From Justinian to Branimir: The Making of the Middle Ages in Dalmatia 0429299168, 9780429299162

"From Justinian to Branimir explores the social and political transformation of Dalmatia between c.500 and c.900 AD

793 154 7MB

English Pages [277] Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

From Justinian to Branimir: The Making of the Middle Ages in Dalmatia
 0429299168, 9780429299162

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Maps
Acknowledgments
List of Abbreviations
Introduction
1 Dalmatia in Time and Space
2 “An Old Woman’s Summer”: A Glimpse into Late Antique Dalmatia
3 “Winter is Coming”: Signs of Deeper Social Changes in Sixth Century Dalmatia
4 The Collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia
5 After the Apocalypse: Dalmatia After 620
6 Clash of the Empires and the Treaty of Aachen (775–812)
7 Tempora Domini Brannimero
Conclusion
Bibliography
Subject Index
Places and Archaeological Sites Featured on the Maps

Citation preview

From Justinian to Branimir

From Justinian to Branimir explores the social and political transformation of Dalmatia between c.500 and c.900 AD. The collapse of Dalmatia in the early seventh century is traditionally ascribed to the Slav migrations. However, more recent scholarship has started to challenge this theory, looking instead for alternative explanations for the cultural and social changes that took place during this period. Drawing on both written and material sources, this study utilizes recent archaeological and historical research to provide a new historical narrative of this little-known period in the history of the Balkan peninsula. This book will appeal to scholars and students interested in Byzantine and early medieval Europe, the Balkans and the Mediterranean. It is important reading for both historians and archaeologists. Danijel Džino is Senior Lecturer at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. His publications include Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman Dalmatia (2010) and Illyricum in Roman Politics, 229BC-AD 68 (2010).

Studies in Medieval History and Culture

Recent titles include Supernatural Encounters Demons and the Restless Dead in Medieval England, c.1050–1450 Stephen Gordon Ancestor Worship and the Elite in Late Iron Age Scandinavia A Grave Matter Triin Laidoner Warfare and the Making of Early Medieval Italy (568–652) Eduardo Fabbro Rethinking Medieval Margins and Marginality Edited by Ann E. Zimo, Tiffany D. Vann Sprecher, Kathryn Reyerson and Debra Blumenthal English Readers of Catholic Saints The Printing History of William Caxton’s Golden Legend Judy Ann Ford Early Medieval Venice Cultural Memory and History Luigi Andrea Berto Heresy and Citizenship Persecution of Heresy in Late Medieval German Cities Eugene Smelyansky

For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge. com/Studies-in-Medieval-History-and-Culture/book-series/SMHC

From Justinian to Branimir The Making of the Middle Ages in Dalmatia

Danijel Džino

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Danijel Džino The right of Danijel Džino to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Džino, Danijel, author. Title: From Justinian to Branimir : the making of the Middle ages in Dalmatia / Danijel Džino. Description: First edition. | New York : Routledge, 2021. | Series: Studies in medieval history and culture | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020022198 (print) | LCCN 2020022199 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367280048 (hardback) | ISBN 9780429299162 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Dalmatia (Croatia)—History—To 1500. | Dalmatia (Croatia)—Antiquities. | Balkan Peninsula—History—To 1500. | Croatia—History—To 1102. | Social change—Croatia—Dalmatia— History—To 1500. | Social change—Balkan Peninsula—History— To 1500. Classification: LCC DR1627 .D954 2021 (print) | LCC DR1627 (ebook) | DDC 949.72—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020022198 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020022199 ISBN: 978-0-367-28004-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-29916-2 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra

Contents

List of figures List of maps Acknowledgments List of abbreviations

vii ix xi xiii

Introduction 1 1

Dalmatia in time and space

2

“An Old Woman’s Summer”: a glimpse into late antique Dalmatia 28

3

“Winter is coming”: signs of deeper social changes in sixth-century Dalmatia

60

4

The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia

90

5

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620

107

6

Clash of the empires and the Treaty of Aachen (775–812)

147

7

Tempora domini Brannimero

172

Conclusion Bibliography Subject Index Places and archaeological sites featured on the maps

6

197 201 249 255

Figures

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1

3.2

3.3 5.1 5.2 5.3

Late antique omega-shaped (penannular) fibulae: (a) Panik; (b) Korita; (c) Višići; (d) Mogorjelo (photo: L. Bečar), ©Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo Northern portion of the city walls of Asseria with the remains of the sixth-century proteichisma, ©author The walls of Varvaria with the remains of the sixth-century fortifications, ©author Plan of the rotunda and mausoleum on Bribirska glavica, ©V. Ghica Gold earring with a basked-shaped earring from Balina glavica (photo: I. Krajcar), ©Archaeological Museum in Zagreb Gold necklace from Turbe (photo: L. Bečar), ©Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. ZMBiH Plan of Greblje cemetery in Knin (plan: M. Šćurov, photo I. Krajcar). The graves mentioned in the text are marked by the author. Documentation of the Medieval Department, ©Archaeological Museum in Zagreb Plan of the earliest phase of St Cross cemetery in Nin (S. Pjaca). The graves mentioned in the text, later discovered graves Gr210–212 and distance to the other Nin cemeteries are marked by the author, ©Archaeological Museum in Zadar The necklace from Potoci (photo: I. Krajcar), ©Archaeological Museum in Zagreb Grave 120 from Greblje in Knin. Documentation of the Medieval Department, ©Archaeological Museum in Zagreb The Mediterrana-type buckle from grave 10, Glavčurak in Kašić (photo: I. Čondić), ©Archaeological Museum in Zadar The semi-circular pendant with open-work ornament from Grave 54 in Maklinovo brdo (photo: I. Čondić), ©Archaeological Museum in Zadar

34 37 37 38 50 51

69

75 82 119 122 124

viii Figures 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

6.1

7.1

Plan of Maklinovo brdo cemetery with distinguished early (inside the square) and later phases. From Alajbeg 2014: 144 Plan of Ždrijac cemetery with distinguished early (inside the square) and later phases. From Alajbeg 2014: 150 The bronze belt-buckle from Grave 132 in Mihaljevići cemetery (photo: L. Bečar), ©Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo Damaged Keszthely-Pécs buckle from a destroyed grave in Mihaljevići cemetery (photo: L. Bečar), ©Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo Parts of the inventory from Gr112 from Grborezi cemetery: (a) three granulated gold earrings with grape-like pendants; (b) pair of cast silver earrings with grape-like pendants; (c) cast silver torc (photo: L. Bečar), ©Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo Gold solidus of Constantine V Copronymus from Grave 141 in St Cross cemetery in Nin: (a) obverse; (b) averse (photo: I. Čondić), ©Archaeological Museum in Zadar The church of St Cross in Nin, ©author

124 126 131 132

134

155 185

Maps

1 2 3 4 5 6

Locations outside Dalmatia Zadar and its hinterland Salona and its hinterland Narona and its hinterland The central part of the province Sites in Dalmatia not shown in other maps

xv xv xvi xvi xvii xvii

I refer the reader to the index, which specifies the maps in which particular sites are shown. Sub-localities are presented in the following manner – e.g.  the cemetery Maklinovo brdo in the village of Kašić is recorded as: Maklinovo brdo Kašić*, which refers the reader to the entry of Kašić, marked to be on the Map 2.

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge here the great support I received from colleagues and friends in the making this book. First, this work has been supported by the “Research Cooperability” Program of the Croatian Science Foundation funded by the European Union through the European Social Fund under the Operational Programme Efficient Human Resources 2014–2020, within the project PZS-2019-02-1624 – GLOHUM – Global Humanisms: New Perspectives on the Middle Ages (300–1600). The book is also one of the outcomes of the project Varvaria-Breberium-Bribir, which is partly financed by Macquarie University Faculty of Arts. I am immensely grateful to Routledge editor Michael Greenwod for initiating and supporting the idea for this book. The draft of the manuscript was read by Florin Curta, Mladen Ančić and Ivan Basić, who all offered great ideas and constructive criticism. Whatever errors remain are my own. I am also grateful to the following institutions and colleagues, who helped me obtain images for the book: Arheološki muzej u Zadru (Jakov Vučić), Zemaljski Muzej u Sarajevu (Mirsad Sijarić and Ana Marić), Arheološki Muzej u Zagrebu (Maja Bunčić), as well as Victor Ghica, and Ante Alajbeg. I also want to thank my colleagues in the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University, and especially its Head Ray Laurence, for their support and collegiality. The book attempts to follow the epistemological methodological question “A ‘di to piše?” (“Where is that written?”) posed by Ante Milošević, from whom I learned so much. Immense gratitude goes to Mark Matic who meticulously and eloquently edited the manuscript. Finally, for everything I am grateful to my family – to my wife Irena Majić, long-distance daughter Ariel Džino and most of all to Judita Nemira Džino, who decided to appear in this world during the writing of this book, for which reason it is dedicated to her.

Abbreviations

ActHist Acta Histriae ActIllyr Acta Illyrica AlBiH Arheološki leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine, 3 vols. ed. B. Čović (Sarajevo: ZMBiH, 1988) AMS Archaeological Museum in Split AMZd Archaeological Museum in Zadar AMZg Archaeological Museum in Zagreb ANUBiH Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo AP Arheološki pregled ArchAdr Archaeologia Adriatica ArhVest Arheološki vestnik ArsAdr Ars Adriatica ARR Arheološki radovi i rasprave BAR Br itish Archaeological Reports – International Series, Oxford BASD Bullettino di archeologia e storia dalmata CEFR Collection de l’École française de Rome ECEE East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 EME Early Medieval Europe GodCBI Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja GZM Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini (series 1) GZMS Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu (series 2) HAD Hrvatsko arheološko društvo HAG Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak HAM Hortus Artium Medievalium HiK Hrvati i Karolinzi, Vol. 1: Rasprave i vrela; Vol. 2: Katalog, ed. A. Milošević (Split: MHAS, 2000) HistAntiq Histria antiqua HistArch Histria archaeologica HZ Historijski zbornik Illyr. Sacr. Danielle Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum, 8 vols. (Venice, 1751–1818)

xiv Abbreviations JAZU/HAZU

Jugoslavenska/Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti JbRGZ Mainz Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz JLA Journal of Late Antiquity JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology LAA Late antique archaeology, Leiden & Boston LCL Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge MA MHAS Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika u Splitu MEFRA Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome. Moyen-Age MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica MGH: AA MGH: Auctores Antiquissimi MGH: EKA MGH: Epistolae Karolini Aevi MGH: Epp. MGH: Epistolae MGH: SS MGH: Scriptores MGH: SS rer. Germ. MGH: Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi MGH: SS rer. Lang. MGH: Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI-IX MHM Miscellanea Hadriatica et Mediterranea OpArch Opuscula Archaeologica PIAZ Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu PovPril Povijesni prilozi PPUD Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji RadoviIPU Radovi Instituta za povijest umjetnosti RadoviZHP Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest RFFZd Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru RZPZ HAZU Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru SHP Starohrvatska prosvjeta (series 3) SlovArch Slovenská Archeólogia SMA Studia mediterranea archaeologica SS&BP Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana VAHD/VAPD Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju/povijest dalmatinsku VAMZ Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu (series 3) WMBH Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina (1893–1910) WMBHL Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des BosnischHerzegowinischen Landesmuseums ZMBiH Zemaljski Muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo ZRVI Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta

Map 1 Locations outside Dalmatia

Map 2 Zadar and its hinterland

Map 3 Salona and its hinterland

Map 4 Narona and its hinterland

Map 5 The central part of the province

Map 6 Sites in Dalmatia not shown in other maps

Introduction

Taking the Slavs out of the equation The aim of this book is to follow the formation of medieval society in Dalmatia in the period between the sixth and late ninth centuries. Since the term Dalmatia was very fluid throughout history, it is important to state at the outset that it is used here with the meaning of late antique Dalmatia, which encompassed the eastern Adriatic hinterland almost all the way to the river Sava. The starting chronological point for this enquiry is conveniently determined with the Byzantine reconquest of Dalmatia from the Ostrogothic kingdom in the 530s, and its ending point corresponds with the reign of the Croat dux Branimir between 879 and 892. The reasons for choosing these chronological pegs are simple. Dalmatia as a province within the empire of Justinian and its immediate successors was firmly integrated into the late antique Mediterranean political, economic and social macrosystem. It was a distinct regional cultural, political and social system, with functioning provincial social networks. At the same time, it is possible to detect in this period the earliest signs of social changes that will become apparent after the collapse of Byzantine rule in the Balkan peninsula in the seventh century. However, the reign of duke Branimir was the period in which the transformation of Dalmatian communities into early medieval society was fully accomplished. The provincial networks, severely disrupted in the seventh and eighth century, were re-established and Dalmatia in the ninth century became part of new wider medieval political networks, which were now not exclusively Mediterranean-centred, but also included central and continental Europe. The book is building upon my earlier study, and it is impossible to avoid at least some overlaps between them.1 However, while the focus of this earlier study was on the ways identity-construction of Dalmatian communities transformed in this period, the present study turns attention to the processes which led to the appearance of medieval society in the eastern Adriatic and its deeper hinterland. It is possible to describe the difference between these two books as the difference between a postmodern deconstruction of the existing metanarratives and metamodern attempts to re-establish new

2 Introduction historical narratives on the still smouldering ruins of postmodern deconstructions.2 The aim of the present study is not to construct another set of rigid narratives, in the way modernistic narratives of the past have been developed, but rather to offer flexible views of the past, which will be used and upgraded by later research. The most significant points from Becoming Slav represent starting points of enquiry, in particular the arguments that there was no Slavic population flood in seventh-century Dalmatia, and that the identities of the local population transformed because of changed historical circumstances rather than migration. The migrationist paradigm, implying an arrival and settlement of the Slav (or rather Sclavene)3 immigrants in Dalmatia sometime after 612, when contemporary written and epigraphic sources cease to exist, still dominates views of the seventh and eighth century in this part of the world. The reasons for the persistence of such views are various, but the most important is the fact that this period is crucially significant in ‘national biographies’ of the south Slavs, explaining conveniently how the ‘ancestors’ arrived in their new homelands bringing a new language and new ethnonyms.4 Taking the Sclavenes out of the equation, or in other words eliminating largescale Sclavene migrations in the seventh century as the reason for social transformation in Dalmatia, opens the way for very different interpretations of the existing evidence. Without the Sclavene migrations the making of the Middle Ages in Dalmatia cannot be attributed to the ‘assassination’ of Late Antiquity by the immigrant groups but seen as a continuing process of social transformation starting in the sixth and finishing in the later ninth century. Dalmatia was not isolated from the rest of the world, and so the making of the Middle Ages cannot be ascribed exclusively to local developments. Outside factors, such as the collapse of the Byzantine Balkans in the 620–630s, and the conflicts between the Carolingian and Byzantine empires in the late eighth/early ninth century had a major impact on the restructuring of late antique and the formation of medieval society. These factors impacted local communities in various ways, the most important being the redistribution and remodelling of local power-structures as well as population mobility and migrations. This does not mean that there were no Sclavenes or Slavs, and that some immigrant groups  did not move in the northern parts of the province in the later seventh and eighth century. Rather, this implies that migration was not a sole cause of social change. The migration of the Slavophone groups after ca. 800 had some impact on the population structure of Dalmatia, but more importantly it contributed to the overall social change, namely to the changes in the self-perception of elites and the ways that power was expressed and organised at a local level. The task of explaining the transformation from Late Antiquity to the early Middle Ages is unfortunately limited by the quantity and quality of the material evidence. The traditional focus of local archaeology in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina has been the excavation and research of sacral objects – late antique and early medieval churches – and burials, while

Introduction  3 secular buildings and the evidence for trade and industrial activities have received only secondary attention.5 For this reason, the important research foci used to explain the transformation from Late Antiquity to the early Middle Ages in wider scholarship, such as, for example, the form of the state and fiscality, the elites, the survival as well as changed position of peasantry and the networks of exchange, could only be used partially.6 The evidence might provide some glimpses, perhaps in regard to the transformation of elite image, social complexity, political organisation and networks of exchange, but very little can be deduced about fiscality and the position of the peasantry. Taking all this into account, the present study will hopefully open different topics for further discussion by throwing more light on the process of transition between Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages in Dalmatia. The perception of this area as peripheral in scholarship of the late antique Mediterranean, early medieval Europe and Byzantium makes this study even more important, not only by throwing more light on an insufficiently known area of study, but also by providing an opportunity to observe interaction between wider cultural and political entities in their periphery.7

Overview of the chapters The first chapter introduces the reader to wider meanings of the term Dalmatia, and the main lines of its history beyond the period discussed in the book. It also touches upon problems in the communication and transmission of knowledge between local scholarship and general historical narratives. Finally, three distinct geo-ecological zones, which are of crucial importance for understanding Dalmatian history, are overviewed in detail, and some basic information provided about Roman Dalmatia before sixth century. Chapter 2 not only presents sixth-century Dalmatia as a node in the networks of the late antique Mediterranean, but also provides arguments in support of the idea that Dalmatia functioned as a specific provincial social and cultural system. The most significant evidence for continuing Dalmatian integration within the Mediterranean world is seen through the existence of shared ideological templates, integration in imperial defence schemes, the common ways in which elites were expressing their position in society, as well as the persistence of exchange networks. Since written sources are too scarce to establish a viable historical narrative, the emphasis will be placed on available archaeological and epigraphic sources, in particular evidence for late urbanism, elite burials, the building of early Christian churches and fortifications. Apart from shamelessly ripping-off the motto of House Stark from Game of the Thrones, Chapter 3 investigates parallel narratives of the sixth-century in Dalmatia, looking for the first signs of deeper social changes. This in particular refers to innovations in burial customs such as the appearance of the first-row grave cemeteries and grave goods, intramural burials and burials in the prehistoric barrows (tumuli), as well as a change in the behaviour of

4 Introduction the local elite as seen in the conflicts of Salonitan bishops with Pope Gregory the Great. The chapter also touches upon the questions of population decline in the second half of sixth-century Dalmatia and its potential impact on the social fabric. Chapter 4 deals with the early seventh century, looking for the reasons for the Byzantine abandonment of Dalmatia and the social collapse that followed. The arguments and evidence used to prove the existence of the Sclavene migration-wave in this period are revisited and alternative interpretations are offered. This in particular relates to the changes in burial customs, pottery production and the notion of a layer of destruction dateable to this period. Taking the Sclavenes out of the equation as the cause of the seventh-century Dalmatian collapse, the existing written and archaeological evidence could be interpreted in a new light. The reasons for deep social change are sought in the Byzantine pragmatic withdrawal to the strategic points that they were able to keep, as well as the consequence of social transformations initiated in the sixth century. Dalmatia in the post-Roman period (defined here as the period between ca. 620/630 and ca. 775/800) is the central theme of Chapter 5. There is good reason to call these centuries ‘Dark Ages’ – the sources apart from archaeological are more than scarce, so the discussion will focus mostly on material evidence. This is the period dominated by self-sufficient, localised communities which were very unlike those in late antique Dalmatia. The chapter explores the extent of social change and cultural continuity, transformation of the ways local elites exercised their power and the place of ideological discourses – especially Christianity. The possibility that the Byzantine military outposts in the immediate hinterland of Zadar and Salona-Split existed in this period is discussed, as well as the destiny of the provincial capital Salona. The chapter also looks into the deep hinterland of Dalmatia, which is still unfortunately covered with a thick veil of mystery for this period. Chapter 6 focusses on the decisive decades between ca. 775 and 812, which are characterised by new waves of social changes and population mobility. The most important issues dealt with are the wider theatre of the Byzantine-Carolingian Adriatic conflicts ending with the Treaty of Aachen in 812. This conflict impacted the area through competing attempts to establish imperial ‘soft’ power, the reorganisation of local ecclesiastical and power structures and the settlement of new Slav-speaking warrior groups. The changes in the burial record and the appearance of new cemeteries show the new ways in which the elites started to present themselves by adopting the image of ‘violence specialists’.8 At the same time, the cemeteries from the ‘Dark Ages’ continue to exist showing a layer of continuity accompanying this new image of local elites. The final stages of the process that transformed the late antique communities in Dalmatia into medieval society are described in Chapter 7. The ninth century shows new ways of constructing elite identity and the organisation of local power-structures, the new ways in which the region was connected with the wider world, the shift of cemeteries into churchyards accompanied

Introduction  5 with a church-building frenzy instigated by the new Dalmatian elites. The discussion also follows a transformation in the image of elites from the ‘violence specialists’ of the early ninth century into new hereditary elites who used their ancestors and Christianity to justify their privileged position in society. The conclusion revisits the most important insights from the preceding chapters in order to provide a new chronological framework for the process of social transformations in late antique, ‘Dark Age’ and early medieval Dalmatia.

Notes 1 Dzino 2010a. 2 Metamodernism is hailed as the successor to postmodernism. It is characterised by the merging of modernist narratives and postmodern criticism (Vermeulen & Van den Akker 2010; Van den Akker et al. 2017). 3 Contemporary sources from the sixth and seventh century refer to the Sclavenes, whereas the early medieval sources from the ninth century refer to the Slavs. The use of both terms in this book is deliberate and reflects these different contexts. 4 Ančić 2008: 32–51, 2014a; Dzino 2010a: 16–31 (the example of the Croats). 5 Ančić 2004: 203; Zeman 2017: 111–112. 6 Wickham 2005. 7 Dzino et al. 2018b: 1–2. 8 North et al. 2009, esp. 13–20.

1

Dalmatia in time and space

Dalmatia as a unit of historical analysis The term Dalmatia changed many times throughout history, depicting different political and geographical entities on the eastern coast of the Adriatic. It was a name of the Roman imperial province(s),1 the province of the Ostrogothic kingdom from 493, the Byzantine province from the 530s, the early medieval Byzantine doucate, archontate and thema, the Carolingian duchy, a part of the kingdom of Croatia after it was incorporated into the medieval Hungarian arch-kingdom, the Venetian Stato da Màr, and the Habsburg province (or ‘kingdom’). Today the term depicts the southern part of the Republic of Croatia known as such to a growing number of tourists and travellers from all over the world and roughly corresponds to the Venetian and Habsburg Dalmatia, without the Boka Kotorska gulf. The name Dalmatia comes from the indigenous Iron Age group that the ancient sources called ‘Delmatae’, which inhabited modern-day central Dalmatia with the hinterland.2 This book is using the term Dalmatia for the territory stretching between the eastern Adriatic and the river Sava, the modern-day regions of Dalmatia, Herzegovina, Lika, Kvarner, Gorski kotar, Bosnia, Boka Kotorska and its hinterland in Montenegro. It is an approximate equivalence to late antique Dalmatia, which comprised most of the original Roman province of the same name, except for the eastern parts, which were separated in the late third century into the province of Praevalitana. The reason for choosing these particular regions as a unit of analysis is twofold. First, they represent core areas of the geo-political concept of Dalmatia, which existed as an imperial artefact from antiquity to the late medieval period. While its size varied, and it merged with new medieval geo-political terms, Dalmatia’s existence in imperial geographies – real and imagined – lasted for a very long time. The first recorded mention of Dalmatia as a fully formed imperial artefact is attested in Historia Romana, the work of the Roman historian Velleius Paterculus written in the 20s AD. Velleius, who himself was a military officer under the command of the future emperor Tiberius during his military campaigns in Dalmatia and Pannonia, makes numerous references to this new concept in Roman imperial geographies.

Dalmatia in time and space  7 It is more difficult to attest the last mention of this extended Dalmatia in the sources. One of those benchmarks could be the inscription on the tombstone of Anna of Schweidnitz (1339–1362), the third wife of the Holy Roman emperor Charles IV of Luxembourg and mother of the Bohemian king Wenceslaus IV, from the cathedral of St. Vitus (Wenceslaus) in Prague. In the inscription, she is described as Anna de Bosna de regno Dalmatiae (Anna of Bosnia, from the kingdom of Dalmatia). Anna of Schweidnitz in her life had nothing to do with Bosnia or Dalmatia – apart from being a distant relative of the Kotromanić clan that ruled large parts of the Dalmatian hinterland at times in the name of Hungarian kings. Yet, the title she carried shows how the idea of Dalmatia as an imperial artefact was still alive in the imperial geographies of fourteenth-century Europe.3 The other reason for choosing those regions as a single unit of historical analysis is that they preserved and maintained essential networks between local communities from the establishment of the Roman province to the end of the Middle Ages, enabling a surprisingly long life for this imperial artefact created in antiquity. These networks are clearly attested through communications, the exchange of goods and ideas, and shared architectures of power until the sixteenth century, when this region became a frontier zone between three complex Early Modern imperial formations: the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Empire and the Venetian imperial republic. The existence of this triple frontier between ca. 1500 and 1800 did not completely seal off parts of Dalmatia belonging to these three empires from each other – they continued to maintain a certain level of contact, the exchange of goods and ideas, and even social networks.4 Nevertheless, the unity Dalmatia maintained for such a long time in the mental geographies of contemporaries was broken, although a memory of its existence lingered for a while.5 This period also brought unprecedented population movements, which replaced the existing medieval populations with new migrants. Ottoman, Venetian and Habsburg parts of old Dalmatia became integrated within different architectures of power and started to participate in three different cultural discourses. This resulted in completely different ways in which local elites and the common people interpreted these cultural discourses and constructed their identities. The development of modern nations in the nineteenth century established new identity-patterns, which transgressed the division from the period of triple frontier. The Croats, Serbs and Bosnian Muslims (after 1993 self-designated as the Bosniaks) from all three parts of the former triple frontier started to construct their identities within these new ideological and identity-patterns. State borders of the modern-day independent countries of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia intersect in the region under consideration, taking their present shape in 1945, as parts of the newly established Yugoslav federation. The research of pre-industrial empires in recent decades has generated significant scholarly interest. These empires, whether as successful or unsuccessful political projects, are specific macro-social formations, which

8  Dalmatia in time and space strive to control large and diverse territories from a single political centre of power. They build specific imperial economic systems and complex social networks, construct recognisable imperial ideologies and discourses in order to build these political super-organisms and maintain their continuity or at the least illusion of it. The research shows that we cannot fully understand the functioning of these empires without fully understanding the relationship between the imperial core and its periphery, and between the imperial periphery and frontier-zones, which are areas outside direct imperial control but are still considered imperial zones of interest. The peripheries are not passive historical backwaters, but rather, spaces of increased imperial activity that provide imperial interaction with the outside world creating its own dynamics of political power and imperial influences. They are contact-zones and as well as zones of conflict space where the power of empires ceases and begins at the same time.6 Dalmatia is an excellent example of a region that was formed as imperial artefact and existed as an imperial periphery and frontier-zone in several different chronological contexts stretching from antiquity to the end of Middle Ages. Its creation as a Roman province was the consequence of Roman attempts to solve problems in the imperial periphery by incorporating the periphery through imperial expansion. Dalmatia becomes an imperial periphery again a few centuries later, but in a rather different situation. The contraction of the eastern Roman Empire in the early seventh century leaves this region positioned between a few Dalmatian cities controlled by the Byzantines and central Europe, which belonged to the Avar qaganate. Its transformation into an imperial periphery significantly impacted on social structures and identity-formation in the region. Shortly afterwards, Dalmatia again becomes part of a frontier-zone established between three imperial projects – the expanding Carolingian, Byzantine and Bulgar empires in the ninth and tenth century. However, this period also witnessed the formation of local polities, such as the Croatian duchy – later kingdom – which acted as independent agents in foreign affairs. The rise of the Hungarian kingdom places Dalmatia again in a position of imperial periphery as part of the commonwealth indirectly controlled by the Hungarian political centre from the early twelfth century. The failure to control the region and the appearance of another expanding empire – that of the Ottomans – in the fifteenth century breaks down Hungarian control and divides the region for the first time between different cultural and political systems, dealing a significant blow to the regional unity of Dalmatia.

Dalmatia beyond national, ‘local’ and ‘global’ paradigms The history and archaeology of pre-Ottoman Dalmatia is divided along modern national paradigms and administrative borders. These have often been imposed anachronically by current interpretative approaches. As a consequence, the scholarship very much remains closed within the

Dalmatia in time and space  9 boundaries of the national histories of the Croats, Serbs, Slovenes and more recently the Montenegrins and Bosniaks. The problem of Dalmatian history is not only national division, but also the impact of mental templates imposed by supra-national political entities from the past. This region was part of a wider Yugoslav political construct between 1918 and 1991. Yugoslavia (first as the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) was created from historically and culturally diverse political units and nations in 1918. The ‘unification’ happened with significant support from outside political factors of the times, rather than being a genuine wish shared by the majority of its inhabitants. For that reason, it was important to explain and justify the social realities arising with the creation of this new state. History was used as an important ‘educational subject’, a tool for the interpretation of new social realities in this supra-national state. This was explicitly implied in the years immediately after the Second World War, when the new Communist authorities tried to impose programmatic and ideological approaches to the study of history. Consciously or unconsciously, the existence of a Yugoslav political construct impacted historical narratives. The past of Yugoslav territories has frequently been taken as a separate unit of analysis, even in the periods long before Yugoslavia started to exist. For those reasons, synthetic works dealing with either Roman or medieval Dalmatia outside of the contexts of either national or ‘Yugoslavising’ histories very rarely appeared.7 The other problem facing any history of ancient and medieval Dalmatia is the ongoing tension between ‘local’ and ‘global’ scholarship. This is well illustrated by the verses of the Croatian poet Vladimir Nazor in the prologue to the third edition of his book of poetry The Kings of the Croats, published in 1931: They told us: ‘You have always been slaves/And like a graveyard your history is/Without even a decent grave-cross to be found/Just a tombstone here and there with no names/And weeds everywhere! By all the roads/The bones of your fathers are scattered’ … … Even if there are no graves, monuments/Walls, plaques, parchments, paintings/I know what and how things have been./Not dispersed through all four corners of the world/but inside my body buried they are/The flesh of my fathers and all their bones!.... I am the monument of them dead. While Nazor is a poet, not a historian, who writes under particular circumstances contributing to the construction of a Croatian national discourse,8 these verses very symbolically underline the essence of the problems in research into Dalmatian history. On the one hand, they illustrate a lack of interest in this region by macro-historical narratives (“… like a graveyard your history is …”), and on the other hand they underline the self-identification of local scholarship with the past and the appropriation of the role of ‘the

10  Dalmatia in time and space keepers’ of historical discourse (“... inside my body buried are the flesh of my fathers and all their bones …”). Macro-historical narratives are, by their very nature, focussed on political and/or cultural imperial centres. These centres possessed the ability and political power to gather knowledge and dominate the written discourse projecting the ideological and identity-narratives of contemporary imperial elites. They created, reproduced and maintained imperial cultures and kept imperial elites united, acting as an essential cohesive force maintaining the longevity of imperial dynamics. The organisation of knowledge in imperial centres and the creation of imperial cultures impacted the quantity and interest of written evidence that modern historians have at their disposal.9 For that reason the focus of modern macro-histories has traditionally been placed on these centres, while the regions considered as ‘peripheral’ in political and cultural contexts have received much less scholarly attention. Nevertheless, the knowledge gathered at the centres also comprised information about the ‘peripheral’ regions. This knowledge played an important role for contemporaries by showing different ‘others’ who must be ‘civilised’ or resisted, thus helping to define the ways in which the intellectual elites in imperial centres perceived and defined themselves. Knowledge of the ‘periphery’ was gathered in different ways in the past. Most frequently through a combination of knowledge passed by previous authorities and information gathered in different ways by direct or indirect contact, discursive stereotypes and predetermined assessments. The information gathered by direct contact was supplied first or second hand by people who had enough familiarity with the cultures of both the imperial centre and its ‘periphery’. They acted as cultural translators, negotiating the passage of information between the two cultures.10 This enabled more efficient deciphering and transmission of ‘local knowledge’ (in Clifford Geertz’s well-known definition) in global cultural contexts. On the other hand, it also resulted in the de-contextualisation of ‘local knowledge’, taken out of its original context and placed within different identity- or ideological narratives of the imperial centre. Dalmatia and its inhabitants, as far as we know today, had no narratives of their own in antiquity, and, apart from some epigraphic evidence we have almost nothing at our disposal to penetrate the mind of its inhabitants and the ways they saw and described themselves and the others. The population of Dalmatia was described by outsiders as ‘others’: foreigners, savages, barbarians and provincials. In the Middle Ages, the situation is somewhat better because more written evidence – epigraphic and documentary – appears. For the inclusion of fully formed local narratives in written discourse of the Dalmatians we need to wait until the thirteenth century, when the works of the Presbyter Docleas (Pop Dukljanin) and Thomas, the Archdeacon of Split, appeared. In contemporary historiography dealing with European and Mediterranean history, regardless of the period, the division and even tension between ‘local’ (micro-regional, national) historiographies and ‘global’

Dalmatia in time and space  11 (macro-historical) historical narratives is unavoidable. That is exactly what Chris Wickham describes as ‘cultural solipsism’ – the self-sufficiency and fragmentation of historical debates within European national historiographies.11 In theory, local and global research should be able to concert their efforts. Local scholarship should supply global narratives with specialised knowledge, and on the other hand, macro-historical narratives should supply models, which are tested on a local level. However, in eastern and southeastern Europe, there are still significant problems to overcome in order to establish a mutually beneficial relationship of national/micro-regional scholarship with these macro-historical narratives. There are a few reasons for this disconcerting relationship. First, the political circumstances of 1945–1990 made national scholarship in eastern and southeastern Europe more isolated from general paradigm-shifts occurring in Western historiographies. This, combined with a lack of access to local publications and literature written in languages not widely spoken in the West, made macro-historical narratives much less aware of ‘local knowledge’. It is worth quoting Wickhamʼs admission: “I excluded the Slav lands (from his monumental synthetic study of late antique/early medieval Europe and the Mediterranean), both in the Roman Empire (the Balkans) and outside it, because of my own linguistic weaknesses”.12 Secondly, the importance of history, especially medieval, for the construction of national identity-discourses made use of ‘local knowledge’ from these regions by default less desirable or even irrelevant in Western scholarship, which made significant efforts to de-nationalise its research approaches, especially outside continental Europe.13 Similar to most of central and east European academia, ‘local’ academia is governed by authority and tradition. There is little scholarly fluidity since teaching jobs are usually given to students from the same departments, usually hand-picked by their professors as successors. Fact-repetition still remains the foundation-base of tertiary education, regardless of recent changes to university curricula. Such a system is designed to maintain discursive constructs of the past and enable academics in the field of humanities to work together with political elites as the ‘keepers’ of the discourse.14 The problem, however, is two-sided and it is not only the limited ability of regional scholarships to engage in wider debates that is to blame for this lack of communication. The perceptions of ancient and medieval eastern and southeastern Europe as peripheral for the construction of European culture and civilisation are connected with ongoing Balkanistic discourses in the West, best captured in the work of Todorova, and the scholarship arising from this seminal study.15 Thus, these regions and their national scholarships were often brushed away and less readily incorporated into scholarly syntheses of ancient and medieval history. Another, equally important problem is the transfer of knowledge through mediators. As said before, ‘local knowledge’ from southeastern European historiographies has been poorly communicated to wider audiences until the last decade or two. Its distribution to wider scholarly audiences was managed through a small number of

12  Dalmatia in time and space these mediators, scholars whose linguistic knowledge enabled access to ‘local knowledge’. However, a small number of mediators minimised the scope of scholarly debate and the monopolisation of their perceptions and interpretations of the past as dominant historical narratives. It is also i mportant to remember that contemporary scholars were also under the influence of their Zeitgeist and that personal experience and ideological-political discourses also influenced their selection of ‘local knowledge’, its manipulation and shaping into specific historical narratives.16 The place of Dalmatia as both a cultural borderland and frontier zone frequently leaves it in an underprivileged position, regardless of whether it is observed by historical macro-narratives or by local scholarship. In historical macro-narratives, which are focussed on imperial centres, Dalmatia is usually seen as underexplored historical backwater, a marginalised borderland of imperial power. Difficulties accessing south Slavic languages forces foreign scholars to on outdated literature, even in very recent studies.17 The view from different ‘local’ historiographies is even more distorted, as it teleologically places Dalmatian history within national historical grand-narratives. Parts of Dalmatia or even the whole region are claimed as national spaces, justifying political agenda aims in the present. The crucial problem of all these existing approaches is their failure to recognise and fully appreciate the existence of Dalmatia as a unit of historical analysis, from its construction in the context of Roman colonial geography, to its dissolution during the Ottoman conquests in the fifteenth and sixteenth century, which imposed new political, cultural, religious and mental barriers in the region. Regardless of the disintegration of the Roman provincial system in Late Antiquity and early medieval times, Dalmatia, between the southern Alps, the Adriatic and the river Sava, still shows a significant degree of cultural unity and political integration in the medieval period.

Scholarship after 2010 The scholarship on late antique and early medieval Dalmatia is sizeable and is mostly presented in Becoming Slav, so there is no need to repeat it.18 Rather, this section will briefly have a look into the most significant monographic publications and edited volumes after 2010 focussed on Dalmatia, while the rest of relevant specialised literature will be discussed in the context of individual chapters. While there were no recent publications dealing exclusively with Dalmatia throughout the entire period discussed here, there were a few important studies tackling it, at least partially. Probably the most significant contributions are three edited volumes, published quite recently. The first one is a volume on the Croatian early Middle Ages, encompassing the period between 550 and 1150, with a number of contributions dealing with Dalmatia, its social life, economy, regional micro-histories and its place in the wider context.19 Another recent volume, published in English, focusses on the Treaty of Aachen of 812 from different perspectives, placing

Dalmatia in time and space  13 more light on this event in the wider context of the Adriatic and central Europe by bringing together a truly international group of authors.20 The third of these volumes, also published in English, deals with migration, integration and connectivity on the southeastern frontiers of the Carolingian Empire. It deals with different aspects of societal transformations in the region of the eastern Adriatic and its hinterland caused by the region’s positioning as a Carolingian frontier zone in the late eighth and ninth centuries, and critically evaluates its historiography.21 There were a few recent monographic publications, mostly dealing tangentially with the area or period under consideration. In Croatian scholarship the most significant synthetic works are two monographs in the Croatian language, one on Late Antiquity in Croatia by Robert Matijašić, and the other one on the early medieval period (550–1100) by Neven Budak. Although intended for university students, both of these books incorporate a large amount of recent scholarship and provide a very informative view on the periods under consideration and it is a shame that they are not available to a wider reading audience.22 The early medieval archaeology of this area was immensely enriched by the capital work of Maja Petrinec on ‘old-Croat’ cemeteries between the eighth and eleventh century. Petrinec has updated catalogic overview of post-Roman and early medieval cemeteries in some of the areas discussed in this book. Another recent study of archaeology from this period is the translated and updated 2006 study of Vladimir Sokol on medieval jewellery and burial assemblages in medieval Croatia published in English.23 There is also an important publication of the late antique and early medieval graves in Ljubač near Nin, several monographs of Ante Milošević including an excellent longue durée archaeological overview of the micro-region of Sinjsko polje, and the monograph of Željko Rapanić which revisited the end of antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages in modern-day central Dalmatia. It is also worth mentioning the large catalogue of pre-Romanesque churches from the entire area in four volumes by Tomislav Marasović, and the study of early medieval pottery by Luka Bekić.24

Geography The region defined by the approximate borders of late antique Dalmatia is extremely diverse – geographically and politically. While current political division is the result of early modern and modern developments, very distinct geographical features existed for much longer. These features directly or indirectly impacted on historical processes and the establishment of inter-human networks, by determining the nature of connection-networks but also causing the adaptability of local communities to their environment. Also, the distribution of resources directly shaped the quality and quantity of production and access to necessary resources. The geo-ecological division of Dalmatia into the Mediterranean, the karst, and the inner Dinarid

14  Dalmatia in time and space zone was used in the past to shape the development of discursive stereotypes or racial discourses about the population of these zones. However, as we will see, these stereotypes were impacted by subjective perceptions of those who created and perpetuated them. In reality the different characteristics of the ecological zones of Dalmatia made them complementary to each other, initiating and determining the establishment of exchange networks, architectures of power and the transfer of ideas coming from outside. Administratively late antique Dalmatia is today divided by the borders of the modern-day states of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Serbia and Montenegro. These borders are not national (except perhaps in the Slovenian case) or natural borders – they are determined by imperial and state borders, some older, and some dating from very recent history. The Slovenian-Croatian border is a case of an older imperial frontier that coalesced into a border between the Holy Roman Empire and the ‘lands of the crown of St Stephen’ at the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century.25 Already in the thirteenth century it developed into a full state border, remaining as such the border between the Habsburg Austrian ‘kingdom’ (i.e. the province) of Carniola and the Hungarian ‘kingdom’ of Croatia-Slavonia, which were cemented in their present shape by the extent of the Drava banovina of the Yugoslav kingdom from 1929. The border of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina follows the triple imperial border between the Habsburg and Venetian empires and the Republic of Ragusa with the Ottoman empire, which was finally established in its present form only in 1718 (Venice) and 1788 (the Habsburg empire). In the east, the present border of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia was determined in 1812 as an internal Ottoman border between the semi-independent principality of Serbia and the Ottoman eyalet (province) of Bosnia, with corrections made in 1833. The border of Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina was established by the peace of Berlin in 1878. The border between Croatia and Montenegro took its present shape as late as post-First World War, when the gulf of Boka Kotorska was incorporated into the newly formed oblast of Zeta, within the South Slav kingdom. The double name for Bosnia-and-Herzegovina comes from the fact that the Ottoman eyalet of Bosnia consisted of the Ottoman sanjaks (tur. sancak) of Bosnia, Herzegovina and Novi Pazar. The Habsburgs occupied the sanjaks of Bosnian eyalet after the provisions of the Berlin peace treaty of 1878, annexing Herzegovina and Bosnia in 1908. The sanjak Novi Pazar was annexed by Serbia and Montenegro after the First Balkan War in 1912, establishing the modern-day border limitations of Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The establishment of federal Yugoslavia in 1945 cemented those borders as the borders between its federal republics, so they become state-borders after the gradual disintegration of that country. As said before, the current administrative borders in this part of the world are not result of the development of nation-states as in western Europe, and they are not determined by the lines of division between different nations.

Dalmatia in time and space  15 So, a large number of Croats and Serbs live in modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina making together half of its present population, the Serbs are the largest minority group in Croatia, while Serbia and Montenegro have a sizeable Bosniak minority in the region of Sandžak. The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina of 1991–1995 established an internal division of this country on national principles, so that the overwhelming majority of Serbs now live in Republika Srpska, while the Croats and Bosniaks populate the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Croats are the majority in the županijas Herzeg-Bosnia (Livno), West Herzegovina and Posavina as well as the south and south-west of županija Neretva-Herzegovina and Croat-majority pockets in the županija Central Bosnia. Nevertheless, the modern administrative or ethnic division has little to do with the geography of the region, or the functioning of Dalmatia before 1500. The region between the eastern Adriatic and the river Sava is divided into three distinct geo-ecological zones: the Mediterranean (the coast with the islands), the karst zone in the hinterland and the mountainous woody zone of the deep Dinarides in the north. These zones share similar characteristics from a geological point of view, because they all belong to the Dinaridic mountain system, which stretches from the Alps in the northwest towards the southeast to the Shkodër-Pejë/Peć fault that represents the border with the Hellenides mountain system. The division of the three zones is dictated by geological formations in this area – the coast and karst zone belong to external Dinaride thrust-sheet zone (the Dinaridic carbonate platform), while the interior is part of the complex deep Dinaride zone consisting of the central and internal Dinarides (Bosnian Flysch-Una Kuči and the Dinaridic ophilyte zone).26 The Adriatic coast and islands were shaped relatively recently in geological terms, as a result of rising sea-levels caused by the melting of the ice caps at the beginning of Pliocene era, which is dated approximately to 17,000 BC. Before that period, the sea-level was approximately 100m lower than today, so that most of the area currently covered by the Adriatic Sea was dry land. The central and northern Adriatic islands were in fact hills and mountains and the narrow Adriatic gulf just reached the level of modern-day Šibenik. The rise of the Adriatic waters slowed down during the cold Younger Dryas period and then from ca. 9500 BC the sea rose more than 40m. The rapid rise of the sea ended approximately 2000–1450 BC, depending on the area. In the historical period, the period of the fourth to sixth century characterises a new rise of the sea-level ascribed to tectonic subsidence, which continues today so that the current sea-level on the eastern Adriatic coast is some 1.5–2m above the sea-level in antiquity.27 Mediterranean zone The distinction between the east Adriatic coast and the hinterland is clear to every tourist who has climbed up to the fortress of Klis, which overlooks

16  Dalmatia in time and space the city of Split. Klis was a strategic point for centuries, and it is one of a few points in Dalmatia that act as a guard between the coast and the hinterland, the space in-between where two geographical zones of Dalmatia make contact. The view towards the south shows an amazing landscape, huge open spaces and the blazing blueness of the Adriatic Sea on sunny days. It is possible to see a small archipelago which frames the Bay of Kaštela, made up of the central Dalmatian islands Čiovo, Šolta, Hvar, Brač, even Vis on clear days, revealing distinct communities which all share the same feature – the Adriatic Sea. It is the sea that frames the coast, providing its resources, opportunities for communication, and the mild Mediterranean climate. Even rain comes from the sea, pushed by the southern wind jugo (sirocco). However, turning back towards the north, the view is blocked by high mountains. The narrow view through the pass of Klis allows just a peak into the Dalmatian Zagora (zagora – the land behind the mountains). The mountains present a physical and visual barrier, which divides the coastal strip from the hinterland. It is from behind the mountains that the freezing cold northern wind bura, the Croatian variant of the tramontane, comes blowing at times up to 200km/h. This wind has a significant impact on the landscape making all exposed positions bare of vegetation, and forcing humans to establish their settlements and agricultural areas at the places naturally well-protected from bura. A narrow eastern Adriatic coastal-belt and the islands together with the Italian coast opposite represents a very distinctive geo-cultural unit linked, rather than divided, by the sea. Together with the immediate hinterland the coast is composed of the limestone mountains deficient in water resources and abundant with karst features, such as caves or underground rivers. This zone was well-connected to the rest of the Mediterranean world throughout history, due to increased connectivity provided by the sea. Some of the islands have a significant quantity of arable land, and the larger islands were inhabited from the Neolithic period, in particular the central Adriatic islands of Vis, Hvar and Korčula, but also the north Adriatic islands in the gulf of Kvarner, such as Cres, Krk, Rab, etc. The eastern Adriatic coast presented a key communication line for ancient and medieval navigators sailing through the Adriatic, providing shelter and water as well as safe routes for travel, which is very much unlike the Italian Adriatic coast. The position of the central Adriatic islands enables an easy crossing between the eastern and western Adriatic coast via the island of Vis. Outside islands, such as Palagruža, offered the opportunity for long-distance sailing routes, which can be attested as early as the Archaic-era Greek navigators, who sailed from the Ionian sea towards the mouth of the Adriatic via Palagruža.28 The coast is separated from the hinterland by high mountain-chains, and there are a limited number of plains in the immediate hinterland between Zadar and Split, or the fertile and swampy alluvial plains in the lower stream of the Neretva. The Dinarides seriously obstruct communication

Dalmatia in time and space  17 and therefore limit connectivity with the hinterland. There are only a few passes enabling communication with the hinterland, such as the pass through the Mt Velebit near Senj, or the pass of Klis. The valleys of a few southbound rivers also enabled communication, in particular the valley of the river Neretva, which stretches deep inland towards the north, and also the rivers Krka, Cetina and Zeta represented important communication routes. The coastal area has distinctive micro-geographical regions. From the gulf of Kvarner to the river Zrmanja lies a very narrow coastal strip where the Velebit Mountain separates the coast from the hinterland area of Lika and Gorski Kotar. Perhaps the most important micro-geographical unit is the Ravni Kotari-Bukovica plains. They are situated in the area from the river Zrmanja to the river Krka, providing a significant amount of arable land, compared with the rest of the coast, and representing the only inroad to a deeper continental hinterland. Such a position and resources benefited dense settlement, the creation of complex social structures and the concentration of political power in the Iron Ages, Roman times and the entire Middle Ages. This area, also known as Liburnia, was one of the most urbanised areas of the eastern Adriatic in the late Iron Age before the Roman conquest, and also in the early and late medieval period.29 The most dominant city in the sub-region was Iader (Zadar), an indigenous city which became a Roman colony in the first century BC and thereafter remained the only coastal city enclosed by a self-sufficient hinterland, and an archipelago of numerous islands. However, there were some other important urban units in the Ravni Kotari, such as Aenona (Nin), built on a land area of ca. 0.3km2, protected by a moat and city walls and positioned in the lagoon of the Bay of Nin. Between the rivers Krka and Cetina lies the central Dalmatian coast, which encompasses the Bay of Kaštela where Salona, the capital of Roman Dalmatia, was situated between the former Greek colonies of Tragurion (Tragurium-Trogir) and Epetion (Epetium-Stobreč). In the early fourth century, the emperor Diocletian, (probably) a native of Salona, built his famous palace between Salona and Epetium, which became the core of an early medieval settlement known as Spalatum – modern Split. Further south, towards the river Neretva, the coastal strip was isolated from the hinterland by the Mosor-Biokovo mountain chains, and only in the valley of Neretva does it open towards the north with a significant number of alluvial plains, which became the site of the important Roman centre of Narona (Vid near Metković). Further south in antiquity were Epidaurum (Cavtat), Ragusium (Dubrovnik) and the deep and narrow gulf of Boka Kotorska. The Mediterranean zone, while having obvious advantages over the other geo-ecological zones of Dalmatia due to an increased connectivity potential and abundant marine resources, also had its disadvantages. The first was a lack of arable land, and the second a lack of metal ores. In addition to this, connectivity also brought another set of problems such as easy access for invaders from the sea. It is also important to remember that the geography of the eastern

18  Dalmatia in time and space Adriatic coast provided shelter to pirates who appeared throughout history when the level of trade started to increase on the sea routes. Karst zone Beginning in the hinterland, the intermediary zone of the Dinaric Alps stretches in a northwest-southeast direction parallel to the coast. It shares the geological structure of the Mediterranean zone and forms part of the Dinaric carbonate platform. This area ‘behind the mountains’ divides the warm Mediterranean climate of the coast from the cold sub-continental climate, which dominates the hinterland and, depending on the area, has a sub-Mediterranean or continental climate. The Dinaric Alps were a major physical obstacle in pre-modern times, so communication routes between the coast and the north were limited to only a few passes and the river valleys which were easy to control. Karst micro-regions are internally divided by geographical features, but throughout history the communities that inhabited them shared a significant level of interconnectivity and a united cultural habitus brought about by the need to adapt to a peculiar landscape. The present-day regions of Lika, Gorski Kotar, Dalmatian Zagora, Herzegovina and most of Montenegro, are dominated by the karst – the mountainous landscape made of porous limestone, characterised by a lack of surface water and poor vegetation. Limestone made of carbonate rocks is porous, so surface water disappears, and permanent water streams or rivers are very rare in this landscape. The dominance of the karst is only interrupted by the more densely settled plains – poljes (sing. polje), which were occasional depressions between the mountains with fertile soil of terra rossa, such as the Sinjsko polje (the polje of Sinj), Livanjsko polje, Duvanjsko polje, Glamočko polje, Imotsko polje, etc. The only exception is the valley of the river Neretva, together with the valley of the affluent Trebižat river which cuts through the Dinaric ranges, providing a quantity of fertile land, communication routes by land and water, and the extension of the Mediterranean climate inland to the Mostarsko polje. Polje is a crucial feature of this geo-ecological zone. This is the only place where human habitation and agriculture can be concentrated. Spring rains and the melting snow cause frequent flooding in these plains, and so pre-modern habitation and communication routes are usually concentrated on their edges, leaving the centre uninhabited and used for agriculture and the raising of small cattle. While no significant urban units developed in this zone before modern times, each polje was densely inhabited throughout history as a complex of networked smaller settlements, including several important secondary settlements such as Roman Varvaria/medieval Breberium (Bribiska glavica) near Skradin, which mediated the flow of supplies and tax between the countryside and the urban units on the coast and in the river valleys deeper in the hinterland. Outside polje little else could be done except the herding of small cattle – usually goats and sheep. Lack of food

Dalmatia in time and space  19 supply for the animals caused the appearance of seasonal transhumance movements of cattle-herders, which can be detected in all periods from the beginnings of agriculture in the Neolithic times.30 The fragmented nature of the Dalmatian karst not only brought communities together, but also enhanced competition between smaller communities. This ambiguity meant that regional identities were constructed on a background of constant friction: the coming together of extended family groups sharing the same landscape visually limited to the extent of polje and internal differences and enhanced by the need for smaller groups to compete for scarce space and fertile land. This region also lacked metal deposits, but its position between the deposits of metal ore in the deep Dinarides and communication routes provided by the Adriatic Sea made it important for the facilitation and control of connectivity-networks between the coast and the deep hinterland. The production of food also made it an important supplier to the cities on the coast, and so as stated earlier several important secondary-settlements developed in this zone. This was also the zone where cultural influences from the Mediterranean and the Pannonian plains, coming from the coast and deep Dinarides, were processed and transmitted further, resulting in creative and original local developments.31 The Dalmatian hinterland was discursively presented from the Early Modern era as a traditionally isolated and conservative area. This view of the local communities, shared even by the great Fernand Braudel, reflects the perception of outside observers from the eighteenth century onwards rather than the true ‘mentality’ of the local population, which persisted as a timeless social reality.32 The unique geography of the region impacted the development of the communities that inhabited it, but it did not make them conservative and isolated by default. The ‘civilisational inequality’ of the coast and the hinterland belongs to the complex Balkanistic discourse originating with the Venetian traveller Alberto Fortis and his era of the Enlightenment. This discourse developed further in the nineteenth and twentieth century as a distorted perception of the local social reality and as a way of textually colonising this part of Europe. Braudel’s assessment was also heavily influenced by the self-appropriated Balkanism of the Serbian geographer Jovan Cvijić. Seeing Christian, essentially Western, Venice in the sixteenth century as a beacon of civilisation fighting the Ottoman threat, and using the existing discourse that can be traced back to Fortis, it is not surprising that Braudel assumed a cultural dichotomy between the coast and the hinterland as a permanent social reality for the Balkan ‘savages’.33 Deep Dinarides The karst zone of the external Dinaride carbonate platform borders the geologically complex central and internal Dinarides. In the north this zone reaches the Pannonian plains in the valley of the river Sava, while in the east it continues towards the Shkodër-Pejë/Peć fault, which represents the border

20  Dalmatia in time and space with the mountain-chains of the Hellenides. As with the Mediterranean and karst zone, this zone is determined by the northwest-southeast positioning of the mountain chains, which are interrupted by the river valleys of northbound rivers, such as the Una, Vrbas, Bosna and Drina, which are confluent to the Sava. Connectivity with the south is limited to a few mountain passes, such as Ivan-Sedlo and Kupres, while the northbound rivers enable a much more convenient connection with the Pannonian plains. Compared with the karst zone, this zone is richer in water resources with numerous rivers, creeks and lakes. Vegetation is also much more abundant with most of the mountains covered with thick forests. Due to the orientation of the mountain chains, it is closed to the Mediterranean climate influences. The summers are warm, but the winters are much colder with an abundance of snow. The agricultural potential of this zone is limited to the river valleys, although the mountain-plateaus allow the raising of small cattle and limited agriculture. The most significant resources are timber from the forests and deposits of metal ores. Large deposits of iron, coal, silver, lead, even gold, were mined from prehistory in the Ljubija, central Bosnian and Srebrenica-Vlasenica basins. Due to the nature of the relief, human settlement was limited throughout history to the mountain-valleys and river-valleys. Similarly to the karst zone, no significant urban units developed before the late medieval period, although the area was indeed settled from the earliest prehistory with some significant settlements being found in the Neolithic period, especially in the valley of the river Bosna.34 Similarly to the zone of the karst, this area was discursively imagined as being conservative and impenetrable to foreign influences, while the Second World War communist-led partisan resistance was also used to project the idea of ‘traditional’ resistance to ‘foreign’ conquerors.35 In fact, as we will see throughout the book, the deep Dinarides played a significant role in the functioning of Dalmatia. Apart from its metal deposits, it was the area exposed to cultural influences coming from the north, especially from communication networks forming in the Pannonian plains. This zone acted as a contact area, which processed and adapted those influences to the existing cultural habitus, merging them with the influences from the Mediterranean networks already self-appropriated by the communities of the coastal areas and karst zone. The most significant cultural influences periodically coming from the Pannonian basin are the late Bronze Age Urnfield culture, the Iron Age Halstatt and La Tène network macrosystems as well as the late antique/early medieval migration movements and the steppe empires of the Huns or Avars. In the later period, this zone was also an essential strategic area, which enabled the functioning of the southern part of the Hungarian proto-imperial system in the Middle Ages. The diverse geography of Dalmatia reinforces the idea that this region was created as an imperial artefact, bringing together diverse communities from different ecological zones. Yet, the unusual compatibility of those ecological zones with regard to resources and communications resulted in their

Dalmatia in time and space  21 interdependence, bringing together these communities in a unique system of networks which functioned for such a long period. For that reason, this system was easily incorporated into larger imperial units either as their territory or a well-defined frontier zone, until finally the Ottoman conquest brought its unity to an end.

Roman Dalmatia Finally, before we begin to discuss late antique Dalmatia, a few words should be said about its imperial foundations. Before the Roman conquest, the local Iron Age population developed distinguishable local networks, recognised as archaeological cultures by modern archaeologists, for example: the Central Dalmatian, Liburnian, Iapodean, etc. The spread of La Tène cultural templates in the Pannonian plains and the Greek colonisation of the central Adriatic islands after ca. 400 BC intensified the process of cultural change among the indigenous population, which started to develop more complex social and political institutions.36 In the late third century BC the wider area of the Adriatic became a battlefield between the rising Roman Republic and the Macedonian kingdom with local magnates playing a significant role, especially in the south Adriatic. The Roman victory and dismemberment of the southern Adriatic Illyrian kingdom in 168 BC enabled the rise of other indigenous political groups in the hinterland such as the Iapodes or Delmatae, which occasionally threatened the interests of Rome and its local allies. This caused several Roman military interventions in the later second and early first century BC, which had no long-term consequences, apart from enabling better conditions for the settlement of Italian traders and eliminating opposition to Roman influence. The province of Illyricum was established through the Roman conquest in the first century BC and AD, especially as a consequence of Octavian’s wars 35–33 BC and the Pannonian war of Tiberius 12–9 BC, spreading Roman power from the Adriatic all the way to the Danube. The last organised resistance of the indigenous population was crushed in the Batonian war AD 6–9, after which the provincial command of Illyricum, significantly enlarged at that time, was divided and the provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia were established.37 Dalmatia was from its inception a spatial construct in the Roman imperial geography, one which brought together very different local communities. The conquest initiated a process of cultural change, which ultimately resulted in the creation of a distinct provincial culture and the integration of the local population within imperial power-, economic- and cultural networks. The break with the pre-Roman past was implemented at the same time practically and symbolically, transforming the late Iron Age mental and political landscapes into new forms of spatial organisation. The Imperial government shaped local communities into administrative peregrine civitates, which reorganised the existing indigenous political institutions and provided the foundations for the later development of municipal

22  Dalmatia in time and space units.38 These changes in perceptions of the space constructed a new sense of locality for the provincial population that would be established as a point of reference in cultural interaction with ‘global’ imperial influences. It provided new avenues through which the Dalmatian inhabitants would further negotiate their personal and group identities. After several generations, the provincials more or less embraced elements of the Roman imperial cultural package, establishing a provincial society in which they had certain liberties in negotiating the process of ‘becoming Roman’ on several different levels such as local or provincial. The process of identity-negotiation, going beyond simplified binary notions of ‘Roman’ and ‘indigenous’, is detectable in several aspects and is perhaps the best researched as far are the cults from the Roman period are concerned. Some of these drew on continuity with pre-Roman sacral places but were visibly modified to provide an interface between the locals and the immigrants (traders, settlers, soldiers, slaves) arriving in the province, reflecting the establishment of new provincial social networks.39 The progress and level of Latin-acquisition among the local population is unclear, especially in the hinterland. First of all, we know close to nothing about the indigenous ‘Illyrian’ languages spoken before the Roman conquest, apart from a few words and anthroponymic evidence for indigenous names, mostly from Roman-era inscriptions.40 Second, while Dalmatian epigraphy is almost entirely written in Latin (with very few Greek exceptions, especially in Salona) the Roman and Italic names of the local population may have only been used in particular contexts, for example, funerary epigraphy. They may have also simultaneously used their indigenous names in different contexts, especially in the first centuries of Roman rule as a form of cultural mimicry. Research on the names recorded on lead tesserae from Siscia, the city neighbouring the Dalmatian northern borders, shows the significant presence of local non-Roman names despite their absence in epigraphy.41 Nevertheless, despite the lack of material necessary for establishing particular stages in this process of language-acquisition, it is likely that the local population in Late Antiquity spoke a particular provincial Latin language. An important feature in transformation of the space, which channelled and generated cultural change in Roman Dalmatia, was the development and maintenance of a communication network. The building of the roads in the Dalmatian hinterland was already underway in the reign of the emperor Tiberius when Publius Dolabella was the Dalmatian governor (AD 14–20). These roads increased connectivity through their carefully defined directions between the urban centres on the eastern Adriatic coast and its hinterland. Their construction was affected by the need to connect the Adriatic coast with the Pannonian plains, to enable better control of the local communities, and to include the large and important mining districts of the hinterland in the imperial communication network. It channelled cultural change and affected the shaping of settlement patterns in Roman Dalmatia, as these roads secured the successful integration of the coastal cities and

Dalmatia in time and space  23 the dispersed settlements of the hinterland into a distinct, asymmetrical, Dalmatian provincial landscape.42 The urbanism and settlement patterns in the first three centuries of Roman Dalmatia provide a very interesting picture, reflecting not only geo-ecological divisions within the province, but also a diversity of cultural changes caused by negotiations with Roman imperial templates.43 In the first decades of Roman rule (the late first century BC/early first century AD) regular orthogonally shaped cities containing the essential elements of the Roman city, such as the forum and public buildings, develop only on the coast. The best examples are Iader (Zadar), where the Roman city was attached to the pre-existing indigenous Liburnian settlement at the top of the peninsula, and the provincial capital Salona, which developed on the site of the Greek emporium in central Dalmatia. There were not many new foundations, such as the veteran settlement Colonia Claudia Aequum (Čitluk near Sinj), which was a newly built town in accordance with Roman urbanistic practice. Unfortunately, the state of evidence cannot tell us more about the shape of other important cities in the coastal areas such as Scardona (Skradin), Tragurium (Trogir), Narona (Vid near Metković) or Epidaurum (Cavtat).44 In Liburnia, the city of Aenona (Nin), though an indigenous settlement, developed a regular Roman orthogonal plan. Roman urban features were partially integrated into other existing indigenous Liburnian proto-urban fortified hill-top settlements in the immediate hinterland of the Adriatic, so that several important secondary settlements in the Roman network developed such as Varvaria or Asseria. These mixed-type settlements had elements of the Roman city, such as city-walls, or a forum with some monumental public buildings (basilicas? temples?). Asseria had an aqueduct, but the position of Varvaria on the top of a hill made this feature impossible to build. However, these settlements lacked other monumental features such as theatres and amphitheatres, and the density of urban settlement and the complete street-grid still cannot be assessed with absolute certainty.45 From what can be deduced from the mostly unpublished excavation diaries of Stjepan Gunjača and Mate Suić, it is possible to see a lack of dense settlement and an abundance of local elite-connected buildings on the excavated parts of Varvaria, which comprise some 20–25% of the site. Curiously, there is only a single indication of industrial production on this site (a blacksmith’s workshop) from the Roman period, discovered only recently.46 The level of urbanisation on the eastern Adriatic islands, and especially on the islands in the Kvarner Bay, also shows mixed elements of urbanity, with more or less regular Roman urban plans. The settlement patterns in the Dinaric mountainous regions – in the karst zone and central Dinarides – developed in a different way to those of the coastal belt, exhibiting less social complexity when assessed through settlement patterns. An insufficient amount of research prevents definite conclusions on this matter, but it is safe to say that until now it is very difficult to recognise typical Roman settlement patterns similar to those on the

24  Dalmatia in time and space Dalmatian coast. This particularly relates to the absence of distinct urban units, characterised by essential features, for example, dense habitation, the street-grid, city-walls, the concentration of public buildings and monumental architecture. Epigraphy indicates the appearance of municipal units and the existence of a municipal aristocracy, especially after the Flavian era in the later first century. In a dozen places, such as Delminium (Tomislavgrad), Diluntium (Stolac) and Domavia (Sase near Srebrenica), smaller Roman agglomerations connected with the road networks were discovered, indicating the public function of the buildings.47 Indigenous Iron Age hill-fort settlements in the internal Dinarides often show continuity of habitation, but the preference for building houses from perishable materials such as a combination of timber and mud caused the loss of much evidence for habitation in this period.48 This was not a sparsely inhabited region, and there are quite a few examples, such as the plains of Ilidža-Sarajevo in what is today central Bosnia, or the surroundings of Imotski in Dalmatian Zagora, to mention only a few, which show dense but dispersed settlement in this period.49 Such a pattern of settlement could be best defined as ‘rural towns/urban villages’, or a ‘scattered city model’. This model describes agglomerations characterised by dense settlement and taking on some of the functions of a city, especially in an administrative context, but without the development of recognisable urban cores.50 This was also recently argued by Zeman, who provided the example of scattered but dense settlement in Roman Rider (Danilo in the hinterland of Šibenik). Rider was a Roman municipium from the Flavian period consisting of a Roman agglomeration with baths, in previous scholarship seen as villa urbana, and industrial-purpose buildings formed along the Roman road, to which the existing indigenous hill-fort settlement was attached. In Zeman’s view, which represents an excellent starting point for better understandings of Roman-era settlements in the deeper hinterland of Dalmatia, this agglomeration formed around a Roman road-station mansion, which also acted as a Roman administrative centre. It was at the same time a local self-governed civilian settlement on the hill, but also a Roman road station that needed municipal organisation. Similar functions, for state-run stations not necessarily connected with indigenous settlement, could also be traced in the buildings belonging to the Roman mansiones in Ilidža and Višići.51 The formation of the rural villa economy followed Roman patterns, with a significant outburst of new building-complexes in the fourth century. However, by the mid-fifth century a number of villas in the hinterland either ceased to exist or changed their function. Only a few such villas in the coastal zone might be seen as continuing with the same function in Late Antiquity.52 Nevertheless, it is important to notice the methodological problems and confusion that arises from defining villas in Dalmatia, as this term is often ascribed to building complexes with very different functions, such as: rural settlements, the Roman mansiones or the buildings which hosted administrators in areas with non-urban settlement agglomerations.53 These methodological inadequacies prevent us

Dalmatia in time and space  25 from having fuller insight into the villa economy of this period and impact the assessment of transformations taking place in the late antique Dalmatian countryside. Nevertheless, thanks to the pioneering work of Maja Zeman, at least some of the contours of these transformations can now be seen. These will be discussed in the next chapter.

Conclusion The longevity of Dalmatia as an extended social network, in its ancient and late antique sense, was insufficiently explored by earlier scholarship. There are several reasons for that – most significantly modern political divisions, divisions in the research focus of local scholarship of the Roman, late antique and early medieval period, and problems in communication between local and wider scholarship. Dalmatia has three specific and very different geo-ecological units, which provided different levels of connectivity with the outside world throughout history. This complex geography strongly impacted processes of cultural contact and cultural change throughout history, so that when Dalmatia was constructed as a spatial unit in the Roman imperial geography it was shaped by varying factors of unity and diversity in provincial social networks, and by a varying degree of inclusion for local communities in wider imperial networks. Despite the initial destruction and imperial oppression during the conquest period, Dalmatia undoubtedly profited immensely from Roman rule. Coastal urban settlement developed a significant level of social complexity thanks to the opened and unobstructed maritime communication routes and its natural connectivity predispositions. The interior on the other hand did not reach similar levels of social complexity, through the Roman administration clearly increased its productivity and the extent of its inclusion in the wider Mediterranean world. The interior was much more dependent on the imperial administration due to the fact that the successful exploitation of mining resources needed a working imperial system for maintaining their organisation and providing reliable markets. While embracing some imperial cultural templates and developing local municipal elites, the population of the hinterland was able to incorporate their traditions into these new identities on several levels stretching from the local to the imperial. Thus, it is possible to see Roman rule in Dalmatia as comparable to other western imperial provinces – from its establishment as an imperial artefact through to its moulding and shaping into a distinct provincial network within the wider imperial framework.

Notes 1 It is likely that Liburnia (modern northern Dalmatia and Kvarner) was administratively separate from the rest of Dalmatia from the third c., which explains the appearance of the plural Dalmatiae used in later sources, Basić 2017a.

26  Dalmatia in time and space















Dalmatia in time and space  27 40 Katičić 1976: 154–188. 41 Radman Livaja 2014: 1.138–43, cf. Dzino 2010c for cultural mimicry in the names of Dalmatian sailors. 42 Dzino 2017a: 47–50. 43 The most significant publication for the urbanism of the Adriatic coast and the immediate hinterland is still Suić 2003, and for the deeper hinterland (modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina) Bojanovski 1988a, cf. Pašalić 1984; Bojanovski 1988b; Wilkes 2003, while older research in English can be found in Wilkes 1969: 192–406. 44 In Narona, only the walls and forum from this period are well known, see recently Marin et al. 2017. 45 The forum in Asseria is located next to the city-walls (see recent research in Fadić 2003) while one in Varvaria is yet to be found. Scattered remains of architraves found on Bribirska glavica and recently discovered traces of monumental building preceding the late antique rotunda (Ghica et al. 2017: 787, 785 n.7, 789 with Figures 19, 5 and 29) indicate its existence. 46 Zekan 2009: 548. 47 Bojanovski 1988a: 67. 48 Pašalić 1984: 209, 242. 49 Imotski: Bojanovski 1977: 32–34; Ilidža-Sarajevo: Bojanovski 1988a: 145–152; Gudelj 2006: 17–18. 50 Veikou 2009, 2010. See also the discussion in Horden & Purcell 2000: 89–101, debating problems with modern criteria to distinguish the city and countryside in antiquity and the medieval period. 51 Zeman 2017a, 2017b: 119–122. 52 Begović & Schrunk 2001 (coastal areas and islands); Busuladžić 2011 (hinterland), cf. Matijašić 2012: 146–147. 53 Zeman 2014a: 75–87.

2

“An Old Woman’s Summer” A glimpse into late antique Dalmatia

There are several terms in European languages that describe unseasonably dry and warm autumns in the northern hemisphere. The Anglophone reader should be most familiar with the term ‘Indian summer’, but in the majority of European languages it is described as an ‘Old Woman’s Summer’ (Altweibersommer, babie lato, бабье лето, bablje ljeto, vénasszonyok nyara). When looking from a wider historical perspective, we can say with confidence that Dalmatia enjoyed an ‘Old Woman’s Summer’ in Late Antiquity. The province was affected by late antique social changes present in the entire Mediterranean world from the fourth century onwards, such as: the appearance of Christianity as a state religion, the transformation and fortification of settlements, the disappearance of the villa economy and new ways of expressing of elite identity. Fortunately for its inhabitants, Dalmatia was circumvented by most of the political instabilities of this period, remaining sheltered from the ‘barbarian’ invasions and settlement. While written sources are relatively scarce, the material record confirms that this province remained part of the Mediterranean network-system throughout the sixth and early seventh centuries and that there was no gradual decline affecting the provincial system after the end of the fourth century, as suggested in the older historical narratives.1

History of events After a few centuries of safety as an internal province of the Roman Empire, the northern parts of Dalmatia became a new imperial frontier after the loss of Pannonia for the Empire in the early fifth century. However, the chains of the Dinaric Alps were an important psychological and physical barrier for the Huns and Germanic invaders, so that Dalmatia avoided the wrath of these wandering groups, as well as their permanent settlement. Although St Jerome reports that his hometown Stridon, positioned on the border between Dalmatia and Pannonia (probably the hinterland of Tarsatica – modern Rijeka) together with the whole of Dalmatia, was destroyed by the Goths around 400, it is difficult to believe that the province was affected by the ‘barbarians’, except in its border areas.2 The fifth century was a

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  29 watershed for Dalmatia between the eastern and western Roman Empire, and it is still unclear when it was transferred from the West to the East. Older scholarship argued that it occurred in 437, but a new interpretation of the epitaph from the sarcophagus of Isaac found on the island of Lopud near Ragusium (Dubrovnik) implies that this happened after 452.3 The rise of the warlord Marcellinus of Dalmatia (454–468) made this area de facto independent from both empires, although he continued to officially recognise the rule of the eastern emperors. Marcellinus’ successor Julius Nepos made a short and unsuccessful bid for the western throne, which he kept briefly in 474–475. After his imperial ambitions were crushed, Nepos withdrew to Dalmatia but continued to rule as ‘Emperor of the West’ with the support of the eastern emperor Zeno until his assassination in 480.4 After a few years under the rule of Odoacer, the king of Italy, some parts of Dalmatia were taken by Theoderic the Ostrogoth in 488 and the whole of the province was included in his kingdom in 493. Almost half a century of Ostrogothic rule in Dalmatia (493–536) left no deeper traces in the province – politically, socially or culturally – and little material evidence can be dated precisely within these years. However, thanks to Cassiodorus’ Variae, at least some insight into Ostrogothic Dalmatia is possible.5 The Ostrogoths respected the existing administrative structure and relied on the support of local elites, and so they did not meddle too much in the internal affairs of the province. The Ostrogothic presence was limited to the upper layers of  the administration and the army units – neither written sources nor archaeological evidence support the idea of their larger settlement. The evidence from the written sources such as the Variae or Procopius also show that no other defined ethnic group, apart from the Goths (probably applied to everyone serving in the army) and the local population (‘Romans’) existed at that time in Dalmatia.6 The Ostrogothic administration was led by comes Dalmatiae, who at some point in time became comes Dalmatiarum et Saviae, combining the administrative responsibilities for Dalmatia and former Roman Pannonia Secunda. Social differentiation and the dominance of local elites was maintained, and the imposition of the sales-tax siliquaticum on the local population may imply the existence of a sophisticated fiscal administration and a relatively stable economic situation.7 After centuries of relative peace, Dalmatia became an important battleground for a few years during Justinian’s Gothic Wars, mostly because of its strategic significance and proximity to Italy. The first east Roman attempt to take it failed in 535 when Justinian’s general Mundo the Gepid was killed in battle after initially taking the provincial capital Salona. The Roman army withdrew and the Ostrogoths, led by Asinarius and Gripas, regained partial control of the province. They were unable to take back Salona immediately, but only the fortifications around it – Salona was later retaken by Gripas. The successful conquest of the province was accomplished in 536 by the general Constantianus. Although the Ostrogoths launched a strong counterattack in 537, sending a land army and navy led by Uligisalus and

30  “An Old Woman’s Summer” joined by Asinarius, the east Romans successfully defended themselves by defeating the Ostrogoths first at Scardona and later in the battle fought on the approaches of Salona. The destruction of the Ostrogothic fleet enabled Justinian’s forces to secure their new possession. Salona is mentioned several times as a base for east Roman campaigns in Italy in the 540s, but apart from the raid of Indulf in 549 no more Ostrogothic counterattacks are recorded. While the impact of these conflicts upon Dalmatia is difficult to assess, their brevity and limited theatre suggests that they were not devastating in the long term.8 Mentions of Dalmatia after the Gothic Wars in the sources are seldom and do not provide much useful information for reconstructing a ‘history of events’ or administrative arrangements after the conquest. There are two opposite views about the organisation of the province. Ferluga thought that the governor of Dalmatia after the Justinian’s Reconquista had the title of proconsul. This information is attested only in 599 in pope Gregory the Great’s letter to the proconsul Marcellinus and the funerary inscription of the proconsul’s brother (or father), the priest John, from the Salonitan cemetery Marusinac dated to 599 or 603. Margetić, however, argued that Dalmatia was not a proper province, but rather a territory under direct military rule with the military commander in charge being responsible to the Ravennate Exarch. In his opinion, the proconsular title of Marcellinus was honorary, and his real title was scholasticus – a legal advisor to the military commander of Dalmatia and the Exarch. Gregory in 594 addressed one ‘Marcellus’, likely our Marcellinus, as scholasticus in their correspondence, five years before he addressed him as proconsul. Ferluga explains that Marcellinus was first a scholasticus to an unknown proconsul and then later became a proconsul himself.9 The problem is complex and not particularly relevant to this narrative, as either of these opinions could be correct. However, the opinion of Margetić that Dalmatia was a military district under a separate military command does not explain the absence of tactical units in the hinterland as seen in Byzantine reactions to the raids of the Langobards (552), Sclavenes (550/51) and Avars (597 or 598), as shown below. Finally, it is possible that two monograms of clarissimus Romanus pro(…) inscribed on small stone cubes from the sixth century bear the name of another Dalmatian proconsul.10 One, potentially two early Byzantine lead seals from this period were also recently found in Dalmatia, shedding more light on the imperial administration and its connections with Constantinople. The first was an imperial lead seal of the emperor Maurice, found in the Ljubljana hillfort close to Ljubač, near Nin – the medieval castrum Liube. The other comes from a still unpublished accidental find of several Byzantine seals on Kolovare beach in Zadar. While three of those seals were tentatively dated to the late eighth/ early ninth century, one apparently contained the name of a Byzantine official, Michael, with the title spatharios and is dated to the sixth century – the times of Justinian or Justin II.11 While this seal still awaits proper analysis,

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  31 it is important to note that the title spatharios is very rare before the seventh/ eighth century and is less significant than the same title will in later periods. Thus, if this Kolovare seal indeed comes from the sixth century, then the spatharios Michael was not an administrator but rather a military attendant to the general, while the seal from the Ljubljana hillfort shows the maintenance of contacts with Constantinople, which is not surprising. There are a few events recorded in the sources after the east Roman reconquest. The Ostrogoths made a daring but ineffective naval raid of Indulf in 549, when their fleet landed on the Dalmatian coast and sacked Μουικούρον (Makarska?) and Λαυρεάτη. The raid probably deliberately coincided with Roman problems caused by the Sclavenes, who were in the central Balkans at that time. In 550, the group of Sclavene raiders who penetrated as far Naissus (Niš) in order to reach Salonica withdrew to avoid the larger Roman army led by Germanus, who was advancing from Sardica. When Germanus saw that the Sclavenes had withdrawn into Dalmatia, he lost interest in pursuing them, and so they spent the winter of 550/551 and the first part of 551 in Dalmatia seemingly undisturbed. There is no archaeological trace of this event and it is impossible to determine the places to which they withdrew. One can only speculate that they chose the mountainous areas of modern-day Montenegro, eastern Bosnia or Sandžak as a temporary refuge. In 552, the Byzantine general Narses kicked out a detachment of the Langobards from Italy for misbehaviour when fighting the Ostrogoths as Byzantine allies. As revenge they plundered Dalmatia and apparently penetrated all the way to the Adriatic, reaching Dyrrachium in Epirus.12 In 554, the Salonitan bishop Frontinianus was dismissed and exiled for supporting the Three Chapters controversy, which have been condemned by Justinian. His successor was Peter, who was appointed by the imperial government, rather than being a local choice. The extensive building program in Salona ascribed to this bishop (discussed later in this chapter) could have been a way of smoothing things out and weakening support for the Three Chapters among the citizens of Salona and its church.13 There is also a mention of the raid of 10,000 Kutrigur Huns in 567 /568, whom the Avar qagan sent to cross the  Sava river and raid Dalmatia. What they actually raided is not clear, and the numbers must have been exaggerated by our source Menander.14 After these events, there is nothing in the sources, until the letters of pope Gregory I written in the 590s. They imply the Roman pontiff’s problems with the leadership of the Salonitan archbishopry, in particular the misuse of Church property, disobedience, corruption and nepotism. One Maximus became the new Salonitan bishop against Gregory’s wishes and explicit orders by overthrowing the already elected Salonitan archdeacon Honoratus. The evidence for these conflicts is a valuable source for understanding social changes in the late sixth century and will be revisited in much more detail in the next chapter.15 Finally, Simocatta mentions the Avar raid of 597 or 598, which caused the destruction of 40 Dalmatian castella, including the previously unknown place of Bonkeis/Balkes. This was a well-fortified place,

32  “An Old Woman’s Summer” and so it was only possible to take it with siege-engines. The Avars did not plan to take Dalmatia and were ultimately defeated during their withdrawal by relief troops from Singidunum (Belgrade) under the leadership of Godwin, who was dispatched by the general Priscus. Godwin marched through rough terrain avoiding main roads, which implies that the Avars penetrated from the north and probably reached the mountainous ranges of the inner Dinarides in the central part of the province. A recently excavated large castrum in Bakinci near Laktaši, connected with three extramural basilicas and destroyed at that time, has tentatively been identified as Bonkeis/ Balkes.16 While the obvious lack of written sources for Dalmatia from Justinian’s conquest to the end of the sixth century represents a problem, it is also a blessing in disguise since attention must then be directed towards material evidence and an examination of the period outside the limits imposed by written narratives. However, the examination of a large corpus of material evidence is not without its difficulties. While the coastal areas and immediate hinterland are reasonably well-explored, modern methodologies for absolute dating only began to be used recently. Dates are mostly calculated through typological analysis, which brings a range of problems, for example, a lack of exact dating for early Christian churches, which are usually broadly dated to the fifth or sixth century. Furthermore, late antique graves in most cases lack clear chronological markers and are reminiscent of early medieval graves, and so it is very difficult to obtain precise dating since even C14 entails a large margin of error. The deep hinterland also represents a research problem, as there have been very few focussed excavations in Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1990 for political and economic reasons, while older research is generally sparsely available to wider scholarly audiences.

