334

Canadian American Slavic Studies/Revue Canadienne Ammcaine d'ctudes Slaves

conflict then taking place - he laid the foundation for civilian control of the Ulmtinian
military that has since been embodied in Ukraine' s constitution. It was a risky measure, fraught with dangers to him and his family. But as the veteran Ukraine-watcher,
Sherman W. Garnett, notes in his excellent introduction, it was "during the August
1991 coup that Morozov truly demonstrated his mettle" (p. xvii).
Morozov's subsequent achievement cannot be overestimated. To put it mildly, he
almost single-handedly created the Ukrainian Armed Forces. At the time of the Soviet
collapse, he found himself at the head of the second-largest armed forces in Europe,
possessing the third-largest arsenal of nuclear armaments on the planet. The task before him was to consolidate and maintain command and control over his forces, even
a5 he reorganized and de-ideologized the former Soviet forces now in his charge. It
cannot be emphasized enough that, in 1991-93, the outcome of this process was very
much uncertain.
Morozov is to be credited with having accomplished his task with dedication and
aplomb. His insistence upon an oath of loyalty for all officers and enlisted personnel,
and on free passage home for all who refused, rather than summary discharge of foreigners (as in the Baltic states), rendered a potentially contentious, resentment
generating process as civilized and conflict-free as any observer might reasonably expect. Morozov permitted over 10,000 non-Ukrainian officers to return to their former
Soviet republics. He also initiated return of Ukraine's strategic and tactical nuclear
weapons to Russia and laid the foundation for a stable security relationship with
Ukraine's larger northern neighbor which represented a critical affirmation of honor
in the defense of the homeland, and -helped establish Ukraine's military as a credible
and reliable partner in the emerging collective security structures of Europe.
For both the general and scholarly reader, the book features three photo collections, amounting to some thirty-nine pictures in all, as well as reproductions of So\liet
and Ukrainian documents, together with English language translations. These help to
round out the story. Overall, readers will come away from Morozov' s memoirs with a
sense of appreciation for the enormity of the challenges he faced, and admiration for
his policies and methods in handling them. Morozov during this period showed himself to be one ofa small class of emerging statesmen of the post-Soviet period.
Robert S. Kravchuk

Indiana University

Ivo Vukcevich. Rex Germanorum populos Sclavorum: An Inquiry into the Origin and
Early History of the Serbs/Slavs of Sarmatia, Germania, and /llyria . Santa Barbara, CA: University Center Press, 2001. xviii, 602 pp. $26.95 (paper).
The title suggests that Ivo Vukcevich will attempt to do more than offer lists of
place-names followed by excerpts from various medieval or modern authors. The
sc.ope of this book is more accurately described in the introduction: this" is not an
original work, but "thoroughly derivative." "From beginning to end, it is based on the
research of others." (p. xvii). The author goes on to promise a "readable, user friendly
introduction to the subject" and a "useful if wavering baseline for further study."

