WHY WERE THE SCLAVENES

NEVER ROMAN ALLIES?

A Study of Late Antique Roman Frontier Policy

and a Barbarian Society

By

Amy Wood
BA/LLB (Hons.)
Macquarie University

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILLMENT

OF THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF RESEARCH
DEPARTMENT OF ANCIENT HISTORY,
FACULTY OF ARTS,
MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY
OCTOBER 2015
Except where acknowledged in the customary manner,
the material presented in this thesis is, to the best of my
knowledge, original and has not been submitted in
whole or part for a higher degree at any university or
institution.

Amy Wood
 For my parents

and grandparents
Contents
Acknowledgements iii

List of Figures & Maps v

Abbreviations vii

Summary ix

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Current State of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 The Conceptual and Methodological Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3 The Written Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3.1 Contemporary Eastern Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
1.3.1.1 Procopius of Caesarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
1.3.1.2 Jordanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.3.1.3 Agathias Scholasticus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.3.1.4 John Malalas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
1.3.1.5 Menander the Guardsman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
1.3.1.6 The Strategikon of Maurice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
1.3.1.7 Theophylact Simocatta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
1.3.1.8 The Miracles of Saint Demetrius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.3.2 Contemporary Western Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
1.3.2.1 Fredegar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.3.3 Later Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.3.3.1 Paul the Deacon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.3.3.2 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
1.4 The Archaeological Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2 Rome and the Historical Context 35

2.1 Rome in Late Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2 Framing Rome and the Barbarians in Late Antiquity:
Frontiers, Empire, and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.2.1 Frontiers and Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

~i~
 2.2.2 Roman Frontier Policy in Late Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
2.2.3 The Effects of Roman Frontier Policy on Late Antique
Barbarian Societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.3 Framing Rome and the Sclavenes in Late Antiquity: The
Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

3 The Sclavenes 61
3.1 Sclavene Society in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries . . . . . . . . . . .61
3.2 The Sclavenes and Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
3.3 The Sclavenes and the First Avar Khaganate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

4 Why were the Sclavenes Never Roman Allies? 93

4.1 Historical Circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
4.2 An Alternative Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.3 Alternative Orbits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5 Conclusion 105

Appendix A – Chronology of Sclavene Activity in the Sixth and

Seventh Centuries and other important events 109

Appendix B – The Written Sources: Extracts 115

B.1 The Eastern Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
B.1.1 Procopius of Caesarea, Wars and Secret History. . . . . . . .115
B.1.2 Jordanes, Getica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
B.1.3 Agathias, Histories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
B.1.4 Menander the Guardsman, fragments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
B.1.5 The Strategikon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
B.1.6 Theophylact Simocatta, History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
B.1.7 The Miracles of Saint Demetrius. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
B.2 The Western Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
B.2.1 Fredegar, Chronicle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
B.2.2. Gregory the Great, Letters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
B.2.3 Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards. . . . . . . . . . . . .147

References 149

~ ii ~
Acknowledgements
The past two years have been a learning experience for me in more ways than
one, both as a historian and as a person. An abandoned Honours thesis lies
eight years in my past and a lot of confidence in my own abilities was
abandoned with it. Trying again and learning to trust myself was certainly
daunting. There were some missteps along the way, but I am very pleased to
now present this thesis.
I’d like to thank my wonderful supervisor, Dr. Danijel Dzino. I know I
wasn’t always the easiest student to supervise and my time management could
have been better, but you always had time for me and chased me up when I
wasn’t where I should have been. I can’t say how appreciative of that I am.
Your wealth of knowledge is astounding and was so very helpful in nudging
me in the right direction and in refining my arguments. I need to thank you for
leading me into an area of Late Antique history which had piqued my interest
years earlier as an undergraduate but which I never had an opportunity to
explore further until now. The Macquarie Ancient History Department is very
lucky to have you on staff to expand the horizons of Ancient History students
to Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Thank you also for the fabulous
opportunity to participate in the excavation at Bribirska Glavica in Croatia
earlier this year.
Also in the Ancient History Department, I’d like to thank the Masters of
Research Convenors Assoc. Prof. Andrew Gillett and Dr. Malcolm Choat.
Andrew, your brutal honestly about what it took to pursue this path was much
appreciated, as was your preliminary advice on selecting an appropriate topic.
Thank you for putting up with my usual shenanigans. Malcolm, you prepared
our cohort so well over the last two years and it was always so enjoyable. My
thanks to you (and Rachel!) for that.
To my friends who were so understanding when I couldn’t follow
through on plans and promises because I was studying, thank you all. Your
cheerful middle of the night emails when I was sleep-deprived and stressed got
me through some long hours.
Lastly, a huge thank you to my family who bore the brunt of my stress
and occasional tantrums. I don’t know what I’d do without my brothers and
sisters, whose love and emotional support is invaluable to me. My debt of

~ iii ~
gratitude to my parents cannot not adequately be expressed. They were always,
always willing to do whatever it took to help me get to the end successfully, no
matter the inconvenience to them. They are truly the best people I know.
I left the legal profession in mid-2012 in order to chase a dream and this
thesis is a big step towards achieving that dream. At times it was challenging,
at others times overwhelming, and a lot of the time it was a huge amount of fun
– Ancient History never ceases to engender in me a sense of wonder and the
desire to learn more. The completion of this thesis is something I am very
proud of regardless of what happens next, and I again thank everyone who
helped me get there in the end.

~ iv ~
List of Figures & Maps
Page

1 Map of material cultures of the first half of the

sixth century 32
2 Map of material cultures of the second half of
the sixth century 33
3 Long Walls of Constantinople and the Istranca
Daglar range 41
4 Map of the Balkans showing key locations in relation
to Justinian’s fortification of the region 42
5 Late Roman chip-carving 54
6 Gold bracteate, northern Germanic 54
7 Excavated sunken house with stone oven 64
8 Reconstructed sunken house line-drawing 64
9 Prague-Korčhak and Peňkovka pottery 65
10 Suceava-Şipot pottery 65
11 Fingered Slavic Bow Fibula 72
12 Slavic Bow Fibula 72
13 Examples of clay pans found on sixth and seventh
century sites 73

~v~
~ vi ~
Abbreviations
Caes. Sextus Aurelius Victor, Epitome de Caesaribus,
New York.

DAI De Administrando Imperio, Washington.

Hist.Lang. Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum or

History of the Langobards, Philadelphia.

ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, Berlin.

PL Patrologia Latina, Paris.

SHA Scriptores Historiae Augustae, London &

Cambridge.

A note on the sources: for the sake of consistency, the ancient sources will be

named or abbreviated based on the edition or translation used as per the

bibliography (English or ancient language), or as they are otherwise commonly

known e.g. Jordanes’ Getica, Ammianus Marcellinus’ Res Gestae. The book

numbering for all of Procopius’ works will follow the Loeb editions as per the

bibliography.

~ vii ~
~ viii ~
Summary
This thesis addresses evidence which suggests that those barbarians identified

as Sclavenes in the sources never became fully integrated into the Roman

system of alliances or its cultural orbit in the sixth and seventh centuries. The

written and archaeological evidence available is examined to compare it with

previous Roman-barbarian relationships to draw reasonable conclusions about

the Sclavene relationship with the Eastern Roman Empire and to some extent,

the nature of Sclavene society before it transformed into the recognisable Slavic

polities of the Early Middle Ages. The question is conceptualised within the

overall framework of the Late Antique Roman frontiers along the Danube and

its hinterland on either side (the Balkans and Pontic-Danubian region). This is

the point at which the Sclavenes become visible in the written sources and

where the cause and effect of Roman barbarian policy can be seen over time

and across various (mainly Germanic) barbarian groups in both the written and

archaeological material. It will be argued that the Sclavenes were never Roman

allies due to a confluence of historical circumstances, the nature of Sclavene

society itself, and the availability and operation of alternative imperial orbits in

Central Eastern Europe, namely the First Avar Khaganate.

~ ix ~
~x~
Chapter 1
Introduction
In the early sixth century A.D., a completely unknown group of barbarians

arrived on Rome’s Lower Danubian frontier. 1 Throughout the course of the

following two centuries, they caused considerable damage to the Eastern

Roman Empire and eventually succeeded in settling much of the Balkans and

Central Eastern Europe. There were at least two different groups mentioned in

the sources, the Sclavenes and Antes, who were often assumed by those sources

to be related to each other in terms of origin, language and culture. Regardless

of whether or not this was the case, their respective trajectories vis-à-vis the

Eastern Roman Empire are illustrative of the central concern of this thesis – that

on the basis of the available evidence, those barbarians identified as Sclavenes

never became fully integrated into the Roman system of alliances or its cultural

orbit in the sixth and seventh centuries.

Rome at this time was undergoing significant transformations and had

been since the reign of Constantine the Great, the traditional marker for the

transition into the period known by modern historians as Late Antiquity. The

1 Procopius, Wars 7.40.5-7 (Antes – 518); 7.14.2 (Sclavenes – 530/1).

~1~
political, social, economic, religious and cultural transformations within the old

classical Mediterranean world between the fourth and seventh centuries are a

thematic paradigm which has driven more recent scholarship. 2 Even if the

utility of the periodisation of history can be legitimately questioned,3 the labels

“Late Antiquity”, “Eastern Roman Empire”, “Early Byzantine Empire”, and

“Early Middle Ages” which are used in this thesis are helpful in creating a

conceptual break with what had gone before. In the last twenty years, there has

been an effort to contextualise the region of Eastern Europe and the Balkans in

relation to the rest of Europe in Late Antiquity and properly integrate it into

these wider historical processes.4 Thus, any study of Rome and the Sclavenes

must proceed with an understanding that they existed within a changing

world.

Equally important is the need to position Eastern Europe and the

Balkans on their own terms as an alternative or parallel model; the

development in that part of the world in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle

2 E.g. Whittow (2002); Wickham (2005); Swain & Edwards (2004); Smith (2005); Poulter (2007a);
Rousseau & Papoutsakis (2009); Mathisen & Shanzer (2011). See also Haldon (1986) and
especially (1997) which take transformation in the seventh century as their central theme, as
well as the European Science Foundation’s Transformation of the Roman World series which
contains 14 volumes and mainly focuses on the post-Roman West. There is an emphasis in the
literature on the urban landscape and also changes in the Roman villa system which are seen as
both symptomatic and causative of the transformations in this period: e.g. Banks (1984); Barnish
(1989); Dunn (1994); Christie & Loseby (1996); Harris (1999); De Vries (2000); White (2000); Polci
(2003); Ripoll & Arce (2003); Christie (2004). Vanhaverbeke, Martens & Waelkens (2007), Burns
& Eadie (2001) and Izdebski (2013) concentrate specifically on the relationship between urban
and rural contexts in this transformative period. For city and region specific studies, see Foss
(1997) - Syria; Poulter (2000) and (2007a) – the Balkans; Gelichi & Milanese (1998); Sjöström
(1993) – North Africa; Dark (1994); Dark (1996) – Britain; Izdebski (2013) – Asia Minor. A
number of works also address changes in religion during this time: e.g. Stroumsa (2009); Judge
& Nobbs (2010); Harper (2013), as well as in literature and historical writing: e.g. Brodka &
Stachura (2007); Greatrex & Elton (2014). See also Cameron (1993: 1-2) for debate as to whether
Late Antiquity can be predominantly characterised by continuity or change.
3 See e.g. Bury (1958 vol. 1: 1); Foucault (1972: 149-151); White (1978: 64); Morley (2002: 1-6);

Jenkins (2003: 40); Cameron (2006: 5-6).

4 Care must still be taken with this approach given that East Europe as a concept was invented

in the Early Modern period: Wolff (1994), and the Balkans in the nineteenth century: Todorova
(2009).

~2~
Ages did not necessarily always follow the same trajectory as the post-Roman

West.

To ask why the Sclavenes were never Roman allies inevitably involves

the much larger issue of Rome and her relationship with barbarians generally

and over time. At its crux are processes of cultural contact, acculturation and

integration, ethnicity and identity, social formation and the operation of empire

and frontier regions.5 The role of the Late Roman Empire in the formation of the

barbarian societies which eventually gave rise to Early Medieval Europe

continues to stimulate interest and debate, and it is within this context that this

thesis aims to examine how Rome dealt with the Sclavenes and how the

Sclavenes dealt with Rome.

1.1 Current State of Research

The earliest discourses on Slavic history in Eastern Europe appeared in the

fifteenth century and centred on the idea of continuity from ancient indigenous

Illyrians through to the early Slavs and the early Medieval Slavic kingdoms. It

became particularly prominent in Slavic-speaking areas under Venetian and

Habsburg rule and continued to have an influence on scholarship well into the

twentieth century. 6 The emphasis shifted in the Renaissance and early

Humanist periods in Poland and Bohemia to ideas of wholesale migration of

monolithic Slavic groups into the Balkan region.7

5 There is abundant literature on this topic: e.g. Thompson (1988); Goffart (1980); Wolfram
(1990); Shepard & Franklin (1992); Pohl, Wood & Reimitz (2001); Gillett (2003a); Heather (2005);
Halsall (2007); Woolf (2011).
6 On Illyrian-Slavic discourses, see Dzino (2014a: esp. 3-11, 16-20).

7 E.g. De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum (The origin and achievements of the Poles) by Polish

bishop, historian and diplomat Martin of Kromĕř, first published in 1589, and De Regno
Dalmatiae et Croatiae (On the Kingdom of Dalmatia and Croatia) by the Croatian historian Ivan
Lučić of Trogir, first published in 1666: on this see Dzino (2010: 17-18). Slavs as having some
form of Iranian or Sarmatian origin was also part of the Medieval Polish discourse which has

~3~
 In the eighteenth century, the ideas of German philosopher Johan

Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) resonated with Slavic nationalists like the Slovak

philologist Pavel Josef Šafářik (1795-1861) who eagerly absorbed Herder’s

philosophy of the Slavic Volksgeist (national homeland) and the importance of

the preservation and celebration of national language, tradition and culture.8

Herder’s almost contemporary, the Czech philologist Josef Dobrovský (1753-

1829), is regarded as the founder of Slavic studies proper, 9 while Slavic

archaeology is considered to have been established with the publication of the

Czech Lubor Niederle’ multi-volume The Antiquities of the Slavs from 1902-

1924. 10 The idea of early Slavs has been used over time to further varied

nationalist causes, whether it be eighteenth century Slavic-speaking nations

under the Habsburg Empire enthusiastically co-opting the idea of a historically

ancient and united Slavic race,11 or state-mandated Soviet arguments for Slavic

autochthony12 to counter Nazi claims to Eastern Europe in the 1930s and 40s.13

The Czech historian and Franciscan monk Francis Dvornik published

several useful books in the mid-twentieth century which were influential on

Anglophone scholarship as there were no other English works available.

Dvornik focused mainly on the written sources and narrative history 14 and

tended to use sources uncritically – his descriptions of early Slavic society in

survived in a limited way into modern times: e.g. Dvornik(1956: 277-297); Fine (1983: 57-59).
Kim (2013: 108, 146) follows Fine. On this see Dzino (2010: 20-21) and (2014a: 4-5).
8 Godja (1991: 2); Curta (2001a: 6-7).

9 Geschichte der böhm. Sprache und alten Literatur (History of the Bohemian Language and Old

Literature) was published in 1792, and Die Bildsamkeit der slaw. Sprache (Introduction to the Old Slavic
Language) in 1799.
10 In Czech: Slovanské starožitnosti. Godja (1991: 2-6).

11 Godja (1991: 2). See e.g. Documenta historiae Croaticae periodum antiquam illustrantia (Documents

illustrating the ancient history of Croatia) by Croatian historian, politician and founder of the
Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts Franjo Rački, first published in 1877. These impulses
eventually led to the First Pan-Slav Conference in Prague in 1848, and the Yugoslav pan-
Slavism of the twentieth century should be considered as part of this wider movement.
12 Curta (2001a: 16-17) and (2002 : 207-218, esp. 207-209). The Soviet work was based on the

theories of N.I. Marr which built on the linguistic work of Šafářik from the mid-nineteenth
century: Curta (2001a: 7 note 5). On N.I. Marr, see Bruche-Schulz (1993) and Slezkine (1996).
13 E.g. Borkovský (1940).

14 Dvornik (1949), (1956) and (1962).

~4~
Late Antiquity are based on eleventh and twelfth century material. 15

Furthermore, Dvornik still treated Slavic history as a monolith based on ancient

ethnic and political unity.16

The 1960s and 70s brought a renewed interest in Šafářik’s linguistic

theories of the Slavs as ancient and indigenous to Eastern Europe. The Russian

V.V. Sedov argued that the Antes and Sclavenes originated within the

Przeworsk culture of central and southern Poland dating from the third century

B.C. As they moved further south and east, they broke away and developed

distinct material cultures and a common Slavic language. Subsequent Russian

archaeological work was framed within these terms and merely sought to

confirm the theory.17

It is clear then that the historiographical tradition of Slavic history has

often been heavily politically and ideologically motivated. Anglophone

scholarship has tended to stay confined to the “Classical” Mediterranean

world, a result at least in part due to orientalising and otherwise negative

attitudes towards both Slavic and Byzantine history in those circles. 18

Nonetheless, contributions from Eastern European scholars in the past and

15 Dvornik (1956: 57-59).

16 Dvornik (1962: xxi-xxii). In one instance, Dvornik explicitly projects concepts of Yugoslavia
back to the ninth century: Dvornik (1956: 340). Furthermore, his attempt to place Eastern Slavic
Europe within the context of developments in the rest of Europe presents as little more than an
effort to emphasize Slavic importance: see Dvornik (1962: xxi-xxviii). This is somewhat curious
given his earlier recognition of the link between Slavic historiography and nationalism: see
Dvornik (1956: 340).
17 On Sedov and the consequences of his theories, see Curta (2001a: 9-13). Gimbutas appears to

follow Sedov on this point: Gimbutas (1971: 116).

18 For the orientalising of Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Byzantium, see Todorova (2009: 3-

20); Dzino (2014b); Cameron (2014: 7-25). For example, Edward Gibbon did not think
particularly well of Byzantium: Cameron (2014: 10), and at the same time as Eastern historians,
archaeologists and philologists were embracing knowledge of early Slavic history in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Gibbon paid very minor attention to the Sclavenes in his
narrative and obviously took the sources at face-value, viewing them as little better than
animals. He clearly believed that the Roman Empire was indeed “…the most civilized portion
of mankind,” and that the Western provinces constituted the more important half of the
Empire: Gibbon (1872 vol. 1: 2). See also Gibbon (1872 vol. 2: 134-136) for Sclavenes as
animalistic.

~5~
more recently are still vital, not least because of their valuable local knowledge.

A small number of older publications have brought the “alternative

archaeology” of Slavic studies to Anglophone academia,19 and contributions

from Eastern European scholars to multi-volume projects in English are also

valuable.20

In the last two decades, a clearer line of scholarship combining the fruits

of Eastern and Western historical and archaeological investigation with a

stronger focus on Roman-Slavic (Sclavene) relations has emerged. In 2001, the

Romanian-American historian Florin Curta published The Making of the Slavs.

History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500-700, which, together

with his body of work before and since, 21 has opened up the study of the

beginnings of Slavic society, identity and their relationship to the Eastern

Roman and early Byzantine Empires. 22 Curta’s central argument is that the

emergence of various Slavic identities was a response to Justinian’s massive re-

fortification of the Balkans in the mid-sixth century. 23 With reference to the

related and central question of this thesis, Curta has argued that the issue is

actually evidence of a Roman labelling system which cast Rome’s barbarian

19 Godja (1991: viii). Martin Godja’s 1989-90 Rhind Lectures, The Ancient Slavs. Settlement and
Society, are a valuable if brief look at the archaeology of early Slavic people and complements
Lithuanian-American Mirija Gimbutas’ 1971 book titled simple The Slavs. A worthwhile and
more recent collection of articles in English from the Scientific Society of Polish Archaeologists
contains work from Polish, Czech, Austrian and German archaeologists and historians:
Urbańczyk (1997a).
20 E.g. Kobyliński’s article in The New Cambridge Medieval History: Kobyliński (2013) and Walter

Pohl’s volume in the The Transformation of the Ancient World series: Pohl (1997a). The Brill series
titled East Central and Eastern Europe currently contains 36 volumes.
21 E.g. Curta (1994), (1997), (1999a), (1999b), (2001b), (2002), (2005b), (2006), (2008) and (2010a).

22 The Early Slavs, Eastern Europe from the Initial Settlement to the Kievan Rus by Russian

archaeologist Pavel. M. Dolukhanov was published only five years prior to Curta’s book but is
not particularly useful due to certain methodological flaws and the very limited attention it
directs to the Slavs in the sixth and seventh centuries: see Bogucki (1997); Barford (2001a: 2);
Curta (2002: 218).
23 Curta applied the model to the Tervingi Goths of the fourth century in a subsequent article:

Curta (2005b).

~6~
enemies on the Lower Danube as Sclavenes, thereby setting up an enemy-ally

dichotomy in opposition to the Antes, who were Roman allies.24

Another way the problem has been looked at is to conceptualise early

Sclavene history as an alternative or parallel model to the post-Roman West. In

the long term, the Slavicisation of Europe was certainly very successful and the

atypical features and apparently undeveloped nature of early Sclavene society

relative to other barbarian groups have been suggested as a key reason for this

success. This argument has been put forward by a number of different

scholars25 in various iterations and will be addressed in chapter 4.

These theories have created further questions. If, as Curta argues, the

emerging identity of the Sclavenes was a response to Justinian’s building

program and triggered associated socio-political development, how does that

sit with the evidence upon which others argue that the Sclavenes were never

Roman allies because they were not sufficiently developed in this manner?

These questions are significant and will also be addressed in chapter 4.

Curta’s book and another 2001 publication, P.M. Barford’s The Early

Slavs: Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe, marshals and gives

order to the written and archaeological evidence on the early Slavic peoples,

making it and its associated problems more accessible. A number of other

important English studies have subsequently followed.26

These studies build and expand upon a rich corpus of work, both

general and via specific case-studies, on Roman and Byzantine foreign policy in

24 Curta (2001a: 83-84).

25 See Obolensky (1971: 56-57); Browning (1975: 36); Fine (1983: 27); Pohl (1988). See also Pohl
(1997a: 154), (1998: 23) and (2005:129); Geary (2002: 145-6); Heather (2009: 433ff) following
Urbańczyk (1997b).
26 See Fine (2006); Dzino (2010). Walter Pohl has been producing prolific and important work on

early Eastern Europe in both English and German over the last 25 years: see Spinei & Hriban
(2008) for an edited collection of his papers. The Brill series East Central and Eastern Europe in the
Middle Ages has published a number of excellent titles in English on various aspects of early
Eastern Central Europe e.g. Buko (2007); Charvát (2010); Macháček (2010); Stepanov (2010);
Štih (2010); Sophoulis (2012).

~7~
relation to barbarian groups on imperial frontiers and the associated processes

of interaction, integration, assimilation, ethnogenesis and socio-political

development.27 The volume edited by Florin Curta titled Borders, Barriers, and

Ethnogenesis brings various perspectives on these concepts together nicely. 28

There are also excellent volumes which provide detailed general narratives of

Roman history based on the sources which are crucial to understanding the

world within which these processes were occurring.29

Frontier studies have generated some invaluable work from historians

through the varied lenses of military, economic, political, diplomatic and social

considerations on the Roman frontier at various points in its history. Edward

Luttwack’s work on the so-called Roman “grand strategy” against frontier

barbarians may no longer hold weight for its overall thesis30 but still remains a

useful source of information and insight, as is the work by C.R. Whittaker and

B.H. Isaac on Roman frontiers.31

Studies outside of the context of Rome can also help show the way to

conceptualising alternative empires, a paradigm which will be applied to

Sclavene history in this thesis because it is very likely that a considerable role

was played in Sclavene history by the First Avar Khaganate, a steppe empire

which succeeded Attila’s Hunnic Empire in Pannonia. It is entirely possible that

for the Sclavenes, the Khaganate was an alternative imperial orbit to Rome.32

27 E.g. Amory (1997); Blockley (1992); Browning (1975); Burns (1980), (1984), (1994) and (2009);
Geary (1988); Goffart (1980); Gillett (2003a); Gruen (2010); Halsall (1995a) and (2007); Heather
(1991a), (1991b), (1996), (2005) and (2009); Shepard & Franklin (1992); Thompson (1988); Wells
(1999); Wolfram (1990); Woolfe (2011).
28 Curta (2005a).

29 For Late Antiquity, the older works by Bury (1958) and Jones (1964) are still outstanding.

Other studies on specific reigns can provide more focused detail, such as Kaegi’s work on
Heraclius: Kaegi (2003).
30 Luttwack (1976) and (2009). For useful critiques of Luttwack, see Isaac (2000: 372-418);

Whittaker (2004: 28-49).

31 Whittaker (1994) and (2004); Isaac (2000). See also useful studies by Lee (1993); Mathisen &

Siven (1996) and Elton (1996).

32 See e.g. Geary (2002: 145-6) and Pohl (1988), (1997: 154), (1998: 23) and (2005:129).

~8~
 Work on the ancient nomadic “shadow” empires of the Chinese frontier

by Thomas J. Barfield33 offers intriguing parallels with the steppe empires of the

Avars, whereby the Avar Khaganate existed as a shadow of the Roman Empire,

dependant on it but at the same time occupying the imperial space it would

otherwise have filled. The significance of the role played by steppe empires in

the Late Antique history of Rome, Byzantium and China has been very recently

explored by Hyun Jin Kim, who argues that the Hunnic Empire of the fifth

century provided the model for all subsequent steppe empires, including the

Avar Khaganate, perhaps revealing a longer-term process by which imperial

power was slowly being drawn away from Rome.34

The operation of frontiers and of empires has current traction due to the

increasing visibility of real or pseudo- imperial power being exercised by the

United States of America in a global context in the twenty-first century.35 Works

which take the United States as their subject have generated useful conceptual

tools with which to think about empires and frontiers, including relationships

of imperial dominance and hierarchies of power over subordinate units in

frontier regions. 36 Theoretical and comparative studies such as the work of

David Ludden on tributary empires in nineteenth century India have also

provided valuable insights.37

33 Barfield (1989) and (2001).

34 Kim (2013: esp. 137ff). See also Curta (2008) which deals specifically with the conceptual
spaces the Avars and their successor steppe empires occupied in opposition to the successor
kingdoms in the post-Roman West and the Eastern Roman Empire.
35 Ludden (2011: 133).

36 Good examples are Hardt & Negri (2000); Maier (2006); Münkler (2007); Immerman (2010);

Coates (2015). Comparative work between ancient empires may also be instructive: see
Mutschler & Mittag (2008); Scheidel (2015) on Rome and China.
37 Ludden (2011). See also Haldon (1993).

~9~
1.2 The Conceptual and Methodological Framework

This thesis will consider the written and archaeological evidence available on

the Sclavenes, utilising relevant anthropological and sociological concepts in

order to understand the nature of Sclavene society. That evidence will be

compared, within the relevant historical context, with previous Roman-

barbarian relationships in order to draw reasonable conclusions about the

Sclavene relationship with the Eastern Roman Empire. It is important to

understand how Rome dealt historically with other, primarily Germanic,

barbarian groups to see how this may have changed over time and why

interaction with the Sclavenes may not have followed the same pattern.

Furthermore, it will attempt to position the Sclavenes on their own terms as a

comparative model to the Western successor states and the other short-term

political entities which emerged in Eastern Europe in the early Middle Ages

such as the Avar Khaganates and Old Great Bulgaria.

This thesis is conceptualised within an overall framework of the Late

Antique Roman frontier systems and frontier policy, particularly along the

Lower Danube. The frontiers are the point at which the Sclavenes become

visible in the written sources and also the point at which the cause and effect of

Roman barbarian policy can be seen. The frontiers are therefore where the

Sclavenes can be properly contextualised and important results can be

produced from a comparative analysis with other barbarian groups vis-à-vis

the Roman Empire, as well as an examination of political, economic and social

structures within Slavic society itself.

The identity-making processes reflected in the material cultures of the

frontiers38 require methodological tools to interpret them. Concepts of ethnicity

postulated in the 1950s and 60s by social anthropologists like Edmund Leach

38 Curta (2007a); Dzino (2010: 122).

~ 10 ~
and Frederick Barth found that ethnicity should not be equated with biological

notions of race and genetic origins and are more perceptively and

transactionally based.39 Rich coverage of these ideas can be found throughout

the literature on barbarian peoples.40 For the purpose of the following work,

ethnicity as defined as a situational,41 multi-layered construct (gender, class,

social status, age and so on) comprised of both self-perception and the

perception of others and prone to constant group and individual renegotiation

in order to yield a benefit or advantage.

Elements of the theory of cultural habitus as articulated by Pierre

Bourdieu are a useful lens through which to consider the two-way perceptive

nature of ethnicity.42 Cultural habitus is a social landscape of unconscious but

enduring common human predispositions which are the result of self-

perpetuating structural practices which “…are objectively organized as

strategies without being the product of genuine strategic intention…”43 When

the identity of a group begins to harden into something more solid on the part

of the participants themselves, it could be classed as the politicisation of a

39 Leach (1954: esp. 4ff, 279-292); Barth (1969: esp. 9-10). See also Nagal (1994) and Jenkins (1997)
for good overviews. The German historian Reinhard Wenskus similarly argued that early
medieval ethnicity was not biological but based on a subjective sense of belonging centred
around beliefs rather than realities of common origin: Wenskus (1961: 14-18). On Wenskus see
Curta (2001a: 18-20) and Callander Murray (2002). Wenskus’ ideas were followed by sociologist
Anthony Smith: e.g. Smith (1986) and also historian Herwig Wolfram, although Wolfram’s
ideas are problematic due to both the monolithic way in which he views barbarian groups and
the fact that he argues that some measure of objective truth can be uncovered in early barbarian
origin myths: Wolfram (1988). On Wolfram and the “Vienna” school, see Halsall (1999: 140-
141).
40 E.g. Amory (1994); Halsall (1995a: 26ff), (1995b) and (1999: 140-141); Effros (2002a), (2002b),

and (2003) – post-Roman Gaul; Härke (2011) and (2014); Williams (2003) and (2006); Lucy (2002)
– post-Roman Britain; Curta (2001a: 6-34) and (2007) – Eastern and Central Eastern Europe.
More generally see Amory (1997:13-42); Gillett (2003a) and (2006); Halsall (2007: 35-62); Burns
(2003: 36-37, 365-366); Hu (2013). See specifically Pohl (1988) and (1998); Heather (1996) for
works which unpack the definitions of Barth and Leach.
41 See Okamura (1981) for the term “situational ethnicity”.

42 See Bourdieu (1977: 72-95). See also Bentley (1987) for a thoughtful and instructive analysis of

Bourdieu’s theory.
43 Bourdieu (1977: 72, 81). Guy Halsall utilises Bourdieu’s idea of habitus in relation to

Merovingian Metz: Halsall (1995a: 22).

~ 11 ~
cultural habitus and may signal increased socio-political development – an

unconscious and purely cultural habitus transforms into a conscious political

identity. 44 It is consciously acted upon and reproduced by those within the

group. On the other hand, if that hardening of identity is imposed from the

outside to produce order through differentiation, it can be seen as an artificial

construct to describe or account for a common cultural habitus as observed.45

This may account in part for why a multitude of groups are given the common

name of Sclavenes in the written sources when they seem to have very little to

do with each other in reality.

Whether the “Sclavenes” was an artificial label for a cultural habitus

and/or a creation from Roman stimuli can certainly pose methodological

challenges – the “Sclavenes” could very well evaporate under close scrutiny.46

However, this thesis will take the approach that such ideas can be a paradigm

through which to address problems and help inform analysis of the relevant

sources about a group of peoples with some commonality but no real unity, but

who actually existed and eventually settled most of Eastern and Central Eastern

Europe.

44 See Bentley’s discussion of domination generated by habitus: Bentley (1987: 40-43).

45 Dzino (2010: 119, 211).
46 See Pleterski (2013) for an alternate view. Pleterski argues on the basis of an extremely

detailed analysis of the Slovene site at Bled that evidence as to the division of farming land
indicates a stratified and developed society that existed either prior to Slavic settlement south
of the Danube or almost immediately afterwards (i.e. seventh - eighth century), most likely
brought on by the need to farm. Barford (2008) has also pointed out that Curta’s thesis does not
completely account for Slavic cultures which developed further afield than the Danubian limes
(in Poland for example), nor the fact that the Slavic language could not have just developed
overnight in response to Justinian’s building program and therefore must pre-date it. A lively
response from Curta has very recently been published in relation to Pleterski’s arguments in
particular. Curta finds Pleterski’s findings nonsensical, groundless and largely based on a
nationalistic desire to project “Slavic” social structures (the župa) known from later times
(eleventh, twelfth and even eighteenth centuries) back into the past in order to claim Slavic
continuity: Curta (2015b: esp. 299-303).

~ 12 ~
1.3 The Written Sources

The narrative coverage of the sixth and seventh centuries is not as satisfactory

as the historian might wish and the written source body has limitations which

must be carefully considered before their utility can be decided. There is no

narrative of Slavic history from a Slavic point of view until the early twelfth

century, and so any investigation must by necessity rely on archaeological

evidence together with Greco-Roman and Western written sources and the

ethnographic underpinnings they bring with them.

Greco-Roman ethnographic writing, often in the form of digressions

within a main text, had its own generic conventions. 47 The overarching

paradigm of was that of “the other,” 48 whereby the world was divided into

civilisation represented by Greek and Roman (or early Byzantine) society, and

barbarians who lived in beast-like squalor49 without proper law, government or

religion in the wilds beyond Rome’s frontiers.50 They were often depicted as

faithless and given to conflict.51 Simultaneously, literary tropes used barbarians

47 Kaldellis (2013: 1-2). For a short general overview, see Dench (2007).
48 There is a vast amount of literature on this point, but the general studies by Cartledge (1993);
Gruen (2010); Woolf (2011); Skinner (2012) and the classic case study on Herodotus by Hartog
(1988: esp. 61-111) are particularly instructive. See also Almagor (2005) for a brief ethnographic
study of Strabo’s Geography. Heather does an excellent survey on the concept of the barbarian in
elite and imperial rhetoric in the fourth and fifth centuries in the West: Heather (1999).
49 E.g. Procopius, Wars 4.6.10-13 (Moors/Berbers); 6.15.16-25 (beast-like Scrithiphini); Buildings

3.6.10 (Tzani); 4.5.9 (barbarians on the Danube between Gaul and Dacia).
50 See e.g. Procopius, Buildings 3.5.2 (Tzani live without rulers); 7.14.22 (Sclavenes and Antes

live without rulers in a “democracy” for good or ill cf. Herodotus, Histories 3.80-82 for
undertones of Herodotean disapproval). cf. Procopius, Wars 1.3.5 (Hephthalite Huns are not as
savage as they live by a “lawful constitution” and have a ruler); 6.14.37-42; 15.27-36 (Heruli
descend into chaos after they murder their king and then realise they cannot function without
one).
51 E.g. Procopius, Wars 4.8.10-11; 4.26.2-3 (Moors/Berbers); 4.4.29 (Heruli – cf. Agathias, Histories

1.14.3 on the Heruli leader Filocaris); 6.25.2 (Franks); Buildings 4.1.7 (barbarians on the Danube
including Huns, Goths, Sclavenes and others). Procopius also mentions Persians in this same
light (Procopius, Wars 1.19.33), but it should be noted that whilst Greco-Roman writers
considered Persians as barbarians, they were nevertheless thought to be largely civilised and
not given to same sorts of behaviours as other barbarian groups.

~ 13 ~
as a strategy through which to criticise Roman failings by blurring the points of

difference between the two. This can sometimes lead to ambiguity.52

The associated “environmental theory” goes back as far as Hippocrates53

and later Strabo,54 and held that barbarian groups reflected their environment

in the way they lived, their physical traits and appearance.55 John of Ephesus

certainly applied this theory to the Sclavenes.56

The immutable nature of barbarians who were outside the influence of

civilisation and tied in some elemental way to their environment also led to the

trope of archaic ethnic continuity. The idea was that those peoples who

occupied the same environmental niche or territory as a known group in the

past must in fact be the same peoples across time.57 Thus Scythians, Medes and

the Massagetae still make appearances in histories almost a thousand years

after Herodotus mentions them. 58 In this sense, the “barbarian” was a

categorisation in perpetuity, necessary for Greek, Roman and early Byzantine

self-definition.59

52 See Kaldellis (2013: 10-25). Kaldellis argues this was particularly used by Procopius in order
to criticise Justinian, especially in light of the Secret History.
53 See also Aristotle, Politics 7.1327b.

