The role of the Slavs within the Byzantine empire, 500-1018

Michael David Graebner


I. Introduction



[[ page 1 missing ]]





the Slavs within the empire and Byzantium was to continue to grow to the mutual benefit of both until well into the eleventh century.


A comprehensive modern account of the Slav's role within the Byzantine Empire (500-1018) is needed as a review of past work on the subject illustrates. Serious scholarship began with the massive compilation of ethnographic data by Johann Gotthilf Stritter (1740-1801). [4] His four-volume collection in Latin paraphrase of the ethnographic data, to be found in the famous Paris Corpus of Byzantine sources, [5] formed the basis for many subsequent national histories. He also prepared an abbreviated version which was translated into Russian and appeared in print well before his Latin edition. [6] It is Stritter's Latin paraphrase upon which later scholars, even Russians, have based their studies, and it remains noteworthy because of its influence on later national-historical work, especially among Slavic scholars.


The first study to discuss the Slavs and their part in Byzantine history, P. J. Šafarik's (1795-1861) Slovanske Starožitnosti, [7] shows the pervasive influence of Stricter's collection. As its title "Slavic Antiquities" indicates, it was a work primarily devoted to the investigation of Slavonic history. The influence of Šafarik's history of the Slavic peoples spread rapidly as his original Czech edition of 1837 was translated into Russian in 1838 and into German in 1843/44. [8] When referring to Byzantine





primary sources, Šafarik relied heavily upon Stritter's compilation. Slovanske Starožitnosti deserves mention in that it was the first modern study (rather than annotated compilation) to discuss the Slavs within the Byzantine Empire. As such, it had lasting influence upon all historians who were later to continue the discussion. The specific subject of the Slavs within Byzantium was, however, peripheral to Šafarik's aim and received cursory treatment.


Significantly more attention was devoted to the Slavs in Byzantine society by V. I. Lamanskij (1833-1914). In his published Master's thesis (1859), entitled "On the Slavs in Asia Minor, Africa and Spain," Lamanskij discussed at length the Slavs and their settlements in Asia Minor during the Byzantine Era. [9] Utilizing the works of both Stritter and Šafarik, Lamanskij's investigation of the Slavonic diaspora throughout the Mediterranean world was a daring and imaginative study. It is a credit to his scholarly acumen to have attempted such a comprehensive work. Complete as it was, it had its flaws, not the least of which was his Pan-Slavic attitude, which led him to overstatement, particularly with regard to the Slavs in Asia Minor. [10] Lamanskij, like Šafarik before him, was a Slavist and not a Byzantinist. His contribution marks the beginning of a scholarly career in Slavistics and as a publicist for Russian Pan-Slavism. [11]


Lamanskij's discussion of the Slavs in Asia Minor is the most lengthy, but not the most influential. The





observations of the Byzantine legal historian Karl Eduard Zachariä von Lingenthal (1812-1894) concerning a piece of legislation called The Farmer's Law becarae the basis, in the hands of V. G. Vasiljevskij (1838-1899), of the first statement of the Slav's place in Byzantine society. [12] Vasiljevskij, unlike his predecessors, Šafarik and Lamanskij, was a Byzantinist and the true founder of Russian Byzantine studies. A classicist by training, he received his inspiration from the great German historians of antiquity — T. Mommsen (1817-1903) and J. Droysen (1808-1884). [13] While this training in the Classics preserved him from the Pan-Slavic enthusiasm of Lamanskij, it also led him to look to the era of Classical Rome for analogies by which to understand Byzantium.


Vasiljevskij's formulation of the Slav's place in Byzantine social history resulted from his inquiries into Byzantine law of the Iconoclast Era. [14] Convinced that the legislation of the eighth century represented a departure from the era of Justinian I (527-565), Vasiljevskij sought for an explanation. Proceeding with an analogy with the Western Roman Empire and the changes wrought in its legal structure by the Germanic invasions, he decided that a similar phenomenon brought about legal change in Byzantium. [15] This phenomenon was the Slavic migration to and settlement in the Balkan Peninsula. [16] The transposition of Slav for German and East Rome for West Rome formed the preface to an important essay by Vasiljevskij on the social





history of the Middle Byzantine Era. It also assured the Slav a place in all later discussions of Byzantine society.


Later, the studies of F. I. Uspenskij (1845-1928) gave an even more important place to the Slavs in Byzantine history, particularly during the middle period. [17] Uspenskij, although a Byzantinist by profession, had been trained by Lamanskij as a Slavist and throughout his career he retained a certain partiality regarding the Slav's position in history. [18] Accepting Vasiljevskij's explanation for changes in the Byzantine legal system and filled with Lamanskij's Pan-Slavic enthusiasm, [19] Uspenskij found the

Slav the primary reason for Byzantium's strength during the era 700-1100. [20] The profound Slavonic influence upon Byzantium was, in the words of Uspenskij, the result of Slavic communal property ownership. It was upon this unique form of Slavic land tenure that the empire's survival as a world power depended. [21] The decline of Slavic society, and with it communal property ownership, in Uspenskij's theory, spelled the decline of Byzantium. [22]


Uspenskij's formulation received further support from another Russian Byzantinist, N. Skabalonovič (Fl. nineteenth century). Skabalonović's book, The Byzantine State and Church in the Eleventh Century, not only summarized Uspenskij's findings in eminently readable form, but also provided further elucidation of the difference between Slav and German in their respective areas of settlement. [23] His description attracted the attention and approbation of





J. B. Bury (1861-1927), then the greatest Byzantinist of the English-speaking world. [24] The awareness and acceptance by Bury of such an important role for the Slav, as presented by Skabalonovič, led Bury himself to posit Slavic origins for several sixth-century generals. [25] Aside from Bury, the only other Western European scholar fully cognizant of this Russian opinion was Karl Zachariä von Lingenthal, who had started Vasiljevskij on his investigation of legal change in the first place. [26] Zachariä von Lingenthal, in the third and final edition of his History of Graeco-Roman Law, repeated Vasiljevskij's conclusion that the Slavs were a moving force behind the new legislation of the eighth century. [27]


