The Serb Settlement in the Macedonian Town of
Srbčište in the ΥΙΓ^ century and the Ethnological and
Sociological Moment in the Report of Constantinus
Porphyrogenetes concerning the Advent of Serbs
and Croats.^
Dr. Niko Županić.
In my essays White Serbia I tried to prove the truth*
fulness of the report of Constantinus Porphyrogenetes concer*
ning the advent of Serbs and Croats in Illyricum. I demonstrated
the absurdity of the interpretation put upon this report by
Vatroslav Jagić* and his successors. I also disputed the Gothic
theory of L. Gumplovicz,* and contended that the Serbs came
to the Balkan Peninsula from the country of the Elbian Serbs,
i. e., principally from Saxony, and the Croats from the territories
of the upper Elbe, upper Oder and upper Vistula. I furthermore
contended that the Serbs of Constantinus must have been a small
tribe of warlike organisation, and not — as others assert — a
multitude which had evacuated its old native land and esta=
bhshed itself in the middle of the Balkan Peninsula like a wedge
between the Slovenes and the Bulgars, i. e., between the Southern
Slavs of Noricum and Thracia.
I tried to prove this with intrinsic arguments of sociological
and ethnological nature, such as appear even in the report of
Constantinus Porphyrogenetes concerning the settlement of the
Serbs upon their arrival in the town of τα Σίρβλια (Srbčište) to
the north of Olympus.® A town, or rather, a naturally fortified
^ Report of the II. International Congress for Byzantínology in Belgrade.
April 14 th, 1927.
» N. Zup ani Č, Bela Srbija. Zagreb 1932.
'V. J a g i č, Ein Kapitel zur Geschichte der südslavischen Sprachen.
(Archiv für slavische Philologie, Bd. XVII, p. 47—87). Berlin 1895.
*L. Gumplowicz, Chorvaci i Serbowie. Varšava 1902.
' On the middle Haliakmon (Bistrica) in the south Macedonian district
of 'Pieria.
The Serb Settlement in the Macedonian Town of Srbčište . . .
27
camp, could not hold either a crowd of a million, or even a few
hundred thousand, but only a warrior tribe of some tens of
thousands.
Prof. Šišić° replies to my explanation and interpretation of
Porphyrogenetes' report that my hypothesis is not probable;
that in their new home the Serbian and Croatian tribes conti^
nued their old patriarchal life under their Ž u ρ a η s (dukes).
The silence of history for two centuries, the 7^ and 8*, is the
best proof that the Serbs and Croats were not conqueror tribes
in the beginning of their history in the Balkan Peninsula, but
only parts of a great amorphous Slav mass which for a long
time had no idea of laying the foundations of organised states.
The facts reported in the sole information we possess con*
cerning the arrival of Croats and Serbs, viz., the report of Con*
stantinus Porphyrogenetes, do not square with this explanation,
and so one is driven back to the monistic view of Vatroslav
Jagić concerning the settlement of Southern Slavs in the Balkan
Peninsula. But a similar view concerning the advent of Serbs
in lUyricum is not borne out by history, whose opinions are
founded on definite sources and their explanation by ethnolo^
gical and sociological laws and experience.
Therefore it is necessary to prove that the interpretation
of Constantinus Porphyrogenetes by V. Jagić is wrong, espe*
cially as the majority of historians today are under the influence
of Jagić's theory.
Constantinus Porphyrogenetes writes^ that a body of Serbs
under the command of its duke had immigrated from »White
Serbia« into the realm of the Emperor Heraclius, who received
the newcomers and assigned them as residence a place in the
district of Saloniki (év τψ &ίματι θεαααλονικης). This place was
from that time forward known as ταΣίρβλια or Srbčište in the
Slav translation of loh. Zonaras (14'^ century).
" F. Šišić, Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara, pag. 263, 264.
Zagreb 1925.
^ CONSTANTINUS POilPHYROGENITUS, De administrando imperio,
cap. 32 Jìo δε αδελφών tÌjv άρχ//ν της Σέρβλίας εκ τον πατρός δια δεζαμένων, ό ε'ις
αντών το τον λαον άναλαβόμενος ημιαν εις ^Ηράκλειον τον βασυλέα 'Ρωμαΐων ηρο-
αέφεγεν 8ν και ηροαδεξάμενος ο αντος "Ήράχλειος βασΟ^νς ηαρέαχε τόπον είς κατα-
ακήνωσιν èv τψ 9ήματι Θεαααλονικης τά Σέρβλια, α έκτοτε τ^ν τοιαντην ηροαηγορίαν
ηαρείλ^φε.