54 Strabo likely drew on his predecessor Posidonius of Rhodes who ascribed to the theory of

climates (see Posidonius frg. 169). Strabo explicitly places himself in a line of scholarship which
ends with Posidonius: Strabo, Geography 1.1.1.
55 Majeska (1997: 75-76); Woolf (2011: 44-51). In addition, the further away a barbarian group

was from direct Roman knowledge, the more monstrous and grotesque their appearance
became in popular imagination: see Evans (1999). Kaldellis argues that this was not a feature of
the Late Antique barbarian discourse: Kaldellis (2013: 10).
56 John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History 3.6.25. Further, the mention of Sclavenes in Pseudo-

Caesarius’ Erotapokriseis may actually be specifically aimed at challenging the environmental

theory by showing that different groups could in fact occupy the same climatic zone: Curta
(2001a: 43-44). Contrary to older opinion, Curta dates Pseudo-Caesarius in the decade after
Jordanes and Procopius were writing i.e. the 560s.
57 Majeska (1997: 75).

58 E.g. Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 31.2.12 (Alans in the fourth century are Massagetae);

Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History 3.2 and Procopius, Wars 3.11.9 (Huns as Massagetae in the sixth
century). Theodore Metochites was still using this trope in fourteenth century Byzantium and
thought the Tartars were Scythians simply because they occupied the same territory as
Herodotus’ Scythians: Theodore Metochites, Miscellanea 110. See also Hunger (1969/70) and
Scott (1981). On the Scythians, see Hartog (1988: esp. 1-33).
59 Gillett (2009: 4).

~ 14 ~
 The effect of these tropes was that barbarian identities from a Roman

viewpoint were largely built around stereotypes fitted into conventions of

genre, with information being selected or discarded accordingly.60 It also gave

barbarian groups a unity which usually did not represent reality.61 The concept

of ‘the barbarian’ became embedded in Greek and Roman cultural expression,

and written and artistic output formed around the construction of classical

identity in this way.62

In a general sense, Sclavene history in and of itself was of no particular

concern to most Late Antique authors except (1) as it impacted on the Empire

and the Church, (2) in how it fitted into the Christian worldview, and (3) in

how it served the purpose and genre of the source itself, which all must be kept

in mind.

Generally speaking, sixth and seventh century Greek writers referred to

the Sclavenes as Sklavenoi/Sklabenoi. The shorter version, Sklavoi is first used by

Agathias in Constantinople in the 580s. The same word in Latin (Sclavus/Sclavi)

is found almost contemporaneously in a poem by Martin of Braga which

appears to have been based on Constantinopolitan sources.63 It is also used by

later Latin sources such as Fredegar (who also uses the term Wends – see

section 1.3.2.1 below). The term Sklavenoi was originally used by the Romans to

60 Majeska (1997: 76); Kaldellis (2013: 9). Cyril Mango argued that classicising Byzantine
historiography “[obliterated] the reality of Byzantine life” and that literary and historical
output had very little to do with the reality of most Byzantine citizens and how they
experienced the events described in Byzantine historiographical writing: Mango (1981: 50). He
calls it the “dim and… distorting mirror” of late Roman and Byzantine historiography, which
was “hopelessly schematic” in its selection of material according to classicising genres: (Mango:
1975: 8, 18). Kaldellis (2004: 40-41) bitterly disagrees with this position. His argument is
somewhat curious as he positions Procopius as a true classicising historian rather than a mere
imitator and seems to indicate that this means Procopius is more true to the dictates of the
genre, but can somehow still escape its artificial constraints, which are exactly the point of
Mango’s argument. Greatrex addresses Kaldellis in a general sense on these points, arguing
that Kaldellis’ analysis can border on the over-subtle and that Procopius should not be seen as a
special case but rather a product of his times and his genre: Greatrex (2014: 90-96).
61 Burns (2003: 16).

62 Gillett (2009: 5-6).

63 Barford (2001: 28); Curta (2001a: 45-46).

~ 15 ~
designate those groups of peoples on their northern borders who were causing

trouble for the Empire, but also seemed to encompass the perception that these

peoples had a similar material culture and a possible linguistic unity. Both

these issues are addressed in detail in this thesis.

This thesis will confine itself to the contemporary or near contemporary

sources which provide information on the Sclavenes and their context in the

sixth and seventh centuries before they start developing into recognisable

Slavic polities after the Avaro-Slavic defeat at Constantinople in 626.

1.3.1 Contemporary Eastern Sources

The Eastern sources tend to be richer in information as their authors were

geographically closer to the Sclavenes’ theatre of operations. News travelled

faster to Constantinople than to the post-Roman West and there was a better

chance of hearing or having access to eyewitness accounts or official

documentation on Sclavene encounters. Simply put, Sclavene activities

impacted the Eastern Roman Empire to a much greater extent.

1.3.1.1 Procopius of Caesarea – The Wars, Buildings and Secret History64

One of the last historians to write true classicising military history,65 Procopius

of Caesarea completed his great work the Wars in Greek in the early 550s in

Constantinople. Buildings and the Secret History were finished shortly

thereafter. 66 Procopius includes material on Sclavene incursions into Roman

interests but also engages in the longest ethnographic excursus in his works in

The Wars, covering Sclavene origins, society, territory and warfare,67 as well as

64 Greatrex (2014) is an excellent and up-to-date overview of recent literature on Procopius.

65 On this see Cameron (1985: 19-46); Kaldellis (2004: 17-61).
66 For the dates of these works, see Greatrex (1994) and (2013); Evans (2006); Kaldellis (2009).

67 Procopius, Wars, 7.14.1-36.

~ 16 ~
the surrounding contextual narrative. In his own estimation, he was “especially

competent” to write his history because he was “an eye-witness of practically

all the events” he described as advisor to the famous general Belisarius.68 He is

largely silent on his sources, although it is quite clear that he was not as

informed on certain points as he would have the reader believe.69 Procopius

most likely had little personal knowledge of the Balkan area,70 but it is known

that Belisarius used Sclavene and Antean mercenaries at the siege of Auximum

in 539/40 71 whom Procopius could have spoken to in order to gather his

ethnographic information. He used more archival and oral sources for

information on events occurring after Belisarius was recalled to Constantinople

in 548 and is therefore more localised in his outlook from that point onwards.72

The length of the ethnographic excursus on the Sclavenes reveals a

specific interest in the Sclavenes – their activities were of current concern to the

Eastern Roman Empire. 73 The Sclavenes are not viewed altogether badly by

Procopius, 74 but his picture is coloured by the classic ethnographic outlook

typical of his day and genre.75

68 Procopius, Wars 1.1.3. See Kaldellis (2013:6): “There were probably few men in the sixth
century who knew as much about the world as did Prokopios...”
69 On Procopius’ possible sources, see Cameron (1985: 210-222).

70 Curta (2001a: 37).

71 Procopius, Wars 6.26.16-22.

72 Curta (2001a: 38). See also Treadgold (2010: 215-216) for Procopius’ sources.

73 Curta (2001a: 38). See also Kaldellis (2013: 4) for the desire of Late Antique classicising

historians to introduce new and unknown peoples.

74 Whether Procopius was a Christian and whether his views on barbarians were coloured by

his belief in the universal Christian empire (oikumene) is a matter of debate. It is largely accepted
he was Christian: Cameron (1985: 239-240); Curta (2001a: 37-38), but see Kaldellis (2004) who
consistently argues that Procopius most certainly was not a Christian and therefore did not
approach his subject matter with a Christian worldview. He makes a very similar argument in
relation to Agathias: Kaldellis (1999). Cf. Cameron (1970:89-111).
75 On Procopius’ bias against Germanic barbarians and the Sclavenes, see Cameron (1985: 210-

13, 218-19). Kaldellis has sought to revise this picture somewhat over the last decade,
suggesting that the trope of the admirable barbarian looms large in Procopius in order to
criticise Justinian and that Procopius may not necessarily have had negative views on
barbarians: Kaldellis (2013: 17-21). See also Kaldellis (2004) for an overall assessment of
Procopius’ negative agenda towards Justinian. However, this trope has always been part of
classical historiography operating alongside negative stereotypes by Kaldellis’ own admission

~ 17 ~
 Buildings is an important source for details on Justinian’s re-fortification

of the Danubian frontiers76 in response to Sclavene, Cutrigur and Utigur raiding

in the mid-sixth century, which is a significant issue to be addressed in

evaluating Roman-barbarian relations.77

Caution should be exercised when using Procopius due to the

classicising models he was following and the associated generic tropes. He uses

the same stereotype-laden descriptors for the Sclavenes as for other groups

such as the Goths, which in turn leads to very similar conclusions about both

groups.78 Nevertheless, as Cameron notes, it is simply impossible not to rely on

Procopius for this time period,79 and in some cases, there are opportunities for

cross-referencing with other sources.

1.3.1.2 Jordanes – The Getica and Romana

Jordanes wrote the Getica and the Romana in Latin in Constantinople in 550 or

551,80 making him a direct contemporary of Procopius.81 The Romana seems to

have largely been drawn from Jerome, Orosius, Eutropius and Florus, and in

his own words Jordanes drew his information for the Getica from the lost Gothic

History of Cassiodorus and added other information from other sources and

(e.g. Herodotus), and so does not offer anything new in and of itself in terms of uncovering
Procopius’s true views on the matter.
76 See Procopius, Buildings 4.4.

77 But see Poulter (2007b: 9-11); Liebeschuetz (2007: 105-107) which question Procopius’

reliability in light on his panegyric agenda and the archaeological evidence. E.g. inscriptional
evidence conclusively shows that Ratiaria was re-fortified by Anastasius and not completely
rebuilt by Justinian as Procopius claims: see Buildings 4.6.24. Treadgold notes that Procopius
does not make any claims as to the truth of the Buildings (panegyric) as he does in the Wars
(history): Treadgold (2010: 190-191).
78 Majeska (1997: 82-83): e.g. Procopius, Wars 7.14.22-23, 29 (Sclavenes and Antes shared the

same customs, institutions and religion from ancient times, were once both collectively called
the Spori) cf. 3.2.10-11 (Sauromatae and Melanchlaeni differ in nothing but name, were
originally from the same tribe and share the same laws and religion).
79 Cameron (1985: 207).

80 For composition dates of both works, see Croke (2005).

81 Curta in fact makes a reasonable argument that Jordanes may in part have been responding

directly to Procopius’ negative attitude towards barbarians (and the Slavic tribes in particular)
in his work: Curta (2001a:39-43).

~ 18 ~
(presumably) his own knowledge.82 Whether Cassiodorus had anything to say

about the Sclavenes is not clear.

Like Procopius, Jordanes claims an ancient origin for both the Sclavenes

and Antes in the Venedi/Venethi of the first century A.D. as mentioned by both

Tacitus and Pliny the Elder as occupying the Eastern Carpathian Mountains

and Baltic Coast respectively. 83 Jordanes locates the Sclavenes in densely

wooded swamplands in the area between the source of the Vistula, the Dniester

and the town of Noviodunum (near Isaccea).84 He also adds vague details such

as they were numerous, cowardly and were causing great damage to the

Empire in Jordanes’ time as punishment for Rome’s sins.85

Unlike Procopius, this may be less a result of classicising genres and

more to do with a corpus of Late Antique works collectively labelled the

Origines Gentium (National Histories).86 These works sought to legitimise the

barbarian successor kingdoms by providing ancient origin stories and

continuous histories around which barbarian identities could coalesce. They

were a mix of mythic and ethnographic material and cannot be taken to say

82 Jordanes, Getica 2-3. The older view that Jordanes copied almost verbatim from Cassiodorus
has become more nuanced in more recent times. Brian Croke and Florin Curta are both more
willing to take Jordanes at his word that he supplemented his material with other written
sources, many of which are actually named (although some may have come to Jordanes by way
of Cassiodorus rather than directly), and oral sources the closer the events came to Jordanes’
own lifetime: Croke (1987: esp. 122-129); Curta (2001a: 37-38). See also Søby Christensen (2002:
115-123). Cf. Liebeschuetz (2011: 186-188). The written sources Jordanes’ used are discussed
briefly in turn in the Introduction to Charles Mierow’s English edition of the Getica: Mierow
(1915: 19-36) and in O’Donnell (1982: 228-240). See also Gillett (2000) and Liebeschuetz (2011:
189-195) on Jordanes’ relationship to Ablabius’ lost History of the Goths. Curta further discusses
the likelihood that one of Jordanes’ sources was a map: Curta (2001a: 42).
83 Tacitus, Germania 46; Pliny the Elder, Natural History 4.13. See also Strabo, Geography 4.4

(Venonnes/Vindelici to the North of Italy) and Ptolemy, Geography 6.14.9 (Soubenoi in Northern
Scythia). c.f. Procopius, Wars 7.14.22-30 (Sporoi between the Vistula and Carpathian
Mountains). Jordanes seems to see the Venedi as both an overarching group to which both the
Sclavenes and Antes belong, and as a third group existing alongside them: Getica 119.
84 Jordanes, Getica 34-36.

85 Jordanes, Getica 119.

86 The Origines Gentium includes Cassiodorus’ Gothic History, Jordanes’ Getica, Paul the Deacon’s

History of the Langobards, Gregory of Tours’ History of the Franks, Isidore of Seville’s History of the
Gothic, Vandal and Suevic Kings and possibly Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People.

~ 19 ~
anything particularly genuine about the ancient origins of various barbarian

peoples. Such texts “must be taken as deliberately composed wholes.”87

Jordanes’ was primarily concerned about Gothic history but his

treatment of the Slavic peoples must be seen in light of the overall purpose.

Peter Heather has shown emphatically that despite Jordanes’ own Gothic

heritage, his work does not contain any legitimate material on Gothic history

before about 376. 88 Jordanes is therefore more valuable if his information is

taken to reflect some measure of truth about the Sclavenes in his own time.

1.3.1.3 Agathias Scholasticus – The Histories

A lawyer in Constantinople, Agathias saw himself as a continuer of Procopius89

and covers the period 552 to 559. He has been criticised for being overly

artificial in the classical style and for lacking the knowledge, resources and

even the proper motivation to write political and military history.90 There is

some debate over whether Agathias used much reliable source material,91 but

he importantly would have been in Constantinople in 558/9 and witnessed the

87 Halsall (1999: 135). See also Gillett (2009: 8-12).

88 Heather (1991: 34-67). See also Goffart (1988: 20-111) and (2005) which is elementary reading
on this subject, and Søby Christensen (2002). There has been a tendency to trust these sources
uncritically. The idea that these origin myths were built around a nucleus of truth
(traditionskerne) goes back to Reinhard Wenskus (1961) and has more recently been followed by
Jones (1996: 42-43, 269-272), Wolfram (1990: 14-34) and Pohl (2003a). Liebeschuetz has argued
even more recently that the Getica does in fact preserve genuinely Gothic traditions that formed
the basis of Gothic identity as a gens prior to their arrival into the Empire: Liebeschuetz (2011).
See Wolfram (1997: 53) for the argument that Sclavene society actually had no such nucleus of
tradition, thus their decentralised state.
89 Agathias, Histories Preface 22-23.

90 See Cameron (1970: 30-37, 75-88). See also Kaldellis (1999) and (2003); Gador-Whyte (2007) for

Agathias’ classicising tendencies.

91 Cameron (1970: 39-41) argues that it was unlikely Agathias had access to military dispatches

or diaries as was often assumed due to his lack of geographical knowledge and confused
chronology (although this could have come more from imitating Thucydides’ chronological
system) and more likely relied uncritically on oral sources. Curta accepts that he used military
reports and campaign diaries: Curta (2001a: 45). Agathias possibly also had friends in positions
within Justinian’s court: Treadgold (2010: 281) e.g. Agathias, Histories 5.9.7-9 (Paul the
Silentiary, Justinian’s attendant); 1 pref. 1 (Eutychianus, imperial secretary).

~ 20 ~
Cutrigur siege which concludes the Histories. 92 Agathias reflects the same

general attitude to barbarians as his predecessors 93 and does not have very

much to say on the Sclavenes. The name of one Slavic soldier serving in the

Roman army is preserved94 and he is the first to use the name Sklavoi rather

than Sklavenoi.95

1.3.1.4 John Malalas – The Chronographia

John Malalas’ Chronographia is a work in the genre of the Universal Christian

World Chronicle 96 and covers the period from Genesis to 565. Malalas was

educated for government service and served in bureaucratic positions in both

Antioch and Constantinople. 97 Both cities were of central importance to the

Empire and as such, Malalas probably had access to a range of source material

of military and political significance and clearly drew on imperial laws, decrees

and letters.98 He also based his work on the City Chronicles of Antioch and

Constantinople along with earlier chroniclers and oral sources for events in his

own lifetime.99 Malalas mentions that the Sclavenes took part in the Cutrigur

attack on Constantinople in 558/9, a fact omitted by Agathias and likely

indicating that if they did in fact take part, they did so in a subordinate

capacity.100

92 Agathias, Histories 5.11.5-25.6.

93 Agathias’ preoccupation with the Franks in particular was connected to the potential of a
possible alliance between Rome and the Franks in order to oust the Lombards from Italy at that
time: see Cameron (1970: 115-123) for Agathias’ attitudes to barbarians and particularly the
Franks. Cf. Kaldellis (2013: 21-25) who argues that Agathias is more concerned about using the
Franks as a literary device through which to reflect badly on Justinian and Rome.
94 Agathias, Histories 4.20.4.

95 Curta (2001a: 45).

96 On the Christian World Chronicle, see Croke (1990b).

97 See Croke (1990a).

98 Jeffreys, Jeffreys & Scott (1986: xxiii).

99 For a fuller treatment of the sources used by Malalas, see Scott (1985); Jeffreys (1990: 172-196);

Treadgold (2007) and (2010: 246-256).

100 Curta (2001a: 45-46).

~ 21 ~
1.3.1.5 Menander the Guardsman – The History
Menander’s History is only preserved in fragments in later Byzantine sources.

The surviving Preface states that he was continuing the work of Agathias101 and

thus was working in the classicising mode,102 possibly under the patronage of

the Emperor Maurice. 103 The work appears to have followed a two-fold

chronology based on the foreign relations of Rome with Persia and the Avars104

and it is largely in the context of Roman-Avar relations that Sclavenes appear.105

Menander seems to have held a relatively high diplomatic post in

Constantinople 106 and therefore focuses primarily on Eastern diplomatic

happenings. What survives of his work reflects a reliance on archival material;

diplomatic reports and official correspondence, including the accounts of Peter

the Patrician. 107 Because of the more formalised nature of relations between

Rome and Persia, that information is more detailed and structured, but the

Avar material on embassies, treaties, the payment of tribute and Roman-Avar

conflict is nonetheless important and highly visible.

Use of stereotypes towards barbarians must again be taken into

consideration in Menander; the Avars are typically treacherous and intent on

slaughter 108 while the Sclavenes murder Avar envoys because they cannot

control their wild natures.109 Other barbarians are similarly cast.110

101 Menander the Guardsman frg. 1.

102 See Baldwin (1978: 109-111) for the Thucydidean influence on Menander, but also see
Blockley (1985: 2-4) for ways in which Menander seems to have broken the mould to some
extent.
103 Theophylact Simocatta confirms that Menander’s work ended with the fall of Sirmium to the

Avars in 582: Theophylact Simocatta, History 1.3.5.

104 Blockley (1985: 5, 13-15).

105 Blockley (1985: 14).

106 For the sort of position Menander may have held and what the appellation “Protector” may

have denoted, see Baldwin (1978: 104-105); Blockley (1985: 1-2).

107 Baldwin (1978: 112-113); Blockley (1985: 18-19); Curta (2001a: 47).

108 See Menander the Guardsman, frg. 5.4; 6; 12.1; 12.4 and 25.1-2 (treachery, deceit, the breaking

of oaths and treaties).

109 Menander the Guardsman, frg. 3 and 21.

110 See Menander the Guardsman frg. 7 (Thracians break oaths); frg. 15 (Saracens are

quarrelsome); frg. 48 (barbarians are foolish and fractious). See Baldwin (1978: 114-117).

~ 22 ~
1.3.1.6 The Strategikon of Maurice
The Strategikon, a military manual (tactica) written during the reign of Maurice

and sometimes attributed to him,111 is a vitally important source of information

on the Sclavenes. In outlining how best to make attacks on Sclavene territory,

Book 11 contains a great deal of information about Sclavene society and

methods of fighting, as well as the ways in which Rome endeavoured to deal

with them.112 Inferences about Roman-Sclavene relations can also be made from

looking at what is not addressed in the manual – it does not address attacking

or defending against Sclavenes or Antes within Roman territory, but taking

offensive action across the Danube.113

The sheer space dedicated to the Sclavenes not only indicates their

importance in contemporary affairs, 114 but also the author’s own first-hand

knowledge. The Strategikon was written by a soldier with campaign experience

against the Sclavenes and Antes who was imparting personal knowledge to

other military leaders in a factual manner.115 For this reason, the Strategikon can

provide as much certainty as can be possible from an ancient source from the

Roman perspective.

1.3.1.7 Theophylact Simocatta – The History

Much like Menander the Guardsman, Theophylact Simocatta was primarily

concerned with the Roman relationship with the Persians and Avars and took

up Menander’s narrative from 582 to 602. Legally trained, Theophylact seems

to have had a very successful administrative career in Constantinople. 116 As

111 For who may have specifically authored the Strategikon, see Dennis (1984: xvi-xvii) and Curta
(2001a: 51-52).
112 Curta (2001a: 51).

113 Luttwack (2009: 298-299).

114 Cf. Leo, Tactica 78 and 98 which reveals no sense that the Sclavenes or Avars are a large or

present problem in the late ninth century: Curta (2001a: 66).

115 Dennis (1981: xv-xvi, xxi).

116 For example, he delivered a panegyric in honour of Maurice in 610 before the Emperor

Heraclius: Theophylact Simocatta, History 8.12.3-7. He later won the patronage of the powerful

~ 23 ~
such, one would expect Theophylact to have had access to official imperial

archival material. He used the City Chronicle of Constantinople and it has been

argued convincingly that he also relied on a campaign diary (Feldzugsjournal)

for the events in Book 6 onwards. Unfortunately, Theophylact was unable to

fully synthesize them into an intelligible chronology and so can be confusing.

Nonetheless, he preserves not only a narrative of events, but details such as the

names of several Sclavene leaders.117

Importance also lies in the agreement of Theophylact’s narrative with the

Strategikon. The second part of Theophylact’s history is concerned with Maurice

launching attacks against Avar and Sclavene settlements across the Danube,

which is exactly the concern of Book 11 of the Strategikon.118

Theophylact Simocatta is in fact the basis for Theophanes Confessor’s

sixth and seventh century material in the Chronographia, but as Theophanes

confuses or amends a lot of his information to achieve an artificially imposed

chronology, his usefulness is limited.119

1.3.1.8 The Miracles of Saint Demetrius Books I & II

Book I is a collection of miracle stories written in Greek by Archbishop John of

Thessalonica around the turn of the seventh century. The sermonising tone of

the collection, its tendency towards sensationalism, and its purpose in

Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople. Further, the full title of his work as preserved by Photius
records the high ranking positions he held: see Whitby & Whitby (1986: xiv).
117 Curta (2001a: 56-57).

118 Whitby & Whitby (1986: xviii).

119 Curta (2001a: 63-64), who goes as far as to say Theophanes’ version is “entirely misleading.”

Theophanes’ work was written in the very early ninth century and was a world chronicle
combining Christian and secular material within an extensive chronological structure: see
Mango & Scott (2006: lxiii-lxxiv) for an extensive analysis of Theophanes’ chronological
framework. The chronicle as a whole was essentially a file of sources left to Theophanes to
compile into a single chronology and in this sense, Theophanes was more an editor than a
historian: see Mango & Scott (2006: lxxiv-xci) for Theophanes’ sources. His use of still extant
sources such as Procopius shows that in some cases he did not add or alter much to what was
already there, but for others such as John Malalas, he was very selective and was more
concerned with fitting the material neatly into his chronology: Mango & Scott (2006: xci-xcv).

~ 24 ~
demonstrating Saint Demetrius’ protection of the city has prompted Curta to

warn against taking the accounts too seriously.120 Book I contains stories of two

attacks on Thessalonica by 5,000 Sclavenes and then 100,000 Sclavenes and

Avars. 121 Given that no other source securely records these attacks and

considering Archbishop John’s purpose, it is likely that the significance and

scale was exaggerated.122 They still, however, speak to some level of threat to

provincial cities from Sclavene raiding.

Book II is of unknown authorship and was written about seventy years

later. It provides a curious mix of normal Roman attitudes towards barbarians

as savage, violent heathens intent on destroying Thessalonica,123 and a growing

sense of the normality of a Slavic presence within Roman territory – seven

Sclavene tribes are named as Thessalonica’s neighbours and in some cases are

on good terms with Romans.124

Book II does not have the same sermonising and sensationalist tone as

Book I and appears to have relied more on documentary and oral material,125

giving detailed information about Sclavene military units and weaponry.126

1.3.2 Contemporary Western Sources

There are a number of sources from the post-Roman West including John of

Biclar, Isidore of Seville, George of Pisidia and the Chronicon Paschale which

give limited information about the Sclavenes. Gregory the Great provides some

120 Curta (2001a: 53).

121 Miracles of Saint Demetrius I 12 (attack of 5,000 Sclavenes); I 13 (attack of 100,000 Avars and
Sclavenes). See Appendix B.1.5.
122 Curta (2001a: 54). It is possible that John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History 6.6.25 is describing

the same event.

123 E.g. Miracles of Saint Demetrius II 4.24; II 2.214; II 4.274.

124 Miracles of Saint Demetrius II 1.179, II 4.323.

125 Curta (2001a: 62).

126 E.g. Miracles of Saint Demetrius II 3.219, 3.222, 4.231, 4.279-80, 5.289, II 4.262.

~ 25 ~
details about the threat the Slavs posed to Italy at the turn of the seventh

century in his correspondence to Eastern clergymen and officials. 127

The most important contemporary source from the West however is

Fredegar’s Chronicle.

1.3.2.1 Fredegar – Chronicle

The Chronicle of Fredegar, like other world chronicles, is annalistic in its

arrangement and was based on material drawn from earlier Western

chronicles.128 It was compiled in the mid to late seventh century and covers

Creation to around 642 and was written in unpolished Latin by an unknown

author.129 The first three books are little more than a compilation of previous

Chronicles. Book 4, however, introduces new material.130

Book 4 importantly contains an account of the Wends. They were

possibly some sort of elite Sclavene military or political unit within the Avar

Khaganate 131 that rebelled against Avar rule to form a kingdom under a

Frankish merchant named Samo in the 620s. 132 The Wendish kingdom then

came into conflict with King Dagobert of Austrasia whom Fredegar viewed

with deep distain, and the Wends have an important role to play in his account

of Dagobert’s downfall. 133 This does not necessarily mean that Fredegar’s

127 See Letters 10.15; 9.155 – these events are also mentioned by Paul the Deacon: Hist.Lang.4.24.
On Gregory the Great generally, see Martyn (2004 vol. 1: 1-118). On use of his letters in
reconstructing Balkan history, see Dzino (2010: 88, 97-98); Whitby (1988: 114-115).
128 Wallace-Hadrill (1960: ix-xi, xiii). His sources included Hippolytus, Jerome, Hydatius and

Isidore of Seville as well as local Burgundian annals

129 There is debate over whether the Chronicle was authored by a single person or three different

people: see Wallace-Hadrill who advocates for two or three authors (1960: xiv-xxviii) and
Goffart (1963) who argues for a single author. See also Curta (2001a: 59).
130 See Wallace-Hadrill (1960: xxiv).

131 See Curta (1997: 144-155) and (2001: 60).

132 Fredegar 4.48, 68, 72-77.

133 Curta (2001a: 60).

~ 26 ~
account is pure fantasy, but that he may have embellished the Wendish

material to suit his purpose.134

1.3.3 Later Sources

1.3.3.1 Paul the Deacon – History of the Langobards

Paul the Deacon provides most of the evidence for the Western Sclavenes other

than Fredegar and was writing in the last part of the eighth century. At first

glance, he paints a picture somewhat similar to Book II of the Miracles of Saint

Demetrius – Sclavenes could be friends as well as enemies, or at least familiar

neighbours.135 However, Paul’s History is part of the Origines gentium corpus

and has similar aims. Furthermore, Paul uses the Sclavenes in his narrative for

a particular Christian historiographical purpose – they are the manifestation of

the civil discord between various Lombard factions within the kingdom and

therefore a divine punishment.136 It would be reasonable to expect that Paul

would have had some knowledge of Sclavene political organisation due to his

upbringing at the Lombard court, but he does not mention anything. It did not

fit his purpose and so did not concern him.137

1.3.3.2 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus – The De Administrando Imperio

The tenth-century De Administrando Imperio compiled by the Byzantine

Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus is largely beyond the scope of this

thesis but is still worth noting for the two different accounts it provides of the

134 Curta (2001a: 61). For Fredegar’s concern with good governance and kingship, see Wood
(1994: 361ff).
135 Paul the Deacon, Hist. Lang. 4.37 (three generations prior to Paul’s own time, a Slavic woman

living in the vicinity of a Lombard town aided Paul’s grandfather – see Appendix B.2.3.A), 5.22
and 6.52 (Sclavenes as a place of refuge) cf. 4.28 (Sclavenes as enemies under Avar command).
136 Curta (1997: 155-161). See also Jordanes, Getica 119: Liebeschuetz (2011: 206-210) and

O’Donnell (1982: 226-227) both point out that Jordanes utilises the Sclavenes as a motif of divine
punishment. Similarly, John of Ephesus called them “the accursed people of the Slavs”: John of
Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History 6.6.25.
137 Curta (1997: 160).

~ 27 ~
migration of Slavic Croats and Serbs into Dalmatia.138 While neither represents

a reliable account of a Croat migration in the seventh century,139 Constantine

has probably preserved some form of a native origin story of the arrival of

Slavic peoples to the Balkans, albeit recorded by a Byzantine Emperor with a

completely different agenda.140

1.4 The Archaeological Evidence

Relatively speaking, there is not an enormous amount of written evidence

about the Sclavenes in the sixth and seventh centuries and so reliance on

archaeological evidence is unavoidable.141 The only real glimpse into the world

of the Sclavenes from their own perspective is through what physical remains

they left behind, which is generally settlement and burial remains including

ceramics, jewellery and some articles of clothing (belt buckles, fibulae and other

decorative items).

The material cultures associated today with sixth and seventh century

Sclavenes are known by a number of different names and first start becoming

evident in the archaeological record in the fifth century across Eastern Europe

in the area from modern Ukraine to the Danube, Black Sea and Baltic. They

seem to have gradually replaced the declining Sântana de Mureș–Chernyakhov

culture as the associated Germanic peoples moved further into West Roman

territory. 142 Assemblages from the Korčhak-Peňkovka-Koločhin cultural

138 DAI 29-32. Sections 29, 31-32 contain the story that Heraclius sponsored the migration of the
Croats and section 30 contains a more legendary type story. The Serb story is contained in
sections 33-35.
139 Croats are not known to contemporary seventh century sources and therefore the DAI is

more likely to reflect Constantine’s own times and concerns: Dzino (2010: 110).
140 Curta (2001a: 66). The story does not necessarily reveal any truth about Croat origins, but

rather Croat belief in their origins. For a more detailed analysis, particularly on Constantine’s
agenda, see Dzino (2010: 104-117) and (2014b); Borri (2011).
141 Godja (1991: 16).

142 Barford (2001: 43).

~ 28 ~
complex have been found in North-Eastern Ukraine (the Upper Dnieper area),

an associated Suceava-Şipot culture in Romania (Moldavia and Walachia), and

in the northern Balkan Peninsula. The similar Prague-Korčhak culture is found

in Poland, Western Ukraine, and the Czech Republic – see Figures 1 and 2 on

pages 32-33.

These cultures are relatively uniform in a general sense and should

probably be seen as regional variants of a common cultural complex. 143 The

different designations have more to do with previous efforts of Slavic scholars

to locate and privilege for their own nation the specific homeland of “Proto-

Slavs.” 144 The hand-crafted pottery produced in the areas covered by these

cultures upon which the naming conventions are based had similar forms and

some have wavy line decorations. Analysis of the pottery has problems

including dating, differentiation and their rigid culture-historical classification

as inherently “Slavic,” rather than being seen as an amalgam of styles,

influences and ethnicities.145

These cultures also produced similar jewellery styles, residential

building styles of sunken rectangular houses with a stone or clay oven set in

one corner, and mostly practiced cremation.146 Slavic bow fibulae are probably

the most well-known type of find from these assemblages and are particularly

important to the construction of Sclavene identity, as Florin Curta has

demonstrated in great detail.147

143 Gimbutas (1971: 89).

144 See Curta (2001a: 6-11) on this.
145 See Curta (2001c). In other words, the pottery alone cannot be used to indicate a Sclavene

presence in a given area even if more accurate classification and differentiation methods are
used.
146 Godja (1991: 16).

147 Curta (2001a: 227-275). He precedes his argument on Slavic bow fibulae by demonstrating

the same role was played by fibulae worn by Lombard and Gepid women in Pannonia as they
tried to assert identity in the face of Lombard-Gepid conflict in the fifth and sixth centuries:
Curta (2001a: 201-204). See also Effros (2004).

~ 29 ~
 A caveat must be given here: the identification of the Sclavenes with the

Prague-Korčhak and associated material cultures is tentative and the problems

with culture-historical approaches to archaeology are well known. The ethnic

character of archaeological assemblages can never be assumed and simplistic

labels often mask complex processes. Nevertheless, the archaeological record in

the fifth to the seventh centuries does show a marked change in material

culture as well as recurring patterns of cultural affinity across large territories

in Central and Eastern Europe where the written sources locate peoples called

Sclavenes.148 One might therefore call this the Sclavene or Slavic cultural habitus

with reasonable confidence while at the same time acknowledging that it

cannot reflect the entirety of social, political, economic and cultural reality.

The concern of this thesis is to determine whether any of the

archaeological material alone or in conjunction with the written sources might

shed light on aspects of Sclavene society. This may in turn suggest reasons why

they were never Roman allies and in fact what the nature of their interaction

with Rome actually was. In this respect, relevant Roman and Avar material will

also be considered, particularly in terms of prestige items and emblemic styles

which may have been imitated in the Sclavene assemblages and therefore might

indicate identify-forming processes due to integration and acculturation. For

comparative purposes, the use of such items and styles in Germanic groups in

previous centuries will be examined as well.

The relationship between archaeological evidence and written sources is

a vexed one and not as intuitive as it may seem. Historical studies tend to

present written and archaeological evidence together as a seamless whole,149

and this can be both deceptive and miss opportunities to approach the gaps

heuristically to generate fresh questions, perspectives and new problems.150 In

148 Barford (2001: 32).

149 Riello (2009: 43).
150 Johnson (2011:134-135).

~ 30 ~
barbarian studies in the past, the need of the historical enterprise to interpret

archaeological evidence to fit documentary sources has been problematic and

does no justice to either source body.151

There are legitimate criticisms of various theoretical approaches to

material archaeology.152 It is hoped that one advantage of limiting this thesis in

scope to the period between the first mention of the Sclavenes in the sources in

530/1 to the fall of the First Avar Khaganate after the loss at Constantinople in

626, is that the archaeological material can be dealt with in a more focused

manner to avoid some of these issues.

151 Halsall (1999: 33-35). Halsall uses Jordanes’ Getica as a case study to demonstrate this point to
great effect. See also Poulter (2007b: 1-3).
152 See Viet (1989); Curta (2002: 202-203); Halsall (1997). See also Burmeister (2000); Heather

(2009: 1-34); Renfrew & Bahn (2012: 463-492) for the problematics and debates on the
archaeology of migration which has a central place in late antique barbarian studies.

