Professional Documents
Culture Documents
conflict then taking place - he laid the foundation for civilian control of the Ulmt.i.nian
military that has since been embodied in Ukraine's constitution. It was a risky meas
ure, fraught with dangers to him and his family. But as the veteran Ukraine-watcher,
Sherman W. Garnett, notes in his excellent introduction, it was "during the August
1991 coup that Morozov truly demonstrated his mettle" (p. xvii).
Morozov's subsequent achievement cannot
be
almost single-handedly created the Ukrainian Armed Forces. At the time of the Soviet
collapse, he found himself at the head of the second-largest anned forces in Europe,
possessing the third-largest arsenal of nuclear armaments on the planet. The task be
fore him was to consolidate and maintain command and control over his forces, even
a5
he reorganized and de-ideologized the former Soviet forces now in his charge. It
cannot be emphasized enough that, in 1991-93, the outcome of this process was very
335
many ways, the lack of any critical approach to either sources used or theories em
To explore Vukcevich's "method," let us examine his claims about the supposed
survival of the god Perun in the guise of St. Elias the Thunderer.
0!1
l!ral place-names "vibrating with ancient Slavic cults," such as Mt. Perun in lstria or
Perun near Kotor, Vukcevich claims that "the Perun/Sv. Ilia cult had its deepest roots,
IS). 1bese
in
. the subsequent chapter entitled "\\there Perun was 'still worshipped" in which we
I earn about twentieth-century Serbs in Bosnia, described in incredibly racist term as
inmates in the'"notorious Jasenovac death camp." The reader is taken by surprise ith
this clumsy leap over millennia and will no doubt be confused by the lack of any ap
much uncertain.
parent justification for this chapter in the general economy of the book. Vukcevich's
aplomb. His insistence upon an oath of loyalty for all officers and enlisted personnel,
order to link the history of the Balkan Serbs to that of the central European Sorbs. He
historical context. Most of this 600-page volume is nothing else but lists of place
Morozov is to be credited with having accomplished his task with dedication and
and on free passage home for all who refused, rather than sununary discharge of for
pect. Morozov permitted over 10,000 non-Ukrainian officers to return to their former
Soviet republics. He also initiated return of Ukraine's strategic and tactical nuclear
weapons to Russia and laid the foundation for a stable security relationship with
major goal seems to have been to use the work of Heinrich Kunstmann and others in
brings no fresh evidence and offers no new analysis. Worse, there is a tof lack of
names, and Vukcevich repeats the views of medieval authors or such 'scholars as
Joachim Hemnann as statements of fact without the most rudimentary criticism and,
Arabic historian and geographer Jbn Sa'id al-Maghribi (1213-74) writes about the
immense Slav lands where it is said hat they (sic) still adhere to the Madjus religion
and worship fire" (p.. 31 ). The author was considerably handicapped because he must
For both the general and scholarly reader, the book features three photo collec
he took at face value. As a consequence, lbn Fadlan's famous account of a Rus' burial
and Ukrainian documents, together with English language translations. These help to
(sic) overtones, including suttee" (p. 30). Similarly, Vukcevich was misled in believ
sense of appreciation for the enormity of the challenges he faced, and admiration for
have worked with modem and often incorrect translations of medieval sources, which
55).
his policies and methods in handling them. Morozov during this period showed him
dence of al-Ahtal could at best refer to the Slavs who deserted from the Byzantine
Robert S. Kravchuk
Indiana University
An Inquiry into
Early ffotory of the Serbs/Slavs of Sarmatia, Germania, and /llyria. Santa Bar
bara, CA: University Center Press, 200 I. xviii, 602 pp. S26.9S (paper).
The title suggests that Ivo Vukcevich will attempt to do more than offer lists of
sc.ope of this book is more accurately described in the introduction: this" is not an
original work, but "thoroughly derivative." "From beginning to end, it is based on the
research of others." (p. xvii). The author goes on to promise a "readable, user friendly
introduction to the subject" and a "useful if wavering baseline for further study."
army at the battle at Sebastopolis (692) and were settled in Muslim Syria, before be
ing recruited into Muhammad b. Marwan's army. Because of his lack of attention to
quence, Proc pius of Caesarea, a Greek source at one time cited in Polish (p.
another in Latin (p. 98), becomes the first author to mention the Serbs (p.
11 ).
