Florin Curta The Making of the Slavs: 1 Safaik's opus was origi nally published in 1887, thesame year in which Hegel published his Lec- tare on the Philosophy of History, For the image of the Slavs as a “European nation” shaped by the ideology promoted by the AllSlavie Congress in Prague (June, 1848), see Pech 1969: 133 and Zacek 1970: BAS. 2 Herder's concept of national character (Volkgeist),unalterably setin language during itsealy “root” period, rade language the perfect instrument for exploring the history ofthe Slavs (Herder 1994: 58), For Herder’s view of the Slav, see Rosenbaum 1980; Wolff 1994: 3108. Slavic Ethnogenesis Revisited To many, the eastern half of the European continent appears as essentially Slavic Europe. Ever since Hegel, Eastern Europe was the house of the “great Sclavonic nation”, namely of “a body of peoples which has not ap- peared as an independent element in the series of phases that Reason has assumed in the World” (Hegel 1902: 363). Ever since Safa¥ik, however, the “Sclavonic nation” has been accorded a place within the Indo-European family of languages and peoples. As a consequence, the antiquity of the Slavs went beyond the time of their first mention by historical sources, as apparently “all modern nations must have had ancestors in the ancient world” (Schafarik 1844: 40).! Safatik derived from Herder the insipiration and orientation that would influence subsequent genera- tions of scholars. The key element of his theories was the work of Jordanes, who had equated the Sclavenes and Antes to the Venethi (or Venedi) known from much earlier sources such as Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, and Ptolemy. On the basis of this equivalence, Safatfk claimed the Venedi for the Slavic history.’ This idea, based as it is on a wrong interpretation of Jordanes, has proved remarkably resist- ant and is still widely embraced by many scholars (Sedov 1994; Schramm 1995; Baran 1998; Kazanski 1999; Kobyliriski 2005). Upon closer examination, however, it turns out to be nothing more than a myth. Jordanes ended the Getica shortly before the Romana, 277in either 550 or 551 (Varady 1976: 48; Croke 1987: 126; | 3. 7; Anfert'ev 1991: 99). According to him, at that time the Antes were the strongest among the Venethi, which is pos- sibly an allusion to Justinian’s foedus with the Antes in 545 (Getica 35; see Croke 1987: 126; Curta 1999b: 325-6).*On. the other hand, in his Getica, Jordanes placed the Venethi on the map in relation to a river he sometimes calls Viscla, other times Vistula. This has long been recognized as an indication that one of his sources of inspiration must have been Ptolemy, who had the Venedi near the mouth of the Vistula (Getica 35: Ptolemy, Geographia 3.5.5; see Schiitte 1917: 104-5). According to Jordanes, however, the “abode of the Sclaveni extends northwards as far as the Vistula”, as if the river had a westeast, not south-north direction. This shows that one of his other sources of in- spiration for the “Slavic account” was an itinerary map, something like the Peutinger map, with its distorting lack of geographic projection responsible for the representa- tion of east-west distances at a much larger scale than north-south distances. Indeed, the Peutinger map shows the Venedi between the Danube and another river running from west to east (Tabula Peutingeriana, segment 7.4).>The conclusion is evident and not particularly surprising in the light of recent studies of early medieval historiography: Jordanes’ “Slavic account” is not based on his own, direct observation, but on a compilation of written sources.$ In other words, Jordanes was not a thorough observer of the ethnographic situation on the northern frontier of the empire. Instead, he used ancient sources to create his geographical framework and to fill the map with tribal names. The Slavic Venethi are his own, bookish invention (Curta 1999b: 336-8; Curta 2001a: 39-43). Besides his interpretation of Jordanes’ Slavic Venethi, Safatik bequeathed to posterity a powerful methodology for exploring the Dark Ages of Slavic history: language. This methodology demanded that, in the absence of writ ten sources, historians use linguistic data to reconstruct the earliest stages of Slavic history. Since language, ac- cording to Herder and his followers, was the defining factor in the formation of a particular type of world view, reconstructing Common Slavic (not attested in written documents before the late ninth century) on the basis of modern Slavic languages meant reconstructing the social 278 For Safatik's view of the Slavs, see Kudlagek. 1957. a For the foedus with the ‘Antes, see Procopius, History ofthe Wars 7.14.32-34 and Ivanov 1987:31. 5. For Roman itinerary maps and thei lack of geographic projection, see Levi and Levi 1981: 141-2. For the principle of crossrepresentation on the Peutinger map, see Janni 1984: 110. 6. The literature ofthe his: toriographic revisionism isabundant. Only afew of the most important titles can be mentioned here: Bradley 1966; Lofek 1990; Weigerr steiner 1994. However, the most devastating critique of traditional readings of Cetin is that of Goffart 1988 and 2006. Throughout the entire period during which this abundant literature of revision ‘was produced in various langueges, many hstor- ans, archaeologists, and linguists simply chose to Jgnore the changes tek- ing place and continued taking Jordanes' “Slave account” at face value (eg. Anfert'ev 1986;Machinskii 1982; Topo- rov 1984), This is still a recurrent practice, most egregiously illustrated by Hardt 2002, Fusek 2004, and Kobyliiski 2008. 1 Forthe history of such theories, see Polomé 1990, For linguistic palaeontology applied to the history ofthe early Slavs, see Erhart 1985; Lehr-Sptawifiski 1961. Foran excellent survey of Slavic linguistics, see ‘Schenker 1995. 8 For Polesie as the Savie Urheimat, see Rostafitiski 1908; Cotab 1992: 273-80, A recent variant of this theory is Jangen Udolph's attempt to locate the Slavic Urheimat onthe basis of river lake, and ‘moor-names. According to Udolph, Galicia was the area in which the IndoBuropeans first became protoSlavs (Udolph 1979 and 1985). % ‘An explicit comparison withthe conditions lead- ing tothe colonization ofthe American Far West may be found in Conte 1986, 10. For Niederle’s concept of Slavic homeland, see and cultural life of the early Slavs, before the earliest docu- ments written in their language. On the basis of linguistic paleontology, a discipline attempting to reconstruct the past on the basis of linguistic data, the main goal of schol- ars who, during the second half of the nineteenth and the early twentieth century, were interested in things Slavic was to reconstruct the “protolanguage” and to locate it “properly” in time and space.’ The Slavic homeland was thus located in the epicenter of the modern distribution of Slavic languages. The Urheimat of the Slavs was in the marshes along the Pripet river, in Polesie, and the Slavs themselves became the “sons and the products of the marsh’ (Peisker 1926: 426).'As a consequence, ever since Lubor Niederle, archaeologists explain the migration of the Slavs in terms of the inhospitable nature of the Slavic homeland. The Slavs left the Pripet marshes in search of a better life.* Archaeology is thus expected to illustrate the idea of a considerable antiquity of the Slavs and to describe the “culture of the early Slavs” (Niederle 1923: 49; 1925: 513; 1926: 1-2, 5)."° Although the issue at stake was a historical one, historians were left the task of combing the existing evidence drawn from historical sources so that it would fit the linguistic-archaeological model. However, the analysis of historical sources suggests that a very different interpretation should be preferred for a number of important reasons (for a detailed discus- sion, see Curta 2001a: 36-119). First, most contemporary sources concerning the Sclavenes and the Antes are based on second-hand information, not on eyewitness accounts. The few sources that most certainly originated in eyewit- ness accounts, such as the Strategikon or Theophylact Simocatta’s narrative of Emperor Maurice’s campaigns against Avars and Slavs, are all relatively late, after ca. 600."' Second, no source specifically talks about Slavs before the reign of Justinian, despite Jordanes’ efforts to fabricate a venerable ancestry for them by linking Sclavenes and Antes to Venethi. The “Slavic problem” resurfaced under Emperor Maurice, with such authors as Menander the Guardsman, John of Ephesus, Evagrius, or the unknown author of the Strategikon, and then, again, during the first half of Heraclius’ reign (the first book of the Miracles of St. Demetrius, George of Pisidia, Chronicon Paschale, Theophylact Simocatta, and Theodore Syncel- 29.lus). Despite the apparent popularity among historians of Lucien Musset's catchy phrase, there was in fact no “obscure progression” and no “infiltration” of the Slavs (Comsa 1960: 733; Musset 1965: 75, 81, 85; for the Slavic “infiltration,” see Cankova-Petkova 1968: 144; Tapkova- Zaimova 1974: 201; Popovié 1980: 246; Musset 1983: 999; Velkov 1987). The warriors mentioned in written sources referring to Sclavene raids