Disputes over Great Moravia: chiefdom

or state? the Morava or the Tisza River? emed_276 248..267

Jiří Macháček

Great Moravia existed in central Europe from the ninth to the early tenth
century and left behind a lasting legacy in central and eastern Europe.
However, the interpretation of the early medieval history of the region has
always been a delicate matter. The written sources concerning Moravia do not
lend themselves easily to historical interpretation. As a consequence, they have
often been invoked not just for academic, but also for political debates. For
modern state ideologies to effectively exploit the historical heritage of Great
Moravia, two conditions must be met. First, there should be absolutely no
doubt as to whether Great Moravia encompassed precisely those territories
now within the borders of the states claiming to be its direct heirs. Second,
firm evidence of politically advanced structures of power is required in order
to justify both the name of ‘state’ and continuity to the modern age. The goal
of this paper is to prove these premises on the basis of the archaeological
evidence.

There are periods or events in history that are believed to hold the key to
national emancipation and identity. They are embodied in narratives
serving as the foundation for nationalist mythologies, which are deeply
ingrained in the national(ist) ‘consciousness’ of many in various segments
of society. In east central Europe, paramount among all historical periods
is the early Middle Ages, a time of foundation of nations and states,
which in spite of the ups and downs of their historical fortune or even
attempts at their annihilation, have not only survived but have also
bravely defended their existence to this very day. As a consequence, the
interpretation of the early medieval history of the region has always been
a delicate, if not altogether contentious matter. Scholars who have per-
manently scrutinized the early Middle Ages have also set the agenda for

* This work has been undertaken within the project MSM 0021622427 funded by the Ministry
of Education, Youth and Sports, of the Czech Republic. I am very grateful to Florin Curta for
his invitation to present my paper in his session in Kalamazoo and then to publish it, as well as
for his valuable comments on this text.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3) 248–267

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350
Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
 Disputes over Great Moravia 249

its interpretation and defined criteria for the rejection of ‘unacceptable’

approaches to early national history.
There is perhaps no other topic in the historiography of early medieval
east central Europe that can better illustrate such attitudes, than Great
Moravia. This name was adopted by translating the Greek phrase megale
Moravia, which Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus used in the
mid-tenth century to designate a particular political entity, which he
viewed as ‘old’ or ‘great’ in contrast to the ‘new’ or ‘small’ Moravia in
the Balkans.1 The Moravians appear in a number of Frankish annals,
especially in the Annals of Fulda, as well as in hagiographic sources, the
most important of which are the Lives of Sts Constantine (Cyril) and
Methodius written in Old Church Slavonic. Equally important is the
correspondence between the rulers of Moravia on the one hand, and the
papacy and the Byzantine emperors on the other, as well as several Arab
and Jewish travelogues.2 Pope John VIII’s bull of 880 known as Industriae
tuae placed both the Moravian ruler and his people under the direct
protection of the papacy,3 a position similar at that time to the protection
granted to Wessex under Alfred the Great. Despite such variety of docu-
mentation, the written sources concerning Moravia do not lend them-
selves easily to historical interpretation. As a consequence, they have
often been invoked not just for academic, but also for political debates.
Initially just an ideological attribute of the nineteenth-century revival
of Czech and Moravian Catholicism (mainly because of its association
with Sts Cyril and Methodius), Great Moravia was given a new meaning
after 1950 in Communist Czechoslovakia. Massive investments in the
archaeological excavation of ninth-century sites were expected to produce
irrefutable evidence of the cultural and political advancement of the early
medieval Slavs of east central Europe. In the aftermath of World War II,
this was in fact a response to previous claims by Nazi ideologues that the
region had no culture whatsoever before contact with the more advanced,
Germanic civilization. Both before and after the war, Great Moravia also
served as a symbolic pillar of Czech–Slovak federalism. However, after
1992, it turned into the ideological backbone of Slovak nationalism.
For modern state ideologies to effectively exploit the historical heritage
of Great Moravia, two conditions must be met. First, there should be
absolutely no doubt as to whether Great Moravia, as known from written

1
C. Bowlus, Franks, Moravians, and Magyars: The Struggle for the Middle Danube, 788–907
(Philadelphia, 1995), p. 9.
2
L. Havlík, Velká Morava a středoevropští Slované (Prague, 1964), pp. 32–48.
3
D. Třeštík, ‘Anläufe zur Gestaltung des slawischen Reiches: Großmähren’, in A. Wieczorek and
H.-M. Hinz (eds), Europas Mitte um 1000: Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie 2
(Stuttgart, 2000), p. 301.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
250 Jiří Macháček

sources, encompassed precisely, if not exclusively, those territories now

within the borders of the states claiming to be its direct heirs. Second,
firm evidence of politically advanced structures of power is required in
order to justify both the name of ‘state’ and continuity to the modern age.
In Communist Czechoslovakia, the regime expected archaeologists and
historians to quickly formulate solid arguments upholding both theses.
Outside Czechoslovakia, the obvious interference of political factors led
some to raise doubts even about the evidence and to seek alternative
formulations de-emphasizing the traditional interpretations of Great
Moravian history. This is certainly the case in the discussion surrounding
the location of Great Moravia, a debate gaining momentum at a much
slower pace than the revision of Bohemian and Moravian early political
history.4
A slightly different angle is suggested in this paper. Instead of relying
exclusively on written sources I will turn to the results of archaeological
research, while at the same time trying to avoid a typically ‘mixed
argumentation’ such as has been denounced by both historians and
archaeologists.5 My goal is to draw conclusions primarily on the basis of
the archaeological evidence from important early medieval hillforts
within the territory of present-day Moravia, with a special emphasis on
Pohansko near Břeclav, perhaps so far the best excavated and published
site of its kind. Pohansko is located in the south-eastern part of the Czech
Republic, not far from the Czech–Austrian border and close to the
confluence of the Morava and Dyje Rivers. The site is situated in a flood
plain enclosed by the cut-off meanders of the River Dyje. Pohansko has
been the subject of systematic research ever since, in 1958, the first
excavations were carried out by a team from the Masaryk University in
Brno. To this day, over thirty-five acres have been excavated within the
site itself and in its hinterland, with more than 1,300 settlement features
and 880 inhumations producing a bewildering quantity and variety of
artefacts (including, but by no means restricted to, five swords, twenty-
two gold and a large number of silver earrings, five stirrups, dozens of
spurs, silk imprints, etc.). The results of this systematic research have
been duly published, and a relatively abundant body of literature on

4
For the current state of the debate, see now C. Bowlus, Franks, Moravians, and Magyars and M.
Eggers, Das ‘Großmährische Reich’. Realität oder Fiktion? Eine Neuinterpretation der Quellen zur
Geschichte des mittleren Donauraumes im 9. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1995). For the revision of the
political history of Bohemia and Moravia, see F. Kutnar and J. Marek, Předhledné dějiny českého
a slovenského dějepisectví: od počátků národní kultury až do sklonku třicátých let 20. století (Prague,
1997), pp. 349–50.
5
Eggers, Das ‘Großmährische Reich’, p. 10; D. Třeštík, ‘K poměru archeologie a historie’, Archeo-
logické rozhledy 53 (1999), pp. 357–61; E. Neustupný, ‘Archeologie a historie’, in E. Neustupný
(ed.), Archeologie nenalézaného. Sborník přátel, kolegů a žáků k životnímu jubilee Slavomila Vencla
(Plzeň and Prague, 2002).

