Slověne = Словѣне, 2020, том 9, № 2

The Journal is published

by Institute for Slavic Studies

of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Журнал издается
Институтом славяноведения
Российской академии наук

ИНСТИТУТ

СЛАВЯНОВЕДЕНИЯ

Institute for Slavic Studies

of the Russian Academy 

of Sciences

Институт славяноведения
Российской академии 
наук

Slověne = Словѣне

International Journal

of Slavic Studies

Международный
славистический журнал

I. Hristova-Shomova, A. Nikolov 

(Bulgaria); M. Mihaljević, M. Kapović 

(Croatia); V. Čermák (Czech 

Republic); R. Marti, B. Wiemer 

(Germany); A. Zoltán (Hungary); 
M. Garzaniti (Italy); J. Schaeken 

(Netherlands); E. I. Kislova, 

R. N. Krivko, S. L. Nikolaev, 

M. M. Makartsev, P. R. Minlos, 

A. M. Moldovan, D. G. Polonski, 

T. V. Rozhdestvenskaia, 

A. D. Shmelev, A. A. Turilov, 
B. A. Uspenskij, Rev. Michael 

Zheltov (Russia); J. Grković-Major, 

T. Subotin-Golubović (Serbia); 

R. Romanchuk, A. Timberlake, 
W. Veder, A. Zholkovsky (USA)

А. Николов, И. Христова-Шомова (Болгария); А. Золтан (Венгрия); 
Б. Вимер, Р. Марти (Германия); 
М. Гардзанити (Италия); Й. Схакен 
(Нидерланды); свящ. Михаил Желтов, 
Е. И. Кислова, Р. Н. Кривко, М. М. Макарцев, Ф. Р. Минлос, А. М. Молдован, 
С. Л. Николаев, Д. Г. Полонский, 
Т. Вс. Рождественская, А. А. Турилов, 
Б. А. Успенский, А. Д. Шмелев (Россия); Я. Грекович-Мейджор, Т. Суботин-Голубович (Сербия); А. Жолковский, Р. Романчук, А. Тимберлейк, 
У. Федер (США); М. Михалевич, 
М. Капович (Хорватия); В. Чермак 
(Чехия)

Editor-in-Chief

F. B. Uspenskij

The Editorial Board

Главный редактор

Ф. Б. Успенский

Редакционная коллегия

Moscow
2020
Москва

Institute for Slavic Studies
of the Russian Academy 
of Sciences

Институт славяноведения
Российской академии 
наук

Vol. 9

№ 2

International Journal
of Slavic Studies
Международный
славистический журнал

Moscow
2020
Москва

Slověne
СловЭне
Slověne
СловЭне
Slověne

Все материалы журнала доступны по лицензии 
Creative Commons “Attribution-NoDerivatives” 
4.0 Всемирная / Journal content is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

p-ISSN 2304 - 0785
e-ISSN 2305-6754
DOI 10.31168/2305-6754

Сайт / Website:   
http://slovene.ru/  
Журнал включен в перечень
E-mail: 
 
editorial@slovene.ru 
рецензируемых научных изданий ВАК  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Минобрнауки РФ

Included in / Журнал включен в:

Scopus 
 
 
 
 
https://www.scopus.com/
Web of Science. Emerging Sources Citation Index  
http://wokinfo.com/
Российский индекс научного цитирования  
http://elibrary.ru
Russian Science Citation Index

Academic Editors
Научная редакция

F. B. Uspenskij (Editor-in-Chief), 
Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the RAS, 
Moscow

Ф. Б. Успенский (главный редактор), 
Институт русского языка им. В. В. Виноградова 
РАН, Москва
E. I. Kislova, Lomonosov Moscow State University
Е. И. Кислова, Московский государ ственный 
университет им. М. В. Ломоносова
R. N. Krivko, University of Vienna
Р. Н. Кривко, Венский университет
R. Marti, Saarland University, Saarbrücken
Р. Марти, Университет земли Саар, Саарбрюкен
D. G. Polonski, Institute for Slavic Studies, Moscow