always returned north of the Danube to their “homes.” Returning “home” with booty is even mentioned by Procopius for the raids of 550 and 551, during which the Sclavene warriors spent awinter in Dalmatia, “as if in their own land” (Procopius, Wars 7.40.45). Throughout the sixth century, there is in fact no mention of Sclavenes choosing to settle in already plundered territory. The first attempt of Sclavene tribes to establish themselves permanently in the Balkans is mentioned in connection with the siege of Thessalonica in the early years of Heraclius’ reign (610-641) (Miracles of St. Demetrius 2.1.180; see Ivanova 1995: 191). Before that, the raids seem to have followed a certain pattern. The Sclavene expeditions began in the 540s, with a long interruption after 551/2. They resumed in the 570s and stopped again after Maurice’s campaigns north of the Danube in the 590s. Later raids took place during the early years of Heraclius. This pattern coincides with major engagements of Roman armies on other fronts. Moreover, none of the Sclavene raids of the 540s or early 550s was organized under the leadership of a chief, Procopius men- tions several barbarian kings or chieftains by name," but knew no names of Sclavene leaders. By 560, the author of acollection of dialogues known, for lack of a better name, as Pseudo-Caesarius, wrote of Sclavenes often killing their leaders “sometimes at feasts, sometimes on travel” (see Benedicty 1964: 50; Riedinger 1969: 302; Ivanov 1991: 251-7). By 590, the author of the Strategikon knew that there were many reges, who could accept temporarily a paramount “king” (Strategikon 11.4.30). When the Slavic raids resumed in the 570s, several chief names begin to appear in our sources: Dauritas, Ardagastus, Peiragastus, and Musocius (Menander the Guardsman, fr. 3; Theophy- lact Simocatta 1.7.3-6, 6. 7.1-5, 7.5.4, and 6.9.1). By 610 or 620, several tribal names were known to the author of the second collection of miracles of St. Demetrius of Thes- 280 Zasterovd 1966. According to Nieder‘, since the natural cond tions in the Slavic Urheimat in Polesie were unfavorable, the Slavs developed forms of socal organization based on cooperation between large families (ofatype known as -zatirug, social equal- ity, and democray as deserved by Procopius The harsh climate of the Pripet marshes, therefore, forced the Slavs, whom Niederle viewed as “enfants dela nature,” into alow level of civilization, capable of producing only a culture entirely based on wood. 1. For the date of the Srategikon, see Dennis and Gamillscheg 1981: 18; Kuchma 1982. For a much later date, see Shuvalov 2002. For the date of Theophylact Simocata’s History, see Olajos 1988: 11; Whitby 1988; 39-40. 12 Bari8ié 1953 dated the siege to 616, Lemerle (1981: 91-4) proposed instead 615. 13. Datios, Aordos, and Suartua, kings of the Herules (Wars V 15.29 and 33}; Torsind, king of the Gepids (VII 18.‘Auduin, king ofthe Lombards (V1 34.5} Chinilon, the Cutrigur chieftain (VII 18.13), 14, Forthe location of these tribes, see Lemerle 1981: 89-90, 15. For“political ethnic ity’, see Cohen 1969; Roosens 1989. 16. For material culture and practice, see Graves 1995. For “emblemic style’, see Wiessner 1983 and 1990, salonica: Drugubites, Sagudates, Belegezites, Berzites, and Rynchines (Miracles of St. Demetrius 2.1.179). During most of the sixth century, therefore, the word “Sclavenes” must have been used as an umbrella term for various groups living north of the frontier. Although undoubtedly of barbarian, most likely Slavic, origin, the name was a construct of the Byzantine authors, to the extent that it was designed to make sense of a complicated configuration of ethnic groups on the northern frontier (Pekkanen 1971; Schelesniker 1973: 11; Schramm 1995: | 165; for the origin of the name “Sclavene,” see Koder 2002). In its most strictly defined sense, the Sclavene eth- nicity is thus a Byzantine invention: the Byzantines made the Slavs. This seems to be a rather revisionist statement, but in reality the force of the argument does not rest on this foundation alone. In what follows, I will try to explain what the “making of the Slavs” really means. Let us begin with the word “ethnicity.” Despite being used in English only since 1953 (Fortier 1994), ethnicity is now currently employed to refer to a decision people make to depict themselves or others symbolically as bear ers of a certain cultural identity. As one anthropologist put it, ethnicity is “the collective enaction of socially dif- ferentiating signs” (Eriksen 1991: 141), As such, ethnicity in the (medieval) past was as embedded in social relations as modern ethnicity is. Ethnicity, in the case of Sclavenes, Avars, Franks, and others, was a socially and culturally constructed form of social mobilization used in order to reach certain political goals."* It was, at the same time, a matter of daily practice, of what Pierre Bourdieu called habitus, and as such, it involved manipulation of material culture (Bentley 1987). Since material culture embodies practices, stylistic messages about conscious affiliation and identity (what is known otherwise as “emblemic styles”) are a way to communicate by non-verbal means about relative and group identity."* Since emblemic styles carry distinct messages, it is theoretically possible to recon- struct the way in which they were used to mark or mai tain ethnic boundaries (Hodder 1982). Finally, ethnicity is a function of power relations, because emblemic styles and traditions become relevant particularly in contexts of changing power relations, which impel displays of group identity (McLaughlin 1987; Earle 1990: 74-5; Hodder 2811990: 45-6; Byers 1991: 12). Now let us return to the question of Byzantines mak- ing the Slavs. To be sure, rarely do historians write about the Byzantine influence on the early Slavs. Instead, they insist on the destruction and devastation inflicted upon the Balkan provinces of the Empire by the barbarian hordes. As with the Germanic tribes in Western Europe, the “obscure progression” of the Slavs is viewed as the main factor behind the slow dissolution of the Roman frontier and the end of Roman power in the Balkans. On more than one occasion, the archaeological remains of the last phase of occupation on various sites in the Balkans — cities or forts — are attributed to the Slavic marauders supposedly choosing the ruins of the plundered cities as their first abodes on previously Roman soil. Despite all evi- dence to the contrary, the “death inflicted by barbarians” is still a favorite theme among students of the decline of the classical urban culture, especially in contexts of sharp contrast between “civilization” and “barbarians”. For example, the third and last building phase on the major urban site in Caritin Grad, most likely to be identified with Justiniana Prima founded by Emperor Justinian shortly before 535, has been dated between ca. 570 and ca. 620. This phase consists of houses with walls built in stone bonded with clay and a significant quantity of agricultural implements bespeaking the rural character of the occupation. In Serbian archaeology, the third oc- cupation phase at Cari¢in Grad has been long attributed to a Slavic settlement following the invasions of the late sixth or early seventh centuries. But the artefacts associ- ated with this occupation phase — buckles, brooches, strap ends —have good analogies in contemporary military forts in the Balkans, not on settlements north of the Danube River to which the Sclavene warriors were returning after their raids. Similarly, Slovene archaeologists have tradi- tionally attributed to Slavic and Avar attacks the end of a number of important hilltop sites, but this attribution rests on little more than the arbitrarily established “ethnic character” of certain artifacts, such as three-edged arrow heads (Sokol 1994; e.g. Knific 1999). On the basis of the assumption that the Slavs must have settled on Slovene territory as early as the late 500s, newly discovered ce- ramic assemblages are thus dated shortly after the end of 282occupation on hilltop sites, namely to the early seventh century, despite clear evidence that such assemblages are of a much later date (e.g. Tiefengraber 2002). A strong commitment to the idea that the job of any archaeologist is to illustrate as well as possible what is already known from literary sources is responsible for the misdating of the ceramic assemblages found during the French exca- vations in Argos. Pierre Aupert, who led the excavations, has dated the assemblage from Bath A with surprising precision to AD 585. The only basis for this dating was the association of this assemblage with debris thought to be from the destruction of the city during the Slavic raids in Greece, which are known from written sources to have taken place in the mid-580s. In fact, the pottery found in Argos has been shown to be at least a century later (Aupert 1980; for the re-ddating of the ceramic assemblages from Argos, as well as from other contemporary sites in Greece, see now Anagnostakis 1997; Vida and Volling 2000). Simi- larly, ceramic assemblages in Bulgaria hastily associated with the Slavic marauders of the late