Slavs adriatic

8/13/2019 Slavs adriatic

1/24

303

Archeologia MedievaleXXXVII, 2010, pp. 0-0

Florin Curta

THE EARLY SLAVS IN THE NORTHERN AND EASTERN ADRIATIC REGION.A CRITICAL APPROACH

Ever since the nineteenth century, the Slavic home-land was located in the epicenter of the modern dis-tribution of Slavic languages1. To this day, the Slavsare believed to have originated in the marshes alongthe Pripet river, in Polesie, and to be essentially the

sons and the products of the marsh, as Jan Peiskeronce put it2. Ever since Lubor Niederle, archaeolo-gists explain the migration of the Slavs in terms ofthe inhospitable nature of the Slavic homeland. TheSlavs left the Pripet marshes in search for a better life3.Archaeology is thus expected to illustrate the idea ofa considerable antiquity of the Slavs and to describethe culture of the early Slavs.

However, the analysis of historical sources sug-gests that a very different interpretation should bepreferred for a number of important reasons4. Dur-ing most of the sixth century, the word Sclavenesappears to have been used as an umbrella-term forvarious groups living north of the frontier. Althoughundoubtedly 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 ofa complicated conguration of ethnic groups on thenorthern frontier5. In its most strictly dened sense, theSclavene ethnicity is thus a Byzantine invention: theByzantines madethe Slavs. This seems to be a ratherrevisionist statement, but in reality the force of theargument does not rest on this foundation alone. Inwhat follows, I will try to explain what the makingof the Slavs really means.

Let us begin with the word ethnicity. Despite beingused in English only since 1953, ethnicity is now cur-rently employed to refer to a decision people make todepict themselves or others symbolically as bearers ofa certain cultural identity. As one anthropologist put it,

ethnicity is the collective enaction of socially differen-tiating signs6. As such, ethnicity in the (medieval) pastwas as embedded in social relations as modern ethnicityis. Ethnicity, in the case of Sclavenes, Avars, Franks, andothers, was a socially and culturally constructed formof social mobilization used in order to reach certainpolitical goals. It was, at the same time, a matter of dailypractice, of what Pierre Bourdieu called habitus, and assuch, it involved manipulation of material culture. Sincematerial culture embodies practices, stylistic messagesabout conscious afliation and identity (what is knownotherwise as emblemic styles) are a way to commu-nicate by non-verbal means about relative and groupidentity7. Since emblemic styles carry distinct messages, itis theoretically possible to reconstruct the way in whichthey were used to mark or maintain ethnic boundaries.Finally, ethnicity is a function of power relations, be-cause emblemic styles and traditions become relevantparticularly in contexts of changing power relations,which impel displays of group identity8.

Now let us return to the question of Byzantinesmaking the Slavs. To be sure, rarely do historianswrite about the Byzantine inuence on the early Slavs.Instead, they insist on the destruction and devastationinicted upon the Balkan provinces of the Empire by

the barbarian hordes. As with the Germanic tribesin Western Europe, the obscure progression of theSlavs is viewed as the main factor behind the slow dis-solution of the Roman frontier and the end of Romanpower in the Balkans9. On more than one occasion,

1The literature on the linguistic debates on the Slavic Urheimatisenormous. For a quick orientation, see I 1976; S 1979;G 1983; M 1984; H 1988; B 1993.For a healthy dose of linguistic skepticism, see P-T1991, with an update in P-T 2005. The orthodoxyis nonetheless reproduced in D 2004.

2P 1926, p. 426. For a more recent exposition of this pointof view, see M 1996.

3N 1923, p. 26; 1926, p. 173.4See C 1999b; 2001a, pp. 36-119.5 For the name of the Slavs, see R 1961; L

1964; S 1973; S 1995; K 2002. See also

P 2004.

6E 1991, p. 141.7For the notion of emblemic style, see W 1983, 1989,

and 1990.8C 2002 and 2006b; L 2005; T 2005; B

2006; H 2007; H 2008.9The phrase obscure progression was coined by M 1965,

pp. 75, 81, and 85; M 1983, p. 999.


2/24

304

FLORIN CURTA

the archaeological remains of the last phase of occu-pation on various sites in the Balkans cities or forts are attributed to the Slavic marauders supposedlychoosing the ruins of the plundered cities as their rstabodes on previously Roman soil. Despite all evidenceto the contrary, the death inicted by barbarians isstill a favorite theme among students of the declineof the classical urban culture, especially in contextsof sharp contrast between civilization and barbar-ians10. For example, the third and last building phaseon the major urban site in Caricin Grad, most likelyto be identied with Justiniana Prima founded byEmperor Justinian shortly before 535, has been datedbetween ca.570 and ca.62011. This phase consistsof houses with walls built in stone bonded with clayand a signicant quantity of agricultural implementsbespeaking the rural character of the occupation. InSerbian archaeology, the third occupation phase atCaricin Grad has been long attributed to a Slavicsettlement following the invasions of the late sixth or

early seventh centuries12

. But the artifacts associatedwith this occupation phase brooches, buckles, arrowheads have good analogies in contemporary militaryforts in the Balkans, not on settlements north of theDanube River to which the Sclavene warriors werereturning after their raids13. Similarly, some have at-tributed to Slavic and Avar attacks the end of a numberof important hilltop sites, but this attribution restson little more than the arbitrarily established ethniccharacter of certain artifacts, such as three-edgedarrow heads14. On the basis of the assumption thatthe Slavs must have settled on Slovenian territory asearly as the sixth century, newly discovered ceramicassemblages are thus dated shortly after the end of oc-cupation on hilltop sites, namely to the early seventhcentury, despite clear evidence that such assemblagesare of a much later date15.

In the early 530s, there was a drastic change inJustinians agenda in the Balkans and on the Danubefrontier of the empire. Instead of offensive strategy,Justinian began (or only completed) an impressiveplan of fortication, the size and quality of which theBalkans had never witnessed before. The implementa-tion of the fortied frontier was accompanied by its

economic closure, a phenomenon most evidentlyrevealed by the analysis of the numismatic evidence.Indeed, there are lots of coins of Justinian, both cop-per and gold, in Romania and the adjacent regions.But there are no coins dated between 545 and 565 ineither hoard or stray nds. The economic closure doesnot seem to have been deliberate, for a similar strainon coin circulation is visible in hoards found southof the Danube frontier, in the Balkans16. The crisis,therefore, must have been caused by the very executionof Justinians gigantic plan of fortication.

Scarcity of Roman goods may have encouraged so-cial competition and the rise of leaders whose basis ofpower was warfare, the only remaining way to obtainrare goods of Roman origin used to represent prestigeand power17. Names of Sclavene leaders appear onlyafter ca.57518. The description given in written sourcesfor those leaders matches the anthropological distinc-tion between chiefs, big-men, and great-men. A chiefis a leader whose powers are ascribed and coincide

with the privileged control of wealth in the contextof a highly stratied society. By contrast, a big-manis a leader who achieves his position of power in acontext marked by an egalitarian ideology and byerce competition between peers. Finally, great-menexcel in such things as war combat, through whichthey may gain considerable prestige, but not wealth.In times of peace a great man has power and prestige,but not permanent authority. Judging from the existingevidence, all three forms of power were concomitantlyin existence in Slavic society between ca.550 and ca.620. They all seem to have implied access to prestigegoods. John of Ephesus, for example, mentions gold,silver, horses, and weapons, as being some of the goodsthat attracted the Sclavene warriors of 58119. Accord-ing to Menander the Guardsman, the qagan of theAvars knew that the land of the Sclavenes was fullof gold originating in plundering expeditions acrossthe Balkans20. The evidence of amphorae shows thatolive oil, wine orgarumwere as good for showing offas horses, weapons, and gold21.

The Empire, however, was not the only source ofprestige goods. To be sure, no hoard of barbariansilverware has so far been found north of the Danubethat could be compared to that of Martynivka, in

10D 2007, pp. 513-514 with n. 22.11B 1984, pp. 282-285.12M-Z 1958, pp. 311-312.13For small nds from Caricin Grad, see B 1990; W

1989-1990. For a specic discussion of the artifacts found in thehouse in the western portico of the colonnaded street running fromthe circular plaza to the upper citys south gate, see C 2001a,pp. 132-133.

14M 1957; S 1994, p. 204; B 2005, p. 163. Forthe idea that the earliest Slavic settlements must post-date the end ofthe hillfort sites, see 1972 and C 1981.

15G 2004, p. 259; B 2005, pp. 165-66; G 2008a,p. 292. For an archaeological critique of both pottery classication and

dating, see T 2003.

16C 2001a, pp. 169-181; O-T 2002.17The following paragraph is based on C 1999a. The distinc-

tion between chiefs and big men goes back to S 1963, while thatbetween big and great men was drawn by G 1986.

18Dauritas, mentioned by Menander the Guardsman, fr. 21, ed. R.C. Blockley (Liverpool 1985); Ardagastus, Musocius, and Peiragastus,mentioned by Theophylact Simocatta, HistoryI 7.3-6; VI 7.4-5; VI 9.1;and VII 5.6-9, ed. M. and M. Whitby (Oxford 1986).

19John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical HistoryVI 6.25, ed. E.I. Brooks(Paris 1935).

20Menander the Guardsman, fr. 21.21For sixth-century amphora nds from the lands north of the

Danube River, see C 2001a, pp. 242-43 and 244 g. 37.


3/24

305

THE EARLY SLAVS IN THE NORTHERN AND EASTERN ADRIATIC REGION. A CRITICAL APPROACH

g. 1 Examples of bow bulae of Werners class I C: 1.Szatymz-Fehrt (Hungary); 2 Tiszafred (Hungary); 3-7.Tumiany (Poland); 8-9. Tylkowo (Poland). After C

1961; G 1995; K 1981; 1919.

Ukraine22. Nor were perforated belt mounts, com-monly known as Martynovka mounts, very popu-lar in the region north of the Danube River 23. Thereis one particular item, however, that appears bothin the Martynivka hoard and on sixth- to seventh-century sites in Romania, namely so-called Slavicbow bulae24. In Romania and the adjacent regions,

22P, K 1994; K, P 2005; K,P 1996.

23For the typology and chronology of the Martynovka mounts,see S 1987; B 1992 and 2000. Such belt mounts have beenfound in large numbers in the northern and central Balkans, as well asin Hungary and the steppe lands north of the Black Sea, but not northof the Danube, in present-day southern and eastern Romania.