28 Dr. Niko Županić:
It seemed incredible and unreasonable to V. Jagić, that
a whole people should have found shelter in a place or even
a district of Saloniki. It appears that Jagić is under the impres*
sion that the people which occupied the Serbian territory num*
bered several hundreds of thousands, or a million, or even more.
For such a multitude, naturally, neither the district of Saloniki,
let alone the little place of Σίρβλια would be large enough. We
must suppose that in such a complete immigration whole fami*
lies would arrive with women and children, with cattle and
chattels; and as the district of Saloniki could not hold them,
how could it feed an entire people? But if the Serbs were so
few in number that they could be accommodated in the district
of Saloniki, or even in little Srbčište — as it appears from
the report of Constantinus Porphyrogenetes ·— then the Serbs
in question were not a multitude, and on no account could they
have peopled the interior of the Balkan Peninsula, i. e., the
Serbian territory of today. These are the arguments of V. Jagić,
in and between the lines of his interpretation.
I, too, am convinced that the district of Srbčište could not
have held a people of a million or more, such as Jagić assumes.
But it is not therefore necessary for us to consider the report
of Porphyrogenetes incredible or fictitious. I concede that the
numbers of the immigrant Serbs were such that the place of
Srbišče could hold them, and I accept Jagić's point of view that
because of their limited number they could not impart an ethni*
cal stamp to the interior of the bulk of the Balkan Peninsula.
This very passage concerning the settlement of the district of
Saloniki by newcomers from »White Serbia« — the passage
regarded by several authorities as the Achilles heel of this
chapter of the work »D e administrando imperio« —
I look upon as the most important, because it explains the whole
problem of the advent of the Serbs and Croats in the South.
For it points the way from the linguistic, ethnological, and histo*
rical points of view to sociology and to theories of the origin
of states and nations by foreign occupation and the subjugation
of a people.
Let us take the original account as it stands. Then we must
admit that only so many Serbs came from »White Serbia« that
the place of Srbčište (τ« Σίρβλια) could accommodate them, which
The Serb Settlement in the Macedonian Town of Srbčište . . .
29
means that they numbered only some tens of thousands. It would
appear that even that small number could scarcely find shelter
or sufficient food in so restricted a place. One is therefore driven
to assume a benevolent attitude on the part of the Byzantine
government, in as much as it permitted them to penetrate so
far into the interior, even to the shores of Saloniki. It is even
probable that they were at first supplied with food. It seems to
me that the first Srbište (the Turkish Seifidže) must have been
a warrior camp. Byzantium was not actuated by any humane
regard for the northern barbarians, but assuredly only by seh
fish and political considerations. I therefore think it probable
that the Serbs and Croats were summoned by the Emperor of
Byzantium to help him against the Avars, and that he promised
them lUyricum as a reward if they would wrest it from the
Avars and acknowledge him as their lawful sovereign. The
Croats and Serbs came south, as Porphyrogenetes writes; but
most certainly they came as an organised army which had
accomplished its task and now claimed its reward. The incident
of the settlement of Srbišče proves that some sort of military
discipline must held together the newcomers. A warrior tribe
of a score or two of thousands at that time represented a pos
werful army, as e. g. in the case of the Bulgars who numbered
about 25.000 and subjugated the Slavs of Northern Thracia.
Under the command of Asparuch all the Bulgars found on the
little island of Pevke in the Danubian Delta, and later on they
established themiselves not far from the present village of Aboba
in a camp of about 24 sq. km.
Let me interpret the report of Porphyrogenetes in my way
and ask what moment in the reign of the Emperor Heraclius
could be most easily brought into connection with the advent
of Serbs and Croats in the south? In 626 Byzantium was in great
danger, because it was besieged by the Avars on the European
side and by the Persians from the Asiatic side. Naturally, By*
zantine diplomacy sought for help to save the capital and the
State, and certainly the Emperor Heraclius would look for help
towards the northiwest, vhere at that time lived the great Duke
Samo who with his Czechs had defeated his neighbours, both
Avars and Franks. In Bohemia (which was also the home of the
Croats) and likewise in »White Serbia« there must at that time
30 Dr. Niko Županić:
have been powerful warrior tribes, and it is intelligible that the
Byzantines should try to get them as allies. Constantinople and
the rich seaports of the Adriatic and Eagean seas also doubtless
attracted the Serbs, especially under favourable conditions.
