ISTORIJSKI ^ASOPIS, kw. LV (2007) str.

23-29
HISTORICAL REVIEW, vol. LV (2007) pp. 23-29
UDK : 736.3(497.11)-032.42"08"

Tibor ŽIVKOVIĆ
The Institute of History
Belgrade

THE GOLDEN SEAL OF STROIMIR

Abstract: The golden seal of Stroimir, recently acquired by Historical Mu-

seum of Serbia, not bearing the official rank of his owner, could belong, either to a
prominent and rich person unknown from other sources, or to the well-known member
of the ruling family of Serbia from the second half of the 9th century – Stroimir.
Key words: Stroimir, Serbia, Bulgaria, Patriarchal cross, Byzantines seals.

The Historical Museum of Serbia recently acquired a Byzantine-styled

golden seal.1 It is not known where or when this seal was found. The Auction
house did not provide this information.
The weight of the seal is 15.46 g, height 194 mm, and diameter 135
mm. It is made of solid gold.2 The very small portion on the edge of the stamp-
field is missing, but otherwise the degree of preservation is excellent. The shape
of the seal is conical, with the small ring at the top. This kind of seal its owner
held with him – most probably around neck or wrist –, and it served for the
sealing of documents in wax. It is the only one golden Byzantine-styled seal of
this kind. This peculiarity is easy to explain. Firstly, the owner of this kind of
seal should be a rich and prominent person, what in turn decreases the number
of such seals in circulation. Secondly, for the heir (son, brother, cousin) it was
not of any use, since it had purpose only for his owner, and a heir could, most
probably, use it as a material to melt, and to create a new one, which would bear
his name. This could explain the rarity of this kind of seals.
1
The seal appeared on the Auction, held in München on July 11 2006 (Gorny & Mosch,
Maximiliansplatz 20). Prof. Đorđe Janković from Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade, warned, on
9 July 2006, the authorities of Serbia about the appearance of this seal on the market, and urged
for immediate action. Serbian government acted adequately and bought the seal for the Historical
Museum of Serbia.
2
According to an unofficial report from the Institute of Nuclear Physics, Vinča.

23
Tibor Živković

Description

There is a Patriarchal cross on one step is in the center of the seal.

There is also a transversal bar below the top of the Cross. Endings of the bar
are thick with wide edges. The step, too, is of the same appearance in shape as
the upper transversal bar. The border of dots around the Patriarchal Cross is not
closed at the step. Around the Patriarchal cross is a circular inscription:

+  + 

   
C: .

Border of dots around the inscription. The Greek orthography of the

Serbian personal name Stroimir is preserved in De administrando imperio
(DAI) – .3

Lettering

The letters  C  resemble letters on the seal of Epiphanios, imp.

Spatharios and strategos of Hellas, dated in the 9th century.4 The letters
C   are very close to those on the seal of George, imp. Spatharokandidatos
and strategos of the Peloponnesos, dated to the 9th century.5 An identical and
especially typical  is to be found on the seal of Constantine imp.
Protospatharios and strategos of Sicily (9th century). The same seal of
Constantine has Patriarchal cross very similar to the one on the seal of
Stroimir.6 Furthermore, the inscription:      !" runs
around the Patriarchal cross, similar to the Stroimir’s seal. Even the small cross,
which marks the beginnings of the circular inscription, is identical with the
cross on Stroimir’s seal. On the seal of Demetrios abydikos of Thessalonica (9th
century), almost all letters strikingly resemble to the same letters on Stroimir’s
seal:      C.7 Another seal of strategos of Thrace, published by
3
Codex parisinus gr. 2009, f. 95v and f. 96v. This orthography is at least from 1070s, if it was
not transcribed letter by letter from an earlier manuscript of the DAI.
4
Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, ed. J. Nesbitt
– N. Oikonomides, I – V, Washington D. C. 1991 – 1998, II, No 8.42 (= DO Seals).
5
DO Seals II, 22.25.
6
DO Seals I, 5.11.
7
DO Seals I, 18.1.

24
 The Golden Seal of Stroimir

Zacos-Veglery, also has identical letters:   C,   8 The same stands

for the letters    C, on the seal of Theoktisos imp. Kandidatos and
protonotarios of the Thrakesioi (9th/10th centuries), and especially for the letter
kappa.9 The characteristically open beta on Stroimir’s seal indicates the date
after the 850s.10 The same stands for kappa with shorten arms, being both
separated from the vertical bar of the letter kappa.
The overall impression of lettering, points that Stroimir’s seal belongs
to the second half of the 9th century.

