Milena VARBANOVA
On January 25, 2022, when I presented on the FACTS website my "New reading of the Thracian inscription on the ring from Ezerovo", I dismissed the two completely fabricated characters "Rolisten" into oblivion. and "Nerenea Tiltea", who for half a century substituted cheap melodrama for the true content of the inscription on the ring.
The extremely long "lifetime" of this phantasmagoric couple "Thracian aristocrats" in Bulgarian historiography, is due both to the overconfidence of some authorities in linguistics surrounded by a halo of infallibility, and to the refusal of subsequent generations of academic "scientists" to think with their heads. Bureaucracy and snobbery in institutionalized "science" led to the point that in the case of "Rolistene and Nerenea Tiltea" the farce, brilliantly ridiculed by Yuri Tinyanov in his novella "Second Lieutenant Tsite", was repeated one to one.
Due to the distraction of the scribe, who instead of "sub-lieutenants" wrote "sub-lieutenants", a document phantom was born, which passed from list to list and gradually acquired flesh and blood. "Lieutenant Cite" receives all the ranks and orders with which a military man in Tsarist Russia should be awarded and finally "dies" with the rank of general. Following his carriage, sent with state honors, are the mourning widow and his offspring - surnamed Tsite. The career of "General Tsite" no different from that of most senior officers, and any attempt to break the bureaucratic matrix is seen as an attempt against the existing order. The paradox is that at some point it doesn't matter at all whether someone was born, lived and died - the important thing is that they appear in some lists. Or in "scientific" reports.
I have the unromantic credit of bursting the pink soap bubble of the ghost couple "Rolistene and Nerenea Tiltea" and thus rudely thwarted the eventual opening of a dignified museum of "Thracian conjugal fidelity" in the center of the village of Ezerovo.
However, it seems to me that other holograms, raised on a pedestal, are peeking out from the history textbooks, created by an incorrect reading of the sources, which are also undeservedly glorified by generations of naive Bulgarians. Such a fiction, God forgive me, is probably the ichirguboil Mostich. No, not himself, but his name.
Explaining my heretical idea in the following lines, I will be as cautious as possible, since - with some very rare exceptions - I have not dealt with the history of the First Bulgarian State, but with numismatics (I will have to tread in its waters as well) I'm almost a complete amateur. I will use coy expressions like "allow" and "to the best of my knowledge", because, unlike many of my texts, in which I confidently impose innovative ideas, here I simply offer for discussion a nagging doubt.
After discovering the meaning of the title "ichirguboil" - plenipotentiary boil (from "chirko" - circus - circle and "icham" ("ichirya" - fill), I also thought about the meaning of the name of the third in rank, after the ruler, the highest dignitary in the First Bulgarian Kingdom , whose grave and tombstone were discovered by Stancho Vaklinov during excavations of a monastery church in the area of Selishte, Veliki Preslav, in 1952.
As an emphasis, which is not directly related to my thinking about the name "Mostich" presented in this text, I will remind the theses of some modern researchers that in the grave of Ichirguboil, in fact, not his mortal remains were found, but the bones of others persons - for example, a Pecheneg chief, etc. These theories aim to explain why Yordan Yordanov portrayed the Bulgarian high official with eyes narrower than those of Lao Tzu.
I think that after said anthropologist has "reconstructed" and the face of King Kaloyan, whom contemporaries called Handsome Ioannis, with features more Mongoloid than those of the Tatar leader Nogai, it is clear that in this case we are not talking about a reenactment, but a political performance, completely subordinated to the still ruling Turkic dogma about the origin of the Bulgarians. It is a shame that we continue to tolerate in museums and spread in schools and social networks these pseudo-reconstructions of the images of our rulers and nobles. The time for such self-deprecation is over.
The inscription on the tombstone of Ichirguboyla reads:
"Here lies the bridge of the church, which was at the church of the Sumerians and at the church of Peter the Great, and for the last ten years, they left the church and all of them were black and white."
It is unnecessary to comment on the "proto-Bulgarian" - ichirguboil and the "Slavicized" - chargubilya, form of the title in question. When I interpret the meaning of the title - through chirko (ichirko) - "circle", it becomes clear that it is the same and is pronounced in the same way in the Bulgarian and Thracian (Slavic) languages, which - for whom time - proves that it is the same language.
Let us focus on the word that historians have translated as "name" of ichirguboila - "mostych". As far as I know, this name is not mentioned in any other source. In the epitaph the word "bridge" precedes the dignitary's title. The form "lying" of the verb "lying", which I in "New reading of the Thracian inscription on the ring from Ezerovo", consider as "lying" - 3 l. plural This leads me to interpret the word taken as a "proper name" of ichirguboila, as a plural noun. - "POWERS" - PERISHABLE REMAINS.
Take this interpretation not as a statement, but as an "assumption". It is based on the following considerations:
1. The Ichirguboil ended his life as a pious monk - a black friar. In the tomb inscription, he is sufficiently identified as a high noble and associate of the kings Simeon and Peter. Isn't it too much vanity to mention his name explicitly, given that, with almost complete certainty, he himself, during his lifetime, dictated his epitaph?
2. If his name had to be explicitly stated, would not the monastic name, which he undoubtedly had and by which he served at the end of his earthly days, be mentioned in the inscription? Mostich is definitely not a monastic name.
3. If it is a name at all, Mostich is not a Christian, but possibly a pagan name. Is it possible for a blackjacket to introduce himself by his pagan name in his tombstone? Moreover, based on the data from the tombstone, I calculate that the Ichirguboil was a child during the conversion of the Bulgarian people or was even born after the conversion. He must have had a Christian name. Why then does his epitaph mention a pagan name?