24For the Slavic bow bulae from the Martynivka hoard, seeP et al. 1991, p. 84. Such bulae have been called Slavic

by W 1950.

g. 2 Near-neighbor cluster analysis of 47 bow bulae ofWerners class I C.

such dress accessories come in a variety of forms andornamental patterns and often from settlement, nothoard or burial, assemblages25. Slavic bow bulae

were truly symbols of group identity in use in dailyactivities. The study of such dress accessories suggeststhat many were in use at about the same time, aroundA.D. 60026. There were multiple and very complicatednetworks for the procurement of such goods, sincespecimens found in Romania are decorated in a stylelinking them to specimens from Mazuria, Crimea, andthe Middle Dnieper region. Let us take as an exampleone of Werners classes of Slavic bow bulae, I C(g. 1)27. The cluster analysis of all published andwhole specimens of that class on the basis of theirdecoration, as well as the corresponding plotting are a

good example of this network of ornamental patterns(gs. 2-3). Most bulae found in Mazuria share morecompositional elements with each other than withbulae from other regions. By contrast, Romanianbulae share more compositional elements with bu-lae from Mazuria than with each other, while at thesame time serving as models for replicas found in theMiddle Danube region or in the Balkans. Moreover,

25T 1992.26C 2001a, pp. 247-275.

27The following paragraph is based on C 2008.


4/24


5/24

307


cultural stereotypes, because it is always a continu-ing negotiation. This is particularly true about Slavicethnicity and its construction by means of materialculture.

Political and military mobilization thus appears asthe response to the historical conditions created bythe implementation of Justinians fortied frontier.Was this group identity represented by emblemic sylesan identity that we can call ethnicity? Perhaps, butthe construction of ethnicity was certainly linked tothe signication of social difference. In other words,the adoption of the dress with Slavic bow bulaewas a means by which individuals could both claimmembership of the new group and proclaim achieve-ment and consolidation of elite status. Was this, then,Slavic ethnicity? Perhaps, at least in the eyes of theByzantine authors, which is exactly what I meant byByzantines-making-the-Slavs. Byzantine authorsused Sclavenes and Antes to make sense of theprocess of group identication that was taking place

under their own eyes north of the Danube frontier. Themaking of the Slavs, therefore, was not about ethno-genesis, as it was about classifying and labeling groupsof people in Byzantine works. The group identitylabeled Slavic, however, was not formed in the Pripetmarshes, but in the shadow of Justinians forts.

What then is the signicance of this rather revision-ist conclusion for the archaeology of the early Slavs inthe eastern Adriatic and northwestern Balkan region?The history of the early Slavs in Croatia, Slovenia,and northeastern Italy presents one with multipleand complex challenges, a task for which this is notthe appropriate place. I intend to address such issues,as well as others, in a future book, perhaps a second,much improved edition of my Making of the Slavs.My scope for the moment is much more limited: Iwould simply like to draw attention to three key is-sues, while presenting some critical remarks on theviews of Croatian and Slovenian archaeologists andhistorians. I will also leave aside such problems as thetheory of the Veneti in Slovenia or the obsession withthe Cadavica burial as that of a Slavic princess. Themain reason for not touching on those issues is not thatI dismiss them as unimportant. The former, despiteits apparent similarity with my idea of the making

of the Slavs, is nonetheless more a phenomenon ofhistoriographic malaise and a sign of a serious crisis ofnational identity in the context of the European Unionenlargement than a matter of scholarly concern33. As

for the Cadavica burial, its dating to the second halfof the seventh century and clear associations with theMiddle Avar milieu of the Carpathian Basin effectivelyremoves it from any discussion of the early Slavs.Conspicuously oblivious to those facts, in a very recentsurvey of the medieval archaeology in Croatia, MirjaJarak nonetheless thinks that the assemblage couldbe attributed to the Antes with greater certainty thanit was possible in the 1950s and that it is an indica-tor of the direction of Slavic movement34. Instead ofdealing with such issues, I will rst discuss the currentinterpretation of two written sources most often citedin relation to the presence of the early Slavs on theterritory of present-day Slovenia and Croatia. I thenintend to expand on a brief remark I made in the rstpart of my paper regarding the Prague type and itsassociation with Slavic ethnicity. Finally, I will turn toquestions of chronology, the bread-and-butter of anyattempts at historical reconstruction.

Until recently, one of the most authoritative ac-

counts of the Slavic settlement in Slovenian historiog-raphy was that of Ljudmil Hauptmann (1884-1968)35.According to Hauptmann, the Slavic front, long timecontained on the Middle Danube, began moving to-wards the Adriatic Sea long before the arrival of theAvars in the late 560s. By the mid-sixth century, theSlavs had already entered the Lower and Upper Aus-tria and quickly moved into the mountain valleys ofthe Karawanken range36. Hauptmanns main argumentfor such an early date of the Slavic settlement was thatthe Slavs and the Avars must have been responsible forthe disappearance during the second half of the sixthcentury of the network of bishoprics in the old prov-ince of Noricum. In other words, and despite the lackof evidence of any bishopric disappearing because ofSlavic or Avar attacks, Hauptmann took the collapseof the episcopal sees in Noricum as a terminus postquemfor the arrival of the Slavs37. Others interpretedthe informations about Slavic attacks on Salona andIstria as referring not just to raids, but to outright set-tlement38. A leading gure of the so-called Ljubljanaschool of historians, Bogo Grafenauer (1916-1995)upheld similar views against the idea of a native originof the Slovenes, whom some regarded (and some still

33For the Venetian theory as a travail damateurs, but still a reac-tion to the opportunism of the historians of the Communist (Yugoslav)era, see B 1998, p. 119. For a critical survey of the issue, see 1997; M 2002; B 2005, pp. 146-54. It is important tonote in this respect that while afrming the local, prehistoric origin ofthe native (Slovene) population, the advocates of the Venedian theoryshare with their adversaries the idea of a Slavic migration from the north.They regard the Slavs as primitive, roaming around aimlessly, and living

in caves. See B, , T 1989, pp. 460 and 487-488.

34J 2006, 190. Jarak reproduces and amplies an error rstcommitted by K 1951, pp. 135-136. The assemblage includestwo silver earrings with star-shaped pendant (Cilinsks class II A), withgood analogies in the Zemiansky Vrbovok hoard, in which they werefound together with coins struck for Emperor Constans II (641-668).See S 1953, p. 37 g. 4.9 and 21; 85 g. 23.

35H 1915, 1927-1928, and 1956.36H 1927-1928, p. 166. According to H

1915, p. 16, the invaders were Slovenes, not Slavs.37For a recent reminiscence of that argument, see D, S

1996, p. 320. For a contrasting view of a peaceful arrival of the Slavsand of relatively harmonious co-existence with the native population,see G 2005, p. 198.

38See, for example, M 1983, p. 152.


6/24

308

FLORIN CURTA

do) as non-Slavs of pre-Roman origin. According toGrafenauer, the arrival of the Slavs in the Eastern Alpsand in Dalmatia could not be dated before the fall ofSirmium to the Avars (582), an event which openedthe barbarian penetration into the western and north-western Balkans39. The Slavs reached the upper Dravavalley by 590 and the valleys of the Soca and Vipavaby 600, when they also occupied the northern part ofIstria. Grafenauers views have been reproduced byhis student, Peter tih in a recently published Slov-enian History, the declared purpose of which is tomove away from nationalist stereotypes entrenchedin historiography40. tih also endorses the views ofJaroslav ael (1924-1988), according to whom theSlavs began to settle on the territory of present-daySlovenia in the late sixth century41. ael took at facevalue the story of Paul the Deacons great-grandfatherLopichis, who escaped, much like Grimoald and hisbrothers, from Avar captivity, helped by a mysteriouslyvanishing wolf and an old Slavic woman, as if he were

the hero of a folk-tale42

. Ignoring both the functionof this story in the general structure of the History ofthe Lombardsand Pauls difculties in covering withgenerations of his family the period between the eventsdescribed and his own time, ael dated the episodebetween 615 and 620 and placed the village in whichthe old Slavic woman lived somewhere between Ptujand Ljubljana, given (so he thought) that she knewwhere Forum Iulii was when showing Lopichis theway back home. The story does indeed suggest thatthe village in which the old woman lived was not toofar from the duchy of Friuli, but this is no indicationof Slavic settlement near Forum Iulii in the earlyseventh century, because much of Pauls knowledgeof earlier events, often based on his or his familysexperience, is distorted by contemporary concerns43.A Slavic settlement in a short distance from ForumIulii is documented for the time of Duke Ratchis, who

is said to have raided villages in Carniola by the timePaul himself must have been a boy44. If Carniola wasindeedpatria Sclavorum, then it was so close to Paulsown date of birth (sometime between 720 and 730)when Duke Pemmo is said to have arranged with hisfollowers to ee to the neighboring Slavs45.

Book IV of Paul the Deacons History of the Lom-bards, a work written between 790 and 796, containsthe largest number of entries concerning the Slavs. Mostof them refer to areas around Trento, which Milko Kosrst interpreted as an indication that the source forPauls coverage of Slavs in Book IV was the chronicle ofSecundus of Trento46. Whether the Sclavorum provinciafrom which Duke Tassilo of Bavaria returned in 592with a large booty was indeed in Carinthia or, morelikely, in Upper Austria, the military conicts of thelate 590s and early 610s involving the Slavs cannot beregarded as evidence of a Slavic settlement47. Instead,those were military operations coordinated, most likely,by the Avars, similar to those taking place at about the

same time against Byzantine Istria. Paul the Deaconrelates that shortly after 600, the Slavs and the Avarsraided Istria48. However, in a letter of July 600 to thebishop of Salona, Pope Gregory the Great only men-tioned Slavs49. In another letter of May 599, Gregorycongratulates the exarch of Ravenna, Callinicus, forhis victory over the Slavs50. Again, the mention of Slavsentering Italyper Histriae aditumis no evidence of aSlavic settlement, only of Slavic raids. Those may havewell been operations coordinated by the Avars, much inthe same way as those reaching as far down the Adriaticcoast as Salona. In his letter to the bishop in that city,Gregory speaks of a Slavic menace, not conquest orsettlement. Gregorys letter of 599 is the only piece ofliterary evidence for associating the early Slavs to theAdriatic coast in what is today Croatia.

What about archaeology (g. 5)? Despite seriousproblems of chronology, it is still believed that Slavicethnicity was represented by the Prague type, reiedas an ethnic badge51. In the 1950s, Ljubo Karaman

39G 1964; 1969; 1970-1971, p. 27; 1988, p. 334. For acritique of Grafenauers approach, see 2007, pp. 265-272. Theconnection between the fall of Sirmium and the Slavic push into thevalley of the Drava is reproduced by K 1965, p. 634. WhileGrafenauer placed the Slavs squarely in the region of the upper Dravaby 590, Kollautz believed that a no mans land existed there between

the Slavs and the Bavarians.40 2008, p. 27.41 1988, p. 104; 2000, p. 27. The idea that the episode

of Lopichis reveals a Slavic presence in the hinterland of Cividale goesback to G 1952, p. 479. The idea is still very popular withthose who prefer a similarly uncritical reading of Paul the Deacon. Seede V 2001; C, A 2005, p. 433.

