The majority of sites found next to the Danube frontier and in the neighboring regions of Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine produced a relatively large number of artifacts that indicate a date in the second half of the sixth century or in the early seventh century. Though many such items may have come into existence at an earlier date, artifacts displaying emblemic styles, such as "Slavic" bow fibulae became popular only after c. 550. Such dress accessories point to long-distance relation, with communities in Mazuria and Crimea, which may indicate gifts or matrimonial alliances. Specimens brought from such distant locations into the Lower Danube area were quickly imitated in less sophisticated ornamentation, apparently in an effort to respond to an increasing local demand of symbols of group identity. Since "Slavic" bow fibulae from Romania were primarily found in settlements and since there is always only one fibula per settlement, it is possible that these dress accessories were symbols of social identity, which served as marker of social status for the newly emerging elites. The analysis of the intrasite distribution of artifacts presented in Chaptcr 6 reveals the existence, on many sociopetal sites, of a communal front region, which was both a locus of communal activities involving consumption of special foods (flat loaves of bread) and an arena of social competition, a "beyond-the-household" context for displays of leadership symbols. It is tempting to relate the results of this analysis, particularly the connection between bow fibulae and the communal front region, to the evidence of Pseudo-Caesarius, who associated chiefs with feasting. The mechanisms by which some of the big-man-like leaders known from written sources may have reached power had probably to do with the orchestration of communal ceremonies, of feasts and assemblies, in which those leaders played a crucial role.

The earliest changes in material culture which can be associated with emblemic styles and arguably represent some form of group identity postdate by a few decades the first mention of Sclavenes and Antes in historical sources. Can we call (Slavic) ethnicity this identity constructed by material culture means? The analysis presented in Chapter 5 shows that matcrial culture may have been and indeed was used for the construction of ethnicity. Despite intensive interaction across the "no man's land" between the Tisza and the Danube, clear material culture distinctions were maintained in a wide range of artifacts. Material culture contrasts were created and maintained in order to justify between-group competition. As a consequence, emblemic styles were particularly visible during the Lombard-Gepid wars of the mid-500s. Because group identity, and especially ethnicity, necessitated public displays of such styles, artifacts used for the construction of ethnicity were, more often than not, associated with the female apparel, in particular with that of aristocratic women. The same is true for hoards of silver and bronze in the Middle Dnieper area. In addition, hoards emphasize that an important route to social advancement was access to foreign goods, such as Byzantine silver plate. Finally, ethnicity, as defined in the first chapter, presupposes an orientation to the past, determined by charismatic eutrepreneurs, who gather adherents by using familiar amalgamative metaphors. The inspiration for many ornamental patterns on "Slavic" brooches were fifth-century decorative patterns, such as the Giva-Domolospuszta scrollwork, brooch forms of the Aquileia class, or pairs of bird heads. At least bird heads can be viewed as "citations" from the "heroic" past, for this decoration was typically associated with artifacts dated to the times of Attila's Hunnic Empire.

To judge from the existing evidence, the rise of the local elites was coincidental with the dissemination of emblemic styles which may have represented some form of group idcntity. It is very likely that this is more than simple coincidence. Big-men and chiefs became prominent especially in contexts in which they embodied collective interest and responsibility. Chiefs like Dauritas and Samo "created" groups by speaking and taking action in the name of their rcspective communities. Political and military mobilization was the response to the historical conditions created by the implementation of the fortified frontier on the Danube. In this sense, the group identity represented by emblemic styles was a goal-oriented identity, formed by internal organization and stimulated by external pressure. The politicization of cultural differences is, no doubt, one of the most important features of ethnicity. Repeated production and consumption of distinctivc style of material culture may have represented ethnic identity. The construction of ethnicity was, however, linked to the signification of social differentiation. Changing social relations impelled displays of group identity. The adoption of the dress with bow fibulae was a means by which individuals could both claim their membership of the new group and proclaim the achievement and consolidation of elite status.