M. N. Saenko, Institute for Slavic Studies of the 
RAS, Moscow

Д. Г. Полонский, Институт славяноведения РАН, 
Москва
М. Н. Саенко, Институт славяноведения 
РАН, Москва 

Managing Editors
Редакторы выпуска
A. O. Burtseva, A. S. Fedotov, E. I. Kislova, 
M. M. Makartsev, R. Marti, D. G. Polonski, M. N. 
Saenko, A. E. Soboleva 

А. О. Бурцева, Е. И. Кислова, М. М. Макарцев, 
Р. Марти, Д. Г. Полонский, М. Н. Саенко, 
А. Е. Соболева, А. С. Федотов

Technical Copy Editors
Технические редакторы
A. O. Burtseva, U. V. Kononova, K. V. Sarycheva, 
A. A. Troitskaya, M. S. Yakovleva
А. О. Бурцева, У. В. Кононова, К. В. Сарычева, 
А. А. Троицкая, М. С. Яковлева

Russian Language Copy Editors, Proofreaders
A. O. Burtseva, E. I. Kislova, A. K. Polivanova, 
U. V. Kononova, M. S. Yakovleva

Литературные редакторы, корректоры 
(русский язык)  А. О. Бурцева, Е. И. Кислова, 
А. К. Поливанова, У. В. Кононова, М. С. Яковлева

English Language Copy Editors, Proofreaders
M. A. Borun, X. Dmitrieva , D. D. Khazankin
Литературные редакторы, корректоры 
(английский язык) М. А. Борун, К. Дмитриева , 
Д. Д. Хазанкин

Layout Editor   M. N. Tolstaya 
Верстка   М. Н. Толстая

Design (2012)
Дизайн (2012)
I. N. Ermolaev
И. Н. Ермолаев

Slověne = Словѣне. International Journal of Slavic Studies. Vol. 9. № 2. — Москва: Институт 
славяноведения Российской академии наук, 2020. — 476 с.

Номер издан при поддержке Фонда инновационных научно-образовательных программ 
“Современное Естествознание” и “Лаборатории ненужных вещей”.

Supported by:
Open Journal Systems 
http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/

SHERPA/RoMEO blue journal

Свидетельство о государственной 
регистрации СМИ
ПИ № ФС 77-68309 от 30.12.2016

© Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian 
Academy of Sciences, 2020
© Authors, 2020
© Igor’ N. Ermolaev (design), 2012

|  5 

2020 №2
Slověne

Contents  /  Содержание

Статьи /  Articles

7 
S. Stoykov (Stip). From 'Nations' to 'Archontias' (II)
Terms Sclavinia and Sclavoarchontia and Incorporation of Balkan Slavs in Byzantium

Composite Nominations, their Structure and Semantics
2. 

M. Tolstaya (Moscow). Notes on the Language of Northern Russian Lamentations.
S. 

Составные номинации, их структура и семантика
2. 

274
С. М. Толстая (Москва). Заметки о языке севернорусских причитаний.

Clause’ Construction in Modern Russian

B. Albrekht (Moscow). On the Problem of Subject Identity in the ‘Adverbial Participle + Main
F. 

современном русском языке
немоносубъектности деепричастного оборота и основного высказывания в

244
Ф. Б. Альбрехт (Москва). К вопросу о моносубъектности /

Russian Referential Evolution
E. V. Budennaya (Moscow). In Search of the Trigger: Literary and Non-literary Texts as Markers of

как маркеры разных аспектов русской референциальной эволюции

210
Е. В. Буденная (Москва). В поисках триггера: книжные и некнижные тексты

The Notes of the Unknown Series

A. Kucherskaya, A. L. Lifshits (Moscow). Nikolai Leskov on Sanctimonious Rhetoric:
M. 

ханжества: цикл «Заметки неизвестного»

192
М. А. Кучерская, А. Л. Лифшиц (Москва). Н. С. Лесков о риторике

A. Penkova (Moscow). Future Anterior in the Document Language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania
Y. 