42Paul the Deacon, Historia LangobardorumIV 37, ed. G. Waitz(Hannover 1878). That the whole story should be read in symbolickey seems to have gone unnoticed. 1988, p. 98, missed both thefact that a wolf (lupus) guides Lopichis and that in Pauls general nar-rative the Slavic woman is a counterpart of Romilda in constructing amothering model: whereas Romilda betrayed her country and kindred,the Slavic woman who apparently had no family in her dwelling tookpity upon Lopichis, because she understood him to be a fugitive. Thefollowing interpretation is based on C 1997.

43C 1997, p. 156.

44Ratchiss raid is commonly dated to 738. See B 1983,p. 55.

45Paul the Deacon, Historia LangobardorumV 22 and VI 45.46K 1931, p. 207. For the relation between Secundus of Trento

and Paul the Deacon, see G 1983.47Paul the Deacon, Historia LangobardorumIV 7. For the idea that

theprovincia Sclavorumwas in the valley of the Danube, not Drava,see S 2000, p. 515. Contra: 2007, p. 51, who believes

provincia Sclavorumto be Carinthia.48Paul the Deacon, Historia LangobardorumIV 40. The informa-

tion must have come from the historiolaof Secundus of Trento. SeeM 1983, p. 147.

49Gregory the Great, ep. 154 (July 600), ed. P. Ewald and L. M.Hartmann (Berlin 1887). There were papal possessions at that time inboth Istria and Dalmatia, see 2004.

50Gregory the Great, ep. 10. For the following interpretation of thisand the other letter of Pope Gregory, see B 1992, pp. 303-304.

51M 1984, pp. 44-46 and 56-57; P, K 1999,

pp. 368-369; G 2004, p. 263.


7/24

309


g. 5 Location of the principal sites in the eastern and north-ern Adriatic region mentioned in the text.

g. 6 uici-Muntajana, near Porecin Istria (Croatia): planof the basilica and handmade pottery associated with its last

phase of occupation. After M 1984.

believed the idea of the Prague type being the earliest

Slavic pottery to rest on assumptions, not on facts,while Mirjana Ljubinkovic pointed to the absence ofPrague-type pottery from seventh-century assemblagesexcavated in Yugoslavia52. However, at that sametime Zdenko Vinski classied as of the Prague typehandmade pots from such sites as Bakar-Sarazinovoor Petrovina, which he attributed to the early Slavs53.Branko Maruic associated with the Avar and Slavicraids of the early 600s the handmade pottery found inthe ruins of the basilica in uici-Muntajana, whichhe believed to be of the Prague type (g. 6)54. SomeCroatian archaeologists still believe the pottery from

such sites in Bosnia as Batkovic, Muici, and abljakto belong to the so-called Prague type, despite the factthat all three sites have been dated to the late seventhand early eighth century on the basis of combed ware,as well as metal and glass nds55.

To this day, one of the most resistant misconcep-

tions is that handmade pots with no decoration andstraight rims are of a different, earlier date than deco-rated pottery, and even earlier than pottery turnedon a wheel or on a tournette. Some of the handmadepottery found on the mountain hilltop site at Hem-maberg near Jaunstein in southern Austria has beenclassied as of the Prague type (g. 7)56. To be sure,a fragment of a handmade pot believed to be of thePrague type was found right underneath a layer ofne mortar in the sacristy of church no. 457. Strati-graphically associated with the handmade pottery,however, was a fragment of an African Red Slip bowl

of Hayess form 103B, which may be dated to thesecond half or even the late sixth century58. This hasencouraged speculations about a possible presence ofthe Slavs at Hemmaberg before 600, but handmadepottery similar to that from the sacristy of church no.4 has also been found in a destruction layer inside thenarthex of church no. 5, this time in association withLate Roman C pottery (Hayes 3F form) dated to the

52K 1956, p. 107; L 1966, p. 85.53V 1954, pp. 77 and 80.54M 1984, pp. 44-46 and 56-57.55T 2001, p. 133. For an early, mid-sixth century date for

the settlements excavated in Muici and abljak, see also K1973, p. 148. For a much later date, see now S I, T

2007, p. 177.

56L 2000a, p. 159, cites M. Parczewski for a denition ofthe Prague type. See also L 2000b, pp. 229 and 230 g. 5.

57L 2000a, pp. 56 and 198-199.

58L 2000a, p. 96.


8/24

310

FLORIN CURTA

g. 7 Hemmaberg near Jaunstein, Krnten (Austria): potteryfrom the western double church. After L 2000.

g. 8 Hom in Sora near kofja Loka (Slovenia): Late Avar-age strap ends with open work ornament and plowshare. After

C 1989-1990.

second half of the sixth century59. Together with bothceramic categories were also fragments of wheel-madepottery with combed decoration typically associatedwith the late sixth- and early seventh-century native

(Roman) occupation of several sites in the EasternAlps60. At any rate, nothing indicates that the occu-pation phase at Hemmaberg dated ca. 600 could beattributed to a group of newcomers (Slavs), as thehandmade pottery believed to be of the Prague typewas always found in association with typically LateRoman pottery of local or, at least, Mediterraneantradition61. Later pottery assemblages with handmadepottery inlcude fragments of a combed ware made on

a tournette62. The ruins of the western double churchwere re-occupied at some point in the second half ofthe eighth century, as indicated by two spurs foundon the site63. The associated pottery, whether hand- orwheel-made, cannot therefore be of a late sixth or earlyseventh century and has most likely nothing to do withthe so-called Prague type. This is not contradicted bythe archaeological evidence from other hilltop sitesabandoned shortly after 600 and re-occupied in thelate eighth or early ninth century. At Gradice nearBaelj in northwestern Slovenia, a late occupation ofthe late antique site is betrayed by such nds as a mid-eighth-century bronze censer, ninth-century spurs, stir-rups and bridle bits, as well as ceramic remains withcombed ornament64. A barbed arrowhead and an ironawl found in an inhumation grave with stone lining

59L 2000a, pp. 101 and 201.60L 2000b, pp. 229-230 and 232-233.61Moreover, the temper of the handmade pottery is the same as that

found in the fabric of the wheel-made pottery with combed decoration(L 2000b, p. 233). In this respect, the presence at Hemmabergand other sites in the Eastern Alps of handmade pottery within clearly LateRoman contexts is certainly not unique. Small quantities of handmadepottery have been found on many early Byzantine sites in the Balkans,at Caricin Grad in Serbia (B 1990, p. 164), Byllis in Albania(B et al.2002), Krivina, Nova Cherna, and Karasura in Bulgaria(B 1979, pp. 34-35; A 1980; A, K 2000,p. 172), Adamclisi, Murighiol, Garvan, Piatra Frecatei, Capidava, andSacidava in Romania (Bet al.1979, pp. 192 and 226; T,T 2009; S, B, M 1962, p. 676; V,B 1975; O2003; S 1978, pp. 160-161). Handmadepottery very similar to what is believed to be the Prague type has bynow been found on sites without any Slavic presence whatsoever, such as

Constantinople or Cyprus (H 1992, p. 53; R 1998).

62L 2000a, pp. 162-163.63S 1994, p. 21.64 P, K 1999, p. 400; B, K 2001, pp.

96-101. For the late antique occupation of the site, see C

2000, pp. 107 and 109.


9/24

311


g. 9 Tinje in Loka pri usmu near marje pri Jelah (Slove-nia): an example of eighth- to ninth-century combed ware found

on the late antique hilltop site. After C 2000.

with open work, most typical for the Late Avar agehave been found on the hilltop site at Hom near Sora,in central Slovenia (g. 8). Finally, the excavation ofsuch late antique hilltop sites as Gorenji Mokronog(southern Slovenia) and Tinje (eastern Slovenia) hasproduced combed ware of a denitely early medievalage (g. 9)67.

Recent studies have shown a strong correlationbetween volume and shape of vessels found on manyearly medieval sites68. This is also conrmed by eth-nographic studies, which reveal that full vessel assem-blages in present-day communities typically consist ofbetween 8 and 20 morphological vessel types69. Theearly medieval pottery-making may have operated onthe basis of prototypic shapes, mental models of thepotters preference for morphological set attributes,which could be recognized in vessels belonging to thesame family. Other studies show that despite varia-tion in size, functionally equivalent vessels in variousceramic assemblages display identical proportions70.

Handmade pots from early medieval assemblagesin Slovenia and Croatia are typically asymmetrical,which suggests that approaches to pottery classica-tion based on vessel ratios should be preferred tothose based on vessel proles. An additional advantageof using ratios is that they eliminate differences insize71. In Eastern Europe, the most popular approachto shape analysis based on vessel ratios consists ofa number of basic measurements made from scaledrawings of vessels, which are then used to deriveshape variables in the form of ratios between suchmeasurements. Classes of pottery were thus derived,which were then considered as chronologically sensi-tive and used for dating sites. The approach has sofar been seriously limited by the inability to addressthe issue of co-variation and by the fact that, lackingthe conceptual tools for multivariate analysis, severalscholars have merely paired relevant measurements orratios on diagrams to produce so-called morphologi-cal groups72.

As a consequence, the classification of Slavicpottery remains problematic. The most importantproblem seems to be the assumption that analytical

65S 1985, pp. 205 and 218; 207 g. 8.2, 3. An equallyearly medieval, but later cemetery is known from the site of the lateantique hillfort in Svete gore near Bistrica ob Sotli (eastern Slovenia).See K, K 1973.

66C 1989-1990, pp. 158-159; 159 g. 6. With its terminalknob, the Dunaj strap end is a specimen of a type, which was popular dur-ing the Late Avar period (i.e., after AD 700), but may well be of Byzantineorigin (K 1999-2000, p. 414). For Hom, see C 1989-1990,pp. 151-153; pl. I.12, 13. Both strap ends from Hom are specimens ofZbojnks class 48, which is dated to the very end of the Late Avar pe-riod, namely between 780 and 820 (Z 1991, pp. 241 and 293 pl.14.48). At Tonovcov grad near Kobarid (northwestern Slovenia), a hearthwas established in the ruins of the central church. A strap end and a castbelt mount associated with the pottery found on and around the hearth

suggest a date around AD 800 (C 2005, p. 103).

67P, B 2002; C 2000,pp. 33-35. The sameis true for Anicnikovo gradice near Jurina vas, for which see S- G1986; C 2000,p.90 g. 98.4, 5, 7.

68B, T 1983.69H 1986, pp. 273 and 275. An archaeological experiment

carried out in Brezno (Czech Republic) further demonstrated that allcooking operations necessary for feeding a family of ve required nomore than eleven pots of different shapes and three vessels of wood(P 1986, p. 162; P, N 1987).

