334

Canadian American Slavic Studies/Revue Canadiennc Ammcaine d'ctudcs Slaves

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

overestimated. To put it mildly, he

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

Boo k Rcvicws/Comptes rendus

335

Vukcevich, therefore, strives to accomplish nothing more than just vulgarization. In

many ways, the lack of any critical approach to either sources used or theories em

braced makes this vulgariz.ation look very much like propaganda.

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

the basis of sev

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,

strength and vitality in the core Serb lands" (p.

IS). 1bese

claims are then developed

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

"pure-blooded Slavic thoroughbreds," as well as about the 1942 killings of Serliian

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

eigners (as in the Baltic states), rendered a potentially contentious, resentment

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

generating process as civilized and conflict-free as any observer might reasonably ex

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

Ukraine's larger northern neighbor which represented a critical affirmation of honor

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,

of course, knowledge of alternative interpretations. For example:. The Spanish

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

in the defense of the homeland, and.helped establish Ukraine's military as a credible

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

and reliable partner in the emerging collective security structures of Europe.

tions, amounting to some thirty-nine pictures in all, as well as reproductions of So\liet

round out the story. Overall, readers will come away from Morozov's memoirs with a

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

ceremony is taken as a description of a Slavic custom ''with the strongest lndic-Hindu

ing that al-Ahtal's use of the image of the golden-haired Slavs as a metaphor for dan
ger indicated "an early Slavic presence in the Caucasus" (p.

55).

In reality, the evi

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

problems of translation, Vukcevich often misunderstands his sources. As a conse

self to be one of a small class of emerging statesmen of the post-Soviet period.

Ivo Vukcevich. Rex Germanorum populos Sclavorum:

Indiana University

An Inquiry into

the Origin and

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

place-names followed by excerpts from various medieval or modetn authors. The

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.

rog, "the Slav god of gods" (p.

11 ).

57), at
57) and Sva

Similarly, the magister mi/itum per Thraciam ap

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

Niko :lupanic's interpretation of

monies

Serrorum (mcnti.onec! by Ammianus Marcel

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

problem is Vukcevich's apparent ambivalence in regard to what is to be treated as a

Canadian American Slavic Studies/Revue

336

soun;e

and

Canadicnne ArnCricaine d'etudcs Slaves

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

the " BalticSlav imprint beyond the borders ofSlavia"(pp.

310-11).

Book Reviews/Cornptes rendus

337

present population gets noticed in written sources. Both authors

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

themselves as Slavs was in the twelfth-century "Russian Primary Chronicle." That is

quite clear. Neither scholars of East European history nor those trying to learn some

interested in the

relation between linguistics and archaeology, on one hand, and ethnic

nationalism, on the other, will have no difficulty recognizing familiar propaganda

techniques. Vukcevich's attempt to gain a respectable antiquity for the "Serbs" is in

many ways similar to Stjepan Pantelic's
Dalmatien (Frankfurt a.M.,

1997),

Urheimat

der Kroaten in Pannonien und

a book of equally questionable scholarship. More

important, Rex Germanorum is reminiscent of E>onk Jankovic 's Srpsk.e gromile (Bel

grade,

1998)

and his theory of a third- and fourth-century Balkan Urheimat of the

Setbs. But this is by no means a phenomenon restricted to former Yugoslavia. losif

Constantin Dragan's theories of a Thracian (read: Romanian) origin for most Euro
pean peoples, from Romans to Anglo-Saxons(// mondo dei Traci, Rome,

. nate with many outlandish claims in Vukcevich's

(p.

320} or the

Serb roots of the Ashkenazi

1993)

reso-

book, such as the "Slavic Vikings"

Jews (p. 554). Protochronism is a fascinat

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

the Slavs identified

clearly too late, for the mid ninth-century ruler of Croatia Branimir identified himself
as Duke of the Slavs on two different inscriptions. However,

since the Slavs began

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.

However, I sec this label as much more political/organizational than ethnic.

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

and thus to me could not be ethnics. He claims that the

urheimar

language.

But in

any case,

neither author has much sympathy

in e.g., the Pripet marshes and a migration in

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

Europe. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,

2001.

xvi, 416 pp.

$39.95.

500-700.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

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.

Though similar in title, in overlapping subject matter,

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.

I\ also suggests reasonably,

which would

solidify this

thesis, that in the

Avar empire, lavic likely became a linguafranca among the assorted peoples. I see

no reason to doubt the presence in particular areas of speakers of different languages;

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

warfare, production, consumption and exchange, pagan ideologies); often points in

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

concerned with when the Slavs

appeared as Slavs and then with

what sort of identity was attached to the Slavic label.

This

appearance can be one of

two things, their actual arrival from somewhere else or the first time an afready-

usually indicate bi-lingualism and do not demonstrate different mother

they were called so by others." (p.

know

346)

Though there

is a

tongues. In any

kernel of truth here, we in

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