Литовского

170
Я. А. Пенькова (Москва). Предбудущее в деловом языке Великого княжества

Lemeškin (Prague). Skaryna’s Оnomastic Variations
I. 

149
И. Лемешкин (Прага). Скорининские ономастические этюды

Pentateuchs No. 1 and No. 45
T. L. Vilkul (Kiev). The Book of Genesis in the Complete Chronographic Palaea and the Trinity

Троицкие Пятикнижия № 1 и № 45

129
Т. Л. Вилкул (Киев). Книга Бытия в Полной хронографической палее и

Birchbark Letters

V. Petrukhin (Moscow). Reading by Syllables and Graphico-Orthographic Features of Old Russian
P. 

особенности древнерусских берестяных грамот

103
П. В. Петрухин (Москва). Чтение по складам и графико-орфографические

about the Murder of Andrey Bogolyubsky from Pereslavl-Zalessky

A. Gippius, S. M. Mikheev (Moscow). “Assassins of the Grand Prince Andrey”: An Inscription
A. 

Надпись об убийстве Андрея Боголюбского из Переславля-Залесского

63
А. А. Гиппиус, С. М. Михеев (Москва). «Убийцы великого князя Андрея»:

M. N. Saenko (Moscow). Proto-Slavic *kŭrkŭ: Semantics and Etymology

39
М. Н. Саенко (Москва). Праславянское *kъrkъ: семантика и этимология

Склавоархонтия и включение балканских славян в Византию
С. Стойков (Штип). От «народов» к «архонтиям» (II) Понятия Склавиния и

Slověne
2020 №2

in Istanbul. Veliko Tarnovo: Abagar, 2019. 672 p. (in Bulgarian)]
Balkans during the 17th–18th Century according to Documents from the Ottoman Archives
[Rev. of: Mutafova Krasimira, Kalitsin Maria, Andreev Stefan, The Orthodox Structures in the
Istanbul
Balkans in the 17th–18th Centuries in the Light of New Documents from the Ottoman Archive in
D. I. Polyvyannyy (Ivanovo). Institutions, Hierarchy, and the Flock of the Orthodox Church in the

османски архив. Велико Търново: Абагар, 2019, 672 с.]
структури на Балканите през XVII–XVIII век съгласно документи от Истанбулския
[Рец.: Мутафова Красимира, Калицин Мария, Андреев Стефан, Православни
документов Османского архива в Стамбуле
православной церкви на Балканах в XVII–XVIII веках в свете новых

461
Д. И. Полывянный (Иваново). Институты, иерархия и паства

Greek. Moscow: Indrik, 2019, 928 pp. (in Russian)]
[Rev. of: Verner I. V. The Interlinear Slavonic-Greek Psalter of 1552 Translated by Maximus the
the Church Slavonic Tradition

V. Pentkovskaya (Moscow). Maximus the Greek's Biblical Philology in the European Context and in
T. 

Москва: Индрик, 2019. 928 с.]
Максима Грека / Исследование и подготовка текста к изданию И. В. Вернер.
[Рец.: Вернер И. В. Интерлинеарная славяно-греческая Пcалтырь 1552 г. в переводе
европейском контексте и в церковнославянской традиции

448
Т. В. Пентковская (Москва). Библейская филология Максима Грека в

Рецензии / Reviews

and Russia from the 1600s to the mid-1700s
P. S. Stefanovich (Moscow). The “Slavic-Russian Nation” in the Historical Literature of the Ukraine

литературе Украины и России XVII – первой половины XVIII в.

417
П. С. Стефанович (Москва). «Славянороссийский народ» в исторической

Veneration (15th–16th cc.)

E. Tarasov (Moscow). Holy Martyr Pitirim of Perm: Notes on the Bishop′s Biography and
A. 

биографии и почитании владыки (XV – XVI вв.)