70W 1982.71F 1985.72G 1973; R 1976, pp. 10-11; P 1993,

pp. 31-32; F 1994a, 1994b, and 1995; P 1994, pp. 15-16; T 1996 and 1998. For a critique of this approach and itsinability to handle multiple variables at the same time, see C

2001b, pp. 91-92.

in Sv. Pavel near Vrtovin (western Slovenia) have beendated to the seventh or eighth century and regardedas evidence for a reoccupation of the late antiquehilltop site65. A cast strap end dated to the late eighthor early ninth century is also known from Dunaj innorthwestern Slovenia66, while two other specimens


10/24

312

FLORIN CURTA

techniques will lead to the identication of the mentaltemplate, a combination of technologies, functional,cognitive, and cultural factors, which in the eyes ofmany archaeologists was specic to the early Slavs,and only to them. The idea of a mental template wasundoubtedly behind the intuitively established Praguetype, but still looms large behind the apparentlymore sophisticated techniques of pottery classica-tion employed by Gabriel Fusek in Slovakia, MichaParczewski in Poland, or Dagmar Jelinkov and NadaProfantov in the Czech Republic73. Although thereis no agreement as to what particular vessel propor-tions describe the Prague type, it is generally assumedthat classes derived by means of analytical techniqueswere categories meaningful to the early medieval pot-ters and users. In other words, the basic types of potsestablished by means of the vessel ratio approachwere also those which the early medieval inhabitantsof that site would have recognized. Gabriel Fusekdiscussed classes established on the basis of consider-

ing pots from diverse assemblages from a relativelylarge area in Slovakia, but his conclusions have beenalso adopted recently by the Slovenian archaeologistMitja Gutin for the classication and dating of thepottery discovered on a number of sites in northeast-ern Slovenia, in the environs of Murska Sobota74.The underlying assumption in Gutins case was thatthose classes identied by Fusek were recognized notonly by the inhabitants of an early medieval village inSlovakia, but also by members of other, more distantcommunities near the present-day border betweenSlovenia and Hungary. As a consequence, potteryclasses are implicitly viewed as some kind of com-mon language of the Slavic potters, a material culturecorrelate equivalent of Common Slavic.

It is important to mention that all attempts to clas-sify Slavic pots focused on regions presumably devoidof any signicantly different groups of population thatthe intruding Slavs may have encountered or in whichthey were considered to be native. The purity oftypes thus established was a warrant for the successfulseparation of the Slavic pottery from assemblages ex-cavated in regions with greater variety of cultures, suchas the Balkans or the Carpathian Basin. If Slavic usersin the past were able to recognize a Slavic pot at any

given location, it was assumed that non-Slavic usersin the Middle Danube region or in the Balkans couldequally identify the Prague type and deliberately avoidusing vessel proportions most typical for its denition.In regions of cultural contact, therefore, archaeologistsgenerally, albeit implicitly, assumed the existence ofmore than one mental template. Since a high degree ofinternal cohesion must have characterized both Slavic

and native pottery classes, various mental templatesshould be easy to recognize and distinguish from eachother. This is clearly notthe case for the Adriatic regionof Slovenia and Croatia, for a long time viewed as akey region for the understanding of the cultural contactbetween the Slavs and the earlier native population.Indeed, it is precisely the lack of internal cohesion ofan ill-dened mental template that recently led AnteMiloevic to the conclusion that the handmade potteryof the early Middle Ages was not brought to Croatiafrom some remote Slavic Urheimatin the north, butis in fact little more than the later development of thelate antique pottery-making tradition represented inlocal fourth- to fth-century burial assemblages, suchas those excavated in Lucane75. Indeed, the potteryfound on that site is so similar to that from the sev-enth- and eighth-century burial assemblages excavatedin Croatia, that in the absence of the associated goodsit could easily pass for early medieval or Slavicpottery. By contrast there is substantially more varia-

tion among Prague-type pots from assemblages insouthern Romania and Ukraine76.The discrepancy between the fuzzy denition of

the Prague type and the current efforts to delineatemathematically dened classes of sixth- to seventh-century handmade pottery should have promptedmany more scholars to voice reservations over, andobjections to both the dominance and the perceivedaccuracy of the archaeological interpretation of Slavichistory. However, instead of Ljubo Karamans ratherisolated skepticism, the current trend is to multiplyand complicate methods of formal description andanalysis, without abandoning the idea of a specicallySlavic type of pottery. So far, it is not at all clear thatsuch a type truly existed. Nor is it known where andwhen it may have originated and how it may havespread over a vast area, from the Pripet marshes to theAdriatic coast, without any signicant changes takingplace at the contact with other cultural areas. Despiteserious uncertainties, the Prague type has becomea favorite ethnic badge for the Slavs, the ceramicequivalent of the ethnische Trachtso dear to archae-ologists searching for markers of group identity inthe archaeological record of early medieval Europe77.Displayed in museums, as well as in lavish mono-

graph illustrations, the Prague type incarnates theineffable, yet concrete expression of Slavic ethnicity.As such, it now serves a radically different purpose:classication of people, not of artifacts.

73F 1994b; P 1993; J 1990; K, P- 2005, pp. 151-162.

74G 2004, p. 262; G 2008a, pp. 292-293.

75M 1990, pp. 337-339. Similarly, Ivo Petricioli arguedthat the pottery employed as urns for the cremations discovered inKai was not of the Prague type, but of local, late Roman tradition(P 1983, p. 237).

76T 2005, pp. 216 and 217 g. 6.77 See, for example, ZA 1959; B 1997; I

2000. For a critique of the concept of ethnische Trachtin German

archaeology, see F 2000.


11/24

313


While research perspectives on the Slavic potteryremain bogged in either arcane discussions of tech-niques of representing shape for boundary retrievaland display or the equally sterile debate over the ethnicattribution of classes created by means of typologicalanalysis, there has been some new work done in thelast few years on the chronology of sites with so-calledPrague-type pottery. The recent publication of salvageexcavations in northeastern and central Slovenia inconnection with the building of a highway includeseight sites with over 150 features which produced ear-ly Slavic pottery78. With the exception of Nedelicenear Cakovec, not far from the Slovenian-Croatian-Hungarian border, nothing similar has so far beenexcavated in Croatia79. Even in Slovenia, only a handfulof sites can be dated with any degree of accuracy, whichmakes it hard to accept the easiness with which sitesare ascribed to the earliest phase (Murska Sobota I) ofthe Slavic culture supposedly dated to the late sixth orearly seventh century80. A rm belief in the idea that the

presence of the Slavs in Slovenia was documented byPaul the Deacon led to an equally entrenched convic-tion that the Prague-type pottery mustbe earlier thanthe seventh century. Archaeologists strove to prove thepoint on the basis of a supposed contact between thelast generation of the indigenous population and therst generation of Slavic immigrants within one andthe same cemetery site, as in Ptuj, Kranj, or Bled81. Forinstance, in Bled a cemetery was excavated during andafter World War II, the last graves of which producedearrings with basket-shaped pendant similar to thosefrom Castel Trosino and Verona, which are datedto ca. 600 or shortly thereafter82. Andrej Pleterskisdetailed study of the sites taphonomy has howeverrevealed fragments of handmade pottery between thegraves, often together with remains of cremation andoccasionally cremated human bones. Despite the factthat some potsherds show traces of a slow-turningwheel, Pleterski attributed the remains of urns to thePrague type, which he dated to the same time as theinhumation cemetery, namely before 60083. The exist-ence of cremations among inhumations and the idea ofa native-Slavic coexistence has not been documentedon any of the other contemporary cemeteries in Slov-

enia84. All late sixth- or early seventh-century gravesin Croatia are inhumations, some of them extremelyrich such as Nin and Golubic85. Moreover, the idea hasrecently been advanced that many of the early medievalcemeteries excavated in continental Croatia have infact two phases, the earliest of which is representedby urn cremations86. This may also be true for Bled,where a later, eighth- to ninth- century cemetery hasbeen excavated to the south from that dated to thesixth century. Can then a sixth- or even seventh-centurydate be maintained for the earliest so-called Slavic set-tlement sites of Slovenia and Croatia?

To be sure, the rst early medieval urn cremationsin Croatia have been accidentally found in 1967 inKaic on the site of a larger cemetery with 55 in-humations (g. 10)87. While the excavator initiallyadvanced the idea of two separate cemeteries, withcremations ante-dating inhumations, Zdenko Vinskiargued in favor of a biritual cemetery dated to theeighth and ninth century88. More recently, however,

Ante Miloevic, while embracing Vinskis reinterpre-tation of the site as a biritual cemetery, pointed outthat at least one of the inhumations in Kaic may

78G 2002.79B 2006, pp. 203-251. The features excavated in Blizna and

arnjak near Varadin are of a later date (B 2008). Conversely,although radiocarbon-dated to BP 142328, calibrated age 642, theearly medieval oven excavated in ota near Virovitica produced norelevant nds (S I, T 2008, pp. 113-114; 114 g.2; 115 g. 3).

80D 2007, p. 112; K 2008, p. 47.81See, for example, K 1999, p. 317.82K 1960. For the dating of the earrings with basket-shaped

pendant from grave 322/3, see R 2000, pp. 55-56.83P 2008b, pp. 61-68 and 160. For Pleterskis ideas about

the Slavic ethnogenesis and migration drawing on nineteenth-century

linguistics and ethnography, see P 1990, 1996, and 2008a.

84The cemetery in Rifnik certainly coincided in time with that inBled, as indicated by the earrings with basket-shaped pendant foundin grave 86. As those earrings are similar to those from grave 322/3in Bled, they could be dated to the late sixth or early seventh century,which makes grave 86 in Rifnik one of the latest on the site. See B1981, p. 36 and pls. 15 and 30/12. Of a similar date may be grave 2in Vrajk-Gorenji Mokronog, which produced an earring with basket-shaped pendant (B 2003, pp. 328 and 329 g. 3.1). None of theother sixth-century cemeteries in Slovenia appears to have continued

as late as ca. 600 or shortly after that. In Kranj, the latest graves arethose dated to the third quarter of the sixth century on the basis of shortswords with damascened blades (grave 11 and 52) and a buckle withoval plate and three rivets (grave 613). See 1907, pp. 59-60 and59 g. 9.3980; S 1980, pp. 108 and 123; pls. 23.9, 24.1, and 128.8(paceB 2007, 31, there are actually no grave goods securelydated after 600). Of a similar date is also the coin hoard from Vrh priPahi, near Novo Mesto, the latest coin of which is a Lombard imitationstruck between 560 and 574 (D 1994, pp. 229-231).

