Macedonian Slavs In Lichnidos
(Ohrid) 7Th - 9Th Centuries

        Home | Back | Buy Book About Macedonian Culture And History

Unfortunately, at the time of Justinian I, the basilica of St.Sophia did not survive long . It shared the destiny of the autocephalous Archbishopric of Justiniana Prima and the entire Romean Empire. Ostrogorski says:"Justinian I and his reconstructions of the Empire were followed by a complete collapse. The Empire was attacked from all sides : by the Arabs in Asia and Africa and the Slavs on the Balkans.The collapse was accelerated by incompetent rulers, internal settling of scores and religious conflicts.The 7th century was the turning point for the Romean Empire that found itself in a situation similar to that of the western parts of Byzantium just before its fall in the 5th century . However, Byzantium overcame its problems in the 8th and 9th centuries.
The final stabilizing of the Slavs on the entire Balkan Peninsula except in ancient Hellas is another characteristic of this period. From separate tribes that acted chaotically and independently, they became more organized through settling and the formation of tribal unions.The Romean sources from that period called them Sklavenoi. " Sklavenoi, the most important term in the history of the Slavs on the Balkans from the 7th to the 9th centuries, could be defined as territories occupied by the Slavs. Organized states had not yet been created, but they were separated from the Empire and were outside the spheres of its rule. Later
on, Ostrogorski adds:" The old cities in the continent were plundered and land communications on the Balkans were paralyzed and dangerous until the 8th century. In support of that description, there is the testimony of Gregorius Decapolitus :"As soon as one left Salonica, not much further than Chrysopolis, one would fall into the hands of the Slavs." Therefore, he decided to travel to Rome by sea, avoiding the Via Egnatia.Perhaps Procopius exaggerated when he called the entire Balkans in the 7th century "a Scythian desert." Our historians tried to shed light on this otherwise dark period between the 7th and the 9th centuries. Ultimately, such attempts resulted in the writing of what I might call, political history and in organized attempts to conquer Salonica. Princes Hatzon and Prebold were personalities from such political history.
The question that needs a more detailed answer pertains to the faith of the towns. The same question can be raised concerning the remnants of Lichnidos from the Toman and Early Christian period.The answer can be obtained from archaeology and perhaps from one's imagination." From the end of the 6th century, Lichnidos, together with the surrounding Romean settlements, was ruined and plundered by the settled Slavs ...... the fact that Byzantine coins were not used in the region of Ohrid in this period, together with the fact that the ruined churches were neither rebuilt nor reactivated until the second half of the 8th century clearly indicates that Byzantium lost all its power on these territories, " wrote Panov. Vlado Malenko, an archaeologist from Ohrid, provided some more concrete information: " During the unearthing of the polyconch Early Christian church on the site at Imaret, in and on the mosaics ... remains of primitive buildings of profane character were discovered.., which probably belong to the earliest period, immediately after the settling of the Slavs...An early Mediaeval necropolis was discovered around Clement's monastery. Its lowest, third horizon can be dated back to the period between the 6th/ 7th and the 10th centuries. Both shallow and deep holes that were used for garbage disposal were discovered at several locations around the city. Based on the material found in them, they can be divided chronologically into two groups. The areas from the 7th to the 9th centuries can be linked with the arrival of the Slavs and their permanent settling in the city of Lichnidos.
One can easily conclude that archaeology is not very helpful either. Destruction and plundering are mentioned everywhere. Still, the question of the towns requires further elaboration and since no more precise information is available, I will have to resort to my imagination.The primitive,
barbaric nature of the Slavs at the time of their settling cannot be denied. While the other ethnic groups that were part of the Romean Empire had a history that was centuries long, the Slavs had just begun their historical journey. With fresh width they stepped into the historical arena. In history, their barbaric nature is recognizable mainly from the reports of their contemporary Procopius, a Romean functionary. One has to wonder at the character of the Barbarians who formed a state in Italy and ask whether they also destroyed and plundered the cities there as well. Why are most of the buildings from the Classical and the Early Christian periods in Rome still intact, when Rome was also entirely conquered by the Barbarians in the second half of the 5th century?