~ 31 ~
Figure 1 – Material cultures of the first half of the sixth century. Reproduced from
Barford (2001: 395).

~ 32 ~
Figure 2 - Material cultures of the second half of the sixth century. Reproduced from Barford
(2001: 396).

~ 33 ~
~ 34 ~
Chapter 2
Rome and the Historical Context

2.1 Rome in Late Antiquity

The Sclavenes appeared on the lower Danube within five years of Justinian I

taking the imperial throne in 527 at Constantinople. Justinian’s coronation

neatly represents some of the major reorientations which had been

transforming the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity – the Christianisation of the

Empire and a shift in imperial power towards the East.

The change from Rome to Constantinople as the imperial capital was

part of a long-term process which had begun as early as the third century A.D.

The balance of power between Rome and her neighbours began to drastically

change due to the almost simultaneous emergence of bigger and more

organised Germanic confederacies on the Danube, Rhine, and in the Black Sea

and Asia Minor on the one hand, and a more centralised and aggressive

Sassanian Persian state on the other. At that point in time, any breach of the

Roman frontiers had consequences far more serious than previously, in part

due to the increased size and organisation of the attacking groups but also

because of the inadequacy of the old Roman systems of defence. Rome’s rigid

defensive lines and lumbering legions were exposed as severely lacking against

~ 35 ~
their highly mobile enemies in the third century,1 a problem which would only

increase with the arrival of the bow-wielding horsemen of the Eurasian Steppe.2

Roman defences were more easily overcome at any given point and once they

were, an invading force could slice right through to the Roman hinterland.3

The latter half of third century thus saw the rise of soldier-emperors,

often of common provincial stock, whose military expertise was desperately

needed and who spent their reigns on the frontiers. Prior to this, the gradual

politicisation of the army starting during the Severan dynasty had already

helped bleed away a great deal of the power of the Roman Senate in imperial

politics.4 The large-scale regionalisation and inclusion of barbarians within both

the command structure and rank and file of the Roman military was another

way in which peripheral groups were able to incorporate themselves into the

power structures of the Empire,5 and they, together with the solider-emperors,

drew military and political power towards the frontiers.

The need to monitor the reorganised lower Danubian frontiers after

Dacia was abandoned and protect the economic resources of the Eastern

1 Watson (1999); Southern & Ramsey Dixon (1996: 4-5, 23-37).

2 See Haldon (1999: 190-217); Elton (1996: 104-105) demonstrating the final shift to cavalry as the
main operational force in the Roman army in the sixth century. See Curta (2015a) on the Avar,
Bulgar and Sclavene horsemen of the sixth century.
3 Starr (1982: 142-3). The provinces to the south of the Middle and Lower Danube in particular

were under constant threat because Germanic groups could cut straight through Dacia. See
Burns (1980: 32-33) on the dating of the Roman withdrawal from Dacia in the third century.
4 See Potter (2004: 125-172, 217-298) on the politicization of the army by the Severans and their

successors which is a running theme in his narrative and analysis, largely embodied by
Septimius Severus’ advice to his sons: “Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men.”
(Dio. 77.15.2). The marginalisation of the senatorial class in Rome in favour of the equites is well
covered in Jones (1964 vol.1: 3-36) and Alföldy (1985: 157-185). Septimius Severus had already
given command of three new legions to equestrian commanders and appointed an equestrian
prefect to the province of Mesopotamia. There is also evidence that equites served in place of
senatorial governors on seven occasions (two in Dacia, Africa, Asia, Syria, Galatia and one
other) although they may have only been in a temporary capacity: Campbell (1984: 408).
Further, although there is no evidence of Gallienus’ edict excluding senators from military
commands (Vict.Caes.33.34.), the reference may be a recognition that legionary commands and
military tribuneships were by and large no longer given to senators but to equites from the 260s.
5 See Cameron (1993: 50-56); Goffart (2006: 190-197); Burns (2003: 321-323). Cassius Dio accused

Marcus Aurelius of barbarising the Roman army as early as the second century (Dio.75.2.5),
although Italians most certainly still served as officers: ILS 1180; 1332; 9014.

~ 36 ~
provinces saw Constantine establish Constantinople in 330. The decisive split of

the Empire under Theodosius II’s two young sons at the turn of the fifth

century concentrated Roman imperial power almost completely in the East as

the West truly begin to fragment under increasing pressure from Germanic

barbarians.

The Visigoths had sacked Rome in 410 and were settled in Aquitaine by

418, moving on to Toulouse and then into Spain under Frankish pressure. The

nascent Merovingian dynasty went on to occupy most of the former Gallic

territories. The Vandals had almost complete control of North Africa by 439

and sacked Rome in 455, a fate it had narrowly avoided in 453 at the hands of

Attila’s Huns who had the core of their empire on the crossroads between the

East and West in Pannonia. The Ostrogoths emerged from the ruins of Attila’s

empire and had established themselves in Italy by the end of the fifth century,

leaving Gepids and Lombards in their wake. The last Western Roman emperor

had already been deposed in Rome in September 476.6

By the coronation of Justinian I then, the Western provinces had largely

been lost, and Attila’s Hunnic Empire had already risen and fallen. War with

Sassanian Persia was still fairly constant, and the Roman Empire was largely

Christian following a series of watershed moments in the fourth and fifth

centuries. 7 A Christian imperial worldview had developed in relation to

barbarian peoples – they had to be brought into the Christian imperial orbit of

Rome by any of those means usually utilised to do so.8

6 The developments leading to the establishment of the Successor Kingdoms in the post-Roman
West are amply dealt with in the literature: e.g. Burns (1980) and (1984); Amory (1997) –
Ostrogoths; Heather (1991) and (1996); Burns (1994) – Visigoths and Ostrogoths; Thompson
(1988) – Visigoths; Goffart (1980); Cameron, Ward-Perkins & Whitby (2000); Halsall (2007);
Wickham (2009) – generally.
7 See Bury (1958 vol. 1:348-388) and (1958 vol. 2: 364-390); Jones (1964 vol. 2: 950-970).

8 Cameron (1985: 239-240); Curta (2001a: 37-38).

~ 37 ~
2.2 Framing Rome and the Barbarians in Late Antiquity:
Frontiers, Empire, and Policy

2.2.1 Frontiers and Empire

The focal point of Rome’s imperial orbit was the frontiers. Their role in

facilitating and mediating contact between imperial territory and those peoples

living beyond it in Late Antiquity in the period before the Sclavenes arrived is

fundamental to understanding the ideological and policy context in which

Rome and the Sclavenes encountered one another.

Written sources abound with references to linear boundaries which

divided Rome and barbarian territory. For Procopius, the Romans held the

right bank of the Rhine whilst barbarians held the left.9 The Rhine and Danube

were seen in the same way by Tacitus five centuries earlier, but it was not

reality. Discourses of this nature were central to the function of empire,

whereby it transformed power and social imbalance into a clear-cut distinction

which could then only be softened by the civilising intervention of the empire

itself. This imagined landscape existed precisely in the absence of real, hard

imperial boundaries.10 Imperial frontiers should be seen as outward looking,

dynamic, but ill-defined zones of power11 which could often develop their own

interests quite separate from those of the core12 so that it had more in common

with those areas beyond it than the imperial hinterland.13

Empires are often not concerned only with territoriality but also with

cultural and political influence and so tend to be more universalist in both time

9 Procopius, Buildings 4.5. See also SHA, Hadrian 11.2 (Hadrian’s wall) and de Rebus Bellicus 6.20
(the whole of the fourth century empire hemmed in by barbarians on its borders).
10 Münkler (2007: 96-7).

11 Whittaker (2006: 6).

12 Bloemers (1989: 178).

13 Münkler (2007: 5, 8, 23-35, 81, 85).

~ 38 ~
and space. 14 There is always a focus on the frontier regions because the

dynamics and power generated on and through the periphery is what allows

outward expansion of imperial influence beyond territorial borders.

The fact that Rome made Christianity the official religion in the fourth

century enhanced that ability. The universal mission of the Church via the

workings of the Empire was a predominant theme for writers such as Eusebius

of Caesarea and enabled emperors to portray themselves as protectors of

Christians everywhere, regardless of whether they were within imperial

territory or not.15 In the Passion of St. Saba a Roman dux collected Saba’s body

from within Germania,16 indicating links between Christians in both areas.17

The imperial frontier then was not a border, but rather a cultural space

of different modes of interaction which cut across formal Roman and barbarian

divides.18 The Alamanni king Vadomarius, who crossed the river “as if it were a

time of profound peace,”19 is a good fourth century example of how easy it was

for barbarians to cross boundaries. Military installations often did not function

as boundary markers or as an indication of military action against barbarian

groups. 20 Double bridge heads such as at Cologne-Deutz on the Rhine and

14 Hardt & Negri (2000: 11). See Virgil, Aeneid 1.279: “To Romans I set no boundary in space or time.
I have granted the dominion, and it has no end.” See also Ovid, Fasti 2.684: “Romanae spatium est
urbis et orbis idem.”
15 Ostler (1996: 95ff); Goetz (2005: 74-5). Constantine certainly took on this role in relation to

Christians in Sassanian Persia: see Eusebius, Vita Constantini 4.9-13. Burns argues that the
church together with the army and bureaucracy was key in transmitting Roman cultural
influence across the Danube: Burns (1980: 25-26).
16 Passion of St. Saba 8.1.

17 Lee (1993: 75). The Goths possibly also saw the Constantinople-backed mission of the Bishop

Ulfila in the fourth century as an extension of Roman imperialism: Heather (2001: 25). The
Christian persecutions of 347/8 and 367-378 within Gothic territory should probably be seen as
a response to the perceived threat of Roman influence on Gothic culture: Wolfram (1990: 83).
18 Münkler (2007: 13); Whittaker (2004: 2-3). Maier (2006: 81) calls frontiers “osmotic membranes

establishing a flow of influences and interactions.”

19 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 21.4.3.

20 Elton (1996: 6-7). Isaac (2000: 161-218) argues extensively that the limes were not defended

boundaries, but rather frontier districts.

~ 39 ~
Daphne Constantiniana-Transmarisca on the Lower Danube 21 were built to

facilitate crossing, communication with, and control of areas beyond the river

itself,22 and there are recorded instances of Roman military outposts well into

barbarian territory.23

2.2.2 Roman Frontier Policy in Late Antiquity

Military installations had been in place along the Rhine and Danubian frontiers

since at least the third century. A system of limes fortified both rivers, consisting

of intermittently placed watchtowers, forts and bridgeheads which were

occasionally added to or rebuilt by various emperors throughout the fourth and

fifth centuries.24

By about 554 Justinian had built or rebuilt over six hundred fortifications

on the Danubian frontier as chronicled by Procopius, consisting of fortresses,

fortified churches, communication settlements and upland refuges. 25 The

fortifications were built along three successive lines radiating out from the

Balkan Peninsula. The first stretched from Singidunum to the mouth of the

Danube, the second along the Stara Planina range in Bulgaria, and the last

along the Istranca Daglar range in Bulgaria and Turkey. The fifth century Long

21 Whittaker (1994: 203). There were also seven fortified crossings on the Danube bend in
Pannonia: Lee (1993: 71). See also Madgearu (2003) for a survey of six bridgeheads on the
Lower Danube. See Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 27.5.2 for Valentinian’s army crossing at
Daphne.
22 Lee (1993: 70-71); Curta (2005b: 178).

23 See Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 27.1.11 (Julian restoring a fort in Alamannia); 28.2.5

(Valentinian fort at Mount Piri) and 29.6.2-3 (Valentinian fort in Quadic territory). See also
Notitia Dignitatum 32.41; 33.44, 48, 55; Symmachus, Oratio 2.14, 18-20.
24 Whittaker (1997: 157-158). Jones has estimated that there were about 65,000 limitanei troops on

the frontiers: Jones (1966: 217) and the Notitia Dignitatum indicates about 50-60% stayed on the
frontiers throughout the fourth century: Whittaker (1997: 158-176, 207), but see Cameron (1993:
50-51); Burns (2003: 357) for problems in using the Notitia as a source. There is also evidence of
ships patrolling the Danube: Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 31.5.3. For an overview of the
fourth century limes and limitanei, see Elton (1996: 200-208). See also Isaac (2000: 161-218) which
mainly covers the limes in the Near East.
25 Procopius, Buildings 4.1-11.

~ 40 ~
Walls about 65 kilometres west of Constantinople stretching from the Black Sea

to the Sea of Marmara added a fourth line of defence26 - see Figures 3 and 4

below.

Figure 3 - The Long Walls of Constantinople and the Istranca Daglar range. Reproduced from
Crow & Ricci (1997: 236). Emphasis added.

Not to be confused with the Walls of Constantine and of Theodosius II (Sea of Marmara to the
26

Golden Horn) which fortified Constantinople itself.

~ 41 ~
 Figure 4 - The Balkans in the time of Justinian I showing key locations in relation
to the fortification of the region. Reproduced from Whitby (2000: 707). Emphasis
added with slight alterations.

Despite the fortification of the Danube river itself, fortification of the

Balkan hinterland makes it clear that it was still expected that barbarians would

break through and that the fortifications were a means of slowing the advance

~ 42 ~
until help could arrive, 27 i.e. defence-in-depth. 28 A number of Balkan cities

including Serdica (Sofia in Bulgaria) and Justiniana Prima (Caričin Grad in

Serbia) were fortified,29 and walls were built across the pass of Thermopylae30

while the fifth century wall across the Isthmus of Corinth was repaired.31

The general contours of the defences have been confirmed by

archaeological evidence.32 Most of the sites found along the Iron Gates were

likely new sixth century constructions and seem not to have been intended for

permanent garrisons 33 but rather aimed at protecting interior cities such as

Naïssus (Niš in Serbia). Hilltop sites between the Danube and Naïssus are

numerous, with excavations showing several, such as Iatrus and Nicopolis ad

Istrum,34 were restored in the sixth century.35 To the immediate south, large

forts were clustered around the main mountain passes.36

27 Gregory (2000: 107-108).

28 For defence-in-depth, see Luttwack (1976); Isaac (2000); Whittaker (2004). To be clear,
defence-in-depth is here used to denote localised military action/building in response to specific
stimuli (Sclavene/Hunnic raiding in the Balkans) rather than as any true “Grand Strategy” in
the sense meant by Luttwack.
29 See Bavant (2007) for the fortifications of Justiniana Prima.

30 Procopius, Buildings 4.2.23.

31 Procopius, Buildings 4.2.27-28. Procopius mentions that a defensive wall already existed,

albeit in bad repair, and archaeological evidence indicates the first phase of construction was in
the early fifth century with repairs dating to the mid-sixth: see Gregory (2000: 111-112).
32 Curta (2001a: 120-189) outlines the archaeology of Justinian’s fortifications in a detailed study.

It is worth noting that upland fortified sites which appear in in the Dalmatian hinterland at this
time are no longer thought to be connected with barbarian raiding or Justinian’s project. Recent
arguments seem rightly to suppose that they represent an internal change in settlement
dynamics in response to Dalmatia’s newly marginalised position within the Eastern Roman
Empire: Špehar (2008); Dzino (2016). See also Wilkes (2005) for an archaeological survey of the
Danubian frontier in the first to fourth centuries and Poulter (2010) for a survey of fortifications
from the first to the sixth centuries.
33 Dinchov (2007). Curta puts the number of new constructions at nine: Curta (2001a: 162). See

also Špehar (2012: 46-51) for a survey of twelve early sixth–early seventh century fortification
sites along the Iron Walls between Lederata and Aquae which contain some evidence of being
manned by Lombardic or Gepid federate units.
34 See von Bülow (2007); Whittow (2007) for overviews of these sites. Both seem to have been

abandoned in the aftermath of Hunnic attacks in the fifth century.

35 Curta (2001a: 157). Procopius specifically mentions Nicopolis: Buildings 4.1.37.

36 Curta (2001a: 165-166).

~ 43 ~
 Various fortification types have been found further south, though none

in Thessaly despite Procopius stating seven were rebuilt there. 37 Procopius

gives evidence that many Greek positions were fortified: twenty-six rebuilt

forts and thirty-two new ones in Epirus Nova and forty-six rebuilt in

Macedonia. This probably reflects the importance of the Via Egnatia which

passed through both provinces. Four inscriptions from the town of Byllis in

modern Albania identifies Justinian’s chief military architect Victorinos as

carrying out building activities in Moesia, Scythia, Illyricum and Thrace as well

as at the Isthmus of Corinth.38 Stamped tiles associated with the fortifications at

Dyrrachium might also be dated to Justinian,39 and the second phase of defence

building at Scodra in Praevalitana has recently been conclusively attributed to

Justinian.40 Procopius is silent as to the fortification of the Peloponnese other

than the Isthmus but archaeological evidence has hinted that sixth century

work was carried out at Argos and Epidauros among other places.41

The fortification project seemed to have been effective only to an extent.

No Sclavene raiding is recorded between 552 and 577 although there was

extensive Utigur and Cutrigur raiding in the 540s and 50s. Furthermore,

evidence suggests that the long-term maintenance of the fortifications in terms

of both man-power and supplies were untenable given the declining economic

37 Curta (2001a: 166-169).

38 Liebeshuetz (2007: 107). For Victorinos’ inscriptions from the Isthmus of Corinth and
correlation to evidence in Procopius, see Brown (2010).
39 Sodini (2012: 315). Could also be dated a little earlier to Anastasius. The Greek archaeological

evidence is difficult – results are scarce and proper stratigraphic excavation has not always
been a priority. Trying to differentiate between building phases can therefore be very
problematic, particularly when coupled with the desire to link any apparently early Byzantine
construction with Justinian’s programme: Gregory (2000: 109-110); Sodini (2012: 314).
40 Sodini (2012: 319).

41 Gregory (2000: 108). The evidence suggests that the various fifth century fortifications and

defensive walls in cities such as Sparta, Korone and Megara were repaired in the sixth or early
seventh century. Attribution to Justinian’s programme is not conclusive: Gregory (1982: 18-21).

~ 44 ~
and demographic situation in the Balkans, and so the fortifications eventually

succumbed under their own weight.42

Military fortification was, however, only one prong of Roman frontier

policy. As a whole, frontier policy was based on the signing, re-signing,

breaking and changing of treaty arrangements.43 From Constantine to Justinian

and his successors, treaties with peoples of the Middle and Lower Danube were

concluded in order to create buffers against other, more hostile groups in return

for subsidies and aid against their enemies. 44 The question of the utility of

subsidies paid to barbarian groups, particularly the Avars, through the reigns

of Justinian, Justin II, Tiberius II and Maurice features in the histories of

Menander,45 Agathias,46 Procopius47 and Jordanes’48 accounts and indicates how

heavy a concern it was in the sixth century.49

Rome could also have a hand in actively bringing about the destruction

of certain groups, as shown by their policy of assassinating particular rulers

and installing their preferred choices, 50 as well as playing groups off against

42 See Curta (2001b).

43 Wolfram (1990: 62); Chrysos (1992: 37). See also Pitts (1989). As an interesting aside, it has
been argued by both Wolfram and Elton that barbarians often broke treaties on the death of the
Emperor with whom they had contracted, perhaps indicating a different perspective between
the two cultures and possibly contributing to the stereotype that barbarians were dishonest:
Wolfram (1990: 62); Elton (1996: 185).
44 See e.g. Goffart (1980); Heather (1991); Burns (1994) which track the relationship between

Germanic barbarians and Romans largely based on alternating periods of treaties and warfare.
45 See Menander the Guardsman, frg, 5 (subsidies paid by Justinian is wise) cf. frg. 25

(disapproval towards Tiberius for paying subsidies) cf. frg. 14 and 15 (approval of Justin II for
abandoning the payment of subsidies to the Avars in favour of aggression).
46 Agathias, Histories 5.24 (defends Justinian’s use of subsidies).

47 Procopius, Secret History 11.5ff; 19.4-10, 13-17 (criticism of Justinian squandering money on

barbarian subsidies). Cf. John of Antioch frg. 243 for a similar criticism of Anastasius.
48 Jordanes, Getica 119 states that Sclavenes and Antes were running riot over the Empire due to

Rome’s neglect, which indicates some censure of Roman policy in this respect.
49 See in particular Cameron (1970: 125-126, 136); Blockley (1985: 24-26).

50 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 21.4.3-6 (attempt by Julian to assassinate Alamanni king

Vadomarius in 360); 28.10.3-4 (attempt and actual assassination of Alamanni king Vithicabius in
366); 29.6.5 (assassination of Quadic king Gabinius in 372).

~ 45 ~
one another. 51 As a general proposition in the fifth and sixth centuries,

Lombards were played off against Gepids, 52 Antes against Sclavenes, 53 and

Utigurs against Cutrigurs.54 There is also evidence that Rome was meddling in

Alamanni and Frankish kingship from about the time of Constantine. 55 Whilst

such actions obviously created situations where groups were destroyed, it is

also easy to see how this could solidify identities as against Rome and other

barbarians.

Client management of this kind, based on the patron-client dynamic

upon which Roman society operated at every level,56 was aimed at achieving

peace and stability by identifying and advancing the interests of a certain group

or leader willing to cooperate with the Empire in guaranteeing that stability in

return for gifts and subsidies.57 This then provided certain individuals with a

flow of Roman items which could then be redistributed to those in lower

positions. The barbarian leader’s power became tied to Rome and therefore

made it easier for Rome to exercise influence. The individual did gain some

51 Heather (2001: 22). Constantine Porphyrogenitus gives a very good tenth-century account of
these policies in action: DAI 1-11.
52 See Procopius, Wars 7.33.10-12, 34.1-10, 35.12-22; Agathias, Histories 1.4.1-3; Paul the Deacon,

Hist. Lang. 1.21-2; 2.27. See also Procopius, Wars 8.25.1-10, 13-15; 8.27.1-5, 7.29; Jordanes, Getica
264 ff; Paul the Deacon, Hist.Lang.1.23-4. Justinian also invited Heruli to settle adjacent to
Singidunum after the Gepids took it in 535/6: Procopius, Wars 6.14.35-36.
53 E.g. The Sclavene-Ante conflict in 533/4-545 (Procopius, Wars 7.24.2) was probably

encouraged by Rome, and the Antes were likely destroyed or totally subsumed by the
Sclavenes’ Avar allies in 602 in retaliation for Roman meddling: Curta (2001a: 78). Haldon has
also argued that the Wendish revolt against Avar control in the 620s (Fredegar 4.48, 68) was
possibly encouraged by Rome: Haldon (1997: 47).
54 Whitby (2000: 717). E.g. Justinian paid the Utigurs to attack the Cutrigurs in the early 550s

before warning the Cutrigurs so they would retreat: Procopius, Wars 8.19. The same thing
happened in 559 when they were induced to largely destroy each other. The Cutrigurs next
appear as part of the Avar Khaganate: Agathias, Histories 5.24-25.
55 Heather (2001: 22). E.g. The Alamannic king Vadomarius held letters of special favour from

Constantius II in the 350s (Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 18.2.16) and Maximian appears to
have interfered with the Franks even earlier (Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 17.10; 18.2).
56 Burns (2003: 8-9).

57 See Hardt & Negri (2000: 15) for the role of empires coming into being based on their capacity

to resolve conflict and maintain peace and the status quo. The role of the Roman Republic as
peace-keeper in conflicts of the late Hellenistic kingdoms of the Mediterranean and the Near
East (which can be seen as one of the genesis points of the Roman Empire) largely supports this
contention.

~ 46 ~
measure of power in negotiating the position of their group within Roman

power structures and tying members of his own group to him through

redistribution of Roman gifts, creating hierarchy and stratification. In the fifth

and sixth centuries, these gifts often took the forms of jewellery such as fibulae

which led to large-scale local imitations.58

Archaeological evidence suggests that there was trade of Roman goods

into the Germanic north of both low and high value goods in Late Antiquity.

Low value goods such as pottery, brooches, bronze coins and drinking vessels

are mostly found within a 200km radius of the frontier, whilst more valuable

and prestige items are found in a belt about 400-600km away, mostly in small

quantities and in “princely graves.” This suggests regular access to Roman

goods close to the frontier nullified their value as symbolic expressions of social

and political power within barbarian communities.59 For groups farther away

from direct Roman influence, such items could visibly tie an individual to

Rome and therefore could be used in local theatres of competition. Competition

for power via visual display such as lavish burials is often symptomatic of

developing and unstable socio-political structures which do not have

formalised mechanisms of power transmission such as would be present in a

more developed polity. This phenomenon has been detected when comparing

the more politically and socially developed La Téne tribes, who had much

longer and extensive contacts with Rome, with the Germanic north.60 That those

areas closer to the northern Roman frontiers in Late Antiquity did not engage in

such displays is an indication that contact with Rome had accelerated or at least

58 Heather (2001: 27).

59 Hedeager (1987: 126-27); Elton (1996: 90). See also Tacitus, Agricola 28; Diodorus Siculus, 5.26;
Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 22.7.8; 29.4.4; SHA, Gallienus 21.3; Ausonius, Bissula;
Symmachus, Epistle 2.78 for abundant evidence on the slave trade between Rome and
Germania.
60 Hedeager (1987: 129-30). See also Halsall (1995a) and (1995b) who identifies the same

dynamic in in early Merovingian Metz after the collapse of the Roman West but before it was
fully integrated into the new Frankish polity.

~ 47 ~
stimulated their development into more stable societies in comparison to those

further away, who utilised Roman goods in a completely different way.

2.2.3 The Effects of Roman Frontier Policy on Late Antique Barbarian

Societies

Contact with Rome via the military and trade, as well as other ways of attaining

Roman goods (booty, subsidies, gifts), demonstrate the role of the frontier as an

agent of socio-political change. The frontier did not divide political units of

equal rights and social complexity. David Ludden has demonstrated that

tributary empires which by definition involve unequal partners encourage

ongoing processes of “adaptive transformation” on the subordinate periphery.61

The draw to imperial territory and goods was directly connected to the cultural

and economic attraction of imperial power.62 For example, when Valens cut off

trade with the Danubian Goths in 367-9, Athanaric was eventually forced to sue

for peace due to their reliance of Roman goods.63

It is hard to see how these societies could not have been affected,

particularly when the processes of tribalisation and imperatives of imperial

safety come into play. Peter Wells argues that the process of tribalisation is

characteristic of the peripheries of empires and other complex societies,

whereby less socially complex groups develop in response to interaction with

larger, more complex societies. This makes it easier for empires to deal with

such units because they usually result in the coalescence of leadership

61 Ludden (2011). See also Haldon (1993). Hardt & Negri (2000: 20) go as far as to suggest that
the power of an empire is subordinated to the local power dynamics on the frontiers. This is
very much in keeping with specific arguments about the role frontiers played in the end of
Western Roman Empire: see e.g. Whittaker (1989: 68); Geary (1988); Halsall (2007).
62 Münkler (2007: 5). See also Maier (2006: 7, 60). Peter Heather has recently made this economic

argument specifically in the context of migration processes and demographics: Heather (2009:
1-9). See Canepa (2009) for a very clear contrast with Sassanian Persia, which existed on equal
terms with Rome.
63 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 27.5.7; Themistius, Oratio 10.135AD.

~ 48 ~
structures and fixed territories.64 A paramount imperial aim of frontier action is

always the safety and stability of the empire, 65 and unless non-Roman

populations developed a social organisation capable of integrating with the

Roman way of life, Rome could not guarantee her own frontier stability.66

Barbarians were also integrated into the imperial system itself by the

levying of troops as part of agreements with the Empire, although barbarian

troops had always been part of imperial armies.67 The story of the Alamannic

soldier returning home on business whilst serving in the imperial bodyguard68

is demonstrative in this respect. At least some Roman military items such as

belt tips found in Alamannia in the fourth and fifth centuries could be

interpreted as soldiers returning home from Roman service, although locally

made moulds for the same items have been found.69 Amory has demonstrated

well how the Gothic military milieu in the fifth and six century Balkans

contained hybrid linguistic, religious and military traits due to their integration

into the imperial military.70

The effect of contact with Rome on Germanic barbarians can be further

tracked through settlement remains. Formerly quite simple unfortified northern

villages with wooden buildings71 begin to show signs of centralisation. Fortified

sites appear from the third century, such as the rebuilt La Tène oppidum at

Glauberg in Alamannia which had some stone buildings and contained Roman

coins dating from the third to fifth centuries. Hilltop sites such as Zähringer

64 Wells (1999: 116-118).

65 Münkler (2007: 85).
66 Hanson (1989: 58).

67 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 17.13.3; 28.5.4; 30.6.1; 31.10.17.

68 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 31.10.3.

69 Brather (2005: 152). See also Glad (2012) for the use by Gothic federate soldiers of segmental

helmets and lamellar weapons originating from Byzantine workshops in a trans-Danubian

context in the fifth and early sixth centuries. There is also archaeological evidence that
Germanic barbarian federates helped man the fortifications at Justiniana Prima in the sixth
century: Ivanišević (2012).
70 Amory (1997: 277-320).

71 See e.g. Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 18.2.15 (Quadi and Marcomanni).

~ 49 ~
near Frieburg also appear in Germania in the fourth and fifth centuries as

centralised, defensive positions and possibly local seats of power.72 Ammianus

remarks upon coming across an Alamanni village in 357 which was built in the

Roman fashion, 73 and the site of Cifer Pác has a mix of wooden and stone

buildings with roof tiles marked with stamps from fourth century Roman

military units.74

Brather has documented an increasing homogeneity in Germanic burials

in later graves. As mentioned above, all known chiefly graves are found well

over 200km from the frontier region and contain numerous Roman goods such

as bronze, silver and glass drinking vessels, coins and furniture. Therefore,

Germanic elite status was expressed through Roman luxury goods. Some goods

were Germanic imitations such as Roman pottery technology found in a

production centre in Haarhausen (Thuringia) but this still demonstrates that

self-representation and therefore the identity of Germanic elites was created

and sustained via Roman symbolism.75

Emerging, more highly developed political structures and hierarchies

within barbarian groups close to the frontiers or within the frontier region itself

clearly demonstrate the impact that Roman patronage, gift-giving and political

intervention had over time. The larger, more organised and more troublesome

Alamanni and Frankish confederacies which emerge at the very beginning of

the fourth century appear to have been the result of processes begun between

the late second and early third centuries among the smaller, more fragmented

72 Elton (1996: 105); Brather (2005:155-57).

73 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 17.1.7.
74 Elton (1996: 106-07); Whittaker (1994: 217). Cifer Pác and a number of other sites beyond the

Danube in Moravia (Czech Republic) and Slovakia (Mušov-Burgstall, Oberleisburg, Stupava,

Devin, Bratislava-Dúbravka, Milanovce, Stillfried and Niederleisand) have yielded mixed
Roman-German material and building styles from the period of the Marcomannic Wars to the
end of the fourth century. They have been interpreted as settlements of Quadi clients of Rome:
Pitts (1987). Other stone walled buildings are found in barbarian settlements in the Ukraine,
Romania and Moldovia with a material culture which indicates the sites are probably Gothic:
Curta (2005b: 197-198).
75 Brather (2005: 147-149).

~ 50 ~
Germanic tribes recorded by Tacitus in the first century.76 It could also work in

the reverse when larger structures broke down under Roman pressure,

producing smaller groups which then needed to find a different way to define

themselves – the Wendish revolt could be seen in this way.77 Some groups even

appear to have reinvented pre-existing identities once these collapses had

occurred.78

The emergence of more defined leadership structures is quite clear

within various groups of Germanic barbarians. Centralised leaders at first

appear only in times of contact with the Empire characterized by stress – they

are defined by the power they actually wielded rather than any established

hierarchy. 79 There are many references to multiple Visigothic tribes 80 and

several independent Visigothic chiefs aided Procopius against Rome in 364,81

but very soon afterwards, a larger scale confederacy under Athanaric

emerged.82 However, once security and stability returned after settlement of

Gothic groups in Moesia in 382, the confederate leader disappears, or at least

assumes lesser importance and power, and individual tribal leaders again

appear.83 In a similar way, seven Alamanni kings and ten princes were present

at Strasbourg in 357 and various kings ruling discrete territories are mentioned

by Ammianus over the next two years.84 Some later sources mention an overall

Alamanni king. Furthermore, Ammianus’ information about the Alamanni king

Chnodomarius demonstrates that some Alamanni kings were more powerful

76 Hedeager (1987: 133); Lee (1993: 26).

77 Fredegar, 4.48, 68.
78 Heather (1998) demonstrates this by taking the Heruli and (Ostro)Goths as case studies.

79 Burns (1980: 51).

80 E.g. Eunapius frg. 48.2.

81 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 26.10.3.

82 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 26.6.11.

83 Thompson (1988: 44); Themistius, Orations 16.210B.

84 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 16.12.1-6, 23-26; 17.1, 10; 18.2. See also Burns (2003: 336-

337) for stratification among the Quadi.

~ 51 ~
than others. 85 Florin Curta and Thomas Burns have demonstrated similar

processes in relation to the Tervingi Goths86 and Ostrogoths87 respectively.

Therefore, the barbarian confederacy and the coalescence of certain

groups was not necessarily a permanent, but rather temporary arrangements

stimulated or destroyed by Roman intervention in certain circumstances which,

over time, did lead to powerful Germanic groups emerging with more

formalised leadership structures. Contact with Rome and the resulting

centralisation of power in the hands of leaders who had contact with, and the

support of Rome, had resulted in quantities of public property accumulating in

private hands from the third century onwards, accompanied by the growth of

private political power. In the Passion of St. Saba, the fact that Saba owns no

private property is highlighted as an indicator that he was of no consequence in

the socio-political order of the village, although this is also a well-used

hagiographical trope. The influence of prestige goods may have produced

relationships of economic and social dependence leading to surrender of land

and livestock. Social and economic stratification would have followed. The

surplus generated by ownership and control of land would have further

consolidated power, particularly in a time where it seems that barbarian

populations were on the rise.88 As chieftainships began to become hereditary

rather than merit based, political power and attendant wealth concentrated in

fewer hands.89

Burial evidence compliments the narrative of increased social

stratification in Germanic tribes, with more wealth being concentrated in fewer

graves from the third century onwards. It is probably no coincidence that the

85 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 16.12.23-6 – Chnodomarius had actually been held as a
hostage of the Empire and showed that influence by naming his son Serapio. See also Macrinius
in the 370s (Res Gestae 19.4.2).
86 Curta (2005b).

87 Burns (1980: 29-56).

88 Hedeager (1987: 138).

89 Thompson (1988: 53-54); Brather (2005: 133).

~ 52 ~
first large-scale Germanic confederacies (Franks, Alamanni, Thuringii,

Burgundians, Goths) emerge in the third and fourth centuries after the close of

the Marcomannic Wars which had served to militarily, politically and

psychologically galvanise the Germanic peoples in their relationship with each

other and with Rome. Prestige goods appear to have been distributed to local

petty chiefs by more powerful chiefs and there are good examples of this in

Thuringia and in south-east Zealand in Denmark.90

The level of integration of these groups into Roman power structures

and cultural orbit meant that there was an increasing lack of distinction

between Romans and barbarians on either side. Whittaker cites a particular

kind of brooch shaped like a cross-bow and a dolphin buckle which was

common to frontier societies along both sides of the Rhine and Danube from

the early fifth century as a material culture correlate of this process. The

brooches have also been found in assemblages associated with the intense

contacts between Romanised frontier populations and the Sîntana-de-Mureş

culture along the Danube.91 The adoption of Roman chip-carved decorations

which began as Roman military belt fittings but were adapted on the frontier

for fibulae and furniture were also part of new strategies for ethnic and social

distinction in the border regions, 92 as was the adoption of bracteates,

medallions based on Roman coins and medals and worn as jewellery93 - see

Figures 5 and 6 on page 54.

