Dear Prof.

Curta,

Since Italy is not taking part in the present iteration of the World Cup, I have finally decided to take
the time to answer your questions about prehistoric Slavs, something that I have been thinking about for a
long time (my source being Academia.edu). Please notice that I am completely ignorant of the relevant
literature and that I am proud of that, while I am familiar with the primary sources, especially Procopius
and the Strategikon.

Q. If the Slavic ethnicity is about language, how can people speak Slavic without being Slavs?

A. I don't know what the word "ethnicity" is supposed to mean, so I must skip the premise, but I can
definitely answer the question in general. A person can speak a Slavic language without being a Slav
because he has studied that language (at school, for instance, or through the Internet). As for Slavic native
speakers they are all Slavs to me, even if they don't like to be called like that: as a linguist, that is none of
my problem.

Q. If the Urheimat etc.

A. Again, I fail to see what an "undifferentiated ethnic group" is supposed to be. If that means a people
speaking a common language, that is simply impossible before the diffusion of elementary education and
mass media in the world. The Proto-Slavic of prehistoric Slavs would have been a continuum of dialects,
with our reconstruction representing the most prestigious and diffused features of it: reasonably, the
language of poetry, religion, diplomacy – exactly as in the case of Proto-Indo-European. Actually, the fact
that our reconstruction of Indo-European is so good, so that we can even identify poetical aspects (cfr.
Calvert Watkins) definitely points out to the fact that such a language existed in quite a codified form for a
very long period of time. And Proto-Slavic would have inherited a lot of it. As for the identification of
archaeological cultures (or rather "horizons") with languages there is nothing automatic in it, and people
who live very different lives can certainly share the same language (Indo-European has a huge vocabulary
for both agriculture and pastoralism, but we know that the élite did not practice and actually despised the
first activity, cfr. David Anthony).

Q. Why is there no archaeological evidence etc.

A. I have no idea. But certainly it did happen, since in antiquity people there spoke different languages (of
which we have archaeological evidence), and then mostly Greek under the Empire.

Q. If the early Slavs in the northwestern Balkans had specific forms of social organization etc.

4. I have no idea of what a zupa should be. But I can definitely tell you what it couldn't be: a democracy.
The reason why Procopius calls the Slavs democratic is the very same simple reason why ancient Germans
did not build temples: they were too poor and unorganized to do it. There is no democracy in the proper
sense of the term before Greece (or Phoenicia? Maybe the Greek stole the idea, as many others? If only we
knew more about Phoenicia...). So much for the fairy tales of noble savages or primitive communism.
Primitive communism is the communism of hunger (as Lévi-Strauss has taught us), and primitive peoples
are only noble as far as in their society there is nothing to steal. So no Slavic Arkadia, on this we do agree at
least, but still what has this to do with a Proto-Slavic language (and culture, religion etc.) that could have
been as rich and interesting as the Greek one, for instance?

We live in an age of historiographical idiocy, with nonsensical words such as “identity”, “ethnicity”
or “diversity” fueling so many pages of nonsensical academical debate, but can’t we really do something
better? Like talking about things and persons and words, instead of cloudy abstractions?

Best regards,
Alberto