Early State and barbarian societies by Petr Shuvalov
// Миграции, расселение, война как факторы политогенеза (Восточная Европа в древности и средневековье, XXIV Чтениях памяти члена-корреспондента АН СССР В.Т. Пашуто), 2012
Eastern Roman army by Petr Shuvalov
"SUMMARY
The Secret of Justinian’s Army:
The Eastern Roman Army in 491—641 A.D.
by Petr V. Shu... more "SUMMARY
The Secret of Justinian’s Army:
The Eastern Roman Army in 491—641 A.D.
by Petr V. Shuvalov
The introductory chapter («The Puzzle of Justinian’s Re-Conquest») is devoted to explaining why under the emperor Justinian (527—565) the Roman army could re-conquer for a while all what had been lost by the Empire for the preceding one hundred years. This matter is really worthy of explanation because during just two decades of the re-conquest (533—552) Justinian restored control over the same territories that had formerly been seized by the Roman Republic after two centuries of extremely hard fighting — from the First Samnite war through the Third Punic war (343—146 B.C.).
The chapters «The Age of Changes» and «The Heritage of the Tetrarchs: the Later Roman Administration and the Army» provide a brief survey of the position of the Empire and the condition of its army as well by the early 6th century. The most terrible defeat of the Later Roman troops by the barbarian peoples took place on August 9, 379 near the city of Adrianople (in Thrace), when the emperor Valens’ army was smashed by the Goths and their allies. Its chief reasons were not only Valens’ own strategic errors, but also the tactical advantage of the Gothic and Alanic cavalry over the Roman mounted force.
The disaster at Adrianople had to make the deepest impression upon the military elite of the Empire and so to lead to a revision of the entire imperial war doctrine. Somewhat later already, the military theoretician Vegetius wrote that the Roman cavalry of his days is organized per sample of the Goths and Alans. To all appearances, after 378 the Romans actively began to adopt the barbarian experiences of conducting a mobile battle with the use of large masses of cavalry, some armed with lances like the Goths and Alans, others — with bows like the Huns. In the text of the later military treatise, «Strategikon» by Pseudo-Maurice, there is the description of equestrian exercises, which rather date from a period of around the 4th — 5th centuries. There are references to five kinds of training, viz. «Scythian», «Alanic», «African», «Illyrian» and «Italic». The origins of the first two exercises seem to go back to the events of the late 4th century. Nevertheless, in spite of these reforms, the Romans lacked their own well-trained light-armed cavalry, as not so many Roman cavalrymen could be compared to the nomads, spending all the life on horseback, in the art of horse-riding and bow-shooting. And so, since 394 up to 439, under the outstanding Roman generals such as Stilicho, Aetius and others in the composition of the Roman army there were mounted troops composed by Hun mercenaries, who repeatedly demonstrated their high martial skills. In the former half of the 5th century, the Roman army would have increased, at last, a role of cavalry; however, in the 470s we can observe again the previous army structure in the Balkans. The catastrophic defeats and failures that occurred in the late 4th and in the mid-5th centuries certainly forced the conservative Roman military elite to revise the obsolete principles of waging war. Nevertheless, this revision process went so slowly that the infantry remained as the main army force until the end of the 5th century. Just the reforms of the next century changed such a situation at last! Since then, the role of infantry became auxiliary only, whereas the main place in the army composition began to belong to cavalry.
In the following chapter («The Barbarians and Barbarian Innovations: auxilia, numeri, foederati, buccellarii») the author joins the opinions expressed by D. Hoffman (1969), R. Schulz (1993); R. Scharf (2001), E. P. Glušanin (1991), M. Speidel (1994), O. Schmitt (1994), J. Haldon (1984), as well as refutes the schemes put forward by F. Aussaress (1909). In particular, he states that the foederati as a kind of armed force must have appeared no earlier than during the reign of Theodosius I (379–395), who organized two or three tens of such new units numbering 10,000—15,000 soldiers in total and consisting mostly of Goths by birth. Indeed in the 6th century, there were normally 10—13 tagmata composed of foederati in the imperial service.
The chapters to go next («Just Before the Spurt (474—518): the Isaurian Zeno and the Reformer Anastasius», «In Chase of the Past Grandeur: the Conqueror Justinian», «Between the Shahanshah and the Kaghan: Tiberius’ Strictness, Maurice’s Economy and Phocas’ Nearsightedness», and «To Deal with the Armenians According to the Avar Scheme: Heraclius as a Warrior and Politician» are devoted to considering both the events at the fronts and the changes in the army administration.
The crisis situation in the Eastern Roman army is reflected by the noted treatise «Strategikon» usually attributed to the emperor Maurice (582—602). However, the best of the surviving manuscripts points at Urbicius as its author. He may have been the same person as Urbicius, the Eastern Roman general in the rank of the magister militum per Orientem, nicknamed Barbatus («Bearded Man»), who acted at the court of the emperor Anastasius (491—518). The text of this treatise is multilayer, and it obviously contains fragments of earlier writings. The oldest layer is a collection of fragments from several treatises dedicated to warfare matters. Close to them is the anonymous treatise «De militari scientia» (or the «Byzantine anonymous»). The main enemies for Urbicius (see the chapter «Perception of the Enemy: Neighbours of the Empire») are the peoples well known to him as good horsemen or even as exceptionally horsemen (nomads). Such are first of all the Hunno-Bulghars («Scythians», but not the Avars!), then the Persians and finally the Germanic peoples («Blond-haired»). As it may be observed from the text of the «Strategikon», Urbicius was very solicitous about how not to cede these foes in the art of fast maneuvering mounted warfare at a distance, with the use of the bow. It is difficult to say for sure when and in which volume within Anastasius’ reign so timely a reform was put into practice in the imperial forces.
Further military reforms were realized in the age of Justinian, perhaps following his cousin Germanus’ initiative. Their traces can be seen in both the Pseudo-Maurice’s treatise and the works of Procopius of Caesarea. The reforms included a scheme of the army array envisaging individual mobile tactical units (the so-called cursores-defensores and plagiophylakes-hyperkerastai), as well as a two- or three-line battle order. It seems quite possible that an idea to detach the cursores and defensores came to the Latin-language milieu of the Roman army from the Alans and the Moors. On the other hand, the two- or three-line battle order with the plagiophylakes and hyperkerastai is rather a study innovation that appeared, judging by the Greek denominations of these units, in the midst of the high nobility of the Eastern Roman Empire; at the same time, this novelty may have been worked out by analogy with some achievements in the Western Mediterranean, in Italy.
In scholarly literature (Mazzucchini, 1981) there is the opinion that such a tactical scheme to be seen in «Strategikon» has no support in other sources. Indeed, the contemporary writings do not contain any of the terms in question. However, the fact is that the author of the «Strategikon» is a very cautious person frequently warning his readers against any broad spread of the available information about the tactical schemes and methods of the imperial army. Therefore, it is not surprising at all that one cannot find in any other texts direct references to all of the tactical details which are in Pseudo-Maurice’s work. Nevertheless, between Procopius’ lines we can discern some traces of these reforms, especially if we carefully examine the structure of a regiment and its armament (see the chapter «A Regiment as it is on Parchment and in Reality: its Nominal Structure, Composition and Armed Elements»), as well as plans of the main battles (see the chapter «The Army on Battle-Field: the Famous Battles in the Age of Justinian»).
The present author shares the conclusion made long ago by the noted Hungarian researcher E. Darkó that the final version of Pseudo-Maurice’s treatise, although it had taken the form close to the modern one in 592—610 already, was composed in the reign of the emperor Heraclius (610—641). It is then that the reforms in the making of a new, universal, cavalry after the Avar model were completed.
