IMAGO TEMPORIS Medium Aevum 2 (2008)SuMMaARY 1 Part. THE Past INTERROGATED AND UNMASKED 17-25. History that Rescues and Redeems the Present Maria-Milagros Rivera-Garretas 27-43 Joining the Club: A Spanish Historic Towns Atlas? Howard B. Clarke 45-55 “Who is who” in Spanish Medieval Studies Germin Navarro II Parr. Tue Past Srupiep AND MEASURED 59-82 Bycantium and the Dark Ages. A Civilization on Trial José Marin 83-112 The Andalusian Economy in the Times of Almanzor. Administrative Theory and Economic Reality through Juridical and Geographic Sources Francisco Franco-Sanchez 113-132. Loyalty, Friendship and Love in the Letters of Fulbert of Chartres Analie Germain 133-160 The Christian Message in Josep d’Abarimatie and Demanda del Santo Grial: Conversion and Charity through Dialogue Catalina Girbea 161-175. The Establishment of a Modus Vivendi berween the Franciscans and the Clergy: Vie - 1280-1357 Jill Webster 177-189 A Chronicler King: Rewriting History and the Quest {for Image in the Catalan Chronicle of Peter Ill (1319-1336/1387) Frédéric Alchalabi 191-225. Quonstituido en estrei Julia Baldé vejez. Old Age and Life Expectancy in Late Medieval Navarre III Parr. Tite Past EXPLainep AND RECREATED 229-260 The Middle Ages in USA Cinema Juan Antonio Barrio 261-287 Medieval Internet: Research, Knowledge and Play, the New Time Travel Albert Sierra 291-465 OnicINaLs oF THE Texts Nor WRITTEN IN ENGLISH es » U x NY Consolidated Medieval Studies Research Group Universitat de Lleida Space, Power and Culture = >= = 2 (2008) PU ayBYZANTIUM AND THE DARK AGES A CIVILIZATION ON TRIAL José Main Ponniricia Universtpap CATOuica DE VALPARAISO Powiricia Universipap CaTOuica DE CHILE Cre ite of reception: 9 of January, 2007 al date of acceptance: 18" of December, 2007 RACT This article presents a reflection about the Byzantine Civilization between the and 9 centuries, a crucial moment for its existence. This period implied deep nges, and it was then when the Byzantine Civilization, sometimes conceived as ig immersed in an overwhelming hieratic attitude, demonstrated its dynamism \d plasticity to face the problems. This time of crisis, that the Anglo-Saxon histo- ography qualifies as the dark age and that puts an end to the late ancient epoch, is 1D. Zakythinds called the “Great Breach” of Hellenism, concept that we feel is uate (mutatis mutandis) to refer to the so-called “crisis of the 7" century” in the stern Mediterranean, Whether it was a time of crisis, decadence or transforma- mn is an open question, and perhaps we are only facing speculative images crouch- ig behind which —and perhaps forcing an ironic smile— a historical reality faces us ‘with such complexity that it involves all these aspects. Whatever it is, what we can arly see is that the Byzantine Civilization was not only able to overcome a difficult with the adequate historical responses, but it also invigorated its Hellenic roots, vantium knew how to win a prosperous future. EY WORDS. Bizantium, Dark age, Great Breach, Balkans, Slavs. CAPrrALIA VERBA Byzantium, Tenebricosum aeuum, Magna Strages, Haernus, Sclauii.. dco Teron. Mowat Arvuu, (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-393160 José Marin 1, Introduction’ The periods of change, such as the one that the Byzantine Empire experienced in the so-called “Dark Ages” —and which will be outlined in this article—, allow us to appreciate the vitality of a historical subject and its capacity to face the challenges imposed by historical existence, resist the changes and, if necessary, adapt to these, but without losing its distinctive traits, which, in the end, allows us to ponder its per- manence in time while weighing up its strengths and weaknesses. Historical analysis teaches us that itis just as futile to strive to uphold a historically unreal policy of con- tinuity, as itis to force the rhythm of history with the aim of provoking abrupt chang- es that do no more than attack the essence of the historical subject itself, threatening it with disappearance, only to demonstrate, sooner rather than later, ones equivoca- tion, In the first case, for example, we might consider the so-called “Detained Civi sations”, as explained by A. Toynbee, and among these, the case of the immobility of the Lower Roman Empire; in the second case, we might appeal to all those rebellious anti-establishment movements that have aimed to “go back to basics”, from the first monks to the modern hippies, through the French Revolution. The Greco-Roman Civilization of the Mediterranean, for example, before its final collapse, had to face up to, suffer and overcome many periods of change, sometimes profound, without losing its historical identity. Thus, the Romans of the Empire were the same as those of the Republic, despite the mutations in the political structure, and that is an irrefutable proof of the vitality of Rome. Similar is the case of the Byzantine Civilization, which, between the 7" and 9" centuries, had to face a deep crisis that changed part of its economic, social, demographic structure, etc., but not its historical entity entirely: once the challenge had been overcome, we are faced with a reinforced civilization that continued to be Hellenistic and Christian, that is, Byzantine. The Mac- edonian dynasty, that governed the Empire between the 9 and 11" centuries well represents the vitality of a society that knew how to transport its culture to remote regions, sowing the seeds of the identity of Eastern Europe orthodox roots. The Slavs, for instance, the barbarians who were potentially dangerous for the Empire, came to constitute “close” nations, altrough autonomous and independent ones. And in fact, when we talk about Byzantium, we talk about the founding pillars of what we commonly call Central or Eastern Europe, concepts argued about (perhaps also arguable) and which have to some extent been contaminated with different ideological visions. To avoid falling into conceptual anachronisms or imprecision, we must ask ourselves, first of all, what we mean by “Eastern Europe” or “Central Europe”, especially in the context of the Middle Ages. Europe can be divided into eastern and western zones divided by a series of imaginary lines according to religious, ethnic or political criteria, among others. From the configuration of the extremes, moreover, we can conceive a third and central part, which complicates the question even more —without mentioning N. 1, The author has presented a version of this work at the Teer Simposio de ADEISE: Europa, identidad y crisis, Mendoza, Argentina, 2006. aco Teuronis, Meonuat Azvon, 1 (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-3931Byzantium aNb THE Dark AGEs. A C1Vviizarion oN TRIAL 6 lorga’s notion of South-east Europe, which is a relatively recent concept. When we refer to Eastern or Central Europe, we are using a nomenclature linked to the political history of the region in the 19% and 20! centuries, even when earlier references can be found. In contrast with our treatment of north and south, which are objective geographic references, east and west have been relativised from the observer or protagonist who assumes one or other denomination, which is not only determined by the geographical localization, but also to a large degree by its cultural and ideological “location”. As stated elsewhere, “the expansion of [one or the other] has implied a relativism of the concepts East and West: the relations, whether confrontational or not, between one world and another, could happen in the 10 century in Muslim Spain, when Almanzor (978-1002) sacked the city of Compostela in the Middle East during the age of the Crusades; in Vienna, during the 17"-century Ottoman Turkish siege; or during the Napoleonic conquest of Egypt at the end of the 18" century; and, perhaps, at the beginning of the 21 century in the financial heart of the United States”. Such an idea is perfectly applicable 10 a more limited reality. This is the cas of Europe, since such denominations are used depending on the political (German or Austrian influences, for example) or ideological circumstances (the presence of Soviet hegemony and the Warsaw Pact) In fact, what we nowadays refer to as the Eastern countries or Eastern Europe, is dearly an invention of the Cold War and thus essentially a geopolitical notion. Thus this classification, based on the identification of various, even antagonistic, political and economic systems, does not necessarily have a clear and symmetrical historical, cultural, ethnic and linguistic basis. In fact, the expansion of the European Union towards the “countries of the east”, demonstrates in practice that such a concept has lost a great deal of its meaning. An easy and ideologically neutral way of conceiving Central and Eastern Europe, is through geography, by dividing the continent into three parts, covering a total area extending from ten degrees longitude west to seventy degrees longitude east. By this method, Western Europe would extend approximately as far east as ten degrees. From there to thirty-five degrees, would be what we would call Central Europe, next to it Eastern Europe, which would end at sixty degrees east. What we normally refer to as Eastern Europe would correspond to a belt that stretches from twelve and a half degrees to forty degrees, covering Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the former Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece, Rumania and the Baltic Republics, Belarus, the Ukraine and Russia as far as Moscow. To the north, the border would be the Baltic Sea and the Scandinavian Peninsula, while to the south this would be formed by the Balkans. Thus, this ‘Eastern Europe’ that we are attempting to define, has little in common with the old ideological classification, but we can recognise some other relevant elements, such as Slavonic-based ethnic identity and