Germanic burials became integrated with local populations, using the

same graveyards without signs of disruption. The best example is the fifth

century necropolis at Krefeld-Gellep at the Roman fort of Gelduba north of

Cologne. There is continuity from Roman to Frankish periods from the mid-

fourth century when Germanic styles appear and burial orientation changes to

90 Hedeager (1987: 130-1).

91 Whittaker (1994: 216-17; 235).
92 Brather (2005: 168); Burns (1980: 31-32).

93 Brather (2005: 153).

~ 53 ~
row graves. The change is not sudden, but gradual. The same is true of the

cemetery at Frenouville (Normandy), which shows remarkable continuity from

the late third to seventh centuries other than a change in the mode of burial and

orientation of the graves sometime in the mid-fifth century.94

Figure 5 - Late Roman chip-carving. Figure 6 - Gold bracteate, northern

Reproduced from Burns (2009: 351). Germanic, 6th century, Gotland, Sweden
(likely traded). ©Trustees of the British
Museum.

The frontier therefore facilitated multiple and varied points of contact

between the Roman Empire and the Germanic barbarians embedded within the

imperial system. The effect that such an open and dynamic frontier had on

these peoples occurred at a fundamental level, defining their own self-identity

which then flowed back into the Empire, creating a two way process of

acculturation and ethnogenesis, particularly at the level of local elites. The

increasing contact and crossings of barbarians from the fourth century onwards

94Whittaker (1994: 235-239). See also the cemetery at Klosterneuburg in north-western Austria
which shows that Romans and barbarians lived side by side well into the fifth century: Wilkes
(2005: 162).

~ 54 ~
accelerated not only the development of barbarian societies but created a

frontier society which was indistinguishable from those beyond it.95

2.3 Framing Rome and the Sclavenes in Late Antiquity: The

Narrative96

Into this world came the Sclavenes, occupying those territories on the Lower

Danube the Germanic tribes had left. Procopius first mentions Sclavenes

raiding across the Danube in 530/1 but says they had already been doing so for

several years.97 In response, the magister militum per Thraciam began offensive

attacks across the Danube in 531 for the first time since the Gothic Wars of the

late 360s. He did so for three years before he was killed and “[t]hereafter the

river became free for barbarians to cross at all times just as they wished…”98

Sclavene raiding in the latter part of the 530s and into the 540s coincided with

Justinian’s Gothic Wars in Italy, Sicily and Dalmatia and likely represents

resources being redirected towards the West.99

It is unclear whether the Sclavenes participated in the devastating

Hunnic raids of 539/40,100 but annual Sclavene raiding was significant after the

Antes concluded a treaty with Rome in 545. Sclavenes crossed the Danube that

95 Whittaker (1994: 223); Maier (2006: 139).

96 See Appendix A for timeline.
97 Procopius, Wars 7.14.2. Raids by the Antes are first mentioned in 518: Procopius, Wars 7.40.5-

7. He also makes a general statement that Huns, Antes and Sclavenes invaded almost annually
from the time Justinian took the throne: Secret History 18.20. See Appendix B.1.1.A and C.
98 Procopius, Wars 7.14.1-6. See Appendix B.1.1.A.

99 Jones (1964 vol. 1: 299); Curta (2001a: 76-77). A thorough narrative of the two periods of

conflict is provided in Bury (1958 vol. 2: 151-291) and Jones (1964 vo1. 1:266- 277, 285-294) based
on the main sources (Procopius, Wars 5-8; Jordanes, Getica 307-314; various of Cassiodorus’
letters which detail the strain between Rome and Constantinople after the death of Theodahad
and the imprisonment and murder of Amalasuentha e.g. Letters 11.13).
100 Curta has raised the possibility given that Huns, Scalvenes and Antes are often grouped

together in the sources: (2001a: 78-79). See e.g. Procopius, Secret History 18.20; 23.6 (Huns,
Sclavenes and Antes – see Appendix B.1.1.C and D); Jordanes, Romana 388 (Bulgars, Sclavenes
and Antes).

~ 55 ~
year101 and again every year between 548 and 551. They reached Dyrrachium in

548, 102 and went through Illyricum and Thrace in 549, capturing the city of

Topiros and killing many.103 After coming uncomfortably close to Naïssus in

550, the Sclavenes were diverted into Dalmatia where they wintered with little

resistance from either the Roman or Ostrogothic inhabitants.104 The following

year they crossed back over the mountains, joined another group and then split,

one reaching the Long Walls of Constantinople and the other raiding through

Illyricum. Both groups were able to return home with a large quantity of

booty.105

There are no independent Sclavene raids recorded for the period

between 552 and 577, although Sclavene groups may have taken part in the

massive Cutrigur and Utigur invasions of 568/9.106 The Sclavenes only clearly

come back into the picture once the Avars were established on the Hungarian

Plain, the Langobards having migrated en masse from Pannonia into Italy in

568. 107 Possibly emboldened by the Avars’ success, 108 Sclavene raiding began

again in 578, when Menander the Guardsman records a raid of 100,000

Sclavenes through Thrace and other areas.109

The Avar khagan Bayan sent envoys to a Sclavene leader named

Daurentius around this time, the first such person recorded in the sources.

Bayan’s request for recognition of his overlordship was rebuffed and the

envoys murdered, giving Bayan an excuse to enter into an alliance with

101 Procopius, Wars 7.13.26.

102 Procopius, Wars 7.29.2.
103 Procopius, Wars 7.38.7-10. For the stereotypical elements of this episode, see Curta (2001a: 84-

86).
104 Procopius, Wars 7.40.31-32.

105 Procopius, Wars 7.40.31-45.

106 Sclavene participation is mentioned by John Malalas (Chronicle 18.129) but not by Agathias

(Histories 5.2.6), who was probably an eye-witness to the attack on Constantinople.

107 Paul the Deacon, Hist. Lang. 2.7.

108 Curta (2001a: 91).

109 Menander the Guardsman frg. 20.2 (see Appendix B.1.4.B). John of Biclar may be recording

the same event although he puts it in his entry for 576: see John of Biclar, Chronicle 41-42.

~ 56 ~
Justinian’s successor Tiberius II in order to attack the Sclavene territory across

the Danube.110

In the early 580s, John of Ephesus records Sclavene raiding through

Greece and the areas surrounding Thessalonica and in Thrace.111 A significant

Avar presence recorded in Greece by John of Biclar and Evagrius112 at around

the same time may indicate that some groups were operating together.113 Avar

power was becoming a serious threat at this point, even to strategic sites which

had been re-fortified by Justinian only twenty years earlier. They captured

Sirmium in 582, and the subsequent refusal by Maurice to pay an increased

subsidy resulted in the sack of Singidunum and other Danubian cities in 584.114

A large army consisting of Sclavenes and other barbarians under Avar orders

besieged Thessalonica for a week in 586,115 and Sclavene groups were making

independent raids in the area two years later.116

Roman campaigns across the Danube were carried out in 593-4117 but

were not decisive and Sclavene raiding continued, 118 including in raiding in

Istria in early 600.119 Significant Avar activity also continued with raids in the

north of Dalmatia in 597.120 Roman offensives resumed in 602, and imperial

110 Menander the Guardsman frg. 21 (see Appendix B.1.4.C). Menander records the Romans
ferrying 60,000 Avars across the Danube to torch Sclavene villages somewhere in eastern
Wallachia or western Moldavia. For the possible location, see Curta (2001a: 92).
111 John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History 6.6.25. See also Miracles of Saint Demetrius I 12.107-13

which may be describing the same event.

112 John of Biclar, Chronicle 53; Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History 6.10.

113 Curta (2001a: 92-95).

114 Theophylact Simocatta, History1.3.1-4; 1.4.1-4. Theophlyact states that the fall of Sirmium was

covered in detail by Menander the Guardsman (Theophylact Simocatta History 3.5).

115 Miracles of Saint Demetrius I.13.117 (see Appendix B.1.7.B). The number given is 100,000 but is

obviously exaggerated (see Chapter 1.3.1.8). See also Curta (2001a: 97-98) for the dating of the
siege.
116 Theophylact Simocatta, History 3.4.7.

117 See Curta (2001a: 100) for the vexed dating of this event.

118 Theophylact Simocatta, History 7.2.1-10, 15.

119 Gregory the Great, Letters 10.15.

120 Theophylact Simocatta 7.12.1 mentions an unknown town called Bonkeis and some forty

unnamed fortified positions. Dzino has argued that in the context of the narrative, these
locations were in the north of Dalmatia: Dzino (2010: 88). Whitby & Whitby also seem to
support this conclusion saying it was part of a campaign towards the Adriatic/Ionian Gulf:

~ 57 ~
orders for the army to winter in Sclavene territory was the catalyst for revolt

under an officer named Phocus, who turned the troops around, besieged

Constantinople, and overthrew Maurice. There seems to have been little

Sclavene activity in Roman territory until Heraclius came to power in 610,

when Sclavenes again raided through Istria. 121 Throughout the following

decade, there was a large Sclavene presence in Greece including attacks on

Thessalonica, Thessaly, the Greek Islands and Illyricum as well as parts of

Asia.122 Isidore of Seville noted that the Slavs took Greece from Rome during

Heraclius’ reign.123

Within a decade, Sclavenes under the command of the Avar khagan took

part in the last major offensive of the First Khaganate, an unsuccessful joint

Persian-Avar assault on Constantinople in 626.124 After the Avar defeat, conflict

apparently broke out between Sclavenes and Avars,125 possibly a precursor to

the revolt of the Wends. Fredegar’s chronology suggests Samo’s revolt occurred

in 623/4,126 but even if this is the case, Curta’s assumption is reasonable that

Samo would have taken advantage of the 626 defeat to consolidate his power.127

In the following decades up to the close of the seventh century, more concrete

Sclavene groups begin to be mentioned across Sclavene occupied territories,

and the following centuries saw the emergence of some of the recognisable

Slavic polities of the early Middle Ages such as Croats, Serbs, Sorbs, Moravians

and Carantanians etc.128

Whitby & Whitby (1988: 230 n 55). See also Gregory the Great, Letters 9.155 and 10.15 for
Sclavene activity in nearby Istria in 599/600 (see Appendix B.2.2.A and B).
121 Paul the Deacon, Hist.Lang. 4.40. See also George of Pisidia, Heraclius 2.75-8.

122 Miracles of Saint Demetrius II.1.179.

123 Isidore of Seville, Chronicon (PL 83) col. 1065. See also Chronicle of 754 7.

124 George of Pisidia, Bellum Avaricum 197-201; Chronicon Paschale p. 173-4.

125 George of Pisidia, Restitutio Crucis 78-81; Chronicon Paschale p. 178-179.

126 Fredegar 4.48, 68, 87.

127 Curta (2001a: 109).

128 E.g. The Wendish Kingdom of Samo apparently lasted thirty five years in the Thuringian

marchlands (Fredegar 4. 48). Further south, two future dukes of Friuli received tribute from a
“territory of the Slavs which is named Zeilia” in the 620s (Paul the Deacon, Hist. Lang. 4.38 – see

~ 58 ~
Appendix B.2.3.B), and fifty years later Paul mentions a son of a Friuli duke fleeing to
“Carnuntum… to the nation of the Slavs.” (Hist.Lang.5.22 – see Appendix B.2.3.D). Theophanes
places a polity he calls Sklavinia in the hinterlands of Constantinople in the 650s (Theophanes
Confessor p. 347) and in the area around Varna (Odessos) in modern Bulgaria in the 670s
(Theophanes Confessor p. 359). The kingdom of the Rychines tribe led by Perbundos emerged
in the vicinity of Thessalonica in the 660s and 70s and at times allied themselves with other
nearby tribes, including Sclavene groups settled in the Strymon Valley (Miracles of Saint
Demetrius II. 3.219, 3.222, 4.231, 4.242, 4.254-255, 4.262, 4.268, 4.271-6; Theophanes Confessor p.
508).

~ 59 ~
~ 60 ~
Chapter 3
The Sclavenes

Having established a sense of the Roman relationship with northern barbarians

in previous centuries and the general timeline of the Sclavene arrival on the

Lower Danube, our attention turns to the Sclavenes themselves in the sixth and

seventh centuries.

3.1 Sclavene Society in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries

The question of the homeland of the Sclavenes and the origin of the Slavic

language has long been a matter of fierce nationalistic debate which is still not

resolved.1 A full exploration of the issue is beyond the scope of this thesis, but it

has some relevance to the extent that the early unseen stages of Sclavene society

may have impacted on their subsequent course vis-à-vis Rome. It is reasonable

to suppose from the written, archaeological and linguistic evidence that prior to

their appearance in the sources, groups with some sort of proto-Slavic character

occupied or moved into territory in the Pontic-Danubian region between the

1There is a large bibliography on this topic but for overviews, see Curta (2001a: 6-14); Barford
2001: 35-44). See also Gimbutas (1971: 58-62).

~ 61 ~
Lower Danube and the Don rivers north of the Black Sea. Sarmatian, Gothic

and Hunnic tribes successively dominated a variety of multi-ethnic populations

here from the first to the fifth century.2 According to Jordanes, the Black Sea

Goths under King Hermanaric subjugated the Venethi, including the Sclavenes

and Antes, in the 350s.3 The Huns under Balamber in turn subjugated the Goths

sometime before Hermanaric’s death in 375.4 Shortly afterwards, Hermanaric’s

successor Vinitharius rebelled against Hunnic rule by attacking the

neighbouring Antes, murdering their king Boz to prove his strength before

ultimately being brought to heel by Balamber.5

Parts of Jordanes’ story are suspect as to the particulars – Hermanaric is

lifted from Ammianus Marcellinus’6 and given a rather dubious Amal lineage

to suit his purpose 7 – but the surrounding information about the interplay

between different ethnic populations is interesting. There is some hint here that

largely undefined Slavic elements existed under Gothic and Hunnic dominance

in the fourth century. Only later would it coalesce into a visible cultural habitus

which could be recorded in the sources and also leave a traceable material

culture correlate. In fact, these groups may have first been introduced to

fighting from horseback in a Hunnic context. 8 It is undeniable that the

Sclavenes were significantly influenced by similar Avar methods of fighting in

the sixth century, but Sclavenes were already being recruited as cavalry

decades before the Avars appeared on the scene. 9 There is also inferential

evidence relating to how quickly raiding parties travelled and attacked, and

how goods were likely transported, indicating that the Sclavenes were already

2 Gimbutas (1971: 63).

3 Jordanes, Getica 116-120 (Appendix B.1.2.B).
4 Jordanes, Getica 129-130 (Appendix B.1.2.C).

5 Jordanes, Getica, 246-249 (Appendix B.1.2.D)

6 See Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 31.3.

7 Heather (1991: 57-58).

8 Barford (2001: 43).

9 See Procopius, Wars 5.27.1 for 1,600 Sclavene and Antean cavalry recruited by Rome in 537.

~ 62 ~
employing horses in warfare prior to the Avar arrival.10 There is scant linguistic

evidence of Slavic influence on the Hunnic language as well, with Jordanes

recording the use of the Slavic word strava for Attila’s funeral, but it is not

particularly convincing.11

Archaeological evidence supports this proposition. While some Goths

must have stayed under Hunnic rule in a weakened state until 453, a significant

number were pushed towards Roman territory and crossed the Danube into the

Empire in 376.12 The shift in power dynamics and local populations changed the

demographics of the region as Gothic dominance subsided. The complex

settlements of the Sântana de Mureș–Chernyakhov culture (large settlements of

wooden post built houses with craft and metal-working manufacturing centres,

ritual spaces and elite furnished inhumation burials) slowly disappeared from

the region in the course of the late fourth and fifth centuries. Further north and

west, the Kiev, Przeworsk and Wielback cultures associated with other

Germanic and Sarmatian peoples also declined.13 Simpler, inter-related cultures

characterised by undefended settlements of predominantly smaller, partially

subterranean wattle and daub houses with a clay or stone oven set in one

corner and grain storage pits essentially replaced the Germanic material

cultures on the fringes of the Hunnic Empire – see Figures 7 and 8 on page 64.14

Simply or undecorated hand- and wheel-made pottery of the Prague and

similar types (see Figures 9 and 10 on page 65) and flat cremation burials (often

10 The evidence is brought together in Curta (2015a).

11 Gimbutas (1971: 99); Godja (1991: 10). See Jordanes, Getica 258. Gimbutas also suggests that
the subject peoples Priscus of Panion came across as he was travelling through the Banat
(western Romania and north-eastern Vojvodina) in 448 may have been Slavic. He refers
generally to subject peoples of the Huns speaking their own languages as well as Hunnic, Latin
or Gothic which is not particularly conclusive: see Priscus frg. 11.2.
12 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 31.3.1.

13 Barford (2001: 26).

14 While there are some instances of ground-level buildings (e.g. at Dulceana I in Wallachia), the

majority are the sunken type: Curta (2001a: 277). See Kobyliński (1997) for uniformity between
various locations.

~ 63 ~
 Figure 7 - Excavated sunken house with stone oven in the corner.
Reproduced from Godja (1991: 19)

Figure 8 - Reconstructed sunken house line-drawing.

Reproduced from Barford (2001: 333).
.

~ 64 ~
 Figure 9 –Prague-Korčhak pottery (top) and Peňkovka pottery (bottom).
Reproduced from Barford (2001: 335).

Figure 10 - Suceava-Şipot pottery. Reproduced from Barford (2001: 337).

~ 65 ~
in urns) are associated with the sites.15 There are also some instances of burrow

burials.

By the reckoning of some, these new cultures appeared first in western

Ukraine as early as the very late fourth century, gradually spreading west and

south.16 On the basis of datable material such as coins and fibulae (and the

resistance of the pottery to secure dating), Florin Curta has put forward a

convincing argument that none of the “early” sites are in fact conclusively

datable to before the sixth century. He does concede, however, that it is very

likely that the settlements existed prior to the datable material being

deposited.17 Some sites in Wallachia in Romania on the left bank of the Danube,

such as Ciresanu (settlement), Dragosloveni (settlement) and Sărăta-Monteoru

(cemetery) appear to be contemporaneous with the earliest sites in the western

Ukraine based on (often singular) finds of late fourth and fifth century

brooches, belt buckles and fibulae.18

The older Germanic cultures did not disappear completely and of

course, the Ostrogoths ruled the general region between 454 and 489. There are

a number of sites such as Botoşana (Moldavia), Sărăta-Monteoru (Wallachia)

and Březno (Bohemia) which show cohabitation with what must have been

local remnant Gothic, Gepid and Dacian populations.19 Other sites show short

periods of overlapping cohabitation with peoples utilising Lombardic identity-

markers in the first half of the sixth century.20 By the mid-sixth century, the

Ostrogoths were long gone and there is less evidence of intermixing with

remnant populations, who had likely fully adopted the cultural habitus of the

15 The later but related Sukow-Dziedzice culture in Polabia and Pomerania (Poland) does not
feature sunken huts but rather level “blockhouses”: Barford (2001: 65).
16 Barford, (2001: 25); Kobyliński (2013: 528-529).

17 Curta (2001a: 276-307, 309); (2010).

18 Barford (2001: 42).

19 Gimbutas (1971: 111-112, 122).

20 Godja (1991: 12).

~ 66 ~
Prague-Korčhak culture by that stage. The variant Suceava-Şipot culture which

developed at this time in Romania is a good example.21

Attila’s empire was at its height in the 430s to the mid-50s and if the

genesis of the Korčhak-Peňkovka-Koločhin complex and related cultures can be

tentatively put into the fifth century, then the Hunnic Empire could have

affected the development of Sclavene groups in two ways. Firstly, what was

recognized by the Byzantines as a Sclavene common habitus may have

developed amongst largely unrelated groups in the face of a weakened Gothic

presence on one hand and Hunnic power on the other. 22 The exact role of the

Huns in this equation is unclear, but even if these cultures only existed on the

fringes and did not come under direct Hunnic rule, Hunnic hegemonic power

in the area may still have been sufficient stimuli.

Secondly, the subsequent collapse of the Hunnic Empire allowed for the

emergence or re-emergence of groups such as the Ostrogoths and the Hunnic

Cutrigurs and Utigurs in the last half of the fifth century. It is possible that the

development and spread of the material cultures associated with the Sclavenes

intensified in this period in the same way, such that it became visible by the

sixth century in the archaeological record and in the written sources. Indeed,

Procopius relates the story of the migration of a group of Heruli in 512 along

the Middle Danube who went through “all the nations of the Sclaveni” and

then crossed “a large tract of barren country.” 23 The reference has been

interpreted not as a de-populated area (possibly Silesia) but rather one without

a noticeable “supra-local military-political organisation” which was probably

part of the Sclavene habitus.24

21 Barford (2001: 56).

22 Barford (2001: 43); Kobyliński (2013: 529); Gračanin (2013: 44-45). Cf. Heather (2009: 394) who
does not believe any Slavic groups had significant involvement in the Hunnic Empire.
23 Procopius, Wars 6.15.2.

24 Urbańczyk (2002: 259).

~ 67 ~
 By the mid-sixth century, Jordanes located the Sclavenes in densely

forested swamplands between the source of the Vistula, the Dniester and

Noviodunum.25 Jordanes’ location seems reasonable considering the Sclavene

point of entry into the Empire on the Lower Danube, and accords with sixth

century settlements in western Ukraine, Romania, Moldavia and Bulgaria. By

537, Sclavenes and Antes recruited as cavalry to aid Belisarius against the

Ostrogoths were described as “settled above the Ister River not far from its

banks.”26

Procopius describes the Sclavenes and Antes as living a harsh life which

preserved “the Hunnic character in all its simplicity.”27 Their hovels were set

quite a way apart from each other and they constantly changed abode. From

this fact Procopius derives an ancient name Spori to describe the sporadic way

in which they moved about their vast territory to the north of the river.28 They

were tall, ruddy and filthy and worshipped a lightening god as well as rivers

and nymphs. Their government is called a democracy by Procopius and

“everything… whether for good or for ill is referred to the people.” He

demonstrates this in action when the Antes all meet together to discuss

Justinian’s offer of a treaty in 545. In war, they went on foot carrying small

shields and javelins and were often bare-chested. 29

About two generations later, the Strategikon records Sclavene settlements

within about 20 miles of the river bank in dense woods. The houses were set in

close rows with no space between them together with livestock and millet

25 Jordanes, Getica 34-36. See Appendix B.1.2.A.

26 Procopius, Wars 5.27.1. See also Menander frg. 21 (Appendix B.1.4.C) – in 578/9, the Avar
khagan Baian was able to set upon the Sclavene settlements (in Wallachia or Moldavia)
immediately after being ferried across the Danube.
27 Cf. Priscus of Panion frg. 11.2 who describes anything but a simple society, despite the Huns

living in tents. Procopius, however, was relying much more heavily on Hunnic stereotypes and
therefore likely could not appreciate the nuances Priscus did as an eyewitness to Hunnic
society.
28 Procopius, Wars 7.14.29. See Appendix B.1.1.A.

29 Procopius, Wars 7.14.22-30. See Appendix B.1.1.A.

~ 68 ~
stores. Multiple exits were fashioned into the area to facilitate hasty retreats to

nearby settlements in times of attack. A hardy and populous people, they lived

in farming communities without government and were fiercely independent. In

war they had no battle formation or discipline owing to their lack of

government and preferred guerrilla tactics which could be carried out from the

safety of the trees. Each warrior carried two short javelins and a wooden bow

with poisoned arrows.30

By and large, these two sources, which are the ones most likely to

contain relatively accurate information, agree with each other and the

archaeological evidence. The early settlement archaeology of the Prague-

Korčhak complex, of which the village of Korčhak itself is a good example,

yield five to fifteen sunken houses over areas of about 0.5 ha built on low river

terraces at a distance of 10-15 meters apart from each other as described by

Procopius. Associated pottery types were also found at these sites, as are small

cremation cemeteries. The Peňkovka sites of Lug I and II are similar.31 Some

slightly larger settlements occasionally stretched for as long as a kilometre

along the rivers and are found on the Middle Dnieper, Moldavia, the Lower

Danube in Romania and north-eastern Bulgaria. 32 Settlements often occur in

clusters not more than 5-10km away from each other, particularly in the

Ukraine.33

Both Prague-Korčhak and Peňkovka settlement sites show relatively

short durations of habitation indicated by the very thin cultural stratigraphic

layers and the relatively flimsy manner in which the houses were constructed,

allowing for about a decade of habitation at most. 34 This fits the Sclavene

30 Strategikon 11.4. See Appendix B.1.2. See also Menander the Guardsman frg. 21 (Appendix
B.1.4.C) which also mentions Sclavenes running away to hide in the woods when attacked.
31 Barford (2001: 63).

32 There are also over twenty such sites in Western Slovakia although some date to the seventh

and eighth centuries: Gimbutas (1971:81-82, 111, 117).

33 Kobyliński (1997: 108).

34 Gimbutas (1971: 87-88); Barford (2001: 39, 54).

~ 69 ~
character as semi-nomadic farmers who moved around within their own

territory from time to time in search of productive farming land. Procopius

noted that their way of living reminded him of the Huns, reinforcing the

argument made above that the Hunnic Empire was an important factor in the

development of what Byzantines recognised as the Sclavene way of living.

The fact that both Procopius and the Strategikon state that the Sclavenes

had no government, or in Procopius’ case a democracy, has generated a lot of

debate and is a central concern of this thesis. Generally speaking, the material

cultures associated with the Sclavenes (and Antes) leave very few discernible

traces of socio-political differentiation until the mid-ninth century.35 Centralised

positions or strongholds like the ones found in Germania in the third to fifth

centuries do not appear until the later seventh century in the northern Balkans

and westwards towards the Elbe.36 Most of the artefacts uncovered within the

Sclavene settlements are utilitarian, simple and generally uniform in character,

particularly the pottery. Farming tools such as ploughshares, hoes and sickles

are common enough finds as are animal bones of mainly pigs, cattle and

chickens.37 Very few luxury or iron goods are found apart from farm equipment

and there was a reliance on wood instead.38 All these findings are consistent

with the society without visible intra-societal differentiations found in the

sources.

There is however, some evidence of relatively unrecognisable elites and

very low levels of stratification within these small communities. Pleterski has

argued that archaeological evidence of the division of farming land indicates a

stratification which existed either prior to Sclavene settlement south of the

35 Heather (2009: 436).

36 Barford (2001: 67, 71). See also Godja (1991: 44-57). The stronghold of Wogastisburg
mentioned by Fredegar as the site of a three day battle between Samo’s Wends and Austrasian
forces is yet to be found and may in fact not be of Slavic origin anyway: see Fredegar 4.68
(Appendix B.2.1.B).
37 Barford (2001: 154-157).

38 Barford (2001: 163).

~ 70 ~
Danube (sixth century) or almost immediately afterwards (seventh and eighth

centuries). His evidence is yet to be replicated across more than one

archaeological site and his methodology seems infected with a nationalistic

desire to claim early origins for later Slavic social structures. 39 His research is

therefore of very limited value at this stage.

‘Slavic’ bow fibulae of various types found in assemblages associated

with Sclavene settlements (and some buried hoards) date from 500 to the 720s,

with heavier occurrences from the second part of the sixth century – see Figures

11 and 12 overleaf. While they seem not to be a Slavic development per se

(several styles appear instead to have emanated from the Crimea and from

Mazuria in south-eastern Poland rather than the eastern Carpathians), they

were still utilised by Sclavene communities as social identity markers. There is

some evidence of local production, such as the mould found at Bernashivka

(Ukraine). Importantly, other than the buried hoards, such as the famous one at

Martynivka, only singular or paired fibulae have been found per settlement on

the Lower Danube, indicating that they were most likely a restricted marker of

social prestige and identity for the women who wore them.40

Pleterski (2013). See also Curta (2015b) and chapter 1 n 46.

39

Following Curta’s dating reassessment of Werner’s types: Curta (2001: 247-275). See also
40

Curta (2013a); Curta & Gândilă (2013).

~ 71 ~
 Figure 11. Fingered Slavic bow Figure 12. Slavic bow fibula
fibula, late 6th – 7th century late 6th – 7th century
Romania (Suceava-Şipot Culture) Martynivka, Ukraine (Peňkovka Culture)
©Trustees of the British Museum. ©Trustees of the British Museum.

Some communal feasting also appears to have taken place which may

have conferred prestige on those who performed the associated ritual acts, or it

may simply have reinforced the sense of community within settlements. 41

Florin Curta’s analysis of clay pans found on Sclavene sites dating from the

sixth and seventh century associated with the “communal front region” of the

settlements show that some form of ritual eating of flat loaves of bread

occurred in that space – see Figure 13 overleaf. As the pans only account for

3-4% of the ceramics found and are not found in all settlements, these acts were

not an everyday activity and were obviously of some social importance.42

41 For ritual feasting in other “barbarian” contexts see e.g. Effros (2002b).
42 See Curta (2001a: 276-307).

~ 72 ~
 Figure 13 - Examples of clay pans found on sixth and seventh century sites.
Reproduced from Curta (2001: 296).

The use of the clay pans and the popularity of the Slavic bow fibula as an

identity marker in the second part of the sixth century dovetails tantalisingly

with the names of Sclavene leaders appearing in the written sources during the

raids of the late 570s and 580s when the Sclavene groups seemed to have

become stronger in their military organisation.43 Justinian’s fortifications had

also been in place for some two decades by that stage. The names of four

Sclavene leaders including a king are recorded, and the Strategikon states that in

the 590s the Sclavenes had “many kings” who were always at odds with one

another. It is quite clear from the written evidence that none of these

individuals exercised the form of power that the Germanic confederate leaders

or even local Germanic chieftains had in earlier centuries, and that their roles

were functionally restricted.

These men were not chiefs. The sources show no evidence that they

exercised integrated control of the economy, military force and unitary

ideology, 44 and they certainly did not exist within “redistributional societies

43 Barford (2001: 58).

44 Curta (2001a: 318); Barford (2001: 125).

~ 73 ~
with a permanent central agency of coordination” with a potential for further

rapid stratification and socio-political sophistication.45 That sort of leadership

much more closely accords with the nature of the Germanic confederacies.

The true nature of Sclavene leadership behind these named men is most

usefully understood when viewed through the lens of the big-men/great-men

concept. 46 A big-man was a leader within a society without a strong social

hierarchy whose position was based on personal influence, military

achievement and wealth rather than an inherited position. They also organised

community and ritual feasting, which was shown above to have been part of

Sclavene community life. Pseudo-Caesarius in fact states that Sclavene leaders

were often killed during feasts, showing a direct link between Sclavene leaders

and feasting as well as identifying feasting as an important site of competition

between leaders.47

Great-men on the other hand derived authority primarily from military

self-achievement without the attendant control of wealth.48 For both big-men

and great-men, authority is confined to times of conflict and defence of

communities and can be exercised by many different individuals at once.

Authority is never permanent and is based more on personal prestige and

dominant personalities.49 Curta has suggested that Sclavene society combined

elements of chiefdoms, big-men and great-men, 50 but the stronger evidence

more comfortably fits a combination of big-men and great-men.

Sclavene leaders usually occur in the sources in the context of warfare or

rebellion. Ardagastus and Peiragastus, contemporaries operating in the 590s,

were both military leaders of some kind. Theophylact calls Peiragastus a “tribal

45 Service (1971: 134); Haldon (1993: 213).

46 The concept was first articulated in Sahlins (1963) in relation to Melanesian and Polynesian
political and military structures.
47 Extracted in Curta (2001a: 326): συνεχϖς άναιρούντες συνεστιώμενοι ή συνοδεύοντες τόν

σφϖν ήγεμόνα και άρχoντα. See Riedinger (1969) for original Greek edition.
48 Dzino (2014b: 130); Curta (2001a: 328); Sahlins (1963).

49 Barford (2001: 125).

50 Curta (2001a: 328-332).

~ 74 ~
leader”51 but also a “brigadier,”52 a term he uses for Roman military leaders

such as Alexander, a commander under the magister militum. 53 Ardagastus

“had… [a] train [of] great hordes of Sclavenes” and a gaggle of prisoners

together with “splendid booty.”54 He also had a specific territory.55 The “king”

Musocius, another contemporary, had “subjects” and the use of the term rex

may imply an attendant territory.56 Ardagastus and Musocius both had some

sort of accumulated wealth and territory and the ability to speak on behalf of

their “subjects” which was also the case for Daurentius, the leader mentioned

by Menander.57 These were big-men. Peiragastus on the other hand was most

likely strictly a military leader i.e. a great-man.

The “kings” mentioned in the Strategikon were most likely big-men or

great-men as well. Their inability to be controlled by Roman gifts makes more

sense in this context. Their influence within their communities was built upon a

different base than that of a true king or chief. Wealth did play a part in the

status of big-men but was not utilised in a redistributive way, nor did it

constitute the entirety of his power-base. It is rather more likely that it was

hoarded or displayed. In a material culture with little visible socio-political

differentiation, the ritual feasting and singular prestige items such as Slavic

fibulae visible in the archaeological remains are the closest extant correlates of

these leaders. It may also have extended to the distribution of agricultural

surplus among the community (grain for communal feasting?) rather than

actual prestige goods in the more usual sense.58

51 Theophylact Simocatta, History 7. 4.13 (Appendix B.1.6.E).

52 Theophylact Simocatta, History 7. 5.4 (Appendix B.1.6.F).
53 See also Theophylact Simocatta, History, 1.12.1; 1.14.5; 1.15.2; 2.3.1; 2.4.1; 2.10.8; 2.12.7; 7.3.6 for

other uses of the same term to refer to Roman captains.

54 Theophylact Simocatta, History 1.7.5 (Appendix B.1.6.A).

55 Theophylact Simocatta, History 6.7.5 (Appendix B.1.6.B).

56 Theophylact Simocatta, History 6. 9.1 (Appendix B.1.6.C).

57 Menander the Guardsman frg. 21 (Appendix B.1.4.C).

58 Barford (2001: 126).

~ 75 ~
 Leadership structures which expressed themselves in this way

complimented the un-stratified and agricultural foundation of the Sclavene

habitus. Thus, the Sclavenes lacked centralisation but could be organised by

individual military leaders into raiding bands.59 The activities of these leaders

show that the Sclavene experience had at least two levels – that of the overall

common material culture, and that of singular or localised groups (and leaders)

who acted according to their own situation.60

A final point to be made regarding leadership is that foreign leaders

sometimes utilised their more permanent forms of power and military expertise

within Sclavene populations in order to achieve their political goals. The

Lombard Hildigis certainly did this with his small band of Sclavene followers

in his challenge to the Lombardic throne in the 540s. The Frankish merchant

Samo could also be seen in this way. It is probably no accident that his

followers formed the first Slavic “kingdom” under a leader more familiar with

hierarchical forms of authority and wealth redistribution.61

The Sclavenes simply did not follow the Germanic model of socio-

political organisation or development during this time, and despite being

present on the Danubian frontier for over a hundred years before the 626 loss at

Constantinople, the weak elite status visible within these communities was not

predominantly (if at all) based on Roman cultural influence and prestige goods.

This matter is at the heart of this thesis and is discussed below.

59 Liebschuetz (2007: 110).

60 Brachmann (1997: 27).
61 On this concept, see Urbańczyk (2002). He also explicitly links the ability of Sclavene

communities to be exploited in this way to the Avar-Sclavene relationship – see Chapter 4.3
below.

~ 76 ~
3.2 The Sclavenes and Rome

The Strategikon contains two brief passages in relation to how Rome dealt with

the Sclavenes during Maurice’s campaigns in 593-4 and 601-2, saying, “[t]hey

are completely faithless and have no regard for treaties, which they agree to

more out of fear than by gifts” and “…it is not difficult to win over some of

them by persuasion or by gifts… to attack the others...”62 These methods are

part of the identifiable toolkit the Empire utilised when dealing with its

frontiers as discussed in chapter 2.2.2. Apart from these two generalised

passages however, there is no record of Sclavenes being allies of the Empire or

being paid subsidies under any treaty except when some Sclavene groups were

subsumed under the First Avar Khaganate. 63 As previously stated, the

archaeological evidence also shows that Roman prestige goods simply did not

assume the same social importance or play the same role as it had in various

Germanic barbarian groups in previous centuries. Even everyday Roman goods

do not feature heavily in Sclavene settlement finds.

There are of course instances of Sclavene-Roman contact in the written

sources, and it could scarcely be avoided given their proximity and Sclavene

raiding activities. The episode of the phoney Chilbudius in 531 when some

Sclavenes tried to ransom a man parading as the slain magister militum

demonstrates a relatively easy crossing into Roman territory and presumably

some command of Latin and/or Greek to complete the transaction. 64 1,600

Sclavene and Antean cavalry were recruited by Rome in 53765 and mercenaries

served at the siege of Auximum in 539/40 A.D from whom Procopius likely got

62 Strategikon 11.4 (Appendix B.1.5).

63 Curta (2001a: 82-83).
64 Procopius, Wars 7.14.7-20. Barford (2001: 30). See also Curta (2015b: 288-290) for other (mostly

later) examples of bilingual Sclavenes.