85For Nin and Golubic, see B et al.2001, pp. 270, 273, 283,and 284-285. The two earrings with star-shaped pendant in open workfound in Golubic and their four analogies from grave 41 in Nin maybe dated to the last quarter of the sixth century, or shortly before 600.The Golubic inhumation also produced an earring with basket-shapedpendant of the Allach class dated to the late sixth or early seventh century.The considerable wealth of the burial assemblages found in Nin and

Golubic matches that of the hoard found near the building with mosaicpavement excavated in Vid (ancient Narona; M 1988). The latestcoin in that hoard is a tremissis struck for Emperor Maurice after 583/4.Most other gold coins found in Croatia are earlier specimens minted forEmperor Tiberius II (578-582), such as found in Senj and its environs(D, G 1975, pp. 192-193; D, M, N 1984,pp. 48-49). It remains unclear whether or not any other cemetery inCroatia was still in use at that time. The belt buckle of the Sucidava-BeroeI B class found in grave 95, and the cross-shaped brooches from graves114 and 177 in Knin can only be dated broadly within the second half ofthe sixth century, while the silver belt buckle with rectangular loop fromgrave 10 in Kai-Glavcurak is probably no later than ca. 560 (V1989, p. 64. pl. XV.5; S 1989, pp. 92 and 103; 115 pl. XXX.3; pl.XXXII.16; B 1968, pp. 240-241 and pl. VII.3).

86S I, T 2007, pp. 171-73.87B 1972.

88V 1986, pp. 200-201.


12/24

314

FLORIN CURTA

g. 10 Kaic near Zadar (Croatia), cremation urns. AfterB 1972.

be dated to the seventh century, because that burialassemblage produced a silver, semicircular pendantwith open work decoration (g. 11)89. Such pendantsare known from other sites on the Adriatic coast, aswell as from the interior in Albania and Macedonia,and have been associated with the so-called Komaniculture90. In Ston, one semicircular pendant with openwork decoration was associated with a belt buckleof the Pergamon class dated to the rst half of theseventh century (g. 12)91. It is therefore possible todate grave 54 in the Kaic cemetery to the rst halfor the middle of the seventh century. However, therelative chronology of inhumations and cremationsremains unknown92. An early date for an inhumationdoes not necessarily imply an even earlier date forthe cremations in that cemetery. Where the relativechronology of inhumations and cremations can beestablished with some degree of certainty, urn crema-tions appear to be of a much later date. For example, inDubravice, one of the six urn cremations excavated on

the site was found right next to the inhumation grave34, which appears to have destroyed a good portionof the earlier cremation grave pit93. Given that theinhumation produced a solidus struck for EmperorConstantine V (741-775), the cremation grave mustbe earlier, possibly of the rst half of the eighth or of

89M 2000, pp. 106-107. The burial assemblage in questionis that from grave 54, for which see B 1980, pl. XXXV.7-12.

90Drvenik (Croatia): M 1989, pl. I.2. Komani (Albania):D 1901, 263; I 1907, p. 18 g. 227.4a-b. Lezh (Alba-nia): P 1979-1980, p. 168 pl. XXII.4. Sv. Erazmo (Macedonia):M 1976, p. 234 g. 14. Radolishte (Macedonia): M1985, p. 334 pl. XVIII.4. The exact function of those pendants remainsunclear (M 1995, p. 98 with n. 7). P 2007, pp. 80-81has recently proposed a much later (eighth or even early ninth century)dating for those pendants on the basis of the alleged representation ofsuch a pendant in a fresco in the Chapel of St. Zacharias of the Churchof Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome. However, her demonstration is not veryconvincing (see M 2009). Leaving aside the fact that the fresco isdated to the eighth century on stylistic grounds alone, the object to whichPetrinec points as a parallel to semicircular pendants with open decorationhas in fact no resemblance to the latter. Even Petrinec admits that, whilethe details of a strap end of the so-called Hohenberg class may be easilyrecognized in that fresco, one has to assume that the object hanging froma chain or textile strap represents a schematic depiction (shematski

prikaz) of a semicircular pendant with open work decoration. If a strapend could be rendered with such detail that a modern archaeologist couldeasily recognize and classify it, it remains unclear why the painter familiar

with a semicircular pendant with open-work decoration could not renderit with equally ne details. More importantly, the archaeological evidenceof closed nds (Ston, grave 32 in Lezh) is incontrovertible: neither thebuckle of the Pergamon class, nor the bulae of Werners class I C couldbe dated to the eighth, much less to the ninth century.

91K 1960, g. 43. For belt buckles of the Pergamon classdated to the rst half of the seventh century, see R 2000, p. 783.A date within the early seventh century is conrmed by the assemblagein grave 32 of the cemetery excavated in Lezh, in which one suchpendant was associated with a fragment of a Slavic bow bula ofWerners class IC (P 1979-1980, pp. 129 and 167 pl. XXI.2). Forthe chronology of bulae of Werners class IC, see C 2008.

92Moreover, grave 54 is located on the northern edge of the cem-etery, far away from the main cluster of graves. Its southwest-northeastorientation is also in sharp contrast to the northwest-southeast orienta-tion of most other graves in that cemetery (S 2006, pp. 55-56).

93 1992; K 1998, p. 218.

94S I, T 2007, p. 192. Most urns found in thecemetery are thrown on a slow-turning wheel and display a combedornamentation.

95S 1996, p. 71.96H 1996.97S 2000, p. 516.98G, T 2002, pp. 46-47. The more recent excava-

tions carried out in Nova Tabla in 2007 and 2008 produced 23 morefeatures (P 2008, p. 49)

99G, T 2002, p. 48.100G, T 2002, p. 48 (house SZ 3 and the refuse

pit SO18); P 2008, pp. 49-51 (house SO 149A).

the late seventh century. The calibrated dates for theradiocarbon measurements of the cremated remainsfound in two urns of the cemetery recently excavated

in Vinkovci range between 691 and 76694

.A similar conclusion may be drawn on the basis ofnds from the opposite end of the area under considera-tion in this paper. The calibrated radicarbon dates fortwo refuse pits from Sankt Ruprecht an der Raab are650-770 and 780-985, respectively95. Very similar pot-tery has also been found some forty kilometers to thesouthwest, in Komberg, where the dates range betweenthe late seventh and the mid-ninth century96. As ErikSzameit wrote recently, to this day no nds are knownfrom Carinthia or Steiermark, which could be securelydated to the seventh century97. On the other side of theAustrian-Slovenian border, though, only sixty kilometers

to the southeast from Komberg, the situation appears asradically different. Salvage excavations between 1999and 2001 in Nova Tabla have unearthed 82 features98.One of the them was a sunken-featured building of ovalplan, which produced handmade pottery with notcheson the lip, as well as clay pans (g. 13)99. In two otherfeatures interpreted as houses and in one of the refusepits excavated on the site, clay pans were associatedwith handmade pottery with no decoration100. However,another refuse pit produced handmade pottery withno decoration in association with combed ware (g.14)101. A date within the seventh century for the earliest

phase of occupation at Nova Tabla is suggested by the


13/24

315


g.11 Kaic near Zadar (Croatia), grave 54: plan and semicircu-lar pendant with open work decoration. After B 1982.

g. 12 Ston on the Peljeac Peninsula (Croatia): buckle andpendant. After K 1960.

g. 13 Nova Tabla near Murska Sobota (Slovenia), house SZ1: handmade pottery. No scale. After G, T

2002.

association of handmade pottery without any decora-tion with a bronze belt mount with good analogies inMiddle Avar assemblages in southwestern Hungary102.Nonetheless, on the basis of a series of non-calibratedand unpublished radiocarbon dates, Mitja Gutin hasadvanced the idea that the earliest pottery from NovaTabla must be dated to the second half of the sixth andthe early seventh century. His idea has been adoptedas a matter of fact by the Polish archaeologist MarekDulinicz in an attempt to prove an early, sixth-centurypresence of the Slavs in western Pannonia and the foot-hills of the eastern Alps103. To be sure, the earliest clay

101G, T 2002, p. 54 (refuse pit 44).102G 2008b, p. 55 with g. 3. For analogies for the Avar-age

belt mount, see G 2001, pls. 68; 69.1, 2, 4; 74.6; 94.3.103G 2004, p. 259; D 2007, pp. 90-91 and 122. It is im-

portant to note that no radiocarbon dates are available either for housesSZ1 and SZ3 or for the refuse pit 44. The radiocarbon dates obtainedfrom three features of the neighboring settlement site at Mocna nearMaribor, which were attributed to the rst phase of occupation (pits 1and 2 and feature 9) range between 529 and 658, but it remains unclearwhich one of the pottery fragments published so far may be attributedto each feature. Two potsherds specically attributed to the rst phase ofoccupation have combed decoration, including vertical hashing, whichcould not possibly be of a sixth-century date. See T 2008, 44 gs.

11-12 (for the two potsherds with combed ornament).


14/24

316

FLORIN CURTA

104C 2001a, p. 296.105The radiocarbon date obtained from the assemblage in feature

SO 149A in Nova Tabla (which produced a fragment of a clay pan)is BP 158227, calibrated age 431-534 (68.3 percent likelihood) or419-542 (95.4 percent likelihood). The discrepancy may be explainedin terms of a mixture of early medieval with ancient material, as clearlyindicated by a rim fragment of a Roman-age pot found together withthe clay pan (P 2008, p. 50). Moreover, a fragment of a claypan was found in the lling of pit SE 7/SE 24 excavated in Popava 2,near Murska Sobota, together with combed ware. The radiocarbondate for that feature is BP 144524, calibrated age 602-641 (68.3percent likelihood) or 572-649 (95.4 percent likelihood). See 2008, pp. 66-67; 68 g. 12.

106J 1986, 446 g. 2.8, 9.107C 1975, p. 91 and pl. VII.10, 11; C 1977,

232 and pl. XIII.1; 233 and pl. IV.5-8; 250-251 and pl. VI.2.108C 1987-1988, pls. VIII.2; XI.6.109K 2002, p. 21 (feature 23). Feature 21 also produced

fragments of clay pans.110N 2002b, pp. 29-30 (feature SE 123).111Szeged-Makkoserdo, grave 318 (horse burial; S 1995,

pp. 136-137 and 162; 198 pl. 26). The two large iron phaleraedecorated the bridle. A male skeleton was buried next to the horsetogether with a belt set, including strap ends of Zbojnks classes 57and 98, which may be dated to the Late Avar period ( ca. 750 to ca.780; Z 1991, pp. 240, 297 pl. 18.3, 302 pl. 23.7). Analogiesfor the Grofovsko phalera are also known from Late Avar-age burialassemblages in Slovakia (Cifer-Pc and Uzd) and Serbia (Celarevo).