"
Eastern Europe forest zone by Petr Shuvalov
![Research paper thumbnail of One Boudini Beaver for a Celtic Grivna? On the Question of the Prehistory of Commercial Hunting and Fur Trade in Eastern Europe [in Russ. with Engl. summary] Будинского бобра за кельтскую гривну? К вопросу о предыстории пушного промысла и торговли в Восточной Европе](https://a.academia-assets.com/images/blank-paper.jpg)
Друзей медлительный уход ... Памяти Олега Шарова = The footsteps of my friends leaving ... Ad memoriam Oleg Sharov, 2022
One Boudini Beaver for a Celtic Grivna? On the Question of the Prehistory of Commercial Hunting a... more One Boudini Beaver for a Celtic Grivna? On the Question of the Prehistory of Commercial Hunting and Fur Trade in Eastern Europe
The influence of the great civilizations in antiquity reached far outskirts. The direct or indirect impact of the centre of civilization on its periphery led to cascades of changes through chain reactions, migrations, changes in culture and language, and the emergence of new centres of power. Often such influences were exercised through trade along interregional routes. The emergence of the system of European fur trade, perhaps, refers to the heyday of Scythia and Celtica. According to Herodotus, the Boudini are engaged in the hunting of beavers. In the LT-B period, bracelets from the Danube region were imported into the forest zone, correlated with the common Slavic *grivьna (V. Kuleshov). The main role in their distribution in the forest zone is played by the Milograd culture, while they almost do not fall into the culture of hatched ceramics. In the III century after the end of Great Scythia, a decline in the fur trade is expected, reviving after the appearance of the Bastarns and the formation of the Zarubintsy culture in the south, and in the west due to the expansion of the Gallic Veneti on the Amber Coast. This will lead to migrations in the forest zone (hatched pottery, Milograd, brooches, enamels). The pressure of the Sarmatians and Goths on the forest zone will lead to an even deeper penetration of the fur trade into the very depth of the forest. The arrival of the Huns and the new fashion for furs catalyse this process, which will be expressed in the penetration of armed detachments from the Danube and Lithuania up to the zone of the Pskov long mounds.
// Ладога в контексте истории и археологии северной Евразии. По материалам XVII Чтений памяти Анны Мачинской (Старая Ладога, 22-23 декабря 2012 г.) и XVIII Чтений памяти Анны и Дмитрия Алексеевича Мачинских (Старая Ладога, 21-22 декабря 2013 г.). СПб: «Нестор-История», 2014
По материалам XVII Чтений памяти Анны Мачинской (Старая Ладога, 22-23 декабря 2012 г.) и XVIII Чт... more По материалам XVII Чтений памяти Анны Мачинской (Старая Ладога, 22-23 декабря 2012 г.) и XVIII Чтений памяти Анны и Дмитрия Алексеевича Мачинских (Старая Ладога, 21-22 декабря 2013 г. ) ЛАДОГА В КОНТЕКСТЕ ИСТОРИИ И АРХЕОЛОГИИ СЕВЕРНОЙ ЕВРАЗИИ Сборник статей памяти Дмитрия Алексеевича Мачинского П. В. Шувалов
// Сложение русской государственности в контексте раннесредневековой истории Старого Света, материалы международной конференции, состоявшейся 14-18 мая 2007 года в Государственном Эрмитаже / Труды Государственного Эрмитажа, том 49. СПб, 2009
Early Slavs by Petr Shuvalov
доклад на заседании кафедры ОЯ филфака СПбГУ
Stratum plus, 2021
“Eating foxes, forest cats, and wild boars, howling each other like wolves”: Pseudo-Maurice, Pseu... more “Eating foxes, forest cats, and wild boars, howling each other like wolves”: Pseudo-Maurice, Pseudo- Caesarius and Procopius about the Slavs before Maurice.
The examination of the early layer in the Strategikon by Pseudo-Maurice and dating it to the 530s raises the question about correlation of the data on the Slavs contained in this early layer with the data of other sources about the Slavs of this period (first of all, Procopius and Pseudo-Caesarius). Their comparison shows almost complete consistency of the resulting image of the Slavs in the first third of the 6th century: Slavic society and culture appear as completely archaic and patriarchal, egalitarian and based on a lycanthropic cult. At the same time, sources on the Slavs of the last third of the same century (the indicated passages of Pseudo-Maurice being excluded) suggest a Slavic society with a developed institution of leaders’ power. This allows us to make an assumption about a revolutionary development of the Slavs in the 6th century.
Петербургский исторический журнал, 2021
The accumulation and investigation of archaeological material, new publications and study of the ... more The accumulation and investigation of archaeological material, new publications and study of the texts of written sources, transmission of the Slavic passages of the “Strategikon” of Pseudo-Maurice, the use of comparative anthropologic material create an opportunity to revise some traditional conceptions of the specifics and vector of development of the Slavs at the time of their appearance in written sources. The selection of data from the entire mass of sources on the Slavs of the 6th century, characterizing its first half, — both written (Jordannes, Pseudo-Caesarius, Pseudo-Maurice and Procopius), and archaeological (the early phases of Prague culture) — allows us to assert that the Slavic society at that moment was patriarchal-egalitarian, without tribal nobility and without clearly defined supra-communal tribal structures. Early society was segmented, not hierarchical. It had neither developed permanent supra-communal structures, nor real power of the leaders, nor domination of some communities over others. Slavic society and culture appear as completely archaic and patriarchal. The basis of this society was not clan communities, but large-family or local-family groups, only periodically uniting when an external threat arose. The development of the new territory by the Slavs did not go through the resettlement of parts or entire communities, but through the settlement in a new place of one progenitor or one family at a sufficient distance from such other settlers. From this maternal family, over time, under favorable circumstances, new families were separated, establishing subsidiary settlements in the neighborhood. All together, by the 8th century, they were formed into a classical community. In the second half of the 6th century as a result of demographic growth and the corresponding intensification of contacts both within the Slavs and contacts with neighboring peoples, the embryos of new, more complex social and political structures are emerging. In the 7th century, there is a rapid transition from the egalitarian primitive society to a society with a formed princely power. This allows us to raise the question of a truly revolutionary development of the Slavs in the second half of the 6th century after the Ildigis raids. (http://www.spbiiran.nw.ru/archivesspbhj/)
Накопление и обработка археологического материала, новые публикации и изучение текстов письменных источников, передатирование славянских пассажей «Стратегикона» Псевдо- Маврикия, использование сравнительного этнографического материала создают возможность для пере-смотра некоторых традиционных представлений о специфике и векторе развития славянства на момент его появления в письменных источниках. Выделение из всей массы источников по славянам VI в. данных, характеризующих первую его половину, как письменных (Иордан, Псевдо-Кесарий, Псевдо-Маврикий и Прокопий), так и археологических (ранние фазы пражской культуры), позволяет утверждать, что сла-вянское общество на этот момент было патриархально-эгалитарным, без племенной знати и без четко оформленных надобщинных племенных структур. Общество раннего периода было сегментированным, а не иерархизированным. В нем не было ни развитых постоянных надобщинных структур, ни реальной власти вождей, ни господства одних общин над другими. Славянское общество и культура предстают как совершенно архаичные и патриархальные. Основой этого общества были не кланово- родовые об-щины, а большесемейные или локально-семейные группы, лишь периодически объединяющиеся при возникновении внешней угрозы. Освоение славянами новой территории шло не через отселение частей или целых общин, а через поселение на новом месте одного прародителя или одной семьи на достаточ-ном отдалении от других таких же поселенцев. От этой материнской семьи со временем при благопри-ятных обстоятельствах отделялись новые семьи, основывавшие дочерние поселения по соседству. Все вместе они к VIII в. оформлялись в классическую общину. Во второй половине VI в. в результате демо-графического роста и соответствующей интенсификации контактов как внутри славянства, так и с со-седними народами возникают зародыши новых более сложных социальных и потестарно- политических структур. В результате этого в VII в. происходит стремительный переход от эгалитарно-первобытного общества к обществу с сформировавшейся княжеской властью. Это позволяет поставить вопрос о дей-ствительно революционном развитии славянства во второй половине VI в. после походов Ильдигиса.
