{"title":"从“Nations”到“Archontias”(二)“Sclavinia”和“Sclavoarchontia”以及巴尔干斯拉夫人在拜占庭的合并","authors":"S. Stoykov","doi":"10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.2.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with the terms ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’, which are used in historiography in different and even contradictory ways, and aims to clarify a highly complicated topic, investigating the ways these terms were used by contemporaries, trying to define differences between them and connecting their use with the political changes of the time. Topics discussed include the chronology of the terms’ usage, different 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 first part mostly discusses chronology and some existing hypotheses. The second (and 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. DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.2.1","PeriodicalId":42189,"journal":{"name":"Slovene-International Journal of Slavic Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"7-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From ‘Nations’ to ‘Archontias’ (II) Terms ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’ and Incorporation of Balkan Slavs in Byzantium\",\"authors\":\"S. Stoykov\",\"doi\":\"10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.2.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article deals with the terms ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’, which are used in historiography in different and even contradictory ways, and aims to clarify a highly complicated topic, investigating the ways these terms were used by contemporaries, trying to define differences between them and connecting their use with the political changes of the time. Topics discussed include the chronology of the terms’ usage, different 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 first part mostly discusses chronology and some existing hypotheses. The second (and 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. DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.2.1\",\"PeriodicalId\":42189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Slovene-International Journal of Slavic Studies\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"7-38\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Slovene-International Journal of Slavic Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.2.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Slovene-International Journal of Slavic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.2.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
From ‘Nations’ to ‘Archontias’ (II) Terms ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’ and Incorporation of Balkan Slavs in Byzantium
This article deals with the terms ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’, which are used in historiography in different and even contradictory ways, and aims to clarify a highly complicated topic, investigating the ways these terms were used by contemporaries, trying to define differences between them and connecting their use with the political changes of the time. Topics discussed include the chronology of the terms’ usage, different 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 first part mostly discusses chronology and some existing hypotheses. The second (and 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. DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.2.1
期刊介绍:
The Journal Slověne = Словѣне is a periodical focusing on the fields of the arts and humanities. In accordance with the standards of humanities periodicals aimed at the development of national philological traditions in a broad cultural and academic context, the Journal Slověne = Словѣне is multilingual but with a focus on papers in English. The Journal Slověne = Словѣне is intended for the exchange of information between Russian scholars and leading universities and research centers throughout the world and for their further professional integration into the international academic community through a shared focus on Slavic studies. The target audience of the journal is Slavic philologists and scholars in related disciplines (historians, cultural anthropologists, sociologists, specialists in comparative and religious studies, etc.) and related fields (Byzantinists, Germanists, Hebraists, Turkologists, Finno-Ugrists, etc.). The periodical has a pronounced interdisciplinary character and publishes papers from the widest linguistic, philological, and historico-cultural range: there are studies of linguistic typology, pragmalinguistics, computer and applied linguistics, etymology, onomastics, epigraphy, ethnolinguistics, dialectology, folkloristics, Biblical studies, history of science, palaeoslavistics, history of Slavic literatures, Slavs in the context of foreign languages, non-Slavic languages and dialects in the Slavic context, and historical linguistics.