65 Procopius, Wars 5.27.1.

~ 77 ~
his information.66 Agathias also mentions a Sclavene soldier named Saurunas

serving in the Roman army during the Utigur and Cutrigur attack on

Constantinople in 558/9. 67 What is striking about these examples is that the

recruitment seems to have been done only in an individual capacity and never

as part of an agreement between the Empire and any Sclavene group. The

examples are not particularly numerous either.

Evidence of trade is similarly scarce. Small-scale finds of Roman coins

dating from the reign of Anastasius I onwards reappear north of the Danube in

modern-day Romania, Moldavia and the Ukraine after a significant break and

may indicate small-scale trading. There is nothing to indicate how long these

coins had been in circulation when they were deposited,68 but Curta postulates

that the lower value coin hoards represent small grain sales to soldiers manning

the frontier.69 The south-north flow of Roman gold solidi into the Baltic region

through Central Europe is traceable between 395 and 518, but none of it

appears to have come to the Sclavenes themselves despite most likely having to

pass through their territory first.70 A distinct lack of Roman coins on both sides

of the Danube in the aftermath of Justinian’s fortification project indicates an

economic closure of the frontier zone.71 As was shown in chapter 2, trade had

been very important in the transformative processes of the frontier and the fact

that the economic dimension of the frontier during this time became more of a

linear boundary than a zone of interaction meant that it could not function as it

normally did, further undercutting any sort of cultural influence the Empire

may have been able to exert on Sclavene groups. The significant increase of

coins and coin hoarding north of the Danube following the dry period between

66 Procopius, Wars 6.26.16-22.

67 Agathias, Histories 4.20.4 (Appendix B.1.3).
68 Curta (2001a: 238 n 18, 341).

69 Curta (2001a: 361).

70 Barford (2001: 54). The dovetail of the halting of the flow of solidi in 518 with the appearance

of the Antes on the Danube in Procopius is perhaps a little too neat.

71 Barford (2001: 52); Curta (2001a: 176ff).

~ 78 ~
535 and the 570s might indicate that renewed Sclavene raiding at this time was

a response to this economic closure.72 If this is a correct assertion, perhaps the

inferred Sclavene desire for Roman coinage was connected with the need for

the big-men and great-men leaders who also emerged at this very time to prove

both their military prowess and accumulate the wealth necessary to elevate

their position.

The Baltic amber trade into Central Europe and Rome largely stops in

the Danubian region in the sixth and seventh centuries and is not associated

with Sclavene material cultures. Whether or not the amber trade was actually

disrupted by the presence of the Sclavenes as is sometimes argued,73 it seems

that the prestige value of amber held very little appeal for Sclavene groups.

Amber finds at this time are largely concentrated to the north of the Middle

Danube in Avar assemblages, as well as in Lithuania, the Crimea, and further

east at the foot of the Urals on the Middle Volga. The local communities in all

these regions relied heavily on prestige goods including amber as social

markers.74

Settlements in Wallachia and Moldavia do show more intense Roman

contact, obviously because of the proximity to the Danubian frontier – East

Roman influences are shown through small finds of fibulae, star-shaped

earrings and amphorae.75 Some Christian artefacts such as Menas flasks for holy

water and Latin and Maltese pectoral crosses worn as brooches, necklaces or

earrings have been found in these regions in sixth and seventh century

contexts. 76 However, even if there were Christian communities north of the

Danube either within Sclavene settlements or under Avar overlordship, they

72 See Curta (2001a: 169-181).

73 Barford (2001: 83).
74 See Curta (2007b).

75 Barford (2001: 48-49).

76 See Curta (2005c).

~ 79 ~
were not large and do not seem to have made an overly big impact on Sclavene

society at this time.

No Roman missions or even independent attempts at either wholesale or

elite conversion among the Sclavenes are recorded prior to the ninth century.

On the other hand, such activity is recorded in the case of Ulfila’s fourth

century mission to the Goths, while a large group of Alans were converted,

possibly by Martin of Tours, also in the fourth century.77 The Heruli leader in

535 was required to convert to Christianity as part of the treaty with Rome

when they were installed to fight the Gepids in Singidunum. 78 The same

condition was placed on the Bulgar leader Kovrat in 619, and some attempt also

seems to later have been made to convert the Khazars in the eighth and ninth

centuries by the same Byzantine missionaries who eventually converted

various Slavic peoples in the Balkans.79 The Heraclius story of the Croat and

Serb migration in the DAI states that they were required to convert in order for

Heraclius to let them into Dalmatia and to secure their loyalty to Byzantium.80

Although the story itself is not true, it does show that Constantine VII

Porphyrogenitus continued to see it as the mission of the Byzantine Empire to

bring barbarian groups into the imperial orbit by conversion to Christianity.81

The story of the Heruli leader and of Kovrat show that this attitude also

prevailed in the sixth and seventh centuries. Importantly, a key part in each

scenario is friendly relations with the Empire secured by treaty, something the

Sclavenes never had.82 Walter Pohl has in fact argued that a lack of a Christian

77 Fortunatus, 2.287-291. On the conversion of the Alans, see Bachrach (1973: 75-76).
78 Procopius, Wars 6.14.36.
79 See Obolensky (1971: 62, 175); Haldon (1997: 47); Noonan (1992: 114). Other possible instances

include the conversion of an Utigur leader named Gordas in 527 under the auspices of Justinian
and a mission by an Armenian bishop named Karustat to the north of the Caucasus to convert
Huns: see Obolensky (1971: 60-61); Golden (1992: 106-107). On the later conversions of Slavic
peoples by SS Cyril and Methodius, see Dvornik (1970); Tachiaos (2001); Betti (2013).
80 DAI 31-32. On this, see Curta (2010b); Dzino (2014b).

81 On this generally, see Collins (1991: 200-236).

82 Curta has argued that the lack of Roman or Byzantine missionary activity amongst Sclavene

populations shows that no political gains were expected to arise from such missions: Curta

~ 80 ~
superstructure among sixth to eighth century Sclavene groups meant that they

could not form any kind of powerful leadership, and that any emerging forms

were thus territorially and institutionally limited.83

What this evidence of scant cultural and economic contact between

Sclavene groups and the Empire reveals is that the complex frontier system

outlined in section 2.2 no longer existed by the sixth century. Roman rural

society contracted quite sharply as the traditional economic markets north of

the Danube largely disappeared with the Germanic barbarians. Archaeological

evidence shows that buildings associated with imperial administration were

gradually abandoned and that rural Balkan settlements moved very close to, or

even inside of, city walls. Churches and buildings previously used for imperial

administration were often divided into smaller living spaces. Good

archaeological examples of this can be found in Justiniana Prima, Iatrus and

Nicopolis ad Istrum.84

The Danube frontier became much more like a territorial and military

boundary rather than any sort of broad zone of interaction, even going so far as

complete economic closure. This was truly significant given the central role

previously played by the frontier in fostering and monitoring trade. As such, it

was simply not possible for the Roman frontier, previously the main vehicle of

Roman cultural power, to play a large (if any) role in influencing Sclavene

society.

(2005c: 181-219). However, given that historically the Empire had invested in the politically
stabilising power of Christianisation amongst barbarians on the frontier as a normal part of
their policy coupled with the real threat posed by the Sclavenes (see the narrative in Chapter
2.3), this argument is not entirely convincing.
83 Pohl (2003b: 571).

84 See Bavant (2007) – Justiana Prima; von Bülow (2007) - Iatrus; Whittow (2007) – Nicopolis ad

Istrum. See also the survey of various sites by Curta who notes the same pattern across much of
the Balkans: Curta (2001a: 121-189), (2001b) and (2013). See also Dunn (1994); Harris (1999);
Burns & Eadie (2001)Cf. n. 32 on page 43 regarding the same process of demographic
contraction and change in Dalmatia.

~ 81 ~
 The Eastern Roman and Early Byzantine Empires only ever treated the

Sclavenes as enemies. In a collective sense (as opposed to recruited soldiers),

Procopius always classes them as such and the narrative of Roman action (or

inaction) in a policy context confirms this. It was the Antes, not the Sclavenes,

who were approached by Justinian for a treaty, likely as a means of defence not

just against the Huns but against the Sclavenes. In this sense at least the

Sclavenes were part of normal imperial policy, just never as allies. The

subsequent fortification of the Danube was specifically in response to Sclavene

as well as Utigur and Cutrigur raiding, but was not accompanied by any form

of diplomacy; Curta sees this as major change in imperial policy.85

After the fortifications stopped being effective in the 570s, Maurice in the

590s launched offensive attacks over the Danube as recorded by the Strategikon.

The afore-mentioned attempts to buy off the “kings” were largely assumed to

(and evidently did) fail judging by the raiding activity at the time. This would

not be surprising if Roman prestige goods continued to lack value in Sclavene

society. Roman gold may not have held enough worth to buy their alliance and

was rarely used by the Sclavenes even when huge amounts must have been

pouring into the eastern Carpathian region once Rome started to pay tribute to

the Avars. Conversely, another explanation could be that a new generation of

elites coming from a slightly more stratified society due to Roman and Avar

contact over time could have required more gold than Rome was prepared to

give. This might also help explain the renewed raiding after 570. A story in

Theophylact is interesting in this respect. Around the year 600, three Sclavene

travellers were on their way to Avar territory in order to refuse a request for

alliance which had been accompanied by lavish gifts: “they accepted the gifts

but refused… the alliance…”86 Theophylact says the reason for the refusal was

because the distance was too far. This obviously plays into the trope of the

85 Curta (2001c: 76).

86 Theophylact Simocatta, History 7.2.10-16.

~ 82 ~
faithless barbarian, but it also ties in with the episode in the Strategikon (which

was not concerned with literary tropes) where either little persuasive value was

placed by Sclavenes on prestige goods and Roman coins, or the Sclavenes felt

the payment was not high enough. Interestingly, they came into Roman

territory because they had heard that the Empire was very wealthy.

There are instances of higher value, usually silver goods of Byzantine

origin or inspiration being deposited in hoards north of the Danube, including

plate-ware, drinking vessels and jewellery such as the Martynovka treasure.

The majority of hoards that can more firmly be attributed to Sclavenes usually

date from the latter part of the seventh century.87 Hoards from the turn of the

seventh century are more likely to be associated with Avar assemblages despite

the presence of so-called Slavic bow fibulae. These include more military items

such as bronze helmets and military belt buckles which are much more

indicative of the Avar warrior elite. The Avar hoards fit squarely within the

context of competitive conspicuous consumption of prestige goods88 which had

a similar purpose to the lavish furnished inhumations of Germanic societies. In

this way, the Avar elite represented their social status, wealth and power

through Byzantine (or local imitation) goods. This is something Sclavene

groups did not do.

Curious amongst all the evidence are the references in the written

sources to Sclavene treasure. When he attacked the Sclavenes for Tiberius II in

582, the Avar khagan Baian was greedy for the gold the Sclavenes had acquired

during their Balkan raids.89 John of Ephesus also suggests that the Sclavenes

were in search of gold, silver, weapons and horses90 and the Sclavene leader

Ardagastus captured “splendid booty” during his raids.91 The groups raiding

87 Barford (2001: 163).

88 See Curta (2001a: 208-226).
89 Menander the Guardsman frg. 21 (Appendix B.1.4.C).

90 John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History 6.6.25.

91 Theophylact Simocatta, History 1.7.5 (Appendix B.1.6.A).

~ 83 ~
through Thrace and Illyricum in 550 also made off with a large amount of

booty. Such piles of treasure and booty, however, are simply not borne out in

the associated material remains.

The idea of Sclavene leaders as big-men is interesting in this context. The

wealth they might have controlled had value in its display and hoarding, not its

redistribution. As suggested above, communal feasting, display of Slavic bow

fibulae and distribution of agricultural surplus are probably correlates of the

display aspect. But if more traditional prestige items were also collected as

military booty or as payments for failed attempts at alliance and then hoarded

and controlled by these men, it is not as likely that traces of it would appear in

the material evidence amongst the everyday items of the community. It would

have been kept together and therefore found (or not found) as a hoard, either

because of collection patterns or as part of practices of conspicuous material

display. This is, however, mere speculation, and it is unclear whether any of the

silver and bronze hoards found north of the Danube in the sixth and seventh

centuries can be interpreted in this way.

It is possible that Sclavene groups acting for the Khaganate may have

turned over most of their spoils to the Avar elite (who were certainly known for

their accumulation of treasure). Another possibility is that despite the sources

assuming that the Sclavenes would be interested in such goods, the booty may

have actually consisted largely of foodstuffs/grain stores, livestock and slaves.

When they sacked Topiros in 549, as well as “valuables” the Sclavenes took the

women and children as slaves and burned the men alive together with all the

remaining cattle and sheep “they were utterly unable to take with them to their

native haunts.”92 Curta has also demonstrated that less traditionally prestigious

Roman items such as amphorae containing oil, wine and garum were viewed as

valuable within Sclavene communities and may have played a part in the

92 Procopius, Wars 7.38.19-22.

~ 84 ~
display of big-men or great-men leaders, particularly when the association

between amphorae remains and the finds of clay pans and ritual feasting is

taken into account.93 Such items would not automatically register as “treasure”

to either the Roman observer or those examining the archaeological remains.

The specific references to gold and treasure also only come after Sclavene

raiding recommenced in the 570s and 80s when big-men and great-men first

appear in the sources. This possibly ties in with the emergence of new elites

who were much more interested in Roman gold than their predecessors, who,

like those who sacked Topiros in 549, may have been satisfied with slaves,

livestock, and foodstuffs.

A fourth possibility, within the bounds of the Khaganate at least, is that

the accumulation of valuable booty through military prowess was part of the

process by which a Sclavene became an Avar, adopting the Avar cultural habitus

rather than that of the Sclavenes. In this vein, Pohl has argued that a person

could be both Sclavene and Avar, given that “one of these names denoted the

higher, constitutional unit, the other one a subgroup.” 94 People undertaking

military duties within the Khaganate could, by adopting the relevant outward

material culture (and presumably also integrating into their elite military core),

become an Avar. Anyone else within the Khaganate who was part of or was

absorbed into the rural community became a Sclavene.95 This might account for

why such treasure is not associated with Sclavene assemblages, but Avar

assemblages, containing military and equestrian gear, are often very rich (see

Chapter 3.3 below).

Being able to determine with some certainty if and how Sclavenes

defined and utilised “treasure” and “booty” would certainly make things

93 Curta (2001a: 299, 342).

94 Pohl (2008: 19).
95 Pohl (1988: 99-100, 243-245; 278-281); (2003b: 587); (2008).

~ 85 ~
clearer, but the current evidence is simply not sufficient for anything beyond

conjecture.

Finally, the naming of an Antean king (unattested elsewhere) by

Jordanes in the fourth century story of Hermanaric is a tantalising bit of

information which might tempt the historian into speculating about a much

earlier phase of internal socio-political development for the Antes than for the

Sclavenes.96 This is an interesting proposition in light of the evidence discussed

above and the fact that the Antes were Roman allies while the Sclavenes were

not. The Peňkovka-Koločhin complex of the Middle Dnieper usually associated

with the Antes does not shed much light on the matter – there is no indication

of any such level of stratification and the complex cannot be dated quite that

early in any case. As far as Procopius goes, his account of the Antes deciding on

the 545 treaty with Justinian mentions no such king or leader and is specifically

used to demonstrate that there was no such person. Boz may have been more of

a great-man/big-man leader than a king. The fact remains, however, that the

Antes were able to be drawn into an alliance with Rome which appeared to

have been fairly successful until their demise in 602.

It is reasonable to argue for some level of greater socio-political

development on the part of the Antes simply because a measure of

centralisation would have been needed in order to coordinate the whole group

to fulfil their treaty obligations to Rome at the time the treaty was made. There are

also no real instances in the sources of Antes acting outside of this alliance

under independent leaders. Furthermore, if a decent proportion of the

population mentioned in Procopius did indeed relocate to the urban

environment of Turris (thought to be somewhere on the Black Sea coast),

centralisation would have developed further. Certainly, by the time the Antes

96See Gimbutas (1971: 76-77) who argues that the King Boz episode shows that the Antes
existed in the fourth century and survived to reappear in the sixth. Given Heather’s arguments
as to disappearing and reappearing tribes (see chapter 2.2 n 78), this is not so far-fetched but at
this point in time, the evidence is not particularly strong.

~ 86 ~
fought the Avars in the 560s, they already had powerful leaders named in the

sources as archons who began to show the true characteristics of a militarised

chiefdom in the same way the Germanic tribes had.97 The populations of the

Peňkovka-Koločhin culture which remained on the Middle Dnieper and were

likely already heavily slavicised possibly became absorbed back into the

egalitarian Sclavene model, whilst those Antes who moved to Turris adopted a

more political, stratified identity.98 At this point in time, it is impossible to tell.

Curta’s argument that Rome distinguished between allies and enemies

by creating labels for the Antes as against the Sclavenes is relevant here.99 It is a

useful way to distinguish amongst peoples who appear to have shared a very

similar material culture but were viewed quite differently from a Roman

perspective. However, this implies that any Sclavene group could become an

ally of the Empire, renegotiate their identity, and thus become Antes. Such a

proposition would be an argument against there being something inherently

different about Sclavene society which prevented them from becoming Roman

allies and being drawn into the culturally transforming processes of the

frontier. The idea is feasible enough given the fluid and transactional nature of

ethnic identity, but Procopius makes it clear that the Antes were limited to the

group who concluded the treaty with Justinian and moved to Turris in 545.

There were no other Antean groups along the Danube. Those populations are

always identified as Sclavenes and no Roman efforts to engage with them

diplomatically are recorded other than the vague references in the Strategikon to

unsuccessful overtures in the 590s.

97 See Menander the Guardsman frg. 5.3 for the archon Mezamir who had a known lineage and
70 associated nobles, likely indicating a more hereditary kind of leadership structure (see
Appendix B.1.4.A). See also Agathias, Histories 3 6.9, 7.2, 21.6 for the Antean naval commander
Dabragezas who commanded a Roman fleet against the Persians in 555/6. Curta (2001: 332).
98 Curta thinks of the Antes after the 545 treaty as a political identity in much the same way as

he does the Wends: Curta (2001: 105). See also Szmoniewski (2010: esp. 67-82) for the
problematics involved in strictly associating the Antes with a particular culture or groups of
finds.
99 Curta (2001:83-84).

~ 87 ~
 Roman-Sclavene contact then was largely hostile and not tempered by

diplomacy in any successful way, nor did the processes of the frontier facilitate

discernible networks of distribution of Roman prestige goods between local

leaders resulting in hierarchies within communities or the coalescence of larger

groups. The story seems to have been slightly different for the Antes, who

developed a political identity once they became Roman allies, perhaps building

on the beginnings of a socio-political development which was a little more

advanced than the Sclavenes. The question remains then that if the Sclavenes

were largely unaffected by Rome’s imperial orbit and her diplomatic, if not her

military policies, was there any alternative?

3.3 The Sclavenes and the First Avar Khaganate

It was noted above that Sclavene military organisation seemed to become

stronger once raiding resumed in the late 570s and Sclavene leaders are named.

Not only did this happen twenty or so years after Justinian’s fortifications had

been completed, it was also after the Avars had been on the scene in Eastern

and Central Europe for almost as long, although they did not become

entrenched in Pannonia until 582. As Barford cautions, “[t]he influence of the

nomadic hegemonies of eastern Europe in the formation of Slav speaking

groups should perhaps not be underestimated.”100

It is impossible to talk about the Sclavenes without talking about the

First Avar Khaganate. Based on the richness of grave good finds, the centre of

the Khaganate in the sixth and seventh centuries was between the Danube and

the Tisza rivers,101 and the narrative of Sclavene activity in the sixth and seventh

centuries outlined in chapter 2.3 makes it clear that the history of the two

groups was heavily intertwined. Some Sclavene groups came directly under the

100 Barford (2001: 43).

101 Daim (2003: 469).

~ 88 ~
Avar Khaganate while others operated independently on its fringes or in

alliance from time to time.

Evidence for the most direct Avaro-Sclavene contact can be found in

Fredegar. He states that the Avars wintered with the Sclavenes (whom he calls

Wends), slept with their wives and daughters and burdened them with many

other hardships. Furthermore, the Avars sent the Wends to fight their battles,

only getting involved if it seemed that they were losing. 102 As stated earlier, the

Wends were possibly some sort of Sclavene military or political unit103 and it

certainly appears that they had a very particular function within the Khaganate.

It is not hard to imagine the Wendish political identity forming within a rather

rapid timeframe in these circumstances, particularly considering they had a

very specific role within the structure – they did not simply exist as followers or

as a ruled population as they had done under the Huns in the fifth century. Nor

were they an adjacent society across a frontier as they were with the East

Roman Empire. At the same time, the Avars appear on some occasions to have

attempted to curb independent Sclavene action and identity making processes

due to their numerical advantage. The Byzantine-backed attack in 578 could be

seen in this way. 104 Fredegar’s evidence shows a strong level of

interdependence. The Avars relied on the Sclavenes for their agricultural

produce during the winter, while the Sclavenes relied on the Avars for

protection from other groups as well as taking their place within Avar armies.105

A measure of influence can also be seen in the burial material, which is

extensive - over 60,000 Avar graves have been excavated from all periods of

Avar history.106 Several large cemeteries on the Middle Danube dating to the

period under examination have yielded inhumations with strong steppe and

102 Fredegar 4.48 (Appendix B.2.1 A).

103 See Curta (1997: 144-155) and (2001: 60).
104 Pohl (2003b: 584); Gračanin (2013: 47).

105 Pohl (2003b: 584).

106 See Daim (2003: 466-467) for a listing and location of the most important Avar sites.

~ 89 ~
Byzantine influences as well as cremation burials, which have been interpreted

to reflect Avar and Sclavene burials respectively.107 The remains of funerary

pyres in the Carpathians and the central position in Avar cemeteries given to

warrior burials containing horses and weapons show that political power was

reserved for the elite.108 Social stratification within the elite is also evidenced by

the hierarchic quality of various warrior burials in both position and grave

goods within the warrior group.109 Female burials show more Byzantine and

Germanic (Merovingian or Lombard) influences including cross and disc-

shaped brooches, animal brooches, basket earrings and pendants and Roman

fibulae.110 There are also instances of elite Avar items such as belts with ornate

fittings in burials which actually probably contained Sclavenes. This shows a

level of acculturation and ethnic negotiation on the part of Sclavenes within the

Avar influence which simply did not happen to any discernible degree with

Roman emblemic styles.111

Given the account of the Wends showing that the Sclavenes were

positioned across both the agricultural and military spheres, as well as the

possible adoption by some Sclavenes of the elite military habitus of the Avars,

the differentiation within and on the fringes of the Khaganate seem to have

preserved the rural habitus of the Sclavenes to some degree. The everyday

culture of the Khaganate was most likely that of the Sclavenes. The upper

echelons of elite Avar culture were based instead on prestige, including

Byzantine, goods.112 The Avars had a culture which was very flexible in relation

to outside influences,113 but they still maintained the Hunnic Steppe Empire

107 Gimbutas (1971: 121-122). It has been demonstrated in Chapter 3.3.2 that Avars expressed
elite identity partly through Byzantine prestige goods.
108 Vida (2008: 15).

109 Vida (2008: 29).

110 Vida (2008: 17-18, 34-36); Daim (2003: 471-476).

111 Barford (2001: 34). See also Pohl (2003b: 590).

112 Pohl (2003b: 592-3).

113 Daim (2003: 463).

~ 90 ~
template, as it was proven to be a workable structure and was part of their

Inner Asian traditions.114

There are other ways in which the Avars could influence those groups

who operated outside of direct Avar power. In those raids when Sclavenes and

Avars were allied, it is reasonable to suppose that the Sclavenes might have

learned organisational and leadership skills from the militarily superior Avars

in order to become more efficient and therefore more successful. It is also

particularly interesting that the two instances in which there is evidence for

specific diplomatic overtures being made to the Sclavenes (as opposed to the

vague reference in the Strategikon) it is by the Avar khagan and not Rome. Both

instances also involve Sclavenes in leadership positions. The earliest named

Sclavene leader Daurentius, who refused to submit to the Avar khagan Baian in

578/9, is a king in the context of dealing with the Avars, not Rome.115 Similarly,

the story of the three Sclavenes recorded by Theophylact Simocatta relates that

the khagan sent formal ambassadors who “lavished many gifts on their nation's

rulers” in the hope of a military alliance.116

Here then are clear examples of Avaro-Sclavene interaction which go

further than Roman-Sclavene interaction ever did. This dimension therefore

must be seriously considered alongside any argument that the Sclavenes

formed in response to Justinian’s fortification project. The Sclavene leadership

configurations revealed in the 570s and 80s are very weak in terms of sustained,

hierarchical power. Furthermore, the material remains attest to the general

Sclavene social structure and (non-) use of prestige goods largely staying the

same over this period except for the rise in popularity of Slavic bow fibulae.

The Avar Khaganate generally seems to have played a much larger role than

the East Roman and Early Byzantine Empires in Sclavene society in this time

114 Pohl (2003b: 595); Vida (2008: 14). Cf. Bálint (2000); Daim (2000) and (2003) who argue that
the Avar Khaganates were largely a creation of the Byzantine periphery.
115 Menander the Guardsman frg. 21 (Appendix B.1.4.C).

116 Theophylact Simocatta, History 7.2.10-16.

~ 91 ~
period. The reasons for why that might have been, why the Sclavenes still seem

to have resisted Roman-stimulated social transformations while on the fringes

of an imperial and quasi-imperial power, and ultimately why the Sclavenes

were never Roman allies is discussed in the next chapter.

~ 92 ~
Chapter 4
Why Were the Sclavenes Never Roman Allies?
In light of the above discussion, which has shown that the Sclavenes of the sixth

and seventh centuries followed an alternative model to what had previously

been the norm of Roman-barbarian relations and the operation of the frontier,

some suggestions as to how this might be explained will now be offered.

4.1 Historical Circumstances

First and foremost, the comparative analysis undertaken in chapters 2 and 3

reveals that the time frames involved in the development of the Germanic

societies which eventually took over the post-Roman West, and the Sclavene

societies on the Danubian frontier in the sixth and seventh centuries were

vastly different. The Germanic tribes had engaged in intense contact with Rome

on the frontiers for at least four hundred years before the large confederacies of

the fourth and fifth centuries emerged. All the while Roman culture and goods

were making their way back into the hinterland of Germanic barbaricum for

hundreds of kilometres, as shown particularly by the princely graves and

stratified settlements discussed in chapter 2.2.3.

~ 93 ~
 The function of the frontier in not only affecting frontier societies but

stratifying barbarian societies at a greater distance, allowed various Germanic

groups to fairly easily integrate into imperial structures through treaties and

alliances once they started moving towards imperial territory in earnest. This

was the basis for their success and the continued development of formalised

hierarchies and power structures based on Roman models and stimulus.

What is more, Germanic and Hunnic groups had dominated the

territorial, cultural and conceptual space north of the Danube until the mid-fifth

century when the Sclavene habitus began to emerge. Peter Heather has argued

that groups with Sclavene elements probably existed behind a large buffer of

Germanic and Hunnic groups which impeded access to all the profitable

positions on the frontier and thus blocked Roman influence and material

culture to regions beyond.1 As was discussed in chapter 3.1, it is perhaps more

likely that such elements existed underneath the dominant Germanic and

Hunnic socio-political structures and that the buffer was vertical rather than

horizontal.

The Hunnic Empire, like all steppe empires, contained both a strong

sedentary element and the core pastoral nomadic element. The nomadic core

was the basis of their military power and the site of their elite culture which

was known for its material display. 2 The sedentary element was usually

agricultural and peoples who might have later emerged within the Sclavene

habitus could very well have been part of it, a role they later filled within the

First Avar Khaganate. They likely absorbed other ethnic elements, such as the

remnant Germanic populations who were still visible in the material record for

a length of time prior to the mid-sixth century.

The correlation in time between the relatively rapid emergence of the

Sclavene cultural habitus with firstly the decline of Germanic dominance and

1 Heather (2009: 441).

2 Kim (2013: 43). For the material richness of Attila’s court, see Priscus of Panion frg. 11.2.

~ 94 ~
associated material cultures in the Pontic-Danubian region, and then the rise

and fall of Hunnic power is undeniable, if not entirely conclusive. Later large-

scale movements of the Ostrogoths in 489 and the Lombards in 568 from the

Middle Danube into Italy further greatly changed the cultural and political

make-up of the region. All these factors allowed for the emergence of the

Sclavenes who were dominant in terms of material culture but who, owing

partly to their previous position underneath other dominant cultural and ethnic

elites, did not and could not occupy the same role along the Danubian frontier

as their Germanic predecessors had done.

A crucial and associated element of the historical circumstances of the

time was Justinian’s fortification of the Balkans. Curta has argued that the

fortifications discussed in chapter 2.2.2 were not only a drastic change in

Roman frontier policy, but that they “created” the Sclavenes. They were created

not through the processes of the frontier but because the historical

circumstances of the time meant that they were now politically important to

Rome in terms of being a direct threat. These groups were then labelled by

Romans trying to make sense of peoples who, although they had been present

prior to the fortification project, had not been of any import to the Empire –

they had not been visible to Rome in the only sense that mattered. This

certainly ties in neatly with the suggestion that populations who later became

Sclavenes occupied a largely invisible position under dominant Germanic and

Hunnic elements until this point. Only with the raiding of the 530s and 40s did

they become worth mentioning after maybe a hundred years of development

outside of Hunnic influence. On Curta’s argument, Sclavene military leaders

like those of the 570s and 80s may in fact have existed prior to this time, but

again, they were of no concern to Rome until the 530s and therefore were not

mentioned in the extant sources until several decades later.3

3 Curta (2001: 346-350).

~ 95 ~
 The theory is very helpful in highlighting and defining the proper limits

of the label “Sclavenes” to the historical actions of groups on the Danubian

frontier as seen from a Roman or Byzantine perspective, as opposed to large

territories and populations which shared a common cultural habitus which this

thesis has also labelled “Sclavene.” In this sense, there were two distinct but

overlapping phenomena going on: (1) the spread of the Sclavene habitus and (2)

the military actions of Sclavene groups as recorded by Roman and Byzantine

authors.4

Curta’s theory is persuasive but does not necessarily explain why

Justinian sought to deal with the Sclavenes in this way or why the role they

fulfilled on the frontier did not follow the frontier processes outlined in chapter

2.2. It only explains their presence on the frontier and their visibility as a

distinct ethnic identity in the sources (and not necessarily in their own

perception). Further, there is some measure of the cart before the horse here.

The fortification of the Balkans most assuredly was largely due to Sclavene and

other raiding becoming a problem before the fortifications were put in place. In

this sense, the reason cannot also be the result and while the fortifications may

have contributed to social transformations to some extent, it is clear that the

frontier was no longer what it had been. The Danubian frontier no longer

facilitated the development of flourishing frontier societies and economic and

cultural contact across wide stretches of non-imperial territory. Balkan

communities, their economies, and the frontier itself contracted sharply and the

erection of Justinian’s fortifications appears only to have exacerbated the

problem rather than rectify it, resulting in complete economic closure and no

significant contact of any kind for the better part of two decades.

When contact recommenced, it was purely aggressive on the part of the

Sclavenes and in the context of the growing influence of the First Avar

4 Barford also makes this distinction: Barford (2001: 27).

~ 96 ~
Khaganate. Therefore, a more complete picture is possible when taking into

account how the distinct nature of the Sclavene cultural habitus interacted with

the frontier and also the Sclavene position within the First Avar Khaganate.

4.2 An Alternative Society

The Germanic cultures of the previous centuries largely reflected Roman

influence through a competitive material culture based on prestige goods and

the galvanising force of the frontiers.5 It has been demonstrated above that this

was not the case for Sclavene groups north of the Danube in the sixth and

seventh centuries. They operated on an entirely different, largely un-stratified

social and cultural premise which was nevertheless very successful and was in

fact remarked on by late antique writers. The author of the Strategikon called the

Sclavenes independent and as “absolutely refusing to be enslaved or

governed,”6 while Menander records a speech to this very effect by the leader

Daurentius when confronted with Avar demands.7 Sclavene groups did not

require the vehicle of Roman political, military or social culture in order to

flourish, and therefore both resisted and did not need to be within the Roman

cultural orbit.

A way of explaining this has been to conceptualise early Sclavene history

as an alternative or parallel model to the post-Roman West, an idea which has

been around since the nineteenth century. 8 The Russian historian Dimitri

Obolensky argued in 1971 that Roman frontier policy was only aimed at a

particular kind of barbarian group at a certain stage of social and political

development, 9 achieved by hundreds of years of exposure to the powerful

5 Barford (2001: 25).

6 Strategikon 11.4 (Appendix B.1.5).
7 Menander the Guardsman frg. 21 (Appendix B.1.4.C).

8 See Curta (2001: 311-313)

9 Obolensky (1971: 56-57). See also Browning (1975: 36).

~ 97 ~
processes of the frontier. Patrick Geary later briefly suggested that the

egalitarian nature of early Slavic groups was key in that there was no

centralised figure for Rome to deal with, and that Sclavene communities were

sufficiently disparate and numerous that any single defeat did not have a

catastrophic effect on their advance. 10 Peter Heather has reiterated this idea

more recently following Urbańczyk and on a slightly different tangent: the

egalitarian lifestyle of the Sclavenes made their social model attractive to non-

Sclavenes they came across, making them stronger and therefore more

successful.11

Walter Pohl had earlier articulated a similar argument in 1988. He

suggested that the early (Sclavene) Slavs represented a different model of how

widespread regional groups without a central authority based on old Roman

models of power and representation could still form a loose ethnic community

and ultimately be more successful than both the Western successor states and

the other short-term political entities in Eastern Europe in the early Middle

Ages, namely the First Avar Khaganate and Old Great Bulgaria.12

The unconscious goal-oriented nature of a common cultural habitus

makes a lot of sense in light of Pohl’s and similar arguments. Heather and

Urbańczyk’s position resonates to some extent with Curta’s findings that there

were no large-scale invasions or migrations of Sclavene groups into the

Balkans, particularly into Greece, and that its spread must have been a much

slower process.13 Gradual accretion seems much more likely than large-scale

migration, both southwards into the Balkans and westwards towards the Elbe,

as small Sclavene communities were augmented with various peoples from

10 Geary (2002: 145-6). See also Fine (1983: 27).

11 Heather (2010: 433ff). See Urbańczyk (1997b).
12 Pohl (1988). See also Pohl (1997a: 154), (1998: 23) and (2005:129).

13 See Curta (2010a), (2011: 48-96) and (2013b). cf. Heather who argues that general levels of

migration of barbarian communities was much more substantial than is usually allowed for
within the current paradigm of barbarian studies: Heather (2009: 579). Unfortunately, he
applies the same formula to many different barbarian groups at different points in time without
fully accounting for possible differences:

~ 98 ~
local populations who adopted the same habitus. 14 This process would have

been particularly easy due to the Sclavene practice of itinerant farming where,

based on the duration of their settlements and evidence in Procopius, they

moved short distances every decade or less in search of fresh farming land. As

Heather and Urbańczyk argue, such a lifestyle may very well have been

attractive to other populations in rural areas.15 The material remains indicate

they certainly had already absorbed Germanic populations by the mid-sixth

century. The large number of Sclavenes is often noted in the sources although

the references to “hordes” also play into barbarian stereotypes.16 In addition,

Theophylact Simocatta mentions a Gepid living in a Sclavene community in the

590s,17 while the Strategikon records the presence of Romans who lived with or

at least acted in the interests of Sclavene groups during military confrontations

within Sclavene territory.18 The Sclavene treatment of slaves might also have

served to swell their ranks with people who then became Sclavenes. The author

of the Strategikon notes that,

“they do not keep those who are in captivity among them in perpetual
slavery… [b]ut they set a definite period of time for them and then give
them the choice either… to return to their own homes… or to remain
there as free men and friends.”

