By Kat Jivkova
In recent years, Byzantine accounts of Khan Krum and the demise of his adversary, Emperor Nikephoros I Genikos, have been increasingly scrutinised by medieval historians. Krum’s conflict with Nikephoros has been traditionally retold as a ninth-century tale of Bulgarian victory over the Byzantine Empire. During Krum’s reign, between approximately 800 and 814, medieval Bulgaria’s territory massively expanded, from the Tatra Mountains to Adrianople, Dnieper to Middle Danube, and toward the Frankish Empire border. To the detriment of Nikephoros, this territorial expansion lost his empire a large proportion of army forces stationed in the Struma valley in 807, and the city of Serdica two years later. In retaliation, the emperor launched a counter-offensive against Krum, setting fire to the Bulgarian capital of Pliska in 811. According to the patriarch, Michael the Syrian, Nikephoros “threw their little children [of the Bulghars] on the ground and mercilessly drove over them with his threshing wagons”. The enraged Krum confronted Nikephoros and his retreating army in the Varbitsa Pass of the Balkan Mountains and subsequently defeated them.
According to Theophanes the Confessor, a Byzantine chronicler, Krum severed the head of the emperor during the final battle and used his skull as a chalice. In his literary work, Chronographia, he describes the event in considerable detail:
“Kroummos cut off the head of Nikephoros and for several days hung it on a pole so as to exhibit it to the tribes that came before him and to dishonour us. After that, he bared the skull, reveted it on the outside with silver and, in his pride, made the chieftains of the Sklavinians drink from it.”
Notably, other Byzantine historians also wrote of Khan Krum’s expedition. These were Constantine Manasses and Joannes Zonaras. Both similarly recount the skull chalice instance after Nikephoros was killed during the Battle of Pliska. On the other hand, another chronicle, known as the “Anonymous Vatican narration”, states that “nobody is able to relate the manner of his [Nikephoros’] death”. These mixed accounts call into question the authenticity of Nikephoros’ death.
Later chroniclers likewise include the skull chalice account, most likely informed by the work of Theophanes. Stories of the skull chalice feature in the chronicles of George the Monk, Symeon Logothete and George Kedrenos, for example. The ninth-century hagiography of Theodorus Stoudites also describes the gory event, arguing that Nikephoros’ severed head “became an object of mockery among the Bulgarians who would drink a toast from it”. Further, the thirteenth-century list of Byzantine emperors between the tenth and eleventh centuries describes the emperor’s head being skinned by Krum, while “the rest of his body was burnt”. We cannot be certain that all these works derived from Theophanes but it is entirely plausible. However, we must also question how Theophanes was able to provide such detailed evidence of Nikephoros’ manner of death in the first place, given that he was probably not a witness to the emperor’s death on the battlefield. I summarise the current theories that medieval historians have come up with to explain these inconsistencies.
One explanation that has been voiced by Angel Nikolov is that rumours of Krum drinking out of the skull-made chalice of the late Byzantine ruler disseminated the empire, and Theophanes simply recorded what he had heard. Meanwhile, Cyril Mango suggests that his description of the Bulgarian campaign was recorded from an eyewitness. However, finding an eyewitness of the campaign would have been a very difficult task, since most of the Byzantine forces perished, while the rest were taken as prisoners and tortured. Athanasios Markopoulos, on the other hand, introduces the possibility of some sort of dossier being available to the chronicler, from which he was able to effectively summarise the conditions of Nikephoros’ demise. This seems more likely considering its impressive detail. Unfortunately, none of these suggestions can be confirmed at present.
Another factor that we must consider is the credibility of Theophanes’ chronicle, being a Byzantine source with preconceived notions of Bulgarian civilisation. Until the eleventh century, Byzantium viewed the Bulgarians as a Scythian tribe, which became an umbrella term for north-originating “barbarians” that threatened to invade their empire. In reality, Bulgarians were Thracian in descent, though Byzantine writers tended to group them with the latter, due to them residing in Lower Danube. These perceptions probably originated from the ancient accounts of Herodotus, who recounted the savage customs of the Scythians, including the treatment of their enemies’ skulls. For example, he explicitly recounts the practice of using skulls as drinking cups. Another ancient writer, Isogonus of Nicaea, also describes the Scythian tribes as cannibals who would not only drink out of their captor’s skulls, but also hang their scalps across their necks. In an article, titled “Legends of the Byzantine Disaster”, John Wortley argues that there is a possibility that Theophanes was aware of Herodotus’ tale, among others, and applied it to Krum’s own character – since the khan resided beyond the Danube frontier, Theophanes could have assumed that he was capable of such acts like drinking from a skull chalice. On the other hand, Wortley provides evidence that this ancient Scythian practice could have survived in ninth-century Bulgaria. He reasons that, because there is evidence of the practice being undertaken among Lombards of the sixth century, it is not unreasonable to deduce that Theophanes’ account held some truths. Indeed, historian of the Lombards, Paul the Deacon, would probably have been less familiar with the antique traditions as the Byzantines were, therefore it is not likely that he emulated the prior works of Herodotus. However, this evidence remains dubious; it is unclear as to whether the Langobard historian wrote this sixth-century account as a factual piece or a literary tale.
Other historians have elaborated on Wortley’s point by substantiating the practice of making skull chalices among the Bulgarians. Veselin Beshevliev argues that the skull chalice “is not a figment of the imagination, but rather a widespread custom” for the Bulgarians, who were not strangers to such practices. He continues that Theophanes, a well-respected writer, would not have written an account that was not based off first-hand information. Nonetheless, even if Theophanes was writing a well-informed account, we must also question the authority of the person whom he was receiving this information from.
At present, the most viable explanation for the skull chalice story remains that it was simply a manifestation of antique tradition. The association of the Bulgarians with the ancient customs of Scythians probably resulted in an exaggerated retelling of Nikephoros’ death, through a Byzantine lens. At the same time, the victory of Khan Krum is considered the most documented instances of the skull chalice custom, which is certainly an impressive feat. In the twentieth century, the story has interestingly been tied to themes of temperance – Krum’s commitment to waning his subjects off wine before the Byzantine attack came to a halt, with the khan’s ironic decision to drink wine from the skull of his enemy. It is unlikely that we will know more about the circumstances surrounding Nikephoros’ death, however a further analysis of his relationship to Khan Krum can shed light on the image of Bulgarian rulers in this time.
Bibliography
Bedrosian, Robert. The Chronicle of Michael the Great, Patriarch of the Syrians. Lon Branch: N.J., 2013.
Beshevliev, Veselin. “On the skulls-made chalices of the Proto-Bulgarians” 22, no.3 (1926): 15-16.
Niavis, Pavlos. “Reign of the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus I (802-811).” University of Edinburgh, 1984.
Nikolov, Angel. “Khan Krum in the Byzantine Tradition: Terrible Rumours, Misinformation and Political Propaganda.” Bulgaria mediaevalis 2, no. 1 (2011): 39–47.
Mango, Cyril and Roger Scott. “The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History ad 284-813.” Oxford, 1997.
Mango, Cyril. “Who Wrote the Chronicle of Theophanes?” Zborknik Radova Vizantinoškog Instituta 18 (1978): 9-18.
Markopoulos, Athanasios. “La Chronique de l’an 811 et le Scriptor incertus de Leone Armenio: problèmes des relations entre l’hagiographie et l’histoire”, 1999.
Theophanes, the Confessor. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Wortley, John. “LEGENDS OF THE BYZANTINE DISASTER OF 811.” Byzantion (Bruxelles) 50, no. 2 (1980): 533–562.
Retrospect Journal 