The position developed by Vasiljevskij and Ospenskij, and strongly supported by such scholars as Bury and Zachariä von Lingenthal, received, in 1904, devastating criticism from Boris Pančenko (1872-1920). [28] Considering the importance of Pančenko's critique, and even though it received almost complete acceptance by Western European scholars, his discussion generated very little debate among the same. Up to the end of the Second World War, virtually all further investigations by Slavic scholars were written in support of Vasiljevskij and Uspenskij as well as in refutation of Pančenko. [29]


Western Europe, with the exception of Bury and Zachariä von Lingenthal, failed to take serious note of the Slav's role within the Byzantine Empire because of the





influence of Classical historians and a general ignorance of Slavic languages. Traditional histories of the time emphasized the heritage of Greece and Rome and considered Byzantium, if they discussed it at all, as a lamentable decline from past glory. Byzantium and its social structure was further obscured by the acrimonious debate over J. P. Fallmerayer's (1790-1861) thesis that present-day Greece is inhabited by people of Slavic and others of non-Hellenic blood. [30] The result of this was not an investigation of Byzantium or, for that matter, of the Slavs themselves. Instead, all attention turned to Greece alone and the empire was treated as a minor appendage to Greek history. The clearest example of this is the work of Karl Hopf (1832-1873). [31] The fact that scholarship generated by the Fallmerayer thesis is not truly Byzantine history, but specifically Greek history, does not detract from the high quality of what has been written, particularly regarding the Slavic population of Medieval Greece. The writings of A. A. Vasiliev (1867-1953), [32] Max Vasmer (1886-1964), [33] D. J. Georgacas, [34] St. Kyriakides (1887-1964), [35] Antoine Bon (obit.-1972) [36], and other scholars on this topic are of exceptional quality. Yet it must be said that these works provide what they set out to provide, a background to the history of modern Greece and its ethnic composition.


Though the works of two French scholars, A. Rambaud (1842-1905) and G. Schlumberger (1844-1928) focus more directly upon Byzantium and show better awareness of





Russian scholarship, they still lack a discussion concerning the significance of the Slavs. Rambaud, in his book about Byzantium in the tenth century, relied entirely upon the earlier writings of Stritter and Šafarik for information pertaining to the Slavs within the empire. [37] G. Schlumberger made widespread use of Russian works but he also, like Bury, accepted the conclusions of the Russian scholars and developed no new insights. [38]


The outbreak of the First World War and the Russian Revolution brought an end to all dialogue about the Slav's role within the empire. While Byzantine studies flourished during the era following the First World War, study of the Slavs within the empire remained dormant. [39] In 1938 discussion re-opened with M. V. Levčenko's (1890-1955) article entitled "The Slavs in Byzantium," published in the journal Vestnik Drevnei Istorii (Messenger of Ancient History). [40] Subsequently, the Soviet scholars Je. E. Lipšits, [41] G. G. Litaverin, [42] A. P. Kašdan, [43] M. Ju. Brajčevskij, [44] and M. J. Sjuzjumov [45] discussed various aspects of the Slav's place in Byzantium. While the works of Levčenko and Lipšits were a Marxist adaptation of Uspenskij, the studies of the remaining scholars represent more diversity in outlook. Eastern Europe, following the lead of the Soviet Union, has also produced many excellent critical studies. Particularly important are the works of the Bulgarian scholars D. Angelov, [46] A. Burmov (1911-1965), [47] L. Jončev, [48] V. Tupkova-Zaimova, [49] and G. Cankova-Petkova. [50] In Jugoslavia,





the short but penetrating analyses of F. Barišić, [51] and B. Grafenauer [52] are of great significance. The investigations of the Polish scholar H. Evert-Kappesowa mark an important new development in Byzantine history as it relates to the Slavs. [53] Of less value, but still worthwhile for the overall picture, is the monograph of the Czech historian B. Zasterova. [54] The work of Soviet and East European scholars has been matched in quality, although not in quantity, by P. Charanis, [55] F. Dölger (1891-1968), [56] and P. Lemerle. [57]


Outside the arena of Byzantine history, there is important material dealing with Slavic relations within the empire, but not directly to Byzantium. In several cases national histories supply excellent information and insight. Five national historians deserve special mention. They are Marin Drinov (1833-1906), [58] Stanoe Stanojević (1874-1938), [59] Vasil Zlatarski (1866-1935), [60] and K. Amantos. [61] Not to mention the researches of the Slavists Lubor Niederle (1865-1944), [62] Nicolaj S. Deržavin (1877-1953), [63] and Witold Hensel, [64] as well as the Byzantino-Slavists Frantisek Dvornik [65] and Ivan Dujčev [66] would be a serious omission.


In spite of the wealth of scholarship, no single study devotes itself exclusively to the Slavs within the Byzantine State during the Middle Byzantine Era. The extreme fragmentation of the existing studies is distressing. Perhaps the closest to a comprehensive study was that written by V. I. Lamanskij, a work far from satisfactory not only because of its lack of adequate primary source





information, but also because of its Pan-Slavic bias.


The mention of the Slavs within Byzantium conjures up many diverse, but always controversial topics. It can mean a debate over the racial types to be found in Greece, or, perhaps, problems of Peloponnesian toponymy. It may bring up the question of the Slavic or non-Slavic origins of The Farmer's Law and possibly, in the same context, the rebellion of Thomas the Slavonian (providing that one is agreed as to whether or not he was a Slav). For the initial era of Slavic-Byzantine relationships, there is always the discussion of the chronology of the mode of the Slavic invasions to stimulate other debates. For a later era there is the question on the racial origins of the two saints from Thessalonica, Constantine, and Methodius, to stir up thesis, anti-thesis, but never synthesis.


The lamentable lack of synthesis, the chaos of unconnected fact, opinion, brilliant insight, and unsupportable assertion all indicate the need for a unified history of the Slav's place within Byzantium. There is a basic continuity which does indeed link the primitive Slavic tribes north of the Danube during the time of Justinian I (527-565) to the Slavs in Michael III's (842-867) court and to those in Constantino VII's (913-959) armies. This oneness touches both the social developments within the empire and the languages of the empire Itself. To realize this unity it is necessary to order the material, both primary and secondary, and subsume it under the more





general category of Byzantine history. Whatever its potential use for understanding the Slavs outside of Byzantine frontiers, this study must first and foremost be a work of Byzantine history and not a sub-category of Slavistics. Byzantium itself, the arena where this interaction took place, was not an appendage to the Slavic world.