Obviously there are recorded instances when the Sclavenes killed

indiscriminately, but it also seems it was quite easy for foreign elements to be

absorbed into the Sclavene habitus, making for a more successful society.19

14 Barford (2001: 43-44).

15 Pohl (1988: 94 ff esp.125-127). See Strategikon 11.4 (Appendix B.1.5) and Theophylact
Simocatta, History 6.8.
16 E.g. Strategikon 11.4 (Appendix B.1.5); Theophylact Simocatta, History 1.7.5; 7.4.13 (Appendix

B.1.6.A & E).

17 Theophylact Simocatta, History 6.8.13.

18 Strategikon 11.4 (Appendix B.1.5).

19 See Urbańczyk (1997b: 41-42) for anthropological theories that societies with the easiest

incorporations of aliens are more likely to be successful.

~ 99 ~
 The first real indication of a specific intent to settle in Roman territory

was at the siege of Thessalonica in the early years of Heraclius’ reign as

recorded in Book II of the Miracles of Saint Demetrius. The Sclavenes brought

their families and intended to settle the city after they had taken it. They

evidently were not coming from very far away because the prisoners they took

from Thessalonica were able to return home from Sclavene territory carrying

booty in short order, suggesting that the Sclavene settlements must already

have been somewhere in the vicinity after having slowly advanced over the

previous hundred years.20

The situation reveals a certain dichotomy between the proliferation of

Sclavene communities into the Balkans and elsewhere which goes largely

unremarked except in the archaeological record (the spread of the Sclavene

habitus), and the military activities in Roman and Byzantine territory described

in the sources (the Roman-Byzantine history of the “Sclavenes”). Peter Heather

has also noted the differentiated movements between the migrations of small-

scale farming communities and more militarised groups.21 No doubt the raiding

into Roman territory created opportunities for territorial advancement but most

often the sources tell us the raiders returned home across the Danube after the

season was over. Something unseen was obviously occurring within these

communities that was not directly linked to the Sclavene military activities that

were the most obvious target of Justinian’s fortifications. 22 Perhaps these

20 Curta (2004: 539); Heather (2009: 400, 434-435). See Miracles of Saint Demetrius II 2.196.
21 Heather (2009: 443). See also Barford (2001: 128) for a similar idea.
22 There is a large bibliography on the movement and settlement of Sclavene groups south into

Greece although there is little conclusive evidence of this before the early to mid-seventh
century or that it was a large-scale and widespread invasion as opposed to gradual migration
and assimilation as argued on pages 95- 97 above. The Chronicle of Monemvasia does record an
Avaro-Sclavene invasion of Greece in the late sixth and seventh centuries, but this is thought to
be a late source dating from the tenth to as late as the thirteenth century and therefore is
difficult to rely on with any confidence. See Lemerle (1963) and (1980); Dujcev (1976); Vyronis
(1981); Ferjančič (1984); Kalligas (1990) and (2013); Metcalf (1991); Chrysos (1997); Turlej (1997)
and (1998); Brown (2011).

~ 100 ~
tentatively postulated processes could not necessarily be dealt with by either

treaties or fortifications and so neither approach was successful in the long run.

In this sense then, due to its own internal makeup and operation, the

Sclavene cultural habitus did not need to be part of the Roman cultural orbit in

order to maintain its structures and perpetuate itself. This in and of itself may

very well have allowed it to resist that orbit and the workings of the frontier,

therefore completely obstructing socio-political developments of a kind

recognisable within the German confederacies and Successor Kingdoms.

4.3 Alternative Orbits

Sclavene resistance to the workings of the frontier and Roman frontier policy

was strengthened due to the availability of alternative imperial orbits towards

which they could gravitate. Indeed, Kim calls the Avar arrival in Europe in the

sixth century “a watershed in the political history of the Slavic peoples.”23 It has

been argued that in this period of history, Europe was merely on the periphery

of a world order based on the Turko-Mongol political configurations of Inner

Asia embodied by various steppe empires.24 The Huns had already shown that

a successful territorial empire could be maintained in Central Europe which

favoured networks which cut across traditional Roman frontiers, thus offering a

real alternative to Roman imperial hegemony. 25 Fine has argued that the Avars

actually disturbed Sclavene settlement patterns by either forcing them to flee or

turning them into soldiers. That some Sclavenes were fighters within the

Khaganate is clear, but there is no evidence that the Avar presence caused

widespread Sclavene movements in this way, even when the Avars were

23 Kim (2013: 144).

24 Kim (2013: 4-8).
25 Pohl (2003b: 572-3); Kim (2013: 59).

~ 101 ~
attacking them.26 The frontiers and associated spheres of influence which really

mattered in Europe were those of the Avar Khaganate and it is in fact here that

a much greater degree of ethnic negotiation and cultural influence on the part

of Sclavenes can be seen, as well as mechanisms which preserved the Sclavene

way of life and material culture at the same time.

Large-scale Eurasian nomadic political organisations such as the Avar

Khaganate evolved and existed primarily to extract recognition and resources

from major sedentary powers while exploiting a largely sedentary agricultural

base. Nomadic pastoralism by itself was not sufficient to support such large

political structures, and so military might was utilised by a militarised nomadic

core to extract revenue from sedentary powers such as the Chinese and Roman

Empires. The severe consequences for the Roman Empire after various

emperors refused to continue paying subsidies to the Khaganate is evidence

enough of this process in action. The tribute and prestige goods extorted by this

system were then redistributed amongst the subordinate Asiatic subject tribes

of the core in order to bind them to the leadership27 in much the same manner

as the Germanic confederate societies had done.

This is what Thomas Barfield means by “shadow empires” which existed

alongside a sedentary power, mimicking it to some extent and being

symbiotically dependant on it.28 The readiness of the Avars to partly adopt the

Roman and Byzantine elite habitus for their military elite can thus be explained

– the exploitation of the rich resources of the Empire was part of the very way

in which their political organisation perpetuated itself. Their exploitation of the

agricultural nature of Sclavene society, particularly evident in Fredegar’s

account of the Wends, can similarly be explained as part of this model.

26 Fine (1983: 30).

27 Barfield (2001: 14).
28 See Barfield (1989: 5-16) and (1993: 149-152).

~ 102 ~
 The structure of steppe empires may also help to understand the

presence of many groups of Sclavenes who were not always or ever directly

under Avar control. Steppe empires could operate unconcernedly alongside

independent and ‘rebel’ tribes on their fringes, partly because they could not

maintain a territorial presence at all times, but also because expansion into

other territories was not necessarily their goal. Internal conflicts and

independent operations could be dealt with or not provided that the central

aim and basis of steppe political organisation could be maintained i.e. the

exploitation of a sedentary power and a sufficient agricultural base.

Independent actions by groups on the fringe could actually be advantageous to

the Khaganate as testing grounds for further areas of exploitation in the

future.29 For example, the Gepid who betrayed the Sclavene “king” Musocius to

the Romans in 593 gave a signal by singing an Avar song so as not to alert the

Sclavenes. 30 Musocius and his men were clearly familiar with the Avar

language and did not feel threatened by hearing it. It is unclear what the

relationship of Musocius and his followers was to the Avar Khaganate, but the

episode demonstrates that groups which appear to have been independent

operated on the fringes of Avar power but still obviously maintained a

relationship with the Khaganate in some way.

Lastly, it is possible that the Slavic language, the origin and spread of

which has troubled scholars for a very long time, was actually used as the

lingua franca within the Avar Khaganate by the numerically superior Sclavene

agricultural base which, as suggested above, largely absorbed all non-dominant

foreign elements they came across.31 Barford has also suggested communication

theory as helpful here, an anthropological concept which theorises that

networks of individuals connected by forms of communication, including

29 Kim (2013: 61-64).

30 Theophylact Simocatta, History 6.9.10 (see Appendix B.1.6.C).
31 Curta (2001: 344-345).

~ 103 ~
language, can help to develop common ideologies including identity.32 Perhaps

this was one of the ways in which Sclavene groups absorbed newcomers whilst

still remaining differentiated from the Avar elite who, as we are told by

Theophylact, had their own songs presumably in their own language.33

Clearly then, the First Avar Khaganate played a significant role in the

success of the Sclavenes. Due to Avar support and the advantages of existence

on the fringes of the Khaganate, Sclavene groups were able to preserve their

agriculturally based material culture (necessary for the perpetuation of the

Khaganate’s political order) and their language, whilst at the same time being

able to absorb the local rural populations who were attracted to their way of

life.34 The key to Sclavene success in Central and Eastern Europe was thus not

wholly due to internal strengths of the Sclavene way of life but also to direct

and indirect influences of Avar power and political organisation.35

32 Barford (2001: 31).

33 Theophylact Simocatta, History 6.9.10 (Appendix B.1.6.C). The only extant remains of the
Avar language occur in a very few runic inscriptions.
34 Pohl (1997b: 71); Barford (2001); Gračacin (2013: 47).

35 Pohl (2003b: 583).

~ 104 ~
Chapter 5
Conclusion

Asking the question why the Sclavenes were never Roman allies is really asking

questions about the nature of Sclavene society, the circumstances in which it

developed and prospered and how it interacted with the Roman frontier and

frontier policies in the Late Antique and Early Byzantine periods. This thesis

has tried to highlight those issues by conducting a comparison with those

barbarian groups who had occupied the same space as the Sclavenes along the

Danubian frontier in previous centuries.

The Germanic tribes and large confederacies of Late Antiquity were the

result of over four hundred years of frontier interaction with Rome which

facilitated their socio-political development through redistributive networks of

Roman prestige goods. Periods of alliance, warfare, and the intense cultural

attraction generated by and through the frontier meant that Roman socio-

political models became the basis upon which the Germanic tribes modelled

their emerging societies. In this way, the Germanic confederacies and the

Successor Kingdoms of the post-Roman West were creations of the Roman

frontier.

~ 105 ~
 Sclavene communities, on the other hand, were not. Their genesis as a

largely undifferentiated material culture of small, un-unified, itinerant farming

communities likely occurred within the mostly invisible agricultural base

beneath Germanic and Hunnic polities that later left the regions north of the

Danube. The resulting unfettered access to the frontier did facilitate some

contacts between Sclavene groups and Rome, but the frontier at that time also

no longer operated as it once had, become more a purely military boundary.

There is evidence of small-scale trading and exchange, as well as the limited use

of Roman prestige goods such as jewellery, religious items and amphorae. For

the most part though, Sclavene communities did not and could not rely on the

frontier or the Roman imperial orbit it generated in order to perpetuate itself.

What low-level stratification is visible within Sclavene communities was

based on the personal military achievements and manipulation of wealth by

big-men and great-men whose power was never permanent. That power was

facilitated to some extent by raiding and the collection of booty from across the

frontier as well as low levels of exchange with the Empire, but even if Roman

goods played a part in the elevation of big-men and great-men, their

transformative potential remained weak. Such goods were utilised in very

different ways and it was the limited use of Slavic bow fibulae and ritual

communal feasting which were the primary markers of elite identity, such as it

was.

The inability of Rome to engage any Sclavene group successfully in

alliance, and the ultimate failure of Justinian’s fortification of the Balkans

assisted in an unseen advance of Sclavene communities in the first part of the

seventh century. The itinerant agriculture practised by these communities and

the ease with which they were able to absorb foreign elements were significant

factors in their ability to do this. This advance must have occurred in parallel to

the Sclavene military raiding recorded in the sources, a reminder that the

archaeological evidence of the Sclavene cultural habitus and the particular

~ 106 ~
historical events recorded by Roman, Byzantine and Western authors most

definitely overlap but are not identical.

Sclavene communities were successful not only because of their own

internal operations, but because of their relationship across three centuries with

Asiatic steppe empires. As part first of the Hunnic Empire in the fifth and then

the First Avar Khaganate in the sixth and seventh centuries, Sclavene

communities were either part of or existed along the fringes of a political

structure which facilitated their way of life and language, and allowed for the

spread of both. They also cut across the traditional frontiers and redistributive

networks of Rome, thus creating an alternative to the imperial orbit which was

primarily generated through those very frontiers. Justinian’s fortifications and

the associated twenty year economic closure of the frontier also undercut

whatever transformative power it may have been able to exert.

The Sclavenes then were unique. Their way of life was not sophisticated

or rich, but was inherently attractive through its very potential for success,

endurance and its ability to capitalise on the steppe political structure it had

grown out of as well as the lack of any real sort of functioning frontier zone

with Rome as had existed in previous centuries. The position of Rome’s allies

on the Danubian frontier was taken by the Antes between 545 and 602 and, on

and off, by the Khaganate itself. Both groups required the Eastern Roman

Empire for their existence – the Antes as Roman allies within a Roman city and

carrying out treaty obligations to Rome, and the Khaganate as a shadow empire

existing alongside Rome and extorting it for resources. Through all this the

Sclavenes endured, numerous, at times very dangerous, and above all

successful.

So why were the Sclavenes never Roman allies? Because they simply did

not need to be.

~ 107 ~
~ 108 ~
Appendix A
Sclavene activities in the sixth and seventh centuries
and other important events

A.D.

488/89 Ostrogoths abandon Pannonia and Illyricum for Italy, defeat

Gepids.

518 Antes cross the Danube with a large army, are defeated by
Germanus.

530/1 Sclavenes first mentioned as having previously crossed the

Danube together with Huns and Antes many times, causing great
damage.

531-534 Chilbudius, magister militum per Thraciam, carries out raids in

Sclavene and Antean territory across the Danube.

533-540(?) Hostility between Sclavenes and Antes. Sclavenes prevail.

535-554 Justinian’s Gothic Wars/Wars of Reconquest.

537 1,600 Sclavenes and Antes settled close to the northern bank of the
Danube recruited by the Empire as cavalry to rescue Belisarius
from the Ostrogoths in Rome.

539/40 Widespread Hunnic raiding of the Balkan Peninsula. Sclavenes

may have taken part (no direct evidence).

545 Treaty between Rome and Antes who are settled in Turris
(location unknown) and paid subsidies in return for defending
Rome against the Huns. Sclavenes cross the Danube the same year
and are defeated by Narses.

546-549 Sclavenes involved in Hildigis’ power plays between Rome,

Lombards and Gepids. His Sclavene entourage fights under Totila
in Italy for a short time.

~ 109 ~
548 Sclavene raids reach Dyrrachium (Epirus Nova).

549 Sclavene raiding through Illyricum and Thrace. Topirus sacked.

550 Sclavene raiding reaches the vicinity of Naïssus. Germanus

diverts them into Dalmatia, where they winter for the year with
little resistance.

551 Sclavenes leave Dalmatia and meet up with other groups who
have just crossed the Danube. One group raided through
Illyricum while another reaches the Long Walls of
Constantinople. Both groups return across the Danube with large
amounts of booty.

568 Lombards leave Pannonia for Italy.

568/9 Possible Sclavene participation in Zabergan’s Utigur and Cutrigur

invasions.

578 100,000 Sclavenes raid through Thrace and other areas.

578/9 Avar envoys rebuffed and murdered by Daurentius’ Sclavenes.

Joint Roman-Avar campaign (60,000 Avars) against Sclavene
villages in either eastern Wallachia or southern Moldavia.

581-584 Avars and Sclavenes capture Sirmium (Pannonia - 582) and

Singidunum (Moesia - 584), and reach as far as the Long Walls in
Thrace and extensively raid Greece including Thessaly.

582 Treaty between Tiberius II and Avar khagan Baian.

585 Sclavenes under Ardagastus raiding around Adrianople (Thrace).

586 Week-long Sclavene siege of Thessalonica (Macedonia) under

Avar orders.

588 Independent Sclavene raiding in Thrace.

592/3 Avars and Sclavenes besiege Singidunum.

~ 110 ~
593 Aggressive Roman campaign across the Danube into Sclavene
territory under Priscus. Romans come into contact with Sclavene
leader Ardagastus and so-called Sclavene king Musocius.

594 Sclavene raiding through Moesia Inferior and continued Roman

campaigns across the Danube under Peter. A raiding band is
intercepted near Marcianopolis. Sclavene leader Peiragastus
killed.

596 Avars again besiege Singidunum.

597 Large-scale Avar raiding to the north of Dalmatia.

598 Peace treaty between Maurice and Avar khagan allows for the
Danube River to be an access-way for attacks on Sclavene
territory across the Danube.

599 Avars reach Constantinople, but do not breach the walls. Priscus
captures 8,000 Sclavene soldiers under Avar command.

599/600 Sclavenes raiding in Istria.

600 Emperor Maurice recaptures Sirmium. Peace concluded between

Avars and Byzantium for a payment of 120,000 gold pieces p.a.
Byzantium breaks treaty almost immediately and crosses Danube
into Avar territory.

601 Byzantine forces under Godwin again cross the Danube into
Sclavene territory and are ordered to winter there.

601/2 Phocas revolts and leads troops back across the Danube. Marches
on Constantinople and overthrows Maurice.

602 Avars retaliate against Byzantine raids on Sclavene territory by

attacking the Antes. Antes disappear from the historical record.

Persia declares war on Rome to avenge Maurice.

602-4 Danubian defences are weakened due to war on Persia.

603 Avar khagan sends a detachment of Sclavenes to aid the Lombard

king Agilulf.

~ 111 ~
610/1-20(?) Sclavene raiding in parts of Asia, Istria and through Greece,
including Thessalonica, Thessaly, the Greek Islands, and
Illyricum. Naïssus and Serdica sacked.

614-16 Significant Sclavene settlements mentioned in the surrounds of

Thessalonica, who negotiate with Avars on equal terms to attack
the city. A number of distinct tribal names are recorded.

617 Avars attempt to ambush and capture Heraclius. The attempt fails
and Avars destroy parts of Constantinople.

619 Avar raiding in Thrace.

620s Friuli dukes collecting tribute from a Sclavene territory called

Zeilia.

621 Avars and Byzantium conclude a peace.

622 Avars demand and are given increased tribute by Byzantium.

623(?) Wendish revolt against Avar rule under Frankish merchant Samo.

626 Failed Avar-Persian attack on Constantinople, including Sclavene

infantry and canoe-men. Power of the First Avar Khaganate is
effectively broken. Many Sclavenes desert.

629 Further conflict/unrest between Avars and Sclavenes.

635 Onogur Bulgars revolt against Avars under Kovrat and establish
an independent nation allied with Byzantium.

642 Sclavene raid on Sipontum and Benevento as Byzantine allies.

656/7 Constans II campaigns against a Sklavinia in the surrounds of

Constantinople.

663 Son of a Friuli duke seeks refuge with Carnuntum Sclavenes.

663/4 Sclavenes deserting the Roman army settle in Syria.

~ 112 ~
670s Sclavene kingdom of the Rynchines tribe led by king Perbundos
located in the surrounds of Thessalonica. Other local tribes are
also mentioned as well as groups settled in the Strymon Valley.

677 Siege of Thessalonica by Rynchines Sclavenes and other local

Sclavene tribes.

681 Sclavenes settled in the vicinity of Varna.

~ 113 ~
~ 114 ~
Appendix B
The Written Sources - Extracts

B.1 The Eastern Sources

B.1.1 PROCOPIUS OF CAESAREA (translation from the original Greek by H.B.

Dewing).

A. Wars 7.14. 2-7, 11 (Loeb vol. 4, pp. 263-265).

[p. 263] (2) This Chilbudius was appointed by the emperor, in the fourth year of
his reign, to be General of Thrace and was assigned to guard the river Ister,
being ordered to keep watch so that the barbarians of that region could no
longer cross the river, since the Huns and Antae and Sclaveni had already
made the crossing many times and done irreparable harm to the Romans. (3)
And Chilbudius became such an object of terror to the barbarians that for the
space of three years, during which time he remained there holding office, not
only did no one succeed in crossing the Ister against the Romans, but the
Romans actually crossed over to the opposite site many [p. 265] times with
Chilbudius and killed and enslaved the barbarians there. (4) But three years
later, when Chilbudius crossed the river, as was his custom, with a small force,
the Sclaveni came against him with their entire strength; (5) and a fierce battle
taking place, many of the Romans fell and among them the general Chilbudius.
(6) Thereafter the river became free for the barbarians to cross at all times just as
they wished, and the possessions of the Romans were rendered easily
accessible; and the entire Roman empire found itself utterly incapable of
matching the valour of one single man in the performance of this task.
(7) But later on the Antae and Sclaveni became hostile to one another
and engaged in battle, in which it so fell out that the Antae were defeated by
their opponents.
… (8)-(10)

~ 115 ~
(11) At about this time the Antae descended upon the land of Thrace and
plundered and enslaved many of the Romans inhabitants ; and they led these
captives with them as they returned to their native abode.

B. Wars 7.14. 22-30 (Loeb vol. 4, pp. 269-275).

[p. 269] (22) For these nations, the Sclaveni and the Antae, are not ruled by one
man, but they have lived from old under a democracy, and consequently
everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred
to the people. [p. 271] It is also true that in all other matters, practically
speaking, these two barbarian peoples have had from ancient times the same
institutions and customs. (23) For they believe that one god, the maker of the
lightening, is alone lord of all things, and they sacrifice to him cattle and all
other victims ; but as for fate, they neither know it nor do they in any way wise
admit that it has any power among men, but whenever death stands close
before them, either stricken with sickness or beginning a war, they make a
promise that, if they escape, they will straightaway make a sacrifice to the god
in return for their life ; and if they escape, they sacrifice just what they have
promised, and consider that their safety has been bought with this same
sacrifice. (24) They reverence, however, both rivers and nymphs and some
other spirits, and they sacrifice to all these also, and they make their divinations
in connection with these sacrifices. (25) They live in pitiful hovels which they
set up far apart from one another, but as a general thing, every man is
constantly changing his place of abode. (26) When they enter battle, the
majority of them go against their enemy on foot carrying little shields and
javelins in their hands, but they never wear corselets. Indeed some of them do
not wear even a shirt or a cloak, but gathering their trews up as far as to their
private parts they enter into battle with their opponents. And both the two
peoples also have the same language, an utterly barbarous tongue. (27) Nay
further, they do not differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all
exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while [p. 273] their bodies and hair are
neither very fair or blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type,
but they are all slightly ruddy in colour. (28) And they live a hard life, giving no
heed to bodily comforts, just as the Massagetae do, and, like them, they are
continually and at all times covered with filth ; however they are in no respect
base or evil-doers, but they preserve the Hunnic character in all its simplicity.

~ 116 ~
(29) In fact, the Sclaveni and Antae actually had a single name in the remote
past ; for they were both called Spori in olden times, because, I suppose, living
apart one man from another, they inhabit their country in a sporadic fashion.
(30) And in consequence of this very fact they hold a great amount of land ; for
they alone inhabit the greatest part of the northern bank of the Ister. So much
then may be said regarding these peoples.

C. Wars 7.40, 1-3, 5 (Loeb vol. 5, pp. 37-39).

[p. 37] (1) But while Germanus was collecting and organizing his army in
Sardice, the city of Illyricum, and making all necessary preparations for war
with the greatest thoroughness, a throng of Sclaveni such as never before was
known arrived on Roman soil, having crossed the Ister River and come to the
vicinity of Naïssus. (2) Now some few of these had scattered from their army
and, wandering about the country there alone, were captured by certain of the
Romans and made prisoners; and the Romans [p. 39] questioned them as to
why this particular army of the Sclaveni had crossed the Ister and that they had
in mind to accomplish. (3) And they stoutly declared that they had come with
the intention of capturing by siege both Thessalonice itself and the cities around
it.
…(4)
(5) During the reign of Justinian, the uncle of Germanus, the Antae, who dwell
close to the Sclaveni, had crossed the Ister River with a great army and invaded
the Roman domain.

C. Secret History 18.20-21 (Loeb vol. 6, pp. 217-219).

[p. 217] (20) And Illyricum and Thrace in its entirety, comprising the whole
expanse of country from the Ionian Gulf to the outskirts of Byzantium,
including Greece and the Chersonese, was overrun practically every year by the
Huns, Sclaveni and Antae, from the time when Justinian too over the Roman
Empire, and they wrought frightful havoc among the inhabitants of that region.
(21) For in each invasion more than twenty myriads of Romans, I think, were
destroyed or [p. 219] enslaved there, so that a veritable “Scythian wilderness”
came to exist everywhere in this land.”

~ 117 ~
D. Secret History 23.6 (Loeb vol. 6, pp. 269-271).

[p. 269] (6) Furthermore, though the Medes and Saracens had plundered the
greater part of the land of Asia, and the Huns and Sclaveni and Antae the
whole of Europe, and some of the cities had been levelled to the ground, and
others had been stripped of their wealth in very thorough fashion through
levied contributions, and though they had enslaved the population with all
their property, making each region destitute of inhabitants by their [p. 271]
daily inroads, yet he [Justinian] remitted tax to no man, with the single
exception that captured cities had one year’s exemption only.

~ 118 ~
B.1.2. JORDANES (translation from the original Latin by C.C. Mierow).

A. Getica, 34-35 (pp. 59-60).

[p. 59] (34) Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning
at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a
great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various
clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (35) The abode
of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called
Mursianus to the Danaster, and northward as far as the Vistula. They have
swamps and forests for [p. 60] their cities. The Antes, who are the bravest of
these peoples dwelling in the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the
Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days' journey apart.

B. Getica, 116-120 (pp. 84-85).

[p. 84] (116) Soon Geberich, king of the Goths, departed from human affairs and
Hermanaric, noblest of the Amali, succeeded to the throne. He subdued many
warlike peoples of the north and made them obey his laws, and some of our
ancestors have justly compared him to Alexander the Great. Among the tribes
he conquered were the Golthescytha, Thiudos, Inaunxis, Vasinabroncae,
Merens, Mordens, Imniscaris, Rogas, Tadzans, Athaul, Navego, Bubegenae and
Coldae. (117) But though famous for his conquest of so many races, he gave
himself no rest until he had slain some in battle and then reduced to his sway
the remainder of the tribe of the Heruli, whose chief was Alaric. Now the
aforesaid race, as the historian Ablabius tells us, dwelt near Lake Maeotis in
swampy places which the Greeks call helé; hence they were named Heluri.
(118) They were a people swift of foot, and on that account were the more
swollen with pride, for there was at that time no race that did not choose from
them its light-armed troops for battle. But though their quickness often saved
them from others who made war upon them, yet they were overthrown by the
slowness and steadiness of the Goths; and the lot of fortune brought it to pass
that they, as well as the other tribes, had to serve Hermanaric, king of the
Getae. After the slaughter of the Heruli, Hermanaric also took arms against the
Venethi. [p. 85] (119) This people, though despised in war, was strong in
numbers and tried to resist him. But a multitude of cowards is of no avail,

~ 119 ~
particularly when God permits an armed multitude to attack them. These
people, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalogue of
nations, though off-shoots from one stock, have now three names, that is,
Venethi, Antes and Sclaveni. Though they now rage in war far and wide, in
punishment for our sins, yet at that time they were all obedient to Hermanaric's
commands. (120) This ruler also subdued by his wisdom and might the race of
the Aesti, who dwell on the farthest shore of the German Ocean, and ruled all
the nations of Scythia and Germany by his own prowess alone.

C. Getica, 129-130 (pp. 87-88).

[p. 87] (129) When the Getae beheld this active race that had invaded many
nations, they took fright and consulted with their king how they might escape
from such a foe. Now although Hermanaric, king of the Goths, was the
conqueror of many tribes, as we have said above, yet while he was deliberating
on this invasion of the Huns, the treacherous tribe of the Rosomoni, who at that
time were among those who owed him their homage, took this chance to catch
him unawares. For when the king had given orders that a certain woman of the
tribe I have mentioned, Sunilda by name, should be bound to wild horses and
torn apart by driving them at full speed in opposite directions (for he was
roused to fury by her husband's treachery to him), her brothers Sarus and
Ammius came to avenge their sister's death and plunged a sword into
Hermanaric's side. Enfeebled by this blow, he dragged out a miserable
existence in bodily weakness. (130) Balamber, king of the Huns, took advantage
of his ill health to move an army into the country of the Ostrogoths, from whom
the Visigoths had already separated because of some dispute. Meanwhile
Hermanaric, who was unable to endure either the pain of his wound or the
inroads of the Huns, died full of days at the great age of [p. 88] one hundred
and ten years. The fact of his death enabled the Huns to prevail over those
Goths who, as we have said, dwelt in the east and were called Ostrogoths.

D. Getica, 246-249 (pp. 120-121).

[p. 120] (246) Since I have followed the stories of my ancestors and retold to the
best of my ability the tale of the period when both tribes, Ostrogoths and
Visigoths, were united, and then clearly treated of the Visigoths apart from the

~ 120 ~
Ostrogoths, I must now return to those ancient Scythian abodes and set forth in
like manner the ancestry and deeds of the Ostrogoths. It appears that at [p. 121]
the death of their king, Hermanaric, they were made a separate people by the
departure of the Visigoths, and remained in their country subject to the sway of
the Huns; yet Vinitharius of the Amali retained the insignia of his rule. (247) He
rivalled the valor of his grandfather Vultuulf, although he had not the good
fortune of Hermanaric. But disliking to remain under the rule of the Huns, he
withdrew a little from them and strove to show his courage by moving his
forces against the country of the Antes. When he attacked them, he was beaten
in the first encounter. Thereafter he did valiantly and, as a terrible example,
crucified their king, named Boz, together with his sons and seventy nobles, and
left their bodies hanging there to double the fear of those who had surrendered.
(248) When he had ruled with such license for barely a year, Balamber, king of
the Huns, would no longer endure it, but sent for Gesimund, son of Hunimund
the Great. Now Gesimund, together with a great part of the Goths, remained
under the rule of the Huns, being mindful of his oath of fidelity. Balamber
renewed his alliance with him and led his army up against Vinitharius. After a
long contest, Vinitharius prevailed in the first and in the second conflict, nor
can any say how great slaughter he made of the army of the Huns. (249) But in
the third battle, when they met each other unexpectedly at the river named
Erac, Balamber shot an arrow and wounded Vinitharius in the head, so that he
died. Then Balamber took to himself in marriage Vadamerca, the grand-
daughter of Vinitharius, and finally ruled all the people of the Goths as his
peaceful subjects, but in such a way that one ruler of their own number always
held the power over the Gothic race, though subject to the Huns.

~ 121 ~
B.1.3 AGATHIAS SCHOLASTICUS (translated from the original Greek by J. D.
Frendo).

Histories, Book 4.20.4 (p. 121).

[p. 121] (4) The barbarians were in dire straits but they still put up a stiff
resistance. Some of them brought up a wicker-roof and advanced against the
Roman siege-works with the idea of demolishing them. But before they drew
near and took cover under it a Slav named Saurunas hurled his spear at the one
that was most visible and struck him a mortal blow…

~ 122 ~
B.1.4 MENANDER THE GUARDSMAN (translated from the original Greek by
R.C. Blockley).

A. Fragment 5.3 (p. 51).

(Exc. de Leg. Gent. 3)

[p. 51] When the leaders of the Antae had failed miserably and had been
thwarted in their hopes, the Avars ravaged and plundered their land. Since
they were hard pressed by the enemy incursions, the Antae sent an embassy to
them, appointing as ambassador Mezamer the son of Idariz and brother of
Kelagast, and they asked him to ransom some of their own tribe who had been
taken captive. The envoy Mezamer was a loudmouthed braggart and when he
came to the Avars he spoke arrogantly and very rashly. Therefore, that
Kutrigur who was a friend of the Avars and had very hostile designs against
the Antae, when he heard Mezamer speaking more arrogantly than was proper
for an envoy, said to the Khagan, “This man is the most powerful of all the
Antae and is able to resist any of his enemies whomsoever. Kill him, and then
you will be able to overrun the enemy’s land without fear.” Persuaded by this
the Avars killed Mezamer, setting at nought the immunity of ambassadors and
taking no account of the law. Thereafter they ravaged the land of the Antae
even more than before, carrying off prisoners and plunders without respite.

B. Fragment 20.2 (p. 191).

(Exc. de Leg. Gent. 24)

[p. 191] (2) While time was passing and the envoys of both states were
engrossed in these discussions and the status of the war in the East remained
unclear, in the fourth year of the reign of Tiberius Constantine Caesar it
happened in Thrace that the nation of the Slavs to the number of 100,000
devastated Thrace and many other areas.

~ 123 ~
C. Fragment 21 (pp. 193-195).

(Exc. de Leg. Rom. 15)

[p. 193] Greece was being plundered by the Slavs, and a succession of dangers
was threatening there on all sides. Since Tiberius did not have a force strong
enough to resist even a part of the invaders (and certainly not the whole horde
of them) and since he was unable to face them in battle because the Roman
armies were occupied with the wars in the East, he sent an embassy to Baian,
the chief of the Avars. At the time he was not hostile to the Romans, and,
indeed, from the beginning of Tiberius’ reign had wished to be friendly with
our state. Tiberius, therefore, persuaded him to make war on the Slavs, so that
all of those who were laying waste to Roman territory would be drawn back by
the troubles back home, choosing rather to defend their own lands. Thus, they
would cease to plunder Roman territory, preferring to fight for their own.
The Caesar, then, sent this embassy to him, and Baian agreed to his
request. John, who at this time was governor of the isles and in charge of the
cities of Illyricum, was sent to assist him. He came to the land of Pannonia and
transported Baian himself and the Avar armies to Roman territory, ferrying the
multitude of barbarians in the so-called ‘large transports’. It is said that about
sixty thousand armoured were brought across to Roman territory. From there
Baian crossed Illyricum, reached Scythia and prepared to re-cross the Danube
in the so-called ‘double-sterned’ ships. When he [p. 195] gained the far bank, he
immediately fired the villages of the Slavs and laid waste to their fields, driving
and carrying off everything, since none of the barbarians there dared to face
him, but took refuge in the thick undergrowth of the woods.
The Avar attack on the Slavs arose not only out of the embassy from the
Caesar and the desire of Baian to return the favour to the Romans in exchange
for the great generosity which Caesar had shown to him, but also because Baian
was hostile to them out of a personal grievance. For the leader of the Avars had
sent to Daurentius and the chiefs of his people ordering them to obey the
commands of the Avars and be numbered amongst their tributaries. Dauritas
and his fellow chiefs replied, “What man has been born, what man is warmed
by the rays of the sun who shall make our might his subject? Others do not
conquer our land, we conquer theirs. And so it shall always be for us, as long as
there are wars and weapons.” Thus boasted the Slavs, and the Avars replied
with a like arrogance. After this came abuse and insults, and because they were

~ 124 ~
barbarians with their haughty and stubborn spirits, a shouting match
developed. The Slavs were so unable to restrain their rage that they slew the
enjoys who had come to them, and Baian received a report of these doings from
others. As a result he nursed his grievance for a long time and kept his hatred
concealed, angered that they had not become his subjects not to mention he had
suffered an irreparable wrong at their hands. Moreover, thinking both to win
favour with the Caesar and that he would find the land full of gold, since the
Roman Empire had long been plundered by the Slavs, whose own land had
never been raided by any other people at all…

~ 125 ~
B.1.5 THE STRATEGIKON (translation from the original Greek by G.T. Dennis).

Strategikon, Book 11. 4 (pp. 120-126).