КУЛЬТУРНЫЕ ТРАНСФОРМАЦИИ И ВЗАИМОВЛИЯНИЯ В ДНЕПРОВСКОМ РЕГИОНЕ НА ИСХОДЕ РИМСКОГО ВРЕМЕНИ И В РАННЕМ СРЕДНЕВЕКОВЬЕ, 2004
Раннеславянский комплекс вооружения можно охарактеризовать как восточноевропейский лесной вариант... more Раннеславянский комплекс вооружения можно охарактеризовать как восточноевропейский лесной вариант варвар- ского среднеевропейского типа. Со Средней Европой славян роднит слабое использование защитного вооружения, кроме щита, и незначительная роль лука. Использование ангона и шпор на северо-западных ареалах раннеславянского мира является прямым свидетельством среднеевропейских и прибалтийских контактов или традиций. Специфическим же для мира восточноевропейских лесов является упор на использование дротиков (в т. ч. восточноевропейского ва- рианта ангона), больших щитов без умбонов, особых воинских поясов с рифлёными пряжками, а также отсутствие мечей. Характерным для зоны густых равнинных лесов является использование практически лишь одной лёгкой пехо- ты, вооружённой дротиками, и незнание пращи. Нужно отметить слабость как кочевнического, так и средиземно- морского влияния на славянский комплекс вооружения в доаварский период. Начиная же с аварского времени проис- ходит постепенное проникновение в этот комплекс кочевнических элементов (в первую очередь поясного набора, а также кольчужного доспеха, мечей).
В целом комплекс вооружения и амуниции славян VI в. оказывается крайне прост, если не сказать беден. Типич- ный раннеславянский воин, будучи защищён в открытом бою практически одними ноговищами, нападал на врага по возможности неожиданно, используя естественные укрытия или небольшое количество тяжёлых больших щитов: сначала следовал залп небольшими дротиками, а затем — короткая рукопашная с применением таких же дротиков. Лук был слабым и небольшим, и обстрел противника короткими стрелами с небольшими отравленными наконечниками производился, видимо, лишь из засад. Наверно, эта слабая развитость комплекса вооружения и была одной из причин презрения к славянам со стороны германской воинственной знати.
Acts of the 18th International Byzantine Congress, Moscow: August 1991, Selected Papers: Main and Communications / ed. Ševcenko I., Litavrin G.G.. Vol.1., 1996
Петербургские славянские и балканские исследования, № 2(4), 2008
In general outline, F. Curta’s conception can be reduced to the following. In the second half o... more In general outline, F. Curta’s conception can be reduced to the following. In the second half of the sixth century in barbarian communities situated on the left bank of the Lower Danube the processes of social stratification developed very intensively that brought to the rise of military leaders — big-men. The new system of values was formed around them. Among those who would be lately called «Slavs» especial significance was acquired by the markers of social status, namely silver female fibulae and other elements of female dress of the certain style. Women become «symbolic vehicles for the construction of social identity» (P. 309). It was that symbolic style and social competition that formed Slavic «Sñlavinias».
Thus, political and social development was going on in parallel with ethnogenesis. It means that the mixed population was concentrated around centers of power, which «metaphorically cited» (imitated and copied) the prestige centers of their more powerful neighbors. Those, whom Byzantine authors have named «Slavs» were formed in Carpathian and Lower Danube Region under the influence of their neighbors, and did not migrate there from the north: «Archaeological culture do not migrate», Curta argues (P. 307). It is known, meanwhile, that migration is an extremely complicated problem in archaeology that cannot be described by one phrase (see Lev S. Klejn’s detailed analysis of the problem). The idea of the «self-generation» of the Slavs in the Danube and Carpathian region and the negation of their migration can be considered to be the heart of Curta’s conception and his main contribution to studies on the models of Slavic ethnogenesis. To Curta, instead of the Slavs themselves their language spread as lingua franca (P. 345) (however, there is not clear — from where?). But even the language has not played the important role in Slavic ethnogenesis: as Curta argues, «Slavs did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but because they were called so by others», i.e. by the Byzantines (P. 346). The Slavs arisen in such a strange, almost magic, way were for some time the neighbors of the Empire, being partially under the authority of the Avar qagan, and limited their external activity to plundering raids on the Balkans. Slavs did not break the Byzantine limes on the Danube, but they also did not infiltrated peacefully through the system of forts. They came on the Balkans after the limes had been already destructed. In Curta’s opinion, «“Sclavenes” was an umbrella-term for various groups living beyond the fron- tier» (P. 118). «What all this suggests, in my opinion, is that the name “Sclavene” was a purely Byzantine construct, designed to make sense of a complicated configuration of ethnies on the other side of the northern frontier of the Empire» (P. 118–119). «In its most strictly defined sense, however, the “Sclavene ethnicity” is a Byzantine invention» (P. 119). However, Curta’s statement contradicts directly the well-known passage from Theophylact Simocatta, where it is described, how three barbarians-ambassadors met by the emperor Maurice’s men near Tzurullum in c. 591, on the emperor’s question of what was their nation and where they lived, answered, that they were Sclavenes by nation and that they lived at the boundary of the western Ocean.
Only one thing remains unclear from Curta’s book: HOW could the Byzantines invent the Slavs? What was the mechanism of influence of this Constantinople armchair invention on the population of such a distant frontier region?
Συσσιτια. Памяти Ю.В. Андреева. СПб.: Алетейя, 2000, с.148–151, 2000
Славяне. Этногенез и этническая история (междисциплинарные исследования). Л.: изд. ЛГУ, 1989, с.115–120
Европейская Сарматия. Сборник, посвящённый Марку Борисовичу Щукину. [ По материалам конференции, проведённой в рамках XIV чтений памяти Анны Мачинской. Старая Ладога, 26-27 декабря 2009 г. ]// СПб: Нестор-История, 2011
Марк Борисович Щукин был удивительным человеком в странном мире позднесоветской науки. Он смог со... more Марк Борисович Щукин был удивительным человеком в странном мире позднесоветской науки. Он смог совместить практически уже не совместимое в те времена: независимость и социальность. Он смог заниматься чистой кабинетной наукой на европейском уровне и, в то же время, быть в центре борьбы научного сообщества против советского выхолащивания сути научных исследований в археологии. Он организовал регулярный академический семинар у себя дома в те годы, когда такие собрания могли быть не безопасными и для хозяина, да и для гостей, -организовал семинар, просуществовавший до самой его смерти, из которого вышло не одно поколение учёных. Семинар, на котором после научных докладов (обычно с пол-восьмого до пол-десятого -десяти) происходило дружеское чаепитие, во время которого обсуждались темы далеко не только научные. В своём кабинете в Эрмитаже, или у себя дома он представал входившему в облике человека из какого-то иного мира, в котором не было ни советского псевднонаучного официоза, ни пьяных алкашей в вечерних ленинградских подворотнях, ни закрытой границы с Европой. В мире, который он собой являл и распространял вокруг, были не только интеллигентная уточённость и увлечённость, унаследованные им от его матери и её друзей. При пересечении порога квартиры каждого входящего охватывало ощущение приобщения к области высшей духовности, духовности научной, внерелигиозной, интеллектуальной, -т. е. высшей духовности, ради которой всё и делалось, и только ради неё одной и могло делаться. И кроме этого, нужно отметить, что на щукинском семинаре (как и в его экспедициях) всегда царил своего рода «мир короля», в котором сосуществовали сплошь да рядом те, кто в других условиях не всегда находили общий язык. И скромным стражем этого был сам хозяин. В