Patriarchal cross

There are many specimens of Byzantine seals with the image of

Patriarchal cross. They differ from each other in the shape of endings – thick or
thin – as well as to the regard of transverse bars – at the peak or below the peak
of the Cross, and in the numbers of the steps. Usually, this type of cross has
three or four steps. Similar to that on the Stroimir’s seal are, for instance, those
preserved on the four seals of Constantine, imp. Protospatharios and strategos
of Sicily (9th/10th century),11 but not to the one inscribed on the seal of Basil imp.
Strator and archon of Thessalonica (9th/10th centuries) – which, eventually,
could exclude the date of Stroimir’s seal after the end of the 9th century.12 The
seal of Marinos patrikios, imp. Protospatharios, and strategos of Thessalonica
(9th/10th centuries) has, not only the identical Patriarchal cross as Stroimir’s seal
does, but also the identical letters such as:     C  as well as an identical
small cross which marks the beginnings of the reading.13 From the 9th century
is the seal of Basil (?) imp. Strator and archon of Christoupolis, with the same
Patriarchal cross as on Stroimir’s seal.14 In the case of Stroimir’s seal, there is
only one step at the bottom of the Cross, similar to the seal of Basil imp. Strator
and archon of Thessalonica (dated in the 9th/10th centuries).15
The analysis of the Patriarchal cross on Stroimir’s seal also showed
up that this seal is most probably from the second half of the 9th century.
8
Byzantine Lead Seals I – III, ed. G. Zacos – A. Veglery, Basel 1972, No 2080. This seal is dated
in the first half of the 9th century.
9
DO Seals III, 2.37.
10
See commentary on No 27.1 in DO Seals II, p. 82.
11
DO Seals I, No 5.11 – 14.
12
DO Seals I, No 18.12. See, also, DO Seals I, No 18.47, Theoktistos kommerkiarios of
Thessalonica, dated in the 10th century.
13
DO Seals I, No 18.69.
14
DO Seals I, No 39.2.
15
DO Seals I, No 18.12.

25
Tibor Živković

Some peculiarities

The usual invocative formula on Byzantine lead seals is:   
  !". Most often, it is abbreviated in cruciform monogram  , with
the words  #  in the upper corners, and  # !" in the lower corners. In the
cases when this invocative formula is inscribed circularly, the craftsman usually
write this formula in abbreviated form: either $ ,16 $ ,17 $  18 or
$ .19 There is no firmly established pattern to the regard of this kind of
abbreviation. That, what is peculiar in the case of Stroimir’s seal, is iota instead
of ita in the word  . A craftsman wrote $ , and marked the end of the
word with the dot, which, most probably, has to be regarded as the abbreviation
for the missing letters at the end of the word ( or ). The replacement ita/iota
in this formula is quite unusual, and could be a signal that this seal was not
struck in Byzantium, but in the country where Stroimir lived.20 Exactly the same
mistake, iota instead of ita in the word   ( ), is made on the seal of
Isaac, imp. protospatharios and strategos of Drougobitia (10th/11th centuries).21
There is another seal of the same person, Isaac, imp. protospatharios and
strategos of Thrace, with the same mistake.22 One should note that the same
mistake occurs in the regions populated by Slavs (Drougobitia, Thrace and
Bulgaria). This could be rendered as the typical Slav pronunciation and spelling
of the Greek letter ita and, consequently, its replacement with iota. In other
words, it could mean that a craftsman of Stroimir seal was not a Greek.
In addition, there are no abbreviations for   !" or at least for
, which usually stands in proper grammatical expression on Byzantine seals.
On the other side, a craftsman had limited options to utilize proper grammar,
since the size of the seal is to small to inscribe even the abbreviated forms of
expected words. Therefore, the replacement of ita with iota, could also appear
as the consequence of sparing the space. Since a craftsman deliberately made
grammatical errors, to spare the space and preserve the equal distance from
letters and their equal size (what he actually mastered superbly), which could

