Balkan Academic Book Review 22/2000
_________________________________________

Paul Stephenson, Byzantium's Balkan Frontier. A Political Study of the
Northern Balkans, 900-1204 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
352 pp. $ 69.95. ISBN 0-521-77017-3.

Reviewed by Florin Curta (Department of History, University of Florida),
Email: E-mail: fcurta@....
_________________________________________

Paul Stephenson's monograph on the tenth- to early thirteenth-century
Balkans represents the most significant contribution to the literature on
the medieval Balkans since 1987. It is also the most recent in a series of
studies devoted to the Byzantine presence in the Balkans, an area that has
generally received much less attention than other regions of the Empire. To
a large extent, Stephenson integrates his concept of Balkan history with
the now familiar picture of the cultural and political significance of late
antique and medieval frontiers and borderlands. The Balkan frontier of the
Byzantine Empire marked "the point of transition from the civilized world
to the barbarian." Stephenson assumes that the notion of barbarian was
understood in Byzantium the same way it had been in fifth-century Athens:
Greek was an equivalent of civilized, while barbarian was just another word
for uncivilized (p. 5). He also associates Byzantine attitudes towards
barbarians on the other side of the frontier with Frederick Jackson
Turner's famous thesis of the American frontier as "the meeting point
between civilization and savagery" (p. 6). Though not exactly new,[1] this
approach produces some interesting results. Stephenson's concern is "the
place of the frontier in Byzantine thought, rhetoric, and ideology."
Moreover, his goal is to study the perception of the political border by
peoples living on either one of its sides. Stephenson's main thesis is that
"Byzantine authority was almost always exercised through existing local
power structures" (p. 7).

The claims of this book to originality rest, among others, on its use of
the archaeological evidence, especially coins and lead seals.
Unfortunately, Stephenson's approach to the archaeological record is
outdated. To him, hoards are mere indications of rebellion or invasions, a
mute testimony to impending disaster in the region (p. 16). More or less
recent studies, however, reveal the association between mint output and
hoarding, on one hand, and military preparations, on the other.[2] In other
words, for the period under consideration in this book, it is more likely
that hoards signalize the presence of Byzantine troops. Equally problematic
is the interpretation of the large number of seals found in Preslav
(Bulgaria) as an indication of an "archive of copies" (p. 17). Since the
documents they once sealed did not survive, it is impossible to know
whether the Preslav seals were attached to original documents or to copies.
Some elaborately carved sarcophagi and pieces of church decoration found in
Dalmatia may indeed be dated to the eighth century.[3] However, this can
hardly support "the contention that city life recovered swiftly after the
turmoil of the seventh century" (p. 28). Nor are clay cauldrons (or
kettles) "a type favored by nomadic peoples," for recent archaeological
studies show that their distribution and use were not restricted to the
steppe lands.[4]