The history of the place of the Slavs in Byzantium begins, then, not with the first obscure references to distant or even nearby neighbors, [67] but with the actual entry of the Slavs into Byzantine life. This occurs in the sixth century. [68] Along with examples of Slavic troops in the armies of Justinian I, there is important data on the cultural level of Slavic society which is vital for an understanding of later Slavic society within Byzantium. [69] These social developments, initiated in the sixth century, must also have a terminal date: the final conquest of the kingdom of the Cometopuli in 1018 by Basil II (976-1025) completes the infusion of a large number of Slavs differing totally in background from those within imperial borders during the previous five centuries. [70] I have chosen the year 1018 in order to avoid confusion of Byzantine Slavs with Bulgarians and other non-Byzantine Slavs.


The identification of the Slavs within the empire during the era 500-1018 is, in most cases, quite straightforward. Primary sources, throughout the period discussed, use the term "Slav" to identify members of that same ethnic unit. For the sixth century the term "Ante" is





also used. While complex arguments and painfully ingenious theories have been advanced to distinguish between the "Slavs" and the "Antes," no author of the sixth century was able to discern any difference in language or custom between the two. [71] For the purposes of this study, they will be treated as one and the same.


More problematical, but not unresolvable, is the question of Bulgar-Slav relations implied by the name/title "Boilas." The term "Boilas" is of indisputable Turcic origin. [72] Since there is no evidence that Bulgars were ever settled in Asia Minor, it will be assumed that persons coming from Asia Minor or in the imperial court who bear the name Boilas were brought into the empire as Slavs. [73] The term "Scyth," while being used in antiquity to describe the actual Scythians, was also used by Byzantine sources to denote virtually every tribe north of the Danube from the time of Attila (obit. 454) to that of Mehmet II (1451-1481). [74] Therefore, except in cases where other corroboration is present, it must be rejected as proof of Slavic origin. [75]


Most of the primary sources which speak of the Slavs and their place within the Byzantine Empire are chronicles and histories written in Greek. The contemporary account of Procopius (490/507-562) is the best starting point. It gives a significant description of the Slavs and their relations with the empire. [76] Agathias (536-583), [77] the continuator of Procopius, yields far less





information, but does contain several valuable references. Theophylact Simocatta (ca. 600) [78] deserves mention because his is the only contemporary source on the Slavic campaigns of Maurice (582-602). His actual information on Slavic cultural life at this crucial period is meagre, and his chronology of the events is confused to the point of uselessness. [79]


Infinitely more useful is the famous Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor (obit. 818). [80] It remains the major source of information for the seventh, eighth, and early ninth centuries. The shorter work of the Patriarch Nicephorus (758-829) covers basically the same era, but provides important additional details. [81] Subject to debate but still of historical worth is the Chronicle of Monemvasia. [82] For the ninth and tenth centuries there is the compilation known as Theophanes Continuatus, a collection rich in ethnographic data. [83] Further facts are given by Georgius Monachus (ca. 842), [84] Joseph Genesios (ca. 959), [85] and Simeon Magister (ca. ninth century). [86] More local in character, but valuable nonetheless, is John Cameniates' eyewitness account of the Arab sack of Thessalonica (904). [87] Of the later historical compendia, only the Skylitzes-Cedrinus Chronicle (to mid-eleventh century) [88] and the Chronicle of Michael Glycas (eleventh century) [89] add significant information.


The data of hagiography is a most valuable supplement to the histories and chronicles. The only hagiographic





account covering the sixth and seventh centuries which concerns itself with the formative period of Byzantine-Slavic relations is the Miracula Sancti Demetrii. [90] Slightly less important, but still of value for the following centuries, are the lives of St. Ioannicius the Great (ninth century) [91] and St. Gregory the Decapolite (ninth century). [92] Significant only for their corroboration of other sources are the Vitae of Athanasia hegumena in Aegina insula (ca. ninth century), [93] Eustratus hegumenus monasterii Abgari in Monte Olympo (ca. ninth century), [94] Martyres XLII Amorienses (838) [95], Euthymius junior asceta in Monte Atho (obit. 898), [96] Clement of Ohrid (obit. 916), [97] Lucas junior eremita in Hellade (obit. 953), [98] and Nicon Metanoeite (obit. 998). [99]


Along with chronicle, history, and hagiography there are also military, political, and geographical writings in Middle Byzantine Greek. For the military there exists the Strategicon of Maurice (582-602) [100] and the Tactica of Leo VI (886-912), [101] both of which contain valuable comments about the Slavs. Covering the seventh to tenth centuries are the three political works of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (913-959): De Administrando Imperio, [102] De Ceremoniis Aulis, [103] and De Thematibus. [104] An anonymous eleventh-century geographical guide to the city of Constantinople is tangential, but still yields some data. [105]


Latin primary source material is surprisingly poor





in its commentary on the Slavs within the imperial boundaries. Only Liutprand of Cremona (ca. 940-969) is worthy of mention, both for his description of, and participation in, imperial relations with the Slavs. [106] While Liutprand has received much attention because of his comically unflattering portrait of Nicephorus II Phocas (963-969), his positive attitude toward Romanus I Lecapenus (920-944) remains almost unmentioned. [107] His report on the political and ethnographic situation in imperial Europe should not be overlooked simply because of his dislike for Nicephorus II Phocas, an emperor austere even by monastic standards. [108]