See C 1963, p. 346.

pans so far known are those from sites in Romania,where they have been dated to the late sixth or earlyseventh century because of the association with suchchronologically sensitive artifacts as cast bulae withbent stem, coins struck for Emperor Justinian, Slavicbow bulae, or glass beads with eye-shaped inlays104.However, in the southern and western parts of the Car-pathian Basin, no nds of clay pans are known, whichcould securely be dated as early as those from Romaniansites105. In Mihajlovac (northern Serbia), clay pans wereassociated with combed ware which could be dated tothe late seventh or early eighth century106. Similarly, claypans have been found in Muici and Batkovic in easternBosnia, two sites which are equally of a later, possiblyeighth-century date107. At Biograci, in southern Bosnia,clay pans belong to the ceramic assemblages associatedwith the eighth- to ninth-century re-occupation of thelate antique hilltop site108. Those assemblages have alsoproduced handmade pottery with notches on the lip,a type of decoration which also appears within one of

the 38 features excavated in 2000 and 2001 in MurskaSobota (Slovenia)109.Like clay pans, the combed ware found in associa-

tion with handmade pottery with no decoration onseveral other sites in northeastern Slovenia also pointsto a much later date in the seventh or even early eighthcentury. Consider for example the pottery found in afeature of the settlement excavated in 2001 in Gro-fovsko on the outskirts of Murska Sobota (g. 15)110.In addition to combed ware, the feature produced aniron phalera with damascened ornament, which hasgood analogies in Late Avar, late eighth-century as-semblages in Hungary (g. 16)111. This is at variance

with the radiocarbon date obtained for that feature,which is BP 134530, calibrated age 664. Very similarcombed ware has also been found in another featurefrom that site, the radiocarbon date for which is BP136628, calibrated age 660112. However, the sameware is also known from a refuse pit in Dragomelj incentral Slovenia, the non-calibrated date for whichranges between 670 and 775113. To my knowledge, theearliest date for the combed ware found in associa-tion with handmade pottery on any site in Sloveniais 625, from a sunken-featured building in Podgorica(g. 17)114. Such discrepancies are hard to explain,but one cannot exclude the possibility of a mixtureof earlier and later materials. This is substantiated bythe newest radiocarbon dates obtained for the ceramicassemblages found during the salvage excavations forthe building of the highway in northeastern Croatia,at Nedelice, less than forty kilometers to the southfrom Murska Sobota. The ceramic assemblage fromone of the features excavated on the site (possibly a

sunken-oored building), the calibrated radiocarbonage for which was 648-662, includes fragments ofhandmade pottery with no decoration associated withlate antique pottery, including a pot with stampeddecoration, in addition to combed ware of an obvi-ously much later date115.

A tabulation of the preliminary results of this shortsurvey of the archaeological evidence shows clearlythat the majority of the archaeological assemblagesconsidered here are dated to the second half of theseventh century or even after A.D. 700 (tab. 1). Whileit is true that decorated pottery appears mostly in laterassemblages, there seems to be no clear-cut chrono-logical distinction between undecorated pottery ofthe classical Prague type and pottery with combeddecoration. It may well be that assemblages combiningundecorated, handmade pottery with clay pans, suchas the refuse pits in Murska Sobota-Kotare or NovaTabla, could be dated relatively later. In reality, in theabsence of both datable artifacts and radiocarbondates, there is no way to tell. Moreover, in the absenceof more calibrated dates, it remains unclear whetherthe ceramic assemblages in the sunken-featured build-ings SZ 1 in Nova Tabla (undecorated pottery only)and SE 30 in Podgorica (with decorated pottery) can

112N 2002b, pp. pp. 30-32 (feature 127).113T 2002, pp. 83-85 (refuse pit 550). In Popava near Murska

Sobota, combed ware similar to that from Grofovsko was found infeature SZ 9 together with a propeller-shaped cast belt mount of Zabo-jnks class 157, which is typical for the Late Avar period (ca. 750 toca. 780). The chronology of the assemblage is further conrmed by theradiocarbon date obtained from that feature: BP 126326, calibratedage 691-750 (58.7 percent likelihood) or 669-782 (90.6 likelihood).See C 2008, pp. 60-61; Z 1991, p. 239.

114N 2002a, pp. 91-92 (feature SE 30, the radiocarbon datefor which is BP 145232).

115B 2006, pp. 210-215; 238 pl. 6.1; 239 pl. 7.1-4 and 6-8;

240 pl. 8; 241 pl. 9.


15/24

317


g. 17 Podgorica near Crnuce (Slovenia), house SE 30: hand-made pottery and combed ware. After N 2002b.

g. 14 Nova Tabla near Murska Sobota (Slovenia), refusepit 44: handmade pottery and combed ware. No scale. After

G, T 2002.

g. 15 Murska Sobota-Grofovsko (Slovenia), refuse pit SE123: handmade pottery and iron phalera. No scale. After

N 2002b.

g. 16 Szeged-Makkoserdo (Hungary), grave 318: belt set, ironphalera, and stirrup. Different scales After S 1995.

truly be interpreted as indications of an early, albeitsparse, occupation of those sites around A.D. 600 orduring the rst half of the seventh century. If anything,the existing evidence suggests that such assemblagesmay well be of a later date. This is further conrmedby the distribution of nds securely dated to the rst

half of the seventh century in the northern Adriatic

region, none of which is from the interior. Belt bucklesof the Pergamon, Syracuse, Boly-elovce, or Corinthclasses known from that region are all either fromcoastal sites or from relatively large cemeteries innorth-central Istria116. The latter have been interpreted

116Ston: K 1960, p. 65, g. 43 (Pergamon class). Zadar:B 1965, pp. 147, 146 g. 2, pl. I/2 (Syracuse class). Nezakcij:M 1980-1981, pp. 53-54, pl. VIII.3-4 (Corinth class). Novigrad:M 1962b, pp. 165-166, pl. V.1-2 (Corinth class), pl. V.3 (Syracuseclass). Porec: 1962, p. 176, pl. I.1 (Corinth class). Mejica nearBuzet (Istria): T 1986, pp. 64 (Syracuse class), 66 with pl. 14.4(Boly-elovce class), 67 with pl. 17.4 (Corinth class). Veli Mlun near Buzet(Istria): M 1967, pp. 338, 347 pl. VI.9 (Corinth class). Brkacnear

Pazin (Istria): M 1985, pp. 31 pl. II.1, 34 pl. V.6 (Corinth class).


16/24

318

FLORIN CURTA

tab. 1 Chronology of sixth- to eighth-century assemblages inthe northern Adriatic region.

Note: Firm dates are shown with continuous, estimated dates with interrupted lines.Vertical bars indicate radiocarbon dates, no the presence of undecorated, and decof decorated pottery.

as the burial grounds of Byzantine garrisons stationedin the forts arresting access to the southern parts ofthe peninsula across the Ucka mountain range and thevalley of the river Mirna117. The only horseman burialwith weapons known for this period was also foundin this region118. The fortication and militarizationof the northern region of Istria points to the continu-ous threat of raids from the north, but absolutely noseventh-century nds are known from the corridorbetween the Sava valley around Ljubljana, to the

north, and the Bay of Trieste, to the south.The nal conclusion seems inescapable. There is

no solid evidence for a sixth-century date for any ofthe settlement or cemetery sites associated with theSlavic or so-called Prague culture. Moreover, boththe interpretation of the attempts at pottery typologyfor that culture and its ethnic attribution need seriousreconsideration in the light of what archaeologists

know today about pottery production, stylistic vari-ation, and ethnic boundaries. As a matter of fact, noserious evidence exists to link the pottery believed to beof the Prague type and found in Slovenia to the Slavs, atleast not to those known by that name to Pope Gregorythe Great and Paul the Deacon. If one leaves aside theuncertain location of the Slavic village in the Lopichisepisode of Pauls History of the Lombards, there is infact no information in the written sources about theearly seventh-century political or ethnic situation in thelands now within the borders of Slovenia and Croatia.Moreover, no indication whatsoever exists of whatparticular language was in use among the inhabitantsof the seventh- and eighth-century settlements recentlyexcavated in northern and central Slovenia, as well asin northern Croatia. It is only assumedthat they spokeSlavic, just as linguists assumethat the Sclavenes andAntes mentioned by Byzantine sources spoke Com-mon Slavic. Such assumptions may not be warrantedand in any case they do not account for some curious

linguistic phenomena. The continuity of ancient placenames has long been noted in Slovenia and Croatiafor such sites as Poetovio, Celeia, Aquileia, or Salona,all of which were adopted and later modied by lo-cal speakers of Slavic languages119. In Carinthia, mostplace names of Slavic origin appear to be relativelyrecent, but some of those of Germanic origin are infact adaptations of older Slavic names120. This suggestsseveral toponymical layers corresponding perhaps todifferent Slavic speaking communities or to differentphases in the history of the linguistic contact betweenspeakers of Slavic and non-Slavic languages in theregion. If the situation in Croatia may at all be com-pared to that in the eastern Alps, then it is signcantthat the Slavicization of the ancient place names ofIllyricum is believed to have begun only in the secondhalf of the seventh century and continued for almosta century121. Judging by such evidence, which has ofcourse its own problems, Danijel Dzino has recentlysuggested that the natives of the old Roman provinceof Dalmatia became Slavs in a way similar to thatin which local Britons became Anglosaxonized inpost-Roman Britain because they could not maintaina cultural-ideological discourse that would be attrac-tive enough for the newcomers to adopt it, while the

political and practical benets that emerged from achange of identity were much more attractive to theindigeneous population122. In other words, the nativepopulation of the interior became Slavs in reaction tothe urban population on the coast becoming Roman(under Byzantine rule), in exclusion to everything

117T 1986, p. 22; M 1995, p. 9.118Breac near Buzet: M 1962a, pp. 455-461, 454 g. 1,

pl. I-III.

119 1988, pp. 100-101; S 1996.120K 2000; M 2004.121D 2008, p. 196.122D 2008, p. 197. For Britons turning into Anglo-Saxons,

see W 2007.


17/24

319


beyond the hinterland of the coastal cities. Dzinosconclusion is that the process of becoming Slav wasa complex transformation of the cultural habitus inspecic political circumstances that separated Illyricumfrom the Mediterranean and repositioned it towardsthe continent, yet still on the periphery of Avar inu-ence. Dzinos model does not explain what happenedto the native population throughout the seventhcentury, between the abandonment of the hilltop sitesand the appearance of the rst early medieval villages.However, it offers an alternative to the interpretationof the archaeological record by means of migration.If, as has been suggested, Slavic may have been usedas a lingua francawithin the Late Avar qaganate, itcannot be an accident that it was precisely during thelast half-century of Avar history (ca. 750-800) thatthe inuence of the Avar material culture spread intoSlovenia and Croatia123. Whether or not Slavic cameto the north Adriatic region with the Avar inuence,there is no indication that those whom archaeologists

believed to have been the rst speakers of Slavic inthat region came from somewhere else124. If anything,the reconsideration of the problem in the light of theMaking of the Slavsstrongly suggests that the Slavsdid not have to migrate from some distant Urheimatin order to become Slovenians and Croats.

NotesThe initial draft for this paper has been presented as a lecturefor a giornata di studi entitled Archaeology and Ethnicity.Methodology in a Central Question of Archaeology, organ-ized by the German Archaeological Institute and the AustrianInstitute of Historical Studies in Rome (Rome, March 30,2009). I am grateful to the organizers, especially to Philippvon Rummel, for offering the opportunity to present my ideason the matter in the conference.

