Abstract
Considerable scholastic and public interest has been aroused in connection with the rich archaeological discoveries of recent years in the valley of the northern Morava River where Bohemia joins Slovakia.1 The finds have been interpreted as showing the high material and spiritual culture of the Moravians, and the main sites of the discoveries have long been considered the centers of the Great Moravian Empire. F. Graus, the Nestor of Czech historians, however, calls some of the hypotheses of the archaeologists “extravagant.”2 A confrontation of facts derived from archaelogical discoveries with currently held conclusions based on these facts will show that the valley of the northern Morava River cannot be related to the history of Moravia of Rastislav, Sventopolk and Methodius.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For a bibliography cf. Slownik Starożytnošci Slowiańskich, s.v. ‘Morawskie państwo 2, archeologia’, ‘Děvinská Nová Ves’, ‘Mikulčice’, ‘Modrá’, ‘Nitra’, Pohansko’ etc. J. Poulík, “Ancient Moravia in the Light of the Latest Archeological Discoveries,” in La Grande Moravie — The Great Moravian Empire, ed. Jaroslav Böhm (Prague, 1963), 49–91. L. Havlík Velká Morava a středoevropši Slované (Prague, 1964), 340 ff. Investigations archéologiques en Tchécoslovaquie, ed. Jan Filip (Prague, 1966), 317 pp., on Moravia pp. 237–54. and on Slovakia 289–91. Jan Eisner, Rukovět slovanské archeologie (Prague, 1966), passim. Das Grossmährische Reich (Prague, 1966), 11–130. Jan Filip, Enzyklopädische Handbuch zur Ur-und Frühgeschichte 1–2 (Prague, 1966–69). Josef Poulik, Pevnost v lužnírn lese (Prague, 1967).
Frantisek Graus,’ Das Grossmährische Reich in der böhmischen mittelalterlichen Tradition,” in Das östliche Mitteleuropa in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Wiesbaden, 1966), 131 [Annales Instituti Slavici, I/2]. The article appeared also in Czech, in Československý Časopis Historický 11 (1963), 289–305. For other comments on archeological evidence cf. Das Grossmährische Reich, pp. 105–7 (Miloš Šolle), 119 (A. Merhautová), 115–17 and 428–34 (Joachim Werner).
In Das Grossmährische Reich, p. 56, A. Točík speaks about the merger of two distinct ethnic groups in the main centers of the ‘Moravian’ settlements north of the Danube. Točik’s studies on early Slavic and nomadic (Avar and Hungarian) archeology are the closest to reality. Cf. also J. Poulik, Staří Moravané budují svůj stát (Gottwaldov, 1960), p. 39, on Mikulčice.
L. Havlík, Constantine and Methodius in Moravia (Brno, 1964), 29 and in his Velká Morava… p. 354. See also Das Grossmährische Reich, p. 269–70.
B. Szoke, “Über die Beziehungen Moraviens zu dem Donaugebiet in der Spätavarenzeit,” in Studio, Slavica 6 (1960), 75–112.
Cf. Annales Fuldenses, s.e. 871, on the Bavarians capturing 644 horses of a Moravian retinue.
Cf. J. Eisner, Děvínská Nová Ves (Prague, 1952).
Cf. J. Poulik, Stařt Moravané budují svůj stát (Gottwaldov, 1960), 167 See also Das Grossmährische Reich, pp. 303–4.
Josef Poulík, “Kultura moravských Slovanů a Avaři,” in Slavia Antiqua I (1948), 327: “Permanent Avar settlements in Moravia would have left some traces… e.g. in the inventory of cemeteries and of settlements. We never see the image of a horse, the inseperable companion of a nomad.”
On horses in burial places in East Central Europe cf. Jan Eisner, Rukověf slovanské archeologie (Prague, 1966), 452–453. For equestrian equipment see the illustrations in, e.g., Grossmähren: Slawenreich zwischen Byzantinern und Franken Mainz, 1966); plates 19, 22, 37, 43 and 44 show spurs; plates 64 and 74 images of horses; plate 4 a grave of man with his horse.