16
E. g. DO Seals II, Nos 27.1 (9th/10th centuries) 38.2 (10th century).
17
E. g. DO Seals II, No 33.1 (9th/10th centuries).
18
E. g. DO Seals II, No 31.2 (11th century).
19
E. g. DO Seals II, No 40.3 (10th century).
20
The seal of Nicholas imp. hypodiakonos and skeuophylax of St Thomas, (10th century), has a
similar abbreviation as Stroimir’s seal, 
 , where the last letter is iota instead of ita or
epsilon and iota ( ); cf. DO Seals V, No 91.
21
I. Iordanov, Pečatite ot strategiata v Preslav (971 – 1088), Sofia 1993, No 220 – 221, fig. 221a, T. 47.
22
Ibid. No 234, fig. 234, T. 23.

26
 The Golden Seal of Stroimir

not be expected if this seal was struck in Byzantium by a Greek craftsman, we

can assume that this seal was struck outside Byzantium. It is also probable that
a craftsman was not familiar with Greek entirely, and maybe not being
Christian himself, since he made peculiar mistake in the invocative formula.
One can have an impression that a craftsman followed the idea to create
nice peace of work, neglecting the proper Greek expression on the inscription.

The owner of the seal

This seal, not bearing the official rank of his owner, could belong, either
to a prominent and rich person unknown from other sources, or to the well-known
member of the ruling family of Serbia from the second half of the 9th century –
Stroimir. This Stroimir is known from Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ the DAI.
Porphyrogenitus writes that archon of the Serbs, Moutimir, had two brothers –
Stroimir and Goinik. Their father, Vlastimir, defended Serbia against Bulgarian
attacks during the three years. The ruler of Bulgaria at that time was Presiam
(836 – 852). After father’s death, the sons inherited the rule in Serbia, but very
soon, the heir of Presiam, Boris, attacked Serbia, wishing to avenge the defeat of
his father Presiam. This sequence of events points out that Moutimir and his
brothers began to rule Serbia before 852, i. e., before Boris became the khan of
Bulgaria. According to Porphyrogenitus’ narrative, the previous war was not over
by the deaths of Vlastimir and Presiam, respectively. Therefore, we assume that
this war appeared to be waged around 853/54. After the peace agreement, settled
near the frontier town of Ras (in the vicinity of modern town of Novi Pazar),
Moutimir ruled together with his two brothers for a short span of time, when he
had decided to be sole ruler and expelled his brothers in Bulgaria. Stroimir had
a son Klonimir, to whom Boris gave a Bulgarian wife. Of him was begotten
Tzaslav. On the other side, Moutimir kept Peter, the son of Goinik, in Serbia.
Later on, after Moutimir’s death, Klonimir, with Bulgarian help, tried to take
rule in Serbia, but the archon of Serbia, Peter, defeated and killed him.23
The narrative preserved by Constantine Porphyrogenitus is most
probably a shortened version of much extensive account. The Emperor did not

23
Constantine Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio, ed. R.J.H. Jenkins – Gy. Moravcsik,
Washington D.C. 1967, 32.38 – 78. There is dispute about the date of this war and opinions
varied that it occurred from 854 – 860, 873, or even after 880. See, Vizantijski izvori za istoriju
naroda Jugoslavije II, prir. B. Ferjančić, Beograd 1959, 51, n. 163; Lj. Maksimović, O vremenu
pohoda bugarskog kneza na Srbiju, ZFF 14/1 (1979) 75; T. Živković, Južni Sloveni pod
vizantijskom vlašću, Beograd 2002, 392 – 393; Idem, Portreti srpskih vladara (IX – XII),
Beograd 2006, 22 – 23 (Živković, Portreti).

