The subject of the present study (1) is unpublished graffito-drawings from the tenth-century monastery of Ravna, Bulgaria, which has been excavated during the last ten years. It is located about 25 km south-east from the Bulgarian medieval capital Pliska and 18 km west from present day Provadija . It is situated on a high terrace on the right bank of the Provadijska River, not very far from the railway station in the village of Ravna. Therefore, since there was not any medieval settlement near the monastery, it is now known as the Ravna monastery.

The building complex covers an area of about ten acres and is constructed according to a prior composed plan.  The church - a basilica type, is erected in the centre and is enclosed from the west by an atrium. Its north range is a fourpart building, identified as a scriptorium with attached library and school (2). The south range of the atrium consists of a three-part building identified as a refectory with stores and rooms belonging to it. The almost square space across from the church is closed by two single sectioned buildings. The passage between them coincides with the axis connecting the west monastery gate with the church entrance.

The whole monastery complex is surrounded by a stone wall (1m thick), with towers to the west and the east and with two gates: a west gate which led to Pliska and an east gate leading to medieval Provaton (Provadija). In the south surrounding wall there is a small gate connecting the guest-house which was outside adjacent to the wall of the monastery. Later, when the monastery changed its character, new buildings with domestic and commercial functions appeared in the north, east and south yard (3).

A Greek inscription, discovered near the south wall of the church, mentions its consecration in 889 which seems to be terminus post quem of the monastery (4). Consequently, it can be suggested that the Ravna monastery was at least planned by King Boris (852-889;V 907 AD) and he started its construction following his aim to organise a set of monasteries in the central part of the country after the conversion of Bulgaria in 864 (5). Although I accept the reading of the date of the church's consecration as 889, it could not be said that the whole complex was already built at that time. In 889 Boris left the throne and power was taken over by his first born son Vladimir (889-893 AD) whose anti-Christian policy, perhaps, did not create a conducive environment for any ecclesiastical building (6). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the building of the monastery was continued and finished in the first years of the reign of Emperor Symeon (893-927 AD), the second son of Boris. It is proved by the complex archaeological material (the architectural style of the church, the ceramic) and is mainly attested by the earliest seals of Symeon with the title prince and his first born son as a hire to the throne Michael which had been found in Ravna (7). Thus, the seals, the elegant style of the architecture, and the bath-house include Ravna in the group of the monasteries which were supported and protected by the ruling dynasty.

Being a royal foundation, the Ravna monastery was intended to be a literary and educational centre in the context of the cultural policy of Boris and Symeon. This distinctive feature of the monastery is revealed by the scriptorium as well as by the impressive epigraphic material containing around 300 inscriptions in Greek (some of them made in minuscule which is typical only for the manuscripts) and Cyrillic (8), and the part of the numerous graffito-drawings (around 3000) which are replicas of book illuminations.

The main and the only certain criterion of classification is the kind of the image presented. According to it, the images are differentiated into five classes: geometrical, animal, vegetal, human, and "symbolic" images. The typology within each of the classes reflects the manner and variety in the representation. The topographic distribution is shown by graphs and the frequency of appearance of all the kinds and types of images in both zones is laid out in numerical tables (9).

Crosses are the most frequently represented image among the types in both zones (Table 1). However, their number in Zone A (97) is exceptionally higher in comparison to Zone B (19). Moreover, the highest concentration of crosses is in the church (Table 1). The types of the graffito-crosses from the enclosure and the guest-house do not differ from the types of the cross known in the Middle Ages and served either as a religious object or were applied as a symbol in Christian art (10). For example, the preponderant types were the Greek cross and the cross with triangular points of the arms, a graphical variant of the cross of the Theophany which was one of the most typical Christian crosses (11). Another example is the trident cross which approaches in similarity the cross of Jerusalem. The type of the forked cross which appears less frequently also can be found in Early Christian monuments (12).

At the same time, however, one can distinguish variants of the cross which can be regarded as typical only for the graffiti. These are, for example, the crosses surrounding by dots. The number of dots in all the cases is different which makes difficult the interpretation of the idea expressed. On the one hand, it has been suggested that the dots around the cross were made in order to increase the magical potency of the image (13). On the other hand, to each number of dots one can apply biblical symbolism. For instance, the four dots can signify the four evangelists, the seven dots could refer to the seven stars mentioned in the Rev. 2.1, 3.1, the eight dots could symbolised the eighth days before the Resurrection, and the twelve can be interpreted as the twelve apostles. Thus, the danger of speculation in such an interpretation is obvious. One should be aware of the fact that the crosses were scratched on the walls outside of any prior iconographic scheme as a result of a specific emotional situation. Since the reconstruction of every particular case is impossible, it is quite unfruitful to suppose what each of the different types of crosses symbolised. However, with more or less certainty it can be said what they did signify as a group. The correspondences with known types of Christian crosses leads to the assumption that they functioned as a Christian symbol and can be considered evidence for its adoption and popularity in tenth-century Bulgaria (14). In this sense, the cross scratched into the walls of the monastery can be regarded as signs of Christian presence providing worship and invoking God's protection.

