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 dan­ger 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

336 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 of Florida

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-

Book Reviews/Cornptes rendus 337

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