The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.500–700 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series, Series Number 52) by Florin Curta (PDF)

Description

This book offers a new approach to the problem of Slavic ethnicity in southeastern Europe between c. 500 and c. 700. The author shows how Byzantine authors “invented” the Slavs, in order to make sense of political and military developments taking place in the Balkans. Making extensive use of archaeology to show that such developments resulted in the rise of powerful leaders, responsible for creating group identities and mobilizing warriors for successful raids across the frontier. The author rejects the idea of Slavic migration, and shows that “the Slavs” were the product of the frontier.

User’s Reviews

Editorial Reviews: Review “The book is notable for the emphasis on the study of the material culture as evidence of cultural process…the novel and thorough approach of the book has a great deal to offer the scholar interested in many aspects of the history and historiography of early Medieval eastern and southeastern Europe and the study of past ethnicities.” Slavic Review”…the author offers quite a coherent and convincing approach…not only intriguing, but quite inspiring…this new study of early Slavic history is a particularly successful attempt to open new perspectives for dealing with the important challenges of history.” Comitatus”…brilliant…this book is a significant contribution to medieval history and an outstanding achievement in Slavic studies.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History”The hypothesis that Curta advances is extremely neat…” International History Review Book Description An alternative approach to Slavic ethnicity in south-eastern Europe c. 500–c. 700.

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐Professor Curta’s book is interesting for its various tables, categorizations, comparisons and other “analytics”. It is also useful for the lists of sources it gives.On the other hand, it is an academic book in that it does not provide or attempt to provide a narrative but rather breaks various topics down along the lines of academic debates on the same. (In other words, beginners beware). In lieu of a narrative it provides various claims and assertions for those subtopics that then work to support a thesis and produce a conclusion. The problem is that, while some of this information is interesting, the synthesis is problematic.Essentially, the claim is that Slavs did not originate in an Urheimat and walked into Europe (but the autochtons shouldn’t get excited yet) but rather the Slavic identity was essentially given by Byzantine authors to existing groups or mixes of group that always lived on the edges of the empire but, presumably, under various names, speaking different languages and following different cultures. This is a bizarre claim for a whole host of reasons (e.g., how did the Slavic language spread?, how did the DNA spread (e.g., why do Russians and Czechs look so similar)? Did Byzantines cause all that?) that would require a broader response.Moreover, in order to make some of these claims, Professor Curta attacks the veracity of certain sources (Jordanes mostly) but does so in a way that is hardly effective. E.g., he claims that Jordanes must have been using maps which, incorrectly, showed the river Vistula going West to East (because the Slavs lived south of the Vistula according to Jordanes). This is a strange assertion and a major stretch of the imagination. Europeans clearly live “north” of the River Nile in that they live in an area that is north of both of the sources and endings of the Nile. To place the Slavs in Moravia would, in effect do the same for them in respect of the Vistula. This hardly shows a lack of familiarity with geography or using “wrong” maps.Elsewhere, he discusses the major and, in his own words, “unprecedented” construction of fortifications along the Byzantine border – but then goes on to say that Slav raids did not constitute a threat, at that time, to the Byzantines as their numbers were few (he has to show that Slav bands were small because otherwise they could be seen as movements of the presumably larger “peoples” a la Germanic lines). So what was the purpose of these major, unprecedented public works then? Were they union pork projects? One could, of course, say that Slavs were numerically few but then one would have to show that Byzantines did not take them seriously. That would require showing that they did not construct significant fortifications but to do that Professor Curta would have to ignore the archeological record and that he is not willing or able to do. So we end with a bunch of contradictions.Other examples of this kind of lack of analysis or skewed analysis abound. Nonetheless, the book is well organized and should be read to see what the current thinking is on these topics, at least in Florida.

⭐The main purpose of this volume is “to explore the nature and construction of the Slavic ethnic identity in the light of the current anthropological research on ethnicity”. The author proposes an innovative vision about the archaeological evidence, considering that the ethnic boundaries were marked by items of material culture (features of an “emblemic style” used by an ethnic group in order to be different). The `ethnie’ results from the interaction of groups with different emblemic styles. Significant changes in the material culture can thus show what Curta calls “the making of the Slavs”: the emergence of a new ethnie. This approach is completely new from all what was written before about the Slavic ethnogenesis.The sources about the early Slavs are classified in three categories according to the position of their authors: eyewitness, possible contact and second-hand information. The interest of the Byzantine writers was focused on the Slavs only in some periods when they were a real danger. The sources are showing that the inroads occurred when the Danubian limes was weak because the Byzantine army was involved in other wars. A major change took place in the Slavic society around 550-560: the anarchy recorded by Procopius was replaced by war operations commanded by several chiefs whose names were preserved in the further sources. The Byzantine answer to the Slavic threat was the building of three defence lines inside the eastern Balkan provinces. The migration of the Slavs south of the Danube can be dated only since the first years of Heraclius. Only after their settlement, the Byzantine sources recorded several real tribal names, replacing the Byzantine ethnic label that was the generic name Sclavenoi.Curta examines the Byzantine Balkan region, in order to explain how the classical urbanized society turned into a ruralized one in the period of the Slavic invasions. After a detailed archaeological overview of the main cities in the Balkan provinces, the author concludes that the economic decline occurred because they were not supplied with food from the hinterland. The fortified network established by Justinian fell because the state was not able to support the permanent garrisons of the limes with the central distribution of grain; in the same time, the few number of peasants made impossible a defence based on their service. The withdraw of the Balkan troops in the early years of Heraclius was the natural result of the interruption of the annona taken from Egypt. Therefore, the economic decline and the withdraw of the army from the Danube were not caused by the Slavic invasions; both had internal reasons, remarkably emphasized by Curta.Objects like amber beads, bow fibulae or pots with stamped decoration are items of two well-defined `emblemic styles’ developed by the Gepids and the Lombards. The ethnic identity was constructed on the basis of different types of imported objects with symbolic value bore by elite people (especially by women). The spreading of these objects in different areas matches with the territories inhabited by the Gepids and the Lombards. Aristocratic women, with their garnment, played the main role in the establishment and the transmission of the emblemic style and, as a consequence, of the ethnic identity (they were “symbolic vehicles for the construction of social identities”). The need to emphasize the emblemic style increased in periods of instability and competition between neighboring groups. In this way, Curta finally comes to the making of the early Slavic emblemic style. Like the Gepids or Lombards, the Slavs used specific types of pottery and bow fibulae to construct an emblemic style. This does not means that such objects were genuine Slavic products. Curta argues that the earliest specimens of the so-called “bow fibulae” were found in Mazuria and in Crimea. Their diffusion does not show migrations, but another kind of mobility: “gifts or women married to distant groups in forging alliances” and their function was to express a kind of heraldry displayed on the female dressing. The bow fibulae became a part of the Slavic emblemic style shortly before 600, in the same time with a wider change in the material culture which took place during the climax of the raiding activity of the Slavic rulers.The individual houses were settled according to a pattern that implied specialized sectors for production or for ceremonies involving food consumption. Food was prepared in ceramic pots, whose shape was determined only by practical reasons. Curta points that the pottery shapes “should be interpreted in relation to food preparation, not to emblemic style”. Hundreds of hand-made and wheel-made ceramic vessels belong to the same set of shapes. The pots from the sites ascribed to the Slavs have similar shapes with pieces from Gepidic cemeteries and from Danubian early Byzantine fortresses. If so, the `Prague type’, which was defined as the genuine Slavic pottery, is an artificial construct of the archaeologists.The Lower Danubian settlements are earlier than those from the Zhitomir area (the chronology was established with the aid of the metallic objects, including coins). This contradicts the usual theory of the Slavic migration. In this way, Curta comes to one of his main conclusions: “it appears that instead of a `Slavic culture’ originating in a homeland and then spreading to surrounding areas, we should envisage a much broader area of common economic and cultural traditions”. This means that large migrations should be replaced with short-distance movements caused by the itinerant agriculture. The population from this wide area became Slavic because acquired an identity during the second half of the 6th century. This identity was expressed through a specific emblemic style defined by bow-fibulae and pottery decorated with finger impressions.The final chapter deals with the political organization of the early Slavs. Curta applies the anthropological theories on chiefdom, distinguishing between great-men (warriors), big-men (rich men with authority inside their community), and chiefs (rulers of organized polities with control over a group of subjects). The Slavs evolved during the 6th century from a “segmentary society” (lack of hierarchy) to a society ruled by chiefs who fought between them. The emergence of the political organization was the result of the contacts with the Byzantine state. By this military elite the Slavs came into being as a new ethnicity.The book written by Florin Curta will be a turning point both for the Byzantine and the Slavic studies.

⭐Modern and well written. The most important is to keep your mind open. Without prejudices.A little bit scary feeling afterwards almost like a waking from coma. Now the day after it is difficult to recognise the world around me.

⭐Although I cannot come to exactly the same conclusions as the autor, his meticulous way of analysing, comparing, chronologizing and connecting archeological findings and historical texts is awe inspiring.Cutting down established “wisdoms” and setting new standards througout this book.It must have been a very uncomfortable experience for a lot of the historians and archeologists he eviscerated in this book.

Keywords

Free Download The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.500–700 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series, Series Number 52) in PDF format
The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.500–700 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series, Series Number 52) PDF Free Download
Download The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.500–700 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series, Series Number 52) 2007 PDF Free
The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.500–700 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series, Series Number 52) 2007 PDF Free Download
Download The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.500–700 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series, Series Number 52) PDF
Free Download Ebook The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.500–700 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series, Series Number 52)