395
А. Е. Тарасов (Москва). Священномученик Питирим Пермский: заметки о

Полемика / Discussions

Code-Mixing or Borrowing?
M. S. Morozova (St. Petersburg). Albanian Elements in Slavic Speech of Golo Bordo Bilinguals:

билингвов Голо Бордо: смешение кодов или заимствование?

372
М. С. Морозова (С.-Петербург). Албанские элементы в славянской речи

Aspect
G. P. Pilipenko (Moscow). Calendar Rites of Ukrainians in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Ethnolinguistic

Герцеговины: этнолингвистический аспект

338
Г. П. Пилипенко (Москва). Календарная обрядность украинцев Боснии и

Dialectal Vocabulary (towards Investigation of Mytho-Poetic Motivation of Words)

A. Agapkina (Moscow), E. L. Berezovich (Ekaterinburg). Russian ‘duboglot’ in Charms and
T. 

слов)
заговорах и диалектной лексике (к изучению мифопоэтической мотивации

314
Т. А. Агапкина (Москва), Е. Л. Березович (Екатеринбург). Рус. дубоглот в

6 |

№2   Slověne

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative 
Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

От «народов» к 
«архонтиям» (II) 
Понятия 
«Склавиния» и 
«Склавоархонтия» 
и включение 
балканских славян 
в Византии

From ‘Nations’ to 
‘Archontias’ (II)
Terms 
‘Sclavinia’ and 
‘Sclavoarchontia’ 
and Incorporation 
of Balkan Slavs 
in Byzantium

Stoyko Stoykov

University Goce Delcev
Stip, North Macedonia

Стойко Стойков

Университет Гоце Делчева
Штип, Северная Македония

Abstract
This article deals with the terms ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’, which are 
used in historiography in diff erent and even contradictory ways, and aims to 
clarify a highly complicated topic, investigating the ways these terms were 
used by contemporaries, trying to defi ne diff erences between them and connecting their use with the political changes of the time. Topics discussed include the chronology of the terms’ usage, diff erent ways in which they were 
being used, relations of ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’ with the Empire, 
their appearance and disappearance and the political processes connected 
with it, as well as the analysis of the existing interpretations. The fi rst part 
mostly discusses chronology and some existing hypotheses. The second (and 

Citation:  Stoykov S. (2020) From ‘Nations’ to ‘Archontias’ (II) ‘Terms ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’ and 
Incorporation of Balkan Slavs in Byzantium.   Slověne, Vol. 9, № 2, p. 7–38.
Цитирование:  Стойков С. От «народов» к «архонтиям» (II) Понятия «Склавиния» и «Склавоархонтия» 
и включение балканских славян в Византии // Slověne. 2020. Vol. 9, № 2. C. 7–38.
DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.2.1 

Статьи
Articles

|

Slověne
2020 №2

From ‘Nations’ to ‘Archontias’ (II)
Terms ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’ and Incorporation of Balkan Slavs in Byzantium 

the main) part analyses the way these terms were used and tries to define 
them.

The hypothesis presented connects these terms with the re-establishing of 

imperial authority in the Balkans, marked in the sources by replacing the term 
‘Slavic nations’, which had been used until the late 8th century to denote the 
independent Balkan Slavic societies and their lands. The Empire lacked the capacity for direct subjugation of the independent Slavic communities and was 
forced to rely on complicated measures including colonization and ensuring 
Slav cooperation in the process. In the themes where the Empire had enough 
power, Slavic communities were organized as ‘Sclavoarchontias’, who received 
archons from the strategos, paid collective tribute and served as symahoi, but 
kept some inner autonomy. The Empire also tended to ensure the cooperation of 
Slavic communities around themes by granting titles and subsidies to some 
powerful Slavic leaders, which led to the creation of client states known as ‘Sclavinias’. They were not part of the thematic system, they had their native and 
hereditary leaders recognized and affirmed by the emperor by titles and seals 
and act as imperial allies. A prototype of both had appeared at the end of the 7th 
century, but only when relations of such types had multiplied after Stauracius’ 
expedition in 783, corresponding generic terms appeared and became regular.