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Disputes over Great Moravia 251

Pohansko is now in existence, which includes nine monographs6 and over

one hundred studies and contributions.7 My final conclusions are ulti-
mately drawn from this body of evidence.

Břeclav-Pohansko, a typically early medieval centre

Excavations in Pohansko have brought to light an early medieval settle-
ment with several phases of occupation dating between the sixth and the
tenth century. A very small amount of evidence exists for much older
phases of occupation, which have been dated to the Mesolithic, the late
Neolithic, and the Iron Age. Evidence of a sixth- to eighth-century
settlement has been preserved in the northern part of the site. This was
clearly an agricultural settlement associated with a cremation cemetery
with fifty-five graves.8
The fortification was built sometime in the ninth century, most likely
during its last decades, according to the most recent, yet still unpublished
dendrochronological studies. The easily visible vallum is all that remains
of a shell rampart with a stone-facing wall, earth fill and internal wooden
reinforcements. The earthen rampart is two kilometres long and was
originally about six metres wide. It encloses an area of twenty-eight
hectares and thus ranks first in size among all known fortifications in the
central part of Great Moravia.9 The construction of a two-kilometre-long
fortification must have been a very complex project in terms of logistics.
The building is estimated to have consumed about 13,500 tons of stone.
6
F. Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko I. Velkomoravské pohřebiště u kostela (Brno, 1971); B. Dostál,
Břeclav-Pohansko IV. Velkomoravský velmožský dvorec, (Brno, 1975); B. Dostál, K časně slovan-
skému osídlení Břeclavi – Pohanska (Prague, 1982); B. Dostál, Břeclav – Pohansko III. Časně
slovanské osídlení, (Brno, 1985); J. Vignatiová, Břeclav-Pohansko II. Slovanské osídlení jižního
předhradí, (Brno, 1992); J. Macháček, Studie k velkomoravské keramice. Metody, analýzy a syntézy,
modely (Brno, 2001); J. Macháček, Břeclav-Pohansko V. Sídlištní aglomerace v Lesní školce.
Digitální katalog archeologických pramenů (Brno, 2002); E. Drozdová, Břeclav – Pohansko VI.
Slovanští obyvatelé velkomoravského hradiska Pohansko u Břeclavi (Brno, 2005); J. Macháček,
Pohansko bei Břeclav. Ein frühmittelalterliches Zentrum als sozialwirtschaftliches System (Bonn,
2007; the English version is going to be published by Brill in 2009 under the title The Rise of
the Medieval Towns and States in East Central Europe: Early Medieval Central Places as Social and
Economic Systems).
7
For a complete list, see J. Vignatiová, ‘Zum Stand der Forschung des Burgwalls Břeclav-
Pohansko’, in Č. Staňa and L. Poláček (eds), Frühmittelalterliche Machtzentren in Mitteleuropa.
Mehrjährige Grabungen und ihre Auswertung. Symposion Mikulčice, 5.–9. September 1994 (Brno,
1996), pp. 261–6; J. Macháček, ‘Pohansko u Břeclavi po roce 1990. Příspěvek ve čtyřicátému
výročí zahájení archeologických výzkumů’, in Z. Měřinský (ed.), Konference Pohansko 1999. 40
let od zahájení výzkumu slovanského hradiska Břeclav-Pohansko, Břeclav-Pohansko 3.–4.6.1999
(Brno, 2001), pp. 9–19.
8
Dostál, K časně slovanskému osídlení; Dostál, Břeclav – Pohansko III.
9
B. Dostál, ‘K opevnění hradiska Břeclavi-Pohanska’, Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské
university. Rada archeologicko-klasická 26–7 (1979), pp. 73–93; J. Macháček, ‘Pohansko bei
Břeclav – ein bedeutendes Zetrum Großmährens’, in L. Galuška, P. Kouřil and Z. Měřínský
(eds), Velká Morava mezi Východem a Západem – Großmähren zwischen West und Ost (Brno,
2001), p. 283.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
252 Jiří Macháček

No such stone was, however, present in the flood plain. Most of it was
hand picked from the surface or dug out from the sand, with only a small
quantity being actually quarried stone. The dominant rock is biodetrital
limestone in flat fragments generally less than five centimetres thick. The
petrographic analysis confirmed that such stones came from the area
around Holíč and Skalica. The stone must have travelled first by land over
a distance of eight to ten kilometres, all the way to Mikulčice, and then
by water for another twenty-five kilometres downstream on the Morava
and twelve and a half kilometres upstream on the River Dyje.10
A magnate’s court (and ‘manor’) was found within the enclosure in the
north-western part of the site. This was a rectangular compound of about
one hectare in size, which was surrounded by a wooden palisade, appar-
ently built in two phases. Within the court, a church and the adjacent
cemetery were separated from the magnate’s residential dwelling, some
large wooden halls (believed to be the meeting place for armed retainers
or important members of Great Moravian society), and an industrial
sector. The compound included some fifty features, of which the most
impressive is the church. All around the church, a large cemetery was
excavated with 407 graves, many of which produced very rich artefacts.
Four graves produced swords, eight had axes, thirty-two had spurs, and
forty-six had gold and silver dress accessories of Byzantine inspiration.11
The compound may thus be viewed as an illustration of one of the
best-known variants of a manor (understood as the residence of an early
medieval ruler).12
Within the enclosure, there was also an industrial area, the excavation
of which produced numerous finds of tools, raw materials, and semi-
manufactured goods. The settlement features formed groups divided by
open areas or fences, which have been interpreted as a settlement of
craftsmen.13 Most burials found in small groups or isolated within the
industrial sector seem to have been the graves of low-status inhabitants of
the compound.14 Traces of intense activity have also been found within
the fort’s outer wards just outside the rampart. About nine hectares of a
very large suburbium have so far been surveyed on the southern side. In
all, 436 settlement features have been identified, of which almost a
10
J. Macháček, N. Doláková, P. Dresler, P. Havlíček, Š. Hladilová, A. Přichystal, A. Roszková and
L. Smolíková, ‘Raně středověké centrum na Pohansku u Břeclavi a jeho přírodní prostředí’,
Archeologické rozhledy 49.2 (2007), pp. 303–6.
11
Kalousek, Břeclav-Pohansko.
12
Dostál, Břeclav-Pohansko IV; Macháček, Pohansko bei Břeclav.
13
B. Dostál, ‘Ein handwerkliches Areal des 9. Jh. in Břeclav-Pohansko (Mähren)’, in J. Pavuj (ed.)
Actes du XII-e Congrès international des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques, Bratislava, 1–7
septembre 1991, vol. 4 (Bratislava, 1993), pp. 220–5; Macháček, Pohansko bei Břeclav, pp. 257–328.
14
B. Dostál, ‘Drobná pohřebiště a rozptýlené hroby z Břeclavi-Pohanska’, in Sborník prací
filozofické Fakulty Brněnské Univerzity. Rada archeologicko-klasická 27 (1982), pp. 135–201;
Macháček, Pohansko bei Břeclav, pp. 229–56.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Disputes over Great Moravia 253