Stephenson's suggests that relations between the Empire and its northern,
especially nomadic neighbors (Magyars and Pechenegs) could best be
described in terms of minimizing raiding activity and emphasizing trade
relations. This is an extension of ideas presented in his 1999 articles on
the Danube frontier of the Empire during the late tenth and eleventh
centuries, in which he argued that the archaeological evidence on both
sides of the Danube points to the existence of local markets visited by
"barbarian" merchants.[5] What was exchanged on these markets between
barbarians and Byzantines? Stephenson attempts to answer this question in
the first chapter of his book. He argues that during the second half of the
tenth century, the most important commodity of the Magyar-Byzantine trade
was salt. "The seven salt mines of Transylvania, which give the region its
German name Siebenburgen, had operated for centuries before the Magyars'
control there. During their migration westward the nomads took control of
the mines" (p. 44). But "Siebenburgen" does not translate as "seven salt
mines," nor is there any evidence (archaeological or otherwise) of Magyar
control of, or settlement in, the salt mine region in central Transylvania
before ca. 1000. In reality, "Siebenburgen" explicitly means "seven towns,"
which is traditionally interpreted as a reference to cities founded by
Saxon settlers in the thirteenth century. But there were more than seven
cities in Transylvania belonging to the so-called "Sieben Stuhle" (the main
administrative unit of the Saxon population in medieval Transylvania). It
is more likely that the German name of Transylvania originated in the
dialect of the first, mainly Low German-, Flemish-, and Dutch-speaking wave
of settlers, who came from regions with similar place names ("Zevenbergen,"
in southern Holland, "Sevenbergen" east of Hameln, in the Weser region of
Germany). There are indeed seven salt mines on the map on page 42, which
supposedly shows "salt mines and coins finds north of the Danube,
900-1204." All were given their current, Romanian names, except Ocna
Sibiului, which appears as "Salzburg." This seems to have been at the
origin of the author's interpretation of "Siebenburgen" as "seven salt
mines." The map does not list the most important salt mines in central
Transylvania, namely those of Ocna Muresului (which were undoubtedly in use
during the early Middle Ages), but has a salt mine in San Paul. In reality,
there were no salt mines in San Paul (a village near present-day Odorhei,
in eastern Transylvania), the nearest location with salt resources being at
Praid-Sovata. Even if, by A.D. 1000, Szeged may have been "the regional
center for storage and sale of Transylvanian salt" (something that remains
to be demonstrated), one wonders about the evidence of the movement of salt
across the Balkans. After all, the local market in Thessaloniki was famous
in the early 900s for exporting salt from the local pans. As Stephenson is
forced to admit, "salt… could be supplied from within the empire; there was
no need to look as far as Transylvania." Yet, he insists that the
Byzantines purchased salt from the Magyars because "business was conducted
according to the principle that trading prevented raiding" (p. 45). The
evidence, however, suggests gift-giving, not trading. Indeed, it is hard to
imagine salt being traded against gold coins or pectoral crosses, such as
found in late tenth-century burials in the Szeged region of southern Hungary.

Emperor Basil II is the protagonist of the next chapter of the book, and he
is called a peacemaker, instead of "Bulgar-slayer." The description of John
Tzimiskes' restoration of the Danube frontier, the revolt of the Cometopuli
and Basil II's Balkan campaigns is familiar; what is new is Stephenson's
attempt to pin down "the rhetoric and reality" of Basil's Bulgarian wars.
He argues that Basil's wars were not a systematic campaign of
extermination. To Stephenson, Basil II "was not the unassailable conqueror
he wished to appear" (p. 76). Instead, the policies he implemented in
Bulgaria were unlike anything one might expect from the "Bulgar-slayer."
Stephenson insists that Basil's greatest weapon in his struggle for
Bulgaria was granting court ranks and "lofty imperial titles," insignia,
stipends, and prestige, although it is not always clear why did local
rulers vie for Basil's "gifts" in the first place. Most striking in
Stephenson's discussion of the historiography of Basil's Bulgarian wars is
his contention that "the practice of claiming the title emperor of the
Bulgarians… had no ethnic significance" (p. 61). Yet, as Stephenson himself
pointed out (p. 132), between 1040 and 1042 Peter Delyan, Tihomir, and
Alusyan were all proclaimed "emperors of the Bulgarians," while in 1202
Kaloyan demanded from the pope a crown allegedly dispatched before him to
Tsars Symeon, Peter, and Samuel. In the latter case, Pope Innocent III
responded with a series of letters addressed to the the "king of Bulgarians
and Vlachs." What all these titles show is that there was some ethnic
significance, although the meaning of the ethnic terms must have been
different from that currently in use. Likewise, the debate between Romanian
and Bulgarian historians was not, as Stephenson has it (p. 55), about
whether or not Paristrion (the Byzantine theme organized in Bulgaria after
John Tzimisces' victory over Svyatoslav of Kiev) was ever a part of
Bulgaria. At stake was only whether or not Dobrudja (or parts thereof
certainly included into Paristrion at some point) was ever within Bulgarian
borders before 971.