The Arabic primary sources are far more informative than the Latin. Not only do the Arabic sources corroborate the Greek, but they also give data not to be found there. Four basic collections of translations from the Arabic concerning the Slavs and Byzantium exist. The oldest, covering the seventh to tenth centuries, is a Russian translation by the Semitic scholar A. Ja. (G)Harkavi (1839-1919), [109] of twenty-six Arabic accounts. Specifically concerned with Byzantium and covering the seventh and eighth centuries are the annotated translations into English by E. W. Brooks. [110] A. A. Vasiliev produced a particularly valuable two-volume Russian work which included full translations from the Arabic sources relating to the Amorion (820-867) and Macedonian (867-1056) dynasties. [111] Under the editorship of H. Grégoire (1881-1964) and Marius Canard, these two volumes later grew into





a three-volume French translation. [112] Taken in conjunction with Brooks, the translations of Vasiliev yield almost all of the necessary Arabic primary source material on Byzantine life from the seventh to the tenth centuries. A more recent study and replacement of Harkavi's Arabic texts on the Slavs may be found in the Polish translations of Tadeusz Lewicki. [113]


Syriac sources, while not as rich in information as the Arabic, are, nonetheless, useful. The historical writings of John of Ephesus (507-586), although fragmentary, present a valuable picture of the Slavs at the time of their settlement on imperial lands and forms an important contemporary source on the events of the reign of Maurice (582-602). [114] Despite the fact that both Michael the Syrian (obit. 1199) [115] and Bar Hebraeus (1225/6-1286) [116] wrote several centuries after the events they described, the traditions upon which they drew contain many features which attest to their accuracy on specific points of Byzantine-Slav relations. For that reason they cannot be ignored.


Initially, Old Church Slavonic and Middle Bulgarian would appear to be a rich mine of data. Most of the medieval Slavic sources are, however, merely translations from the Greek, and of little or no value for the purposes of this study. The Slavic texts of the lives of Constantine and Methodius (ninth century) are of passing interest. [117] They, however, yield only minimal information on Slavic





[[ page 17 missing ]]





Whatever the fate of the Slavs on imperial lands, it was but a facet of Byzantine life. There was an underlying unit, Byzantium.


Byzantium had more than one policy toward the Slavs, and the Slavs more than one line of development within the empire. Factors such as geography, external enemies, and internal struggles all contributed to the varied fate of the Slavs within imperial borders. When these elements are taken into account and critically examined, the place of the Slav, as a member of Byzantium, emerges. Initially the examination explains more about the Slavs and their society than about Byzantium, but as the study proceeds chronologically and geographically and the interaction between Slav and empire matures, it is the empire and its rich ethnic composition which is better understood.








1. Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. De Boor, I (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1883), 347: 6-7.


2. For a full history of the reign of Constans II, see Th. Kaestner, De Imperio Constantini III (641-668) (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1907); and more recently Α. Ν. Στράτος, Τὸ Βυζάντιον στὸν Zʹ Αἱῶνα, Δ (Ἀθῆναι: Βιβλιοπωλεῖον τὴς Ἔστίας), 1972.


3. The importance of this is stressed by G. Ostrogorsky. History of the Byzantine State (2nd rev., English ed.; New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 1969), p. 117. On the Sklavinias themselves, see the discussion and good bibliography by F. Barišić, Vizantiski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije, I (Belgrade: Posebna Izdanja Srpska Akademija Nauka, CCXLI, Vizantološki Institut 3, 1956), 222, n. 9. Also see P. Charanis, "Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages," Balkan Studies, XI (1970), 11-13.


4. Johann Gotthilf Stritter, Memoriae populorum, olim ad Danubium, Pontum Euxinum, Paludem Maeotidem, Caucasian, Mare Caspium, et inae maqis ad septentriones incolentium, e Scriptoribus Historiae Byzantinae erutae et digestae a Ioanne Gotthilf Strittero, II (St. Petersburg: Impensis Academiae Scientiarum, 1774), 1-105.


5. Corpus Byzantinae Historiae, Lutetia Parisiorum, 1648-1711 (+1819), 42 vols.


6. Ivan Štritter (= Johann Gotthilf Stritter), Izvestija Vizantijskih Istorikov ob'jasnjajuščija Rossijskuju Istoriju drevnih Vremen i Preselenija Narodov sobrany i hronologiceskim porjadkom raspoloženy Ivanom Štritterom, I (cast pervaja O Slavjanah) (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 1770). Štritter, in the inroduction to the Russian version (n.p.), states that, "Beyond this it has pleased the Imperial Academy of Science to direct me to abbreviate the aforementioned Latin extract for a Russian translation." The Russian version is not a full translation of the Latin as D. Obolenski states in his article "Modern Russian attitudes to Byzantium," Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft, XV (1966), 67, n. 20. A review of work done prior to Štritter may be found in I. Dujčev, "Les Etudes byzantines chez les slaves meridionaux et occidentaux depuis le XVIIe siecle," ibid., pp. 73-88, = Medioevo Byzantino-Slavo, II (Rome: Storia e Letteratura, 113, 1968), 541-560.





7. P. J. Šafarik, Slovanské Starožitnosti (Prague: Tiskem Jana Spurneho, 1837).


8. P. J. Šafarik, Slavjanskija Drevnosti, trans. into Russian from the Czech by G. Bogdjanskij under the sponsorship of M. Pogodin (Moscow, 1838), in two volumes. German edition under the title Slawische Altertümer, 2 vols., ed. by Heinrich Wuttke and trans. into German from the Czech by Mosig von Aehrenfeld (Leipzig: Verlag Wilhelm Engelmann, 1843-44).


9. V. I. Lamanskij, "O Slavjanah v Maloi Asii, v Afrike i v Ispanii," Učenija Zapiski Vtorago Otdelenija Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, V (1859), 1-370.


10. Ibid., pp. 3 and 125ff.


11. Lamanskij's relation to Russian Pan-Slavism, see Michael Boro Petrovich, The Emergence of Russian Pan-Slavism, 1856-1870 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), pp. 63, 94; and also B. D. Grekov, Dokumentik Istorii slavjanovedenija v Rossij 1850-1912 (Moscow-Leningrad: Akademi Nauk, 1948) , passim. For his influence upon Byzantine Studies, see Obolenski, "Modern Russian Attitudes," pp. 68-69; and B. T. Gorjanov, "F. I. Uspenskij i ego značenie v Vizantinovedenii," V.V., New Series, I (1947), 52.


