Prologue

The history of Slavs in general, and their southern branch in partucular, is largely clouded in mystery until the dawn of the Middle Ages - specifically, the early 6th century A.D. - and partially obscure for yet some centuries thereafter. Incidentally, it was the Slavic tribes later labeled as Southern - and presumably the ancestors of today's Serbs and Croats - that have, by leaving an earlier collective homeland (generally assumed to be somewhere between today's southwest Ukraine and eastern Poland), actually precipitated this change. By moving south, during the great Eurasian peoples migrations, over the Carpathian mountain range and into the lower Danube region, they finally came into direct contact with the Greco-Roman Christian Empire - the leading Euromediterranean civilization of its day, which left us numerous lasting records of these historical events.

[Continued from the main page]

To be sure, even in earlier times there are occasional references in ancient chronicles - starting with "the father of history" Herodotos (5th c. B.C.) - of various peoples at the edge of the "known world" or beyond, thought to be inhabiting areas between the Black and Baltic seas, and possibly representing or related to Slavs; but these accounts are usually vague or legendary, and typically use tribal denominations (e.g. Scythians and Sarmatians) very loosely. It is thus only in the 6th c. histories of Procopius and his immediate succesors, that Slavs emerge with that name and a definite historical identity.

Indeed, studying these writers at times reveals fascinating facts about Slavs and their traits - some favorable and others less so, and many apparently persistent even to this day. For example, Procopius states how "these tribes are not ruled by one man, but from ancient times they live in democracy", and that they have public gatherings to decide on policy. They were not savage in any way, he describes, and did not keep prisoners long in slavery - preferring to either return them quickly home for ransom, or let them live freely amongst themselves. Emperor Maurice, on the other hand, in his famed military manualStrategikon, says how "they differ in opinion, so they either disagree, or even if they can agree, many soon breach the agreement, as they are all zealously against each other and unwilling to yield to others." Their love for freedom has been often noted - as in the legendary sarcasm in reply to the Avar khagan's envoys: "Who is the man under this sun that might make us bow or succumb?" - yet paradoxically, this was also a key factor in precluding them from organizing a state or other structure capable of securing resistance and collective interests.

And so, having crossed the Danube-Sava frontier, they had entered the Byzantine Balkans for good. In the early 500s these crossings were more in the form of raids and thus temporary, but towards the end of the century the settling of various tribes becomes permanent. Ironically again, the lack of organizational structure proved to be also an advantage in the wars with the Byzantines, as there was no single tribe or leader to defeat, bribe or sign treaties with, to any lasting effect. This period is also marked with the initial incursions of the Asiatic warrior Avar tribe, interspersed with later Slavic ones; and indeed, here we see successive waves of arrivals, rather than just a single one. Thus, the main characteristics of this initial stage of South Slavic historical presence could be summarized as: permanent colonization of the Balkans, all the way to the Peloponnesus; loose tribal organization; often a subordinate position to the Avars; and shifting relations with the dwindiling but still present Byzantine authority.

Early sources mention a formidable list of individual tribal names when referring to the arriving and settled South Slavs. Many of these seem obscure today, and many yet were merely based on the settled locale. However, some appear to predate the migrations; the most notable of these are those of Serbs and Croats, which over time were to encompass virtually all of the rest. The etymology of these names remains controversial; it is often claimed that they are not of Slavic, but Iranian origin, thus suggesting the hypothesis of the existence of separate Iranian tribes of these names, which in pre-migration times were pushed eastward into blending with the Slavs. Unfortunately, the first accounts that reliably mention these two names are only from the 10th c. AD on, and are often based on oral traditions of events long passed. The two key sources are De administrando imperio of emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitos, and the mid-12th c.Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea.

According to Porphyrogenitos, Serbs originally used to live in what was called White Serbia (neighboring White Croatia) in present-day Poland; then, in the early 7th century, half the population migrated to the Balkans under the leadership of two brothers. There, after some indecision, they accepted emperor Heraclius' invitation to settle in a broad area of the central peninsula, called "Baptized Serbia" - probably in reference to early attempts to convert them to Christianity.

Early on, Serbs created several loose state entities: the region of Neretva (Pagania) between rivers Neretva and Cetina, with the islands of Brac (pr. brahch) and Korcula (KOR-chu-la); Zahumlje (ZAH-hoom-lye), between Neretva and Dubrovnik, with the island of Mljet (pr. mlyet); Travunija (trah-VOO-nee-ya; related to the town name Trebinje) and Konavle between Dubrovnik and Boka Kotorska Bay; Duklja (DOO-klya; later called Zeta, then finally Montenegro), between Boka and river Bojana (BO-ya-na); further inland, Raska (RAH-shka) and later Bosnia (between the rivers Drina and Bosna).

Return