IN the history of the Byzantine possessions in the Balkan peninsula there is perhaps no period more obscure than that of the seventh century. What can be gleaned from the fragmentary state of the sources is awfully little and that not always clear. This is particularly true of the chronology of the events. Yet, what happened in the seventh century was of such great importance in the subsequent history of the Balkan peninsula that scholars have left no stone unturned in an effort to establish the sequence of events and clarify the numerous problems connected with them. Among the more recent attempts in this direct ion that made by Professor Setton is perhaps the most elaborate. He seems to have spared no effort and neglected no reference in order to throw new light on events of the seventh century. One is overwhelmed by his documentation. 
Professor Setton's study may be divided into three parts. In the first part he gives a useful summary of the state of our knowledge concerning the early history of the Bulgars in their homeland and in the Balkan peninsula; in the second part he discusses, questioning their validity, a group of related sources, including the Chronicle of Monemvasia, which refer to the Avaro-Slavic penetration of Greece in the eighties of the sixth century; in the third part he makes what appear to be concrete and original contributions. 'Certain historical arid archaeological evidence,' he thinks, 'suggest . . . the extreme probability of the occupation of Corinth by the Onogur Bulgars in the middle of the seventh century,' more precisely, 'some time after 641-642.' But not too long after 641-642, for 'the Onogurs could not have held Corinth much more than fifteen years or so' and Corinth was recovered by Constans II, the Byzantine emperor in 657-658. As these and other conclusions to which Professor Setton arrived in this study are of considerable importance for the history of Greece in the sixth and seventh centuries, a reexamination of the basis on which they were reached is by no means unjustifiable.
The historical evidence to which Professor Setton refers as suggesting
'the extreme probability of the occupation of Corinth by the Onogur Bulgars
. . . sometime after 641-642' is a petition written by Isidore of Kiev
and addressed to Patriarch Joseph II in 1429 by Cyril, the metropolitan
of Monemvasia. The passage, as quoted by Professor Setton, reads:
And now two sacks of Corinth were witnessed during the period of Roman domination over the Peloponnesus, one in the days of Justinian the Great, who on this account later fortified the Isthmus and the other as a consequence of the Fourth Crusade, for in Justinian's time three Scythian tribes, called the Kutrigurs, Utigurs, and Onogurs [Kottigaroi, Outtigaroi kai Ounigaroi], having crossed the Danube, one of these tribes ravaged upper Moesia, Pannonia, and Dalmatia and the regions right up to the Ionian Sea in a single expedition, while the Utigurs ravaged all Thrace and the Hellespontine Chersonese and all the territories on this side of the Hebrus to the very walls of the city of Constantine, and these Belisarius checked, outwitting and crushing them, but the Onogurs laying waste Macedonia, Thessaly, Greece, and everything within Thermopylae, and pillaging even as far as Corinth, they straightway took the city without a single blow.344
Professor Setton ends his quotation at this point. But there is more to the passage from the petition of Isidore of Kiev. This, for some unknown reason, Professor Setton chose to ignore but, since it is significant for the interpretation for the entire passage, we reproduce it here. After saying that the Onogurs took Corinth without a single blow, Isidore adds:  When the lower and common element among the Spartans heard of this capture . . . they fled in sufficient numbers into the high mountains which envelop Lacedaemon,
especially Mount Parthenion, and crept into its gullies, caves, and hollows and thus drew themselves away from the barbarous flood. And they still preserve that ancient name of Lacones, but speaking barbarously they call themselves Tzacones instead of Lacones. Those on the other hand who were engaged in commerce went to Gytheion — that was the seaport of the Spartans — with their wives and children and, boarding their ships, speeded towards Sicily, and disembarking in Messene, settled in the neighborhood and in the course of time they too barbarized their name and came to be called Demenitae. But the nobles, the brilliantly fortunate, and the more prosperous among the Spartans, having learned of the great difficulties of the Corinthians, and fearing lest the same thing might happen to them, straightway, as they were, proceeded with all haste to Monemvasia, a small peninsula located in Laconia ....While retaining as a fact the report of Isidore of Kiev concerning the fall of Corinth' Professor Setton rightly rejects the time and circumstances given by that author for this event. There is indeed no doubt that Corinth at one time fell into the hands of barbarians, but this fall did not take place during the reign of Justinian. It took place at some other time. When is a matter that cannot be established on the passage of Isidore of Kiev; there is need of other references. Now, in all the literature of the Middle Ages, Greek, Latin and Oriental, there is not a single known reference which speaks of the capture of Corinth in the seventh century by barbarians, whether Onogurs or others. And yet, though there is no such reference, it is the opinion of Professor Setton that the fall of Corinth, erroneously put by Isidore of Kiev in the reign of Justinian, actually took place not long after 641-642. How he has arrived at this conclusion is most curious and extraordinary.
