Biography Curta works in the field of Balkans history and is a professor of medieval history and archaeology at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. Curta's first book, The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, was named a 2002 Choice Outstanding Academic Title and won the Herbert Baxter Adams Award of the American Historical Association in 2003. Curta is the editor-in-chief of the Brill series East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450. In 2011, he contributed to The Edinburgh History of the Greeks. He is a member of the Institute for Advanced Study, School of Historical Studies, Princeton University (Spring 2007) and was a visiting fellow at Corpus Christi College, Oxford University (2015). He attends an Eastern Orthodox Christian parish.
Theories Being inspired by Reinhard Wenskus and the Vienna School of History, Curta's work since The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region (2001) is known for his usage of post-processual and post-structuralist approach in explaining Slavic ethnogenesis and migrations (especially regarding Slavic migrations to the Balkans), arguing against the mainstream view and primordial culture-historical approach in archaeology and historiography.Di Hu, "Approaches to the Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Past and Emergent Perspectives", Journal of Archaeological Research, 21(4), 2013, pp. 389–390Johannes Koder, "On the Slavic Immigration in the Byzantine Balkans", Migration Histories of the Medieval Afroeurasian Transition Zone: Aspects of Mobility Between Africa, Asia and Europe, 300–1500 C.E., 2020, pp. 81–100Florin Curta, The Early Slavs. Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe by Paul M. Barford (review), European Journal of Archaeology, 6(1), 2003, pp. 99–101Florin Curta, "The early Slavs in Bohemia and Moravia: a response to my critics", Archeologické rozhledy, 61 (4), 2009, pp. 725–754 Curta advances an alternative, "revisionist" hypothesis which considers the Slavs as an "ethno-political category" invented by the Byzantines, which was formed by political instrumentation and interaction on the Roman Danubian frontier where barbarian elite culture flourished.Felix Biermann, "Kommentar zum Aufsatz von Florin Curta: Utváření Slovanů (se zvláštním zřetelem k Čechám a Moravě) – The Making of the Slavs (with a special emphasis on Bohemia and Moravia)", Archeologické rozhledy, 61 (2), 2009, pp. 337–349Boris Todorov, The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700 by Florin Curta (review), Comitatus, 33, 2002, pp. 178–180Paul Stephenson, The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700 by Florin Curta (review), The International History Review, 24 (3), 2002, pp. 629–631Florin Curta, "The Making of the Slavs between ethnogenesis, invention, and migration", Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana, 2 (4), 2008, pp. 155–172 He considers that the Slavic language was not an ethnolect, but a koiné language and lingua franca which formed by interaction of different languages and cultures and did not spread with the migration of a distinctive ethnic group of speakers. As such, the identity of Slavs was formed and spread by communities speaking the koiné language through language shift. According to Curta, questions of identity and ethnicity are modern social constructs, imposed externally. Curta therefore argues against theories of Slavic mass expansion from the Slavic Urheimat and denies the existence of the Slavic Urheimat. His work rejects ideas of Slavic languages as the unifying element of the Slavs or the adducing of Prague-type ceramics as an archaeological cultural expression of the Early Slavs. Curta's hypothesis is opposed to both allochthonic (majority) and autochthonic (minority) concepts of Slavic ethnogenesis.
Archaeogenetic research confirmed a common genetic heritage of the Slavs, a putative existence and location of their Urheimat, a large movement of people, connection with the Slavic archaeological cultures and spread of the Slavic languages in Europe, but Curta dismisses them, saying in 2024 there's "no class of evidence attests to the existence of any migration across the territory of Romania. Migration is certainly not the mechanism responsible for the spread of Slavic [language]", and 2025 that "were there migrations? Sure, there were plenty [...] but how do you identify one in particular as Slavic? It's an arbitrary choice".
Criticism Curta's hypotheses were met with substantial disagreement and "severe criticism in general and in detail" by other archaeologists, historians, linguists and ethnologists, who "unanimously agree on the highly debatable nature of Florin Curta's concept". The scholarship in East Central, Southeastern and Eastern Europe in particular mostly ignored or rejected Curta's hypothesis. It was ignored by most of Polish allochthonists, and negated by some neo-autochthonists.