случае возникновения каких-либо (а иногда и очень серьёзных) противоречий и трений, Марк Борисович сначала выслушивал стороны, а потом, -если примирение не достигалось само сбой -решительно и требовательно, даже с некоторым раздражением подъитоживал: «Ребята, давайте жить дружно!». И это уже был приказ. И вообще, вокруг Марка Борисовича не было партий, борьбы, склок и всего такого, что часто расцветает вокруг руководителей. Их не было не потому, что не было трений или не было желания на него повлиять, а потому, что он сам всё это не любил, хотя ему и приходилось принимать административные решения и на службе, и в экспедициях. Но при этом, обладая абсолютным авторитетом учителя и властью хозяина он никогда не употреблял их в разрез со смыслом происходящего. Конечно, как все люди, и он ошибался, но именно ошибался, а не кривил душой. Высшим критерием у него был дух недостижимой Истины. Марк Борисович, прекрасный фехтовальщик и галантный кавалер, служил ей как даме. И ради неё он был готов на многое, в чём проявлялся уже другой Щукин -не кабинетный затворник в сумрачных клубах ароматного дыма его трубки, -а активный борец на академической трибуне, борец за торжество научной правды, борец с теми, кто ей угрожал. Он был рыцарем среди серости советского убожества, рыцарем, чья сила была основана на служении, на чести и, конечно же, на помощи друзей и любви близких. Он не был одинок -среди коллег, учеников и поклонниц. Но главным для него было служение Истине, ради которого следовало жертвовать многим другим… Однажды, когда я в разгар Перестройки, увлёкшись идеями семинара «Критика социальных наук» в Смольном институте, взахлёб рассказывал об этом Марку, он как-то странно посмотрел на меня, а потом, несколько вспылив, достаточно резко оборвал меня словами: «Что они там всё болтают. Работать надо!». Планы того, как и над чем надо работать, мы обсуждали с ним многократно -на его семинарах, в экспедиционные выходные, за зимним чаем на даче в Комарово, в поезде в из Равенны в Флоренцию… Обсуждали сначала как ученик с учителем, а потом с годами к этому добавились оттенки дружбы и какой-то отеческо-сыновьей привязанности… Мы несколько раз пытались проработать вместе одну тему, один раз даже получили грант РГНФ по Птолемею, но судьба решила иначе: третий участник проекта нас предал, и работа осталась недовыполненной. Другая попытка в экспедиции в Руди оказалась более успешной и её результатом стала совместная статья по-английски об адрианопольской битве. Обсуждали мы и перспективы изучения ранних славян, но этому уже не суждено было сбыться. Жизненные силы оказались не безграничны, линия жизни рыцаря науки оказалась короче, чем все предполагали… Когда-то в начале 90-х гг. Марк Борисович подарил мне свою книжку и подписал её, пожелав «успехов в дунайских делах». К сожалению, потом мне пришлось не раз уходить в смежные области, но «дунайские дела» никуда не отпускали. Данная статья родилась из осколков того безбрежного полотна идей и ощущений, которые годами зрели у меня, пока я так беззаботно купался в духовной ауре этого удивительного учёного -Марка Борисовича Щукина.
Миграции и оседлость от Дуная до Ладоги в I тысячелетии христианской эры. 5-е чтения памяти Анны Мачинской Ст. Ладога, 21–22 дек. 2000: материалы к чтениям. СПб., 2001
Образ войны в общественной мысли славянских народов эпохи Средневековья и раннего Нового времени. Материалы конференции. М., 2012
Uploads
Early State and barbarian societies by Petr Shuvalov
Eastern Roman army by Petr Shuvalov
The Secret of Justinian’s Army:
The Eastern Roman Army in 491—641 A.D.
by Petr V. Shuvalov
The introductory chapter («The Puzzle of Justinian’s Re-Conquest») is devoted to explaining why under the emperor Justinian (527—565) the Roman army could re-conquer for a while all what had been lost by the Empire for the preceding one hundred years. This matter is really worthy of explanation because during just two decades of the re-conquest (533—552) Justinian restored control over the same territories that had formerly been seized by the Roman Republic after two centuries of extremely hard fighting — from the First Samnite war through the Third Punic war (343—146 B.C.).
The chapters «The Age of Changes» and «The Heritage of the Tetrarchs: the Later Roman Administration and the Army» provide a brief survey of the position of the Empire and the condition of its army as well by the early 6th century. The most terrible defeat of the Later Roman troops by the barbarian peoples took place on August 9, 379 near the city of Adrianople (in Thrace), when the emperor Valens’ army was smashed by the Goths and their allies. Its chief reasons were not only Valens’ own strategic errors, but also the tactical advantage of the Gothic and Alanic cavalry over the Roman mounted force.
The disaster at Adrianople had to make the deepest impression upon the military elite of the Empire and so to lead to a revision of the entire imperial war doctrine. Somewhat later already, the military theoretician Vegetius wrote that the Roman cavalry of his days is organized per sample of the Goths and Alans. To all appearances, after 378 the Romans actively began to adopt the barbarian experiences of conducting a mobile battle with the use of large masses of cavalry, some armed with lances like the Goths and Alans, others — with bows like the Huns. In the text of the later military treatise, «Strategikon» by Pseudo-Maurice, there is the description of equestrian exercises, which rather date from a period of around the 4th — 5th centuries. There are references to five kinds of training, viz. «Scythian», «Alanic», «African», «Illyrian» and «Italic». The origins of the first two exercises seem to go back to the events of the late 4th century. Nevertheless, in spite of these reforms, the Romans lacked their own well-trained light-armed cavalry, as not so many Roman cavalrymen could be compared to the nomads, spending all the life on horseback, in the art of horse-riding and bow-shooting. And so, since 394 up to 439, under the outstanding Roman generals such as Stilicho, Aetius and others in the composition of the Roman army there were mounted troops composed by Hun mercenaries, who repeatedly demonstrated their high martial skills. In the former half of the 5th century, the Roman army would have increased, at last, a role of cavalry; however, in the 470s we can observe again the previous army structure in the Balkans. The catastrophic defeats and failures that occurred in the late 4th and in the mid-5th centuries certainly forced the conservative Roman military elite to revise the obsolete principles of waging war. Nevertheless, this revision process went so slowly that the infantry remained as the main army force until the end of the 5th century. Just the reforms of the next century changed such a situation at last! Since then, the role of infantry became auxiliary only, whereas the main place in the army composition began to belong to cavalry.
In the following chapter («The Barbarians and Barbarian Innovations: auxilia, numeri, foederati, buccellarii») the author joins the opinions expressed by D. Hoffman (1969), R. Schulz (1993); R. Scharf (2001), E. P. Glušanin (1991), M. Speidel (1994), O. Schmitt (1994), J. Haldon (1984), as well as refutes the schemes put forward by F. Aussaress (1909). In particular, he states that the foederati as a kind of armed force must have appeared no earlier than during the reign of Theodosius I (379–395), who organized two or three tens of such new units numbering 10,000—15,000 soldiers in total and consisting mostly of Goths by birth. Indeed in the 6th century, there were normally 10—13 tagmata composed of foederati in the imperial service.
The chapters to go next («Just Before the Spurt (474—518): the Isaurian Zeno and the Reformer Anastasius», «In Chase of the Past Grandeur: the Conqueror Justinian», «Between the Shahanshah and the Kaghan: Tiberius’ Strictness, Maurice’s Economy and Phocas’ Nearsightedness», and «To Deal with the Armenians According to the Avar Scheme: Heraclius as a Warrior and Politician» are devoted to considering both the events at the fronts and the changes in the army administration.