In the Miracula Sancti Demetrii we read that about sixty years after the Avar devastations in the Balkan peninsula described in the Miracula, a revolt, headed by a certain Kouver, broke out in the camp of the Avars.  On the assumption — a fair one — that the Avar devastations referred to in the Miracula are those of the years 578-585 as described by other sources, Henri Gregoire and some others before him have placed the revolt of Kouver sometime between 638 and 645.  The rank and file of the followers of Kouver was composed of a mixed crowd, descendants of those natives of the Balkan peninsula, who had been carried away by the Avars, and the Avars, Bulgars and other barbarians in the camp of the Khan with whom they had intermarried. This motley crowd Kouver led toward Thessalonica and there entered into an intrigue in order to take the city. But his plot failed and, as some of his followers began to desert him, he moved westward and settled in the plain of Monastir. It is there that the text of the Miracula leaves him.
Now, according to Gregoire, the Kouver of the Miracula is the same person as the Kouvratos or Krovatos mentioned by other Byzantine texts as the chief of the Onogundur Bulgars.  While still a young man this Kouvratos had gone to Constantinople, was there baptized and entered into a life-long friendship with Heraclius, then emperor of Byzantium. In the dynastic struggle which followed the death of Heraclius in 641 Kouvratos supported the interests of Martina and her children as against those of Constans II. To quote the chronicler who reports this: 'Now touching him [Kouvratos] it is said that he supported the interests of the children of Heraclius, i.e., the children of Martina and opposed those of Constantine. And in consequence of this evil report all the soldiers in Constantinople and the people rose up.' 
Professor Setton concludes: 'The Onogur Bulgars were in the plain of Monastir, in continental Greece [Monastir is actually in Yugoslavia], just before the middle of the seventh century. After the death of Heraclius there was every reason for an Onogur attack, from that convenient location, upon what was, presumably, the chief city of the Peloponnesus.'  'It was some time after 641-642 that a detachment of Onogur Bulgars, whether under, conceivably one of the sons of Kovrat [Kouvratos], or under some other lieutenant, attacked and captured Corinth.'  There is, of course, as the reader can readily see, nothing in the Miracula nor in the other texts which describe the activities of Kouver-
Kouvratos, that can give the slightest justification to this conclusion. Indeed, if, as Setton,  following Gregoire,  believes, Kouver-Kovratos is none other than the Chrovatos, who, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, led the Croats into Dalmatia,  then the motley crowd which he stationed in the plain of Monastir must have moved, when it did move, in the direction of Dalmatia and not of Greece.
There is, however, something more to the argument of Professor Setton. He believes that there is evidence which shows that in 657-658 Corinth was recaptured by the Byzantines and that this event left traces, in the form of certain archaeological objects, indicating that it was from the Onogurs that Corinth was retaken. And, as Corinth, according to Professor Setton, was not captured by barbarians before the seventh century, the Onogurs expelled in 657-658 must have been the Onogurs who had taken Corinth in 641-642. Now to examine this evidence.
In the ninth-century chronicle of Theophanes Confessor we read that in 657-658, Constans II, then emperor of Byzantium, made an expedition "into Sclavinia, and he took many prisoners and subdued the land."  Elsewhere and in another connection Theophanes speaks of Sclavinias,  presumably regions of the empire inhabited by Slavs. But neither in the one nor in the other case does he give precise indication as to the location of these Sclavinias and, as a consequence, they cannot be located without additional historical evidence. Now, in the case of the Sclavinia conquered by Constans II there is no such evidence, as Professor Setton himself admits when he writes:  'M. Bréhier states, simply and truly, "On ignore dans quelle région eut lieu cette expedition. On suppose quélle degagea Thessalonique". 'And yet it is on this passage and on this passage alone of Theophanes that Professor Setton bases his conclusion that Corinth was recaptured by the Byzantines under Constans in 657-658. In his words: 'I believe it to be most likely that one effect of part, at least, of the military preparations of 657-658 was the relief of Corinth, which must have suffered so much from its capture by the Onogurs and its recapture by the Byzantines, that it may have ceased to exist as an inhabited community.  Any one can see, of course, that in the passage of Theophanes concerning the expedition of Constans II into Sclavinia there is not the slightest suggestion of a campaign in the Peloponnesus. Professor Setton, however, does not rest his case on the literary sources alone; he relies greatly on archaeological evidence and to this evidence we now turn our attention.