Christian-based religious identity. Understood in this way, this Eastern Europe closely resembles the one defined by T. Masaryk (1850-1937) (“the land between Germany and Russia”), and Which historical studies have incorporated since the second decade of the 20" century as a useful concept for talking about the Middle Ages. However, for the present study, this eastern part of Europe also includes Greece, because the last element of Inco Teatronrs. Meowuat Aevon, Il (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-393162 José Marin identification rests on religion, In fact, in the medieval period nobody thought of Europe in terms of east and west, but rather conceived it as a Christianitas that had a Constantinopolitan and a Roman expression. What we know as Western Europe is, in the medieval reality, the Christianitas Occidentalis of Charlemagne, separated from the Roman Empire (i.e. Byzantium) by a band of barbarian peoples between the Baltic Sea and the north of the Balkans, a zone that was gradually invigorated with the establishment of princedon first and then kingdoms. The Treaty of Aix- la-Chapelle (Aachen) in 811 recognised this bipolar reality by assigning “influence areas” to both the Carolingian Empire and the Byzantine Empire in that zone. ‘As the contemporary ruling powers became aware of the growth of new states (Moravia, Bulgaria, Serbia and Croatia, and later Russia, Poland and Hungary), they began to lure them towards their orbit of influence; the Latin-Roman-Germanic west attempted this through conquest, while the Greek-Constantinopolitan east opted for the creation of a cultural community based on spiritual links and on an orthodox religious identity which has been since then shared by a large, mainly Slavonic, population in the centre and east of Europe. Among the elements that characterised the beginning of a “medieval” period, the Volkerwanderung or migration of peoples occupied an important place —a softer and less compromising expression than “invasions”. During the period discussed here, various peoples entered into universal history, an integration that was dramatic for the central power in its initial phase, but historically fertile in the long term, similar to what happened in the west between the 4" and 5* centuries. Avars, Serbs, Croats and Bulgars from the steppe, Slavs from north of the Danube, Muslims {rom the south-east, these were the new people with whom Byzantium, after an initial pe- riod of clashes, had to learn to coexist, a learning process which, in contrast with the events in the western Roman Empire, guaranteed its future for various centuries. The flexibility of the Empire in the face of adverse historical circumstances was significant: given the impossibility of continuing to sustain the “Latin ecumenism”, the option chosen was to establish ties of friendship between Byzantium and her new neighbours, integrating them into a cultural, religious and political communi- ty, a “family” of nations, a real commonwealth, as Dimitri Obolensky? called it (in fact, the Muslim case was outside this scheme, because although there were diplomatic relations, integration was impossible given that these two worlds were mutually exclusive). This did not mean renouncing the universalistic pretensions inherent in a Christian empire, but only the recognition of a reality: it was equally the accom- plishment of the Providential Plan, although by different means, as the inclusion within the Byzantine community required a religious, political and cultural conver- 2. Obolensky, Dimitri, The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe 500-1453. London: Cardinal Bd., 1974 (London: Weidenteld and Nicolson, 1971). Inaco Tesromss. Meoiint Asvum, II (2008); 59-82. ISSN 1888-3931 oe rey PRSSSQyeesspsze BoasBYZANTIUM AND THE DARK AGES. A CIVILIZATION ON TRIAL so that these peoples joined in a historical task, led by Constantinople, but one ‘was understood as a commitment involving all Christianity. the specific case of Balkan Greece, where the Dark Ages were felt especially tically, the Empire did not, however, compromise: it obliged the recent als to “Byzantinise” themselves, something it did not attempt with Russians, is or Serbs. One thing was the extension of Byzantine influence to “barbarian” s that were never part of the empire, quite another was the recovery of jonally Hellenic territory. Greece was understood as a province, unjustly seized the barbarians, which they had settled without imperial consent; thus there was room for either a Cyril or a Methodius, but rather a full-scale reconquest, as ively happened. And this was how Byzantium saved Hellenism even in Greece , sufficient merit to earn a place in the annals of history. From Latin Empire to Greek Empire The reigns of Justinian 1 (527-565) and Heraclius (610-641), constituted two les of the same historical process, characterised by the end of “Roman ecumenism” the beginning of eastern Byzantine Hellenism, culturally and geographically aking. While Justinian might be called the “last Roman emperor”, Heraclius it well be considered the “first Byzantine emperor”. The latter, imbibed with the rial Latin spirit, took on the task of restoring the Universal Empire, embarking the so-called Reconquest, a task to which all the diplomatic, economic and itary resources available to the emperor were committed. The “ecumenical am” seemed at the time to come true: Byzantium, the Second Rome, was again the First, the Lord of the Mediterranean, restoring its authority in the of Africa, eastern Spain and the north of Italy. From a “localist” and narrow ective, Justinian’s great politcal and military undertaking may have seemed successful. However, as the time goes by, signs of weakness began to appear, iptoms of a disease whose consequence would, on one hand, be the irremediable definitive loss of the reconquered provinces. On the other hand, as Justinian’s icy, concentrating on the west, in the long term favoured the Empire's powerful jes (Lombards, Slavs, Avars and Persians, among others), the Empire also had face the loss of other important provinces. Egypt and Syria-Palestine fell first to Persian assault and later to Muslim Arab expansion, a new politcal and military fed by a strong mystical feeling that appeared in the Mediterranean in the early ides of the 7" century. Avars and Slavs, on the other hand, took control of the ans. Thus, between the 6" and 7" centuries Byzantium bled on two fronts. Heraclius, on his part, contemplated in some occasions the possibility to transfer capital to the west, specifically to his hometown of Carthage, having encoun- red a lamentable situation in Constantinople after the disastrous government of usurper Phoeas (602-610); but Constantinopolitan traditionalism and what we ht call, albeit prematurely, the Byzantine ‘national” identity, triumphed. His Imaco Texronts. Meoivm Asvum, Hl (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-393164 José Marin policy, in short, concentrated on the east. Justinian and Heraclius thus closed the Latin cycle. The Empire contracted territorially to exercise its sovereignty only over Thrace, Constantinople and its /iztterland, Armenia and Anatolia. This was a histori- cally Greek zone, so that the material reduction meant, at the same time, a cultural fortress, consolidating the Hellenic character of the Empire. Moreover, traditionally conflictive regions, from a religious point of view, such as Egypt, had been lost, which reinforced a feeling of belonging to orthodoxy, another element of identity. The Greek language, on the other hand, had replaced Latin from the second half of the 6" century, given that, as Justinian himself stated, it was then the “patrios fone”, the mother language. Roman patriotism gave way to Greek patriotism. If Justinian had been Imperator, Heraclius was Basileus ton Roméon pistds en Christo (“Emperor of the Romans faithful to Christ’), the title he adopted in 629 and which splendidly sums up the Greek and Christian spirit of Roman tradition in the Byzantine Empire. It is important to emphasize what the loss of the Balkans implied, given that the main land routes that linked east and west (such as the Via Egnatia) were interrupted. There was a distancing between Rome and Constantinople, which, with time, became increasingly notorious in the political, religious, linguistic and the cultural spheres in general. The administrative division sanctioned by Theodosius the Great in 395 and consolidated over the following years, was completed and extended two and a half centuries later. The Old Empire had ceded its place to the Medieval Empire. Below, I will briefly review some outstanding events of the epoch that extended from Justinian to Heraclius, and that allow us to ponder how the crisis that affected the Empire so seriously until the rise of the Macedonian dynasty became so deep. 3. Expansion, contention and withdrawal Yet Byzantium was in no condition to face the new dangers that were assaulting its frontiers, finding itself in an extreme situation in which even its own existence was in peril. The Empire could try to remain faithful to an ancestral policy which was not to weaken itself or bleed itself dry fighting on two fronts; however, after Justinian’s aggressive policy —and also with it and from it— the problems multi- plied and the emperors could barely manage this very complex situation, which led to the opening of various fronts: the west, with the Justinian reconquest and its heavy, burdensome legacy; the Danubian Limes, even more unstable but, at the same time, more poorly maintained; and the eastern front, with the rebellious and dangerous Sassanids who held out until they were completely crushed by Byzan- tium, in the 7" century, shortly before being obliterated by the Muslims. Expansion, contention and withdrawal seem to be the three key