not
rely too much on the “interethnic ties” among them. One should treat these
relations cautiously, bearing in mind the theory of Jonathan Skaff on political
allegiance in a frontier zone, referring to another border zone—that of western
Inner Mongolia:
For ethnically Chinese and Turk commoners, loyalty depended upon
a political leader’s capacity to ensure stable economic and social
conditions. … For the social elite, loyalty was contingent upon a
ruler’s ability to provide political patronage. In neither case does it
appear that ethnic affinity was a primary determinant of political
allegiance.38
Several examples allow us to apply this theory to the territory of Paristrion.
Not just Kegen and Tirah acted against each other, but a number of Pecheneg
groups fighting for or against the Byzantine army, depending on the situation.

The Attitude of the Byzantine Empire

Like the local situation in Paristrion, neither can the attitude of the Byzantine
central administration towards the population of the theme and the coming
nomads be seen as homogeneous. One can register a different attitude to the re-
settled Pechenegs from one side and the mixobarbarians from another. If one
observes the formulas used in the written sources regarding the position of
Kegen and Tirah, one sees that they had not been allowed to enter the
Byzantine family of peoples, although in the beginning Kegen is treated as
independent. He is called archon and a letter sent to him and Michael, the
governor of Paristrion, is mentioned by Scylitzes with the term γράµµατα
(“letter to an equal”).39 In addition, according to Jasmine Moysidou, before

38
Jonathan Skaff, “Survival in the Frontier Zone: Comparative Perspectives on Identity
and Political Allegiance in China’s Inner Asian Borderlands during the Sui-Tang
Dynastic Transition (617–630),” Journal of World History (June 2004),
<http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/15.2/skaff.html> (last accessed: 5
February 2005).
39
Georgii Cedrini Compendium Historiarum, 58120 – 5906, GIBI 6, 314.

220
 Pecheneg Chieftains in the Byzantine Administration

entering the borders of the empire the Pecheneg leaders were referred to as
οι ’΄ανεζ’αρτητοι ‘άρχοντες των πατζινακιτων (“the independent chieftains of the
Pechenegs”).40 No matter that the sources are clear that both Kegen and Tirah
were baptized, they are never assigned the title of a “spiritual son (πνευµατικων
υιων) of the Emperor” as the Bulgarian tzar was called, for instance.41 Moreover,
the Byzantine authors continued to call the Pechenegs Scythians, barbarians or just
Pechenegs. Nevertheless, the Byzantine authorities were forced to accept the
authority of strong figures such as Tatush, since he was the strong one in a
territory where the Byzantines were the weaker party.

Conclusions

The situation in the Byzantine theme of Paristrion emerged as the result of

complicated relations between the different groups that inhabited it. From one
side there was the local population, which had to accept and survive the new-
coming nomadic groups. Since Byzantine political and administrative power was
weak in the borderlands, the local population had to cope alone with the
nomads. The strategy they chose was to form an alliance with them against the
common enemy: the Byzantines. The co-existence of the different ethnic groups
soon left room for the penetration of new elements in the local administrative
structure. This further resulted in changing the characteristics of the population
itself and acquiring new elements from the nomadic material culture. Thus a
new category of population appeared: the µιχοβάρβαροι. For the central
Byzantine administration, however, they remained as alien as they had been in
the first years of Byzantine rule in the new territories. Regarding the threat of
the arriving nomadic mass of Pechenegs, the empire tried to apply the old
traditional Byzantine practice of making the newcomers foederati, and thus
subjects of the empire. In this case, they did not succeed; therefore, the
Byzantine officials decided to make a compromise. They preferred to perceive
the leaders of the newcomers rather as their own officials (as a bridge between
the local population and the official Byzantine power) than to admit that these
were the chieftains of their enemies which the empire could not cope with.

40
Jasmine Moysidou, To Βυζάντιο και οι βόρειοι γείτονές του τον 10ο αιωνα (Byzantium and its
neighbours during the tenth century) (Athens: Historikes Ekdoseis St. D. Vasipoulou,
1995), 227 and following.
41
Moysidou, To Βυζάντιο, 247.

221