In a square tower not far below the fortified west entrance to Acrocorinth excavators have found a number of graves among which two are of particular significance. In the one there were six bodies; in the other two. There were found in addition numerous objects, chiefly buckles and weapons. Archaeologists differ as to the provenience of these objects,  but they seem to have belonged to some nomadic people from the north. Professor Setton thinks that it is better to regard the bodies and the objects found in these graves as Onogur, 'since Isidore of Kiev obviously preserves a reminiscence of a Peloponnesian tradition to precisely this effect.'  It is impossible, we think, to identify these objects this precisely, but we shall follow Setton in calling them Bulgar, although they were probably common to all the nomads of the north. Among these objects Professor Setton singles out the buckles and calls them 'Bulgaric buckles’.
The barbarians, whose bodies, along with the weapons and other objects belonging to them, have been found in Corinth, presumably died in attacking the city or in defending themselves after they became masters of it. Nothing among the objects themselves, however, gives the slightest indication as to when either one of these events may have taken place and if they are to be exactly dated there is need of evidence drawn from other sources. Now, as we have repeatedly pointed out, there is nothing in the Byzantine literary tradition which in any way suggests the conquest of Corinth by barbarians or its recapture by the Byzantines in the seventh century. Still, despite this lack of evidence, Professor Setton thinks he has been able to give a seventh-century date for these objects and so prove that barbarians, Onogurs in his opinion, took Corinth in the seventh century. He arrives at this date in a most peculiar way.
Evidence drawn from two Greek texts shows that belts called Bulgar and supposedly fitted with 'Bulgaric' buckles were used in the Byzantine army.  Neither the one nor the other of these texts is dated, but, as Professor Setton himself says, they belong either to the last years of the sixth century or the early years of the seventh. These texts prove, if they prove anything, that about the turn of the sixth century belts called Bulgar were used by the Byzantines, but from which of the various Bulgar tribes they were adopted these texts do not say. Moreover, before the Byzantines came to use them, they must have known them for some time and this brings us in the sixth century when Bulgar and other barbarian tribes roamed in the Balkan peninsula. Professor Setton, however, associates these texts with finds of buckles made in Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Corfu, southern Italy and Sicily and comes to the conclusion that the buckles of these finds belong to the middle of the seventh century. 'Buckles like those in the graves at Corinth,’ he writes, 'have been found with suspicious regularity along the entire route of Constans II,' i.e., the route which this emperor took when in 660 he left Constantinople in order to go to Sicily. They are buckles, he intimates, dropped by the troops of Constans and show that these troops were equipped with belts fitted with the kind of buckles found in Corinth. The Corinthian buckles, therefore, belong to the middle of the seventh century. Worn by the Bulgars who had occupied Corinth, they must have been dropped in the course of a violent struggle, the one which resulted in the expulsion of the Bulgars from Corinth. They show, therefore, that the statement of Theophanes to the effect that in 657-658 Constans II made an expedition 'into Sclavinia’ must be interpreted to include a campaign which resulted in the capture of Corinth. 
In all this, of course, there is nothing concrete except the fact that
buckles have been found in certain localities in the Balkan peninsula and
elsewhere. How they got there is a matter which one may explain in various
ways. The most satisfactory and probably the closest to the truth is the
explanation suggested by a statement which Professor Setton himself makes
elsewhere in his paper. Speaking of the buckles found in southern and northern
Italy Professor Setton writes: 'Some of the buckles found in South Italian
graves, together with those few found in northern Italy, came into possession
of the Lombards through, presumably, the Avars, themselves in close contact
with the Bulgars and the Byzantines.'  Now the Avars,
in whose ranks there were various Bulgar and Slavic tribes, roamed in the
Balkan peninsula, around Thessalonica and Greece, especially in the years
578-585.  It is to them, as G. R. Davidson suggests,
 that the objects found in the graves at Corinth
should be traced. As to the coins belonging to the reign of Constans II
which one has found in Corinth, they should be associated with the voyage
which that emperor made to Sicily during which he is known to have stopped
at Athens and probably also at Corinth.