Can we put the name "Slavic" to this (or these) ethnic identity(-ies)? As suggested in Chapter 3, the Sclavene ethnicity is like1y to have been an invention of Byzantine authors, despite the possibility, which is often stressed by linguistically minded historians, that the name itself was derived from the self-designation of an ethnic group. It is interesting to note that this ethnic name (slovene) appeared much later and only on the periphery of the Slavic linguistic area, at the interface with linguistically different groups. Was language, then, as Soviet ethnographers had it, the "precondition for the rise of ethnic communities"? In the case of the Slavic ethnie, thc answer must be negative, for a variety of reasons. First, contemporary sources attest the use of more than one language by individuals whom their authors viewed as Antes or Sclavenes. The "phoney Chilbudius" was able to claim succesfully a false identity, that of a Roman general, because he spoke Latin fluently, and Perbundos, the "king" of the Rynchines, had a thorough command of Greek. In fact, language shifts were inextricably tied to shifts in the political economy in which speech situations were located. Just how complicated this political economy may have been is shown by the episode of the Gepid taken prisoner by Priscus' army, during the 593 campaign. He was close to the Sclavene "king" Musocius and communicated with him in the "king's language." Formerly a Christian, he betrayed his leader and cooperated with Priscus, presumably using Latin as the language of communication. Finally, both the Gepid traitor and Musocius' Sclavene subjects, who were lured into the ambush set by Roman troops, were accustomed to Avar songs, which were presumably in a language different from both Slavic and Latin.
Second, Common Slavic itself may have been used as a lingua franca within and outside the Avar qaganate. This may explain, in the eyes of some linguists, the spread of this language throughout most of Eastern Europe, obliterating old dialects and languages. It may also explain why this language remained fairly stable and remarkably uniform through the ninth century, with only a small number of isoglosses that began to form before Old Church Slavonic was written down. This is also confirmed by the fact that Old Church Slavonic, a language created on the basis of a dialect spoken in Macedonia, was later understood in both Moravia and Kievan Rus'. The same conclusion can be drawn from the cpisode of Raduald, duke of Benevento, reported by Paul the Deacon and discussed in Chapter 3. Raduald, who had previously been duke of Friuli, was able to talk to the Slavs who had invaded Benevento, coming from Dalmatia across the sea. Since the duchy of Friuli had heen constantly confionted with S1avic raids from the neighboring region, we may presume that duke Raduald learned how to speak Slavic in Friuli. His Slavic neighbors in the north apparently spoke the same language as the Dalmatian S1avs.

Slavic was also used as a lingua franca in Bulgaria, particulary after the conversion to Christianity in 865. It is on1y the association with this political development that brought Slavic into closer contact with other lauguages. This explains why, despite the presumed presence of Slavic-speaking communities in the Balkans at a relatively early date, the influence of Common Slavic on the non-Slavic languages of the area – Romanian, Albanian, and Greek - is minimal and far less significant than that of Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and Macedonian. The absence of a significant influence or Common Slavic in the Balkans is also evident from the small number of Balkan place names of Slavic origin, which could be dated on phonetical grounds, with any degree of certainty, before c. 800.

As with material culture emblemic styles, the Slavic language may have been used to mark ethnic boundaries. The emblematic use of Slavic, however, was a much later phenomenon and cannot be associated with the Slavic ethnie of the sixth and seventh centuries. Slavs did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but because they were called so by others.

THE SLAV1C ETHNIE: THE VIEW FROM THE OUTSIDE

All written sources of the sixth century and some of the seventh use exclusively Sclavenes and/or Antes to refer to groups living north of the Lower Danube. Though the author of the Strategikon specifically mentioned that there were many "kings," which suggests more than one political and, presumably, ethnic, identity, there are no other names besides Sclavenes and Antes. Moreover, despite the fact that the Antes were since 545 the allies of the Empire, the author of the Strategikon listed them among potential enemies. By contrast, the first tribal names (Drugubites, Sagudates, Belegezites, etc.) appear almost concomitantly in Book II of the Miracles of St. Demetrius and in Fredegar. In both cases, the difference betwecn ethnies was important, because of differing political interests linked with various ethnicities. Some of the tribes described in Book II of the Miracles of St. Demetrius were among those besieging Thessalonica. They were viewed as savage, brutish, and heathen. Others, like the Belegezites, were friendly and, at times, potential and important allies, who were able to supply the besiegcd city with food. To Fredegar, the Wends were different from the rest of the Slavs because of their successful revolt against the Avars, and, more important, because of their role in the demise of Dagobert's power. The same is true for Theophanes' account of the Bulgar migration. The two Slavic groups mentioned in connection with the conquest by Asparuch's warriors of northeastern Bulgaria have specific tribal names, because they were treated differently by both Byzantium and the conquering Bulgars. The Severeis were resettled on the frontier between the Bulgar qaganate and Byzantium, while the έπτα γενεαί who until then had probably been clients of the Byzantine emperor, were moved on the western frontier against the Avars.

In all those cases, ethnicity was a function of power in a very concrete and simple way. Ethnies were not classified in terms of language or culture, but in terms of their military and political potential. Names were important, therefore, because they gave meaning to categories of political classification. If this is true, however, then "Antes" were also a similar example, since from 545 to 602, they played a complctcly different role for imperial policies on the Danube frontier than the Sclavenes. The Antes were constantly allies of the Romans, while Sclavenes always appeared on the side of their enemies. A different Antian ethnicity may thus have existed irrespective of the common, "utterly barbarous," language, which, according to Procopius, both ethnies used. Emperor Maurice's campaigus of the late 500s against all potential and true enemies (Avars and Sclavenes) may have blurred this difference or at least made it negligible. In the eyes of the author of the Strategikon, the Sclavenes and the Antes not only had the same customs, weapons, and tactics, but both were treated as potential enemies.