REFERENCES

N., 1919, Ostpreuen in der Vlkerwanderungszeit,Uppsala/Leipzig.

A S., 1980, Po vaprosa za rannoslavianskata kulturana iug i na sever ot Dunav prez VI-VII v., Arkheologiia,12, fasc. 4, pp. 1-12.

A S., K R., 2000, Arkheologicheski danni zarannoto slaviansko zaselvane v Balgariia, Godishnik naSoiskiia Universitet Kliment Ohridski. IstoricheskiFakultet, fasc. 2, pp. 159-185.

B Cs., 1992, Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und derSteppe. Das Grab von Tepe (Sowj. Azerbajdan) undder beschlagverzierte Grtel im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert, inAwarenforschungen , ed. by F. Daim, Vienna, pp. 309-406.

B Cs., 2000, Byzantinisches zur Herkunftsfrage des viel-teiligen Grtels, in Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und derSteppe im 6.-7. Jahrhundert, ed. by Cs. Blint, Budapest,pp. 99-162.

B Cs., 2006, Az ethnos a kora kzpkorban (a kutatslehetosgei s korltai), Szzadok, 140, fasc. 2, pp. 1-70.

B I., 2007, Il sesso svelato degli antenati. Strategie fu-nerarie di rappresentazione dei generi a Kranj Lajh e Iskrain Slovenia (VI-XI secolo), in Agire da donna. Modelli epratiche di rappresentazione (secoli VI-X), Atti del conve-gno (Padova, 18-19 febbraio 2005), ed. by C. La Rocca,Turnhout, pp. 23-52.

B A., B I., B Caa I., Ma-

C M., P G., 1979, Tropaeum Traiani I.Cetatea, vol. 1, Bucharest.

B B., 1984, La ville dans le nord de lIllyricum (Pannonie,Msie I, Dacie et Dardanie), in Villes et peuplement danslIllyricum protobyzantin, Actes du colloque organis parlcole franaise de Rome (Rome, 12-14 mai 1982), Rome,pp. 245-288.

B B., 1990, Les petits objets, in Caricin Grad II. Le quar-tier sud-ouest de la ville haute, ed. by B. Bavant, V. Kondic,

J.-M. Spieser, Belgrade/Rome, pp. 191-257.B U., 2003, Predhodno porocilo o poznoanticnem grobicu

na Vrajku v Gorenjem Mokronogu, Arheoloki vestnik,54, pp. 325-330.

B et al.2002 = B N., B P., B M.,C Y., C P., H M., H E.,I A., K T., M S., N E., RM.P., S M., S J.-P., T I., VC., W-K M., Byllis (Albanie), Bulletin de Cor-respondance Hellnique, 126, pp. 659-684.

B L., 2006, Zatitna arheologija u okolici Varadina.Arheoloka istraivanja na autocesti Zagreb-Gorican injezinim prilaznim cestama, Zagreb.

B L., 2008, Usporedba keramike 8. stoljeca s Blizne iarnjaka kod Varadina, in Srednji vek. Arheoloke raziska-ve med Jadranskim morjem in Panonsko niino, ed. by M.Gutin, Ljubljana, pp. 107-112.

B J., 1965, Nekoliko ranosrednjovjekovnih metalnihnalaza s podrucja sjeverne Dalmacije, Diadora, 3, pp.

145-158.B J., 1968, Ranosrednjovjekovna nekropola u selu

Kaic kraj Zadra, Diadora, 4, pp. 221-246.B J., 1972, Die ersten slawischen Urnengrber auf

dem Gebiete Jugoslawiens aus dem Dorfe Kaic bei Zadar,Balcanoslavica, 1, pp. 73-86.

B J., 1980, Materijalna kultura Hrvata od VII do IXstoljeca, Zagreb.

B J., 1982, La ncropole palocroate Kaic-Maklinovobrdo, Inventaria archaeologica 28, Bonn.

B A., 1998, La thorie des Vntes en Slovnie. Pro-blme dhistoire, dhistoriographie ou didologie?Revuedes tudes slaves, 70, fasc. 1, pp. 113-123.

B et al. 2001 = B C., B G.P., JM., M I., M A., S C. (eds.), Bizan-tini, Croati, Carolingi. Alba e tramonto di regni e imperi,Milan.

B D., T A., 1983, Preukzatelnostpouvania rmskych mier pri zhotovovan slovanskej kera-miky, Slovensk Archeolgia, 31, fasc. 1, pp. 121-147.

B H., 1993, On the ethnogenesis and protohome of theSlavs: the linguistic evidence, Journal of Slavic Linguistics,1, fasc. 2, pp. 352-374.

B P., K T. (eds.), 2001, Od Rimljanov do Slovanov.Predmeti, Ljubljana.

B L., 1990, La cramique et les lampes, in Caricin GradII. Le quartier sud-ouest de la ville haute, ed. by B. Bavant

et al., Belgrade/Rome, pp. 161-190.

123For Slavic as lingua francawithin the Avar qaganate, see C2004. For Avars in the Adriatic region, see K 1966.

124For the Slavic migration from the northern regions of EasternEurope into the Adriatic region, see the map in P, K

1999, p. 368.


18/24

320

FLORIN CURTA

B L., 1981, Rifnik pri entjurju. Poznoanticna naselbinain grobice, Ljubljana.

B M., J., T I., 1989, Veneti nai davni pred-niki, Ljubljana.

B I., 1940, Staroslovansk keramika ve stredn Evro-pe. tudie k poctkum slovansk kultury, Prague.

B O.R., 1983, Slaviane v Italii i Istrii v VI-VIII vv. ,Vizantiiskii Vremennik, 44, pp. 48-59.

B B., 1979, Die Gefkeramik aus dem Kastell Iatrus, inIatrus-Krivina. Sptantike Befestigung und frhmittelalter-liche Siedlung an der unteren Donau, Berlin, pp. 33-148.

B R., 1992, Nekatera nereena in nereijtve (?) vpraanjaiz zgodovine severnojadranskih deel v 6. in 7. stoletju,Zgodovinski casopis, 46, 1992, pp. 297-307.

B R., 2005, Gli inizi delletnogenesi slovena. Fatti, tesie ipotesi relativi al periodo di transizione dallet antica alMedioevo nel territorio situato tra lAdriatico e il Danubio,in La cristianizzazione degli Slavi nellarco alpino orientale(secoli VI-IX), ed. by A. Tilatti, Rome, pp. 145-188.

B S., 1997, Zum sozialen Gebrauch von Tracht.Aussagemglichkeiten hinsichtlich des Nachweises vonMigrationen, Ethnographisch-archologische Zeitschrift,38, fasc. 2, pp. 177-203.

C A., A V. 2005, Sepolture slave altomedie-vali a San Martino di Ovaro (Carnia-Friuli). Documentiarcheologici e paleoantropologia, Archeologia Medievale,32, pp. 433-452.

C S., 1981, Staroslovanske naselbine, Arheolokivestnik, 32, pp. 591-593.

C S., 1989-1990, Prispevek k arheoloki sliki Car-neole v zgodnjesrednjevekem obdobju, Histria Archaeolo-gica 20-21, pp. 151-164.

C S., 2000, Tinje nad Loko pri usmu. Poznoanticnain zgodnjesrednjeveka naselbina, Ljubljana.

C S., 2005, Linsediamento forticato su altura diTonovcov grad presso Caporetto e i suoi dintorni in et

romana e paleo-slava, in La cristianizzazione degli Slavinellarco alpino orientale (secoli VI-IX), ed. by A. Tilatti,Rome, pp. 93-108.

C Z., 1963, Nov nlezy falr zo slovansko-avarskchpohrebsk na Slovensku, Slovensk Archeolgia, 11, pp.325-346.

C D., 2008, Zgodnjesrednjeveki jami iz Popave I pri Lipo-vcih, in Srednji vek. Arheoloke raziskave med Jadranskimmorjem in Panonsko niino, ed. by M. Gutin, Ljubljana,pp. 59-63.

C I., 1975, Die Untersuchungen in Muici und abljak.ber den ersten Fund der ltesten slawischen Siedlung inBosnien, Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des bosnisch-her-zegowinischen Landesmuseums, 5, pp. 91-176.

C I., 1977, Ranoslavensko naselje Jazbine uBatkovicu kod Bijeljine, Godinjak. Akademija nauk iumjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, 15, pp. 227-308.

C I., 1987-1988, Rimsko utvrdenje na Gradini uBiogracima kod Litice, Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja Bosnei Hercegovine u Sarajevu, 42-43, pp. 83-128.

C D., 1961, Archologische Denkmler der Gepi-den im Mitteldonaubecken, Archaeologia Hungarica 31,Budapest.

C F., 1997, Slavs in Fredegar and Paul the Deacon: medie-val gens or scourge of God?Early Medieval Europe,6, fasc. 2, pp. 155-167.

C F., 1999a, Feasting with kings in an ancient democracy:on the Slavic society of the Early Middle Ages (sixth to seven-

th century A.D.), Essays in Medieval Studies, 15, 19-34.

C F., 1999b, Hiding behind a piece of tapestry: Jordanesand the Slavic Venethi, Jahrbcher fr Geschichte Osteu-ropas, 47, pp. 1-18.

C F., 2001a, The Making of the Slavs. History andArchaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500-700,Cambridge.

C F., 2001b, The Prague type: a critical approach topottery classication, Archaeologia Bulgarica, 5, fasc.1, pp. 73-106.

C F., 2002, Consideratii privind conceptul de caracteretnic (etnicitate) n arheologia contemporana, Arheologiamedievala, 4, pp. 5-25.

C F., 2004, The Slaviclingua franca (Linguistic notes ofan archaeologist turned historian), East Central Europe,31, fasc. 1, pp. 125-148.

C, F., 2006a, Slavic bow bulae? Werners class I Drevisited, Acta Archaeologica Academiae ScientiarumHungaricae, 57, pp. 423-474.

C F., 2006b, Some remarks on ethnicity in medievalarchaeology, Early Medieval Europe, 15, fasc. 2, pp.159-185.

C F., 2008, Some remarks on Slavic bow bulae ofWerners class I C, Slavia antiqua, 49, pp. 45-98.

D F., S E., Frhe Slawen im oberen Donau- undOstalpenraum, in Reitervlker aus dem Osten. Hunnen +Awaren. Burgenlndische Landesausstellung 1996. SchloHalbturn, 26. April-31. Oktober 1996, ed. by F. Daim, K.Kaus, P. Tomka, Eisenstadt, pp. 317-320.

D B.J., 2004, Who were the Sclaveni and where did theycome from?Byzantinische Forschungen, 28, pp. 133-157.