Keywords

Sclavinia, Sclavoarchontia, Slavic archontia, Slavic nations, Byzantium, imperial 
administrative system, subjugation, conquest of the Balkans

Резюме

В статье рассматриваются термины «Склавиния» и «Склавоархонтия», которые употребляются в исторических источниках весьма различными, порой противоречивыми способами; предпринята попытка определить, как 
эти термины использовались современниками, в чем заключалось различие в их значении и насколько употребление того или другого наименования было связано с изменением политической ситуации. Соответственно, в 
задачу исследования входит описание появления и исчезновения этих терминов и относительной хронологии их бытования, учитывающее изменяющиеся во времени отношения с Империей тех, кто обозначались как 
«Sclavinias» и «Sclavoarchontias». Кроме того, в первой части работы предложен анализ существующих в науке интерпретаций соответствующих 
обозначений.

Мы полагаем, что появление терминов «Склавиния» и «Склавоархон
тия» связано с восстановлением имперской власти на Балканах, они призваны были заменить использовавшийся до конца VIII в. термин «славянские народы», обозначавший независимые славянские общины и их земли. 
Не имея возможности немедленно подчинить эти общины, империя была 
вынуждена принять ряд сложных мер, причем процесс колонизация предполагал, по-видимому, некое добровольное сотрудничество славян. Там, где 
у Империи было достаточно сил, славянские общины были организованы 
в «Склавоархонтии», платившие коллективную дань, но сохранявшие некоторую внутреннюю автономию. С другой стороны, Империя стремилась 
добиться сотрудничества, предоставляя некоторым влиятельным славян

|  9 

2020 №2
Slověne

Stoyko Stoykov

ским лидерам титулы и субсидии, что приводило к созданию зависимых 
княжеств, известных как Склавинии. Последние не входили в систему фем, 
при этом их местные и наследственные лидеры были признаны и утверждены императором и выступали в качестве союзников Империи. Прообраз 
таких двух типов отношений зародился в конце VII в., но термины Склавиния и Склавоархонтия появились и стали регулярно использоваться лишь 
в ту пору, когда после экспедиции Ставракия в 783 г. обе упомянутые выше 
политические модели стали активно тиражироваться.

Ключевые слова

Склавиния, Склавоархонтия, славянская архонтия, славянские народы, 
Византия, имперская административная система, подчинение, завоевание 
Балкан

Defining ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’

Sclavinias and Byzantine administration
Byzantine authors who used the term ‘Sclavinia’ (and which can be identified) 
worked in Constantinople, within the immediate circle of the Emperor or the 
patriarch. Among them, we have two emperors, one patriarchal syncellus and 
one sceuophylax of St. Sophia. The rest were either people from the emperor’s 
immediate surroundings or people who occupied high positions in the court.1

We do not have any reliable instance of the use of the term ‘Sclavinia’ in a 
source originating in the provinces. The latter is a significant fact for the Byzantine Balkans dominated by Slavic formations and populations. The term obviously had a limited, capital, and elitist use [Литаврин 1984: 195; Литаврин, 
Иванова 1985: 87].

However, whether it was official or just literary is a matter for discussion.2

On the one hand, we have ‘Sclavinia’ in a letter exchange between the two emperors, which undoubtedly gives it an official character. Nonetheless, it is the 
only known case in Byzantium. On the other hand, we do not find ‘Sclavinia’
in the treaty with Bulgaria from 815/816 for example, despite the fact that several times the Slavs dependent or independent of the emperor are mentioned, 
as well as their places [Бешевлиев 1981: 104; Shepard 1995: 236]. Besides, 
the word ‘Sclavinia’ was not found on any seal in Byzantium [Curta 2016: 12].