[p. 120] 4. Dealing with the Slavs, the Antes and the Like

The nations of the Slavs and Antes live in the same way and have the same
customs. They are both independent, absolutely refusing to be enslaved or
governed, least of all in their own land. They are populous and hardy, bearing
readily heat, cold, rain, nakedness, and scarcity of provisions.
They are kind and hospitable to travellers in their country and conduct
them safely from one place to another, wherever they wish. If the stranger
should suffer some harm because of his host’s negligence, the one who first
commended him will wage war against that host, regarding vengeance for the
stranger as a religious duty. They do not keep those who are in captivity among
them in perpetual slavery, as do other nations. But they set a definite period of
time for them and then give them the choice either, if they so desire, to return to
their own homes with a small recompense or to remain there as free men and
friends.
They possess an abundance of all sorts of livestock and produce, which
they store in heaps, especially common millet and Italian millet. Their women
are more sensitive than any others in the world. When, for example, their
husbands die, many look upon it as their own death and freely smother
themselves, not wanting to continue their lives as widows.
They live among nearly impenetrable forests, rivers, lakes, and marshes,
and have made the exits from their settlements branch out [p. 121] in many
directions because of the dangers they might face. They bury their most
valuable possessions in secret places, nothing unnecessary in sight. They live
like bandits and love to carry out attacks against their enemies in densely
wooded, narrow, and steep places. They make effective use of ambushes,
sudden attacks, and raids, devising many different methods by night and by
day. Their experience in crossing rivers surpasses that of all other men, and
they are extremely good at spending a lot of time in the water. Often enough
when they are in their own country and are caught by surprise and in a tight
spot, they dive to the bottom of a body of water. There they take long, hollow
reeds they have prepared for such a situation and hold them in their mouths,

~ 126 ~
the reeds extending to the surface of the water. Lying on their backs on the
bottom, they breathe through them and hold out for many hours without
anyone suspecting where they are. An inexperienced person who notices the
reeds from above would simply think they were growing there in the water.
But a person who has some experience with this trick, recognizing the reeds by
the way they are cut or by their position, either shoves them down further into
their mouths or pulls them out, which brings the men to the surface, since they
cannot remain under water any longer without them.
They are armed with short javelins, two to each man. Some also have
nice-looking but unwieldy shields. In addition, they use wooden bows with
short arrows smeared with a poisonous drug which is very effective. If the
wounded man has not drunk the antidote beforehand to check the poison or
made use of other remedies which experienced doctors might know about, he
should immediately cut around the wound to keep the poison from spreading
to the rest of the body.
Owing to their lack of government and their ill feeling toward one
another, they are not acquainted with an order of battle. They are also not
prepared to fight battle in close order, or to present themselves on open and
level ground. If they do get up enough courage when the time comes to attack,
they shout all together and move forward a short distance. If their opponents
begin to give way at the noise, they attack violently; if not, they themselves turn
around, not being anxious to experience the strength of the enemy at close
range. They then run for the woods, where they have a great advantage
because of their skill in fighting in such cramped quarters. Often too when they
are carrying booty they will abandon [p. 122] it in a feigned panic and run for
the woods. When their assailants disperse after the plunder, they calmly come
back and cause them injury. They are ready to do this sort of thing to bait their
adversaries eagerly and in a variety of ways.
They are completely faithless and have no regard for treaties, which they
agree to more out of fear than by gifts. When a difference of opinion prevails
among them, they either come to no agreement at all or when some of them do
come to an agreement, the others quickly go against what was decided. They
are always at odds with each other, and nobody is willing to yield to another.
In combat they are hurt by volleys of arrows, sudden attacks launched
against them from different directions, hand-to-hand fighting with infantry,
especially light-armed troops, and having to fight on open and unobstructed
ground. Our army, therefore, should comprise both cavalry and infantry,

~ 127 ~
especially light-armed troops or javelin throwers, and should carry a large
amount of missiles, not only arrows, but other throwing weapons. Bring
materials for building bridges, the kind called floating, if possible. In this way
you may cross without effort the numerous and unfordable rivers in their
country. Build them in Scythian manner, some men erecting the framework,
others laying down the planks. You should also have ox-hide or goatskin bags
to make rafts, and for us in helping the soldiers swim across for surprise attacks
against the enemy in the summer.
Still, it is preferable to launch our attacks against them in the winter
when they cannot easily hide among the bare trees, when the tracks of fugitives
can be discerned in the snow, when their household is miserable from
exposure, and when it is easy to cross over rivers on ice. Most of the animals
and superfluous equipment should be left behind in a very safe place with a
suitable guard and officer in charge. The dromons should be anchored at
strategic locations. A moira of cavalry under outstanding officers should be
stationed in the area as protection so that the army on the march shall not be
distracted in the event of hostile ambushes, and also to spread rumors that an
attack against the enemy is being planned in some other location. By means of
such rumor and the anxiety of their chiefs, each of whom will be worried about
their own problems, they will not have the opportunity to get together and
cause trouble for our army. Do not station these troops close to the Danube, for
the enemy would find out how few they are and consider them unim- [p. 123]
portant. Nor should they be very far away, so there will be no delay, if it
becomes necessary, to have them join the invading army. They should stay a
day’s march from the Danube. This army should cross over into enemy
territory suddenly and make its invasion on clear and level ground.
Immediately a competent officer should ride ahead with some picked men to
take captives from whom it will be possible to get information about the
enemy. As far as possible, avoid marching through rough or wooded terrain
during summer until thorough reconnaissance has been made, and, in the case
the enemy is present in force, until they have been driven away by our infantry
or cavalry. If we have to march through a narrow pass, and if we expect to
return by the same route, measures must be taken, as explained in the book
dealing with this matter, to clear the way, widen the road, or to leave a
relatively strong force behind in the area the prevent the enemy from hiding
and making surprise attacks which could overwhelm our army on its return
when it is likely to be encumbered with plunder.

~ 128 ~
 As much as possible, avoid making camp in thickly wooded areas or
pitching your tents near such places. For they can easily serve as a base for
launching attacks or for rustling horses. The infantry force should encamp in
order and within the fortification. The cavalry should camp outside, with
sentinels posted in a wide circle around the grazing horses, unless it is possible
to bring in forage for the horses, so they can stay inside day and night.
If an opportunity for battle occurs, do not make your final battle line
against them too deep. Do not concentrate only on frontal attacks, but on the
other sectors as well. Suppose that the enemy occupy a fairly strong position
and have their rear well covered so that they do not allow us an opportunity to
encircle them or to attack their flanks or their rear. In that event it is necessary
to post some troops in concealment, have others simulate a flight before their
front, so that, lured by the hope of pursuit, they may abandon their good
defensive position, and then our men will turn back against them, while those
in hiding come out and attack them.
Since there are many kings among them always at odds with one
another, it is not difficult to win over some of them by persuasion or by gifts,
especially those in areas closer to the border, and then to attack the others, so
that their common hostility will not make them united or bring them together
under one ruler. The so-called refu- [p. 124] gees who are ordered to point out
the roads and furnish certain information must be very closely watched. Even
some Romans have given in to the times, forget their own people, and prefer to
gain the good will of the enemy. Those who remain loyal ought to be rewarded,
and the evildoers punished. Provisions found in the surrounding countryside
should not simply be wasted, but use pack animals and boats to transport them
to our own country. The rivers there flow into the Danube, which makes
transportation by boat easy.
Infantry are necessary not only in narrow places and fortified places, but
also in rough country and along rivers. Even in the face of the enemy it is then
possible to bridge over them. When a small force of infantry, both heavy and
light, has been secretly brought across at night or during the day and
immediately drawn up in formation, keeping their backs to the river, they
provide enough security to put a bridge across the river. In cramped river
crossings or in defiles it is necessary for the rear guard to be ready for action at
all times, disposed according to the terrain. For one may expect attacks to occur
whenever the force is divided, and the troops who are advancing cannot aid
those in the rear. Surprise attacks against the enemy should be carried out

~ 129 ~
according to the standard procedure. One detachment approaches their front
and provokes them, while another detachment, infantry or cavalry, is posted
secretly in the rear of the route by which they are expected to flee. The enemy
then who avoided action or who flee from the first attacking force will
unexpectedly run right into the other detachment. In summer there must be no
letup in hurting them. During that time of year we can pillage the more open
and bare areas and aim at entrenching ourselves in their land. This will aid the
Romans who are captives among them to gain their freedom, after escaping
from them. The thick foliage of summer makes it fairly easy for prisoners to
escape without fear.
The procedures of the march, the invasion, and the pillaging of the
country, and other more or less related matters, are dealt with in the book on
invading hostile territory. Here the subject will be summarized as best as
possible. The settlements of Slavs and Antes lie in a row along the rivers very
close to one another. In fact, there is [p. 125] practically no space between them,
and they are bordered by forests, swamps, beds of reeds. As a result, what
generally happens to invasions launched against them is that the whole army
comes to a halt at their first settlement and is kept busy there, while the rest of
the neighboring settlements, on learning of the invasion, easily escape with
their belongings to the nearby forests. Their fighting men then come back ready
for action, seize their opportunities, and attack our soldiers from cover. This
prevents the invading troops from inflicting any damage on the enemy. For
these reasons we must make surprise attacks against them, particularly in
unexpected places. The bandons or tagmas must be so arranged beforehand
that they know which one is first, which second, which third, and they should
march in that order through very constricted areas, so they do not get mixed up
and lose time in reorganizing themselves. When a crossing has been made
without detection, if there are two suitable places which can be attacked, the
army ought to be divided in two, with the lieutenant general taking one part,
ready for battle and without a baggage train, and advance a distance of fifteen
to twenty miles through unsettled land on their flanks with a view to launching
an attack from the more mountainous areas. Then on approaching the
settlements there, he should begin pillaging, continuing until he meets the units
with the general. The general, keeping the other part of the army, should
invade and pillage from the other end of the settlements. Both should be
advancing, destroying and pillaging the settlements between them until they
meet up with one another in a determined place. On arriving there they should

~ 130 ~
pitch camp together toward evening. In this way the attack is successfully
carried out. The enemy running away from one detachment will unexpectedly
fall right into the hands of the other, and they will not be able to regroup.
If there is only one suitable road by which it is possible to invade the
settlements, the army should still be divided. The lieutenant general must take
half or even more of it, a strong force and ready for battle, without a baggage
train. His own bandon, with himself in his proper place, should advance at the
head of the whole force, and accompanying him should be the tagma
commanders. When his force approaches the first settlement, he should detach
one or two bandons so, while some go about pillaging, others may keep guard
over them. It is not wise to detach too many bandons for the first settlements,
even if they happen to be large ones. From when our army arrives, there is no
time for the inhabitants to organize any resis- [p. 126] tance. The lieutenant
general should continue his advance rapidly, while still carrying out the same
procedure at the rest of the settlements along the way as long as there are
enough tagmas under his command. The lieutenant general himself ought to
stay clear of all these actions. He should retain for himself three or four
bandons, up to a thousand capable men, until the invasion is completely
finished, so he can see to reconnaissance and security for the rest of the troops.
While the lieutenant general is discharging these duties, the general
should follow along, have the pillaging troops join him, and keep moving up
toward the lieutenant general. For his part, the lieutenant general should turn
back and gather up the pillagers along his line of march. In the place where the
two encounter each other they should set up camp together that same day.
These surprise incursions made by the two units should not advance more than
fifteen or twenty miles, so that they may get there, do their pillaging, and pitch
camp on the same day. In these expeditions those of the enemy able to put up
resistance need not be taken alive, but kill everyone you encounter and move
on. When you are marching along do not let them delay you, but take
advantage of the opportunity.

~ 131 ~
B.1.6 THEOPHYLACT SIMOCATTA (translation from the original Greek by M.
Whitby & M. Whitby).

A. History 1.7.5

(5) Next, when the summer came around, he collected the Roman forces,
moved to Adrianopolis, and encountered Ardagastus, who had in train great
hordes of Sclavenes with a most distinguished haul of prisoners and splendid
booty. After passing the night, at daybreak he approached the fort of Ansinon
and courageously engaged the barbarians.

B. History 6.7.5

(5) And so the Romans made the Sclavene hordes a feast for the sword, and
ravaged Ardagastus' territory; they put their captives in wooden fetters and
sent them to Byzantium.

C. History 6.9.1-13

(1) But the Gepid described everything and revealed events in detail, saying
that the prisoners were subjects of Musocius, who was called rex in the
barbarian tongue, that this Musocius was encamped thirty parasangs away,
that he had sent out the captives to reconnoitre the Roman force, and that he
had also heard about the misfortunes which had recently befallen Ardagastus.
(2) He advised the Romans to make a sudden attack and to catch the barbarian
by the surprise of their onslaught. And so Alexander came to Priscus and
brought the barbarians, but the commander consigned these to slaughter. (3) So
that barbarian Gepid came before the general, described to Priscus the
barbarians' intentions, and advised Priscus to attack the barbarian; as a pledge
of success the Gepid agreed to trick the barbarian. (4) Then Priscus joyfully
accepted the proposal and, lubricating the deserter with splendid gifts and
securing him with glorious promises, he sent him to beguile the barbarian. (5)
Therefore the Gepid came to Musocius, and asked to be provided by him with a
number of canoes, so that he could ferry across those involved in Ardagastus'

~ 132 ~
misfortunes. (6) And so Musocius, regarding as a godsend the plan woven
against him by deceit, provided canoes so that the Gepid could save
Ardagastus' followers. Then, taking a total of one hundred and fifty skiffs and
thirty oarsmen, he came to the other side of the river which the natives call
Paspirius. (7) Priscus, in accordance with the agreement, began his march at
dawn. But the Gepid man eluded the notice of his companions, and in the
middle of the night came to the Roman commander; he asked to be given one
hundred soldiers, so that he could destroy the barbarian sentries in the jaws of
the sword. (8) Then the general marshalled two hundred men and gave them to
the brigadier Alexander. When the Romans had come near the river Paspirius,
the Gepid placed Alexander in hiding. (9) Accordingly, when night had fallen,
the barbarians happened to be heavy with sleep and, since they had been
drinking, they held fast to their dreams, whereas the Gepid dissimulated so as
to destroy the barbarians. (10) In the third watch he moved away a short
distance, came to the hiding-place, and led Alexander out of the ambush. And
so he directed the Romans to the river Paspirius, exchanged signals, and came
to the barbarians. Then, since the barbarians were still consorting with sleep,
the Gepid gave Alexander the signal by means of Avar songs. (11) Alexander
attacked the barbarians and provided the mortal penalty for sleep. When he
had gained control of the skiffs, he dispatched messengers to the general to
increase the impetus of the attack. (12) Priscus took three thousand men,
divided them between the skiffs, and crossed the river Paspirius. Next, in the
middle of the night, they provided the introduction to their attack. Now the
barbarian was drunk and debilitated by liquor, since on that day there had been
a funeral celebration for his departed brother in accordance with their custom.
(13) And so great panic ensued; then the barbarian was taken captive, while the
Romans revelled in a night of bloodshed. As day grew bright, the general put a
stop to the slaughter; at the third hour the general ferried across his equipment
and forces.

D. History, 7.2.13-15.

(13) They replied that they were Sclavenes by nation and that they lived at the
boundary of the western ocean; the Chagan had dispatched ambassadors to
their parts to levy a military force and had lavished many gifts on their nation's
rulers; and so they accepted the gifts but refused him the alliance, asserting that

~ 133 ~
the length of the journey daunted them, while they sent back to the Chagan for
the purpose of making a defence these same men who had been captured; they
had completed the journey in fifteen months; but the Chagan had forgotten the
law of ambassadors and had decreed a ban on their return; (14) since they had
heard that the Roman nation was much the most famous, as far as can be told,
for wealth and clemency, they had exploited the opportunity and retired to
Thrace; (15) they carried lyres since it was not their practice to gird weapons on
their bodies, because their country was ignorant of iron and thereby provided
them with a peaceful and trouble-free life...

E. History, 7.4.13

(13) But Peiragastus, who was the tribal leader of that barbarian horde, took his
forces, encamped at the rivercrossings, and concealed himself in the woods like
an overlooked bunch of grapes on the vine.

F. History, 7.5.4

(4) Then their brigadier, whom the story has already declared to be Peiragastus,
was killed; for he was struck in the flank by a missile and death took him in
hand, since the blow had reached a vital part. Therefore, after Peiragastus had
fallen, the enemy turned to flight.

~ 134 ~
B.1.7 THE MIRACLES OF SAINT DEMETRIUS (original Greek, edited P.
Lemerle).

A. Book I Miracle 12 (pp. 124-129).

~ 135 ~
~ 136 ~
~ 137 ~
~ 138 ~
B. Book I Miracle 13 (pp. 133-138).

~ 139 ~
~ 140 ~
~ 141 ~
~ 142 ~
B.2 The Western Sources

B.2.1 FREDEGAR (translation from the original Latin by J.M. Wallace-Hadrill).

A. Chronicle, Book 4.48 (pp. 39-40).

[p. 39] (48) In the fortieth year of Chlotar’s reign, a certain Frank named Samo,
from the district of Soignies, joined with other merchants in order to go and do
business with those Slavs who are known as Wends. The Slavs had already
started to rise against the Avars (called Huns) and against their ruler, the
Khagan. The Wends had long [p. 40] since been subjected to the Huns, who
used them as Belfulci. Whenever the Huns took to the field against other
people, they stayed encamped in battle array while the Wends did the fighting.
If the Wends won, the Huns advanced to pillage, but if they lost, the Huns
backed them up and they resumed the fight. The Wends were called Belfulci by
the Huns because they advanced twice to the attack in their war bands, and so
covered the Huns. Every year the Huns wintered with the Slavs, sleeping with
their wives and daughters, and in addition, Slavs paid tribute and endured
many other burdens. The sons born to the Huns by the Slav’s wives and
daughters eventually found this shameful oppression intolerable ; and so, as I
said, they refused to obey their lords and started to rise in rebellion. When they
took the field against the Huns, Samo, the merchant of whom I have spoken,
went with them and his bravery won their admiration : an astonishing number
of Huns were put to the sword by the Wends. Recognising his parts, the Wends
made Samo their king ; and he ruled them well for thirty-five years. Several
times they fought under his leadership against the Huns and his prudence and
courage always brought the Wends victory. Samo had twelve Wendish wives,
who bore him twenty-two sons and fifteen daughters.

B. Chronicle, Book 4.68 (pp. 56-58).

[p.56] (68) In this year the Slavs (or Wends, as they are called) killed and robbed
a great number of Frankish merchants in Samo’s kingdom ; and so began the
quarrel between Dagobert and Samo, king of the Slavs. Dagobert despatched
Sicharius on an embassy to Samo to request him to make proper amends for the

~ 143 ~
killing and robbing of the merchants by his people. Same had no wish to
Sicharius and would not admit him to his presence. But Sicharius dressed up as
a Slav and so got with his followers into Samo’s presence and fully delivered to
him the message that he had been instructed to deliver. But, as is the way of
pagans and men of wicked pride, Samo put right none of the wrong that had
been done. He simply stated his intention to hold an investigation so that
justice could be done in this dispute as well as others that had arisen between
them in the meantime. At the this point the ambassador Sicharius, like a fool,
addressed threatening words to Samo, for which he had no authority. He
declared that Samo and his people owed fealty to Dagobert. Taking offence,
Samo replied, ‘The land we occupy is Dagobert’s and we are his men on
condition that he chooses to maintain friendly conditions with us.’ Sicharius
retorted : ‘It is [p. 57] impossible for Christians and servants of the Lord to live
on terms of friendship with dogs.’ ‘Then if,‘ said Samo, ‘you are God’s servants,
we are his hounds, and since you persist in offending Him we are within our
rights to tear you to pieces!’ And Sicharius was forthwith thrown out of Samo’s
presence. When he came to report to Dagobert the outcome of his mission, the
king confidently ordered the raising of a force throughout his kingdom of
Austrasia to proceed against Samo and the Wends. Three corps set out against
the Wends ; and the Lombards also helped Dagobert by making a hostile attack
of Slav territory. But everywhere the Slavs made preparations to resist. An
Alamannic force under Duke Crodobert won a victory over them at the place
where they had entered Slav territory ; and the Lombards were also victorious
and, like the Alamans, took a great number of Slavs prisoner. Dagobert’s
Austrasians, on the other hand, invested the stronghold of the Wogastisburg
where many of the most resolute Wends had taken refuge, and were crushed in
a three-day battle. And so they made for home, leaving all their tents and
equipment behind them in their flight. After this the Wends made a plundering
sortie into Thuringia and the neighbouring districts of the kingdom of the
Franks. Furthermore Dervan, the duke of the Sorbes, a people of Slavic origin
long subject to the Franks, placed himself and his people under the rule of
Samo. It was not so much the Slavic courage of the Wends that won [p. 58]
them this victory over the Austrasians as the demoralization of the latter, who
saw themselves hated and regularly despoiled by Dagobert.

~ 144 ~
C. Chronicle, Book 4.75 (p. 63).

[p. 63] (75) In the eleventh year of Dagobert’s reign the Wends, on Samo’s
orders, were raiding widely and often crossing the frontier to lay waste to the
Frankish kingdom, spreading out over Thuringia and other territory. Dagobert
came to the city of Metz and there, on the advice of his bishops and lords and
with the consent of all the great men of his kingdom, placed his son Sigebert on
the throne of Austrasia and allowed him to make Metz his headquarters.
Bishop Chunibert of Cologne and Duke Adalgisel were chosen to control the
palace and the kingdom. Having given his son a sufficient treasure, he
provided him with all that his rank required and confirmed the gifts he had
made by separate charters. Thereafter, it is reported that the Austrasians
bravely defended their frontier and the Frankish kingdom against the Wends.

D. Chronicle, Book 4.77 (pp. 64-65).

[p. 64] (77) Duke Randulf, son of Chamar, who was made duke of Thuringia by
Dagobert, fought repeated engagements with the Wends; and he beat them and
put them to flight. These victories turned his head: time and again he behaved
aggressively towards Duke Adalgisel, and this led on to preparations for a
revolt against Sigebert. He behaved thus because, as they say, he who likes
fighting picks quarrels.

~ 145 ~
B.2.2 GREGORY THE GREAT (translation from the original Latin by J. R.C.
Martyn).

A. Letters, 9.155 (p. 639).

Gregory to Callinicus, Exarch of Italy, May 599

[p. 639] Be aware that I have been comforted with great joy by your reports of
victories over the Slavs, and that the bearers of this letter, hurrying to Saint
Peter, prince of the apostles, to be joined to the unity of the Holy Church, have
been sent over by your Excellency from the isle of Cáorle. …

B. Letters, 10.15 (p. 724).

Gregory to Maximus, Bishop of Salona, June 600

[p. 724] Our common son and priest, Veteranus, came to the city of Rome and
found me so weak from the pains of gout that I am in no way able to reply to
your Fraternity’s letters on my own. In fact I am very much afflicted and
disturbed over the race of the Slavs that threatens you so greatly. I am afflicted
by the suffering I share with you, and I am disturbed that the Slavs have
already begun to enter Italy through the Istrian approach.

~ 146 ~
B.2.3 PAUL THE DEACON (translation from the original Latin by W.D. Foulke).

A. History of the Langobards 4.37

(37) …And straightway rising he began to proceed in that direction which he

had heard in his dreams, and without delay he came to a dwelling place of
men; for there was a settlement of Slavs in those places. And when an elderly
woman now saw him, she straightway understood that he was a fugitive and
suffering from the privation of hunger. And taking pity upon him, she hid him
in her dwelling and secretly furnished him food, a little at a time, lest she
should put an end to his life altogether if she should give him nourishment to
repletion. In fine, she thus supplied him skilfully with food until he was
restored and got his strength. And when she saw that he was now able to
pursue his journey, she gave him provisions and told him in what direction he
ought to go. After some days he entered Italy…

B. History of the Langobards 4.38

(38) After the death, as we said, of Gisulf, duke of Forum Julii, his sons Taso
and Cacco undertook the government of this dukedom. They possessed in their
time the territory of the Slavs which is named Zeilia (Gail-thal), up to the place
which is called Medaria (Windisch Matrei), hence, those same Slavs, up to the
time of duke Ratchis, paid tribute to the dukes of Forum Julii. …

C. History of the Langobards 4.40

(40) King Agilulf, indeed, made peace with the emperor for one year, and again
for another, and also renewed a second time the bond of peace with the Franks.
In this year, nevertheless, the Slavs grievously devastated Istria after killing the
soldiers who defended it. …

~ 147 ~
D. History of the Langobards 5.22

(22) Finally, after Lupus was killed in this way, as we have related, Arnefrit, his
son, sought to obtain the dukedom at Forum Julii in the place of his father. But
fearing the power of king Grimuald, he fled into Carnuntum, which they
corruptly call Carantanum (Carinthia) to the nation of the Slavs, and afterwards
coming with the Slavs as if about to resume the dukedom by their means, he
was killed when the Friulans attacked him at the fortress of Nemae (Nimis),
which is not far distant from Forum Julii.

~ 148 ~
References
Primary Sources

Agathias, The Histories with an introduction and short explanatory notes, trans. by
J.D. Frendo (1975), Berlin & New York.

Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (A.D. 354-378), trans. W.

Hamilton (1986), London.

Aristotle, The Politics, trans. T.A. Sinclair, ed. T.J. Saunders (1962), London.

Ausonius, Ausonius, Decimus Magnus, trans. H. G. Evelyn-White (1919),

London, Cambridge & Massachusetts.

Blockley, R.C. (2009), The fragmentary classicising historians of the later Roman
Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus II, Cambridge.

Cassiodorus, The Letters of Cassiodorus, trans. T. Hodgkin (1886), Oxford.

Cassius Dio, Historiae Romanae, trans. H.B. Foster (1905), New York.

Chronicle of 754 in Baxter-Woolfe, K. (1990) Conquerors and Chroniclers of Early

Medieval Spain, Liverpool.

Chronicon Paschale 284-628, trans. M. Whitby & M. Whitby, (1989),

Liverpool.

Claudius Ptolemy, The Geography, trans. E. L. Stevenson (1932), New

York & London.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, trans. R.J.H. Jenkins

(1967), Washington D.C.

Cronaca di Monemvasia. Introduzione, testo critico e note, ed. & trans. I. Dujcev
(1976), Palermo.

De Rebus Bellicus, trans. R.I. Ireland (1979), Oxford.

~ 149 ~
Diodorus Siculus, Diodorus of Sicily in Twelve Volumes, trans. C. H. Oldfather
(1989), Cambridge, Massachusetts & London.

Eusebius of Caesarea, Vita Constantini, trans. by E. Cushing Richardson

in Schaff, P. & Wace, H (eds.), (1890), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
Second Series, Vol. 1, Buffalo.

Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History. A history of the Church from A.D. 431
to A.D. 594 with an account of the author and his writings, trans. E. Walford
(1946), Oxford.

Fredegar, The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with its continuations, trans.
J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (1960), Toronto & New York.

Gregory the Great, The Letters of Gregory the Great, trans. J.R.C. Martyn, 3
vols. (2004), Ontario.

George of Pisidia in Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca volume 92, ed. J-
P.Migne, (1865), Paris.

Herodotus, The Histories. The Landmark Herodotus, trans. R.B. Strassler

(2009), New York.

Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta quae supersunt omnia, ed. S. Mariev (2008), Berlin.

Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 3 vols. ed. H. Dessau (1892-1916), Berlin.

Isidore of Seville, Chronicon in Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina volume

83, ed. J.-P.Migne, (1862), Paris.

John of Biclar Chronicle in Baxter-Woolfe, K. (1990) Conquerors and Chroniclers of

Early Medieval Spain, Liverpool.

John of Ephesus, The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus,
trans. R. Payne Smith (1860), Oxford.

John Malalas, The Chronicle of John Malalas, trans. by E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys &
R. Scott (1986), Melbourne.

Jordanes, The Gothic History of Jordanes, trans. by C.C. Mierow (1915), Princeton,
London & Oxford.

~ 150 ~
Leo VI, The Taktika of Leo VI, trans. by G.T. Dennis (2010), Dumbarton Oaks.

Les Plus Anciens Recueils des Miracles de Saint Démétrius et la Pénétration des Slaves
dans les Balkans I, ed. & trans. P. Lemerle (1979), Paris.

Maurice’s Strategikon. Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy, trans. G.T. Dennis

(1984), Philadelphia.

Menander the Guardsman, The History of Menander the Guardsman, trans. R.C.
Blockley (1985), Wiltshire.

Notitia Dignitatum in Jones, A.H.M, (1964) The Later Roman Empire, 284-602: A
Social, Economic and Administrative Survey, volume 3 (1964), Oxford.

Ovid, Fasti, trans. J.G. Frazer (1933), Cambridge.

Passion of St. Saba the Goth in Heather, P. & Matthews, J. (1991) (eds.) The Goths
in the Fourth Century, Liverpool.

Paul the Deacon, History of the Langobards (Historia Langobardorum), trans. W.D.
Foulke (1907), Philadelphia.

Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, trans. Bostock, J. & H.T. Riley (1855),
London.

Procopius, Procopius in Seven Volumes, trans. H.B. Dewing (1914-1940),

Cambridge, Massachusetts & London.

Pseudo-Caesarius, Eratopokriseis, ed. R. Riedinger (1969), Munich.

Scriptores Historiae Augustae, trans. D. Magie (1998), London & Cambridge.

Sextus Aurelius Victor, Epitome de Caesaribus, trans. T.M. Banchich (2009), New
York. De Imperatoribus Romanis. 24 February 2015
<http://www.roman-emperors.org/epitome.htm>

Strabo, The Geography of Strabo, trans. H. L. Jones (1960), London.

Tacitus, Complete Works of Tacitus, trans. A.J. Church & W.J. Brodribb (1942),
New York.

Themistius, Politics, Philosophy and Empire in the Fourth Century, Select Orations
of Themistius, trans. P.J. Heather & D. Moncur (2001), Liverpool.
~ 151 ~
Theophanes Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near
Eastern History AD 284-813, trans. by C. Mango & R. Scott (1997), Oxford.

Theophylact Simocatta, The History of Theophlyact Simocatta, trans. by M.

Whitby & M. Whitby (1986), Oxford, New York & Toronto.

Venantius Fortunatus, In Laudem Sanctiae Mariae in Patrologiae cursus completus,

Series Latina volume 88, ed. J-P.Migne, (1862), Paris.

Virgil, The Aeneid, trans. W.F. Jackson Knight (1958), London.

Secondary Sources

Alföldy, G. (1985), The Social History of Rome, trans. D. Braund & F. Pollock,
London & Sydney.

Almagor, E. (2005), “Who is a barbarian? The barbarians in the ethnological and

cultural taxonomies of Strabo” in Dueck, D., Lindsay, H. & Pothecary, S.
(eds.), Strabo’s Cultural Geography. The Making of a Kolossourgia,
Cambridge, 42-55.

Amory, P. (1994), “Names, Ethnic Identity, and Community in Fifth- and Sixth-
Century Burgundy,” Viator 25, 1-30.
(1997), People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554, Cambridge.

Bachrach, B.S. (1973), A History of the Alans in the West, Minneapolis.

Baldwin, B. (1978), “Menander Protector,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 32, 101-125.

Bálint, C. (2000), “Byzantisches zur Herkunftsfrage des vielteilgen Gürtels” in

Bálint, C. (ed.), Kontact zwischen Iran, Byzanz under der Steppe im 6-7.
Jahrhundert, Budapest, Naples & Rome, 99-162.

Banks, P. (1984), ‘The Roman inheritance and topographical transitions in early

medieval Barcelona’, in T. F. C. Blagg (ed.), Papers in Iberian archaeology,
BAR, I193, Oxford, 600–34.

Bang, P.F. & Bayly, C.A. (2011), “Tributary Empires – Towards a Global and

~ 152 ~
 Comparative History,” in Bang, P.F. & Bayly, C.A. (eds.), Tributary
Empires in Global History, Cambridge, 1-17.

Barfield, T.J. (1989), The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China,
Cambridge, Massachusetts & Oxford.
(1993), The Nomadic Alternative, Upper Saddle River.
(2001), “The shadow empires: imperial state formation along the Chinese-
Nomad Frontier” in Alcock, S.E. (ed.), Empires: Perspectives from
Archaeology and History, Cambridge, 1-41.

Barford, P.M. (2001), The Early Slavs. Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern
Europe, Ithaca (© The Trustees of the British Museum and the Society of
Antiquaries of London, and British Museum Press.)
(2008), “Slavs Beyond Justinian’s Frontiers”, Studia Slavica et Balcanica
Petropolitana 4, 21-32.

Barnish, S. (1989), ‘The transformation of classical cities and the Pirenne

debate,’ Journal of Roman Archaeology 2, 385–400.

Barth, F (1969), “Introduction” in Barth, F. (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries.

The Social Organization of Culture Difference, Oslo & Boston.

Bavant, B. (2007), “Caričin Grad and the Changes in the Nature of Urbanism in
the Central Balkans in the Sixth Century” in Poulter, A. (ed.), The
Transition to Late Antiquity. On the Danube and Beyond, Oxford, 337-374.

Bentley, G.C. (1987), “Ethnicity and Practice,” Comparative Studies in Society and
History 29(1), 24-55.

Betti, M. (2013), The Making of Christian Moravia (858-882): Papal Power and
Political Reality, Leiden & Boston.

Blockley, R.C. (1985), “Introduction” in Blockley, R.C. (ed.), The History of

Menander the Guardsman, Wiltshire, 1-30.

Bloemers, J.H.F. (1989), “Acculturation in the Rhine/Meuse Basin in the Roman

Period: Some Demographical Considerations” in Barrett, J.C.,
Fitzpatrick, A.P. & Macinnes, L. (eds.), Barbarians and Romans in North-
West Europe from the later Republic to late Antiquity, Oxford, 175-193.

Bogucki, P. (1997), “Review: The Early Slavs. Eastern Europe from the Initial
Settlement to the Kievan Rus,” The Slavic Review 56(3), 551-2.

~ 153 ~
Bóna, I. (2001), “From Dacia to Erdőelve: Transylvania in the Period of the
Great Migrations (271-896)” in Makkai, L. & Mócsy, A. (eds.), History of
Transylvania. Volume 1, From the Beginnings to 1606, New York, 135-328.

Borkovský, I. (1940), Staroslovanská keramika v středni Evrope: Studie k počátkúm

slovanské kultury, Prague.

Borri, F. (2011), “White Croatia and the arrival of the Croats: an interpretation
of Constantine Prophyrogenitus on the oldest Dalmatian history,” Early
Medieval Europe 19(2), 204-231.

Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge.

Bowlus, C.R. (1995), “Review Article: Ethnogenesis Models and the Age of
Migrations: A Critique,” Austrian History Yearbook 26, 147-164.

Brachmann, H. (1997), “Tribal Organizations in Central Europe in the 6th-10th

Centuries A.D. Reflections on the Ethnic and Political Development in
the Second Half of the First Millennium,” in Urbańczyk, P. (ed.), Origins
of Central Europe, Warsaw, 5-22.

Brather, S. (2005), “Acculturation and Ethnogenesis along the Frontier: Rome

and the Ancient Germans in an Archaeological Perspective” in Curta, F.,
(ed.), Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis. Frontiers in Late Antiquity and the
Middle Ages, Turnhout, 139-171.

Brodka, D. & Stachura, M. (2007), Continuity and change: studies in late antique
historiography, Krakow.

Brogiolo, G.P., Gauthier, N. & Christie, N, (2003), Towns and their territories
between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Leiden & Boston.

Brown, A.R. (2010), “Justinian, Procopius, and Deception: Literary Lies,

Imperial Politics, and the Archaeology of Sixth Century Greece,” in
Turner, A.J., Chong-Gossard, J.H.K.O. & Vervaet, F.J. (eds.), Private and
Public Lies: The Discourse of Despotism and Deceit in the Graeco-Roman
World, Leiden, 355-369.
(2011), “Banditry or Catastrophe?: History, Archaeology, and Barbarian
Raids on Roman Greece,” in Mathisen R.W. & Shanzer, D. (eds.), Romans,
Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction
and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity. Farnham, 79-96.

Browning, R. (1975), Byzantium and Bulgaria. A comparative study across the early
~ 154 ~
 medieval frontier, London.

Bruche-Schulz, G. (1993), “Marr, Marx and Linguistics in the Soviet Union,”

Historiographia Linguistica 20, 455-72.

Buko, A. (2007), The Archaeology of Early Medieval Poland, Leiden & Boston.

Burns, T.S. (1980), The Ostrogoths. Kingship and Society, Wiesbaden.

(1984), The History of the Ostrogoths, Bloomington.
(1994), Barbarians within the Gates of Rome. A Study of Roman Military Policy
and the Barbarians, ca. 375-425 A.D., Bloomington.
(2003), Rome and the Barbarians, 100 B.C. – A.D. 400, Baltimore.

Burns, T. S. & Eadie, J. W. (eds.) (2001), Urban centers and rural contexts in late
Antiquity, East Lansing.

Bury, J.B. (1958), History of the Later Roman Empire from the death of Theodosius I
to the death of Justinian in two volumes, 2 vols, New York.