Late antique settlement patterns The late antique transformation of Roman settlement patterns followed several directions, which are not specific to Dalmatia alone. This particularly refers to the changing function of cities in Late Antiquity, changes in the focus of public display for urban elites from euergetism to investment in other buildings such as churches, and a general crisis for urban settlements in this period. The Dalmatian cities received new or renovated walls, and it is possible to discern a wider trend in the appearance of smaller fortified settlements and the fortification systems on the coast as well as in the hinterland. The establishment of Christianity as a new imperial ideology affected urban as well as rural landscapes, shifting or changing the focus from the existing urban foci and causing a transformation or abandonment of earlier public spaces such as fora, public baths or theatres. In rural settings, earlier scholarship assumed the abandonment and repurposing of rural villas as Christian sacral or sacral-cemeterial complexes, especially in the hinterland.17 Nevertheless, more recent research points out that, at

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  33 least on the central Dalmatian coast and in the immediate hinterland, the original function of industrial or administrative rural settlement agglomerations did not stop after their parts were repurposed for Christian (and cemeterial) use.18 However, it is not always clear when and if the abandonment occurred in rural settlement conglomerations without early Christian basilicas. Some just ceased to exist. A good example is Mušići near Višegrad in the very east of the province where the Roman villa(?) was abandoned sometime in the late fourth/early fifth century but was soon inhabited by a smaller and undoubtedly poorer community which built houses made of rods sealed with mud within the Roman ruins. A similar situation is evident in Žabljak near Doboj.19 The Roman administrative mansio in Višići near Čapljina was originally assumed by Čremošnik to be a villa abandoned in the late fourth century. This is contradicted by the presence of early Byzantine pottery, including a fragment of the LRA4 amphora and an omega-shaped ( penannular) fibula dateable to the later sixth century. A large rural settlement complex from Panik near Bileća in eastern Herzegovina also bears finds of comparable and contemporary omega-shaped fibulae, implying its habitation in the later sixth century (Figure 2.1a and c).20 Salona, a prime example of urbanity in Dalmatia, transforms significantly from the fourth century onwards.21 After a large extension in the east during Diocletian’s rule, the existence of a strong Christian community and the new privileged status of Christianity began to affect the urban landscape. An Episcopal complex starts to develop in the eastern extension of the city on the site of the pre-existing villas next to the public baths.22 At its height in the sixth century the Episcopal complex included two basilicas, an episcopal residence and other auxiliary buildings. The entire city was literally littered with newly built Christian churches – there were at least ten inside the city walls, including two in the episcopal complex and one recently detected with GPR in the eastern part of the city south of the Five Bridges sub-locality.23 The earlier foci of city life transform and it is possible to see traces of developing industrial activities, such as oil or wine presses in the forum, but also next to some of the intramural and even extramural cemeterial churches such as Manastirine and Kapljuč.24 Significant works were completed under the bishop Peter, who renovated the Episcopal complex and enclosed it with a cardo. The bishop’s private baths were also likely constructed at this time upon the ruins of the public baths from the earlier period across from this cardo.25 Among the few very important discoveries made during the CroatianFrench revision excavations of the Episcopal complex in 2000–2007, the exploration of the so-called Oratorium A should be mentioned. The building was a part of this complex and was wrongly assumed to be one of earliest Christian places of worship anywhere in earlier scholarship. Located close to the aqueduct, it was built in the second century and was repurposed into a small private bath complex in the fourth century. At some point in the late fifth or early sixth century, it was further repurposed into a triclinium(?) and

34  “An Old Woman’s Summer”

Figure 2.1 Late antique omega-shaped (penannular) fibulae: (a) Panik; (b) Korita; (c) Višići; (d) Mogorjelo (photo: L. Bečar), ©Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo.

used as a banquet hall. The stream was diverted from the aqueduct into a building, where a wooden wheel with built-in buckets carried water into a reused old sarcophagus with a fountain upon it. The signs of calcification and wear from the water-wheel indicate the structure’s relatively long use. This is further confirmed by the discovery of two newly drilled wells from the late sixth/early seventh century with direct access to the aqueduct.26 In addition, a 10-nummia piece of Justinian and contemporary late antique pottery were discovered in the stone masonry infill in the gaps between the columns of the Salonitan aqueduct in Bilice, indicating repairs and maintenance of the structure in the mid/late sixth century.27 This very convincingly shows that the Salonitan aqueduct was still maintained and functional in the late sixth/ early seventh century, which implies that the city managed to preserve the level of social organisation necessary for maintaining the water supply. Evidence that Dalmatia maintained a level of social complexity in places after

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  35 600 is not surprising, as it has been shown that the late antique church in Narona, in the locality of Erešove Bare, was built around that time, likely in the first decade of the seventh century.28 A significant corpus of evidence is available from the Salonitan extramural cemeteries, which Christianised the existing extramural pagan funeral landscapes that developed along the main roads approaching the city from three directions: Trogir, the pass of Klis and Split. The most significant was the northern cemeterial complex, consisting of cemeterial basilicas such as Manastirine and Kapljuč built right next to the city walls, and Marusinac a little further from the walls. All of these locations at some time acquired the relics of important saints, such as St Domnius (Manastirine) or St Anastasius (Marusinac), which acted as a focal point for burials ad sanctos.29 The funerary evidence shows a well-defined elite stratum, which displays its status by burials in stone sarcophagi (often epigraphic), vaulted burials, and chamber burials built in and around these cemeterial basilicas. These were not exclusively elite burial sites, as numerous graves of common people are also recorded. The northern cemeterial complex also had a concentration of late antique graves which were not attached to any known basilica, as recently found graves in the locality of Bencunuše, situated half-way between Manastirine and Marusinac. The western and eastern Salonitan cemeterial complexes display far fewer elite burials. The eastern/northeastern cemeterial complex is poorly known and develops in conjunction with the basilica of SS Peter and Moses (Šuplja Crkva), while the southeastern complex was discovered in the sub-localities of Jankovača and the still unpublished locality of Smiljanovac. The southeastern cemeterial complex may have developed around the hypothetical early Christian church on Gospin Otok where a few late antique graves have been found, and another church discovered in Crikvine on Vranjic peninsula. The western complex, which was connected to the northern cemeteries, does not have many late antique graves and a cemeterial basilica has not yet been found. It developed within the earlier pagan cemetery.30 Salona, Zadar and other coastal cities invested resources in the renovation of their fortifications. In Salona this happened between 425 and 450, while in Zadar the entire southeastern tract of the walls protecting the peninsula where the city lay was renovated and rebuilt in the fourth and sixth centuries.31 There is less evidence for late antique developments in Zadar, apart from the transformation of the forum into a Christian centre, the rebuilding of the walls and the building of intramural churches. The Episcopal centre with a cathedral was built on the northern side of the forum, developing around the earliest oratory in the northern part of the forum from the fourth century.32 Zadar also provides some evidence for late antique graves. It seems that burials continued in the Roman pagan cemetery complex located in the modern suburbs of Jazine and Relja. The cemeterial precinct grew around the crossroad where the Roman roads leading to the city from different directions met before entering the suburbium. Cemeterial

36  “An Old Woman’s Summer” basilicas were very likely erected in both places.33 The habit of burying the elite in sarcophagi, very popular in Salona, is less frequent in Zadar and the area of Liburnia that gravitates to it. Over 2,000 sarcophagi, more than half of the late antique total, have been found in the Salonitan cemeteries together with a large number of vaulted burials. In Liburnia (including Zadar), only 34 sarcophagi dated between the fourth and sixth centuries have been recorded. A similar situation prevails with vaulted burials, as only eight sites are known to have recorded vaulted tombs.34 The Liburnian preference in Late Antiquity was mostly for burial chambers (stone cists) and burials under tegulae and in amphorae.35 Recent research has revealed some details about the late antique transformation of other cities on the Dalmatian coast and islands. For example, in Tarsatica, excavations have revealed the development of the city walls and the building of a military fort (principium) in the third-fourth centuries, and the abandonment of the principium and the building of early Christian basilicas in the fifth and sixth centuries. Interesting information has also come to light from the small town of Fulfinum (Omišalj) on the island of Krk, where the public buildings in the forum were divided into smaller rooms and used for private habitation.36 The appearance of intramural burials in Narona in the fifth and sixth centuries is speculated to be a consequence of natural disaster, which destroyed much of the urban tissue of the city in the fifth century.37 An important provincial-wide feature, which could be dated to Justinian’s time, was the construction of over a hundred visually connected small forts on the eastern Adriatic coast and islands for the protection of maritime communications.38 The period of Late Antiquity is also characterised by the appearance of new settlements on the coast, such as Ragusium (Dubrovnik) or Hvar, and the growth of earlier settlements, or even the appearance of newly ones. Some of these may have been part of the general trend discussed below, while others certainly belong to the fortification program of Justinian’s times.39 The changes in the immediate hinterland are more difficult to discuss with absolute certainty. Recent excavations in the Liburnian mixed-type settlements of Asseria and Varvaria reveal new information about late antique transformations in this part of Dalmatia. Asseria’s walls were renovated and further fortified in the sixth century, probably after Justinian’s conquest (Figure 2.2). An early Christian church was built in the forum and another next to the city walls, which was used for cemeterial purposes in the cemetery established next to the city walls in the fourth century.40 The walls of Varvaria were renovated in a similar way, very likely at the same time (Figure 2.3). A crypt (vaulted burial) with two sarcophagi was built in a central position within the city walls, enclosing the existing communication route. Beside it, on the site of a pre-existing monumental building (a pagan temple?), an eight-apsed rotunda was built soon after (before 540, probably around 500 - see next chapter). The rotunda incorporated the crypt into a single sacral-cemeterial complex which functioned in the sixth century, and

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  37

Figure 2.2 Northern portion of the city walls of Asseria with the remains of the sixth-century proteichisma, ©author.

Figure 2.3 The walls of Varvaria with the remains of the sixth-century fortifications, ©author.

38  “An Old Woman’s Summer”

Figure 2.4 Plan of the rotunda and mausoleum on Bribirska glavica, ©V. Ghica.

as we will see in Chapter 5, throughout the seventh and eighth centuries too (Figure 2.4).41 The appearance of clearly defined intramural burials in Dalmatia is rare, but it is attested in Late Antiquity in several places, which will be discussed in the next chapter. The neighbourhood of Varvaria is also a good example of continuity between Roman and late antique rural settlements in Liburnia. A dense network of smaller settlements and villas existed in the fertile plains below Varvaria and gravitated towards that settlement in the early period of Roman occupation (Otres, Žažvić, Ostrovica, Piramatovci, etc.). In Late Antiquity, all of these settlements continue to exist from the fourth to the sixth century, and most have sacral objects – early Christian basilicas.42 The ‘rural towns’ of the hinterland mostly transform or disappear in the early phase of incastellamento, in other words the movement of the rural population into fortified settlements in well-defended positions, which often meant the re-use of Iron Age hill-forts. This phenomenon generally begins throughout Dalmatia, but also in the surrounding areas, in the late third and fourth centuries.43 Ciglenečki persuasively argues that the early fortifications lasted until ca. 450 and show signs of improvisation and lack of planning, and so their building should be ascribed to local population. In the very late fifth and sixth centuries the construction of the second phase

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  39 of fortifications begins. This is characterised by well-planned fortified settlements with one or more churches, high-quality construction for housing, and the use of proteichisma – a defensive wall located outside the main walls of a fortification. The research reveals that this was the most frequently found settlement-type in a large part of Illyricum, including the Dalmatian hinterland.44 An inscription from an unlocated settlement in northern Montenegro, found in Izbičanj near Prijepolje and close to the Roman Municipium S…, is dated to the times of Justinian. The antistes Stephanus proudly describes the most important elements of these new foundations in the Dalmatian hinterland: the walls, church, housing structures, water deposits, and baths.45 This is good supporting evidence that the second phase of fortification benefited from imperial support in the times of Justinian. This does not mean that the entire population of the Dalmatian hinterland moved into hilltop settlements and was hiding behind the walls. These fortified hilltop settlements sometimes corresponded with earlier ‘rural towns’ from the Roman period in the plains below. The contemporary habitation of fortified settlements and the plains below in Late Antiquity is detectable only through the existence of early Christian basilicas. The excavators’ obsession with basilicas usually meant the disregard of the surrounding settlements, and so the evidence available is very modest. One clear example of the contemporary existence of a fortified hill-top settlement and a basilica below it is the basilica urbana in the Roman agglomeration near Glamoč (mansio Salviae), located in the village of Halapić. The basilica was located below Gradac, the late antique fortification with a proteichisma, inside of which is another basilica. A similar situation is observable at Bakinci on the very northern border of the province. There basilicas dateable to the sixth century were recently discovered in the plains below large fortified settlement, which had been inhabited at three levels from the Roman times until end of Late Antiquity. The basilica in Crvenice near Tomislavgrad was built within the Roman settlement in the plains. Above this is an Iron Age hill-fort, which was very likely used in Late Antiquity. A cemeterial basilica in Čipuljići near Bugojno is also located below a late antique fortified settlement. A similar situation may have prevailed at Marijin Dvor in Sarajevo, where the remains of cemeterial basilica were discovered in the plains below the Debelo Brdo fort. Both, the basilica and the fort were used in the sixth century.46 The existence of cemeterial basilicas below forts does not confirm permanent settlement in the lowlands, but it does not exclude it either. Quite a few early Christian basilicas were built within the existing unwalled Roman settlements in the lowlands, for example, Majdan near Mrkonjić Grad, Ramići (mansio ad Ladios?), Turbe, Cim in Mostar, Bilimišće in Zenica, etc. A contemporary late antique building of unknown purpose was located ca. 150m from the two basilicas in Založje. In Ilidža near Sarajevo (Aquae S…), two rooms of building A in the Roman settlement agglomeration – probably an administrative mansio – were built on top of

40  “An Old Woman’s Summer” the walls from the second to the third century, which implies that the original building or part of it was already in ruins. The dating of these two rooms is insecure, though they may well be belong to a period after the fourth century.47 Some 150m southwest from the large basilica in Cim, the remains of profane architecture were also discovered but not explored.48 There are also examples of late antique rural agglomerations and open settlements, which continued the same Roman settlement patterns in the coastal areas as the above-mentioned surroundings of Varvaria and Donje polje near Šibenik. A similar situation is also detectable in the Kaštelansko polje between Salona and Trogir, or Šematorij in Danilo – the Roman muncipium Rider.49 The number of fortifications in the Dalmatian hinterland is significant. Dejan Bulić recently compiled a list of 320 late antique and early Byzantine fortifications from the territory of modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, 89 in the Croatian part of Dalmatia including the Adriatic islands, and three in the part of Montenegro belonging to Dalmatia. Špehar sampled 60 fortifications from what is today Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are more securely dateable to the late fifth and sixth centuries.50 The number of fortifications compiled by Bulić to supplement the original list of Čremošnik certainly needs to be taken with caution as many of these are vaguely and imprecisely labelled as ‘late antique’ by the original excavators, while some might be ascribed to the first phase of fortifications, which were abandoned after 450. There are also a few fortifications in the Croatian part of Dalmatia that are not taken into account by this author, such as those around Sinj in the hinterland of Salona. The large numbers of fortifications in Dalmatia raises the question of whether they were all manned by regular troops. Many lack evidence of permanent settlement (including cemeteries) and likely served different purposes, such as protection for the local population living in the plains below, as collection centres for the storage of commodities, or even as warehouses for metal before its transportation.51 Nevertheless, while we cannot see soldiers as the predominant inhabitants of these fortifications, we should not completely reject the existence of military fortifications and their strategic clustering, as Bulić has done recently.52 The earlier mentioned events from 597 or 598, when the Avars raided the northern and probably some of the central part of Dalmatia, indicate several things. First, there were no imperial troops in Dalmatia at that time capable of making offensive tactical operations as 2,000 relief troops were dispatched from outside the province. The proconsul or military commander of Dalmatia was not in charge of tactical military operations in the north of the province, which implies that he did not have sufficient military troops in Salona to do it. The defence of the Dalmatian north must have been entrusted to local fortified garrisons and military commanders in the central Balkans.53 Some forts in Dalmatia, such as Bonkeis, were well equipped for defence and had military garrisons, and so the Avars needed siege-engines to capture them. Finally, in the very late sixth century the north of Dalmatia was controlled by the Empire and was considered strategically important, and so the imperial

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  41 commander in Singidunum reacted immediately and decisively to save Dalmatia from the Avar raid. The largest group of forts, defined by Špehar to be over 1ha, is situated in a very important area. Ovan-Grad near Novi Grad (former Bosanski Novi), Karaula in Jelašinovci near Sanski Most, and Gradac in Mokronog-Gunjače near Visoko, indicate a direct relationship with the mining districts in northwestern and central Bosnia. Other large forts are also situated in important places. Crkvina in Makljenovac near Doboj protected the valley of the river Bosna, Gradac in Ravno near Kupres is on a vital communication route over the Kupress-pass leading from central Bosnia to southwestern Bosnia, while Gradina Renići near Buško Blato accumulation encloses the approaches to the polje of Sinj – the hinterland entrance to Salona.54 There was also a well-defined double-ring of fortifications in the Cetina valley, protecting the approaches from Sinjsko polje to Salona via the pass of Klis. It is evident not only in the remains of fortifications, but also in frequent finds of military equipment dateable to this period.55 The military architecture of some forts with visible proteichisma, for example, Gornji Vrbljani in western Bosnia, Gradac above Halapić, or Biograci near Široki Brijeg in Herzegovina, among others, should certainly be dated to the sixth century, and it seems likely that Gornji Vrbljani served only as a military fort in this period.56 A military presence in Biograci is confirmed by finds of a crossbow fibula with a bent stem, a belt-strap end, a military knife and arrows. The fibula with a bent stem indicates habitation in the sixth century.57 Some fortifications in the hinterland of Salona also show traces of proteichismata, implying the rebuilding and refortification of their walls in Justinian’s era.58 There is little evidence of imports, indicating a permanent food supply for the army units. They are detectable in very few places, for example, in the finds of very late antique amphorae from Ilinjača in Gornji Kotorac, some 5km from the earlier mentioned Roman mansio in Ilidža, and in Biograci.59 There is no space here to discuss the matter of Justinian’s fortification of the Balkans at greater length in a comparative perspective. Strong attempts have been made to show that these forts were populated by the regular army, or that the imperial military presence declined, and local peasant-soldiers consequently took on a defensive role in fortified villages. While both views, neither of which discussed Dalmatia in more depth, have merits, it is important to state that the different geographic features and the strategic value of different regions in this wider area required different approaches from the imperial government.60 In the Dalmatian hinterland, it seems we have a mixed situation. The inhabitants of the fort Biograci had military and food-production duties, but the emphasis seems to have been on local food-production,61 and as we saw above, some fortifications such as Gornji Vrbljani may have only had a military purpose. The position of the Debelo Brdo and Ilinjača forts in the wider polje of Sarajevo also indicates the permanent presence of military detachments throughout the sixth century. Ilinjača shows sufficient evidence for the

42  “An Old Woman’s Summer” habitation of the fort, including an early Christian basilica, but habitation of the plains below fortification is unconfirmed.62 The Debelo Brdo fort, located just above the central part of modern Sarajevo, contained signs of late antique pottery production such as the minuscule inscription of the potter Iustus Olarius scratched on the bottom of a pot dateable to the fifth/sixth century. Sixth-century habitation could also be shown in these localities through finds of earlier types of bent stem fibulae. These have direct parallels with the fibulae found in the cemetery Korita dated to the later sixth century.63 There was earlier Roman habitation in the plains below Debelo Brdo (Marijin Dvor), in connection with the brickworks manufacture and a number of graves from the Roman period. Among the late antique finds were a cross carved on a brick, parts of a floor mosaic with an East-West orientation, a poorly built late antique wall and a 40-nummi bronze coin of Justin I. The Geometric pattern of the mosaic included representations of crosses made of white tesserae.64 Basler argued that the mosaic and late antique wall from Marijin Dvor belonged to the early Christian cemeterial basilica from the sixth century.65 Čremošnik rejected this idea, using very bleak typological parallels in Emona (Ljubljana) to date the mosaic to the fourth century. A more recent assessment sees it as part of a fourth-century dwelling, with the Christian owner.66 Basler’s opinion has more merit given that the building with the mosaic was erected in a burial zone from Roman times, and that the excavator Sergejevski specifically mentions burials discovered below the floor mosaic.67 The large number of smaller fortified sites, even if it is impossible to prove that all of them were used in the sixth century, implies that they more or less acted as temporary refuges for the local population. Unfortunately, there is not as yet any research focussed on local agricultural production (or the lack of it) in the sixth century, which would further clarify this problem.68 However, most of these settlements were self-sustainable, or at best locally supplied with pottery, and there are very few imports, which would indicate regular food shipments to the garrisons in those fortifications.69 Therefore, it is possible to assume that settlements in the deeper Dalmatian hinterland in the sixth century had military and civilian functions, which were often combined, especially when a military fortification was connected with the settlement below it. The remark of Curta that this period witnesses the disappearance of the distinction between military and civilian fortifications in the Balkans is certainly applicable to the Dalmatian hinterland.70 The increasing self-reliance and self-sustainability of these settlements wiped out the differences between soldier and civilian. These fortifications, as seen elsewhere in the Balkans, represented a major obstacle for invaders from the north, acting as potential hubs for collecting intelligence and bases for smaller units that could disrupt communications. Although the evidence for habitation in the sixth century varies and is often based on older research, the appearance of proteichismata certainly helps us securely date at least some of those built or renovated in this period. If

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  43 Sarantis is right in assuming that the Byzantine general Mundo the Gepid attacked Salona after smoothly crossing the Ostrogothic-controlled Dalmatian hinterland from Pannonia in 535,71 it is possible to conclude that the system of fortifications right before Justinian’s time was inefficient. This would support the argument of Ciglenečki, that most of the Dalmatian fortifications from an early phase (the late fourth/early fifth century) did not function after 450, and that the development of most of the later phase forts coincided with Justinian’s larger fortification program. As we have seen, in 597 or 598 this system of fortifications was still functioning, since the Avars took no less than 40 fortified places. They were probably manned by small garrisons that were only capable of defence until relief troops arrive. The beginning of two important fortified lines in the hinterland of Salona and Zadar may also be dated to the sixth century. These limites will be discussed in greater depth later in the book.

Christianity Christianity developed as an ideological discourse in the later Roman empire. After an initial period of accommodation, negotiation and adjustment to the established elite values, the imperial and provincial elites turned to the patronage of the Church, investing significant resources in ecclesiastic buildings and various gifts in order to display their status. Christianity became a new arena for justifying and fortifying social positions, a preferred way of representing local power throughout the Empire. Besides showing power, investment in ecclesiastic buildings was also likely supported by a non-elite segment of the population as an expression of communal prestige and piety.72 The integration of Christianity into everyday life and the imperial ideological discourse affected the ways in which the imperial elites presented themselves. As Wickham points out, the end of the villa economy in Late Antiquity probably shows social and cultural change rather than economic collapse. It seems to be a sign of a shift in estate managements, as parts or entire villa complexes were often replaced with churches or monasteries, which became the new focal architectural points in rural landscapes. At the same time, militarisation of the ways aristocracies expressed their identities resulted in a shift of attention from the display of (diminishing) wealth in the architecture or interior design of habitation towards personal appearance. This certainly does not mean that rural aristocracies disappeared – they simply chose to show their status in different ways.73 These changes in the expression of elite identities are related to the fragmentation and regionalisation of the wider imperial system. The existing social relationships were consequently restructured, transforming a rigidly stratified society into the more flexible and less restrictive social landscape of very Late Antiquity. Christianisation and the changes in expression of elite identities also affected Dalmatia. The thick ecclesiastic network of the more urbanised

44  “An Old Woman’s Summer” Dalmatian coastal belt is established as early as the late fourth/early fifth century, whereas Christian basilicas first appear in the deeper hinterland in the fifth century, but are mostly built in the sixth century.74 Some violence towards pagan temples may have occurred in the cities, as evidence for the destruction and decapitation of sculptures from the imperial temple in Narona (dated to ca. 400) indicates.75 However, this seems to have been an exception, rather than the rule – the mausoleum of none other than the Christian persecutor and ‘supervillain’ Diocletian himself in his palace in Spalatum was only converted into a church in the sixth century, likely in the time of Justinian.76 The transition from paganism to Christianity generally seems to be conducted in a much more peaceful manner in Dalmatia, as will be discussed in the next chapter. Unsurprisingly, the Christian centres of the coastal area were the major urban centres of Salona and Zadar, which invested significant resources into the building of the intramural and extramural churches discussed above. The sacral architecture, liturgy, cults of the saints, and interior decoration of the churches of the coastal area and immediate hinterland show two distinct social networks focussed on these two cities. The architecture of the early Christian churches in Zadar, the islands from the gulf of Kvarner and Ravni Kotari exhibits characteristics influenced by Aquileia and northern Italy. The so-called ‘Salonitan subtype’ of ecclesiastic architecture, which places greater emphasis on the sanctuary and nartex in the church plan, was present on the coast and islands south of Trogir. This subtype shares more similarities with the eastern Mediterranean, which may be due to the immigrants from the East who are detectable in the Salonitan inscriptions.77 Salona was raised to the status of metropolitan seat as the number of bishopries increased, first on the coast and later, especially in the sixth century, in the hinterland. The reports of the Salonitan councils of 530 and 533 are sometimes questioned but generally considered to be authentic. They confirm the establishment of rudimentary ecclesiastical infrastructures in the hinterland and even the need for further expansion, as Andreas, the local bishop of Bistue, complained about poor organisation in his bishopry.78 The names of Andreas and Constantius, the bishop of Siscia, are possibly recorded in a graffito scratched onto a column capital impost from basilica A in Bakinci, together with the name of the local priest CONSTANC[...]79 It is unclear whether and when Salonitan bishops were promoted to the title of archbishop. The acts of the Salonitan councils of 530 and 533 refer to the bishop Honorius II (527–544) as archbishop.80 Pope Gregory the Great calls bishop Natalis (580–593) archiepiscopus only once in their correspondence but consistently addresses his successor Maximus (594-after 602) as episcopus. An inscribed acclamation of Maximus addresses him as an archbishop – +D(eu)S VITA MAX+SIMO ARC(hi)EP(i)SC(opo)+ – but the monogram from a transom found in a depot of the AMS reads MAXIMUS EPISCOPUS. Since Maximus was the only bishop with this name after the mid-fourth century, the acclamation, monogram and letters of the pope all

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  45 81

clearly relate to the same person. Why this inconsistency in the titles of the Salonitan prelate occurred is not satisfactorily explained in the existing scholarship, with different opinions expressed.82 Of the 264 late antique Dalmatian churches outside Salona, Pascal Chevalier locates over a hundred in the deep hinterland beyond the coastal area and the plains of Liburnia. This number is current for the early 1990s, and perhaps 10 more churches have been discovered since, at least four of them in the deep hinterland.83 They are unequally distributed, and their concentration in the valleys of the rivers Bosna, Lašva, Neretva, Una, Vrbas and the poljes of Herzegovina reflects the patterns of late antique habitation, major thoroughfares and communication routes.84 These rural churches are typologically similar – usually made in the so-called Naronitan (or Dalmatian-Norican) style – small in size, ‘rustic’ and ‘untidy’ in appearance.85 There is also a change in burial customs at this time, best seen in elite burials in sarcophagi and vaulted tombs connected with the churches, which are much more frequent.86 The appearance of early Christian architecture in the hinterland is particularly interesting, as it shows a significant investment of resources for a region with very modest ecclesiastic infrastructure in comparison with the coast. The small churches of the hinterland were not built to accommodate a large number of worshipers. They were also not new burial grounds for local communities, as vault burial chambers and burials inside churches usually contained only a few burials, which should be connected with local elite families.87 New churches were occasionally built over existing family graves, indicating the intention of the benefactors from the ranks of the local elite to include the graves of their ancestors in newly established sacred grounds.88 These churches instead fulfilled the need of rural elites to display their prestige and position in their communities through patronage of the buildings associated with elite burial places in competition with neighbouring local elites. That is not to say that only small churches were built in the hinterland, as some rather large complexes have also been discovered, such as basilicae geminae in Bilimišće and Žitomislići, and a one-aisled church with a triconch eastern ending and a triconch memoria close to it in the Mostar suburb of Cim.89 The functions of early Dalmatian Christian buildings can be roughly divided into public (congregational and cemeterial) and private, but it is difficult to make a clear-cut division as their functions often changed over time – the private becoming public, congregational cemeterial, etc.90 The building of churches was mostly undertaken in existing settlements, including late antique forts, and the repurposing of older structures or their parts such as residential buildings (including villas), pagan sacral architecture, cemeteries and baths was even more frequent.91 The repurposing of earlier public structures is observable, for example, in the transformation of the earlier mentioned baths attached to a public building with administrative structures (mansio) in Danilo into an early Christian basilica with a surrounding cemetery.92 There are also some examples of the repurposing of earlier Roman buildings in the

46  “An Old Woman’s Summer” deep hinterland. Good examples include the Turbe basilicae geminae, which were built over the earlier building with hypocaust, and the Čipuljići basilica, built over an earlier Roman building that was also very likely a public building with baths reminiscent of the Roman mansio in Danilo. Only parts of the residential complexes in Turbe and Čipuljići were likely repurposed, and so they retained their public function in the same way as Danilo.93 There are also some examples of Christian complexes developing on agricultural estates. The clearest example is probably the sacral-cemeterial complex in the village of Muline on the island of Ugljan right across from Zadar. In the vicinity of the functioning late antique villa rustica, built on the foundations of an early Roman villa, was the first memoria (martyrium?) built in the later fourth century. The memoria underwent several building phases, slowly filled with sarcophagi in the main room and more funerary cellae decorated with mosaics were added. Some 15m from the memoria, a triple-aisled basilica was built later, probably in the fifth century. It also underwent several building phases, including the addition of a baptistry and roofless memorial cellae in the sixth century. In between this sacral-cemeterial complex and villa, a mausoleum was built. It originally contained a single sarcophagus, which probably belonged to the estate owner. In time a vaulted grave and several walled tombs were built beside the mausoleum.94

Wealth A simplified insight into the economy of fourth-century Dalmatia is provided by the work Expositio totius mundi et gentium: Dalmatia is an outstanding province in business and produces cheese, construction lumber and iron.95 While it is undeniable that these products were important for the Dalmatian economy, recent research into the economy of Roman Dalmatia reveals that the province was not necessarily only exporting raw materials in exchange for industrially produced goods – the state of affairs was much more complex.96 However, the economy of late antique, and especially sixth-century Dalmatia remains very much in the dark, and is lacking a proper research focus at the present time, and so I will need to limit myself here to only a few observations which may reveal major trends but should in no way be considered the final word on the problem.97 The economy of sixth-century Dalmatia does not appear to have been all doom and gloom. The elites in the coastal areas are still reasonably wealthy, and this wealth seems to be coming from land estates. They are not comparable to the extra-rich late antique magnates that held large possessions in different provinces, and so the beginnings of fragmentation in the Mediterranean networks did not greatly impact the Dalmatian elites, who must have had more compact landholdings.98 As we will see, these estates were not necessarily always private, as a significant proportion of them must have been imperial- and church-owned. In 537 Cassiodorus mentions ‘gleaming villae’ on the Adriatic islands.99 This is a very general statement, but archaeological evidence supports it

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  47 with at least a few examples. The most impressive example is a large villa complex in Polače on the island of Mljet, which was built in the fourth century by someone of imperial rank, probably Licinius, Constantine the Great’s brother-in-law and co-emperor until 323. It continues to function in the fifth and sixth centuries, as proven by archaeological evidence. In March 488, king Odoacer gives comes domesticorum Pierius 200 solidi from the rental of this imperial property. The lost will of an unknown person, very likely the owner or administrator of this same estate, is dated to the mid-sixth century. The will states that part of the income from the estate on Mljet (200 solidi) should be allocated to church luminaria, the poor on Mljet and the diocese to which it belongs. It also provides funds for luminaria in the churches of castles ‘above Salona’, and what remains is to be deposited in the fund for the ransom of prisoners.100 It seems that, apart from Mljet, there were a few more imperial estates in coastal Dalmatia that continued to be used in the sixth century. These are particularly in the Hyllean peninsula between Trogir and Šibenik, including parts of the polje of Kaštela west of Salona, the peninsula of Split with Diocletian’s palace, parts of the island of Korčula and the quarries on the island of Brač.101 There were private estates that continued to function, but not many except the above-mentioned villa in Muline have been securely dated to after the fourth century. Unfortunately, we do not know how representative these estates were of the coastal areas, let alone the hinterland, as proper research of the function of late antique rural settlement in Dalmatia is only in its beginnings.102 Smaller agricultural-processing estates have also been discovered in the hinterland of Salona: Vučipolje and Banjače in Dugopolje, which are located some 500m from each other. Vučipolje is a water cistern that was converted into storage, dateable by amphorae to the sixth century. Banjače, however, revealed two buildings – a storage space and food-processing facility. This complex cannot be older than the fifth century and may well have been used in the sixth century.103 Recent revision excavations in Doci near Vitina (Herzegovina) have produced some interesting results. The remains of the southwest corner of a late antique settlement complex developing out of a Roman-period villa(?) were detected some 400m from the early Christian basilica that was built over a pre-existing grave. Finds of late antique pottery and graves from the sixth century some 50m from the complex confirm its use in this period. The function of the complex is still difficult to determine. The still unpublished excavations of the basilica in Rivine near Stolac in eastern Herzegovina indicate the existence of very late antique production quarters beside the basilica.104 Apart from private and imperial ownership, the Church is certainly one of the most significant landowners in late antique Dalmatia. The evidence for papal patrimony administered from Salona by the procurator Ecclessiae Salonitanae is attested from ca. the mid-sixth century in the correspondence of popes Vigilius and Gregory the Great as well as epigraphic evidence. Whether the Salonitan church had its own property or was entitled to part of

48  “An Old Woman’s Summer” the profits from the papal patrimony is difficult to ascertain. The mentioning of ecclesiastica praedia in the acts of the First Salonitan Council of 530 may refer to property of the Dalmatian churches.105 The evidence for late antique oil and wine presses attached to the Salonitan churches bears witness to the connection of the Salonitan church to lively industrial activities. The wealth of the Salonitan church is also visible in the large works in the Episcopal complex in Salona in the times of the bishop Peter (554–562), discussed above. The abundance of sarcophagi in Salonitan cemeteries shows not only the existence of a local workshop, but also the ability of a significant proportion of the city’s inhabitants to obtain these locally made sarcophagi (estimated to be worth 10–15 solidi in the fourth and fifth centuries). Finally, Salona was a centre for other crafts and industrial production in the sixth century, such as arms production or mosaic-workshops.106 The production of luxury items in Salona is evident in the funerary inscription of the anaglypharius (engraver of silver dishes) Olybrius from Manastirine cemetery, dated to the fifth or sixth century.107 Apart from Olybrius, there are a few other inscriptions from the sarcophagi of Salonitan tradesmen dated to the sixth century (bootmakers, a sawyer), indicating continuing affluence among this social class in the Dalmatian capital.108 In this context, it is interesting to note the funerary inscription of the glass-maker (uitriarius) Pascasius as no evidence yet exists for a glassmaking shop in Salona, and the glass finds from the region show no signs of larger workshops in local production.109 Outside of Salona, a large building programme, especially of sacral architecture in the hinterland sponsored by the elite, indicates the presence of the accumulated resources invested. The wealth of the hinterland was not necessarily coming from the land, although some parts, such as the Neretva valley, might still have had some land estates. This is implied by the dense concentration of early Christian churches in this region, including the church in Cim with a lavish second phase dated to the sixth century, the basilicae geminae in Žitomislići, perhaps even the basilicae geminae in Mogorjelo.110 The major sources of income from the hinterland in Roman times were mines and timber, and wealth in the sixth century will have come from the still functioning mines. The best evidence for the functioning of the Dalmatian mines is a large iron-processing settlement (including industrial and domestic buildings) without defensive walls in Blagaj-Japra in the valley of the river Japra (northwestern Bosnia). It develops in Roman times, but falls into ruin sometime in the fifth century. In the sixth century, however, the settlement is renewed, a large basilica is built, and production is re-established until the early seventh century. The settlement appears to have been abandoned, not violently destroyed.111 The production of metal bird-shaped fibulae was recently attested in the late antique fort Sokol in Konavle, and its distribution in the neighbouring forts around Narona, such as Mogorjelo, but also Salona, Danilo and as far afield as Castel Trosino in Italy or Donićko hill near Kragujevac. This production is dated to the sixth and early seventh centuries, confirming the maintenance of networks between fortified settlements.112

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  49 There is also evidence for olive oil and wine production in late antique Dalmatia. The presses from this and later period were found in six intramural and extramural localities in Salona: next to the basilicas of Manastirine, Kapljuč, the episcopal complex, the ‘Five Bridges’ locality in the eastern part of the city, north of the forum, and outside the horreum within the Western cemetery. More presses from this period have been found in the vicinity of the Dalmatian capital (Crkvina-Rupotina near Klis, Diocletian’s palace, Bijaći and Kaštel Gomilica), on the Adriatic islands (Škrip on Brač, Majsan and Lastovo) and even in the hinterland (the unpublished site of Rivine near Stolac).113 Some, if not all of these presses could be connected to ecclesiastic or imperial properties. To these the oil-producing facility on the Muline estate should certainly be added, and probably another in Mogorjelo, although evidence of production in Mogorjelo in the sixth century has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Important industrial production came from the stonemasons’ workshops, which supplied material for the newly built churches. Jakov Vučić recently recognised four late antique stonemasons’ workshops that produced altar screens and window decorations, locating them in Zadar, Salona, Narona/Bistue and Epidaurum and linking their production and ownership to the Church.114 Trade in late antique Dalmatia shows some patterns of export and import, which is difficult to generalise for the lack of comprehensive surveys relating to the period of the fifth and sixth centuries. Unfortunately, earlier excavations frequently failed to take proper care of pottery analysis and stratigraphic contexts, and so crucial data has been lost. Regardless of the evidence for wine and olive oil production, demand seems to have surpassed local production, and so quantities of these products were imported from the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa to the coast and sporadically into the hinterland too.115 There is also written evidence from the early sixth century that even the wealthy Dalmatian church needed to purchase quantities of olive oil from merchants.116 Important evidence for very late imports in Dalmatia comprises three recently discovered and well-dated small Spatheion 3C/Keay 26 amphorae. They are dated between the second half of the sixth and the end of the seventh century, were produced at Neapolis/Nābil in Africa Zeugitana and were probably used for wine transportation. Two of these amphorae were found in Postira (the island of Brač) and another in Varvaria, both in the context of early Christian sacral complexes.117 Some exports are also recorded, particularly jewellery and sarcophagi to Italy.118 However, the taste of the elites in the hinterland changed, and there are much less expensive imports in the archaeological record. It is particularly important to note the regionalisation of pottery production, which mostly occurred locally at this time. There have not been any comprehensive analyses of late antique domestic pottery from what are today Herzegovina and Bosnia in recent years. The only relevant study remains that of Čremošnik, which is in sore need of a methodologically more advanced approach. In both areas, late antique domestic rough pottery continues to use shapes typical of

50  “An Old Woman’s Summer” the late Iron Ages that persisted throughout Roman times, while some pots have shapes and wavy-line decorations that are very reminiscent of early medieval ‘Slavic’ pottery.119 This does not mean that there were no luxurious goods. The jewellery, in particular shows influences and connections with the imperial workshops, Salona, Ostrogothic and Langobardic Italy and the Pannonian plains, such as the gold earring with a basket-shaped pendant from Balina glavica near Drniš dateable to the second half of the sixth century and likely originating in Langobardic Italy (Figure 2.5).120 The emphasis on personal adornment is part of the elite identity-changes occurring at

Figure 2.5 Gold earring with a basked-shaped earring from Balina glavica (photo: I. Krajcar), ©Archaeological Museum in Zagreb.

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  51

Figure 2.6 Gold necklace from Turbe (photo: L. Bečar), ©Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. ZMBiH.

this time. These will receive due attention in the next chapter. Nevertheless, in the context of the present discussion, it is important to mention the luxurious gold necklace from the vaulted grave beneath the floor of the Turbe basilicae geminae, discovered in 1919. It contains 18 circular medallions with alternating images of an angel and lamb, while the central medallion has an image of a female with the Greek inscription XAPIC (short for ΘEOY XAPIS – God’s grace) (Figure 2.6). Miletić dated it to the late fifth century, Basler to the sixth, while the recent analysis of Preložnik convincingly moves the date of production all the way up to the very late sixth/early seventh century, on account of similarities with a contemporary fibula with the same inscription from the sub-locality of Ždrijac near Nin.121 Similarities can be also drawn with early Byzantine marriage belts, such as the one from the Dumbarton Oaks collection dateable to the late sixth/early seventh century with the inscribed words ΕX ΘΕΟΥ, OMONYA, XAPIC and YΓΙA (“From God, concord, grace, health”).122 It is now possible with this revised dating to place the deposition of the artefact in the first half of the seventh century. The analysis of several coastal areas in modern-day northern Dalmatia around Zadar, as well as Narona and its surroundings, shows a drop in the circulation of coinage minted after ca. 378, continuing throughout the fifth century. The lack of coinage from the fifth century was likely supplemented with fourth-century coins that should have been in circulation for much longer. Coinage circulation in sixth-century Dalmatia shows a relative increase but it is still well below the fourth century levels. The evidence from Varvaria is representative of the situation. Seventy-eight coins from the fourth century have been found individually in different contexts (usually as strait finds), and six from the fifth century. From the sixth century there

52  “An Old Woman’s Summer” are only two coins of Justinian – one solidus and one bronze decanummus – and a coin of Justin I that was found below the hill.123 The larger quantity of Justinian’s copper coins of smaller value (40, 20 and 10 nummi) indicates that these issues were used in Dalmatia for the rest of the century as a small change. The need to pay the army in Salona and finance public works, such as fortifications, may have influenced economic renewal in the province in the time of Justinian.124 The circulation of post-Justinianic coinage from the sixth century is much smaller, although several hoards show the continued limited circulation of imperial coins.125 The situation in the hinterland in the period after Ostrogothic rule is very unclear due to a lack of publications concerning the inventory of the ZMBiH in Sarajevo and the local museums of Herzegovina or Bosnia. Only several coins from this area are known from the AMZg, as well as a hoard from Grabovnik near Ljubuški in western Herzegovina containing gold coins of Justin I and Justinian.126

Conclusion The written evidence for sixth-century Dalmatia is patchy, and the material record from the hinterland lacks the quantity of evidence and even more so the quality of research that would synthesise information dispersed across individual excavations. Still, there is still enough to allow some general conclusions. Dalmatia was indeed a ‘lucky country’, as it avoided most of the havoc and political instability happening in the wider Mediterranean system after 378, successfully accomplishing its transformation into a late antique society by 500. The change of political masters in the late fifth and sixth centuries – the Ostrogothic kingdom and Justinian’s empire – did not have a terribly negative impact, while Justinian’s Reconquista increased public and private investment in the province and was beneficial to its general economic shape. Large imperial properties in the central Dalmatian islands and around Salona generated a surplus of produced resources, which was partly invested into sponsoring the erection and maintenance of Christian sacral buildings. In private estates, the local elites also used these buildings to display their social position, which was additionally advertised through privileged burials inside the churches, vault burials beside them, or in sarcophagi. The entrenched social hierarchy and the similar ways it was displayed were impossible without the continuing integration of Dalmatia within the wider political networks of the Ostrogothic kingdom and eastern Roman empire. This integration also had some limitations. While the citizens of Salona were on the Roman side during the takeover of the province,127 the Justinianic Reconquista in 536 was certainly a shock to the Dalmatians as few could remember living in the Empire before 476. Even in 476, Dalmatia had for a few decades been enjoying a certain autonomy within the Empire under the warlords Marcellinus and Julius Nepos. The conquest in 536 brought Dalmatia firmly within the centralised and ideologised imperial structure, and so it is possible that Justinian’s building

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  53 program was also intended to re-Romanise this area. Support of the Three Chapters controversy, as seen in the dismissal of bishop Frontinianus, and its persistence until at least the end of the sixth century, as indicated by pope Gregory, was a sign that the local church opposed imperial meddling in ecclesiastic affairs. The funds for new churches and the rebuilding programme in Salona under the bishop Peter may have been a kind of bribe for the local church from the imperial authorities.128 Late Antiquity did not change the asymmetrical arrangement of the settlement patterns established at the height of the Roman Empire. Urban communities, both from the coastal area and the rural towns in the hinterland, transformed in accordance with the general patterns of late antique urbanism. They were (re)fortified, and the function of public buildings and urbanistic arrangements changed as the local elite and local communities invested surplus resources into the Christian buildings. The imperial treasury also very likely supported this building programme. The evidence from Salona shows some traces of the shrinking of extramural urban areas, although this may also imply the repurposing of habitation areas as burial spaces. Rural settlement in Late Antiquity continued in the places where Roman residential or industrial buildings had existed. The villa estates in the hinterland transformed, and the local elites lost interest in the import of some luxury goods from the Mediterranean, such as pottery – although there are other items that still might have interested them, such as personal adornments and jewellery. However, it is uncertain whether the larger land estates completely disappeared, and some areas such as the valley of Neretva still show an excess of wealth that could not come from the mines or timber processing. There are still functioning land estates in the coastal areas, even industrial activities, such as oil and wine production, the sarcophagi workshops and some craftsmanship – especially in Salona. Imperial estates in central Dalmatia generated an excess of wealth, and the Church in the sixth century became an important economic power and landholder in Dalmatia, improving the poor ecclesiastic infrastructure of the hinterland. The northern parts of Dalmatia seemingly lacked the significant military capacities necessary for tactical action against potential intruders from Pannonia, apart from the defence of fortified settlements. Tactical initiative was entrusted to the elite forces stationed in the central Balkans. Such a ‘grand-strategy’ functioned because there are only a few recorded instances of intruders from the North raiding Dalmatia. The natural defence advantages provided by the rough terrain and the lack of large settlements in the northern and central parts of Dalmatia that could be raided acted as a sufficient deterrent, and so the raids of the Sclavenes, Avars and other groups from the North were channelled through the central and eastern Balkans or through the passes leading towards Italy. Despite a general trend in the appearance of fortified settlements, one gets the impression that the local population enjoyed a sense of general security, as indicated by the numerous churches (and supporting infrastructure, probably even settlements) in

54  “An Old Woman’s Summer” the plains below the fortifications, as well as the existence of an unfortified mining settlement Blagaj-Japra in the very north of Dalmatia until the end of the century. While imperial soldiers may have been placed in some of the fortifications in the hinterland and used to enhance the security of Salona, it is difficult to connect all of the many fortifications to military garrisons. Rather, it seems that the local population was trained to assume a military role in cases of emergency, but, luckily for them, there were not many emergencies in the sixth century anyway.

Notes 1 A slightly outdated but still useful ‘old school’ narrative of Late Antiquity in Dalmatia is Wilkes 1969: 416–437. Caldwell (2013: 102–106) has more recently retold the narrative of Wilkes, including the outdated parts that imply a gradual social and economic decline in the fifth and sixth centuries. In Croatian there is a detailed overview of the fifth century in Dalmatia in Posavec 2007, while Matijašić 2012: 117–242 and Gračanin 2015b provide excellent synthetic accounts for Dalmatia, Istria and southern Pannonia after 395, including the most recent research. 2 Hieronym., De vir. Ill. 125 (392/93); cf. Ep. 60.16 (396), or Ep. 118.2 (406), informing his fellow Stridonian Julian about the destruction of his property in Stridon, cf. Suić 1986; Bratož 1990: 533–536 (the location of Stridon). Some authors have ascribed several cases of destruction in the archaeological record from this period to the Gothic raids (e.g. Wilkes 1969: 419), but all of these hypotheses are based on very insecure evidence, Posavec 2007: 73–74; Gračanin 2015a: 83. 3 Basić & Zeman 2019. 4 MacGeorge 2002: 15–67; Posavec 2007: 23–67. 5 Wilkes 1969: 423–427; Wozniak 1984; Uglešić 1990/91; Posavec 1996; Gračanin 2015b: 23–26, 2016. 6 Škrgulja 2015, 2018: 92–95 (written sources); 95–107 (material record); Gračanin 2016: 262–264. 7 Gračanin 2016: 204–237 (administration); 250–262 (economy and provincial society), cf. Demo 1994a for the Ostrogothic coinage in modern-day Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The joining of Dalmatia and Savia is usually believed to have occurred sometime between 504 and 526 – Amory 1997: 375–376, 403, 414–415; Gračanin 2016: 223, 245–247. 8 Procop. Wars, 5.5.2; 5.7.1–10; 5.7.26–36; 5.16.7–18 (conflicts); 7.10.3; 7.10.12; 8.21.4–9 (the Roman base); Sarantis 2016: 89–91; cf. Goldstein 2005a; Matijašić 2012: 193–202. 9 Greg. Epp. 9.158; CIL 3.9527=Salona IV: 1.305–12 (no.96) (Marcellinus proconsul); Greg. Epp. 4.38 (Marcellus scolasticus), Ferluga 1978: 68–71; Margetić 1997a, 1997b. There is one more known scholasticus from Dalmatia – Venantius, father of pope John IV (640–642) –LP, 74.1. 10 Salona IV: 1.177–79 (no.19–20). 11 Uglešić 2017: 125, 132 with Figure 48a and b (the seal of Maurice); Filipčić 2017 (the Kolovare finds). 12 Procop. Wars, 7.35.23–30; Goldstein 2005a: 31–32 (the raid of Indulf); Wars, 7.40.7–8; Sarantis 2016: 279 (the Sclavenes in Dalmatia); Procop. Wars, 7.33.12 (the Langobard raid in Dalmatia). 13 Victor, Chronica s.a. 554, 562 (pp. 203, 205); Bulić & Bervaldi 1912: 56–58; Wilkes 1969: 433–434; Basić 2015a: 430. The Three Chapters still had support in Dalmatia in 600 – Greg. Epp. 10.15.

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  55









56  “An Old Woman’s Summer”











“An Old Woman’s Summer”  57 66 Čremošnik 1984: 102–103; Šačić Beća & Veletovac 2019: 44–45. Cf. Busuladžić 2008: 57, who dates the mosaic to ca. the fourth-sixth centuries. 67 Sergejevski 1947: 16. The inclusion of crosses in floor mosaics is relatively rare due to early Christian sensitivity to sacred motifs being placed on walking surfaces. However, it is attested in limited numbers throughout the fifth and sixth centuries, Talgam 2018: 113. 68 Sarantis (2019) points out that the notion of an agricultural recession in the fifthand sixth-century central and eastern Balkans was unjustifiably overexaggerated, and there is no reason why we should not apply these findings to Dalmatia as well. 69 This could be seen in the examples of Debelo Brdo and Ilinjača (Fekeža 1991). The inscription of Iustus Olarius from Debelo Brdo mentioned above (Sergejevski 1947: Pic. 19) indicates local pottery production. 70 Curta 2013a: 838. 71 Sarantis 2016: 90 (Mundo the Gepid); 188–198 (the role of Justinian’s fortifications in the wider area). 72 Elsner 1998: 757–759; Saltzman 2002, esp. 200–220. For a comparative perspective, see the situation in Epirus, which is thought to have resulted from the emergence of a new ecclesiastical elite capable of marshalling the surplus resources extracted from the community in the form of various donations: Bowden 2001; Saltzman 2002: 200–220. Whether these churches reflect the concerns and economic situation of a broad spectrum of society or the presentation of elite status is debatable and depends on the region; for essential literature on this matter, see Chavarría & Lewit 2004: 6 n.6. 73 Lewit 2003; Wickham 2005: 473–481, cf. also for changes in the West Esmond Cleary 2013: 435–454. Dalmatia splits into southern and northern patterns of villa disappearance defined by Wickham – the coast and islands into the southern (mid-sixth century) and the hinterland into the northern (end of the fourth century), although some may even survive after the mid-sixth century, as discussed in this chapter. 74 Chevalier 1996 and Posavec 2007: 119–125 with bibliography, cf. also Migotti (2012), who challenges the established practice of dating Dalmatian early Christian churches through typology, suggesting that the major Christianisation of the coastal areas and immediate hinterland occurred in the fourth and early fifth centuries. The suggestion that Christian basilicas were already appearing in the hinterland in the fourth century (I. Marijanović 1990) should be rejected as it makes no sense. 75 Marin 2001a: 91 n.27. 76 Basić 2017c. 77 Migotti 1991/92. 78 HSM, fol. 614v–616r (p. 81–85). See Dzino 2010a: 70–71 in English for essential literature, which should be supplemented with Basić 2009; Škegro 2009 and Prozorov 2011. 79 CO(N)STAN(T)IUS† SOR(TIS) ANDREAS† CONSTANC†, Vujinović 2014a: 173–174, 2014b: 32–34. Vujinović reads SOR as sortis (service) and justifiably assumes that the Andreas in question is the bishop of Bistue, rather than his namesake from Zadar. The author’s assumption that CONSTANC(…) is the name of a newly appointed bishop is possible but requires more evidence. 80 HSM, fol. 614v (p. 81) – the title of Honorius II. 81 Greg. Ep. 3.8. For the pope’s correspondence, see the next chapter. The inscriptions of Maximus: CIL 3.13131=Salona IV: 1.191–93 (no.27) (archbishop); Salona IV: 1.190 (no.26); Caillet 1989: 457; Ivanišević 1993: 247 (bishop). 82 Bulić & Bervaldi 1912: 47–50; Ivanišević 1993; Matijević-Sokol 2002: 65–72; Gauthier 2006: 381; Basić 2008: 83.

58  “An Old Woman’s Summer” 83 Chevalier 1996. For a more up-to-date list covering the Croatian part of Dalmatia only, see Migotti 2012: 210–11, while three newly discovered basilicas in Bakinci in the deeper hinterland should be mentioned (Vujinović 2014b) and one in Mramorak, southeast of Tuzla (Popović et al. 2017). 84 Basler 1972: 137. 85 Rendić-Miočević 1985; Basler 1990: 83–105; Chevalier 1995: 97–100, see also Posavec 2007: 127–129. 86 Sarcophagi in the hinterland: Kurilić & Serventi 2018: 452 (no.61, 64, 67, 71, 74, 76, 79, 96, 104, 108, 108a, 109, 117, 139, and perhaps 101). Burials in vaults: Cambi et al. 1999: 44–47; Paškvalin 2003: 110–125; Posavec 2007: 113–118. More burials in vaults have recently been discovered. For an updated list, see Kurilić & Serventi 2018: 452 (no.63, 66, 68–69, 71a, 72–83, 85–90, 93–95, 96a, 97, 99, 101–103, 106–107, 109–110, 114–115, 118, 122, 124a, 125–129, 137, 140–141, perhaps 84, 92, 124, 136, and 138), cf. Miličević Capek 2009; Busuladžić 2012. 87 Bojanovski 1964: 115–116; cf. Kurilić & Serventi 2018: 460. 89 Chevalier 1996: 341–345 (Zenica); 394–400 (Cim); 415–418 (Žitomislići). 90 Migotti 1994 (with a research scope limited to modern-day northern and the northern part of central Dalmatia) also noticed monasterial churches (those inside fortifications), even churches, with a corporate function that satisfied the needs of particular professions, such as sailors and fishermen. 93 Hoffer 1897: 246; Chevalier 1996: 331 (Turbe); Paškvalin 2003: 307 Figure 21c, cf. Chevalier 1996: 360 (Čipuljići). 95 Expositio, 53. 96 Glicksman 2005. 97 See the useful overview of the wider area including Dalmatia in Gračanin & Kartalija 2018. 98 See Wickham 2005: 153–168 for the late antique elites. 99 Cass. Variae 12.22.3–5. 100 Papiri, 82 ll.14–15 (p. 128); Tjäder 1955: 279–293 (Odoacer’s grant); Papiri, 78 (p. 121) (the will), cf. Nikolajević 1972; Turković 2011: 228 n.25. On the dating of the villa in Polače and its attribution to Licinius, see Turković 2011. Turković 2011: 227 nn.6–7; Basić 2012a; Zeman 2014a: 174–190, 235–236, 2014b: 101 16, 2017b: 113–119. 102 Turković 2011; Turković & Zeman 2011; Zeman 2014a, 2014b, 2017b, etc. 103 Borzić & Jadrić 2007: 157–160 (Vučipolje); Ožanić Roguljić et  al. 2015/16 (Banjače). 104 Rašić & Vujević 2017; Rašić & Baraka Perica 2018; Baraka Perica et  al. 2019: 516–518. 105 Škegro 2004 with the sources. 106 Jeličić Radonić 2003 (mosaic worshops); Cambi 2010: 14–21 (Salonitan and other Dalmatian workshops, with an estimate of the price of local production); Demicheli & Demicheli 2018: 94–97 (arms production after Justinian’s conquest). 107 CIL 3.9524=Salona IV: 2.817–18 (no.454). 108 Salona IV: 1.551–52 (no.250) (caligarius Epifanius); CIL 3.14903=Salona IV: 1.556–57 (no.254) (sator Iohannes); CIL 3.14305=Salona IV: 1.575 (no.271) (calegarius Pascasius), and CIL 3.9130=Salona IV: 2.803–04 (no.445) (calegarius Honoratus), which was found in Podstrana, some 8km southeast of Salona.

“An Old Woman’s Summer”  59 109 CIL 3.9542=Salona IV: 1.574 (no.270), cf. Milavec 2015; Perović 2015. 110 Mogorjelo, in the valley of the Neretva close to Narona, is still problematic. See the latest overview in Veletovac 2018. A large early Roman villa was converted into a military fortification (or a fortified villa) that burned in the late fourth/ early fifth century. Basilicae geminae were built in the mid/late fifth century, but it is unclear whether the buildings were still used as a villa, Basler 1958; Chevalier 1996: 425–431; Busuladžić 2011: 149. Zeman 2014a: 124–125 believes Mogorjelo still functioned in the fifth and sixth centuries as an industrial production complex, cf. Gračanin & Kartalija 2018: 354–355, 357. 111 Basler 1975/76. 112 Katić & Kapetanić 2019. 113 See the list of sites and literature in Kopáčková 2014. 114 Vučić 2017c. 115 Brusić 1976 (underwater finds); Cambi 1989: 326–331; Jurišić 2000: 56–57; Glicksman 2005: 204–207; Gračanin & Kartalija 2018: 363–364. See also the evidence for the North African and east Mediterranean amphorae from the fifth and sixth centuries on the island of Hvar (Hayes et al. 1992) and in the town of Hvar (Katić 1999/00: 26–43); the British Bii/LR1 forms for the underwater finds from the fifth to the seventh centuries (Jurišić 2000: 132); late antique imports in Narona (Mardešić & Šalov 2001); the imports from Pontus (Gluščević 1993/94: 35–37); late North African and east Mediterranean amphorae in Postira (Jelinčić & Perinić Muratović 2010: 190–196); and in Dugopolje (Borzić & Jadrić 2007: 159–160). 116 Cass. Var. 3.7; Gračanin 2016: 243–245, 253, 255 – the Salonitan bishop Januarius owed money to one John for purchased olive oil. Whether John was a merchant/importer or a private producer of oil, and whether he was from Dalmatia or somewhere else, is unclear. 117 Jelinčić & Perinić Muratović 2010: 192–194 Pl. 4; Ghica et al. 2019: 150, 159 with Figure 17. 118 Basić 2012b: 439, 2015b: 9, 15–16, cf. Cambi 2002: 53, 2010: 84 – the export of Dalmatian sarcophagi; Basić 2012b: 439–440 – the export of jewellery. 119 Čremošnik 1952: 254–271, 1974: 109–113, 1987/88: 105, 1990: 101, cf. Brusić 1980; Basler 1984: 364. 120 Demo 2014: 45–46, cf. similar find from Vrdolje near Konjic, Paškvalin 2003: 85–87 with Figure 6a and b. 121 Miletić 1984: 383–389 (general overview of sixth-century jewellery in the deep hinterland of Dalmatia); Maslać 1932; Miletić 1984: 384; Basler 1987: 42; Preložnik 2008 (the Turbe necklace). 122 Ross 1965: 37–38, Pl. A; Figures 30–32, with other parallels. 123 Vučić 2013, 2017b; cf. Šeparović 2012a: 2.152, 157–167 and a less complete list in Mirnik 2009: 140–143 for Varvaria. 124 Marović 1986; Callegher 2011, 2017: 349–358. 125 See Mirnik 1981: 90–91 no.352–353, updated in Nađ 2012: 413–414 no.91, 94–97, 99 (the hoards); Mirnik & Šemrov 1997/98: 132–134 (fundus of post-Justinianic coins in modern-day Croatia) and Curta & Gândilă 2011/12 (copper coin hoards in the early Byzantine Balkans and soldier payments). More will be said about seventh-century coins in Chapter 5. 126 It seems there were quite a few finds of coinage from the time of Justin I, Justinian and Maurice, mostly low copper denominations, and a few silver and gold coins –AlBiH 1: 127, see also Patsch 1900: 547–550 (the Grabovnik hoard). 127 Procop. Wars 5.7.30–31. 128 Greg. Ep. 10.15.37–44 (July 600). Cf. a similar situation in the North African provinces after the reconquest, Conant 2012: 306–330.

3

“Winter is coming” Signs of deeper social changes in sixth-century Dalmatia

In the previous chapter we saw that late antique Dalmatia, including its deep hinterland, presented a rather typical picture of continuity and change in Late Antiquity. It shows a significant degree of social stability unaffected by the change from Ostrogothic to east Roman rule in the sixth century. The social hierarchy and social complexity were maintained, the area continued to be integrated into the wider Mediterranean and imperial networks, and a degree of economic stability is displayed in all of its areas throughout this century. However, this is only part of the whole picture, as some elements of deeper social changes and challenges to the established social hierarchies could sporadically be seen throughout the province at a local level and within the upper echelons of the Dalmatian elites. This refers to new ways of displaying identity, especially in the burial record and new strategies for incorporating the past into the construction of identities. Some idea of the new behaviour of the elites can be reconstructed from pope Gregory the Great’s exchange of letters with the Salonitan bishops, while issues like depopulation and migration patterns are also important to consider when attempting to understand the situation in Dalmatia before the collapse of the Byzantine government in the early seventh century. Recognising and explaining these changes help us see that the long ‘Old Woman’s summer’ of Dalmatia was ending in the first decades after 600 and that the two centuries of Dalmatian ‘winter’ throughout the seventh and eighth centuries were about to begin.

Identity and the use of the past Continuity of cult and pagan spolia While local scholars still occasionally see links between the Iron Age groups and the late antique local population of Dalmatia, such an opinion is in essence unfounded. After centuries of Roman imperial rule, which reshuffled the pre-Roman geography and reoriented existing social networks, the old identities could not be preserved intact. In other words, the Roman conquest represented a decisive break with the indigenous Iron Age identities.

“Winter is coming”  61 The local population slowly began to construct their new sense of self using Roman imperial templates and by identifying with the new provincial construct (patria), a local sense of identity or tradition, and the imperial ideological discourses of Romanness and later Christianity. Therefore, the term ‘romanised Illyrians’ would be meaningless to the people living in late antique Dalmatia.1 Nevertheless, that does not mean that the local population did not maintain certain connections with the past in Late Antiquity. There is sufficient evidence to see Christianity taking over numerous existing rural pagan sacred places, where continuity of cult lasted all the way from the Iron Ages to early Christian and sometimes even medieval times.2 While the establishment of the Roman cults reflected cultural contact between the coloniser and colonised, the appearance of Christian cult on earlier pagan sacral places in the Dalmatian hinterland occurred under very different circumstances. It was not a consequence of conquest, and although research on the continuity of paganism in fifth-century Dalmatia is insufficient, it would appear that Christianity was not forcibly resisted by the locals. As argued in the previous chapter, we can see the appearance of the new religion in Dalmatia as a reflection of changes in the imperial ideology and their acceptance among the local elite. The evidence shows that the process of Christianisation often tried to mask these changes under the guise of continuity of cult in existing sacred places. The use of spolia from earlier pagan sacral monuments, images and votive inscriptions in Dalmatian churches is visible in numerous places. As Migotti convincingly argues, this reflected a conscious strategy of the educated clergy, who were in charge of building the churches, rather than the mere utilisation of building material or even acts of resistance to a new religion from the craftsmen and builders.3 Not all of the pagan spolia built within Christian sacral buildings necessarily fall into this category. The ara dedicated to Venus, which was found turned on its side and had been used to level the ground in the early Christian church in Postira, is an example of the use of pagan spolia as building material.4 Apart from the examples from the Dalmatian territory of modern-day Croatia, listed by Migotti,5 there are also a few instances in the deeper hinterland where the use of spolia in early Christian basilicas indicates connections with the earlier pagan cults. Unfortunately, the excavators often failed to publish all of those spolia, and in some instances they were damaged beyond recognition, and so their number was certainly larger. Good examples include the relief of Silvanus and the Nymphs from the basilica in Založje near Bihać and an ara with an image of Silvanus dedicated by an Aurelius son of Marcus, which was used as a step in the basilica found on Gradac hill above Homolj near Kiseljak.6 The damaged inscription of a dedication to Jupiter as well as an ara bearing his image were placed in the foundations of an altar screen of the basilica in Dabravine. Traces of fire on the inscription show that it was visible to the viewer.7 In the Blagaj-Japra basilica, Đuro Basler discovered an ara dedicated to the Silvani Augusti by one

62  “Winter is Coming” Callimorphus, as well as images of circles and deer from another ara made in a local indigenous style used as a column capital. Finally, among the other spolia built into the walls of the church in Bilimišće, Truhelka found a dedicatory altar to Jupiter dedicated by Seneca Fulminator Flavius.8 In addition to these examples from the basilicas, it is important to mention the relief of Silvanus cut into the cliff in Mt Kozjak above Kaštela, probably as part of a rural sanctuary. The relief does not show any signs of destruction or damage, only the addition of a carved cross, which subtly Christianised this pagan image.9 The relief from Donji Lepuri, on the site of an early Christian church, reveals even more complex examples of accommodation between the old and the new. It contains an image of Attis mourning on one side, and an image of bread and fish symbolising eucharist on the other.10 Apart from constructing sacral continuity, there were other strategies of using of the past in late fifth- and sixth-century Dalmatia, such as the re-use of inscriptions from pagan funerary monuments in early Christian churches. These inscriptions bear the names of distinguished members of the local elite from the past. The inscriptions mentioning T. Flavius ­Licinius and (probably) his son T. Flavius Licinianus, both the decurions and II viri of municipium Bistuensium, were found in the church in Varvara beside the Lake of Rama. The inscriptions from Bilimišće mention the officials from the same administrative unit: T. Flavius Lucius (son of Titus) decurion and II vir municipia Bistuae.11 The funerary inscription of Publius Aelius Iuvenalus, the decurion and II vir municipi Delminensium, was ­embedded in the piscina of the baptistry in the Prisoje basilica near the Buško Blato hydro-accumulation. In Varvara, pagan funerary inscriptions belong to members of the same family. In addition to the father and son Flavius Licinius and Flavius Licinianus mentioned above, the funerary inscription of Aelia Procula, the mother of T. Flavius […], was discovered in the basilica, and that of Aelia Victorina, which was dedicated by her daughter Flavia Flacilla, who very likely belonged to the same family as Licinius, Licinianus and Aelia Procula. Bilimišće also contained a number of similar ­spolia from the tombstones belonging to several different local elite families.12 The ­earlier mentioned church in Prisoje contains funerary inscriptions that probably belong to the family of the decurion Publius Aelius Iuvenalus, such as the one of Panona (or Paiona), dedicated by her husband Publius Aelius, embedded in the piscina of the baptistry, and the epitaph of Aelia Severa, dedicated by her husband Publius Aelius Ursus, on the pavement of the basilica.13 These inscriptions provide good supporting evidence for the argument that the local elites embraced Christianity in the Dalmatian hinterland as a new way of displaying identity. The elites showed prestige not only by building churches and using them as a burial place, but also by displaying the funerary inscriptions of their pagan ancestors from the second and third centuries who were thus symbolically ‘Christianised’ and joined their Christian descendants. The churches displaying the funerary inscriptions of

“Winter is coming”  63 pagan ancestors were also built over the existing vaulted grave chambers. These most likely belonged to the immediate ancestors of the benefactors, such as those in Varvara and Bilimišće. The number of churches which subsequently incorporated pre-existing graves in the Dalmatian hinterland is much larger (e.g. Oborci, Mali Mošunj, Dabravine, etc.), showing active involvement of local elites in incorporating memory of their ancestors in a new Christian discourse.14 The use of inscribed spolia as an active indicator of identity also raises the question of literacy in the sixth-century Dalmatian hinterland. While the epigraphic habit is still present in Salona, it disappears from most of the province in the fifth and sixth centuries – especially in the hinterland. Traces of literacy are very rare. There is the cursive inscription of Iustus Olarius from Debelo brdo and the three names scratched onto the column capital in the Bakinci basilica, mentioned in the previous chapter. A few scratched graffiti bearing personal names were also found, for example: KARI…/ MARC…/ NVS BO …/ VS, which was carved into the handle of the episcopal ­cathedra (throne) in the Dabravine basilica and probably stands for KARI(nus), MARC(ia)NVS and BO(no)VS. Finally, there are several graffiti on pieces of columns found in and around the building known as Breza II. Apart from the famous runic fuÞark carved onto one of the columns, there are also other graffiti bearing (in the Latin alphabet) the personal names VER(i)ANUS, (P)AULINUS, and UTA(?), and the word (mise)RICORDIA. As Looijenga established in 1998, there were also two earlier graffiti near the inscribed fuÞark that were deliberately scraped. Only the letter X as well as some strokes probably indicating Roman cursive(?) is visible today. It is likely that these graffiti come from different periods between the sixth and late eighth/early ninth centuries, as will be discussed in Chapter 7.15 These examples indicate that literacy in the Dalmatian hinterland did not fully disappear, but it is very unlikely that literacy levels were comparable to those of the Roman period. Spolia were also used in the mortuary context. A privileged grave inside the earlier mentioned Založje church, and contemporary with it, was covered with a slab containing a relief showing horsemen from the Iron Age Iapodean culture dated to ca. the fifth-fourth century BC. While the re-use of the slab could be seen as a purely aesthetic act, there was perhaps more here than meets the eye. The local pagan Roman elite in the valley of the Una started to re-use and imitate distinctively shaped, decorated, Iapodean stone cinerary urns from the fifth-fourth century BC as a way of claiming the distant past of their ancestors. The choice of a pre-Roman slab as the cover for a privileged grave in Založje seems to be part of the same strategy for connecting with the ancestors. Another privileged grave from the same church uses the funerary stela of one Secundus Turrinus in the construction of the tomb as a side slab. The inscription faced the deceased, and it was not visible to the viewer, so it is not clear whether the same strategy for connecting with the ancestors was used here. However, it should not be

64  “Winter is Coming” excluded either.16 Similarly to the monuments of the Una valley, the re-use of Roman-era decorated anepigraphic pagan funerary monuments (cinerary urns) for the construction of the late antique children’s grave in Grepci near Livno, or the façade of the late antique vaulted tomb beside early Christian basilica in the cemetery of St Ivo in Livno17 could also be seen as a less direct connection with the real or imagined ancestors. In this context, the re-use of military funerary slabs for late antique graves in and around the former legionary camps Burnum (Ivoševci) and Tilurium (Gardun near Trilj) is very interesting. These camps were abandoned by the Roman legions in the late first century but were still used by auxiliary units in the second and third centuries, and grew into settlements. The graves from Burnum are poorly documented, apart from the notices in Lujo Marun’s antiquarian diaries. Three later, very likely late antique, inhumation graves were discovered in 1902 in the same location covered by the funerary stellae of Roman legionaries turned towards the deceased. Only one of these graves contained a smashed oil lamp, which is not preserved. A grave chamber with an entrance (hypogaeum) from Vojnić, 2–3km from Tilurium, was discovered in 1997. It contained the remains of two people covered by two inscribed funerary slabs – one of the legionary Lucius Ancharenus facing the outside, and one of the freedman Lucius Cusius Ascanius turned towards the ground like those in Burnum. The remains of the grave were not found in the original position, and contained tegulae, an oil lamp, a belt buckle, and a cross-shaped fibula. The excavators concluded that these were two burials, one from the fourth century under the tegulae, dated by the belt buckle and the oil lamp, and the other one, from the sixth/ seventh century, dated by the fibula.18 The conclusion of the excavators that the grave under the tegulae in ­Vojnić was originally enclosed by the building of the chamber is problematic. First, the locals had opened the chamber before the excavation, and so the interior was disturbed. Second, the recently excavated chamber in Dugopolje, similarly had an undisturbed grave under the tegulae (Gr1/I) that was built prior to the building of the chamber in the sixth century, probably for a female burial (Gr1/II).19 Thus, it is much more likely that the construction of the Vojnić chamber purposely enclosed the earlier grave of the ancestor in the sixth/seventh century. Another grave chamber was discovered in Dugopolje in 1980 beside the earlier mentioned grave chamber built over the grave under the tegulae. The chamber was covered by two slabs with the funerary inscriptions of a legionary and a member of a cavalry unit facing towards the deceased. The rest of the chamber was made from stellae belonging to the soldiers (with or without inscriptions) facing away from the deceased, and the stella / titulus of Papiria Metelica opposite the entrance, facing towards the deceased. The chamber cannot be securely dated as there were no finds inside, but it approximately belongs to the fourth century or later.20 The secondary use of military funerary monuments in late antique Dalmatia, such as the examples from Vojnić and Dugopolje,

“Winter is coming”  65 shows different strategies in the use of the past to the earlier mentioned examples, which could be seen as a kind of connection with real or imagined ancestors. All instances of the re-use of military tombstones are located within military fortification lines forming in the hinterland of Salona in the sixth century. These will be discussed at greater length in Chapters 4 and 5. Thus, the pattern of re-using military funerary monuments from the past in very late antique burials in these areas should not be considered accidents. It may well be attributed to the revival of military and imperial identity by the early Byzantine frontiers-guards on the approaches to Salona in the sixth century. Re-use of prehistoric barrows The re-use of prehistoric barrows for burial represents an even more radical strategy for claiming the past as these barrows were made in a distant time that the late antique communities will have barely remembered (or not at all). Secondary burials in prehistoric barrows are an important feature of the early medieval period, regardless of whether they occur inside or outside the former Roman borders.21 This habit was recorded in Britain in the Roman and late antique periods, and it also appears outside the former Roman borders in the sixth century. In southeastern Europe, the re-use of prehistoric burial mounds is frequently recorded around the modern Albanian-Greek border from the sixth century.22 Unlike the more frequent practice of burial in newly made barrows, secondary burials in prehistoric barrows were in most cases not privileged burials.23 These burials are generally seen as an attempt to legitimise a smaller community or social group through claims to the past and the invention of traditions. They could represent claims to the ‘ancestors’ from the distant past buried in the barrows or communicate the status of the individual or family in the landscape. In other words, this habit was the response of smaller communities in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages to political instability and reflected attempts to preserve and legitimise communal identity.24 The use of Bronze and Iron Age barrows for burial also appears in late fifth/sixth-century Dalmatia, but only in specific parts of the province. The re-use of prehistoric barrows was recorded frequently on the Glasinac plateau, in the very east of the province. Unfortunately, these barrows were excavated in the late nineteenth century with a focus of excavators on the original graves, and so there is very little information on these later graves.25 The habit of re-using prehistoric barrows in Late Antiquity was also attested in the area of Liburnia, particularly in the surroundings of Nin. The recently excavated late antique, mostly sub-adult burials from the prehistoric barrow Škornica in Privlaka near Nin were not published, apart from a short excavations notice. The excavators dated them to the later fifth century and the first half of the sixth through the find of a chronologically sensitive silver fibula in the shape of a bird. A similar example can be seen

66  “Winter is Coming” in a nearby cemetery formed on the Glavčurak mound near Kašić. Late antique and early medieval phases of burials were discovered there, although it is less likely that this sandy barrow was originally a prehistoric burial place (see below, p. 71).26 Late antique burials in barrows were also found a little further southeast in the area of ancient Alveria located between Asseria and Varvaria. Around the Jaruv hillfort in modern Dobropoljci, one of the possible locations of Alveria, secondary burials in three prehistoric barrows were excavated. Unfortunately, no chronologically sensitive material was found, and so they could not be securely dated. Finds of late antique material by the locals in the area below the barrows and the apparent existence of an unexcavated Roman-period cemetery in the same place suggests that these secondary burials in the barrows belong to Late Antiquity.27 The only properly published late antique Dalmatian graves in barrows are the ones from Matakova glavica in Krneza (Ljubač, also near Nin). These were discovered in a separate stratigraphic layer between the prehistoric and early medieval burials. There were four late antique burials (Gr2–5) and two holes without human remains that are also suspected to be burials from the period. No grave goods were found, apart from a small knife and a fragment of a late antique pot. Researchers have dated this stratigraphic layer to the fourth century through a posthumously minted coin depicting Constantine the Great (dated to 337–340) discovered beside the graves.28 Dating this stratigraphic layer through a single coin from the fourth century is very problematic, knowing that coinage from this period circulated much longer, and the wider area of Ljubač has not produced find of a single coin dateable to fifth or sixth century.29 The early Christian complex Podvršje-Glavčine in Ljubač, recently excavated approximately 1km from these barrows, consists of basilicae geminae built in the later fifth and sixth centuries. Twenty-eight graves from this period were discovered within the complex – inside and around the basilicas. Their grouping suggests several kin-related groups. The orientation of the late antique graves from the Matakova glavica mound follows the orientation of the churches in Podvršje, roughly along a NW-SE axis, and so the burials in the barrow clearly postdate the building of the first church in ca. 450–500.30 We can thus see that the late antique settlement in Ljubač had at least two contemporary burial places, one in the basilical complex in Podvršje and the other on the Matakova glavica mound. These very different and separate burial places, which are contemporary and clearly part of the same community, suggest the existence of two social (perhaps extended kin) groups. The established local secular and ecclesiastic elite, which legitimised its social domination through Christianity as the ideology of the late Empire, was buried in the basilical complex. The choice of the prehistoric burial mound as a new burial site signals the group’s need to separate themselves from the group buried in the basilical complex and legitimise its own group identity either through connection with the ancestors or through use of a

“Winter is coming”  67 landmark that was recognisable within the landscape.31 This habit of using prehistoric burial barrows will characterise the post-Roman population of this area around Nin, as we will see in Chapter 5.

Changes in burial custom Row-grave cemeteries Another important sign of deeper social changes in Dalmatia is the appearance of row-grave cemeteries. This type of cemetery is characterised by the arrangement of graves in rows, the presence of grave goods including weapons, and the development of necropoleis in prominent places in the landscape but not in the vicinity of churches. It reflects social changes and new ways of constructing the social and gender identity of the deceased and appears among the Germanic groups in the context of the Roman frontier in the fourth century.32 In Dalmatia, the first row-grave cemeteries appear in the early sixth century, which is relatively late when compared to the R ­ oman West and the areas immediately north in the Carpathian Basin, where the beginning of the row-grave cemetery phenomenon may be dated to the second half of the fifth century. The period in which these cemeteries appear coincides with Ostrogothic control of Dalmatia, and it is possible to speculate that the custom was a result of Ostrogothic influences. However, the use of row-grave cemeteries continues throughout the entire sixth century and into the first half of the seventh century, long after the departure of the Ostrogoths. The largest cemeteries established in the sixth century were those in Rakovčani near Prijedor, Greblje in Knin and Korita besides the Buško Blato hydro-accumulation. Smaller sample of excavated graves are available from Mihaljevići near Sarajevo, Njive in Narona, and Glavčurak. There could have been more row-grave cemeteries, for example, the extramural cemetery of Nin (Blato-Solane, just east of the city walls), which has not been properly published.33 The most important cemetery for understanding the beginnings of rowgrave cemeteries in Dalmatia is the one from Rakovčani, in the sub-locality of Bošnjića voće, with 66 graves excavated in 1959–1964. It was a new cemetery on flat terrain on a bank of the Sana river in the northwest of the province. The first burials are dated around 500, which with the present state of evidence probably makes it the earliest Dalmatian row-grave cemetery. The cemetery is not related to any earlier architecture or landmarks, but its location beside the river indicates a careful choice of burial place in a prominent position in the landscape. A large number of bodies were ­enclosed and covered by wooden planks, and three bodies were placed in tree-trunks. The grave goods consisted of weapons (knives – 10–15cm in length, two axes, and arrowheads in Gr43), iron purse mounts, and flints. The remaining personal adornments were the usual artefacts, such as earrings and belt buckles. Another interesting feature, and by far the most unique, is the

68  “Winter is Coming” appearance of artificially deformed skulls in four graves – three male and one female. These graves had no artefacts, but one of them (Gr61) contained a body that was placed in a tree-trunk. The artefacts from the graves show connections with the graves in the necropoleis of Rifnik, Kranj and Bled I in Noricum, some cemeteries in the Hungarian part of Pannonia, and the Dalmatian row-grave cemeteries Greblje, Korita and Mihaljevići.34 Interpreting the cemetery is difficult. The four deformed skulls and the burials in tree-trunks certainly indicate the presence of individuals not native to Dalmatia but connected with southern Pannonia where these habits were recorded. However, the other artefacts indicate connections with the Roman provincial heritage, such as iron purse mounts, and so the cemetery has generally been attributed to a local population.35 The largest documented Dalmatian row-grave cemetery from this period is Greblje with 218 graves (Figure 3.1).36 This was a new burial place on the lower eastern parts of the hill Sveti Spas above modern Knin. The first burials were dated by Vinski to the early sixth century. However, the earliest use of the cemetery likely postdates Ostrogothic rule, taking into account the time between the production and deposition of the artefacts in the graves. The cemetery was probably connected with the unexcavated ancient and late antique structures on the plateau of the hill.37 The cemetery ceases to be used around the mid-seventh century or a little later, as discussed in the next chapter, and was not used again. The graves were placed in four different levels and dominated the valley below. Around a third of the graves have the some artefacts, mostly personal adornments such as belt buckles or fibulae, and in a few instances earrings. Only one sword – spatha – was discovered, and this came from a destroyed grave. However, there was a large number of knives varying from relatively small (5–10cm) to larger specimens (15–20cm). The knives were found in both male and female graves, and their size did not depend on the sex of the deceased – the largest knife (17.2cm) was found in a grave containing the bodies of a mother and child (Gr39). Male graves sometimes combined knives with flint and tinder as grave goods. The presence of knives will also be an important feature of the post-Roman cemeteries in this area, as we will see in Chapter 5. The best examples of female local elite burials are Gr39 and 172, both of which contained necklaces, silver rings with monograms, knives, and keys. Grave 172 also contained a clay spindle whorl and a re-used old Roman fibula.38 This community was not unimportant – the presence of four rings with monograms, three in a female grave and one in a male, shows that the local elite families held some significance, as monograms are connected with power-holders in this period.39 There were several other instances of monogrammed personal adornments in Dalmatia, for example, the ring from Urbica’s hoard found in Narona, or a monogrammed fibula from the fortified settlement in Bakinci.40 The combination of rings with monograms and keys in grave assemblages indicate the importance of keys in the expression of authority. They are likely connected with property possession.41

Figure 3.1 Plan of Greblje cemetery in Knin (plan: M. Šćurov, photo I. Krajcar). The graves mentioned in the text are marked by the author. Documentation of the Medieval Department, ©Archaeological Museum in Zagreb.