quarter were typical sunken-floored buildings with stone hearths or ovens

in the corners. Judging from numerous finds of spurs, stirrups, and other
pieces of horse gear, it is quite possible that armed retainers fighting on
horseback may have lived in this settlement. In addition to settlement
features, the excavation of the southern settlement produced more than
200 graves, some of which with weapons (sword, axes and spears) and
spurs. The grave-goods associated with these burials confirm the inter-
pretation of the settlement as one of mounted retainers of the lord living
at the manor.15
During the ninth century, the cluster of settlements in Pohansko
covered an area of some fifty to sixty hectares. Field surveys and geo-
physical measurements have identified remains of several satellite settle-
ments within that area. The total number of people living there must
have been quite large, although it is not possible to tell just how large. At
any rate, Pohansko could not have been self-sufficient, given its location
within the flood plain of the River Dyje, which was hardly suitable for the
cultivation of crops. On the outer edges of the everglades, a number of
satellite settlements have been identified, the purpose of which seems to
have been to produce food in order to feed the relatively numerous
population within the stronghold and its adjacent settlements.16 Some of
them have been partially excavated. In addition to sunken-floored build-
ings, those satellite settlements have also produced evidence of under-
ground silos for the storage of grain, a feature most conspicuously absent
within the stronghold itself.17
The chronology of the site has been initially established on the basis of
the typological analysis of artefacts. Judging from finds of weapons,
decorative strap ends, dress accessories or pottery, there can be no doubt
that the early medieval centre in Pohansko flourished at some point in the
ninth century AD. However, given the problems associated with the lack
of a comprehensive typo-chronology of Great Moravian artefacts, there is
so far no way of establishing any firmer date within the ninth century.
Attempts to estimate the total duration of occupation on the site are
equally fraught with problems. It is clear, however, that the last phase of
occupation cannot be dated later than the first half of the tenth century.
15
J. Vignatiová, ‘Součásti jezdecké výstroje z nálezů na Pohansku u Břeclavě’, in Sborník prací
filozofické Fakulty Brněnské Univerzity. Rada archeologicko-klasická 29 (1980), pp. 161–98;
Vignatiová, Břeclav-Pohansko.
16
J. Goláň, M. Kučera and J. Macháček, ‘The Application of GIS in the Archaeology – Intra and
Inter Site Analysis in Břeclav – Pohansko, Czech Republic’, in M. Konečný (ed.), Digital Earth
– Information Resources for Global Sustainability (Brno, 2003), pp. 246–62; J. Goláň and J.
Macháček, ‘Velkomoravské hradisko Pohansko a jeho zázemí’, in M. Hrib and E. Kordějovský
(eds), Lužní les v Dyjsko-moravské nivě (Břeclav, 2004), pp. 513–26.
17
J. Macháček, ‘Zpráva o archeologickém výzkumu Břeclav – Líbivá 1995–1998’, in Z. Měřínský
(ed.), Konference Pohansko 1999. 40 let od zahájení výzkumu slovanského hradiska Břeclav-
Pohansko. Břeclav-Pohansko 3.–4. VI. 1999 (Brno, 2001), pp. 39–62.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
254 Jiří Macháček

Following that, the site was permanently abandoned. Great progress has
been made recently by means of dendrochronology. Unfortunately, there
is currently only one reliable date from Pohansko, namely from the
wooden construction of a well found in the industrial sector and dated to
882.18 It is around that date that the most dramatic growth of the settle-
ment took place. This is further confirmed by the analysis of the local
pottery, the development of which has two basic stages. Most features in
the industrial sector produced pottery typical for the later stage, which is
now dated by dendrochronology to the last two decades of the ninth
century.
During the ninth century, Pohansko near Břeclav was undoubtedly a
so-called ‘central place’ at the top of the settlement hierarchy in Great
Moravia.19 The results of systematic archaeological excavations provide
evidence for every one of the functions commonly attributed to ‘central
places’.20 The administrative and political function may be linked to the
manor compound, which has been viewed as the imitation of a Carol-
ingian palatium, and may well have been the residence of the Moravian
ruler or of one of his deputies. The military-defensive function of the
Pohansko stronghold is evident from the massive fortification and the
concentration of stand-by military troops in the outer ward. Intensive
industrial activity left clear traces in the form of remains of workshop
facilities, tools, unfinished products and wastes, all of which cluster
within the residential and production sector inside the fortification.
Evidence of trade or exchange comes in the form of several goods of
clearly foreign origin. Finally, Pohansko may have functioned as a pre-
Christian cult site, with the formerly pagan sanctuary obliterated and
superimposed by a single-naved church upon conversion to Christianity.
Any attempt to make sense of the enormous quantity and bewildering
variety of the archaeological record of Pohansko must begin with an
operational definition of what it is that one considers to be a (early
medieval) centre (see Appendix). My own understanding of that notion
is couched in the terms of the system theory that since the 1960s and
1970s has been championed by advocates of the New Archaeology.21 My
goal is to create a model of an early medieval centre on the basis of the

