Falconer

Bulgarian documents use two designations for falconers. The Virgino Charter has the form “геракарь” (gerakar), whereas the Mraka, Rila, and Vitosha charters contain different spellings of kraguyar: “крагоугарь,” “крагоугар,” and “крагѫар.” None of these acts identifies an individual holder by name. Instead, the terms occur in lists of officials and other persons forbidden to infringe the rights of privileged estates.

Whether gerakar genuinely belonged to the Bulgarian administrative system is uncertain. The word appears only in the Virgino Charter, whose authenticity has been seriously questioned. Its compiler may have borrowed the relevant passage from the charter issued by the Serbian king Stefan Uroš II Milutin in 1300, since gerakar was common in Serbian acts. On the other hand, the document presents itself as a charter of Tsar Constantine Tikh Asen, and more than half a century separates his reign from the other Bulgarian attestations. It has therefore been suggested that gerakar may have been used in thirteenth-century Bulgaria and replaced by the Slavic kraguyar during the fourteenth century. The surviving evidence cannot prove such a development.

The two designations have different linguistic origins, but there is no evidence that they referred to separate kinds of falconer. Gerakar derives from the Greek term ἱερακάριος, related to ἱέραξ, meaning “falcon” or “hawk.” Kraguyar was formed from the old Slavic word kraguy, likewise meaning a falcon. The word or related forms are known in numerous Slavic languages. It is impossible to determine whether the choice of term depended on the species of bird, a particular duty, or simply the period and linguistic setting.

The office was modelled on Byzantium, where falconry formed an important part of court life. Emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos, for example, maintained an enormous hunting establishment with more than a thousand dogs and approximately 1,400 falcons. The personnel responsible for the birds were headed by the protoierakarios, a court dignitary who supervised the men carrying the falcons. A glove worn at his belt formed part of his distinctive attire. For the Second Bulgarian Empire, however, there is no evidence of an equivalent central chief or of special insignia, seals, or coins belonging to kraguyars.

Medieval Serbia provides a useful parallel. Serbian documents employ gerakar but not kraguyar, and falconers are commonly mentioned alongside psars, the keepers or officials responsible for hunting dogs. The same pairing occurs in Bulgarian charters. This indicates that both services belonged to the organization of the ruler’s hunt and probably supervised the procurement, raising, or maintenance of the required animals.

The exact status of the kraguyar cannot be established. The term might have designated people subject to special obligations, but its place in the protective clauses of charters points more strongly to an administrative official. These clauses list representatives of authority who were forbidden to enter donated lands or impose taxes and angaria, meaning compulsory unpaid labour. Kraguyars appear beside officials who collected dues and organized such obligations. They did not occupy a leading position: in the Virgino Charter only the psars and desetkars, supervisors of groups of ten, follow them, while they stand eleventh, sixteenth, and twentieth in the Mraka, Rila, and Vitosha charters respectively. This order suggests a relatively modest rank, although it need not reproduce a precise official hierarchy.

The kraguyars probably supervised an obligation to provide hunting birds for the tsar. It is unclear whether they personally captured, raised, and trained falcons or were primarily responsible for demanding birds and labour from the local population. Nor can it be established whether they were provincial officials or representatives of a unified service directly subordinate to the central government. There is no evidence for a distinction between collectors of nestlings, catchers of adult birds, and trainers, or between specialists responsible for different species of bird of prey.

Evidence from the period of the Ottoman conquest shows that falconry continued to be associated with the administration of the Sofia region. An account of the city’s fall mentions the convert to Islam Uzundzhi Sevindik, who became the doğancıbaşı, or head falconer, of the Sofia governor Yanuka. This is a late testimony and does not directly establish how the Bulgarian office had been organized, but it demonstrates the endurance of the local hunting tradition.

Under the Ottoman Empire, falconry developed into a large court and provincial organization. It was headed by the çakırcıbaşı, whose position resembled that of the Byzantine protoierakarios. Mehmed II’s law code placed him immediately after the two mirahors responsible for the sultan’s stables; he ranked approximately eleventh or twelfth overall and sixth among the military offices. By about 1564, the organization included roughly 3,500 people. Provincial and district chiefs commanded groups divided according to their birds and duties. Some took young birds from nests, others caught adults, and still others trained them.

Certain falconers held timars—conditional landed grants given in return for service—while others received exemptions from particular taxes and labour obligations. The position could pass from father to son, and some groups were subject to the judicial authority of their own chief. This evidence helps explain the possible tasks of the earlier kraguyars, but the Ottoman organization cannot simply be projected back onto the Second Bulgarian Empire.

Kraguyars are attested, under one or the other possible designation, in four Bulgarian charters, suggesting that the service was relatively widespread. The sources nevertheless reveal little beyond its presence among the lower administrative offices and its connection with the royal hunt. Its exact structure, leadership, and internal divisions remain unknown. After the Ottoman conquest, the Bulgarian administrative designation is no longer documented, although the activity itself continued within the Ottoman institutions responsible for hunting birds.

Bulgarian documents use two names for falconers. In the Virgino Charter, the word appears as “геракарь” (gerakar). In the Mraka, Rila, and Vitosha charters, it appears in different forms of kraguyar: “крагоугарь,” “крагоугар,” and “крагѫар.” None of these documents names a specific person as the holder of the office. Instead, the words appear in lists of officials and other people who were not allowed to break the rights of privileged estates.