concepts when weighing up the facts, if we observe the general situation of the Byzantine Empire at the moment when the “Balkan problem” (the Avars and Slavs) made itself felt. Similarly, the relation that Constantinople established with the recent arrivals, was @ 104 Tourn Meo Arve (2008): 59-82. ISSN 18883931Byzantium ANb THE DARK AGES. A CIVILIZATION ON TRIAL 6s ly linked to the global policy adopted, illustrated in the three above-mentioned . While Justinian the Great clearly represented an expansive phase, {rom the ime of his successor, Justin Il (565-578), the conditions became unfavourable, id by the end of the reign of Tiberius II (578-582), a policy of contention could ly be maintained, while the structure of the empire began to creak. Despite efforts of Maurice (582-602), who scarcely managed to preserve the Empire he inherited, or with Phocas and his disastrous government, and later with aclius, who was at least able to recover part of the eastern provinces, Byzantium ly washed its hands of the western provinces. The stage of withdrawal, which ncluded the Balkans, began to be overcome towards the end of the 8" century and beginning of the 9". The graph is a statistical table which schematises the extension of the Byzantine mpire throughout its history. It illustrates clearly that the greatest territorial acqui- ins, Which were originated in the reign of Justinian, had been lost by around 0, marking a real hiatus in the statistical curve. There was a brief recovery dur- g the reign of Heraclius, but this hardly exceeded, even at its highest point, the ‘a of the eastern part of the Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. The collapse hat followed was telling in terms of the serious situation that the Empire was then experiencing, Graph of the territorial extension of the Byzantine Empire (284-1461) Source: Treadgold, W. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford: Stanford Uni- versity Press, 1997: 8). Inuaco Teuronis: Meosum Aevus, Il (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-393166 José Marin Justinian 1, drew up an ambitious plan whose aim was to recover the greatness of the Roman Empire. This emperor, in whom Roman universalism was still alive, favoured the western front, sending a series of military expeditions with the aim of recovering the old imperial provinces. To ensure sufficient forces, Justinian signed a “peace without limits” (not an “eternal peace” as Procopius’s words have been commonly and mistakenly translated) with Persia, in 532. In fact, the Byzantine Empire had concentrated its forces on the eastern front from the beginning of the 6" century, and the peace of 532 gave them a breath space which, once that front was stabilised, allowed the so-called Justinian Reconquest to go ahead. In the event, this peace only lasted a few years until it was re-established, first in 562 for a few years, and then again in 592. The Justinian project seemed very successful in the short term: between 533 and 555, Italy, Africa and the eastern part of the Iberian Peninsula fell under Byzantine hegemony, as did the islands of the Western Medi- terranean. The Mediterranean Sea, as has so often been said, once again became a “Roman lake’. However, the monumental nature of the Justinian project, which, in addition to the territorial aspect, included an enormous administrative reform and an extensive building programme, ended up eroding the Empire economically. In the medium term, the weaknesses of the imperial policy came to light, and not only did his suc- cessors inherit a critical economie situation, but they also inherited the instability on the eastern front, as well as a possible third front in the Danube region, which mate- rialised after 550, with the impact of the Avars and the movements of the Slavs. With regard to the latter, Byzantium in fact recruited many as frontier settlers or mercenaries, in the conviction that if they felt part of the Empire they would defend it, which provides more evidence of the impact of tradition on imperial policies. Oc- cupied with the wars of the Reconquest in the west, and the war against Persia in the east, the emperor could not send large military forces to a region where the problem seemed “minor”. It is known that groups of Slavs fought for Byzantium in the war against Persia, including examples such as Dabragazas, who became commander of the Crimean fleet, or the case of Sovarouna, a soldier of Slavonic origin stationed in the Caucasus. This initial period of penetration, during which the Slavs still showed no interest in settling permanently in the Balkans, was characterised by peaceful contacts that began a gradual Hellenisation of the recently arrived barbarians. The Danubian Limes, the most dangerous and vulnerable frontier, had been left relatively unprotected since the time of Justine I (518-527). Although his successor reinforced the fortifications on the Danube from Sirmium to Constantinople, there- by completing the work of Anastasius I (491-518), while reorganising the army and using diplomacy if possible, to pit some tribes against others. The forces stationed there were insufficient to stem the barbarian tide, and between 580 and 620 Byz- antine resistance finally gave way. In fact, Justinian’s successors did not concern themselves sufficiently with the maintenance of the fortified Limes and so the Slavs had almost total freedom to roam the Balkans as they wished. Divided between east and west, and especially worried about the Reconquest, Justinian I neglected the Danubian frontier, where a purely defensive strategy was Iuaco Tenronts. Meow Arvou, 1 (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-3931BYZANTIUM AND THE DARK AGES. A. CIVILIZATION ON TRIAL applied, which was revealed to be completely useless. In any case, Justinian’s build- ing activity and the fortification works of the Danubian Limes should not be under- estimated. The testimony of Procopius, very often distrusted because of its apolo- getic character, but nowadays archaeologically supported, shows that in the middle of the 6" century, the zone was protected in a hitherto unknown way. In the region a complex network of three interlocking defensive lines were built and organised in an overlapping pattern, which shows that the Scavenes were perceived as a real threat. Justinian also tried to protect the Peloponnese from invasions by having a great wall built across the isthmus of Corinth, as the above-mentioned Byzantine historian also recorded, where forts and garrisons were built, so that all the cities in the peninsula remained inaccessible to the enemy, even if the defences of Ther- mopylae were forced. However, the construction did not stand up to the blows of nature and was demolished by an earthquake in 551, or perhaps by another one in 580, so that on the arrival of the Slavs there was nothing there but ruins. It is paradoxical that some Slavs apparently reached the Peloponnese crossing the Gulf of Corinth with their monoxyls, and not by land across the isthmus, as the emperor had anticipated. In comparative terms, the reign of Justin Il was undoubtedly more opaque than that of his predecessor. However, this can be explained to a great extent by the latter's legacy to the former: a powerful imperial conception, that it is true, led Justin to struggle to maintain Justinian I's territorial legacy, but he also inherited a very extensive and scattered empire, threatened on all fronts and economically tuined. An austere and tight fiscal policy allowed the imperial coffers to recover temporarily towards the end of his rule, but by then his foreign policy had been shown to be completely misguided. Justinian had maintained a precarious balance with Persia through the payment of tributes, and he had done the same with the Avars on the Danubian frontier, al- though clearly at a lesser cost. Justin Il, however, true to his regime of austerity, but with notable short-sightedness, suspended both payments, which in practice meant and open provocation of two dangerous enemies, although it is true that the tribute handed over to the Avars was considered by many Byzantines as a humiliation. In turn, the western part of the empire was becoming increasingly unstable. On one hand the Lombards rapidly entered Italy from 568 and seized a large part of it, while on the other hand the Visigoths began a counterattack that would finally lead them to oust the Byzantine troops stationed in the Iberian peninsula. Lastly, although the empire maintained its possessions in Africa, the Berber rebellions made the situa- tion more precarious by the day, so much that even the prefect Theodore was assas- sinated, creating an unprecedented and totally outrageous situation. The disaster could have been worse if the emperor had not decided to withdraw and finally re-establish the payment of tribute to the Avars. Without being able to avoid the loss of Italy, and with the sensitive Danubian frontier in the hands of the ambitious Bayan, Khan of the Avars —controlled thanks to the gold— Justine committed a final error: he activated the eastern front against Persia, which, under Chosroes I (531-579), inflicted serious defeats on the Byzantine empire. Once again Juaco Tisuronrs. Macium Anvum, (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-393168 José Marin it has to be noted that the disaster could have been worse if the emperor had not fallen seriously ill, thereby in practice becoming unfit to govern, so that the regent empress Sophia was obliged to sign a peace treaty with Persia. The universalistic Justinian project that had seemed a dream come true, was reduced to an illusion. Tiberius Il and Maurice ended the period of containment, and during their reigns the withdrawal began as a result of two constant and serious problems: multiplica- tion of the fronts and the scarcity of