18
Macháček, Pohansko bei Břeclav, pp. 152–6.
19
E. Gringmuth-Dallmer, ‘Methodische Überlegungen zur Erforschung zentraler Orte in ur- und
frühgeschichtlicher Zeit’, in S. Moździoch (ed.), Centrum i zaplecze we wczesnośredniowiecznej
Europie środkowej (Wrocław, 1999), pp. 9–20; S. Moździoch, ‘Miejsca centralne Polski wczes-
nopiastowskiej. Organizacja przestrzeni we wczesnym średniowieczu jak źródło pozania
systemu społeczno-gospodarczego’, in Moździoch (ed.), Centrum i zaplecze we wczesnośrednio-
wiecznej Europie środkowej, pp. 21–51.
20
Macháček, Pohansko bei Břeclav.
21
F.T. Plogg, ‘Systems Theory in Archaeological Research’, Annual Review of Anthropology 4
(1975), pp. 207–24.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Disputes over Great Moravia 255

Pohansko record, which could then be compared at a satisfactory level of

generalization to the information gained from the examination of written
sources.
With Pohansko, we may begin to observe the system at work from the
sixth century, the date traditionally accepted for the earliest Slavic settle-
ment, to the tenth century, the date commonly assigned to the disap-
pearance of the last remnants of a much reduced settlement on the site.
My considerations are also limited geographically to the actual area of the
early medieval agglomeration and its broader agricultural hinterland. In
addition, for a so-called developed society like that underpinning the
Pohansko system, a number of subsystems must have existed, the analysis
of which was inspired by Colin Renfrew’s path-breaking study of the
Aegean in prehistory.22 Subsystems of particular significance for this
paper include, above all, population (settlement), subsistence, craft tech-
nology, social structure, symbolic system, and trade. Given the dynamics
of any social system, Pohansko must be studied as continuously changing
in time. The chronology of the site may be divided into four occupation
phases, each sufficiently well defined to reflect the complex dynamics of
the site as a whole. According to a well-established practice in Czech
medieval archaeology, these phases are known as pre-, Early, Late, and
post-Great Moravian, respectively, but no clear-cut criteria exist so far to
achieve a higher degree of chronological resolution for any one of them.
The only ‘fixed’ point in this floating chronology is an isolated, yet highly
reliable sample of wood from a Late Great Moravian well, which has been
dated by dendrochronological analysis to 882. All other absolute dates
have been obtained by means of the traditional combination of typology
and seriation of artefacts.23
A close examination reveals that all the subsystems seem to have
evolved in time at a roughly similar pace. During the pre-Great Moravian
period, the entire system was in a state of enduring and very stable
equilibrium. For over two, or two and a half, centuries, no significant
changes seem to have taken place. Moreover, the system appears as
perfectly adapted to the environment, as the size of the settlement was
most likely homeostatically regulated. The pre-Great Moravian commu-
nity in Pohansko must have been very conservative in terms of diet, and
technology changed very little, if at all, from a rather low level of sophis-
tication. Social structures and religious practices appear to have followed
traditions and patterns handed down from generation to generation. The
whole culture had a natural tendency to stay in an unchanged state

22
C. Renfrew, The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium
B.C. (London, 1972), pp. 485–96.
23
D. Bialeková, ‘Slovanské obdobie’, Slovanská Archeológia 28 (1980), pp. 213–28.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
256 Jiří Macháček

maintained in equilibrium by negative feedback. Any disturbances in the

system were eliminated.24 The only significant change was the establish-
ment at some point towards the end of the pre-Great Moravian period of
a cult site in Pohansko.
This cultural homeostasis was overturned at some point during the
Early Great Moravian period, which witnessed radical changes and expo-
nential growth in all subsystems. The transformation of one subsystem
led, as a result of the interaction of positive feedback, to changes in other
interrelated subsystems in such a way as to generate the so-called multi-
plier effect.25 Interaction between different spheres of human activity
generated constant growth and a new civilization was born. The emer-
gence of an extensive agglomeration in the ninth century, with a massive
fortification, a residence for a member of the highest social rank, a
church, an industrial quarter, and houses for the soldiery, was clearly a
consequence of those cultural processes.
What caused all this dramatic systemic growth? There is no answer to
this difficult question, but the prime mover may have been either some
innovation in one of the subsystems (e.g., the rise of a cult centre) or
turbulence driven by external input (e.g., the political and military impact
of the Carolingian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, which had left the
local Slavic elites in a state of ‘cultural shock’). Nor can the possibility of
immigration from the neighbouring areas be excluded. Whatever the case,
on the basis of the archaeological sources available at this moment, a
complete understanding of the causal relationships seems impossible.
Theoretically, every system tends towards equilibrium, but the Pohan-
sko one never reached that state during the Great Moravian period. After
initial growth, drastic changes continued in various subsystems through-
out the Late Great Moravian phase: the population continued to grow,
craft production became increasingly more specialized, and quasi-
manorial estates appeared inside the ramparts. In addition, the system
generated many outputs that radically affected the hillfort’s hinterland. A
very complex social structure developed in the process. Though its opera-
tion must have put great energy strains on the system, no mechanisms
were created that could effectively streamline energy flows, such as, for
instance, a functional market based on an established monetary system.26
The entire system was tipped over into a state of profound, albeit short-
term, instability and eventually came to an end by means of fatal
disturbances resulting from external inputs (military invasions, change of
the water regimen in the flood plain, etc.). The final collapse came during
24
This assessment mirrors that of Renfrew, Emergence of Civilisation, pp. 485–7.
25
Renfrew, Emergence of Civilisation, p. 487.
26
R. Hodges, Dark Age Economics: The Origins of Towns and Trade, A.D. 600–1000 (London, 1982),
p. 187.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Disputes over Great Moravia 257

the post-Great Moravian period, as the population either left or was

killed in military confrontations. The destructive effects of positive feed-
back gained force, leading to the destruction of the Pohansko hillfort and,
in a broader context, to the fall of the entire civilization of which
Pohansko was a part.
The model proposed above should of course be treated as nothing
more than a hypothesis, but one that is fully supported by the evidence
available from the current state of research. As such, it offers a solid basis
for the discussion of the location and social organization of ninth-century
Moravia.

The political system of Great Moravia: chiefdom or state?