It is not certain whether gerakar really belonged to the Bulgarian system of administration. The word appears only in the Virgino Charter, and scholars have seriously doubted that charter’s authenticity. The compiler may have taken the relevant passage from the charter issued by the Serbian king Stefan Uroš II Milutin in 1300, because gerakar was common in Serbian documents. At the same time, the charter presents itself as one of Tsar Constantine Tikh Asen, and his reign is more than half a century earlier than the other Bulgarian examples. For that reason, some historians have suggested that gerakar may have been used in Bulgaria in the thirteenth century and later replaced by the Slavic kraguyar in the fourteenth century. The surviving evidence does not allow us to prove this.

The two words come from different languages, but there is no sign that they referred to different kinds of falconer. Gerakar comes from the Greek word ἱερακάριος, which is linked to ἱέραξ, meaning “falcon” or “hawk.” Kraguyar was formed from the old Slavic word kraguy, which also means a falcon. Related forms of this word are found in many Slavic languages. We cannot tell whether people used one term or the other because of the species of bird, a particular job, or simply the time and language of the document.

This office was based on Byzantine practice, where falconry was an important part of court life. Emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos, for example, kept a huge hunting establishment with more than a thousand dogs and about 1,400 falcons. The people in charge of the birds were led by the protoierakarios, a court official who supervised the men who carried the falcons. A glove worn on his belt was part of his special clothing. For the Second Bulgarian Empire, however, there is no evidence of a similar central chief, or of special badges, seals, or coins belonging to kraguyars.

Medieval Serbia offers a useful comparison. Serbian documents use gerakar but not kraguyar, and falconers are often mentioned together with psars, the keepers or officials responsible for hunting dogs. The same combination appears in Bulgarian charters. This suggests that both services were part of the ruler’s hunting organization and probably handled the supply, breeding, or upkeep of the animals needed for the hunt.

We cannot determine the exact position of the kraguyar. The word may have referred to people with special duties, but its place in the protective clauses of charters points more strongly to an administrative official. These clauses list representatives of authority who were not allowed to enter donated lands or to impose taxes and angaria, meaning forced unpaid labour. Kraguyars appear beside officials who collected dues and organized such obligations. They were not at the top of the hierarchy. In the Virgino Charter, only the psars and desetkars, supervisors of groups of ten, come after them. In the Mraka, Rila, and Vitosha charters, they stand eleventh, sixteenth, and twentieth respectively. That order suggests a fairly low rank, although it does not necessarily show the exact structure of the administration.

The kraguyars probably supervised an obligation to provide hunting birds for the tsar. We do not know whether they personally caught, raised, and trained falcons, or whether they mainly demanded birds and labour from the local population. We also cannot say whether they were provincial officials or members of a single service directly under the central government. There is no evidence for separate groups of people who collected nestlings, caught adult birds, or trained them, or for specialists assigned to different kinds of birds of prey.

Evidence from the time of the Ottoman conquest shows that falconry remained tied to the administration of the Sofia region. One account of the city’s fall mentions the convert to Islam Uzundzhi Sevindik, who became the doğancıbaşı, or head falconer, of the Sofia governor Yanuka. This is a late source, so it does not directly show how the Bulgarian office had worked. Even so, it does show that the local hunting tradition survived.

Under the Ottoman Empire, falconry became a large court and provincial organization. It was headed by the çakırcıbaşı, a post similar to the Byzantine protoierakarios. Mehmed II’s law code placed him immediately after the two mirahors, who were in charge of the sultan’s stables. He ranked about eleventh or twelfth overall and sixth among the military offices. By around 1564, the organization included roughly 3,500 people. Provincial and district chiefs led groups divided according to the birds they handled and the duties they performed. Some took young birds from nests, others caught adult birds, and still others trained them.

Some falconers held timars, which were conditional land grants given in return for service, while others received exemptions from certain taxes and labour duties. The office could pass from father to son, and some groups were subject to the court authority of their own chief. This helps us understand the possible work of the earlier kraguyars, but the Ottoman system cannot simply be projected back onto the Second Bulgarian Empire.

Kraguyars are mentioned, under one or the other possible form of the word, in four Bulgarian charters, so the service seems to have been fairly widespread. Even so, the sources tell us little beyond its place among the lower administrative offices and its link to the ruler’s hunt. We still do not know its exact structure, its leaders, or how it was divided internally. After the Ottoman conquest, the Bulgarian administrative title is no longer recorded, although the activity itself continued inside the Ottoman institutions responsible for hunting birds.

Medieval Bulgarian charters mention falconers in four documents. One charter uses one word for them, and the other three use a different word. These people are not named. They appear in lists of officials who were not allowed to disturb church and monastery lands.

It is not clear if the first word was really part of Bulgarian official language, because the charter that uses it may have been copied from a Serbian one. The two words came from different roots, but they probably meant the same kind of person. They were likely officials tied to the ruler’s hunt, and may have helped provide, raise, or care for hunting birds.

The exact job and rank of these falconers are still unknown. But the charters show that falconry was an organized part of state life in medieval Bulgaria, and the same tradition continued later under the Ottomans.