human and economic resources to stabilise them. On the Balkan front —always “in the middle” and affected by the actions on the western or eastern fronts—, the case of Tiberius is telling: Although he was able to pacify Africa and recover the port of Classe di Ravenna, while also celebrating victories, despite having to lament reversals on the Persian front—, his biggest headache was in the Danubian Limes, The intensification of Avar pressure and the occupation of Sirmium in 582 forced him to cede the city and pay tributes in arrears because of the conflict. Maurice, on his part, had to worry about the western front, which he stabilised by founding the exarchates, with a marked militarisation of the administration, a process that became more marked over the following decades. However, in the Iberian Peninsula he suffered irreversible territorial losses. The Persian front was a prime concern for bis government, and in 592 he could manage to end to two dec- ades of war, thanks to the peace treaty signed after the civil war that had afflicted the Sassanids in the years 590-591, and that resulted in the accession to the throne of Chosroes II (590-628), thanks to Byzantine help. Once the truce was signed, Maurice turned his gaze to the Balkans, which had been neglected and where the Avar-Slav penetration was advancing without any restrictions, so much so that they had occupied various cities and, confident in their power, demanded that the emperor increase the tribute agreed years before. The dispatch of troops under General Prisco succeeded in reducing the pressure of the barbarians on the empire. However, the serious economic situation led Maurice to take decisions that he would later regret. Part of his austerity policy meant reducing the army’s troop strength, which had already seriously affected morale. The final straw was the order that was given to stay on the other side of the Danube, in Avar territory, during the winter of the 602-603. Indignant, the army marched on Constantinople led by general Phocas who, after assassinating Maurice and those close to him, proclaimed himself emperor. The rebellion by general Phocas (602-610), whose government was a complete disaster, has often been considered to be the moment when the Danubian fron- 1 was practically left to its own devices. However, as Florin Curta’ has recently demonstrated, there is no evidence that the Limes was completely abandoned nor is there any record of incursions by Avars or Slavs between 602 and 610. In fact, the collapse of the frontier came about during the rule of Heraclius (610-641), who from 620 had to transfer his troops and concentrate his forces in the east, where the 3. Curta, Florin, The Making of the Slavs. History and Archéology of the Lower Danube Region, ¢. 500-700 A.D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006; Curta, Florin. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages. 500- 1250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. JInaco Tesronrs, Mewar Azvun, I (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-3931BYZANTIUM AND THE DARK AGES. A CIVILIZATION ON TRIAL 6 had worsened alarmingly. The transfer of troops to the Persian front coincided cisely with the increase in the Slav incursions south of the Danube, which, as n by the archaeology, went ever deeper. ‘As might be appreciated, the Balkan problem was always a secondary ‘occupation for the emperors, who favoured the defence of the eastern front. well as being a question of political will, the economic problems did not allow sufficiently large army to be raised to enable a large contingent to be left on the To the above-mentioned factor of military weakness was added another geographic ‘one. The region of the Balkans, on account of its essentially mountainous relief, Balkan is a Turkish word meaning “mountainous chain’), is a zone whose defence nts great problems. Thus, the Empire could not avoid a large part of Balkan ory falling into the hands of the Slavs during the 7" century. This escaped antine control with the constitution of the esclavintias, territories occupied by ndependent Slavonic tribes, that remained outside imperial jurisdiction (although om Justinian Il (685-695) onwards the esclavinias were recognised as autonomous it tributaries), these never constituted a sovereign power or a state, which gave ‘the Empire the opportunity to integrate them into its political orbit, thus maintaining the fiction of universal Byzantine sovereignty). The above-mentioned revolt by Phocas, and the anarchy that followed it, together with the passivity of Heraclius, ho after a decade of inactivity concentrated on the eastern front, contributing © worsening the situation, given that the internal crisis, together with the total donment of the positions on the Danube, was exploited by the Slavs, who ured into the Balkans. Thus, at the beginning of the 7" century, the ethnic and political make-up of the s had varied considerably, and it was perhaps the greatest change that the ninsula has suffered until this moment. A predominantly Hellenic population ed into one with a numerous Slavonic component; an organisation centralised wound Constantinople became a tribal diversity based on blood ties, with an icultural and pastoral economy; the population changed from urban to rural and lispersed. Akind of Sclavinia that maintained its autonomy fora long time was also formed on Peloponnesian peninsula. Since then the dark ages began —such as the English historiography rightly calls it— in the Balkans in particular, and in Byzantium in ral, a situation that will be dealt with on the following pages. The difficult times From the 7" century, and up to the beginnings of the 9" century, Byzantine ization suffered a turbulent, dark epoch, during its very existence came under hreat. The impact of Avars and especially Slavs who, taking advantage of the mili- uaco Tearonts. Meow Aevum, I (2008); 59-82, ISSN 1888-39310 José Marin tary weakness of the Empire as well as its internal problems, managed to cross the Danubian Limes to settle in the Balkans; the ruinous war against Persia on the east ern front, where most of the Byzantine army was concentrated, meant neglecting the western front; and the Muslim expansion that took place in the Middle East and the north of Africa at the expense of Byzantine provinces; all of these were, grosso modo, the external threats that the Empire had to face The great danger that the Avar presence represented for the Byzantine Empire at a critical moment such as the second decade of government by the emperor Hera- dlius, becomes evident when we remember the expedition in 626 when, in conniv- ance with the Persians, they besieged the city of Constantinople. In the absence of the emperor, the patriarch Sergius I (610-638) organised the defence of the capital and raised the morale of the population, kindling religious fervour and infusing them with the will to resist the siege. Litanies were chanted and hands raised to- wards heaven in prayer, while the Virgin Mary was invoked as the preferred inter- cessor before Jesus Christ. Admirably, the Avars abandoned the site. Such a victory can be explained easily, not only through the Avars’ lack of ad- equate siege techniques to assault a walled city like Constantinople, but also by the timely arrival of military reinforcements. However, and this says a lot about Byzantine mentality, rather than rely on the city’s natural or military defences, the citizens of Constantinople trusted in the supernatural defence of a capital to which they attributed a trascendent destiny. In fact, as J. Haldon states, such an emphasis also implied a loss of confidence in the traditional symbols of power. The belief in the celestial protection found eloquent expression in the hymn Aka- thistos, composed in the 5* century, but whose preface, in which the Virgin Mary is invoked as “invicta estratega’, is attributed to the patriarch Sergio, who would have written it shortly after the Avar siege, in order to celebrate such a magnificent and miraculous victory (against enemies who were compared to the old adversaries of Israel, as if Constantinople were a New Jerusalem). That year of 626 was decisive not only for Byzantium, but also for the future of the other two empires in contlict It marked the beginning of the decline of Persia, while the Avar danger disappeared over the Byzantine horizon. The weakness of the Avars, exemplified by the settling of Serbs and Croats in the Balkans, is an interesting point in itself, but one that strays beyond the present purpose, so let us then return to the general situation of the empire. The situation that had reached tragic dimensions in the 7 century (such that the Empire, threatened on all its frontiers, seemed about to perish), also marked an era not only of territorial changes, but also of political orientation, with a marked tendency towards the militarisation of the administration. In those regions where the imperial dominion was restored, a thema or themata was created, that is, a prov- ince governed by an estratega in whose hands the civil and military power was con- centrated, and whose mission consisted of ensuring the submission of the region, administering it and protecting it from new dangers. Moreover, each thema had a detachment of soldiers, the stratiotas, who were installed as settlers on lands handed over in exchange for defending them. Thus, these soldier-settlers made sovereignty Inaco Tearonss. Mepwm Azvun, I (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-3931Byzantium ANb THE DARK Aces. A CIVILIZATION ON TRIAL biting, defending, cultivating and paying their taxes, as this was a civil-military sure that had far-reaching socio-economic repercussions. The word thema origi ly designated a military body, but would later come to designate a territorial divi- a change that came