Book Reviews/Comptes rendus

335

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

many ways, the lack of any critical approach to either sources used or theories embraced makes this vulgariz.ation look very much like propaganda.
To explore Vukcevich ' s "method," let us examine his claims about the supposed
survival of the god Perun in the guise of St. Elias the Thunderer. D!1 the basis of sevl!ral place-names "vibrating with ancient Slavic cults," such as Mt. Perun in lstria or
Perun near Kotor, Vukcevich claims that "the Perun/Sv. Ilia cult had its deepest roots,
strength and vitality in the core Serb lands" (p. IS). 1bese claims are then developed
in the subsequent chapter entitled "\\there Perun was 'still worshipped" in which we
I.earn about twentieth-century Serbs in Bosnia, described in incredibly racist terms as
"pure-blooded Sl;wic thoroughbreds," as well as about the 1942 killings of Serliian
inmates in the'"notorious Jasenovac death camp." The reader is taken by surprise ~ith
this clumsy leap over millennia and will no doubt be confused by the lack of any ap
parent justification for this chapter in the general economy of the book. Vukcevich ' s
major goal seems to have been to use the work of Heinrich Kunstmann and others in
order to link the history of the Balkan Serbs to that of the central European Sorbs. He
brings no fresh evidence and offers no new analysis. Worse, there is a to~l lack of
historical context. Most of this 600-page volume is nothing else but lists of placenames, and Vukcevich repeats the views of medieval authors or such 'scholars as
Joachim Hemnann as statements of fact without the most rudimentary criticism and,
of course, knowledge of alternative interpretations. For example: . ~The SpanishArabic historian and geographer Jbn Sa'id al-Maghribi (1213-74) writes about the
immense Slav lands where it is said hat they (sic) still adhere to the Madjus religion
and worship fire" (p .. 31 ). The author was considerably handicapped because he must
have worked with modem and often incorrect translations of medieval sources, which
he took at face value. As a consequence, lbn Fadlan's famous account ofa Rus' burial
ceremony is taken as a description of a Slavic custom ''with the strongest lndic-Hindu
(sic) overtones, including suttee" (p. 30). Similarly, Vukcevich was misled in believing that al-Ahtal's use of the image of the golden-haired Slavs as a metaphor for dan ger indicated "an early Slavic presence in the Caucasus" (p. 55). In reality, the evidence of al-Ahtal could at best refer to the Slavs who deserted from the Byzantine
army at the battle at Sebastopolis (692) and were settled in Muslim Syria, before being recruited into Muhammad b. Marwan' s army. Because of his lack of attention to
problems of translation, Vukcevich often misunderstands his sources. As a consequence, Procqpius of Caesarea, a Greek source at one time cited in Polish (p. 57), at
another in Latin (p. 98), becomes the first author to mention the Serbs (p. 57) and Svarog, "the Slav god of gods" (p. 11 ). Similarly, the magister mi/itum per Thraciam appointed by Justinian in 530 becomes a fellow tribesman of the Antes (p. 61), while the
"Bessarabian Antes" (p. 62) are wrongly credited with the words which Menander the
Guardsman (fr. 21) clearly attributed to the Sclavene leader Dauritas. When lacking
written evidence, Vukcevich turns to dubious etymologies. For example, he endorses
Niko Zupanic's interpretation of montes Serrorum (mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus in relation to the withdrawal of Athanaric and his Tervingi following their defeat
by the Huns) as referring to "early Serb settlements in Dacia" (p. 73). Adding to the
problem is Vukcevich's apparent ambivalence in regard to what is to be treated as a

Book Reviews/Cornptes rendus

336

337

Canadian American Slavic Studies/Revue Canadicnne ArnCricaine d'etudcs Slaves

soun;e and what constitutes the work of scholarship. Ptolemy and the director of the
British Museum, David Wilson; appear as equally useful when it comes to describe
the "Baltic Slav imprint beyond the borders ofSlavia" (pp. 310-11).
At a quick glimpse, the aim of this book may not be fully apparent, but is in fact
quite clear. Neither scholars of East European history nor those trying to learn something about the medieval Serbs will benefit from reading this book. However, readers
interested in the relation between linguistics and archaeology, on one hand, and ethnic
nationalism, on the other, will have no difficulty recognizing familiar propaganda
techniques. Vukcevich's attempt to gain a respectable antiquity for the "Serbs" is in
many ways similar to Stjepan Pantelic's Urheimat der Kroaten in Pannonien und
Dalmatien (Frankfurt a.M., 1997), a book of equally questionable scholarship. More
important, Rex Germanorum is reminiscent of E>onk Jankovic 's Srpsk.e gromile (Belgrade, 1998) and his theory of a third- and fourth-century Balkan Urheimat of the
Setbs. But this is by no means a phenomenon restricted to former Yugoslavia. losif
Constantin Dragan's theories of a Thracian (read: Romanian) origin for most European peoples, from Romans to Anglo-Saxons(// mondo dei Traci, Rome, 1993) reso. nate with many outlandish claims in Vukcevich's book, such as the "Slavic Vikings"
(p. 320} or the Serb roots of the Ashkenazi Jews (p. 554). Protochronism is a fascinating topit of current research, and those interested in its linguistic and archaeological
ramifications will find a treasure-trove between the covers of this book.

Florin Curta

University ofFlorida

P. M. Barford. The Early Slavs: Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern
Europe. Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell University Press, 2001 . xvi, 416 pp. $39.95.
Florin Curta. The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube
Region c. 500-700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. xxv, 463 pp.
$80.00.
Though similar in title, in overlapping subject matter, and in relying heavily on archaeology as well as written sources, the two works under review have significant differences . Curta focuses on South Slavs and the Byzantine Danubian frontier for a limited period of two centuries and devotes as much, if not more, attention to the Byzantines as to the Slavs. Barford examines all Slavs, South, East, and West for a longer
period, t~ough the tenth century and sketchily even beyond that. And whereas
Curta's archaeological experience and emphasis lie near the Danube, Barford's lie in
Poland. Barford also devotes chapters to specific topics (daily life, social structure,
warfare, production, consumption and exchange, pagan ideologies); often points in
them are very sketchy and sometimes speculative, which, of course; results from the
scarcity of sources on such matters. Both books can be read with profit.

Both authors arc concerned with when the Slavs appeared as Slavs and then with
what sort of identity was attached to the Slavic label. This appearance can be one of
two things, their actual arrival from somewhere else or the first time an afready-

present population gets noticed in written sources. Both authors seem, in my opinion,
to use the term ethnic/ethnic too readily. This is particularly the case with Curta, who
argues that the Slavic label/identity was invented by the Byzantines to describe a particular problem the empire faced . He more or less denies t!}at in the early period the
Slavs used the term at all. If they did not, then they had no known ethnic awareness,
and thus to me could not be ethnics. He claims that the first time the Slavs identified
themselves as Slavs was in the twelfth-century "Russian Primary Chronicle." That is
clearly too late, for the mid ninth-century ruler of Croatia Branimir identified himself
as Duke of the Slavs on two different inscriptions. However, since the Slavs began to
write only in the ninth century, we really are not in a position to know what they
called themselves earlier; but since all their other neighbors (Franks, Lombards, Italians [particularly Venetians], the papacy, and so on) called them Slavs too, it seems
likely that the Slavs (or many of them) were calling themselves Slavs quite early.
However, I sec this label as much more political/organizational than ethnic.
The second issue examined (in more detailed fashion by Barford, since he had a
large region to examine) is did the Slavs appear in Eastern Europe in the fifth or sixth
century from elsewhere or did they emerge as a defined group from an already existing population in parts of that region. Archaeology cannot help too much here, for
such remains without written material can identify particular material cultures, but can
provide no evidence of language. But in any case, neither author has much sympathy
for an urheimar in e.g., the Pripet marshes and a migration in various directions from
this territory.
In the case of the Balkans, the Sl~vs clearly were not present within that territory
before the sixth century. Curta presents a very original depiction here. He argues that
the Slavs were much less disruptive in that century than scholars up to now have
thought and that their raids were fewer in number and actual settlen1ent chiefly came
in the seventh century. To advance this. argument, he presents evidence to demonstrate
that Justinian 's system of Danube fortifications (which were clearly on both sides of
the Danube) were much more effective than usually believed. The Slavs, as potential
enemies and then as actual ones, acquired a descriptive label from the Byzantines who
dealt with them . Thus the ''Slavs" were invented at the time of Justinian when they
became a problem Curta argues that among the groups given that label would have
been speakers of various other languages, but as the largest element their name came
to the fore. I\~ also suggests reasonably, which would solidify this thesis, that in the
Avar empire, ~lavic likely became a linguafranca among the assorted peoples. I see
no reason to doubt the presence in particular areas of speakers of different languages;
unfortunately, the majority of examples Curta finds in the scarce sources on this issue
usually indicate bi-lingualism and do not demonstrate different mother tongues. In any
case he states: "Slays did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but because
they were called so by others." (p. 346) Though there is a kernel of truth here, we in
fact do not know why these others chose that term for these newly emerging enemies.
t' is not unlikely that the term was already in use among the Slavs (or some of them),
either for their identity or the language they spoke. Barford thinks it was, though it
does not come thrqugh clearly "from when." He plausibly argues that local groups
used it for themselves with no concept (until the twelfth century) of the Slavs being a