D A., 1901, Souvenirs de la Haute-Albanie,Paris.D ., 1994, Ostrogothic Coinage from Collections in

Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia & Herzegovina, Ljubljana.D V., 2007, The fortresses of Thrace and Dacia in the

early Byzantine period, in The Transition to Late Antiquityon the Danube and Beyond, ed. by A.G. Poulter, Oxford,

pp. 479-546.D Z., G A., 1975, Numizmaticke vijesti iz Senja iokolice, Senjski zbornik, 6, pp. 167-198.

D Z., M I., N J., 1984, Numizmaticke vijesti izSenja i okolice (II), Senjski zbornik, 10-11, pp. 48-51.

D M., 2007, Wczesnosowianskie obiekty archeologi-czne na poudnie od Karpat, Sudetw i Rudaw datowanemetodami bezwzglednymi, Archeologia Polski, 52, pp.81-130.

D D., 2008, Becoming Slav, becoming Croat: newapproaches in the research of identities in post-Roman Illyri-cum, Hortus Artium Medievalium, 14, pp. 195-206.

E Th.H., 1991, The cultural contexts of ethnic differen-ces, Man, 26, pp. 127-144.

F H., 2000, Hans Zeiss, Joachim Werner und die archo-logischen Forschungen zur Merowingerzeit, in Eine her-vorragend nationale Wissenschaft. Deutsche Prhistorikerzwischen 1900 und 1995, ed. by H. Steuer, Berlin-NewYork, pp. 311-415.

F P., 1985, Pottery classication and sherd assignment,in Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, ed. by B.A. Nelson,Carbondale-Edwardsville, pp. 229-242.

F G., 1994a, Analyse der Formen des handgemachtenKeramikgeschirrs als Beitrag zur relativen Chronologie,in Slawische Keramik in Mitteleuropa vom 8. bis zum 11.Jahrhundert. Internationale Tagungen in Mikulcice, 25.-27.Mai 1993, ed. by C. Stana, Brno, pp. 19-27.

F G., 1994b, Slovensko vo vcasnoslovanskom obdob,

Nitra.


19/24

321


F G., 1995, Formanalyse vollstndiger Gefe oder einweiterer Versuch, frhmittelalterliche Keramikgefe ausder Slowakei zu klassizieren, in Slawische Keramik in Mit-teleuropa vom 8. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. Terminologie undBeschreibung. Internationale Tagung in Mikulcice, 24.-26.Mai 1994, ed. by L. Polacek, Brno, pp. 15-33.

F G., 2008, Frhe Slawen im Mitteldonaugebiet, in Kul-turwandel in Mitteleuropa. Langobarden-Awaren-Slawen.Akten der Internationalen Tagung in Bonn vom 25. bis 28.

Februar 2008, ed. by J. Bemmann, M. Schmauder, Bonn,pp. 645-656.

G ., 1995, Das awarenzeitliche Grberfeld von Tis-zafred, Budapest.

G ., 2001, Funde byzantinischer Herkunft in der Awa-renzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts,Budapest.

G K.H., 1983, Paul the Deacon and Secundus ofTrento, in History and Historians in Late Antiquity, ed. byB. Croke, A. Emmett, Sydney, pp. 147-154.

G V.F., 1973, Programma statisticheskoi obrabotkikeramiki iz arkheologicheskikh raskopok, SovetskaiaArkheologiia, fasc. 1, pp. 114-135.

G V.F., 1987, Arkheologicheskaia kultura socialno-istoricheskii organizm centranaia kategoriia poznaniiaarkheologii (k razrabotke teorii arkheologicheskoi kultury),in Issledovanie socialno-istoricheskikh problem v arkheo-logii. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov, ed. by S.V. Smirnov, V.F.Gening, Kiev, pp. 6-35.

G M., 1986, The Making of Great Men. Male Do-mination and Power Among the New Guinea Baruya,Cambridge-Paris.

G Z., 1983, The ethnogenesis of the Slavs in the light oflinguistics, in American Contributions to the Ninth Inter-national Congress of Slavists, ed. by M.S. Flier, Columbus,pp. 131-146.

G I., 2005, Discontinuity/continuity in Croatian

history from the sixth to the ninth century, in LAdriaticodella tarda Antichit allet carolingia, Atti del convegnodi studio Brescia 11-13 ottobre 2001, ed. by G.P. Brogiolo,P. Delogu, Rome, pp. 195-211.

G B., 1952, Ustolicevanje korokih vojvod in dravaKarantanskih Slovencev, Ljubljana.

G B., 1964, Slovenski naselitveni valovi na Balkan-ski polotok, Zgodovinski casopis, 18, pp. 219-227.

G B., 1969, Proces doseljavanja slovena na Zapa-dni Balkani u istocne Alpe, in Simpozijum Predslavenskietnicki elementi na Balkanu u etnogenezi junih Slovena,odran 24-26. oktobra 1968 u Mostaru, ed. by A. Benac,Sarajevo, pp. 29-55.

G B., 1970-1971, Naselitev slovanov v vzhodnihAlpah in vpraanje kontinuitete, Arheoloki vestnik,21-22, pp. 17-32.

G B., 1988, Ob tisoctiristoletnici slovanske nase-litve na dananje slovensko narodnostno ozemlje, in PavelDiakon, Zgodovina Langobardov, ed. by F. Bradac, B.Grafenauer, K. Gantar, Maribor, pp. 321-422.

G M. (ed.), 2002, Zgodnji slovani. Zgodnjesrednjevekaloncenina na obrobju vzhodnih Alp, Ljubljana.

G M., 2004, Zacetki slovanskega naseljevanja na Slo-venskem, Casopis za zgodovino in narodopisje, 75, fasc.2-3, pp. 253-265.

G M., 2008a, Rani srednji vijek od alpskih obronaka doPanonije, Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 24,

fasc. 1, pp. 289-300.

G M., 2008b, Slovansko skeletno grobice na lediniNova tabla pri Murski Soboti, in Srednji vek. Arheolokeraziskave med Jadranskim morjem in Panonsko niino, ed.by M. Gutin, Ljubljana, pp. 53-57.

G M., T G., 2002, Oblike in kronologijazgodnjesrednjeveke loncanine na Novi tabli pri MurskiSoboti, in G 2002, pp. 46-64.

H S., 2007, Situation ethnicity and nested identities:new approaches to an old problem, Anglo-Saxon Studies

in Archaeology and History, 14, pp. 19-27.H D., 1986, The identication of vessel function: a case

study from northwest Georgia, American Antiquity, 51,fasc. 2, pp. 267-295.

H L., 1915, Politische Umwlzungen unter denSlowenen vom Ende des sechsten Jahrhunderts bis zur Mittedes neunten, Mitteilungen des Instituts fr sterreichischeGeschichtsforschung, 36, pp. 229-287.

H L., 1927-1928, Les rapports des Byzantins avecles Slaves et les Avares pendant la seconde moiti du VIesicle, Byzantion, 4, pp. 137-170.

H L., 1956, Die Frhzeit der West- und Sdslawen, inFrhes Mittelalter, ed. by F. Altheim, Bern, pp. 301-331.

H A., 1988,Protoindoeuroper, Baltoslawen, Urslawen.Bemerkungen zu einigen neueren Hypothesen, Zeitschrift

fr Archologie, 22, pp. 1-11.H J.W., 1992, Excavations at Sarahane in Istanbul, vol.

2, Princeton.H P., 2008, Ethnicity, group identity, and social status

in the Migration Period, in Franks, Northmen, and Slavs.Identities and State Formation in Early Medieval Europe,ed. by I.H. Garipzanov, P.J. Geary, P. Urbanczyk, Turnhout,pp. 17-49.

H B., 1996, Zu Neufunden frhmittelalterlicher Siedlun-gskeramik aus der Steiermark, Archologie sterreichs,7, pp. 67-70.

H V., Die westbaltischen Stmme und die berregionale

Kulturaustausch in der Ostseeregion zur Merowingerzeit,Bodendenkmalpegein Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: Jahr-buch, 51, pp. 295-319.

I T., 1907, Denkmler verschiedener Altersstufen in Al-banien, Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien undder Herzegowina, 10, pp. 3-70.

I V.A., 2000, Dekor rannebulgarskogo kostiuma kaketnogracheskii priznak, in Problemy pervobytnoi i sred-nevekovoi arkheologii. Tezisy dokladov pervykh Khaliko-vskikh chtenii, ed. by P.N. Starostin, Kazan, pp. 67-69.

I V.V., 1976, Iazyk kak istochnik pri etnogeneticheskikhissledovaniiakh i problematika slavianskikh drevnostei ,in Voprosy etnogeneza i etnicheskoi istorii slavian i vo-stochnykh romancev, ed. by V.D. Koroliuk, Moscow, pp.

30-47.J ., 1986, Le site dhabitation mdival Kula prs duvillage Mihajlovac, erdapske sveske, 3, pp. 443-446.

J M., 2006, Smjernice u razvoju srednjovjekovne arheo-logije u Hrvatskoj, Opuscula Archaeologica, 30, pp.183-224.

J D., 1990, K chronologii sdlitnch nlezus kera-mikou praskho typu na Morave, in Pravek a slovanskosdlen Moravy. Sbornk k 80. narozeninm Josefa Poulka,ed. by V. Nekuda, Brno, pp. 251-281.

K L., 1956, Glossen zu einigen Fragen der slawischenArchologie, Archaeologia Iugoslavica, 2, 1956, pp.101-110.

K J., 1960, Slovanska nekropola na Bledu. Porocilo o

iskopavanjih leta 1949 in 1951, Ljubljana.


20/24

322

FLORIN CURTA

K B., 2002, Staroslovanska naselbina Kotare baza priMurski Soboti, in G 2002, pp. 17-26.

K B., 2008, Zgodnjeslovanske najdbe z najdica PodKotom-sever pri Krogu, in Srednji vek. Arheoloke raziskavemed Jadranskim morjem in Panonsko niino, ed. by M.Gutin, Ljubljana, pp. 47-48.

K D., V. P L., 1996, Der Silberschatz von Martyni-vka (Martynovka), in Reitervlker aus dem Osten. Hunnen+ Awaren. Burgenlndische Landesausstellung 1996. Schlo

Halbturn, 26. April-31. Oktober 1996, ed. by F. Daim, K.Kaus, P. Tomka, Eisenstadt, pp. 204-209.

K D., P L.V., 2005, New insight into the hoardof 6th-7th century silver from Martynovka, in La noblesseromaine et les chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe sicle, ed. by F.Vallet, M. Kazanski, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, pp. 351-360.

K G., 1999-2000, Die sptawarenzeitlichen Riemenzungemit Knopfende, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientia-rum Hungaricae, 51, pp. 411-418.

K T., 1999, Carniola Sclavorum patria: autochtons, inva-ders, neighbors, in Istoriia i kultura drevnikh i sredneveko-vykh slavian, ed. by V.V. Sedov, Moscow, pp. 314-323.

K J.

Slavs adriatic

Documents