12. V. G. Vasiljevskij, "Zakonodatel'stvo ikonoborčev," Ž.M.N.P., č. 200 (Nojabr, 1878), pp. 95-129, and č. 199 (Oktjabr, 1878), pp. 258-309, = Trudy, IV (Leningrad: Akademii Nauk, 1930), 139-235.


13. P. Bezobrazov, "V. G. Vasiljevskij," V.V., Old Series, VI (1899), 636-652.


14. V. G. Vasiljevskij, "Zakonodatelstvo," Ž.M.N.P., pp. 105-106, = Trudy, IV, 207-208.


"In the first half of the seventh century a whole mass of Slavic tribes entered the borders of the empire and occupied previously devastated provinces. Likewise, the whole mass of expelled native population were similarly seeking refuge in other provinces. Here lies the beginning of the transformation to a free peasant society, and here is, without doubt, as the source reveals, a new view towards the mode of land tenure. As late as the tenth century the Slavic tribes of the Sagudites and the Draguvites around Thessalonica still preserved the law, according to Kameniates, of their ancient social organization. We have full right to assume that, namely, on account of the new Slavic population of the empire, this advantageous establishment corresponded to their views, way of life and habits better than the





tradition of ancient Roman Law on personal ownership and the later establishment, in the Roman Empire, of the colonate or attachment to the land."


15. V. G. Vasiljevskij, "Materialy dlja vnutrennej istorij Vizantijskago gosudarstva," Ž.M.N.P., ć. 202 otd. II (Mart, 1879), pp. 160-232 (Aprel', 1879), pp. 386-438, č. 210 otd. II (Ijul', 1880), pp. 98-170 (Avgust, 1880), pp. 355-404, = Trudy, IV, 250-331.

"The Legislation of the iconoclasts displays something of a wide and profound revolution, the reasons for which have never received adequate explanation, but according to all indications it is related to the great Slavic migration onto Graeco-Roman territory." Ž.M.N.P., p. 160, = Trudy, IV, 250.


16. Ibid. (Ž.M.N.P., pp. 160-161) = Trudy, IV, 250.

"It is evident that the rise in the number of small freeholding landowners received strong supports, just as occurred somewhat earlier in the West on account of the settlement of the Goths, Burgundians and other barbarians. Slavs en masse occupied the European provinces of the empire; and even in the Asiatic provinces their settlement was counted in the tens and hundreds of thousands— that is almost not yielding in numerical ratio to the settlement of the Germanic barbarians in the West."


17. F. I. Uspenskij, "K' istorij krest'janskogo zemlevladenija v' Vizantii," Ž.M.N.P., č. 225 (1883), pp. 30-87 and 301-360, especially pp. 301-360 = part II, "The Slavic obščina in the Eastern and Western provinces of the empire."


18. Gorjanov, "F. I. Uspenskij," pp. 29-108. On Uspenskij's relation to Lamanskij and Vasilievskij, see pp. 43-54.


19. Uspenskij, "K' istorij," pp. 250-251 and 306-307, for his utilization of Vasilievskij, and pp. 314-316 for his utilization of Lamanskij.


20. Ibid., p. 360,

"The political role of the Slavic element in Byzantium in every century was enormous, and it particularly stood out in the grand epoch in the life of the empire" (i.e., the Macedonian Dynasty, 867-1057).


21. Ibid.,

"The information about the great Slavic settlements in Asia Minor during the seventh and eighth centuries leads one to the conclusion that the Byzantine authorities themselves took interest in the Slavs and secured the production of the Slavic commune by means of various guarantees."





22. Ibid.,

"The Slavic commune fell, then, when the authorities finally deprived them of the usual guarantees, rooted in the attitudes of the sixth and seventh centuries. But the weakening of the commune went parallel to the weakening of the Roman Empire itself."


23. N. Skabalanovič, Vizantijskoe qosudarstvo i cerkov v XI v. (St. Petersburg, 1884), pp. 230-231,

"The introduction of the Slavic element into the Eastern Empire happened in the same way as the introduction of the German element into the Western Empire, with one major difference, that the Slavs—for two centuries—came as peaceful colonizers, and so occupied, as a possession, the Greek Provinces left behind by the Germans,"

and p. 240,

"The Slavs, previous to their settlement within Byzantine borders possessed [social conditions! like those of the Germans—i.e., the existence of common ownership and, in addition, free common ownership. Slavery was also known, but the Slavs did not possess a parallel to either the Roman Colonate or to the German Laeti."


24. J. B. Bury, A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (395 A.D. to 800 A.D.), II (London: Macmillan & Co., 1889), 419, n. 4,

"For this discussion I must acknowledge my debt to the work of N. Skabalonovitch (already referred to), Vizantyskoe Gusadarstvo i Tserkov v XI veke. In the fifth chapter the author sets forth most lucidly the nature of the change and its causes; and the importance of the Slavonic element in bringing about the change is naturally not neglected by a Russian scholar."


25. Ibid., I, 341, where Bury posits the Slavic origins of Belisarius, but see J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I. to the Death of Justinian (A.D. 395 to A.D. 565), II (London: Macmillan and Co., 1923), 56, where Belisarius becomes an Illyrian. In the same edition the leader Anagast is a German—I, 319, but a Slav in II, 296, n. 1.


26. Karl Eduard Zachariä von Lingenthal, Geschichte des griechisch-römischen Rechts (2nd ed.; Berlin, 1877) .


27. Ibid. (3rd ed.; Berlin, 1892), pp. 249-257.


28. B. A. Pančenko, "Krest'janskaja sobstvennost' v Vizantii," Izvestija Russkogo Arheologičeskogo Instituta v Konstantinopole, IX (1904), 1-234.


29. P. Mutafčiev, "Selskoto zemlevladenie v Vizantija," Sbornik za Narodni Umotvorenlja i Knizina, XXV (1910), 1-72, = Izbrani Proizvedenija, ed. D. Angelov (Sofias Nauka i Izkustvo, 1971), pp. 23-114; and the





discussion of Bezobrazov in his short review in V.V., XVII (1910), 336-346, along with Heiromonk Michael, V.V., XI (1904), 589-615, represent the only major attempts to discuss the matter further.