Scientists criticized what they saw as Curta's "arbitrary" and "relativistic" selection of historical and archaeological data (using only 1/3 of latter available data), sites, and his interpretation of chronologies to support his preconceived conclusions. In addition, they felt his "interpretative" cultural model inadequately explained the emergence and spread of the Slavs, Slavic culture and language.Walter Pohl, The Avars: A Steppe Empire in Central Europe, 567–822, Cornell University Press, 2018, pp. 124, quote: "Predictably, his work was met by some severe criticism in general and in detail. I included a very favorable discussion of it in my paper about "Non-Roman Europe" at the Harvard Medieval Seminar in 2001, and it was not very well received by some of the senior scholars in the audience. The book may have its weaknesses, and I do not agree with all of its propositions, but its groundbreaking role should in any case be acknowledged."Other sources: Tomáš Gábriš, Róbert Jáger, "Back to Slavic Legal History? On the Use of Historical Linguistics in the History of Slavic Law", Frühmittelalterliche Studien, 53 (1), 2019, pp. 41–42 Andrej Pleterski, "The Ethnogenesis of the Slavs, the Methods and the Process", Starohrvatska prosvjeta, 3 (40), 2013, pp. 8–10, 22–25 Andrej Pleterski, "The Early Slavs in the Eastern Alps and Their Periphery", in The Slavs on the Danube. Homeland Found, Editors-in-Charge Roman A. Rabinovich and Igor O. Gavritukhin, Stratum plus, No. 5, 2015, pp. 232, quote: "Однако под влиянием англосаксонских антропологических теорий возникла и третья концепция, согласно которой славяне в Европе распространялись не как «биологический» феномен, а как культурная модель образа жизни с языковым компонентом данной культурной модели (Barford 2001; Curta 2001; 2008; 2010; 2010а; Džino 2008; 2009). Недостаток данной концепции состоит в том, что она в основном сосредоточена на механизме передачи культурной модели, и гораздо меньше — на ее происхождении. На другие слабые места в ее аргументации указывает Владимир Сокол — это недостаточное знание адептами концеп1 За дружескую помощь я благодарю Владимира Нартника. №5. 2015 ции конкретных материалов, что приводит к произвольным интерпретационным выводам (Sokol 2011)." Alan Timberlake suggests "that Curta's meticulous quantitative argument shows the opposite: it demonstrates that there is significant similarity of Slavic pottery at different times and in different locales, so that there really is similarity and continuity of [Slavic] tradition". Michel Kazanski stated that the "archaeologists researching Slavic antiquities do not accept the ideas produced by the 'diffusionists,' because most of the champions of the diffusion model know the specific archaeological materials poorly, so their works leave room for a number of arbitrary interpretations".Michel Kazanski, "Archaeology of the Slavic Migrations", in: Encyclopedia of Slavic Languages and Linguistics Online, Editor-in-Chief Marc L. Greenberg, BRILL, 2020, quote: "There are two specific aspects of the archaeology of Slavic migrations: the movement of the populations of the Slavic cultural model and the diffusion of this model amid non-Slavic populations. Certainly, both phenomena occurred; however, a pure diffusion of the Slavic model would hardly be possible, in any case in which a long period of time when the populations of different cultural traditions lived close to one another is assumed. Moreover, archaeologists researching Slavic antiquities do not accept the ideas produced by the "diffusionists," because most of the champions of the diffusion model know the specific archaeological materials poorly, so their works leave room for a number of arbitrary interpretations (for details, see Pleterski 2015: 232)."
Curta's claim that the Common Slavic is "an artificial, scholarly construct not attested by any piece of hard evidence" (2015) was criticized by Jouko Lindstedt that "only shows his ignorance of the historical-comparative method. The existence of a protolanguage that is only about 1,500 years old and has more than a dozen closely-related daughters, several of them with early written sources, is attested by very hard evidence indeed". Lindstedt also noted, as other linguists have already asserted, the Late Proto-Slavic/Common Slavic complex morphological and accentological system "shows no trace of a possible lingua-franca function".
Some also criticized what they saw as Curta's lack of critical evaluation of his own theorization and analysis while refuting old ideas in literature. Others criticized his "very cursory and selective analysis of sources concerning the history of Byzantium", inadequate argumentation and contradicting information given by ancient Byzantine historiographers such as Theophylact Simocatta, or arbitrary evaluation and citation of Jordanes. Curta's viewpoint was considered similar to the Romanian historiography's minimization of the role of Slavs in the history of Romania. In a separate case, Hungarian historian Istvan Vasary, in his response to Curta's review of his book, stated that Curta was defensive of Romanian national historiography and Daco-Romanian continuity, claims which Curta denied.
The renewed version of the hypothesis published as Slavs in the Making: History, Linguistics, and Archaeology in Eastern Europe (ca. 500-ca. 700) (2020) was criticized to "still does not appear more convincing". Although Curta's work found partial support by those who use a similar approach, like Walter Pohl and Danijel Džino,Danijel Džino, Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia, BRILL, 2010, pp. 93–94 and sparked new scientific debate (with some importance for archaeology), the migrationist model remains in the view of many as the most acceptable and possible to explain the spread of the Slavs as well as Slavic culture (including language).
Bibliography
Edited volumes East Central & Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005. Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis. Frontiers in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2005. The other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2008. Neglected Barbarians. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. with Bogdan-Petru Maleon, The Steppe Lands and the World Beyond Them. Studies in Honor of Victor Spinei on his 70th Birthday. Iași: Editura Universității "Alexandru Ioan Cuza", 2013.
References