“Winter is coming”  69

70  “Winter is Coming” The row-grave cemetery in Korita near the Buško Blato accumulation developed in the prehistoric hillfort, located on the hill whose slopes steeply fall into Mukišnica Creek.42 The cemetery consists of 86 graves placed in irregular rows. It is also a new cemetery, with the first burials dated a little later than Greblje – little after 550. It ceases to be used in the seventh century. Most of the graves were earth burials, but some had simple architecture made of uncut stones. Five graves have more elaborate stone chambers and a few burials were conducted in a more unusual manner, such as the dugout tree-trunk coffins, the covering of the deceased with a wooden plank, or graves built with tegulae. In eight graves (Gr2, 20, 24, 33, 67, 80, 82, 85) – three sub-adult, two female, one male and two of undetermined sex – one or more stones were found placed on the chests and stomach of the deceased.43 This is the earliest instance of such a habit in Dalmatia. It is also detectable in later post-Roman cemeteries and has been erroneously ascribed to the Slavic fear of vampires – see next chapter. While there are some comparative features between Korita and Greblje in the typology of personal adornments, the other finds show a very different community. There are no spindle whorls, keys or rings with monograms deposited in the graves. There are also no knives deposited in the graves – only a single 18cm knife was uncovered from grave 60, which belonged to an adult person of undetermined sex.44 The local elite is only distinguishable by the belt buckles and fibulae, and perhaps by the grave architecture and more elaborate stone chambers. Fibulae and personal adornments dominate female graves, which are generally more distinguishable. It is also interesting to see frequent finds of bronze omega-shaped fibulae in this cemetery, which shows the inclusion of the Korita elite, in the network of local elites in modern Herzegovina and southwestern Bosnia, characterised by the use of this type of fibula in the later sixth century (Figure 2.1).45 It seems that this cemetery developed close, but not quite next to the still unexcavated early Christian basilica in Bukova gora, which probably contained elite graves.46 Mihaljevići and Glavčurak provide a much smaller sample of graves than Greblje or Korita. They nevertheless share some similarities. Mihaljevići is a complex cemetery on the outskirts of modern Sarajevo containing late antique, early medieval and medieval graves. Unfortunately, it was thoroughly destroyed before the excavations by a unit of the Yugoslav Army, which carelessly conducted digging works there.47 There is very little earlier Roman material (only one fibula from the second century found outside the graves), and Mihaljevići seems to be a new cemetery without any continuity with the first centuries of Roman rule. Late antique graves were originally classified by Miletić as ‘Roman’, or ‘Germanic/Ostrogothic’,48 while medieval were classified as ‘Slavic’. There are four similar inhumation ‘Roman’ graves (Gr2, 15–16, 43), with locally made pottery vessels in the female burials, and a coin of Gordian III (238–244) in the male Gr16. The pottery is dateable to the third/fourth century at the earliest, but it could also belong to a later period. While the ‘Roman’ graves could indeed reflect an earlier

“Winter is coming”  71 horizon from the fifth century, the position of Gr15 (‘Roman’) and Gr20 (‘Germanic’) beside each other with an identical orientation and slightly different depths (0.40 and 1m) leaves the possibility that they are roughly contemporary. The next group, classified as ‘Germanic/Ostrogothic’ (Gr20–22, 29, 36–37, 56, 71, 76) is characterised by the iron and bronze belt-buckles and buckle-rings, while a female (Gr21) and male (Gr29) grave contain small knives. The original dating and attribution of these ‘Germanic/Ostrogothic’ graves were corrected by Vinski, who re-dated all of them to the second half of the sixth century. It is important to state that Miletić only classified the graves with grave goods as ‘Germanic’, leaving out the possibility that some of her ‘Slavic’ graves without grave goods might also be dateable to this period, i.e. the late sixth century.49 Thus, the late antique phase of this cemetery (‘Roman’ and ‘Germanic/Ostrogothic’ graves) should be dated from ca. 500, and primarily, if not wholly, attributed to a local population. However, this cemetery lasts for much longer, as we will see in Chapter 5. Glavčurak is a complex cemetery in the Ravni kotari, which also contains graves from several periods.50 It developed on and around the sandy mound Glavčurak in the village of Donji Kašić. The exploitation of the sand by the local population in more recent times has destroyed a large number of graves. Whether this barrow contained prehistoric burials or is a natural feature of the landscape remains unclear. No evidence of prehistoric burials has been found and deposits of sand suggest that the mound was a natural feature. Two ‘Ostrogothic’ bow-fibulae were discovered as accidental finds from destroyed graves – one on the barrow and the other one some 50m north of the barrow along with two monogramed rings. The finds of these fibulae suggest that the cemetery was established around mid-sixth century.51 The rings with monograms imply the significance of individuals from this community in the same way as those from the cemetery Greblje. Only nine graves from the late antique phase have been excavated, some 200m northwest of the barrow. Belošević assumed that there were many more burials from this period and that these excavated graves came from the periphery of the cemetery. The graves did not have grave architecture and the finds were relatively modest – such as a knife and tinder in Gr2, or a pair of triangular silver grape-shaped earrings from a destroyed grave, which are comparable to finds from Greblje and Korita.52 This cemetery continued to be used until medieval period – which will be discussed at greater length in Chapter 5. The appearance of row-grave cemeteries in sixth-century Dalmatia is very significant, as it reflects substantial changes in the social structure of the province. While these cemeteries are not characterised by particularly rich assemblages or exotic burial customs, they still show the appearance of communities that chose different ways of displaying their mortuary identity from the urban and rural aristocracy. These communities did not build churches to display their identity through privileged burials, but rather chose dominant places in the landscape, not unlike the community

72  “Winter is Coming” in Ljubač, which re-used a prehistoric mound. These were not necessarily ordinary peasants, as some artefacts without any doubt present more subtle ways of displaying power, such as the rings with monograms in the female graves of Greblje, knives or the ‘Ostrogothic’ fibulae in Mihaljevići. It is also important to note the prominence of female elite burials with grave goods and personal adornments, which is not limited to row-grave burials. As seen in Chapter 5, row-grave cemeteries gain popularity and prominence in seventh and especially eighth-century Dalmatia, becoming for some time the only type of cemetery existing outside the surviving coastal cities. Intramural burials The changes in burial customs were not limited to the Dalmatian hinterland. An important new habit is the appearance of intramural burials in the urban settlements. In earlier times the Dalmatian communities observed the general Mediterranean, particularly Graeco-Roman and Jewish avoidance of burial within city walls, and so this represented a significant change in the centuries-old burial traditions, as Paxton said, by “erasing distinction between polis and necropolis”. Burials in urban areas started to appear in the fourth century as a result of the Christian desire to be buried close to the relics of the martyrs deposited in churches, which also reflected the social hierarchies of the living. This habit, born in Late Antiquity, persisted into the Middle Ages, and in a way we can say that it was one of the earliest beginnings of medieval society in Dalmatia.53 Some of these burials are undoubtedly privileged burials connected to the early Christian churches, but burials unconnected with the Christian architecture are also attested in Zadar and Salona. In Zadar, late antique graves are quite frequently found, either in the context of early Christian churches or unconnected to Christian architecture. Unfortunately, most of these finds are poorly documented and published or difficult to interpret.54 Three graves (Gr8–9 and 15) were recently found beside the intramural late antique church of St Stephen (modern St Simon). They contained the remains of seven sub-adults, one teenager and one adult female person. These graves were not closely dated, but their stratigraphy, orientation and architecture (Gr9 was made from amphorae) distinguish them from the later medieval burials. They likely belong to Late Antiquity. A sub-adult burial was also discovered in the south wing of the former monastery of St Nicholas.55 Late antique graves were also discovered next to the Zadar forum (Šimun Kožičić Benja street), but they were not been properly published. The earlier excavations of the forum and the Archbishop’s gardens in the Episcopal centre also produced late antique burials but were never properly published.56 The existence of intramural burials in the forum could be connected with the vicinity of the Episcopal complex and the early Christian cathedral church, which stood on the site of the modern cathedral of St Anastasia.

“Winter is coming”  73 In Salona very few (mostly sub-adult) burials in amphorae detected inside the eastern portion of the city walls.57 The graves did not have chronologically sensitive features and may well date later than 600. One encounters a different situation in Narona, where several intramural cemeteries develop after ca. 500. The elite were presumably buried in the cemetery around two successive intramural basilicas known in the literature as ‘the basilica in the aqueduct’, Vid-Narona I, or Popričica. The first building was constructed in the fifth century, and a new one on top of it at the end of the fifth century or the beginning of the sixth. There was a large number of graves under tegulae and in amphorae, a sarcophagus, and one vaulted burial chamber north of the basilica. The sarcophagus was seemingly added to the earlier basilica and can therefore be dated to the mid/later fifth century.58 Another intramural cemetery dug over the remains of the forum and lower parts of the hill above it was discovered some 150–200m west of the basilica and across from Norin creek. Twelve of these graves, almost all of them sub-adult, had been dug over the ruins of the Augusteum (the temple of Augustus). All of these graves have roughly been dated from the fifth to the seventh century. The most important diagnostic finds were the gold coin of Tiberius II (578–582), a gold earring with basket-shaped pendant, and a crossbow fibula (Keller-type 6).59 This corresponds with the dating of the pottery used in the construction of the graves (Gr2–3, 14), which can also be dated to the mid-fifth and sixth centuries. It is interesting to note the find of a pottery spindle whorl, which is reminiscent of a habit recorded in the Greblje cemetery.60 The rest of the graves, dispersed over the forum and the lower parts of the hill above it, belong to the same period, which is confirmed by finds of a belt buckle and a fibula with a bent-stem dateable to the sixth century between graves 13 and 14.61 Another 10 more graves were found uphill, some 50–60m west/northwest of the forum. These graves are known in literature as the Njive cemetery. Although only a very small sample of the graves was uncovered, it seems that they were placed in rows, which potentially makes this cemetery the only intramural late antique row-grave cemetery in Dalmatia. Most of the graves were under tegulae, and a pair of ‘Ostrogothic’ bow-fibulae was discovered in grave 2. The scholarship assumes that this is an Ostrogothic-Gepidic cemetery,62 but it is more likely that the graves in Njive and the Naronitan forum just below it functioned as a single cemeterial complex that reflected a different social or kin-groups from the elite buried around the Popričica basilica, as in the example of Ljubač. In Liburnia, intramural graves were found in several localities: Tarsatica, Fulfinum, Nin and Varvaria. In Tarsatica, intramural graves were found on two localities: the graves from burned villa urbana (the locality of ‘30 Užarska street’), and one privileged burial in a sarcophagus was discovered in the early Christian basilica.63 Fulfinum is an example that partly fits into this category, as the settlement had a forum and probably an orthogonal shape but no city walls. In Late Antiquity, probably at the beginning of

74  “Winter is Coming” the fifth century, two mausolea were built some 100m from the forum and became the core of a new necropolis. A partly destroyed and undated grave was also found in the forum beside the wall of ‘Temple 2’.64 There are also intramural graves in Nin, around the early Christian complex at a crossing between the cardo maximus and decumanus maximus below the modern church of St Anselm. This was a large cemetery that lasted long into the medieval period, and ten graves roughly dated to the fifth-sixth century were discovered. These graves were found in two micro-locations right beside the apse of the northern (older) church and the south of the southern (younger) church. The graves had very different architecture: under tegulae, in the ground with stones around them, while one grave had been made in a stone cist.65 The discovery of the late antique graves around the church of St Anselm in Nin implies that the earliest horizon of graves dug into the remains of the Roman architecture pre-dating the late ninth century church of St Cross, beginning some 35–40m northeast of St Anselm, belongs to the same period (Figure 3.2). The overseers of the first comprehensive excavations of this locality (1968–1970) distinguished three horizons of graves, the earliest dating to Late Antiquity before the seventh century. The dating was influenced by the different orientation of this horizon and the number of late antique artefacts found in this stratigraphic layer. However, Janko Belošević, who originally only excavated medieval graves, later changed his opinion and distinguished only two horizons of graves, dating the earliest to the eighth and possibly the seventh century. The only exception is the isolated, single grave 168 made with stones connected with mortar among the remains of the Roman architecture, which Belošević dated to Late Antiquity. This male grave had a NE-SW orientation and two knives and a bronze ring as grave goods.66 The orientation of this grave is very different from others in the lowest stratigraphic level, which mostly roughly follow the SE-NW axis of the St Anselm complex. The stratigraphic position of Gr186 below the neighbouring Gr184 and 185,67 indicates that there are more graves contemporary or slightly later than Gr168 and therefore dateable from the late sixth to late seventh century. The spatial separation of these graves from the functioning church complex indicates a social group distinct from those buried around the church complex. In the centre of the settlement on Bribirska glavica (Varvaria), next to the remains of an earlier public building (Roman temple?) a vaulted crypt, mentioned in Chapter 2, was built. This was composed of a standing cella and stomion housing two sarcophagi. The building of the crypt occurred before the construction of the adjacent rotunda, which is tentatively dated to around 500 or a little later. The crypt became a core of the new burial ground inside the settlement. At some point in the sixth century, burials began in the subsequently added western narthex of the rotunda. This is evidenced by grave 17, which was built before 540, as shown by the C14 bone analysis of one of the buried persons with a calibrated date of 420–540.68 Another

Figure 3.2 Plan of the earliest phase of St Cross cemetery in Nin (S. Pjaca). The graves mentioned in the text, later discovered graves Gr210–212 and distance to the other Nin cemeteries are marked by the author, ©Archaeological Museum in Zadar.

“Winter is coming”  75

76  “Winter is Coming” built grave (hypogaeum) with an entrance covered by two large slabs, also dateable to Late Antiquity, was discovered in 2017 just outside the narthex of the rotunda. The grave was re-used in the Middle Ages and no original burials were found.69 The later medieval, early modern and modern burials around the standing church of SS Joachim and Ann destroyed further evidence of other late antique burials around the Bribir rotunda, but what has been found undoubtedly confirms the existence of a privileged burial ground developing in the fifth and sixth centuries. Grave goods The appearance of grave goods, the artefacts not used as personal adornments, is also a feature detectable in Late Antiquity. To be precise, the use of grave goods, frequent in earlier Roman cremation and ­inhumation graves, never fully disappeared from use. While the arrival of C ­ hristianity as the main religion certainly reduced the deposition of artefacts, the deposition of pottery is still detectable in fourth- and fifth-century graves near Salona (the Smiljanovac cemetery), Kaštela, as well as grave 1/II from ­Dugopolje.70 The find of a small knife with scissors, a glass bottle and a small hoard of bronze coins as grave goods in Gr15 in the locality of Bencunuše near the Salonitan city walls (placed between Marusinac and Manastirine) bears witness to the continuance of grave depositions in Christian times. The grave is dated to the fifth century by the latest coin in the hoard – one minted in the time of Honorius (395–423).71 The knife differs from the knives deposited in later graves with its long handle and thickness – it was probably connected with the scissors as a utility knife. To these we can add five late antique graves discovered just outside the main entrance to Varvaria, beside the road entering the main gates of the ancient and medieval town. In the same place, known in the archaeological literature as the sub-locality Vratnice, an early medieval cemetery, will be established in the ninth century without continuity with the late antique graves. The graves were made of stones connected with mortar and contained some grave goods, mostly pots, glass, and oil lamps, a knife in Gr27 and a spindle whorl in Gr109, which is the only grave securely determined as female. The only chronologically sensitive object is the coin of Valens (364–378) from Gr27, and so the graves can be dated from the late fourth century onwards.72 The more thorough Christianisation of the province in the fifth century did not interrupt the deposition of pottery in the graves. We find this in graves dateable to the sixth century. Grave 8 in Bencunuše is securely dated to the sixth century with three gold coins: two minted in the time of Justin I and one in the time of Justinian. Playing dice made of bone were found in the grave, as were three whole amphorae of the Keay LIII B type (fourthsixth century) leaning on a built structure of the grave made from stones connected with mortar.73 The amphorae were undoubtedly placed at the

“Winter is coming”  77 time of burial as grave goods. Glass vessels may have also been present as grave goods in sixth-century burials, as in the example of a small bottle uncovered in a vaulted burial in Vrdolje near Konjic together with an earring with a basket-shaped pendant, dateable to the sixth century. The use of ceramic oil lamps as grave goods, frequent in the Roman period, is also recorded in fourth-, fifth- and even some sixth-century burials. Elite female burial 1/I from Dugopolje is the second burial in the same grave following the earlier mentioned fourth-century burial 1/II. This burial is dated to the sixth century through pair of silver earrings with basket pendants and silver earrings with a polyhedron pendant, dateable from the fifth century onwards. The grave’s elite character is evidenced by a silver ring with a monogram. The grave goods consist of three oil lamps.74 Pottery from very late antique graves is present in burial assemblages in quite a few places in the Dalmatian hinterland, often in clearly Christian settings. In Chamber IV, beneath the floor of the northern transept of the basilica Oborci near Donji Vakuf, a pot roughly made on a rotating wheel (presumably a slow rotating one) was discovered. It has been placed upside down in the northwest corner of the chamber and was the only grave good accompanying the three burials. Another example comes from the basilica in Vrba near Glamoč, where four pots were found in a multi-burial grave, 1.5m below the level of the floor in the northwestern corner of the narthex. The grave was probably originally a vaulted grave. The original interpretation assumed that the pots (one made by hand and three on a slow pottery wheel) came from later ‘Slavic’ burials. However, Milošević convincingly showed that these pots are different from other pots discovered at this site in the early medieval burials and that they should be considered as late antique burials. Another examples of very late antique burials with pottery in the Christian context came from the basilical complex Crkvine in Cista Velika, and an unpublished vaulted chamber near the church of St Rose in Livno, attached to a building that might have been an early Christian basilica.75 Outside the ascertained church burial grounds, but chronologically similar to the earlier examples, were finds of fragments of poorly made pots made on a slow rotating wheel from the vaulted burials in Karahodže near Travnik and Osatica in the very east of the province, as well as the similarly made pot from Phase II of the burials in the Lučani vault grave dated to the early seventh century. To these we should add the earlier discussed graves with pottery from the row-grave cemetery in Mihaljevići, which preceded or were contemporary with the ‘Germanic’ burials from the sixth century, and the fragments of pottery in a late antique grave dated to the sixth century from Sustjepan near Cavtat, placed in the remains of the Roman villa.76 Pots made of differently made painted pottery were found in a vaulted grave from Đelilovac near Travnik. Another one from the grave in Mjehovina near Kalinovik was found together with a few pottery cu­ps decorated with geometrical ornaments. Both graves were originally dated to the fourth century but may well date to the fifth or sixth century.77

78  “Winter is Coming” Pots are also found in combination with weapons as grave goods. A good example is the Gorica (near Imotski) vaulted grave with multiple burials. The grave assemblage consists of two poorly made pots made on wheel similar to the earlier mentioned examples, a small knife (8.2cm preserved length), a glass swindle whorl and iron weighing scales. The burial chamber is dated to ca. 500, with subsequent burials throughout the sixth century.78 Another example is the grave from Munivrane in Gala near Sinj. This is a built grave with a single burial accompanied with pottery: a poorly made pot, the bottom of a pot, a fragment of a plate, an unguentarium made of clay, and a spear top. Milošević dates the unguentarium to the late fourth century, and so it is possible that the grave belongs to the fifth century. The same author re-dated the grave in a 1998 publication to the sixth-seventh century. Another example is the damaged stone-built grave from Krstača in Kijevo that contained a long battle-knife (seax), bronze belt-fittings as well as fragments of glass and pottery.79 The appearance of knives of different sizes is detectable in the graves of this period not related to row-grave cemeteries. The earlier mentioned vaulted grave from Lučani (found in vineyard of J. Radić in 1983) was in the vicinity of three other contemporary late antique graves. The grave contains the remains of 14 persons from Phase I, dated ca. 400 to 550, while the second phase is dated to the early seventh century and contains the earlier mentioned pot. Among the grave goods connected with Phase I are several glass vessels and glasses, three oil lamps, and two smaller knives (16.4 and 10.8cm in length).80 Furthermore, a small, incomplete knife (ca. 10cm) was found together with an iron stylus in connection with burial D in Chamber III under the Oborci basilica. The handle of the knife is made of seven bone rings and was found in a vaulted grave in room D contemporary with basilica in Varvara, on its southern side. It seems there were also quite a few graves around the Mogorjelo basilicas containing knives, but these have unfortunately not been published. A small knife was also found in one of the graves in the earlier discussed burials from the Matakova glavica mound in Ljubač.81 It is also worth mentioning two graves from the extramural cemetery in Asseria. This cemetery formed next to the northern portion of the Roman-era city walls (Figure 2.2). Grave 9 contained a knife blade and is dated to ca. 500 or a little later, while the sub-adult grave 21 contained a bent-stem fibula, two earrings, three glass paste beads and the fragments of two knives. Grave 21 is one of the latest dateable graves in the cemetery and should be dated after 550.82 There is also a small knife from grave 4 in the late antique necropolis on locality Grovnice in Mali Mošunj near Vitez in central Bosnia. The necropolis was badly damaged prior to the excavation due to its location beside a stone quarry. It consists of nine graves and one, possibly two, vault graves, one of which contained the fragments of a pottery vessel. While finds in the graves and osteological material were very scarce, these graves can safely be dated to Late Antiquity. The necropolis is located just below the top of the hill where the early Christian basilica stood. While the basilica was not

“Winter is coming”  79 excavated, we have the description of the finds by Father Kujundžić from 1912 when the new church of Sorrowful Mother of God was built in that place. Apart from numerous Roman remains and the remains of the basilica, Kujundžić noticed a number of burials, including vaulted burials which should be considered contemporary to the basilica.83 The existence of two contemporary but separate burial places in a relatively small community recalls the situation in Ljubač. Finally, in addition to knives, there is the find of a late antique military helmet from a Sinj burial, discovered together with a small glass bottle.84 The helmet is a modest version of more luxurious helmets of the Narona-Baldenheim type, three of which are known from intramural hoards in Narona and Salona.85 These helmets were an important status-symbol for the sixth-century elites and could have been kept for generations as indicated by the Salonitan find, which was deposited beside a double silver belt-set of the Mediterrana type with the monogram LICINIUS on its strap-end. This belt-set can be dated well into the seventh century, as will be shown in Chapter 5.

Naughty bishops of Salona There are more signs of changes in the attitude of the elite late in the sixth century in the letter-exchange of Gregory the Great and the Dalmatian dignitaries, who are mostly Salonitan bishops in the 590s. The pope attempted to mediate the long-lasting conflict between the Salonitan bishop Natalis and the archdeacon Honoratus, who criticised Natalis’ behaviour – in particular his organising of feasts and the division of church property among his kinsmen and friends. At the same time, the pope replaced bishop Malchus, the rector of the papal patrimony in Dalmatia facing accusations of corruption, with his confidant sub-deacon Antoninus. After Natalis died (before April 593), Gregory became personally involved in the election of the Salonitan bishop, lobbying for the archdeacon Honoratus. Although Honoratus was initially elected in July 593, the other pretender Maximus enlisted, allegedly through bribery, the support of the local people, the Ravennate Exarch Romanus, other Dalmatian bishops and the army to attain the position of Salonitan prelate. He became bishop before April 594, causing new rector of the papal patrimony Antoninus to run for his life. Maximus also obtained the support of the court in Constantinople, which approved his consecration as the Salonitan bishop. Gregory actively criticised Maximus’ election and even suspended him from communion, but the pope could do little, due to the ongoing support of Maximus’ allies. After Romanus died in 596 or 597, Maximus started to lose the support of the Dalmatian bishops, and the proconsul Marcellinus withdrew his initial support for Maximus as he needed Gregory’s help and recommendations in Constantinople. The deal was negotiated in 597, probably with the help of the new Exarch Callinicus and Marcellinus. Maximus went to Ravenna, repented and in exchange was re-admitted to communion in August 599.

80  “Winter is Coming” The pope subsequently recognised him as the first man of the Dalmatian church.86 Let us see what these letters tell about the behaviour of the Dalmatian ecclesiastic elite. Unable to solve the conflict between Honoratus and Natalis, Gregory in March 592 directly accused Natalis of drinking, feasting and dividing holly vessels and clothes among his kin. He sent a letter to Natalis directly, and another to all the Dalmatian bishops, informing them about the conflict and the accusations against the Salonitan (arch)bishop.87 Although the pope mentions Natalis dividing Church property only among his kin, the well-informed medieval source Thomas of Split also mentions Natalis’ ‘accomplices’. It is possible that Thomas read the letters of Gregory’s predecessor Pelagius II, as this conflict was going on before Gregory’s pontificate.88 Natalis responded to this letter and did not deny the accusations of feasting, as we can see from another letter of Gregory to the bishop, in which he rebuffed Natalis’ arguments, in August that same year. Natalis seemingly offered a spirited defence of his behaviour, citing or paraphrasing the use of the feast and feeding in Genesis and Paul’s Letter to the Romans.89 While there is very little information provided in these letters, it is clear that the Salonitan bishop used church property, rather than money, to provide gifts and organise feasts for his followers, friends and family. The discovery that the so-called Oratorium A building in the Salonitan episcopal complex was used as a triclinium in the sixth century (see pp. 33–34) supports the claims in the letters of Gregory and shows that the behaviour of Natalis was not unusual or exceptional. His principle problem was his conflict with the austere archdeacon Honoratus, who repeatedly reported this behaviour to Rome. If Honoratus had not done so, the pope likely would not have gotten actively involved. At the same time, the bishop Malchus, rector of the papal patrimony in Dalmatia, was sacked by Gregory before October 592 because he had dipped his fingers too deep into the papal property. What he did precisely is unclear, but the pope apparently saw a problem in the rendering of accounts and accused Malchus of misappropriating the estates under his responsibility.90 This may have been part of the pope’s large overhaul of the administration of papal properties, in which he put in charge his confidants, such as the sub-deacon Antoninus, who replaced Malchus.91 We cannot confirm whether the accusations were true, but Gregory gained a powerful enemy in Dalmatia. The pope explicitly warns Antoninus in April 593 to prevent the already dismissed Malchus from influencing the election of the Salonitan bishop after the death of Natalis. Malchus was recalled to Sicily and then to Rome, where he ultimately died after his trial in September 594.92 The Maximus affair was a large one that involved important power-players. Maximus was inappropriately young and undistinguished for the senior position of the Salonitan bishop. This is seen in Gregory’s warning to Maximus that the pope “knows of his age and career” at the beginning of the affair, and even six years after Maximus was recognised as an (arch)bishop, he still calls him “youthful”.93 Gregory himself did not mind promoting

“Winter is coming”  81 his trusted agents over higher-positioned persons when it suited him, and so the sub-deacon Antoninus replaced bishop Malchus as a rector of the Dalmatian patrimonies. Maximus enlisted different allies in order to challenge Gregory, receiving patronage from major local power-players such as the Exarch Romanus, who might have helped him gain support at the Constantinopolitan court, and the future proconsul Marcellinus. Whether Romanus, who was on very bad terms with the pope, had his own calculations in this affair, or whether Maximus was initially a ‘political project’ of the dismissed bishop Malchus and Romanus only came on board later, we can only speculate.94 In any case, it is clear that Dalmatia in the 590s was still included in wider imperial power-and-patronage networks, balancing between the imperial infrastructure and the papacy. This borderline position provided the opportunity for ambitious individuals to advance outside the established hierarchies and position themselves as community leaders, as Maximus ultimately did. Such circumstances undoubtedly existed at other local and provincial levels in late antique Dalmatia, providing opportunities for an established order and hierarchy to be challenged. Migrations and population decline? It seems appropriate at this moment to very briefly look into the problem of population change and the possibility of population decline in late antique Dalmatia as one of the causes for social changes. As stated in the previous chapter, Dalmatia does not seem to have experienced significant migration and permanent settlement from the outside before 600. The Ostrogothic settlement during their half a century of rule was negligible, and the presence of ‘Germanic’ material culture in the funeral context in no way guarantees that the people using it were actual Ostrogoths. These artefacts may have also been used by people of local origin, who incorporated foreign symbols of power into the construction of their social personae.95 A good illustration is the find of two silver ‘Ostrogothic’ bow-fibulae in a child burial in a re-used small sarcophagus from Grčine in Han Potoci (today only Potoci) near Mostar.96 The exact location of this small sarcophagus and the larger one which also contained luxurious gold artefacts but was robbed upon discovery in 1882 is not known, but it is likely that they were placed close to early Christian basilica on this locality. The pectoral containing two ‘Ostrogothic’ bird fibulae made of gold, glass and almandine, today kept in AMZg (Figure 3.3), is also originating from third grave from this cemetery.97 This is not to say that there were no population movements. For example, the epigraphic evidence from Salona indicates the presence of migrants from former Roman Pannonia, probably refugees escaping the troubles of the fifth century and the later Avar menace.98 That the row-grave cemetery in Korita belongs to migrants/refugees from Pannonia, as argued by Periša,99 is less likely, for as we saw earlier this type of cemeteries became a feature of Dalmatian burial customs in the sixth century. The artefacts in the cemetery

82  “Winter is Coming”

Figure 3.3 The necklace from Potoci (photo: I. Krajcar), ©Archaeological Museum in Zagreb.

indicate a close connection with Salona and integration within local social networks, as shown earlier in the chapter. Salona provides a different picture from the rest of the province, as a larger settlement of people from the eastern Mediterranean and the use of the Greek language are visible in the epigraphic record from later antiquity, adding to the cosmopolitan structure of the Dalmatian capital.100 Justinian’s conquest may have triggered even more migration, as several inscriptions in Greek dateable to the sixth century show people coming from Hadrianopolis, Egypt, Galatia, and Apamea.101 In the context of Dalmatia coming under east Roman rule, it is also likely that the upper levels of the administration were held by the easterners, or the people from the central Balkans, as this seems to have been Justinian’s general policy. There is unfortunately very little evidence available. Procopius mentions Constantianus as the commander of Dalmatia from the capture of Salona in 536 until 539 when he was moved to Ravenna, and Claudianus as a commander in Salona in 549.102 Theodoracis, the son of otherwise unknown comes Euphrasius, was commemorated on a bilingual epitaph in Salona dated to the sixth century. There is also a Greek epitaph of one Justin, tribune of the Valeninianensis unit. To this we can perhaps add the bishop Peter, who was probably placed there on the emperor’s orders after the dismissal of his predecessor Frontinianus.103 Lower-level officials, such as the Salonitan defensores (d. ­civitatis or d. ecclesiae) have Latin names and Latin inscriptions (Menatius and Valerius), while the defensor Andreas may have had a Greek name, but his funerary inscription was in Latin.104 In the very late sixth century, the upper echelons of the Dalmatian administration seem to have been locally rooted.

“Winter is coming”  83 The proconsul Marcellinus’ brother (or father), the priest John, lived and died in Salona.105 Marcellinus was also initially on Maximus’ side in his conflict with the pope, whereas Maximus was drawing his support from the local base, as seen earlier. Thus, from very limited evidence, we can see that Justinian’s conquest initially had some impact on the composition of the Salonitan elites, and that it caused some settlement in the provincial capital from the eastern Mediterranean, but without much impact on the province as a whole. So, while a degree of population mobility existed in sixth-century Dalmatia, outside grou­ps do not appear to have greatly affected the population structure. Depopulation in the wider area of southeastern Europe in the seventh century, especially the central and northern parts of the Balkan peninsula, is attested in the material record after ca. 620.106 This may apply to some parts of Dalmatia, especially in the deeper hinterland. However, can we see the beginning of this trend already in the sixth century? The most serious ‘­suspect’ is Justinian’s plague, while climate change in the sixth century was also recently proposed as a possible reason for social changes and population decline in the Mediterranean and continental Europe.107 Unfortunately, there is little to discuss in relation to late antique Dalmatia. The plague was recorded ‘in Illyricum’, from which it came to Italy in 543. There is also a record of a plague ravaging areas close to Dalmatia: Aquileia, Istria and Grado in 591.108 However, the material record remains very problematic and makes it difficult to prove the significant impact, or even the existence of Justinian’s plague. There are no mass-graves dated to this period, which is especially significant in the context of the provincial capital Salona. High density habitation in Salona would have certainly resulted in a high mortality rate in the event of such epidemics, which would be visible in mass burials. However, nothing of the kind has been found in Dalmatia or the rest of the province in this period, except a few cases of malaria detected in Salonitan cemeteries.109

Conclusion While the previous chapter showed that Dalmatia on the whole transformed in Late Antiquity very much in accordance with the rest of the Mediterranean world, the present chapter is shown that the sixth century was at the same time characterised by some important changes. In view of the ways local elites began to manipulate the past and use burials, it is possible to argue that social changes and an identity crisis were occurring on multiple levels. The use of spolia in newly built churches in the hinterland was a strategy for maintaining the local elites’ claim to social dominance by invoking their distinguished ancestors, and thus an attempt to preserve continuity. However, the appearance of intramural burials is clearly a break with long established burial practices. Such a dramatic change, gives the impression of a need, at least in the beginning, to invent more authentic ways of asserting social dominance, by moving the dead even closer to the living, as we

84  “Winter is Coming” saw in the examples from Zadar, Nin, Narona and Varvaria. Interestingly enough, this does not happen in Salona where intramural burials indicate the abandonment of some urban spaces in the same way as the burials in the forums of Fulfinum and Narona. This was long-lasting change, and we can see the intramural burials as probably the first trace of medieval society in Dalmatia, as this habit will persist in the medieval period. This is not to say that position of the elite was completely secure in Salona either. The evidence from pope Gregory’s correspondence and the archaeology shows that even the position of a bishop, which should be entrenched within the ecclesiastic hierarchy, needed to be maintained by individual initiative, personal connections and the ability to organise feasts. The insecurity of the social hierarchy was open to abuse by ambitious individuals, such as the bishop Maximus, who used a network of secular allies to make a successful bid for the position of first man in the Dalmatian church in the 590s. The appearance of row-grave cemeteries and unusual burial places such as the burrow burials is even better evidence of the alternative strategies used by local communities unable to express their dominance through church-building and privileged burials. The Krneze and Podvršje burials in Ljubač clearly show two different social groups using different strategies in the burial record – one through building of the churches and privileged burials in and around them, and the other resorting to the re-use of a prehistoric barrow. Similar situation is present in Mali Mošunj, Nin, probably even Varvaria. Narona is particularly interesting as the probable row-grave cemetery co-exists with the burials around the intramural church, which reflect the choice of points in the urban landscape to strengthen identity and prominence of a group that was not the part of the urban elite. The militarisation of local identities is visible in the valley of the river Cetina in the immediate hinterland of Salona in this period namely in the re-use of old legionary tombstones and the sporadic appearance of weapons in Kijevo, Sinj and Gale. The increasing frequency of depositing knives in different burial contexts (male/female, row-grave/church burials) should also tell us about a change of identity. While these knives are usually not too small, but also not too large (ca. 10–20cm), their finds in Dalmatia reflect a pattern. These are not utility-knives, as they have shorter handles and narrow blades. While it may be too much to argue that they were actual weapons, we cannot exclude their symbolic value in the changing image of the late antique elites who started to present themselves in a more militarised guise.110 The militarisation of funerary identities in this period was not necessarily influenced by ‘Ostrogothic-Germanic’ traditions – it could have also been inspired by images from Roman stellae, as we see in Italy.111 Another important feature of the later fifth and sixth century in Dalmatia is the appearance of grave goods, such as pottery vessels and knives. The deposition of these artefacts in graves was not a sign of non-Christian practices, as will be shown in the next chapter. The variety of these vessels, from simple pots made on a slow pottery wheel to the better made pottery

“Winter is coming”  85 in the Dugopolje female grave, reflects social complexity and different approaches to this burial habit (see also next chapter). The female graves, probably under Ostrogothic influences, began to attain more prominence in the burial record, not only through the deposition of artefacts, but also in personal adornments such as fibulae and earrings. Symbols of power, such as rings with monograms, appear more frequently in female graves (­Greblje, Dugopolje), and some expensive personal adornments, such as fibulae or earrings, are also a distinguishing feature of local elite female graves. These changes are not caused by the settlement of a foreign population but rather by local developments, although some outside influences cannot be disregarded, because Dalmatia was not isolated from the wider Mediterranean system. The changes were probably influenced by the transformation within the internal provincial networks and architectures of power caused by J­ ustinian’s Reconquista of Ostrogothic Dalmatia and the positioning of the northern parts of Dalmatia as an imperial frontier-zone after the loss of Pannonia. The consequence was the repositioning of the existing social networks and an emphasis on personal achievement and the role of community leaders (whether they be locals or migrants of any provenience), rather than on established elite networks, personal wealth and one’s noble origins.112

Notes 1 Dzino 2010a: 72–73. 2 Migotti 1992, 2012: 204–206; Milošević 2013: 74–87. 3 Migotti 2012: 206. 4 Jelinčić & Perinić Muratović 2010: 184, 198–199 and the discussion on 203–205 with Figures 2, 6–8. 5 Migotti 2012: 206 n.44. Especially rich with pagan iconography is the church in Klapavice near Klis, with dedication to Silvanus and other gods built in the floor of the apse, cf. Bulić 1907: 103, 117–120, with addition to recently excavated, still unpublished ara dedicated to Juno, Demicheli 2016: 110 n.7. 6 Skarić 1932: 4–5, T.4 (Homolj); Čremošnik 1956, 1958: 118–119 (Založje). 7 Sergejevski 1956: 13, 30–31, Pic. 16–17, T.21,3–6. This basilica is known in the literature as Dabravine-Vareš, but in reality it is closer to a township of Breza. 8 Truhelka 1893: 276 no.2 (Bilimišće); Basler 1975/76: 146, T.14,1a–b; 17,2 (BlagajJapra). 9 Dyggve 1951: 10, T.1,17, cf. Rendić-Miočević 1982: 126. 10 Milošević 2013: 75–76 Figure 76, cf. Delonga 1997: 66–73. 11 Truhelka 1893: 275, 278 (no.1, 8) (Bilimišće); Patsch 1909: 107 (no.1–2, Figures 2 and 3) (Varvara). 12 Truhelka 1893: 275–279; Patsch 1909: 108–109 (no.3–4, Figures 4 and 5). 13 Bojanovski 1970: 11–16. 14 Baraka Perica et al. 2019. 15 Arntz & Zeiss 1939: 144; Sergejevski 1956: 27–28, Figure 15,4 (Dabravine); ­Bojanovski & Čelić 1969: 8; Looijenga 2003: 231–233; Milošević 2011: 131–132 (Breza II). 16 Čremošnik 1958: 119–120, 1959, cf. Dzino 2017b for re-use and imitation of the Iapodean ­cinerary urns in the Roman times.

86  “Winter is Coming” 17 Marijan 1999/00 (Grepci); Petrinec et al. 1999: 28, 30, 64–66 (no.123, 130–131); Duvnjak & Marić Baković 2018: 261–262 (St Ivo). 18 Marun 1998: 118, 121 (Burnum); Sanader 2000 (Vojnić). 19 Borzić & Jadrić 2007: 150–156. 20 Cambi 1993. 21 For example, Van der Moort 1993; Williams 1997; Curta 2016a, etc. 22 Britain: Williams 1998: 75–76, 79–82; Barbaricum: Curta 2016a: 278 n.33; Albanian-Greek border: Bowden 2003: 210–211. 23 Van der Moort 1993: 71, cf. Curta 2016a: 283. 24 Curta 2016a: 280–285, cf. Pedersen 2006: 351–352; Brather 2009: 263. 25 The list of the sites with literature can be found in: AlBiH 3: 91–109. The dating of those secondary burials was based on finds of pottery, fibulae and Roman coins from the fourth century, which leaves possibility that the number of those burials was from the fifth or sixth century. Fiala (1895: 36) also notices a few newly made burial barrows, also dated from the fourth century onwards. 26 Belošević 1968a (Glavčurak); Marijanović 2006 (Škornica). 27 Batović 1960, cf. Serventi 2014: 196–199. 28 Gusar & Vujević 2012a. 29 Ilkić 2017: 155. The find of the mid-fourth-century coin together with three sixth-century coins of Justin I and Justinian in the grave 8 from Bencunuše near Solin (Katavić & Jerončić 2014: 93) clearly shows problems in datation of the graves based on fourth-century coins. 30 Uglešić 2016, cf. Džino 2017/18: 90–92, 96–97. 31 Džino 2017/18: 104–105. 32 Halsall 1992, 2000, 2010: 131–167. 33 Batović 1956 (Nin). 34 Miletić 1970, 1971. 35 Bierbrauer 1984: 61–63, cf. Vinski’s (1989: 13, 37–38 n.15) criticism of original attribution of Rakovčani to ‘Germanic’ population and Mikić 1992/93, 1994 for artificially deformed skulls in southern Pannonian plains. 36 Vinski 1989; Simoni 1989. 37 During excavations of early medieval cemetery Sveti Spas with burials starting ca. 850 the excavators noticed the number of ancient and late antique structures below the layer of the graves, which they did not bother to explore in more detail, Jelovina 1989: 122–125, 161. 38 Vinski 1989: 10–32 (personal adornments, spatha and knives); Simoni 1989: 79–80 (Gr39); 100–101 (Gr172). 39 Vinski 1989: 30 (rings with monograms, which are not deciphered). See Garipzanov 2018: 109–195 on monograms as symbols of power in Late Antiquity. 40 Urbica’s hoard: Piteša 2009: 48–49 (no.68); Bakinci: Vujinović 2014a: 179 with Figure 27,3 without details. 41 Depositing of fake keys indicates family and personal property, cf. the examples from the Langobardic cemeteries in Hungary: Freeden et al. 2005: 374; Freeden 2008: 407; Bóna & Horváth 2009: 38, 54; 243 Pl. 8/14; 252 Pl. 17/7. 42 Miletić 1978, there are probably more unexcavated graves – Periša 2009: 236 n.38. The cemetery is often in literature called Korita-Duvno. While belonging to a municipality of Tomislavgrad (former Duvno), it was not located within ­Duvanjsko polje, but within the other karst depression where after 1945 was made artificial lake for hydroelectric plant – Buško Blato. 43 Miletić 1978: 154. 44 Miletić 1978: 149–150, 175, T.4; T.21. 45 Miletić 1978: 161–162, cf. Čremošnik 1987/88: 94 and Busuladžić 2010: 192–200 (the only exception is Busuladžić’s no.267, which comes from Ilidža).

“Winter is coming”  87 46 Miletić 1978: 176 with n.207; AlBiH 3: 271 (no.23.209), cf. Chevallier 1996: 209. 47 Miletić 1955, 1956, 1960/61. 48 There are only two artefacts, which could be ascribed to the Ostrogoths and those are decorated silver bow-fibulae with animal head decorations, Miletić 1955. These could have been worn after departure of the Ostrogoths from Dalmatia as a status-symbol. 49 Vinski 1964: 107 with n.64–66, 1967: 38–41, 74 n.400, 1968: 108, 1989: 40–41 n.31. 50 Belošević 1965a, 1968a. 51 Belošević 1965a: 130–134 T.1–2, 1968a: 231–232 with T.3,1–3; 4. 52 Belošević 1968: 239 T.9,1–2 (Gr2); T.10,18–19 (earrings). Belošević counted one more grave found on the mound (Gr10) to this period, but as argued in the Chapter 5, this grave is somewhat later and should be dated in the seventh century. 53 Paxton 2005: 57–59, cf. Ivison 1996; Cantino Wataghin 1999; Stone & Stirling 2007, etc. 54 Serventi 2014: 322–324. 55 Giunio 2006: 354 (St Nicholas); Vučić 2017a: 156–157, 172–173 (St Stephen). 56 Jurić 2002: 311 (Šimun Kožičić Benja st.); Suić 1949: 202, 220–221 (earlier excavations of the forum and Archbishop’s gardens which is Serventi’s opinion might have been referring to late antique burials). 57 Mardešić 1999/00: 147–149 (Salona). Western cemetery in Salona took over some urban structures, but still outside the city walls, Kirigin et al. 1987. Similar situation happened next to the river Jadro, outside eastern city walls where two graves were found in the remains of the thermal facilities attached to extramural residential complex – Oreb 1979: 29. 58 Buškariol 1986a, 1986b, 1989; Chevalier 1996: 433–436. 59 Marin 2017: 98–115 (complete cemetery), cf. Marin 2004: 18, 32–33 Figures 17 and 19 (12 graves dug over the remains of the temple). 60 Mardešić 2004 (pottery); Ivčević & Višić-Ljubić 2004: 235, 237–239, 242, no.12–15 (metal finds and spindle whorl); Bonačić Mandinić 2004: 244, 254 (the coin). 61 Manenica 2017: 347 (Pic. 5–6), 355 (no.9, 11). 62 Buljević 1997/98, cf. Uglešić 1994/95 for ethnic identification of this grave, which was criticised in Škrgulja 2018: 102–104. 63 Novak 2007/08: 179–180; cf. Serventi 2014: 76 (the graves in Tarsatica). 64 Čaušević-Bully 2014: 163–167 with Figures 2, 9, 12–13; cf. Čaušević-Bully 2008: 412 for the grave on forum. 65 The graves were not properly published yet, see Serventi 2014: 355–356 and ­Kolega 2014: 19–20, 24. 66 Deeper layers were excavated by Šime Batović, not Belošević, which is clear from Belošević 1969. Earlier datation: Batović 1970: 34, supported by Belošević 1968b: 177. See Belošević 1998: 147–150 with T.36 for later datation and grave 168. Serventi (2014: 354–355) provides a good overview of the problem and valid arguments that some of these are in fact late antique graves. 67 Belošević 1998: 127–130, 132, 135. 68 Ghica et  al. 2019: 158–159. The sarcophagi were originally opened in 1969 (S.  Gunjača excavation diaries 21–22/8/1969), and both contained several successive burials, which cannot be dated and might be either late antique or early medieval, cf. Ghica et al. 2019: 153 n.26. 69 Still unpublished (visible in Figure 2.4 – in front of the entrance of the standing church), Varvaria-Breberium-Bribir excavation diaries 26/4–3/5/2017. 70 Smiljanovac – Bubić 2016: 171 (Gr131), 216 (Gr254), 236 (Gr334), 261 (Gr439), 331 (Gr735). Kaštel-Sućurac, the site of Krtine – Kamenjarin 2014: 36–37, 45, 56–58, 60, 62–63; Kaštel Štafilić, the site of Siculi: Kamenjarin 2013: 126–129, 133–134. Dugopolje – Borzić & Jadrić 2007: 150–153, Figures 3 and 4.

88  “Winter is Coming” 71 Katavić & Jerončić 2014: 91–92, cat. nos. 6–7, 9–10, 15–16 with Figure 5 and T.2. 72 Jelovina 1990: 28–32 (Gr27, 105, 109, 110, 128). 73 Katavić & Jerončić 2014: 93–96, cat. no.1–4, 12–13, 18–19 with Figure 6. 74 Paškvalin 2003: 82–88, with Figures 4, 6a and b (Vrdolje); Borzić & Jadrić 2007: 153–155. 75 Basler 1959: 67 with Figure 5 (Oborci), the basilica is dated in ca. 500–550, Chevalier 1995: 337. Bojanovski 1980/81: 198–200; Miletić 1980/81; Milošević 1990: 351–354 (Vrba); Gudelj 2011: 25–28, cf. Maršić et  al. 2000: 127 (Cista Velika); AlBiH 3: 236 no.22.24 (St Rose). 76 Paškvalin 2003: 96–98 (Karahodže, Osatica); Milošević 1990: 344–347; 2017: 94–95 with Figure 130 (Lučane); Dautova-Ruševljan 1973 (Sustjepan). 77 Marković 1938: 65–67; Čremošnik 1960/61: 192–193. The grave in Kalinovik is dated by the coin of Constans I from 345, which could easily end up in a later grave. Traces of ashes and charcoal in this accidentally discovered burial ­Čremošnik (1960/61: 198–199) does not attribute to cremation. 78 Milošević 1990: 348, 350. 79 Milošević 1990: 347 with Figure 10, 1998: 216, 2018: 92–94 with Figure 128 (Gala); Milošević 1990: 334 n.13 with Figures 1 and 2, 1998: 72 (Kijevo). 80 Milošević 1990: 339–344 with Figures 6–8, 1998: 206, 2018: 94–95 with Figure 129. 81 Patsch 1909: 106 (Varvara); Basler 1959: 66–67 with Figure 9 (Oborci); Miletić 1978: 175 with n.192 (Mogorjelo); Gusar & Vujević 2012a: 158–160 (Matakova glavica). 82 Štefanac & Ćurković 2013: 148–149 (Gr9), 134–135, 143, 170–171 (Gr21), cf. Buora 2008: 61 for the fibula from the Gr21. 83 Kujundžić 1916: 489–490; Vasilj 2010. 84 Milošević 1990: 335–336 n.16, 1998: 190 corrects earlier study of Vinski (1982), which did not take into account that this helmet was not accidental find, but that it was discovered in a grave with stone architecture, together with small glass bottle. 85 Vinski 1982. 86 The narrative of the events was reconstructed by Wilkes 1969: 433–435; Markus 1997: 156–159; Škegro 2004: 433–435, 2008, see also Kunčer 2011 and Syrbe 2019. The analysis of the Gregory’s letters in the Serbian translation could also be seen in a recent dissertation of Kunčer 2017. 87 Greg. Ep. 2.20; 2.21, cf. also Ep. 3.32.5–8 written in April 593, after Natalis died. 88 Greg. Ep. 2.20.11; 2.21.19 parentibus vs. HS 5 (pp. 24–25) contribulibus et complicibus, see Kunčer 2017: 155–156 with nn.483–484. 89 Greg. Ep. 2.50 (August 592). Natalis cited Gen. 18:1–8; 27:25–27, and Romans, 14:3. 90 Greg. Ep. 3.22.23–29 (March 593), cf. Ep. 2.22 (March 592). 91 Markus 1997: 112–115. 92 Greg. Ep. 3.22.20–21, cf. Ep. 5.6 (the death of Malchus). 93 Greg. Ep. 4.20.18 –quia uitam aetatemque tuam non habemus incognitam (April 594); Ep. 10.15.14 –ex iuventate vos (July 600). 94 Markus 1997: 104–105 – problematic relationship between Gregory and Romanus, which also brought Gregory in collision course with the emperor Maurice. Whether this was conflict of the pope and ‘imperial party’, as implied by Wilkes 1969: 434–435 cannot be seen clearly from available evidence, as it seems to be driven more by changing personal interests. 95 Dzino 2010a: 82; Škrgulja 2015: 103, 2018: 96–105. 96 Radimský 1893, now in ZMBiH. 97 Demo 2014: 28–30. 98 CIL 3.9551 (612); 3.9576 (fifth c.)= Salona IV: 1.490–94 (no.219), 1.321–23 (no.103). Cf. recently Basić 2008: 84–88.

“Winter is coming”  89 99 Periša 2009: 236–242. 100 Marin 1993; Gauthier 2006: 382–384. 101 CIL 3.14894=Salona IV: 2.1121–22 (no.747) (Eusebia from Apamea – fifth or sixth century); Salona IV: 2.1127–28 (no.751) (Eustachius from Hadrianopolis, sixth century); Salona IV: 2.1131–32 (no.755) (No[…] from Piterma(?) in Galatia(?), ­August, 539); Salona IV: 2.1133–34 (no.757) (Phron[ton] from Egypt). 102 Procop. Wars 6.30.3 (Constantianus’ departure from Dalmatia); 7.35.27 (Claudianus as commander in Salona). 103 CIL 3.9534=Salona IV: 2.1134–36 (no.758) (comes Euphrasius) Salona IV: 2.1187–88 (no.800) (tribune Justin). 104 Salona IV: 1.539–40 (no.241) (Andreas); CIL 3.14906=Salona IV: 1.561–62 (no.259) (Valerius); Salona IV: 1.571–72 (no.267) (Menatius). 105 CIL 3.9527=Salona IV: 1.305–12 (no.96). 106 Curta 2013c. 107 The plague as a reason of depopulation in Illyricum resulting with settlement of the Slavs was earlier assumed by Goldstein 1992: 65–67; Grmek 1998; Sołtysiak 2006. However, recent scholarship does not support the idea that Justinian’s plague was a demographic catastrophe, Mordechai et  al. 2019; Mordechai  & ­Eisenberg 2019. The climate change in ‘The Dark Age Cold period’ and its impact remains a disputed topic. It is considered to be an unlikely reason for social and economic decline: Aberth 2013: 27–28, 239 n.42–45; Newfield 2018; Erdcamp 2019. The most recent discussions of the topic in the Dalmatian context are in Dzino 2014c: 137; Demicheli & Demicheli 2018: 97–99. 108 Marcellinus, Chron. s.a. 543; Hist. Lang. 4.4: Hoc anno fuit pestis inguinaria iterum aput Ravennam, Gradus et [in] Histria nimium gravis, sicut et prius ante triginta annos extiterat. 109 Demicheli & Demicheli 2018: 98, malaria in Salona: Mardešić 2003b: 80 n.21. 110 Militarisation of the ways elites presented themselves is general characteristics of Late Antiquity, Wickham 2005: 153–258; Haldon 2006: 629–635, cf. Esmonde Cleary 2013: 438–441; Borri 2005 on military elites in the Exarchate of Ravenna and Whately 2013 for east Roman militarised elites in the sixth century. 111 Barbiera 2013. 112 Cf. Borri 2005: 23–24 for similar situation in the Byzantine exarchate of Ravenna.

4

The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia

The seventh century represents a crucial period in the transition from late antique to early medieval Dalmatia. In the first decades of this century something happened, which caused the simplification of social networks, depopulation, the abandonment of many sites, the shrinking of urban life, even the death of some coastal cities. There are no monumental buildings, or any sort for that matter, dateable to this century with very few exceptions on the coast and the islands. The exchange patterns and long-distance contacts are more difficult to discern. The evidence for habitation and burials in this period is quantitatively much smaller than that for the sixth or eighth century, written sources are almost non-existent, and the last dateable inscription from Salona was made in 612. The usual explanation of the causes of this collapse is the Avar-Slav invasion and settlement in the ca. 620s–630s, which resulted in the destruction of the provincial capital Salona and a complete transformation of the province. As stated in the introduction, such a view is the outcome of narratives that were constructed in the nineteenth century and perpetuated in different contexts in the twentieth century. This state of affairs puts contemporary scholarly discussions in an awkward position as the burden of evidence by default rests upon the arguments disproving a migration and settlement, despite the fact that this narrative is based upon a combination of unconnected and circumstantial evidence. Before moving onto the seventh century in the next chapter, this one will examine the evidence for a Slavic (or rather Sclavene) settlement in this period and provide different explanations of what happened in post-Roman Dalmatia.

Written sources Written sources for seventh-century Dalmatia are scarce and problematic, especially those supporting a Sclavene settlement in this period. All contemporary sources could fit into a single paragraph. Pope Gregory the Great, in one of his final letters to bishop Maximus, writes in July 600 that the Sclavenes are threatening “you” pl. (vobis) as they had already entered Italy from Istria. This letter, and probably the earlier one to Exarch Callinicus from May 599 mentioning “news of the Sclavene victories” relates

The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia   91 to the Langobardic raid of Byzantine Istria in 599/600. The Langobardic king Agilulf concluded a peace with the Avar qagan and attacked Istria together with the Avars and Sclavenes at that time.1 The Gregory’s final letter to Maximus from November 602 does not mention any Sclavenes.2 The Sclavenes were involved in a raid on Istria again in 610/11, but nothing came of it in the long run as the Empire continued to maintain control over Istria.3 Isidorus of Seville includes a short notice in his Chronica Maiora under the year 614, stating that the Sclavenes “took Greece from the Romans”. The term ‘Greece’ could certainly be applied to a much wider area, and so deducing the Sclavene capture of Dalmatia from this sentence alone is untenable.4 Paul the Deacon mentions a naval raid of the Sclavenes on the Langobardic stronghold of Sipontum in Italy in 642. There is nothing to indicate that they came from Dalmatia, and it is more likely that they are the same Sclavenes that Paul mentions elsewhere – those coming from an area not too far from Friuli. Such a view finds additional support in the fact that the Langobardic duke Radoald, who grew up in Friuli, easily spoke with these Sclavenes in their own language. The short list of contemporary sources related to a possible Sclavene or Avar invasion of Dalmatia ends with the Sipontum episode. There is no mention of conquest, the capture of Salona or any other event even remotely related to Dalmatia.5 The mission of Abbot Martin in Dalmatia and Istria in 641 or 642 also cannot be used as evidence of a Sclavene invasion and settlement, as will be argued in the next chapter. The cornerstone of the idea that the Sclavenes overran Dalmatia comes from a tenth-century source known as De Administrando Imperio (DAI). It is a diplomatic manual edited by the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. Chapters 29 and 30 provide stories about the capture of Salona and Chapter 31 mentions the settlement of the Croats and Serbs in Dalmatia under the auspices of the emperor Heraclius. The story from Chapter 29 relates how the Avars tricked the defenders of Salona and captured the city and the whole of the province, while the Salonitan refugees, after wandering the Dalmatian islands, settled in Diocletian’s palace – future Spalatum (Split). The event is undated, and the only impression is that it occurred a long time after Diocletian. The same story is retold in Chapter 30, except now the fall of Salona narrative has merged with the later Croat origo gentis. Finally, in Chapter 31 we read how the emperor Heraclius allowed the Croats and Serbs to settle in Dalmatia, without mention of the capture of Salona. Criticism of the accuracy of the DAI as a source for the events of the seventh century and analysis of the ways the narrative of these chapters was constructed have been significant in the last decade, and so there is no need to engage with them in depth here.6 The story of the capture of Salona and the wandering of the Salonitan refugees features again in a rather unexpected source – the Historia Salonitana of Thomas, the Archdeacon of Split, from the thirteenth century. Thomas did not use a single source but rather constructed his narrative from written

92  The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia sources, existing legends, and his own imagination. He could not read the DAI as he did not know how to read Greek. This is an important indication that the story of the fall of Salona was a local narrative and was still alive and significant for the local elites in the thirteenth century.7 This source has also been discussed in minutious detail by previous scholarship, and so it is unnecessary to do so again.8 While there is much to reject in Thomas’ narrative, confirmation of the historicity and dating of the first Spalatan archbishop John of Ravenna affords at least some legitimacy to parts of his account. We will return to these in Chapters 5 and 6. The extended version of Historia Salonitana, known as Historia Salonitana Maior, gives an ‘exact’ date for the capture of Salona – the year DCXXV (625). The authenticity of this version of the HS has been the subject of many scholarly discussions in the past, but it is accepted that parts of it, such as the account of the Salonitan councils of the sixth century, are authentic.9 Nevertheless, as we will see in the next chapter, the dating of the destruction of Salona to 625 is contradicted by a significant corpus of archaeological and numismatic evidence.

Sclavenes in the material record It is abundantly clear that written sources on their own cannot help us establish that the Sclavenes caused the collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia and settled there in the seventh century. It is thus necessary to revisit the material record and the features most frequently invoked to prove the migration and settlement of an outside group in the seventh century. The question of whether cremation, established beyond doubt in the material record, really appears in the seventh century is particularly important and will be addressed below. Other issues used by scholars to support the migration narrative will also be discussed, such as ‘paganism’, the appearance of early medieval (‘Slavic’) pottery, and the existence of a level of destruction dateable to the seventh century. Cremations Cremation is of paramount significance to the argument that a foreign group migrated into Dalmatia, as it represents a new burial custom that did not exist in the later stages of Late Antiquity. Cremation was practised in Roman times, but as elsewhere in the Mediterranean world there is a shift in the third century towards inhumation, which becomes the dominant burial custom in the fourth century. It seems that the inhabitants of some parts of the Dalmatian interior still cremated their dead throughout the fourth century, but, it is hard to believe that this habit continued after ca. 400.10 Cremation was a burial habit in sixth- and seventh-century central Europe and is indeed connected with the Sclavenes. Consequently, the discovery of the first archaeologically confirmed cremation urns from the post-Roman/ early medieval period in Kašić in 1967 was used to support the idea of a

The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia   93 11

seventh-century migration. Janko Belošević developed a loose chronology of phases in post-Roman and early medieval burials in Dalmatia and saw cremation burial as the ‘original’ custom of the Slavs, who brought to their new homeland and continued to practise it for a short time. The cremation phase is dated to the mid/late seventh century and is followed by a phase of furnished (so-called ‘pagan’) burials lasting from the eighth century until the first half of the ninth.12 The opinion of Belošević has been challenged by other scholars who dated these cremations much later, to the late eighth/ early ninth century.13 Between these two opinions lies the recent paper of Petrinec, who argues for the continuous presence of cremations until the ninth century alongside inhumations, without specifying when the cremations started.14 The potential evidence for cremation in post-Roman Dalmatia in the seventh century is relatively scarce.15 Cremations were confirmed at only four locations, all of them in the immediate hinterland of the Adriatic within a radius of some 60–65km: Maklinovo brdo hill in Kašić, Velištak near Velim, the cemetery around St Lawrence church in Donje polje near Šibenik, and Dubravice near Skradin. The earliest discovery of Dalmatian cremations came from Maklinovo brdo in Kašić, an important cemetery, which contained burials from the seventh to the early ninth century. The cremations were discovered in 1967 in a private vineyard positioned some 50m from the rest of the cemetery. They were not properly excavated as the urns were damaged by a plough and the ashes were dispersed on the ground. The excavators noticed approximately 20 dark spots, probably indicating burials, but were not allowed to proceed with proper excavations by the vineyard-owner except for a small 2x2m trench in which more charred human bones and pottery fragments were discovered. Several urns were reconstructed from the fragments.16 The most numerous finds of cremations came from the row-grave cemetery in Velim, where 46 cremations were discovered in the 2004/2005 and 2013 excavations, together with 156 inhumation burials. Unfortunately, the cemetery was not properly published, and so important information about the stratigraphy, the dispersion and positioning of the graves and the grave assemblages is still unavailable. Judging from what is available, namely, a semi-circular pendant with an open-work ornament, it seems the cemetery contained inhumation graves from mid/late seventh century and certainly lasted until the ninth century. Some cremations consisted of a simple deposition of ashes in the ground, but it seems there were also some cremation urns, while some cremated remains were framed by stones. In 2013, some grave goods were found with the cremations: fragments of a knife, iron tinder and pieces of a necklace.17 The osteological analysis of 16 cremations from the first two campaigns revealed the remains of four males, eight females and four sub-adults. No other material was found in these cremated remains.18 Two cremations were uncovered near the church of St Lawrence in Morinje, the northern part of the Donje polje. This is a

94  The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia very complex locality in the vicinity of an ancient building with hypocaust and mosaic floors used between the first and sixth centuries. St Lawrence is a gothic-style church from the high Middle Ages that most certainly had an early medieval predecessor, as attested by traces of an apse and fragments of pre-Romanesque reliefs. An early Christian church possibly even stood here as a fragment of church furniture from this period was found close to St Lawrence as well as a fragment of a sarcophagus.19 The cemetery was not published except for very basic and largely insufficient information. The early excavations before the Second World War uncovered traces of church furniture from the early Middle Ages and 61 graves. Excavations resumed 1977 and 1995–1996, uncovering a large number of inhumations dated from the ninth century to the late Middle Ages. Two ceramic cremations urns (apparently handmade) were discovered in 1995, below the graves 23 and 35. They were dated to around 700. Osteological analysis of their contents showed that the cremation below Gr23 contained the bones of a single adult male, while the other below Gr35 contained those of an adult female. Together with the ashes of the female person was an earring, a knife(?), a fragment of an animal bone and the bones of a foetus, which had not been exposed to fire.20 As far as we can tell from the very general information provided in the published literature, there were no graves with pots from the post-Roman phase dateable to the seventh/eighth-century pre-dating cremation burials, and so it seems these cremations were immediately followed by the ninth-century graves and should therefore be dated close to ca. 800. The cemetery around the Chapel of Our Lady of Fatima in Dubravice is also insufficiently published due to the early death of Zlatko Gunjača, who excavated it between 1986 and 1989. The cemetery contained 50 inhumation graves dated from the early eighth to the mid-ninth century, as well as six cremations, with more instances of cremation assumed. Gunjača published three cremation urns, two damaged and one intact. One of these damaged cremation urns provides stratigraphic information. It was found damaged, right next to inhumation grave 34, and was assumed to be damaged during the digging of this later grave. Grave 34 contained a coin of Constantine V Copronymus (minted ca. 760–775) placed in the mouth of the deceased, and a small knife. Some ashes and bones were found in inhumation graves, but it is not clear whether this happened by digging of later graves or by more recent agricultural works. Two damaged urns were found in 1988, only 25 cm below the ground. The third one from the 1989 excavation was buried deeper, but remained intact although it was surrounded with four inhumation burials.21 The stratigraphic relationship between the cremation urn and burial dated by the coin of Constantine V in Dubravice was not illustrated by a map or drawing, which would decisively confirm that the urn was broken by the digging of the later grave. The evidence thus suggests that inhumations and cremations are contemporary, and that the urns were damaged by recent agricultural works. Even if we accept the explanation of

The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia   95 Gunjača, the graves with the deposited coins of Constantine V in Dalmatia could be dated as late as the 820s (see p. 157). This leaves open the possibility that the Dubravice cremation occurred in the eighth century, which is also indicated by the analysis of the pottery from Dalmatian cremations.22 It is also important to note that the urns from Donje polje are almost identical to those from Dubravice,23 which most likely makes the cremations in these two cemeteries contemporary and datable in ca. 800. In addition to these, there are several sites where cremations are suspected but not proven. Petrinec believed that the Gluvine kuće 2 cemetery in Glavice near Sinj contained cremations. She based her opinion on the existence of a small 50x50cm space marked Gr10, which was covered by irregular pieces of stone and surrounded by four vertically placed stone slabs. A pit filled with ashes and pieces of charred wood surrounded by river-pebbles was discovered near Gr10. This was one of five pits discovered in the Gluvine kuće 2 and neighbouring Gluvine kuće 1 cemetery. Four of these were not originally explored. The pit near Gr10 does not seem to be a fireplace for funerary feasts, which are frequent in post-Roman Dalmatian cemeteries, but rather a place where the ashes were placed after the fire burned. Petrinec considers it to be a cremation grave, as the space is seemingly too small to be an inhumation grave, and the lack of any material in this space is explained by the partial destruction of the grave by the later inhumation Gr9.24 There are two significant problems with this identification. First, no human bones were discovered whatsoever. Second, according to the published drawings (the plan of the cemetery and the cross-section of the stratigraphy of the graves)25 grave 9 does not touch the space labelled grave 10 – they are adjacent but do not overlap, and so we cannot really say that the later grave 9 destroyed grave 10. There are a few other suspected cremations in post-Roman and early medieval Dalmatia, but they are either been insufficiently explored, or the evidence is limited to one or two suspected early medieval cremations. The pottery associated with these cremations is usually decorated with wavy lines and other decorations that postdate the seventh century and could be placed in the eighth or ninth.26 Unfortunately, no artefacts or human remains from these suspected cremations are preserved except the Avar belt strap-ends exposed to fire, which are likely from a cremation grave in Smrdelji securely dated to around 800.27 The cremations in post-Roman Dalmatia remain a highly problematic issue, especially as evidence for the Sclavene migration in the seventh century. They are undeniable, and certainly more numerous than once thought. Unfortunately, the cremation graves are currently very poorly published or were excavated under poor circumstances, like the cremation urns from Kašić. Furthermore, no absolute dating has yet been conducted on any of the samples coming from Dalmatia. C14 dating was conducted on two samples from cremations in Duga ulica street in Vinkovci in the neighbourhood of Dalmatia, providing calibrated dates within the ranges of 687–721 and

96  The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia 691–704 – therefore around 700.28 Cremation existed in the ninth and early tenth centuries and is attested in the cemeteries Bagruša in Petoševci and Gomjenica in the very north of Dalmatia.29 It is worth noting that cremation is not widely attested in the western Balkans in the late ninth and early tenth century. The most conspicuous parallels for Dalmatian cremations are those of western Pannonia, particularly the cremation cemeteries at the western end of Lake Balaton in Hungary dateable to the late eighth and ninth centuries.30 Therefore, with the information available, it seems the cremations cannot be used as direct evidence for the migration of a foreign population in the seventh century. Rather, they should be seen in the context of the late eighth/early ninth-century population movements discussed in Chapter 6. Paganism One of the most important and widely used ‘proofs’ for the settlement of the Slavs in seventh and eighth-century Dalmatia is the appearance of paganism. Two kinds of evidence have been used to support this idea: toponyms bearing the names of the Slavic gods (e.g. Perun), and the appearance of grave goods and other ‘pagan’ customs related to burials from this period. Searching for the Sclavene settlement in the seventh century through toponyms is a very problematic methodological approach. While I am personally sceptical about the existence of a defined and coherent ‘Slav religion’,31 for the sake of argument we can assume here that there was a certain set of beliefs or traditions in late antique/early medieval central and eastern Europe that can be called ‘Slav religion’. However, the problem with this argument is very simple – it is impossible to date the appearance of the toponyms connected with the ‘Slav religion’ exactly to the seventh or eighth century. The earliest mentions of such toponyms come from much later in the medieval period, and they may well be related to the migration movements of the late eighth or ninth century, not the phantomic Slavic migrations of the seventh.32 The changes in funeral habits, in particular the appearance of grave goods, burials in barrows and traces of funeral feasts are also used to support arguments for the settlement of pagan migrants before the late eighth century.33 The use of burial mounds and the placement of grave goods are well-recorded in sixth-century Dalmatia, as discussed in the previous chapter, and so there is no reason to connect them with the Sclavenes. The same could be said of the habitual practice of placing stone slabs on the body of the deceased. This habit has been documented in a few early medieval cemeteries in Dalmatia (Ždrijac, the Jokina glavica barrow in Ljubač or Maklinovo brdo), and the generally accepted interpretation ascribes it to a Slavic fear of the dead rising from their graves (‘vampirism’). The fact that the same habit has been detected in the Korita cemetery, which originates in the mid-sixth century, as we saw in previous chapter, clearly disproves such ideas.34

The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia   97 Funeral feasts, evidenced through the deposition of ceramic food containers in graves, traces of fire, charred animal bones and broken pottery between and inside the graves, are widely recorded in the post-Roman West and cannot be ascribed to the Sclavenes or early medieval Slavs. They are also abundantly documented in the neighbouring region of Pannonia, both for the ‘Germanic’ groups of the sixth century (Langobards and Gepids) and for the Avars, over a long period of ca. 200 years. These habits, including furnished burials, are also not evidence of paganism, as they are also found in clearly Christian contexts, and so they should rather be seen as evidence for social competition.35 The evidence for funeral feasts, food offerings and libations as well as entombed pottery vessels are widely attested in late antique Greece (ca. the fourth-seventh century), where deposition of pottery is especially prevalent in the late sixth/mid-seventh century. This is interpreted as a mixture of several factors, such as the Church’s inability to control burial habits, as well as syncretism between Christian customs (the eucharist) and earlier pagan practices. The appearance of pots in Dalmatian graves from the fifth and sixth centuries was discussed in the previous chapter and should be interpreted in the same way as the evidence from Greece.36 The fact that furnished burials disappear in late seventh- and eighth-century Greece is related to the Church regaining control over funeral customs, which was not the case in Dalmatia where the Church was fighting for its very survival in the seventh and eighth century. The appearance of ‘warrior burials’ in Dalmatia in ca. 800 is not evidence for pagan practices either. As argued in Chapter 6, this change in funeral habit is primarily connected with changes in the ways the male elite presented themselves, not pagan or Christian burial rites. Particularly important in this context is the habit of placing coins in graves, especially in the mouths of the deceased, as seen in earliest burials on the site Crkvina in Biskupija. Though long regarded as a ‘pagan’ Slavic habit reminiscent of the placing of Charon’s obolus with the deceased, this habit in Dalmatia has been shown to come from the Christian Frankish West, and indeed appears in other places on the Carolingian imperial frontiers, such as Moravia.37 Furthermore, it has been convincingly shown that the placing of coins in the mouths of the deceased and elsewhere in the grave is a Christian habit gaining popularity from the mid-eighth century in the Carolingian realm. As Schulze-Dörrlamm puts it, a coin adorned with the Holy Cross proves that the deceased person was a believing Christian.38 This places the whole classification of ‘Old-Croat’ cemeteries, one generally used by Croatian archaeologists and based on the division of cemeteries into ‘pagan’, ‘mixed’ and ‘Christian’ ones, in serious doubt. Even the cut-off for ‘pagan’ burial phase is based on the find of a Frankish coin in the mouth of a female person in the cemetery Ždrijac (Gr62), which as we just saw is clearly a Christian habit!39 Thus, the only burial habits attested in post-Roman and early medieval Dalmatia that could be securely related to pagan practices

98  The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia are the relatively rare practice of cremation and perhaps the iconographic details discussed in Chapter 7 (p. 181). Pottery The appearance of early medieval (often called ‘Slavic’ or ‘Avaro-Slavic’)40 pottery in post-Roman Dalmatia is frequently used as evidence for the Sclavene settlement. This type of pottery mostly appears in cemeteries and graves as part of grave assemblages. It was very rarely found in the settlement context. Early medieval ‘Slavic’ pottery was produced domestically and no workshops or a regional distribution network have as yet been detected in Dalmatia. It had a much poorer structure than the late antique locally made pottery and did not change for a long time in the medieval period. This type of pottery usually contained unrefined clay with inclusions of sand and parts of small stones. It was not made on a fast-rotating pottery wheel but by hand or on slow-rotating pottery wheel. Similarities in the shapes and structure of clay used in both late antique coarse and locally made pottery are visible in Dalmatia, while differences are mainly observed in the use of the fast-rotating wheel. Apart from the serious methodological problems with identifying the use and spread of a particular type of pottery with an ethnic group, there is the issue of dating, as no ‘Slavic’ pottery from the seventh century has ever been found on Dalmatian sites.41 Two different types of handmade pottery were discovered in the Upper Town of Iustiniana Prima (Caričin grad), close to the eastern Dalmatian borders. These were dated in ca. 600 when the site was still controlled by the east Romans. The one imitating proto-Byzantine forms shows many more similarities in form with the later Dalmatian ‘Slavic’ pottery than the one originally attributed to the ‘Slavs’.42 Finally, there are no clay pan finds dateable to the late sixth and seventh centuries. These were used to make a type of yeast-leavened round flatbreads (pita) in eastern Carpathians, lower Danube and Slovenian-Croatian sites mentioned above (e.g. Nova Tabla) dateable to the late sixth and seventh centuries. The earliest Dalmatian finds from Mušići and Biograci are, in opinion of Curta, only dateable to the late eighth century.43 Thus, the appearance of ‘Slavic’ pottery in Dalmatia, even if we for the sake of argument connect it with the early medieval Slavs, contradicts the assumption that the Sclavenes settled in seventh-century Dalmatia. There are other peculiarities in the ‘Slavic’ pottery of Dalmatia. In particular, it is similar to the earlier, locally made, coarse late antique pottery, for as stated earlier the differences between the two types largely stem from the technologies of production. For example, ‘Slavic’ pottery was frequently discovered in the same stratigraphic contexts in the cemetery Ždrijac, just outside the walls of Nin. The vessels were made on a slow-rotating pottery wheel and imitate late antique shapes.44 Even more importantly, the appearance of ‘Slavic’ and late antique coarse pottery in the same stratigraphic contexts was observed at several sites, which implies that those communities

The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia   99 45

used both types of pottery. A good example is Varvaria, where finds of pottery from the sub-locality Tjeme provide an example of both types of pottery in the same stratigraphic context. Unfortunately, these were insufficiently documented and only partly published.46 Even better are the finds of early medieval, rough, domestic pottery identical to the ‘Slavic’ pottery (including the pots with wavy-line decorations) in Diocletian’s Palace. They are dated from the sixth to the ninth century, a period in which the palace and the developing medieval town of Spalatum were clearly under imperial control.47 In the southeastern Adriatic, late antique and ‘Slavic’ pottery were found together in Župa Dubrovačka. A particularly interesting situation appears in Ilovica in Boka Kotorska, where late antique pottery made on fast- and slow-rotating wheels were found together with handmade ‘Slavic’ pottery in the same stratigraphic layer.48 The finds of late antique and ‘Slavic’ pottery in the northern church of the Podvršje complex in Ljubač clearly shows that both types of pottery were interwoven in the stratigraphic layers dated after the fire that destroyed the churches in the early seventh century.49 The similarities between late antique rough pottery and early medieval pottery in Dalmatia initially led Milošević to speculate that ‘Slavic’ pottery and the habit of placing pottery vessels in graves had not been introduced by the Sclavenes. He discussed the pottery ceramic vessels from the late antique graves mentioned in the previous chapter, such as Lučane and Gala near Sinj, Gorica, and Vrba. All of these, except the handmade vessel from Gala, were made on a slow turning pottery wheel.50 As we saw in the previous chapter, the habit of placing pottery vessels in late antique, especially sixth-century graves in Dalmatia was even more widespread than Milošević initially indicated. Early medieval pottery in Dalmatia also does not follow the pattern of pottery produced north of the river Sava in modern eastern Slovenia and northwestern Croatia, recently dated by C14 analysis.51 Pottery production with a slow-rotating wheel seemingly never ceased in Dalmatia, which contradicts the evidence from the North, where such pottery only re-appears after ca. 700. A large proportion of the pots from Dalmatia is undecorated, while undecorated pots rarely appear in the North after 700. It is also important to note that pots from graves dateable to the Biskupija-Crkvina horizon (ca. 775/800–ca. 820/830) also lack consistency in decoration, and so both – decorated and undecorated pots – occasionally appear in the same closed contexts, just as handmade pottery appears together with slow-wheel pottery in graves securely dateable to the early ninth century.52 If modern scholarship had no ‘knowledge’ of the Slav arrival and settlement in the seventh century, they would interpret the archaeological material from this period as an indication of a transformation caused by social changes, not migrations. Changes in the technology used for making early medieval pottery is today ascribed to social and economic changes, especially the disappearance of larger markets and pottery-making specialists, and a return to pottery production within households, and smaller

100  The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia communities.53 These socio-economic changes are indicators of a larger process caused by the disintegration and simplification of late antique networks. They do not in and of themselves reflect a migration process. Taking all of this into account, the appearance of early medieval pottery in Dalmatia is not proof for the settlement of a foreign group in the seventh century. In fact, the evidence suggests that ‘Slavic’ pottery develops as a consequence of changing socio-political-economic circumstances and the localisation of provincial networks witnessed by the descendants of the late antique population. Destruction level The assumption that Dalmatia fell to the invading hordes of the Avars and Slavs in the seventh century would also need the support of a destruction level at several sites dateable to this period. While there is some evidence of destruction, as we will see, connecting it with the military conquest of a foreign group is very problematic. The only absolutely dated destruction so far comes from the basilical complex in Podvršje (Ljubač). Both basilicas were destroyed by fire. This event has been dated by C14 analysis to a calibrated 530–660, more likely after 600 as the dating of artefacts from the graves and the C14 dating of some human remains indicate that burials were conducted until ca. 600. The fire was almost unanimously ascribed to the Sclavene invasion.54 While the absolute dating indeed corresponds with the assumed date of the Sclavene invasion, this event should be viewed within the wider context of the surrounding sites. Before the excavations in Podvršje, Nikola Jakšić pointed out that all early Christian churches in the bishopry of Nin, and the wider Ravni kotari area, were all renovated in the early medieval period and were likely untouched and functioning before that time.55 The fire in Podvršje therefore represents an exception, not the rule, as it was the only early Christian church in the area destroyed in the ‘Dark Ages’. While one cannot exclude the possibility that a unit of the Sclavenes who raided Istria in 599/600 and 610/611 went astray and reached Ljubač, the question posed is why there are no other traces of destruction. After all, as we will see later in the book, the community from the Ljubač settlement continued to conduct burials in the Krneza tumuli throughout the seventh and eighth centuries as if nothing had happened. Similar case is the fire which between seventh and at least ninth century destroyed early Christian basilicae geminae on a site known as Ad basilicas pictas in modern Split, some 350m from northern walls of Diocletian’s palace.56 As argued in next chapter, the palace was firmly kept in the Byzantine hands throughout seventh and eighth century together with the wider area between modern Trogir and Split, so it is difficult to believe that the destruction of this basilical complex could be ascribed to the invading Sclavenes of seventh century. The remaining cases of destruction are few and even more difficult to date. It seems particularly odd that there are no traces of destruction in Salona

The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia   101 and that habitation within the city-walls continued until at least the beginning of the eighth century, if not longer, as we will see in the next chapter. The three cases of destruction in the Dalmatian hinterland used as evidence for the Sclavene conquest – the basilical complex Bilimišće, the church in Dabravine and the building known as Breza II – is particularly misleading as these have been erroneously dated to the time of the supposed conquest.57 The early Christian basilical complex in Bilimišće was undoubtedly destroyed by fire. However, the more recent interpretation points out that the earrings found in the graves dug in the floor of the church, and therefore contemporary with the use of the church and pre-dating its destruction, are from a much later period. On account of this evidence, Milošević convincingly moves the date of the fire that destroyed the buildings to the twelfth or even the thirteenth century.58 The building known as Breza II was originally considered to be an early Christian basilica that perished in a fire caused by the invading Sclavenes in the late sixth/early seventh century. However, Milošević again made the important case that the finds from the level of destruction, in particular the umbo of a shield (shield boss) cannot be late antique and should be re-dated to ca. early ninth century.59 Stylistic similarities between stone reliefs from Bilimišće and Breza II and those from other central Bosnian basilicas including Dabravine, another church that perished in a fire, indicate their contemporary use or renovation.60 However, these reliefs also bear similarities with the art of the eighth/ninth century and visual expression in the early medieval churches from the eastern Adriatic coast, indicating that they were not destroyed in the seventh century. More will be said of these central Bosnian churches and buildings in Chapter 7. In light of this interpretation, the other cases of destruction from the hinterland in the archaeological record, namely the fort Makljenovac, and the early Christian basilicas in Vrba and Višnjica (the Begović property) near Kiseljak, become very problematic if we want to date the destruction to the early/mid seventh century.61 The finds of so-called ‘Avar’ arrowheads in several locations62 can hardly be used to precisely date the destruction of the basilicas due to their long period of use. The preliminary reports on the discovery of three basilicas in Bakinci in the very north of Dalmatia indicate that basilicas A and B were probably destroyed in a fire. However, the published report and catalogue provide only a very brief description of the traces of fire. A definite conclusion cannot be made without more information on stratigraphy.63 Even if the two basilicas were destroyed in a violent attack, basilica C not only survived but was renovated and used in a later time, as we will see in the next chapter. The two basilicas in Gradac near Posušje were abandoned before the ninth century, when burials in their ruins were first conducted. However, the evidence for their destruction is not based on a consistent layer of ashes or traces of burning on stone fragments, however, but only on two charred beams and the presence of ash in the larger church, and so they more likely fell apart due to lack of maintenance rather than deliberate destruction.64 The only basilica in the Dalmatian

102  The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia hinterland that might have been destroyed in this period is Cim. The main reasons for such a view are not only traces of burning but also the discovery of two reliquaries in their original places in the sepulchrum – which is the only discovery of this kind in the Dalmatian hinterland.65 The discovery of the reliquaries implies that the community in question was annihilated, as they could not return and save the holy relics after the destruction of the basilica. Considering that there are early medieval burials in the ruins of the church dateable to the ninth century, this destruction may have happened at any point between the late sixth and ninth centuries. We can therefore say with certainty that there is no consistent evidence for a widespread, simultaneous level of destruction in seventh century, which would indicate a violent takeover of the province by the Avars, Sclavenes or other foreign invaders, in early seventh-century Dalmatia. This certainly does not exclude the possibility that some groups from the north or local ones used the collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia to conduct opportunistic raids on an individual basis, but such raids would not represent a full invasion of all the areas deserted by the Byzantines. Some traces of destruction could be ascribed to natural causes – fire or lack of maintenance – and some of these buildings were clearly destroyed after the seventh century. Even if future excavations show occasional evidence of seventh-century destruction – this would clearly indicate an exception rather than the rule.

Alternatives to the migration paradigm Dalmatian society shows signs of turning into a frontier society, in which the position of the elites was less secure and needed to be strengthened by sponsoring church building, privileged burials as well as the use of new places outside church grounds for burial and grave goods. This also implies that the population of the deep interior of the province and its northern parts was not under the close supervision of the imperial authorities, although this area was clearly a zone of imperial interest, as seen in the military response in 597 or 598. If we take the Sclavenes and Avars out of the equation as the chief reasons for the collapse of Roman power, the only viable solution seems to be that most of the province was evacuated by the imperial infrastructure, especially in conjunction with the imperial withdrawal from the Danubian frontier. When, why and how this happened is difficult to say. These events should postdate Phoca’s short reign (602–610) and perhaps occurred in the worst decade of Heraclius’ reign – the 620s – when the Empire was starting to crumble with the sieges of the Persians and Avars. The central Balkan army was needed to defend Constantinople, and so the elite troops that saved Dalmatia in 597 or 598 were moved towards the imperial capital. The Dalmatian hinterland was not particularly attractive to the Avars and Sclavenes, who focussed on the Morava valley as the shortest route to Constantinople, or the southern Alps and Istria as the entry points to Italy. Thus, the Dalmatian hinterland became

The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia   103 a liability for the Empire, that is an area that was difficult to keep and of little use. This is another meaningful example showing Byzantium as a “low maintenance, variable-geometry empire”, so vividly described by Jonathan Shepard.66 The imperial infrastructure moved to the more easily defendable points near the coastal cities and islands – a vital communication route with Italy – as well as imperial properties in this part of the province. How this happened is even less clear due to the sparsity of evidence from the hinterland, and so we do not know whether this was a sudden move or a gradual one occurring over a few years. The withdrawal may have caused some migration from the north of the province to the better defended coastal areas and the depopulation of these areas, but this is again impossible to know from the available evidence. The Avars were unable to capitalise on the evacuation of Dalmatia. The qaganate entered a period of internal instability in 626, and there was no viable political institution in Pannonia capable of taking this no-man’s land. This does not exclude the possibility that some Avar and/or Sclavene raiders roamed the Dalmatian hinterland in this period and seized upon the opportunity. The Zrmanja hoard, consisting of counterfeited solidi of Heraclius and likely minted in 625–630 in eastern Adriatic, had been intended for non-Byzantines.67 This indirectly confirms that some of those Avar-Sclavene raiders tried to take advantage of the Byzantine withdrawal. These events, however, did not have many long-term consequences for the areas already abandoned by the imperial administration. Population mobility and the settlement of some foreigners in the northernmost parts of the province cannot be excluded. We still require actual evidence to support this, however, as the only post-Roman settlement in the north of the province (Mušić, Žabljak – to be discussed in the next chapter) are established around 700. What little evidence we do have for the seventh century in Dalmatia shows a society suffering from the collapse, and the continuation of the sixth-century transformations but at a much faster and more extreme pace.