30. J. P. Fallmerayer, Geschichte des Halbinsel Morea während des Mittelalters, I (Stuttgart, 1830), iii-iv and xiii.


31. Carl Hopf, Geschichte Griechenlands vom Beginn des Mittelalters bis auf die neuere Zeit, 2 vols. (Leipzig: F. Brockhaus = Ersch-Gruber, Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wiss. und Künste, vols. 85/86, 1867-68).


32. A. A. Vasiliev, "Slavjane v Grecii," V.V., V (1898), 404-438 and 618-670.


33. Max Vasmer, Die Slaven in Griechenland (Berlin: Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Nr. 12, 1941). A reprint of this important work is now available with a new foreword by Hans Ditten with the additional series title (Leipzig: Subsidia Byzantina Lucis Ope Iterata, vol. IV, Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republic, 1970).


34. D. J. Georgacas, "The Medieval Names Melingi and Ezeritae of Slavic Groups in the Peloponnesus," B.Z., XL (1950), 301-333.


35. Σ. Κυριακίδες, Βούλγαροι καὶ Σλάβοι εἰς τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν (Θεσσαλονίκι: Δημοσιρύματα τῆς Ἑταιρεόας Μακεδονικῶν Σπουδῶν, 5, 1946).


36. Antoine Bon, Le Péloponnèse byzantin jusqu'en 1204 (Paris: Bibliotheque Byzantine Publlee sous la direction de Paul Lemerle, Etudes I, Presses Universitaires de France, 1951).


37. Rambaud, L'Empire Grec au dixième siècle. Constantin Porphyrogenete (Paris, 1870), pp. 249-251.


38. G. Schlumberger, L'épopée byzantine a la fin du Xe siècle (3 vols.; Paris, 1896, 1900, 1905).


39. The revival of Byzantine Studies after the First World War included two publications with a Slavic emphasis. They were Seminarlum Kondakovianum (Prague, 1927-38, and Belgrade, 1940) and Byzantinoslavica (Prague, 1929-). Neither of these, however, touched upon the matter of Slavic relations within the empire. It is also true that Henri Grégoire wrote a short work touching upon the subject —"Rangabe ou Forte-main," B., IX (1934), 793-794.





40. M. V. Levčenko, "Vizantija i Slavjane v VI-VII vv.," V.D.I., I (1938), 23-48.


41. Je. E. Lipšits, "Slavjanskaja obščina i jeje rol v formirovanij vizantijskogo feodalizma," V.V., New Series, I (Old Series, XXVI, 1947), 144-163, = Ocerki Istorij Vizantijskogo obšćestva i Kulturi (Vlll-pervaja polovina IX veka) (Moscow-Lsningrad: Akademia Nauk, 1961) , pp. 1848.


42. G. G. Litaverin in A. P. Kašdan and G. G. Litaverin, Očerki po istorii Vizantij i Južnih Slavjan. Posobie dlja ucitelej (Moscow: Akademia Nauk, 1958).


43. A. P. Kašdan, "Krestjanskie dviženija v Vizantii v X v. i agrarnaja politika imperatorov Makedonskoi dinastij," V.V., V (1952), 73-78, especially 73-74, on the Slavs as a peasant class. Also see Kašdan's book, Derevnja i Gorod v Vizantij IX-X vv. (Moscow: Akademia Nauk, 1960), pp. 21-122.


44. M. JU. Brajčevskij, "K istorij rasselenija Slavjan na vizantijskih zemljah," V.V., XIX (1961), 120-138.


45. M. Ja. Sjuzjumov, "O haraktere i sužčnozti vizantijskoj po Zemledel'češkomu zakonu," V.V., X (1956), 27-47.


46. D. Angeloff, "Die Rolle der Slawen in der frühgeschichte des Byzantinischen Reiches," Palaeologia (= Kodagaiku, Osaka—Japan), VII, n. 3/4 (1959), 84-90.


47. Burmov, "Slavjanskite napadenija sreštu Solun v 'čudesata na sv Dimitur' i tjahnata hronologija," Godišnik na Sofijskija universitet, filosofsko-istoričeski fakultet, XL/2 (1952), pp. 167-215, = A. Burmov, Izbrani proizvedenija, ed. P. Hr. Petrov (Sofia: Bulgarskata Akademija na Naukite, 1968) , pp. 77-121.


48. L. Jončev, "Die Klassenschichtung in Byzanz und in Bulgarien im 7. bis 10. Jahrhundert," Etudes Historiques a l'occasion du XIIe Congres international des Sciences Historiques-Vienne, Aout-Septembre 1965, II (Sofia: B.A.N., 1965), 73-84.


49. V. Tupkova-Zaimova, Našestvija i etničeski promeni na Balkanite prez VI-VII v. (Sofia: B.A.N., 1966).


50. G. Cankova-Petkova, "Materialnata kultura i voennoto izkustvo na dakijskite slavjani spored svedenijata na "Psevdo-Mavrikij," Izvestija na Instituta za Bulgarska Istorija, VII (1957), 329-346.





51. F. Barišić, Čuda Dimitnja Solunskog kao istoriski izvori (Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka, kn. CCXIX, Vizantološki institut, kn. 2, 1953).


52. B. Grafenauer, "Nekaj vprasanj iz dobe naseljevanja južnih Slovanov," Zgodovinski časopis, IV (1950), 23-126.


53. Evert-Kappesowa, Studia nad historia wsi bizantynskiej (Lodz: Lodzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Prace Wydzialu II-Nauk historycznych i spolecznych nr. 47, 1963), pp. 46-73.


54. B. Zasterova, Les Avares et les Slaves dans la Tactique de Maurice (Prague: Rozpravy Ceskoslovenske Akademie Ved, Rada spolecenskych ved, Rocnik 81-sesit 3, 1971) .


55. P. Charanis, "On the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece During the Middle Ages," Bsl., X (1949), 254-258.


56. F. Dölger, Ein Fall slavischer Einsiedlung im Hinterland von Thessalonike im X Jahrhundert (Munich: Sitzungsberichte der bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaft, no. 1, 1953).