about between the end of the 7® century and beginning of 8". The characteristic 10-century organization of the Empire in themata, a puz~ still not completely resolved in the historiography, had its origin, according to , in the reforms of Heraclius and, according to others, in the exceptional union ivil and military power under Justinian and the later creation of the exarchate rr the emperor Maurice. Whatever the truth, these “advanced provinces" were elements in the Byzantine recovery that began in the early decades of the 9" tury. Precisely one of the keys for the imperial recovery during the epoch of the jeedonian dynasty was the protection of the minor free peasantry, whose origin “ciated with the constitution of the themas. The loss of a great part of the Balkans to the Slavs, Serbs, Croats and Bulgars it that the Greek east and the Latin west turned their backs on each other, tually ignoring each other. The peninsula, having been a bridge, now became an . There were three landmarks in this process: the exaltation of Pippin as king the Franks in 751, the imperial coronation of Charlemagne in 800, and the more jous than effective schism of Photius in the second half of the 9 century. This is of Byzantium was part of a global process that affected the entire Mediter- yean. While it was a deepening of changes that had been brewing for the Latin st, in the Greek-Byzantine east it was practically the end of the old epoch and beginning of the Greek Middle Ages: an ecumenical Latin empire became an jen Greek empire, a Catholic world was gradually transformed into an ortho- x Christian one. The concept of the “Great Breach of Hellenism” that Dionysios ythinds* coined for the Greek case, therefore seems appropriate, given that it wresses very well the change, which took place between the 7 and 9 centuries, iting an end to ancient Hellenism which gave way to medieval Hellenism, i.e. intine, Hellenism, The migrations of barbarian peoples signalled the end of one stage and the begin- ig of another. Moreover, the global impact that this external situation provoked 6 not negligible. This included demographic contraction, migratory movements, as Greeks from Egypt, Syria and Palestine who left their land to move to Ana- or further away to Sicily; or inhabitants of the Balkans, who fled to the islands the south of Italy; and the depopulation of some cities and the destruction of ers with the consequent ruralisation and dispersion of the population. All of this tributed to a serious economic crisis resulting from both the abandonment of ds and the loss of rich provinces, it was the case with Egypt, and the consequent juction in manpower and the interruption of important routes, both overland d maritime. Zakythin6s, Dionfsios A. “La Grande Bréche dans la tradition historique de Phellénisme du Septitme Neuviéme sigcle*, Xapronsepov ek; Avaordorov K. Opkdvdow. Anvooicyya ns év ABHvax; Apxarokoync Eraipeias, «1966: Il. 300-327; Byzance: Etat-economie-Société. London : Variorum Reprints, 1973: VIL. Inaco Trupoxis. Mrorum Anvin, Il (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-3931n José Marty From the demographic point of view, there was a drop in population, caused both by the violence of the barbarian invaders and the flight from their assault, as well as ruralisation and dispersion, on account of which the already damaged urban structure of the Empire, especially in the Balkans, definitly fell apart. The kastron, a new urban system more in accordance with the needs of the times, together with the new administrative organization centred on the themes, replaced the old one inherited from Rome. In fact, the archaeological findings show that the process of change in the urban structure had already begun in the 6" century, before the im- pact of Avars and Slavs, but it got deeper later. The Byzantine thalassocracy had to face the competition of the newly-born Is- lamic empire, which would soon come to threaten Byzantium and its control of the Mediterranean. Before the 7" century Constantinople ruled the sea routes along the axis from the Crimea in the east to the Pillars of Hercules in the west, with full naval, commercial and military control, and with the political influence that such a situation naturally implied. Later, Byzantium had to resign itself to the maritime control of the Black Sea —Aegean Sea axis, thus reducing its commercial flow, to- gether with its political presence in the western Mediterranean. It is symptomatic that the high points of the Byzantine Empire coincide with the periods of maritime domination and, in fact, when Byzantium turned its back on the sea, the decline was inevitable. Thus, the unity of the ancient world had split forever. 5. The Great Breach, crisis or transformation? The political, social, economic, religious, and linguistic changes that brought about the crisis of the 7 century implied the end of an era that, rooted in Antiquity, was at the same time the foundation for a new epoch. It was not a terminal crisis, but rather a starting crisis. It seems that the debatable (and debated) thesis by Henri Pirenne? was fulfilled, mutatis mutandis, in the case of the eastern Mediterranean. In line with the Belgian historian’s proposals, Antiquity, personified by the Roma- nia, extended beyond the 5" century, when the western Roman Empire collapsed politically, that is, the structure of the Romania survived historically practically un- changed, a hypothesis that, although not reflecting the reality of the Latin west, does so to some extent with regard to the eastern reality, as shown in our preceding approach. Pirenne’s error, in this case, lies in not having emphasised enough the case of Byzantium, where he would have found some “positive”, not merely theo- retical, evidence more in line with his thesis. The critical century, which somehow coincided with Pirenne’s approach, was the time between 650 and 750, when east and west were separated for good by the emergence of the Muslim world as. a new power in the Mediterranean, to which we have to add the Slavonic “wedge” in the 5. Pirenne, Henri. Mahona y Carlomagno, trans. Esther Benitez. Madrid: Alianza, 1981. (Paris: F. Alcan, 1937; Bruxelles: Nouvelle société d’éditions, 1937). Inaco Tearonis. Meowum Arvin, I (2008); 59-82. ISSN 1888-3931BYZANTIUM AND THE DARK AGES. A CIVILIZATION ON TRIAL ns, which interrupted communications between east and west, such as the network based around the via Egnatia, which was completely broken up. The importance of the 7% century for world history in general, and for Byzantine jory in particular, has also been emphasised by professor Héctor Herrera Cajas*, ly this time with a more general vision that includes, together with Byzantium the Islamic world, the Persian Sassanid Empire in the east, and the power of Avars (as well as the Serbs, Slavs, Croats and Bulgars) in the west. In fact, it uuld be recognised, to put the historical processes in their true perspective, that a Je explanation is misleading, given that many of the protagonists are linked, in way or another, to the Byzantine Empire. Once the problem has been framed a “universal” point of view, it is possible to refer more coherently to the spe- processes, such as ethnic changes, mutations in urban life or fluctuations in imperial frontiers. Dionysios Zakythinds highlighted this by studying a specific i representative case (Greece), placing it within a global framework. According this author, between the seventh and ninth centuries, the old Hellas experienced period of darkness, crisis and change; it was the death of Greco-Roman Antiquity id the beginning of what we might call the Greek Middle Ages. He state: From the mid 7 century and until the middle of the 9%, the history of Greece shows a period of decline; the evidence from the sources about this classic of glorious reminiscences becomes rare and imprecise; no monument was erected, no literary manuscript came from this region where writing represented the sub- tlest works of human thought; there are very few and debatable archaeological vestiges; a few inscriptions, some humble graffiti, have been conserved; coins and seals are rare” It was the end of a monumental and artistic era that, for the Greeks, dated back jithout a break to Classical Antiquity. The archaeological and artistic-architectural dence, where it exists, constitutes clear proof that the flame of civilization seemed tum off, and turn into little more than an ember that, when winds of change in from the Imperial capital at the end of the 8" century and beginning of the it was rekindled to cast a new light, no less brilliant, although different than the vious one. For Diongsios Zakythinés this was the abyss, the “Great Breach”, that ated two well-defined historical landscapes: from the architectural point of sw, for example, it was the end of the era of the Palaeo-Christian basilica and the inning of the era of the cruciform church, in the same way that, in the urban itext, the magnificent Hellenic city was replaced by the Byzantine kastron with its rked military charactei Herrera, Héctor. Dimensiones de la Cultura Bizantina, Arte, Poder y Legado Histérico. Santiago de Chile: dde Estudios Bizantinos de la Universidad de Chile - Universidad Gabriela Mistral, 1998; Herrera, ior. Las relaciones Internacionales del Imperio Bizantino durante la época de las grandes ivasiones. Santiago Chile: Ediciones del Centro de Estudios Bizantinos y Neohelénicas de la Universidad de Chile. 1972. 