In the light of these remarks, the very nature of a Sclavene ethnicity needs serious reconsideration. Procopius and later authors may have used this ethnic name as an umbrella-term for various groups living north of the Danube frontier, which were neither "Antes," nor "Huns" or "Avars". Jordanes did the same, though unlike others, he chose an ancient name, the Venethi, probably because he believed that the contemporary configuration of gentes beyond the limits of the Empire was a consequence, if not a reincarnation, of that described by ancient authors such as Tacitus or Ptolemy. To him, in other words, the barbarians of the sixth century unless touched by the course of Gothic history, were frozen in time and space, basically the same and in the same place as viewed by the ancient authors. That no Slavic ethnicity existed in the eyes of any sixth- or seventh-century Byzantine author, which could be compared to the modern concept of ethnicity, is shown by Pseudo-Cesarius' usage of the term "Sclavenes". To him, the opposite of "Sclavenes" is Ριπιαυοί, which was not an ethnie, but a name for the inhabitants of the Roman province of Dacia Ripensis. The contrast is that between a group living north and another living south of the Danube frontier, to which Pseudo-Caesarius referred by the biblical name Physon. His focus was on the specific location, within one and the same climate, of groups supposedly different in customs and religious life. The same is true for the author of the Strategikon. If Sclavenes were discusscd in a different chapter than Avars, it is because, in his eyes, they had radically different social and political systems and, as a consequence, different forms of warfare. Roman generals, therefore, ought to learn how to figh them differently. Nevertheless, when it comes to real raids, the evidence discussed in Chapter 3 reveals that many aurhors were not at ease pinning down who exactly was ravaging Thrace in the 580s and who, at the same time, was in Greece.

This, I must emphasize, is in sharp contrast to other authors' concepts of Slavic ethnicity. That to our sixth- and seventh-century authors, ethnicity was an instrument to differentiate between enemies and allies is also shown by Theophylact Simocatta's episode of the Gepid captured by Priscus' army in 593. To the author of the Feldzugsjournal used by Theophylact as a source for Priscus' campaign, this Gepid was different from "Sclavenes," even if he had chosen to live among them and was a friend, if not a subject, of "king" Musocius. His "Gepid" ethnicity became apparent and important only when it became necessary to make a difference between him, a former Christian, and the the other, "Sclavene" prisoners, who refused to reveal the location of their chief's village. Unlike them, the "Gepid" deserter would become a key factor for the successful conclusion of Priscus' campaign. Viewed from this perspective, ethnicities were just labels attached to various actors in histoically determined situations. Like all labels, they were sometimes misleading. The author of the Strategikon warns against those still claiming to be "Romans" (Ρωμαϊοι), but who "have given in to the times," forgot "their own people," and preferred "to gain the good will of the enemy," by luring Roman armies into ambushes set by the Sclavenes. To the experienced soldier who wrote the Strategikon, any ethnicity, including a Roman one, should be treated with extreme suspicion, if not backed by a politically correct affiliation.

Byzantine authors seem to have used "Sclavenes" and "Antes" to make sense of the process of group identification which was taking place under their own eyes just north of the Danube frontier. They were, of course, interested more in the military and political consequences of this process than in the analysis of Slavic ethnicity. Chiefs and chief names were more important than customs or culture. When customs and culture came to the fore, as in the case of the Strategikon, it was because its author believed that they were linked to the kind of warfare preferred by Sclavenes and Antes. A similar concept may have guided Procopius in writing his Slavic excursus. It is because of their military skills that the Sclavenes and the Antes caught the attention of the Roman authors. As early as 537, Sclavene mercenaries were fighting in Italy on the Roman side. The first Sclavene raid recorded by Procopius predates by only five or six years the publication of the first seven books of the Wars. In his work, Procopius viewed the Sclavenes and the Antes as "new" and their presence in the Lower Danube region as recent. Although he constantly referred to Sclavenes in relation to Huns or other nomads, there is no indication that he believed them to have recently come from some other place. That he considered them to be "new" can only mean that they had not, until then, represented a political force worth being treated like the Lombards, the Gepids, the Cutrigurs, and other "allies" surrounding the Empire. It is because he thought the Sclavenes and the Antes were not politically important (or, at least, not as importallt as Lombards, Gepids, or Cutrigurs) that Procopins failed to record any chief names. To be one of Justinian's ένσπονδοι, one needed first to have a "king," The irony behind the episode of the "phoney Chilbudius," with its plot setting imitating that of a neo-Attic comedy, is that the Antes, who eventually became Justinian's ένσπονδοι, did not have a true leader, for they had "lived from old under a democracy."

The making of the Slavs was less a matter of ethnogenesis and more one of invention, imagining and labeling by Byzantine authors. Some form of group identity, however, which we may arguably call ethnicity, was growing out of the historical circumstances following the fortification of the Danube limes. This was therefore an identity formed in the shadow of Justinian's forts, not in the Pripet marshes. There are good reasons to believe that this identity was much more complex than the doublet "Sclavenes-Antes" imposed by the Byzantine historiography. Book II of the Miracles of St Demetrius and Fredegar's chronicle give us a measure of this complexity. That no "Slavs" called themselves by this name not only indicates that no group took on the label imposed by outsiders, but also suggests that this label was more a pedantic construction than the result of systematic interaction across ethnic boundaries. The first clear statement that "we are Slavs" comes from the twelfth-century Russian Primary Chronicle. With this chronicle, however, the making of the Slavs ends and another story begins: that of their "national" use for claims to ancestry.