International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

INSCRIPTIONS
Chairs: 
Emmanuel Moutafov
, 
Georgios Pallis
Elena Kostić – Georgios Velenis
, 
New Interpretation about the Content of the Cyrillic Inscription from Bitola
Bojan Miljković
,
 
Two Oldest Inscriptions of Hilandar Monastery
Theodora Ioannidou
, 
Founding Inscriptions in Churches Painted by the Workshop of the Cretan Painter Pagoménos 
(the 1
st
Half of the 14
th
C.): Corrections and New Readings
Tsvetan Vasilev
, 
Bilingualism of the Post-Byzantine Mural Inscriptions in the Balkan Art: 
Historical Background and Function
Glycérie M. Chatzouli
, 
L’épitaphios brodé de 1787 par la collection ecclésiastique 
du Monastère de Mega Spilaion en Péloponnèse/Grèce

---

128
Elena Kostić
Thessaloniki, Greece; 
[e-mail]
Georgios Velenis
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Philosophy, 
Department of History and Archaeology, Thessaloniki, Greece; 
[e-mail]
New Interpretation about the Content of the Cyrillic Inscription from Bitola
The authenticity and dating of the well-known Cyrillic inscription from Bitola, which was 
brought to light in 1956 during the demolition of Çavus mosque, where it had been placed in second 
use as a threshold, is being reviewed. Since then, it has been kept at the local museum. It consists 
of a 0,98 x 0,61 x 0,27 m. marble slab, broken into two pieces. A relatively small part of the bottom 
left corner of the inscription is missing. The text consists of 12 lines with missing letters both at the 
beginning and at the end of each line. The bottom left part which accounts for one quarter of the 
inscription text has been damaged and no traces of its letters have survived. 
Although the inscription is of exceptional interest, the first study that attempted to fill in the 
missing text, was carried out by Vladimir Mošin only one decade after it was brought to light. Since, 
it has been the subject of studies of numerous researchers. Most of them reckon that the inscription 
is the last written source of the First Bulgarian State with an accurate dating, while others question 
this view and argue that it dates from the 13
th
century. According to a third view that was expressed 
ten years ago, the inscription is falsified. 
The most extensive study about the inscription was conducted in 1970 by Jordan Zaimov, who 
had a different view than Mošin about the missing text. Even though his suggestion was deemed 
unfounded, it is still embraced today by modern researchers in publications about the history of the 
First Bulgarian State. 
After an on-the-ground examination of the monument, we found out that the inscription 
carrier originates from an older building, most likely from the Roman era, as evidenced from the 
top narrow surface of the marble, where there are holes and channels to fit Π-shaped metal joints. 
This contradicts the view that the inscription could have had another line on the top side of the 
inscribed surface, which was allegedly removed when it was placed in the place of the threshold. 
We also found out that the indicated date from the creation era (‘anno mundi’) was not read 
correctly despite the fact that all its numbers are clearly defined. It seems that the inscription editors 
were led to a mistake because of a reference made in the text to an emperor called John whom they 
mistook for Ivan Vladislav thus placing the dating of the inscription to the years of his reign (1015-
1018). Nonetheless, the year indicated on the inscription corresponds to the year 1202/3, i.e. the 
years of Ivan I, known as Kalojan (1197-1207), who, that same year, annexed to his acquisitions a 
large part of the western Balkans. 
It seems that it is an inscription that, looking back at the past, mentions some historical events 
with a view to connecting the newly-established Second Bulgarian State to the glorious past of the 
Cometopuli and, in particular, Tsar Samuel.

---

129