Conclusion Most of late antique Dalmatia clearly experienced a large-scale social and economic collapse in the first half of the seventh century. This undoubtedly brought about the end of Late Antiquity in Dalmatia. While this collapse has traditionally been ascribed to the invasion of the Avars and Sclavenes and a subsequent Slav settlement, this chapter has shown that such a view finds no support in the existing evidence. It was based upon indirect evidence and a nineteenth-century grand narrative, not a consideration of the actual evidence examined in its context. Even scholars who support the idea of a Sclavene migration at that time note that the Slavs of seventhand eighth-century Dalmatia are difficult to recognise in the material record.68 The answer to this question is perhaps much easier than previously thought – the Slavs are difficult to recognise in the material record because

104  The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia there were too few Sclavenes in Dalmatia at that time. Blaming ‘barbarians’ for the collapse of ‘civilisation’ is easy and was fashionable in earlier historiography. ‘Barbarians’ were very rarely the cause of social collapse.69 The collapse is tentatively ascribed here to the withdrawal of the Byzantine administration and military units from the Dalmatian hinterland. We know little of what happened, though future research may provide better answers to these questions than those present.

Notes 1 Greg., Ep. 10.15 (letter to Maximus); Ep. 9.154 (letter to Callinicus); Hist. Lang. 4.24 (the Langobardic-Avar treaty and raid on Istria). 4 Isid. Chron. 414 (s.a. 614). 5 Hist. Lang. 4.44. cf. Goldstein 1992: 46–48, and Živković 2007: 215–216 who see these Slavs coming from the Adriatic hinterland. Curta 2001: 36–119 brings all the sources on the Sclavenes in the sixth and seventh centuries. 6 DAI, 29.1–53; 30.6–87; 31.1–30; see: Alimov 2008, 2018; Ančić 2010; Bilogrivić 2010, 2018b: 4–5; Curta 2010a, 2019a: 65–69; Dzino 2010a: 104–117, 2014a: 92–100; Borri 2011, 2013: 235–250; Gračanin & Škrgulja 2015; Budak 2018a: 88–106, etc. Surprisingly, there is still some faith in accuracy of the story from the Chapter 31 – Kardaras 2018: 90–97. 7 HS, 7–10 (pp. 33–52). The reflections of this tradition are seen in the Chronicle of the Priest of Doclea from the later twelfth century – see Dzino 2010a: 99–101. 10 Paškvalin 1988: 38; AlBiH 1: 89. 11 See the overviews of scholarship in Petrinec 2009: 5–12; Bilogrivić 2010, 2018b: 6–7; Sokol 2016: 9–16. 12 Belošević 2000a, cf. Petrinec 2002: 209, 223, 2009: 319; Jarak 2006: 198–200; Piteša 2006: 196, etc. 13 Curta 2010b: 317–318 (eighth century); Sokol 2016: 91, 129–130 (late eighth/early ninth century). 14 Petrinec 2015: 106–109, and on similar lines Bilogrivić 2018b. 15 See also preliminary considerations on this topic Dzino 2010a: 128–136. 16 Belošević 1974, 1980: 46–48, 2010: 30–31. 17 Jurić 2004, 2005, 2007, 2013, cf. Petrinec 2009: 15–16, 34–35. Total number of 27 cremations given by Petrinec, comes from adding numbers from Jurić 2004 (15) and 2005 (12). However, it seems that four cremations in ground were initially considered fire-places for funeral feasts and for that reason Jurić 2007: 220 ( paper written before the second season of excavations) mentions 19 cremations. The calculation was done by a bright postgraduate student – Stingl 2014: 55. To this number should be added 17 inhumations and 15 cremations discovered in 2013. 18 Šlaus 2006: 57–58. 19 Jakšić & Krnčević 1997, cf. Chevalier 1995: 146–147; Marasović 2009: 556–560; Zeman 2014a: 406–410. 20 Krnčević 1995, 1998: 208–211, 2004; Šlaus 2006: 56–57. 21 Gunjača 1987, 1995; HiK: 2.256–57; Krnčević 1998: 204–208. Krnčević brings final numbers, as Gunjača initially stated that there were 43 inhumations and 10 cremations, which is also repeated in Petrinec 2009: 15, 46.

The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia   105

















106  The collapse of Byzantine Dalmatia











5

After the apocalypse Dalmatia after 620

We know very little about seventh-century Dalmatia, as written sources are silent, epigraphy disappears, there are very few coins, trade and exchange are minimal, and the corpus of material culture securely dateable to this period is relatively poor. Significant problem for the dating of artefacts is the dominating assumption that the provincial capital Salona was captured by the Sclavenes and Avars in the early/mid 600s, and therefore that all the artefacts found there cannot postdate the first decades of this century. For example, all the brilliant comparative works on the dating of early Byzantine artefacts from Dalmatia by Zdenko Vinski were founded upon Frane Bulić’s speculative premiss that Salona was captured and destroyed in 614. This assumption heavily influenced the dating of typologically similar artefacts from other sites as the date of their deposition was assumed to precede the destruction of Salona.1 However, as will be shown in this chapter, today there should be no doubt that Salona was inhabited until at least 700, if not later, and so the whole dating scheme of Vinski and the terminus ante quem for the end of burials in some Dalmatian sixth-century row-grave cemeteries must be revisited. This provides some breathing space in the search for the seventh-century Dalmatians, especially when combined with the artefacts securely dated to this period, such as the semi-circular pendants with ornaments. A somewhat better situation prevails in the material culture from the eighth century, as it is possible to establish the so-called ‘Golubić horizon’ based on finds of star-shaped gold earrings of the Golubić-class and associated artefacts from closed contexts. However, finds of these earrings and associated artefacts are mostly connected with the area between modern Nin and Knin in the hinterland of Zadar, indicating connections with the deeper hinterland in the area of Livno only. The evidence from the deep hinterland is extremely scarce and difficult to put into a proper context, except that it reflects the full extent of social collapse following Heraclius’ withdrawal from the Balkan Peninsula. While the search for burials from the seventh and eighth centuries is difficult, an even more significant problem is the lack of knowledge about settlements from this period. Habitation can be established for the surviving coastal cities, but information concerning the

108  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620 connections between the ‘Dark Age’ Dalmatian cemeteries and the adjoining settlements in the rural hinterlands is unfortunately very modest. Thus, despite a recent research, the centuries linking late antique and early medieval Dalmatia are missing key economic, demographic and social indicators about the life of the population that survived the Byzantine evacuation of the province in the ca. 620s.

Salona Let us begin our enquiry with the provincial capital Salona. The settlement within the city walls was clearly abandoned after 600 and before 800, as there is no evidence for permanent habitation in the ninth century. As stated earlier, the archaeologists and historians of earlier generations initially dated the destruction of Salona to 614. However, subsequent finds of Heraclian coins showed that the city still existed in some form in the 620s, perhaps even the early 630s. This led to the development of various approaches explaining the end of the city. Most scholars still support the idea of a violent capture during Heraclius’ reign, but few have been specific about precisely when this happened. Marović places it in the late 630s, while Budak in earlier works opted for 625/626.2 However, the argument that Salona met a violent end has a major problem – there is no evidence of destruction, despite what written sources such as the DAI or HS say. There is not a single piece of material evidence that can show the simultaneous, large-scale destruction of public buildings or a layer of ashes. This awkward lack of evidence was used by Željko Rapanić in the 1980s to bravely argue that Salona was not captured but rather gradually abandoned by its population in the first half of the seventh century. This idea was subsequently taken up by several scholars, making abandonment a viable alternative to destruction, which is missing in the material evidence.3 Some scholars combined a violent capture with the abandonment, for example, Basić, who placed the capture in ca. 625/626 without excluding some kind of lingering habitation in the seventh century. Petrinec also reconciles the idea of a capture with abandonment, arguing that the city was abandoned in the wake of the Avar-Sclavene threat in the mid-seventh century.4 The first indication that the city was not sacked in 614 was a find of 51  lower-value copper coins in 1979. The coins were mostly minted in the sixth century with a few seventh-century coins minted under Phocas and Heraclius. The latest coin was an overstruck half-follis dated to 631.5 This find is often cited as evidence that Salona was in great danger, because the existence of these late antique hoards is traditionally taken in local scholarship to reflect a state of emergency, insecurity and the imminent danger of the invading Sclavenes.6 However, the deposition of coins in hoards could have happened for various different reasons, most of them having nothing to do with emergency situations or imminent danger.7 This coin deposit was found close to a water drain in the remains of a thermal tract of a residential

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  109 building just outside the eastern city walls. The building complex seems to have been abandoned at the time, as two graves under tegulae were discovered in the vicinity.8 The low value of the coins shows that this was money for everyday use rather than savings, which indirectly evidences coin circulation and some level of economic activity in the period when the building burned – after 631.9 The total number of Heraclian copper coins in the AMS from Salona and the surrounding areas is stated to be 20. This implies a larger circulation of copper money minted in the reign of Heraclius than those from the times of the emperors Anastasius I (491–518) and Tiberius II (578–602), for example, who are represented on 9 and 17 copper coins respectively.10 Some preservation of complex social structures in the provincial capital are further indirectly and directly supported by other coin deposits. The so-called ‘Zrmanja hoard’ was accidentally discovered in Potkom near Zrmanja in 1931. The initial analysis of Mirnik showed that the hoard consisted of counter-fitted solidi of Heraclius. Somogyi recently dated these coins more closely to ca. 625–630. Through careful analysis of the images, Somogyi shows that the coins must have been counter-fitted as an unofficial emission by the east Roman mint, which did not have regular contact with Constantinople at the time and was probably in the vicinity of the finding place.11 The only existing mint in Dalmatia in the sixth century was Salona. It was very likely re-activated when direct contact with Constantinople began to weaken in the critical decade of the 620s. During the excavation of the early Christian basilica and a later medieval church in the locality of Šuplja Crkva in Solin some 500m east of the Salonitan city walls, several gold coins were discovered in 2000. The find consisted of: three solidi of Emperor Maurice, and two tremissi – one of Phocas and one of Heraclius, which Šeparović provisionally dated to the early 610s. This excavation was never properly published, and the earliest information laconically implied that the coins were discovered in the foundations of the northern side-wall (probably an atrium) of the sixth-century basilica, which was renovated at some point. The excavation diary provides the same information.12 To be precise, the coins were found built into the bench, which was made of stones connected with mortar, beside the northern wall approximately one metre from the ground.13 The find implies that the coins were deliberately placed and built into the wall during the renovation works. This custom of enclosing coins and other artefacts during the building activities was discovered on several late antique and medieval sites in Dalmatia. As Reed recently convincingly argued, these depositions in Dalmatia reflect active and continuing hybridisation between Christianity and elements of ‘folk magic’, which were used as a tool to reinforce the apotropaic power of the ritual acts.14 The fact that the Šuplja Crkva basilica was renovated around 620 is excellent evidence that the Salonitans were still able to maintain their churches at that time. This information can help us address the question of the so-called  ‘emergency churches’ (Notkirchen) at Kapljuč and Manastirine.

110  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620 At some point in time, not before 600, these two cemeterial churches collapsed. The excavators excluded deliberate destruction or a fire as the cause of the collapse, and the revision excavations of the Manastirine basilica in the 1990s reinforced this. The basilicas collapsed either due to lack of maintenance or on account of some natural disaster, such as an earthquake. After the collapse, only the transepts of both churches were restored and used for some time as ‘emergency churches’.15 Seeing as the Salonitans were able to maintain public buildings in the early seventh century, it is possible that the collapse of the Kapljuč and Manastirine basilicas happened at least one generation after ca. 620. This later dating of the collapse of the basilica at the Manastirine cemetery corresponds with the burial of Abbess Johanna of Sirmium dated to 612. Gabričević noticed that Johanna’s sarcophagus, placed ad sanctos and very close to the apse of the Manastirine basilica, was surrounded by other sarcophagi. Therefore, it could not have been one of the last burials in the cemetery. For that reason, and under the dominating assumption at the time that Salona was destroyed in 614, Gabričević corrected the reading of part of the inscription from Johanna’s sarcophagus – INDICTIONE QV..TADECIM(a) – from Bulić’s quinta decima into quarta decima, thus redating the year of her death to 508, or more likely 551.16 Bearing in mind that this basilica collapsed at least one generation after ca. 620, the original dating of Johanna’s death to 612 and the existence of later sarcophagi in the Manastirine cemetery no longer represents an interpretative problem and should be accepted. The recent revision excavations of the Manastirine cemetery very clearly dated the period of use for the oil/wine press found next to the basilica to the last chronological phase of the complex, contemporary with the existence of the ‘emergency church’.17 This confirms that there was economic activity in Salona well after 620. Furthermore, it complements the hypothesis that the mint was active in the late 620s as well as the evidence for copper coins circulation in the 630s. However, the strongest and most securely dated evidence for the functioning of complex social structures in seventh-century Salona are the port structures on the small peninsula of Vranjic, some 500m south of the Salonitan city walls, which were recently absolutely dated. The last phase of this long-functioning facility was characterised by the rebuilding of the piers with spolia – mostly re-used sarcophagi. The organic material found in this layer was dated by C14 to a calibrated date of 595–775, most likely falling within the mid-later seventh century.18 Therefore, it is obvious that the Salonitans were able to mobilise a work force and resources to renovate their port facilities well into the seventh century. Taken together with other pieces of information, it is becoming very clear that the Dalmatian capital was not on its deathbed around 600, and that some level of economic activity continued there throughout the seventh century. Small finds from the area of Salona also indicate habitation and the maintenance of a social hierarchy in the seventh century. This particularly relates to a double silver belt-set

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  111 of the Mediterrana-type with the monogram LICINIUS on its strap-end found within the city walls and clearly dateable to the seventh century. This belt-set was deposited together with a helmet of the Narona-Baldenheim type from the sixth century and couple of Justinian’s coins.19 Other artefacts from Salona and its immediate surroundings proving habitation into the mid-seventh century include the finds of Keszthely-Pécs belt-buckles. These were Byzantine-influenced products assumed to be produced in Avar Pannonia between ca. the mid-sixth century and ca. 630, or 600–650 in the opinion of Schulze-Dörrlamm.20 There are also the belt-buckles of the Bologna and Syracusa-class dated 600–650 (575–675 by Schulze-Dörrlamm) and 620–660 (600–675 by Schulze-Dörrlamm) respectively, and the buckles with U-shaped plates dateable to the seventh century.21 The mission of Abbot Martin sent by pope John IV the Dalmatian is our only written evidence from the seventh century concerning Salona. The mission may be dated to 641, or less likely 642 as John IV began his pontificate late in 640 and died in October 642. Seeing as a detailed study of this event with all the sources and extensive modern literature will be soon be available to readers, I will limit myself here to only a very brief presentation of the evidence and my conclusions.22 This event was recorded in Liber Pontificalis (LP), and then subsequently in several chronicles, from the ninth century onwards. The entry in the LP states that the pope sent Martin to Dalmatia and Istria to recover captives from ‘the tribes’ (de gentibus). The pope also built a church for the relics of the martyrs SS Venantius, Anastasius, Maurus and others, which he ordered to be brought from Dalmatias and Istrias (plural). The relics were deposited in the church close to the Lateran Font and the oratory of St John the Evangelist, which the pope  decorated.23 The event is confirmed in a preserved mosaic from the oratory of San Venanzio, adjacent to the Lateran baptistry, which contains images of local Salonitan saints: SS Domnius, Venantius, Asterius, etc. and the Istrian St Maurus. Its construction is ascribed to John IV, though it must have been completed by his successor Theodorus.24 The images of the saints from San Venanzio were probably influenced by the images from Salona, such as the one of St Asterius preserved in the oratories of the Salonitan amphitheatre.25 Thomas repeats the account of the LP in the HS but unlike his early medieval predecessors, who recycled the information from LP, he makes his own ‘creative’ contribution to the narrative plot. In his account John IV sends Martin to Dalmatia to ransom prisoners from the Slavs and return them to their families. On the pope’s instructions Martin takes the relics of the saints from Dalmatia and Istria and brings them to Rome, where John deposits them in the Church of St John Lateran. Thomas accurately depicts the image of St Domnius from this church (unmentioned in the LP), which indicates that he saw the mosaic during his studies in Italy.26 The accounts differ in a few minor details. Only the ransom of the prisoners is specifically ascribed to Martin in the LP, while Thomas attaches both tasks to his mission.

112  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620 According to the HS, Martin ransoms the prisoners of the Slavs rather than the originally unspecified gentes of the LP. Istria is only mentioned in the HS in the context of the transfer of the relics, not the ransom of the prisoners as in the LP. The reasons for these minor inconsistencies are quite clear and should be considered within the context of Thomas’ times and work. This event is widely seen, even in more recent scholarship, as ‘clear’ evidence for the Slav sack of Salona. Martin was coming to the abandoned city to save holy relics from destruction and ransom the captives of the Slavs.27 However, such an interpretation has clearly been taken out of the historical context and integrated into the dominating narrative of the fall of Salona. While the transfer of the relics from Dalmatia and Istria is confirmed by the building of San Venanzio chapel, the redemption of the captives from Dalmatia and Istria is not confirmed by other sources. However, the connection of two events in the LP strengthens assumptions of its historicity. Local tradition preserves the memory of the second transfer of the relics of the Salonitan saints Domnius and Anastasius. This likely occurred towards the end of eighth century (see p. 153). The two traditions of the transfer of the relics from Salona to Rome and Split indicate that the papal emissary encountered the relevant Salonitan ecclesiastic authorities, who gave him access to brandea – the contact-relics or small parts of the saints’ bodies.28 The evidence also confirms that the relics of St Maurus remained in Euphrasius’ basilica in Poreč, despite the fact that Abbot Martin transferred them to Rome.29 The pope’s personal reasons for bringing the relics from the eastern Adriatic and the construction of a chapel to host them are indisputable and by themselves constitute a sufficient explanation for the mission. These are in particular: John’s personal devotion, his homage to his father Venantius, his attempt to introduce hitherto unknown martyrs from his homeland to Rome and leave the mark of his papacy on the sacral landscape of Rome. This was not unusual as the popes before and after John had done very much the same thing.30 However, the choice of the Lateran Baptistry, one of the most important buildings in Rome, and the resources that John IV committed to this mission, when his treasury was almost empty, indicates that there was more here than it meets the eye.31 Indirect evidence suggests that the mission was part of papal political manoeuvre against the monothelite doctrine after the death of the emperor Heraclius.32 This would also explain why the mission was not limited to John’s patria Dalmatia, but also included neighbouring Istria. If this is correct, these events then most likely took place in 641 between February, when Heraclius died, and autumn, when the Synod that condemned monothelitism was held in Rome under the patronage of John.33 Whatever the real reason for Martin’s mission and the construction of the chapel of San Venanzio, it must have been a matter of the uttermost priority for John IV – personal, political and theological. The current explanation that this was a ‘rescue mission’, intended to save the relics from the now destroyed Salona and Istria, is not supported by the evidence and wider historical context.

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  113 The question of the captives is less clear. It is unlikely that Martin had at his disposal the multas pecunias mentioned by LP, given that the Exarch Isaac had recently plundered the Papal treasury. This plunder included the sacred equipment of the Lateran Episcopium, which had been used among other things as a depository for the funds for the redemption of captives.34 This also implies that the funds that Martin carried should have consisted of more recent, Heraclian gold coinage – tremissi or solidi. There is, however, very few gold Heraclian coins in the archaeological record of Dalmatia and Istria. While not all the finding spots are known, there should be around 15 coins from the general area of the eastern Adriatic coast and a single find from the deeper hinterland of Dalmatia in Đelilovac.35 This leaves the question of who were the captives and who were the gentes demanding ransom, which is open to speculation. Some captives could indeed have been taken by the Langobards or the Sclavenes/Avars in Istria, especially given the worsening relationship between the Byzantines and the Langobard king Rothari at the time. In Dalmatia, it could have been a variety of groups  described as gentes, including local brigands, perhaps even the Avars from Pannonia. Still, the commitment of such resources in a time of scarcity suggests that this was extremely important for the pope and likely related to the transfer of the relics. In 639 or early 640, Heraclius sent the general (stratelates) Eustachius to Exarch Isaac with instructions to enforce an imperial edict Ecthesis, which imposed monothelitism.36 Bearing this in mind, it is also possible that some of the clergy in Dalmatia and Istria had been taken captive by the imperial authorities in 640 for resisting monothelitism, in which case Martin’s mission had been to ransom them off from imprisonment.

The surroundings of Salona and the islands Salona was certainly experiencing a decline in the seventh century. This is visible in the abandonment of some extramural urban areas east and west of the city walls. Nevertheless, maintaining the idea that the city was sacked by outside invaders in the first half of the seventh century is clearly no longer possible. It also seems unlikely that the city was completely abandoned in this period. The corroborating evidence presented in this section shows that not only Salona, but an entire section of the eastern Adriatic from Zadar to Split along with its hinterland and islands continued to function in the seventh and eighth century as an imperial outpost. It is relatively easy to prove the survival and functioning of Diocletian’s palace as part of the imperial networks in the seventh and eighth centuries. The palace was built on an imperial estate, the remaining part of the imperial fiscus, some 4.5km south of Salona. Finds of pottery from the fourth- to sixth-century reveal quantities of fine imported African and Phocaean slipwares and support the assumption that this remained an imperial property. In the sixth century the palace probably housed a military garrison and

114  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620 ­

­

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  115 Paul has been shown to be a member of the Dalmatian urban elite with strong roots in late antique heritage.47 The continuity of life on the Adriatic islands in the seventh and eighth centuries is also easy to observe. A consistent corpus of finds has come from the island of Brač, which was an important point on sailing routes towards Salona. There were numerous functioning agricultural facilities and stone quarries on the island in Late Antiquity. Some of these may have been imperial possessions administered from the porticoed villa in Mirje.48 The island shows a decline in the number of sites used – from 91 in antiquity (100 BC–AD 300) to 34 in Late Antiquity (300–700). However, the habitation of ten of these 34 localities survived after 700, while three sites that were used in antiquity but not in Late Antiquity began to function again after ca. 700.49 There are some traces of continuing economic vitality in the seventh century. The church of St Lawrence in Lovrečina Bay seems to undergo some renovations in the early seventh century, while the early Christian basilica near St John the Baptist (St Mary?) in Postira was also functioning in the seventh century. The church below the currently standing church of the Holy Ghost in Škrip may have been built in this period, and its method of construction is very similar to that of contemporary ‘emergency churches’ in Salona.50 This corresponds with the find of a coin hoard from Nerežišća containing gold coins from Heraclius Constantine to Constantine IV Pogonatus. The hoard has been dated to ca. 670.51 Another imperial possession in Polače on the island of Mljet continues to function after 600. The underwater finds of a Balgota belt-buckle dated 620–660 and Byzantine pottery from the seventh and eighth century confirms the continuing function of this site within the imperial system.52 The island of Hvar also contains important evidence from the seventh century. Two buckles of the Corinth-class and one of the Balgota-class were found in the town of Hvar. Early Byzantine pottery dateable to the seventh century was also found in buildings that were destroyed by fire in the seventh or eighth century.53 There is also a coin of Tiberius III (698–705) of unknown provenience from the mint in Ravenna, in the Dominican Museum in Stari Grad. A coin of the emperor Leontius (695–698) of unknown provenience in the AMS is assumed to have been found on the island of Vis.54 The recent excavations in Lumbarda on the island of Korčula revealed traces of a settlement complex and limited economic activity – blacksmithing, olive processing and wine and olive oil trade. The pottery finds indicate habitation in the sixth and seventh century. This is additionally confirmed by the find of a bronze follis of the emperor Phocas, which was overstruck in the reign of Heraclius.55 Finally, it is worth mentioning that the castrum of Ragusium (Dubrovnik) a little further south shows continuity of habitation in what was likely the remaining centre of another Byzantine enclave in the southern Adriatic. Similar situation is recorded in the Bay of Kvarner, where settlement on the islands of Rab, Cres, Krk declines slightly, but without major interruptions.56

116  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620

The hinterland of Salona and Zadar Via Magna and ‘Cetina limes’ After the east Roman withdrawal from most of southeastern Europe in the second or third decade of the seventh century, the Empire maintained control of points on the eastern Adriatic in order to secure maritime communications with northern Italy. Apart from the already discussed Trogir-Salona-Split area and the islands, another crucial strongpoint was Zadar, which remained inhabited in this period under a degree of imperial control.57 But what about their immediate hinterlands? The Cetina valley and Ravni Kotari-Bukovica area are strategic points necessary for the protection of Zadar and Trogir-Salona-Split from the hinterland. The Romans understood this well and in the early days of their rule the legionary camps of Burnum and Tilurium were situated at these exact spots. The idea that these areas remained under Byzantine control comes from the research of two influential Croatian scholars: Ante Milošević and Nikola Jakšić. Milošević consistently argued in several papers that a system of fortifications established in Late Antiquity continued to exist in the Cetina valley throughout this period. The burials within what he calls ‘the Cetina limes’ show peculiar strategies of identity-construction from the seventh to the ninth century. These connected the dead with the late antique and Roman past.58 Milošević’s ideas compliment Jakšić, who implied that the Danubian limes mentioned in the stories about the fall of Salona was in fact this same fortification system in the Cetina valley.59 Jakšić elsewhere pointed out the continued use of early Christian buildings in the hinterland of Zadar until their early medieval renovations. These buildings and the finds of artefacts of Byzantine provenience dated to seventh and eighth century, such as the star-shaped gold earrings of the Golubić-class, are concentrated along the ancient and medieval Via Magna, the main communication line that connects Nin and Zadar with Knin. Jakšić concluded that the Byzantine empire continued to maintain its presence in the Dalmatian Dark Ages by controlling late antique forts in this area, such as Asseria or Varvaria.60 This argument is still valid today with a few additions, such as the recent discovery of the sixth-century rotunda in ancient Varvaria, which was used in the seventh and eighth centuries. According to the excavation diaries from 1969, two now lost Golubić-type earrings dateable to the eighth century were discovered in the early Christian vaulted crypt with sarcophagi adjacent to this rotunda.61 Florin Curta described the existence of strategically placed forts in the hinterland of Dyrrachium (also occupied in this period) as being traces of the Byzantine autonomous administrative area – kleisoura or kleisourarchia.62 Kleisourai appear in late seventh-century Asia Minor, originally as military areas enabling the more efficient local administration of frontier-areas. The term refers to a fortified mountain-pass and the military area that defended

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  117 63

it. From the written sources, we only know of the Strymon kleisoura in the European part of the empire, but it is very likely that Istria was organised in the same way.64 It would not be surprising if the areas in the hinterland of Salona-Split and Zadar played a similar role within the shaken but still functioning imperial system. Whether they were officially established as a kleisoura cannot not be proven with the evidence available. However, the modern toponym Klis above Split and mention of a kleisoura in the DAI located four miles from Salona provide further grounds for such an assumption.65 The revival of defensive structures in both of these areas could already be seen in Late Antiquity. As mentioned in Chapter 2, some fortifications in the hinterland of Salona show traces of proteichismata, which implies the rebuilding and refortification of their walls in Justinian’s era. The repair of the walls of Asseria and Varvaria positioned on the Via Magna are also dateable to the sixth century. In Chapter 3 it was noted that the hinterland of Salona contains evidence of a few graves with weapons dateable to the sixth, perhaps even the seventh century, while several instances of re-using Roman legionary stellae in the sixth-century graves may imply the renewed significance of military identity in this area. The ‘Cetina limes’ and the Via Magna connect with each other in the area of Kijevo, thereby enclosing the ancient Hyllean peninsula, which spans from modern Trogir to Šibenik. The recent dissertation of Maja Zeman offered convincing arguments that this area was an imperial possession from the early days of Roman rule until Late Antiquity, and that the late antique land division was still preserved in the ninth century.66 The Hyllaean peninsula has not been properly explored archaeologically, and so this idea cannot be tested or proven for the period of the seventh and eighth centuries.67 Likewise the question of whether or not it remained an imperial possession is at this moment impossible to answer definitively. Nevertheless, the position of the Via Magna and ‘Cetina limes’ provides grounds to assume (at least on a hypothetical level) that the Empire withdrew to these positions in the seventh century not only to defend Zadar and Salona, but also to protect imperial possessions on the Hyllean peninsula. The evidence from the ninth century suggests that this area was under the direct rule of the Dalmatian dukes, thus providing further grounds for taking this hypothesis under consideration, as will be done in Chapter 7. We know nothing about the internal organisation of these districts, and so it will be necessary to turn to neighbouring Istria for some parallels. The Placitum of Rižana from 804 is a document containing the complaints of the local Istrian elite to Charlemagne’s legates concerning the Frankish administration and recently settled Slavs. In some places the document describes Istria in earlier Byzantine times before it was taken by the Franks in ca. 788 and ruled by a militarised elite led by a magister militum with local elites, including domestici, vicarii, lociservatori and capitaneii (local commanders). Members of the elite could also achieve the title of honorary consul (hypatus imperialis) after paying personal homage to the emperor in Constantinople

118  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620 with gifts.68 The Istrians also mention their ‘neighbours and relatives’ in Dalmatia and Venice, and a recent important publication of Basić shows close similarities in the formal diplomatic phrases used in these areas in the early Middle Ages. This indicates that there were functioning inter-Adriatic connectivity networks, inclusive of Dalmatia in the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries.69 While one can reasonably assume similarities in social structure between Byzantine Istria and Dalmatia, there is little in Dalmatia that can be used for a direct comparison. The strongest evidence for the maintenance of administrative links with the imperial administration in Ravenna is the earlier mentioned seal of the Exarch Paul found in Salona or Diocletian’s palace. Cemeteries and stray finds The cemeterial complexes and individual graves in the hinterland of Zadar and Split from the post-Roman period (ca. 630–ca. 775) are the best evidence for discussing this period. Together with the burials belonging to the Biskupija-Crkvina (or just Biskupija) horizon (ca. 775/800–ca. 830), post-Roman cemeteries in Dalmatia are usually seen in the existing literature as the ‘pagan’ phase of the ‘Old-Croat’ archaeological culture ascribed to the Slavic migrants.70 Most of the evidence used for such conclusions in fact reflects social and economic changes – the appearance of grave goods including pottery vessels and funeral feasts – rather than the arrival of a foreign population, as discussed in Chapter 4. The most discerning features of burials distinguishing the post-Roman from later Biskupija-Crkvina horizon is a lack of rich male grave-assemblages, the projection of an image of ‘violence specialists’, and the placement of artefacts of Carolingian or Carolingian-influenced origins, especially stirrups and swords. Identifying post-Roman graves is difficult because they seldomly contain chronologically sensitive artefacts and are therefore easily confused with graves from preceding and following periods. This is further complicated by the fact that many post-Roman cemeteries continue to be used in the Biskupija horizon. The habit of placing pots in graves is certainly a discerning feature of eighth-century burials. However, as there are earlier graves with pots (discussed in Chapters 3–4) and the seventh-century ones from Drvenik and Ljubač (below, p. 123), as well as burials with pots from the ninth century, the pots can be ruled out as diagnostic tool for dating eighth-century graves. We will consequently turn to the evidence for mid- to late seventh-century connections with earlier traditions and to manifestations of the Byzantine Dark Age cultural koine and its regional varieties in the immediate hinterlands of Zadar and Trogir-Salona-Split.71 The previously discussed sixth-century cemetery Greblje (Figure 3.1) has burials that can securely be placed well into the seventh century, despite the initial assessment of Zdenko Vinski, who dated them until ca. 600. The most important evidence is the find of a U-shaped iron buckle in grave 181 and the signet-ring with antithetically placed lions from grave 120, which contained

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  119

Figure 5.1 Grave 120 from Greblje in Knin. Documentation of the Medieval Department, ©Archaeological Museum in Zagreb.

an adult male and a child (Figure 5.1). Both artefacts are clearly dateable to the seventh century72 and were most likely deposited in the graves around the middle of the century, if not later. The gilded bronze belt-buckle of the Mediterrana type from Gr120 is associated with an almost identical bronze belt-buckle from Gr84. The buckle was found beside the left foot of a deceased female and was consequently interpreted as having been re-used as a shoe buckle.73 Given that only one buckle was found in Gr84, it seems more likely that it was deposited as a status-symbol. Either way, the buckle had been used for a longer time, and so this burial should also be dated well into the seventh century. The ‘prominent’ base of the ‘shield-like buckle-ring tongue’ type present on two buckle-rings in Gr120 was also found on the buckle-rings from graves 5 and 7, and on a monogrammed tongue from Gr107.74 The connection with the seventh-century grave 120 makes these graves likely candidates for similar dating. A small ‘Frankish’ fibula, dateable to 550–600, from grave 154 could also be ascribed to the seventh century. It shows traces of repair and long use, and so its deposition in the grave must have been in the decades after 600.75 We can therefore ascribe at least six to seven graves from this cemetery to much later in the seventh century. However, as there are no finds securely dateable to the eighth century, it seems very likely that Greblje was abandoned in the decades following 650. The

120  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620 late antique fortified structure on the hill Sveti Spas was re-used as a church and cemetery from the ninth century onwards without any connections to earlier periods.76 There are more finds related to early Byzantine and late antique traditions from the Knin-Cetina area that could be dated to the seventh century. Good examples are the stray find of a Keszthely-Pécs buckle, produced ca. 580–630, from an unknown location in Knin, and a bronze applique damaged through use, discovered in Gardun (Tilurium).77 The complex of post-Roman and early medieval burial clusters in Glavice near Sinj bears few examples of later seventh- and eighth-century burials. The burial cluster known as Jojine kuće contains burials in the ground surrounded by stone burial cists made of soft porous limestone (muljika), which may indicate two continuous sub-phases of burials.78 Male burials with grave goods contain knives, and Gr4 additionally had a pot. The female burial in Gr3 contained three different late antique glass beads, while the elite female and child burial in Gr11 contained three pairs of earrings, a knife, a necklace, a silver ring and a necklace made of silver and glass beads. Silver earrings with an S-ending and a thickened lower part from Gr11 have parallels in Gr41 from St Anselm cemetery inside Nin, in Gr112 from Grborezi and in a stray find from Bračića podvornice in Biskupija.79 Even more important are the direct parallels between these earrings and early Byzantine examples, such as those from the hoard on the island of Samos, dateable by the coins of Heraclius, or the jewellery treasure from Constantinople in the Dumbarton Oaks collection, which can be dated to the seventh century.80 The earlier phase of burials at Jojine kuće has been dated to the eighth century, but it very likely started in the late seventh.81 The neighbouring cluster of graves known as Gluvine kuće 1 contains 14 graves. The burials in Gr1, and Gr10 had an orientation different from all the other graves. The interpretation of Gr1 remains bitterly disputed between Ante Milošević (the director of the excavation) and Maja Petrinec, who excavated the grave. Both scholars agree that there were two burials, one in situ oriented S-N and the other dislocated and placed above the head of the skeleton in situ. That the skeleton in situ had the following as grave goods: a pot, bronze rings with crosses, a small knife and a needle case made of bone is also undisputed. Milošević, however, sees the dislocated skeleton as the older one, dateable to the late seventh/early eighth century, and ascribes to it the remaining grave goods: a damaged Roman fibula (found among the remains of the disturbed burial) and a bronze bell (found above the remains of the disturbed burial). A damaged filigree silver earring of the Golubić-class discovered between the two gravestone floorboards has also been ascribed to the earlier dislocated burial. Milošević also supports his claim with the fact that the artefacts from what he sees as earlier burial are older and related to late antique traditions.82 Petrinec, however, claims that the disturbed burial is later than the one in situ and that the bones were removed from graves from the later phase during subsequent burials. According to this scholar,

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  121 all the grave goods belong to the burial in situ, including the Golubić earring, which found its way between grave floorboards when the bones of the disturbed burial were placed over the skull of the burial in situ. Petrinec thus dates the burial in situ to the second half of the eighth century, allowing for the longer use of the Golubić earring before its deposition.83 Both arguments have merit and belong to competent scholars that were involved in this particular excavation. Taking into account what has been published, however, Milošević’s claim about the sequence of the burials seems more believable. The position of the damaged Roman fibula and the bronze bell, which was never disputed by Petrinec, indicates that they indeed belonged to the disturbed burial. The explanation that the disturbed bones come from a grave of a later phase is also difficult to accept, given that there are no later burials adjacent to Gr1 according to the map of the graves. The damage to the skull of the burial in situ could have occurred later, as the grave was found in a slightly devastated condition.84 Whether the Golubić earring belongs to the earlier disturbed burial or the later burial in situ is difficult to say. It could have indeed found its way between the grave floorboards during the dislocation of the earlier burial, but it could have also fallen down during the slight devastation of the grave, which may have been the cause of the damage to the skull from the burial in situ. However, the earring from Gluvine kuće 1 and the needle case from the burial in situ are similar to the earring and needle case from Gr227 in part of cemetery Ždrijac dated ca. 700–775. And so, perhaps even this later burial should have been dated before 775.85 The Lučani cemetery near Sinj contains 25 graves from two different phases. The graves from the earlier phase (Gr1–5, 10) contained sparse grave goods: several pots, knives, and the remains of glass vessel in Gr3. The remains of the metal mouth of a (possibly) wooden scabbard and the belt on which the scabbard had hung from Gr5 have parallels in Gr7 from the cemetery of Brkač in Byzantine Istria dated ca. 650–800. Similarities between these pots and those of other cemeteries in the Ravni Kotari (Razbojine, Stankovci), together with the finds of fragments of a glass vessel in Gr3, were used to date this phase to the second half of the seventh century. The graves of the later phase were initially dated to later medieval times, but Milošević more recently redated them to the early medieval period, most likely the ninth century. Given that there is a chronological gap between the phases, which is clear in the stratigraphy, dating these graves to the second half of the seventh century seems more believable.86 A very important find from the seventh century was the so-called Biskupija hoard, which contained metal casting dies. It was discovered out of context in Pliskovo near Knin in 1909 and was dated differently by different authors. It has usually been ascribed to the Avars.87 However, the recent analysis of Curta and Szmoniewski typologically linked it with the Velestino hoard in Greece and middle Byzantine metalworking traditions, thus placing the hoard in the late seventh or very early eighth century. In the same historical context as the Velestino and Biskupija hoards belongs the hoard of gold ingots and

122  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620 half-finished belt-fittings from Vrap in the hinterland of Dyrrachium. The existence of all three hoards is connected with notables in the Byzantine service – an archon (Velestino and Vrap) and a local dignitary in the Cetina valley, who was able to organise and control casting production.88 There is also the find of a die cast from Čitluk near Sinj, which also has direct typological parallels with the Velestino hoard.89 These finds could be connected with the presence of craftsman’s tools in two elite burials dateable to the later seventh century.90 Grave 107 from Greblje (previously mentioned as one of the seventh-century graves) was undoubtedly an elite grave as it contained a monogrammed buckle-ring. However, the assemblage also contained two chisels found beside the left hip of the deceased.91 Belošević initially ascribed Gr10 from Glavčurak cemetery in Kašić to the Ostrogothic period, but Vinski later redated it to the period 550–650 on account of the silver Mediterrana-type belt-buckle (Figure 5.2).92 Besides the buckle, the grave contained an assemblage of craftsman’s tools in a leather bag hanging on the belt with scissors, chisel, and parts of goldsmith scales, two knives, etc. It was found 4–5m from the cluster of early medieval graves on the sand mound Glavčurak, some 200m away from the other late antique graves.93 Gr10 exhibits some similarities with the graves of the early medieval phase (dated by Belošević to ca. 750–850), which were dug deeper than the late antique and early medieval graves of the later phase (ca. 850–1000) and had no stone chambers. The only difference is the absence of a pot in Gr10. Unfortunately, almost all the graves from this phase were destroyed by the digging of sand from the mound. Their number is estimated to have been

Figure 5.2 The Mediterrana-type buckle from grave 10, Glavčurak in Kašić (photo: I. Čondić), ©Archaeological Museum in Zadar.

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  123 around 50. Only four graves were excavated: Gr14–15 and two unnumbered damaged graves. Graves 14–15 were located further from the cluster of early medieval graves, but two other graves were found in □II/4, some 6–7m from Gr10, which was positioned towards the top of the mound.94 Grave 10 was undoubtedly an elite grave, while the dating of the Mediterrana buckle and its vicinity to the cluster of early medieval graves suggests that this burial occurred after 650, but before the end of the seventh century. An important diagnostic find related to the mid/later seventh-century traditions of the Byzantine koine is the so-called semi-circular pendant with an open-work ornament. This again has caused some scholarly debate between Milošević, who sees it as a seventh-century artefact, and Petrinec, who dates it to the late eighth century. Florin Curta recently joined the debate and provided the most convincing arguments for dating these artefacts to ca. 630–670. The largest number of these pendants come from sites in Albania (especially Kalaja e Dalmacës) and western Northern Macedonia (the Lake Ohrid), while a single specimen is known from an unknown locality in Istria. In Dalmatia, outside the Byzantine-controlled hinterland, the pendants have been found in graves from Ston on the Pelješac peninsula, Drvenik near Makarska and an unknown location. Pendants were discovered within the Byzantine-controlled hinterland in the cemeteries of the Ravni Kotari: Ljubač, Maklinovo brdo, and Velim.95 The most important argument for the dating of these pendants is the association of a pendant from the Ston burial with a Balgota-class belt-buckle.96 We know little about the context of the find from Velim, except that it was found together with two still unpublished pots and a bronze (or silver) earring with interlaced pendants and three spiral hoops.97 The pendant in Krneze was found in grave 6 of the Duševića glavica barrow. This barrow, located beside the Matakova glavica barrow where sixth-century burials were detected, was damaged by later burials, and so the body was not found. However, the grave assemblage consisted of a round bronze pendant dated to the seventh/ eighth century, a pot, a knife and a semi-circular pendant with open-work ornament.98 A pot and semi-circular pendant were also recorded in a burial in Drvenik.99 The girls’ burial in grave 54 from Maklinovo brdo contained a semi-circular pendant (Figure 5.3), a knife, simple silver earrings and a necklace made of glass beads. It was found on the eastern periphery of the cemetery, which contained 55 graves dateable to the eighth and very early ninth-century dug into a sand mound as at Glavčurak (Figure 5.4). The grave had a different orientation to all the other graves, except for Gr31 on the southern periphery of the cemetery. This grave produced no finds, however. The lack of other graves pre-dating the eighth century in this cemetery could be explained by the nature of the soil and erosion, which destroyed a large number of graves. For instance, Gr54 was found with a depth of only 15cm, much like the later Gr52, situated relatively close to it.100 Other characteristically early artefacts from this period are the Golubićclass granulated earrings. These are mostly gold filigree earrings with only a

124  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620

Figure 5.3 The semi-circular pendant with open-work ornament from Grave 54 in Maklinovo brdo (photo: I. Čondić), ©Archaeological Museum in Zadar.

Figure 5.4 Plan of Maklinovo brdo cemetery with distinguished early (inside the square) and later phases. From Alajbeg 2014: 144.

few silver and casted specimens. There are also several distinguishable subtypes ranging from luxurious star-shaped specimens to simpler earrings with granular decorations. Golubić-class earrings were local interpretations of the Byzantine models of late sixth/early to mid-seventh-century Byzantine Sicily, Syria, Egypt and few other locations. These have no directly comparable parallels outside Dalmatia and must have been made in the Dalmatian cities under Byzantine control.101 All of them were found at Byzantine outposts in and around the Via Magna and ‘Cetina limes’, including the adjacent Livno area.102 Earlier authorities dated the Golubić earrings to the late seventh/early eighth centuries, while the more recent dating of Petrinec and Sokol has proposed a somewhat later deposition before mid-ninth century.103 Unfortunately, many of these earrings have come from stray finds or

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  125 unknown contexts. In known contexts they are discovered in churchyards around late antique churches and row-grave cemeteries. Two pairs of gold earrings from Gr41 in the intramural cemetery were found around the church of St Anselm in Nin, and one from Gr223 beside the early Christian church of St Martin in Donji Lepuri.104 To those we can add two now lost earrings from the burial in the intramural late antique crypt in Varvaria.105 Grave 2 in the Nin intramural cemetery of Banovac also yielded the find of a cast silver earring with a pendant composed of small granular triangles.106 Continuity with Late Antiquity is also evident in the find of three gold earrings in the late antique vaulted grave on Marko or Aćim Popović’s property in Bukorovići (Biskupija). These were in all likelihood also the Golubić earrings.107 Golubić earrings were also found in row-grave cemeteries, such as the silver specimen from Gr15 in Dubravice, the damaged gold earring from Gr1 in the Gluvine kuće 1 burial cluster mentioned above, and the two silver granulated earrings from Gr227 in the cemetery of Ždrijac.108 The earrings from the locality of Stolića njiva in the eponymous site of Golubić also likely came from a grave in the row-grave cemetery.109 There are also a few stray finds from undetermined sites and two finds from the area of Livno mentioned later in the chapter. Only a few earrings of this type have certain contexts that can be loosely dated. The earrings from Ždrijac came from Gr227, which dates to ca. 700–775 (Figure 5.5).110 As pointed out earlier, the earring from Gr1 at Gluvine kuće 1 chronologically corresponds with Gr227 and should be dated to this period too, regardless of whether it belongs to an earlier or later burial. Also dateable is the earring from Dubravice, which was deposited roughly a generation before the grave with the coin of Constantine V Copronymus. It should be dated to ca. 760–770.111 The remaining Golubić-class earrings from known contexts regrettably lacked clearly dated diagnostic artefacts such as coins. However, these earrings are never directly connected with the slightly later earrings with grape-like pendants, which can be dated to the late eighth and ninth centuries.112 The only exception is Gr112 in Grborezi, discussed below. Also, finds from known contexts do not connect these earrings with ‘warrior graves’ corresponding to the later Biskupija horizon. Dateable graves from Dubravice, Ždrijac and Gluvine kuće 1 preceded the Biskupija horizon. The intramural cemeteries from Nin (St Anselm and Banovac) may contain graves that are contemporary with the Biskupija horizon, but no ‘warrior graves’ were discovered there. The same relates to the find from Donji Lepuri, while the lost earrings from Varvaria came from a site with clearly established continuity of habitation for the seventh and eighth centuries. The cemetery Stolića njive in Golubić has not been excavated, but no finds from the Biskupija horizon have been reported from this locality. A single burial with a pot, a sheep’s bell and a spur from the Biskupija horizon was discovered on the property of Marko/Aćim Popović near the vaulted grave that contained what were likely Golubić earrings. We do not have enough documentation about these finds, and as shown in the next chapter ‘warrior graves’ from the late eighth/early ninth century clearly appear in the existing cemeteries.

Figure 5.5 Plan of Ždr ijac c emeter y w ith disti ng u ished early (i nside the square) and later phases. From A lajb eg 2014: 150.

126  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  127 Closed context assemblages from Gr41 at St Anselm and Gr223 from Donji Lepuri and Golubić enable the establishment of parallels with other finds from elite female graves in and outside of Dalmatia, as Petrinec has done in some detail in different publications.113 What is clear, especially from the latest analysis of Petrinec, is that the parallels extend from the late seventh to the late eighth/very early ninth century. For that reason, it seems justifiable to date the deposition of the Golubić-type earrings to the period from 700 onwards, with most finds coming from graves pre-dating the end of eighth century. General aspects of cemeteries from the ‘post-Roman’ horizon The cemeteries of the ‘post-Roman’ horizon present an image of localised communities divided into kin-groups, as clearly seen in the examples of Nin and Kašić. In Nin, burials in intramural cemeteries from Late Antiquity continue around the St Anselm complex. The later church in the St Anselm complex dates to the seventh/eighth century. This indicates that the community there was able and willing to invest resources in the construction of a new church in this period.114 There are also graves from this period beside the contemporary drywall dwelling, that partitioned the remains of the intramural Roman villa in the sub-locality of Banovac, some 100m northeast from the farthest graves in St Cross on that side (Gr 166 and 167, see Figure 3.2). The ‘eastern’ group of graves is composed of two clusters: Gr12–15 without grave goods should be dated in seventh century as Gr12 was radiocarbon dated by 2-sigma dating in 600–668, while Gr16 and 17 are somewhat later as Gr16 radiocarbon date is placed in 769–901. The seventh-century cluster has sparse grave goods – a glass-paste necklace made of yellow and blue beads in Gr13, knife in Gr14 and axe in empty grave 15 (cenotaph?). Later cluster contains sleigh bell, small knife, tinder and pot in Gr16, while Gr17 has animal bones and glass-paste necklace with similar blue/yellow combination as Gr13, which is fairly typical for eastern Adriatic graves from sixth to early ninth century.115 The ‘western’ group has less regular dispersion of the graves and different orientation. However, it is important to note the presence of pots in five graves (Gr. 6–7, 9–11), while Gr2, contemporary with these, has silver casted Golubić-class earring and blue/yellow glass-paste necklace with one white bead. The grave 6 might have been belonging to a more significant male person, because of deposited sickle and small fragment of Roman chain mail tunic, probably used as a belt decoration.116 In nearby St Cross, only Gr212, excavated in 2000, had a pot as a grave good. This grave was found in a small cluster of graves (Gr210–212, see Figure 3.2) separate from the main group, which likely indicates another social or kin group.117 A new row-grave cemetery forms around the Materize barrow in the outer periphery of Roman-era southern cemetery of Nin in ca. 700. A significant proportion of graves without assemblages suggest that the

128  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620 Materize cemetery was already forming in the mid/later seventh century, but this is hard to establish due to a lack of dateable items. The graves did not contain finds related to the Biskupija horizon, and so burials had very likely ceased by this time.118 Nin’s extramural cemetery Ždrijac is one of the largest and most significant cemeteries for both the post-Roman and Biskupija horizons. This was a traditional burial ground for the local population from the Iron Ages and throughout antiquity, but sea-erosion must have had destroyed significant amount of graves. There are three known graves from the late antique period, all excavated in 1972,119 and a stray find of fibula from ca. 600 with the inscription XAPIC, mentioned on p. 51. The bulk of the excavated graves fall into the ‘post-Roman’ and Biskupija horizons, and use of the burial site continues until the tenth/eleventh century.120 Alajbeg’s recent analysis of the vertical stratigraphy showed that 75 graves in the central sector of the cemetery can be dated before the last third of the eighth century (i.e. 760–770) (Figure 5.5).121 A similar situation is apparent in Kašić, where we can recognise the late antique habitation of the agglomeration with the basilica at Begovača (see Chapter  7). In Kašić are located the previously discussed cemeteries of Glavčurak and Maklinovo brdo (dateable to this same period) found in the vicinity of one another. More graves from Kašić can be dated to the late seventh or more likely the eighth century, for example, those in the Razbojine cemetery and the earlier phase of graves in the neighbouring village of Donje 122 Biljane (Trljuge). ­ Biskupija was probably another example, but most of its evidence comes from the early days of archaeology and therefore lacks accurate information. In the vicinity of the late antique agglomeration with a basilica (mansio? monastery?) are the cemeterial complexes known as Bračića podvornice (ca. 300–400m) and Popovića dolovi (ca. 250m). To these we can add the earlier mentioned finds from the Popović property in Bukorovići (ca. 1km).123 The elite are not clearly visible in the graves and cemeteries of this period, and the grave goods do not indicate a funerary image of the elite as ‘violence specialists’ as in the case in the later Biskupija horizon. The appearance of pots, usually deposited at the feet of the deceased, should be seen in the context of the rising importance of funeral feasts. Fire remains are often found in the cemeteries, namely ashes and animal bones in the graves and broken pottery around them. Particularly interesting is the recent find of several holes in the ground around three graves beside the remains of the Roman architecture in Orlić. They contained ashes, animal bones, pottery, small artefacts, even a millstone. These holes and their contents should be ascribed to the post-Roman horizon.124 Knives appear in male and female graves. The necropolis of Maklinovo brdo is especially significant in this regard. It contained 23 graves from the post-Roman horizon, 74% of which contained knives – 79% of the female graves and 75% of the male ones. Knives appeared in 60% of the 72 post-Roman graves in Ždrijac: 69% male and 56% female. 61% of the graves in Stankovci contained knives. Almost all the male

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  129 graves (5/6) contained knives and three of the five female ones. In Razbojine, 48 or 51% of the graves contained knives, but all except one of them were male. The presence of knives was considerably smaller in Materize, where only 20% of the graves contained them.125 Instead of elite status or the construction of a warrior image, the finds of knives could be connected with the symbolic group identity of the frontiers-guards.126 These finds of knives connect the graves of this period not only with the first row-grave cemeteries of the sixth century but also with the graves of the Biskupija horizon, in which they are also frequently represented. Christian symbolism was not prominent in the graves from this period. These burial sites were not connected with churches and churchyards. Very few finds were related to Christianity, such as the rings with crosses from Gr41 in Maklinovo brdo, Gr54 in Ždrijac and both bronze rings from the later (mid-eighth century) burial in Gr1 from Gluvine kuće 1. The three persons holding hands on the pendant found in Gr216 in Ždrijac were probably angels from Byzantine iconography who served as an allegory for the Holy Trinity. The cross scratched on a pot found in a unknown context in Biskupija and another on a ring from a destroyed grave in Zduš near Vrlika can also be included here. They may have alternatively come from the Biskupija horizon.127 The local elite is represented with more complex assemblages and other things, such as organisation of larger funeral feasts. The assemblage from the male Gr20 in Maklinovo brdo, for example, contains two pots (one undecorated, one simply decorated with three parallel lines), a sickle, two larger knives (23.5 and 15.5cm in length), an axe and an awl. The male Gr4 at the same cemetery contained an undecorated pot, a larger knife (over 20cm), a folding knife, iron tinder shaped like a lyre and five small flints. The destroyed grave from the earlier early medieval phase on the Glavčurak mound had a sickle, a wooden bucket, a knife and a pot (also simply decorated with three parallel lines), while the female Gr8 from Stankovci had two knives, a bronze ring, an earring and an undecorated pot. A smaller knife, ring and earring were found beside the left humerus and had clearly been deposited as grave goods of symbolic value.128 Lujo Marun apparently found a millstone in the grave in Biskupija, and another was found together with a pot filled with animal bones, iron tinder, a small knife, and four whetstones in a hole containing the remains of a funeral feast beside the graves in Orlić.129 One particularly interesting find is an undecorated pot from Gr6 in the Razbojine cemetery that might have a potter’s mark on its side.130 The elite status of females is most visible in several assemblages of gold and silver jewellery (earrings, torcs, rings), such the items from Gr41 in St Anselm cemetery.

Deep hinterland The hinterland above the Via Magna and the ‘Cetina limes’ shows no consistent evidence for habitation from the mid-seventh to later eighth century.

130  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620 The reasons for this are multifold. One is certainly the depopulation and the possible emigration of the local population after the Byzantine evacuation of the province. The second reason should be sought in the ideological foundations of archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which developed within the context of the colonial archaeology of the Habsburg empire rather than a nation-building discourse as in the Croatian parts of Dalmatia. The place of early medieval archaeology was discriminated against on account of the ‘more civilised’ and ‘politically correct’ Roman and late medieval periods. For that reason, a number of potential early medieval finds may have been ascribed to these periods.131 Finally, a number of crucially important cemeteries that could bear more evidence for this period, such as those around basilicas in Čipuljići and Mogorjelo were never completely published. Of particular importance is the absence of finds clearly dateable to the context of the seventh-century Sclavene migration. This relates to the finds of Prague-type pottery, cremations, Avar artefacts or any other evidence related to the Pannonian plains before the late eighth century. Signs of a burial with horse were accidentally found in the 1920s on the east side of the Glavica hill in Kiseljak. These might have been the only known remains of the Avar raids in 597, or the period immediately following the Byzantine evacuation in the 620s. Unfortunately, this find was never assessed by archaeologists and therefore may have been from some other period.132 The pair of earrings found out of context in Velika Kladuša have inverted gold pyramid pendants of the Szegvár-class. These were produced until ca. 600 and were used before 650. The recently published inverted pyramid pendant made of bronze from the cemetery that formed around the early Christian basilica in Gorica near Imotski (below and around the modern church of St Stephen the Protomartyr) belongs to the Deszk-class, which is dated slightly after the Szegvár-class. The pair of Jánoshida-class earrings with conical pendants from Čobe have alternatively been dated to the latter part of this century.133 These earrings were undoubtedly made under Byzantine influences, but different authors have attributed them to either Avar or Byzantine workshops.134 To these finds we can add the gold necklace (or marriage belt) from the Turbe vaulted grave (Figure 2.6, see p. 51), which was deposited in the first half of the seventh century. There is only one more stray find dateable to seventh century, and that is gold coin of Heraclius from an unknown context in Đelilovac near Travnik.135 The row-grave cemeteries from the late sixth century produce a mixed image. The Korita cemetery may have been used in decades after 600. The ‘prominent’ base of the ‘shield-like buckle-ring tongue’ from Gr57 has direct parallels in the latest dateable graves from the Greblje cemetery. However, it is difficult to date its use much after 650 with the available evidence.136 Mihaljevići offers a different picture. The belt-buckle from the child’s grave Gr132 is dated to ca. 600, while the Keszthely-Pécs buckle from a destroyed grave confirms that this cemetery was in use towards the mid-later seventh

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  131 century (Figures 5.6 and 5.7). However, this cemetery also had graves with pots indicating burials from the eighth or ninth century. Gr117 contained two small pots with wavy and parallel line decorations. They were placed at the feet of deceased and should be dated to later eighth century.137 Another grave (Gr119) also contains similar but undecorated pot fragments. The dating of this grave is complicated by the presence of a Venetian coin from the thirteenth century. It was found beside the left foot of the deceased. Seeing as other Venetian coins from Mihaljevići were found beside the hands (Gr38, Gr93) or hip (Gr84), it is possible that this particular coin contaminated the grave in a later period, which would mean that Gr119 was in fact much earlier. A Venetian coin similarly entered Gr61 from a broken wooden casket at a later date.138 It seems very likely, given the number of destroyed graves and graves without finds, that this community survived the Byzantine withdrawal and continued to use their cemetery throughout the seventh and eighth centuries.

Figure 5.6 The bronze belt-buckle from Grave 132 in Mihaljevići cemetery (photo: L. Bečar), ©Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo.

132  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620

Figure 5.7 Damaged Keszthely-Pécs buckle from a destroyed grave in Mihaljevići cemetery (photo: L. Bečar), ©Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo.

Graves and cemeteries containing pots are extremely rare, and besides pottery there are usually no other diagnostic finds to assist in their dating.139 The situation changes when the Carolingian-related artefacts and dateable jewellery begin to appear after ca. 775/800. However, given that some cemeteries may have been used for longer time, the appearance of the Carolingian-related artefacts does not always indicate new cemeteries. A few other sites also potentially contain graves earlier than late eighth century. For instance a handmade pot in the secondary burial in barrow 2 at Čitluci on the Glasinac plateau. Its handle is decorated with double zigzags and a line of dots. A knife, spear and whetstone (last two items were not photographed) were also deposited as grave goods. The pot has parallels with examples from the late antique cemetery in Doclea and handled pots from Drvenik and Ždrijac.140 The appearance of spears is not characteristic of the post-Roman horizon in Dalmatia, and so this grave could be contemporary

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  133 with the Biskupija horizon. This is also indicated by a decorated pot from another secondary burial in the same mound.141 Another handmade pot was recorded in a destroyed grave in room D (the entrance to the baptistry) in the Tasovčići basilica. It was found together with a slow-turned pot with a simple zigzag decoration. This decoration is unusual, however, in that it is wavier and was made with clay that was applied before baking. The late antique and early medieval burials in room D, where these pots were found, had been destroyed by modern tillage. The Nerezi basilica does not seem to have been renovated in the early medieval period, and so these burials can more sensibly be ascribed to the period when it still functioned, i.e. the seventh or perhaps the very early eighth century.142 Slow-turned pots without decorations or adorned only with small cuts were found in a grave containing multiple burials (at least 15) below the narthex of the Vrba basilica. Human bones were found mixed with animal bones – probably horse and sheep. The grave was not properly researched and seems to have been destroyed when basilica collapsed. Later burials were made in the ruins but in the stratigraphic layers above the floor level.143 Seeing as there were no early medieval renovations, the collapse must have happened before the end of the eighth century. These burials with pots and animal bones in a clearly Christian context suggest that the local community survived the Byzantine evacuation of the Dalmatian hinterland. Finally, there are the graves from Dubine near Doljani in vicinity of Narona. Recent excavations discovered five graves that had been dug into the remains of Roman architecture with pots as grave goods. Gr1 is particularly interesting as it contained an unusually large handmade pot with an irregular wavy line decoration. The fragments of a similar pot were found in Gr5. The excavator has dated these graves as early as the seventh century, on account of these pots.144 The Livanjsko polje plains provides clear evidence of links with the Byzantine territories, which is unsurprising given its position some 25–30km north from the ‘Cetina limes’, behind Mt Kamešnica. One important piece of evidence is the stray find of a Golubić earring from Mali Kablići.145 The Grborezi row-grave cemetery south of Livno was a long-functioning cemetery with graves dating from the late eighth/early ninth to the fifteenth century. There were no typical Carolingian characteristic of the Biskupija horizon, though the earrings with grape-like pendants from Gr112 (Figure 5.8b) can be securely dated in late eighth or more likely the early ninth century. Gr112 also contained a rich assemblage of artefacts typical of elite graves from the ‘post-Roman’ horizon. These can be dated to an earlier period – particularly the gold earrings of the transitional type between the Golubić and those with grape-shaped pendants (Figure 5.8a), and the simpler earrings, which have parallels in earlier graves, such as Gr11 from Jojine kuće, Gr54 from Maklinovo brdo and Gr41 from St Anselm. There was a silver torc (Figure 5.8c), which has parallels in the Biskupija horizon Gr53 from Maklinovo brdo, and a simple, undecorated pot that was made on a slow-rotating wheel. The grave has different orientation from other graves (S-N), identical to

134  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620

Figure 5.8 Parts of the inventory from Gr112 from Grborezi cemetery: (a) three granulated gold earrings with grape-like pendants; (b) pair of cast silver earrings with grape-like pendants; (c) cast silver torc (photo: L. Bečar), ©Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo.

the graves Gr1 at Gluvine Kuće and Gr54 from Kašić-Maklinovo. Some other graves containing grave goods could also indicate an earlier period, though with less certainty as they could also be contemporary with the Biskupija horizon. These include Gr74a/b and 81a, which contained pots and chicken bones from a funeral feast, or Gr141, which contained two pots and a knife.146 The vaulted tomb 2 from St Ivo cemetery in Livno next to early Christian basilica contained a burial with an undecorated pot from a slow-rotating wheel, two knives, tinder and the metal remains of a wooden container (now lost). Unfortunately, no details are known as to whether this was an original burial, part of multiple burials in a family tomb, or if the grave was emptied and filled with a subsequent burial.147 The grave goods

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  135 are consistent with the post-Roman horizon elsewhere in Dalmatia and can broadly be dated to the seventh or eighth century. Some early Christian basilicas in the deep hinterland show a number of later building phases that potentially postdate the late sixth/early seventh century. In particular, there is the basilica in Mokro near Široki Brijeg, which shows three building phases and no traces of destruction or later medieval graves. The church was seemingly not abandoned suddenly as no reliquaries were left in the sepulchrum like in Cim. At some point in time the building experienced significant damage and was repaired. The north wall of the basilica was rebuilt again in a later period with a different building technique. The basilica also has two different sets of decorations on its capitals, indicating two phases of interior decorating – the second one dateable to the late sixth or early seventh century.148 The basilicas in Bilimišće could be another example of a community that barely survived the Byzantine withdrawal. While much of the vital information about this building is missing, the original excavator Ćiro Truhelka noticed that the community at some point started to only use the narthex of the building. A similar strategy was employed in the Salonitan ‘emergency churches’ in the Kapljuč and Manastirine cemeteries. This church was probably renovated in the early medieval fashion at the beginning of the ninth century. The basilica B in Bakinci also shows narthexlike addition, which is dateable to seventh century.149 As noted earlier, the excavations around the basilicas in Čipuljići and the Mogorjelo castrum were never published. The graves around these basilicas include late antique, early medieval and medieval ones, including graves with pots and Carolingian artefacts. The question of the continuity of these sites in the seventh and eighth centuries unfortunately remains wide open.150 The evidence for settlements is equally scarce, with only a few excavated settlement sites from this period in the north and east of the province. A small agriculture-based open settlement developed after the abandonment of the Roman villa in Mušići. This had wooden sunken-floor houses, which were built among the ruins of the villa. It yielded finds of pottery dateable to the fifth and sixth centuries as well as early medieval (‘Slavic’) pottery dateable to the late seventh and eighth centuries. The ‘Slavic’ pottery was found mixed together with earlier pottery in almost all contexts, and so it is unclear whether its appearance should be attributed to the old community, the appearance of new settlers or both. A similar situation is evident at the comparable and contemporary site of Žabljak. There is a somewhat clearer indication of population mobility at Jazbine in Batković near Bijeljina, on the very border between Dalmatia and Pannonia. A new open settlement of sunken-floor buildings developed there without any connection to earlier habitation. The inhabitants of the settlement were specialised in iron-smelting, and some finds indicate that weaving also occurred at the site.151 These settlements, especially Jazbine and Žabljak, may have belonged to small groups of itinerant agriculturalists migrating southwards from Avar Pannonia in the late Avar period after ca. 680, establishing

136  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620 self-sufficient open agricultural settlements that could conduct small-size smelting production.152 The settlement and cemetery from this period in the Roman mansio in Višići is particularly interesting. Habitation in the post-Roman period was limited to building D, which showed no traces of timber building as in Mušići or Žabljak. A small cemetery develops in the remains of buildings A and B. Most of the graves were discovered in a small courtyard (A I) – GrB1 (a child in an amphora), GrA1–A6 (under tegulae without grave goods) and GrC1–C5 (simple in-ground burials), which Čremošnik considered to be ‘Slavic’ on account of the broken pots indicating a funeral feast around grave C4. As we saw in Chapter 3, the complex was not abandoned in the sixth century, and habitation very likely continued without interruption. These graves should therefore be dated to the seventh and eighth centuries. This is especially evident in the graves under tegulae (A4 and A5) that were placed over the foundations of walls of the building, indicating the continuation of late antique traditions. Graves C6 and C7, which contained the remains of a funeral feast, were placed a little further into the remains of building B, while the latest cluster of graves (C8–C12) in building C developed in the early ninth century, judging by the grave goods discussed in the next chapter.153

Conclusion Byzantine Dalmatia experienced a collapse in the early seventh century, but the intensity of collapse was not uniform throughout the entire province. We can recognise two distinct areas forming in the seventh century: the hinterland and the Byzantine-affiliated outposts on the coast. A semblance of the late antique hierarchies was preserved in the coastal areas, islands and surviving cities. These points remained part of the imperial networks in the seventh and eighth centuries, and so it was still possible for one Damianus from Dalmatia to be an archbishop of Ravenna 692–708, for Maximus to be the bishop of Gradus in Istria 648–668 and for the Dalmatian bishops to (maybe) participate in the Council of Hieria in 754.154 Local elites were able to obtain Byzantine-style belt-buckles, the remains of the imperial administration in Salona or Split communicated with the Exarch in Ravenna, and the memory of the emperor Theodosius III was preserved in Trogir and, as shown in the next chapter, in Split as well. This was a society with much less vigour and affluence than that of the sixth century. Cities either collapsed (Narona) or diminished in size (like Zadar and Salona). However, the finds of the Byzantine belt-buckles on the islands, Zadar and at Ston on the Pelješac peninsula, and the work on the churches of Trogir, Split and Nin, bear witness to habitation and a degree of vitality and connectivity. Underwater structures near Trogir and the port facility in Salona, which lasted throughout the seventh, possibly even the eighth century, also support this idea. The lack of coinage from this period implies that the Empire did not have capital investments in the

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  137 province and did not need to pay the army units stationed there. It seems that the surviving Dalmatian cities were either drained of gold through tax payments or became a self-sustained, tax-free imperial zone in which the Empire neither incurred costs nor intervened in case of need and therefore did not require payment of tax.155 The immediate hinterland of Zadar and Salona might have experienced some population drop in seventh century, but was relatively densely inhabited in the eighth century. Evidence for actual settlement sites is still elusive with Nin and Varvaria being rare exceptions.156 The cemeteries and evidence from the graves dateable to this post-Roman horizon show a significant degree of continuity between the late antique burial sites and the burial customs developing in the late sixth century. They also show that shared values and intense contact were maintained among these communities before the late eighth century. These cemeteries sprung up in strategic positions that were crucial for defence of Zadar and the Kaštelansko polje in which Trogir, Salona and Split are located. Contemporary analogies with neighbouring Istria and modern-day Albania suggest that these areas were organised as a kind of protective buffer-zone that was manned by a permanently settled soldier-peasant population. The development of these zones should be sought in the mid-/late sixth century, in the context of Justinian’s fortification of Dalmatia to which we can trace the first burials in the Greblje and Glavčurak cemeteries. The importance of the fortified line increased towards the late sixth/early seventh century, when the danger of Avar aggression was still a real possibility. These communities, especially in the areas around Kašić, Knin and Sinj were not led by late antique elites who advertised their social position through church-building and privileged burials. The row-grave cemeteries from this period are evidence of a new social architecture developing in the later sixth century, the independence and militarisation of new local elites, and the loss of a hierarchically entrenched late antique society. These communities were seemingly led by ‘big-men’, i.e. community leaders distinguished by personal influence and ability to bind communities together through the organisation of feasts.157 This was not a social novelty so much as a replication of the behaviour of the late antique elites. The conduct of the Salonitan bishops from the 590s – especially Natalis – illustrates the rising importance of leaders who could organise feasts and divide gifts among their followers by circumventing the hierarchies that existed before the collapse. The existing evidence does not support the idea that this was ‘a society under stress’ in which the elites needed to invest in elaborate grave goods and weapon-burials as would be the case around 800. The cemeteries in the hinterland of Zadar and Salona-Split also do not show friction between the surviving Byzantine cities and their hinterland, and it is even less likely that they belonged to a newly settled foreign population that was seeking to legitimise its settlement. The fortification of the Via Magna and the ‘Cetina limes’, and establishment of military kleisoura, seems to have

138  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620 been an fruitless project, as no enemy appeared on the other side. These frontiers-guards instead seem to have evolved over time into a self-organised network of militarised frontier-communities loosely controlled by the Byzantine administration from the surviving coastal cities. It is tempting to think of the economy of these frontiers-guards as being self-sustainable. They were not supplied with food rations, as had been the case at the sixth-century military outposts in the Dalmatian hinterland, and so it seems they produced their own food. However, the appearance of numerous metal artefacts (especially knives) and a lack of evidence for metal-processing makes this a less viable solution, as they were seemingly still dependent on metal imports, which likely came via the sea-routes. As stated earlier, these communities constituted a closed social network, sharing similar social values and ways of representing identity and status in burials. The most significant members of society are marked by assemblages of gold jewellery in female graves, while elite male graves are less visible and do not present an image of ‘violence specialists’, as will be the case at the end of the eighth century. Funeral feasting – evident in the placement of pots as grave goods or ashes in and around graves – implies the social importance of controlling resources, particularly food distribution and production. The evacuation of the province was truly only an apocalypse for the local elites of the hinterland, who depended on the working imperial system to sustain their social dominance through the control of mining activities and the military fortifications protecting these activities. The withdrawal of the imperial structures removed both of these features, as organised mining and military fortifications could not be maintained without complex social structures. The ecclesiastical infrastructure also collapsed, and all the known bishopries of the hinterland ceased to exist. It seems even the memory of them was obliterated, as they were never restored in the early medieval period. Scarce evidence of habitation in the seventh and eighth centuries indicates two things. First, the hinterland was not settled by a migrant population from the North connected with the Pannonian and Lower-Danubian social networks. Secondly, while the hinterland was largely abandoned and underpopulated, it is hard to accept that it was completely deserted. Evidence for habitation should instead be sought in the continuance of late antique burial traditions in and around the still standing basilicas, such as Vrba or Tasovčići. This kind of evidence was overlooked by earlier scholarship, which assumed the Slav conquest and the physical extermination of the late antique population. The evidence shows that these ‘Dark Ages’ communities of the deep hinterland were isolated, impoverished and were fighting for their survival, such as the one at Mihaljevići, which somehow managed to survive the apocalypse. Signs of vitality are only visible in the areas around Livno, which were strongly connected to the neighbouring Byzantine outposts in the Sinjsko polje, and the areas of modern Herzegovina, which were closer to the surviving Byzantine territories of the eastern Adriatic.

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  139 It is now clear that there were no large-scale migrations in Dalmatia in the seventh century and a good part of the eighth. Particularly important in this regard is the lack of any consistent evidence from the hinterland for the permanent settlement of a migrant population. This often overlooked fact makes the attribution of finds from cemeteries in the immediate hinterland of Zadar and Salona to the Sclavenes very problematic. Population mobility should never be completely excluded, and some degree of movement in the northern parts of the province corresponding with economic recovery in the Avar qaganate in the eight century seems likely. These population movements could have brought the first Slavic-speaking groups, settling south of the river Sava in Batkovići, Žabljak, perhaps even Mušići, after ca. 680. However, to prove this as a pattern, one would have to conduct more intense and more sophisticated research on the Dalmatian hinterland during a period that is often invisible in the material record. Late Antiquity in Dalmatia was not terminated by the Sclavenes (and Avars) but rather by peculiar situation in which the imperial infrastructure contracted in a manner not dissimilar to the situation in fifth-century Britain. The elite networks of the sixth century were largely destroyed, and most of the province consisted of localised communities fighting for survival. The disappearance of late antique society was not a sign that Dalmatia had entered the medieval era, as the prerequisite social structures were yet to be established. Nevertheless, the end of antiquity in the seventh century and the subsequent simplification of social networks produced the conditions necessary for the surprisingly quick building of medieval structures on new foundations in the late eighth and early ninth century.

Notes 1 Bulić 1906; Vinski 1967: 5; cf. 1971: 49, etc. 3 Rapanić 1980, 2007, 2016, 2017, etc., cf. Goldstein 1992: 92–95, 1995: 115–120; Dzino 2010a: 155–156; Budak 2012: 169–170, 177, 2018a: 64–66. 7 Sarantis 2015: 358–363, cf. Curta 2011: 84; Decker 2016: 67–68. 10 Marović 2006: 258. 11 Mirnik 1990; Somogyi 2014: 171–182; cf. Curta 2019b: 184, 191. 12 Gjurašin 2000: 86 (description of the find spot); Šeparović 2017: 1008–1009 with Figures 1–5 (dating). The excavation diary is cited in the dissertation of Uroda (2019: 185). 13 Milošević 2011: 116–117, n.175. Katić (2018: 273–274 n.84) recently argued that the coins were found as a hoard in a fissure between the bench and the wall.

140  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37

Unfortunately, the article never addressed the earlier publication of Milošević, which contained more accurate information on the find. Rapanić 2007: 41 with n.224, cf. Milošević 2015: 51–52; Reed 2019. Dyggve 1951: 83; cf. Nikolajević 1975; Duval et al. 2000: 653–656. Gabričević 1975. Duval et al. 2000: 653–656. Radić Rossi 2006: 542–543, 2008a: 499–500, 2008b: 25, 28; Vodička Miholjek 2007. Bulić 1908: 164; Gabričević 1957; Vinski 1967: 46–49, T.44,1–2; Vinski 1982: 24–25; Buljević et al. 1994: 236–237 no.38 (belt-set); Piteša 2009: 17 no.12 (helmet). Vinski 1967: 35–36, T.27,11; 28,3, also in Buljević et  al. 1994: 236 no.34. Schulze-Dörrlamm (2009: 2.45–47) classifies it in her type E15, dated 600–650. Vinski 1967: 28, T.20,8 (Bologna), 25, T.16,5 (Syracusa); Vinski 1967: 30, 32, T.21, 1–2; 24,7; Buljević et  al. 1994: 237 no.39 (U-shaped plate). See Curta (2013c: 157–158, 163–166) for the spread and dating of these buckles in southeastern Europe, mentioning only the Bologna-class buckle from Salona, and Schulze-Dörrlamm (2009: 1.171–79, 247 – Syracusa, her type D12) and (2009: 2.29–33, 354 – Bologna, her type E8). Džino forthcoming. LP, 74.1–2. Curzi 1998; Themelly 1999; Mackie 2003: 212–230; Marin 2007; Yassin 2012: 69–72; Maskarinec 2018: 121–124, etc. Salona IV: 1.248–50 (no.68); Bulić 1927; Dyggve 1950: 49; Cambi 1972. More recently on these oratories Jeličić Radonić 2009. HS 8 (pp. 44–46); Matijević-Sokol 2002: 73–74. Justified reservations towards current interpretations were recently only expressed in Basić 2008: 90 and Rapanić 2016: 118–120. Mackie 2003: 216, 225–227, cf. Marin 2007: 254; Rapanić 2016: 122. Maskarinec (2018: 124) is unaware of the later transfer of the relics, and her assumption that Martin’s mission made their burial sites obsolete is clearly wrong. Chevalier & Matejčić 2012. Thunø 2011, 2015. The treasury was plundered by the Ravennate Exarch Isaac and the imperial fiscal administrator Maurice in late 639 or early 640 –LP, 73.1–5. On the monoenergetic and monothelite doctrines propagated by the emperor Heraclius and the Constantinopolitan patriarch Sergius I in the 630s and the narrative of the events see: Winklemann 2001; Ekonomou 2009: 79–157; Jankowiak 2009; Booth 2014: 186–328, etc. John IV was the first pope to define dyothelitism as a doctrine and condemn monothelitism as a heresy, Jankowiak 2013. The San Venanzio mosaic with the images of Dalmatian and Istrian saints can be seen as promoting a theological and ideological message of dyothelitism – Themelly 1999. Synodicon, no. 137, p. 115; Theoph., 331.6–10. LP, 73.3–4. Data can be collected from: Kraljević 1980 (Đelilovac); Mirnik & Šemrov 1997: 132–134; Marović 2006. There are only a handful of more recent finds, such as the earlier mentioned ones from Šuplja Crkva – Šeparović 2017. ACO2 1: 172 (the letter of patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria to Sergius of Constantinople). The letter mentions John’s predecessor Severinus as pope-elect, which occurred between October 638 and late May 640. Marasović & Marasović 2012: 93–99; Delonga & Bonačić Mandinić 2014; Basić 2017b: 98–104. See also Dvoržak Schrunk 1989: 92–96 and Mardešić 2014: 47–52 (T.1–14), 54–56 (T.19–24) for pottery.

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  141



















142  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620







After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  143











144  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620 106 Radović 2010: 163, 175, T.4,1–3. 107 Three gold earrings from Biskupija were accidentally found on the property of Marko or Aćim Popović in 1903 together with a torc and a glass-bead necklace in a well-built, mortared vaulted grave (Marun 1998: 126, 128; Petrinec 2005a: 173, 2009: 18), which are important characteristics of late antique burial traditions. An isolated grave containing a pot, a sheep’s bell and a spur from the Biskupija horizon was later found somewhere close to this grave (Marun 1998: 161–162; Petrinec 2005a: 173, 2009: 18), see next chapter. 108 Gunjača 1995: 162 Figure 13 (Dubravice); Belošević 2007: 261 Figure 3 (Ždrijac). 109 Gunjača 1960: 276, cf. Petrinec 2019a: 46. 110 Alajbeg 2014: 156–158. 111 The plan of Dubravice cemetery, though unpublished, is cited by Petrinec (2009: 314), who dates Gr15 to the end of the second third of the eighth century. 112 Discussed in Petrinec 2009: 140–144. Petrinec (2019: 79, 92, 100, T.2,3) recently ascribed a gold earring with a grape-like pendant to the assemblage cointaining Golubić earrings from the vaulted grave on the Popović property in Biskupija (see above, n.107). Marun (1998: 126, 128) mentioned ‘three gold earrings’ from this grave without identiyfing their shape. Petrinec in an earlier publication mentioned the now conveniently lost drawing from the MHAS, where the three ‘star-shaped’ (“drei Goldohrringe der ‘sternförmigen’ Gruppe”) earrings from this grave were drawn. She rightly concluded (2009: 138 with 135 Pic. 44, cf. 2005: 173) that these earrings could be among the Golubić-type earrings from unknown sites held in the MHAS. However, Petrinec (2019: 64 Pic.12, 100, T.2,1–2) most recently claimed that two of these Golubić earrings from unidentified sites belonged to the grave assemblage from the Popović property together with later earrings with grape-like pendants without providing an explanation as to why they should be ascribed to this grave. These very same earrings are also confusingly presented in a different photo among the earrings from ‘unidentified sites’, Petrinec 2019: 97 Pic. 28. On what grounds this reassesment was made has not been explained. 113 Petrinec 2009: 312–313, 2019: 63–96. 114 Kolega 2014: 20–21. 115 Dadić 2019/20: 366–370. The author dates Gr13–15 in the eighth to mid-ninth century, which is unjustified as these graves are parallel and with the same orientation with Gr12, removed ca. 1m from each other, while the Gr16 is placed some 5m further away from this cluster. For colour combinations of glass-paste necklaces from this period, see Petrinec 2009: 158. 116 Radović 2010; Kolega & Radović 2015: 36–37. 117 Belošević 2000b: 117–118 (see Figure 8). Gr166 was also suspected to have pot, but this was rejected by the excavator – Belošević 1998: 149. Radović 2010: 172 Pic. 2 wrongly located Gr210–212. 118 Belošević 1973. There is very little information on Aenona’s southern Roman necropolis, see Serventi 2014: 351–352. 119 Belošević 2007. Late antique graves are mentioned in Batović 1973: 292–293, and the remains of Roman architecture in Ždrijac in Batović 1970: 41. Sea-erosion is clearly attestable on the map from mid-nineteenth century, Taras 2019/20: 315 Fig. 16. 120 Belošević 1980: 25. 121 Alajbeg 2014: 155–158, 160, also accepted by Bilogrivić 2019a: 131 n.91. Petrinec (2019: 89–90) is cautious about the analysis of Alajbeg, pointing out that no care was taken with the horizontal stratigraphy in the original excavations of Belošević. While Petrinec is correct regarding the problems in identifying

After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620  145

122 123

124 125

126

127

128 129

130 131

132 133 134 135 136 137

horizontal stratigraphy in Ždrijac, the information and maps of the graves supplied by Belošević are amply sufficient for vertical stratigraphy analysis. Jelovina 1968 (Razbojine); Belošević 1985/86: 136–147 (Donje Biljane). The late antique agglomeration known as Katića bajami was thought to be medieval in the original excavations. This was disproven in the revision excavations, Gunjača 1953: 39–49, cf. Chevalier 1995: 182–183. Gunjača only focussed his revision excavations on the basilica, but the true extent of this sizeable complex is evident in the map of the 1897 excavations published in the dissertation of Jurčević (2016: 43, Map 6). For post-Roman finds in Biskupija, see Petrinec 2009: 17–18, 45–46. Petrinec 2015: 90–93 and 93–101 for an overview of the evidence. Jelovina 1968 (Razbojine); Belošević 1973 (Materize), 1984/85 (Stankovci), 2007 (Ždrijac). I followed Alajbeg’s (2014) dating of the graves in Kašić-Maklinovo, (with exception of Gr54, which I date to the later seventh century) and Ždrijac (Figures 5.4 and 5.5 here). Bilogrivić 2014 connects the deposition of knives from both horizons (postRoman and Biskupija) to hunting. On the one hand, very little evidence for hunting activities has been found. On the other hand, hunting can generally be associated with the construction of warrior images as an exercise for war. For those reasons, I am a little skeptical about this explanation. Belošević 2010: T.31,6 (the ring from Kašić-Maklinovo); Petrinec 2009: T.34,3 (the ring from Ždrijac); Milošević 1997: 112; Petrinec 2009: T.117,1–2 (Gluvine kuće 1); Milošević 2000: 134 (the pendant from Ždrijac). The other possibility left open by Milošević is that this is a representation of the Trinity from Carolingian iconography. Given the earlier dating of this grave, this is less likely; Petrinec 2009: T.113,6 (the pot from Biskupija); Petrinec 2009: T.78,5 (the ring from Vrlika). Belošević 1968: 244 (Glavčurak), 1985: 83–84 (Stankovci), 2010: 34, 39–40 (Maklinovo brdo). Petrinec 2016: 95 cites the entry in Marun’s diaries from 15/2/1898. The location is either the Tatomir houses, Brkljača or the Bračić property. See also Petrinec 2016: 92 for Orlić. I am not sure that the millstone found in Totići comes from the early medieval context, as believed by Petrinec 2009: 19 – see Milošević 1998: 85. Jelovina 1968: 26, T.2,1; cf. Petrinec 2009: 221 T.22,3. Foundations of archaeology: Novaković 2011: 402–405; Dzino 2012a: 180–183. The lack of interest in the early Middle Ages among the first generation of archaeologists was noted by their successors: Čremošnik 1949/50: 384–386; Sergejevski 1959: 163 n.2, see also Demo 1994: 59–62. The dating of late antique and early medieval finds in this area after 1945 may have had deeper, nationalist-based motives for some scholars – Cambi 1994. Basler 1954: 20. Vinski 1959; Kovačević 1966: 57, 65–68, Figure 1,4 (Čobe); Demo 2014: 50–51 (Velika Kladuša); Marić Baković 2020: 166 (Gorica). See Ormándy 1995 for an overview and the dating of these earrings. Bálint 2010: 150–151, 153 (Avar); Bugarski 2012, also accepted by Demo 2014: 51 (Byzantine). Kraljević 1980. Miletić 1978: 149, T.3; 21. See Vinski 1989: 43 n.50 for the dating. Miletić 1956: 21, T.1,3; 11,3; Miletić 1960/61: 250, T.3,1; Vinski 1967: 36–37 (Gr132), 1967: 36, 73 n.382, cf. Miletić 1956: 21, T.1d (Gr117); Bugarski 2012: 239 (the Keszhthely-Pécs buckle).