2. Zakythinds. Dionfsios A. “La Grande Bréche dans la tradition historique...": 300, Zakythinds, Dionfsios A. “La Grande Bréche dans la tradition historique...” ‘uaco Tenronss. Meonm Aevum, 1 (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-3931"4 José Mariy In the Balkans, the phenomenon could be explained by the Avar-Slavonic and Bulgar invasions that undoubtedly affected the Hellenicpopulation deeply. However, this would minimise and simplify a more complex processes. The Balkan problem should really be considered as part of the Byzantine crisis, and this, in turn, cannot be understood if it is not included within a wider Mediterranean crisis. The Avar- Slavonic invasions, the earthquakes, epidemics and famines, or the Iconoclasm Controversy, were more or less local phenomena that do not suffice to explain the full picture. The precarious balance was disrupted by the Muslim expansion (a result of Persian and Byzantine weakness), creating a commotion on a “universal” scale. For Zakythinés, the seventeenth of September 642 is a symbolic date, being the day when Alexandria fell into Muslim hands. The ideal that its founder had incorporated into the history of the Greco-Roman Civilization almost a millennium earlier, fell with the city.” Thanks to the studies published in the last ten years, it is possible to explain the image that has forged the historiography of the Balkans, based on fragmentary documentation. The archaeology has demonstrated that the Balkans never completely escaped from Byzantine control, and the Peloponnese even less so. Thus the works by Anna Avramea'” about the Peloponnese, or by Florin Curta!' on the Slavs and the Greek dark ages, offer us new perspectives of analysis, questioning the almost total transformation of the Empire, placing the emphasis on elements of continuity, and minimising or varying, —depending on the case —the pattern outlined until now. The “Great Breach” should be seen as a gradual process of changes rather than an abrupt rupture between one period and another. Dionysios Zakythinés apparently identified the problem and its principal variables well, but exaggerated it, Despite this, the concept of the “Great Breach’ is a valuable one. Andreas Stratos", a Byzantist who studied the 7" century with great interest, stated that this was a “truly grave” epoch for the Empire, a “crucial century”, in which “the very existence of Byzantium was fought over”, which was achieved, to an extent, as George Ostrogorsky" states, by abandoning the “Roman dream” to face the reality. Both visions coincide with the one that has been analysed above. Only Paul Lemerle'* doubts that it was a crisis, specifying that it was rather 9. Zakythinds. Dionjsios A. “La Grande Bréche dans la tradition historique. 10. Avramea, Anna. Le Péloponnése dic 1Ve au Viliesitle. Changements t persistentes. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1997. 11, Cura, Florin, “Byzantium in Dark-Age Greece (the numismatic evidence in its Balkan context)” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 29/2 (2005): 113-146; Curta, Florin. The Making of the Slavs. History and Archéology ofthe Lower Danube Region, c. 500-700 A.D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006; Curta, Florin. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages. 500-1250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 12, Stratos, Andreas N. Studies in 7°-Century Bycantine Political History. London: Variorum Reprints, 1983. 13, Ostrogorsky, George. “Byzantine cities in the early Middle Ages”. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13 (1959): 45-66; Ostrogorsky, George. “The Byzantine Empire in the world of the Seventh Century”. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13 (1959): 1-21; Ostrogorsky, George. History of the Byzantine State, trans. Joan Hussey. New Brunswick: Rutgers U. Press, 1957. (Munich: Beck, 1940). 14, Lemerle, Paul. “Les repercusions de la crise de 'Empire d’Orient au VIE sigcle sur les pays d’ Ocei- dent”; Caratieri del secolo VII in Occidente : 23-29 aprile, 1957. V Settimane di Studi Sull’Alto Medioeve. Spoleto: Inaco Teserowrs. Meowa Anvua, (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-3931Byzantium ANb THE Dark Aces. A C1VviLizarion oN TRIAL 18 jod of transformations —which would also be in line with the thoughts of John jon’"— during which the axis of the Empire moved towards the east. Thus, the ion of Zakythinds is doubtful. He indicates that it was a political, economic, and spiritual crisis, concluding that “situated over the Great Schism, what I see ruin of universal Hellenism’. If, on the other hand, in line with H. Herrera," understand a crisis as a period of deep questioning that demands committed, romising and rational responses, born from a spirit tempered in the tremendously ical act of living through a crisis, responses that once updated would lead to mnsformation (radical or not) of a specific historical entity, any discussion framed such terms seems pointless. It seems more important, and more complex, to mine whether it was a crisis that led to a transformation, or vice-versa. With to the supposed decline, this happens when a civilization appears incapable ercoming reiterated and acute crises; in my opinion, the Byzantine renovation ‘the 9" century shows that the Empire knew how to find the right answers, thus jiding decadence. We are probably facing speculative images from behind which istorical reality peers out (perhaps forcing an ironic smile), a reality of such plexity that it involves all these aspects. Whatever it is, what we can observe ily is that Byzantine civilization not only managed to survive a difficult epoch the adequate historical responses, but it also reinvigorated its Hellenic roots. intium knew how to gain a prosperous future. . Bibliographical Overview We did not wish to load this article with excessive notes, which would have very numerous; we are, however, indebted to an important bibliography, from ich we ought to highlight some titles, which the reader will also find listed at end of this brief commentary. Without delaying on the primary sources (which well-known, i.e. Procopius'”, Menander'*, John of Ephesus"’, Theophanes®, ro di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1958: I, 713-731 Haldon, John F. Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The transformation of a culuure. Cambridge: Cambridge ivetsity Press, 1997 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Herrera Héctor, “El sentido de la crisis en Occidente”. Academia, 8 (1983): 70-78 1 Procopius. The anccdota, or secret history, ed. H.B. Dewing. London-Massachussets: Heinemann-Har- University Press, 1960. Menander. The history of Menander the Guardsman, ed. R.C. Blockley. Liverpook: Cairns, 1985. ) Bishop of Ephesus. John. The third part of the eclesiastical history of John, Bishop of Ephesus, ed. M. A. R. ye Smith, Oxford: University Press, 1860. |The Confessor, Theophanes. The chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Bastern history, 284-813, eds. Cyril Mango, Roger Scott. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. {Inacio Testrowss. Meowuat Aevum, II (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-393176 José Marin Theophylaktos Simokates*, the anonymous Miracles of Saint Demetrius, or the Chronicle of Monemvasia’ and apart from the traditional manuals of Louis Bréhier™, Fotios Malleros”, Alexander A. Vasiliev’*, Dimitri Obolensky” or George Ostrogorsky”*, some recent works must be mentioned, such as the very exhaustive work by Warren Treadgold”, unique in its class in decades of Byzantology, which together with a detailed historical description provides us with an update from the historiographical point of view, which converts this work into an essential reference manual for today. It is important to highlight the collection of essays edited by Michael Maas™ and dedicated to the epoch of Justinian, which is analysed from various points of view. Florin Curta’s" contributions are both interesting and original, both his book about the invention of the Slavs, which presents a vision that incorporates anthropology and archaeology into historical analysis, and in his latest book about the history of south-eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, whose second chapter is dedicated, justifiably, to the “dark ages", a subject which the author knows in great depth. In order to approach the principal characteristics of the 7" century, beginning with the excellent synthesis of the period that extends from Justinian to Heraclius, the book by John Haldon” is very useful. It not only includes good narration, but also introduces the different positions of historians with regard to certain problems, such as the origin of the themata. For a synthetic vision of the 21. Simocatta, Theophylactus. The history of Theophylact Simocatta: an english translation with introduction and notes, eds. Michael Whitby, Mary Whitby. Oxford: Clarendon Press for Sandpiper Books, 1997. 22. Les Plus anciens recuels des miracles de saint Démétrius: et la pénétration des slaves dans les Balkans, ed, Paul Lemerle. Paris: éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1979. 23. Cronaca di Monemvasia, ed. Ivan Dujcev, Palermo: Istituto Siciliano Studi Bizantini, 1976 among the more relevant. 24. Bréhier, Louis. El Mundo Bizantino. Vida y Muerte de Bizancio, trans. José Almoina. México D.F.: UTEHA, 1956. 25. Malleros. Fotios. £1 Imperio Bizantino 395-1204. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Juridica de Chile, 1951. 26. Vasiliev, Alexander Alexandrovich. History of the Bizantine Empire 323-1453. Madison-Milwaukee: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1964. 27. Obolensky, Dimitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe 500-1453. London: Weidenteld and Nicolson, 1971. 28. Ostrogorsky, George. Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates. Munich: C-H. Beck, 1940, 29. Treadgold, Warren. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 197. 30. Mass, Michael, ed. The Age of Justinian, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 31. Curta, Florin. The Making of the Slavs. History and Archeology of the Lower Daruuhe Region, ¢. 