An invasion by Serbs and Croats in the rear of the Avars
— as I connect it with the siege of Constantinople — may well
have caused a revolt of the Slavs employed by the Avars at this
siege, and the Byzantine capital and State were saved from the
enemy. The Croats occupied the western part of Illyricum, and
the Serbs its interior. The Serbian occupation, it appears, left
certain traces. Many names south of Olympus, — i. e., in Greece
proper —, which are Serbian, prove that Serbs once lived in the
district of Saloniki. Because there are more Serbian names for
villages to be found in the small Greek territory than in the
wide space between the Šar^planina and Olympus, we may
assume that in the 7* century Greece accommodated scattered
settlers from' Srbišče, since the Serbs on their arrival from the
north were afforded opportunity of settling in the south in
neighbouring Greece. Later on, when the Serbs were already
settled in the network of the rivers Tara, Lim, Drina, and Ibar,
it is difficult to imagine that they would have sought out the
distant Greek peninsula.
From the political and psychological point of view we must
beheve that these Serbs and Croats felt themselves legally and
morally superior, not only to the Avars and Vlachs, but also to
the »Slavs« liberated from the Avars. The Serbs and Croats
must have occupied higher social positions in the administration
and the army. They became a privileged class in the state. This
fact appears also from their social institutions in the Middle
Ages, which are in some respects the outcome and echo of the
great event reported by Constantinus Porphyrogenetes.
The two small warrior tribes of Croats and Serbs, numbe*
ring only few scores of thousands, obviously could not populate
the great territories of Illyricum and give them an ethnical
stamp. They were merged in the Slav mass, predecessors of the
Southern Slavs of today, which had overrun the bulk of the
Balkan Peninsula some time previously from the Adriatic to
the Euxine. Only the Croatian and Serbian names remained
dominant in two states where the arrival of two warrior tribes
consituted two points of crystallisation, two statCibuilding ideas.
The Serb Settlement in the Macedonian Town of Srbčište . . .
31
The Croats and Serbs, settled among the Slav mass, disappeared
linguistically. From this ethnical, historical, and sociological
process developed the Serbs and Croats of today, which are of
one language and blood. With their dialects they form the link
between the Bulgars in the east and the Slovenes in the west.
And in spite of all appearance to the contrary, the report of
Constantinus Porphyrogenetes concerning the advent of Serbs
and Croats in the south remains intact as a veracious document,
— which is what I have set myself to prove.
This is the only possible explanation of Constantinus Por*
phyrogenetes. And moreover by it the language and unity of
the Southern Slavs between the Adriatic and the Euxine remains
intact.
The manner of the Serb settlement in the camp t« Σέρβλια in
South Macedonia enables us to consider the Serbs as being few
in number and therefore as conquerors of the bulk of Southern
Slavs, as well as of the remnants of Romans, lUyrians and Avars
on the soil of lUyricum. As I already held this sociological opi*
nion upon the historical view of the arrival of the Serbs and
Croats in the South, I did not want to borrow it from another;
because the argument is, in fact, that which I have just given;
and because nobody else has so far adduced any historical facts
or arguments to prove the theory of the origin of Serb people
by conquest of a great mass of people by a small number of
conquerors.
The practical foundation of states and nations by such
conquest was known already some centuries before the publi*
cation of Gumplowicz' theory, as iprooved the arrival of the
Franks in Gallia, the arrival of the Scandinavians Russsians
among Sarmatiari Slavs, and the subjugation of the Southern
Slavs in Thracia by the Bulgars.
I have thought it necessary to make this remark, on account
of my esteemed friends Mr. Ludmil Hauptmann^ and Mr. F.
Šišić,^ professors at the University of Zagreb.
«L. Hauptmann, Dolazak Hrvata. Zbornik Kralja Tomislava; (iPo«
sebna djela Jugosloveneke Akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, XVII, pag. 87,
not. 9: »Uz njega (t. j. Gumplowicza) pristaje s istim razlozima sada Županić
N.: Bela Srbija.)
' F. S i š i ć , op. cit pag. 263.
32 Dr. Niko Županić:
Naselitev  Srbov   v makedonskem mestu Srb*
č i š t u v VII. stoletju ter etnološki i η s o c i j o 1 o š k I
moment v izvestju Konstantina Porfirogenita
o prihodu Srb o v in Hrvatov.
(Vsebina predavanja dr. N. Županića na II. internacijonalnem kongresu bizantis
nologov v Belem gradu, dne 14. aprila 1927.) !
Car Konstantin VII. Porfirogenit piše v svojem delu »De
administrando imperio«, da balkanski Srbi izhajajo od »Belih
Srbov«, ki so živeli v deželi Bojki, v sosedstvu »Bele Hrvatije« in
Francije (Nemčije). Ce za boljšo orijentacijo domovine Belih
Srbov dodamo še Konstantinovo poročilo o geografski legi Bele
Hrvatske, da je namreč ležala na severni strani Madjarskega in
na vzhodni strani frankovske zemlje a severozapadno od Bavar*
skega, potem pač ne more biti dvoma, da je Konstantin imel na
misli polabske Srbe, kojih ostanki se nahajajo še danes v Lužici
na Saksonskem. Potemtakem bi morali današnji južno-slovenski
Srbi izhajati iz severno zapadne slovanske jezikovne skupine, ki
se prihčno razlikuje od vzhodne (ruske) in južnoslovanske (Slo*
venci, Hrvati, Srbi, Bolgari). Opirajoč se na ta logični zaključek
je Vatroslav Jagić napisal znamenito razpravo »Ein Kapitel zur
Geschichte der siidslavischen Sprachen« (1895), v katerem sumi iz
več razlogov o verodostojnosti in istinitosti poročila Konstantina
Porfirogenita o prihodu Hrvatov in Srbov na jug.
Jagić in njegovi učenci pobijajo resničnost Porfirogenitovega
spisa v prvem redu iz jezikovnih razlogov, meneč, da bi naselitev
Srbov in Hrvatov v Iliriku, t. j. v sredini Balkanskega polotoka
raztrgala jedinstvo Jugoslovenov in etnološko v podobi klina
ločila Bolgare od Slovencev, t. j. Jugoslovene Tracije od onih
Norika. Jagić je namreč v zgoraj navedeni razpravi sijajno ute=
meljil in dokazal jezikovno jedinstvo južnih Slovenov izmed
Črnega morja in Soče. Južni Sloveni tvorijo homogeno skupino
dijalektov, v kateri posamezni govori in narečja prehajajo
organsko druga v drugo in so vezani med seboj kakor členi
verige. Če pa bi bili za časa bizantinskega carja Heraklija (610 do
641) Hrvati in Srbi res prišli iz porečja Labe v lUrik, kakor pri*
povedu je v škrlatu rojeni Konstantin VIL, potem bi ljudstvo ob
Moravi, Drini, Bosni, Neretvi govorilo danes približno tako,
kakor se govori v Lužici na Saškem. Ker pa ni temu tako,
The Serb Settlement in the Macedonian Town of Srbčište . . .
33
smatrati je Konstantinove trditve za izmišljotino in iskati izvor
Srbov vse drugje nego med Labo in Salo. Tako meni Jagić.
Kot nadaljno podkrepljenje za dokaz neverjetnosti izvestja
Konstantina Porfirogenita navaja V. Jagić neko drugo trditev iz
istega cesarjevega izvestja, da je namreč bizantinski vladar
Heraklej odkazal Srbom po njihovem prihodu na jug za bivanje
mesto (distrikt) w. Σέρβλια (Srbčište, v slovenskem prevodu
Zonarasa iz XIV. stol.), ki leži severno od Olimpa, v Pieriji. Tu
so tudi ostali gotov kratek čas. Pri teji priliki se vpraša z
začudenjem V. Jagić, kako bi mogel kar cel narod najti prostora
za prebivanje in življenje v obsegu malega distrikta ali celo samo
mesteca Srbčišta?! Smatrajoč to za neprirodno in absurdno,
V. Jagić misli, da vprav ta točka izrvestja jasno dokazuje ničnost
vesti Konstantina Porfirogenita o prihodu Srbov na jug.
Predavatelj N. Zupanič pa je zopet drugega mnenja trdeč,
da je vprav to mesto izvestja (naselitev v Srbici) v škrlatu roje^
nega carja, katero smatra V. Jagić za ahUovo peto celotnega
pripovedovanja —najvažnejše in najmerodajnejše za dokaz vero*
dostojnosti izvestja o načinu selitve Srbov na jug. To mesto
opozarja namreč zgodovinarja pri tolmačenju izvora ne samo na
lingvistično-etnološki moment, ampak ga odvaja tudi na socijo*
loško stališče smo tren j a in razmišljanja. Če je bilo namreč
za Srbe pri njihovem prihodu na Balkanski pols
otok dovolj mesta v obsegu distrikta ali celo
samo mesta Srbčišta, potem pač niso mogli šteti
s to t i so če ali celo milijon ljudi, kakor si po*
gojno predstavi jI a V. Jagić, ampak samo nekaj
d e s e 11 i s o č e Λ^ In ker ni nobenega vzroka dvomiti o istinitosti
navedbe o naseljenju v Srbčištu, jo jemlje predavatelj za izho*
dišče pri tolmačenju celega izvestja Konstantina Porfirogenita.
Dejstvo, da je Srbčište moglo sprejeti srbske prišlece iz
Polabja označuje njihovo maloštevilnost in navaja na misel, da
si je trebai v pridošlih Srbih predstavljati gotov vojaški
organiziran zbor od nekoliko deset tisoč ljudi,
ki je mogel Bizantincem koristno poslužiti v bojih proti Obrom,
a ne mnogoštevilno neorganizirano narodno maso, ki bi bila brez
interesa za Bizanc in carja Herakleja. Zato misli predavatelj, da
si je treba predstavljati Srbčište več ali manj kot utrjeno tabo*
rišče in to tem prej, ker se to mesto tudi v poznejšem srednjem
veku spominja kot trdnjava ob srednjem toku Bistrice (Haliak*
34 Dr. Niko Županić:
mona). Lep primer za tak slučaj, in za tako razlaganje K. P. nam
nudi naselitev turških Bolgarov, ki so si, četudi maloštevilni
(20.000 do 25.000) podčinili Jugoslovene Trakije. Bolgari so se
naselili pred osvojenjem Trakije na malem otoku Pevke v
dunavski delti in pozneje v utrjenem taborišču Abobi blizu
Šumena, ki je merilo vsega 23 km^.
Srbi pa niso ostali dolgo v južni Makedoniji, ampak so se
napotili proti severu v staro domačijo kakor so to storili Heruli
sto let poprej, ko so se vrnili iz južne Ogrske v Skandinavijo.
Ali prestopivši Dunav pri Belem gradu so si Srbi stvar premislili,
se vrnili ter zavzeli Ilirik, kjer so še danes. Razumljivo je, da ta
maloštevilna vojaška družina ni mogla dati Iliriku osnovno pre*
bivalstvo, če bi bil ta slučajno prazen, a isto tako ni mogla
asimilirati že zatečenih Jugoslovenov in jim vtisniti etnični pečat
polabskega Slovenstva. To potrjuje ravno Jagičev dokaz, da so
namreč današnji Jugosloveni izmed Adrije in Ponta organska
jezikovna celota, ki ni prekinjena v sredini tam, kjer stanujejo
vprav Srbi in Hrvati.
Kakšno vlogo so torej igrali polabski Srbi pri Jugoslovenih
Ilirika? Samo socijalno in politično, a etnološko v najmanjši
meri. IHrik je bil namreč v prvih dveh desetletjih VII. stoletja
v masi naseljen od onih Jugoslovenov, ki so že od VI. stoletja
čakali na Dunavu in dolnji Savi na ugoden čas, da prodro preko
te vodne meje bizantinske države in zasedejo Balkanski polotok.
Ali nosilcev hrvatskega in srbskega imena — misli predavatelj —
ni še bilo med temi Jugosloveni (Σχλαβηνοι). O nosilcih teh
dveh etničnih imen nam pripoveduje vprav Konstantin Porfiro*
genit, da so prišli iz Bele Hrvatske in Bele Srbije, t. j. iz Polabja
in porečja gornje Odre. Oni so pomagali Bizantincem premagati
Obre (Avare) in so po zmagi zavzeli Ilirik kot gospodujoči gornji
sloj, ustvarivši gotovo državno organizacijo pod svojimi imeni.
Etnično in jezikovno^ pa so hrvatski in srbski osvojitelji
le prav malega pomena in so v glavnem propadli, sprejemši jezik
osnovnega jugoslovenskega prebivalstva.
Samo na tak način more imeti prav v škrlatu rojeni carski
zgodovinar, a da pri tem ostane neokrnjeno jedinstvo jezika
Slovenov med Pontom in Adrijo. Iz navedenih razlogov je pač
rasrvidno, da so ugovori V. Jagiča in F. Šišića neopravičeni in
jih je smatrati za brezpredmetne.
The Serb Settlement in the Macedonian Town of Srbčište . . .
35
Ni nas navedla studija L. Gumplowicza o Hrvatih in Srbih
(Varšava 1902) na gornje tolmačenje Konstantina Porfirogenita,
kakor misli L. Hauptmann, ampak nas je navedlo na misel tolma*
čenja postanka srbskega naroda potom osvajanja jugoslovenske
mase po razmeroma maloštevilni vojaško organizirani trumi
polabskih Srbov — ravno pripovedovanje Konstantina Porfiro«
genita o naselitvi prišlecev v Srbčištu. Niti L. Gumplowicz niti
kdo drugi ni spoznal vrednosti tega prevažnega mesta za razlago
celokupnega izvestja o prihodu Srbov na jug.