146  After the apocalypse: Dalmatia after 620 138 Miletić 1956: 14, 16, 18–19 (graves with other Venetian coins); Miletić 1960/61: 249, 256 (Gr119). 139 See Fekeža 1989 for some examples of early medieval pots from graves in the eighth and early ninth centuries. 140 Fiala 1893: 137 Figures 25 and 26 (knife); Fekeža 1989: 217 no.17 (Čitluci). See Milošević 1989: 354–355, T.1,3 and T.3 for parallels, and Belošević 1980: 112–113 for handled pots from Ždrijac. Bekić 2016: 170 provides Avar parallels for handled pots made under Byzantine influences. 141 Fiala 1893: Figure 27. 142 Sergejevski 1959: 165; Anđelić 1959a; Fekeža 1989: 213 no.3–4 (Nerezi). 143 Bojanovski 1980/81: 198–199, with additional information and interpretation in Milošević 1990: 351–354. The pots are reproduced in Miletić 1980/81, cf. Fekeža 1989: 217 no.19–22. 144 Vasilj 2012: 21, 24–25, T.2,1; 3,3. 145 Miletić 1980a: 297–298 Figure 10.2; Petrinec 2009: T.85,9. 146 Bešlagić 1964: 30–31, 79–80, T.19–20; Bešlagić 1964: 24–25, T.15–16; 24 (Gr74a/b and 81a); Petrinec 2009: 20, 133–134, 136–137, 140–141, 147–149, 152–153 T.7 (Gr112). See also Sokol 2016: 28–29, 82 for the English account of the cemetery. 147 Petrinec et  al. 1999: 34, 88–89 (no.235–237); Duvnjak & Marić Baković 2018: 262–263 date it from the eighth/late eighth to the early ninth century. 148 Sergejevski 1959/60. Chevalier 1995: 400–402 dates the building of the church to the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century and assumes that it was used for longer time. The revision excavations in 1997–98 improved the plan of the basilica and confirmed that the building was rebuilt in a simpler shape after the destruction (T. Anđelić 1999; Glavaš 2006: 27–42). 149 Truhelka 1893: 275; Milošević 2004 (Bilimišće); Vujinović 2014b: 28–31(Bakinci). 150 Chevalier 1995: 359–361, 425–431 with bibliography. 151 Čremošnik 1975 (Mušići and Žabljak), 1977 (Jazbine). The ‘Slavic’ pottery from Mušići and Žabljak was originally dated to the early seventh century, but it was more likely produced and deposited after 700, Curta 2001: 234 n.14; 2010b: 320. The decorations on pottery from Jazbine similarly indicate a date after 700. 152 Curta 2019a: 59–60; Szenthe 2019: 228–229, with the appearance of new Late Avar settlements south of the Drava river mapped in Figure 8. 153 Čremošnik 1965: 200–203. 154 Damianus: Agnelli lib. pont., 134; Maximus: Danduli Chron. 6.8 (p. 97); The council of Hieria: Michael the Syrian 11.24 (473), and the literature in Dzino 2010a: 157 n.8 and Basić 2014. Basić (2014) offers the persuasive argument that the ‘Dalmatian bishops’ at this council came from the southern Adriatic. This still does not completely exclude the possibility that bishops from other parts of Dalmatia attended the council. 155 Byzantine Istria paid tax in kind but also with gold solidi (Placitum, fol. 21v, ll.10–34, 22v, ll.4–6, etc). 156 Radović 2010: 162; Kolega & Radović 2015: 36, cf. Belošević 1999 (Nin). The remains of the early medieval drywall dwelling excavated in August 1980 in Varvaria, in which the solidus of Constantine V Copronimus (minted 760–775, see next chapter) was discovered, were never properly published. 157 Dzino 2014c, see also Alajbeg 2014: 158 n.40; Bilogrivić 2018a: 98–99, 2019a: 119, 130–131 n.90.

6

Clash of the empires and the Treaty of Aachen (775–812)

The evidence for post-Roman Dalmatian society between the 620s and the end of the eighth century presents an image of decline with respect to connectivity with the outside world and the simplification of different types of social networks and hierarchies of power. This image is shaped by a lack of written sources and our inability to precisely date most of the archaeological material, and so we are clearly missing many important details. From the available sources presented in the previous chapter, we can say that this decline was not uniform throughout the province – it is much more detectable in the depopulated hinterland and then in the Byzantine enclaves on the coast and islands. If we take 30 years as the average generation,1 then the fifth after the Byzantine evacuation of northern Dalmatian borders was born in the 770s. Memory of the late antique world must have disappeared or had been reified into specific constructs of the past in the Byzantine enclaves. Old aristocracies gave way to new militarised local elites, which now dominated the Byzantine outposts on the eastern Adriatic. These elites did not need to build churches or use imported things to advertise their status as their predecessors of the sixth century – they established new hierarchies of power backed by individual capability to influence communities and distribute food or other resources. The uppermost level of the Dalmatian elite in the Byzantine outposts must have made additional efforts to establish and maintain connections with the Constantinopolitan core of the crippled but still breathing empire like their counterparts in Istria. Things were going to change very quickly after 780. Something happened in Dalmatia at some point in the latter part of the reign of Constantine V Copronymus, i.e. the 760s or 770s, which caused the imperial government to make its first financial intervention in the province since the times of Heraclius by dispatching a quantity of gold solidi that was minted in Sicily. This was, however, only the beginning. Within two and a half decades, between the Carolingian takeover of Istria ca. 788 and the Treaty of Aachen in 812, Dalmatia became a major battlefield for two empires, the Frankish and Byzantine, who fought each other for supremacy in the Adriatic.2 The traces of this conflict, barely mentioned in written sources, are clearly seen in the material record. The generations born in the 770s and the decade after

148  Clash of the empires represented their identity very differently to their fathers and grandfathers in burials. The appearance of male burials accompanied by complex assemblages of grave goods and a new funerary image of ‘violence specialists’ as a new marker of elite status shows that Dalmatian society was a ‘society under stress’ in this period. This sudden change likely reflects a change in attitudes towards the expression of identity among local elites in the Byzantine outposts. It could alternatively be a sign that new groups had settled throughout Dalmatia in this period. As Barbiera states: … a period of special stress and instability meant that the elite made greater investments in grave goods to better clarify social relations or to emphasize new power positions attained by the families of the deceased. Old powerful kin groups might have had less need to clarify their role in society than those starting to emerge or which were competing to emerge. Such new positions might have been gained through the advent of migrating groups or the integration of newly arriving families... more complex assemblages might have been buried according to different funerary systems to better clarify special and political positions and mark the lines of social relations among the living.3 In line with these words, there is also sufficient evidence to argue that this was the time when new Slavic elites appeared in Dalmatia, likely as an outcome of this clash of empires in the Adriatic and the Frankish destruction of the Avar qaganate in Pannonia. Dalmatia was thoroughly transformed after the Treaty of Aachen, as we will see in the next chapter. The present chapter will attempt to answer a difficult question – how this happened.

The road to Aachen Things started to turn sour for the Byzantines in the Adriatic basin after the Langobards took Ravenna in 751 and brought an end to the Exarchate. Imperial territories on the western coast of the Adriatic were now limited to small and vital emporia, such as the communities of Rialto and Comacchio further south. The Langobards would soon be replaced by a new, even more powerful force – the Franks led by the Carolingian clan. The roots of Frankish influence established by Pippin the Short in the 750s blossomed in 774, when his son Charlemagne eradicated the Langobardic kingdom. The rise of a new proto-imperial force in the West and its political penetration into central Europe caused significant changes, not only among communities that were integrated within the Empire, but also among those who suddenly found themselves on the expanding imperial frontiers. The Byzantines however were starting to recover from a significant imperial contraction in the seventh century and an exhausting internal iconoclastic controversy that had divided the empire for a long time. There was a new system of provinces (themata), and the Empire started to reorganise its surviving parts in the

Clash of the empires  149 West, first by founding the theme of Cephalonia in the Ionian Sea, probably in the 760s, and then gradually expanding towards the Adriatic.4 Charlemagne was looking East, and this included the eastern Adriatic Byzantine domains. It seems that the bishop Maurice, sent by the pope Hadrian I with Charlemagne’s blessing, to collect the Peter’s Pence for Roman curia, was thought to have gone too far by the Istrians, so he consequently got blinded sometime between 776 and 780. This was probably one of the earliest papal-Carolingian diplomatic initiatives aimed at weakening the resolve of those defending the western edges of the Byzantine empire. Istria was conquered by the Franks between the blinding of Maurice and 791, when Charlemagne first mentioned the dux of Istria’s participation in the Frankish campaign against the Avars in a letter.5 It is generally accepted that this happened in 788, the same year that Charlemagne annexed 6 Bavaria. ­ Istria does not seem to have resisted for long. Its inhabitants were also seemingly unopposed to the change of government. While it is easy to imagine the Byzantines being none too pleased about losing part of their empire, we have no information – direct or indirect – indicating whether this caused any lasting conflict between two empires at the time. The emissaries from the Byzantine empress Irene came to Charlemagne’s court in 798 offering Charlemagne marriage and the imperial title. Also, it is important to remember the complaints of the Istrian elite in the Placitum of Rižana from 804 that they had been forced to provide military aid to the Franks and “… sail to Venice, Ravenna and Dalmatia”.7 These two pieces of information are good indicators that the two empires were in a conflict that must have been begun with the conquest and annexation of Istria in ca. 788. The Franks were now on the Dalmatian frontiers. At the same time, they were facing another formidable neighbour – the Avar qaganate in central Europe. Charlemagne had already organised a large expedition, in which the Istrian dux and his troops participated, against the Avars in 791. The expedition was unsuccessful but showed the qaganate to be less formidable opponent than expected. Charlemagne faced problems with the Saxons in the early 790s and was unable to capitalise on the campaign. Then, in 795, a small force led by a commander with a Slavic name – Wonomyrus Sclavus – achieved the unimaginable. Capitalising on a civil war within the qaganate and the death of the qagan and iughur, they reached centre of the qaganate (hring) and returned with considerable booty. Wonomyrus’ overlord, duke Eric of Friuli, sent part of the booty to Aachen. Charlemagne then ordered his son Pippin of Italy to organise a more formidable expedition. This expedition reached the hring again in 796. The qaganate was put in disarray, and the Avar tudun surrendered to Charlemagne and accepted baptism. That was the end of the qaganate as a political force, though some Avar groups would continue to offer resistance.8 Wonomyrus was an important commander in the entourage of Eric, and it was recently suggested that he was leading figure among the Slavs who settled in Istria after the Frankish conquest.9

150  Clash of the empires Dalmatia was indirectly mentioned for the first time in 799, when Eric of Friuli was killed by the citizens of Tarsatica. Located in a narrow Liburnian coastal strip below the Velebit mountain, the town of Tarsatica was part of the Dalmatian province in the sixth century. This incident has been interpreted differently in the past, but most scholars today agree that the Byzantines were involved.10 It happened only a year after Irene’s emissaries proposed peace to Charlemagne, and so it can be interpreted in two ways. The first is that the leaders of Tarsatica were hostile towards Irene, and wanted to undermine a possible peace treaty. Eric was leading an army towards Pannonia, where the Avar rebellion was under way in 799. He wanted to surprise the Avars by marching through Mt Velebit via the Vratnik pass, which is just after Tarsatica. Assuming this was allied territory following the deal made between Charlemagne and Irene, he unsuspectedly entered a trap.11 The second interpretation is that negotiations were still under way and Eric had intended to raid Dalmatia to exert more pressure on Irene to finalise the deal. Whatever the case may be, Tarsatica only had four more years of existence left. In 803, after Irene was deposed by Nicephorus I, the strategos of Anatolia Bardanes Tourkos rebelled against the new emperor in that region. The rebellion lasted less than two months, and after failing to gain wider support, Bardanes surrendered to Nicephorus.12 The Venetian chronicler John the Deacon, however, writing his Chronicon Venetum two centuries later, produces surprising information, namely that Bardanes had attacked Tarsatica and burned it to the ground. John was unaware that Bardanes had never left Anatolia, but the event is placed at precisely the same times as Bardanes’ rebellion and is thus believable. Though John’s language is somewhat problematic, making it unclear whether imperial forces attacked Bardanes’ supporters or the other way round, it was more likely the rebels who attacked this important frontier-stronghold.13 This until recently overlooked information is excellent evidence that the Byzantine western provinces were a functional part of the empire, and that Tarsatica was indeed the westernmost imperial outpost in Dalmatia at the time. The loss of Tarsatica, which defended the narrow passageway between the Adriatic and Mt Velebit, opened up Byzantine Dalmatia to the Franks. John the Deacon also writes that in 805 the brothers and doges of Venice Obelerius and Beatus conducted naval raids against Dalmatia.14 While Venice was nominally under Byzantine control, these brothers came to power in early 804 with the support of a pro-Frankish faction in Venice. The politics of these new doges were mainly driven by personal interests and are therefore difficult to comprehend, their naval raids imply that they had negotiated some kind of alliance with Charlemagne.15 While there is no mention of a land invasion that year, it is possible that these naval raids coincided with a Frankish land invasion from Istria, which had been enabled by the destruction of Tarsatica. This was seemingly too much for the commander of the Dalmatian forces – dux Paul of Zadar. Paul, together with the bishop of Zadar Donatus (legati Dalmatarum) and the Venetian

Clash of the empires  151 doges, arrived in Aachen just after Christmas in 805. As reward for their submission, Charlemagne granted Paul and the Venetian leaders their titles back.16 While Donatus is confirmed in other historical and epigraphic sources,17 this is the only mention of dux Paul. His ducal title implies that he was the highest-ranked official in Byzantine Dalmatia, and that Zadar was at this time an administrative centre of what seems to have been a Dalmatian doucate. Another known Dalmatian doux was Euthymius, “the imperial spatharokandidatos and doux of Delmatia”, whose seal is kept in the Dumbarton Oaks collection.18 It thus seems more sensible to see Dalmatia as an imperial doucate, like Venice or Dyrrachium, and to assume that the transformation of Dalmatian kleisourai into a doucate probably occurred some time after the end of the Exarchate in 751, probably as a consequence to the foundation of the thema Cephalonia.19 The discovery of a seal mentioning the doux of Dyrrachium and dated 720–760 may support the idea that the Byzantine territories in the Adriatic were organised as doucates in ca. the mid-eighth century.20 The Empire, however, was not ready to accept the loss of another territory in the Adriatic. In 806, the Byzantine war fleet in the Adriatic appears to have been commanded by the patrician Nicetas. The later chronicle of Andrea Dandolo from the mid-fourteenth century suggests that Nicetas had solved problems in Dalmatia before sailing to Venice to confirm Obelerius’ (now Byzantine) position as dux and spatharius and take his brother Beatus as a hostage. He then made a temporary truce with Pippin and returned to Constantinople in August 807.21 The actions of Nicetas seem to have been swift and efficient, in that they returned Venice and Dalmatia to the Empire. Nevertheless, we do not know if, apart from entering Zadar, he conducted any land operations in the hinterland. The Byzantine fleet led by strategos Paul from Cephalonia appears in the Adriatic again in late 808, first docking in Dalmatia and then wintering in Venice. Pippin, after Paul’s departure unsuccessfully tried to take the Rialto by land and conducted raids on the Dalmatian coast. Paul would appear in the Adriatic more, forcing Pippin to withdraw.22 These are the last military operations recorded in the sources. Both sides obviously reached an impasse and started to work towards finding a lasting solution. The negotiations would drag on for a while on account of Pippin’s passing in 810 and Nicephorus’ defeat and death at the hands of the Bulgars in 811. Nevertheless, the peace was signed by Charlemagne and the Byzantine emissaries in Aachen in 812 and was confirmed the following year by Nicephorus’ successor Michael I Rangabe. While the text of the Treaty is not preserved, it can be deduced from a passage in the Vita Karoli. The Byzantine emperor was entitled to keep the Dalmatian coastal cities, while Charlemagne took control over the hinterland.23 While not stipulated in the sources, the Franks as a consequence of the treaty, almost certainly created the Duchy of Dalmatia and Liburnia out of the newly conquered Dalmatian territories. Whether this happened in 812 or after the Byzantine

152  Clash of the empires and Frankish mediation of territorial problems among “the Slavs, Dalmatians and Romans” in Dalmatia in 817 is unclear. Borna is mentioned as dux Dalmatiae for the first time in the Frankish Annals in 819. The same work describes him as dux Dalmatiae atque Liburniae upon his death in 821.24 While sources concerning what happened in Dalmatia at this time are scarce, the provisions of the Treaty clearly indicate that the Byzantines were badly defeated and lost most of its limites in 812, leaving Zadar, Spalatum and Trogir in a very poor strategic position. The Byzantine reorganisation in Dalmatia came soon after in tandem with the establishment of the Frankish duchy. The ninth-century Byzantine seals from Dalmatia belong to archons and only one strategos, while the Frankish Annals in 821 identify the highest-ranking Byzantine official at Zadar as praefectus provinciae rather than dux.25

New ecclesiastic structures on the Adriatic coast In this clash of empires, Charlemagne had one important advantage. The remaining church dignitaries in the Dalmatian cities were subject to the pope in the seventh and eighth centuries, and the popes were staunch allies of the Franks in the late eighth century. This support entailed other advantages, such as the possibility of attaining more influence and involvement in the local administration. The political sympathies of bishop Donatus of Zadar could be read as being with the Franks, and this political offensive of the papal curia is visible in other acts, such as the raising of the bishop of Zadar to the rank of archbishop, the re-establishment of the dioceses of Salona-Split and Kotor.26 The Byzantines were not sitting on their hands, however, but used all of their resources to retain the sympathies of local communities on their side. The most significant imperial investment was probably the building of the second phase of the St Trinity (now St Donatus) rotunda in Zadar in ca. 800 dated by C14 and dendrochronological analysis of the beams.27 The building of the rotunda is also connected with the imperial initiative to send the relics of St Anastasia, the fourth-century Syrmian martyr and patron saint of Illyricum, to Zadar. This probably occurred during the times of Donatus, who personally brought the relics from Constantinople according to the later source Translatio Sanctae Anastasiae. However, the cult of the six saints connected with Passio Sanctae Anastasiae (SS Anastasia, Agape, Chionia, Irene, Zoilus and Chrysogonus) may have also come from Carolingian northern Italy, probably at the same time as the transfer of relics from Constantinople.28 Some scholars speculate that St Trinity was originally intended to be a martyrium for Anastasia’s relics, while Ančić believes that the rotunda was built for the Byzantine governor of Dalmatia.29 Another example of imperial diplomacy was the invitation of four Dalmatian bishops (Laurentius of Osor, Ursus of Rab, John of Salona-Split and John of Kotor) to the Nicaean council of 787, which had an ecumenical nature. The participation of these bishops was probably motivated by self-interest

Clash of the empires  153 and resulted in the funding of high-quality stone-carved equipment for their churches. The work of the Split Stonecarver Workshop, which decorated Split Cathedral, and the cloth of eastern origin used to preserve the relics of St Domnius within it, both date to this period – i.e. the final decades of the eighth century.30 Intense work on the new equipment of churches is detectable at the same time in Osor, Rab and Kotor, whose bishops also attended the Council in Nicaea.31 The renewal of ecclesiastic infrastructure in Split and Salona is especially intriguing. As discussed in the previous chapter, Salona with its diminished population almost certainly survived seventh century. Thomas reports in the HS that an unnamed pope sent John of Ravenna to re-establish the Salonitan archbishopric in Diocletian’s palace after the sack of Salona. Led by one Severus Magnus, the refugees from the destroyed city first wandered central Dalmatian islands before settling in the palace. They were allocated places within the palace, and Severus donated his quarters to the new archbishop.32 John soon transferred the holy relics from the destroyed ‘bishop’s church’ in Salona to Split and in doing so symbolically moved the ancient seat of the Salonitan church to Split.33 After a long debate as to whether we should date John of Ravenna to the mid-seventh or late eighth century, he was finally identified as the Salonitan bishop John who attended the Nicaean council in 787 and the archbishop John whose epitaph is preserved on a sarcophagus from Split.34 There was thus an undeniable break in the leadership of the Salonitan church, which ended with the arrival of John of Ravenna. Recent arguments have shown that there was no continuity between the Salonitan and Spalatan churches, thus strengthening the idea that the Salonitan ecclesiastic authorities had not moved from Salona to Diocletian’s palace.35 The HS directly connects John of Ravenna with Severus Magnus and the oral tradition relating to the sack of Salona. Severus Magnus is also described in the note of Ioannes Lucius’ great uncle (see p. 114) as the grandfather of an unnamed comes who rebuilt the church in Trogir in the times of the emperor Theodosius III (715–717). A person clearly could not live in the mid/late seventh century and then be a contemporary of John of Ravenna a century later. Lucius Senior, or the author of the unknown chronicle he used, more likely found actual information on an unknown comes who was “the grandson of Severus”, and subsequently identified this Severus with Severus Magnus, whom tradition placed in these times. A recent paper convincingly argued for the existence of a cult of St Severus in late antique Spalatum,36 and so it is possible that this name belonged to a number of prominent individuals living in the mid/late seventh and later eighth century. This allows us to cautiously hypothesise an event that caused the remaining inhabitants of Salona to abandon the city and the end of Salonitan church, no more than 10–25 years before the arrival of John of Ravenna. The settlement of the Salonitan refugees in Diocletian’s palace was approved by the ‘emperors in Constantinople’,37 though this could refer to either the seventh or eighth

154  Clash of the empires century as most Byzantine emperors from that time were co-rulers at some point. This does not answer the question of when the Salonitan (arch)bishopry ceased to exist, as there is nothing to confirm or deny its operation in the late seventh and early eighth centuries. The only pieces of evidence are the local catalogues of Salonitan bishops, which were composed in much later times and can generally be considered unreliable. Among these catalogues are five lists that are more coherent than the others. Four of these effectively list the same 35–38 names from the death of the last historically known bishop Maximus (d. after 602) to John of Ravenna, while the so-called ‘Roman’ catalogue only features four names between Maximus and John.38 The note of Lucius Sr states that Peter was bishop of Trogir in the times of Theodosius III, which is problematic as there was no bishop in Trogir at that time. This problem can potentially be solved, however, using information from HS. Katičić and Budak have both suggested that the archbishop Martinus, dated by Thomas in 970 to the “times of the emperor Theodosius” and Croat king Stephen Držislav (r. 969–996/997), preserves information about two people with the same name. The first was contemporary with Držislav, while the second lived during the eighth century, as Theodosius III was the last emperor with that name. In all the lists of Salonitan bishops besides the ‘Roman’ one, the name Marinus or Martinus comes immediately after Peter on two occasions in the period between Maximus and John of Ravenna. This may be an indication that Peter and Marinus/Martinus were successive bishops between 715 and 717, in which case the only place where they could have resided was Salona.39 The evidence for the existence of ecclesiastic authorities in Salona after ca. 650 is by no means certain, but feasible, and so this matter should be kept separate from the question of whether Salona was still inhabited at the time. Salona, however, was certainly abandoned and lost its church leader before the 780s when John of Ravenna becomes archbishop. If the stories of the sack of Salona in the DAI and HS indeed reflect memories of a historical event, this cannot have occurred before the eighth century. The sack of a mostly abandoned city would leave considerably fewer traces in the archaeological record and would thus be harder to detect. The connection between the sack of Salona and the historically attested John of Ravenna implies that this hypothetical sack occurred at some point in the 760s or 770s. The renovation and re-decoration of some churches in the vicinity of Zadar and Trogir-Salona-Split area can be dated to the final decades of the eighth century and perhaps the first of the ninth. Besides the Split Stonecarver Workshop, there is the noteworthy work of the ‘Langobardic’ Workshop, which produced stone furniture for the church of St Martha in Bijaći. Their work is discernible in Trilj and Gala in the ‘Cetina limes’, on the island of Čiovo next to Trogir, perhaps even in Šuplja Crkva and Gradina, just outside the Salonitan city walls. This workshop should be placed in the second half of the eighth century.40 In the areas gravitating towards Zadar are the

Clash of the empires  155 noticeable works of at least two stonecarving workshops, that of Pluteus of Zadar Cathedral and the Master of Zadar Ambons. The works of the first workshop can be found in Zadar, the church of St Bartholomew in Galovac, Biograd and Ljubač. The works of the second are discernible in St Martin in Pridraga, the island of Rab, St Crissogono church in Zadar, Neviđane on the island of Pašman, and in Zadar Cathedral – the items in these last two probably originating from the St Crissogono in Zadar. The works of both workshops exhibit characteristics of mid-eighth century Langobardic and north Adriatic art, while the Master of Zadar Ambons made human and animal figures, which are absent in ninth-century Dalmatian sculpture.41 The Workshop of Pluteus of Zadar Cathedral was the slightly older of the two workshops. Both belong to the final quarter of the eighth century, the first decade of the ninth being the latest possible date.42

The solidi of Constantine V Copronymus The appearance of 95 known Byzantine gold solidi minted during the rule of Constantine V Copronymus in 27 different locations is important evidence for Dalmatian society in the second half of the eighth century. Most of these were found in the areas defined in Chapter 6 as the Byzantine outposts of the immediate Dalmatian hinterland. All the coins show busts of Constantine V and his son Leo IV the Khazar on the obverse, wearing chlamydes and stemmata. They also have crosses above their heads and legends bearing their names. On the reverse is a bust of Leo III, the father of Constantine V, wearing a loros and a stemma and holding a cross in his right hand (Figure 6.1a and b). All were minted between 760 and 775 in a Sicilian mint and most show traces of edge cutting – probably for the attainment of gold bullion.43 The appearance of these coins, some in graves dateable to the Biskupija burial phase, has attracted the attention of several scholars and generated much discussion as to their origins.44 The more recent analysis of Curta went beyond the scope

Figure 6.1 Gold solidus of Constantine V Copronymus from Grave 141 in St Cross cemetery in Nin: (a) obverse; (b) averse (photo: I. Čondić), ©Archaeological Museum in Zadar.

156  Clash of the empires of earlier explanations, which assumed a commercial origin for the coins. He argued that their original function was essentially non-commercial, and that they had instead been gifts for the local elites. Budak accepted this idea and elaborated on it, adding that the original recipients of the coins were not the same people who later had them in their graves, i.e. they were distributed immediately after their minting. To this should be added the observation of Šeparović, who also points out that the coins were distributed before 780 but adds that their distribution was likely a result of a political crisis that arose between the coastal cities and their immediate hinterland.45 Bearing these three views in mind, the most likely explanation for the appearance of a large quantity of these coins between 760 and 775 is an attempt by the Byzantine authorities to use gifts to ‘buy’ the loyalty of the ‘big-men’ in the Via Magna and ‘Cetina limes’. Several potential contexts emerge if we assume there was a crisis. One is the reorganisation of these territories into the Dalmatian doucate. The other is external crisis as, for example, Charlemagne’s conquest of the Langobard kingdom, which the Byzantines perceived as a potential threat to their interests in Dalmatia.46 If we redate the fall of Salona to the 760 or 770s, as previously suggested, it might then be the most suitable candidate for the context of the coin distribution. Whatever was the cause of the sack of Salona, perhaps a rebellion of the limitanei in the ‘Cetina limes’ or an outside raid, it seriously undermined the foundations upon which the Byzantine kleisourai in Dalmatia had stood for almost a century and a half. And whatever the cause of this real or potential crisis, the injection of gold coins from Sicily must have been judged to be the best strategy for maintaining the allegiance of the ‘big-men’ in the hinterlands of Dalmatian cities.

The Biskupija-Crkvina horizon The period around 800 in Dalmatia is characterised by a noticeable change in material culture, namely the appearance of Carolingian-Frankish artefacts, late Avar belt strap-ends and gold Byzantine solidi bearing images of Constantine V Copronymus and Leo IV as grave goods in elite burials. The burials from this period present a particular image of the deceased male elite as ‘violence specialists’, in that they are buried with elaborate assemblages consisting of swords, spears, large battle-knives, wooden buckets and parts of equestrian equipment, most frequently spurs. Ulrike Giesler even designated a particular style of art from this period the Biskupija-Crkvina horizon after the most significant site for finds.47 Besides Carolingian artefacts, cremations also began to appear in burials. As discussed in Chapter 4 (pp. 92–96), all known dateable cremations in Dalmatia should for the time being be dated no earlier than the very late eighth century, though more information and absolute dating is required to confirm this. The beginning of the early medieval burial phase in Dalmatia is difficult to date. It has consequently been a subject of intense debate with proposed

Clash of the empires  157 dates spanning from the last decades of the eighth century to the period after 800. Recent scholarship has pushed the beginning of this horizon to the late eighth century while its ending is generally dated to ca. 830. The most recent interpretation comes from Goran Bilogrivić, who cautiously argues that the earliest deposits of some artefacts from this horizon should be dated to ca. 775. He bases his opinion on the dating of the earliest foreign artefacts of the Tassilo Chalice Style found in Dalmatia, and two very early Carolingian swords from graves in Morpolača and Orlić.48 Zbigniew Robak however recently analysed a substantial comparative sample of Carolingian imports from the imperial frontiers and offered a slightly different opinion. According to this author, the earliest imports of the Carolingian artefacts, representing his Phase 0 dateable in 750–780/90, is only detectable in Carinthia. These artefacts are absent in the other Carolingian frontier-zones: “… which seems to be a consequence not of their isolation and the Avars’ dominance, but rather of a distinct cultural model: people were simply uninterested in impulses from the West”. The appearance of the Biskupija-Crkvina horizon thus falls in Robak’s Phase 1, which coincides with the Carolingian penetration into central Europe in ca. 790.49 The question of whether Carolingian artefacts start to appear before the Carolingian takeover of Istria and push into central Europe in ca. 790 is important. It regrettably remains open, however, and difficult to solve. The production dates of Biskupija-Crkvina artefacts are of little use when attempting to date their deposition in graves, just as the Byzantine gold solidi cannot be used for precise dating. A significant proportion of discovered material unfortunately comes from accidental finds and amateurish or unpublished early excavations. Artefacts have also on quite a few occasions been ascribed to the wrong site. Given that non-elite graves of the post-Roman and Biskupija horizons in Dalmatia are very similar, it is difficult to distinguish new cemeteries from pre-existing ones in this period, especially when information concerning the finds is insufficient. The radiocarbon dating of a wooden coffin from the most recently found grave with characteristics of the Biskupija-Crkvina horizon, Gr4 at Brekinjova Kosa, which contained the Byzantine solidus of Constantine V and Leo IV, generally supports a date around or little after 800. It provided calibrated dates between 791 and 829.50 However, taking everything into account, it is possible to argue that the overwhelming majority of imported Carolingian artefacts making up Biskupija horizon in Dalmatia was deposited between ca. 780–790 and ca. 820–830. While it is possible that individual artefacts made their way to Dalmatia before that time, these should represent exceptions rather than the rule. The beginning of the early medieval burial phase in Dalmatia is characterised by the appearance of graves with elaborate grave good assemblages dateable approximately to the very late eighth and first third of the ninth century. As we will see in the next chapter, at some point after ca. 820/830, the image of ‘violence specialists’ in the burial record simplifies, with only

158  Clash of the empires spurs remaining a marker of elite status. These early graves are in no way coherent, as the combination of artefacts deposited in the elite graves at the eponymous site of Biskupija is rarely exactly repeated elsewhere. The earliest ‘warrior’ graves appear in two different contexts: in new burial grounds and functioning cemeteries from earlier periods. There are also cemeteries containing graves from this period in which nothing changes, and the local elite does not present themselves as ‘violence specialists’. New burial grounds have been discovered in several locations. Vukovića Most near Koljani is an example of three isolated burials. One of these contained a Petersen K-type sword and spurs.51 Ten burials from Rudići in the hinterland also show no signs of earlier burials. These are mostly burials containing pots decorated with wavy-line combed decorations, including one with a Petersen H-type sword and two spears.52 The excavation report failed to mention an important detail – that the site of Rudići is located within a former Roman agglomeration, the mansio Salviae, which is approximately 1km from the late antique fortification Gradac in the vicinity of the village of Halapić (see p. 39, 41). Another example of a new burial ground is the grave in a wooden coffin with bronze gold-gilded Frankish spurs and a gold belt strapend in Sultanovići near Bugojno. This grave was accidentally discovered in an Iron Age hillfort – later excavations uncovered 12 more graves without finds, three of which contained traces of wooden coffins (Gr5, 11–12).53 More complex strategies of claiming the past in the new burial grounds can be seen in Rešetarica near the Buško Blato reservoir and the key cemetery of Biskupija. The best example of ‘warrior’ graves embedded in an existing cemetery, however, is Ždrijac, which contains five such graves. Maklinovo brdo, Dubravice and Velim have no clearly defined ‘warrior’ graves (except the pair of iron spurs from Gr52 in Maklinovo brdo). They do, however, have recorded cremations as part of an existing cemetery or adjacent to an existing cemetery as in Maklinovo brdo. The most important cemetery in this period is the cemeterial complex on the site Crkvina in and around the basilica of St Mary in Biskupija near Knin. This lasted long into the medieval period. It is now clear that burials began in this place some time before the construction of the basilica and the accompanying grave chapel in its narthex.54 The cemetery formed around three (or four) late antique vaulted chambers, which were incorporated into St Mary, some 110–120m southeast of the late antique agglomeration with a basilica. The only properly researched vaulted burial was excavated in 1983 beneath the southern dividing wall of St Mary narthex. Fragments of pottery, glass and iron from earlier late antique burials were found on the floor of the vaulted grave.55 It is unclear from the evidence available whether Crkvina and the vaulted chambers at this location were used in post-Roman times. The site lies between two sub-localities with post-Roman burials (Popovića dolovi and Bračića podvornice, see p. 128) both some 200m apart from Crkvina. Fragments of pots were occasionally

Clash of the empires  159 discovered in the earlier excavations, but it is unclear whether the earliest graves were destroyed by later burials. The only grave showing characteristics of post-Roman horizon is recently discovered damaged Gr125 situated under the building structures north of St Mary and predates its construction. It was made in a stone chamber covered by stones on top of a grave where the fragment of a pot, an animal bone and a bone T-shaped ‘salt recipient’ were found.56 There are 11 early medieval burials in wooden caskets predating the church, three (or four) in re-used vaulted burials beneath the foundations of the church from the same period and two later graves in sarcophagi, probably contemporary to the building of St Mary. The graves were furnished with swords, luxurious spurs, and Byzantine coins, which had been placed in the mouths of all the deceased except for the individual in the previously mentioned northern sarcophagus grave.57 No pots were found in the graves. An interesting feature was the placement of earrings in the mouth of a male (Gr5) and beside the head of another male (Gr9), which suggests that it had originally been fastened to the ear.58 This cluster of graves seems to be a new burial spot (within existing burial grounds from the post-Roman period) established by a newly settled group that chose a space close to the early Christian basilica and adjacent complex and reclaimed the existing vaulted chambers.59 The building of the basilica and sarcophagus burials in its narthex reflect particular strategies of remembrance and the construction of an elite-family mausoleum, addressed in the next chapter. The re-appropriation of late antique vaulted burials also seems to have occurred in the unpublished Čipuljići cemetery, namely around the late antique basilica, which was renovated at some point in the early medieval period. The lack of quality publications on the early medieval finds, however, prevents definite conclusions from being made.60 We similarly do not know whether the late antique cemetery in Mogorjelo castrum continued to function in the seventh and eighth centuries. There were six pots from an unknown context (probably funerary), some with wavy-line decorations, some undecorated, but all were made on a slow pottery wheel. In the vicinity of these finds was a luxurious Carolingian gilded belt set, a similar gilded belt strap-end and a Petersen K-type sword, all dateable to the late eighth and ninth centuries. At least one, though probably both belt sets, came from the round turret of the castrum near the area where the graves containing pots were found. The sword is well-preserved and probably comes from the grave.61 Due to a lack of information on the context of the finds, it is unclear whether this cemetery had continuity of burials or was reappropriated by a migrant group. A different approach to the establishment of a new cemetery in this period is visible in Rešetarica, which is separated from the ‘Cetina limes’ by Mt Kamešnica. The cemetery was established in the remains of the early Christian basilica, which had been destroyed by fire some time before 800. The most prominent finds came from ‘warrior’ graves 3 (spurs and a knife) and 4 (spurs, a sword, a knife, a folded knife and flint). There were

160  Clash of the empires no pots in these graves. Only Gr8 contained one, and this was filled with 50 snail shells.62 Another set of finds comes from pre-existing cemeteries that were used at this time. This especially relates to Ždrijac (Figure 5.5), where several graves, such as the triple grave 322, belonging to a male, female and child, contained a lavish assemblage that included a sword, spurs, a glass flask and chalice, a necklace of glass beads, a bronze torc, and two pots. Only this grave contained a sword, while the other four ‘warrior’ graves (Gr161, 166–67, 312) had spurs in combination with knives and arrows.63 Maklinovo brdo had one grave (Gr52) with spurs in the inhumation section of the cemetery. More ‘warrior’ burials in the existing cemeteries were the Popović property at Biskupija. There a male burial with spurs, a pot and a sheep’s bell was placed near the undisturbed earlier vaulted tomb of a female containing torc and three Golubić earrings mentioned in previous chapter. The cemetery of Morpolača, between Velim and Varvaria, had unfortunately already been devastated before Marun visited it. Two ‘warrior’ graves were discovered (one with sword), and the description implies that the other surviving graves contained pots, sickles, a torc, an axe, a Roman fibula, wooden buckets. This suggests that the cemetery might have been used during the post-Roman phase. The discovery of three graves from the post-Roman phase in Orlić near Biskupija (see previous chapter) indicates that the accidental finds of two burials with swords in this locality in 1921 and 1927 are yet two more examples of ‘warrior’ graves in the existing cemetery.64 It is also worth noting that the swords and accompanying grave goods from the Morpolača and Orlić ‘warrior’ graves appear to be slightly older than the other Carolingian swords found in Dalmatia.65 This, however, does not tell us much about the date of their deposition. There are, however, also continuing cemeteries from the earlier period that have no ‘warrior’ burials. This particularly refers to the earlier discussed Gr34 from Dubravice and Gr140 in the Holy Cross cemetery from Nin (Figures 3.2 and 6.1),66 which contained the coins of Constantine V, as well as other cemeteries with graves securely dated to at least the ninth century, for example, Velim, the burial clusters in Glavice, the barrow burials in Ljubač, the cemetery in Grborezi, etc. A separate cluster of graves from the building C (graves C8–C12) in Višići contained two torcs made of bronze wire (grave C10). These have parallels in the Komani culture from Albania dateable to the seventh-ninth century. The tetra-beaded gold temple pendants from grave C9 have direct parallels in a find from a grave found in 1910 near the church of St Anselm in Nin. The gold beads on the earring have parallels in the necklace from Trilj, which was found as part of an assemblage containing a coin of Constantine V (see below, p. 162). The cluster of graves from Višići shows links with the post-Roman tradition but can be securely dated to the first half of the ninth century.67 Given that the site was inhabited in the seventh and eighth centuries, these graves more likely show continuing habitation of the site in the ninth century.

Clash of the empires  161

New people, old people and the Cypriot from Vaćani An important question posed by earlier research is whether these graves indicate the arrival of a new population in Dalmatia. Earlier historiography saw it as a reflection of the Frankish conquest, while some more recent scholars, following in the footsteps of Lujo Margetić, see it as reflecting the arrival and settlement of small Slavic-speaking elite warrior groups among the earlier population. The appearance of new burial grounds and customs are taken as important indicators that new groups arrived. Among the most important examples cited are Rešetarica and Biskupija, while the embedding of ‘warrior’ burials in existing cemeteries like Ždrijac does not necessarily only reflect migrants but can also be ascribed to local elites who embraced a change in self-presentation. These migrants came either as part of the Frankish forces or on their own account via Pannonia after the destruction of the Avar qaganate in the 790s. This argument is strengthened by the connections established between the ethnonyms in modern-day Polabie (the valley of the river Elba) and Dalmatia and the general interpretation of historical circumstances in Dalmatia around 800, namely that the settling of Slavs in Istria by the Carolingian authorities coincided with the appearance of new elites in Dalmatia.68 The appearance of Carolingian material culture in and of itself neither confirms nor denies the possibility of migratory movements in this period. The Carolingian military equipment found in Dalmatia, such as Petersen K and H-type swords, could have simply been a gift for the local elites.69 This could also be the case with at least some of the Tassilo Chalice Style products frequently found in Dalmatia. Extremely popular between 780 and 820, these artefacts were artistic expressions of nobility and indicators of status in areas where the Franks had recently established military and political influence. They were not part of the established traditions brought by the immigrants, as such finds are quite rare in the western Slavic areas. The appearance of Tassilo Chalice Style artefacts is connected to the rise of new elites on the Carolingian periphery and under the Carolingian cultural umbrella, which undoubtedly included Dalmatia.70 The new material culture and burial image of the elite first and foremost indicates a change in the ways they represented themselves in a ‘society under stress’, i.e. one characterised by new conflicts and competition among elites. The ‘warrior’ graves do not necessarily indicate that the deceased was a ‘violence specialist’ but more generally reflect the image of ‘idealized masculinity’ with which the male elites were expected to conform.71 These ‘warrior’ graves usually no longer contain pots. There are only a few exceptions, such as Gr167 and 322 from Ždrijac, Gr3A from Stranče and grave B from Morpolača (spurs and pots), while Gr322 from Ždrijac seems to be the only known Dalmatian grave with a sword and pot together in a closed context. Gr322, however, was a triple grave and contained the bodies of male, female and child. The old image of the ‘big-man’ who organised feasts

162  Clash of the empires was no longer important among the upper echelons of the new Dalmatian elite. That is not to say that the habit was entirely lost, as pots were still occasionally placed in graves. A terminus post quem was established for the Gr62 from Ždrijac using a silver coin of Lothar I (840–855) and through radiocarbon analysis of the remains of a female buried with a pot in Gr13 in the Jokina glavica mound in Ljubač. The analysis produced a calibrated date of 770–900, which can be narrowed to 800–890.72 Elite female grave assemblages also change and become less noticeable in the material record than they were in the ‘post-Roman’ phase, namely on account of their lack of gold jewellery. By the end of the eighth century, female burials were no longer used to represent male power in Dalmatia and other parts of central Europe.73 The only exception in Dalmatia is the previously mentioned destroyed grave from St Michael cemetery in Trilj. It contained three pairs of gold earrings with grape-pendants, a gold necklace, gold buttons, a gold ring and a gold coin of Constantine V. This assemblage was composed in accordance with the post-Roman tradition of female elite burial as seen in Golubić or Gr41 from St Anselm in Nin. It should be dated a little later, however, on account of the coin and the earrings.74 It also resembles the assemblage from Gr112 from Grborezi, (Fig. 5.8, pp. 133–34), which can be dated to approximately the same time on account of the earrings with grape-shaped pendants. As already noted by the proponents of a settlement of Slavic warrior groups in ca. 800 these new kinds of ‘warrior’ graves may reflect the settlement of foreigners. Some new burial grounds containing elite graves were established precisely in this period, within the Byzantine outposts in the hinterland (Vukovića Most near Koljani and Biskupija), just beyond them (Rešetarica) or in the deeper hinterland (Čipuljići?, Rudići, Sultanovići). The evidence for migrants in inhumation burials is limited to the elite burials. There is little indication of non-elite arrivals. However, as we will see in the next chapter, evidence of non-elite migrant burials is clearer later in the ninth century. New burial habits are also evident in this period. For example, the male in Gr9 at Crkvina in Biskupija was buried wearing an earring, indicating the influence of Avar and Bulgar habits.75 As noted in Chapter 4, the placing of coins in graves, and more specifically the mouth of the deceased, was a Frankish Christian custom. Most of these coins in Dalmatia can be connected to the status of deceased, as the high-value gold Byzantine solidi of Constantine V constitute the majority of those found in elite graves. The female Gr62 with the coin of Lothar I from Ždrijac also contained a complex assemblage that reflected the high status of the deceased, including pairs of gold and silver earrings with grape-shaped pendants.76 Coins have also been found in male ‘warrior’ graves at Biskupija, for example, as well as the grave of the ‘Cypriot’ from Vaćani (see p. 165), and elite female grave from Trilj. We have also found Constantine’s solidi in male graves without grave goods, such as Gr140 in St Cross cemetery and Gr34 in Dubravice, which otherwise only contained a knife. While the appearance of new burial

Clash of the empires  163 grounds may in some instances indicate the presence of foreigners, these customs (unusual in Dalmatia) do not indicate a particular ethnicity but rather a mixture of influences. Besides these new cemeteries containing ‘warrior’ graves, cremation constitutes a change in Dalmatian burial custom in this period. This is more significant than a change in material culture and almost certainly indicates the arrival of non-Christian migrant group(s) who were distinct from the elites presenting a ‘warrior’ image. Cremations are more frequently found in pre-existing cemeteries. In Maklinovo brdo, the cremation section of the cemetery is separate, but adjacent, to the other graves. In Dubravice, they are mixed with inhumations. Velim has still not been properly published, but it seems the inhumations and cremations were mixed. It is interesting to note that Dalmatian cremations do not contain elite-related artefacts treated on cremation pyres, except for the accidental find of Avar belt strapends in Smrdelji. This does not mean that these groups had no elites, only that their status must have been advertised through archaeologically invisible rites. It is unclear whether the cremation in Smrdelji belongs to an old or new burial ground. There were no proper excavations there until 1959, when five inhumation graves from the ninth-tenth century were discovered in the same place. This cemetery on a hill above the earlier Roman brickworks was undoubtedly large, but the evidence as unfortunately been destroyed by modern agricultural works. The only indication that there were older graves in this burial ground is the gold earring of the Golubić-class from Smrdelji, now in the AMS, which was purchased from Marun’s collection. Marun indeed mentions a gold earring from the ‘vineyard of Vranjković’, where the cremations were previously discovered, but it is impossible to determine beyond doubt whether this is the same earring.77 With regards to cremations, only St Lawrence seems to have been a new burial ground. Dubravice and Velim had cremations within an older cemetery that was still in use, while they were placed in Maklinovo brdo beside the older, still functioning inhumation cemetery. The integration of cremation burials into the existing inhumation cemeteries suggests the cohabitation of the domestic and migrant communities. It is therefore very likely that some Slavic groups migrated into Dalmatia at this time. The question of where they came from remains unsolved and is widely open to interpretation. Given the political plurality and power-struggles between different groups in early medieval Dalmatia (see next chapter), these groups may have come from different destinations. Some could have come from the western Slavic areas between the Elba and Vistula rivers.78 This would explain the remote and distorted memories of the arrival of the “seven or eight tribes of nobles called Lingones from Poland” in Dalmatia in the HS, the origins of the family of prince Michael of Zachlumi (early tenth century) on the banks of the Vistula, and mention of the arrival from northern White Croatia in the origo gentis of the tenth-century Croat elite in the DAI.79 Given the significant number of similarities between the

164  Clash of the empires material cultures of the early medieval elites of Dalmatia and Moravia, one can also entertain the possibility of Slavic-speaking groups coming from the middle Danube. Some of these groups were probably recruited for service in the Frankish army,80 though some population movements could have occurred without Frankish intervention, especially in the Dalmatian hinterland, which as we shall see in the next chapter was not under the control of the Dalmatian duchy. The number of new burial grounds is modest, however, and cremations are scarce. The ‘warrior’ burials embedded in existing cemeteries like Ždrijac or Maklinovo brdo could indicate a foreign elite, but it is also possible that they belonged to an elite of local origin.81 This, of course is only part of the picture as we must account for the destruction of evidence over time and the unequal degree of research-focus on Dalmatia as a whole. Nevertheless, this first wave of migrations does not appear to have been a ‘tidal-wave’ of Slavic-speakers. We should instead see it as having laid the foundations for subsequent population movements, which can be postulated throughout the ninth century, as the next chapter will explain. Seeing as the settlement of migrants was numerically modest in the early ninth century, the portion of the Dalmatian population was still composed of the descendants of the local, late antique inhabitants. Several written sources indicate that a recognisably non-Slavic group called the ‘Dalmatini’ continued to exist within the former Byzantine outposts from the Dark Ages. The descendants of the local population very likely lie beneath this ethnonym. The term probably came from the late antique designation cives patria Dalmatia.82 The ‘Dalmatini’ are first mentioned in the Vita Hludowici, which states that Byzantine envoys came to the court of Louis the Pious in 817 to resolve an issue concerning the boundaries between the “Romans, Slavs, and Dalmatini”. Problems in the implementation of the Treaty of Aachen in 817 are also confirmed by the ARF, which describes this mission as pro Dalmatinorum causa. The purpose of the mission, as described later in the text, was the settling of the borders between the Romans and Slavs. From these two sources it seems that problems arose among the remaining local population, which was unhappy with the way the new border between the Dalmatian duchy and the remaining Byzantine enclaves was drawn.83 The ethnonym ‘Dalmatini’ is mentioned again in the ninth century by the Benedictine Godescalc (Gottschalk), who spent some time in exile at the court of the Croat duke Trpimir (846–848). Godescalc noticed peculiar features in the speech of the ‘Dalmatini’, whom he describes as: “… Dalmatian people, that is, likewise Latin people, but subject to the empire of the Greeks”. While earlier scholarship identified the term ‘Dalmatini’ with the Slavs, the recent works of Rapanić and Basić have clearly shown that it in fact refers to the local, non-Slavic population whose sovereign was the Byzantine emperor.84 John the Deacon also distinguishes two identities – the Sclavi and Dalmaciani – when describing the raids on Carolingian Istria in 876.85 Finally, a much later source, the Arab geographer Muhammad al-Idrisi in his Tabula Rogeriana from the mid-twelfth century, provides important

Clash of the empires  165 evidence, not least because he personally visited Dalmatia. Al-Idrisi describes the population of the Dalmatian coastal settlements as being either ṣaqâlibah (Slavs) or dalmaṭîyûn (Dalmatini). Especially interesting is his remark that the city gâḏ.rah is where ṣaqâlibah and dalmaṭîyûn live together. Gâḏ.rah is described as a capital city and usually identified as Biograd (near Zadar) in scholarship. However, the distance given by al-Idrisi between Zadar and gâḏ.rah (30 miles) can hardly be reconciled with the distance between Zadar and Biograd. It seems more likely that this city was Knin.86 While integration of the ‘Dalmatini’ into the Slavic cultural and linguistic milieu must have been quick, it seems it was not fully achieved until the midtwelfth century.87 The recent discovery of an early medieval cemetery in Vaćani near Skradin, in the locality of Laluše, excavated in 2011 and 2013 offers another angle on an already complex picture of this period. Unfortunately, the cemetery has still not been published, but even from a short report it is clear that the cemetery contained graves containing pots from the post-Roman phase and others with a different orientation. Elite burials were made in two reused Roman sarcophagi. The sarcophagus discovered in 2011 contained the remains of two males (35 and 15 years old) along with two pairs of spurs, a knife, sleigh bells, tinder and flint. The sarcophagus discovered in 2013, Gr10, also contained the remains of two males. The remains of the earlier buried male were moved to the bottom of the sarcophagus, while the later burial contained rich grave goods consisting of a Carolingian sword, belt fittings, two knives, a pair of spurs, a glass flask and a coin of Constantine V Copronymus and Leo IV.88 An anthropological analysis of the skeleton determined that this was a real-life ‘violence specialist’. The individual was over 50 years old, had a meat-based diet and spent a lot of time on horseback – as evidenced by signs of trauma and wear on his bones and joints. The DNA analysis produced a rather unexpected result, namely that the person originated from Cyprus or the Levant – though it seems a strontium analysis was not undertaken, and so he may have been born locally. The analysis of the flask also suggested its eastern origins.89 This rather interesting find indicates that the Dalmatian ‘violence specialists’ were not necessarily all Slavs. A more detailed interpretation of this find will have to wait for proper publication of the excavations and further analyses.

Conclusion As we saw in the chapter, the beginnings of a crucial transformation of Dalmatian communities into medieval society fall within three-four decades around the year 800. Written evidence confirms that Dalmatia captures attention of two empires, one fighting to preserve its control over it and the other to gain it. There are still too many gaps in the evidence to establish what really happened in these crucial decades, but the outcomes of the Franko-Byzantine War are clearly visible in the Treaty of Aachen. The

166  Clash of the empires Byzantines lost most of their hinterland limites and whatever indirect influence they may have had in deep hinterland along with them. Their surviving Adriatic cities transformed from ‘bunker cities’ into ‘open cities’ as their strategic situation worsened with the establishment of new polities in their immediate hinterland. This erased the prospect of strict political divisions between the Byzantine cities and their hinterlands, creating strong exchange networks and an ethnic melting pot in the long term rather than closed and fortified borders.90 The Byzantine ‘frontiers-guards’ in the ‘Cetina limes’ and Via Magna found new political masters, but as we can see from the actions of dux Paul and bishop Donatus of Zadar in 805, practical approaches were prevailing over allegiances to the political interests of faraway Constantinople. The migration of foreign groups into Dalmatia in this period is far more likely than the supposed migrations of the seventh century, but we are still missing important pieces of puzzle. The material evidence for these migrations remains very modest and is based on several elite male burials, a few new burial grounds and a modest number of cremations. Inhumations favour the male elite, but cremations show the presence of female migrants too. The more sophisticated analysis of the human remains from this period to discern population movements is still in its early stages. The preliminary research of the oxygen isotopes in human remains from Ždrijac, Velim, St  Lawrence, Radošinovci and Glavice concluded that the minor differences in δ18O in the early medieval samples stem from the use of different local sources of water, and so they should not be used as evidence for the presence of a migrant population.91 Crucial social change is most visible in the new ways that local male elites presented themselves, namely, with an image of ‘violence specialists’, while elite burial assemblages started to complexify. As stated at the beginning of the chapter, this was a sign of fierce elite competition and a society under stress. The strategy of the Slavic elite arrivals, however, was to project their newly established political supremacy using cultural templates and imagery that surfaced briefly in the Carolingian frontier-zone, where the Empire had established a strong political and military presence with recognisable elite symbols. The use of Carolingian artefacts, artistic styles and weapons, obtained either directly in the service of the Frankish army or indirectly through gift-exchange networks, was the initial stage of aemulatio imperii and the beginning of the deeper integration of Dalmatia into the Carolingian cultural sphere in the ninth century.92 The new elite image also appealed to the local elites in the hinterlands of Dalmatian cities, where the generation that was born in the 770s began to distance itself from the old image of the ‘big-man’ hosting feasts and look for new ways to express their domination of their local communities. The decisive centuries around 800 did not create medieval society in Dalmatia but provided the foundation stone for the construction of local power-structures as well as new ethnic and social identities in next two-three generations. These will become lasting medieval structures in this part of the world.

Clash of the empires  167

Notes









168  Clash of the empires

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40

41 42

43

seals of Nicholas, the spatharios and archon from Kolovare beach (Filipčić 2017), who is probably the same person as N. from Nesbitt & Oikonomides no. 1.14.2–3. Whether the Dalmatian doucate was raised to the rank of archontate (as Ančić 2014b: 77–78, 2017: 33–34) or the archontate became a thema commanded by a strategos (Živković 2007: 73–80) is not so important here – its status changed after 812 in any case. Basić 2018c; Vedriš 2018b: 300–302. Obelić & Sliepčević 1999/00; Vežić 2002, for the details in English see Ančić 2014b: 72–73. Intense activities concerning the transfer of relics in the early medieval Adriatic were discussed in Osborne 1999, esp. 373. However, for the case of Sta Anastasia, see Vedriš 2008; 2012; Ančić 2014b: 77–81; Jakšić 2018: 237–243. For the original function of the rotunda as a martyrium, see Belamarić 2001: 206; Vežić 2002: 102; Jakšić & Hilje 2008: 97. Also, Ančić 2014b: 80, 2017: 32–34. Basić 2018c: 269–270, 277; Komatina 2018, cf. Basić & Jurković 2011 and Belamarić 2014. Basić 2018c: 271–279, see also Jakšić 2014; Jurković 2016a (Osor and Rab); Zornija 2016 (Kotor). HS, 8–11 (pp. 42–55) These quarters were in the southeastern corner of Diocletian’s palace, where the archbishop’s property was located until the sixteenth century, Marasović et al. 2000: 188–193. Thomas’ depiction of the settlement of the Salonitan refugees was also validated by the recent archaeological excavations, Marasović & Marasović 2012: 99–106; Delonga 2014b: 157–161. HS, 12 (pp. 56–57). Budak (2012: 160–164) implies that the whole episode concerning the transfer of the relics was an invention. I would not necessarily agree with Budak – it is more believable that John of Ravenna arranged the translatio of whatever was believed to be the relics of these saints. Basić 2018c, cf. Basić 2011; Basić & Jurković 2011. Budak 2012; Basić 2015a: 432–435. Duplančić 2013: 213–214. HS, 10 (pp. 52–53). Illyr. Sacr. 1: 320, 324, 327, 332, 347; cf. Katičić 2007: 250–254, who sees them as preserving some facts, and Babić 1992: 16, 26–33 who is more suspicious about their historicity. HS, 13 (pp. 60–61); Katičić 2007: 252–254; Budak 2012: 172. The name ‘Langobardic’ was given by Jakšić & Josipović 2015: 146–147, 154, implying north Italian influences rather than ethnicity. The activities of this workshop were recognised and described in Milošević 1999, who also connects this workshop stylistically with stone sculptures from central Bosnian churches (next chapter). Josipović 2017; cf. Josipović 2016 (the Master of Zadar Ambons); Jurković 2016b (the Zadar Cathedral Workshop). Jurković (2016: 48), and this was accepted by Josipović (2017: 77, 2018: 37–48), dated the Master of Zadar Ambons to the short period before the Treaty of Aachen when the Franks were in power in the Dalmatian cities, i.e. the first decade of the ninth century. I am not convinced that the few months between the surrender of Paul and Donatus of Zadar and the arrival of patrician Nicetas in 806, i.e. the only period in which we can certainly identify the absence of Byzantine power in Zadar, is where we should date this workshop. Šeparović (2009: 554 n.1 with Figure 3) cites 73 coins and the locations of their finds in modern-day Dalmatia. The number has grown to 75 today, Šeparović 2019: 24–27, cf. the map on his p. 29 for the locations. To these should be added 12 coins from the AMZg, including two from Lika (Mirnik 2004: 210) and five originating in Dalmatia from the Archaeological Museum in Belgrade (Curta

Clash of the empires  169

44 45

46 47 48

49

50 51 52 53 54 55

56 57

58 59 60 61 62 63

2010c: 270). One coin was found in the village of Zasada near Bileća, one in Suđurađ on the island of Šipan and one in the greater Mostar area (Šeparović 2019: 28). There is also the recent find of a coin from Brekinjova Kosa, close to Sisak, near the northern border of Dalmatia (Madiraca et al. 2017: 178–180 with Figure 14). Petrinec 2009: 224–226 (Croatian scholarship), see also Werner 1978/79 and Šeparović 2019: 30–31. Curta 2010c: 270; Budak 2018b: 179–180. Budak (2018a: 67, 2018b: 181) still allows for the possibility that the money was used to finance the construction of St Trinity in Zadar, or even that it came from Avar treasure. Šeparović (2009: 557, 2019: 31–32) sees this crisis as having arisen between the Byzantine cities and the Croat chieftains in the hinterland. Cf. Šeparović 2009: 557. Giesler 1974. This refers to an early medieval artistic style, Kindt 2007: 553 n.31. See Kindt 2007: 553–555 and Petrinec & Jurčević 2015: 359–360 for an overview of the Biskupija-Crkvina artistic style. Bilogrivić 2019a. This early date for the beginning of the Biskupija-Crkvina horizon was argued by Giesler 1974: 528–532; Wachowski 1983; Schulze-Dörrlamm 1993: 564–565, 568, and Petrinec 2006: 26. I was also inclined to accept this – Dzino 2010a: 148–150. Robak 2018: 329–332, the quote from 331, cf. Robak 2015: 312, n.3. On similar lines is Sokol 2016, who dates its beginning to ca. 795. An even later date of ca.  800–850 for this horizon (difficult to accept today) was argued by Vinski 1970, 1977/78: 159–160; Werner 1978/79; Kleemann 2002: 289–291; Belošević 2007: 276, 282–284. Madiraca et al. 2017: 188–189. Milošević 2000: 118; Petrinec 2009: 23–24; Bilogrivić 2019a: 127–130, cf. Gunjača 1960: 273. Miletić 1975/76 (Rudići). Čremošnik 1951a; Milošević 2000: 122; Petrinec 2009: 193–194 (Sultanovići). The complex history of the excavations and literature is described in Petrinec & Jurčević 2015: 335–353. HiK: 2.222; Milošević 2000: 123–124, cf. Budimir 1992: 29. The idea that the vaulted graves are late antique is strangely rejected by some scholars who instead see them as new, Petrinec 2009: 124–125; Jurčević 2011: 133, followed by Bilogrivić 2019a: 123 n.54. Petrinec & Jurčević 2015: 353; Jurčević 2016: 55–56 with Figure 7 (the only place where position of the grave is indicated); Petrinec 2017/18: 301. The inventory of the graves is given in HiK: 2.209–28 and Petrinec 2009: 75–79. Two vaulted graves contained grave goods (see above), and a third was drawn on the 1890 floorplan and re-discovered in 2000 (Petrinec & Jurčević 2015: 352 with Figure 22). A fourth vaulted tomb is also occasionally mentioned – for example, Petrinec 2006: 21, with T.1. Ljubić 1892: 94–95, 126, cf. Petrinec 2009: 77–78. See Ančić 2016: 226 n.28 rightly criticising the earlier view that the choice of burial ground was influenced by Slavic paganism. AlBiH 2: 178–179, no.12.103. Werner 1961/62; Fekeža 1989: 214–215, 222, no.8–13 (pots); Milošević 2018: 66–68 (belt garnitures). Vrdoljak 1988: 184 with T.17–19 (‘warrior’ graves) and 167–168 with T.26,1 (the pot with snails). Belošević 2007; Petrinec 2009: 28–30. The recent analysis of the glass vessels from the graves in Ždrijac suggests that they were produced in the seventh or eighth century in Byzantine workshops, the flask from Gr322 in the eastern

170  Clash of the empires

64

65 66 67 68

69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76 77 78

79 80 81 82 83 84

Mediterranean and the glass chalices from Gr322 and Gr310 in Venice or another Byzantine-affiliated western Adriatic workshop, Perović 2010. Curta (2010c: 273) suggests that the flask from Gr322 is of an Late Ummayad production from the eighth century, confirming its east Mediterranean origins. Marun 1998: 161–162; Petrinec 2009: 18 (the Aćim Popović property); Petrinec 2009: 24–25; Belošević 2010: 51 with T.23 (Maklinovo brdo Gr52); Marun 1998: 163–164, 192–193; Petrinec 2015: 86–90; Bilogrivić 2019a: 120–121 (Morpolača); Bilogrivić 2019a: 121 (Orlić). Bilogrivić 2011. Belošević 1998: 129 with T.31,1a-b (St Cross Gr140). Čremošnik 1965: 202–203 with T.9,17–18, 10,9–10 (artefacts); Petrinec 2009: 154, 156, 250; 2019: 30–31 (links with the Komani culture, the St Anselm grave with tetra-beaded temple pendants and the Trilj necklace). Margetić 1977; Ančić 2000, 2016, 2018b; Milošević 2000, 2016; Alimov 2011; Rapanić 2017: 95–140 and with some differences Sokol 2016. The development of the idea and basic arguments are discussed in Dzino 2010a: 179–182; Bilogrivić 2018a: 86–90; Dzino et al. 2018b: 5–9, and Vedriš 2018a: 288–292. Curta 2010c: 270–273; Bilogrivić 2018a: 90–99, 2019: 118, 135. As a comparative perspective, such swords were clearly ‘gifts’ for the local elites in Moravia: Košta & Hošek 2008; Ungerman 2011; Robak 2018. Robak 2015, esp. 325. See Robak 2015: 326–334, 2018: 335 and Milošević 2018 for ‘Tassilo Chalice Style’ artefacts in Dalmatia. Härke 1990, 1992; Halsall 2010: 357–381 cf. also Theuws 2009 for weapon graves in periods characterised by substantial social change and stress. However, some of the individuals buried in ‘warrior’ graves were indeed warriors – see p. 165 for the burial in Vaćani. Gusar 2012: 53–54. Similar date within the ninth century is suggested after radiocarbon analysis for Gr16 from Banovac in Nin, Dadić 2019/20: 368 n.29. Milošević 2000: 136 – the contrasting opinion of Petrinec (2019) was discussed in the previous chapter. See the parallels in the Carpathians (Szenthe 2015) and the Avar graves in Austria (Distelberger 2004). Karaman 1921; Piteša 2009: 86–92, cf. also Petrinec 2019: 82–84 for the dating. It seems this was a single burial rather than a cemetery – Milošević 1998: 295. Daim 2003: 490–491, 495 (the earrings in the male Avar graves). Petrinec 2009: T.39,6. Marun 1989: 101 (the small gold earring from the “Vranjković vineyard”); Gunjača 1989 (localities in Smrdelji and the 1959 excavations); Piteša 2009: 83 (the earring), see also Petrinec 2009: 16–17, 51–52. This corresponds with the social structure of the western Slavs at the time. Small elite groups of clansmen were forming as entourages for leaders, cf. Brather 2008: 312–313. They were not composed exclusively of males, as indicated by female cremations in Donje Polje-St Lawrence and Velim, Šlaus 2006: 56–58. HS, 7 (pp. 36–37) – the ‘Lingones’ are reminscent on the Linones mentioned in the ARF, s.a. 808; DAI, 30.61–90; 33.16–19. The Sorabi and Abodrites are mentioned in the Frankish army for the first time in 789, ARF, s.a. 789. Milošević 2000: 125. Dzino 2010a: 67–68. Vita Hludowici 27; ARF, s.a. 817, cf. Krahwinkler 1992: 182–183 and Ančić 2018a: 32, 39 n.58 who attributes this problem to the city of Aenona/Nin. … homines Dalmatini, perinde id est similiter homines Latini Graecorum nihilominus imperio subiecti, Godescalc, De Predestinatione 9.6 (Lambott, p. 208, MS Bern. 584 fol. 71r), transl. Genke & Gumerlock 2010: 124. Rapanić 2013: 60–63; Basić 2018b: 172–175.

Clash of the empires  171





7

Tempora domini Brannimero

As we saw in the previous chapter, the Treaty of Aachen significantly changed the political infrastructure of Dalmatia and facilitated the establishment of new political, economic and social relationships. It took the localised and inward-looking Dalmatian communities two to three generations to develop the lasting social structures of medieval society. There were many different reasons for this: the influences of two imperial super-structures – the Carolingian and the Byzantine – political pluralism, new social networks and economic relationships as well as the appearance and entrenchment of new hereditary elites. The relative abundance of written sources from this century is somewhat deceptive, as they are fragmentary and can hardly be used for anything but a basic outline of the historical narratives. This made interpretations before the 1990s very problematic as the archaeological and epigraphic evidence was usually disregarded in favour of the written sources.1 Fortunately, significant efforts were made in the last two-three decades to integrate the material and written evidence and offer more insightful interpretations of the period. We are still missing a lot of important information, particularly research on the settlements, settlement hierarchies and economic relationships, as local archaeology for the ninth century tends to lean on evidence obtained from church and cemetery excavations.2

Political pluralism The Treaty of Aachen established a modus vivendi between the two empires in the Adriatic and its hinterland. Byzantine power was limited to the surviving Adriatic cities, while the new Carolingian frontier-march, the Duchy of Dalmatia and Liburnia developed in the hinterland of these cities and further inland in what is today western Herzegovina, and southwestern/ western Bosnia. The Duchy did not extend throughout the whole of late antique Dalmatia, and as we will see, other polities (‘Sclaviniae’) were established in modern central Bosnia and around the river Neretva.3 These polities were also composed of a Slav-speaking immigrant elite and the remains of the local population.

Tempora domini Brannimero  173 The Dalmatian duchy It is unclear whether the Dalmatian-Liburnian Duchy was established with the Treaty of Aachen or after the joint Carolingian-Byzantine land-commission clarified the imperial borders in 817 pro Dalmatinorum causa. The Treaty was clearly too vague, allowing for different interpretations when the imperial borders were drawn by local officials. It is also possible that the local non-Slavic elites within the Duchy (the Dalmatini) raised concerns with their new rulers at that time, as the Istrians had done at the Placitum of Rižana in 804. This border-dispute allows us to sketch out the political architecture established in 812. The administration of Dalmatia was initially under the direct supervision of Cadolah (Cadalaus). Whether he was comes and praefectus of the Friulian march in 817 is unclear from the sources. According to the ARF, he held these titles as the Friulan margrave in 818. Cadolah was not ascribed any titles in 817, but it is clear from the ARF that he was already in charge of the demarcation of borders in Dalmatia (Cadolah, ad quem illorum confinium cura pertinebat). The Vita Hludowici confirms this, and calls Cadolah finium praefectus. The ARF states that the emperor Louis the Pious summoned Cadolah after he failed to appear at the imperial court when the Byzantine deputy Nicephorus arrived. He was presumably summoned from Dalmatia. Cadolah was then dispatched from the court back to Dalmatia along with the imperial misus Albgarius and Nicephorus to solve territorial disputes. The Vita Hludowici offers a slightly different account. It implies that Cadolah was not summoned to the court, but rather that Albgarius was sent to Dalmatia, having obtained from the emperor a title equal to Cadolah – finium princeps.4 This information from the Frankish sources implies either that there was no duke of Dalmatia yet in 817, or that his authority was inferior to Cadolah and therefore not worth mentioning. The first known duke of Dalmatia had the Slavic name Borna. And so, unlike Istria, where the Carolingian dux John was appointed, power over the Dalmatian duchy was given to the Slavic elite and its leader. We hear of Borna for the first time in the context of a meeting at the imperial court in Aachen 818. He is subsequently mentioned in the Frankish sources as dux Dalmatiae (819) and dux Dalmatiae et Liburniae (821).5 Both titles reflect Frankish imperial and symbolic claims on the late antique imperial geography rather than an accurate description of the extent of his domains.6 The titles of the Dalmatian leaders vary in the sources (dux, comes, even rex) and are ascribed to different toponyms or ethnonyms (Dalmatia & Liburnia, Croats, Slavs, Clavitni), and so we should not always take them at face value but rather understand in particular contexts. Whether Borna was primarily the leader of a group called the Guduscani remains disputed. The passage from the ARF mentioning the meeting at the imperial court in 818 can be read in two different ways: that Borna was dux of the Guduscani or that he was dux Dalmatiae, attending the meeting at the imperial court together with the deputies of the Guduscani and

174  Tempora domini Brannimero the Timociani who had recently defected from the Bulgars to the Franks. The Vita Hludowici reproduces the same information but only mentions the deputies of the Guduscani and Timociani without naming Borna. We hear of the Guduscani once more in 820 when they abandon Borna at the battle of the Kupa river against the rebels led by the Pannonian dux Ljudevit (Liudewitus).7 Whatever Borna’s connection to the Guduscani, the legitimacy of the first Dalmatian dukes was clearly twofold. This is the most visible after Borna’s death in 821, when his nepos Ladislav or Vladislav (Ladasclaus) was elected by the ‘people’, and the election was approved by the emperor Louis the Pious.8 The duke was both a Carolingian official, owing his appointment to the emperor, and a ‘gentile’ ruler, owing his power to the support of his social group – the ‘people’.9 The first dukes of Dalmatia were not members of a hereditary elite and did not have established state institutions at their disposal. They relied on their personal retinue – a small armed escort (likely mounted cavalry) composed of ‘violence specialists’, who owed their personal allegiance to the duke and came from the inner circle of his social group. This retinue, mentioned in the Frankish sources as the praetoriani, saved Borna after the withdrawal of the Guduscani and his defeat against Ljudevit at the battle of the Kupa river in 820.10 Nevertheless, as we will see below, this soon changed as the Dalmatian dukes wasted no time in building new state institutions primarily using Carolingian templates. And so, it is acceptable to see the Dalmatian duchy in its beginnings as a polity bound by ducal imperium rather than a territorially defined entity (with the exception of its defined borders with the Byzantines). This imperium, however, at least from the middle of the ninth century, transcended into a territorial concept, as shown in the following pages.11 The power of Dalmatian dukes was exercised throughout the ninth century by members of at least two different groups. It is clear from the funerary evidence discussed in the previous chapter that two different burial habits appeared in early ninth-century Dalmatia. The first was cremation, indicating the presence of non-Christian migrants. The second were rich ‘warrior’ burials, usually in the Christian contexts. This burial custom could have been practised by different migrant groups, as well as the existing local Christian population, whose elite adopted ‘warrior’ burials. It is hard to say with certainty whether these groups were ethnic, social/familial (clans) or somewhere in-between these categories, as membership was likely very fluid, especially in the early years. Evidence of a bitter power-struggle was recently connected to frequent changes in church furniture, especially inscribed altar screens in Dalmatian churches. Some churches have three sets of stone furniture replacing one another, and Koljani in the Cetina valley has four, all the work of different stonemason workshops  dateable to the ninth century. The decoration of churches with stone furniture was the privilege of the elite and rulers, who used it to state their identity and social standing as patrons. And so, their destruction, replacement and/or

Tempora domini Brannimero  175 remodelling when power-holding group was changed was akin to damnatio memoriae.12 The first significant change in the leadership of the Dalmatian duchy is detectable after the death or removal of Borna’s nepos Ladislav/ Vladislav. This happened after the Franks were defeated by the Bulgars in Pannonia in 827. The Friulan margrave Baldric (the successor of Cadolah) was removed from his post in 828, and the imperial administration that same year divided his territory between four comites, one of whom may have been the Dalmatian-Liburnian dux, either Ladislav/Vladislav or his successor Mislav (Moisclaus).13 The defeat of the Franks and the reorganisation of the Friulan march further empowered the Dalmatian duces to the extent that they now had more freedom of action with less direct influence from the imperial authorities. This does not mean that the Dalmatian duces did not recognise the Carolingian King of Italy as their overlord throughout the ninth century. These appear to have been the circumstances under which Borna and (V)Ladislav’s group, which had been strongly allied with the Franks, was replaced by the group to which Mislav belonged.14 Mislav, his successor Trpimir (Trepimirus) and all the other Dalmatian duces of the ninth century came from the group called Croats, though Branimir (Branimirus) may have been an exception. Trpimir in the Chapter he issued in the early 840s or 852 in Bijaći above Trogir claims to be the dux of the Croats, while the domain he rules over is called regnum Chroatorum. Although the current version of the manuscript contains slight changes from a later period, one can reasonably assume that Trpimir did in fact claim the title dux of the Croats. The references to ‘his predecessor’ Mislav in the Charter also indicate that they both came from the same group called Croats, to which we will return a little later in the chapter.15 The politics of the Dalmatian duchy after Trpimir are complicated. Domagoj (Domagoi) first secured power, then his sons, then Trpimir’s son(?) Zdeslav (Sedesclaus), then Branimir and finally Muncimir (Muncimirus, another son of Trpimir) and his successors. The sources indicate competition for control of the Adriatic routes between the Dalmatian dukes, Venice, the Byzantines, the Sicilian Arabs and another slavophone group known as the Narentani. We unfortunately only have glimpses into the major political events, for example, the peace treaty of duke Mislav with the Venetians in 839, the conflicts of Trpimir with the Byzantines, Domagoj’s conflict and peace treaty with the Venetians in 865 or 866, and the Croats’ participation on the side of the Franks in the siege and capture of the Arab-held port of Bari in 871.16 The letter exchange of the papal chancellery and the dukes Domagoj, Zdeslav and Branimir also reveals some information about the period and the rising political importance of the Dalmatian dukes.17 The territorial arrangement of the Dalmatian Duchy from the ninth century is unknown, but the description of the Croat kingdom in the DAI very likely reflects this earlier period. The kingdom is spatially defined entity divided into eleven smaller territorial units called županijas. They were ruled by local magnates – župans – who are attested in epigraphic evidence from

176  Tempora domini Brannimero the ninth century as well as the Charter of Trpimir, which records the names of five župans as witnesses and signatories.18 The Charter of Muncimir from 892 indicates the growth of the bureaucracy at the ducal court with some court dignitaries also bearing the title of župan, though they likely did not rule over a županija, for example, zuppanus palatii, zuppanus camerarius, zuppanus maccerrarii, etc. These titles and their organisation reflect a merging of the title župan19 with models taken from the Carolingian imperial court, where we encounter titles like camerarius or comes palatii. At the same time, the Charter of Muncimir records the names of two župans who are undoubtedly regional magnates – Želimir/Želirik (Zelirric) of Livno (Cleuna) and Sibidrag of Klis and some without any designation, such as one Peter.20 The territorial organisation of the Dalmatian duchy follows that of Late Antiquity organisation in the areas of the former Byzantine limites. There are five županijas in the area of Via Magna, centred on Nin (Νίνα), Nadin (Νόνα), Varvaria (Βρεβέρη), Biograd (Σίδραγα) and Knin (Τνήνα), while one županija was formed out of the ‘Cetina limes’ (Τζένζηνα). The remaining inland županijas in modern Lika, western Bosnia and western Herzegovina were probably independent or semi-independent polities that were incorporated into the Dalmatian duchy in the first half of the ninth century. The three županijas in modern Lika are a good example. These were ruled by an official called a ban in the tenth century and likely reflect the area where the Guduscani lived, as one of the županijas is called Γουτζησκά.21 Finally, the ‘Maritime’ županija (Παραθαλασσία) is also particularly interesting. It follows the outline of Kaštela Bay between Trogir and Split as well as the areas above Mt Kozjak and Mosor. Its centre in Klis overlooks Salona and Spalatum. Mladen Ančić implied that this was an area of primary economic importance that was organised as a curtis (agricultural property, manor) of the Dalmatian duke.22 Another such place could be the locality of Gornja Blizna, where the church of St Mary was built in later ninth century by župan …ANVS (Prodanus?, Branus? Stephanus?). It seems that the church was made within late antique settlement agglomeration, likely as part of agricultural property similar to Klis, managed in duke’s name by župan appointed directly by him.23 Taken together with the arguments of Zeman mentioned in previous chapters that this area, together with Hyllean peninsula was part of east Roman/Byzantine imperial fiscus in Dalmatia, one can reasonably speculate that the entire area between Šibenik and Trogir, including the Bay of Kaštela, was not ruled by a local magnate as a hereditary possession after the Treaty of Aachen.24 It rather became the exclusive territory of the state, with its profits in the hands of the Dalmatian dukes. Other political entities in Dalmatia The remaining Byzantine territories in Dalmatia were also reorganised after the Treaty of Aachen. While scholars disagree as to whether the existing archontate became a thema or the doucate became an archontate, as

Tempora domini Brannimero  177 mentioned in previous chapter, the loss of territories to the Franks in 812 clearly necessitated a different approach towards the eastern Adriatic. Sigillographic evidence reveals the existence of several Byzantine administrators in ninth-century Dalmatia: two archons (the spatharii Nicholas and George) and two strategoi (the protospatharios Eustachius and the protomandator Bryennius).25 The DAI implies that the Byzantines experienced a new crisis in the reign of Michael II the Amorian (820–829) and lost dominion over the Dalmatian cities, which became de facto independent. While modern authors agree that the rise of the Narentani as a maritime power seriously crippled Byzantine control of the Adriatic communication routes it remains unclear whether these cities still belonged to the Empire after the 820s.26 The only other evidence is provided by Godescalc and dates to 846–848. The monk states that Trpimir was waging war against “people of the Greeks and their governor”.27 Whatever the status of Byzantine Dalmatia after the 820s, the Byzantines adopted a more aggressive approach towards the Adriatic under Basil I the Macedonian (867–886). The imperial fleet led by the Patrician Nicetas Ooryphas, the droungarios of the fleet, relieved the Arab siege of Ragusium in 866/67. The imperial fleet also participated in the Byzantine-Frankish siege and capture of Arab-held Bari in 871. Ragusan ships seem to have been used (under Byzantine sovereignty) to transport troops from the Byzantine Dalmatian cities and other eastern Adriatic Slavs (Croats, Serbs, Zachlumi, etc.) to the siege.28 Problems arose between the Byzantines and Franks after the capture of the city, when Nicetas seized the opportunity to attack the castra of the Slavs who had fought on the Frankish side with the imperial fleet. He used duke Domagoj’s recent kidnapping of papal legates as a pretext (discussed later in the chapter). This prompted an angry letter from Louis II of Italy to Basil I, accusing Nicetas of sending the locoservator Hadrian to attack “his Slavs”, who fought for Bari, and “his Sclavinia”. The target of the Byzantine fleet had very likely been the castra of the Dalmatian duke Domagoj.29 The successful expedition of Nicetas allowed the Byzantines to pursue more ambitious objectives in the region, most notably the installation of Trpimir’s kinsman (son?) Zdeslav, who had probably asked for Byzantine protection when Domagoj took the throne, as duke of Dalmatia. The quick removal of Zdeslav by Branimir affected these plans, and Byzantine Dalmatia likely did not exist as a real province in the tenth century. Imperial rule was probably only maintained on a symbolic level by the now self-governed Dalmatian cities.30 The territory of Dalmatia contained other polities besides the Dalmatian duchy and Byzantine domains. The most prominent one in the sources for the ninth century is that of the Narentani (Arentani), which formed around lower stream of the Neretva river. They appear frequently in the Venetian sources as ‘maritime entrepreneurs’, or in other words pirates, disrupting Venetian maritime trade. The legate de insula Narrentis came to Venice to be baptised in 830. Some Venetians were captured by Narrentanis Sclavis in 836. In 839, the Venetians concluded a peace with iudex Drosaicus (Družac

178  Tempora domini Brannimero or Družak?) and the Dalmatian duke Mislav. This treaty with the Narentani did not hold for long, however, as the Venetians attacked their leader Diuditus (Liuditus – Ljudevit?) in 840, losing a hundred men in the process.31 The Venetian doge Ursus I Particiacus attacked the Narentani in 876, and a war with the Narentani cost doge Peter I Candianus his life somewhere near Makarska in 887.32 The Byzantine sources offer a little more information. Book 30 of the DAI states that Pagania stretched from the river Orontius (Neretva) to the Cetina. The polity had three županijas, two maritime ones named Rhastotza and Mokros, and an inland one named Dalen. Later in book 36, the inhabitants are called (probably by outsiders) ‘Pagani’ as they were baptised late, while the Byzantines themselves call them Arentani. They have four important castra: Mokron, Beroullia, Ostrok and Slavinetza, and are said to control central Adriatic islands such as Korčula, Mljet and Brač.33 The finds of Carolingian artefacts from the Mogorjelo castrum (mentioned in the previous chapter) can certainly be connected with the establishment of the Narentan polity in the early ninth century. The cemetery must have been in use after the mid-ninth century, as indicated by finds of spurs and female jewellery – especially temple rings and earrings – dateable to this period. It is important to mention here the recent paper of Ančić, who convincingly argues that a single polity lies beneath the ethnonyms Narentani/Arentani and Zachlumi in the outside sources – that of medieval Chelm (Hum), i.e. the future duchy of Herzegovina.34 The Byzantines knew of a few more ‘Sclaviniae’ in the southern Adriatic, particularly the Canaliti and Trabunitae. The Zachlumi have traditionally been located east of the river Neretva, but as stated earlier, this was possibly just another name for the polity of the Narentani.35 The references to the ‘dukes of the Sorabi’ in ninth-century Dalmatia are particularly interesting For the year 822, the ARF states that the rogue duke of Lower Pannonia Ljudevit abandoned his stronghold when the Frankish army came from Italy and took refuge among the Sorabi, who held a large part of Dalmatia at the time. Ljudevit managed to kill one of their dukes who gave him shelter and took possession of the Sorabi duke’s civitas. The following year Ljudevit left for the Dalmatian duchy, where he was received and treacherously killed by Borna’s uncle Liudemisl. The Annales Fuldenses abridge the story under the year 823, mentioning Ljudevit’s flight to the Sorabi, his death at the hands of Liudemisl but not his killing of the duke of the Sorabi.36 The episode has received very little attention in the scholarship but should be taken seriously as it offers a rare glimpse into the political situation in the Dalmatian hinterland in the early ninth century.37 The ethnonym ‘Sorabi’ refers to one of the three most significant groups of Polabian Slavs on the Carolingian frontiers at this time, the other two being the Abodrites/Obodrites and Veleti/Wilzi. All three groups feature prominently as enemies and vassals in the Frankish Annals under the same names. The archaeology and historical sources suggest that the region underwent a social complexification and multi-agent political reorganisation around 800. ‘Sorabi’, like the names of

Tempora domini Brannimero  179 other groups of Polabian Slavs, was an umbrella-term that encompassed a number of smaller, heterogeneous communities and polities.38 Some Slavic groups took advantage of the demise of the Avar qaganate in the mid-790s by raiding and taking possession of unclaimed and undefended territory. This is evident in a brief notice in the ARF for the year 805, mentioning Slavic attacks on the Avars (infestationes Sclavorum). These population movements should not be interpreted as the fragmentation of larger ‘tribal associations’. They more likely reflect the opportunism of small elite warrior groups, leaders and their entourages, who continually laid claim to these prestigious name traditions.39 Major confusion is caused by another source – the DAI – which recognises a distinct group of ‘baptised’ Serbs (Σέρβλοι) who lived in the eastern parts of Dalmatia and the parts of Moesia bordering the Bulgars. The DAI also calls the Zachlumi, Trabunitae, Canaliti and the inhabitants of the small polity (χορίον) Bosona – Serbs (Σέρβλον), which was sometimes taken to mean that these were all sub-groups of the Serbs in earlier scholarship.40 This relationship between these names can be explained in another way: the elite of these groups, including the ‘baptised’ Serbs, originated from or claimed the origins of the Polabian Sorabi. One of the more significant groups who settled in this strategically important area for the Byzantines, either continued to claim the name of a wider group (Sorabi/Serbs), or was initially recognised as such in the official ‘ethnic nomenclature’ of the imperial administration. The other groups were perceived by the Byzantines in the same way as the ARF – as offshoots of the Sorabi. The archaeological evidence for this period is missing in the area inhabited by the ninth century ‘baptised’ Serbs, i.e. on and near the eastern borders of Dalmatia (modern-day Sandžak in southwestern Serbia, eastern Bosnia, northern Montenegro), particularly the ‘warrior’ graves and Carolingian artefacts comparable with those from the Dalmatian duchy. This can be ascribed to the poor state of research, though some evidence of new burial rites was recently uncovered in medieval barrows in the area of Sjenica in Sandžak. The vast majority of these barrows did not contain human remains. They did however contain the remains of pyres found beneath a layer of stones together with fragments of early medieval slow-wheel pottery dateable from the ninth century onwards, and charred animal bones. The artefacts were mostly found in Kobiljka and included small iron knives (barrows I, VI, XIII), arrowheads (VII, XIII), bronze earrings (I and IV), pieces of millstone (I, V, IX), pieces of wheat-stone (I, XIII), glass beads (I) and pottery whorls. The barrows were mostly dated to the tenth-eleventh century on account of the pottery typology and earrings, while barrows II and III were dated to the ninth-tenth century. The absence of human remains and the remains of pyres, animal bones and pottery are reminiscent of the finds from the damaged barrow in Sultići in northern Herzegovina. The only evidence of human remains came from the barrow in Sugubina, which also contained the remains of a pyre and pottery fragments. Barrow

180  Tempora domini Brannimero I contained an inhumation burial with pottery fragments, and Barrow III contained the inhumation of a sub-adult(?) with the remains of a pyre containing pottery, small knives, fragments of a whetstone and millstone, and animal bones, including a horse jaw. Barrows II and IV contained similar remains, including arrowheads, but no bodies.41 Premović-Aleksić believes that the mounds from Kobiljka are not of funerary nature. The presence of inhumations and mounds with pyres in Sugubina indicate precisely the opposite.42 The finds from Sjenica are reminiscent of the contemporary cremation burials of the western Slavs west of the river Bug, who placed the funerary remains and remains of the pyre in the mound, on it, or were scattered elsewhere, which might explain the absence of human remains.43 As already indicated in Chapter 4, the recent analysis of imagery from the central Bosnian late antique basilicas presents an interpretative problem. Milošević has convincingly argued that the preserved sculpture of these churches (Bilimišće, Mali Mošunj, Dabravine) exhibit characteristics of early medieval art and were particularly influenced by the Langobardic art of the eighth century. Animal and human imagery feature prominently, which is not the case in other Dalmatian churches, except the late eighth-century sculpture from St Martin in Pridraga.44 ­Unfortunately, all of these buildings were excavated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and so vital information is missing. As we saw earlier (p. 101, 135), it can be established that Bilimišće was used in the seventh and eighth centuries, renovated in the ninth and was destroyed in the twelfth or thirteenth century. Breza II was originally excavated in 1930–1931, and the revision excavations of Sergejevski from 1959 were never published.45 This two-storied and one-aisled building had a three-sided porch with vaults and columns, a semi-circular southern apse and side-towers or turrets. Though usually considered an early Christian basilica, Breza II is oriented north-south with a vestibule in the north and an apse facing south. It contained no traces of baptistry, altar or any other element of ecclesiastic architecture. Even more important is the fact that there are no graves in or around the building, except for a body contemporary with the destruction of the building. Breza II was also likely part of larger residential complex, as Sergejevski discovered the remains of a building on its west side.46 Basler thought it was a secular building, more specifically the Ostrogothic magnate’s hall (or hof ), which was a hunting house within larger elite residential complex – curtis. He dated the building to the sixth century, using the initial dating of the shield-boss from the destruction-level as early Byzantine.47 Milošević, however, after re-dating the shield-boss to the late eighth/early ninth century and establishing similarities between the sculptures from Breza II and early medieval examples from other central Bosnian localities, moved its date to the eighth/ninth century, thus strengthening Basler’s assessment of the building as secular.48 Looijenga dated the fuÞark inscribed on a column from Breza to the sixth century and assumed its Langobardic origins.49 He based his assessment on the assumption that Breza II is a

Tempora domini Brannimero  181 sixth-century basilica, however, and so the recent re-dating of the building would certainly affect the analysis. We cannot say much about these buildings with the present evidence other than that they were renovated around 800 in a manner reminiscent of the Western, and more specifically Langobardic art of the period. Whether this should be ascribed to another group of the Slavs, a local magnate or some other group is hard to say. The dukes of the Slavic Sorabi, mentioned in the Frankish Annals are also potential candidates, and these sites could represent the core of a small polity called Bosona in the DAI, i.e. the future banate of Bosnia.50 The finds of Carolingian prestige artefacts in the deep hinterland of Dalmatia indicate that its elites, whether domestic or immigrant, were included in the social networks that formed on the Carolingian frontiers in the late eighth century.