‘We, the Slovak nation, remembering the political and cultural heritage
of our ancestors and the hundreds of years of experience of fighting for
the national existence and our own state, following the Cyrillic–
Methodian spiritual heritage and the historical legacy of Great Moravia,
based on the natural rights of nations for self-determination [. . .] we
adopt, through our representatives, this constitution.’ So reads the pre-
amble of the Slovak Constitution adopted on 3 September 1992. Much
like authors of history treatises and textbooks codifying the official nar-
rative of national history, those who drafted the supreme law of the
Slovak Republic firmly insisted on officially declaring that Great Moravia
had been a state in the truest sense of that term.27 According to the
prominent Czech historian Dušan Třeštík, the 871 revolt of the local
rulers residing in the formidable hillforts of the Morava valley was about
building a state; specifically, the first Slavic state in history.28 Czech
historians who had previously questioned such a thesis were accused of
‘erroneous methodology’ in their use of historical sources and, as a
consequence, their conclusions were rejected.29 But since then ‘perni-
cious’ revisionism has ‘infected’ several other Czech medievalists. On the
basis of an analysis of market organization, Josef Žemlička has concluded
that until its very end, Great Moravia remained a pre-state polity.30 In a
27
For similar beliefs, see L.E. Havlík, Morava v 9.–10. stolet (Prague, 1978); L.E. Havlík, Slovanské
státní útvary raného středověku (Prague, 1987); J. Poulík and B. Chropovský (eds), Velká Morava
a počátky českoslvoenské státnosti (Prague, 1985); P. Dvořák and I. Mrva, Dejepis 2. Slovensko v
stredoveku a na začiatku novoveku (Bratislava, 1997), p. 8.
28
Dušan Třeštík, review of Martin Eggers, Das ‘Großmährische Reich’. Realität oder Fiktion?, in
Český časopis historický 94 (1996), pp. 91–3; Dušan Třeštík, Vznik Velké Moravy. Moravané,
Čechové a střední Evropa v letech 791–871 (Prague, 2001), p. 201.
29
Havlík, Morava, p. 9. Havlík’s bête noire is František Graus, Dějiny venkoveského lidu v Čechách
v době předhusitské I (Prague, 1953), p. 207.
30
J. Žemlička, ‘Entstehung und Entfaltung der Marktorganisation in Böhmen und Mähren’, in
H.-J. Brachmann and J. Klápště (eds), Hausbau und Raumstruktur früher Städte in Ostmitteleu-
ropa (Prague, 1996), pp. 17–18.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
258 Jiří Macháček

study of settlements with urban features, Josef Hoffmann argued

that Great Moravia was in a transient political formation, which only
approximated an early feudal state.31 Even Dušan Třeštík, an otherwise
staunch supporter of the idea of Great Moravian statehood, has been
forced to recognize that the social hierarchy in existence in Great
Moravia is rather reminiscent of a late tribal social structure.32 In the
words of Jan Klápště, ninth-century Moravia could best be described as
a chiefdom.33 However, such a moderate position has not gained much
acceptance, both because the concept of chiefdom is still not very familiar
to Czech historians and archaeologists, and because very few studies of
medieval Bohemia and Moravia draw their inspiration from political
anthropology.
Can the results of the long-term excavations in Pohansko contribute in
any way to the current debate about the nature of the social and political
organization of Great Moravia? One way to approach the problem is to
compare the structure of an early medieval centre known exclusively from
archaeological sources, such as Pohansko, with models of regional centres
derived from the analysis of written sources. At least three such models
come to mind when examining the structure of the Pohansko agglom-
eration: the munitio, the palatium, and the emporium.34 To be accepted as
a munitio, Pohansko must be among the large Great Moravian forts
(munitiones, castella and civitates) mentioned in the Royal Frankish
Annals.35 To regard Pohansko as a palatium requires the interpretation of
the agglomeration as the court of a magnate. In that respect, Pohansko
might be compared with Carolingian and Ottonian palatia and, as such,
the agglomeration may in fact have arisen as an imitation of imperial
palatial compounds, an imitatio imperii of sorts.36 Finally, the reconsid-
eration of the problem of urbanization in Pohansko involves the idea
of emporia and the drawing of comparisons between that agglomera-
tion and trading ports in northern and north-western Europe. In that
respect, the closest analogies for the configuration of the area enclosed by

31
F. Hoffmann, České město ve středověku (Prague, 1992), p. 27.
32
D. Třeštík, Počátky Přemyslovců (Prague, 1997), p. 293.
33
Jan Klápště, ‘Změna – středověká a její předpoklady’, in J. Fridrich, J. Klápšte and P. Varěka
(eds), Medievalia Archaeologica Bohemica 1993 (Prague, 1994), pp. 37–8.
34
J. Macháček, ‘Raně středověké Pohansko u Břeclavi: munitio, palatium, nebo emporium
moravských panovníků?’, Archeologické rozhledy 57 (2005), pp. 100–38. On a closer examination
Pohansko fits all three models, for the agglomeration seems to have been simultaneously a
munitio, a palatium, and an emporium for the Moravian rulers.
35
E.g. Annales Fuldenses, s.a. 869, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS 1 Annales et chronica aevi
Carolini (Hanover, 1826), p. 381; s.a. 870, p. 382.
36
E.g. Tilleda, Gebesee, Grone, for which see Macháček, Pohansko bei Břeclav, pp. 279–81 with
Fig. 4; G. Binding, Deutsche Königspfalzen. Von Karl dem Großen bis Friedrich II. (765–1240)
(Darmstadt, 1996), pp. 59, 64–5, 125, 174–5, 185 and 193.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Disputes over Great Moravia 259

ramparts at Pohansko are perhaps the emporia at Hamwic and Hai-

thabu.37 It is important to note that in terms of its formal and functional
aspects, Pohansko can best be classified as an emporium of Hodges’ type
B, defined as a gateway community emerging as a result of massive
investment by a certain ruler in order to gain control over the local
production and distribution of goods.38 These were permanent settle-
ments with an archaeologically recognizable street grid and pre-planned,
quasi-urban organization. Emporia of type B were not just trade, but also
industrial, centres, with numerous craftsmen in residence working
perhaps in common workshops. The population of such sites was ten
times larger than that of the surrounding rural settlements, which
explains the geographical size of emporia of type B, each with a total area
of between 30 and 230 acres. Much like Hamwic and Haithabu, Pohan-
sko ranked high in the regional settlement hierarchy in terms of both size
(136 acres) and function. It, too, was a settlement built according to a
previously conceived plan, with special quarters for a variety of crafts,
from cloth production to metalworking. The presence of a ruler or of his
deputy in Pohansko is indicated by the palatial compound that imitates
a Carolingian palatium, which most likely played an important role in the
control of the production and distribution of goods on the site and its
hinterland. There are also striking parallels between consumption pat-
terns in Pohansko (particularly in the palatium) and Haithabu, especially
in terms of the composition of assemblages of faunal remains. Unlike
Viking Age emporia, however, Pohansko was already fortified in the
ninth century, no doubt because of the specific political and military
circumstances in central Europe leading to the Moravian–Frankish wars.
Another important difference is that fewer genuine imports have been
found in Pohansko than in any other emporia in north-western Europe
that could be safely regarded as items of long-distance trade. Much like
Anglo-Saxon emporia like Hamwic, Pohansko declined rapidly in the late
800s. After that, the leading role in the local settlement hierarchy was
taken by smaller, newly built castles, such as Břeclav, the foundation of