It will perhaps be helpful at this point to reduce the evidence produced by Professor Setton to its simplest form. It consists of the following elements:
1. A statement of Isidore of Kiev (fifteenth century) that Onogurs took Corinth during the reign of Justinian.347
2. The statement in the Miracula Sancti Demetrii that a certain Kouver camped in the plain of Monastir with a motley crowd of Slavs, Bulgars and possibly Greeks.
3. The probability that Kouver was at Monastir in 641.
4. The probable identity of Kouver with Kouvratos, called Onogundur by one Byzantine source, Hun by another. 
5. The intervention of Kouvratos in the dynastic struggle of Byzantine in favor of Martina, the widow of Heraclius, following the death of Heraclius in 641.
6. The statement of Theophanes that in 657-658 Constans II made an expedition in Sclavinia.
7. Certain archaeological objects, bearing no date, but probably belonging to barbarians from the north, found in two graves at Corinth. Among these objects there are a number of buckles.
8. Buckles similar to those of Corinth found in Thessalonica, Athens, Corfu, southern Italy and Sicily.This is the evidence on which Professor Setton bases his conclusion of the capture of Corinth by the Onogurs not long after 641-642 and its recapture by the Byzantines under Constans II, in 657-658. It suffices to cast but a superficial glance at this evidence to realize how groundless Professor Setton's conclusion is.
9. Two texts indicating that toward the turn of the sixth century certain belts called Bulgar were used in the Byzantine army.
10. Coins belonging to the reign of Constans II found in Corinth.
Yet Professor Setton is right when he says 'that the weight of the evidence ... is entirely in favor of the fundamental truth of Isidore's statement’ concerning the capture of Corinth. Corinth was in fact taken by barbarians from the north. The event took place during the reign of Maurice (582-602) and is reported by two independent sources. The one is the Syriac chronicle of Michael Syrus, a work composed in the twelfth century, but based on the work of John of Ephesus, a contemporary of the event.  The other is the Greek chronicle, known as the Chronicle of Monemvasia, written not later than the second half of the eleventh century and based on some work composed in 932 or earlier, probably at the beginning of the ninth century.  Both Michael Syrus and the Chronicle of Monemvasia describe the Avaro-Slav invasions of the Balkan peninsula and Greece which took place in the years 578-588. The Slavs, says Michael, took many prisoners and carried away many objects from the churches, as, for example, the ciborium of the church of Corinth which their king used as a throne to sit on. The Chronicle of Monemvasia says that as a result of the invasions of the Peloponnesus by the Avars, many of the Peloponnesians emigrated, the Corinthians going to the island of Aegina, which, of course, is not very far from Corinth. Neither the one nor the other of these reports can be seriously doubted. Michael Syrus took his information from John of Ephesus who was a contemporary of the event; the Chronicle of Monemvasia has been shown to be based on a good historical tradition. Professor Setton, to be sure, using arguments advanced by Kyriakides, has tried to discredit the validity of the Chronicle of Monemvasia, but none of his arguments has a concrete basis. They are all suppositions which cannot be verified. 
But if the Avaro-Slavs took Corinth, as indeed they did, they did not keep it very long. We are told by the Chronicle of Monemvasia that 'having taken and settled in the Peloponnesus, the Avars lasted in it for two hundred and eighteen years, from 587 to 805.' But not in Corinth, for Corinth with the eastern part of the Peloponnesus remained in the hands of the Byzantines. And yet, according to the same chronicle, the Avars had also taken Corinth as well as the Argolis.  This apparent contradiction can mean only one thing, that Corinth, together with the Argolis, was recovered by the Byzantines and that this recovery took place shortly before 587. Evidence drawn from the Miracula Sancti Demetrii seems to corroborate this.
On Sunday, 22 September, when Maurice was emperor, we read in the Miracula, an Avar army, composed of Slavs, Bulgars, and other barbarians, appeared before the city of Thessalonica. The barbarians, we read further, had chosen the most opportune moment for their attack, for the best elements of the troops of the city, together with the prefect, were in Greece on public business.  This was either in 586 or 597, for these are the only two years during the reign of Maurice that 22 September fell on a Sunday. Scholars have differed as to which one of these years they should accept, but the weight of the evidence is in favor of 586.  Thus, in 586 a good Byzantine army was in Greece. We are not told the exact nature of the public business it had to transact, but, given the situation which then existed in Greece (this is the period of the great Avaro-Slav penetrations), it was doubtless sent there in order to fight. One of the results of this expedition may very well have been the recovery of Corinth and Argolis. Professor Setton has cited certain well known letters of Gregory the Great, one of them addressed to Anastasius, bishop of Corinth and dated February 591, as proof that Corinth was never taken by the bar-
barians during the reign of Maurice.  These letters, of course, only prove that in 591 Corinth was in Byzantine hands; they corroborate the Chronicle of Monemvasia that the Avaro-Slavs did not keep Corinth; and lend support to the suggestion that Corinth may have been recovered by the Byzantines in 586. But it was long before Corinth recovered from the blows dealt to her by the Avaro-Slavs. All evidence belonging to the seventh century indicates that the lower town ceased to exist and that all activity was concentrated on the Acrocorinth. 