For different opinions concerning edificies north of the Danube cf. J. Poulik, Pevnost v lužním lese. See also Das Grossmährische Reich, p. 42 and 103–4. The freedom of choice in dating is well illustrated by the following cases: the rotunda in Levý Hradec (Bohemia) is dated in the ninth as well as in the tenth and eleventh centuries; the Holy Cross church in Nin is dated in the eleventh century by Karaman and c. 800 by other scholars; the burg of Nemetice in Southern Bohemia has been abandoned either late in the ninth century or between 950 and 1200. For details and literature see Słownik Star. Słow, under the name of the localities.
Cf. Das Grossmährische Reich, p. 109.
Ibidem, pp. 46–47, 72, 81.
O počiatkoch slovenských dejin (Bratislava, 1965), 13; note 20.
Cf. Miloš Weingart, “Pojem cirkevnej slovančiny…” (pp. 453–471) and Ján Stanislav, “Dnesny stav otázky československých prvkov v staroslovienskych pamiatkach” (491–532) in Riša Vel’komoravská (Prague, 1933). Miloš Weingart, Československý typ cirkevnej slovanciny. Jeho pamiatky a význam (Bratislava, 1949). F. V. Mareš, “Drevneslavianskii literaturnyi iazyk v Velikomoravskom gosudarstve,” in Voprosy Iazykoznaniia 1961, No. 2; 12–23. B. Havránek in La Grande Moravie — The Great Moravian Empire (Prague, 1963), 93–115. Radoslav Večerka, “Velikomoravskie istoki tserkovnoslavianskoi pismennosti v Cheshkom kniazhestve,” in Magna Moravia (Prague, 1965), 493–524 (Cf. also 421 f., 425f. and 431f.). Radoslav Večerka, “Die grossmährischen Wurzeln der altslavischen Schriften in Böhmen,” in Das Grossmährische Reich (Prague, 1966), 412–3 (Cf. also 356).
Cf. ‘Fragmenty praskie’ in Słownik Star. Słow.
K. A. C. Höfler and P. J. Šafařík “Glagolitische Fragmente,” in Abhandlungen der K. Böhmische Gesellschaft für Wissenschaften, 5. Series, vol. 10 (1857).
Cf. ‘Mszał kijowski’ in Słownik Star. Słow. Also Ladislav Pokorný, “Staroslověnské Sakramentáře,” in Soluňští Bratři (Prague, 1963), 174–180.
For details and bibliographic references see Miloš Weingart and Ján Stanislav in Riša Vel’komoravská (especially p. 471).
For details see preceding note. For further details see A. I. Rogov, “Cheshkoe nasledie,” in Istoriia, kultura, folklor.. (Moscow, 1968), 116.
Cf. Magna Moravia, pp. 493, 528 and 564.
Cf. e.g., J. Vajs, Rukověf hlaholské paleografie (Prague, 1932); Vajs sees in the Glagolitic Fragments of Prague some characteristics of the Croatian Glagolitic (p. 121). F. Zagiba, “Der historische Umkreis der Kiever Sakramentarfragmente,” Slovo 14 (1964), 59–77; “… die Kiever Sakramentarfragmente, deren Entstehung wir in den pannonisch-oberitalianischen Raum verlegen möchten, und zwar noch zu Lebzeiten Methods…’ Zagiba’s study appears to be one among the few that, in presenting the problems of the Kievan Leaflets, takes into consideration historical realities. Zagiba elaborated on an equally convincing study by K. Gamber, “Das glagolitische Sacramentar der Slavenapostel Cyrill und Method und seine lateinische Vorlage,” in Ostkirliche Studien 6 (1957). The forms čso, ničsože, assumed to be Bohemisms, could as well be Bulgarian or Macedonian; cf. J. Kurz in Slavia 31 (1962), 73. Olga Nedaljković gives a brief summary of arguments against ‘Bohemisms’ in Slovo 14 (1964), 35. The Kievan Leaflets, the principal evidence for ‘Bohemisms’ has only the South Slavic prefixes iz- and not the West Slavic (Czech) vy-; cf. F. V. Mareš in Voprosy Iazykoznaniia (citied above, note 15), p. 22.