Hereditary elites Baptism and Christianisation One of the most significant social processes that occurred in Dalmatia in this period was the return of Christianity as an ideological force, which was defining social norms and binding them together. Early national-romantic scholarly interpretations saw this as a single event – the baptism of an entire people – and it took a while for a modern consensus to be reached that this was in fact a complex, gradual and multifaceted process of (re-) Christianisation.51 The terms ‘baptism’ and ‘conversion’ are problematic in this context as they emphasise the acceptance of Christianity by pagans – i.e. non-Christians. Pagans probably did arrive in the late eighth/early ninth century, as indicated by the cremation burials in Dalmatia, but as we saw in the last chapter their numbers do not appear to have been significant. Excluding cremations, however, it is very difficult to detect paganism on a symbolic or performative level in the material record. Some images, such as the ones on the T-shaped antler recipients from Đevrske and Ždrijac (Gr161 and 180) and the cross-shaped applique with four faces (Gr324 in Ždrijac), should be seen as Christian but incorporating aesthetics from the pagan northern Europe. The same could be said of a relief of horseman killing the beast (a bear?) that was used as spolia in the wall of the church of the Assumption of Blessed Virgin Mary in Žrnovnica near Split.52 The pagan toponyms in Dalmatia, especially those linked with Slavic divinity Perun, may also be traces of early ninth-century paganism, but the lack of proper research methodology leaves this an open question.53 Some of the Slavic immigrants who arrived in Dalmatia were recent converts. This is clearly seen in the Christian elite ‘warrior’ graves from Biskupija. The surviving local population, especially outside the coastal cities, lacked proper Christian infrastructure in the seventh and eighth centuries and then may have incorporated popular beliefs and superstitions

182  Tempora domini Brannimero into their faith, but there is no need to doubt their Christianity, however. As shown in the previous chapter, the intense rebuilding of the ecclesiastic infrastructure re-established and strengthened the networks between Rome and the local church dignitaries and enabled more efficient control over the religious discourse. This coincided with political changes and the establishment of the Dalmatian duchy using Carolingian power-templates, which had already incorporated Christianity as an important part of political discourse. The new Dalmatian elites needed easily recognisable symbols of their newly acquired social status, and the intertwining of the Church and Carolingian state was the best model available for this.54 The outcomes of this complex process are most visible in the widespread renovation and construction of churches in the ninth century. This building frenzy was sponsored by the new elites, who used it to show their prestige through privileged burials in the churches, to record their achievements and to publicly display their piety through Latin inscriptions usually on altar screens.55 These new sacral-cemeterial complexes reveal several different elite strategies for commemoration. These were only recently identified in the cases of Biskupija and the church on Begovača between Kašić and Donje Biljane.56 The construction of the basilica of St Mary, which incorporated the earlier elite ‘warrior’ graves in Biskupija, was clearly an attempt by the magnate to commemorate his dead ancestors and kinsmen. The magnate was buried in a sarcophagus made from Roman spolia (the so-called ‘northern sarcophagus’). This was placed at the entrance of the basilica and in alignment with it in the first half of the ninth century. Some time after this burial, the antechamber with a bell tower, which served as the narthex of the basilica was built. Another (‘southern’) sarcophagus, originally containing a female burial, but later re-used, was placed in the southern part of the chamber. The earlier female burial cannot be dated earlier than the final quarter of the ninth century.57 The ‘northern’ sarcophagus of the donor did not contain any weapons, only large gold-plated spurs and a golden pendant. It is clearly connected with the earlier ‘warrior’ burials because the deceased had a gold coin of Constantine V in his mouth like most of these earlier burials.58 The sarcophagus has enabled more precise dating of the burials. It has been attributed to the so-called Master of the Koljani Panel Chancel Workshop, which was active in the first half of ninth century, likely after ca. 815 and before ca. 840.59 This was the burial of a magnate from the uppermost echelons of the elite, likely one of the early Dalmatian duces, perhaps Borna or (V)Ladislav. Dux Mislav is also a potential candidate, but this is less likely, as his rule is connected to the activities of the so-called Trpimir Workshop, dated just after the Master of Koljani Panel.60 The magnate who sponsored the building of St Mary reappropriated the past by embedding the memory of his ancestors in a new sacral-cemeterial complex. The significance of St Mary and the cemetery around it endured into later times – it was renovated in the time of duke Branimir and once more in the eleventh century, while burials continued there into late

Tempora domini Brannimero  183 61

medieval times. The relationship between ‘warrior burials’ and the subsequent building of churches is not as clear in Koljani, Rešetarica and Morpolača, as in Biskupija. Especially intriguing is the case of Rešetarica, where the ‘warrior graves’ deposited in the remains of the early Christian church were never incorporated into a later structure, though the ground around the remains continued to be used for burials until the fifteenth century.62 The church of St Mary was built in Donji Koljani, some 400m from the three graves in Vukovića Most mentioned in the previous chapter. It was poorly excavated, however, and so most the valuable data has been lost.63 The construction of the church dates to ca. 810–840, as it was initially decorated by the Master of Koljani Panel. This is confirmed by the finds of five pairs of spurs dateable in first half of the ninth century. The H-type Carolingian sword that the Yugoslav dictator Josip Broz gave to the emperor of Ethiopia Haile Selassie in 1954 also seems to have been in a grave from or around this church.64 It is impossible to say whether the ‘warrior burial’ with the sword belonged to the donor of the church or the donor appropriated the ‘warrior burial’ of his ancestor as in Biskupija. It is interesting to note, however, that ‘warrior burial’ with a sword from neighbouring Vukovića most was never incorporated into the sacral-cemeterial complex. A different approach was taken by the member of the Dalmatian elite who sponsored the building of the church on Begovača between Donji Kašić and Donje Biljane. Built in the vicinity of some unexcavated earlier Roman architecture (probably a late antique settlement complex in and around an earlier villa) and a spring, the early Christian church was renovated and rebuilt in ca. the mid-ninth century. The two earliest burials (Gr253 and 258) were double-graves containing the remains of couples. They had been placed in the apse of the church. Alongside the male buried in Gr258 were spurs, dateable to the second quarter of the ninth century, an axe and two small knives. The male in Gr253 only had spurs. The early medieval church was destroyed in the thirteenth century, and a smaller Romanesque church was later built over its remains. As at St Mary in Biskupija the cemetery continued to be used for a long time.65 A recent analysis confirmed this sequence of events and showed that the fragments of the inscription on the altar screen mention the name of the duke Mislav (ca. 830s) and the name of unknown magnate. The stonemason’s work came from the Trpimir Workshop.66 As Kumir correctly recognised, this magnate and his wife linked the salvation of their souls with the Christian sanctity of that place, unlike the magnate buried in the ‘northern’ sarcophagus in Biskupija, who instead linked that place with his family’s past.67 In other words, the Biskupija magnate wanted to justify his position using the past, while his counterpart in Begovača justified the Christian present. The case of Biskupija can be linked to the Borna-(V)Ladislav group, who were justifying their position with the achievements of their family, while the Begovača magnate must have been part of the Mislav-Trpimir Croat group, who became the rulers of the Dalmatian duchy in ca. 830.

184  Tempora domini Brannimero The habit of sponsoring churches extended to the županijas of the Dalmatian duchy in the hinterland, though no evidence of their existence before Branimir’s rule was found. Fragments of church furniture and an inscription from the church of St Peter the Apostle in Rapovine near Livno in the županija of Hlebiana/Cleuna have been identified as the work of the Court Workshop in the Times of Duke Branimir.68 An altar piece from Vrba near Glamoč and two pieces from two cemeteries in Drvar were made by the same workshop.69 The local elites of the hinterland showed their social position in similar ways to the elites of the former Byzantine limites. For example, the unpublished cemetery in Čipuljići (used from the mid-late ninth century onwards) contained large number of spurs.70 Similar strategies of ancestor commemoration are observable outside the area of the Dalmatian duchy – particularly in the construction of a hexagonal church (St Blaise?) in Rogačići. The church was built over the earlier row-grave cemetery with pots. The graves from this phase were destroyed by later and deeper burials and the construction of the church, leaving only a portion of the pottery and the remains of funeral feasts. Only five graves (including one double-grave) from this phase were found on the eastern side of the church. This church has an E-W orientation, and so it would appear that these graves were contemporary with it. One adult grave contained an S-earring with an open-ending dateable to the tenth or eleventh century, while a child in another grave was buried with a pot. Čremošnik dated the church to the twelfth-thirteenth century, while more recent scholarship dates it to around the eleventh century.71 The church should be dated even earlier for two reasons. First, the position of the grave containing a pot less than 50cm from the church indicates that it post-dates its construction, as this custom disappears from Dalmatia before the early tenth century. Second, the other nine hexagonal churches in Dalmatia were built between the late eighth and mid-ninth century, and so it would seem that Rogačići was built towards the end of this period or a little later, at any rate before 900.72 While most of the evidence has been lost, the construction of the church over the existing row-grave cemetery must be connected to the new ways in which the local elites were presenting themselves. We can also assign to the late ninth/early tenth century the church of St Stephen in Vrutci near the springs of river Bosna, some 3–3.5km southeast from Rogačići.73 The grave assemblages displaying ‘society under stress’ from the turn of the century slowly give way to the later ninth-century burials, which show an elite more secure in its position and with many more resources at its disposal. The Dalmatian magnates invested their resources in church buildings to illustrate the social status of elite families. Part of this new elite image was the public display of piety through Latin inscriptions. A great example of this new image is the monumental church of St Salvation in Cetina. The župan Gastiha built it in the times of duke Branimir for the salvation of his soul, and those of his mother Nemira and children.74 This new elite image and the security of hereditary privileged positions transformed the funerary

Tempora domini Brannimero  185 image of male elites. The burial image of warriors was simplified with only spurs and small knives remaining as a memories of the warlord forefathers. Swords and other weapons like spears are occasionally found in later graves, but these are exceptions rather than the rule. The significance of the elite is shown through the privileged position of burials and distinguished personal appearance. The second strategy probably included the wearing of rings and luxurious clothes – quite a few luxurious buttons from this period have been found. The new female funerary image by contrast incorporated a wide range of earrings, temple rings and other jewellery.75 The development of cemeteries in the churchyards of newly built/renovated churches in the ninth century did not mean the end of row-grave cemeteries.76 The only change in their use was the disappearance of grave goods, except the occasional spurs in male graves. Important row-grave cemeteries like Ždrijac continue to be used until the tenth/eleventh century, while the local population in Ljubač persisted with burials in mounds until the end of the ninth century or even later. The radiocarbon dating of a female burial with a pot (Gr13) from the older layer of graves in the Jokina glavica barrow placed it in the ninth century (800–890).77 The row-grave and churchyard cemeteries inside Nin survived the Dark Ages and continued to coexist – St Anselm complex was renovated in the ninth century, as said earlier Ždrijac was still used in tenth-eleventh century, while over the St Cross cemetery was built the church, probably in later ninth century (Figure 7.1) and the cemetery continues with use until later medieval period.78 In Varvaria, two new row-grave cemeteries were established in the early ninth century and used for a century or so. A larger cemetery formed just outside the settlement’s

Figure 7.1 The church of St Cross in Nin, ©author.

186  Tempora domini Brannimero main entrance on the site of the late antique cemetery (Vratnice). A smaller one (Novi put) developed on the opposite side of the settlement near the auxiliary entrances that were made in the Roman times.79 The cemetery around the late antique rotunda was used during and after the ‘Dark Ages’ without interruption. The earlier find of a Hohenberg-class strap-end, dateable to the mid-late eighth century, was recently supplemented by find of two eschateions (drinking-vessels) from Anglo-Saxon Britain and a decorated T-shaped antler container from the burials in Gr17, located within the narthex of the rotunda. There are also the child-sized spurs from a destroyed early ninth-century grave.80 The row-grave cemeteries in Grborezi and Mihaljevići also continued to be used until later medieval times, and a similar situation seems to have prevailed among the Bračića podvornice burial clusters in Biskupija. There are also some newly established row-grave cemeteries, which imply that the settlement of new groups did not cease after 812. A new cemetery in the prehistoric barrow from Konjsko behind Salona did not contain ‘warrior graves’, pots or any other grave goods besides personal adornments and two graves with knives. Three graves with ‘grape-shaped’ pendant earrings place the cemetery in the ninth century. This was additionally confirmed with C14 dating of Gr17 to 768–896. The cemetery was likely used for a relatively short timespan (ca. 830–870) by the Christian population.81 Other potential examples are the newly established burial grounds in the ruins of the early Christian basilical complexes in Cim and Gradac, both of which date from ca. the mid-ninth century onwards. Cim contained no ‘warrior graves’ – only some female jewellery – while Gradac near Posušje contained one grave with mid-late ninth-century spurs (Gr6) and several graves with pots.82 The establishment of new cemeteries and need to claim the past through the reuse of the prehistoric barrow or the ruins of the late antique basilica imply the settlement of new migrant groups. These groups likely did not settle with the first migration wave in connection with the Frankish-Byzantine wars however, but a little later. This may be an indication of subsequent continuing low-level migration movements after 812.83 The far north of Dalmatia also witnessed the appearance of new row-grave cemeteries, such as Petoševci, which can be dated to either ca. 825 (Žeravica) or the very end of the ninth century (Tomičić).84 Elite groups Croat identity was maintained by the warrior elite of one of the Slavicspeaking groups that arrived in Dalmatia in the early ninth century.85 If the reading of the fragment [... Chro?]ATORV(m) ET IVPA[nus (-ano?)...] from the church of St Martha in Bijaći above Trogir is correct, this would be the earliest mention of the Croat ethnonym, as the fragment has been attributed to a workshop, dateable to the late eighth and early ninth centuries – likely one called ‘Langobardic’ by Jakšić and Josipović.86 This suggests that the

Tempora domini Brannimero  187 leader of the Croats in the times of Borna and (V)Ladislav was already one of the regional magnates – župans. The Croats came to prominence only with the rise of Mislav and Trpimir, who seemingly took power from the group represented by Borna and (V)Ladislav. Croat identity was a local identity discourse, and was not recorded by contemporary outside sources. The only sources from the ninth century are the self-identification of unnamed župan from Bijaći, an inscribed fragment from Kula Atlagića dated in the late ninth century(?),87 and the Charters of Trpimir and Muncimir. To these we should add the two connecting fragments of the gable of an altar screen from Šopot near Benkovac which together read DVX CRVATORV(m) COGIT(avit). Another fragment belonging to architrave of the same altar screen but clearly occurring earlier in the text reads +BRANIMIRO COM… There is also a small piece of the architrave with the letters MES. This precedes the fragment of the gable, but does not link with the one from the architrave. The reconstructed the text is thus +BRANIMIRO COM[…]  … […]MES DVX CRVATORV(m) COGIT(avit). The inscription was rather long, encompassing at least two gables, and it seems only a quarter is preserved.88 We do not know how much space is missing between the fragment mentioning Branimir as comes and the piece with dux Cruatorum. It is possible that Branimir’s name appears twice – as both comes and dux Cruatorum, or that two individuals were mentioned – the ruler Branimir and the dux of the Croats who commissioned the inscription.89 While some dukes of Dalmatia were simultaneously duces of the Croats, such as Trpimir and Muncimir, the distinction between the ruler and dux of the Croats is observable on the tenth century inscription from Knin. It records that one Svetoslav(?) was dux of the Croats in the time of the grand duke Držislav. This does not mean that Držislav was not a member of the Croat elite group, as dux Cruatorum was probably an honorary title of the crown-prince at that time.90 Branimir does not appear to have been from Trpimir’s family line at all, as indicated by John the Deacon who calls him “some Slav, named Brenamir” (quidam Sclavus, nomine Brenamir).91 He has the titles dominus and/or dux on inscriptions. Branimir’s ducal title is only specified on an inscription from Nin, where he is called ‘duke of the Slavs’, and the title dux Clavitnorum on the dedication of the župan Pristina from the church of St Bartholomew in Ždrapanj.92 This word Clavitnorum, if it is not a gross error of scribe, might be an indication that the Croats, even in the later ninth century, were not the only elite-discourse in the Dalmatian duchy, and therefore a challenge to their leadership was still possible. Such a challenge cannot have been successful in the long run, however, as the Croat elite embraced an organisational template based on military leadership, incorporating a Frankish system of symbols and the ideological role of Christianity. This enabled them to transcend the exclusivity of membership within the group and open it to outsiders. It led to the transpersonalisation of the ruler’s role, which saw him gradually relinquish his predominantly military position in favour

188  Tempora domini Brannimero of an administrative one within the client-network on the Carolingian frontiers.93 The strong position of the Croats and the return of the leadership to Branimir’s successor Muncimir – explicitly called dux of the Croats in his Charter from 89294 – indicates ‘Croat’ remained the prestige identity discourse of the ruling elite. It would eventually extend to the name of their realm – the future regnum Croatorum. The process of ‘becoming Croat’, or in other words the adoption of Croat identity, first by the elite and later the wider population and outside observers was also gradual and corresponded with formation and strengthening of the Croat-ruled Dalmatian duchy that ultimately became the Croat kingdom in the tenth century.95

Networks and economy It is clear from the ambitious church-building programme in Dalmatia that wealth started to accumulate there in the ninth century. The rise of the Dalmatian duchy and the polity of the Narentani (Zachlumi?) in this period is undeniably linked to the ability of their leaders to politically control the increasingly significant early medieval Adriatic sailing networks.96 Information concerning the ‘piracy’ of the Narentani and the Venetians’ attempts to curb their control of the Adriatic, should be understood in this context. The Dalmatian duke Domagoj was involved in similar activities. In 870, his people intercepted and captured legates of pope Hadrian II led by Donatus of Ostia, who were sailing back from the Council in Constantinople. The legates were only freed after diplomatic pressure was applied by the papal and imperial administration, and the Byzantines would use the event as a pretext for their attack on Domagoj’s castra, as discussed earlier in the chapter.97 Pope John VIII warned Domagoj to control his subjects’ piratical activities (marini latrunculi) in 874/875, and “Slavs and Dalmatini” – very likely the subjects of duke Domagoj – in 875 conducted a daring attack on Istria.98 The material record suggests that the wealth of ninth-century Dalmatia was not exclusively linked to control of the sea and trade. As Curta noted, the absence of ninth-century Byzantine amphorae in Dalmatia is rather conspicuous, and it seems most of (relatively rare) imports in Dalmatia were the result of gift-exchange rather than trade.99 Dalmatian trade in this period largely functioned in a non-monetary economy, as the finds of coins from the ninth century are relatively scarce, and the local elite did not need to mint their own. Byzantine gold was the dominant currency, especially the gold solidi of the emperor Theophilus (829–842). Silver coinage is rare, with one silver miliaresion of Michael I Rangabe, and a very few Carolingian denarii.100 There are also two gold Abbasid dinars found in the area of Knin from unknown contexts, one minted 760 or 763 and the other 786.101 The DAI mentions the Byzantines’ payments of tribute to the Dalmatian dukes and princes of the Zachlumi and Terbunitae in gold solidi (nomismata), wine and other commodities. The practice was established in

Tempora domini Brannimero  189 102

the time of Basil I. Few of these coins have been preserved, and the gold was likely used as a bullion – as evidenced by the cut edges from the solidi of Constantine V – or as a medium of payment in more substantial transactions, as we will soon see. The surplus of resources and wealth indicated by the ninth-century building programme could not have come from trade. The evidence instead points on ownership of land as the primary source of prosperity. This agrees with analysis of stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in human remains from selected early medieval cemeteries within former Byzantine limes indicating diet based on cereals (especially millet) and animals fed on terrestrial plants. The consumption of marine-based proteins is considerably smaller than what we see in the Roman period.103 The Charter of Trpimir evidences land donations to the Spalatan archbishopry from the dukes Mislav and Trpimir, as well a permit to collect Peter’s Penny from territory of the ducal curtis. These ducal estates seem to have been well organised, utilising late antique agricultural agglomerations and at least some slave labour. Slaves are mentioned together with land as donations to the Church in the Charter of Trpimir.104 The Charters of Trpimir and Muncimir confirm agricultural production as the most important economic asset of the Dalmatian dukes. We unfortunately know very little about the development of land estates in the Dalmatian duchy from archaeology, as researchers have chiefly been interested in cemetery and church excavations. Some of the late antique rural architectural complexes within the former Byzantine limes, evolving out of the earlier Roman villae, were clearly (re-)used in the ninth century. The complexes in Kašić and Dolac/Pridraga were renovated and acquired new churches in the ninth century, while the later medieval evidence indicates that they were state (i.e. ducal) property and were distributed among highlevel dignitaries.105 Scarce evidence from the Dalmatian cities confirms this. The will of Prior Peter from Spalatum, probably originating in the ninth century,106 shows that land ownership was the basis of wealth. Gold coins are also used for more substantial payments, such as the purchase of land. Peter possessed two houses in Spalatum and several land estates, pastures and vineyards around Spalatum and on the island of Brač. He also owned slaves, including one with whom he had a daughter. Peter states in the will that he purchased land with gold (presumably Byzantine) solidi, and that the land around the church of St John on the island of Brač cost him no less than 72 solidi (libra auri).107 The will of Prior Andreas from Zadar, dateable somewhat later to 918, indicates a similar basis of wealth: savings of gold coins and the ownership of land and slaves.108 It is difficult to establish from these sources just how important slave labour and the slave trade was in the ninth-century Dalmatian economy. The Charter of Trpimir identifies slaves with clearly Slavic names: Liutamir, Strehemil, Nedamustl, etc. The will of Prior Andreas from Zadar also mentions slaves with Slavic names, such as Pribina, Milica, Techamila, etc. This excludes the possibility that the local population was subjugated and

190  Tempora domini Brannimero enslaved by the migrant Slavic elites that seized political control in the early ninth century.109 The origins of these slaves is unclear but they were more likely sourced from the Dalmatian hinterland and central Europe, than the Mediterranean. The appearance of slaves on agricultural properties neither confirms nor excludes the existence of a free peasantry, but the lack of evidence prevents any meaningful discussion on this topic. If a free peasantry did exist in this period, however, we would more likely find them in the Dalmatian hinterland.

The Dalmatian middle ages The end of the ninth century marks the watershed in Dalmatian history. The social transformations that started at the beginning of the century were complete. Increased social complexity transformed the imperial periphery into regional centres of power – especially in the case of the Dalmatian (Croat) duchy and the duchy of the Narentani. This increased complexity was the outcome of several factors, in particular the successful adoption and evolution of Carolingian social templates and the benefits of controlling communication networks in the Adriatic. The empires that directly and indirectly created the Dalmatian duchy in the early ninth century were unable to sustain their political control over the Adriatic – the Carolingian empire collapsed and Byzantine power was limited to a symbolic presence after Basil I, leaving only Venice as a serious competitive force. This greatly benefited the local elites, who were now able to act as independent political agents and build political structures by local leaders. These social developments also affected the Dalmatian hinterland, as seen in the ‘outer’ županijas of the Dalmatian duchy – especially in modern-day southwestern and western Bosnia, and the interior of the polity of the Narentani – modern western Herzegovina. The archaeology in modern central Bosnia has unfortunately done little to enlighten the situation in this part of Dalmatia, though some buildings and churches around modern cities of Sarajevo and Zenica indicate an increase in social complexity there too. New identities were also entrenched by the end of this century with the elite adopting and maintaining new prestige identities such as Croatness. The Dalmatian magnates – župans – transmitted their privileged position more confidently after the mid-ninth century, as the inheritance to their successors and ancestry started to play importance again in the social and power-architecture. The Dalmatian dukes were seemingly able to maintain close links with the local magnates, who, in turn, acknowledged those links by dating their inscriptions with the name of the reigning duke – at least in the time of Branimir. Though they competed for control of the Adriatic, the Dalmatian elites seem to have generated most of their wealth not from the sea and trade, but from land possession and agricultural production. They mostly improved the existing facilities within the Dalmatian limes from the

Tempora domini Brannimero  191 seventh and eighth centuries. The importation of bulk goods and elite consumption are invisible in the material record, as is the existence of an effective tax system. However, there are some signs that agricultural production intensified within the Dalmatian duchy. The resultant surpluses allowed the elite to invest in the construction and equipment of churches as well as their personal appearance.

Notes 1 Dzino 2018a, cf. Ančić 2016: 218–219. 2 Ančić 2007. See Marasović 2017: 95–132, 137–154 for what is known about early medieval (mostly urban) settlements in Dalmatia.

10 Katičić 1990: 74–81 (Borna’s praetoriani); Ančić 1997: 9–10 (state institutions under Borna). Alimov (2011: 118–127) sees Dalmatian state-institutions as already being well-developed in Borna’s time. 11 Gioanni (2015) argues that the Dalmatian duchy and later Croat kingdom was not a spatialised concept until the eleventh century. This thesis is difficult to accept as it only reflects the state of the affairs from the first decades of the ninth century. 12 Jakšić 1997: 24–25, 2015: 93–94, 267–269. The changes in church furniture were recently discussed in more detail in Bilogrivić 2018c. 13 ARF, s.a. 827–828, see the overview of different opinions in Krahwinkler 1991: 194–197. Budak 1997: 16; Basić 2015a: 444–445 argue that Dalmatia-Liburnia was one of the counties, but this is not generally accepted – for example, Wolfram 1995: 308–310. 14 Margetić 1988: 231–232; Dzino 2010a: 187–189; Bilogrivić 2018c: 334–335; Budak 2018a: 109, 169–170. 15 CD, 1.3, see Dzino 2010a: 175 for literature. 16 Chron. Ven. 2.49 (the Treaty of Mislav); Chron. Ven. 3.2 (Domagoj’s conflict with Venice); DAI, 29.88–103; Vita Basilii, 53.1–15; Chron. Ven. 3.7 (the Arab raids on the eastern Adriatic in 872); DAI, 29.106–12 (Croat participation in the siege of Bari). 17 CD, 1.5; 1.7–13 (=Epist. Ioh. 184, 190–191, 196, 206; Epist. Ioh. Fr. 9, 38–39) (papal letters). For a recent discussion of this letter exchange in a wider context, see Betti 2014: 121–132. 18 DAI, 30.90–94 (list of županijas); LEMCro 10, 56, 228 (epigraphy); CD, 1.2 (župans’ signatures on Trpimir’s charter). See also Dzino 2010a: 191 with basic literature.

192  Tempora domini Brannimero





















Tempora domini Brannimero  193

















194  Tempora domini Brannimero







Tempora domini Brannimero  195

­









196  Tempora domini Brannimero 104 Ančić 1999, see also Budak 1986 on early medieval slavery in Dalmatia. 105 Ančić 2007. 106 Horvat 1951: 124–125. The document has been assigned various dates, but it seems most reasonable to place it in the ninth century – Budak 2018b: 187 n.63. If this is the same person as the Prior Peter buried in the sarcophagus with an inscription from the church of St Matthew in Split, his death should be dated to the ninth-century, Jakšić 2010: 39; Basić 2011: 76–80. 107 Budak 2018b: 181–182. 108 CD, 1.21. 109 The only exception is Galatia, the non-Slavic name of the daughter Prior Peter had with his ancilla, Horvat 1951: 124.

Conclusion

The transition from Late Antiquity to the early medieval period in Dalmatia was a complex and long process. While many pieces of the puzzle are still missing, the major outlines seem clearer after this extensive but nevertheless selective exploration of the available evidence. Sixth-century Dalmatia was the product of imperial geography, i.e. the territory that over centuries of the Roman rule evolved into a system of social and economic networks. The transition from Roman to late antique Dalmatia followed the general outlines of the Mediterranean world: the transformation of elite-images and the implementation of Christianity as an ideological discourse. The observable scarcity of Mediterranean imports, especially in the hinterland, was caused by the changing tastes of the elites. The large building programme of the imperial administration and local elites, however, indicate a degree of affluence and economic stability throughout this century. Signs of social change are detectable in this period, especially in the appearance of row-grave cemeteries and necropoleis outside elite church-grounds, which should be ascribed to the appearance of new militarised elites in connection with the fortification of the province. Real change came in the first decades of the seventh century, when a social collapse is detectable throughout Dalmatia, albeit to a varying degrees. This collapse is most apparent in the abandonment of sites, the cessation of building activities and the almost complete absence of long-distance trade and exchange networks. This has traditionally been ascribed to the Avar and Slav invasion and the subsequent settlement of the Slavs in Dalmatia. The material record, however, does not indicate the presence of any significant numbers of foreigners. The collapse should thus be ascribed to a strategic decision to withdraw the imperial administration from the Adriatic hinterland. This most likely occurred in the 620s. The imperial administration may have withdrawn to the most easily defensible points on the eastern Adriatic coast and its immediate hinterland in anticipation of an Avar invasion – one that ultimately never occurred. These Byzantine outposts continued to function throughout the seventh and eighth centuries. The surviving coastal cities and islands show lowintensity connections with the imperial core, while the communities in their immediate hinterland evolved into a closed frontier network connected to

198 Conclusion the remains of the Byzantine administration in the Adriatic cities. These communities provide the best evidence for seventh- and eighth-century Dalmatia, illustrating the social changes that installed the new local frontierelites as community leaders. These individuals were distinguished by their abilities to control resources and organise feasts. The deep hinterland of the province only shows sporadic traces of habitation in and around the late antique settlements, suggesting a degree of depopulation and social collapse. Some migration movements from Pannonia can be assumed after 700, but much more evidence is required to establish this as a general pattern. The last quarter of the eighth century shows sudden social and economic changes, especially in the Byzantine outposts. The rise of a new political power in Italy and central Europe – the Carolingian Franks – brings Dalmatia into focus in the conflict between the two empires: the Carolingian and Byzantine. The conflict ended with the Treaty of Aachen in 812, which saw the Byzantines’ lose control of the frontier communities in the Via Magna and ‘Cetina limes’. The Treaty also led to the establishment of the Carolingian Duchy of Dalmatia and Liburnia and the reorganisation of the remaining Byzantine domains. We should place the settlement of Slav-speaking warrior groups in the Dalmatian hinterland in this period. These were entrusted with the administration of the Carolingian Duchy of Dalmatia. The ninth century in general likely saw the migratory movements of more Slav-speaking groups into Dalmatian hinterland. Some of these groups were incorporated into the Dalmatian Duchy, while others established independent polities. The ninth century saw the entrenchment of these new elites through the implementation of new ideological templates under Carolingian and Byzantine influences. This led to the establishment of the real foundations of the Dalmatian Middle Ages. The different degree of archaeological exploration in the deeper hinterland still leaves some questions unanswered. For example, it is particularly difficult to map social change in the areas such as modern central Bosnia. The lack of Carolingian artefacts and ‘warrior burials’ in this region implies a slower rate of social change and (perhaps) the settlement of different Slavic-speaking groups. As we can see, the Dalmatian Middle Ages were not necessarily only Slavic. They were a consequence of the incorporation of the remaining local population and Slavic migrants into new Slav-speaking groups and group-identities. This view of the transition is reminiscent of the path of a pendulum with commonalities observed in the sixth and ninth centuries. The evidence for both centuries shows entrenched elites presenting their social dominance through Christianity, the construction of churches and privileged burials in churchyards. Their experiences differed, however, in that the elites of the sixth century were challenged by new, militarised local leaders, whereas the elites of the ninth century were mostly the descendants of the new Slav-speaking warlords, who had gradually entrenched their social dominance. The Dalmatian elites of both two centuries also operated within broader regional and interregional social hierarchies. The hierarchy of the sixth century was enabled by

Conclusion  199 the re-integration of the province into the east Roman imperial structures, while the hierarchy of the ninth developed under the influence of Carolingian imperial templates, which were used to establish new local power-structures. Between these developments lay two transitional centuries of decline and recovery characterised by depopulation, economic stagnation and localised communities. This suggests a new chronological outline and developmental phases for Dalmatia. While Late Antiquity clearly ended in the first decades of the seventh century, this period did not witness the emergence of medieval society. The real foundations of medieval Dalmatia are only recognisable after the arrival of new Slavic-speaking elites in the early ninth century and the establishment of hereditary privileges by the next generation. In the end, we can say that the case-study of Dalmatia confirms two things. The first is that the making of the Middle Ages in the post-Roman world followed different paths determined by different factors, such as geography, access to resources and communication networks, and political events. Even if the Byzantines had not evacuated in the seventh century, Dalmatia would have still transformed into a medieval society but more along the lines of post-Roman Italy or Gaul, whose transformations were rooted in late antique traditions. The province was shaped by this evacuation in much the same way as Britain, where a similar evacuation of the imperial administration produced an entirely new society amalgamating the local population and migrants. Second, we can say with even more confidence now that the ‘barbarians’ were not the cause of social collapse in the seventh century Dalmatia. While the settlement of Slavs in early medieval Dalmatia significantly affected the construction of local identities and the formation of elites, it is unlikely that one population simply replaced another.

Bibliography

Primary sources and inscriptions ACO 21 Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum, ed. R. Riedinger. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Ser. 2. Vol 1 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984). Agnelli lib. pont. Agnelli qui et Andreas liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, ed. O. Holder-Egger. MGH: SS rer. Lang. (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1878): 265–391. al-Idrisi, Tabula Rogeriana Geographie d’Edrisi, Vol. 2, ed. and transl. P. Amédeé Jaubert. Recueil de Voyages et Mémories 16 (Paris: Chez Arthus-Bertrand & Libraire de la société, 1840), and L’Italia descritta nel “Libro del Re Ruggero” compilato da Edrisi, ed. and transl. M. Amari & G. Schiaparelli. Atti Reale Accademia dei Lincei 8 ser. 2 (Rome: Coi Tipi del Salviucci, 1883). AF Annales Fuldenses sive Annales raegni Francorum Orientalis, ed. F. Kurtze, MGH: SS rer. Germ. 7 (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1891). ARF Annales Regni Francorum inde a. 741 usque ad 829 qui dicuntur Annales Laurissenses maiores et Einhardi, ed. G.H. Pertz. MGH: SS rer. Germ. 6 (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1895). Cass. Variae Cassiodori Senatoris Variae, ed. Th. Mommsen. MGH: AA 12 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1894). CD 1 Codex Diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae Vol. 1: Diplomata annorum 743–1100, eds. M. Kostrenčić, J. Stipišić & M. Šamšalović (Zagreb: JAZU, 1967). Chron. Min. Chronica Minora saec. IV, V, VI, VII Vol. 2, ed. Th. Mommsen. MGH: AA 11 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1894). Chron. Ven. Giovanni Diacono, Istoria Veneticorum, ed. L.A. Berto. Fonti per la Storia dell’Italia medievale. Storici Italiani dal Cinquecento al Millecinquecento ad uso delle scuole 2 (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1999). CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin and Brandenburg: BerlinBrandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1853). Cod. Car. Codex Carolinus, ed. W. Gundlach. MGH: Epp. 3. EKA 1 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1892): 469–657. DAI Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, eds. Gy. Moravscik and R.J.H. Jenkins. Dumbarton Oaks Texts 1 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1962). Danduli Chron. Andreae Danduli Chronica per extensum descripta, ed. L.A. Muratori. Rerum Italicarum Scriptores 12/1 (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1932).

202 Bibliography Epist. Ioh. Registrum Iohannis VIII papae, ed. E. Caspar. MGH: Epp. 7. EKA 5 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1928): 1–272. Epist. Ioh. Fr. Fragmenta registri Iohannis VIII papae, ed. E. Caspar. MGH: Epp. 7. EKA 5 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1928): 273–312. Epp. var. Epistolae variorum Carolo Magno regnante scriptae, ed. E. Dümmler. MGH: Epp. 4. EKA 2 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1895): 494–567. Expositio Expositio totius mundi et gentium, ed. K. Müller in Geographi Graeci ­Minores 2 (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1882): 513–528. Godescalc, De praedestinatione Responsa Gottescalci de diversis in Oeuvres théologiques et grammaticales de Godescals d’Orbais, ed. C. Lambott (Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1945). Gregory, Ep. Gregorii I Papae Registrum Epistolarum, 2 Vols., ed. L.M. Hartmann. MGH: Epp. 1–2 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1899). Hieronym., De vir. Illustr. Jerome, On Illustrious Men, ed. Th.P. Halton. The Fathers of the Church 100 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999). Hieronym., Ep. Saint Jérôme, Lettres, ed. J. Labourt, 8 Vols. (Paris: Collection Guillaume Budé, 1949–1963). Hist. Lang. Pauli Historia Langobardorum, eds. L. Bethmann & G. Waitz. MGH: SS rer. Lang (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1878): 12–192. HS Thomae archidiaconi Spalatensis, Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum, eds. and transl. O. Perić, D. Karbić, M. Matijević-Sokol, & J. RossSweeney. Central European Medieval Texts 4 (Budapest & New York: Central European University Press, 2006). HSM Historia Salonitana Maior, ed. N. Klaić. Posebna izdanja 399 (Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1967). ILJug Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMII et MCMLXX repertae et editae sunt, ed. A. Šašel & J. Šašel. Situla 5, 19, 25 (Ljubljana: Narodni muzej, 1963–1986). Isidorus, Chron. Isidori iunioris episcopi Hispalensis chronica maiora ed. primum a. DCXV chronicorum epitome ed. a. DCXXVII, in Chron. Min.: 391–488. LEMCro Latin Epigraphic Monuments in Early Medieval Croatia, ed. V. Delonga (Split: MHAS, 1996). Ludovici epistola Ludovici II. Imperatoris epistola ad Basilium I. imperatorem constantinopolitanum missa, ed. W. Henze. MGH: Epp. 7. EKA 5 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1928): 385–394. LP Le Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 2 Vols. (Paris: E. Thorin, 1886–1892). Marcellinus, Chron. Marcellini C. V. Comitis, Chronicon ad a. DXVIII continuatum ad a. DXXXIV, in Chron. Min.: 37–108. Menander The History of Menander the Guardsmen, ed. and transl. R.C. Blockley. (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1985). Michael the Syrian Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199), ed. and transl. J.-B. Chabot, 4 Vols. (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899–1963). Papiri I Papiri Diplomatici, ed. L.G. Marini (Rome: Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, 1805). Placitum Placitum Rizianense, Codex Trevisanus fol. 21r-23r. Archivio di Stato di Venezia. Ed. H. Krahwinkler, … in loco qui dicitur Riziano … Die Versammlung in Rižana/Risano bei Koper/Capodistria im Jahre 804. Knjižnica Annales 40

Bibliography  203 (Koper: Univerza na Primorskem & Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko, 2004): 66–81. Procop. Goth. Procopius, Gothic Wars. History of the Wars, Vols. 3–5. LCL 107, 173, 217 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916–1928). Salona IV Salona IV: Inscriptions de Salone chrétienne, 2 Vols. ed. E. Marin et al. CEFR 194/4 (Rome & Split: École Française de Rome & AMS, 2010). Synodicon The Synodicon Vetus, transl. & ed. J. Duffy & J. Parker. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 15 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1979). Theophanes Theophanis Chronographia 1, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig: Teubner, 1883). Theoph. Cont. Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Caminiata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus continuatus, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn: Weber, 1838). Theoph. Sim. Theophylact Simocatta, Historia, ed. C. de Boor, rev. P. Wirth (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1972). Vell. Pat. Velleius Paterculus, Historia Romana. LCL 152 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924). Victor, Chronica Victoris Tonnennsis episcopi chronica a. CCCXLIV-DLXVII, in Chron. Min.: 184–206. Vita Basilii Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur liber quo Vita Basilii imperatoris amplectitur, ed. I. Ševčenko. Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae. Series Berolinensis 42 (Berlin & Boston, MA: De Gruyter, 2011). Vita Hludowici Thegan, Die Taten Kaiser Ludwigs / Astronomus, Das Leben Kaisers Ludwig, ed. E. Tremp. MGH: SS rer. Germ. 64 (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1995). Vita Karoli Einhardi Vita Karoli Magni, eds. G.H. Pertz, G. Waitz & O. Holder-Egger. MGH: SS rer. Germ. 25 (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1911). Modern literature The surnames of authors are placed in alphabetical order, observing Slavic Č (ch as in chair), Đ (dj as in juice), Š (sh as in shadow) and Ž (zh as in measure) as separate letters following C, D, S and Z in the order. Aberth, John, 2013. An Environmental History of the Middle Ages: The Crucible of Nature (London & New York: Routledge). Alajbeg, Ante, 2014. ‘On the topographical chronology of early medieval cemeteries with pagan burial characteristics in northern Dalmatia’, ArchAdr 9: 147–168. Alimov, Denis E., 2008. ‘”Переселение” и ”крещение”: к проблеме формирования хорватской этничности в Далмации’, SS&BP 2/2008: 94–116. Alimov, Denis E., 2011. ‘Полития Борны: Gentes и Herrschaft в Далмации в первой четверти IX века’, SS&BP 1/2011: 101–142. Alimov, Denis E., 2015. ‘Хорваты, культ Перуна и славянский «  гентилизм  ». (Комментарий к гипотезе Анте Милошевича о тождестве Порина и Перуна)’, SS&BP 2/2015: 21–64. Alimov, Denis E., 2016. Этногенез хорватов: формирование хорватской этнополитической общности в VII–IX вв. (St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoria Books). Alimov, Denis E., 2018. ‘Известия Константина Багрянородного о крещении сербов и хорватов в правление императора Ираклия (610–641): проблема интерпретации’, Hristianskoe chtenie 4/2018: 214–224.

204 Bibliography Amory, Patrick, 1997. People and identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–554 (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press). Ančić, Mladen, 1998. ‘The waning of the empire: The disintegration of Byzantine rule on the eastern Adriatic in the 9th century’, HAM 4: 15–24. Ančić, Mladen, 1999. ‘Od vladarske curtis do gradskoga kotara: Bijaći i crkva Sv. Marte od početka 9. do početka 13. stoljeća’, SHP 26: 189–236. Ančić, Mladen, 2000. ‘U osvit novog doba: Karolinško carstvo i njegov jugoistočni obod’, in HiK: 1.70–103. Ančić, Mladen, 2007. ‘Architecture on royal domains in northern Dalmatia’, HAM 13: 203–210. Ančić, Mladen, 2008. Što “svi znaju” i što je “svima jasno”: Historiografija i nacionalizam (Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest). Ančić, Mladen, 2010. ‘Zamišljanje tradicije: Vrijeme i okolnosti postanka 30. glave djela De administrando imperio’, Radovi ZHP 42: 133–151. Ančić, Mladen, 2011a. ‘Miho Barada i mit o Neretvanima’, PovPril 41: 19–45. Ančić, Mladen, 2011b. ‘Ranosrednjovjekovni Neretvani ili Humljani – Tragom zabune koju je prouzročilo djelo De administrando imperio’, in I. Lučić (ed.), Hum i Hercegovina kroz povijest Vol. 1 (Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest): 217–278. Ančić, Mladen, 2014a. ‘Mjesto Bosne i Hercegovine u konstrukciji povijesti Dominika Mandića (Kako danas čitati djela Dominika Mandića)’, in R. Jolić (ed.), Dr. fra Dominik Mandić (1889.–1973.). Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog simpozija održanog u prigodi 40. obljetnice njegove smrti (Mostar & Zagreb: Hercegovačka franjevačka provincija BDM & Franjevačka knjižnica Mostar): 867–883. Ančić, Mladen, 2014b. ‘Church with incomplete biography: Plans for the consolidation of Byzantine rule on the Adriatic at the beginning of the ninth century’, in Dzino & Parry 2014: 71–88. Ančić, Mladen, 2016. ‘Franački i langobardski utjecaji pri stvaranju i oblikovanju Hrvatske Kneževine’, SHP 43: 213–234 (expanded and updated version of ‘Lombard and Frankish Influences in the Formation of the Croatian Dukedom’, in G.-P. Brogiolo & P. Delogu (eds.), L’Adriatico dalla tarda antichita all’eta Carolingia, Florence: All’insegna del Giglio, 2005: 213–228). Ančić, Mladen, 2017. ‘Zadarska biskupija u okviru Splitske metropolije od 805. do 1154. godine’, ArsAdr 7: 29–46. Ančić, Mladen, 2018a. ‘The Treaty of Aachen: How many empires?’, in Ančić et al. 2018: 25–42. Ančić, Mladen, 2018b. ‘Migration or transformation: The roots of early medieval Croat polity’, in Dzino et al. 2018a: 43–62. Ančić, Mladen, Jonathan Shepard & Trpimir Vedriš (eds.), 2018. Imperial Spheres and the Adriatic: Byzantium, the Carolingians and the Treaty of Aachen (812) (London & New York: Routledge). Anđelić, Pavao, 1959a. ‘Slavenska keramika sa Crkvine u Nerezima kod Čapljine’, GZMS 14: 175–178. Anđelić, Pavao, 1959b. ‘Dva srednjevjekovna nalaza iz Sultića kod Konjica’, GZMS 14: 203–215. Anđelić, Tomislav, 1974. ‘Kasnoantička bazilika u Cimu kod Mostara’, GZMS 29: 179–244. Anđelić, Tomislav, 1999. ‘Izvješće o revizijskom arheološkom iskopavanju starokršćanske bazilike u Mokrom kod Širokoga Brijega’, Hercegovina 4–5(12–13): 241–243.

Bibliography  205 Arntz, Helmut & Heinz Zeiss, 1939. Die einheimischen Runendenkmäler des Festlandes (Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz). Arthur, Paul, 2007. ‘Form, function and technology in pottery production from Late Antiquity to the early Middle Ages’, in L. Lavan, E. Zanini & A. Sarantis (eds.), Technology in Transition: A.D. 300– 650. LAA 4 (Leiden: Brill): 159–186. Arthur, Paul & Helen Patterson, 1994. ‘Ceramics and early medieval central and southern Italy: “a potted history”’, in R. Francovich & G. Noyé (eds.), La storia dell’alto medioevo italiano (VI–X secolo) alla luce dell’archeologia. Biblioteca di archeologia medievale 11 (Florence: All’insegna del Giglio): 409–441. Babić, Ivo, 1992. ‘Splitske uspomene na salonitanske kršćanske starine’, VAHD 85: 13–57. Bálint, Csanád, 2010. ‘Avar goldsmiths’ work from the perspective of cultural history’, in Entwistle & Adams 2010: 146–160. Baraka Perica, Josipa, 2018. ‘The late antique sarcophagi in Liburnia (between the 4th and the 6th century’, in International Scientific Conference: The Basilica of St Sophia during the Transition from Paganism to Christianity. Serdica-Sredets-Sofia 7 (Sofia: Faber): 397–417. Baraka Perica, Josipa, Ante Uglešić & Mirko Rašić, 2019. ‘Tombe a camera con volta a botte della Dalmatia Tardoantica. La tomba a camera con volta come base della futura chiesa’, HAM 25(2): 516–527. Barbiera, Irena, 2009. ‘Memory of a better death: Conventional and exceptional burial rites in central European cemeteries of the AD 6th and 7th centuries’, in I. Barbiera, A.M. Choyke & J.A. Rasson (eds.), Materializing Memory: Archaeological Material Culture and the Semantics of the Past. BAR 1977 (Oxford: Archaeopress): 65–76. Barbiera, Irena, 2013. ‘Remembering the warriors. Weapon burials and tombstones between antiquity and the early Middle Ages in northern Italy’, in Pohl & Heydemann 2013: 407–436. Barnett, Charles, 2017. ‘Rethinking identity, ethnicity, and “Hellenization” in pre-Roman Liburnia’, MHM 3: 63–97. Basić, Ivan, 2008. ‘CIL III 9551 i njegovi tumači’, Tusculum 1: 81–108. Basić, Ivan, 2009. ‘Pristupna razmatranja uz popise biskupâ Zapadnoga Ilirika u aktima crkvenih koncila u Saloni 530. i 533. godine’, Tusculum 2: 59–69. Basić, Ivan, 2011. ‘Prilozi proučavanju crkve Svetog Mateja u Splitu’, ArsAdr 1: 67–96. Basić, Ivan, 2012a. ‘Spalatum – ager Salonitanus? Prilog tumačenju pravnoposjedovnoga položaja priobalja Splitskoga poluotoka u preddioklecijanskome razdoblju’, PovPril 42: 9–42. Basić, Ivan, 2012b. ‘Prilog datiranju zlatnog enkolpija iz Barbata na Rabu’, Rapski zbornik 2: 427–442. Basić, Ivan, 2014. ‘Dalmatinski biskupi na crkvenom saboru u Hijereji 754. godine’, in I. Basić & M. Rimac (eds.), Spalatumque dedit ortum. Zbornik povodom desete godišnjice Odsjeka za povijest Filozofskog fakulteta u Splitu. Studia et Contributiones 6 (Split: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split & Department of History): 149–196. Basić, Ivan, 2015a. ‘Sjeverna i srednja Dalmacija u ranome srednjem vijeku’, in Nikolić Jakus 2015: 427–462. Basić, Ivan, 2015b. ‘Ranokršćanski sarkofag iz Trevisa i njegova grupa’, RadoviIPU 39: 7–20.

206 Bibliography Basić, Ivan, 2017a. ‘Dalmatiae, Dalmatiarum: A study in historical geography of the Adriatic (in light of the new inscription from Cordoba)’, in Demicheli 2017: 309–334. Basić, Ivan, 2017b. ‘Spalatensia Porphyrogenitiana. Notes on the poleogenesis and urban development of early medieval Split’, in I. Benyovsky Latin & Z. Pešorda Vardić (eds.), Towns and Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages. Image of the Town in the Narrative Sources: Reality and/or Fiction? (Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest): 61–114. Basić, Ivan, 2017c. ‘Pagan tomb to Christian church: The case of Diocletian’s mausoleum in Spalatum’, in M. Sághy & E.M. Schoolman (eds.), Pagans and Christians in the Late Roman Empire. New Evidence, New Approaches (4th–8th Centuries) (Budapest & Pécs: Central European University Press): 241–271. Basić, Ivan, 2018a. ‘The sarcophagus with sanction formula from Trogir (aspects of the Byzantine diplomatics tradition in early medieval epigraphy of the Adriatic)’, VAHD 111: 281–330. Basić, Ivan, 2018b. ‘Imperium and Regnum in Gottschalk’s description of Dalmatia’, in Dzino et al. 2018a: 170–209. Basić, Ivan, 2018c. ‘New evidence for the re-establishment of the Adriatic dioceses in the late eighth century’, in Ančić et al. 2018: 261–287. Basić, Ivan & Miljenko Jurković, 2011. ‘Prilog opusu Splitske klesarske radionice kasnog VIII. stoljeća’, SHP 38: 149–185. Basić, Ivan & Maja Zeman, 2019. ‘What can epigraphy tell us about Partitio Imperii in fifth-century Dalmatia?’, JLA 12(1): 88–135. Basler, Đuro, 1954. ‘Kreševo – Kiseljak – Fojnica’, GZMS 9: 299–306. Basler, Đuro, 1958. ‘Bazilike na Mogorjelu’, Naše starine 5: 45–62. Basler, Đuro, 1959. ‘Bazilika u Oborcima: Arheološka problematika i konzervatorski zahvat’, Naše starine 6: 59–72. Basler, Đuro, 1972. Arhitektura kasnoantičkog doba u Bosni i Hercegovini (Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša). Basler, Đuro, 1975. ‘Die “Basilika II” in Breza bei Sarajevo’, Živa antika 25: 259–267. Basler, Đuro, 1975/76. ‘Rimski metalurški pogon i naselje u dolini Japre’, GZMS 30–31: 121–216. Basler, Đuro, 1984. ‘Kasnoantičko doba’, in Benac et al. 1984: 309–374. Basler, Đuro, 1987. ‘Aurea aetas’, in M. Filipović (ed.), Umjetničko blago Bosne i Hercegovine (Sarajevo: Svjetlost): 29–42. Basler, Đuro, 1990. Kršćanska arheologija (Mostar: Crkva na kamenu). Batović, Šime, 1956. ‘Arheološka iskapanja u Ninu’, Ljetopis JAZU 63: 205–208. Batović, Šime, 1960. ‘Kompleks Dobropoljci – Benkovac – Nin, humke’, AP 2: 79–84. Batović, Šime, 1970. ‘Istraživanje liburnskog naselja u Ninu 1969. godine’, Diadora 5: 33–48. Batović, Šime, 1973. ‘Rad Arheološkog muzeja u Zadru od 1970. do 1972.’, Diadora 6: 245–302. Begović, Vlasta & Ivančica Schrunk, 2001. ‘Preobrazbe rimskih vila na istočnom Jadranu u kasnoj antici i ranom srednjem vijeku’, PIAZ 18: 157–172. Bekić, Luka, 2016. The Early Medieval between Pannonia and the Adriatic. Early Slavic Ceramic and Other Archaeological Finds from the Sixth to Eighth Century. Monographs and Catalogues 27 (Pula: Arheological Museum of Istria).

Bibliography  207 Belamarić, Joško (ed.), 1999. Dioklecijanov akvedukt (Split: Ministarstvo kulture Republike Hrvatske, Uprava za zaštitu kulturne baštine, Konzervatorski odjel). Belamarić, Joško, 2001. Studije iz srednjovjekovne i renesansne umjetnosti na Jadranu (Split: Književni krug). Belamarić, Joško, 2014. ‘Svijećnjaci zadarskih majstora Mateja i Aristodija i dosad nepoznati fragmenti srednjovjekovnog tekstila iz splitske katedrale’, in J. Belamarić, B. Lučin, M. Trogrlić & J. Vrandečić (eds.), Splitska hagiografska baština: povijest, legenda, tekst. Knjiga Mediterana 76 (Split: Književni krug): 315–333. Belamarić, Joško, Radoslav Bužančić, Davor Domančić, Jasna Jeličić Radonić & Vanja Kovačić, 1994. Ranokršćanski spomenici otoka Brača (Split: Regionalni zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture). Belošević, Janko, 1965a. ‘Prvi arheološki tragovi seobe naroda na području sjeverne Dalmacije’, Diadora 3: 129–143. Belošević, Janko, 1965b. ‘Nekoliko ranosrednjovjekovnih metalnih nalaza s područja sjeverne Dalmacije’, Diadora 3: 145–158. Belošević, Janko, 1968a. ‘Ranosrednjovjekovna nekropola u selu Kašić kraj Zadra’, Diadora 4: 221–246. Belošević, Janko, 1968b. ‘Nin, Crkva sv. Križa – sistematsko iskopavanje srednjovjekovnih i antičkih objekata’, AP 10: 176–177. Belošević, Janko, 1969. ‘Crkva sv. Križa Nin – ranosrednjovjekovna crkva s nekropolom’, AP 11: 209–212. Belošević, Janko, 1973. ‘Starohrvatska nekropola uz humak “Materiza” kod Nina’, Diadora 6: 221–242. Belošević, Janko, 1974. ‘Die ersten slawischen Urnengräber auf dem Gebiete Jugoslawiens aus dem Dorfe Kašić bei Zadar’, Balcanoslavica 1: 73–86. Belošević, Janko, 1980. Materijalna kultura Hrvata od 7.–9. stoljeća (Zagreb: Sveučilišna naklada Liber). Belošević, Janko, 1984/85. ‘Starohrvatska nekropola u Stankovcima kod Benkovca’, RFFZd 24/11: 73–96. Belošević, Janko, 1985/86. ‘Zaštitna istraživanja starohrvatskih nekropola u Smilčiću i Biljanima Donjim kod Zadra’, RFFZd 25/12: 125–147. Belošević, Janko, 1998. ‘Ranosrednjovjekovno groblje u okolišu crkve sv. Križa u Ninu’, RFFZd 37/24: 105–154. Belošević, Janko, 1999. ‘Slavenska naseobinska keramika otkrivena u okolišu crkve Sv. Križa u Ninu’, RFFZd 38/25: 113–120. Belošević, Janko, 2000a. ‘Razvoj i osnovne značajke starohrvatskih grobalja 7.–9. stoljeća na povijesnim prostorima Hrvata’, RFFZd 39/26: 71–97. Belošević, Janko, 2000b. ‘Arheološka istraživanja uokolo crkve Sv. Križa u Ninu’, Obavijesti HAD 32(3): 111–121. Belošević, Janko, 2007. Starohrvatsko groblje na Ždrijacu u Ninu (Zadar: AMZd). Belošević, Janko, 2010. Altkroatisches Gräberfeld auf Maklinovo brdo im Dorf Kašić bei Zadar. Katalozi i monografije 18 (Split: MHAS). Benac, Alojz, Đuro Basler, Borivoj Čović, Esad Pašalić, Nada Miletić & Pavao Anđelić, 1984. Kulturna istorija Bosne i Hercegovine: Od najstarijih vremena do pada pod osmansku vlast, 2nd ed. (Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša). Benecke, Norbert, Nils Müller-Scheessel, Walter Döfler, Dušanka Kučan, Felix Bittmann, Dagmar Opiola, Steffen Wolters, Zilka Kujundžić-Vejzagić, Knut Rassmann, Wilfried Schulz, Robert Hofmann, Johannes Müller & Tim Schüler,

208 Bibliography 2008/09. ‘Rekonstrukcija procesa naseljavanja u kasnom neolitu na prostoru centralne Bosne’, GZMS 50–51: 11–178. Benjamin, Jonathan, Alessio Rovere, Alessandro Fontana, S. Furlani, Matteo Vacchi, Robyn H. Inglis, Ehudi Galili, Fabrizio Antonioli, Dorit Sivan, Slobodan Miko, et al., 2017. ‘Late Quaternary sea-level changes and early human societies in the central and eastern Mediterranean Basin: An interdisciplinary review’, Quaternary International 449: 29–57. Berto, Luigi A., 2013. The Political and Social Vocabulary of John the Deacon’s ‘Istoria ­ Veneticorum’ (Turnhout: Brepols). Bešlagić, Šefik, 1964. Grborezi (Sarajevo: Zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture). Betti, Maddalena, 2014. The Making of Christian Moravia (858–882): Papal Power and Political Reality. ECEE 24 (Leiden & Boston: Brill). Bierbrauer, Volker, 1984. ‘Jugoslawien seit dem Beginn der Völkerwanderung bis zur slawischen Landnahme: Die Synthese auf dem Hintergrund von Migrations- und Landnahmevorgängen’, in Jugoslawien: Integrationsprobleme’, in K.-D. Grothusen (ed.), Geschichte und Gegenwart: Beitr̈ age des Südosteuropa-Arbeitskreises der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft zum V. Internationalen Südosteuropa-Kongress der Association internationale d’études du Sud-Est européen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 49–97. Bilogrivić, Goran, 2010. ‘Čiji kontinuitet? Konstantin Porfirogenet i hrvatska arheologija o razdoblju 7.–9. stoljeća’, Radovi ZHP 42: 37–48. Bilogrivić, Goran, 2011. ‘O mačevima posebnog tipa u Hrvatskoj’, SHP 38: 83–110. Bilogrivić, Goran, 2014. ‘Ratnici ili lovci? Noževi i strijele u grobovima na području ranosrednjovjekovne Hrvatske’, SHP 41: 23–32. Bilogrivić, Goran, 2018a. ‘Carolingian weapons and the problem of Croat migration and ethnogenesis’, in Dzino et al. 2018a: 86–99. Bilogrivić, Goran, 2018b. ‘Urne, Slaveni i Hrvati. O paljevinskim grobovima i doseobi u 7. stoljeću’, Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti HAZU 36: 1–17. Bilogrivić, Goran, 2018c. ‘The role of church furniture in the communication of identity in early medieval Croatia’, VAHD 111: 331–382. Bilogrivić, Goran, 2019a. ‘Formation of the identity of the elite in the eastern Adriatic hinterland in the late 8th century and early 9th – the role of Carolingian weaponry’, VAMZ 52: 113–147. Bilogrivić, Goran, 2019b. ‘Borna, Dux Guduscanorum – local groups and imperial authority on the Carolingian southeastern frontier’, HAM 25(1): 170–176. Bjelajac, Ljiljana, 1990. ‘La céramique et les lampes’, in B. Bavant, V. Kondić & J.-M. Spieser (eds.), Caričin Grad. II. Le quartier sud-ouest de la ville haute. CEFR 75 (Belgrade & Rome: Arheološki Institut & École Française de Rome): 161–190. Bojanovski, Ivo, 1964. ‘Kasnoantičke grobnice na svod u Čitluku i njihova prethodna konzervacija’, Naše starine 9: 103–122. Bojanovski, Ivo, 1970. ‘Nova epigrafska potvrda Delminiuma sa Duvanjskog polja’, GZMS 25: 5–18. Bojanovski, Ivo, 1974. Dolabelin sistem cesta u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji (Sarajevo: ANUBiH). Bojanovski, Ivo, 1977. ‘Prilozi za topografiju rimskih i predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji (s posebnim obzirom na područje Bosne i Hercegovine)’, GodCBI 15(13): 83–152.

Bibliography  209 Bojanovski, Ivo, 1980/81. ‘Kasnoantička bazilika u Vrbi na Glamočkom polju’, GZMS 35–36: 195–212. Bojanovski, Ivo, 1988a. Bosna i Hercegovina u antičko doba (Sarajevo: ANUBiH). Bojanovski, Ivo, 1988b. ‘Doba rimskog carstva (principat)’, AlBiH 1: 29–35. Bojanovski, Ivo & Dženan Čelić, 1969. ‘Kasnoantička bazilika u Brezi’, Naše starine 12: 7–25. Bóna, István & Jolán B. Horváth, 2009. Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn. Monumenta Germanorum archaeologica Hungariae 6. (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum). Bonačić Mandinić, Maja, 2004. ‘The coin finds’, in Marin & Vickers 2004: 244–254. Booth, Phil, 2014. Crisis of Empire: Doctrine and Dissent at the End of Late Antiquity (Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press). Borri, Francesco, 2005. ‘Duces e magistri militum nell’Italia esarcale (VI-VIII secolo)’, Reti Medievali Rivista 6(2): 19–64. Borri, Francesco, 2008. ‘“Neighbors and relatives”: The Plea of Rižana as a source for northern Adriatic elites’, Mediterranean Studies 17: 1–26. Borri, Francesco, 2009. ‘La Dalmazia altomedievale tra discontinuità e racconto storico (VII–VIII sec.)’, Studi Veneziani 58: 15–51. Borri, Francesco, 2010a. ‘Gli Istriani e i loro parenti. Φράγγοι, Romani e Slavi nella periferia di Bisanzio’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 60: 1–25. Borri, Francesco, 2010b. ‘L’Adriatico tra Bizantini, Longobardi e Franchi: dalla conquista di Ravenna alla pace di Aquisgrana (751–812)’, Bullettino dell’Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo 112: 1–56. Borri, Francesco, 2011. ‘White Croatia and the arrival of the Croats: An interpretation of Constantine Porphyrogenitus on the oldest Dalmatian history’, EME 19(2): 204–231. Borri, Francesco, 2013. ‘Arrivano i barbari a cavallo! Foundation Myths and Origines gentium in the Adriatic Arc’, in Pohl & Heydemann 2013: 215–270. Borri, Francesco, 2017. ‘Captains and Pirates: Ninth century Dalmatia and its rulers’, in S. Gasparri & S. Gelichi (eds.), The Age of Affirmation. Venice, the Adriatic and the Hinterland between the 9th and 10th Centuries (Turnhout: Brepols): 11–38. Borzić, Igor & Ivana Jadrić, 2007. ‘Novi prilozi arheologiji Dugopoljskog kraja’, ArchAdr 1: 145–173. Bowden, William, 2001. ‘A new urban elite? Church builders and church building in late-antique Epirus’, in L. Lavan (ed.), Recent Research in Late-Antique Urbanism. JRA Supplementary Series 42 (Portsmouth: JRA): 61–72. Bowden, William, 2003. Epirus Vetus: The Archaeology of a Late Antique Province (London: Duckworth). Bowden, William & Richard Hodges, 2004. ‘Balkan ghosts? Nationalism and the question of rural continuity in Albania’, in N. Christie (ed.), Landscapes of Change: Rural Evolutions in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Aldershot: Ashgate): 195–222. Bowlus, Charles R., 1995. Franks, Moravians, Magyars: the Struggle for the Middle Danube (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). Brather, Sebastian, 2008. Archäologie der westlichen Slawen. Siedlung, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa, 2nd ed. Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 61 (Berlin & New York: De Gruyter).

210 Bibliography Brather, Sebastian, 2009. ‘Memoria und Repräsentation. Frühmittelalterliche Bestattungen zwischen Erinnerung und Erwartung’, in S. Brather, D. Geuenich & C. Huth (eds.), Historia archaeologica. Festschrift für Heiko Steuer zum 70. ­Geburtstag (Berlin & New York: De Gruyter): 247–284. Bratož, Rajko, 1990. ‘Die Geschichte des frühen Christentums im Gebiet zwischen Sirmium und Aquileia im Licht der neueren Forschungen’, Klio. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 72: 508–550. Braudel, Ferdinand, 1972. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, trans. S. Reynolds (New York: Harper & Row). Bronson, Bennet, 1988. ‘The role of Barbarians in the fall of states’, in N. Yofee & G.L. Cowgill (eds.), The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations (Tucson: University of Arizona Press): 196–218. Brown, Thomas S., 1984. Gentlemen and Officers: Imperial Administration and Aristocratic Power in Byzantine Italy A.D. 554–800 (London: British School at Rome). Brstilo Rešetar, Matea & Kristijan Gotić (eds.), 2019. Varvaria/Breberum/Bribir – Historical layers revealed, exhibition catalogue (Zagreb: Hrvatski povijesni muzej). Brusić, Zdenko, 1976. ‘Late antique and Byzantine underwater finds along the eastern coast of the Adriatic’, Balcanoslavica 5: 31–39. Brusić, Zdenko, 1980. ‘Neki oblici kasnoantičke keramike s podmorskih nalazišta uz našu obalu’, in Erceg et al. 1980: 77–86. Brusić, Zdenko, 1988. ‘Antička luka u Polačama na otoku Mljetu’, in Ž. Rapanić (ed.), Arheološka istraživanja u Dubrovniku i dubrovačkom području. HAD 12 (Zagreb: HAD): 139–151. Bubić, Vinka, 2015. ‘The construction of Diocletian’s aqueduct in Late Antiquity and its landscaping today’, in Ch. Later, M. Helmbrecht & U. Jecklin-Tischhauser (eds.), Infrastruktur und Distribution zwischen Antike und Mittelalter. Studien zu Spätantike und Frühmittelalter 8 (Hamburg: Verlag Dr Kovač): 259–273. Bubić, Vinka, 2016. ‘Tipologija i topografija kasnoantičkih grobova u arheološkom krajoliku srednje Dalmacije’, PhD dissertation (University of Zagreb). Budak, Neven, 1985. ‘Servi ranog srednjeg vijeka u Hrvatskoj i Dalmaciji’, SHP 15: 255–268. Budak, Neven, 1994. Prva stoljeća Hrvatske (Zagreb: Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada). Budak, Neven (ed.), 1995. Etnogeneza Hrvata (Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice Hrvatske & Zavod za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu). Budak, Neven, 1997. ‘Croats between Franks and Byzantium’, HAM 3: 15–22. Budak, Neven, 2008. ‘Identities in early medieval Dalmatia (7th–11th c.)’, in I. Garipzanov, P.J. Geary & P. Urbańzcyk (eds.), Franks, Northmen and Slavs: Gentes and State Formation in Early Medieval Europe. Cursor mundi 5 (Turnhout: Brepols): 223–241. Budak, Neven, 2009. ‘Kako se doista s jugonostalgičarskih pozicija može negirati hrvatska povijest, ili o knjizi Johna V. A. Fine Ml. When Ethnicity did not Matter in the Balkans’, Radovi ZHP 41: 487–495. Budak, Neven, 2011. ‘Review of Fine 2006’, Speculum 86: 187–188. Budak, Neven, 2012. ‘Furta sacra et inventio traditionis: Je li doista postojao kontinuitet između Salonitanske i Splitske biskupije’, in Jurković & Milošević 2012: 157–180. Budak, Neven, 2018a. Hrvatska povijest od 550. do 1100. Povijest hrvatskih zemalja u srednjem vijeku 1 (Zagreb: Leykam International).

Bibliography  211 Budak, Neven, 2018b. ‘One more Renaissance? Dalmatia and the revival of the European economy’, in Ančić et al. 2018: 174–191. Budimir, Milojko, 1992. ‘Arheološka topografija Kninske općine’, in B. Čečuk (ed.), Arheološka istraživanja u Kninu i Kninskoj krajini. HAD 15 (Zagreb: HAD): 23–32. Bugarski, Ivan, 2012. ‘On the Janoshida type earrings and the seventh century Byzantine finds from the western Balkans, with a retrospective view of the Vajska (Vajszka) cemetery’, in V. Tivadar (ed.), Thesaurus Avarorum – Archaeological Studies in Honour of Eva Garam (Budapest: ELTE Bölcsészettudományi Kar Régészettudományi Intézet, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum & MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont Régészeti Intézet): 233–254. Bulić, Dejan, 2013. ‘The fortifications of the Late Antiquity and the early Byzantine period on the later territory of the south Slavic principalities, and their re-occupation’, in T. Živković, D. Crnčević, D. Bulić, V. Petrović, I. Cvijanović & B. Radovanović, The World of the Slavs. Studies on the East, West, and South Slavs: Civitas, Oppidas, Villas and Archaeological Evidence. Monographs 64 (Belgrade: Institut za istoriju): 137–234. Bulić, Frane, 1901. ‘Iscrizioni e rappresentazioni su oggetti di metallo acquistati dall i.r. Museo di Spalato negli anni 1895–1901’, BASD 24: 139–141. Bulić, Frane, 1906. ‘Sull’anno della distruzione di Salona’, BASD 29: 268–304. Bulić, Frane, 1907. ‘Sterro di una chiesa antica cristiana del VI sec. nella località detta Crkvina a Klapavice, nel Comune censuario di Klis (Clissa)’, BASD 30: 101–121. Bulić, Frane, 1908. ‘Iscrizioni e rappresentazioni su oggetti di metallo acquistati dall i.r. Museo di Spalato negli anni 1902–1907’, BASD 24: 161–163. Bulić, Frane, 1920. ‘Skrovište zlatnih novaca našasto u Nerežišćima’, VAHD 43: 199. Bulić Frane, 1927. ‘Oratorio dei martiri salonitani nell’amfiteatro romano a Solin (Salona)’, VAHD 49: 106–111. Bulić, Frane & Josip Bervaldi, 1912. Kronotaksa solinskih biskupa uz dodatak Kronotaksa spljetskih nadbiskupa (od razorenja Solina do polovice XI. v.) (Split: ­Katoličko tiskovno društvo). Buljević, Zrinka, 1997/98. ‘Njive – Podstrana: Groblje iz vremena seobe naroda u Naroni’, VAHD 90–91: 201–293. Buljević, Zrinka, Sanja Ivčević, Jagoda Mardešić & Ema Višić Ljubić, 1994. ‘Artes minores Salonae Christianae’, in Marin 1994: 213–290. Buora, Maurizio, 2008. ‘New fibulae and metal ornaments from Asseria’, Asseria 6: 51–66. Busuladžić, Adnan, 2007. Antičke svjetiljke u Bosni i Hercegovini (Sarajevo: ZMBiH). Busuladžić, Adnan, 2008. Ancient Mosaics in the Teritorry of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sarajevo: ZMBiH). Busuladžić, Adnan, 2010. The Morphology of Antique Fibulae in the Collection in the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sarajevo: ZMBiH). Busuladžić, Adnan, 2011. Roman Villas in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sarajevo: ZMBiH). Busuladžić, Adnan, 2012. ‘Kasnoantička grobnica na svod, crkva i nekropola na lokalitetu Studena česma u Donjem Vakufu’, GodCBI 41: 159–186. Buškariol, Frane, 1986a. ‘Zaštitna istraživanja u Naroni’, Obavijesti HAD 18(1): 24–26. Buškariol, Frane, 1986b. ‘Vid kod Metkovića’, AP 27: 122–123.

212 Bibliography Buškariol, Frane, 1989. ‘Prinosi kasnoantičkoj sakralnoj topografiji Narone’, Lychnid 7: 147–153. Buškariol, Frane, 1999. ‘Prilozi poznavanju otoka Visa od 5. do 15. stoljeća’, VAHD 92: 233–253. Bužančić, Radoslav, 1991. ‘Dvije crkve na Braču obnovljene u ranom srednjem vijeku’, PPUD 31: 21–39. Bužančić, Radoslav, 2003. ‘Quelques chantiers de construction du VIle siècle aux environs de Salone, après la chute de la ville’, HAM 9: 195–204. Bužančić, Radoslav, 2011. ‘Crkve Sv. Vida na Klisu i Sv. Marije u Blizni Gornjoj; Prilog proučavanju vladarske predromaničke arhitekture IX. stoljeća’, PPUD 42: 29–67. Caillet, Jean-Pierre, 1989. ‘L’apport de l’épigraphie de Salone à l’histoire de la Dalmatie dans l’Antiquité Tardive’, Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 133(2): 449–461. Caldwell, Craig H., 2013. ‘The Balkans’ in S. Fitzgerald Johnson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 92–114. Callegher, Bruno, 2011. ‘Emissioni di rame d’epoca giustinianea in area adriatica. Il ruolo di Salona’, Atti e Memorie della Deputazione di Storia Patria delle Marche 109: 81–123. Callegher, Bruno, 2017. ‘Moneta e scambi nell’Adriatico altomedievale La costa dalmata nell’area monetaria bizantina’, in Gelichi & Negrelli 2017: 347–374. Cambi, Nenad, 1972. ‘The cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Salona and Split’, in De Cultu mariano saeculis VI-XI: Acta Congressus Mariologici-Mariani Internationalis in Croatia anno 1971 celebrati (Rome: Pontificia Academia Mariana Internationalis): 51–54. Cambi, Nenad, 1986. ‘Salona i njene nekropole’, RFFZd 25(12): 61–107. Cambi, Nenad, 1993. ‘Stele iz kasnoantičke grobnice u Dugopolju’, VAHD 86: 147–181. Cambi, Nenad, 1994. ‘Truhelka i starokršćanska arheologija’, in Majnarić-Pandžić 1994: 33–50. Cambi, Nenad, 2002. ‘Sarcophagi con la croce nel centro della casa’, in G. Koch (ed.), Akten des Symposiums “Frühchristliche Sarkophage”. Sarkophag-studien 2 (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern): 47–56. Cambi, Nenad, 2007. ‘Bilješke o kasnoj antici na Braču’, Brački zbornik 22: 87–126. Cambi, Nenad, 2010. Sarkofazi lokalne produkcije u rimskoj Dalmaciji. Knjiga Mediterana 60 (Split: Književni krug). Cambi, Nenad, 2013. ‘Škrip na otoku Braču – nerealizirani grad’, ARR 17: 55–84. Cambi, Nenad, Anita Gamulin & Snježana Tonković, 1999. Starokršćanska bazilika u Zmijavcima (Split & Zmijavci: Knjižnica zbornika Kačić & Poglavarstvo općine Zmijavci). Cantino Wataghin, Gisella, 1999. ‘The ideology of urban burials’, in G.-P. Brogiolo & B. Ward-Perkins (eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Leiden & Boston: Brill): 147–180. Chapman, John, Robert Shiel & Šime Batović, 1996. The Changing Face of Dalmatia. Archaeological and Ecological Studies in a Mediterranean Landscape. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 54 (London: Leicester University Press & Society of Antiquaries of London). Chavarría, Alexandra & Tamara Lewit, 2004. ‘Archaeological research on the late antique countryside: A bibliographic essay’, in W. Bowden, L. Lavan &

Bibliography  213 C. Machado (eds.), Recent Research on the Late Antique Countryside. LAA 2 (Leiden: Brill): 3–51. Chevalier, Pascale, 1995. Salona II: Ecclesiae Dalmatiae. Tome 2 – Illustrations et conclusions. CEFR 194/2 (Split & Rome: AMS & École Française de Rome). Chevalier, Pascale, 1996. Salona II: Ecclesiae Dalmatiae. Tome 1 – Catalogue. CEFR 194/2 (Split & Rome: AMS & École Française de Rome). Chevalier, Pascale & Jagoda Mardešić, 2006. ‘La ville de Salone dans l’Antiquité tardive: Déprise spatiale, mutations et renouveau de la parure monumentale’, HAM 12: 55–68. Chevalier, Pascale & Jagoda Mardešić, 2008. ‘Le groupe épiscopal de Salone aux VIe -VIIe siècles: Urbanisme et vie quotidienne’, MEFRA 120(2): 227–238. Chevalier, Pascale & Ivan Matejčić, 2012. ‘L’arca en marbre des saints Maur et Eleuthère de Poreč (1247)’, in R. Alcoy Pedrós & D. Allios (eds.), Le Plaisir de l’art du Moyen-Age: Commande, production et réception de l’oeuvre d’art. Mélanges en hommage à Xavier Barral i Altet (Paris: Picard): 115–121. Ciglenečki, Slavko, 2003. ‘The basic characteristics of the late antique settlement pattern within the eastern Alpine region and Dalmatia’, HistAntiq 11: 263–281. Ciglenečki, Slavko, 2008. ‘Castra und Hohensiedlungen vom 3. bis. 6. Jahrhundert in Slowenien’, in Steuer et al. 2008: 481–532. Ciglenečki, Slavko, 2009. ‘Problem odsotnosti cerkva v nekaterih poznoantičnih kastelih Ilirika’, Zbornik Kačić 41–43: 673–688. Ciglenečki, Slavko, 2014. ‘The changing relations between city and countryside in late antique Illyricum’, HAM 20(1): 232–250. Colás, Alejandro, 2007. Empire (Cambridge & Malden: Polity). Conant, Jonathan, 2012. Staying Roman: Conquest and Identity in Africa and the Mediterranean, 439–470 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Curta, Florin, 2001. The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube c. 500–700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Curta, Florin, 2006. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500–1250 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Curta, Florin, 2010a. ‘Emperor Heraclius and the conversion of the Croats and the Serbs’, in Tsv. Stepanov & G. Kazakov (eds.), Medieval Christianitas: Different Regions, ‘Faces’, Approaches (Sofia: Military Publishing): 121–138. Curta, Florin, 2010b. ‘The Early Slavs in the northern and eastern Adriatic region. A critical approach’, Archeologia Medievale 37: 307–329. Curta, Florin, 2010c. ‘A note on trade and trade centers in the eastern and northern Adriatic region between the eighth and the ninth century’, HAM 16: 267–276. Curta, Florin, 2011. The Edinburgh History of the Greeks c. 500 to 1050: The Early Middle Ages (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Curta, Florin, 2013a. ‘Horsemen in forts or peasants in villages? Remarks on the archaeology of warfare in the 6th and 7th c. Balkans’, in Sarantis & Christie 2013: 2.809–850. Curta, Florin, 2013b. ‘Seventh-century fibulae with bent stem in the Balkans’, Archaeologia Bulgarica 17(1): 49–70. Curta, Florin, 2013c. ‘The beginning of the Middle Ages in the Balkans’, Millenium 10: 145–214. Curta, Florin, 2016a. ‘Burials in prehistoric mounds. Reconnecting with the past in early medieval Greece’, Revue des Études Byzantines 74: 269–285.

214 Bibliography Curta, Florin, 2016b. ‘The middle way of the middle Avar age: Remarks on the semicircular pendants with open-work ornament’, SHP 43: 199–216. Curta, Florin, 2017. ‘Social identity on a platter. Clay pans in sixth to seventh century ceramic assemblages’, in J.L. Quiroga, M. Kazanski & V. Ivanišević (eds.), Entangled Identitites and Otherness in Late Antique and Early Medieval Europe. Historical, Archaeological and Bioarchaeological Approaches. BAR 2851 (Oxford: Archaeopress): 132–177. Curta, Florin, 2018. ‘The earliest Slavs in east central Europe? Remarks on the early medieval settlement in Nova Tabla (Slovenia)’, in D. Aparaschivei & G. Bilavschi (eds.), Studia Romana et mediaevalia Europaensia. Miscellanea in honorem annos LXXXV peragentis professoris emeriti Dan Gh. Teodor oblata (Bucharest & Brăila: Editura Academiei Române & Editura Istros a Muzeului Brăilei “Carol I”): 81–98. Curta, Florin, 2019a. Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500–1300). Brill’s Companions to European History 19 (Leiden & Boston: Brill). Curta, Florin, 2019b. ‘Remarks on the economic and funerary use of imitations of early Byzantine coins’, Byzantion 89: 177–208. Curta, Florin & Andrei Gândilă, 2011/12. ‘Hoards and hoarding patterns in the early Byzantine Balkans’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 65–66: 45–111. Curta, Florin & Bartłomiej S. Szmoniewski, 2019. The Velestino Hoard: Casting Light on the Byzantine ‘Dark Ages’ (London: Palgrave MacMillan). Curzi, Gaetano, 1998. ‘I mosaici dell’oratorio di S.Venanzio nel Battistero Lateranense: Problemi storici e vicende conservative’, in F. Guidobaldi & A. Paribeni (eds.), Atti del V colloquio dell’Associazione Italiana per lo Studio e la Conservazione del Mosaico (Ravenna: Edizioni del Girasoli): 267–282. Čače, Slobodan, 1993. ‘Civitates Dalmatiae u “Kozmografiji” Anonima Ravenjanina’, Diadora 15: 347–439. Čače, Slobodan, 2003. ‘Ime Dalmacija u 2. i 1. st. prije Krista’, RFFZd 40/27: 29–48. Čaušević-Bully, Morana, 2008. ‘181. Fulfinum – forum’, HAG 5: 410–413. Čaušević-Bully, Morana, 2014. ‘La ville de Fulfinum (Omišalj, Croatie). Nouveau regard sur le de devenir d’une ville antique entre l’antiquite tardive et le haut Moyen Âge’, HAM 20(1): 157–169. Čremošnik, Gregor & Dimitrije Sergejevski, 1930. Gotisches und römisches aus Breza bei Sarajevo. Novitates Muzei Saraievoensis 9 (Sarajevo: ZMS). Čremošnik, Irma, 1949/50. ‘Налаз словенске керамике у Рачи 1947 г. и преглед налаза словенске керамике у Босни до данас’, GZMS 4–5: 383–395. Čremošnik, Irma, 1951a. ‘Nalaz staroslavenskih mamuza iz Sultanovića’, GZMS 6: 311–321. Čremošnik, Irma, 1951b. ‘Nalazi nakita u srednjevjekovnoj zbirci Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu’, GZMS 6: 241–270. Čremošnik, Irma, 1952. ‘Keramika iz rimskog nalazišta u Mogorjelu’, GZMS 7: 241–271. Čremošnik, Irma, 1953. ‘Izvještaj o iskopinama u Rogačićima kod Blažuja’, GZMS 8: 303–315. Čremošnik, Irma, 1956. ‘Reljef Silvana i Nimfa iz Založja (Bihać)’, GZMS 11: 111–126. Čremošnik, Irma, 1958. ‘Arheološka istraživanja u okolini Bihaća’, GZMS 13: 117–136. Čremošnik, Irma, 1959. ‘Spomenik sa japodskim konjanicima iz Založja kod Bihaća’, GZMS 14: 103–111.

Bibliography  215 Čremošnik, Irma, 1960/61. ‘Nalazi bojene keramike u BiH u rimsko doba’, GZMS 15–16: 189–202. Čremošnik, Irma, 1965. ‘Rimska vila u Višićima’, GZMS 20: 147–260. Čremošnik, Irma, 1974. ‘Rimsko naselje na Paniku kod Bileća’, GZMS 29: 41–164. Čremošnik, Irma, 1975. ‘Die Untersuchungen in Mušići und Žabljak. Über den ersten Fund der ältesten slawischen Siedlung in Bosnien’, WMBHL 5: 91–176. Čremošnik, Irma, 1977. ‘Ranoslavensko naselje Jazbine u Batkoviću kod Bijeljine’, GodCBI 15/13: 227–308. Čremošnik, Irma, 1984. Mozaici i zidno slikarstvo rimskog doba u Bosni i Hercegovini (Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša). Čremošnik, Irma, 1987/88. ‘Rimsko utvrđenje na Gradini u Biogracima kod Lištice’, GZMS 42–43: 83–128. Čremošnik, Irma, 1990. ‘Tragovi autohtone kulture iz vremena rimske vladavine u Bosni i Hercegovini’, GZMS 45: 93–108. Dadić, Majda, 2019/20. ‘Early Croatian graves from the Banovac site in Nin, with reference to other medieval graves’, Diadora 33–34: 359–380. Dautova-Ruševljan, Velika, 1973. ‘Sustjepan u Cavtatu – zaštitna iskopavanja’, AP 15: 63. Davison, David, Vincent Gaffney & Emilio Marin (eds.), 2006. Dalmatia: Research in the Roman Province 1970–2001. Papers in honour of J. J. Wilkes. BAR 1576 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Decker, Michael J., 2016. The Byzantine Dark Ages (London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing). Delonga, Vedrana, 1987. ‘Keramika’, in T. Burić (ed.), Bribir u srednjem vijeku, exhibition catalogue, 2nd ed. (Split: MHAS): 69–90. Delonga, Vedrana, 1994. ‘Latinski epigrafički spomenici starohrvatske županije Livno’, in M. Baković (ed.), Livanjski kraj u povijesti (Split & Livno: MHAS): 81–88. Delonga, Vedrana, 1995. ‘Donatorski natpis župana Gostihe iz crkve Sv. Spasa u Cetini (Vrh Rici)’, SHP 22: 117–140. Delonga, Vedrana, 1996a. Latin Epigraphic Monuments in Early Medieval Croatia. Monumenta medii aevi Croatiae 1 (Split: MHAS). Delonga, Vedrana, 1996b. ‘Ceramics’, in Milošević 1996: 55–68. Delonga, Vedrana, 1997. ‘Lepuri od kamenog doba do Turaka’, in S. Nimac (ed.), Lepuri – stanovništvo i kulturno-povijesni spomenici (Lepuri: self-published): 45–97. Delonga, Vedrana, 2000. ‘Pismenost karolinškog doba i njeni hrvatski odjeci – latinska epigafička baština u hrvatskim krajevima’, in HiK: 1.216–249. Delonga, Vedrana (ed.), 2014a. Prije sjećanja. Arheološka istraživanja u jugoistočnom dijelu Dioklecijanove palače u Splitu 1992. godine 2 Vols. (Split: MHAS). Delonga, Vedrana, 2014b. ‘Faza II. Podzemni urbanizam’, in Delonga 2014a: 1.152–167. Delonga, Vedrana, 2014c. ‘Gruba keramika i keramika od pročišćene gline’, in Delonga 2014a: 2.103–154. Delonga, Vedrana & Maja Bonačić Mandinić, 2014. ‘Faza I.A. Razdoblje prvih preinaka’, in Delonga 2014a: 1.147–151. Demicheli, Dino, 2016. ‘The sepulchural inscription from Klapavice mentioning Gaius Alasinius Valentinus, a centurion of the VIII Voluntariorum Cohort’, Diadora 30: 109–121.

216 Bibliography Demicheli, Dino (ed.), 2017. Illyrica Antiqua 2: Ob honorem Duje Rendić-Miočević (Zagreb: Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb). Demicheli, Ana & Dino Demicheli, 2018. ‘Salona 541. godine – sarkofag vaginarija Saturnina, fabrica Salonitana armorum i Justinijanska kuga’, Tusculum 11: 87–105. Demo, Željko, 1994a. Ostrogothic coinage from collections in Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia & Herzegovina. Situla 32 (Ljubljana: Narodni muzej). Demo, Željko, 1994b. ‘Arheologija srednjeg vijeka i srednjevjekovni spomenici Bosne u radovima Ćire Truhelke’, in Majnarić-Pandžić 1994: 51–71. Demo, Željko, 2014. Zlato i srebro srednjeg vijeka u Arheloškom muzeju u Zagrebu (s prilogom Maje Bunčić), exhibition catalogue (Zagreb: AMZg). Di Bella, Letizia & Sara Casieri, 2013. ‘The Late Glacial–Holocene record from Central Adriatic Sea: Paleoenvironmental reconstruction based on benthic foraminiferal assemblages’, Geobios 46(6): 473–489. Diarte-Blasco, Pilar (ed.), 2017. Cities, Lands and Ports in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages: Archaeologies of Change (Rome: BraDypUS). Distelberger, Anton, 2004. Österreichs Awarinnen. Frauen aus Gräbern des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts (St. Pölten: Niederösterreichisches Institut für Landeskunde). Dukić, Josip, Slavko Kovačić & Ema Višić-Ljubić (eds.), 2008. Salonitansko-Splitska crkva u prvom tisućljeću kršćanske povijesti. Zbornik međunarodnoga znanstvenog skupa u povodu 1700. obljetnice mučeništva sv. Dujma (Split: Crkva u svijetu & Splitsko-Makarska nadbiskupija). Dunn, Archibald, 1994. ‘The transition from Polis to Kastron in the Balkans (III–VII cc.): General and regional perspectives’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 18: 60–81. Duplančić, Arsen, 2013. ‘Two early Christian reliquaries from Split’, VAPD 106: 205–229. Dušanić, Slobodan, 1995. ‘Late Roman mining in Illyricum: Historical observations’, in B. Jovanović, P. Petrović & S. Đurekanović (eds.), Ancient Mining and Metallurgy in Southeast Europe (Belgrade & Bor: Archaeological Institute & Museum of Mining and Metallurgy): 219–225. Duval, Noel, Emilio Marin & Catherine Metzger (eds.), 2000. Salona III: Manastirine, établissement préromain, nécropole et basilique paléochrétienne. CEFR 194/3 (Rome: École Française de Rome). Duvnjak, Jela & Marija Marić Baković, 2018. ‘Continuity of the sacral and actuality of the cult on the cemetery of St. Ivo in Livno’, in J. Belaj, M. Belaj, S. Krznar, T.  Sekelj Ivančan & T. Tkalčec (eds.), Sacralization of Landscape and Sacred Places. Serta Instituti Archaeologici 10 (Zagreb: Institut za arheologiju): 259–276. Dvoržak Schrunk, Ivančica, 1989. ‘Dioklecijanova palača od 4. do 7. st.’, VAMZ 22: 91–105. Dyggve, Ejnar, 1951. History of Salonitan Christianity (Oslo: H. Aschehoug). Dzino, Danijel, 2010a. Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia. ECEE 12 (Leiden & Boston: Brill). Dzino, Danijel, 2010b. Illyricum and Roman Politics 229 BC–AD 68 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Dzino, Danijel, 2010c. ‘Aspects of identity-construction and cultural mimicry among the Dalmatian sailors in the Roman navy’, Antichthon: Journal of Australasian Society for Classical Studies 44: 96–110.

Bibliography  217 Dzino, Danijel, 2011. ‘The perception of Croatian medieval history by Vladimir Nazor in Hrvatski kraljevi (The Kings of the Croats)’, Croatian Studies Review 7: 89–100. Dzino, Danijel, 2012a. ‘Contesting identities of pre-Roman Illyricum’, Ancient West & East 11: 69–96. Dzino, Danijel, 2012b. ‘Commentary: Archaeology and the (de)construction of Bosnian identity’, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28(2): 179–188. Dzino, Danijel, 2014a. ‘Local knowledge and wider contexts: stories of the arrival of the Croats in De Administrando Imperio in the past and present’, in Dzino & Parry 2014: 89–105. Dzino, Danijel, 2014b. ‘The formation of early imperial peregrine civitates in Dalmatia: (Re)constructing indigenous communities after the conquest’, in M.A. Janković, V.D. Mihajlović & S. Babić (eds.), The Edges of the Roman World (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing): 219–231. Dzino, Danijel, 2014c. ‘The rise and fall of the Dalmatian “Big-Men”: Social structures in late antique, post-Roman and early medieval Dalmatia (ca. 500–850)’, Studia Academica Šumenensia 1: 127–152. Dzino, Danijel, 2016. ‘Subverting Braudel in Dalmatia: Religion, landscape and cultural mediation in the Hinterland of the eastern Adriatic’, in C. Concannon & L. Mazurek (eds.), Across the Corrupting Sea: Post-Braudelian Approaches to the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean (London & New York: Routledge): 193–212. Dzino, Danijel, 2017a. ‘The division of Illyricum in Tiberian era: Long term significance’, in P. Kovács (ed.), Contributions to the History of the Danubian Provinces under Tiberius’ Reign (14–37 AD). Hungarian Polis Studies 24 (Budapest & Debrecen: Eötvös Loránd University & University of Debrecen): 41–54. Dzino, Danijel, 2017b. ‘Reclaiming the past in the valley of Una: Re-use of Iapodean urns in Roman times’, in A. Gavrielatos (ed.), Self-Presentation and Identity in Roman World (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing): 113–123. Džino, Danijel, 2017/18. ‘Early Christian basilical complex and graves in tumuli in Ljubač: Deciphering ‘Dark Ages’ of Dalmatia’, SHP 44–45: 89–113. Dzino, Danijel, 2018a. ‘From Byzantium to the West: “Croats and Carolingians” as a paradigm-change in the research of early medieval Dalmatia’, in Dzino et al. 2018a: 17–32. Dzino, Danijel, 2018b. ‘The cult of Silvanus on the central Adriatic Islands between insularity and connectivity’, in A. Kouremenos (ed.), Insularity and Identity in the Roman Mediterranean (Oxford: Oxbow Books): 108–124. Džino, Danijel, forthcoming. ‘The mission of Abbot Martin in Dalmatia and Istria 641: A new interpretation’, in D. Džino & R.W. Strickler (eds.), Dissidence and Persecution in Byzantium. Byzantina Australiensia (Leiden & Boston: Brill). Džino, Danijel & Alka Domić Kunić, 2018. ‘A view from the frontier-zone: Roman conquest of Illyricum’, in M. Milićević Bradač & D. Demicheli (eds.), A Century of Brave: Roman Conquest and Indigenous Resistance in Illyricum during the Time of Augustus and His Heirs (Zagreb: FF Press): 77–87. Dzino, Danijel, Ante Milošević & Trpimir Vedriš (eds.), 2018a. Migration, Integration and Connectivity on the Southeastern Frontier of the Carolingian Empire. ECEE 50 (Leiden & Boston: Brill). Dzino, Danijel, Ante Milošević & Trpimir Vedriš, 2018b. ‘A view from the Carolingian frontier zone’, in Dzino et al. 2018a: 1–14.

218 Bibliography Dzino, Danijel & Ken Parry (eds.), 2014. Byzantium, Its Neighbours and Its Cultures. Byzantina Australiensia 20 (Brisbane: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies). Ekonomou, Andrew J., 2009. Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, AD 590–752 (Lanham: Lexington Books). Elsner, Jaś, 1998. ‘Art and architecture’, in A. Cameron & P. Garsney (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History 13: The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 736–761. Entwistle, Christopher & Noël Adams (eds.), 2010. Intelliglible Beauty: Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery. British Museum Research Publication 178 (London: British Museum). Erceg, Ivan, Anđela Horvat, Ive Mažuran & Mate Suić (eds.), 1980. Gunjačin zbornik (Zagreb: Veselin Masleša). Erdkamp, Paul, 2019. ‘War, food, climate change, and the decline of the Roman Empire’, JLA 12(2): 422–465. Esmond Cleary, Simon, 2013. The Roman West, AD 200–500 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Evans, Huw M. A., 1989. The Early Medieval Archaeology of Croatia AD 600–900. BAR 539 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Fabijanić, Tomislav, 2004. ‘Pojasne kopče i pređice druge polovice 5. do 7. st. na području rimske provincije Dalmacije’, MA thesis (University of Zadar). Fabijanić, Tomislav, 2009. ‘Nova razmatranja o ranobizantskim pojasnim kopčama tipa “Bologna/Balgota”’, ArchAdr 2: 129–139. Fabijanić, Tomislav, 2013. ‘14C date from early Christian basilica gemina in Podvršje (Croatia) in the context of Slavic settlement on the eastern Adriatic coast’, in M. Dulinicz & S. Mozdzioch (eds.), The Early Slavic Settlement of Central Europe in the Light of New Dating Evidence (Wroclaw: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences): 251–260. Fabijanić, Tomislav, Miroslav Glavičić & Mirko Rašić (eds.), 2017. Kulturno povijesna baština općine Ljubuški: Zbornik radova (Ljubuški: Općina Ljubuški & Franjevački samostan sv. Ante na Humcu). Fadić, Ivo, 2001. ‘Bedemi Aserije’, HistAntiq 7: 69–89. Fadić, Ivo, 2003. Asseria, 5 godina istraživanja (1998.-2002.) (Zadar: AMZd). Fadić, Ivo & Berislav Štefanac, 2014. ‘Asseria’s fortifications’, Asseria 12: 37–118. Faričić, Josip & Jerolim Lenkić (eds.), 2017. Župa Ljubač: Zrcalo povijesnih i geografskih mijena u sjeverozapadnom dijelu Ravnih Kotara (Zadar & Ljubač: Sveučilište u Zadru & Župa sv. Martina). Fazioli, K. Patrick, 2012. ‘Ceramic technology in the southeastern Alpine region in Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages: Results of macroscopic and microscopic analyses’, ArhVest 63 (2012): 57–89. Fekeža, Lidija, 1989. ‘Keramičke posude u grobovima ranoslovenskog perioda ranog srednjeg veka na teritoriji Bosne i Hercegovine’, GZMS 44: 209–231. Fekeža, Lidija, 1990. ‘Kasnoantičko utvrđenje na lokalitetu Gradac na IIinjači u selu Gornji Kotorac kod Sarajeva’, GZMS 45: 155–170. Fekeža, Lidija, 1991. ‘Kasnoantičko utvrđenje na lokalitetu Gradac na Ilinjači u Gornjem Kotorcu kod Sarajeva (nastavak)’, GZMS 46: 175–202. Fenner, Jack N., 2005. ‘Cross-cultural estimation of the human generation interval for use in genetics-based population divergence studies’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 128: 415–423.

Bibliography  219 Ferluga, Jadran, 1975. ‘Le clisure byzantine in Asia Minore’, ZRVI 16: 9–23. Ferluga, Jadran, 1978. L’amministrazione bizantina in Dalmazia, 2nd ed. (Venice: Deputazione di storia patria per le Venezie). Ferluga, Jadran, 1987. ‘Überlegungen zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Provinz Istrien’, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 35: 164–173. Ferluga, Jadran, 1992. ‘L’Istria tra Giustiniano e Carlo Magno’, ArhVest 43: 175–190. Fiala, Franz, 1893. ‘Die Eregbnisse der Untersuchung prähistorischer Grabhügel auf dem Glasinac im Jahre 1892.’, WMBH 1: 126–168. Fiala, Franz, 1895. ‘Die Eregbnisse der Untersuchung prähistorischer Grabhügel auf dem Glasinac im Jahre 1893.’, WMBH 3: 3–38. Filipčić, Dejan, 2017. ‘Byzantine lead seals from the Kolovare City beach in Zadar’, in H. Gračanin & T. Vedriš (eds.), Colloquia Mediaevalia Croatica IV: Byzantine Studies in Croatia – Retrospective and Perspectives, book of conference abstracts (Zagreb: FF Press): 23. Fine, John V.A., 1983. The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). Fine, John V.A., 1987. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). Fine, John V.A., 2006. When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans: A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). Freeden, Uta von, 2008. ‘Ausgewählte Befunde aus dem langobardenzeitlichen Gräberfeld von Szólád, Komitat Somogy, Ungarn’, in J. Bemmann & M.  Schmauder (eds.), Kulturwandel in Mitteleuropa. Langobarden – Awaren – Slawen. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 11 (Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH): 399–413. Freeden, Uta von, Tivadar Vida & Péter Skriba, 2005. ‘Ausgrabung des langobardenzeitlichen Gräberfeldes von Szólád, Komitat Somogy, Ungarn. Vorbericht und Überblick über langobardenzeitlichen Besiedlung am Plattensee’, Germania 85: 359–384. Gabričević, Branimir, 1957. ‘Nepoznati šljem na provjesla iz Solina’, Peristil 2: 49–51. Gabričević, Branimir, 1975. ‘Question de la datation du sarcophage de l’abbesse Jeanne’, in Rapanić 1975: 96–101. Gandila, Andrei, 2018. Cultural Encounters on Byzantium’s Northern Frontier, c. AD 500–700: Coins, artifacts and history (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Garipzanov, Ildar, 2018. Graphic Signs of Authority in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, 300–900 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Gauthier, Nancy, 2006. ‘Salone entre Rome et Constantinople: l’apport de l’épigraphie chrétienne’, in R. Harreither, P. Pergola, R. Pillinger & A. Pülz (eds.), Akten des XIV. Internationalen Kongresses für christliche Archäologie: Frühes Christentum zwischen Rom und Konstantinopel. Archäologische Forschungen 14 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften): 375–386. Gelichi, Sauro & Claudio Negrelli (eds.), 2017. Adriatico altomedievale (VI-IX secolo): Scambi, porti, produzioni. Studi e ricerche 4 (Venice: Edizioni Ca’Foscari). Genke, Victor & Francis X. Gumerlock (eds.), 2010. Gottschalk and a Medieval Predestination Controversy. Texts Translated from the Latin. Mediaeval philosophical texts in translation 47 (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press).

220 Bibliography Ghica, Victor, Ante Milošević, Nikolina Uroda & Danijel Džino, 2017. ‘Varvaria/ Breberium/Bribir archaeological project. The 2015 excavation season’, HAM 23(2): 776–796. Ghica, Victor, Ante Milošević, Nikolina Uroda & Danijel Džino, 2019. ‘Varvaria/ Breberium/Bribir archaeological project. The 2016 excavation season’, HAM 25(2): 143–163. Gioanni, Stéphane, 2015. ‘Les cours croates et la réforme de l’église dalmate (IXe-XIe siècle) structures, hommes et doctrines’ in Le corti nell’alto Medioevo. Settimane di studio della Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo 62 (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo): 319–352. Gisler, Urlike, 1974. ‘Datierung und Herleitung der vogelförmigen Riemenzungen. Ein Beitrag zur Archäologie der frühen Karolingerzeit’, in G. Kossack & G. Ulbert (eds.), Studien zur vor- und frühgeschichlichten Archäologie: Festschrift für Joachim Werner zum 65. Geburstag. Vol 2: Frühmittelalter (Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck): 521–543. Giunio, Kornelija A., 2006. ‘189. Zadar – Sv. Nikola’, HAG 3: 354–355. Gjurašin, Hrvoje, 1990. ‘Kasnoantički nalazi iz Škripa na otoku Braču i srebrni prsten iz Vrlike’, SHP 20: 251–264. Gjurašin, Hrvoje, 2000. ‘Šuplja Crkva u Solinu. Arheološka istraživanja 1998. i 2001. godine’, SHP 27: 83–87. Glavaš, Tihomir, 1982. ‘Iskopavanje preromaničke crkve u Vrutcina kod Vrela Bosne’, GZMS 37: 93–122. Glavaš, Tihomir, 1990. ‘Novi nalazi predromaničke skulpture u Bosni i Hercegovini’, GZMS 45: 177–190. Glavaš, Tihomir, 2006. ‘Sakralne građevine u širokobriješkom kraju od ranog kršćanstva do kraja srednjega vijeka (IV.–XV. st.)’, in Sto godina nove crkve na Širokom Brijegu: 1905.-2005. (Široki Brijeg: Franjevački samostan): 23–47. Glicksman, Kristina, 2005. ‘Internal and external trade in the Roman province of Dalmatia’, OpArch 29: 189–230. Gluščević, Smiljan, 1993/94. ‘Brodolomi na Jadranu u antici i srednjem vijeku’, Adrias 4–5: 13–32. Gluščević, Smiljan, 2004. ‘Podmorsko arheološko istraživanje u Trogiru i na Pantani’, Obavijesti HAD 36(1): 124–131. Gluščević, Smiljan, 2005. ‘Zadarske nekropole od 1. do 4. stoljeća: Organizacija groblja, pogrebni obredi, podrijetlo, kultura, status i standard pokojnika’, PhD dissertation (University of Zadar). Goldstein, Ivo, 1992. Bizant na Jadranu. Latina et Graeca 13 (Zagreb: Zavod za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskog fakulteta). Goldstein, Ivo, 1995. Hrvatski rani srednji vijek (Zagreb: Zavod za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskog fakulteta). Goldstein, Ivo, 2005a. ‘Funkcija Jadrana u ratu Bizantskog carstva protiv Ostrogota 535.-555. godine’, RadoviZHP 37: 23–34. Goldstein, Ivo, 2005b. ‘Naseljeni gradovi Porfirogenetove Paganije (DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO 36/14–15)’, in N. Budak (ed.), Raukarov zbornik: Zbornik u čast Tomislava Raukara (Zagreb: FF Press): 39–53. Grabar, André, 1974. ‘Essai sur l’art lombards en ltalie’, in Atti del convegno internazionale sul tema: La civilta del Langobardi in Europa (Rome: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei): 25–44. Gračanin, Hrvoje, 2011. Južna Panonija u kasnoj antici i ranom srednjovjekovlju (od konca 4. do konca 11. stoljeća) (Zagreb: Plejada).

Bibliography  221 Gračanin, Hrvoje, 2012. ‘Guduskani/Guduščani – Gačani: Promišljanja o etnonimu Gačani i horonimu Gacka u svjetlu ranosrednjovjekovnih narativa i suvremenih historiografskih tumačenja’, in H. Gračanin & Ž. Holjevac (eds.), Gacka u srednjem vijeku. Zbornik radova. Biblioteka Zbornici 42 (Zagreb & Otočac: Institut društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar & Područni centar Gospić): 49–68. Gračanin, Hrvoje, 2015a. ‘The history of the eastern Adriatic region from the Vth to the VIIth centuries AD: Historical processes and historiographic problems’, in Marion & Tassaux 2015: 67–98. Gračanin, Hrvoje, 2015b. ‘Kraj antike na hrvatskim prostorima’, in Nikolić Jakus 2015: 3–36. Gračanin, Hrvoje, 2015c. ‘Bizant na hrvatskom prostoru u ranome srednjem v ijeku’, in Nikolić Jakus 2015: 495–516. Gračanin, Hrvoje, 2016. ‘Late antique Dalmatia and Pannonia in Cassiodorus’ Variae’, Millennium 13: 211–274. Gračanin, Hrvoje & Nebojša Kartalija, 2018. ‘Neka razmatranja o gospodarstvu Zapadnog Ilirika od IV do VI stoljeća’, ActIllyr 2: 335–394. Gračanin, Hrvoje & Jana Škrgulja, 2015. ‘Refashioning of historical reality: Three stories by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and the early medieval history of Croatia’, in M.B. Panov (ed.), Samuel’s State and Byzantium: History, Legend, Tradition, Heritage (Skopje: Univerzitet “Evro-Balkan”): 24–34. Grēgoriou-Iōannidou, Martha, 1989. ‘Οι Βυζαντινές κλεισούρες και κλεισουραρχίες’, Byzantiaka 9: 179–202. Grmek, Mirko, 1998. ‘Les consequnces de la peste de Justinien dans l’Illyricum’, in N. Cambi & E. Marin (eds.), Acta XIII congressus internationalis archaeologiae christianae. Split–Poreč (Split & Vatican City: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana): 787–794. Gudelj, Ljubomir, 1999. ‘Izvješće o arheološkim istraživanjima Dioklecijanova akvedukta na Bilicama’, in: Belamarić 1999: 77–85. Gudelj, Ljubomir, 2006. Od svetišta Mitre do crkve Sv. Mihovila: Rezultati istraživanja u Prološcu Donjem-Postranju (1986.-1997. godine) (Split: MHAS). Gudelj, Ljubomir, 2011. Crkvine, Cista Velika, exhibition catalogue (Split: MHAS). Gunjača, Stjepan, 1953. ‘Revizija iskopina u Biskupiji kod Knina 1950’, Ljetopis JAZU 57: 9–49. Gunjača, Stjepan, 1960. ‘Trogodišnji rad Muzeja hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika (1955., 1956. i 1957. godine’, SHP 7: 267–281. Gunjača, Zlatko, 1987. ‘Dubravice kod Skradina ranosrednjovjekovno groblje’, AP 28: 148–150. Gunjača, Zlatko, 1989. ‘O srednjovjekovnim arheološkim nalazima i nalazištima u Smrdeljema kod Kistanja’, Diadora 11: 363–406. Gunjača, Zlatko, 1995. ‘Groblje u Dubravicama kod Skradina i druga groblja 8.–9. stoljeća u Dalmaciji’, in Budak 1995: 159–168, 280–287. Gusar, Karla, 2011. ‘Nalazi slavenske keramike s lokaliteta Podvršje – Glavčine’, ArchAdr 3: 305–322. Gusar, Karla, 2012. ‘Jokina glavica – early medieval graves’, in B. Marijanović 2012: 49–83. Gusar, Karla, 2017. ‘Srednjovjekovni nalazi i nalazišta na području Ljupča’, in Faričić & Lenkić 2017: 134–151. Gusar, Karla & Dario Vujević, 2012a. ‘Matakova glavica’, in B. Marijanović 2012: 151–173.

222 Bibliography Gusar, Karla & Dario Vujević, 2012b. ‘Duševića glavica’, in B. Marijanović 2012: 103–136. Guštin, Mitja & Georg Tieffengraber, 2002. ‘Formen und Chronologie frühmittelaltericher Keramik in Nova Tabla bei Murska Sobota’, in M. Guštin (ed.), Die Frühen Slawen: Frühmittelalteriche Keramik am Rand der Ostalpen (Ljubljana: Narodni Muzej Slovenije): 46–64. Haldon, John F., 2006. ‘Social transformation in the 6th-9th c. East’, in W. Bowden, A. Gutteridge & C. Machado (eds.), Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity. LAA 3 (Leiden: Brill): 603–648. Haldon, John F., 2009. ‘The Byzantine Empire’, in I. Morris & W. Scheidel (eds.), ­ The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byzantium (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press): 205–254. Halsall, Guy, 1992. ‘The origins of the Reihengräberzivilisation: Fourty years on’, in J. Drinkwater & H. Elton (eds.), Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 196–207. Halsall, Guy, 2000. ‘Archaeology and the Late Roman Frontier: The so-called “Föderatengräber” reconsidered’, in W. Pohl & H. Reimitz (eds.), Grenze und Differenz im frühen Mittelalter. Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 1/ Denkschriften der philosophisch-historischen Klasse 287 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften): 167–180. Halsall, Guy, 2010. Cemeteries and Society in Merovingian Gaul: Selected Studies in History and Archaeology, 1992–2000 (Leiden & Boston: 2010). Härke, Heinrich, 1990. ‘“Weapon graves”? The background of the Anglo-Saxon weapon burial rite’, Past & Present 126: 22–43. Härke, Heinrich, 1992. ‘Changing symbols in a changing society: The Anglo-Saxon weapon rite’, in M. Carver (ed.), The Age of Sutton Hoo: The Seventh Century in North-Western Europe (Woodbridge: Boydell Press): 149–165. Hardt, Matthias, 2005. ‘The Limes Saxoniae as Part of the eastern Borderlands of the Frankish and Ottonian-Salian Empire’, in F. Curta (ed.), Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis: Frontiers in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Turnhout: ­Brepols): 35–50. Hayes, John W., Timothy Kaiser, Branko Kirigin & Nikša Vujnović, 1992. ‘Otok Hvar – sustavna rekognosciranja Zastražišća i Poljica i sondažna iskopavanja u spilji Badanj’, Obavijesti HAD 24(1): 68–73. Hennig, Joachim (ed.), 2007. Post-Roman Towns: Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium Vol. 2 (Berlin & New York: De Gruyter). Herold, Hajnalka, 2014. ‘Insights into the chronology and economy of the Avar Khaganate and the post-Avar period: Pottery production and use in the Carpathian Basin from the late 6th to the 10th century AD’, Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 49: 207–229. Hingley, Richard, 2005. Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire (London & New York: Routledge). Hoffer, P. Alexander, 1897. ‘Fundorte römischer Alterthümer im Bezirke Travnik’, WMBH 5: 242–258. Horden, Peregrine & Nicholas Purcell, 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History (Malden, Oxford & Carlton: Wiley Blackwell). Horvat, Marijan, 1951. ‘Oporuka splitskog priora Petra’, Rad JAZU 283: 119–174. Hrvatović, Hazim & Jakob Pamić, 2005. ‘Principal thrust-nappe structures of the Dinarides’, Acta Geologica Hungarica 48(2): 133–151.

Bibliography  223 Ilkić, Mato, 2017. ‘Numizmatički nalazi s područja Ljupča’, in Faričić & Lenkić 2017: 152–181. Ilkić, Mato & Dejan Filipčić, 2017. ‘Novi nalazi bizantskog novca na prostoru sjeverne Dalmacije’, INCC 2016: Proceedings of the 8th International Numismatic Congress in Croatia (Rijeka: Hrvatsko numizmatičko društvo): 83–88. Imamović, Enver, 2000. ‘The results of the trial excavations at Podastinje, Višnjica and Gromiljak near Kiseljak’, WMBHL 7: 107–132. Ivanišević, Milan, 1993. ‘Salonitanski biskupi’, VAHD 86: 223–252. Ivanišević, Vujadin, 2012. ‘Barbarian settlements in the interior of Illyricum: The case of Caričin Grad’, in V. Ivanišević & M. Kazanski (eds.), The Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration (Paris & Belgrade: Collège de France – CNRS & Arheološki institut): 57–69. Ivčević, Sanja & Ema Višić-Ljubić, 2004. ‘The metal and bone objects’, in Marin & Vickers 2004: 235–243. Ivison, Eric A., 1996. ‘Burial and urbanism at late antique and early Byzantine Corinth (c. AD 400–700)’, in N. Christie & S.T. Loseby (eds.), Towns in Transition. Urban Evolution in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Aldershot: Scolar Press): 99–125. Jakšić, Nikola, 1984. ‘Constantine Porphyrogenitus as the source for destruction of Salona’, VAHD 77: 315–326. Jakšić, Nikola, 1989. ‘Crkve na Begovači i problem starohrvatskih nekropola’, Diadora 11: 407–440. Jakšić, Nikola, 1993. ‘Preživjele starokršćanske crkve u srednjovjekovnoj Ninskoj biskupiji’, Diadora 15: 127–144. Jakšić, Nikola, 1995. ‘La survivance des édifices paléochrétiens dans les terres de la principauté Croate’, HAM 1: 36–45. Jakšić, Nikola, 1997. ‘Predromaničko kiparstvo’, in I. Fisković (ed.), Tisuću godina hrvatskog kiparstva (Zagreb: Muzejsko Galerijski Centar): 13–39. Jakšić, Nikola, 2008. ‘Il ruolo delle antiche chiese rurali nella formazione del ducato croato medievale’, HAM 14: 103–112. Jakšić, Nikola, 2010. ‘Riflessi della “rinascenza liutprandea” nei centri urbani della costa Adriatica orientale’, HAM 16: 17–26. Jakšić, Nikola, 2012. ‘Novi natpis s imenom kneza Branimira’, in Jurković & ­Milošević 2012: 213–221. Jakšić, Nikola, 2014. ‘A ninth-century stone-cutting workshop in southern Dalmatia’, HAM 20(2): 590–601. Jakšić, Nikola, 2015. Klesarstvo u službi evangelizacije: Studije iz predromaničke skulpture na Jadranu. Biblioteka znanstvenih djela 178 (Split: Književni krug & MHAS). Jakšić, Nikola, 2018. ‘The installation of the patron-saints of Zadar as result of Carolingian Adriatic policies’, in Dzino et al. 2018: 225–244. Jakšić, Nikola & Ivan Josipović, 2015. ‘Majstor koljanskog pluteja u kontekstu predromaničkih reljefa s lokaliteta Stombrate u Bijaćima’, SHP 42: 145–164. Jakšić, Nikola & Emil Hilje, 2008. Umjetnička baština Zadarske nadbiskupije: Kiparstvo I – od IV. do XVI. stoljeća (Zadar: Zadarska nadbiskupija). Jakšić, Nikola & Željko Krnčević, 1997. ‘Predromanički reljefi iz crkvice Sv. Lovre u Morinju kraj Šibenika’, SHP 24: 91–110. Janković, Đorđe, 2007. Српско поморје од 7. до 10. столећа (Belgrade & Herceg Novi: Srpsko arheološko društvo & JU Zavičajni muzej i umjetnička galerija “Josip Bepo Benković”).

224 Bibliography Jankowiak, Marek, 2009. ‘Essai d’histoire politique du monothélisme à partir de la correspondance entre les empereurs byzantins, les patriarches de Constantinople et les papes de Rome’, PhD dissertation (University of Warszaw & École pratique des hautes études Paris). Jankowiak, Marek, 2013. ‘The invention of Dyothelitism’, Studia Patristica 63: 335–342. Jarak, Mirja, 2006. ‘Main directions in the development of medieval archaeology in Croatia’, OpArch 30: 183–224. Jeličić, Jasna, 1987. ‘Diakonikon ranokršćanske crkve u Lovrečini na Braču’, PPUD 26: 33–49. Jeličić Radonić, Jasna, 1995. ‘Pharos – antički grad’, in J. Jeličić Radonić & B. Rauter Plančić (eds.), Pharos – antički Stari Grad, exhibition catalogue (Zagreb: Muzejsko galerijski centar): 56–114. Jeličić Radonić, Jasna, 2003. ‘Salonitanska radionica mozaika Kapljuč’, OpArch 27: 513–521. Jeličić Radonić, Jasna, 2006. ‘Salona, the Urbs Orientalis’, HAM 12: 43–54. Jeličić Radonić, Jasna, 2007. ‘Salona at the time of the bishop Hesychius’, HAM 13(1): 13–24. Jeličić Radonić, Jasna, 2009. ‘The cult of the Salona martyrs in the amphitheatre’, HAM 15: 55–62. Jeličić Radonić, Jasna, 2015. ‘Salona – metropolis of the Roman Province of Dalmatia and its cultural environment in the light of recent research’, in R.J. Pillinger (ed.), Neue Forschungen zum frühen Christentum in den Balkanländern. Archäologische forschungen 26/Denkschriften der philosophisch-historischen Klasse 484 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften): 73–82. Jelinčić, Kristina, 2005. ‘Topografija rustičnih vila na otoku Braču’, MA thesis (University of Zagreb). Jelinčić, Kristina & Ljubica Perinić Muratović, 2010. ‘New archaeological finds from Postira on the island of Brač’, PIAZ 27: 177–216. Jelovina, Dušan, 1968. ‘Ranosrednjovjekovna nekropola na “Razbojinama” u selu Kašiću kod Zadra’, SHP 10: 23–52. Jelovina, Dušan, 1984. ‘Ranosrednjovjekovni položaj Crkvina u Gornjim Koljanima kod Vrlike (Istraživanja i nalazi)’, in Ž. Rapanić (ed.), Cetinska krajina od prethistorije do dolaska Turaka. HAD 8 (Split: HAD): 227–242. Jelovina, Dušan, 1986. ‘Glavne značajke starohrvatske materijalne kulture od 7. do 12. stoljeća na području između rijeka Zrmanje i Cetine’, SHP 16: 25–50. Jelovina, Dušan, 1989. ‘Starohrvatska nekropola na brdu Spasu kod Knina’, SHP 19: 121–241. Jelovina, Dušan, 1990. ‘Starohrvatsko groblje pred glavnim vratima u staru Varvariju’, SHP 20: 7–63. Jelovina, Dušan & Dražen Vrsalović, 1981. ‘Srednjovjekovno groblje na ‘Begovači’ u selu Biljanima Donjim kod Zadra’, SHP 11: 55–136. Ježek, Martin, 2015. ‘The disappearance of European smiths’ burials’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25(1): 121–143. Josipović, Ivan, 2011. ‘Prilog Trogirskoj klesarskoj radionici’, ArsAdr 1: 97–108. Josipović, Ivan, 2012. ‘A proposed reding of Prince Mislav’s name in the Begovača inscription’, ArchAdr 6: 129–148. Josipović, Ivan, 2013. ‘Predromanički reljefi na teritoriju Sklavinije Hrvatske između Zrmanje i Krke do kraja 9. stoljeća’, PhD dissertation (University of Zagreb).

Bibliography  225 Josipović, Ivan, 2015. ‘Nova zapažanja o trabeaciji oltarne ograde iz Šopota kod Benkovca’, SHP 42: 133–144. Josipović, Ivan, 2016. ‘Il Maestro degli amboni zaratini’, HAM 22: 443–450. Josipović, Ivan, 2017. ‘Biogradska predromanička skulptura’, ArsAdr 7: 65–82. Josipović, Ivan, 2017/18. ‘Three new votive inscriptions with the names of Croatian rulers from the Carolingian period’, SHP 43–44: 137–151. Josipović, Ivan, 2018. Pridraga u zaleđu Zadra. Korpus srednjovjekovne skulpture 2 (Split: MHAS). Jović, Vedrana, 2010. ‘Jugoistočni potez zadarskih zidina. Povijesni razvoj od antike do kasnog srednjeg vijeka’, RZPZ HAZU 52: 79–119. Jović Gazić, Vedrana, 2011. ‘Urban development from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir, Zadar – the state of research’, ArchAdr 5: 151–196. Jurčević, Ante, 2009. ‘Usporedba skulpture i arhitekture s lokaliteta Crkvina u Gornjim Koljanima i Crkvina u Biskupiji kod Knina’, SHP 36: 55–77. Jurčević, Ante, 2011. ‘Nalazi ranokarolinškog oružja i konjaničke opreme u doba formiranja Hrvatske Kneževine’, SHP 38: 111–147. Jurčević, Ante, 2014. ‘O klesarskim radionicama koje su djelovale na Crkvini u Biskupiji kod Knina’, SHP 41: 127–163. Jurčević, Ante, 2016. ‘Arhitektura i skulptura s lokaliteta Crkvina u Biskupiji kod Knina’, PhD dissertation (University of Zagreb). Jurić, Radomir, 2002. ‘Novija istraživanja grobalja na zadarskom području’, HistAntiq 8: 295–312. Jurić, Radomir, 2004. ‘101. Velim-Velištak’, HAG 1: 201–203. Jurić, Radomir, 2005. ‘165. Velim-Velištak’, HAG 2: 318–319. Jurić, Radomir, 2007. ‘Ranosrednjovjekovno groblje u Velimu kod Benkovca’, Diadora 22: 217–234. Jurić, Radomir, 2013. ‘245. Velim-Velištak’, HAG 10: 487–488. Jurišić, Mario, 2000. Ancient Shipwrecks of the Adriatic: Maritime Transport during the First and Second Centuries AD. BAR 828 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Jurković, Miljenko, 1987. ‘O bizantskom utjecaju i autohtonosti nekih likovnih riješenja na predromaničkoj plastici Bosne i Hercegovine’, RadoviIPU 11: 107–113. Jurković, Miljenko, 1995. ‘Il ciborio di Novigrad (Cittanova d’Istria)’, HAM 1: 141–149. Jurković, Miljenko, 2016a. ‘Quando il monumento diventa documento. Una bottega lapicida del Quarnero’, in A. Chavarría Arnau & M. Jurković (eds.), Alla ricerca di un passato complesso. Contributi in onore di Gian Pietro Brogiolo per il suo settentesimo compleanno (Zagreb & Motovun: Sveučilište u Zagrebu & IRCLAMA): 231–242. Jurković, Miljenko, 2016b. ‘Un raro motivo iconografico sulla scultura altomedievale – i senmurv di Arbe e Neviđane’, in M. Jurković & P. Marković (eds.), Scripta in honorem Igor Fisković. Dissertationes et Monographiae 7 (Zagreb & Motovun: Sveučilište u Zagrebu & IRCLAMA): 43–51. Jurković, Miljenko, 2019. ‘The transformation of the Adriatic islands from antiquity to the early Middle Ages’, in M. A. C. Ontiveros & C. M. Florit (eds.), Change & Resilience: The Occupation of Mediterranean Islands in Late Antiquity. Joukowsky Institute Publication 9 (Oxford & Philadelphia: Oxbow Books): 111–138. Jurković, Miljenko & Ante Milošević (eds.), 2012. Munuscula in honorem Željko Rapanić. Dissertationes et Monographiae 5 (Zagreb, Motovun & Split: Sveučilište u Zagrebu & IRCLAMA).

226 Bibliography Kaić, Iva & Vinka Bubić, 2013. ‘Oratorium A and other 4th century Christian buildings in Salona’, in D. Bojović (ed.), Saint Emperor Constantine and Christianity 2 (Niš: Centar za crkvene studije): 473–478. Kalik, Judith & Alexander Uchitel, 2018. Slavic Gods and Heroes (New York: Routledge). Kamenjarin, Ivanka, 2013. ‘Antički grobovi iz Sikula’, Kaštelanski zbornik 10: 119–140. Kamenjarin, Ivanka, 2014. Rimskodobna nekropola Krtine u Kaštel Sućurcu, exhibition catalogue (Kaštela: Muzej grada Kaštela). Karaman, Ljubo, 1921. ‘Zlatni nalaz na Trilju nedaleko od Sinja’, VAHD 44: 3–20. Karaman, Ljubo, 1940. ‘Iskopine društva “Bihaća” u Mravincima i starohrvatska groblja’, Rad JAZU 268: 1–44. Karbić, Damir, 2008. ‘Zlatni vijek Bribira’, Hrvatska revija 7(2): 12–19. Karbić, Damir, 2015. ‘Razvoj političkih ustanova’, in Nikolić Jakus 2015: 89–122. Kardaras, Georgios, 2018. Byzantium and the Avars, 6th-9th Century AD: Political, Diplomatic and Cultural Relations. ECEE 51 (Leiden & Boston: Brill). Karković Takalić, Palma, Petra Predoević Zadković & Josip Višnjić, 2014. ‘The new archaeological map of ancient and early medieval Tarsatica’, HistArch 45: 113–136. Katavić, Vedran & Tomislav Jerončić, 2014. ‘Kasnoantičko groblje na Bencunušama kod Manastirina’, Tusculum 7: 81–112. Katičić, Radoslav, 1976. Ancient Languages of the Balkans (The Hague & Paris: Mouton). Katičić, Radoslav, 1990. ‘Pretorijanci kneza Borne’, SHP 20: 65–83. Katičić, Radoslav, 1996. ‘Die Verfassungsterminologie der frühmittelalterlichen Slawenherrschaften’, Slavica Slovaca 31(1): 3–26. Katičić, Radoslav, 2007. Litterarum studia: Književnost i naobrazba ranoga hrvatskog srednjovjekovlja, 2nd ed. (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska). Katić, Miroslav, 1994. ‘Utvrda Drid’, PPUD 34: 5–19. Katić, Miroslav, 1997. ‘Grobovi s Gospina Otoka u Solinu’, Diadora 18–19: 42–53. Katić, Miroslav, 1999/00. ‘Kasnoantički grad na Jadranu – primjer grada Hvara’, PPUD 38: 19–49. Katić, Miroslav, 2003. ‘Nova razmatranja o kasnoantičkom gradu na Jadranu’, OpArch 27: 523–528. Katić, Miroslav, 2016. ‘Arheološki nalazi u Pozorcu kod Marine’, PPUD 43: 29–44. Katić, Miroslav, 2018. ‘Castella qui sunt super civitatem Salonitanam’, VAHD 111: 245–279. Katić, Miroslav & Niko Kapetanić, 2019. ‘Manufacture of bird-shaped fibulae in the late-antique fortification of Sokol in Konavle’, SHP 46: 7–21. Kavánová, Blanka & Jan Šmerda, 2010. ‘Zlatý solidus Michala III. z hrobu č. 480 u baziliky v Mikulčicích’, in Š. Ungerman & R. Přichystalová (eds.), Zaměřeno na středověk. Zdeňkovi Měřínskému k 60. narozeninám (Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny): 151–162. Kindt, Thomas, 2007. ‘Westliche Einflüsse auf der östlichen Balkanhalbinsel im Spiegel der früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Reitausrüstung’, in Hennig 2007: 543–612. Kirigin, Branko, Ivo Lokošek, Jagoda Mardešić & Siniša Bilić, 1987. ‘Salona 86/87. Preliminarni izvještaj sa zaštitnih arheoloških istraživanja na trasi zaobilaznice u Solinu’, VAHD 80: 7–56.

Bibliography  227 Kirigin, Branko, Alan Johnston, Marko Vučetić & Zvonimir Lušić, 2009. ‘Palagruža – the Island of Diomedes – and notes on ancient Greek navigation in the Adriatic’, in S. Forenbaher (ed.), A Connecting Sea: Maritime Interaction in Adriatic Prehistory. BAR 2037 (Oxford: Archaeopress): 137–155. Kislinger, Ewald, 2011. ‘Dyrrhachion und die Küsten von Epirus und Dalmatien im frühen Mittelalter – Beobachtungen zur Entwicklung der byzantinischen Oberhoheit’, Millennium 8: 313–353. Kislinger, Ewald, 2013. ‘Erster und zweiter Sieger. Zum Byzantinisch-Karolingischen bündnis bezüglich Bari 870–871’, ZRVI 50: 254–258. Kleemann, Jörg, 2002. Sachsen und Friesen im 8. und 9. Jahrhundert. Eine archäologisch-historische Analyse der Grabfunde (Oldenburg: Isensee). Kolega, Marija, 2000. ‘Nin-Sv Asel Grob 41’, in HiK: 1.62–63. Kolega, Marija, 2014. ‘Ranokršćanski sloj arhitekture u Nadžupnom kompleksu Sv. Asela u Ninu’, ArsAdr 4: 15–28. Kolega, Marija & Mate Radović, 2015. ‘Rezultati završne arheološke kampanje na lokalitetu Banovac u Ninu’, in Z. Ettinger Starčić & D. Tončinić (eds.), Istraživanja na otocima. HAD 30 (Zagreb: HAD): 31–38. Kolniková, Eva, 1967. ‘Obolus mřtvych vo včasnostredovekých hroboch na Slovensku’, SlovArch 15: 189–254. Komatina, Predrag, 2014. Црквена политика Византије од краја иконоборства до смрти цара Василија I (Belgrade: Vizantološki institut Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti). Komatina, Predrag, 2018. ‘Dalmatian bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 787 and the status of the Dalmatian church in the eighth and ninth centuries’, in Ančić et al. 2018: 253–260. Kopáčková Jana, 2014. ‘Production of wine and olive oil in Roman Histria and Dalmatia in Late Antiquity’, Studia Hercynia 18(1–2): 75–88. Korošec, Josip, 1958. ‘Ostava brončanih matrica za otiskivanje u Biskupiji kod Knina’, SHP 6: 29–44. Kosi, Miha, 2002. ‘… quae terram nostram et Regnum Hungariae dividit …: Razvoj meje cesarstva na Dolenjskem v srednjem veku’, Zgodovinski časopis 56(1–2): 43–93. Košta, Jiří & Jiří Hošek, 2008. ‘Meč z hrobu 580 ve III. kostele v Mikulčicích. Příspěvek k diskusi o jednom ze zástupců nejvyšší staromoravské elity’, Studia mediaevalia Pragensia 8: 177–207. Kovačević, Jovan, 1960. Arheologija i istorija varvarske kolonizacije južnoslavenskih oblasti od IV do početka VII veka. Posebna izdanja 2 (Novi Sad: Vojvođanski muzej). Kovačević, Jovan, 1966. ‘Avari na Jadranu’, in N. Tasić (ed.), Materijali. III. Simpozijum praistorijske i srednjevekovne sekcije Arheološkog društva Jugoslavije, Novi Sad 1965. (Belgrade: Arheološko društvo Jugoslavije): 53–81. Kovačić, Vanja, 2010. ‘Kasnoantička vila s portikom na Mirju kod Postira’, Klesarstvo i graditeljstvo 21(3–4): 25–37. Krahwinkler, Harald, 1992. Friaul im Frühmittelalter: Geschichte einer Region vom Ende des fünften bis zum Ende des zehnten Jahrhunderts. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 30 (Vienna, Cologne & Weimar: Böhlau Verlag). Kraljević, Gojko, 1980. ‘Antički novac s travničkog područja koji se nalazi u zbirci Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu’, Zbornik Zavičajnog muzeja Travnik 3: 85–94.

228 Bibliography Krnčević, Željko, 1995. ‘Sv. Lovre – Donje polje, sustavna arheološka istraživanja’, Obavijesti HAD 27(3): 52–55. Krnčević, Željko, 1998. ‘Srednjovjekovna arheološka nalazišta na šibenskom području’, in B. Čečuk (ed.), Područje Šibenske županije od pretpovijesti do srednjega vijeka. HAD 19 (Zagreb: HAD): 197–226. Krnčević, Željko, 2004. ‘107. Sv. Lovre šibensko Donje polje’, HAG 1: 211–213. Krnčević, Željko, 2013. ‘270. Vaćani-Laluše’, HAG 10: 528–530. Kujundžić, Ivan, 1916. ‘Najnovije rimske iskopine u Mošunju’, GZM 28(3–4): 477–496. Kumir, Marino, 2016. “Memory and authority in the ninth-century Dalmatian Duchy”, MA thesis (Central European University). Kumir, Marino, 2017. ‘For the salvation of one’s soul: piety, status and memory in the Dalmatian Duchy (c. 812–850)’, Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 23: 48–60. Kunčer, Dragana, 2011. ‘Портрет далматинског епископа крајем 6. века’, Istorijski časopis 60: 13–24. Kunčer, Dragana S., 2017. ‘Писма папе Григорија као сведочанство латинофоне комуникације на тлу римске Далмације’, PhD dissertation (University of Belgrade). Kurilić, Anamarija & Zrinka Serventi, 2018. ‘Late Roman tombs and burial places in the province of Dalmatia’, in International Scientific Conference: The Basilica of St  Sophia during the Transition from Paganism to Christianity. Serdica-Sredets-Sofia 7 (Sofia: Faber): 450–468. Kusin, Vesna (ed.), 2007. Dalmatinska zagora: nepoznata zemlja, exhibition catalogue (Zagreb: Ministarstvo kulture RH & Galerija Klovićevi dvori). Laszlo Klemar, Kosjenka, 2011. ‘Bribir (Varvarija) i organizacija teritorija od antike do Šubića’, PhD dissertation (University of Zagreb). Laszlo Klemar, Kosjenka & Maja Zeman, 2010. ‘Naselja i organizacija prostora na srednjem istočnom Jadranu od antike do ranog srednjeg vijeka – pitanje kontinuiteta (Bribir, Donje Šibensko polje)’, in T. Šeparović (ed.), Zbornik: Stjepan Gunjača i hrvatska srednjovjekovna povijesno-arheološka baština 1 (Split: MHAS): 147–166. Lazar, Irena (ed.), 2015. Annales du 19e Congrès de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre, Piran 2012 (Koper: International Association for the History of Glass). Lee, Christina, 2007. Feasting the Dead: Food and Drink in Anglo-Saxon Rituals (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer). Lewit, Tamara, 2003. ‘“Vanishing villas”: What happened to elite rural habitation in the west in the 5th-6th c.’, JRA 16: 260–274. Liebeschuetz, John H. W. G., 2007. ‘The lower Danube region under pressure: From Valens to Heraclius’, in A. Poulter (ed.), The Transition to Late Antiquity: On the Danube and Beyond. Proceedings of the British Academy 141 (Oxford: Oxford University Press & British Academy): 101–134. Lienhard, Thomas, 2006. ‘À qui profitent les guerres en Orient? Quelques observations à propos des conflits entre Slaves et Francs au IXe siècle’, Médiévales 51: 69–83. Lightfoot, Emma, Mario Šlaus, & Tamsin C. O’Connell, 2012. ‘Changing cultures, changing cuisines: Cultural transitions and dietary change in Iron Age, Roman, and early medieval Croatia’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 148: 543–556. Lightfoot, Emma, Mario Šlaus & Tamsin C. O’Connell, 2014. ‘Water consumption in Iron Age, Roman, and early medieval Croatia’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 154: 535–543.

Bibliography  229 Ljubić, Šime, 1892. ‘Redovito tromjesečno izvješće Kninskoga starinarskoga družtva’, VAMZ 14 (ser. I): 92–96, 125–128. Lončar, Miljenko, 2002. ‘Filološka analiza Porfirogenetovih vijesti o Hrvatima’, PhD dissertation (University of Zadar). Looijenga, Tineke, 2003. Texts and Contexts of the Oldest Runic Inscriptions (Leiden & Boston: Brill). Lozny, Ludomir R., 2013. Prestate Societies of the North Central European Plains 600–900 CE (New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht & London: Springer Publishing). Lucius, Ioannes, 1666. De Regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae (Amsterdam: Ioannes Blaeu). Ludden, David, 2011. ‘The process of empire: Frontiers and borderlands’, in P. Fibiger Bang and C.A. Bayly (eds.), Tributary Empires in Global History (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan): 132–150. Lulić, Josipa, 2014. ‘Dalmatian Silvanus: A cognitive approach to reinterpretation of the reliefs representing Silvanus from Roman Dalmatia’, in H. Platts, J. Pearce, C. Barron, J. Lundock & J. Yoo (eds.) TRAC 2013: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (Oxford & Philadelphia: Oxbow Books): 37–51. Lulić, Josipa, 2015. ‘Theorizing romanization. Cognition and cultural change in Roman provinces: A case of religious change in Roman Dalmatia’, in S. Roselaar (ed.), Processes of Cultural Change and Integration in the Roman World (Leiden & Boston: Brill): 20–38. Lulić, Josipa, 2016. ‘Illyrian religion and nation as zero-institution’, Studies in Visual Arts and Communication 3(1): 1–12. MacGeorge, Penny, 2002. Late Roman Warlords (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Mackie, Gillian, 2003. Early Christian Funerary Chapels in the West: Decoration, Function and Patronage (Toronto: University of Toronto Press). Madiraca, Vinko, Vedran Koprivnjak, Martina Miletić, Luka Bekić, & Tea Zubin Ferri, 2017. ‘Early medieval finds from the Brekinjova Kosa archaeological site (results of excavations in 2011 and 2015)’, ArchAdr 11: 145–215. Maier, Charles S., 2006. Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press). Majnarić, Ivan, 2018a. ‘Aemulatio imperii and the south-eastern frontier of the Carolingian world’, in Ančić et al. 2018: 43–56. Majnarić, Ivan, 2018b. ‘In the shadows of empires: Early medieval Croatia in the ninth and tenth centuries’, History Compass 16(7): 1–11. Majnarić-Pandžić, Nives (ed.), 1994. Ćiro Truhelka: Zbornik (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska). Manenica, Hrvoje, 2017. ‘Metalni nalazi’, in Marin et al. 2017: 344–365. Manojlović, Gavro, 1902. ‘Jadransko pomorje IX. stoljeća u svjetlu istočno-rimske (bizantinske) povijesti’, Rad JAZU 150: 1–102. Maraković, Nikolina & Miljenko Jurković, 2007. ‘“Signatures” in the stones – The legacy of early medieval elites on the territory of modern Croatia’, HAM 13(2): 359–374. Marasović, Jerko, Sanja Buble, Katja Marasović & Snježana Perojević, 2000. ‘Prostorni razvoj jugoistočnog dijela Dioklecijanove palače’, Prostor 8: 175–238. Marasović, Tomislav, 2009. Dalmatia Praeromanica: Ranosrednjovjekovno graditeljstvo u Dalmaciji 2. Korpus arhitekture Kvarner i sjeverna Dalmacija. Knjiga Mediterana 57 (Split & Zagreb: Književni krug, MHAS & Arhitektonski Fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu).

230 Bibliography Marasović, Tomislav, 2011. Dalmatia Praeromanica: Ranosrednjovjekovno graditeljstvo u Dalmaciji 3. Korpus arhitekture Srednja Dalmacija. Knjiga Mediterana 65 (Split & Zagreb: Književni krug, MHAS & Arhitektonski Fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu). Marasović, Tomislav, 2013. Dalmatia Praeromanica: Ranosrednjovjekovno graditeljstvo u Dalmaciji 4. Korpus arhitekture Južna Dalmacija, Bosna i Hercegovina, Crna Gora. Knjiga Mediterana 73 (Split & Zagreb: Književni krug, MHAS & Arhitektonski Fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu). Marasović, Tomislav, 2017. Dalmatia Praeromanica: Early Medieval Architecture in Dalmatia. 1st synthesis. Knjiga Mediterana 80 (Split & Zagreb: Književni Krug, MHAS & Arhitektonski Fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu) – English translation of Volume 1. Marasović, Katja & Tomislav Marasović, 2012. ‘Naseljavanje Dioklecijanove palače’, in Jurković & Milošević 2012: 93–113. Mardešić, Jagoda, 1999/00. ‘Istočni trakt gradskih zidina Salone’, OpArch 23–24: 143–153. Mardešić, Jagoda, 2003a. ‘Salonitanske nekropole’, OpArch 27: 503–512. Mardešić, Jagoda, 2003b. ‘Salona i Salon’, HistAntiq 10: 75–81. Mardešić, Jagoda, 2004. ‘The burials: The archeological context and the pottery finds’, in Marin & Vickers 2004: 255–264. Mardešić, Jagoda, 2006. ‘Excavations in Salona between 1970 and 2000’, in Davison et al. 2006: 81–88. Mardešić, Jagoda, 2008. ‘Stanje poznavanja episkopalnog centra u Saloni s osvrtom na nova istraživanja’, in Dukić et al. 2008: 317–330. Mardešić, Jagoda, 2014. ‘Rimska i bizantska keramika’, in Delonga 2014a: 2.47–92. Mardešić, Jagoda, 2019. ‘Current state of research at Salona’s northern necropolis’, VAHD 112: 127–150. Mardešić, Jagoda, & Teodora Šalov, 2001. ‘Keramički nalazi s istraživanja bazilike u Erešovim Barama – Vid kod Metkovića’, VAHD 94: 105–163. Margetić, Lujo, 1977. ‘Konstantin Porfirogenet i vrijeme dolaska Hrvata’, Zbornik Historijskog zavoda JAZU 8: 5–88. Margetić, Lujo, 1988. ‘Ugovor Mletaka i italskih gradova contra generationes Sclavorum’, HZ 41: 217–235. Margetić, Lujo, 1994. ‘Sul passagio del potere sull’Istria da Bisanzio ai Franchi’, ActHist 2: 15–24. Margetić, Lujo, 1997a. ‘Marcellinus scolasticus i proconsul Dalmatiae’, HZ 50: 1–8. Margetić, Lujo, 1997b. ‘Dalmacija u drugoj polovici VI. stoljeća i Justinijan’, Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu 47: 205–215. Marić Baković, Marija, 2012. ‘Ranosrednjovjekovna crkva Beati Petri Apostoli u Rapovinama kraj Livna i rezultati arheoloških istraživanja’, SHP 39: 59–70. Marić Baković, Marija, 2019. ‘Prilog predromaničkoj crkvenoj arhitekturi ranosrednjovjekovnoga Livna’, Cleuna 3: 46–55. Marić Baković, Marija, 2020. ‘Kasna antika / Ranokršćanski kompleks’, in A. Marić & M. Palčok (eds.), Gorica of drevne Imote (Gorica: Hrvatska franjevačka arheološka zbirka sv. Stjepana Prvomučenika): 154–170. Marić Baković, Marija & Miran Palčok, 2019. ‘Rekonstrukcija ograde svetišta iz predromaničke crkve sv. Petra u Rapovinama kraj Livna’, Cleuna 3: 29–45. Marijan, Boško, 1999/00. ‘Ploče rimskih urna na Grepcima kod Livna’, VAMZ 32–33: 165–186.

Bibliography  231 Marijanović, Bruno, 2006. ‘184. Škornica’, HAG 3: 342–345. Marijanović, Bruno (ed.), 2012. Tumuli from Krneza and Podvršje near Zadar (Zadar: ­ Sveučilište u Zadru). Marijanović, Ivana, 1990. ‘Prilog problemu datiranja nekih starokršćanskih crkava u Bosni i Hercegovini’, GZMS 45: 109–136. Marin, Emilio, 1993. ‘Late antique population and epigraphy of Salona’, VAHD 86: 215–222. Marin, Emilio (ed.), 1994. Salona Christiana (Split: AMS). Marin, Emilio, 2001a. ‘The temple of the imperial cult (Augusteum) at Narona and its statues: Interim report’, JRA 14: 81–112. Marin, Emilio, 2001b. ‘Erešove bare. Villa suburbana iz 3. stoljeća i starokršćanska crkva iz 7. stoljeća u Naroni’, VAHD 94: 9–80. Marin, Emilio, 2004. ‘Narona and discovery of Augusteum’, in Marin & Vickers 2004: 15–34. Marin, Emilio, 2007. ‘Mosaik im Oratorium des Hl. Venantius im lateranischen Baptisterium’, PIAZ 24: 251–256. Marin, Emilio, 2017. ‘Kraj rimskoga foruma’, in Marin et al. 2017: 98–121. Marin, Emilio & Michael Vickers (eds.), 2004. The Rise and Fall of an Imperial Shrine. Roman Sculpture from the Augusteum at Narona (Split: AMS). Marin, Emilio, Miroslava Topić & Toni Glučina (eds.), 2017. Forum Naronitanum. Katalozi i monografije 2 (Vid: Arheološki muzej Narona). Marion, Yolande & Francis Tassaux (eds.), 2015. AdriAtlas et l’histoire de l’espace adriatique du VIe s. a.C. au VIIIe s. a. C. Ausonius Scripta Antiqua 79 (Bordeaux: Ausonius). Marković, Miodrag, 2013. ‘О покушајима убицирања „насељених градова“ Порфирогенетове Паганије. Историографски преглед с посебним освртом на спорна питања’, ZRVI 50: 301–334. Marković, Tomo, 1938. ‘Rimska grobnica pod Dželilovcem kod Travnika’, GZM 50: 65–68. Markus, Robert A., 1997. Gregory the Great and His World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Marović, Ivan, 1984. ‘Reflexions about the year of the destruction of Salona’, VAHD 77: 293–314. Marović, Ivan, 1986. ‘Depot bizantskog novca iz Slatina (o. Čiovo) i novci solinske kovnice u Arheološkom Muzeju u Splitu’, VAHD 79: 285–308. Marović, Ivan, 2006. ‘O godini razorenja Salone’, VAPD 99: 255–273. Maršić, Dražen, Ljubomir Gudelj & Marijan Lozo, 2000. ‘Crkvine, Cista Velika. Izvješće o arheološkim istraživanjima 1992.-1999. godine’, SHP 27: 115–128. Marun, Lujo, 1998. Starinarski dnevnici. Katalozi i monografije 4 (Split: MHAS). Maskarinec, Maya, 2018. City of Saints: Rebuilding Rome in the Early Middle Ages (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). Maslać, Nikola, 1932. ‘Zlatni nalaz u kršćanskoj bazilici u selu Turbetu’, GZM 44(2): 31–33. Matijašić, Robert, 2012. Povijest hrvatskih zemalja u kasnoj antici od Dioklecijana do Justinijana. Povijest hrvatskih zemalja u antici 2 (Zagreb: Leykam International). Matijević-Sokol, Mirjana, 2002. Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo djelo: rano doba hrvatske povijesti (Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap). McCormick, Michael, 2001. Origins of the European Economy. Communications and Commerce, A.D. 300–900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

232 Bibliography Medini, Julijan, 1980. ‘O nekim kronološkim i sadržajnim značajkama poglavlja o Dalmaciji u djelu Cosmographia anonimnog pisca iz Ravene’, in Putevi i komunikacije u antici. Materijali 17 (Peć: Savez arheoloških društava Jugoslavije & Muzei Kosova-Priština): 69–83. Melleno, Daniel, 2017. ‘Between borders: Franks, Danes, and Abodrites in the trans-Elben world up to 827’, EME 25(3): 359–385. Miechowicz, Łukasz, 2012. ‘Coins in the western and eastern Slavs burial practices in the Middle Ages – relicts of pagan beliefs or a sign of Christian traditions?’, in Salamon et al. 2012: 1.613–24. Mikić, Živko, 1992/93. ’Erste Ergebnisse anthropologischer Untersuchung des Germanenfriedhofes von Viminacium (Serbien)’, Starinar 43–44: 191–199. Mikić, Živko, 1994. ‘Антрополошки осврт на вештачки деформисане лобање из периода велике сеобе народа’, Zbornik narodnog muzeja 15(1): 133–138. Migotti, Branka, 1990. Ranokršćanska topografija na području između Krke i Cetine (Zagreb: JAZU). Migotti, Branka, 1991/92. ‘Dalmacija na razmeđi Istoka i Zapada u svjetlu međusobnog odnosa jaderske i salonitanske crkve’, VAMZ 24–25: 163–182. Migotti, Branka, 1992. ‘Antičko-srednjovjekovni sakralni kontinuitet na području Dalmacije’, OpArch 16: 225–249. Migotti, Branka, 1994. ‘Vrste i namjene starokršćanskih zdanja u Dalmaciji’, RFFZd 34/21: 113–144. Migotti, Branka, 2012. ‘Early Christian archaeology of Dalmatia: The state of research and selected problems’, in O. Heinrich-Tamáska, N. Krohn & S. Ristow (eds.), Christianisation of Europe: Archaeological Evidence for Its Creation, Development and Consolidation (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner GmbH): 185–212. Milavec, Tina, 2015. ‘Late antique glass in Slovenia’, in Lazar 2015: 277–85. Miletić, Nada, 1955. ‘Nalaz srednjevekovnih fibula iz Rajlovca’, GZMS 10: 151–155. Miletić, Nada, 1956. ‘Nekropola u selu Mihaljevići kod Rajlovca’, GZMS 11: 9–39. Miletić, Nada, 1960/61. ‘Nekropola u selu Mihaljevićima kod Rajlovca (Rezultati naknadnih iskopavanja)’, GZMS 15–16: 249–257. Miletić, Nada, 1963. ‘Nakit i oružje IX-XII veka u nekropolama Bosne i Hercegovine’, GZMS 18: 155–178. Miletić, Nada, 1966/67. ‘Slovenska nekropola u Gomjenici kod Prijedora’, GZMS 21–22: 81–154. Miletić, Nada, 1970. ‘Ranosrednjovekovna nekropola u Rakovčanima kod Prijedora’, GZMS 25: 119–177. Miletić, Nada, 1975/76. ‘Ranosrednjovekovni nalazi iz Rudića kod Glamoča’, GZMS 30–31: 231–242. Miletić, Nada, 1978. ‘Ranosrednjovekovna nekropola u Koritima kod Duvna’, GZMS 33: 141–204. Miletić, Nada, 1980a. ‘Reflets de l’influence byzantine dans les trouvailles paléoslaves en Bosnie-Herzégovine’, Rapports du IIIe Congrès International d’Achéologie Slave Vol. 2 (Bratislava: Veda): 287–305. Miletić, Nada, 1980b. ‘Resultate der Neueren Archäologischen Untersuchungen der Frühen Mittelalters in Bosnien und Herzegovina’, Balcanoslavica 9: 43–50. Miletić, Nada, 1980/81. ‘Ranosrednjovekovne keramičke posude iz Vrbe kod Glamoča’, GZMS 35–36: 213–224. Miletić, Nada, 1984. ‘Rani srednji vek’, in Benac et al. 1984: 375–434. Miletić, Željko, 1989/90. ‘Sjeverna salonitanska nekropola’, RFFZd 29/16: 163–194.

Bibliography  233 Miletić, Željko, 1990/91. ‘Istočna i jugoistočna salonitanska nekropola’, RFFZd 30/17: 21–50. Miličević Capek, Ivanka, 2009. ‘Novi nalazi kasnoantičkih grobnica na svod u donjoj Hercegovini’, ArchAdr 3: 223–236. Milinković, Mihailo, 2007. ‘Stadt oder “Stadt”: Frühbyzantinische Siedlungsstrukturen im nördlichen Illyricum’, in Hennig 2007: 159–192. Milinković, Mihailo, 2008. ‘Die spätantik-frühbyzantinischen befestigten Höhenanlagen in Serbien’, in Steuer et al. 2008: 533–557. Milinković, Mihailo, 2015. Рановизантијска насеља у Србији и њеном окружењу (Belgrade: Dosije studio). Milošević, Ante, 1984. ‘Srednjovjekovna nekropola u ‘Barama’ u Lučanima kod Sinja’, SHP 14: 285–304. Milošević, Ante, 1988. ‘Još jedan tip kasnoantičke bojne sjekire u Dalmaciji’, SHP 18: 195–201. Milošević, Ante, 1989. ‘Komanski elementi i pitanje kasnoantičkog kontinuiteta u materijalnoj kulturi ranosrednjovjekovne Dalmacije’, Diadora 11: 347–362. Milošević, Ante, 1990. ‘Porijeklo i datiranje keramičkih posuda u grobovima ranoga srednjega vijeka u Dalmaciji’, Diadora 12: 327–369. Milošević, Ante, 1995. ‘Die spätantike territoriale und kulturelle Kontinuität in der frühmittelalterlichen Cetinagegend’, HAM 1: 165–175. Milošević, Ante (ed.), 1996. Bribir in the Medieval Period, exhibition catalogue, 3rd ed. (Split: MHAS). Milošević, Ante, 1997. ‘Ranosrednjovjekovno groblje kod Gluvinih kuća u Glavicama kod Sinja’, SHP 24: 111–126. Milošević, Ante, 1998. Arheološka topografija Cetine. Katalozi i monografije 3 (Split: MHAS). Milošević, Ante, 1999. ‘Prva ranosrednjovjekovna skulptura iz crkve Sv. Marte u Bijaćima’, SHP 26: 237–263. Milošević, Ante, 2000. ‘Karolinški utjecaji u kneževini Hrvatskoj u svjetlu arheoloških nalaza’, in HiK: 1.106–139. Milošević, Ante, 2003. ‘Scultura ornamentale del VII e VIII secolo nei Balcani Occidentali’, HAM 9: 357–382. Milošević, Ante, 2004. ‘Je li crkva u Bilimišću kod Zenice ranosrednjovjekovna građevina?’, GodCBI 33: 253–278. Milošević, Ante, 2005. ‘Jesu li prilozi u grobovima ranog srednjeg vijeka u Dalmaciji posljedica poganskog obreda sahranjivanja?’, HistAntiq 13: 458–460. Milošević, Ante, 2006. ‘Nekoliko primjera kasnoantičkih bojnih sjekira iz Sinjskoga polja’, HistAntiq 14: 65–70. Milošević, Ante, 2009. ‘Ponovo o nalazima “komanskog” obilježja u Dalmaciji’, GodCBI 38: 97–120. Milošević, Ante, 2008. Croci sulle lastre di rivestimento delle tombe altomedievali nell area di Signa. SMA 2 (Dubrovnik & Split: Omega Publishing). Milošević, Ante, 2010. ‘O ostavštini kasnoantičkih starosjeditelja u ranosrednjovjekovlju Dalmacije’, in J. Dukić, A. Milošević & Ž. Rapanić (eds.), Scripta Branimiro Gabričević dicata (Trilj: Kulturno društvo Trilj): 271–303. Milošević, Ante, 2011. Campanili preromanici della Dalmazia e della Croazia altomedievale. SMA 5 (Split & Dubrovnik: Omega Publishing). Milošević, Ante, 2012. ‘Ranosrednjovjekovni reljef iz maloga Čajna kod Visokog s dodanim natpisom velikog kaznaca Nespina’, GodCBI 41: 187–200.

234 Bibliography Milošević, Ante, 2013. Traces of Ancient Beliefs in Early Medieval Christianity. SMA 6 (Dubrovnik & Split: Omega Publishing). Milošević, Ante, 2015. ‘Primjer ritualne žrtve pri gradnji kuće na srednjovjekovnom Bribiru’, SHP 42: 45–58. Milošević, Ante, 2016. ‘The arrival of the Croats in late eighth-century Dalmatia: A K-type Sword from Koljane as possible evidence’, in D. Davison, V. Gaffney, P. Miracle & J. Soffaer (eds.), Croatia at the Crossroads: A Consideration of Archaeological and Historical Connectivity (Oxford: Archaeopress): 207–222. Milošević, Ante, 2017. Arheologija Sinjskoga polja (Split: MHAS). Milošević, Ante, 2018. ‘The products of the “Tetgis Style” from the eastern Adriatic Hinterland’, in Dzino et al. 2018a: 63–85. Milošević, Ante & Željko Peković, 2009. La chiesa preromanica di San Salvatore a Cettina. SMA 3 (Dubrovnik & Split: Omega Publishing). Mirković, Miroslava, 1978. ‘Antistes Stefanus и грађевинска делатност Јустинијанова времена y Полимљу’, ZRVI 18: 1–8. Mirnik, Ivan, 1979. ‘Numizmatička zbirka Dominikanskog samostana u Starom Gradu na Hvaru’, Vijesti muzealaca i konzervatora Hrvatske 28(3): 5–15. Mirnik, Ivan, 1981. Coin Hoards in Yugoslavia. BAR 95 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Mirnik, Ivan, 1990. ‘Skupni nalazi novca iz Hrvatske IX. Skupni nalaz Heraklijevih zlatnika iz Zrmanje’, VAMZ 23: 163–171. Mirnik, Ivan, 1995. ‘Numizmatički nalazi u Dubrovniku (prethodni izvještaj o bizantskom novcu)’, in Budak 1995: 169–177. Mirnik, Ivan, 2004. ‘Novac iz starohrvatskih grobova’, VAMZ 37: 205–250. Mirnik, Ivan, 2009. ‘Numismatic finds from Bribirska glavica’, in B. Kuntić Makvić (ed.), Studia Varvarina. Dissertationes and Monographiae 5 (Zagreb & Motovun: University of Zagreb & IRCLAMA): 131–151. Mirnik, Ivan & Andrej Šemrov, 1997/98. ‘Byzantine coins in the Zagreb archaeological museum numismatic collection. Anastasius I (A.D. 497–518) – Anastasius II (A.D. 713–715)’, VAMZ 30–31: 129–258. Mlekuž, Dimitrij, 2007. ‘Who were the Cyclopes? Odyssey and Neolithic, Eneolithic and Bronze Age pastoralists of the east Adriatic coast and Dinaric Alps’, in M. Blečić, M. Črešnar, B. Hänsel, A. Hellmuth, E. Kaiser & C. Metzner-Nebelsick (eds.), Scripta praehistorica in honorem Biba Teržan. Situla 44 (Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije): 69–82. Mordechai, Lee & Merle Eisenberg, 2019. ‘Rejecting catastrophe: The case of the Justinianic Plague’, Past & Present 244(1): 3–50. Mordechai, Lee, Merle Eisenberg, Timothy P. Newfield, Adam Izdebski, Janet E. Kay & Hendrik Poinar, 2019. ‘The Justinianic Plague: An inconsequential pandemic?’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 116: 25546–25554. Münkler, Herfried, 2007. Empires: The Logic of World Domination from Ancient Rome to United States (Cambridge & Malden: Polity Press). Nađ, Miroslav, 2012. ‘Coin hoards in Croatia – An update on CHY’, VAMZ 45: 395–466. Najbar-Agičić, Magdalena, 2013. U skladu s marksizmom ili činjenicama? Hrvatska historiografija 1945.-1960. (Zagreb: Ibis grafika). Nallbani, Etleva, 2017. ‘Early medieval north Albania: New discoveries, remodeling connections, The case of medieval Komani’, in Gelichi & Negrelli 2017: 311–346.

