Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans

Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans
Name	Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans
Language	Old Bulgarian (Old Church Slavic)
Date	9th–10th century (copy traditions)
Place	Preslav, Ohrid region
Material	Parchment
Condition	Fragmentary; preserved in later compilations

Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans is a short medieval list purporting to record the names, dynastic affiliations, and reign lengths of early First Bulgarian Empire rulers from the late 7th to the early 10th century. The document is preserved in later compilations associated with Preslav Literary School, Ohrid Literary School, and medieval chronicles such as the Book of Boril and has been a focal point for reconstructing the succession of rulers linked to Asparuh, Krum, Omurtag, and Simeon I.

Overview and Significance

The manuscript functions as a prosopographical register connecting dynastic names like Dulo dynasty and individual rulers to regnal durations and calendar markers associated with the Byzantine Empire, Khazar Khaganate, and steppe polities such as the Avar Khaganate. Its significance lies in informing chronologies for events including the Battle of Ongal, the siege of Constantinople, the reforms of Boyar structures under Omurtag, and the cultural flowering associated with Cyril and Methodius disciples at Pliska and Preslav. Historians working on Byzantine–Bulgarian wars, Bulgarian conversion to Christianity, and the formation of Old Bulgarian literature rely on it alongside annalistic sources like the Chronicle of Theophanes.

Manuscript History and Transmission

Surviving copies derive from medieval compilations circulated in the Second Bulgarian Empire and archival holdings tied to Mount Athos monasteries, the Patriarchate of Constantinople chancery, and later collections assembled by scholars such as Paisius of Hilendar and Konstantin Jireček. The textual tradition shows interpolation by scribes from the Preslav Literary School and the Ohrid Literary School during periods of cultural exchange with the Byzantine Empire and contacts with Khazar and Frankish envoys. Transmission challenges parallel those faced by the Primary Chronicle, the Annales Regni Francorum, and other medieval registers that survive only through later copies preserved in repositories like the Vatican Library and the British Library.

Textual Content and Structure

The text is concise, listing personal names—many of which appear in other sources such as Theophylact Simocatta, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus’s works, and the Ja'far Tarikh—paired with numerical reign lengths and occasional calendar labels possibly tied to the Byzantine indiction or Turkic twelve-year animal cycles akin to references in Chinese chronology and Turkic runiform inscriptions. Names include forms related to Asparuh, Tervel, Krum, Omurtag, and lesser-known figures encountered in the Manuscript tradition of Cyrillo-Methodian texts. Its economy of language resembles registers like the Nomina defunctorum and the Regnal lists used in Medieval Europe.

Linguistic and Paleographic Features

Linguists note the text’s use of Old Bulgarian orthography comparable to codices from Preslav and Ohrid, reflecting graphemic conventions found in manuscripts produced at the Preslav Literary School and influenced by Greek palaeography from Constantinople. Paleographers compare letterforms to inscriptions such as the bas-reliefs of Pliska and the Preslav Treasure epigraphy, and to runiform scripts like the Old Turkic script attested in Orkhon inscriptions. The list preserves anthroponyms with Iranian, Turkic, and Slavic etymologies echoing the onomastic spectrum observed in the Khazar Correspondence and in names chronicled by Nikephoros I and Theophanes the Confessor.

Historical Interpretations and Chronology

Scholars have used the list to reconstruct a regnal framework for the First Bulgarian Empire, aligning entries with episodes such as Battle of Anchialus (708) traditions, the Byzantine–Bulgarian treaty negotiations, and the reignal context of Khan Krum’s reforms culminating in legislation compared by some to contemporaneous codices like the Ecloga of Leo III and the Basilika of Leo VI. Chronologies derived from the list have been cross-checked against Archaeology from Pliska and Preslav excavations, coin hoards comparable to finds in Danubian sites, and external annals such as the Annals of Fulda and Paul the Deacon.

Scholarly Debates and Controversies

Debates center on the document’s dating, original language, and reliability as a primary source. Some scholars argue for a provenance linked to Khazar or Turkic court record-keeping practices, while others posit a Slavic clerical redaction influenced by Byzantine chancery models seen in Constantine VII’s compilations. Contention exists over emendations of names (e.g., reconstructions of Vokil or Dulo lineage entries), synchronization with Theophanes and De Administrando Imperio, and the interpretation of numeric regnal notations as indiction cycles versus Turkic animal-year markers. These disputes mirror controversies in studies of the Gesta Hungarorum, the Rus' chronicle tradition, and debates over ethnogenesis addressed by scholars like Vladimir Ćorović and Florin Curta.

Legacy and Influence on Bulgarian Historiography

The register has shaped modern narratives in works by historians such as Yordan Ivanov, Vasil Zlatarski, Petar Mutafchiev, and Georgi Bakalov, informing national historiographical constructs of medieval Bulgarian statehood and rulership. It continues to influence editions, commentaries, and critical apparatuses produced by institutes like the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and libraries across Sofia and Skopje, and it features in debates within comparative studies involving Byzantium, Steppe polities, and Medieval Balkan historiography. Modern archaeological projects at Pliska and Veliki Preslav and interdisciplinary research in onomastics and paleography keep the text central to reconstructing early Bulgarian chronology.

Category:Medieval manuscripts Category:First Bulgarian Empire Category:Bulgarian historiography