4. If Mostich is not a proper name, but a family name, why, contrary to tradition, is it mentioned independently, and not part of the formula known from the Name Book - "his family was Mostich" or something similar?
There are many facts that suggest that "mostic" is not a name, but a concept characteristic of a grave monument - "here lie the relics of...".
It is interesting that the quite limited number of associations that the "name" Mostich gives birth, are with the concepts "power, powerful" and "bridge". The epitaph, however, cannot be translated as "the mighty Ichirguboil", because again it goes against the monastic humility that the epitaph exudes. The etymological explanation of "bridge", which appears in the dictionaries - from "throw", "to transfer" - is refuted by today's interpreters. I believe that the origin of the word "bridge" is directly related to the Latin pons, pontis ("bridge" in Latin) - "put, place". But in the Latin language there is also a significant word - mostellum - "ghost". It certainly derives from "relics" and perhaps in ancient times its pronunciation was "mostelum" - "mortar". The word "relics" comes from "power", "strength", "strength" and all this reminds me of the belief that the strength of the bridge was supposed to be provided by someone's shadow, ghost, "relics" embedded in its foundation.
I mention above that the name Mostich is not mentioned in any other source. I mean the name of ichirguboila. I also have in mind the historical sources for the Bulgarian Middle Ages. But in today's Bulgarian historical literature, it is assumed that a Thracian ruler named Mostis - the parallel with Mostich is obvious - originating from the people of the Kenites or Odrisians, reigned in South-Eastern Thrace in the last quarter of the 2nd century BC. and the first 15 - 20 years of the 1st century BC
"As far as I know", no historical and literary sources have been found for Mostis. However, his name is mentioned in two epigraphic monuments, "certainly" dedicated to him and in another one, in which the word "Mostis" is read, but which is quite damaged and cannot be conclusive evidence that the text is about the Thracian king in question. Metodi Manov's article "Inscriptions with the name of the Thracian ruler Mostis" is dedicated to these three epigraphic monuments. Numismatics, Sphragistics and Epigraphy", 2014. I will quote the content of the inscriptions and concise data about them, as they were transmitted by the author of the article:
1. "An inscription with the name of the ruler Mostis was published long ago, as early as 1971 (Tashliklioglou 1971, 227-228). The inscription was in a private collection and was found probably in Byzantium because it mentions a person from that polis (Sayar 1992, 187-195, Tafel 21). It is a marble slab on which a dedicatory inscription is written, which translates as follows:
"For the good of the ruler Mostis, Glaucias, son of Zotas, of Byzantium, and Artemon, son of Artemon, of Apameia, of Zeus Soter and Athena Nikephoros."
2. "Another inscription is preserved in the Tekirdag Archaeological Museum and is a small square base for a gray-white marble statue. The location is unknown, but it is believed to have been found in the vicinity of Tekirdag (Sayar 1992, 190). In translation, the inscription is as follows:
"For the good of the ruler Mostis and the people of Heraion Teichos, Hegestratus, son of Potamon, having completed his service as agoranom, set up this statue of Hermes Agoraios."
3. "In a third inscription, found long ago at Apollonia Pontica, which is quite damaged and almost nothing can be learned from it, the name Mostis is mentioned. The name has no title of ruler and it cannot be said for sure whether it has something to do with the ruler Mostis or is another person (Mihailov 1970, IGBulg. I 2 , No. 469 bis)."
My (M.V.'s) interpretation of the quoted inscriptions is greatly hampered by the fact that I do not have a copy of their originals. But from the translation of their contents, it does not appear at all that they were dedicated "for the good" of a living ruler. On the contrary, judging by similar inscriptions found in Italy, and in particular by the Volcanic "Lapis Satricanus", dedicated by warriors to the name of an illustrious comrade who fell in battle, I think that logic rather leads us to the conclusion that the king was died on the battlefield and "mostis" means "deceased", "deceased". The commemorative inscriptions are engraved "for the good" of a king-hero who is not among the living.
It appears that King Mostis also marked his reign with a substantial minting of quite original coins. His valuable coins were discovered in the treasure from Sinemorets, about which Prof. I. Karayotov wrote immediately after its discovery by the team of archaeologist Daniela Agre. Svetoslav Yordanov provides detailed information about the characteristics of the coinage at Mostis in his doctoral dissertation "Late Hellenistic ruler coinage in ancient Thrace (II century BC - I century AD), 2017
But looking at pictures of these coins on the Internet - I emphasize: as a layman - I can't shake the feeling that they were minted in memory of a deceased person. Let's look at the description of one of the most famous silver coins of "Mostis" as it appears on a collector's site:
"The names of the king are written on the silver coins – ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΟΣΤΙΔΟΣ – vertically, and below them horizontally there is an inscription of the year of cutting, calculated relative to the beginning of the ruler's reign. In the early and late specimens, there is also a second inscription, also horizontal – ΕΠΙ ΣΑΔΑΛΟΥ."
On the obverse of the coin in question, a young man, almost a teenager, is depicted, and on the reverse we read two words engraved vertically: "king" and "mostidos" ( not "mostis" ). In the middle is depicted the goddess Athena seated on a throne, on whose hand stands the goddess of victory Nike, crowning the word "mostidos". All this, along with the inscription "επι Σαδαλου ( "of", "at" Sadala" ), engraved below the composition, leads me to "assume" that this is a commemorative coin issue produced in honor of the "deceased" a young ruler who fell in battle for the homeland. His feat was glorified by his closest relative, a Thracian king.
After all, I "allow" that the words "bridge" and "mostis" are not proper names, but mean "relics", "deceased", "blessed rest". These reasonings of mine should provoke a response from the "academic community", which will reasonedly refute them if they are false - or directly their will to accept them, in case there are not enough strong arguments against them.