The most striking aspect of chapter three is Stephenson's effort to
reinstate and extend his "trading vs. raiding" thesis to the region on both
sides of the Lower Danube frontier of Paristrion. Beginning with the reign
of Michael IV, a number of newly fortified sites in the region (Dristra,
Pacuiul lui Soare, Noviodunum/Isaccea, Dinogetia/Garvan, and
Presthlavitza/Nufaru?) operated as both military and commercial centers,
where nomads converged "to dispose of their wares and purchase the products
they desired from within the empire in controlled conditions." Thus, nomads
were diverted from raiding activities and given strong incentives for
peaceful and profitable contacts with the empire. To Stephenson, one of the
most important arguments in favor of this interpretation is a large amount
of low value coins allegedly "pumped into the region from Constantinople"
(p. 115), in order to facilitate the process of exchange. In addition, he
cites finds of amphorae found on Byzantine sites on the frontier as
indication of a remarkable growth in trade between Constantinople and the
Lower Danube region of Dobrudja (p. 84). However, unless found on sites on
the other side of the frontier,[6] namely in "barbarian" territory, finds
of amphorae are not a sign of trade with the Pechenegs, but of local
consumption and, most likely, of state-run distribution of certain
commodities (such as olive oil or wine) to the troops. Similarly,
eleventh-century coin finds could hardly indicate trade if not found across
the frontier, in "barbarian" territory. So far, a comparatively much
smaller number of coins have been found north of the Danube than in
Dobrudja. [7] Moreover, only very few were low value coins. With just one
exception (Arciz), all hoards found north of the Danube frontier consist of
gold coins. There is thus very little evidence of trade and everything
points to relations based on gift-giving, not monetary exchange. Indeed,
according to Attaleiates, the revolt of 1072 erupted because of the
decision taken by Nicephoritzes, Michael VII's chief minister, to stop both
annual subsides to the local rulers in Paristrion and gifts dispatched to
the Pechenegs across the Danube. As for the extraordinarily large number of
coins in Paristrion, this phenomenon seems to have coincided in time with a
push to increase the fiscalization of taxation in the new administrative
district. This further suggests that the great number of coins is an
indication of internal mechanisms associated with payments to the army
and/or tax collection, not with trade relations with the barbarians
(Pechenegs).

In the book's fourth chapter, Stephenson focuses on the history of the
Balkans from the death of Basil II to the First Crusade. Despite its
coverage of Dalmatia and Duklja, this chapter's main emphasis is on the
incorporation of Bulgaria into the Byzantine Empire. Traditionally, the
revolts of Peter Deljan and George Vojteh have been interpreted as
"national" insurrections against the Byzantine "yoke." Stephenson, however,
sees these movements as related to more general "non-Bulgarian" unrest,
"when central authority was facing stern challenges from foreign invaders
[Normans] or Byzantine magnates" (p. 155). Byzantine attitudes towards this
newly conquered territory are best illustrated by Theophylact of Ochrid's
views of Bulgaria and Bulgarians. He complained that "having lived for
years in the land of the Bulgarians, the bumpkin lifestyle" was his daily
companion, and to him Bulgaria was a barbaros oikoumene , a
"semi-barbarian hinterland which comprised Byzantium's Balkan frontier" (p.
154). Stephenson's emphasis in this chapter is also on the line of
fortresses separating the thema of Bulgaria from the Serbian zhupanias ,
since this marked Serbia as a buffer zone between the empire and its
northwestern neighbors. It is in connection with this peculiar position of
Serbia, as well as with the shift of power from Duklja to Raska, that
Hungarians, Venetians, and Normans intervened in Balkan affairs as
alternative patrons and allies of Serbian rulers.

The book's next two chapters deal with the impact of Western powers on the
Balkan frontier of the Empire. First the Normans, then the First Crudade
are given a more important role than traditionally admitted. The
appointment of kinsmen, as a key element of Alexius I's administration, may
have been a form of adaptation to the situation created by the emperor's
early confrontations with the Normans and the crusaders. Moreover, the
creation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem seems to have blurred the distinction
between Byzantine eastern and western policies and to have added to the
already existing pressure on the Balkan frontier. Following the First
Crusade, both Venice and Hungary extended their domination into Dalmatia.
In addition, Hungarian kings now needed "to establish political and
commercial links with the rest of the Mediterranean world" (p. 187).
Stephenson's contention that Hungarian kings were interested in the profits
generated by sale taxes from maritime cities in Dalmatia rests on the
privilege granted by King Coloman to the citizens of Trogir, which mentions
two-thirds of the duties excised from foreign merchants been exacted by the
Hungarian king. It remains to be demonstrated that the terms of this
settlement applied to other Dalmatian cities, but Stephenson is certainly
right in discussing these developments against the background of the
twelfth-century expansion of Latin Christendom. It is less clear, however,
whether this expansion was responsible for the Byzantine familiarity with
Western institutions. It seems unreasonable to suppose that through his
dealings with Bohemond, Alexius had become "remarkably familiar with the
principles of western feudalism," while at this point the very notion of
feudalism is misconstrued (p. 182). The author of the Hungarian Chronicle
may well have thought that the Hungarian attack on Branicevo (1127) had
been caused by the claim of the Byzantine empress Irene (who was King
Ladislas I's daughter) that her cousin, King Stephen II, was her liegeman.
It is hard believe, however, as Stephenson suggests (p. 209), that the
relation between the Hungarian king and the Byzantine emperor portrayed on
the Hungarian crown was one of vassalage.

This is followed by two chapters, the best of the entire book, in which
Stephenson sums up his arguments regarding the Balkan frontier during the
reign of Manuel I Comnenus (1143-1180).[8] He argues that the emperor was
confronted with a series of problems created by his father's and
grandfather's hands-off policy in relation to Hungary and Venice. The
Hungarian-Serbian-Norman alliance persuaded Manuel "that he must urgently
restore his authority in the north-western marches" (p. 237). This,
however, antagonized Venice, which in turn had a significant impact on the
Byzantine campaigns in southern Italy. The loss of Italy in 1156 ushered in
"a new period of intensive Byzantine activity in the northern Balkans" (p.
238). Stephenson's main argument is that Manuel's activities in this region
were based on a false premise. The emperor's purpose "in advancing his
frontier across the Danube" was "to consolidate his defences against a
perceived threat of German expansion into Hungary and Italy" (p. 271). The
"cold war" between 1156 and 1180 coincided with extensive fortification
works in Belgrade and Branicevo and with Manuel's manipulation of the
Hungarian royal succession. As a consequence, Stephen IV, an adherent of
the Orthodox faith (after his marriage with Maria Comnena) was crown king
in 1163. Five months later, he was defeated in battle and driven from
Hungary. Stephenson mentions, but does not comment upon Stephen's shift of
alliance from Manuel to Frederick Barbarossa. Missing from this discussion
of Hungarian-Byzantine relations is the archaeological evidence from
Hungary.[9] From coins[10] to ceramics,[11] amulets,[12] pectoral
crosses,[13] and frescoes,[14] the influence of the Byzantine material
culture and art is very strong in twelfth-century Hungary. Raimund Kerbl
has already linked this influence to the role of Byzantine princesses such
as Maria Comnena.[15]

Stephenson's book is the first study published in English on the late
twelfth-century Balkans since the appearance in 1949 of Wolff's article on
the Second Bulgarian Empire, excepting Urbansky's monograph of 1968,[16]
and it makes many new and interesting observations on aspects both Wolff
and Urbansky dealt only in brief. In a final chapter on the history of the
Balkans between Manuel I's death and the Fourth Crusade, Stephenson offers
a series of convincing comparisons that illuminate the relationship between
Peter and Asen, on one hand, and Isaac II and Alexius III, on the other.
His analysis of the changing relationships between local Balkan potentates
and the Byzantine power during the decades following Manuel's death is a
welcome and long overdue addition to the discussion. Stephenson argues
that, while by the end of the thirteenth century Bulgarians, Serbs and
Croats, Albanians and Vlachs all seem to have developed distinct
identities, there is no evidence that "such an ethnic awareness, still less
a national consciousness, motivated rebellions." Instead, it was the
"emergence of powerful polities in the west" that encouraged rulers of
various groups, regions, and cities to seek alternative patrons and
suzerains. In 1198, the veliki zhupan of Serbia, Stefan Nemanja, rejected
Eudocia, Alexius III's daughter, while Kaloyan, the "King of the whole of
Bulgaria and Vlachia," rejected a patriarch and the imperial diadem from
Constantinople and preferred instead the regnal symbols sent from Rome. The
deterioration of the Byzantine control of the northern Balkans symbolically
illustrated by these two episodes may be another way to understand the
conquest and sack of Constantinople in 1204.

The volume is remarkably well edited, with just a few minor errors. On
table 4.4 (p. 128) a study (Boskovic 1965) is cited in abbreviated form,
but omitted in the bibliographical list at the end of the book. The son of
the Bohemian king Vladislav II, who married the daughter of the Hungarian
king Stephen III, appears as Svatopluk in the text (p. 250), but as
Sviatoslav in the genealogical table 8.3 on page 248. Map 1.3 (p. 42) lists
the Romanian names of the major rivers in Transylvania and the neighboring
regions (now in Romania). The map even follows the hyperurbanism of the
Oxford Atlas of the World in giving the names with enclitic definite
articles (e.g., "Oltul," instead of "Olt"), despite listing Anglicized
names without any article (e.g., "Danube," not "The Danube"). Poor
knowledge of Romanian may also be responsible for the mistranslation of
"Pacuiul lui Soare" as "The Island of the Sun" (p. 57). Stephenson seems to
share an odd practice with many Hungarian historians and archaeologists,
who use pre-Trianon, Hungarian place- and river names that nobody would
find on any current map of modern Europe. On the same map 1.3, the river
Somes appears with its Romanian name, but both the Mures and the Aries are
listed with their Hungarian names (Maros and Aranyos, respectively). On map
6.1 (p. 190), Timis and Barzava appear as "Temes" and "Brzava,"
respectively. By contrast, all maps have "Tisa" (the Romanian name) instead
of the standard form Tisza. On map 4.2 (p. 120), two place names in Bosnia
and southern Dalmatia, Piva and Ulcinj, appear as "Pliva" and "Unlcinj,"
respectively.

In the end, no matter how much one might quibble with the inherent
limitations of Stephenson's study, his book will stand as a major
contribution to the historiography of the medieval Balkans, as a
meticulously detailed study of three centuries of Byzantine presence in the
region. Indeed, the sheer amount of data Stephenson packs in this volume
will establish his study as one of the most thoroughly documented in the
field. All future students-and this study is bound to stimulate interest in
the region-will be indebted to Stephenson's initiative.

_________________________________________

NOTES
[1]. A connection between Turner's ideas and Byzantine frontiers was first
established by Theodore Papadopoullos, "The Byzantine model in frontier
history. A comparative approach," in Actes du XIV-e Congres international
des etudes byzantines, Bucarest 6-12 septembre 1971, vol. 2 (Bucharest,
1975), pp. 415-19.

[2] D. M. Metcalf, "Coinage and coin finds associated with a military
presence in the medieval Balkans," in Kovanje i kovnice antickog i
srednjovekovnog novca , ed. by Vladimir Kondic (Belgrade, 1976), pp. 88-97.
See also Florin Curta, "Invasion or inflation? Sixth- to seventh-century
Byzantine coin hoards in Eastern and Southeastern Europe," Annali
dell'Istituto Italiano di Numismatica 43 (1996), 105.

[3]. Ljubo Karaman, "O spomenicima VII i VIII stoljeca u Dalmaciji i o
pokrstenju hrvata," Vjesnik Hrvatskoga arheoloskoga drustva 23
(1941-1942), 98. The earliest phase of the rotunda of St. Donat in Zadar
has been ascribed to the eighth century on the basis of sculpted decoration
of roof wooden beams. The church of the St. Cross in Nin is also of the
late eighth century. See Vladimir P. Goss, Early Croatian Architecture. A
Study of the Pre-Romanesque (London, 1987). The St. Tryphon church in
Kotor was dedicated in 809. See J. Kovacevic, "Appercu historique et
archeologique sur le role des villes de la Dalmatie meridionale dans
l'expansion du christianisme parmi les Serbes," Acta Archaeologica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 17 (1965), 67-9.In Epirus, the St.
Demetrius church in Katsoura, near Arta, was dated to the late eighth and
early ninth century on purely stylistical grounds. See P. L.
Vokotopoulos, He ekklesiastike architektonike eis ten dutiken sterean
Hellada kai ten Hepeiron (apo tou telous tou 7ou mechri tou telous tou 10ou
aionos) (Thessaloniki, 1992), p. 183.

[4]. Petre Diaconu, "K voprosu o glinianykh kotlakh na territorii
RNR", Dacia 8 (1964), 249-264; Istvan Fodor, "Der Ursprung der in Ungarn
gefundenen Tonkesseln", Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 29 (1977), 323-349; Antal Lukacs, "Observatii privind
raspindirea caldarilor de lut de pe teritoriul Romaniei", Studii si
cercetari de istorie veche si arheologie 35 (1984), 320-330; Miklos
Takacs, Die arpadenzeitlichen Tonkessel im Karpatenbecken (Budapest,
1986). See also Gheorghe Postica, "Glinianye kotly na territorii Moldavii v
rannesrednevekovyi period", Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 3 (1985), 227-240;
Victor Spinei, "Die Tonkessel aus dem Karpaten-Dnestr Raum", in Die
Keramik der Saltovo-Majaki Kultur und ihrer Varianten , ed. by Cs. Balint
(Budapest, 1990), pp. 327-342; Liudmila Doncheva-Petkova, "Mittelalterliche
Tonkessel aus Bulgarien", ibid., pp. 101-111; V. A. Kuznecov,
"Nordkaukasische Tonkessel", ibid., pp. 255-274.

[5]. Paul Stephenson, "The Byzantine frontier at the Lower Danube in the
late tenth and eleventh centuries," in Frontiers in Question. Eurasian
Borderlands, 700-1700 , ed. by Daniel Power and Naomi Standen (New York,
1999), pp. 80-104; and "Byzantine policy towards Paristrion in the
mid-eleventh century: another interpretation," Byzantine and Modern Greek
Studies 23 (1999), 43-66.

[6]. As in Hansca (Moldova). See Gheorghe Postica, Romanii din codrii
Moldovei in Evul Mediu timpuriu (Studiu arheologic pe baza ceramicii din
asezarea Hansca) (Chisinau, 1994), p. 94 and fig. 35/1.

[7]. E. S. Stoliarik, Essays on Monetary Circulation in the North-Western
Black Sea Region in the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods (Late 3rd
Century-Early 13th Century AD) (Odessa, 1992).

[8]. See Paul Stephenson, "Manuel I Comnenus and Geza II: a revised context
and chronology for Hungaro-Byzantine relations,
1148-1155," Byzantinoslavica 55 (1994), 251-77; and "Manuel I Comnenus,
the Hungarian crown and the 'feudal subjection' of Hungary,
1162-1167," Byzantinoslavica 57 (1996), 33-59.

[9]. See Zsuzsa Lovag, "Byzantinische Beziehungen in Ungarn nach der
Staatsgrundung. Archaologische Forschungen zwischen 1970 und
1984," Mitteilungen des archaologischen Instituts der ungarischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften 14 (1985), 225-33.

[10]. Istvan Gedai, "Adalek a XI-XII. szazadi bizanci penzek
forgalmahoz," Folia Archaeologica 19 (1968), 145-50.

[11]. Peter Boldizsar, "Bizanci es del-italiai keramiak egyes nagyarorszagi
kozepkori lelohelyekrol," Mora Ferenc Muzeum Evkonyve 1 (1987), 37-48.

[12]. Magda Baranyne Oberschall, "Ujabb adatok a bizanci magikus amulettek
tortenetehez," Folia Archaeologica 3-4 (1941), 268-71.

[13]. Zsuzsa Lovag, "Byzantine type reliquary pectoral crosses in the
Hungarian National Museum," Folia Archaeologica 22 (1971), 143-64.

[14]. J. Bakos, "Geneza nastennych malieb v Kostol'anoch pod
Tribecom," Vlastivedny casopis 17 (1968), 178-181; D. Radocsay, A
kozepkori Magyarorszag falkepei (Budapest, 1954), p. 18; Otto
Demus, Romanische Wandmalerei (Munich, 1968), p. 95.

[15]. Raimund Kerbl, Byzantinischen Prinzessinen in Ungarn zwischen
1050-1200 und ihr Einfluss auf das Arpadenkonigreich (Vienna, 1979).

[16]. R. L. Wolff, "The 'Second Bulgarian empire'. Its origin and history
to 1204," Speculum 24 (1949), 167-206; A. B. Urbansky, Byzantium and the
Danube Frontier. A Study of the Relations Between Byzantium, Hungary, and
the Balkans During the Period of the Comneni (New York, 1968).


_________________________________________

Book available at: http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/
_________________________________________

© 2000 Balkan Academic News. This review may be distributed and reproduced
electronically, if credit is given to Balkan Academic News and the author.
For permission for re-printing, contact Balkan Academic News. This and past
reviews are available at: www.seep.ceu.hu/balkans