Perhaps, one of the most interesting questions which to raise is why so many images of horses  were scratched in the monastery of Ravna. There are 83 images in Zone A and 18 in Zone B. What should be emphasised, is that their number and the variety of the types cannot be regarded as a special case. The image of the horse was one of the most popular images in the Bulgarian medieval graffito-drawings. For example, both from Pliska and Preslav, either separately or in scenes, it appears 161 times. The fact is explained, on the one hand with the proto-Bulgarian tradition in horse-breeding, and on the other hand with the importance of the horse in Bulgarian military practice (16). One can generally agree with such a social interpretation. However, the appearance of graffito-images of horses in other cultural traditions, as, for example, in the third-century Dura Synagogue (Syria) (17), implies more general approach to the problem. Therefore, this fact as well as the predominance of the images of horses in the enclosure in contrast to the guest-house, lead me to leave open the question about the motives of those who scratched a horse on the wall.

The human images are divided into two main groups: single human figures including representations of faces, and riders. In spite of the uniform characteristics (e. g. the frontal position, the predominance of the gesture orans etc.) the status of some of the represented human images can be recognised. For instance, according to the dress and especially to the pointed hats with crosses (cuculus) two of the human figures can be identified as images of monks. Moreover, one of them has the status of a saint recognisable by the inscription around the head: O AG IOC BACHL EIOC (St. Basil). In addition, the riders with spears can be identified as images of soldiers. Quite intriguing is the group of riders holding crosses in the left hand. The triumphal character of these representations and, particularly the emphasis on the triumph of the Cross leads to the proposal that they reproduce the image of the Holy Rider - one of the most popular amuletic motifs in Byzantine pilgrimage art (18). However, he usually does not hold a cross but a cross-shaped spear and implies a prostrate figure lying under the horse. Therefore, it seems highly likely that the presented graffito-images picture conquers, probably soldiers, who enjoy victory in the name, and with the help of the Christian religion.

Summarising the observations on the human graffito-images from the enclosure and the guest-house, one can be struck by their limited appearance in comparison to the other kinds of images (crosses, horses, etc.). The main reason might be the difficulties of depicting a human image. However, one can go further in this sense and raise the question of the function of the human images in the graffito-drawings. They were most likely made as personal signs or sketchy self-portraits in order to mark a visit or a stay of a person in the monastery. What is more, they probably expressed one's piety and prayer for God's protection. This explains the predominance of the gesture orans - an ancient and traditional image of Christian prayer (19). Even the images of the saints probably invoked protection for the persons who made them.

Although all of the images classified as symbolic images are intriguing, there is no doubt that the most mysterious amongst them is the image of high boots which I call boot-graffiti (Fig. 7 and 8). The greatest concentrations of boot-graffiti are registered in the church and in the guest-house. The rest of them were found in the south yard. The typology is based on two principles: outer appearance and orientation of the boots (Table 1). In general, the boot-graffiti from Ravna have the same outer features as those which had been found at other sites in the territory of the First Bulgarian Kingdom: Preslav, Bassarabi, Dinogetia-Garvan, Capidava, Hiršova. The only exception to this area is Chersones, present-day Crimea (Ukraine) (20). They can be described as high boots or supple leather strapped shoes, although there are some examples that look like low shoes or sandals. Still regarding the shape of boots, one can mention a distinctive group with a knee-part. The zigzag and cross-wise nicks in most of the boots seem like decoration but are more likely representations of straps or laces (21). Consequently, according to this feature, two main kinds of boots can be distinguished: strapped and non strapped. The larger number of non strapped boots can be explained either by their popularity in real life or by the fact that they were easier to depict. Much more interesting is the frequency of appearance of both kinds in different zones of the monastery. As can be seen from Table 2, the number of each type of boots displayed in the guest-house corresponds to the number of each type scratched into the walls of the church and scriptorium. The same parallelism can be noticed in the number of boots oriented to the left and right in both the church and the guest-house. These accounts lead me to suggest that the boots at both places were made by one and the same group of people.

Then, who were the scribblers of the boot-graffiti and what was the meaning of this image ? The examination of the appearance and function of the image of the pair of footwear (boots or sandals) taken off by Moses in the iconography of the Burning Bush scene from the third century up to the Late Middle Ages lead me to suggest the following interpretation: the tenth century boot-graffiti from Ravna monastery as well as from Preslav, Bassarabi, Hiršova, Capidava, Dinogetia-Garvan and Chersonses are made as personal signs of worship with protective power; the boot-graffiti were scratched by a distinctive group of pilgrims who in the first half of the tenth century passed through the north-eastern part of Bulgaria, visiting Ravna monastery; the pilgrims probably adopted this symbol during their pilgrimage to the Holy Land and particularly to Sinai. There the image of boots was popular as a symbol of experience of epiphany and piety being derived from the "abbreviated" iconography of the Burning Bush scene, a typical locus sanctus picture for Sinai (22).