Now to return to Isidore of Kiev. That ecclesiastic quite obviously confused into one three different invasions in the sixth century.  One of these invasions is that of 539 as related by Procopius. Procopius calls the barbarians who were responsible for that invasion Huns; other Byzantine writers refer to them as Bulgars. Breaking into the Balkan peninsula, they plundered Illyricum from the Ionian Sea to the suburbs of Constantinople; stormed the Thracian Chersonese; and, invading Greece, 'destroyed,’ says Procopius, 'almost all the Greeks except the Peloponnesians.’ Now these are precisely the regions which, according to Isidore, were devastated by the Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Onogurs. The Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Onogurs were, of course, all Bulgars.
The second of these invasions is that of the Kutrigur chief Zabergan which took place in 558. Zabergan divided his forces into three groups. One he sent against Greece; another against the Thracian Chersonese; and the third he led in person against Constantinople. All three groups were separately defeated. The one against Greece was stopped at Thermopylae; the one against the Thracian Chersonese was defeated by Germanus; and the group led by Zabergan was turned back by Belisarius who used a clever stratagem. It will be recalled that, in the account of Isidore, it is Belisarius who, by a clever stratagem, scatters the barbarians sent against Constantinople.
The third of these invasions is that of the Avars which took place during the reign of Maurice and resulted in the capture of Corinth. Isidore here drew his information from the literary traditions whence derive also the Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Scholium of Arethas. This is clear from his account of the dispersion of the Lacedaemoneans following the fall of Corinth.
There is, however, one element in the account of Isidore of Kiev which we do not find in the accounts describing the invasions of 539, 558 and that of the Avars during the reign of Maurice which resulted in the capture of Corinth. It is Isidore's reference to the Onogurs as the people who captured Corinth. This part, however, is not as significant as Professor Setton thinks. The Onogurs were the first among the Bulgars to have been conquered by the Avars.  The latter recruited their armies by drawing from the peoples whom they conquered. In these armies the Slavic and Bulgar elements are known to have been considerable.  The Byzantine writers hardly ever state to which branch of the Bulgar people the Bulgar element in the Avar armies belonged. It was probably drawn from all. We know, however, that it included Kutrigurs  and no doubt also Onogurs as can be inferred from the fact that the Onogur Kouver-Kouvratos was a chief of Bulgars in the Avar armies. It is extremely probable, therefore, that the Avar army which took Corinth during the reign of Maurice includes also Onogurs, hence the statement of Isidore of Kiev that Onogurs took Corinth.
The issue of SPECULUM, in which Professor Setton's study appeared, contained also an article concerning a Byzantine statue base found at Corinth.  According to the author, the 'base supported a bronze statue approximately two-thirds life size.' The inscription indicates that the statue was dedicated to an 'Augustus Flavius Constan' who is referred to as 'Victorious.' The 'Constan' is an abbreviation and could stand for Constantine, Constantius, or Constans. The base with the statue could belong either to the fourth or seventh century since both the dynasty of Constantine the Great and that of Heraclius were Flavii. After some hesitation the author of this article decided in favor of the seventh century and identified the 'Constan' of the inscription with Constans I. The history of art is a field in which we have no competence and we would prefer to let those qualified to deal with the problem. We would like to make the observation, however, that the Corinth
of the seventh century was too miserable to be able to finance or cast a bronze statue two-thirds life size. It should also be pointed out that the author of this article was swayed by Professor Setton's thesis that Onogurs took Corinth shortly after 641 and that it was recaptured by the Byzantines under Constans II in 657-658. The Onogurs, of course, did not take Corinth shortly after 641 and the Byzantines did not recapture it in 657-658.
1. Kenneth M. Setton, 'The Bulgars in the Balkans and the Occupation of Corinth in the Seventh Century,' SPECULUM, XXV (1950), 502-543.
2. For the Greek text with an English translation, see Peter Charanis, 'The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece,' Dumbarton Oaks Papers, No. V (1950), 158-159.