27
Tibor Živković

allow himself to explain complicated political circumstances, which led

Bulgarian or Serbian rulers to theirs politically, or militarily actions. In that
case, he would be forced to reveal the relations between Byzantium and
Bulgaria, which were, until 866, very unfavorable for Byzantium. He preferred
to stay quite on this topic, since he underlined several times in the DAI that
Bulgarian were always in servitude and submission to the Byzantium.24 It
seems that Moutimir accepted Boris as his senior and that, in the following
years, the Byzantines were looking to reverse political orientation of Serbia,
and to be as it was during the rule of Vlastimir, Moutimir’s father. Therefore,
it is very probable that diplomatic activities of Byzantines provoked Moutimir
to expel his brothers – who were, most probably, the objects of Byzantine
diplomacy. Since he acknowledged Boris as his senior, it is quite understandable
why he sent his brothers in Bulgaria. There they were kept as the hostages. To
protect himself, Moutimir held Peter, the son of Goinik, at his court in Serbia.25
Therefore, after 855/56, Stroimir lived in Bulgaria. There his son took
a Bulgarian wife. The wife of Klonimir should not be of common stock, since
Boris himself made a choice of the bride. It seems that members of the Serbian
ruling family were treated well in Bulgaria, with the all respects to their rang
and nobility. Stroimir was held, almost certainly, in the capital of Bulgaria,
Pliska.26 Only after 893, Simeon transferred capital in Preslav.
The seal of Stroimir, which served as his signature for everyday purposes,
and not bearing any rank or title, is to be expected if belonged to Moutimir’s
brother, Stroimir. After his expulsion, he eventually lost his title of zupan, the
usual rank of the members of the ruling family in Serbia (in the 12th century). He
could not be called zupan in Bulgaria. On the other side, the luxurious appearance
of the seal points to the conclusion that its owner was a prominent and a rich man.
Since we know that his son was married by the will and choice of Bulgarian khan,
it seems that family was in fact respected and most probably rich enough to
distinguish themselves with some luxurious objects. The absence of the rank or
title on the seal confirms the idea that the seal belonged to Stroimir, Moutimir’s
brother. It is to be expected for a person stripped of his ruling rights. Since he
died, most probably, before 896, when his son Klonimir tried to take the throne
in Serbia, Stroimir’s seal should be dated between 855/56 and 896.27

24
DAI I, 32.29 – 30; 32.35 – 38.
25
The extensive explanation of these political circumstances is given in, Živković, Portreti, 21 – 26.
26
However, if Stroimir’s seal belongs to Stroimir of Serbia, than one is to expect that it should
be from Pliska.
27
The appearance of the Patriarchal cross on the seal, does not necessarily mean that owner of
the seal was a Christian. It could be was just a pattern of that time.

28
 The Golden Seal of Stroimir

Тибор ЖИВКОВИЋ

СТРОЈИМИРОВ ЗЛАТНИ ПЕЧАТ

Резиме

Zlatni kupasti pe~at sa alkom na vrhu, sa natpisom na

gr~kom: Bo`e pomozi Strojimiru, otkupqen je na aukciji u Minhenu
od aukcijske ku}e Gorny & Mosch, Maximiliansplatz 20, 11. avgusta 2006.
godine. Pe~at se danas nalazi u Istorijskom Muzeju Srbije.
Pe~at je visine 194 mm, pre~nika 135 mm. Te`ina je 15.46 gr.
Postoji malo o{te}ewe ispod kru`nog natpisa koje ne uti~e na ina~e
odli~nu o~uvanost pe~ata. Ovakav pe~at je slu`io za svakodnevne
potrebe vlasnika, odnosno, umesto wegovog potpisa. ^iwenica da se
ovim pe~atom mogao slu`iti samo wegov vlasnik, donekle obja{wava
zbog ~ega su ovakvi pe~ati retki. S druge strane naslednici su mogli
da iskoriste materijal za izradu svog pe~ata ili u druge svrhe.
Na osnovu analize slova i pore|ewem sa onim koja se mogu
na}i na vizantijskim pe~atima koji su preciznije datirani, mo`e se
zakqu~iti da pe~at poti~e iz druge polovine IX veka. Istovetan zakqu-
~ak se name}e analizom krsta koji se nalazi u sredini pe~atnog poqa.
Vlasnik ovog pe~ata nije obavqao nikakvu javnu funkciju.
Jednostavan natpis upu}uje da je u pitawu pe~at za privatnu,
svakodnevnu, upotrebu. Ono {to je upadqivo, jeste da je napravqen
od zlata, {to, posledi~no, wegovog vlasnika stavqa me|u veoma
ugledne qude svoga vremena. Budu}i da je poznato prema Spisu o
narodima Konstantina Porfirogenita, da je mla|i brat srpskog
arhonta Mutimira, Strojimir, `iveo u Bugarskoj posle izgona iz
Srbije, moglo bi se najpre pomisliti da je ovaj pe~at pripadao
upravo ovom Strojimiru.

29