Florin Curta’s 1999 book “The Making of the Slavs” utilized copious verbiage to, in the end, say very little. Curta, it seems, is not done and decided to continue his adventures in Slav land with a follow up: “Slavs in the Making.” For those Suavs hoping for an exercise in masochism, the sequel will not disappoint. In chapter after chapter, geography by geography, Curt a methodically proceeds to negate the existence of any Suavic archeological culture at all or, for that matter, of Suavs, prior to, depending on the location, sometime between 600s-800s.
But there is a plus side.
In the past, Curta’s negationism and stone throwing had gotten so extreme that, by the very nature of his deconstructionist approach he was actually forced to say something affirmative about Suavic ethnogenesis. This is perfectly illustrated by the typical query about Suavs:
- Curta disagreed with those saying there had been Suavic migrations;
- He then also disagreed with those who said there had been Suavs in Central Europe before, say, the 6th century;
- But then he seems to have gone on to disagree with those who claimed population continuity;
Assuming Curta did not negate the existence of “some” group calling itself Suavs in Central Europe in the present day (to be fair, he has not taken a clear position on that yet, as far as I know), he was then forced by his denialism to introduce some hypothesis for what actually happened. Some of that thinking is developed in this new book.
But let’s take a step back.
Curta did say something affirmative back in 1999. He claimed that, around the 6th century, Byzantines “constructed” the concept of Suavic identity. Of course, no one really understood what he meant. The Byzantines certainly put the Suavs on the pages of their histories but that hardly counts as identity creation. Did the Byzantines alter the genes of the people considered Suavic? Did they force them to adopt a Suavic language? (This, of course, was the same silly thesis had previously been applied to the Germanics. Thus, Curta’s thesis was neither clear (since the Germanic original wasn’t either) nor new).
(While I may not agree with the “allochtonist” view of Suavic migrations (though, frankly don’t care if it turns out to be true), at least I understand it).
Only haltingly, presumably because he did not want to say much that could itself actually be challenged, Curta eventually went on the record to propose an answer at least to the language question. Over a number of years, he tentatively suggested that it was the Avars who spread the Suavic language (see his the 2004 article “The Slavic Lingua Franca). Suavic was, in Curta’s telling, perhaps a lingua franca of the Avar khaganate.
A lingua franca Suavic may well have been but to get rid of (in his mind) Suavs as an ethnic prior to the appearance of the Avars, Curta also had to prove that Suavs that had been recorded pre-Avar times, were not – at least linguistically – Suavs. To do that Curta pointed out (quite correctly) that, after all, we do not know what language the Sclavenes spoke before the Avars showed up, notwithstanding the fact that we had their names:
“There is no evidence of the language spoken by the Sclavenes of the sixth century. Much has been made of several names mentioned in historical sources (Dauritas, Ardagastus, Peiragastus, Mezamer, Kelagast, Musocius, Dabragezas, Usigardus), but no satisfactory argument has so far been made that such names are Slavic. In addition, even if they were indeed typically Slavic, they certainly do not tell us much about the language the individuals bearing these names used for daily communication with their fellow warriors and tribesmen.”
Curta, might as well have added: “and even if they communicated in Slavic with their fellow warriors and tribesmen, this says nothing about the language they communicated with their womenfolk and servants. And even if they communicated in Slavic with their womenfolk and servants… [and so on].”
So now, in other words, we had both the Byzantines and the Avars constructing Suavs also (at least as regards the Suavic language) but never you mind that….
In any event, Avars were, according to Curta, the mechanism for language transmission. But Curta did not say that Suavic itself was an Avar language. So, even if you went along with him, the question would still remain, where did the Suavic language come from? (and cultural patterns (though he seems (?) to deny those)? and similar genetics?).
This is where we were before his new book.
So now, over twenty years later, “Slavs in the Making” arrives and provides further development of Curta’s theories. What does it say?
Well, first, Curta notes that “some” (that is he) suggested the lingua franca hypothesis. But now he takes a new tack in trying to tackle the origin of the Suavic language. He declares it (possibly; honestly, I cannot tell whether he actually commits to this hypothesis) to have been a kind of koiné – that is a mixed dialect that arises out of other languages. This “new” koiné idea seems to have been coined by the Austrian Georg Holzer who first claimed Suavic just popped into existence in the 6th-7th century so this too is not very original (nor, frankly, sensible). (In fact, Curta, Holzer, Pohl and others seem to be feeding off of each other’s writings).
This, of course, raises another question: which existing languages contributed to the Suavic koiné? Thankfully, we do not have to wait another twenty years for an answer. Curta delivers: maybe Balto-Slavic (presumably this nomenclature has now to be changed to mean Baltic only), Thracian and some form of “Iranian” (Sarmatian?). Of course, this is, possible but given that we have little direct evidence of what those languages looked like at the time in question (and, as to Thracian, we know close to nothing about it) and certainly cannot tell how close they were to each other, his suggestion is, and is likely to remain, essentially unfalsifiable.
Moreover, a koiné is not a new language arising from other languages. By definition it comes from existing, close dialects of another language. Curta’s theory is tantamount to saying that not only were Baltic, Iranian and Thracian close, they were, in fact, forms of Suavic. Now this would be quiet interesting. It would suggest that it was the Iranians and Thracians (and Veneti?) who expanded northwards into lands formerly occupied by Germanics and Balts. Such a theory, whether true or not, could fit in with the PVL’s (and certain Polish chronicles’) story of Suavs emigrating from Pannonia.
So does Curta say that? Not quiet. But he does lay his theory out in more detail than he’s done at any time previously. As far as I can tell he says the following:
- There was no Suavic – at all – before, say, the 7th century (Curta is mostly following Holzer)
- Suavic is a koiné of some Iranian and Thracian (possibly) that developed mid-6th century or so;
- It became a second language of people in the contact zone (somewhere in Pannonia);
- it was spread (very slowly) still only as a koiné by the Avars or, possibly, some Avar induced population movements;
So… there were migrations after all (or rather there were “migrations” in some places (north of the Carpathians) but not “MIGRATIONS”).
To be honest I have to say I was slightly disappointed. I was hoping for something like a vast spaceship dropping off a few million Suavs circa 500-600 A.D. Or at least a freak experiment of a Merovingian alchemist that produced his servii. Instead, in Curta’s new book he begins to qualify his prior statements to actually try to construct something that begins to look like a working theory.
Of course, the qualify of that theory is another matter.
How did these prior language groups also lose their “original” languages (Thracian, Iranian, Baltic, Germanic)? Unclear.
What about genes? Most North and East Suavs are R1a, R1b and I1 on the father’s side. Many southern Suavs are also R1a (other I2). How is the genetic similarity to be explained? Well, Curta says it’s not really much of a similarity because R1a is present in India too. This, of course, is disingenuous. It is, of course, true that R1a is spread out far east into the “stans” and India. However, the clades that are present there are entirely different than the clades present in Europe. Obviously, at some point they were related but that point in time preceded the timeframe Curta is examining by thousands of years. Curta’s argument effectively is the same as saying that we can’t compare genetic similarities (and differences) between two populations because, after all, we’re all from Africa.
And, of course, there is all the stuff mentioned above about the practical unassailability of his koiné theory.
What else do we learn from Curta (some of this stuff is retread from volume 1 but most is new)?
- Martin of Braga’s poem mentioning Suavs was not written by Martin of Braga (it’s, at the earliest, a 9th century work);
- Martin of Braga was not from Pannonia in any event;
- Jordanes knew nothing or little of Central Europe (he kept looking at geographically incorrect maps like the Tabula Peutingeriana);
- Procopius knew nothing or little of Central Europe (so his discussion of the position of the Suavs is useless);
- Theophyllact Simocatta’s story of the musical Suavs has nothing to do with Suavs (so they were not from the “Ocean”;
- All the above authors were either ignorant as to the Suavic question or only used Suavs as objects in their metaphors;
- In any event, all these sources were misinterpreted;
- Suavs were, in Fredegar’s view, “weaklings” who were only to be used as cannon fodder;
- Wends were different from Suavs in that they were kind of “Bastardi” (rape children of Suavic women and Avars) and so because of that extra Avar DNA, Fredegar thought they were able to defeat Dagobert;
- Common Suavic can well be the koiné because of it is easy to learn due to its simplified structure (citing the above-mentioned Georg Holzer’s Strukturelle Besonderheiten des Urslawischen);
- Suavic chroniclers did not have a Suavic identity (Gallus seems to have used Suav to mean peasant and Cosmas to refer to those who were socially inferior; and Nestor, well, he was just trying to make his present day Rus somehow connected to the apostolic past so that they could be like the 12 Hebrew tribes);
- In fact, there was no Suavic identity before 1300 or so (presumably, Curta settled for this date because he otherwise would have had a hard time trying to explain away the Suavic identity of the author of the early 14th century Dalimil Chronicle).
With respect to Poland, the Avars never quite made it too far north of the Carpathians so what does Curta say about that?
Well, he takes the position that the country was largely depopulated and the Suavic language spread continued as late as the 8th century. He then states that there were movements into Poland but that they came from various directions and were probably unrelated to one another. In other words different groups penetrating from the south and east at different times. Coming closer over time and, in the meantime, presumably, using the Suavic koiné to communicate. Thereafter (?), seemingly the same mechanism resulted in the spread of this koiné into Polabia.
This is basically what – from the perspective of Poland – would be termed an “allochtonist” description. So nihil novi.
What to think of all of this?
Well, as to Western and Eastern Suavs, Curta, whether he admits it or not, basically assumes some level of migration from the initial Suavic contact zone. Which is not what he seems to have argued before. Nevertheless, this flip makes his theories at least a little bit more orthodox.
The problem I have is the koiné suggestion which underlies this entire theory. This hypothesis seems rather ridiculous with respect to a language as complicated as Suavic. I simply cannot imagine how similar dialects (& were Baltic, Iranian and Thracian even similar?) would have turned themselves – rapidly – into something as complicated as Suavic. Zamenhof’s Esperanto, it is not. Now, Curta apparently speaks a dozen languages so maybe such difficulties seem trivial to him and maybe the initial population of Suavic speakers was chockfull of such Thracian, Iranian and Baltic Curtas but that seems like a rather extensive stretch. A more likely lesson of all this is that archeologists should stick to archeology.
Incidentally, Routledge the publisher of this is also the publisher of Slavic Gods and Heroes – another “radical reinterpretation” – this time of Suavic pagan religion, yet written by Hebrew folklorists. Now, sometimes, people coming from “outside the area” may in fact bring fresh insights to problems stumping the experts. But, if you go with that approach, you should be aware that, as a rule, you will just end up with quackery.
I leave you with this thought inspired by Florin Curta (and one with which Curta, Holzer and others would, I assume, agree):
“There is no evidence of the language spoken by the Germans of antiquity. Much has been made of several names mentioned in historical sources (Segimerus, Arminius, Ucromirus, Nasua, Veleda, Masyas, Cimberius, Sido), but no satisfactory argument has so far been made that such names are Germanic. In addition, even if they were indeed typically Germanic, they certainly do not tell us much about the language the individuals bearing these names used for daily communication with their fellow warriors and tribesmen.”
Copyright ©2020 jassa.org All Rights Reserved