sixth century have now been re-dated to the second half of the seventh and the early eighth century (Vizharova 1968; Koleva 1992). With so many contradictions produced by slavishly fol- lowing the historical narrative established exclusively on the basis of written sources, some archaeologists began to question the traditional interpretation (Nestor 1963; 1969). Extending their doubts to the archaeological in- terpretation of assemblages attributed to the Slavs before their settlement in the Balkans produces some explosive results. The relations between the Slavs and the Empire during that period are poorly known beyond the mere enumeration of the Slavic raids and, with few exceptions, all studies on this subject lack a broader economic and social perspective (Irmscher 1980; Tépkova-Zaimova 1980; Madgearu 1996; Shuvalov 1996). It is therefore important at this point to turn briefly to questions of Balkan archaeology and history. Inthe early 530s, there was a drastic change in Justini- an’s agenda in the Balkans and on the Danube frontier of the empire. Instead of offensive strategy, Justinian began (or only completed) an impressive plan of fortification, the size and quality of which the Balkans had never witnessed before. The project, or at least its most important part, 283was finished in some twenty years and was most likely responsible for the interruption of Sclavene raids between ca. 350 and ca. 575.” The project was the work of one of Justinian’s architects named Viktorinos"* and consisted of three lines of fortification, the strongest of which was not along the Danube River, but along the Stara Planina range. In the mountains, forts clustered around important passes and roadways and were often of relatively large size, equipped with special installations such as cisterns or wells (see Preshlenov 2001). By contrast, along the river the forts were relatively small, i.e. less than 1 ha of enclosed area (Ovcharov 1982: 22; for Justinian’s plan of fortification in the Balkans, see Procopius, Buildings 4.1). Each one of them was probably garrisoned by a numerus (or tagma), the minimal unit of the early Byzantine army, with no more than 500 men (Petersen 1992). On the basis of various archaeological studies, it has been recently estimated that the military population of sixth-century forts must be calculated using a coefficient of 1.8 to 2.7 square meters per man (Kardulias 1992; 1993). Figures obtained by such means for forts excavated in the Iron Gates segment of the Danube frontier suggest that the entire sector may have relied for its defense on some 5,000 men (Fig. 1). The implementation of the fortified frontier was ac- companied by its economic “closure”, a phenomenon most evidently revealed by the analysis of the numismatic evidence. Indeed, there are lots of coins of Justinian, both copper and gold, in Romania and the adjacent regions 284 17. Inany case, the project was finished bythe time Procopius finished his Buildings, whose frst four books (including the description of the Balkan fortifications in book IV) were written before 558 and remained unrevised, perhaps because of their author's untimely death (Evans 1969: 30; Greatrex 1994: 113; Roques 2000; Whitby 1985: 145). 18, ‘Mentioned as such by an inscription from Bylis (Abani) (Anamali 1987; Feissel 1988). 19%. P. Nick Kerdulias, “Estimating population at ancient military sites: the use of historical and contemporary analogy,” American Antiquity 5 (1992), 282-283 and “Anthropology and population estimates for the Byzantine fortress at Isthraia,” in The Corinthian the Roman Period Including the Papers Given ara Symposium Held atthe ‘Ohio State University on 19 March, 1991, ed. by Timothy E. Gregory, (Ann Arbor, 1993}, pp. 139-148.| (Fig. 2). But there are no coins dated between 545 and 565 in either hoard or stray finds (for hoards, see Curta 1996; for stray finds, see Butnariu 1983-1985; Butnariu 1997; Oberlander-Tarnoveanu 2002). The economic closure does not seem to have been deliberate, for a similar strain on coin circulation is visible in hoards found south of the Danube frontier, in the Balkans. The crisis, therefore, must have been caused by the very execution of Justinian’s gigantic plan of fortification. The increasing number of payments and other mon- etary transactions brought by this economic conjuncture had serious consequences especially on small savings, such as found in hoards of radiate. Most hoards found in Romania were indeed collections of small value, each worth a couple of modi (about 18 |) of Egyptian wheat, and may thus be interpreted as payments for small quantities of corn sold to soldiers in the Danube forts. However, the interrup- tion of coin circulation is not to be seen as an exclusively economic phenomenon, for it must have been accompanied by a strong crisis in trading activities across the Danube and a subsequent scarcity of goods of Roman provenance obtained by such means. For example, amphorae carrying such precious commodities as wine, olive oil, or (less likely) fish sauce appear with some frequency on sites north of the Danube frontier of the Empire. In the Balkans, amphorae of the so-called Late Roman 1, Late Roman 2, and spatheion types have been associated with shipments of the annona to the troops stationed on the frontier or in garrisons of forts. The refinement of the chronol- ogy of the Late Roman 2 amphora currently allows a distinction to | be made between specimens dated to the first and second half of the sixth century, respectively, on the basis of such features as the presence or absence of combed decoration in wavy lines and tips (for an example of a site that produced shards of pre-550 Late Ro- man 2 type, see Cantea 1959; Scorpan 1977: 274; Opait 1984: 316; Mackensen 1992: 241, 244). Although amphora tips do occasionally appear north of the Danube frontier, most shards of Late Roman 2 amphorae on sites in that region were dated to the second half of 285the sixth century, i.e., after the economic “closure” (Curta 2001a: 242 with n. 23 and 244 fig. 37). The scarcity of Roman goods may have encouraged social competition and the rise of leaders whose basis of power was warfare, the only remaining way to obtain rare goods of Roman origin used to represent prestige and power. We have seen that many Sclavene leaders appear after ca. 575, some even mentioned by name. The description given in written sources for these leaders matches the anthropological distinction between chiefs, big-men, and great-men. A chief is a leader whose pow- ers are ascribed and coincide with the privileged control of wealth in the context of a highly stratified society. By contrast, a big-man is a leader who achieves his position of power in a context marked by an egalitarian ideology and by fierce competition between peers. Finally, great- men excel in such things as war combat, through which they may gain considerable prestige, but not wealth.” In times of peace a great man has power and prestige, but not permanent authority. Such a leader may have been Ardagastus, a Sclavene leader on the point of being cap- tured by Roman troops during general Priscus’ raids into Sclavene territory in 592 (Theophylact Simocatta 1.7.3-6; 6.7.1, 3 and 5; 6.9.1 and 6; see Havl{k 1974; 1985). His power was undoubtedly achieved, with his remarkable physique at the basis of his political prominence. A big- man’s power was also achieved, but derived from the manipulation of wealth, mostly through the organization of feasts and communal ceremonies. The archontes killed at feasts by their fellow tribesmen that are mentioned by Pseudo-Caesarius may well have been big-men. Big-men are prominent in contexts in which personification or embodiment of collective interest and responsibility is a recurrent practice. In such cases, big-men play a key role in “making” groups, for they speak in the group’s name at meetings or in dealing with outside political forces. Both Dauritas (mentioned by Menander the Guardsman) and Samo, the king of the Wends (mentioned in the Chronicle of Fredegar) are clearly leaders of this kind. Both appear as speaking in the name of their respective groups in dealing with Avars and Franks, respectively, and boldly proclaiming their independence. It is clear from Fredegar’s narrative that Samo was credited with the “creation” of 286 20. For the distinction between bigmen and greatmen, see Godelier 1986. The distinction between bigmen and chiefs goes back to Sahlins 1963.the group's new Wendish identity following his many victories over the Avars (Menander the Guardsman, fr. 21; Fredegar 4.48 and 68; see Curta 1997). A self-made leader, Samo forged alliances with several Wendish families and married no less than twelve women, “who bore him twenty-two sons and fifteen daughters” (Fredegar 4,48; see Eggers 2001). He is called “king,” much like Musocius, the Sclavene chief captured by Priscus’ troops in 592. Unlike Samo, who had to put his utilitas to good use in order to win the admiration of the Wends and his election as “king”, Musocius had “subjects”, whom he sent to reconnoiter or to give assistance to refugees from neighboring territories (Theophylact Simocatta 5.8.14 and 6.9.1.). Another “king”, Perbundos, is mentioned in the second collection of the Miracles of St Demetrius as being dressed like Byzantine aristocrats, speaking fluent Greek, and having high-ranking connections in Con- stantinople. Like Musocius, Perbundos was very popular, for when captured and executed by the Byzantine authorities, the “Sclavene nations” around Thessalonica rose in rebellion to revenge his death (Miracles of St Demetrius 2.4.231, 233-7, 242). Judging from the existing evidence, all three forms of power were concomitantly in existence in Slavic society between ca. 550 and ca. 620 (Curta 1999a). They all seem to have implied access to prestige goods. John of Ephesus, for example, mentions gold, silver, horses and weapons as being some of the goods that attracted the Sclavene warriors of 581 (John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History 6.6.25). According to Menander the Guardsman, the qagan of the Avars knew that the land of the Sclavenes was “full of gold” origi- nating in plundering expeditions across the Balkans (Menander the | Guardsman, fr. 21). The evidence of amphorae mentioned above shows that olive oil, wine or garum were as good for showing off as. horses, weapons, and gold. The Empire, however, was not the only source of prestige goods. To be sure, no hoard of “barbarian” silverware was so far found north of the Danube that could be compared to that of Martynivka in Ukraine (Prikhodniuk, Shovkoplias, Ol’govskaia and Struina 1991; Pekarskaja and Kidd 1994; Kidd and Pekarskaya 1995). Nor were perforated belt mounts, commonly known as “Martynovka mounts,” very popular in the region north of the Danube River (Somogyi 1987; Balint 1992; Gavritukhin and Oblomskii 1996; for a distribution map of finds in the Lower Danube region, see Curta 2001a: 212 fig. 19). There is one particular item, however, that appears both in the Martynivka hoard and at sixth- to seventh-century sites in Romania, namely so-called “Slavic” bow fibulae (Werner 1950; Katsougian- nopoulou 1999). In Romania and the adjacent regions, such dress 287accessories come in a variety of forms and ornamental patterns and often from settlement, not hoard or burial, assemblages. “Slavic” bow fibulae were truly symbols of group identity in use in daily activities. The study of such dress accessories (Curta and Dupoi 1994-1995; Curta 1994, 2001a: 247-75, 2004 and 2005) suggests that many were in use at about the same time, around A.D. 600. There were multiple and very complicated networks for the procurement of such goods, since specimens found in Romania are decorated in a style linking them to specimens from Mazuria, Crimea, and the Middle Dnieper region. The cluster analysis of just one class of such fibulae (Werner's class | C), on the basis of their decoration, as well as the corresponding plotting, are a good example of this network of ornamental patterns (Figures 3 and 4). [Ree Rihiar Cnarng oe role ero rat te mince Most fibulae found in Mazuria share more compositional elements with each other than with fibulae from other regions. By contrast, Romanian fibulae share more compositional elements with fibulae from Mazuria than with each other, while at the same time serving as models for replicas found in the Middle Dnieper region or in the Balkans. There are no direct links between fibulae found in Mazuria and those in the Middle Dnieper region. Nor are specimens found in neighboring locations related to each other, with the only exception of the Mazurian specimens. The design links seem to suggest that Mazurian specimens were imitated by those from other regions, rather than the other way around. Moreover, Mazurian fibulae are the earliest of all, since they were found in association with artifacts dated 288m1. Eg, burial 68 at Tumiany, in association \ithan envelopeshaped ‘elt mount or burial 30 ofthe same cemetery, in association with perforated belt mounts [Kulakov 1989: 192, 1255 fig. 39/3; 1889, ‘Dig. 28). For the dat ing of envelopeshaped belt mounts found in ‘weapon graves on the ‘sland of Bomholm, see Jrgensen 1999: 149, 153 fig. 9/4 to the second third of the sixth century. By contrast, the majority of sites excavated in the region next to the Danube frontier and the neighboring regions of Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine produced a relatively large number of artifacts indicating a date in the late sixth and early sev- enth century (for a detailed discussion of chronology, see Curta 2001a: 234-46). The dissemination of ornamental patterns described by the plotting of the cluster analysis of fibulae of Werner's class I C may indicate the extent of social connections between manufacturers, clients, or wearers. Linked pieces of ornamental metalwork are likely to emphasize the extent of the movement of people, and therefore, of contact. Theoretically, the dissemination of a brooch-form or of ornamental details may indicate one of three types of movement: brooches (through gift giving or trade), with or without their owners; models of brooches, including templates for the reproduction of ornamental | patterns; and craftsmen carrying manufactured brooches or models (Hines 1997: 213 and Leigh 1991: 117). Pre- vailing views about the organization of production in the early Middle Ages are still based on the idea of itinerant specialists, carrying durable bronze or leaden models. There are indeed some examples of bow fibulae which accord with the idea of models being used, but there are many more examples that do not. There is little evidence for the physical copying of any existing brooch, although some minimal units of the decoration — the head- or foot- plate and the terminal lobe — may have been reproduced very closely, probably by some mechanical means, such as templates. The absence of exact replication shifts the emphasis from manufacturer to user or wearer. In Ma- zurian graves, bow fibulae were rarely associated with spurs. Eduard Sturms first interpreted this dichotomy as indication of gender division: bow fibulae were usually found in female graves, while spurs may have been male attributes (Sturms 1950: 21; for the local production of fibulae, see Dabrowski 1980). Within the Merovingian world, bow fibulae found with female skeletons, usu- ally late adolescents or adults between twenty and forty years of age, suggest a “threshold of acquisition” exactly comparable with access to shields and/or swords among weapon-bearing men (Dickinson 1993: 39; Straug 1992: 70). This arguably took place at marriage. Furthermore, 289studies based on microwear analysis suggest that there is a direct correlation between the degree of use and the age of the wearer, which may indicate that the same brooches acquired at betrothal or marriage were then worn during the rest of the lifetime (Martin 1987: 278, 280 and Nieke 1993: 129). But the absence of brooches or other dress-fasteners from many female graves suggests that access to brooches was also dependent upon social status. At Romanian sites, the presence of “Slavic” bow fibulae points to long-distance relations with communities in Mazuria and Crimea, which may indicate gifts or matrimonial alliances. Earlier specimens brought from Mazuria were quickly imitated in less sophisticated ornamentation to respond to an increasing demand of symbols of group identity. Since many such accessories were found in settle- ments and since there is rarely more than one fibula per settlement, itis possible that “Slavic” bow fibulae were symbols of social identity, which served as markers of social status for the newly emerging elites. “Slavic” bow fibulae, however, were not the only artifacts used to mark group (possibly ethnic) boundaries. It is doubtful that handmade pottery with no decoration that was labeled “the Prague type” by the Czech archaeologist Ivan Borkovsky ever “represented” Slavic ethnicity, as many still maintain (Borkovsky 1940; for the recent uses and abuses of the “Prague type,” see Bubenik 1995; Gavritukhin 1996; Vida 1999; Sedov 2002; Cheben 2004; Kuna and | Profantové 2005). A correspondence analysis of over 100 vessels from sixth- and seventh-entury ceramic assemblages in Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine, in relation to six ratios proposed for vessel analysis by Michat Parczewski, has shown that very similar propor- tions have been used for the manufacture of both hand- and wheel- made pots (Parczewski 1993: 31-3; see Curta 2001b). Although a | number of distinct practices and templates may have been in use in every community, it remains unclear how such isomorphism could be achieved on sites located at a long distance from each other. Ar- chaeologists rarely, if ever, discuss such problems, since the concept of “archaeological culture” implies that the “bearers” of that culture share cultural features with each other unconsciously. In fact, eth- noarchaeological studies and archaeological experiments strongly suggest that lack of variability within a class of ceramic vessels is usually linked to their use in food preparation. Nevertheless, pottery may have indeed served as a material sup- port for “emblemic styles.” Mesmerized by the possibility of devising a method for using