Callander Murray, A. (2003), “Reinhard Wenskus on ‘Ethnogenesis’, Ethnicity,

and the Origin of the Franks” in Gillett, A. (ed.), On Barbarian Identity.
Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages, Turnhout, 39-68.

Cameron, A. (1970), Agathias, Oxford.

(1985), Procopius and the sixth century, Berkeley & Los Angeles.
(1993), The Later Roman Empire, London.
(2006), The Byzantines, Oxford.
(2014), Byzantine Matters, Princeton.

Cameron, A., Ward-Perkins, B. & Whitby, M (eds.) (2000), Late antiquity: empire
and successors, AD 425-600, Cambridge.

Canepa, M.P. (2009), The Two Eyes of the Earth, Art and Ritual of Kingship between
Rome and Sassanian Iran, Berkeley & Los Angeles.

Cartledge, P. (1993), The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others, Oxford.

Charvát, P. (2010), The Emergence of the Bohemian State, Leiden & Boston.

Christie, N. (ed.) (2004), Landscapes of change, Aldershot.

Christie, N. & Loseby, S. (eds.) (1996), Towns in transition, Aldershot.

~ 155 ~
Chrysos, E. (1992), “Byzantine Diplomacy, A.D. 300-800: means and ends” in
Shepard, J. & Franklin, S. (eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy, Hampshire, 25-39.
(1997), “Slavic Invasions and Settlements” in Sakellariou, M.B. (ed.), Epirus:
4000 Years of Greek History and Civilization, Athens, 182-184.

Crow, J. & Ricci, A. (1997), “Investigating the hinterland of Constantinople:

interim report on the Anastasian Long Walls,” Journal of Roman
Archaeology 10, 235-262.

Coates, D. (2015), America in the Shadow of Empires, London.

Collins, R. (1991), Early Medieval Europe, 300-1000, Worcester.

Croke, B. (1987), “Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes,” Classical Philology

82(2), 117-134.
(1990a), “Malalas the man and his work” in Jeffreys, E., Jeffreys M. & Scott,
R. (eds.), Studies in John Malalas, Melbourne, 1-26.
(1990b), “The Early Development of Byzantine Chronicles” in Jeffreys, E.,
Jeffreys M. & Scott, R. (eds.), Studies in John Malalas, Sydney , 27-37.
(2005), “Jordanes and the Immediate Past” in Historia: Zeitschrift für
Alte Geschichte 54(4), 473-494.

Curta, F. (1997), “The Slavs in Fredegar and Paul the Deacon: medieval gens or
‘scourge of God’?,” Early Medieval Europe 6(1), 141-167.
(2001a), The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower
Danube Region c. 500-700, Cambridge.
(2001b), “Peasants as “Makeshift Soldiers for the Occasion”: Sixth-Century
Settlement Patterns in the Balkans,” in Burns, T.S. & Eadie, J.W. (eds.),
Urban Centers and Rural Contexts in Late Antiquity, East Lansing, 199-217.
(2001c) “The “Prague type”: A critical approach to pottery classification” in
Kountoura-Galake, E. (ed.), The Dark Centuries of Byzantium (7th-9th c.),
Athens, 171-188.
(2002), “From Kossina to Bromley: Ethnogenesis in Slavic Archaeology” in
Gillett, A. (ed.). (2002), On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to
Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages, Turnhout, 201-218.
(2004), "Barbarians in Dark-Age Greece: Slavs or Avars?" in Stepanov, T. &
Vachkova, V. (eds.), Civitas Divino-Humana. In honorem annorum LX
Georgii Bakalov, Sofia, 513-550.
(2005a) (ed.), Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis. Frontiers in Late Antiquity
and the Middle Ages, Turnhout.
(2005b), “Frontier Ethnogenesis in Late Antiquity: The Danube, the
Tervingi, and the Slavs” in Curta, F., (ed.), Borders, Barriers, and

~ 156 ~
 Ethnogenesis. Frontiers in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Turnhout,
173-204.
(2005c), “Before Cyril and Methodius: Christianity and barbarians beyond
the sixth- and seventh-century Danube frontier" in Curta, F. (ed.), East
Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages, Ann Arbor, 181-219.
(2006), Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500-1250, Cambridge.
(2007a), “Some remarks on ethnicity in medieval archaeology,” Early
Medieval Europe 15(2), 159-185.
(2007b), “The Amber Trail in Early Medieval Eastern Europe” in Lifshitz, F.
& Chazelle, C. (eds.), Paradigms and Methods in Early Medieval Studies,
New York, 61-69.
(2008b) (ed.), The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars,
and Cumans, Leiden & Boston.
(2010a), “Still Waiting for the Barbarians? The Making of the Slavs in ‘Dark-
Age’ Greece” in Curta, F. (ed.), Neglected Barbarians, Turnhout, 403-478.
(2010b), “Emperor Heraclius and the Conversion of the Croats and the
Serbs’, in Stepanov, T. & Kazakov, G. (eds.), Medieval Christianitas.
Different Regions, “Faces,” Approaches. Mediaevalia Christiana 3, Sofia,
121-138.
(2011), The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, c. 500 to 1050. The Early Middle
Ages, Edinburgh.
(2013a), “Seventh-century fibulae with bent stem in the Balkans,”
Archaeologia Bulgarica 17 (1), 49-70.
(2013b), “The Beginning of the Middle Ages in the Balkans,” Millennium 10,
145-214.
(2015a) “Avar Blitzkrieg, Slavic and Bulgar raiders, and Roman special ops:
mobile warriors in the 6th-century Balkans” in Zimonyi, I. & Karatay, O.
(eds.), Eurasia in the Middle Ages. Studies in Honour of Peter B. Golden,
Wiesbaden, 69-89.
(2015b), “Four Questions for those who still believe in prehistoric Slavs and
other fairy tales,” Starohrvatska Prosvjeta 42, 286-303.

Curta, F. & Gândilă, A. (2013), “Sixth-century fibulae with bent stem,” Peuce
11, 101-176.

Daim, F. (2000), “Byzantinische’ Gürtelgarnituren des 8. Jahrhunderts” in Daim,

F. (ed.), Die Awaren am Rand der byzantinischen Welt. Studien zu
Diplomatie, Handel und Technologietransfer im Frühmittelalter, Vienna, 77-
204.
(2003), “Avars and Avar archaeology: an introduction” Goetz, H-W., Jarnut,
J. & Pohl, W. (eds.), Regna and Gentes. The Relationship between Late
Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of
the Roman World, Leiden & Boston, 463-570.

~ 157 ~
Dark, K. R. (1994), Civitas to Kingdom, British Political Continuity 300-800,
London.

Dark, P. (1996), “Palaeoecological evidence for landscape, continuity and

change in Britain ca. A.D. 400–800” in K. R. Dark (ed.), External contacts
and the economy of late Roman and post-Roman Britain, Woodbridge, 23–51.

Dench, J. (2007), “Ethnography and History” in Marincola, J. (ed.), A Companion

to Greek and Roman Historiography, vol. 1, Oxford, 493-503.

Dennis, G.T. (1984), “Introduction” in Dennis, G.T. (ed.), Maurice’s Strategikon.

Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy, Philadelphia, vii-xxi.

De Vries, B. (2000), “Continuity and change in the urban character of the

southern Hauran from the 5th to the 9th century,’ Mediterranean
Archaeology 13, 39–45.

Dinchev, V. (2007), “The Fortresses of Thrace and Dacia in the Early Byzantine
Period” in Poulter, A. (ed.), The Transition to Late Antiquity. On the
Danube and Beyond, Oxford, 479-546.

Dunn, A. (1994), “The transition from polis to kastron in the Balkans (III–VII
cc.)”, Byzantine and Modern Greek studies 18, 60–80.

Dulokhanov, P.M. (1996), The Early Slavs. Eastern Europe from the Initial
Settlement to the Kievan Rus, London & New York.

Dvornik, F. (1949), The Making of Central and Eastern Europe, London.

(1956), The Slavs: Their Early History and Civilization, Boston & London.
(1962), The Slavs in European History and Civilization, New Brunswick.
(1970), Byzantine Missions Among the Slavs: SS. Constantine-Cyril and
Methodius, New Brunswick.

Dzino, D. (2010), Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat. Identity Transformations in Post-

Roman and Medieval Dalmatia, Leiden & Boston.
(2014a), “Constructing Illyrians: Prehistoric Inhabitants of the Balkan
Peninsula in Early Modern and Modern Perceptions,” Balkanistica 27, 1-
39.
(2014b), “Local Knowledge and wider contexts: stories of the arrival of the
Croats in De Administrando Imperio in the past and present” in Dzino, D.
& Parry, K. (eds.), Byzantium, its neighbours and its cultures, Brisbane, 89-
104.
~ 158 ~
 (2014c), “The rise and fall of the Dalmatian ‘Big-men’: Social Structures in
Late Antique, Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia (ca. 500-850),”
Studia Academia Šumenensia 1, 127-152.
(2016), “Post-Roman Dalmatia: Collapse and Regeneration of a complex
social system” in Ančić, M., Shepard, J. & Vedriš, T. (eds.), Imperial
spheres and the Adriatic: Byzantium, the Carolingians and the Treaty of
Aachen (812), Farnham, forthcoming.

Effros, B. (2002a) Caring for Body and Soul. Burial and the Afterlife in the
Merovingian World, University Park.
(2002b), Creating Community with Food and Drink in Merovingian Gaul,
Hampshire & New York.
(2003) Merovingian Mortuary Archaeology and the Making of Early Middle Ages,
Berkeley.
(2004), “Dressing conservatively: a critique of recent archaeological
discussions of women’s brooches as markers of ethnic identity” in
Brubaker, L. & Smith, J. (eds.), Gender in the Early Middle Ages: East and
West, 300-900, Cambridge, 168-184.

Elton, H. (1996), Frontiers of the Roman Empire, London.

Evans, R. (1999), “Ethnography's freak show: the grotesques at the edges of the
Roman earth,” Ramus 28(1), 54-73.

Ferjančič, B. (1984), “Invasions et installations des Slaves dans les Balkans,”

Villes et peuplement, 85-109.

Fine, J.V.A. Jr. (1983), The early medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the sixth to
the late twelfth century, Ann Arbor.
(2006), When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans: A study of identity in Pre-
Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slovonia in the Medieval and Early Modern
Periods, Ann Arbor.

Foss, C. (1997), “Syria in transition, A.D. 550–750”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 51,
189–269.

Foucault, M. (1972), The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse of Language,

trans. A.M. Sheridan Smith, New York.

Gador-Whyte, S. (2007), “Digressions in the Histories of Agathias Scholasticus,”

Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association 3, 141-157.

Geary, P.J. (1988), Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of
~ 159 ~
 the Merovingian World, Oxford.
(2002), The Myth of Nations. The Medieval Origins of Europe, Princeton &
Oxford.

Gelichi, S. & Milanese, M. (1998), “Problems in the transition towards the

medieval in the Ifriqya”, L’Africa Romana, 12, 457–84.

Gibbon, E. (1872), The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in Four Volumes, 4
volumes, London.

Gillett, A. (ed.). (2003a), On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in

the Early Middle Ages, Turnhout.
(2003b), “Introduction: Ethnicity, History, and Methodology” in Gillett, A.
(ed.), On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early
Middle Ages, Turnhout, 1-18.
(2006), “Ethnogenesis: A Contested Model of Early Medieval Europe,”
History Compass 4(2), 241-260.
(2009), “The Mirror of Jordanes: Concepts of the Barbarian, Then and Now”
in Rousseau, P. (ed.), A Companion to Late Antiquity,
Chichester. Blackwell Reference Online. 21 February 2015
<http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode.html?id=g9781
405119801_chunk_g978140511980133>

Gimbutas, M. (1971), The Slavs, London.

Glad, D. (2012), “The Empire’s influence on barbarian elites from the Pontus to
the Rhine (5th-7th centuries): A case study of lamellar weapons and
segmental helmets” in Ivanišević, V. & Kazanski, M. (eds.), The Pontic-
Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration, Paris & Belgrade, 349-
362.

Godja, M. (1991), The Ancient Slavs. Settlement and Society, The Rhind Lectures
1989-90, Edinburgh.

Goffart, W. (1963), “The Fredegar Problem Reconsidered,” Speculum 38(2), 206-

241.
(1980), Barbarians and Romans, A.D. 418-584: The Techniques of
Accommodation, Princeton.
(1988), The Narrators of Barbarian History, Princeton.
(2005), “Jordanes’ Getica and the Disputed Authenticity of Gothic Origins
from Scandinavia,” Speculum 80(2), 379-398.
(2006), Barbarian Tides. The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire,
Philadelphia.
~ 160 ~
Golden, P.B. (1992), An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples,
Weisbaden.

Gračanin, H. (2013), “Ethnicity and Migrations in the Late Antique and Early
Middle Danube Region: Examples Linking the Areas of Modern Croatia
and Slovakia” in Homza, M., Lukačka, J. & Budak, N. (eds.), Slovakia and
Croatia Vo1. 1, Bratislava, 43-48.

Greatrex, G. (2014), “Perceptions of Procopius in Recent Scholarship,” Histos 8,

76-121.

Greatrex, G. & Elton, H. (2014) (eds.), Shifting Genres in Late Antiquity, Farnham.

Gregory, T. (1982), “The Fortified Cities of Byzantine Greece,” Archaeology 35(1),

14-21.
(2000), “Procopius on Greece,” Antiquité Tardive 8, 105-114.

Gruen, E.S. (2010), Re-thinking the Other in Antiquity, Princeton.

Haldon, J.F. (1986), ‘Ideology and social change in the seventh century,’ Klio 68,
139–90.
(1993), The State and the Tributary Mode of Production, London &
New York.
(1997), Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The Transformation of a
Culture, Cambridge.
(1999), Warfare, State, and Society in the Byzantine World, 565-1204, London.

Halsall, G. (1995a), Settlement and Social Organization. The Merovingian Region of

Metz, Cambridge.
(1995b), “The Merovingian Period in North-East Gaul: Transition or
Change?” in Bintliff, J. & Hamerow, H. (eds.), Europe Between Late
Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Recent Archaeological and Historical Research
in Western and Southern Europe, Oxford, 38-57.
(1997), “Archaeology and Historiography” in Bentley, M. (ed.), The
Routledge Companion to Historiography, London, 1997), 788-810
(1999), “Review Article: Movers and Shakers: the barbarians and the Fall of
Rome”, Early Medieval Europe 8(1), 131-145.
(2007), Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West 376-568, Cambridge.

Hanson, W.S. (1989), “The Nature and Function of Roman Frontiers” in Barrett,
J.C., Fitzpatrick, A.P. & Macinnes, L. (eds.), Barbarians and Romans in
North-West Europe from the later Republic to late Antiquity, Oxford, 55-63.
~ 161 ~
Hardt, M. & Negri, A. (2000), Empire, Cambridge, London & Massachusetts.

Härke, H. (2011), “Anglo-Saxon Immigration and Ethnogenesis,” Medieval

Archaeology 55, 1-28.
(2014), “Grave goods in early medieval burials: messages and
meanings”, Mortality, 19(1), 41-60

Harper, K. (2013), From Shame to Sin: the Christian transformation of sexual

morality in late antiquity, Cambridge & Massachusetts.

Harris, W.V. (1999) (ed.), The transformations of urbs Roma in late Antiquity,
Portsmouth.

Hartog, F. (1988), The Mirror of Herodotus. The Representation of the Other in the
Writing of History, trans. J. Lloyd, Berkeley.

Heather, P. (1991), Goths and Romans, 332-489, Oxford.

(1996), The Goths, Oxford.
(1998), “Disappearing and Reappearing Tribes” in Pohl, W. & Reimitz. H.
(eds.), Strategies of Distinction. The Construction of Ethnic Communities,
300-800, Leiden, Boston & Köln, 95-111.
(1999), “The Barbarian in Late Antiquity” in Miles, R. (ed.), Constructing
Identities in Late Antiquity, London & New York, 343-386.
(2001), “The Late Roman Art of Client Management: Imperial
Defence in the Fourth Century West” in Pohl, W., Wood, I. & Reimitz, H.
(eds.), The Transformation of Frontiers, Leiden, Boston & Köln, 15-68.
(2005), The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the
Barbarians, Oxford.
(2009), Empires and Barbarians. The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe,
Oxford.

Hedeager, L. (1987), “Empire, frontier and the barbarian hinterland: Rome and
northern Europe from AD 1-400” in Rowlands, M., Larsen, M. &
Kristiansen, K. (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, London &
New York, 125-140.

Hu, D. (2013), “Approaches to the Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Past and

Emergent Perspectives,” Journal of Archaeological Research 21, 371-402.

Hunger, H. (1969/70), “On the Imitation (mimesis) of Antiquity in Byzantine

Literature”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23-24, 15-38.

~ 162 ~
Immerman, R.H. (2010), Empire for liberty: a history of American imperialism from
Benjamin Franklin to Paul Wolfowitz, Princeton.

Isaac, B.H. (2000), The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East, Oxford.

Ivanišević, V. (2012), “Barbarian settlements in the interior of Illyricum: the case

of Caričin Grad” in Ivanišević, V. & Kazanski, M. (eds.), The Pontic-
Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration, Paris & Belgrade, 57-
69.

Izdebski, A, (2013), A Rural Economy in Transition: Asia Minor from Late Antiquity
into the Early Middle Age, Warszawa.

Jeffreys, E., Jeffreys M. & Scott, R., (1986), “Introduction” in Jeffreys, E., Jeffreys
M. & Scott, R. (eds.), The Chronicle of John Malalas, Melbourne, xxi-xli.

Jeffreys, E., Jeffreys M. & Scott, R. (eds.) (1990), Studies in John Malalas,
Sydney.

Jeffreys, E. (1990), “Malalas’ Sources” in Jeffreys, E., Jeffreys M. & Scott, R.

(eds.), Studies in John Malalas, Sydney, 172-196.

Jenkins, K. (1997), Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations, London.

(2003), Re-thinking History, Cornwall.

Johnson, M. (2010), Archaeological Theory. An Introduction, Oxford.

Jones, A.H.M. (1964), The Later Roman Empire, 284-602: A Social, Economic and
Administrative Survey, 3 vols., Oxford.
(1966), The Decline of the Ancient World, London.

Jones, M.E. (1994), The End of Roman Britain, Oxford.

Jones, S. (1997) The e Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing identities in the past and
present, London.

Judge, E.A. & Nobbs, A. (2010) (eds.), Jerusalem and Athens: Cultural
Transformation in Late Antiquity, Tübingen.

Kaegi, W.E. (2003), Heraclius Emperor of Byzantium, Oxford.

Kaldellis, A. (1999), “The Historical and Religious Views of Agathias: a

reinterpretation,” Byzantion 69, 206-252.
~ 163 ~
 (2003), “Things are not what they are: Agathias Mythistoricus and the last
laugh of classical culture,” The Classical Quarterly 53(1), 295-300.
(2004), Procopius of Caesarea: Classical Historian and Political Thinker,
Philadelphia.
(2013), Ethnography after Antiquity: foreign lands and peoples in Byzantine
Literature, Philadelphia.

Kalligas, H. A. (1990), Byzantine Monemvasia: The Sources, Monemvasia.

(2009), Monemvasia: The Byzantine City State, New York.

Kim, H.J. (2013), The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, Cambridge.

Kobyliński, Z. (1997), “Settlement Structures in Central Europe at the Beginning

of the Middle Ages,” in Urbańczyk, P. (ed.), Origins of Central Europe,
Warsaw, 97-114.
(2013), “The Slavs” in Fouracre, P. (ed.), The New Cambridge
Medieval History, Cambridge, 524-544.

Leach, E.B. (1954), Political Systems of Highland Burma. A Study of Kachin Social
Structure, Norwich.

Lee, A.D. (1993), Information and Frontiers. Roman Foreign Relations in Late
Antiquity, Cambridge.

Lemerle, P. (1963), “La chronique improprement dite de Monemvasie: le

contexte historique et légendaire.” Revue des études byzantines 21:5-49.
(1980), “Invasions et migrations dans les Balkans depuis la fin de l'époque
romaine jusqu'au VIII siècle,” in Essais sur le monde de Byzance, 265-308.
Collected Studies I, London.

Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. (2007), “The Lower Danube Region under Pressure:

from Valens to Heraclius” in Poulter, A. (ed.), The Transition to Late
Antiquity. On the Danube and Beyond, Oxford, 101-134.
(2011), “Making a Gothic History: Does the Getica of
Jordanes Preserve Genuinely Gothic Traditions?,” Journal of Late
Antiquity 4(2), 185-216.

Lucy, S. (2002) “Burial practice in Early Medieval Eastern Britain: Constructing

local identities, deconstructing ethnicity’, in Lucy, S. and Reynolds, A.
(eds.) Burial in Early Medieval England and Wales, Leeds, 72–87.

Ludden, D. (2011), “The Process of Empire: Frontiers and Borderlands” in Bang,

~ 164 ~
 P.F. & Bayly, C.A. (eds.), Tributary Empires in Global History, Cambridge,
132-150.

Luttwack, E.N. (1976), The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire From the First
Century A.D. to the Third, Baltimore & London.
(2009), The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, Cambridge,
Massachusetts & London.

Macháček, J. (2010), The Rise of Medieval Towns and States in East Central Europe.
Early Medieval Centres as Social and Economic Systems, trans. by M. Bartoň,
Leiden & Boston.

Madgearu, A. (2003), “The 6th Century Lower Danubian Bridgeheads: Location

and Mission,” Ephemeris Napocensis 13, 295-314.

Maier, C.S. (2006), Among Empires: American Ascendancy and its Predecessors,
Cambridge & Massachusetts.

Majeska, G. (1997), “The Byzantines on the Slavs: on the problem of ethnic

stereotyping,” Acta Byzantina Fennica 9, 70-86.

Mango, C. (1975), Byzantine Literature as a Distorting Mirror, Oxford.

(1981), “Discontinuity with the Classical Past in Byzantium” in Mullett, M. &
Scott, R. (eds.), Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, Birmingham, 48-60.

Mango, C. & Scott, R. (1997), “Introduction” in Mango. C. & Scott, R. (eds.), The
Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD
284-813, Oxford, xliii-xcixi.

Martyn, J.R.C. (2004), “Introduction” in Martyn, J.R.C. (ed.), The Letters of

Gregory the Great, vol. 1, Toronto, 1-118.

Mathisen. R. W. & Sivan, H.S. (1996) (eds.), Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity,
Hampshire.

Mathisen, R. & Shanzer, D.R. (2011) (eds.), Romans, barbarians, and the
transformation of the Roman world: cultural interaction and the creation of
identity in late antiquity, Farnham.

Metcalf, D.M. 1991. “Avar and Slav invasions into the Balkan peninsula (c.575-
625): The nature of the numismatic evidence,” Journal of Roman
Archaeology 4, 140-9.

~ 165 ~
Mierow, C.C. (1915), “Introduction” in Mierow, C.C. (ed.), The Gothic History of
Jordanes, Princeton, London & Oxford, 1-50.

Miles, R. (1999), “Introduction” in Miles, R. (ed.), Constructing Identities in Late

Antiquity, London & New York, 9-30.

Mitchell, S. & Greatrex, G. (2000), Ethnicity and culture in late antiquity, London
& Swansea.

Morley, N. (2002), Writing Ancient History, London.

Münkler, H. (2007), Empires. The Logic of World Domination from Ancient Rome to
the United States, trans. P. Camiller, Cambridge & Malden.

Mutschler, F-H. & Mittag, A. (2008), Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome
Compared, Oxford.

Nagel, J. (1994), “Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic

Identity and Culture,” Social Problems 41(1), 152-176.

Noonan, T. (1992), “Byzantium and the Khazars: a special relationship?” in

Shepard, J, & Franklin, S. (eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy, 109-132.

O’Donnell, J.J. (1982), “The Aims of Jordanes,” Historia: Zeitschrift für

Alte Geschichte 31(2), 223-240.

Obolensky, D. (1971), The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe 500-1453,

London.

Okamura, J. (1981), “Situational Ethnicity,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 4(4), 452-
465.

Ostler, D. (1996), “From Periphery to Center: The Transformation of Late

Roman Self Definition in the Seventh Century” in Mathisen. R. W. &
Sivan, H.S. (eds.), Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity, Hampshire, 93-101.

Pitts, L.F. (1987), “Roman style buildings in Barbaricum (Moravia and S.

Slovakia),” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 6(2), 219-36.
(1989), “Relations between Rome and the German ‘Kings’ on the
Middle Danube in the First to Fourth Centuries AD,” Journal of Roman
Studies 79, 45-58.

Pleterski, A. (2013), The Invisible Slavs. Župa Bled in the “Prehistoric” Early Middle
~ 166 ~
 Ages, Ljubljana.

Pohl, W. (1988), Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa, 567-822 n. Chr.,

München.
(1997a) (ed.), Kingdoms of the Empire. The Integration of Barbarians in Late
Antiquity, Leiden, Boston & Köln.
(1997b), “The Role of Steppe Peoples in Eastern and Central Europe in the
First Millennium A.D.,” in Urbańczyk, P. (ed.), Origins of Central Europe,
Warsaw, 65-78.
(1998), “Conceptions of Ethnicity in Early Medieval Studies” in Spinei, C. &
Hriban, C. (eds.), Eastern Central Europe in the Early Middle Ages. Conflicts,
Migrations and Ethnic Processes, Bucharest, 17-28.
(2003a), “Ethnicity, Theory, and Tradition: A Response,” in Gillett, A. (ed.),
On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle
Ages, Turnhout, 221-239.
(2003b), “A Non-Roman Empire in Central Europe: the Avars” in Goetz, H-
W., Jarnut, J. & Pohl, W. (eds.), Regna and Gentes. The Relationship between
Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation
of the Roman World, Leiden & Boston, 571-595.
(2005), “Frontiers and Ethnic Identities: Some Final Considerations” in
Curta, F. (ed.), Borders, Barriers and Ethnogenesis. Frontiers in Late
Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Turnhout, 255-256.

Pohl, W., Wood, I. & Reimetz, H. (eds.) (2001), The transformation of frontiers from
late antiquity to the Carolingians, Leiden & Boston.

Polci, B. (2003), “Some aspects of the transformation of the Roman domus

between late Antiquity and the early middle ages” in Lavan, L. &
Bowden, W. (eds.), Theory and practice in late Antique archaeology, Leiden,
79–109.

Potter, D.S. (2004), The Roman Empire at Bay AD 180-395, Abingdon & New
York.

Poulter, A. (2000), “The Roman to Byzantine transition in the Balkans,” Journal

of Roman Archaeology 13 (2000), 346–58.
(2007a) (ed.), The Transition to Late Antiquity. On the Danube and Beyond,
Oxford.
(2007b), “The Transition to Late Antiquity” in Poulter, A. (ed.), The
Transition to Late Antiquity. On the Danube and Beyond, Oxford, 1-50.
(2008), “The Lower Danubian frontier in Late Antiquity: evolution and

~ 167 ~
 dramatic change in the frontier zone, c. 296-600’ in Herz, P., Schmid, P. &
Stoll, O. (eds.), Zwischen Region und Reich: das Gebiet der oberen Donau im
Imperium Romanum Frank & Timme, 11-42.

Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P. (2012), Archaeology. Theories, Methods and Practice,

London.

Ripoll, G. & Arce, J. (2003), “The transformation and end of Roman villae in the
West (fourth–seventh centuries)” in Brogiolo et al., Towns and their
territories between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Leiden &
Boston, 63–114.

Rousseau, P. & Papoutsakis, M (2009), Transformations of late antiquity: essays for

Peter Brown, Burlington & Farnham.

Sahlins, M. (1963), “Poor man, rich man, big-man, chief: political types in
Melanesia and Polynesia,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 25,
285-303.

Scheidel, W. (2015) (ed.), Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient

World Empires, Oxford.

Scott, R. (1981), “The Classical Tradition in Byzantine Historiography” in

Mullett, M. & Scott, R. (eds.), Byzantium and the Classical Tradition,
Birmingham, 61-74.
(1985), “Malalas, The Secret History, and Justinian’s Propaganda,”
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39, 99-109.

Service, E. (1971), Primitive Social Organization, New York.

Shepard, J. & Franklin, S. (eds.). (1992), Byzantine Diplomacy, Hampshire.

Sjöström, I. (1993), Tripolitania in transition, Aldershot.

Skinner, J.E. (2012), The Invention of Greek Ethnography from Homer to Herodotus,
Oxford.

Slezkine, Y. (1996), “N. Ia. Marr and the National Origins of Soviet
Ethnogenetics,” Slavic Review 55, 826-862.

Smith, A. (1986), The Ethnic Origins of the Nations, Oxford.

Smith, J.M.H. (2005), Europe after Rome. A New Cultural History 500-1000,

~ 168 ~
 Oxford.

Sodini, J-P. (2007), “The Transformation of Cities in Late Antiquity within the
Provinces of Macedonia and Epirus” in Poulter, A. (ed.), The Transition to
Late Antiquity. On the Danube and Beyond, Oxford, 311-336.

Sophoulis, P. (2012), Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831, Leiden & Boston.

Southern, P. & Ramsey Dixon, K. (1996), The Later Roman Army, New Haven &
London.

Špehar, P. (2008), “Late Antique and Early Byzantine fortifications in Bosnia

and Herzegovina (hinterland of the province of Dalmatia,”
Höhensiedlungen Zwischen Antike und Mittelalter 58, 559-594.
(2012), “The Danubian Limes between Lederata and Aquae during the
Migration Period” in Ivanišević, V. & Kazanski, M. (eds.), The Pontic-
Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration, Paris & Belgrade, 35-
56.

Spinei, C. & Hriban, C. (eds.), Eastern Central Europe in the Early Middle Ages.
Conflicts, Migrations and Ethnic Processes, Bucharest.

Starr, C.G. (1982), The Roman Empire 27 B.C. – A.D. 476, New York & Oxford.

Stepanov, T. (2010), The Bulgars and the Steppe Empire in the Early Middle Ages.
The Problem of the Others, trans. by T. Stefanova & T. Stepanov, Leiden &
Boston.

Štih, P. (2010) (ed.), The Middle Ages between the Eastern Alps and the Northern
Adriatic. Select Papers on Slovene Historiography and Medieval History,
Leiden & Boston.

Stroumsa, G.G. (2009), The end of sacrifice: religious transformations in late

antiquity, trans. S. Emanuel, Chicago.

Swain, S. & Edwards, M. (2004) (eds.), Approaching late antiquity: the

transformation from early to late empire, Oxford & New York.

Szmoniewski, B.S. (2010), “The Antes: Eastern ‘Brothers’ of the Sclavenes?” in

Curta, F. (ed.), Neglected Barbarians, Turnhout, 53-82.

Tachiaos, A-E. N. (2001), Cyril and Methodius of Thessalonica: The Acculturation of

the Slavs, Yonkers.

~ 169 ~
Todorova, M. (2009), Imagining the Balkans, Oxford.

Treadgold, W. (2007), “The Byzantine World Histories of John Malalas and

Eustathius of Epiphania,” The International History Review 29(4), 709-745.
(2010), The Early Byzantine Historians, Hampshire & New York.

Thompson, E.A. (1988), The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila, London.

Turlej, S. (1997), “Was Monemvasia founded in the times of Justinian I?”

Byzantinoslavica 58, 405-12.
(1998) “The so-called Chronicle of Monemvasia: A historical analysis.”
Byzantion 68, 446-468.

Urbańczyk, P. (ed.) (1997a), Origins of Central Europe, Warsaw.

(1997b), “Changes in Power Structure During the 1st Millennium
A.D. in the Northern Part of Central Europe” in Urbańczyk, P. (ed.),
Origins of Central Europe, Warsaw, 39-44.
(2002), “Foreign Leaders in Early Slavic Societies” in Pohl, W. &
Diesenberger, M. (eds.), Integration und Herrschaft, Ethnische Identitäten
und soziale Organisation im Frühmittelalter, Vienna, 257-267.

Vanhaverbeke, H., Martens. F. & Waelkens, M. (2007), “Another view on Late

Antiquity: Sagalassos (SW Anatolia), its suburbium and its countryside
in Late Antiquity,” in Poulter, A. (ed.), The Transition to Late Antiquity.
On the Danube and Beyond, Oxford, 611-648.

Vida, T. (2008), “Conflict and Coexistence: the local population of the

Carpathian Basin under Avar rule (sixth to seventh century)” in The
Other Europe in the Middle Ages, Leiden, 13-46.

Von Bülow, G. (2007), “The fort of Iatrus in Moesia Secunda: Observations on

the Late Roman Defensive System on the Lower Danube (Fourth-Sixth
centuries AD)” in Poulter, A. (ed.), The Transition to Late Antiquity. On the
Danube and Beyond, Oxford, 459-478.

Vryonis, S. (1981), “The evolution of Slavic society and the Slavic invasions in
Greece. The first major Slavic attack on Thessaloniki, A.D. 597,” Hesperia
50, 378-90.

Wallace-Hadrill, J.M. (1960), “Introduction” in Wallace-Hadrill, J.M. (ed.), The

Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar with its continuations, Toronto &
New York, ix-lxvii.
~ 170 ~
Watson, A. (1999), Aurelian and the Third Century, London & New York.

Wells, P.S. (1999), The Barbarians Speak: How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Europe,
Princeton.

Wenskus, R. (1961), Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der

frümittalalterlichen Gentes, Cologne.

Whitby, M. (1988), The Emperor Maurice and his Historian, Oxford.

Whitby, M. & Whitby, M. (1987), “Introduction” in Whitby, M. and Whitby, M.

(eds.), The History of Theophylact Simocatta, Oxford, New York & Toronto.

Whitby, M. (2000), “The Balkans and Greece: 420-602” in Cameron, A., Ward-
Perkins, B. & Whitby, M (eds.), Late antiquity: empire and successors, AD
425-600, Cambridge, 701-730.

White, H. (1978), Tropics of Discourse, Baltimore & London.

White, R. (2000), “Wroxeter and the transformation of late Roman urbanism”

in T. R. Slater (ed.), Towns in decline AD 100–1600, Aldershot, 96–119.

Whittaker, C.R. (1989), “Supplying the System: Frontiers and Beyond” in in

Barrett, J.C., Fitzpatrick, A.P. & Macinnes, L. (eds.), Barbarians and
Romans in North-West Europe from the later Republic to late Antiquity,
Oxford, 64-80.
(1994), Frontiers of the Roman Empire. A Social and Economic
Study, London.
(2004), Rome and Its Frontiers: The Dynamics of Empire, London.

Whittow, M. (1996), The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600-1025, Hampshire.

(2007), “Nicopolis ad Istrum: Backward and Balkan?” in Poulter, A. (ed.),
The Transition to Late Antiquity. On the Danube and Beyond, Oxford, 375-
390.

Wickham, C. (2005), Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean,
400-800, Oxford.
(2009), The Inheritance Of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000, New
York.

Wilkes, J.J. (2005), “The Roman Danube: an archaeological survey,” Journal of

Roman Archaeology 95, 124-225.
~ 171 ~
Williams, H. (2003), “Material Culture as Memory: Combs and Cremation in
Early Medieval Britain,” Early Medieval Europe 12(2), 89–128.
(2006) Death and memory in early medieval Britain, Cambridge.

Wirth, G. (1997), “Rome and its Germanic Partners in the Fourth Century” ” in
Pohl, W.(ed.), Kingdoms of the Empire. The Integration of Barbarians in Late
Antiquity, Leiden, Boston & Köln, 13-55.

Wolfram, H. (1990), History of the Goths, trans. T.J. Dunlap, Berkeley.

(1997), “The Ethno-Political Entities in the Region of the Upper and Middle
Danube in the 6th-9th Centuries A.D.,” in Urbańczyk, P. (ed.), Origins of
Central Europe, Warsaw, 45-58.

Wood, I.N. (2004), “Fredegar’s Fables” in Scharer, A. & Scheibelreiter, G. (eds.),

Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter, Oldenbourg, 359-366.

Woolfe, G. (2011), Tales of the Barbarians. Ethnography and Empire in the Roman
West, Oxford.

Woolfe, L. (1994), Inventing Eastern Europe. The Map of Civilization on the Mind of
Enlightenment, Stanford.

~ 172 ~