The crisis situation in the Eastern Roman army is reflected by the noted treatise «Strategikon» usually attributed to the emperor Maurice (582—602). However, the best of the surviving manuscripts points at Urbicius as its author. He may have been the same person as Urbicius, the Eastern Roman general in the rank of the magister militum per Orientem, nicknamed Barbatus («Bearded Man»), who acted at the court of the emperor Anastasius (491—518). The text of this treatise is multilayer, and it obviously contains fragments of earlier writings. The oldest layer is a collection of fragments from several treatises dedicated to warfare matters. Close to them is the anonymous treatise «De militari scientia» (or the «Byzantine anonymous»). The main enemies for Urbicius (see the chapter «Perception of the Enemy: Neighbours of the Empire») are the peoples well known to him as good horsemen or even as exceptionally horsemen (nomads). Such are first of all the Hunno-Bulghars («Scythians», but not the Avars!), then the Persians and finally the Germanic peoples («Blond-haired»). As it may be observed from the text of the «Strategikon», Urbicius was very solicitous about how not to cede these foes in the art of fast maneuvering mounted warfare at a distance, with the use of the bow. It is difficult to say for sure when and in which volume within Anastasius’ reign so timely a reform was put into practice in the imperial forces.
Further military reforms were realized in the age of Justinian, perhaps following his cousin Germanus’ initiative. Their traces can be seen in both the Pseudo-Maurice’s treatise and the works of Procopius of Caesarea. The reforms included a scheme of the army array envisaging individual mobile tactical units (the so-called cursores-defensores and plagiophylakes-hyperkerastai), as well as a two- or three-line battle order. It seems quite possible that an idea to detach the cursores and defensores came to the Latin-language milieu of the Roman army from the Alans and the Moors. On the other hand, the two- or three-line battle order with the plagiophylakes and hyperkerastai is rather a study innovation that appeared, judging by the Greek denominations of these units, in the midst of the high nobility of the Eastern Roman Empire; at the same time, this novelty may have been worked out by analogy with some achievements in the Western Mediterranean, in Italy.
In scholarly literature (Mazzucchini, 1981) there is the opinion that such a tactical scheme to be seen in «Strategikon» has no support in other sources. Indeed, the contemporary writings do not contain any of the terms in question. However, the fact is that the author of the «Strategikon» is a very cautious person frequently warning his readers against any broad spread of the available information about the tactical schemes and methods of the imperial army. Therefore, it is not surprising at all that one cannot find in any other texts direct references to all of the tactical details which are in Pseudo-Maurice’s work. Nevertheless, between Procopius’ lines we can discern some traces of these reforms, especially if we carefully examine the structure of a regiment and its armament (see the chapter «A Regiment as it is on Parchment and in Reality: its Nominal Structure, Composition and Armed Elements»), as well as plans of the main battles (see the chapter «The Army on Battle-Field: the Famous Battles in the Age of Justinian»).
The present author shares the conclusion made long ago by the noted Hungarian researcher E. Darkó that the final version of Pseudo-Maurice’s treatise, although it had taken the form close to the modern one in 592—610 already, was composed in the reign of the emperor Heraclius (610—641). It is then that the reforms in the making of a new, universal, cavalry after the Avar model were completed.
"
Eastern Europe forest zone by Petr Shuvalov
The influence of the great civilizations in antiquity reached far outskirts. The direct or indirect impact of the centre of civilization on its periphery led to cascades of changes through chain reactions, migrations, changes in culture and language, and the emergence of new centres of power. Often such influences were exercised through trade along interregional routes. The emergence of the system of European fur trade, perhaps, refers to the heyday of Scythia and Celtica. According to Herodotus, the Boudini are engaged in the hunting of beavers. In the LT-B period, bracelets from the Danube region were imported into the forest zone, correlated with the common Slavic *grivьna (V. Kuleshov). The main role in their distribution in the forest zone is played by the Milograd culture, while they almost do not fall into the culture of hatched ceramics. In the III century after the end of Great Scythia, a decline in the fur trade is expected, reviving after the appearance of the Bastarns and the formation of the Zarubintsy culture in the south, and in the west due to the expansion of the Gallic Veneti on the Amber Coast. This will lead to migrations in the forest zone (hatched pottery, Milograd, brooches, enamels). The pressure of the Sarmatians and Goths on the forest zone will lead to an even deeper penetration of the fur trade into the very depth of the forest. The arrival of the Huns and the new fashion for furs catalyse this process, which will be expressed in the penetration of armed detachments from the Danube and Lithuania up to the zone of the Pskov long mounds.
Early Slavs by Petr Shuvalov
The examination of the early layer in the Strategikon by Pseudo-Maurice and dating it to the 530s raises the question about correlation of the data on the Slavs contained in this early layer with the data of other sources about the Slavs of this period (first of all, Procopius and Pseudo-Caesarius). Their comparison shows almost complete consistency of the resulting image of the Slavs in the first third of the 6th century: Slavic society and culture appear as completely archaic and patriarchal, egalitarian and based on a lycanthropic cult. At the same time, sources on the Slavs of the last third of the same century (the indicated passages of Pseudo-Maurice being excluded) suggest a Slavic society with a developed institution of leaders’ power. This allows us to make an assumption about a revolutionary development of the Slavs in the 6th century.
Накопление и обработка археологического материала, новые публикации и изучение текстов письменных источников, передатирование славянских пассажей «Стратегикона» Псевдо- Маврикия, использование сравнительного этнографического материала создают возможность для пере-смотра некоторых традиционных представлений о специфике и векторе развития славянства на момент его появления в письменных источниках. Выделение из всей массы источников по славянам VI в. данных, характеризующих первую его половину, как письменных (Иордан, Псевдо-Кесарий, Псевдо-Маврикий и Прокопий), так и археологических (ранние фазы пражской культуры), позволяет утверждать, что сла-вянское общество на этот момент было патриархально-эгалитарным, без племенной знати и без четко оформленных надобщинных племенных структур. Общество раннего периода было сегментированным, а не иерархизированным. В нем не было ни развитых постоянных надобщинных структур, ни реальной власти вождей, ни господства одних общин над другими. Славянское общество и культура предстают как совершенно архаичные и патриархальные. Основой этого общества были не кланово- родовые об-щины, а большесемейные или локально-семейные группы, лишь периодически объединяющиеся при возникновении внешней угрозы. Освоение славянами новой территории шло не через отселение частей или целых общин, а через поселение на новом месте одного прародителя или одной семьи на достаточ-ном отдалении от других таких же поселенцев. От этой материнской семьи со временем при благопри-ятных обстоятельствах отделялись новые семьи, основывавшие дочерние поселения по соседству. Все вместе они к VIII в. оформлялись в классическую общину. Во второй половине VI в. в результате демо-графического роста и соответствующей интенсификации контактов как внутри славянства, так и с со-седними народами возникают зародыши новых более сложных социальных и потестарно- политических структур. В результате этого в VII в. происходит стремительный переход от эгалитарно-первобытного общества к обществу с сформировавшейся княжеской властью. Это позволяет поставить вопрос о дей-ствительно революционном развитии славянства во второй половине VI в. после походов Ильдигиса.
В целом комплекс вооружения и амуниции славян VI в. оказывается крайне прост, если не сказать беден. Типич- ный раннеславянский воин, будучи защищён в открытом бою практически одними ноговищами, нападал на врага по возможности неожиданно, используя естественные укрытия или небольшое количество тяжёлых больших щитов: сначала следовал залп небольшими дротиками, а затем — короткая рукопашная с применением таких же дротиков. Лук был слабым и небольшим, и обстрел противника короткими стрелами с небольшими отравленными наконечниками производился, видимо, лишь из засад. Наверно, эта слабая развитость комплекса вооружения и была одной из причин презрения к славянам со стороны германской воинственной знати.