57. P. Lemerle, "Invasions et migrations dans le Balkans depuis la fin de l'epoque romaine jusqu'au VIIIe s.," Revue Historique, CXI (1954), 265-308.


58. Marin Drinov, "Zaselenie Balkanskogo poluostrova slavjanami," Čtenija v Imperatorskom Obščestve istorii i drevnostej rossijskih pri Moskovskom universitete, kn. 4 (1874) = Sučinenija na M. S. Drinov, I, ed. V. Zlatarski (Sofia: Bulgarskoto knižovno družestvo, 1909), 139-316, = Izbrani sućinenija, I, ed. I. Dujčev (Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1971), 186-362.


59. Stanoe Stanojević, Vizantija i Srbi (2 vols.; Novi Sad: Knige Matice Srbske 7 & 8, 14 & 15, 1903 and 1906).


60. Vasil Zlatarski, Istorija na Bulgarskata Duržava prez srednite vekove, 4 vols. (Sofia: B.A.N. , 1918-1940) , and new edition of I/1&2, ed. P. Hr. Petrov (Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1970, 1971). Vols. II and III were recently reprinted with no change of the original text, but a foreword and appended additional notes by D. Angelov-Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1973, 1974.





61. Κωνσταντίμος Ι. Ἄμαντος, Ἱστορία τοῦ Βυζαντινοῦ Κράτους, 2 τ. (Ἐκδοσις δευτερα; Ἀθῆναι: Ὀργανισμὸς Ἔκδοσεως Σχολικῶν Βιβλίων, 1953-1957).


62. Lubor Niederle, Slovanské starožitnosti, II/1&2 (Prague: Bursika & Kohouta, 1906, 1910) . Also see his Manuel de l'Antiguité Slave, I (Paris, 1923).


63. N. S. Deržavin, "Slavjane i Vizantija v VI v.," Jazyk i Literatura, VI (1930), 5-48.


64. Witold Hensel, Die Slawen im frühen Mittelalter (Ihre materielle Kulture), German translation from the Polish by Siegfried Epperlein of [Slowianszczyzna wczesnosredniowieczna Zarys kultury materialnej (Warsaw: Wydanie II poprawione i uzu pelnione, P.A.N., 1956)], (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956).


65. Francis Dvornik, The Slavs—Their Early History and Civilization, vol. II (Boston: American Academy of Arts and Sciences—Survey of Slavic Civilization, 1956).


66. Ivan Dujčev, Medioevo Byzantino-Slavo (Rome: Storia e Letteratura, 102, 112, 119, 1965-1971), 3 vols. Also more recently Bulgarsko Srednovekovie (Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1972).


67. The first reference to the Slavs as "Slavs" occurs in the Dialogues of Pseudo-Caesarius of Nazianzus. For the question of when this was written, see F. Barišić, "Kada i gde su napisani Pseudo-Cezarijevi dijalozi," Z.R.V.I. (= Zbornik Radova Srpska Akademija Nauka XXI), I (1952), 29-51, but also see for a more conservative estimate Rudolf Redinger, Pseudo-Kaisarios (Munich: Byzantinisches Archiv-Heft 12, C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1969), pp. 301-309.


68. L. Hauptmann, "Les rapports des Byzantins avec les Slavs et les Avares pendant la seconde moitie du VIe siècle," IV (1927-28), 144-146.


69. This is best discussed by Cankova-Petkova, "Materialnata Kultura," pp. 329-346.


70. Zlatarsky, Istorija2, I/2, pp. 603-745.


71. Procopius, Bellum Gothicum, III, 14, 357:5 - 360:4 (Haury edition), and Mauricius, Strategicon, p. .. (Sheffer edition), pp. 276:26-28 (Mihaescu), both state that the Slavs and Antes are virtually the same in living habits and language.





72. Veselin Beševliev, Die Protobulgarischen Inschriften (Berlin: Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten, Band 23, Akademie Verlag, 1963), pp. 40-49.


73. Sp. Vryonis, "St. Ioannicius the Great and the 'Slavs' of Bithynia," B., XXXI (1961), 245-248.


74. Gyula Moravcsik, Buzantinoturcica, II (2nd ed.; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1958), 279-283.


75. Ivan Dujčev, "Slavjani-Skiti," Slavia, XXIX (1960), 109-114, = Bulgarsko Srednovekovie, pp. 104-113.


76. Procopii Caesariensis, Opera Omnia, 4 vols., ed. J. Haury with additional corrections by G. Wirth (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1962-63).


77. Agathiae Myrinaei, Historiarum libri quinque, ed. R. Keydall (Berlin: Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae, II, Walter de Gruyter, 1967).


78. Theophylacti Simocattae, Historiae, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1887).


79. Μαρία Νυσταζοπούλου-Πελεκίδου, "Συμβολὴ εἰς τὴν Χρονολόγησιν τῶν Ἀβσρικῶν καὶ Σκαβικοων Ἐπιδρομῶν ἐπὶ Μαυρικίου," (Ἐθνικὸν Ἴδρυμα Ἐρευνῶν Κέτρον Βυζαντινῶν Ἐρευνῶν), 2 (1970), σ 145-208 , and Grafenauer, "Nekaj vprasanj," 49-90.


80. Theophanis, Chronographia, 2 vols., ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1883).


 81. Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, Opuscula Historica, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1880).


82. P. Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, V (1960), 152-153; P. Lemerle, "La Chronique improprement dite de Monemvasie: Le contexte historique et legendaire," Revue des Etudes Byzantines, XXI (1963), 5-49.


83. Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1838), pp. 3-486.


84. Georgii Monachi, Chronicon, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1904).


85. Joseph Genesios, Regnum, ed. C. Lachmann (Bonn, 1834).





86. Simeon Magister, Chronicon, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1838) , pp. 603-780, often known as Pseudo-Simeon Magister.


87. Ioannis Caminiatae, De Expugnatione Thessalonicae, ed. Gertrud Böhlig (Berlin: Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, IV, Walter de Gruyter et socios, MCMLXXIII).