500-700 A.D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001; Curta, Florin, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages. 500 1250, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 32. Haldon, John F. Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The transformation ofa culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. ‘uaco Teutronts. Meoiuat Aevon, II (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-3931BYZANTIUM AND THE Darx AGES. A CiviLizanion on TRIAL n ‘general situation of the Mediterranean world at the beginning of the 7" century, see the articles by Héctor Herrera” and George Ostrogorsky”. For the study of the Avars and Slavs in the Balkans and the Peloponnesus, there is an extensive bibliography. For the latter case let me highlight first the work by Antoine Bon”, a pioneer in the study of the peninsula, and second, because it up- dates the state of the question, the book by Anna Avramea”, which contains invalu- able archaeological information. With regard to the Avars and Slavs, apart from the dassic book by Francis Dvornik””, the articles by Ivan Dujéev"* in Medioevo Byzantine- Savo, which deals with various themes, are essential reading, although it is true that some of his statements are now disputable. The above-mentioned book by Florin ‘Curta”’ is a valuable updated complement. With regard to the changes that took place in Byzantium in the “dark ages’, together with the study by Anna Avramea and Florin Curta on the archaeological pect, it is essential to consult The Economic History of Byzantium, edited by Angeliki Taiou, which contains relevant information about commercial exchanges, the nu- ismatic findings or road networks, among other themes, Peter Charanis", some of hose articles are reprinted in a collection, dedicates various works to the situation the Balkans, delving into the archaeological evidence, the documentary sources 1 the demographic problems, especially the population movements that occurred luring the period in question. Although Peter Charanis is somehow vehement in positions, some of which are debatable, there is no doubt about the serious- ess with which he studied these themes, always searching for a full validation for controversial sources for the study of the Peloponnese in the Middle Ages: the wronicle of Monemvasia. Dionysios Zakythin6s" has the merit of having incorporated the concept of “the torical Schism”, taken from German historiography, that explains very well B. Herrera, Héctor. “Dagoberto y Heraclio. Un capitulo de Historia Diplomatica”. Byzantion Nea Hellas, 2 1971): 135-151 Ostrogorsky, George. “The Byzantine Empire in the World of the Seventh Century”, Dumbarion Oaks ry, 13 (1959): 1-21 5. Bon, Antoine. Le Péloponnese Bycantin jusqu au 1204. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1951 Avramea, Anna, Le Péloponnise du IV au VIIF sitcle. Changements et persisiences. Paris: Publications de la ynne, 1997 Dvornik. Francis. Les Slaves. Histoire et civilisation de 1° Amtiquité aux débuts de I° Epoque Contemporaine, s. Danielle Pavlesky, Maroussia Chpolyansky. Paris: édition du Seuil, 1970. (Boston: American Acad- of Arts andl Sciences, 1956). Dujéey, Ivan. Aedioevo Bizantino-Slavo, Storia e Letteratura.1. Saggi di Storia Politica e Cultural. Roma: jione di Storia e Letteratura, 1965. 2. Curta, Florin. The Making of the Slavs. History and Archéology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500-700 A.D. bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. ‘The Economic History of Byzantium. From the Seventh through the Fifteemh Century, 3 vol, Angeliki E jou, ed. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and collection, 2002. |. Charanis, Peter. Studies on the demography of the Byzantine Empire. London; Variorum Reprints, 1972. Zakythinds, Dionysios A. “La Grande Bréche dans la tradition historique de hell ne sidel sme du Septiéme ‘busco Tesrorss. Monn Aevua, Hl (2008): 59-82, ISSN 1888-39318 José Marin the material, intellectual and spiritual conditions of Greek and Byzantine history from the 7" to the 9 centuries. To his articles, cited below, should be added some interesting works by Andreas Stratos", published in a volume in the Variorum Reprints collection. The value of Stratos’ work lies in that, first of all, he dared to study a crucial period in the history of Byzantium which, paradoxically, has been little studied, and second, he analyses the scarce sources available for the period with erudition and perspicacity, drawing interesting conclusions. For a discussion about whether the epoch in question was one of crisis or transformation, the theoretical work of Héctor Herrera“ has been of great use and has served to challenge the ideas of Paul Lemerle". Bibliographical appendix Ahrweiler, Héléne. “La Frontiére et les fronti¢res de Byzance en Orient”. Actes du XIV Congrés International des Etudes Byzantines (Bucarest, 6-12 septembre 1971), Mihai Berza, Eugen Stanescu, dirs. Bucarest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Roménia, 1974 : L, 209-230 ; Byzance: les pays et les territoires. London: Variorum Reprints, 1976: 1V/209-230. Andréadés, Andreas M. Histoire Economique et Financiere de la Gréce. Athens: Faculté du Droit de l'Université d’Athenes, 1958. Avramea, Anna. Le Péloponnese du IV ait VIF sidcle. Changements et persistences. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1997. Baynes, Norman Hepburn; Moss, Henry St. Lawrence Beaufort. Byzantium. An Intro- duction to East Roman Empire. Oxtord: the Clarendon Press, 1962 (Oxford: Claren- don Press, 1948). Baynes, Norman Hepburn. Ei Imperio Bizantino, uans. Maria Luisa Diez-Canedo, Francisco Giner de los Rios. México D.F: Fondo de Cultura Econémica, 1985. (primera edicién, London: Williams & Norgate, 1925). Bogdan, Henry. La Historia de los paises del Este, trans. Amanda Fons. Buenos Aires: Javier Vergara, 1991. (Paris: Perrin, 1990). Bon, Antoine. Le Péloponnese Byzantin jusqu’ au 1204. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 1951. Bréhier, Louis. El Mundo Bizantino. Vida y Muerte de Bizancio, trans. José Almoina. México D.E.: UTEHA, 195% Carpenter, Rhys. Discontinuity in Greek Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966. 43. Stratos, Andreas N. Smdies in 74Century Byeantine Politica! History. London: Variorum Reprints, 1983. 4, Herrera, Héctor.“El sentido de la crisis en Occidente”. Academia, 8 (1983): 70-78. 45. Lemerle, Paul. “Les repercusions de la crise de !Empire d’Orient au VII siéele sur les pays d” Occi- dent”, Caratteri del secolo VII in Occidente: 23-29 aprile, 1957. VSettimane di Studi Sull‘Alto Mediaewo. Spoleto: Centro di studi sull'Alto Medioevo, 1958: Il, 713-731 Inaco Tewroxts. Meow Anvum, I (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-3931BYZANTIUM AND THE DARK AGES. A CIVILIZATION ON TRIAL 9 stellén, Angel A. “Proposiciones para un andlisis critico del problema de la perio- dificacién histérica”. Anales de Historia Antigua y Medieval, 8 (1957-1958): 7-48. ranis, Peter. “The transfer of population as a policy in the Byzantine Empire”. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 3/2 (January, 1961): 140-154. haranis, Peter, “Ethnic changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century”. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13 (1959): 23-44. anis, Peter. “The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the question of the slavonic settlements in Greece”. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 5 (1950): 140-166. ranis, Peter. “On the question of the hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy during the Middle Ages”. The American Historical Review, LIU/I (1946): 74-86. haranis, Peter. “On the Slavic Sttlements in the Peloponnesus”. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 46 (1946): 91-103. nis, Peter. “On the question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece during the Middle Ages”. Bycantinoslavica, X (1949): 254-258. wranis, Peter. “The significance of coins as evidence for the history of Athens and Corinth in the Seventh and Eigth Centuries”. Historia. Zeitschrift fiir alte Geschichte, IV/2-3 (1955): 163-172. tharanis, Peter. “Nicephorus I, the Saviour of Greece from the Slavs (810 A.D.)’. Bycantina-Metabyzantina, UI (1946): 75-92. iaranis, Peter, Studies on the demography of the Byzantine Empire. London: Variorum Reprints, 1972. junta, Florin, “Introduction”, East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages. Florin Curta, ed. Michigan: Ann Arbor, 2005: 1-38. uurta, Florin. “Byzantium in Dark-Age Greece (the numismatic evidence in its Bal kan context)”. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 29/2 (2005): 113-146. junta, Florin. The Making of the Slavs. History and Archéology of the Lower Danube Region, ¢ 500-700 A.D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. ita, Florin. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages. 500-1250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. llier, Alain; Kaplan, Michel; Martin, Bernadette. E! Cercano Oriente Medieval, trans. Eduardo Bajo. Madrid: Akal, 1998. (Paris: Hachette, 1978). ujéev, Ivan. “Bisanzio e il mondo slavo", Centri e vie di irradiazione della civilita nell‘alto Medieoveo: 18-23 aprile, 1963. XI Settimane di Studi Sull’Alto Medioevo. Spo- leto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1964: 3-22. sigev, Ivan. “Il mondo slavo e la Persia nell” Alto Medioevo", Atti del Convegno inter- nazionale su tema “La Persia e i! mondo Grecorromano”. Roma: Accademia Nazion- ale dei Lincei (Ati della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Memoriae della Classe di Scienze morali, storiche € filologiche, quaderno 76), 1966: 321-424. siéev, Ivan. “Larrivo dei popoli slavi e le sue conseguenze”, Popoli ¢ paesi nella cultura altomedievale: 23-29 aprile 1981. XXIX Settimane di Studi Sull’Alto Medioevo. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1983: I, 131-152. iiéev, Ivan. Medioevo Bizantino-Slavo, Storia e Letteratura. 1, Saggi di Storia Politica ¢ Letteratura. Roma: Edizione di Storia e Letteratura, 1965. ujéev, Ivan. Medioevo Bizantino-Slavo, Storia e Letteratura. 2, Saggi di Storia Politica ¢ Letteraria. Roma: Edizione di Storia e Letteratura, 1968. Iuaco Testronts. Maoist Azvon, IL (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-393180 José Marin Dvornik, Francis. Les Slaves. Histoire et civilisation de I’ Antiquité aux débuts de l'Epoque Contemporaine, trans. Danielle Pavlesky, Maroussia Chpolyanski. Paris: édition du Seuil, 1970. (Boston: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1956; New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 1962). Ferluga, Jadran. “Gli slavi del sud ed altri gruppi etnici di fronte a Bisanzio”, Gli slavi occidentali e meridionali nell’Alto Medioevo: 15-21 aprile 1982. XXX, Settimane di Studi Sull’Alto Medioevo. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1983: 1, 303-344. Finlay, George. A History of Greece from its conquest by the Romans to the Present time. B.C. 146 to A.D. 1864, Vol. IV: Mediaeval Greece and the Empire of Trebizond A.D. 1204 1461. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1877. Garcia-Guijarro, Luis. “Justiniano y la romanidad oriental en el siglo VI", Historia Universal de la Edad Media, Vicente Angel Alvarez, ed. Barcelona: Ariel, 2002: 95-132. Gregorovius, Ferdinand. Roma y Atenas en la Edad Media, trans. Wenceslao Roces. ‘México D.F:: Editorial Fondo de Cultura Econémica, 1946. Grousset, René. L’Empire des Steppes. Attila. Gengis Khan. Tamerlan. Paris: Payot, 1952. Haldon, John F. Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The transformation of a culture. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Hauptmann, L. “Les rapports des byzantines avec les slaves et les avares pendant la séconde moitié du VIF sigcle”. Byzantion, 4 (1927-1928): 137-170. Herrera, Héctor. “Dagoberto y Heraclio. Un capitulo de Historia diplomatica”. Byzan- tion Nea Hellds, 2 (1971): 135-151. Herrera, Héctor. “El sentido de la crisis en Occidente”. Academia, 8 (1983): 70-78. Herrera, Héctor. Dimensiones de la Cultura Bizantina, Arte, Poder y Legado Histérico. San- tiago de Chile: Centro de Estudios Bizantinos de la Universidad de Chile - Uni- versidad Gabriela Mistral, 1998. Herrera, Héctor. Las Relaciones Internacionales del Imperio Bizantino durante la época de Jas grandes invasiones. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones del Centro de Estudios Bizan- tinos y Neohelénicos de la Universidad de Chile, 1972. Jenkins, Romilly. Byzantium. The Imperial centuries. A.D. 610-1071. London: Wieden- feld and Nicolson, 1966. Laiou, Angeliki, ed. The Economie History of Byzantium. From the Seventh through the Fif- teenth Century, 3 volumes, Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and collection, 2002. Lemerle, Paul. “Invasions et migrations dans les Balkans dépuis la fin de I’ époque romain jusqu’ au VIII siécle”. Revie Historique, 211 (1954): 265-308. Lemerle, Paul. “Les repercusions de la crise de I’Empire d’Orient au VII siécle sur les pays d’ Occident”, Caratteri del secolo VI in Occidente : 23-29 aprile, 1957. V Settimane di Studi Sull’Alto Medioevo. Spoleto: Centro di studi sull’Alto Medivevo, 1958: Il, 713-731. Lemerle, Paul. *Quelques remarques sur le régne d’Heraclius”. Studi Medievali, U/L (1960): 347-361 Inuaco Testronis. Meorum Arvin, 1 (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-3931BYZANTIUM AND THE DARK AGES. A CIVILIZATION ON TRIAL 81 jis, Archibald. “Mediterranean maritime commerce: A.D. 300-1100 Shipping and Trade”, La navigazione mediterranea nell‘alto medioevo. XXV Settimane di Studi del Centro italiano di studi Sull’Alto Medioevo, 14-20 aprile 197. Spoleto: Centro ita- liano di studi su'll alto medioevo, 1978: II, 481-501 s, Michael, ed. The Age of Justinian. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. lleros, Fotios, “2Existe continuidad entre la Grecia clasica y la modemna?”. Byzan- tion Nea Hellas, 5 (1981): 199-228. lleros, Fotios. El Imperio Bizantino 395-1204. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones del Cen- tro de Estudios Bizantinos de la Universidad de Chile, 1987 (Santiago: Editorial Juridica de Chile, 1951). in, José. “Croatas y Serbios en el De Administrando Imperio de Constantino VIL Porphyrogénito”. Studia Croatica, XXXVII/130 (Marzo 1996): 24-45. in, José. Cruzada, Guerra Santa y Yihad. La Edad Media y Nosotros. Valparaiso: Edi- ciones de la Universidad Catélica de Valparaiso, 2003. set, Lucien. “Entre deux vagues d’invasions: la progression slave dans I’histoire européenne du Haut Mayen Age”, Gli slavi occidentali e meridionali nell Alto Medio- evo: 15-21 aprile 1982. XXX, Settimane di Studi Sull’Alto Medioevo. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1983: II, 978-1028. jusset, Lucien. Las invasiones. El Segundo Asalto contra la Europa Cristiana, trans. Juan Vifioly. Barcelona: Labor, 1968. z6poulou-Pélekidou, Maria. “La cuestién macedénica”. Byzantion Nea Hellés, 11-12 (1993): 267-295. iystaz6poulou-Pélekidou, Maria. “Le sud-est de l'Europe et la Mediterranée au Moyen Age (les cadres géographiques et historiques)", Communications Grecques presemtées au VIF Congrés International des Etudes du Sud-Est Européen (Sofia: 30 Aotit - 5 Septembre 1989). Athens: Comité National Grec des Etudes du Sud-Est Eu- ropéen-Centre d’Ftudes du Sud-Est Européen, 1990: 455-469. lensky, Dimitri. Byzantium and the Slavs: collected studies. London: Variorum Re- prints, 1971. lensky, Dimitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe 500-1453. London: Cardinal Ed., 1974 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971). ‘onomides, Nicholas. “The concept of Holy War and two Tenth-century Byzan- tine Ivories", Peace and War in Byzantium: Essays in honor of George T. Dennos, Timo- thy S. Miller, John Nesbitt, eds. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1995: 62-86. Okey, Robin. “Central Europe/Eastern Europe: Behind the Definitions”. Past and Present, 137 (November, 1992): 102-133. Ostrogorsky, George. “Byzantine cities in the early Middle Ages”. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13 (1959), 45-66. Ostrogorsky, George. “The Byzantine Empire in the world of the Seventh Century” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13 (1959): 1-21 Ostrogorsky, George. History of the Byzantine State, trans. Joan Hussey. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1957. (Munich: Beck, 1940). Imaco Tesronis. Meoivm Asvum, Il (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-393182 José Marin Patoura-Hatz6poulos, Sofia. “oeuvre de reconstitution du limes Danubien a Ir époque de I’ empereur Justinien Premier”. Revue des Etudes Sud-Fst Européennes, XVIII/1 (Janvier-Mars 1980): 95-109. irene, Henri. Mahoma y Carlomagno, trans. Esther Benitez. Madrid: Alianza, 1981. (Paris: F. Alcan, 1937). Pritsak, Omeljan, “The Slavs and the Avars*, Gli slavi oocidentali e meridionali nell’Alto Medioevo: 15-21 aprile 1982. XXX Settimane di Studi Sull’Alto Medioevo. Spoleto: Cen- tro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1983: 1, 353-432 Rajevié, Andrés. “Bizancio y la cristianizaciGn de los eslavos 9-10 (1990): 239-273. Sarié, Ljiljana. “Balkan Identity: Changing Self-Images of the South Slavs". Journalof Multilingual and Multicultural development, 2515-6 (2004): 389-407. Seton, Kenneth M. “The Bulgars in the Balkans and the occupation of Corinth in the Seventh Century”. Speculum, 25/24 (October 1950): 502-543. Spain Alexander, S. *Heraclius, Byzantine Imperial Ideology, and the David Plates". Speculum, LU/2 (April 1977): 217-237. Stratos, Andreas N. Studies int 7"-Century Byzantine Political History. London: Variorum Reprints, 1983. Szadeczky-Kardoss, Samuel. “The Avars", The Cambridge History of Barly Inner Asia, Denis Sinor, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994: 206-228. Treadgold, Warren. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stantord: Stanford Uni- versity Press, 1997. Vacalépoulos, Apostolos E. Origine of the Greek Nation. The Byzantine Period, 1204-1261, trans. I. Moles. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1970. Vasiliev, Aleksand Alexandrovitch. History of the Byzantine Empire 323-1453. Madi- son-Milwaukee: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1964. Vasiliev, Aleksand Alexandrovitch. Justin the First. An Introduction to the epoch of Jus- tinian the Great. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950. Villan, Sergij. “La cristianizzazione delle campagne presso gli slavi del sud occiden- tali: organizzazione, resistenze, fondo sociale”, Cristianizzazione ed organizzazi- one ecclesiastica delle campagne nell’alto medioevo: espansione e resistenze: 10-16 aprile 1980. XXVIII Settimane di Studi Sull’Alto Medioevo. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull'alto Medioevo,1981: IL, 889-918. Viasto, Alexis Peter. The entry of the Slavs into Christendom: an introduction to the medi- eval history of the slavs. London: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Zakythinés, Dionysios A. “La Grande Bréche dans la tradition historique de Vhellénisme du Septiéme au Neuvieme sitcle”, Xapiorjepiov eig Avaotdoov K. OpAdvbov. Anpoaieupa ris év APrjvaig ApxaroAoyiKAic Eraypeiac. Athens, 1966: Ill, 300-327; Zakythinés, Dionysios A. Byzance: Etat-economie-Societé. London: Vari- orum Reprints, 1973 Zakythin6s, Dionysios A. “La ville byzantine”. Diskussionbeitriige um XI Internation- alem Byzantinisten Kongress, (1958): 75-90; Zakythinds, Dionysios A. Byzance: Etat- economie-Societé. London: Variorum Reprints, 1973. Byzantion Nea Hellas, Inaco Teauronis, Meow Arvin, TL (2008): 59-82. ISSN 1888-3931