Thus, political and social development was going on in parallel with ethnogenesis. It means that the mixed population was concentrated around centers of power, which «metaphorically cited» (imitated and copied) the prestige centers of their more powerful neighbors. Those, whom Byzantine authors have named «Slavs» were formed in Carpathian and Lower Danube Region under the influence of their neighbors, and did not migrate there from the north: «Archaeological culture do not migrate», Curta argues (P. 307). It is known, meanwhile, that migration is an extremely complicated problem in archaeology that cannot be described by one phrase (see Lev S. Klejn’s detailed analysis of the problem). The idea of the «self-generation» of the Slavs in the Danube and Carpathian region and the negation of their migration can be considered to be the heart of Curta’s conception and his main contribution to studies on the models of Slavic ethnogenesis. To Curta, instead of the Slavs themselves their language spread as lingua franca (P. 345) (however, there is not clear — from where?). But even the language has not played the important role in Slavic ethnogenesis: as Curta argues, «Slavs did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but because they were called so by others», i.e. by the Byzantines (P. 346). The Slavs arisen in such a strange, almost magic, way were for some time the neighbors of the Empire, being partially under the authority of the Avar qagan, and limited their external activity to plundering raids on the Balkans. Slavs did not break the Byzantine limes on the Danube, but they also did not infiltrated peacefully through the system of forts. They came on the Balkans after the limes had been already destructed. In Curta’s opinion, «“Sclavenes” was an umbrella-term for various groups living beyond the fron- tier» (P. 118). «What all this suggests, in my opinion, is that the name “Sclavene” was a purely Byzantine construct, designed to make sense of a complicated configuration of ethnies on the other side of the northern frontier of the Empire» (P. 118–119). «In its most strictly defined sense, however, the “Sclavene ethnicity” is a Byzantine invention» (P. 119). However, Curta’s statement contradicts directly the well-known passage from Theophylact Simocatta, where it is described, how three barbarians-ambassadors met by the emperor Maurice’s men near Tzurullum in c. 591, on the emperor’s question of what was their nation and where they lived, answered, that they were Sclavenes by nation and that they lived at the boundary of the western Ocean.
Only one thing remains unclear from Curta’s book: HOW could the Byzantines invent the Slavs? What was the mechanism of influence of this Constantinople armchair invention on the population of such a distant frontier region?
The Secret of Justinian’s Army:
The Eastern Roman Army in 491—641 A.D.
by Petr V. Shuvalov
The introductory chapter («The Puzzle of Justinian’s Re-Conquest») is devoted to explaining why under the emperor Justinian (527—565) the Roman army could re-conquer for a while all what had been lost by the Empire for the preceding one hundred years. This matter is really worthy of explanation because during just two decades of the re-conquest (533—552) Justinian restored control over the same territories that had formerly been seized by the Roman Republic after two centuries of extremely hard fighting — from the First Samnite war through the Third Punic war (343—146 B.C.).
The chapters «The Age of Changes» and «The Heritage of the Tetrarchs: the Later Roman Administration and the Army» provide a brief survey of the position of the Empire and the condition of its army as well by the early 6th century. The most terrible defeat of the Later Roman troops by the barbarian peoples took place on August 9, 379 near the city of Adrianople (in Thrace), when the emperor Valens’ army was smashed by the Goths and their allies. Its chief reasons were not only Valens’ own strategic errors, but also the tactical advantage of the Gothic and Alanic cavalry over the Roman mounted force.
The disaster at Adrianople had to make the deepest impression upon the military elite of the Empire and so to lead to a revision of the entire imperial war doctrine. Somewhat later already, the military theoretician Vegetius wrote that the Roman cavalry of his days is organized per sample of the Goths and Alans. To all appearances, after 378 the Romans actively began to adopt the barbarian experiences of conducting a mobile battle with the use of large masses of cavalry, some armed with lances like the Goths and Alans, others — with bows like the Huns. In the text of the later military treatise, «Strategikon» by Pseudo-Maurice, there is the description of equestrian exercises, which rather date from a period of around the 4th — 5th centuries. There are references to five kinds of training, viz. «Scythian», «Alanic», «African», «Illyrian» and «Italic». The origins of the first two exercises seem to go back to the events of the late 4th century. Nevertheless, in spite of these reforms, the Romans lacked their own well-trained light-armed cavalry, as not so many Roman cavalrymen could be compared to the nomads, spending all the life on horseback, in the art of horse-riding and bow-shooting. And so, since 394 up to 439, under the outstanding Roman generals such as Stilicho, Aetius and others in the composition of the Roman army there were mounted troops composed by Hun mercenaries, who repeatedly demonstrated their high martial skills. In the former half of the 5th century, the Roman army would have increased, at last, a role of cavalry; however, in the 470s we can observe again the previous army structure in the Balkans. The catastrophic defeats and failures that occurred in the late 4th and in the mid-5th centuries certainly forced the conservative Roman military elite to revise the obsolete principles of waging war. Nevertheless, this revision process went so slowly that the infantry remained as the main army force until the end of the 5th century. Just the reforms of the next century changed such a situation at last! Since then, the role of infantry became auxiliary only, whereas the main place in the army composition began to belong to cavalry.
In the following chapter («The Barbarians and Barbarian Innovations: auxilia, numeri, foederati, buccellarii») the author joins the opinions expressed by D. Hoffman (1969), R. Schulz (1993); R. Scharf (2001), E. P. Glušanin (1991), M. Speidel (1994), O. Schmitt (1994), J. Haldon (1984), as well as refutes the schemes put forward by F. Aussaress (1909). In particular, he states that the foederati as a kind of armed force must have appeared no earlier than during the reign of Theodosius I (379–395), who organized two or three tens of such new units numbering 10,000—15,000 soldiers in total and consisting mostly of Goths by birth. Indeed in the 6th century, there were normally 10—13 tagmata composed of foederati in the imperial service.
The chapters to go next («Just Before the Spurt (474—518): the Isaurian Zeno and the Reformer Anastasius», «In Chase of the Past Grandeur: the Conqueror Justinian», «Between the Shahanshah and the Kaghan: Tiberius’ Strictness, Maurice’s Economy and Phocas’ Nearsightedness», and «To Deal with the Armenians According to the Avar Scheme: Heraclius as a Warrior and Politician» are devoted to considering both the events at the fronts and the changes in the army administration.
The crisis situation in the Eastern Roman army is reflected by the noted treatise «Strategikon» usually attributed to the emperor Maurice (582—602). However, the best of the surviving manuscripts points at Urbicius as its author. He may have been the same person as Urbicius, the Eastern Roman general in the rank of the magister militum per Orientem, nicknamed Barbatus («Bearded Man»), who acted at the court of the emperor Anastasius (491—518). The text of this treatise is multilayer, and it obviously contains fragments of earlier writings. The oldest layer is a collection of fragments from several treatises dedicated to warfare matters. Close to them is the anonymous treatise «De militari scientia» (or the «Byzantine anonymous»). The main enemies for Urbicius (see the chapter «Perception of the Enemy: Neighbours of the Empire») are the peoples well known to him as good horsemen or even as exceptionally horsemen (nomads). Such are first of all the Hunno-Bulghars («Scythians», but not the Avars!), then the Persians and finally the Germanic peoples («Blond-haired»). As it may be observed from the text of the «Strategikon», Urbicius was very solicitous about how not to cede these foes in the art of fast maneuvering mounted warfare at a distance, with the use of the bow. It is difficult to say for sure when and in which volume within Anastasius’ reign so timely a reform was put into practice in the imperial forces.
Further military reforms were realized in the age of Justinian, perhaps following his cousin Germanus’ initiative. Their traces can be seen in both the Pseudo-Maurice’s treatise and the works of Procopius of Caesarea. The reforms included a scheme of the army array envisaging individual mobile tactical units (the so-called cursores-defensores and plagiophylakes-hyperkerastai), as well as a two- or three-line battle order. It seems quite possible that an idea to detach the cursores and defensores came to the Latin-language milieu of the Roman army from the Alans and the Moors. On the other hand, the two- or three-line battle order with the plagiophylakes and hyperkerastai is rather a study innovation that appeared, judging by the Greek denominations of these units, in the midst of the high nobility of the Eastern Roman Empire; at the same time, this novelty may have been worked out by analogy with some achievements in the Western Mediterranean, in Italy.