It is realistic to assume that all the Barbarians were at the same,low cultural level and that their conduct was the same everywhere in their raids on the Roman Empire. It is also indisputable that they killed and captured people, stole goods, valuables and other useful objects. But did not the civilized armies of the Romean Empire and the Normans from South Italy do the same thing during their raids of enemy territories in the period of advanced feudalism in the 14th and the15th centuries? What then is the difference between the two? Was the nature of the Barbarians worse just because they were pagan and not Christian? What kind of a civilized act is the blinding of 14.000 of Samuil's soldiers by the Christian Basil II and the complete plundering of Samuil's treasury? How did the soldiers of the civilized armies feed themselves during their raids? Probably the same as the Barbarians, by stealing from the local population. Wars have always been an uncivilized act and still are today. But history always points to the enemy as being uncivilized. Should we seek for the difference in the preservation or the destruction of cities? If we carefully follow the logic of war, we reach the conclusion that destruction comes only to those that resist. Both the Romeans and the Slavs attacked fortresses that resisted them. Lichnidos/Ohrid gave in without resistance several times, yet its fortress was destroyed by the same Basil II in 1018 after he entered it without a battle. Did the Barbarians have a reason to tear down buildings in cities they had already conquered with or without battle? I believe it is illogical even to a primitive mind. The buildings are essential both to a civilized and to a Barbarian conqueror for their comfortable living. Therefore, the Barbarians had no reason to tear down Christian churches when they could use them as temporary living quarters. Since we know from archaeology that the Slavs lived in primitive huts with a fireplace in the centre of the only room, could they have been so insensitive as to pull down solid buildings and build huts on their
ruins? I do not think so! The destruction of the cities in the Central Balkans and Asia Minor was predetermined by destiny, by the catastrophic earthquakes and the passage of time.
That is why I imagine Lichnidos in the period from the 7th to the 9th centuries as a partially deserted city that was not distracted any further by the arrival of the Slavs, but it was not renewed either. They spent this period of two centuries in migration and the struggle for a final conquest of territories and settlement. The period of building would come after they had formed states and they would even use Romean craftsmen until they had trained their own. Therefore, the main destroyers were not the Slavs but, rather, nature and the 200 years that had elapsed. The same holds true for Lichnidos. Following the catastrophic earthquakes and before the entery of the Slavs into the city, the Church of St. Sophia was built, and some other buildings were repaired. The new settlers entirely changed the city from the aspect of its urban development. New buildings were not constructed except for huts that were built over the ruins and served as temporary shelter. Since the Slavs were in continuous migration they had no notion of communal city life. This would come to life only in the Middle Ages under the inflence of the Classical tradition. In this period the Church of St.Sophia together with the city itself was left to ruin. There were no Christians there and the bishops of Lichnidos all fled to the as yet unconquered shoreal cities. Panov quotes Pope Gregory I (590-604) who in his letter passes on the imperial order that" the bishops who, due to the movement of the enemy, were exiled from their Sees, should be given support by those bishops who have retained their position. Thus, St.Sophia was abandoned and left to the mercy of time. Its deliberate destruction should not be considered. On the contrary, it is possible that some Slav leader accomodated himself in such a luxurious building but bearing in mind their way of life, there could have been an open fire, hay and cattle. Two centuries are enough to ruin even such a building with massive walls and vaults as St. Sophia. Under such circumstances the surrounding terrain was filled with atmospheric deposits, and the same happened in the interior, this time due to neglect and the accumulation of rubble. The archaeological cross-section from Horizon II (-2.70) to Horizon IV (+0.00) shows a similar situation where stones and building ceramics are mixed with soil.

 Home | Back | Buy Book About Macedonian Culture And History