Cf. Slownik Star. Slow., s.v. ‘Fragmenty praskie’.
Cf. Das Grossmährische Reich, p. 423.
F. V. Mareš, “Stopa předcyrilometodějských moravských misí iroskotskych v českostaroslověnské slovní zásobě?” in Vznik a Počátky Slovanů 5 (1964), 7–11.
In Slavia 25 (1956), 258–259.
See note 22.
See Stopa předcyrilometodějských moravských misí iroskotskych v českostaroslověnské slovní zásobě?” in Vznik a Počátky Slovanů 5 (1964), 7–11 note 25.
See note 23.
Ct. Ríša Vel’komoravská, p. 514.
See note 15.
Josef Kurz in Slavia 26 (1957), 410–413. A review of P. Király’s “Das Budapester glagolitische Fragment,” Studio, Slavica 1 (1955), 313–332.
See note. Cf, ‘Glagolica’ in Słownik Star. Słow. M. Hocij, “Die westlichen Grundlagen des glagolitischen Alphabets,” in Südostdeutsche Forschungen 4 (1939–40). W. Lettenbauer, “Zur Entstehung des glagolitischen Alphabets,” in Slovo 3 (1953).
Cf. Antonín Dostál “Sprachenprobleme in der Zeit Cyrills und Methods,” in Das Grossmährische Reich, pp. 335 and 337 (with reference to a study by B. Havránek).
For a brief summary of problems cf. Lubomír Havlík, Velká Morava …, p. 145 ff (with bibliography. See also above, note 2 on p. 1.)
Cf. ‘Napoje’ in Slownik Star. Slow. (with reference to L. Niederle, K. Moszyński and J. Kostrzewski).
Cf. Jaroslav Pošváí, “Handel und Währung Grossmährens,” in Das Grossmährische Reich, pp. 276–281.
J. Vašica, “K lexiku Zakona Sudného Ljudem,” in Slavistična Revija 10 (1957), 61–66.
George C. Soulis, “The legacy of Cyril and Methodius to the Southern Slavs,” in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Number Nineteen (1965), 21. With reference to R. Jakobson, B. Havránek, O. Odložilík, K. Lanckoronska and J. Szymański.
Život Sv. Prokopa” in Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum I, 361. Also in M M F H II, 236–39 (excerpts).
Supplement II, in Cosmas Pragensis; Chronica Bohemorum, ed. Bertold Bretholz (Berlin, 1923), 255 [M G H. SS. N.S. 2].
István Kniezsa, “Kyrill und Method Traditionen in Ungarn,” in Cyrillo-Methodiana (Köln-Graz, 1964), 206.
V. N. Tatishchev, Istoriia rossiiskaia, vol.2 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1963), 72, 87, 101, 130–32 and 238.
Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum I, 251.
“Ewangeliarz z Reims” in Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich.
Cosmas Pragensis; Chronica Bohemorum (cf. note 41), 44. On the basis of Šmilauer’s study, Osidlení Čech v světle místních jmen, Prague, 1960 (especially pp. 70f and 173), F. Graus came to the conclusion that some place names around Sázava are of Russian origin. Cf. his “Velkomoravská říše v české středověké tradice,” in Československý Časopis Historický 11 (1963), 297, note 60.
For a most recent survey with profuse bibliographic notes cf. Jan Racek, “Sur la question de la genèse du plus ancien chant liturgique Tchèque ‘Hospodine pomiluj ny’,” in Magna Moravia (Prague, 1965), 435–460.
Roman Jakobson, “O stikhotvorennykh reliktakh…,” in Slavistična Revija 3 (1950), 267–273.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1971 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boba, I. (1971). Archeology and Slavic Philology Concerning Moravia. In: Moravia’s History Reconsidered. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2992-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2992-6_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-247-5041-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-2992-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive