Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Slavs but not Slaves: Slavic Migrations to Southern Italy in the Early and High Middle Ages

2015; Brepols; Linguagem: Inglês

10.1484/m.imr-eb.5.105550

2294-8791

Zrinka Nikolić Jakus,

Historical Geopolitical and Social Dynamics

Slavs but Not Slaves: Slavic Migrations to South Italy in the Early and High Middle AgesSouth Italy in the Early and High Middle Ages has been rightfully described as "a region open to a wide range of external, foreign influences". 1 Beside the Langobards, Greeks and Normans, sources show the presence of Jews, Arabs, Armenians, Bulgarians, and others. 2 Therefore it is hardly surprising to find among them also the inhabitants of the opposite, eastern Adriatic coast.However, in many cases the presence of these people from across the Adriatic was not voluntary.In fact, it has been generally established by the historians who deal with South Italy that most of the slaves mentioned in the documents from the mideleventh until the late twelfth century were Slavs by origin.The court of Bari even proclaimed in 1127 that no Christian men and women were to be held as slaves except those of Slavic origin. 3 The argument that they were not (true) Christians, which was used from the thirteenth century onwards on both sides of the Adriatic coast as an excuse for enslavement of the (alleged) members of the Bosnian heretic Church, does not apply to this earlier period.It seems that the slaves of Slavic origin were too important for their owners to be discarded because of their religion.Most of these slaves were girls and women who were held as household servants in richer households in the coastal cities, in the same manner as it was the case in Dalmatia on the eastern Adriatic.The first slave-woman of Slavic origin has been attested as a part of a dower in Bari around 1057. 4 A Dalmatian slave-girl owned by a nobleman from Siponto (in the southern part of the Gargano peninsula, nowadays a suburb of Manfredonia) was cured from leprosy at the shrine of St. Nicholas in Bari around 1100. 5 And yet, these were not the only Slavs present in this period in South Italy, and their presence as plunderers and attackers, as well as settlers, has beeen noticed in historiography, most notably by André Guillou, Michele Fuiano, and Jean-Marie Martin. 6 The earliest known Bari. 13 King Michael can be identified as a ruler of Hum, the area between the Neretva river and the city of Dubrovnik -Michael, son of Višeta.Reasons for his attack are not altogether clear.Michael, son of Višeta, known in the Croatian and other South Slavic historiography as Michael Višević, is an interesting character, much neglected by the historiography dealing with the history of Southern Slavs, although he appears to have been an important figure at the Eastern Adriatic coast during the struggles of Byzantium against Simeon, emperor of the Bulgarians, in the first half of the tenth century.Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus was informed about his family stemming from the illustrious kindred of Litciki, from the old Slavic homeland -the area of the Vistula river in Poland.As a Byzantine ally/subject, he had received the titles of antipatos and patrikios. 14However, he was also known as an ally of the arch-enemy of Byzantium in that period -Simeon, emperor of the Bulgarians, whom he was supplying with intelligence 15 and valuable hostages such as Peter, son of the Venetian doge Ursus II Particiacus 16 .It is possible that Michael's attack on Siponto was connected to his alliance with Simeon.Another possibility is that Michael, who appears to have been quite independent in his politics, changing sides as suited his interests, simply conducted the attack for the purpose of plundering, using the fact that the circumstances were unfortunate for the Byzantines.The attack was certainly well-timed, since the Langobard rulers were attacking Byzantine estates at the same time: Landulf of Capua and Benevento had invaded northern Apulia with the help of Spoleto, while the duke of Salerno, Guaimar II, had attacked the Byzantine estates in Lucania and Calabria.It took seven years for Byzantium to recover the lost estates.Finally, some scholars are of the opinion that Michael was actually recovering the city for the Byzantines after it had fallen into the hands of Atenulf, brother of Landulf of Capua, in 921. 17Whatever the reason for the attack, it does not seem likely that Michael had the idea of settling down in the area, as suggested by Guillou. 1813 I used the critical edition by W.