3. L'Abbé A. Tougard, De l’histoire profane dans les actes grecs des Bollandistes (Paris, 1874), pp. 186 ff.
4. Henri Grégoire, 'L'origin et le nom des Creates et des Serbes,' Byzantion, XVII (1945), 110 f.
5. Ibid., pp. 91, 100 ff.
6. The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, tr. by R. H. Charles (London, 1916), pp. 197 f.
7. Setton, op. cit., p. 525.
8. Ibid., pp. 521 f.
10. Grégoire, op. cit., pp. 91, 104 ff.
11. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, edited by G. Moravcsik and translated into English by R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest, 1949), pp. 146 ff.
12. Theophanes, Chronographia, edited by Carolus de Boor (Leipzig, 1883), I, 347.
13. Ibid., I, 486.
14. Setton, op. cit., p. 522.
16. G. R. Davidson, 'Archaeological Evidence for a Slavic Invasion of Corinth,' American Journal of Archaeology, XL (1936), 128 f.; and 'The Avar Invasion of Corinth,' Hesperia, iv (1937), 227-240; H. Zeis, 'Avarenfunde in Korinth?' Serta Hoffilleriana (Zagreb, 1940), 95-99. Cf. A. Bon, 'Le Problème slave dans le Péloponèse a la lumière de l'archéologie,' Byzantion, XX (1950), 16 ff.
17. Setton, op. cit., p. 520.
18. Ibid., pp. 523 f.
19. Ibid., pp. 523-525.
20. Ibid., p. 543, n. 161.
21. Grégoire, op. cit., pp. 108 ff.
22. See note 16. Concerning the provenience of these objects however, there is still considerable discussion. In a letter addressed to me and dated 30 April 1951. Dr Hans Hintermaier of Krumpenderf, Austria, writes: 'I ... would like to inform you that after the competent opinion of Professor Werner these finds [the finds of Corinth] can not be considered as Avar finds .... I am inclined to the same opinion knowing quite well nearly all European Avar finds by autopsy in the museums. The belt appendices and buckles are of Byzantine form and such Byzantine buckles are very frequent in the Hungarian finds of the Avar period.' See further H. Zeis as referred to in note 16.
23. The patriarch Nicephorus (edition Bonn, p. 27) calls him Onogundar; John of Nikiu (op. cit., p. 197) calls him Hun.
24. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, edited and translated by J. B. Chabot, II (Paris, 1901), 362. On the source and significance of this passage, L. Niederle, Slov. Starozitnosti, II (Prague, 1906), 213. I consulted Niederle with the help of M. Petrovich.
25. On the Chronicle of Nonemvasia see Charanis, op. cit., pp. 147 ff.
26. Concerning the book of Kyriakides see Charanis, 'On the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece' during the Middle Ages,' Byzantinoslavica, X (1949), 255 ff.
27. Charanis, 'The Chronicle of Monemvasia . . . ,' p. 147.
28. Tougard, op. cit., p. 98.
29. St. Stanojevic, Vizantija i Srbi, II (Novi Sad, 1906), 209; K. Jirecek, Istorija Srba. tr. into Serbian and enlarged by J. Radonic (Beograd, 1922), I, 64. I consulted these two books in Serbian with the help of M. Petrovich. See also O. Tafrali, Thessalonique des origines au XIV siècle (Paris, 1919), p. 104.
30. Setton, op. cit., pp. 519 and 537, n. 128. P. Jaffé — G. Wattenbach, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, I (Leppzig, 1885), 145, n. 1095.
31. Bon, op. cit., 17 f. See also his Le Peloponnèse Byzantin jusqu’en 1204 (Paris, 1951), p. 52.
32. On the passage of Isidore of Kiev and its possible sources see Charanis, 'The Chronicle of Monemvasia . . . ,' pp. 157-162.
33. Excerpta de legationibus gentium e Menandro in Excerpta de Legationibus, ed. C. de Boor (Berlin, 1903), p. 442; Theophylact, Historia (Bonn, 1836), p. 284.
34. For Bulgars in the Avar armies : Theophanes, op. cit., pp. 275; 315; Tougard, op. cit., 186 ff., 130; George of Pisidia, Bellum Avaricum (Bonn, 1837), pp. 55, 63.
35. Excerpta de legationibus gentium e Menandro, p. 458.
36. John H. Kent, 'A Byzantine Statue Base at Corinth,' SPECULUM, XXV (1950), 544-546.