37
P. Andrews, Excavations at Hamwic, vol. 2 (London, 1997); M. Brisbane, ‘Hamwic (Saxon
Southampton): An 8th Century Port and Production Centre’, in R. Hodges and B. Hobley
(eds), The Rebirth of Towns in the West AD 700–1050 (London, 1988), pp. 101–8; A.D. Morton,
Excavations at Hamwic, vol. 1 (London, 1992); H. Clarke and B. Ambrosiani, Towns in the
Viking Age (Leicester, 1991); M. Müller-Wille, ‘Frühstädtische Siedlungen und ihr Umland.
Beispiele Haithabu und Ribe’, in H.-J. Brachmann and J. Herrmann (eds), Frühgeschichte der
europäischen Stadt (Berlin, 1991), pp. 226–36; M. Müller-Wille, Frühstädtische Zentren der
Wikingerzeit und ihr Hinterland. Die Beispiele Ribe, Heeby und Reric (Mainz, 2002); H.
Jankuhn, Haithabu. Ein Handelsplatz der Wikingerzeit (Neumünster, 1986); K. Schietzel, Stand
der siedlungsarchäologischen Forschung in Haithabu – Ergebnisse und Probleme (Neumünster,
1981); H. Steuer, Die Südsiedlung von Haithabu. Studien zur frühmittelalterlichen Keramik im
Nordseeküstenbereich und in Schleswig-Holstein (Neumünster, 1974).
38
Hodges, Dark Age Economics, pp. 50–2 and 65.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
260 Jiří Macháček

which is commonly attributed to the duke of Bohemia, Břetislav I, who

ruled over Moravia between 1021 and 1054.39
Richard Hodges links the emergence of different types of emporia to
particular forms of economic and social organization in the early Middle
Ages, themselves linked to the rise of early medieval states. Emporia of his
type A are typical for chiefdoms40 and redistributive systems, whereas
type B sites appear in the same period as cyclical chiefdoms or attempts
at mobilizing and concentrating wealth. Finally solar central places, or
emporia of his type C, correspond to later states and accompany emerg-
ing market economies.41 The advanced phase of a chiefdom, known as
‘cyclical’, is in fact an important stage in the process of social and
economic development, and may possibly lead to the rise of the state.42
‘Cyclical chiefdoms’ are forms of political organization in which chiefs
may temporarily acquire the honorary status of supreme ruler. The
central power thus achieved may then strengthen and take control over
the economic sphere. The whole system transforms itself into a situation
whereby chiefs accumulate sufficient wealth to distinguish themselves
from their communities.
If Pohansko was truly an emporium of Hodges’ type B, then it should
have played within Moravian society the same role that other emporia of
that type played within their social environments. In ninth-century
Moravia, the distribution of economic resources was based on a form of
political organization that could only be described as a cyclical chiefdom.
Much like other polities structured as chiefdoms, warfare was a key aspect
of the political organization of Great Moravia, which must therefore have
been quite unstable.43 The position of the Moravian ruler can be best
compared to that of Offa of Mercia, Ine of Wessex, or Godfred of
Denmark. Much like them, the Mojmirid rulers may have attempted,
through massive investments in building agglomerations such as
Pohansko, to gain economic control over society, to neutralize levelling
mechanisms, to mobilize wealth, and ultimately to separate themselves
from the rest of the community. In the end, however, their efforts failed,

39
Z. Měřinský, ‘Hradisko Břeclav-Pohansko a počátky Břeclavského hradu’, in Z. Měřinský (ed.),
Konference Pohansko 1999. 40 let od zahájení výzkumu slovanského hradiska Břeclav-Pohansko,
Břeclav-Pohansko 3.–4.6.1999 (Brno, 2001), pp. 71–90.
40
For the concept of chiefdom, see T.K. Earle, ‘The Evolution of Chiefdom’, Current Anthropol-
ogy 30.1 (1989), pp. 84–8. For chiefdoms in Dark Age Europe, see T.K. Earle, ‘Chiefdoms in
Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspective’, Annual Review of Anthropology 16 (1987), p.
286.
41
Hodges, Dark Age Economics, p. 197; Richard Hodges, Towns and Trade in the Age of Charle-
magne (London, 2000), p. 79.
42
Hodges, Dark Age Economics, pp. 187–8.
43
Dušan Třeštík, ‘Pád Velké Moravy’, in J. Žemlička (ed.), Typologie raně feudálních slovanských
států (Prague, 1987), p. 40.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Disputes over Great Moravia 261

for Moravian chiefs were never capable of establishing states such as that
of Wessex under Alfred the Great, or Denmark under Harald Bluetooth.
Their ‘empire’ collapsed before becoming a state.
Some of the reasons for the decline of Great Moravia can also be
recognized archaeologically in Pohansko.44 After an explosive growth at
the beginning of the Great Moravian period, the system had no real
opportunity to stabilize, perhaps because of the absence of economic
relations that could successfully secure the reproduction of the system
with its increasing demands on energy. This may have been because of a
failure to establish local markets to provide for effective circulation of
energy in a complex society at state level. Even if such a market were
available, Moravian rulers would not have been able to control it effec-
tively, since no monetary system was in existence. For the same reason
they were incapable of enforcing efficient taxation, without which no
permanent army could be raised and maintained. Remains have been
found in Pohansko that suggest incipient forms of manorial organization
may have indeed existed, but the influence of such forms of organization
seems to have been rather limited, as in the hinterland of Pohansko we
cannot recognize any traces of privately owned landed property. At a very
basic level, that of economic organization, Great Moravia can therefore
hardly be described as a medieval state.

The location of Great Moravia: the Morava or the Tisza River?

No Czech historian ever doubted that the core of Great Moravia in the
early Middle Ages was in present-day Moravia, the eastern part of the
Czech Republic. Only a Moravian location of Great Moravia could
secure the continuity of the political traditions of that early medieval state
well into the early history of medieval Bohemia. The first to raise doubts
about the location of Great Moravia was the Seattle-based professor Imre
Boba, who in 1971 put forward the idea that the Great Moravia of the
early Middle Ages was in southern Pannonia, around Sirmium (Sremska
Mitrovica, in present-day Serbia), and not in Czech Moravia.45 Most
44
For the decline of Great Moravia, see Třeštík, ‘Pád Velké Moravy’, pp. 27–76. For the
archaeological evidence, see P. Kouřil, ‘Staří Mad’aři a Morava z pohledu archeologie’, in J.
Klápště, E. Plešková and J. Žemlička (eds), Dějiny ve věku nejistot. Sborník k příležitosti 70.
narozenin Dušana Třeštíka, (Prague, 2003), pp. 110–46; M. Schulze, ‘Das ungarische Krieger-
grab von Aspres-lès-Corps. Untersuchungen zu den Ungarneinfällen nach Mittel-, West- und
Südeuropa (899–955 n. Chr.)’, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 31
(1984), p. 486; M. Schulze-Dörrlamm, ‘Die Ungareinfälle des 10. Jahrhunderts im Spiegel
archäologischer Funde’, in J. Henning (ed.), Europa im 10. Jahrhundert. Archäologie einer
Aufbruchszeit (Mainz, 2002), p. 111.
45
I. Boba, Moravia’s History Reconsidered: A Reinterpretation of Medieval Sources (The Hague,
1971). See Eggers, Das ‘Großmährische Reich’, pp. 26–7; C. Bowlus, ‘Die militärische Organi-
sation des karolingischen Südostens (791–907)’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 31 (1997), p. 48.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
262 Jiří Macháček