1 George was a syncellus of the patriarch, Ignatius—sceuophylax of St. Sophia (806–815, 

845) and Ecumenical Teacher (830–845) [Treadgold 2013: 101–104], PseudoSimeon was from the emperor’s circle, and John Zonara was also part of the elite. Less 
certain are the cases of Scriptor Incertus and Chronicle of 811. If their author was 
the protospatharius Sergius Confessor, he fully fits this pattern: until 833, he was a 
quaestor, the empire’s minister of justice [Treadgold 2013: 92, 95, 96], for George 
Syncellus’ authorship of the Chronography [Idem: 44–49].

2  “The term … is most likely a literary, not administrative construct” [Curta 2016: 12]; 

for opposite opinion: [Gkoutzioukostas 2015: 646; Idem 2017: 11].

|

Slověne
2020 №2

From ‘Nations’ to ‘Archontias’ (II)
Terms ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’ and Incorporation of Balkan Slavs in Byzantium 

However, the word ‘theme’ (θέμα) similarly could not be found on the 

seals of the strategoi in the Balkans from the 8th to the 10th century, but this 
is not a reason to regard it as a literary construct. An important indication is 
that ‘Sclavinia’ was used almost exclusively in the plural form. It makes it hard 
to see whether it as a toponym derived from an ethnonym since such toponyms 
in plural are not known in Byzantium in the early Middle Ages, but it brings 
‘Sclavinias’ closer to the former administrative terms used in the plural as 
‘three Galias’, ‘three Spanias’, ‘two Britannias’, ‘two Pannonias’, ‘two Mysias’ 
and so on [Литаврин 1984: 198]. At least the usage of the plural indicates that 
it was a generalizing term. Theophanes uses ‘Sclavinias’, but when he speaks 
of a concrete ‘Sclavinia’ he preferred its name: ‘Berzitia’ or ‘Belzitia’. The situation is entirely the same with Constantine Porphyrogenitus for whom there 
was a generalized term ‘Sclavinias’, and, by implication, each one that he spoke 
of fell into this category, but none was explicitly named ‘Sclavinia’. Instead, its 
own name was used as “Croatia and other Sclavinias”,3 but never in such combinations as ‘Sclavinia Croatia or Sclavinia Serbia’. In a similar way, even if we 
do not find the term ‘Sclavinia’ on a single seal there we probably find names 
of concrete ‘Sclavinia’ such as ‘Bagentia’ [Живковић 2007: 163–167]. In the 
same manner, we could also answer the question of why we do not encounter 
the term ‘Sclavinia’ in the provinces. For the Thessalonians the neighbouring 
Slavic uprising would not be a rebellion of an abstract ‘Sclavinia’, but rather 
the one of Rinhina, Strymon, Druguvitia, Sagudatia, and so on.4

The way the term ‘Sclavinia’ was used resembles that of the term ‘theme’: 

it first appeared in Theophanes’ Chronography as well and was used anachronistically for the time between Heraclius and Irene [Zuckerman 2006: 128, 
132; Haldon 2016: 245]. It was used mostly in the plural, but when a particular 
theme is mentioned its name is used instead, and we cannot find it on seals on 
the Balkans.

Crucial for understanding the nature of the ‘Sclavinias’ is that they were 

not part of the themes, they were rather “neighbouring” or “surrounding” 
them. This is evident from Theophanes’ statement that Nicephorus I commanded soldiers from “all themes” to move to ‘Sclavinias’. Similarly, in the 
letter of Michael II ‘Sclavinias’ were clearly distinguished from the themes: 
“Thraciae, Macedoniae, Thessaloniae et circumiacentibus Sclaviniis” [MGH 
LS, 3: 477 (10, 11)].5 For Scriptor Incertus ‘Sclavinias’ gathered by Krum in 
811 were also “surrounding” (τὰς πέριξ Σκλαβηνίας). Thus, the determinant 

3 Χρωβατία, ἀλλὰ καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ Σκλαβηνίαι and also οἱ Κριβηταινοὶ ... καὶ οἱ Λενζανῆνοι 

και αἱ λοιπαὶ Σκλαβηνίαι [Porphyrogenitus 1983: 9/ 9, 10, 30, 94 (56, 144)].

4  For a different explanation of the same phenomena see: [Curta 2011: 125].

5  As was correctly mentioned by Treadgold [1988: 73, 236], Slavs in the army of Toma 

the Slav came from outside of the Empire. The opposite position was supported by 
Živković [Живковић 2007: 163, 164, 171, 172].

|  11 

2020 №2
Slověne

Stoyko Stoykov

“surrounding” for ‘Sclavinias’ is encountered in the only case of the official 
use of this term in Byzantium (letter of Michael II), and also in the Chronicle 
of 811, for which (under the hypothesis that the author was the former justice 
minister Sergius) it would also suggest that it is possible that “circumstance” 
of the Sclavinias was part of the official nomenclature or at least expresses 
how the ‘Sclavinias’ were viewed. However, qualifying as neighbouring or 
surrounding was characteristic not only of the ‘Sclavinias’. In the Life of Ioanikios, it is claimed that Krum in 811 gathered “surrounding nations” (τὰ 
ὅμορα ... ἔθνη) [Mango 1983: 399]. Theophanes uses “surrounding” for the 
(Slavic) nations who were hired by Khan Teletzius in 763 (προσπαρακειμενος 
ἐθνῶν). The frequency of terms expressing neighbourhood and surroundings 
shows that both the ‘Slavic nations’ and the ‘Sclavinias’ were understood as 
something that occurs as a neighbourhood, around Byzantium or Bulgaria, 
and not an integral part of them. ‘Sclavinias’ in Dalmatia completely fit this 
pattern: none of them was a part of the theme Dalmatia.

In addition, we have an obvious chronological correlation between the 

inclusion of the Balkan territory into Byzantine themes and the disappearance 
of the term ‘Sclavinia’ in Byzantine sources: in the mid-9th century it happened in the Central and Southern Balkans, therefore in the 10thcentury the 
only remaining ‘Sclavinias’ in the Balkans were found in the neighbourhood 
of the theme Dalmatia.

Still, Byzantine “Slavic seals” from the 8–9th century and titles we find on 

them suggest that their bearers were part of the real or ideal Byzantine hierarchy, which could be a serious argument that they were a real part of provincial 
administration and of the themes as is suggested [Живковић 2007: 165, 166; 
Chrysos 2007: 127–130; Gkoutzioukostas 2015: 646].6

This raises two questions. First, did those seals belong to leaders of 

‘Sclavinias’ or ‘Sclavoarchontias’, or even to random individual Slavs at the 
service of the Empire? Second, did seals and titles necessary, and in every case 
mean that those persons were part of the Byzantine administrative system?

It is difficult to distinguish in the scope of these seal-owners’ leaders of 

‘Sclavinias’ from ‘Sclavoarchontias’, cf.: [Curta 2006: 103; Науменко 2008: 
18; Curta 2011: 116, 117, 124, 127; Vedriš 2015: 584]. In some cases it seems 
obvious that seal bearers were part of the Byzantine administration, such as 
Δαργασκλαβου archon of Hellas, Petros hypatos and archon of Hellas, Λέων … 
ἄρχων Βιχητῶν Ἑλλάδος [Seibt 1999: 28, 34; Idem 2003: 460, 461], and their 
units were part of the themes. This should mean that they were not ‘Sclavinias’,
but rather ‘Sclavoarchontias’.

6 Similarly, [Gkoutzioukostas 2017: 11]: ‘Sclavinia’ “an ‘accurate terminological form’ 

to denote a geographical and political entity in the framework of the provincial 
administration”. 

|

Slověne
2020 №2

From ‘Nations’ to ‘Archontias’ (II)
Terms ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’ and Incorporation of Balkan Slavs in Byzantium 

On the other hand, seals and titles could also be given to independent for
eign rulers, as it was the case with the title Protospatharius [TODoB, 3: 1748; 
Калинина 2011: 37], Patrikios (khan Telerig), and even Caesar (khan Tervel) 
[Бешевлиев 1981: 231, 232]. The titles owned by Slavic archons in the 8th–9th
century suggest that they were powerful figures: we have imperial spatharius, 
spatharokandidatos, and protospatharius [Seibt 1999: 28–33; Idem 2003: 460–
465]. The ranks spatharius and spatharokandidatos were usually attached to 
turmarchs7 but also to strategos of the themes.8 Protospatharius was the most 
common title of strategos on the Balkans in the 8th–10th centuries, followed by 
patricios, spatharius, and spatharokandidatos.9 These titles were received from the 
emperor, protospatharius belonged to the senate, and protospatharius was never 
owned by the subordinates of strategos [Oikonomidès 1997: 205].10 Therefore, 
Slavic seal bearers, in general, possessed titles between these used by turmarchs 
and strategos. Some of them were clearly leaders of ‘Sclavoarchontias’. However, 
in some cases they could be leaders of ‘Sclavinias’, especially in cases with the 
title ‘protospatharius’, which matched the titles of strategos of themes, thus creating a plausible argument for their independence from the theme’s leadership.11

One more possible but hypothetical argument for distinction between 

‘Sclavoarchontias’ and ‘Sclavinias’ could be based on the etymology: the 
names of ‘Sclavoarchontias’ in some cases could be connected to former Slavic 
nations, but most often they derive from Byzantine territorial terms, while 
‘Sclavinias’ seem always to be related to Slavic “national” names.

7 [Цветковић 2017: 93, 199]. According to Ostrogorsky, Slavic archontias in the 

Byzantine themes had the same role and significance as the tourmas in the older and 
the inner themes of the Empire, and the Slavic units of such archontias—as the tourmas 
unit [Острогорски 1953: 43].

8
According to Klitorogium of Philotheos, titles we find on Slavic seals were of the 8th 
level (spatharius), 9th level (spatharokandidatos) and 11th level (protospatharius), 
then strategoi could own titles from the 11th (protospatharius), 12th (patrikios), and 
13th (hypatos) levels, but lower levels were also common [Oikonomidès 1972: 91–93; 
Porphyrogennetos 2012: 709, 710, 728–733; Porphyrogenitus 1983: 50/ 10, 26, 52 (232–
235)]. For these titles see: [Bury 1911: 111–113].

9
Spatharius for strategos of Thessalonica in the 9th century was as common a title as 
protospatharius (11 vs 12), [DOAKS]. Spatharokandidatos was a title usual for former 
strategoi, but could also be used by one in office (Νικήτᾳ βασιλικῷ σπαθαροκανδιδάτῳ 
καὶ στρατηγῷ Θεσσαλονίκης [DOAKS]).

10 For this topic, particularly interesting are duties that could be fulfilled by 

protospatharius as representatives of the emperor in the themes and frontier general. 
Spatharokandidatoi could be frontier generals, tourmarhoi in the themes, and tourmarhoi 
of federates [Porphyrogennetos 2012: 52 (732–735)], the last of which can be 
connected with the later position of Slavs as simahoi in the theme [Caminiatae 1973: 
21, 2, 41, 50, 62 (20, 38); Leo VI 2010: C. 18 & 95, 470, 456, 457].

11 We find this title in cases with the well-known and powerful Slavic tribes as “imperial 

archon and protospatharius τῶν Βελεγεζητῶν”, “Ilarion imperial protospatharius 
and archon of Βα(γι)νιτὶας” [Живковић 2007: 16; Коматина 2016: 87]. We should 
consider the title of the leader of the 836 Slavic rebellion that contains “exarch” in it as 
belonging to the same high category.