Bibliography  235 Nesbitt, John & Nicolas Oikonomides, 1991. Catalogue of Byzantine seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art 1: Italy, North of the Balkans, North of the Black Sea (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies). Newfield, Timothy P., 2018. ‘The climate downturn of 536–50’, in S. White, Ch. Pfister, & F. Mauelshagen (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Climate History (London: Palgrave Macmillan): 447–493. Nicol, Donald M., 1988. Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Nikolajević-Stojković, Ivanka, 1961. ‘Солински печат егзарха Павла (723–726)’, ZRVI 7: 61–66. Nikolajević, Ivanka, 1972. ‘Велики посед у Далмацији у V и VI веку у светлости археолошких налаза’, ZRVI 13: 284–292. Nikolajević, Ivanka, 1975. ‘Salona Christiana aux VIe et VIIe siècles’, in Rapanić 1975: 91–95. Nikolić Jakus, Zrinka (ed.), 2015. Nova zraka u europskom svjetlu. Hrvatske zemlje u ranome srednjem vijeku (oko 550–oko 1150). Povijest Hrvata 1 (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska). North, Douglass C., John J. Wallis & Barry R. Weingast, 2009. Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Novak, Andrej, 2005. ‘Začetki bizantinske oblasti v Istri’, ActHist 13: 165–184. Novak, Nino, 2007/08. ‘Prinos ranom kršćanstvu i urbanizmu Tarsatike’, HistArch 38–39: 169–196. Novaković, Predrag, 2011. ‘Archaeology in the new countries of southeastern Europe: A historical perspective’, in L.R. Lozny (ed.), Comparative Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the Past (New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg & London: Springer Publishing): 339–362. Novaković, Predrag, 2014. Historija arheologije u novim zemljama Jugoistočne ­Evrope (Sarajevo: Univerzitet u Sarajevu). Obelić, Bogomil & Adela Sliepčević, 1999/00. ‘Correction of radiocarbon age of wooden beams from St. Donat’s church in Zadar by dendrochronological method’, VAMZ 32–33, 197–206. Oeconomides, Mando & Phane Drossoyianni, 1989. ‘A hoard of gold Byzantine coins from Samos’, Revue numismatique (ser. 6) 31: 145–182. Oreb, Franko, 1984. ‘Archaeological excavations in the eastern part of ancient VAHD 77: 25–35. Salona’, ­ Oreb, Franko & Tajma Rismondo, 1998. ‘Les Basilicae pictae de Split: les fouilles de 1997’, Antiquite Tardive 6: 367–376. Oreb, Franko, Tajma Rismondo & Miroslava Topić, 1999. Ad basilicas pictas (Split: Ministarstvo kulture RH, Uprava za zaštitu kulturne baštine, Konzervatorski odjel Split). Oreč, Petar, 1982. ‘Ranokršćanska dvojna crkva u Gracu kod Posušja’, GZMS 37: 55–85.1. Ormándy, János, 1995. ‘Granulációs díszítes avar kori tárgyakon: Gúla- és lemezgömbcsüngős arany fülbevalók’, A Móra Ferenz Múzeum Évkönyve – Studia Archeologica 1: 151–181. Ortalli, Gherardo, 1992. ‘Il ducato e la “civitas Rivoalti”: tra Carolingi, Bizantini e Sassoni’, in Storia di Venezia dalle origini alla caduta della Serenissima Vol. 1: Origini – Età ducale (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana): 725–790.

236 Bibliography Osborne, John, 1999. ‘Politics, diplomacy and the cult of Relics in Venice and the northern Adriatic in the first half of the ninth century’, EME 8(3): 369–386. Ožanić Roguljić, Ivana, Ina Miloglav & Domagoj Tončinić, 2015/16. ‘Archaeological excavations on the Banjače site’, OpArch 39–40: 135–149. Pašalić, Esad, 1959. ‘Rimsko naselje u Ilidži kod Sarajeva’, GZMS 14: 113–136. Pašalić, Esad, 1984. ‘Period rimske vladavine do kraja III. vijeka n.e.’, in Benac et al. 1984: 191–302. Paškvalin, Veljko, 1988. ‘Doba kasne antike (Dominat)’, AlBiH 1: 36–40. Paškvalin, Veljko, 2003. Kršćanstvo kasne antike u zaleđu Salone i Narone: Arheološka istraživanja kasnoantičkog kršćanstva u Bosni i Hercegovini (Sarajevo: ­Vrhbosanska katolička teologija). Paxton, Frederick S., 2005. ‘Communities of the living and the dead in Late Antiquity and the early medieval west’, in M.F. Williams (ed.), The Making of Christian Communities in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (London: Wimbledon): 49–62. Patsch, Karlo (Carl), 1900. ‘Nahogjaji novaca’, GZM 12(3–4): 543–573. Patsch, Carl, 1909. ‘Archäologisch-epigraphische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatia’, WMBH 11: 104–183. Pedersen, Anne, 2006. ‘Ancient mounds for new graves. An aspect of Viking Age burial customs in southern Scandinavia’, in A. Andrén, K. Jenbert & C. Raudvere (eds.), Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives. Origins, Changes, and Interactions (Lund: Nordic Academic Press): 346–353. Periša, Darko, 2002. ‘Review of the Croatian translation of Wilkes, Illyrians’, Obavijesti HAD 34(3): 154–163. Periša, Darko, 2009. ‘Rimski Delminij kao sjedište starokršćanske biskupije’, ARR 16: 225–246. Perkić, Marta, 2008. ‘Rezultati arheoloških istraživanja kod crkve sv. Đurđa u ­Župi dubrovačkoj’, ­ SHP 35: 63–122. Perović, Šime, 2010. ‘Osvrt na staklene priloge iz starohrvatskog groblja na Ždrijacu u Ninu’, ArchAdr 4: 37–52. Perović, Šime, 2015. ‘Present state of research of the late Roman glass finds in Dalmatia’, in Lazar 2015: 320–328. Petrinec, Maja, 2000. ‘Izvještaj o arheološkim istraživanjima u Glavicama kod Sinja’, SHP 27: 201–217. Petrinec, Maja, 2002. ‘Dosadašnji rezultati istraživanja ranosrednjovjekovnog groblja u Glavicama kraj Sinja kao prilog razrješavanju problema kronologije starohrvatskih grobalja’, OpArch 26: 205–246. Petrinec, Maja, 2005a. ‘Dva starohrvatska groblja u Biskupiji kod Knina’, VAPD 98: 171–212. Petrinec, Maja 2005b. ‘Ranosrednjovjekovno groblje na položaju Livade u Konjskom polju’, SHP 32: 21–52. Petrinec, Maja, 2006. ‘Sedmi grob i nekoliko pojedinačnih nalaza s Crkvine u Biskupiji kod Knina’, SHP 33: 21–36. Petrinec, Maja, 2007. ‘”Komanski privjesci” i pojasni jezičac s Bribirske glavice’, SHP 34: 79–87. Petrinec, Maja, 2009. Gräberfelder aus dem 8. bis 11. Jahrhundert im Gebiet des frühmittelalterlichen kroatischen Staates. Monumenta medii aevi Croatiae 3 (Split: MHAS). Petrinec, Maja, 2010a. ‘Metal objects of Byzantine origin in medieval graves from Croatia’, Series Byzantina. Studies on Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Art 8: 197–211.

Bibliography  237 Petrinec, Maja, 2010b. ‘”By their fruit you will recognise them”: The beginnings of Christianity among the Croats in the light of archaeological evidence’, in W. Dzieduszycki & J. Wrzesiński (eds.), Tak więc po owocach poznacie ich Vol 2. Funeralia Lednickie 12 (Poznań: Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Pols): 193–201. Petrinec, Maja, 2015. ‘Frühmittelalterliche Gräber aus Orlić Angesichts Bisheriger Erkenntnisse über den Horizont mit Heidnischen Bestattungsmerkmalen’, SHP 42: 81–131. Petrinec, Maja, 2017/18. ‘Arheološka istraživanja i uređenje arhitektonskog kompleksa na Crkvini u Biskupiji u razdoblju od 2008. do 2017. godine’, SHP 44–45: 283–306. Petrinec, Maja, 2019. ‘On jewellery from Golubić and female costumes from the eighth and the first half of the ninth century’, SHP 46: 45–166. Petrinec, Maja & Ante Jurčević, 2015. ‘Crkvina – Biskupija. Insights into the chronology of the site from 8th to 15th century’, in M. Vicelja-Matijašić (ed.), Swords, Crowns, Censers and Books. Francia Media - Cradles of European Culture (Rijeka: Filozofski fakultet): 327–372. Petrinec, Maja, Tomislav Šeparović & Bono M. Vrdoljak, 1999. Arheološka zbirka Franjevačkog muzeja u Livnu. Katalozi i monografije 7 (Split: MHAS). Pillon, Michel, 2005. ‘Armée et défense de l’Illyricum byzantine de Justinien à l’émergence des “armées de cité”’, Erytheia 26: 7–85. Piplović, Stanko, 2012. ‘Karakteristike i problemi urbanističkoga razvitka Salone’, Tusculum 5: 21–45. Piteša, Ante, 2006. ‘The Slavs and the early Croatian state’, in Davison et al. 2006: 193–212. Piteša, Ante, 2009. Catalogue of Finds from the Migration Period, Middle Ages and Early Modern Period in the Archaeological Museum in Split (Split: AMS). Plohl, Manuela, 2018. ‘Burial typology at the „Vrt Relja“ necropolis in Zadar’, MHM 5: 65–97. Podrug, Emil, Toni Brajković & Željko Krnčević, 2008. Arheološki tragovi kultova i religija na Šibenskom području (Šibenik: Muzej grada Šibenika). Pohl, Walter, 2018. The Avars. A Steppe Empire in Central Europe 567–822. 2nd ed. (Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press). Pohl, Walter & Gerda Heydemann (eds.), 2013. Post-Roman Transitions: Christian and Barbarian Identities in the Early Medieval West. Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages 13 (Turnhout: Brepols). Poulou-Papadimitriou, Natalia, Elli Tzavella & Jeremy Ott, 2012. ‘Burial practices in Byzantine Greece: Archaeological evidence and methodological problems for its interpretation’, in Salamon et al. 2012: 2.377–428. Popović, Svetlana, 2000. ‘Преиспитивања цркве светог Петра у Расу’, in J. Kalić (ed.), Међународни научни скуп Стефан Немања – Свети Симеон Мироточиви. Историја и предање (Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti): 209–229. Popović, Goran, Edin Veletovac & Amra Šačić Beća, 2017. ‘Recently discovered Basilica from Late Antiquity and a Tombstone Stela from Mramorak near Osmaci’, GodCBI 46: 184–202. Posavec, Vladimir, 1996. ‘Prilog poznavanju ostrogotskog razdoblja u Dalmaciji’, HZ 49: 1–15. Posavec, Vladimir, 2007. Dalmacija u vrijeme Marcelina i Julija Nepota (Split: Književni krug).

238 Bibliography Potrebica, Hrvoje & Sanda Hančević, 2007. ‘267. Lumbarda – Sutivan’, HAG 4: 572–575. Potrebica, Hrvoje & Sanda Hančević, 2008. ‘313. Lumbarda – Sutivan’, HAG 5: 696–699. Preložnik, Andrej, 2008. ‘Fibula s podobo Haris iz Nina – poreklo in pomen’, in M. Guštin (ed.), Mittelalter: Archäologische Forschungen zwischen der Adria und der Pannonischen Tiefebene (Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije): 203–209. Premović-Aleksić, Dragica, 1998. ‘Истраживање локалитета Кобиљка код Сјенице у 1998. години’, Novopazarski zbornik 22: 305–306. Premović-Aleksić, Dragica, 2014. Археолошка карта Новог Пазара, Тутина и Сјенице (Novi Pazar: Muzej „Ras“). Prigent, Vivien, 2008. ‘Notes sur l’évolution de l’administration byzantine en Adriatique (VIIIe –IXe siècle)’, MEFRA 120: 393–417. Prozorov, Vadim, 2011. ‘The sixth-century councils of Salona’, VAPD 104: 309–337. Rácz, Zsófia, 2013. ‘Sind Goldschmiede in den ‘Goldschmiedegräbern’ der Awarenzeit bestattet?’, in M. Hardt & O. Heinrich-Tamáska (eds.) Macht des Goldes, Gold der Macht. Herrschafts- und Jenseitsrepräsentation zwischen Antike und Frühmittelalter im mittleren Donauraum. Forschungen zu Spätantike und Mittelalter 2 (Weinstadt: Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner): 361–380. Radić, Frano, 1896. ‘Grobna raka iz starohrvatske biskupske bazilike S. Marije u Biskupiji kod Knina, i u njoj nadjeni mrtvački ostaci’, SHP (series I) 2(2): 71–86. Radić Rossi, Irena, 2006. ‘243. Vranjic – zapadna i južna obala’, HAG 3: 451–453. Radić Rossi, Irena, 2008a. ‘Arheološka baština u podmorju Kaštelanskog zaljeva’, ArchAdr 2: 489–506. Radić Rossi, Irena, 2008b. ‘Zaštitno arheološko istraživanje u vranjičkome podmorju 2005./2006.’, Tusculum 1: 17–33. Radimský, Waclaw, 1893. ‘Römische Gräber bei Han Potoci nächst Mostar’, WMBH 1: 303–307. Radman Livaja, Ivan, 2014. Plombs de Siscia, 2 Vols. Musei Archaeologici Zagrabiensis Catalogi et Monographiae 9 (Zagreb: AMZg). Radović, Mate, 2010. ‘Early Croatian graves discovered at the site of Banovac in Nin’, Diadora 24: 161–178. Rapanić, Željko (ed.), 1975. Disputationes Salonitanae 1970 (Split: AMS). Rapanić, Željko, 1980. ‘Prilog proučavanju kontinuiteta naseljenosti u salonitanskom ageru u ranom srednjem vijeku’, VAHD 74: 189–217. Rapanić, Željko, 1998. ‘Sancta Maria de Platea u Trogiru. De ecclesiis datandis – dissertatio (1)’, SHP 25: 43–62. Rapanić, Željko, 2007. Od carske palače do srednjovjekovne općine (Split: Književni krug). Rapanić, Željko, 2013. ‘Kralj Tripimir, Venecijanci i Dalmatinci u traktatu teologa Gottschalka iz Orbaisa’, PovPril 44: 27–70. Rapanić, Željko, 2016. ‘Propast Salone’, SHP 43: 91–140. Rapanić, Željko, 2017. Dalmatinski grad i zaleđe u ranom srednjem vijeku. S usputnim komentarima. Scintillae Stephano Gunjaça dicatae 6 (Split: MHAS). Rašić, Mirko & Josipa Baraka Perica, 2018. ‘The early Christian complex in Doci near Vitina: the results of the revised archaeological research’, PIAZ 35: 219–238. Rašić, Mirko & Dario Vujević, 2017. ‘Revizijska istraživanja “oratorija” na Šipkovoj glavici u Docima kod Vitine’, in Fabijanić et al. 2017: 167–187.

Bibliography  239 Rautman, Marcus, 1998. ‘Hand-made pottery and social change: The view from Late Roman Cyprus’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 11: 81–104. Reed, Kelly, 2019. ‘Ritual household deposits and the religious imaginaries of early medieval Dalmatia (Croatia)’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 56: 1–10. Rendić-Miočević, Ante, 1982. ‘Uz dva Silvanova svetišta u okolici Salone’, ARR 8–9: 121–140. Rendić-Miočević, Duje, 1985. ‘Zu einem besonderen Typus frühchristlicher Sakralbauten auf norisch-illyrischem Gebiet’, in H. Graßl (ed.), Kulturhistorische und archäologische Probleme des Südostalpenraumes in der Spätantike (Vienna & Cologne: Boehlau Verlag): 119–126. Rizos, Efthymios, 2011. ‘Cities, architecture and society in the eastern and central Balkans during Late Antiquity (ca. AD 250–600)’, PhD dissertation (Oxford University). Robak, Zbigniew, 2015. ‘Items decorated with the Tassilo Chalice Style in the western Slavic territories’, SlovArch 63(2): 309–340. Robak, Zbigniew, 2018. ‘Chronology and periodisation of imports of Carolingian military equipment in the Carpathian Basin between the eighth and the tenth centuries’, Antaeus 35–36: 327–344. Roksandić, Drago (ed.), 1998. Microhistory of the Triplex Confinium. International Project Conference Papers (Budapest: Central European University Press). Roksandić, Drago & Nataša Štefanec (eds.), 2000. Constructing Border Societies on the Triplex Confinium. International Project Conference Papers. CEU History Department Working Paper Series 4 (Budapest: Central European University Press). Roksandić, Drago, Ivan Mimica, Nataša Štefanec & Vinka Glunčić-Bužančić (eds.), 2003. Triplex Confinium (1500–1800): ekohistorija. Izvorni znanstveni radovi s treće međunarodne konferencije Projekta. Knjiga Mediterana 28 (Split & Zagreb: Književni krug & Zavod za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskog fakulteta sveučilišta u Zagrebu). Ross, Marvin C., 1965. Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Medieval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection Vol. 2: Jewelry, Enamels and Art of Migration Period (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies). Said, Edward, 1993. Culture and Imperialism (London: Chatto & Windus). Salamon, Marciej, Marcin Wołoszyn, Alexander Musin & Perica Špehar (eds.), 2012. Rome, Constantinople and Newly-Converted Europe Archaeological and Historical Evidence, 2 Vols. (Kraków, Leipzig, Rzeszów & Warszaw: Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas, Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN & Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego). Saltzman, Michele R., 2002. The Making of a Christian Aristocracy Social and Religious Change in the Western Roman Empire (Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press). Sanader, Mirjana, 2000. ‘Kasnocarska grobnica iz Vojnića’, OpArch 23–24: 225–236. Sarantis, Alexander, 2013. ‘Waging war in Late Antiquity’, in Sarrantis & Christie 2013: 1.1–98. Sarantis, Alexander, 2016. Justinian’s Balkan Wars: Campaigning, Diplomacy and Development in Illyricum, Thrace and the Northern World AD 527– 65. ARCA: Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 53 (Prenton: Francis Cairns). Sarantis, Alexander, 2019. ‘Military provisioning in the sixth-century Balkans’, JLA 12(2): 329–379.

240 Bibliography Sarantis, Alexander & Neil Christie (eds.), 2013. War and Warfare in Late Antiquity 2 Vols. LAA 8.1–2 (Leiden: Brill). Schlumberger, Gustave, 1882. Sigillographie de l’empire byzantin (Paris: E. Leroux). Schulze-Dörrlamm, Mechthild, 1993. ‘Bestattungen in den Kirchen Grossmährens und Böhmens während des 9. und 10. Jahrhundert’, JbRGZ Mainz 40(2): 557–620. Schulze-Dörrlamm, Mechthild, 2009. Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im Römischen-Germanischen Zentralmuseum, 2 Vols. Kataloge Vor- und Frühgeschichtlicher altertümer 30.1–2. (Mainz: Römisch Germanisches Zentralmuseum). Schulze-Dörrlamm, Mechthild, 2010. ‘Gräber mit Münzbeigabe im Karolingerreich’, JbRGZ Mainz 57: 339–388. Seibt, Werner & Marie L. Zarnitz, 1997. Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk: Katalog Zur Ausstellung (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften). Sekelj Ivančan, Tajana & Tatjana Tkalčec, 2006. ‘Slawisches Brandgräberfeld am Standort Duga ulica 99 in Vinkovci’, PIAZ 23: 141–212. Sergejevski, Dimitrije, 1933. ‘Нови налази на Гламочком пољу’, GZM 45: 7–14. Sergejevski, Dimitrije, 1947. ‘Arheološki nalazi u Sarajevu i okolici’, GZMS 2: 13–50. Sergejevski, Dimitrije, 1956. Bazilika u Dabravini (revizija). GZMS 11 – special edition (Sarajevo: ZMBiH). Sergejevski, Dimitrije, 1959. ‘Bazilike u Nerezima i Docu’, GZMS 14: 163–174. Sergejevski, Dimitrije, 1960/61. ‘Bazilika u Mokrom’, GZMS 15–16: 211–228. Serventi, Zrinka, 2014. ‘Nekropole rimske Liburnije: Aspekti društvene i religijske povijesti’, PhD dissertation (University of Zadar). Shepard, Jonathan, 2014. ‘Bunkers, open cities and boats in Byzantine diplomacy’, in Dzino & Parry 2014: 11–44. Sikorski, Dariusz A., 2018. Religie dawynch Słowian. Przewodnik dla zdezorientowanych (Poznan:́ Wydawnictwo Poznańskie). Simoni, Katica, 1989. ‘Knin-Greblje kataloški opis grobova i nalaza’, SHP 19: 75–119. Skarić, Vladislav, 1932. ‘Altertümer von Gradac in der Lepenica (Bosnien)’, GZM 44(2): 1–22. Smiljanić, Franjo, 2007. ‘O položaju i funkciji župana u hrvatskim srednjovjekovnim vrelima od 9. do 16. stoljeća’, PovPril 33: 33–102. Sokol, Vladimir, 2016. Medieval Jewelry and Burial Assemblages in Croatia. A Study of Graves and Grave Goods ca. 800 to ca. 1450. ECEE 36 (Leiden & Boston: Brill). Sołtysiak, Arkadiusz, 2006. ‘The plague pandemic and Slavic expansion in the 6th8th centuries’, Archaeologia Polona 44: 339–364. Somogyi, Peter, 2014. Byzantinische Fundmünzen der Awarenzeit in ihrem europäischen Umfeld (Budapest: Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften). Steuer, Heiko & Volker Bierbrauer with Michael Hoeper (eds.), 2008. Höhensiedlungen zwischen Antike und Mittelalter von den Ardennen bis zur Adria. Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 58 (Berlin & New York: De Gruyter). Stingl, Sebastijan, 2014. ‘Ranosrednjovjekovni paljevinski ukopi u Hrvatskoj’, Rostra 7: 41–60. Stone, David L. & Lea M. Stirling, 2007. ‘Funerary monuments and mortuary practices in the landscapes of North Africa’, in David L. Stone & Lea M. Stirling (eds.), Mortuary Landscapes of North Africa. Phoenix Supplementary 43 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press): 3–31.

Bibliography  241 Sulejmanagić, Amer, 2014. ‘“Anna de Bosna de Regno Dalmacie” – Ana od Švidnice (1339–1362)’, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Sarajevu 17(3): 131–140. Suić, Mate, 1957. ‘Arheološka istraživanja u Mulinama na o. Ugljanu’, Ljetopis JAZU 64: 230–249. Suić, Mate, 1968. ‘Bribir (Varvaria) u antici’, SHP 10: 217–234. Suić, Mate, 1980. ‘Faze izgradnje bedema stare Varvarije. Uz jedan novi natpis iz Bribira’, in Erceg et al. 1980: 31–42. Suić, Mate, 1986. ‘Hijeronim Stridonjanin – građanin Tarsatike’, Rad JAZU 426: 213–278. Suić, Mate, 1995. ‘Bizantski limes na istočnoj obali Jadrana’, PPUD 35: 133–145. Suić, Mate, 2003. Antički grad na istočnom Jadranu, 2nd ed. (Zagreb: Golden Marketing). Surić, Maša, 2009. ‘Reconstructing sea-level changes on the eastern Adriatic Sea (Croatia) – An overview’, Geoadria 14(2): 181–199. Surić, Maša & Mladen Juračić, 2010. ‘Late Pleistocene-Holocene environmental changes – Records from submerged speleothems along the eastern Adriatic coast (Croatia)’, Geologica Croatica 63(2): 155–169. Syrbe, Daniel, 2019. ‘Gregory the Great and the Bishops: Papal letters and the ecclesiastic integration and disintegration of east Central Europe’, in B. Nagy, F. Schmieder & A. Vadas (eds.), The Medieval Networks in East Central Europe: Commerce, Contacts, Communication (London & New York: Routledge): 71–86. Szenthe, Gergely, 2015. ‘Randerscheinungen einer Randkultur. Awarische Männerepräsentation und mediterraner Einfluss in Randgebieten des Karpatenbeckens (erste Hälfte des 8. Jh. n. Chr.)’, in C. Cosma (ed.), Warriors, Weapons, and Harness from the 5th-10th Centuries in the Carpathian Basin (Cluj-Napoca: Mega Publishing House): 215–250. Szenthe, Gergely, 2019. ‘The ‘Late Avar reform’ and the ‘Long Eighth Century’: A tale of the hesitation between structural transformation and the persistent nomadic traditions (7th to 9th century AD)’, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70: 215–250. Szmoniewski, Bartłomiej S., 2010. ‘Byzantium and the Slavs in the light of goldsmiths’, in C. Entwistle & N. Adams (eds.), “Intelligible Beauty”: Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery (London: British Museum Research Publications): 161–172. Szőke, Béla M. & László Vándor, 1983. ‘8.-9. századi birituális temető Zalakomár határában’, Zalai Gyüjtemény 18: 69–86. Šačić Beća, Amra & Edin Veletovac, 2019. ‘Roman conquest of the Sarajevo region and its consequences on the example of urbanism and early Christian (late antique) architecture’, ActIllyr 3: 31–62. Šašel Kos, Marjeta, 2005. Appian and Illyricum. Situla 43 (Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije). Šeparović, Tomislav, 1999. ‘Akvedukt na Bilicama. Numizmatički nalazi’, in Belamarić 1999: 87–95. Šeparović, Tomislav, 2009. ‘Coin finds of Emperor Constantine V Copronymus in southern Croatia’, in M. Wołoszyn (ed.), Byzantine Coins in Central Europe between the 5th and 10th Century (Krakow: Archeobooks): 553–559. Šeparović, Tomislav, 2012a. ‘Optjecaj novca u sjevernoj Dalmaciji od 5. stoljeća prije Krista do 1102. godine’ 2 Vols, PhD dissertation (University of Zagreb). Šeparović, Tomislav, 2012b. ‘Razmatranja o karolinškom novcu iz Donjih Lepura’, SHP 39: 35–44.

242 Bibliography Šeparović, Tomislav, 2017. ‘Notes on Byzantine coins from the 7th to 9th century found in Croatia’, in M. Caccamo Caltabiano (ed.), XV International Numismatic Congress Taormina 2015, Vol. 2 (Rome & Messina: Arbor Sapientiae Editore S.r.l.): 1008–1012. Šeparović, Tomislav, 2019. ‘Treaty of Aachen and early medieval Croatia – Numismatic sources’, SHP 46: 23–43. Šišić, Ferdo, 1925. Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara (Zagreb: Naklada školskih knjiga). Škegro, Ante, 2004. ‘Papal possessions in the eastern Adriatic’, ArhVest 55: 429–438. Škegro, Ante, 2008. ‘Kriza grada Salone i salonitanske crkve u doba nad/biskupâ Natala i Maksima’, in Dukić et al. 2008: 299–315. Škegro, Ante. 2009. ‘Akti Salonitanskih metropolitanskih sabora održanih 530. i 533. godine – analiza’, ArchAdr 3: 191–204. Škrgulja, Jana, 2015. ‘L’archeologia dell’ Adriatico orientale tra il V il VII secolo: le evidenze archeologiche e i problemi della ricerca”, in Marion & Tassaux 2015: 99–112. Škrgulja, Jana, 2018. ‘Symbols of power and ethnic identities in late antique southern Pannonia and Dalmatia (the sixth century)’, in K. Jovanović & S. Miljan (eds.), Papers and Proceedings of the Third Medieval Workshop in Rijeka (Rijeka: Filozofski fakultet sveučillišta u Rijeci): 89–108. Šlaus, Mario, 2006. Bioarheologija: Demografija, zdravlje i trauma starohrvatskih populacija (Zagreb: Školska knjiga). Špehar, Perica, 2008. ‘Late antique and early Byzantine fortifications in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Hinterland of the Province of Dalmatia)’, in Steuer et al. 2008: 559–594. Špehar, Perica, 2017. Централни Балкан од 7. до 11. века. Археолошка сведочанства (Belgrade: IP Booka). Štefanac, Berislav & Marin Ćurković, 2013. ‘Late antique graves from Asseria’, Asseria 10: 117–208. Štih, Peter, 2010. The Middle Ages between the Eastern Alps and the Northern Adriatic. Select Papers on Slovene Historiography and Medieval History. ECEE 11 (Leiden & Boston: Brill). Štih, Peter, 2018. ‘Imperial politics and its regional consequences: Istria between Byzantium and the Franks 788–812’, in Ančić et al. 2018: 57–72. Talgam, Rina, 2018. ‘Christian floor mosaics: Modes of study and potential meanings’, in R.M. Jensen & M.D. Ellison (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Early Christian Art (London & New York: Routledge): 104–123. Tănase, Daniela, 2010. ‘Gräber mit Goldschmiede- und Schmiedewerkzeugen aus der Awarenzeit. Zeichen der Macht oder Beweis für die Ausübung des Handwerks’, in A. Paroń, S. Rossignol, B.S. Szmoniewski & G. Vercamer (eds.), Potestas et communitas. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu Wesen und Darstellung von Herrschaftsverhältnissen im Mittelalter östlich der Elbe (Warsaw & Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii PAN): 213–225. Taras, Dino, 2019/20. ‘Rescue excavations at Ždrijac site near Nin’, Diadora 33–34: 297–316. Themelly, Alessandra, 1999. ‘Il mosaico di San Venanzio in Laterano (640–649)’, Romanobarbarica 16: 317–345. Theuws, Frans, 2009. ‘Grave goods, ethnicity and rhetoric of burial rites in Late antique northern Gaul’, in T. Derks & N. Roymans (eds.), Ethnic Constructs in

Bibliography  243 Antiquity: The Role of Power and Tradition (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press): 283–319. Thunø, Erik, 2011. ‘Inscription and divine presence: Golden letters in the early medieval Apse mosaic’, Word and Image 27(3): 279–291. Thunø, Erik, 2015. The Apse mosaic in Early Medieval Rome: Time Network and Repetition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Tjäder, Jan-Olof, 1955. Die Nichtliterarischen Lateinischen Papyri Italiens aus der Zeit Vol. 1 (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup). Todorova, Maria, 1997. Imagining the Balkans (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Tomasović, Marinko, 2009. ‘Arheološke sugestije za ubikaciju gradova iz 36. poglavlja Porfirogenetova De administrando imperio’, SHP 36: 293–313. Tomičić, Željko, 2007. ‘Prilog poznavanju kronologije ranosrednjovjekovnog groblja Gomjenica’, SHP 34: 151–197. Tomičić, Željko, 2010. ‘Spoznaje o arheološkom naslijeđu ranosrednjovjekovnog groblja na položaju Bagruša kod Petoševaca’, ArchAdr 4: 117–166. Treadgold, Warren T., 1988. The Byzantine Revival 780–842 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press). Truhelka, Ćiro, 1893. ‘Zenica und Stolac. Beiträge zur römischen Archäologie Bosniens und der Herzegovina’, WMBH 1: 273–302. Turković, Tin, 2011. ‘The late antique “Palace” in Polače Bay (Mljet) – Tetrachic “Palace”?’, HAM 17: 211–233. Turković, Tin & Ivan Basić, 2013. ‘Kasnoantička i ranosrednjovjekovna Tarsatička Liburnija (Liburnia Tarsaticensis) u svjetlu geografskih izvora’, SHP 40: 33–80. Turković, Tin & Nikolina Maraković, 2014. ‘”Velike salonitanske terme” – od antičke kuće do biskupskih kupelji’, RadoviIPU 38: 25–40. Turković, Tin & Nikolina Maraković, 2017. ‘Late antique changes in the urban structure of the Dalmatian metropolis: The episcopal complex in Salona’, in Diarte-Blasco 2017: 39–52. Turković, Tin & Maja Zeman, 2011. ‘Prilog poznavanju kasnoantičkih vila s područja provincije Dalmacije – slučaj vile u Strupniću kraj Livna’, ArsAdr 1: 9–26. Uglešić, Ante, 1990/91. ‘Rimska provincija Dalmacija pod vlašću Istočnih Gota’, RFFZd 30/17: 65–78. Uglešić, Ante, 1994/95. ‘Istočnogotski ženski grob iz antičke Narone’, RFFZd 34/21: 145–150. Uglešić, Ante, 2002. Ranokršćanska arhitektura na području današnje zadarske biskupije (Zadar: Filozofski fakultet u Zadru & Zadarska nadbiskupija). Uglešić, Ante, 2003. ‘Kasnoantički nalazi s Aserije’, Asseria 1: 195–207. Uglešić, Ante, 2016. ‘Podvršje – Glavčine: Results of the most recent archaeological research’, HAM 23(2): 653–665. Uglešić, Ante, 2017. ‘Ranokršćanski nalazi iz okolice Ljupča’, in Faričić & Lenkić 2017: 113–133. Ungerman, Šimon, 2011. ‘Schwertgurte des 9. bis 10. Jahrhunderts in west- und Mitteleuropa’, in J. Macháček & Š. Ungerman (eds.), Frühgeschichtliche Zentralorte in Mitteleuropa. Internationale Konferenz und Kolleg der Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung zum 50. Jahrestag des Beginns archäologischer Ausgrabungen in Pohansko bei Břeclav (Břeclav & Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH): 575–608. Uroda, Nikolina, 2019. ‘Arheološka baština pustinjaka i redovničkih zajednica u srednjoj Dalmaciji od njihovih početaka do 12. stoljeća’, PhD dissertation (University of Zagreb).

244 Bibliography Van den Akker, Robin, Alison Gibbons & Timotheus Vermeulen (eds.), 2017. Metamodernism: Historicity, affect and depth after Postmodernism (London: Rowman & Littlefield). Van de Moort, Robert, 1993. ‘The context of early medieval barrows in western Europe’, Antiquity 67: 66–73. Vasilj, Snježana, 2010. ‘Kasnoantička nekropola na lokalitetu Grovnice u Malom Mošunju – Općina Vitez’, GodCBI 39: 135–148. Vasilj, Snježana, 2012. ‘Ranosrednjovjekovni ukopi na lokalitetu Doljani-Dubine u općini Čapljina, u Bosni i Hercegovini’, SHP 39: 19–34. Vedriš, Trpimir, 2008. ‘Historia Translationis S. Anastasiae: kako (ne) čitati hagiografski tekst?’, in A. Marinković & T. Vedriš (eds.), Hagiologija: Kultovi u kontekstu (Zagreb: Leykam international): 39–58. Vedriš, Trpimir, 2010. ‘Razgovor ugodni: Konstantin VII Porfirogenet i percepcije najranije hrvatske povijesti’, RadoviZHP 42, 13–36. Vedriš, Trpimir, 2012. ‘Po čemu je u 9. stoljeću rotunda sv. Donata u Zadru mogla sličiti crkvi sv. Anastazije u Carigradu?’, in T. Šeparović (ed.), Zbornik: Stjepan Gunjača i hrvatska srednjovjekovna povijesno-arheološka baština 2 (Split: MHAS): 63–79. Vedriš, Trpimir, 2015. ‘Pokrštavanje i rana kristijanizacija Hrvata’, in Nikolić Jakus 2015: 173–200. Vedriš, Trpimir, 2018a. ‘“Croats and Carolingians”: Triumph of a new historiographic paradigm or ideologically charged project?’, in Dzino et  al. 2018a: 287–298. Vedriš, Trpimir, 2018b. ‘Amalarius’ stay in Zadar reconsidered’, in Ančić et al. 2018: 288–311. Vedriš, Trpimir (forthcoming). ‘Provincia Jadrensis: Heir of Roman Dalmatia or a still-born child of Byzantine early medieval Adriatic policy?’, in J. Bennet & M.  Skoblar (eds.), The Adriatic Between Venice and Byzantium c. 700–1453 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Veikou, Myrto, 2009. ‘“Rural Towns” and “In-Between” or “Third” spaces: Settlement patterns in Byzantine Epirus’, Archaeologia Medievale 36: 43–54. Veikou, Myrto, 2010. ‘Urban or rural?: Theoretical remarks on the settlement patterns in Byzantine Epirus (7th-11th centuries)’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 103(1): 171–193. Veletovac, Edin, 2018. ‘Osvrt na arhitektonski kompleks na Mogorjelu kao problem historiografije XIX, XX i XXI stoljeća’, ActIllyr 2: 317–334. Vermeulen, Timotheus & Robin Van den Akker, 2010. ‘Notes on metamodernism’, Journal of Aesthetics & Culture 2: 1–13. Vežić, Pavuša, 1996/97. ‘Crkva sv. Ivana ispred grada u Zadru’, Diadora 18–19: 275–300. Vežić, Pavuša, 2002. Sveti Donat – Rotunda Sv. Trojstva u Zadru (Split: MHAS). Vežić, Pavuša, 2005. Zadar na pragu kršćanstva: arhitektura ranoga kršćanstva u Zadru i na zadarskome području (Zadar: AMZd). Vežić, Pavuša, 2013. Episcopal Complex in Zadar (Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru). Vicelja-Matijašić, Marina, 2005. ‘Byzantium and Istria: Some aspects of Byzantine presence in Istria’, ActHist 13: 185–204. Vinski, Zdenko, 1952. ‘Naušnice zvjezdolikog tipa u Arheološkom muzeju u Zagrebu s posebnim obzirom na nosioce srebrnog nakita Čađavica’, SHP 2: 29–56.

Bibliography  245 Vinski, Zdenko, 1955. ‘Ponovno o naušnicama zvjezdolikog tipa’, GZMS 10: 231–238. Vinski, Zdenko, 1956. ‘Nalaz iz Velike Kladuše i problem naušnica tipa okrenute piramide’, GZMS 11: 63–95. Vinski, Zdenko, 1958. ‘O nalazima 6. i 7. stoljeća u Jugoslaviji s posebnim obzirom na arheološku ostavštinu iz vremena Prvog avarskoga kaganata’, OpArch 3: 13–67. Vinski, Zdenko, 1964. ‘Kasnoantička baština u grobovima ranoga srednjeg vijeka kao činjenica i kao problem’, in VI Kongres arheologa Jugoslavije. Materijali 1. (Belgrade: Arheološko društvo Jugoslavije): 101–115. Vinski, Zdenko, 1967. ‘Kasnoantički starosjedioci u salonitanskoj regii prema arheološkoj ostavštini predslavenskog supstrata’, VAHD 69: 5–86. Vinski, Zdenko, 1968. ‘Krstoliki nakit seobe naroda u Jugoslaviji’, VAMZ 3: 103–168. Vinski, Zdenko, 1970. ‘Zu den Waffenfunden im Bereich des altkroatischen Staates bis zum Jahre 1000’, in I. Międzynarodowy kongres archeologii słowiańskiej Vol. 3 (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich): 135–158. Vinski, Zdenko, 1971. ‘Rani srednji vijek u Jugoslaviji od 400. do 800. godine’, VAMZ 5: 47–73. Vinski, Zdenko, 1977/78. ‘Novi ranokarolinški nalazi u Jugoslaviji’, VAMZ 10–11: 143–208. Vinski, Zdenko, 1982. ‘Šljem epohe seobe naroda nađen u Sinju’, SHP 12: 7–34. Vinski, Zdenko, 1983. ‘Razmatranja o poslijekarolinškim mačevima 10. i 11. stoljeća u Jugoslaviji’, SHP 13: 7–64. Vinski, Zdenko, 1989. ‘Razmatranja o iskopavanjima u Kninu na nalazištu Greblje’, SHP 19: 5–73. Vodička Miholjek, Kristina, 2007. ‘250. Vranjic–južna obala’, HAG 4: 541–543. Vrdoljak, Bono M., 1988. ‘Starokršćanska bazilika i ranosrednjovjekovna nekropola na Rešetarici kod Livna’, SHP 18: 119–194. Vučić, Jakov, 2013. ‘Coin circulation in Zadar in the late Roman period’, ArchAdr 7: 221–269. Vučić, Jakov, 2017a. ‘The Late Antiquity burials and the medieval cemetery at St Simon’s church in Zadar’, Diadora 31: 155–176. Vučić, Jakov, 2017b. ‘O optjecaju novca na naronitanskom prostoru tijekom kasne antike’, in Fabijanić et al. 2017: 153–166. Vučić Jakov, 2017c. ‘Stonemason workshops in the Roman province of Dalmatia during Late Antiquity’, in Demicheli 2017: 515–531. Vujinović, Bojan, 2014a. ‘Ranovizantijski grad na Gradini u Bakincima’, GodCBI 43: 167–184. Vujinović, Bojan, 2014b. Рановизантијске базилике у Бакинцима (Banjaluka: Zavičajni muzej Gradiška, Istraživački centar Iskon & Zavod za zaštitu kulturno-istorijskog i prirodnog nasljeđa). Wachowski, Krzysztof, 1983. ‘Das Problem der Chronologie der karolingischen Einflüsse auf das Gebiet von Jugoslawien’, Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 11: 163–167. Werner, Joachim, 1961/62. ‘Frühkarolingische Gürtelgarnitur aus Mogorjelo bei Čapljina (Hercegovina)’, GZMS 15–16: 242–248. Werner, Joachim, 1978/79. ‘Zur Zeitstellung der altkroatischen Grabfunde von Biskupija-Crkvina (Marienkirche)’, Schild von Steier. Beiträge zur steirischen Vorund Frühgeschichte und Münzkunde 15–16: 227–237.

246 Bibliography Whately, Conor, 2013. ‘Militarization, or the rise of a distinct military culture? The east Roman ruling elite in the 6th century AD’, in S. O’Brien & D. Boatright (eds.), Warfare and Society in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean. BAR 2583 (Oxford: Archaeopress): 49–57. Wickham, Christopher, 2005. Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and Mediteranean, 400–800 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Winkelmann, Friedhelm, 2001. Der monoenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. Berliner Byzantinistische Studien 6 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang). Wilkes, John J., 1969. Dalmatia (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul). Wilkes, John J., 1992. The Illyrians (Oxford & Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell). Wilkes, John J., 2003. ‘The towns of Roman Dalmatia’, in P. Wilson (ed.), The Archaeology of Roman Towns, Studies in Honour of John S. Watcher (Oxford: Oxbow Books): 233–241. Williams, Howard M.R., 1997. ‘Ancient landscapes and the dead: The reuse of prehistoric and Roman Monuments as Early Anglo-Saxon burial sites’, Medieval ­Archaeology 41(1): 1–32. Williams, Howard M.R., 1998. ‘The ancient monument in Romano-British ritual practices’, in C. Forcey, J. Hawthorne & R. Witcher (eds.), TRAC 97: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (Oxford: Oxbow Books): 71–86. Wolff, Larry, 2001. Venice and the Slavs: The Discovery of Dalmatia in the Age of Enlightenment (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press). Wolfram, Herwig, 1995. Salzburg, Bayern, Österreich: Die Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum und die Quellen ihrer Zeit. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 31 (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag). Wołoszyn (Kozub), Marcin, 1997. ‘Idea obola zmarłego we wczesnym średniowieczu na podstawie znalezisk z terenu Kaganatu Awarskiego’, Histarychna-arkhealagichny Zbornik 11: 162–167. Woolf, Greg, 2001. ‘Inventing empire in ancient Rome’, in S. Alcock, T.N. d’Altroy, K.D. Morrison & C.M. Sinopoli (eds.), Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 311–322. Woolf, Greg, 2011. Tales of the Barbarians: Ethnography and Empire in the Roman West (Oxford: John Wiley & Sons). Wozniak, Frank E., 1984. ‘The continuity of Roman traditions and the ostrogothic administration of Dalmatia in the sixth century’, in K.K. Shangriladze & E.W. Townsend (eds.), Papers for the V. Congress of Southeast European Studies (Columbus: Slavica Publishers): 374–382. Yassin, Ann M. (2012) ‘Reassessing Salona’s churches: Martyrium evolution in question’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 20(1): 59–112. Zagarčanin, Mladen, 2017. ‘Medieval town Svač results of excavation carried out 2012 and new observations’, Nova antička Duklja 8: 177–234. Zagarčanin, Mladen, 2018. ‘The early medieval necropolis Mijela and the question of “Komani-Kruje” culture in the region’, Nova antička Duklja 9: 97–156. Zaroff, Roman, 2003. ‘Study into Socio-political history of the Obodrites’, Collegium Medievale 16: 5–36. Zekan, Mate, 1996. ‘The five medieval cemeteries of Bribir’, in Milošević 1996: 41–54. Zekan, Mate, 2009. ‘262. Bribirska glavica’, HAG 6: 547–549.

Bibliography  247 Zelić, Danko, 2014. ‘Arhitektura starih katedrala’, in K. Horvat-Levaj (ed.), Katedrala Gospe Velike u Dubrovniku. Studije i monografije Instituta za povijest umjetnosti 46 (Dubrovnik & Zagreb: Gradska župa Gospe Velike, Dubrovnik & Institut za povijest umjetnosti): 30–64. Zeman, Maja, 2014a. ‘Transformacije rimskih “vila” na prostoru srednje Dalmacije tijekom kasne antike i ranog srednjeg vijeka’, PhD dissertation (University of Zagreb). Zeman, Maja, 2014b. ‘Monumentalne eksedre u rimskoj rezidencijalnoj arhitekturi ranocarskog razdoblja: primjeri istočne obale Jadrana’, RadoviIPU 38: 7–24. Zeman, Maja, 2017a. ‘Roman architectural complex at Stari Šematorij in Danilo (Rider) – the issue of function’, in Demicheli 2017: 425–447. Zeman, Maja, 2017b. ‘A reverse perspective on the transformations of the Roman “Rural Landscape” in central Dalmatia – Hyllis Peninsula, Danilo, Bilice’, in Diarte-Blasco 2017: 111–132. Zhekov, Zhivko, 2003. ‘On the titles of Balkan aristocracy in 7th-9th century’, Études balkaniques/Balkan Studies 4: 84–98. Zornija, Meri, 2016. ‘TEMPORIBUS DOMINI IOHANNIS EPISCOPI… – o počecima predromaničke skulpture u Boki Kotorskoj’, ArsAdr 6: 23–40. Žeravica, Zdenko, 1985/86. ‘Ranoslovenska nekropola Bagruša u Petoševcima kod Laktaša’, GZMS 40–41: 129–209. Žile, Ivica, 1997. ‘Naselje prije grada’, Dubrovnik 4: 97–123. Živković, Tibor, 2002. ‘The Strategos Paul and the Archontes of the Westerners’, Byzantina Symmeikta 15: 161–176. Živković, Tibor, 2005. ‘Uspenskij Taktikon and the theme of Dalmatia’, Symmeikta 17: 49–85. Živković, Tibor, 2007. Јужни Словени под Византијском Влашћу, 2nd ed. (Belgrade: Čigoja štampa). Živković, Tibor, 2011. ‘The origin of the royal Frankish Annalist’s information about the Serbs in Dalmatia’, in S. Rudić (ed.), Homage to Academician Sima Ćirković. Istorijski institut 25. (Belgrade: Istorijski institut): 381–398.

Subject Index

Aachen 149, 151; Treaty of 4, 12, 147–8, 164–5, 172–3, 176, 198 Abodrites (Obodrites) 178 Aelii, family 62 Agilulf, king 91 Albania, country 65, 123, 137, 160 Albgarius, missus 173 Alps 12, 15, 102 Alveria 66 amphorae: late antique 33, 41, 47, 49, 59n115, 76; mid-Byzantine (absence of) 188 Anastasia, saint 72, 152 Anastasius, saint 35, 111–12 Anatolia 150 Andreas, bishop 44, 57n79 Andreas, defensor 82 Andreas, Prior of Zadar 189 Antoninus, sub-deacon 79–81 Anna of Schweidnitz, empress 7 Apamea 82 Arabs 175, 177, 191n16 Asia Minor 116 Asinarius, general 29–30 Asterius, saint 111 Attis, ancient divinity 62 Avar: material culture 95, 101, 111, 121, 130, 156–7, 162–3; raids 30–2, 40–1, 53, 91, 130; Pannonia 111, 135–6; qaganate 8, 103, 139, 148–9, 161, 179; qagan 31, 91, 149; wars of Charlemagne 149–50 Avar-Slav 90–1, 103, 108, 113, 197 Avars 20, 81, 91, 97, 100, 102–3, 107, 113, 179 Baldric, markgrave 175 balkanism 11, 19 Bardanes Tourkos, governor 150, 167n13

barrows 3, 65–7, 71, 86n25, 96, 123, 127, 132, 179–80, 185–6 Basil I the Macedonian, emperor 177, 189–90 basilicae geminae 45–6, 48, 51, 59n110, 66, 100 Bavaria 149 Beatus, doge 150–51 belt buckles: Balgota-class 105n35, 115, 123, 143n96; Bologna-class 111, 140n21; Keszthely-Pécs type 111, 120, 130–1; Mediterrana type 79, 110–11, 119, 122–3; Syracusa-class 111, 140n21, 141n57; with U-shaped plates 111, 118, 140n21, 141n57, 142n72 belt strap-ends/fittings 41, 78–9, 111, 122; Avar 95, 156, 163; Carolingian 158–9, 165; Hohenberg-class 186 Bihać 61 Bileća 33, 169n43 Biskupija-Crkvina (Biskupija) horizon 99, 118, 125, 128–9, 133–4, 156–60 Boka Kotorska, gulf 6, 14, 17, 99 Bonkeis (or Balkes) 31–2, 40 Borna, duke 152, 173–5, 178, 182–3, 187 Bosna, river 20, 41, 45, 184 Bosnia: central 20, 24, 41, 78, 101, 172, 180, 190, 198; eastern 31, 179; northwestern 41, 48; Ottoman eyalet 14; region 6–7, 49, 52, 194n100; southwestern 41, 70, 172, 190; western 41, 172, 176, 190 Bosnia and Herzegovina: country 2, 7, 14–15, 32, 40, 130: Federation of 15 Bosniaks 7, 9, 15 Bosona, early medieval polity 181 Brač, island 16, 47, 49, 115, 141n50, 178, 189 Branimir, duke 1, 175, 177, 182–4, 187–8, 190, 195n92

250  Subject Index Britain 65, 139, 186, 199 Broz, Josip, dictator 183 Bryennius, protomandator 177 Bug, river 180 Bugojno 39, 158 Bulgaria, country 192n19 Bulgars, Bulgar empire 8, 151, 162, 174–5, 179 burial mounds, see barrows Buško Blato 41, 62, 67, 70, 86n42, 158 Byzantine administrative units: archontate 6, 168n25, 176–7; doucate 6, 151, 168n25, 176–7; kleisoura 116–17, 137–8, 151, 156; province 6; thema 6, 148–9, 151, 168n25, 176–7 Byzantine Balkans 2, 59n125, 139n9; cultural koine 118, 123; empire 2, 8, 116, 149, 172, 199; evacuation of Dalmatia 4, 60, 92, 102, 108, 130–1, 133, 135–6; fortifications 40–3; frontiers-guards 65, 129, 138, 166; jewelry 51, 120, 124, 129–30; officials/ military commanders 30–1, 43, 114, 122, 151–2, 173, 177; outposts/ enclaves in Dalmatia 4, 115, 123–4, 136–8, 147–8, 155, 162–4, 184, 189, 198–9; reconquest of Dalmatia 1 Byzantine-Carolingian conflicts 4, 149–52, 165–6, 177, 186, 198 Byzantines 8, 102–4, 113, 148–52, 156, 166, 174–9, 188, 197–9 Cadolah, markgrave 173, 175 Callinicus, exarch 79, 90 Canaliti 178–9 Carinthia 157 Carolingian: empire 2, 8, 13, 148, 172, 182, 190, 198; frontiers 13, 97, 157, 161, 166, 172, 178, 181, 188 Carolingians, see Franks Cassiodorus, senator and writer 29, 46 Cavtat, see Epidaurum ‘Cetina limes’ 116–7, 124, 129, 133, 137, 154–6, 159, 166, 176, 198 Charlemagne, emperor 117, 148–52, 156 Charles IV of Luxembourg, emperor 7 Chelm 178 Chuch councils: of Constantinople (870) 188; of Hieria (754) 136, 146n154; of Nicaea (787) 152–3; of Salona (530 and 533) 44, 48, 92 Claudianus, general 82 coins: Abbasid 188; Carolingian 188; Anastasius I 109; Constans I 88n.77;

Constantine I 66; Constantine IV Pogonatus 115; Constantine V Copronymus 94–5, 125, 155–6, 160, 162, 165, 168n43, 182, 189; Gordian III 70; Heraclius 103, 108–9, 113, 115, 120, 130; Heraclius Constantine 115; Honorius 76; Justin I 42, 52, 59n126, 76; Justinian I 52, 59n126, 76, 111; Leontius 115; Lothar I 97, 162; Maurice 59n126, 109; Michael I Rangabe 188; Ostrogothic 54n7; Phocas 108–9, 115; Theophilus 188; Tiberius II 73, 109; Tiberius III 115; Valens 76; Venetian 131 coin-hoards 52, 59n125, 103, 108–9, 115 Constantianus, general 29, 82 Constantine the Great (Constantine I), emperor 47 Constantine V Copronymus, emperor 147 Constantine VI, emperor 114 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, emperor 91 Constantius, bishop of Siscia 44 cremations: Roman 76; post-Roman/ early medieval 92–6, 156–8, 163–6, 174, 180–1; Sclavene 130 Cres, island 16, 115 Croatia, Croatian, Croats: medieval 1, 6–8, 91, 154, 163–4, 173–7, 183, 186–9; modern 2, 6–9, 13–16, 33, 40, 61, 97–9, 116, 130; White 163 Cyprus 165 Čitluk near Sinj 23, 122 Dalmatian Zagora, region 16, 18, 24 ‘Dalmatini’ 164–5, 173, 188 Damianus, archbishop 136 Dandolo, Andrea historian 151 De Administrando Imperio (DAI) 91–2, 108, 117, 154, 163, 175–9, 181, 188 Delmatae 6, 21 Dinarids (or Dinaric Alps), mountain chain 13–16, 18–20, 23–4, 28, 32 Diocletian, emperor 33, 44, 91 Diuditus, leader of the Narentani 178 Doboj 33, 41 Domagoj, duke 175, 177, 188 Domnius, saint 35, 111–12, 153 Donatus, bishop 150–2, 166, 168n42 Donatus of Ostia, papal legate 188 Donji Vakuf 77 Drina, river 20 Drniš 50

Subject Index  251 Drosaicus, iudex 177–8 Duchy of Dalmatia (and Liburnia) 151, 164, 172–9, 182–4, 187–91, 198 Dumbarton Oaks collection 51, 120, 151 earrings 67–8, 78, 85, 94, 101, 120, 123, 129, 133, 159, 162, 178–9, 185; basket-shaped pendant 50, 73, 77; Golubić-class 107, 116, 120–7, 133, 144n107, 144n112, 160, 163; grape-shaped pendant 133, 144n112, 162, 186; interlaced pendants 123, 143n97; inverted pyramid pendant 130; polyhedron pendant 77; S-ending 120; S-earring with an open ending 184; triangular grape-shaped (late antique) 71 Egypt 82, 124 Elba, river 161, 163 Epidaurum 17, 23, 49, 77 Epirus 31, 57n72 Eric of Friuli, duke 149–50 Eustachius, general 113 Eustachius, protospatharios 177 Euthymius, doux 151 fibulae: bird-shaped 48, 65, 81; bent stem 41–2, 73, 78; cross-bow 73; cross-shaped 64; ‘Frankish’ 119; omega (pennanular) 33–4, 70; ‘Ostrogothic’ bow 71–3, 81, 87n48; Roman 68, 70, 120–1, 160; with inscription/monogram 51, 68, 128; zoomorphic 105n35 Flavii, family 62 Fortis, Alberto, Venetian travel-writer 19 Frankish Annals 152, 178, 181 Franks, 97, 117, 147–52, 161, 164, 168n42, 173–8, 197–8 Frontinianus, bishop 31, 53, 82 Galatia 82 Gastiha, župan 184 George, spatharios 177 Gepids 73, 97 Germans, Germanic 28, 67, 70–1, 77, 81, 84, 97 Germanus, general 31 Glamoč 39, 77, 184 Godescalc (Gottschalk), theologian 164, 177 Godwin, commander 32 Gorski Kotar, region 6, 17–18 Greece 91, 97, 121

Gregory the Great (Gregory I), pope 4, 30–1, 44, 47, 53, 60, 79–81, 84, 90–1 Greek language 22, 82, 92 Greeks 16–17, 21, 23, 164, 177 Gripas, general 29 Guduscani 173–4, 176 Habsburgs, Habsburg empire 6–7, 14, 130 Hadrian, locoservator 177 Hadrian I, pope 149 Hadrian II, pope 188 Hadrianopolis 82 helmet 79, 84n88, 111 Heraclius I, emperor 91, 102, 107–8, 112–13, 140n32, 147 Herzegovina region 6, 14, 18, 41, 45, 47, 49, 52, 70, 138; eastern 33, 47, 195n100; northern 179; western 52, 172, 176, 190 Herzegovina, duchy – see Chelm Historia Salonitana (HS) 92, 108, 111–12, 114, 153–4, 163 Holy Roman Empire 7, 14 Honoratus, archdeacon 31, 79–80 Honorius II, bishop 44, 76 Hungary 68, 96 Hungarians, Hungarian kingdom 6–8, 14, 20 Huns 20, 28; Kutrigur 31 Hyllean peninsula 47, 117, 176 hypogaeum (grave with an entrance) 64, 76 Iapodes, Iapodean culture 21, 63 (al-)Idrisi, Muhammad, geographer 164–5 ‘Illyrians’ 22, 61 Illyricum 21, 39, 83, 152 Imotski 18, 24, 78, 130 Indulf, general 30–1 Irene, empress 149–50 Isaac the Armenian, exarch 113 Isidorus of Seville, bishop 91 Istria 83, 90–1, 100–2, 111–13, 117–18, 121–3, 136–7, 147–50, 157, 161, 164, 173, 188 Italy 29–31, 48–9, 53, 83–4, 90–1, 102–3, 111, 114, 178, 198–9; Langobardic 50; northern 44, 116, 152 Iustus Olarius, potter 42, 63 Jerome, saint 28 Johanna of Sirmium, abbess 110

252  Subject Index John, bishop of Kotor 152 John, dux of Istria 149, 173 John, priest 30, 83 John IV, pope 111–12, 140n32 John VIII, pope, 188 John of Ravenna, archbishop 92, 152–4 John the Deacon, historian 150, 164, 187 Julius Nepos, emperor 29, 52 Jupiter, Roman divinity 61–2 Justin, tribune 82 Justin II, emperor 30 Justinian I, emperor 29–32, 36, 39, 41–4, 52, 82–3, 85, 114, 117, 137 Kalinovik 77, 88n77 Kamešnica, mountain 133, 159 Komani culture 160 Konjic 77, 59n120 Korčula, island 16, 47, 115, 178 Kotromanić, clan 7 Kozjak, mountain 62, 176 Krk, island 16, 36, 115 Krka, river 17 Kupa, river 174 Kupres 20, 41 Kvarner, Bay of 6, 16–17, 23, 44, 115 Ladislav/Vladislav (Ladasclaus), duke 174–5, 182–3, 187 Laktaši 32 Lastovo, island 49 Laurentius, bishop 167 Langobards, Langobardic 30–1, 50, 91, 97, 113, 148, 156; art 180–1 Leo III Isaurian, emperor 114 Leo IV the Khazar, emperor 155 Liburnia, Liburnian 25n1, 36, 38, 45, 65, 73, 150, 173; Iron Age 17, 21, 23 Licinius, Constantine I’s co-emperor 47 Lika, region 6, 17–18, 168n43, 176 Liudemisl, uncle of Borna 178 Ljubljana, city 42 Ljubuški 52 Ljudevit (Liudewitus), duke 174, 178 Louis the Pious, emperor 164, 173–4 Lucius, Ioannes (Ivan Lučić), historian 114, 153 Malchus, bishop 79–81 mansio, mansiones 24, 33, 39, 41, 45–6, 128, 136, 158 Marcellinus, proconsul 30, 79, 81, 83 Marcellinus of Dalmatia, warlord 29, 52

Martin, abbot 91, 111–13 Martinus, archbishop 154 Maurice, bishop 149 Maurice, emperor 88n94 Maurus, saint 111–12 Maximus, bishop of Gradus 136 Maximus, bishop of Salona 31, 44, 79–84, 90–1, 154 Menander, historian 31 Menatius, defensor 82 Michael, spatharios 30–1 Michael I Rangabe, emperor 151 Michael II Armorian, emperor 177 Michael of Zachlumi 163 Mislav (Moisclavus), duke 175, 178, 182–3, 187, 189 Mljet, island 47, 115, 178 monogram 30, 44, 68, 70–2, 77, 79, 85, 111, 119, 122 monothelitism 112–13, 140n32 Montenegro, Montenegrins 6–7, 9, 14–15, 18, 31, 39–40, 179 Morava, river in Serbia 102 Moravia 97, 105n37, 164 Mosor, mountain 17, 176 Mostar 39, 45, 81, 169n43 Mrkonjić Grad 39 Muncimir, duke 175, 187–8; Charter of 176, 187, 189, 192n24 Mundo the Gepid, general 29, 43 Nābil 49 Nadin 176 Narentani 175, 177–8, 188, 190 Narses, general 31 Natalis, bishop 44, 79–80, 137 Nazor, Vladimir, poet 9 Nemira, mother of Gastiha 184, 194n74 Neretva, river 45, 48, 53, 59n109, 172, 177–8 Nicephorus, deputy 173 Nicephorus I, emperor 150–1 Nicetas, patrician 151 Nicetas Ooryphas, patrician 177 Nicholas, spatharios 168n25, 177 Northern Macedonia, country 123 Novi Grad (former Bosanski Novi) 41 Novi Pazar 14 Obelerius, doge 150–1 Octavian (emperor Augustus) 21, 73 Odoacer, king 29, 47 Olybrius, anaglypharius 48

Subject Index  253 Ostrogoths, Ostrogothic kingdom 29–31, 43, 50, 52, 60, 67–8, 81, 85, 122, 180 Ottoman empire 7–8, 12, 14, 19, 21 pagans, paganism: ancient 35–6, 44–5, 61–4; ‘Slavic’ 92–3, 96–7, 181, 193n52 Palagruža, island 16 Pannonia 6, 28, 43, 53, 68, 85, 97, 103, 135, 148, 150, 161, 175, 198; Lower 178; Roman 29, 81; western 96 Pannonian plains 19–22, 50, 130 Pascasius, uitriarius 48 Pašman, island 155 Paul, dux 150–1, 166, 167n18 Paul, exarch 114, 118 Paul, owner of sarcophagus from Trogir 114–15 Paul, strategos 151 Paul the Deacon, historian 91 Pelagius II, pope 91 Pelješac, peninsula 123, 136 Peter, bishop of Salona 31, 33, 48, 53, 82 Peter, ‘bishop of Trogir’ 154 Peter, prior 189, 196n106 Peter, župan 176 Peter I Candianus, doge 178 Phoca, emperor 102 Pierius, comes domesticorum 47 Pippin of Italy, king 149, 151 Pippin the Short, king 148 Placitum of Rižana 117–18, 149, 173 plague 83, 89n107 Posušje 101, 186 post-Roman horizon 4, 94, 118, 127–8, 132–3, 135, 137, 157, 159–60, 162, 165 pottery: African slip-ware 113; early Byzantine/late antique 33–4, 42, 47, 49, 70, 73, 76–8, 98–9, 105n35, 115; east Mediterranean 114; Phocaean slip-ware 113; Prague type 105n40, 130; ‘Slavic’ 50, 92, 98–100, 106n59, 114, 135 Praevalitana, province 6 Prague 7 Presbyter Docleas, historian 10 Prijedor 67, 105n29 Prijepolje 39 Priscus, general 32 Pristina, župan 187, 195n92 proconsul (Byzantine) 30, 40, 79, 81, 83 Procopius, historian 29, 82 proteichisma 37, 39, 41–2, 117 (Cn) Publius Dolabella, Roman governor 22

Radoald, duke 91 Rama, lake of 62 Ravni Kotari 17, 44, 71, 100, 116, 121, 123 Republika Srpska 15 Roman empire, Romans 8, 21, 28–9, 48, 52–3, 60–5, 67–8, 70, 102, 116–17 Romanus, exarch 79, 81, 88n94 Rothari, king 113 row-grave cemeteries 67–73, 77–8, 81, 84, 93, 107, 125–30, 133, 137, 184–6, 197 runes 63, 180–1 Samos, island 120 Sandžak 15, 31, 179 Sanski Most 41 Sarajevo 24, 39, 41–2, 52, 67, 70, 190 Sava, river 19–20, 31, 99, 139 scholasticus 30, 54n9 Sclavenes, late antique 2, 4, 30–1, 53, 90–2, 95–104, 107–8, 113, 130, 139 seals 30–31, 113 semi-circular pendant with an open-work ornament 93, 107, 123–4 Serbia, Serbs, Serbian: modern 7, 9, 14–15, 19, 179; medieval 91, 177, 179 Severus, saint 153 Severus Magnus, leader of the Salonitans 153 Sibidrag of Klis, župan 176, 192n24 Silvanus, Roman divinity 61–2, 85n5 Sinjsko polje 13, 18, 41, 138 Slavs, Slavic 2, 4, 70–1, 77, 90, 93, 96–100, 103, 111–12, 117–18, 138–9, 149, 161–5, 181, 188, 195n92, 197–9; eastern Adriatic 177; elites 148, 166, 172–3, 186, 190, 199; Polabian 178–9; south Slavic 12; western 161, 163, 170n78, 180, 193n53 Slovenes, Slovenia 7, 14, 98–9, 106n51 Sorabi 178–9, 181 spurs 125, 144n107, 156, 158–61, 165, 178, 182–6 Stephanus, priest 39 Stephen Držislav, king 154, 187 Stobreč 17 Stolac 24, 47, 49 stonecarver workshops: Benedictine w. from the Times of Duke Branimir 192n.23; Court w. in the Times of Duke Branimir 183–4; ‘Langobardic’ w. 154, 168n.40, 186; late antique w. 48–9, 53; Master of Koljani Chancel Panel w. 182; Master of Zadar

254  Subject Index Ambons w. 155, 168n42; Pluteus of Zadar Cathedral w. 155; Split s. w. 153–4; Trpimir w. 183 Stridon 28, 54n2 Syria 124 swords: Carolingian 118, 156–7, 159–61, 165, 185; Petersen K- and H-types 158–9, 161, 183; spatha 68 Šibenik 15, 24, 40, 47, 93, 117, 176 Široki Brijeg 41, 135 Tassilo Chalice style 157, 161 Theoderic I, king of Ostrogoths 29 Theodoracis, son of comes Euphrasius 82 Theodorus I, pope 111 Theodosius III, emperor 114, 136, 153–4 Theophylact Simocatta, historian 31 Thomas, the Archdeacon of Split 10, 80, 91–2, 111–12, 153–4 Three Chapters controversy 31, 53 Tiberius, emperor 6, 21–2 Timociani 174 torcs 129, 133, 144n107, 160 Tomislavgrad 24, 39, 86n42 Trabunitae 178–9 Travnik 77, 130 Trebižat, river 18 Trpimir (Trepimirus), duke 164, 175, 177, 183, 187; Charter of 176, 187, 189 Turrinus Secundus 63 twin basilicas, see basilicae geminae Uligisalus, general 29–30 Una, river 20, 45, 63–4 Ursus, bishop 152 Ursus I Particiacus, doge 178 Valerius, defensor 82 Velebit, mountain 17, 150

Veleti (Wilzi) 178 Velika Kladuša 130 Velleius Paterculus, historian 6 Venantius, father of pope John IV 54n9, 112 Venantius, saint 111 Venice (state), Venetians 6–7, 14, 19, 118, 150–1, 175, 177–8, 188, 190 Venus, Roman goddess 61 Via Magna 116–7, 124, 129, 137, 156, 166, 176, 198 Vigilius, pope 47 villa 24–5, 28, 32–3, 38, 43–7, 53, 73, 77, 115, 127, 135, 183, 189 ‘violence specialists’ 4–5, 118, 128, 138, 148, 156–8, 161, 165–6, 174 Visoko 41 Vistula, river 163 Višegrad 33 Vitez 78 Vrbas, river 20, 45 Yugoslavia, Yugoslav 7, 9, 14, 70, 183 ‘warrior’ graves 125, 158–63, 179, 181–3, 186 Wenceslaus, king 7 Wonomyrus Sclavus, commander 149 Zachlumi 177–9, 188 Zdeslav (Sedesclaus), duke 175, 177 Zenica 39, 190 Zeno, emperor 29 Zrmanja: village 109; river 17 Želimir (Zelirric) of Cleuna, župan 176, 192n24 Župa Dubrovačka 99 župan, županija: medieval 175–6, 178, 184, 187, 190; modern 15

Places and archaeological sites featured on the maps

Ad basilicas pictas in Split (Spalatum*) 100 Aquileia (Map 1) 44, 83 Asseria (Map 2) 23, 27n45, 36–7, 66, 78, 116–17 Bakinci (Map 6) 32, 39, 44, 63, 68, 101, 135 Balaton, Lake of (Map 1) 96 Balina (or Balijina) Glavica (Map 3) 50 Banjače (Dugopolje*) 47 Banovac (Nin*) 125, 127, 170n72 Bari (Map 1) 175, 177, 191n16 Batković (Map 6) 135, 139 Begovača (Kašić*, Donje Biljane*) 128, 182–3 Bencunuše (Salona*) 35, 76, 86n29 Bijaći (Map 3) 49, 154, 175, 186–7 Bilice (Map 3) 34 Bilimišće (Map 5) 39, 45, 62–3, 101, 135, 180 Biograci (Map 4) 41, 98 Biograd (Map 2) 155, 165, 176 Biskupija (Map 2, 3) 97, 118, 120–1, 125, 128–9, 144, 158, 160–2, 181–3, 186 Blagaj Japra (Map 6) 48, 54, 61 Bled (Map 1) 68 Borčani (Map 3) 106n62 Bračića podvornice (Biskupija*) 120, 128, 158, 186 Brekinjova Kosa (Map 1) 157, 169n43 Breza (Map 5) 63, 85n7, 85n15, 101, 106n59, 180, 193n46 Brkač (Map 1) 121 Bukorovići (Biskupija*) 125, 128 Bukova gora (Korita*) 70 Burnum (Map 2, 3) 64, 86n18, 116 Castel Trosino (Map 1) 48 Cephalonia (Map 1) 149, 151, 167n19

Cetina, village (Map 3) 184 Cim (Map 4) 39–40, 45, 48, 56n47, 58n89, 102, 135, 186, 195n82 Cista Velika (Map 3) 77, 88n75 Constantinople (Map 1) 30–1, 79, 102, 109, 114, 117, 120, 140n36, 151–3, 166, 188 Crkvina in Biskupija (Biskupija*) 97, 162 Crkvina in Rupotina (Klis*) 49 Crvenice (Map 3) 39, 56n46 Čiovo, island (Map 3) 16, 154 Čipuljići (Map 5) 39, 46, 56n46, 58n93, 130, 135, 159, 162, 184 Čitluci (Glasinac*) 132 Čobe (Map 6) 130, 145n133 Dabravine (Map 5) 61, 63, 85n7, 85n15, 101, 106n62, 180 Danilo (Map 2) 24, 40, 45–6, 48 Debelo Brdo (Map 5) 39, 41–2, 57n69, 63, 106n62 Đelilovac (or Dželilovac) (Map 5) 77, 113, 130, 140n35 Đevrske (Map 2) 181 Diluntium (Map 4) 24 Diocletian’s palace (Spalatum*) 47, 49, 91, 99–100, 113–14, 118, 153, 168n32 Dobropoljci (Map 2, 3) 66 Doci (Map 4) 47 Doclea (Map 1) 10, 104n7, 132 Doljani (Map 4) 133 Domavia (Map 6) 24 Donićko hill (Map 1) 48 Donje Biljane (Map 2) 128, 145n122, 182–3 Donje polje (St Lawrence*) 40, 93, 95, 170n78 Donji Lepuri (Map 2) 62, 125, 127, 143n104, 195n89

256  Places and archaeological sites featured on the maps Drvar (Map 6) 184, 194n69 Drvenik (Map 4) 118, 123 Dubravice (Map 2, 3) 93–5, 106n52, 125, 144n108, 144n111, 158–63 Dubrovnik (see also Ragusium*) 17, 29, 36, 115, 141n56 Dugopolje (Map 3) 47, 59n115, 64, 76, 85, 87n70 Dyrrachium (Map 1) 31, 116, 122, 151 Emona (Map 1) 42 Erešove Bare (Narona*) 35 Friuli (Map 1) 91, 149 Fulfinum (Map 6) 36, 55n36, 73, 84 Gala (Map 3) 78, 88n79, 99, 154 Galovac (Map 2) 155 Glasinac (Map 6) 65, 132 Glavčurak (Kašić*) 66–7, 70–1, 86n26, 122–3, 128–9, 137, 145n128 Glavice (Map 3) 95, 120, 160, 166 Gluvine kuće (Glavice*) 95, 120–1, 125, 129, 134, 145n127 Golubić (Map 2) 125, 127, 162 Gomjenica (Map 6) 96, 105n29 Gorica (Map 4) 78, 99, 130, 145n133 Gornja Blizna (Map 3) 176 Gornji Vrbljani (Map 6) 41 Gospin Otok (Salona*) 35 Grabovnik (Map 4) 52 Gradac near Posušje (Map 4) 101, 186 Gradac, fort (Halapić*) 39, 41, 56n46, 158 Gradac, hill (Homolj*) 61, 85n6 Grado (Map 1) 83 Grborezi (Map 3) 120, 125, 133, 160, 162, 186 Greblje (Map 2, 3) 67–8, 70–3, 85, 118–19, 122, 130, 137 Grepci (Map 3) 64, 86n17 Gunjače (Map 5) 41

Jankovača (Salona*) 35 Jazine (Zadar*) 35 Jelašinovci (Map 6) 41 Jojine kuće (Glavice*) 120, 133 Jokina glavica (Ljubač*) 96, 162, 185, 194n77 Kalaja e Dalmacës (Map 1) 123 Kapljuč (Salona*) 33, 35, 49, 109–10, 135 Karahodže (Map 5) 77, 88n76 Kašić (Map 2) 66, 71, 92–3, 95, 122, 127–8, 134, 137, 145, 182–3, 189 Kaštel Gomilica (Kaštela*) 49 Kaštela (Map 3) 16–17, 47, 62, 76, 114, 176 Kijevo (Map 2, 3) 78, 84, 88n79, 117 Kiseljak (Map 5) 61, 101, 130 Klis (Map 3) 15–17, 35, 41, 49, 85n5, 117, 142n65, 176, 192n24 Klobuk (Map 4) 106n62 Knin (See Greblje) 67–8, 107, 116, 120–1, 137, 142n77, 158, 165, 171n86, 176, 187–8 Kobiljka (Sjenica*) 179–80, 193n41, 193n43 Koljani (Map 3) 158, 162, 174, 182–3 Kolovare, beach (Zadar*) 30–1, 54n11, 141n57, 167n19, 168n25 Konjsko (Map 3) 186 Kopilice (Trogir*) 114 Korita (Map 3) 42, 56n63, 67, 70–1, 81, 86n42, 96, 130 Kotor (Map 6) 152–3, 168n31 Kranj (Map 1) 68 Krneza (Ljubač*) 66, 100 Kula Atlagić (Map 2) 187

Halapić (Map 3) 39, 41, 56n46, 158 Homolj (Map 5) 61, 85n6 Hvar, town (Map 6) 16, 36, 59n115, 115, 143n96

Lateran baptistry (Rome*) 111–13 Livno (Map 3) 15, 64, 77, 107, 124–5, 133–4, 138, 184, 194n68, 195n92 Ljubač (Map 2) 13, 30, 66, 72–3, 78–9, 84, 96, 99–100, 118, 123, 155, 160, 162, 185 Ljubljana, hillfort (Ljubač*) 30–1 Lopud, island (Map 6) 29 Lovrečina (Map 3) 115, 141n50 Lučane (Map 3) 88n76, 99 Lumbarda (Map 4) 115

Ilidža (Map 5) 24, 27n49, 39, 41, 56n47, 86n45 Ilinjača (Ilidža*) 41, 57n69 Ilovica (or Prevlaka in Boka Kotorska) (Map 6) 99, 105n48 Iustiniana Prima (Map 1) 98 Izbičanj (Map 1) 39

Majdan (Map 6) 39, 56n47 Majsan, island (Map 4) 49 Makarska (Map 3, 4) 31, 123, 178, 192n33 Maklinovo brdo (Kašić*) 93, 96, 106n52, 123, 128–9, 133–4, 158–60, 163–4, 170n64

Places and archaeological sites featured on the maps   257 Makljenovac (Map 6) 41, 101 Mali Kablići (Map 3) 133 Mali Mošunj (Map 5) 63, 78, 84, 180 Manastirine (Salona*) 33, 35, 48–9, 55n24, 76, 109–10, 135 Marijin Dvor (Map 5) 39, 42, 56n46 Marina (Map 3) 142n67 Marusinac (Salona*) 30, 35, 76 Matakova glavica (Ljubač*) 66, 78, 88n81, 123 Materize (Nin*) 127, 129, 145n125 Mihaljevići (Map 5) 67–8, 70, 72, 77, 130–2, 138, 186 Mijela (Map 1) 143n95 Mirje (Map 3) 115 Mjehovina (Map 5) 77 Mogorjelo (Map 4) 48–9, 59n110, 78, 130, 135, 159, 178 Mokro (Map 4) 135 Morinje (St Lawrence*) 93 Morpolača (Map 2) 157, 160–1, 170n64, 183 Muline (Map 2) 46–7, 49 Mušići (Map 6) 33, 98, 135–6, 139, 146n151 Naissus (Map 1) 31 Narona (Map 1, 4, 6) 35–6, 44, 48–9, 51, 67–8, 73, 79, 84, 133, 136 Nerezi (Map 4) 133 Nerežišća (Map 3) 115 Neviđane (Map 2) 155 Nin (Map 2) 17, 23, 65, 73–4, 84, 100, 120, 125–8, 136–7, 160–2, 176, 185, 187 Njive (Narona*) 67, 73 Nova Tabla (Map 1) 98 Novi Put (Varvaria*) 186 Oborci (Map 5) 63, 77–8 Ohrid, Lake of (Map 1) 123 Orlić (Map 2, 3) 128–9, 157, 160 Osatica (Map 6) 77 Osor (Map 6) 152–3 Ostrovica (Varvaria*) 38 Otres (Varvaria*) 38 Ovan-Grad (Map 6) 41 Panik (Map 6) 33 Pantana (Trogir*) 114 Petoševci (Map 6) 96, 186 Piramatovci (Vaćani*, Varvaria*) 38 Pliskovo (Map 2, 3) 121 Podvršje (Ljubač*) 66, 84, 99–100 Polače (Map 6) 47, 115 Popovića dolovi (Biskupija*) 128, 158

Poreč (Map 1) 112 Postira (Map 3) 49, 61, 115 Potkom (Map 2) 109 Potoci (former Han Potoci) (Map 4) 81 Pridraga (Map 2) 155, 180, 189 Prisoje (Map 3) 62 Privlaka near Nin (Map 2) 65 Rab, town (Map 6) 152–3, 168n31 Radošinovci (Map 2) 166 Ragusium (Map 6) 17, 29, 36, 115, 177 Rakovčani (Map 6) 67, 86n35 Ramići (Map 6) 39, 56n47 Ravenna (Map 1) 79, 82, 92, 115, 118, 136, 148–9 Ravno (Map 5) 41 Razbojine (Kašić*) 121, 128–9 Relja (Zadar*) 35 Renići (Map 3) 41 Rešetarica (Map 3) 158–9, 161–2, 183 Rifnik (Map 1) 68 Rivine (Map 4) 47, 49 Rižana (Map 1) 117, 149, 173 Rogačići (Map 5) 184 Rome, city (Map 1) 80, 111–12, 182 Rudići (Halapić*) 158, 162 St Anastasia (Zadar*) 72 St Andrew de Fenestris (Spalatum*) 114 St Anselm (Nin*) 74, 120, 125–9, 133, 160, 162, 185 St Bartholomew (Galovac*) 155 St Bartholomew (Ždrapanj*) 187 St Cross (Nin*) 74, 127, 162, 185, 194n78 St Lawrence (Sveti Lovre) (Map 2, 3) St Mary (Biskupija*) 158–9, 176, 182–3 St Salvation (Cetina*) 184 St Trinity (now St Donatus) (Zadar*) 152, 169n45 San Venanzio (Rome*) 111–12, 140n32 Sta Maria di Platea (Trogir*) 114, 141n46 St Martha (Bijaći*) 154, 186 Salona (Map 1, 3, 6) 4, 17, 22–3, 29–36, 40–4, 47–8, 52–4, 63, 73, 79, 81–4, 90–2, 107–12, 115–18, 136–7, 139, 152–6 Sardica (Map 1) 31 Scardona (Skradin) (Map 2) 23, 30 Sicily (Map 1) 80, 114, 124, 147, 156 Singidunum (Belgrade) (Map 1) 32, 41 Sinj (Map 3) 23, 40, 78–9, 84, 95, 99, 137 Sipontum (Map 1) 91 Siscia (Map 1) 22, 44 Sjenica (Map 1) 179–80 Smiljanovac (Salona*) 35, 76 Smrdelji (Map 2) 163

258  Places and archaeological sites featured on the maps Spalatum (Split) (Map 3) 16–17, 44, 47, 91, 99–100, 112–13, 136–7, 152–3, 176, 189 Stankovci (Map 2) 121, 128 Stari Grad (Map 6) 115 Ston (Map 4) 123, 136 Stranče (Map 6) 161 Suđurađ (Map 6) 169n43 Sugubina (Sjenica*) 179–80 Sultanovići (Map 5) 158, 162 Sultići (Map 5) 179 Sustjepan (Map 6) 77 Svač (Map 1) 105n35 Škornica (Privlaka*) 65 Škrip (Map 3) 49, 115, 141n50 Šopot (Map 2) 187, 195n89 Šuplja Crkva (Salona*) 35, 109–10, 154 Tarsatica (Map 6) 28, 36, 73, 150 Tilurium (Map 3) 64, 116, 120, 154, 160, 162 Tjeme (Varvaria*) 99 Trilj, see Tilurium Trogir (Map 3) 17, 23, 35, 47, 114, 117, 136–7, 152–4, 175–6, 186 Turbe (Map 5) 39, 46, 51, 130 Tuzla (Map 6) 58n83 Vaćani (Map 2) 162, 165 Varvara (Map 5) 62–3, 78 Varvaria (or Bribirska glavica) (Map 2) 18, 23, 27n45, 36–7, 40, 49, 51, 73–6,

84, 99, 116–17, 125, 137, 146n156, 176, 185–6, 192n21 Velim (Map 2) 93, 123, 158, 160, 163, 166 Venice, city (Map 1) 151, 177 Vinkovci (Map 1) 95 Vis, island (Map 6) 16, 115 Višići (Map 4) 24, 33, 136, 160 Višnjica (Map 5) 101 Vojnić (Tilurium*) 64 Vranjic, peninsula (Salona*) 35, 110 Vrap (Map 1) 122 Vratnice (Varvaria*) 76, 186 Vrba (Map 3) 77, 99, 101, 133, 138, 184 Vrdolje (Map 5) 77 Vrlika (Map 3) 129 Vrutci (Map 5) 184 Vučipolje (Dugopolje*) 47 Zadar (Map 1, 2, 6) 16, 23, 30, 35–6, 44, 49, 72, 84, 113–16, 136, 150–2, 155, 165, 167n19, 189 Založje (Map 6) 39, 61, 63 Zaostrog (Map 4) 192n33 Zasada (Map 6) 169n43 Žabljak (Map 6) 33, 103, 135–6, 139 Žažvić (Varvaria*) 38 Ždrapanj (Map 2) 187 Ždrijac (Nin*) 51, 96–8, 121, 125–6, 128, 132, 158, 160–2, 164–6, 181, 185 Žitomislići (Map 4) 45, 48 Žrnovnica (Map 3) 181, 193n52