historians in central Europe simply ignored Boba’s conclusions or

rejected them as preposterous.46 However, in the 1990s Boba’s ideas were
revived by his followers. Most prominent among them, primarily because
of the cogency of his arguments, is Charles Bowlus, who developed
Boba’s arguments in the context of a comprehensive study of the military
infrastructure of the south-eastern marches of the Carolingian empire.47
By contrast, Martin Eggers dedicated an entire book to the problem of
Great Moravia’s location. Unlike Boba, Eggers placed the centre of Great
Moravia in the Lower Tisza region, at Morisena (present-day Cenad, near
the Romanian–Hungarian border). According to Eggers, following the
collapse of the Avar qaganate caused by the Frankish conquest, the region
of the Lower Tisza valley was populated with groups of Slavs from the
Balkans. The newcomers pushed the remaining groups of defeated Avars
and their allies farther to the north into present-day Slovakia and Lower
Austria, as well as to the east into Transylvania.48 Eggers argued that
during the early Middle Ages, present-day Moravia in the Czech Repub-
lic was nothing but a peripheral region of Bohemia. According to Eggers,
the earliest Great Moravian presence in Moravia cannot be dated earlier
than 890, when the region was occupied by Sventibald (Sventopluk),
though it had previously been within the political sphere of the east
Frankish rulers. Bohemia and Moravia remained under Great Moravian
rule for only a few years, for between 902 and 906 Great Moravia was
destroyed by Magyar raids.49
Can Eggers’ thesis be reconciled with the archaeological evidence,
specifically with the model of an early medieval centre advanced in the
first part of this paper? To be sure, it is precisely in the 800s that the whole
settlement at Pohansko experienced a demographic explosion, in sharp
contrast to its earlier development. All of a sudden the local population
increased, perhaps as much as tenfold, and continued to grow. The
agglomeration at Pohansko seems to have reached its peak in the 880s
when it covered over sixty hectares of settled area (from that, twenty-eight
hectares of enclosed area) to accommodate hundreds or, perhaps, thou-
sands of people. This sudden increase in population could hardly be
explained in any other way than immigration from some other, neigh-
bouring region. This seems to be supported by forensic-anthropological
studies of skeletons in Great Moravian cemeteries, which point to sig-
nificant differences between newcomers and the ‘local’ peasant male

46
Bowlus, ‘Die militärische Organisation’, p. 49; J. Poulík, ‘Předmluva’, in J. Poulík and B.
Chropovský (eds), Velká Morava a počátky československé státnosti (Prague, 1985), p. 6.
47
Bowlus, Franks, Moravians, and Magyars.
48
Eggers, Das ‘Großmährische Reich’, pp. 96–9 and map 6.
49
Eggers, Das ‘Großmährische Reich’, pp. 300, 358, 378 and 382.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Disputes over Great Moravia 263

population.50 The exact origin of the migration stream remains unknown,

but it is perhaps safe to assume that it was somewhere in the valley of the
River Danube. The disruption in the Carpathian Basin caused by the
Frankish invasion and the subsequent collapse of the Avar qaganate must
have been accompanied by dramatic impoverishment and a shrinking
population. Some even suggest that defeated ‘Avar’ warriors found new
career opportunities in Moravia.51 By that time, however, many of them
are believed to have been ‘Slavonicized’ as a result of the acculturation in
effect in the northern and north-western borderlands of the qaganate
from the late seventh or early eighth century onwards.52 If we are to follow
Eggers’ line of reasoning, these may well have been the ‘residual Avars’
pushed out from the Lower Tisza valley into the northern region of the
Carpathian Basin.53
However, on closer examination the model advanced above does not at
all dovetail with Eggers’ conclusions. The flourishing of Pohansko cul-
minated at about the same time as Sventibald (Sventopluk) came to
power (871) and Great Moravia began to expand militarily.54 Eggers,
however, suggests that the Pohansko area had previously been within
Bohemian territory. According to his theory, Pohansko must have been
occupied by Great Moravian forces along with the rest of Moravia and
Bohemia, only after 890.55 If so, then it is very difficult to understand
where precisely was the authority capable of mobilizing resources for the
building and organization of such a power centre. That authority could
have hardly come from Bohemia, a region in which no comparable centre
existed at that time. In fact, the archaeological research suggests that the
inspiration for the earliest Bohemian hillforts came from Moravia and
not the other way around. This conclusion is substantiated by dress and
personal accessories made of precious metals according to Byzantine

50
Drozdová, Břeclav – Pohansko VI., pp. 130–6; J. Poulík, Svědectví výzkumů a pramenů archeo-
logických o Velké Moravě, in J. Poulík and B. Chropovský (eds), Velká Morava a počátky
československé státnosti (Prague, 1985), p. 57.
51
W. Pohl, Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa, 567–822 n.Chr. (Munich, 1988), p. 327;
U. Fiedler, ‘Die Slawen im Bulgarenreich und im Awarenkhaganat. Versuch eines Vergleichs’, in
D. Bialeková and J. Zábojník (eds), Ethnische und kulturelle Verhältnisse an der mittleren Donau
vom 6. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert (Bratislava, 1996), p. 209.
52
J. Zábojník, ‘Soziale Problematik der Gräberfelder des nördlichen und nordwestlichen Randge-
bietes des awarischen Kaganats’, Slovenská Archeológia 43 (1995), pp. 279–80; J. Zábojník, ‘Das
awarische Kaganat und die Slawen an seiner nördlichen Peripherie (Probleme der archäologis-
chen Abgrenzung)’, Slovenská Archeológia 47 (1999), pp. 163–4; F. Curta, ‘The Slavic lingua
franca (Linguistic Notes of an Archaeologist Turned Historian)’, East Central Europe/L’Europe
du Centre-Est 31.1 (2004), pp. 125–48.
53
Eggers, Das ‘Großmährische Reich’, p. 96 and map 6.
54
Eggers, Das ‘Großmährische Reich’, p. 299.
55
Eggers, Das ‘Großmährische Reich’, p. 300; Bowlus, Franks, Moravians, and Magyars, p. 198 and
map 7.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
264 Jiří Macháček