In scholarly literature (Mazzucchini, 1981) there is the opinion that such a tactical scheme to be seen in «Strategikon» has no support in other sources. Indeed, the contemporary writings do not contain any of the terms in question. However, the fact is that the author of the «Strategikon» is a very cautious person frequently warning his readers against any broad spread of the available information about the tactical schemes and methods of the imperial army. Therefore, it is not surprising at all that one cannot find in any other texts direct references to all of the tactical details which are in Pseudo-Maurice’s work. Nevertheless, between Procopius’ lines we can discern some traces of these reforms, especially if we carefully examine the structure of a regiment and its armament (see the chapter «A Regiment as it is on Parchment and in Reality: its Nominal Structure, Composition and Armed Elements»), as well as plans of the main battles (see the chapter «The Army on Battle-Field: the Famous Battles in the Age of Justinian»).
The present author shares the conclusion made long ago by the noted Hungarian researcher E. Darkó that the final version of Pseudo-Maurice’s treatise, although it had taken the form close to the modern one in 592—610 already, was composed in the reign of the emperor Heraclius (610—641). It is then that the reforms in the making of a new, universal, cavalry after the Avar model were completed.
"
The influence of the great civilizations in antiquity reached far outskirts. The direct or indirect impact of the centre of civilization on its periphery led to cascades of changes through chain reactions, migrations, changes in culture and language, and the emergence of new centres of power. Often such influences were exercised through trade along interregional routes. The emergence of the system of European fur trade, perhaps, refers to the heyday of Scythia and Celtica. According to Herodotus, the Boudini are engaged in the hunting of beavers. In the LT-B period, bracelets from the Danube region were imported into the forest zone, correlated with the common Slavic *grivьna (V. Kuleshov). The main role in their distribution in the forest zone is played by the Milograd culture, while they almost do not fall into the culture of hatched ceramics. In the III century after the end of Great Scythia, a decline in the fur trade is expected, reviving after the appearance of the Bastarns and the formation of the Zarubintsy culture in the south, and in the west due to the expansion of the Gallic Veneti on the Amber Coast. This will lead to migrations in the forest zone (hatched pottery, Milograd, brooches, enamels). The pressure of the Sarmatians and Goths on the forest zone will lead to an even deeper penetration of the fur trade into the very depth of the forest. The arrival of the Huns and the new fashion for furs catalyse this process, which will be expressed in the penetration of armed detachments from the Danube and Lithuania up to the zone of the Pskov long mounds.
The examination of the early layer in the Strategikon by Pseudo-Maurice and dating it to the 530s raises the question about correlation of the data on the Slavs contained in this early layer with the data of other sources about the Slavs of this period (first of all, Procopius and Pseudo-Caesarius). Their comparison shows almost complete consistency of the resulting image of the Slavs in the first third of the 6th century: Slavic society and culture appear as completely archaic and patriarchal, egalitarian and based on a lycanthropic cult. At the same time, sources on the Slavs of the last third of the same century (the indicated passages of Pseudo-Maurice being excluded) suggest a Slavic society with a developed institution of leaders’ power. This allows us to make an assumption about a revolutionary development of the Slavs in the 6th century.
Накопление и обработка археологического материала, новые публикации и изучение текстов письменных источников, передатирование славянских пассажей «Стратегикона» Псевдо- Маврикия, использование сравнительного этнографического материала создают возможность для пере-смотра некоторых традиционных представлений о специфике и векторе развития славянства на момент его появления в письменных источниках. Выделение из всей массы источников по славянам VI в. данных, характеризующих первую его половину, как письменных (Иордан, Псевдо-Кесарий, Псевдо-Маврикий и Прокопий), так и археологических (ранние фазы пражской культуры), позволяет утверждать, что сла-вянское общество на этот момент было патриархально-эгалитарным, без племенной знати и без четко оформленных надобщинных племенных структур. Общество раннего периода было сегментированным, а не иерархизированным. В нем не было ни развитых постоянных надобщинных структур, ни реальной власти вождей, ни господства одних общин над другими. Славянское общество и культура предстают как совершенно архаичные и патриархальные. Основой этого общества были не кланово- родовые об-щины, а большесемейные или локально-семейные группы, лишь периодически объединяющиеся при возникновении внешней угрозы. Освоение славянами новой территории шло не через отселение частей или целых общин, а через поселение на новом месте одного прародителя или одной семьи на достаточ-ном отдалении от других таких же поселенцев. От этой материнской семьи со временем при благопри-ятных обстоятельствах отделялись новые семьи, основывавшие дочерние поселения по соседству. Все вместе они к VIII в. оформлялись в классическую общину. Во второй половине VI в. в результате демо-графического роста и соответствующей интенсификации контактов как внутри славянства, так и с со-седними народами возникают зародыши новых более сложных социальных и потестарно- политических структур. В результате этого в VII в. происходит стремительный переход от эгалитарно-первобытного общества к обществу с сформировавшейся княжеской властью. Это позволяет поставить вопрос о дей-ствительно революционном развитии славянства во второй половине VI в. после походов Ильдигиса.
В целом комплекс вооружения и амуниции славян VI в. оказывается крайне прост, если не сказать беден. Типич- ный раннеславянский воин, будучи защищён в открытом бою практически одними ноговищами, нападал на врага по возможности неожиданно, используя естественные укрытия или небольшое количество тяжёлых больших щитов: сначала следовал залп небольшими дротиками, а затем — короткая рукопашная с применением таких же дротиков. Лук был слабым и небольшим, и обстрел противника короткими стрелами с небольшими отравленными наконечниками производился, видимо, лишь из засад. Наверно, эта слабая развитость комплекса вооружения и была одной из причин презрения к славянам со стороны германской воинственной знати.
Thus, political and social development was going on in parallel with ethnogenesis. It means that the mixed population was concentrated around centers of power, which «metaphorically cited» (imitated and copied) the prestige centers of their more powerful neighbors. Those, whom Byzantine authors have named «Slavs» were formed in Carpathian and Lower Danube Region under the influence of their neighbors, and did not migrate there from the north: «Archaeological culture do not migrate», Curta argues (P. 307). It is known, meanwhile, that migration is an extremely complicated problem in archaeology that cannot be described by one phrase (see Lev S. Klejn’s detailed analysis of the problem). The idea of the «self-generation» of the Slavs in the Danube and Carpathian region and the negation of their migration can be considered to be the heart of Curta’s conception and his main contribution to studies on the models of Slavic ethnogenesis. To Curta, instead of the Slavs themselves their language spread as lingua franca (P. 345) (however, there is not clear — from where?). But even the language has not played the important role in Slavic ethnogenesis: as Curta argues, «Slavs did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but because they were called so by others», i.e. by the Byzantines (P. 346). The Slavs arisen in such a strange, almost magic, way were for some time the neighbors of the Empire, being partially under the authority of the Avar qagan, and limited their external activity to plundering raids on the Balkans. Slavs did not break the Byzantine limes on the Danube, but they also did not infiltrated peacefully through the system of forts. They came on the Balkans after the limes had been already destructed. In Curta’s opinion, «“Sclavenes” was an umbrella-term for various groups living beyond the fron- tier» (P. 118). «What all this suggests, in my opinion, is that the name “Sclavene” was a purely Byzantine construct, designed to make sense of a complicated configuration of ethnies on the other side of the northern frontier of the Empire» (P. 118–119). «In its most strictly defined sense, however, the “Sclavene ethnicity” is a Byzantine invention» (P. 119). However, Curta’s statement contradicts directly the well-known passage from Theophylact Simocatta, where it is described, how three barbarians-ambassadors met by the emperor Maurice’s men near Tzurullum in c. 591, on the emperor’s question of what was their nation and where they lived, answered, that they were Sclavenes by nation and that they lived at the boundary of the western Ocean.
Only one thing remains unclear from Curta’s book: HOW could the Byzantines invent the Slavs? What was the mechanism of influence of this Constantinople armchair invention on the population of such a distant frontier region?
Cornelius Nepos story about some “Indi”, shipwrecked on the coast of Germany (restored on the basis of the comparison of texts by Plinius and Mela) suggests the following. Somewhere on the Baltic coast to the east of Germany (to the east of the Vistula river?) there was a zone of settlement of a group of Venedae, who sailed sometimes for commerce therefrom. Perhaps some Gallic Veneti used to come to the shore of the Baltic Venedae. Language of the Baltic Venedae, quite possibly, was different from the language/s of the Celts in Cisalpine Gaul and from the Germanic language. Most likely, the Germans did not make much difference between the Baltic Venedae and Veneti from Gaul.
Keywords: Baltics, Venedae, Veneti, Indi, Pomponius Mela, Plinius Maior, Cornelius Nepos, Ariovist.
Unfortunately is English translation of the title in the printed version not correct. The correct one would be "Coins between Archaeology and Numismatics", what is the exact translation of the Russian title (Monety meždu arheologiej i numizmatikoj).
According to the European Sarmatia, Ptolemy had almost no information about the ratio of peoples with rivers. Reconstructed map has clear zone of the "loose coupling" between the names: a map is divided into the Baltic and the Black Sea areas. There were three different maps: map of peoples along the way near or along the Vistula and the coast of the Gulf of Venedae (map "Vistula-Baltic" as part of the map "Germany-Baltic"), a map of the peoples of the South Sarmatia, Dacia and the Carpathian Mountains to Rhipaean (map " Carpathians-Rhipaeoi") and the map "mountains-rivers-settlements" from Vistula to Maeotis, which may already have contain information on the coordinates. At the very least, the northern part of the third map used by Ptolemy, was written by the Old Roman Cursive. This hypothesis may help to identify two peoples: Stavanoi and Kareotai. Indeed, judging by the plates from Vindolanda, one of two common forms of the Latin letter L, namely the so-called "Short" form could easily be confused with the letter T. The form *careolae can be compared with the Karelians – one of the eastern branch of the Baltic-Finnish population. This "Karelian" hypothesis can be correlated with the "Tarand" hypothesis, which states that "Karbones" ('coals'), geographically related, according to Ptolemy, with Kareotai are to be designated to the people or culture of the cemeteries with stone fences (Tarandgräberkultur) – common ancestors of Livonians, Estonians and Finns.
Ключ.: Европейская Сарматия, Птолемей, карты, староримский курсив, славяне, карелы, эсты, таранды
По Европейской Сарматии Птолемей почти не имел сведений о соотношении народов с реками. Реконструируемая по тексту карта явно имеет зоны “слабой связанности” названий между собой: карта разделяется на балтийскую и причерноморскую зоны. За этим стоят три разных карты: карта народов вдоль пути рядом или вдоль Вистулы и побережья Венедского залива (карта “Висла–Балтика” как часть карты “Германия-Балтика”), карта народов юга Сарматии от Дакии и Карпат до Рипейских гор (карта “Карпаты–Рипеи”) и карта “горы-реки-поселения” от Вистулы до Меотиды, возможно, уже содержавшая сведения о координатных привязках. По крайней мере, северная часть третьей карты, использовавшейся Птолемеем, была написана староримским курсивом. Эта гипотеза может помочь идентифицировать два народа: ставанов и кареотов. Действительно, судя по табличкам из Виндоланды, одна из двух распространённых форм латинской буквы L, а именно т.н. "короткая" форма легко могла быть спутана с буквой T. Реконструированная форма *careolae может быть сопоставлена с карелами – одной из восточных ветвей прибалтийско-финского населения. Эту "карельскую" гипотезу можно соотнести с "тарандской" гипотезой, согласно которой "карбоны"(‘угли’), территориально связанные, по Птолемею, с кареотами, являются обозначением населения или области культуры могильников с каменными оградками (тарандов), оставленных предками ливов, эстов и финнов. "
http://slavica-petropolitana.spbu.ru/files/2016-1/01-.pdf
On the page of Petr Valerievich Shuvalov: https://www.academia.edu/27360775/_SLAVIC_WORLD_IN_THE_EARLY_MIDDLE_AGES_THE_SEARCH_OF_FORM_FORUM_ANSWERS_TO_THE_QUESTIONNAIRE_OF_STUDIA_SLAVICA_ET_BALCANICA_PETROPOLITANA_%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B5_%D0%B2_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B5_%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8C%D0%B5
In answer to question of the appropriateness of using the term «tribe» in relation to the Slavic societies of the early Middle Ages, A. Gorskiy and A. Pleterski said that they did not use the term in this context, while V. Puzanov said that he uses the term to refer to both Slavic pre-state formations in general and those Slavic ethnic groups that based their cohesion on real or fictitious kinship. P. Shuvalov said that he prefers to use the term «tribe» rather as a literary concept, than a scientific term. According to Gorskiy, the use of the term «tribe» in reference to the early medieval Slavs is incorrect because, first, the word is not used in this sense in primary sources, and, second, the Slavs in the early Middle Ages were at the stage of chiefdoms, and not at that of tribes. A. Pleterski, while pointing out that many Slavic tribal names are only attested in late sources and mainly the result of the identification from the outside, thinks that the basic social unit of the early Slavs was župa (zhupa). According to Pleterski, župa as the basic unit of the early Slavic
society was a social, economic, religious and legal entity. Puzanov points to the uncertainty of correlation of the terms «tribe» and «chiefdom» in relation to the early medieval Slavs, noting that in historiography the term chiefdom used to be used to what was known earlier «tribal principality». Meanwhile, Puzanov notes, the presence of a («tribal») leader does not automatically mean that the question is of a chiefdom. In answer to the question of mechanisms of the emergence and reproduction of tribal identities in the Slavic community, Shuvalov said that in contrast to the Germanic tribes, Slavs, apparently, had no strong traditions of aristocratic ancestral memory with its emphasis on proximity to the world of gods. According to Shuvalov, the princely power among the Slavs in what concerned the formation of their tribal identities based on the folk presentation of history as well as the memory of three to five previous generations within the real ancestral memory. ***** Отвечая на вопрос о целесообразности использования термина «племя» применительно к славянским обществам раннего Средневековья, А. А. Горский и А. Плетерский ответили, что не используют это понятие, тогда как В. В. Пузанов ответил, что использует этот термин для обозначения как догосударственных славянских образований в целом, так и славянских этнических общностей, основанных на родственных связях, реальных или фиктивных. П. В. Шувалов ответил, что
предпочитает использовать термин «племя» скорее как литературное понятие, нежели как научный термин. По мнению А. А. Горского, использование термина «племя» применительно к раннесредневековым славянам неправильно, так как, во-первых, данное слово не используется в таком значении в источниках, а во-вторых, славяне в раннем Средневековье находились на стадии вождеств, а не на стадии племен. А. Плетерский, указывая на то, что племенные названия славян фиксируются поздно и являются, главным образом, результатом идентификации извне, рассматривает в качестве базовой социальной единицы ранних славян жупу. По мнению А. Плетерского, жупа как основная ячейка славянского общества представляла собой социальную, экономическую, религиозную и правовую целостность. В. В. Пузанов указывает на неопределенность соотношения понятий «племя» и «вождество» применительно к славянам, замечая, что в историографии вождествами стали называть то, что прежде именовали «племенными княжениями». Между тем, отмечает В. В. Пузанов, наличие вождя отнюдь не означает автоматически, что перед нами вождество. Отвечая на вопрос о механизмах возникновения и воспроизведения племенных идентичностей в славянском обществе, П. В. Шувалов отмечает, что в отличие от германцев у славян, видимо, не существовало устойчивых традиций аристократической родовой памяти с ее акцентом на близости к миру богов. По мнению П. В. Шувалова, княжеская власть у славян при формировании своей идентичности более опиралась на народные представления и на историю близких им трех-пяти предшествующих поколений в пределах реальной родовой памяти.