pottery to date sites, recent typological studies seem to have ignored pottery ornamentation. Stamped decoration was particularly popular within the Carpathian basin, while the entire 290region east of the Carpathian Mountains produced a rela- tively large quantity of pottery with finger impressions or notches on the lip, the earliest specimens of which could be dated to the second half of the sixth century (Curta 2001a: 290-2, Figure 69; for finger impressions and notches, see now Prikhodniuk 1998; for stamped decoration, see Rosner 1987). Only in Transylvania do both decoration techniques appear side by side, sometimes within the same ceramic assemblage or on the same site (e.g., in Poian, a sixth- to seventh-century settlement in central Romania excavated and published by Székely 1992; for “Slavs” in Transylvania, see Heitel 1994). Similarly, the distribu- tion of heating facilities accompanying sunken-featured buildings excavated on sites in the Lower Danube region show a remarkable cluster of clay ovens in Wallachia, in sharp contrast with the cluster of brick ovens on many sixth-century forts on the other side of the river, in the northern Balkan provinces of the Roman Empire (for clay ovens, see Rusanova 1993; Dolinescu-Ferche 1995; for brick ovens in the northern Balkans, see Dinchev 1997; for a rare example of brick oven north of the Danube frontier, see Nica and Deleanu 1994). Wherever clay ovens predominate, they are normally associated with clay rolls in large quantities that may have served for retaining heat with the oven area (ZakoScielna and Gurba 1993; Stan- ciu 1998). The combination of clay ovens and rolls may indeed point to recurrent practices concerning such fun- damentals of life as the comfort of the dwelling and may have something to do with the “roomsize patterns” some archaeologists link to the “practice of ethnicity” (Baldwin 1987). But it is equally wrong to see small clay rolls or sunken-featured buildings with stone or clay ovens as hall- marks of Slavic ethnicity (for small clay rolls, see Stanciu 2001; for sunken-featured buildings as typically Slavic, see Cremonik 1980; Tel’nov 1991; Salkovsky 1998; for a more nuanced view, see now Salkovsky 2001), It is often believed that the early Slavic culture was defined by acombination of “Prague-type” pottery, sunken-featured buildings, and cremation burials (e.g. Godiowski 1979). In reality, no ethnic group ever employed the totality of material culture to mark ethnic boundaries around itself. Ethnicity is a matter of style (“emblemic style,” more ex- actly) and style is a matter of choice. Although such trivial 291things as food or manufacturing techniques may indeed be used to build ethnic boundaries, the choice of such elements always means that certain cultural elements will be “deactivated” from marking difference from neighbouring groups. Selected artifacts are imbued with meaning in social context and often that meaning is subject to change. In short, ethnicity involves culture in action and cannot be reduced to cultural stereotypes, because it is always a continuing negotiation. This is particularly true about Slavic ethnicity and its construction by means of material culture. Some settlements consist of groups of houses scattered along | river valleys, such as Rashkov (Baran 1986 and 1988). Others, especially those closer to the Danube, produced evidence of a more sophisticated arrangement, often in the form of a central, open area surrounded by houses (e.g. Dolinescu-Ferche and Constantiniu 1981), The intrasite distribution of artifacts reveals the existence of a communal front region, which was the locus of communal activities involving consumption of such special foods as flat loaves of bread, produced by means of clay pans (for clay pans and their use, see Babié 1972; Herrmann 1986; Krauss and Jeute 1998; for an example of intrasite distribution of artifacts revealing the existence of a com- munal front region, see Mitrea 2001; Curta 2002), This area may have served for the organization of communal feasts or assemblies. As the centre for intervillage social, religious, and economic events, the communal front region may have acquired a special character as the symbol of the community as a whole. It may also have been an arena of social competition, a “beyond-the-household” context of displays of leadership symbols. Not surprisingly, most “Slavic” bow fibulae were found in buildings located in this area. If such dress ac- cessories were associated with women of high status, perhaps wives of clan heads or even chiefs, then such buildings may represent the residences of dominant descent groups or of community leaders. On the other hand, if the communal region was indeed used for feasts, such leaders may appear as big-men gaining power through the or- chestration of communal ceremonies. Access to such ceremonies, as well as to artifacts of “exotic” origin, such as bow fibulae, may have been strategies for gaining admission into a group of people known to Byzantine authors as “Slavs”. Political and military mobilization thus appears as the response to the historical conditions created by the implementation of Jus- tinian’s fortified frontier. Was this group identity represented by emblemic syles an identity that we can call ethnicity? Perhaps, but the construction of ethnicity was certainly linked to the signification of social difference. In other words, the adoption of the dress with 292| “Slavic” bow fibulae was a means by which individuals could both | claim membership of the new group and proclaim achievement and consolidation of elite status, Was this, then, Slavic ethnicity? Per- haps, at least in the eyes of the Byzantine authors, which is exactly | what I meant by “Byzantines-making-the-Slavs.” Byzantine authors | used “Sclavenes” and “Antes” to make sense of the process of group identification that was taking place under their own eyes north of the Danube frontier. The making of the Slavs, therefore, was not as much about ethnogenesis as it was about classifying and labeling groups of people in Byzantine works. The group identity labeled Slavic, however, was not formed in the Pripet marshes, but in the shadow of Justinian’s forts. References Anagnostakis, Ilias 1997 ‘I cheiropoiiti keramiki anamesa stin Istoria kai tin Archaiologia.’ Vyzantiaka 17: 285-330, Anamali, Skénder 1987 ‘Katér mbishkrime ndértemi nga Bylisi.’ Monumentet 33: 63-72. Anfert’ev, A. N. 1986 ‘Drevneishee svidetel'stvo o rasselenii slavian (lord. Get. 34-5).” In: The 17th International Byzantine Congress. Abstracts. New Rochelle: Caratzas, Pp. 9-12. 1991 ‘lordan.’ In: Svod dreuneishikh pis'mennykh izvestii o slavianakh. L.A. Gindin, S. A. Ivanov, and G. G. Litavrin, eds. Moscow: Nauka. Pp. 98-169. Aupert, Pierre 1980 ‘Céramique slave a Argos (585 ap. J-C.)’ In: Etudes argiennes. Athens: Ecole Francaise d’Athénes. Pp. 373-94. Babié, Bosko 1972 ‘Crepulja, crepna, podnica-posebno znagajan oslonac za atribuciju srednjovekovnih arheoloskih nalazi8ta balkanskog poluostrova slov- enima poreklom sa istoka.’ In: Varvarske migracije u jugoistoénaj Evropi i nijhov odnos prema autohtonoj populacii. Referati i koreferati. Danica Dimitrjevi ed. Belgrade: Arheolesko drustvo, Jugoslavije/Narodni Muzej Prilep. Pp. 101-23. Baldwin, Stuart J. 1987 ‘Roomsize Patterns: A Quantitative Method for Approaching Eth- nic Identification in Architecture.’ In: Ethnicity and Culture: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. Réginald Auger, Margaret F. Glass, Scott MacEach- ern, and Peter H, McCartney, eds, Calgary: University of Calgary Archaeological Association. Pp. 163-74.294 Balint, Csandd 1992 ‘Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe: Das Grab von Ug Tepe Sow. Azerbajdzan) und der beschlagversert Ci el im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert.’ In: Awarenforschungen. F. Daim, ed. Vienna: Institut fir Ur und Frithgeschichte der Universitat Wien. Pp. 309-496. Baran, Volodymyr D. 1986 ‘Die friihslawische Siedlung von RaSkov, Ukraine.’ Beitriige zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archéologie 8: 73-175. 1988 Prazhskaia kul’tura Podnestrov'ia po materialam poselenii us. Rashkov. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. 1998 ‘The Veneti, Sclaveni and Antae in the Light of Archaeology.’ Ukrainian Review 45: 49-63. Barigié, Frano 1953 Cuda Dimitrija Solunskog kao istoriski izvori. Belgrade: Srpska Akademija Nauka. Benedicty, Robert 1964 ‘Die auf die frithslawsiche Gesellschaftsbezigliche byzantinische Terminologie.’ In: Actes du Xil-e Congrés international d'études byzantines (Ochride, 10-16 septembre 1961). Belgrade: Comité yougoslave des études yyzantines, Pp. 45-55. Bentley, C. Carter 1987 ‘Ethnicity and Practice.’ Comparative Studies in Society and History 29: 25-55. Borkovsky, Ivan 1940 Staroslovanskd keramika ve stiedn{ Evrope: Studie k pocatkiim slovanské kultury. Prague: Nakladem vlastnim. Bubentk, Josef 1995 ‘Ke stavu pozndnt poéatkii slovanského osidlenf Cech v dobe Niederlove a v soutasnosti.’ Slavia: Casopis pro slovanskou filologii 64: 257-62. Butnariu, Viorel M. 1983-1985 ‘Raspindirea monedelor bizantine din secolele VI-VII in teritoriile carpato-dundrene,’ Buletinul Societa.ii Numismatice Romane 71-79: 199-235. 1997 ‘Descoperiri monetare in spatiul carpato-nistrian in secolele IV-VIL; Structuri si semnificafii.” In: Spafiul nordest carpatic in mileniul intunecat. Victor Spinei, ed. Iasi: Editura Universitafii “Alexandru loan Cuza”. Pp. 59-66. Byers, A. Martin 1991 ‘Structure, Meaning, Action and Things: The Duality of Material Culture Mediation.’ Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 21: 1-29. Cankova-Petkova, Genoveva 1968 ‘Sur l’etablissement des tribus slaves du groupe bulgare au sud du Bas-Danube.’ Etudes Historiques 4: 143-66.Cantea, Gheorghe 1959 ‘Cercetarile atheologice pe dealul Mihai Voda si imprejurimi.’ In: Bucurestii de odinioard in lumina sdpaturilor arheologice. 1. lonascu, ed. Bucharest: Editura $tiintificd. Pp. 93-143. Cheben, Ivan 2004 ‘Keramika praiského typu zo sidliska v Trentine.’ In: Zhornik na potest Dariny Bialekovej. Gabriel Fusek, ed. Nitra: Archeologicky ustav Slovenskej akadémie vied. Pp. 141-42. Cohen, Abner 1969 Custom and Politics in Urban Africa: A Study of Hausa Migrants in Yoruba Towns. London: Routledge & K. Paul. Comsa, Maria 1960 ‘Slavii.’ In: Istoria Rominiei. C. Daicoviciu, E. Conduracki, I. Nestor, and Gh. Stefan, eds. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romine. Pp. 728-54. Conte, F. 1986 Les Slaves: Aux origines des civilisations d'Europe centrale et orientale (VieXllte sidcles), Paris: A. Michel. Cremoinik, Irma 1980 jlipovt slavenskih nastambi nadenih u sjevero-istoénoj Bosni.’” Arheoloski vestnik 31: 132-58. Croke, Brian 1987 ‘Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes.’ Classical Philology 82: 117-34, Curta, Florin 1994 ‘On the Dating of the ‘Vetel-Cosoveni’ Group of Curved Fibulae.” Ephemeris Napocensis 4: 233-65. 1996 ‘Invasion or Inflation? Sixth- to Seventh-Century Byzantine Coin Hoards in Eastern and Southeastern Europe.’ Anal dell stituto Italiano di Numismatica 43; 65-224, 1997 ‘Slavs in Fredegar and Paul the Deacon: medieval ‘gens’ or ‘scourge of God’? Early Medieval Europe 6: 141-67. 1999a ‘Feasting with ‘Kings’ in an Ancient Democracy: On the Slavic Society of the Early Middle Ages (Sixth to Seventh Century A.D.) Essays in Medieval Studies 15: 19-34. 1999b ‘Hiding Behind a Piece of Tapestry: Jordanes and the Slavic Venethi.’ Jahrbiicher fr Geschichte Osteuropas 47: 1-18. 2001a The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Dan- ube Region, c. 500-700, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001b ‘The Prague Type: A Critical Approach to Pottery Classification.’ Archaeologi ail 6. rica 5: 73-106. 2002 ‘Review of Ioan Mitrea.’ Comunititi satesti la est de Carpati in epoca migratiilor. Asezarea de la Davideni din secolele V-VIII (Piatra Neam}, 2001), Archaeologia Bulgarica 6: 87-97. 2004 ‘Werner's Class I H of “Slavic” Bow Fibulae Revisited.’ Archaeolo- 2296 gia Bulgarica 8: 59-78. 2005 ‘Female Dress and “Slavic” Bow Fibulae in Greece.’ Hesperia 74: 101-46 Curta, Florin and Vasile Dupoi 1994-1995 ‘Uber die Bugelfibel aus Pietroasele und ihre Verwandten.’ Dacia 38-39: 217-38. Dabrowski, Krzysztof 1980 ‘Nouvelles données concernant l’orfévrerie sur le territoire de la voivodie d’Olsztyn (Pologne),’ Archaeologia Polona 19: 235-1. Dennis, George T. and Ernst Gamillscheg 1981 Das Strategikon des Maurikios, Vienna: Verlag der dsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Dickinson, Tania M. 1993 ‘Early Saxon Saucer Brooches: A Preliminary Overview.’ Anglo- Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 6: 11-44. Dinchey, Vencislav 1997 ‘Household Substructure of the Early Byzantine Fortified Settle- ments on the Present Bulgarian Territory.’ Archaeologia Bulgarica 1: 47-63. Dolinescu-Ferche, Suzana 1995 ‘Cuptoare din interiorul locuintelor din secolul al Vea e.n. de la Dulceanca.’ Studii si cercetéiri de istorie veche si arheologie 46: 161-92. Dolinescu-Ferche, Suzana and Margareta Constantiniu 1981 ‘Un établissement du Vi-e siécle & Bucarest.’ Dacia 25: 289-329. Barle Timothy 1990 ‘Style and Iconography as Legitimation in Complex Chiefdoms.’ In: The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Margaret W. Conkey and Christine A. Hastorf, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 73-81. Eggers, Martin 2001 ‘Samo, “der erste Konig der Slawen”: Eine kritische Forschungs- bericht.’ Bohemia 42: 62-83. Erhart, A. 1985 ‘U kolebky slovanskych jazyku,’ Slavia: Casopis pro slovanskou filologii 54: 337-45. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland 1991 ‘The Cultural Contexts of Ethnic Differences.’ Man 26: 127-44. Evans, J. A. S. 1969 ‘The Dates of the Anecdota and the De aedificiis of Procopius.’ Classical Philology 44: 29-30. Feissel, Denis 1988 ‘L’architecte Viktorinos et les fortifications de Justinien dans lesprovinces balkaniques.’ Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France; 136-46, Fortier, Anne-Marie 1994 ‘Ethnicity.’ Paragraph 17: 213-23. Fusek, Gabriel 2004 ‘"Slawen” oder Slawen? Eine polemische Auseinandersetzung liber eine wertvolle Monographie.’ Slovenskd Archeol6gia 52: 161-86, Gavritukhin, Igor 0. 1996 ‘Khronologiia prazhskoi kul’tury.’ In: Efnogenez i etnokul’turnye kontakty slavian, V. V. Sedov, ed. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii RAN. Pp. 39-52. Gavritukhin, Igor O. and A. M. Oblomskii 1996 Gaponovskii klad i ego kul’ turno-istoricheskii kontekst. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii RAN. Godelier, Maurice 1986 The Making of Great Men: Male Domination and Power Among the New Guinea Baruya Cambridge/Paris: Cambridge University Press-Edi- tions de la Maison des Sciences de I’Homme. Godtowski, Kazimierz 1979 ‘Die Frage der slawischen Einwanderung in éstliche Mitteleuropa.’ Zeitschrift flrr Ostforschung 28: 416-47. Goffart, Walter 1988 The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 550-800): Jordanes, Gre- gory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gotab, Zbigniew 1992 The Origins of the Slavs: A Linguist’s View. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers. Graves, Paul 1995 ‘Flakes and Ladders: What the Archaeological Record Cannot Tell Us about the Origins of Language.’ World Archaeology 26: 158-71. Greatrex, Geoffrey 1994 ‘The Dates of Procopius’ Works.’ Byzantine and Modern Greek Stud- ies 18: 101-14, Hardt, Matthias 2002 ‘Slawisch-germanische Bezichungen an der mittleren Donau in der Merowingerzeit nach schriftlichen Quellen.’ In: Probleme der frithen Merowingerzeit im Mitteldonauraum: Materialien des XI. internationalen Symposiums “Grundprobleme der friihgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im nérdlichen Mitteldonaugebiet”, Kravsko, 16,-19. November 1998. Jaroslav 297298 Tejral, ed. Brno: Archaologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissen- schaften der Tschechischen Republik. Pp. 129-35. Havlik, Lubomir E, 1974 ‘Slovanské “barbarska krdlovstvi” 6, stoletf na tizemi Rumunska.’ Slovansky prehled 3: 177-88. 1985 ‘Die Byzantiner tiber die Verfassung der Slawen im 6. und 7, Jahr under’ In: From Late Antiquity oar ‘byzantium: Proceedings ofthe Byzantnologial Symposium in the 16th International Eirene Conference. ladimir VavFinek, ed. Prague: Academia. Pp. 173-77. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 11902 Lecture on the Philosophy of History. London: G. Bell and Sons. Heitel, Radu 1994 ‘Zur Frage des Eindringens der Frithslawen in Siebenbitrgen.’ In: Siebenbiirgen zur Zeit der Romer und der Volkerwanderung. Wolfgang Schuller, ed. Cologne/Weimar/Vienna: Bohlau. Pp. 183-207. Herder, Johann Gottfried dee Stimtliche Werke. Vol. 17. Hildesheim/New York: Olms-Wei- imann. Herrmann, Joachim 1986 ‘Getreidekultur, Backteller und Brot-Indizien friihslawischer Differensierung. In: Zbornk pooeten na Boshko Babic: Mélange Boxko Babié 1924-1984, Mihailo Apostolski, ed. Prilep: Institut des recherches scientifiques de la culture des anciens Slaves - Prilep. Pp. 267-72. Hines, John 1997 A New Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Great Square-Headed Brooches. Wood- bridge/Rochester: Boydell Press/Society of Antiquaries of London. Hodder, lan 1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture, Cambridge/London/New York: Cambridge University Press 1990 ‘Style as Historical Quality.’ In: The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Margaret W. Conkey and Christine A. Hastorf, eds. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, Pp. 44-51. Irmscher, Johannes 1980 ‘Die Slawen und das lustinianische Reich, In: Rapport du fe Congrés international d'archéologie slave, Bratislava, 7-14 septembre 1975. Bohuslav Chropovsky, ed. Bratislava: VEDA. Pp. 157-69. Ivanov, S.A. 1987 ‘Poniatiia “sojuza” i “podchineniia” u Prokopiia Kesariiskogo.’ In: Etnosocial’naia i politicheskaia struktura rannefeodal’nykh slavianskikh gosudarsto i narodnostei. G. G. Litavrin, ed. Moscow: Nauka. Pp. 27-32. 1991 ‘PsevdoKesarii,’ In: Svod dreuneishikh pis mennykh izvestii o slavianakh. L. A. Gindin, 8. A. Ivanov, and G. G. Litavrin, eds, Moscow: Nauka, Pp. 251764. Ivanova, O. V. 1995 ‘Chudesa Sv. Dimitriia Solunskogo.’ In: Svod dreuneishikh pis’mennykh izvesti o slavianakh. S. A. Ivanov, C. C. Litavrin, and V. K. Ronin, eds. Moscow: “Vostochnaia literatura” RAN. Pp. 91-211.Janni, Pietro 1984 La mappa e il periplo, Cartografia antica e spazio odologico. Rome: Bretschneider. Jorgensen, Anne Nergard 1999 ‘A Peaceful Discussion of a Martial Topic: The Chronology of Scandinavian Weapon Graves.’ In: The Pace of Change: Studies in Early- Medieval Chronology. John Hines, Karen Hoilund Nielsen, and Frank Siegmund, eds. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Pp. 148-59. Kardulias, Paul Nick 1992 ‘Estimating Population at Ancient Military Sites: The Use of His- torical and Contemporary Analogy.’ American Antiquity 57: 276-87. 1993 ‘Anthropology and Population Estimates for the Byzantine Fortress at Isthmia.” In: The Corinthia in the Roman Period Including the Papers Given at a Symposium Held at the Ohio State University on 7-9 March, 1991. Timothy E. Gregory, ed. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series. Pp. 139-48. Katsougiannopoulou, Christina 1999 Studien zu ost- und siidosteuropdiischen Biigelfibeln, Ph.D. Disserta- tion, University of Bonn. Kazanski, Michel 1999 Les Slaves: Les origines, ler-Vile siécle aprés J.-C. Paris: Errance. Kidd, Dafydd and Ludmila Pekarskaya 1995 ‘New Insight into the Hoard of 6th-7th Century Silver from Mar- tynovka.’ In: La noblesse romaine et les chefs barbares du Ille au Vile siécle. Francoise Vallet and Michel Kazanski, eds. Saint-Germain-en-Laye: As- sociation Francaise d’Archéologie Mérovingienne-Musée des Antiquités Nationales. Pp. 351-60. Knific, Timotej 1999 ‘Carniola Sclavorum patria: autochtons, invaders, neighbors.’ in: Istria i kultura dreonibh i srenevekovykh slavian. V.V. Sedov, ed, Moscow: Editorial URSS. Pp. 314-23. Kobylifski, Zbigniew 2005 ‘The Slavs, 500-700 A.D.’ In: The New Cambridge Medieval History. Paul Fouracre, ed. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 524~2, Koder, Johannes 2002 ‘Anmerkungen zum Slawen-Namen in byzantinischen Quellen.’ Travaux et mémoires du Centre de recherches d’histoire et civilisation byz- antines 14: 333-46. Koleva, Rumiana 1992 ‘Za datiraneto na slavianskata grupa “Popina-Garvan” v severoiz- tochna Balgariia i severna Dobrudzha.’ Godishnik na Sofiiskiia Universitet “Kliment Ohridski”. Istoricheski Fakultet 81-85: 163-82. 299300 Krauss, Raiko and Gerson H. Jeute 1998 ‘Traditionelle Getreideverarbeitung in Bulgarien: Ethnoarchiolo- ische Beobachtungen im Vergleich zu Befunden der Slawen in fridhen ittelalter zwischen Elbe und Oder.’ Ethnographisch-archiologische Zeitschrift 39: 498-528, Kuchma, V. V. 1982 '”Strategikos” Onasandra i “Strategikon Mavril sravnitel’noi kharakteristiki.’ Vizantiiskit Vremennik 43: Kudlaéek, Jozef. 1957°P. J. Safrikajeho koncepcia povodu Slovanov Historic asp : 59-81. Kulakov, Vladimir I. 1985 Mogi niki zapadnotchast Mazurskogo poozeriakonca V-nacy ala Vill wv. (po materialom raskopok 1878-1938 gg.).’ Barbaricum 1: Kuna, Martin and Nad’a Profantova 2005 Poctitky raného stredoveku v echach: Archeologicky vyzkum sidelnf lomeraceRulturyprdského fypu v Rotokdch Prague: Archeologcky stav AV CR. Lehr-Splawiriski, Tadeusz 1961, Nevers zur Frage nach der Herkunft der Slaven.’ Welt der Slauen Leigh, Dayid 1991 ‘Aspects of Early Brooch Design and Production.’ In: Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries: A Reappraisal: Proceedings of a Conference Held at Liverpool Museum 1986. Edmund Southworth, ed. Wolfeboro Fall: Alan Sutton. p. 107-24. Lemerle, Paul 1981 Les plus anciens recueils des Miracles de Saint Démétrius et la pénétra- tion des Slaves dans les Balkans. II: Commentaire. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Levi, Annalina and Mario Levi 1981 'Map Projection and the Peutinger Table.’ In: Coins, Culture, and History in the Ancient World: Numismatic and Other Studies in Honor of Bluma L. Trell, Lionel Casson and Martin Price, eds. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Pp. 139-48. Loéek, Fritz 1990 ‘Ethnische und politische Terminologie bei lordanes und Ein- hard.’ In: Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Bayern. H. Wolfram and W. Pohl, eds. Vienna: Verlag der dsterreich- ischer Akademie der Wissenschaften. Pp. 147-52. Machinskii, Dmitrii A. 1982 ‘O vremeni i obstoiatel’stvakh pervogo poiavleniia slavian na seve- ro-zapade Vostochnoi Evropy po dannym pis'mennykh istochnikov.’ In: Severnaia Rus’ i ee sosedi v epokhu rannego srednevekov ia: Mezhvuzovskii shornik. A. D. Stoliar, ed. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo uni- versiteta. -24,Mackensen, Michael 1992 ‘Amphoren und Spatheia von Golemannovo Kale.’ In: Die spatan- tiken Befestigungen von Sadovec (Bulgarien): Ergebnisse der deutsch-bulgar- isch-dsterreichischen Ausgrabungen 1934-1937. Syna Uenze, ed, Munich: C.H. Beck. Pp, 239-54, Madge, Alexandra 996 ‘The Province of Scythia and the Avaro-Slavic Invasions.’ Balkan Studies 37: 35-61. Martin, Max 1987 ‘Beobachtungen an den fridhmittelalterlichen Bugelfibeln von Altenerding (Oberbayern).’ Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblatfer 52: 269-80. McLaughlin, Castle 1987 ‘Style as a Social Boundary Marker: A Plains Indian Example.’ In: Ethnicity and Culture: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. Réginald Au- et, Margaret F. las, Scott MacEachern, and Peter H: McCartney, ed, algary: University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Pp. 55~66. Mitrea, Ioan 2001 Comunita.i sitesti la est de Carpati in epoca migratiilor. Asezarea de ia Davideni din socoele V-VII. Piatra Neami Muzeul de Istorie, Musset, Lucien 1965 Les invasions: le second assaut contre l'Europe chrétienne (VIl-e-Xl-e siécles). Paris: Presses universitaires de France. 1983 ‘Entre deux vagues d’invasions: la progression slave dans Vhistoire européenne du Haut Moyen Age.’ In: Gli Slavi occidentali e meridionali nell’alto Medioevo. Spoleto: Presso la sede del Centro. Pp. 981-1028. Nestor, lon. 1963 ‘La pénetration des Slaves dans la péninsule balkanique et dans la Grace continentale : Considérations sur les recherches historiques et archalogigues.”Reowe des études sudzsteuropéennes 1: 41-68. 1969 ‘Les éléments les plus anciens de la culture slave dans les Balkans.’ In: Simpozijum, “Predslavenski etni¢ki elementi na Balkanu u etnogenezi juanih Slovena”, odraan 24-26. oktobra 1968 u Mostaru, Alojz Benac, ¢d. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne {Hercegovine. Fp. 141-47. Nica, M. and Elena Deleanu 1994 ‘Cateva date despre asezitrile din sec. VI si XVI de la Piatra-sat (iud. Oh), puncte “Nueet” si “Vadul Codi’ Studi cereettri de istore veche si arheologie 45: 61-70. Niederle, Lubor 1923 Manuel de l'antiquité slave : L’histoire. Paris: Champion. 1925 Slovanské staroZitnosti. Prague: Nakladem Bursika & Kohouta. 1926 Manuel de l'antiquité slave : La civilisation. Paris: Champion. Nieke, Margaret R. 1993 ‘Penannular and Related Brooches: Secular Ornament or Symbol in Action?’ In: The Age of Migrating Ideas: Early Medieval Art in Northern 301302 Britain and Ireland, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Insular Art held in the National Museums of Scotland in Edinburgh, 3-6 January 1991. R. Michael Spearman and John Higgitt, eds. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Alan Sutton, Pp. 128-34. Oberlinder-Tarnoveanu, Ernest 2002 ‘La monnaie byzantine des Vle-VIlle siécles au-dela de la frontiére du Bas-Danube. Entre politique, économie et diffusion culturelle.’ His- toire & Mesure 17: 155-96. Olajos, Thérése 1988 Les sources de Théophylacte Simocatta historien. Leiden: Brill. Opait, Andrei 198d ‘Beobachtungen zur Entwicklung der 2wei Amphoratypen.’ Peuce 9: 811-27. Ovcharov, Dimitar 1982 Vizantiiski i béilgarski kreposti V-X vek. Sofia: lzdatelstvo Bilgarskata Akademia na Naukite. Parezewski, Michat 1993 Die Anfiinge der frithslawischen Kultur in Polen, Vienna: Osterreich- ische Gesellschaft fiir Ur- und Friihgeschichte. Pech, Stanley Z. 1969 The Czech Revolution of 1848, Chapell Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Peisker, Jan 1026 "The Expansion ofthe Sev. In: The Cambridge Medion History. Henry Melvifl Gwatkin and James Pounder Whitney, eds. New York- Cambridge: Macmillan-Cambridge University Press. Pp. 418-58. Pekarskaja, Ljudmila V. and Dafydd Kidd 1994 Der Silberschatz von Martynovka (Ukraine) aus dem 6. und 7. Jahr- hundert. Innsbruck: Universitatsverlag Wagner. Pekkanen, Tuomo 1971 ‘L’origine degli Slavi e il loro nome nella letteratura greco-latina.’ Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 11: 51-64. Petersen, Charles C. 1992 ‘The Strategikon. A forgotten classic.’ Military Review 72: 70-9. Polomé, Edgar C. 1990 ‘Linguistic Palaeontology: Migration Theory, Prehistory, and Archaeology Correlated ‘with Linguistic Data.’ In: Research Guide on Language Change. Edgar C. Polomé, ed. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 137-59. Popovié, Vladislav 1980 ‘Aux origines de la slavisation des Balkans: la constitution des premiéres sklavinies macédoniennes vers la fin du VI-e siécle.’ Comptesrendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 8: 230-57. Preshlenoy, Khristo 2001 ‘A Late Antique Pattern of Fortification in the Eastern Stara Plani- na Mountain (The Pass of Djulino}.' Archaeologia Bulgarica 8: 33-43. Prikhodniuk, Oleg M. 1998 Pen ‘kouskaia kul'tura: kul’turno-khronologicheskii aspekt issledova- niia. Voronezh: Voronezhskii universitet. Prikhodniuk, Oleg M., A. M. Shovkoplias, S. la Ol'govskaia, and T. A. Struina 1991 ‘Martynovskii klad.’ Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i emografii Tavrii 2: 72-92. Riedinger, Rudolf : 1969 Pseudo-Kaisarios: Uberlieferungsgeschichte und Verfasserfrage. Mu- nich: C. H. Beck. Roosens, Eugeen E. 1989 Creating Ethnicity: The Process of Ethnogenesis. Newbury Park/Lon- don: Sage Publications. Roques, Denis 2000 ‘Les Constructions de Justinien de Procope de Césarée.’ Antiquité tardive 8: 31-43. Rosenbaum, Karol 1980 ‘Osudy Herderovej kapitoly o Slovanoch v teskom a slovenskom nérodnom obrozeni.’ Slavia: Casopis pro slovanskou filologii 49: 48-56. Rosner, Gyula 1987 ‘Die stempelverzierte Keramik der Awarenzeit in Pannonien.’ Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmuseums und Berichte aus dem Forse- hungsinstitut fir Realienkunde 125-27. Rostafiriski, Jozef 1908 0 plerwotnychsiedibach igospodarstwie stowian w predhis- torycenych czasach,’ Sprawoadania 2 caynnosci i posiedzen Akademii Umigjetnosci wo Krakowie 13: 6-25. Rusanova, Irina P. 1993 ‘Khlebnye pechi u slavian,’ In: Arkheologiia i istortia iugo-vostoka Drevnei Rusi (materialy nauchnoi konferencii). A. Z. Vinnikov, A. D. Priakhin, and M. V. Cybin, eds. Voronezh: ledatel’stvo Voronezhskogo universiteta. Pp. 56-9. Sahlins, Marshall 1963 ‘Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-Man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia,’ Comparative Studies in Society and History 5: 283-303. Salkovsky, Peter 1998 ‘Zur Problematik zweier Zonen der frithslawischen Hausbaukul- tur.’ In: Studien zur Arc jie des Ostseerdiumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter, Festschirft fiir Michael Milller-Wille. Anke Wesse, ed. Neumtin- 303304 ster: Wachholtz. Pp. 205-12. 2001 Hauser in der friihmittelalterlichen slawischen Welt. Nitra: Archeo- logicky tistav Slovenske} Akadémie vied. Schafarik, Paul Joseph 1844 Slawische Alterthiimer. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. Schelesniker, Herbert 1973 Der Name der Slaven. Herkunft, Bildungsweise und Bedeutung. Inns- a Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft der Leopold-Franzens Universitat Innsbruck. Schenker, Alexander M. 1995 The Dawn of Slavic: An Introduction to Slavic Philology. New Haven/ London: Yale University Press. Schramm, Gottfried 1995 ‘Venedi, Antes, Sclaveni, Sclavi: Fridhe Sammelbezeichnungen fir slawische timme und ihr geschichtlicher Hintergrund,'Jahrbicher fr Geschichte Osteuropas 43: 161-200. Schiitte, Gudmund 1917 Ptolemy's Maps of Northern Europe: A Reconstruction of the Proto- types. Copenhague : H. Hagerup. Scorpan, Constantin 1977 ‘Contribution & la connaissance de certains types céramiques romano-byzantins (IVe-Vile siécles) dans I'espace istro-pontique.’ Dacia 21; 269-97. Sedov, Valentin V. 1994 ‘Venedai-Vendai kursiu zemeje.’ In: Klaipedos miesto ir regiono ar- cheologijos ir istorijos problemos. Alvydas Nikzentaitis and Vladas Zulkus, eds. Klaipeda: Klaipedos Universiteto. Pp. 125-35. 2002 Slaviane: Istoriko-arkheologicheskoe issledovanie, Moscow: lazyki slavianskoi kul'tury. Shuvaloy, Piotr V. 1996 ‘Politics and Society in the Lower Danube in the Sixth Century.’ In: Acts. XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Selected Papers: ‘Moscow 1991. thor Seveenko, GG. Litavrin, and Walter Hanak, eds. Shepherdstown, WV: Byzantine Studies Press. Pp. 82-7. 2002 ‘Vragi imperii (po traktatu Psevdo- Mavrikiia).’ Zapiski vostochnogo otdeleniia Rossitskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestoa 1: 422-52. Sokol, Vladimir 1994 ‘Das spatantike Kastrum auf dem Kuzelin bei Donja Glavnica.’ Arheoloiki vestnik 48: 199-209. Somogyi, Péter 1987 ‘Typologie, Chronologie und Herkunft der Maskenbeschlige: au den archiologischen Hinterlassenschaften osteuropaischer Reiterhirten aus der pontischen Steppe im 6. Jahrhundert.’ Archaeologia Austriaca 71: 121-54,Stanciu, Ioan 1998 ‘Uber friihslawische Tonklumpen und Ton”kliimpchen”.’ Ephemeris Napocensis 8: 215-72. 2001 ‘”Tonbrote” als Indiz fiir die Wanderung und die magisch-ritueller Glauben und Praktiken der friihen Slawen.’ Eastern Review 5: 123-54, Strauf, Ernst-Giinther 1992 Studien zur Fibeltracht der Merowingerzeit. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. 5turms, Eduard 1950 ‘Zur ethnischen Deutung der ‘masurgermanischen’ Kultur.’ Archaeologia geographica 1: 20-22. Székely, Zoltan 1992 ‘Asezari din secolele VI-XI p. Ch. in bazinul Oltului superior.’ Studi si cercetiri de istorie veche si arheologie 43: 245-306. Tapkova-Zaimova, Vasilka 1974 ‘Slavianskite zaselvaniia na Balkanskiia poluostrov v ramkite na ‘varvarskite’ nashestviia prez V1 i VII v.’ Igvesttia na Balgarskoto is- torichesko druzhestvo 29: 199-207. 1980 ‘Les populations sédentaires et les tribus en migration face ala civilisation byzantine (territoires bulgares et contexte balkanique).’ Bulgarian Historical Review 8: 53-61. Tel'nov, Nikolai P, 1991 ‘SlaviansKie zhilishcha VI-X w. Dnestrovsko Prutskogo meydurech ia In: Dreoost lugo-Zapada SSSR. PP Byrna,V. A. Der chev, R. A. Rabinovich, G. D. Chebotarenko, and M. E. Tkachuk, eds. ishinew: Shtiinca, Pp. 145-66. Tiefengraber, Geor; 2002 'krog Zabnjek, nadie i ogodnjega 7. stole pri Mursk Soboti.’ in: Zgodni sloveni: Zgodnjesrednjeveska lonéenina na obrobju uzhodnih Alp. Mitja Guitin, ed. Ljubljana: Narodni Muzej Slovenije. Pp. 33-5. Toporov, V. N. 1984 ‘Oium lordana (Getica, 27-28) i gotsko slavianskie sviazi v Severo- zapadnom Prichernomor'e.’ In: Enogenez narodav Balkan i Severnogo Prichernomor’ia, Lingvistika, istoriia, arkheologiia. S. B. Bernshtein and L.A. Gindin, eds. Moscow: Nauka. Pp. 128-42. Udalph, Jargen 1979 Studien zu slavischen Gewdissernamen und Gewdsserbezeichnungen: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Urheimat der Slaven. Heidelberg: C. Winter. 1985 ‘Kritisches und Antikritisches zur Bedeutung slavischer Gewasser- namen fiir die Ethnogenese der Slaven.’ Zeitschrift irr slawische Philolo- gie 45: 33-57. Varady, L. 19%6 “Jordanes-Studien. Jordanes und das Chronicon des Marcellinus Comes. Die Selbstindigkeit des Jordanes.’ Chiron 6: 441-87. Vazharova, Zhivka N. 1968 ‘Pamiatniki ae konca VI-XI v. i ikh etnicheskaia prinadlezh- nosti.’ Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 3: 148-59. 305306 Velkov, Velizar 1987 ‘Der Donaulimes in Bulgarien und das Vordringen der Slawen.’ In: Die Vélker Sitdosteuropas im 6. bis 8. Jahrhundert, Bernhard Hansel, ed. Berlin: Sidosteuropa-Cesellschaft. Pp. 141-69. Vida, Tivadar 1999 ie awarenzeitliche Keramik I. (6.~7. Jh.). Berlin/Budapest: Balassi Kiad6. Vida, Tivadar and Thomas Volling 2000 Das slavoische Brandgréberfeld von Olympia. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Weiensteiner, Johann 1994 ‘Cassiodor/ Jordanes als Geschichtsschreiber.’ In: Historiographie im frithen Mittelalter. A. Scharer and G. Scheibelreiter, eds. Vienna-Mu- nich: R. Oldenbourg. Pp. 308-25. Werner, Joachim 1950 ‘Slawische Biigelfibeln des 7. Jahrhunderts.’ In: Reinecke Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Paul Reinecke am 25. September 1947. G. Behrens, ed, Mainz: E. Schneider. Pp. 150-72. Whitby, Michael 1985 ‘Justinian’s bridge over the Sangarius and the date of Procopius’ “De aedificiis”.’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 105: 129-48. 1988 The Emperor Maurice and His Historian: Theopylact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan Warfare. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wiessner, Polly 1983 “Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points.’ American Antiquity 48: 253-76, 1990 ‘Is there a Unity to Style?’ In: The Uses af ile in Archaeology. Mar- garet W, Conkey and Christine A. Hastorf, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 105-12. Wolff, Larry 1994 Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Zacek, Joseph Frederick 1970 Palacky: The Historian as Scholar and Nationalist. The Hague-Paris: Mouton. ZakoScielna, Anna and Jan Gurba 1993 ‘Obiekt miesckalny z poczatkow wezesnego sredniowiecza ze stanowiska 28 w Swierszczowie Kolonii, woj. Zamojskie.’ Archaeoslavica 2:7-2h. Zésterové, Bohumila 1966 ‘Les débuts de |’établissement définitif des Slaves en Europe méridionale. Confrontation de la conception de L. Niederle avec |’état actuel des recherches.’ Vznik a podtitky Slovanti 6: 33-52.Illustrations Figures 1, Sixth-century Roman forts in the Iron Gates segment of the Danube frontier, with estimated number of soldiers in the garrison. 2. Distribution north of the Danube frontier of stray finds of copper (circle) and gold (star) coins struck for Emperor Justinian. 3. Cluster-analysis of brooches of Werner's class I C, in relation to their ornamental patterns. 4, Plotting of the nearest-neighbour similarity of brooches of Werner's class I C. Numbers of shared near neighbours: 7 - bold line; 6 - medium line; 5 - thin line. ‘Forin Curt; PhD in History, Associate Profesor of Medieval History and Archaeology, Depart ‘ment of History, University of Florida, USA. 3 ‘Email feurta@histry.ufedu. 307