models. Such accessories have been found in comparatively smaller

numbers in Bohemia than in Moravia.56
No power centre has so far been found in those regions of the Car-
pathian Basin where Bowlus and Eggers placed the core of Great
Moravia. Hungarian archaeologists have clearly shown that during the
ninth century there was a conspicuous shrinking of the settlement
network in the southern parts of the region between the Danube and the
Tisza, with no new sites being established by immigrants from the south,
as Eggers maintained. While some Avar-age sites may have continued
into the 800s, so far no cemetery or settlement in the area has produced
any evidence of a migration from the Balkans or from anywhere else.57
It is also very unlikely that the valley of the River Morava in the Czech
Republic could have remained under Bohemian control throughout the
tenth century.58 To be sure, all occupation of Pohansko ceased and its
hinterland was deserted at precisely the same time that new central places
of power were built in Přemyslid Bohemia, in Prague as well as else-
where.59 The end of Pohansko can only be understood in the context of
a complete collapse of an entire civilization. Pohansko was most likely
one of its main centres of power and, just as other centres, it was
abandoned after extensive destruction caused by military confrontations,
many of which have left traces in the archaeological record.60 A compari-
son with the record of the written sources strongly suggests that this
civilization could have only been Great Moravia. The centre of power of
that civilization was neither in southern Pannonia, nor in the Lower Tisza
valley, but within one of the large ninth-century forts excavated in
present-day Moravia at Pohansko, Mikulčice, Staré Město, Znojmo or
Olomouc.

Conclusion
The archaeological evidence currently available allows a fairly detailed
answer to both of the questions formulated in the title of this paper. The
core of Great Moravia could not have been situated anywhere else but
north of the middle Danube River, in Moravia, the eastern part of what
56
M. Šolle, Stará Kouřim a projevy hmotné kultury v Čechách (Prague, 1966), pp. 147–75. Most
such accessories from Bohemia are later imitations of specimens found in Moravia.
57
M. Tákács, ‘Einige Aspekte der Siedlungsgeschichte des südlichen Drittels des Donau-Theiss
Zwischenstromlandes von der awarischen Landnahme bis zum Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts’, Acta
Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 51 (1999–2000), pp. 464–6.
58
Eggers, Das ‘Großmährische Reich’, pp. 356–8.
59
J. Sláma, Střední Čechy v raném středověku. III. Archeologie o počátkach přemyslovského státu
(Prague, 1988), pp. 77–80; J. Žemlička, ‘Herrschaftszentren und Herrschaftsorganisation’, in A.
Wieczorek and H.-M. Hinz (eds), Europas Mitte um 1000. Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und
Archäologie, vol. 1 (Stuttgart, 2000), p. 370.
60
Kouřil, ‘Staří Mad’aři’, pp. 110–46.

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Disputes over Great Moravia 265

is now the Czech Republic. Such an unambiguous conclusion is not at all

meant to diminish the value of studies seeking to locate Great Moravia
elsewhere within the Carpathian Basin. The serious problems of geo-
graphical orientation raised by analysis of the written sources (such as the
clear orientation of the Frankish military system towards the south-east),
which ultimately led Imre Boba and his followers to question the tradi-
tional location of Great Moravia, will have to be explained in some other
way.
During its brief existence, Great Moravia never reached the level of
social and political organization typical of the rise of states in early
medieval Europe. Greater attention must henceforth be paid to the
interpretation of quite sophisticated aspects of material culture revealed
by the excavation of hillforts and cemeteries.

Masaryk University, Brno

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Appendix
266

The early medieval centre in Pohansko as a complex system

Relative- Population and Projective and Trade and
chronological settlement Subsistence Craft technology symbolic communication
stage Dating subsystem subsystem subsystem Social subsystem subsystem subsystem Inputs – outputs System status

Post-Great 9th/10th C.–10th Dramatic ? Regression of Fortification in Pagan reaction, Rare finds from → Invasion of Multiplication
Moravian C. (max. 50 reduction in craftsmanship ruins, palisade retreat of nomadic Magyars effect of positive
years) number of level, partial around residence Christianity environment → Change of feedback;
inhabitants continuity of non-existent, war climate and system

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

production events?, erosion water regimen in COLLAPSE

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)

of social floodplain
structure ← Exodus
of some
inhabitants (?)

Late Great 9th C.–beg. 10th Maximum Distribution of Professionalized Massive Narthex, Frequent finds of ← Pressure on UNSTABLE
Moravian C. (882 AD) number of food from production by fortification, Byzantine exclusive artefacts surrounding short-term
(max. 50 years) inhabitants in surrounding craftsmen, proto-manorial mission (?), of foreign origin ecosystem system status;
Jiří Macháček

fortified agricultural sophisticated estate, complex alphabet (weapons and ←→ Military homeostatic
settlement and settlements, application of social hierarchy horse-riding gear, activities balance not
its outer wards unequal access to technology, stone (craftsmen, luxurious cloths, ←→ Trade and reached
food sources, architecture, members of large decorations), political contacts
intensive use of production ‘state’ entourage, intensive import ←→
alternative organized by elite warriors, of raw materials Relationship
sources (fishing), central authority clergy, clerks, and objects of with nearby
growing of vines ruler?) everyday use centres
and care of (Mikulčice)
demanding fruit → Further
species, transfers of
introduction of inhabitants (?)
new technologies
(asymmetrical
ploughshare)
 Early Great 9th C. (max. 50 Dramatic Rapid Emergence of Christianization, → Arrival of Multiplication
Moravian years) increase in development of redistribution beginning of new inhabitants effect of positive
population specialized crafts centre and inhumation (?) feedback;
residential rite, erection →Christianization exponential
quarters, of church, art → Political and system
beginning of cultural GROWTH
distinct influence of
differentiation Carolingian
based on empire
property, group ← Formation of
of elite warriors agricultural
environs

Pre-Great 6th–8th C. AD Small Autarkic Technologically Barely Paganism, Rare finds of → Arrival of Long-term
Moravian (min. 200 population in technologically undemanding differentiated cremation rite, valuable artefacts Slavs in Central status of
years) open undemanding home society, common emergence of of foreign origin, Europe homeostatic
Disputes over Great Moravia

settlement low-key production land with large religious centre travelling system
agricultural prevails family elements serving wider craftsmen (?) BALANCE
production surroundings
267

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Early Medieval Europe 2009 17 (3)