88. Georgius Cedrenus, Ioannis Scylitzae, Opera, 2 vols., ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1838-39).


89. Michael Glycas, Annales, ed. I Bekker (Bonn, 1836).


90. A. Tougard, De l'histoire profane dans les Actes grecs des bollandistes (Paris, 1874), or M.P.G., vol. 116, cols. 1204-1384.


91. A.A.S.S., Novembris, II/1 (1884), pp. 332-435.


92. F. Dvornik, La Vie de saint Grégoire le Decapolite et les Slaves macedoniens au IXe siècle (Paris: Travaux publies par l'Institut d'études slaves, V, 1926).


93. A.A.S.S., August, III (1737), 170-175.


94. Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς Σταχουλόγιας, 4 (Πετρόπολις, 1897), σ 357-400.


95. "Skazanija o 42 Amorijskih mučenikov i Cerkovnaja služba im," ed. V. G. Vasiljeskij and P. Nikitin, Zapiski Imper. Akademii Nauk, 8th series, vol. VII/2, 61-78.


96. L. Petit, "Vie et office de Saint-Euthyme le Jeune," Revue de l'Orient Chretien, VIII (1903), 168-205 and 503-536.


97. Ι. Ε. Ἀνασταςίου, "Βίος Κλήμεντος Ἀχρίδος," Ἐπιστήμιον Ἐπετηρὶς Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης, 12 (1967), a. 162-184. Also see A. Milev, Teofilakt, Kliment Ohridski. Prevod ot grckija original, uvod i beležki (Sofia: B.A.N., 1955); N. L. Tunitskij, Materiali dlja istorii zizni i dejatel'nosti ucenikov' svv. Kirilla i Methodija, vypusk pervyj (Sergiev Posad, 1913 + new edition with introduction by Ivan Dujčev; London: Variorum Reprints, 1972), and M.P.G., 126, cols. 1193-1240.


98. M.P.G., 111, cols. 441-480.


99. Σπ. Π. Λάμπρος, "Ὁ Βίος τοῦ Νίκοω τοῦ Μετανοεῖτε," Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, III (1906), 131-228.


100. Mauricius, Arta Militara, ed. H. Mihaescu (Bucharest: Scriptores Byzantini, VI, 1970).





101. M.P.G., 107, cols. 672-1120.


102. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, ed. G. Moravcsik and R. J. H. Jenkins (2nd ed.; Washington, D.C.: Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae, II, Dumbarton Oaks, 1967).


103. The only complete edition is that in the Bonn series—Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis Aulis, 2 vols., ed. I. Reiske (Bonn, 1829-1830).


104. A. Pertusi, Constantino Porfirogenito, De Thematibus, Introduzione, testo critico, commento (Citta del Vaticano: Studi i Testi 160, 1952).


105. Scriptores originum Constantinopolitarum, II, ed. Th. Preger (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1907).


106. M.G.H., Script, rer. germ., Ill, ed. G. H. Pertz (Hannover, 1839), 273-363.


107. Ibid., pp. 306:52 - 307:3.


108. Schlumberger, L'épopée byzantin, I, 25ff.


109. A. Ja. (G)Harkavi, Skazanija musul'manskih pisatelej o slavjannah i russkih (St. Petersburg, 1870). M. S. Rapoport made an English translation of several portions of Harkavy in "Mohamedan Writers on the Slavs," Slavonic Review, VIII/22 (June, 1929), 80-98.


110. E. W. Brooks, "The Arabs in Asia Minor from Arabic Sources," Journal of Hellenic Studies, XVIII (1898), 182-208; and "The Campaign of 716-18 from Arabic Sources," ibid., XIX (1899), 19-33.


111. A. A. Vasil'ev, Vizantija i Araby - Političeskija Otnošenija Vizantii i Arabov za Vremja Amorijskoj Dinastii (St. Petersburg: I. N. Skorohodova, 1900); and Vizantija i Araby - Političeskija Otnošenija Vizantii i Arabov za Vremja Makedonskoj Dinastii (St. Petersburg: I. N. Skorohodova, 1902).


112. A. A. Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes, 3 vols. (Edition française preparée par H. Grégoire et M. Canard; Brussels: Corpus Bruxéllense Historiae Byzantinae, I, II/1, II/2, 1935, 1950).


 113. Tadeusz Lewicki, Źrodla Arabskie do Dziejow Slowlanszczyzny, I (Wroclaw-Krakow, 1956).


114. John Bishop of Ephesus, The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John Bishop of Ephesus, trans.





into English by R. Payne Smith (Oxford: University Press, 1860); Iohannis Ephesini, Historiae Ecclesiasticae Pars Tertia, trans. into Latin by E. W. Brooks (Louvain: Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 106, Scriptores Syri, vol. 55, 1936).


115. B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche jacobite d'Antioche (1166-1199) (3 vols.; Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899-1904).


116. Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, ed. and trans. E. A. Wallis Budge (2 vols.; London: Oxford University Press, 1932).


117. Constantinus et Methodius Thessalonicenses, Fontes, ed. F. Griveć and F. Tomšić (Zagreb: Radovi Staroslovenskog Instituta, 4, 1960); and Kliment Ohridski, Subrani Sučinenija, III, ed. B. St. Angelov and Hr. Kodov (Sofia: B.A.N., 1973).


118. Simeona Metafrasta i Logotheta, ed. V. Sreznevskij (St. Petersburg, 1905), and new edition under the title Slavjanskij Perevod Hroniki Simeona Logotheta (London: Variorum Reprints, 1971).


119. B. Pančenko, "Pamjatnik Slavjan v Vifinii," I.R.A.I.K., VIII (1902), 15-62.


120. Beševliev, Die Protobulgarischen Inschriften.


121. Max Vasmer, Die Slaven.


122. For the problems related to this question, see Simpozijum Predslavenski Etnički na balkanu u etnogenezi južnih slovena održan 24-26. oktobra 1968. u Mostaru (Sarajevo: Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine Posebna Izdanja Knjiga XIII, Centar za Balkanološka ispitvanja Knjiga 4, 169). A good example of work where archeological data is correlated with the sources is the work of Witold Hensel, Die Slaven, passim.


[Previous] [Next]

[Back to Index]