57), at
57) and Sva
pointed by Justinian in 530 becomes a fellow tribesman of the Antes (p. 61), while the
"Bessarabian Antes" (p. 62) are wrongly credited with the words which Menander the
Guardsman (fr. 21) clearly attributed to the Sclavene leader Dauritas. When lacking
written evidence, Vukcevich turns to dubious etymologies. For example, he endorses
monies
linus in relation to the withdrawal of Athanaric and his Tervingi following their defeat
by the Huns) as referring to "early Serb settlements in Dacia" (p. 73). Adding to the
336
soun;e
and
what constitutes the work of scholarship. Ptolemy and the director of the
British Museum, David Wilson; appear as equally useful when it comes to describe
310-11).
337
to use
the
seem, in my
opinion,
term ethnic/ethnic too read ily. This is particularly the case with Curta, who
argues that theSlavic label/identity was invented by the Byzantines to describe a par
ticular problem the empire faced. He more or less denies tl}at in the early period the
At a quick glimpse, the aim of this book may not be fully apparent, but is in fact
Slavs used the term at all. If they did not, then they had no known ethnic awareness,
thing about the medieval Serbs will benefit from reading this book. However, readers
quite clear. Neither scholars of East European history nor those trying to learn some
interested in the
1997),
Urheimat
important, Rex Germanorum is reminiscent of E>onk Jankovic 's Srpsk.e gromile (Bel
grade,
1998)
Constantin Dragan's theories of a Thracian (read: Romanian) origin for most Euro
pean peoples, from Romans to Anglo-Saxons(// mondo dei Traci, Rome,
320} or the
1993)
reso-
ing topit of current research, and those interested in its linguistic and archaeological
ramifications will find a treasure-trove between the covers of this book.
Florin
first time
clearly too late, for the mid ninth-century ruler of Croatia Branimir identified himself
as Duke of the Slavs on two different inscriptions. However,
to
write only in the ninth century, we really are not in a position to know what they
called themselves earlier; but since all their other neighbors (Franks, Lombards, Ital
ians [particularly Venetians], the papacy, and so on) called them Slavs too, it seems
likely that the Slavs (or many of them) were calling themselves Slavs quite early.
The second issue examined (in more detailed fashion by Barford, since he had a
large region to examine) is did the Slavs appear in Eastern Europe in the
fifth
or sixth
century from elsewhere or did they emerge as a defined group from an already exist
ing population in parts of that region. Archaeology cannot help too much here, for
such remains without written material can identify particular material cultures, but can
provide no evidence of
for an
University ofFlorida
Curta
urheimar
language.
But in
any case,
this territory.
various
directions from
In the case of the Balkans, the Slvs clearly were not present within that territory
before the sixth century. Curta presents a very original depiction here. He argues that
P. M. Barford. The Early Slavs: Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern
2001.
$39.95.
500-700.
2001.
xxv,
thought and that their raids were fewer in number and actual settlen1ent chiefly came
in the seventh century. To advance this. argument, he presents evidence
Florin Curta. The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube
Region c.
the Slavs were much less disruptive in that century than scholars up to now have
463 pp.
$80.00.
the Danube) were much more effective than usually believed. The Slavs, as potential
enemies and then as actual ones, acquired a descriptive label from the Byzantines who
dealt with them.
and
in relying heavily on ar
chaeology as well as written sources, the two works under review have significant dif
ferences. Curta focuses on SouthSlavs and the Byzantine Danubian frontier for a lim
ited period of two centuries and devotes as much, if not more, attention to the Byzan
tines as to the Slavs. Barford examines all Slavs,
East,
and West
to demonstrate
that Justinian's system of Danube fortifications (which were clearly on both sides of
Thus
the 'S
' lavs" were invented at the time of Justinian when they
became a problem Curta argues that among the groups given that label would have
been speakers of various other languages, but as the largest element their name came
to the
fore.
which would
solidify this
Avar empire, lavic likely became a linguafranca among the assorted peoples. I see
for a longer
unfortunately, the majority of examples Curta finds in the scarce sources on this issue
Curta's archaeological experience and emphasis lie near the Danube, Barford's lie in
case he states: "Slays did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but because
fct do not
ough
period, t
South,
the tenth century and sketchily even beyond that. And whereas
Poland. Barford also devotes chapters to specific topics (daily life, social structure,
them are very sketchy and sometimes speculative, which, of course; results from the
scarcity of sources on such matters. Both books can be read with profit.
Both authors arc
This
two things, their actual arrival from somewhere else or the first time an afready-
know
346)
Though there
is a
tongues. In any
why these others chose that term for these newly emerging enemies.
(t' is not unlikely that the term was already in use among the Slavs(or some of them),
either for their identity or the language they spoke. Barford thinks it was, though it
does not come thrqugh clearly "from when." He plausibly argues that local groups
used it for themselves with no concept (until the twelfth century) of the Slavs being a