The term centre in the context of the monastic area can be applied to the part of the building complex where the religious and spiritual life of the monks took place. Accordingly, the centre of the Ravna monastery was the central enclosure described above (23). Its closed character in an architectural sense is belied by the highest concentration of graffito-drawings, revealing the active role of this zone in the monastery. Perhaps, the church was the crucial and therefore, the most frequently visited place which is shown by the highest number and the richest variety of the graffito-drawings found there. Accordingly, it can be suggested that it was probably used not only by the monks, but also served the religious needs of the local population (24).

Moreover, to the spiritual functions of the central enclosure in Ravna one should add the literary and educational activity of the community which were also concentrated there. The specific character of the images found in the buildings from the north range provide one more piece of evidence for their identification as a scriptorium with a library and school. A very remarkable example in this sense is the vegetal ornaments which appear only in this building. Thus, their topography enables us to identify of the persons who scratched them as monks-illuminators. The limited place and number of occurrences of such graffito replicas of book illumination point out that only this group of monks had access to the books and thus, the opportunity to reproduce their decoration (25). This privilege as well as the position of their working place in the centre of the monastery, lead to the conjecture that the scribes and illuminators were the highest strata in the community of the Ravna monastery.

Still regarding the function of the graffiti in the centre of the monastery, one should mention the intriguing lack of images from the refectory and dormitory which were place in the building situated in one at the southern range of the enclosure (Fig. 2). On the one hand, a possible explanation can be based on the fact that the monks visited the refectory during fixed hours of the day and proceeded in a restricted order which did not enable scratching of graffiti there (26). On the other hand, the demolition of the building probably led to the spread of the blocks from the walls in the south yard.

The periphery of the Ravna monastery covers the north yard serving the hygienic needs of the monks, the south yard with the kitchen and stores, the guest-house adjacent to the south surrounding wall , and later, the eastern part with the commercial buildings. However, in the present study I apply the term periphery to the guest-house emphasising its specific function in the monastic complex. Unfortunately, there is not any preserved typica of early Bulgarian monasteries which can be consulted. Nevertheless, the correspondences of the Hypotyposis of the Stoudios monastery to the communal organisation in tenth-century Bulgarian monasteries which have been already stressed, enables me to apply it in the case of Ravna. There on can found a text which states that the brothers and laymen who were going to take on the great habit should stay in the guest-house (e i s t o x e n o d o c e i o n ) two or three weeks in order to become familiar with the monastery and only after taking on the little habit they were included in the community (27). Or in other words, the guest-house in Eastern monasteries did not serve only the accommodation of the visitors. Rather, it functioned also as an entrance or a transitional place from the world outside to common life. Consequently, the location of the guest-house in the Ravna monastery indicates not only a spatial periphery but also a periphery in a social sense since it was intended for laymen coming from the periphery of the world according to the monastic perception.

That the monks indeed considered the guest-house a periphery becomes obvious from the following estimations. In the graffito-drawings originating from there one cannot find, with only one exception, images typical for the scriptorium. It seemed that the monks-scribes did not go to this part of the monastery. Perhaps, the communication from the centre to the periphery was controlled by the typicon. For example, in the Penitential Code ('E p i t i m i a ) of the Stoudios monastery there is a text referring to the prohibition of monks walking around the monastery breaking in this way the established order of movement (28).

However, with some limitations, the communication in the opposite direction from the periphery to the centre did exist and was very active. As noted above, the church was also accessible for outsiders thus making it an intersected point in the monastic space. Therefore, one cannot find any sufficient difference between the kinds and types of the graffito-images from the church and the guest-house simply because they were made more or less by one and the same group of people (29). What is more important is the fact that the graffito-images from the guest-house are less in number and variety than the images from the church and the central enclosure as a whole. On the one hand, it can be supposed that a part of the graffiti in the church had been scratched by people who visited the monastery but did not stay for a longer time. Nevertheless, the fact that the nearest settlement (present day Provadija) was 18 km away reduces their probable number. But if we focus on the correlation between the graffito-drawings in both zones we can discover the laymen's perception of the monastic space. It can be said that they recognised the peripheral character of the place intended for them (the guest-house) in the monastic complex which did not provoke their semiotic activity. In contrast, this was the church which the outsiders considered the sacred and supernatural centre of the monastery. Hence, this was the place where they preferred to announce their presence and even personality, and to express their hopes and prayers believing that the images on the church walls would be certainly seen by God. In this way, the functions of the centre and the periphery revealed by the graffito-drawings, add one more important feature to the character of the Ravna monastery. It was not a closed complex but a frequented place which leads me to suspect its function as a place visited by pilgrims.

1) The complete version of the study is originally presented in 1994-95 academic year as a thesis for M. A. degree in the Department of Medieval Studies in the Central European University in Budapest and can be found in the Departmental Library.

Bibliography

Zlatarski, V., Istorija na balgarskata darjava prez srednite vekove. Parvo balgarsko tzarstvo, [History of the Bulgarian state in the Middle Ages. The First Bulgarian Empire], vol. I part 2, Sofia, 1927.