You can't draw simple connections between material culture, social culture and ethnicity.
Originally Posted by Carolus I
Somewhere I read an estimate of 50:50 (natives to immigrants. But we don't have precise data.
his 50:50 is for Slavic:German proportion after the Ostsiedlung in East Germany (territory of pre-1990 GDR)?
You can't draw simple connections between material culture, social culture and ethnicity.
The making of the Anglo-Saxons, and eventually the early English, appears to be the outcome of ethnogenetic processes in which the assimilation and acculturation of the native British population played a key role. This much appears obvious and, indeed, necessary, once it is accepted that most of the biological and cultural evidence points to a minority immigration on the scale of 10 to 20% of the native population. The immigration itself was not a single ‘invasion’, but rather a series of intrusions and immigrations over a considerable period, differing from region to region, and changing over time even within regions. The total immigrant population may have numbered somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 over about a century, but the geographical variations in numbers, and in social and ethnic composition, should have led to a variety of settlement processes, with consequences for the ethnogenetic process or processes. Two key elements may be distinguished in this process: the immigration that resulted in ethnically divided communities and regions, with limited mixing and inter-marriage between immigrants and natives (mainly 5th/6th centuries); and assimilation and acculturation that saw the gradual integration of the natives into the society of the culturally and socially dominant immigrants (mainly 7th/8th centuries, but occasionally starting considerably earlier; Fig 4). There may have been an earlier, pre-immigration phase in which much smaller numbers of federate troops and settlers from the Continent strove to establish or maintain an identity of their own in late Roman and sub-Roman Britain, but the details of that phase are hard to fathom because of lack of evidence. In the 5th/6th centuries, most Anglo-Saxon communities seem to have been composed of Germanic immigrants (and their descendants) and Britons in various proportions, but overall in roughly equal numbers. Members of both groups lived together in households, although their status differed. Where Germanic immigrants arrived in complete kin groups, there appears to have been little intermarriage with Britons for some time. Intermarriage must have been extensive in cases of male warbands settling down, although this pattern seems to have been less frequent. More Britons lived outside Anglo-Saxon communities, in regional and local enclaves. The populations of some of these British enclaves soon underwent a process of acculturation, but many of them lacked culturally diagnostic artefacts. The social status of these enclaves cannot be inferred archaeologically. In this early phase, the immigrants considered their ethnic and group identity important enough to express it in the burial rite. The 7th/8th centuries witnessed the beginning of the end of a separate British identity, and the foundation of a common ‘English’ identity. It may not be a coincidence that this phase also saw the first elements of state formation in England. The emergence of the state might have led to the suppression of separate ethnic identities and the use of an ideology emphasising unity; alternatively it might have led to the expression of ethnic differences in new ways, eg. by laws and landholding. The Christianisation of England in the 7th century is likely to have played an important role in this dual process of state formation and ethnogenesis that seems to have been largely completed by the late 9th century. The Laws of Alfred fail to mention Britons, even though they are mentioned several times in the earlier Laws of Ine that Alfred had appended to his own laws.
The German proportion was surely more than 0 % and lower than 100 %.
Impossible to answer.
I think it might refer to Silesia in the 13th/14th century.
From "Anglo-Saxon Immigration and Ethnogenesis" by Heinrich Haerke:
The first (or kin group) model is provided by the cemetery of Berinsfield (Dorchester, Oxfordshire) which was in use from the late 5th to the early 7th centuries [...] This suggests that Germanic immigrants and their descendants lived together with native Britons in the same social unit (judging by its size, a large household, such as that of a farmstead), but apparently did not intermarry because the differences in epigenetic traits continue throughout the use of the burial plot. This kind of coexistence should imply status differences between the groups, and possibly even prohibition of intermarriage.[...]The situation at Berinsfield suggests that the immigrants had arrived in kin groups or communities, or that the first (male?) arrivals were very soon followed by further immigrants, allowing them to form immigrant-only kin groups.[...]The historian Woolf has recently used the Laws of Ine
to suggest the existence of apartheid in early Anglo-Saxon England.[...] A recent sociolinguistic study has identified traces of the survival of a Brittonic substratum in earlyEnglish; this presupposes close contact and interrelationship between the speakers of the two languages within settlements and residential units, but with limited interethnic marriage.
A different situation, which may be termed warband model, seems to be represented by the cemetery of Stretton-on-Fosse II (Warwickshire). [...] Taken together, the observations suggest the influx of a group of males, probably most or all of them Germanic, who took control of the local community and married native women.
A third model, that of elite transfer, has been suggested for Bernicia where a smallgroup of immigrants may have replaced the native British elite and took over the kingdomas a going concern. It is widely accepted that in the north of England, the native population survived to a greater extent than in the south, and that Germanic immigrationwas largely limited to the elite level.
Imagine you have a population that consists of ethnic groups A and B - for example 80% are group A (natives) and 20% are group B (immigrants). If they intermarry instead of being endogamous (i.e. marrying within their own group only), then after some time - for example several centuries - you will have a population in which every individual is roughly 80% A and roughly 20% B. You will not have a situation where some person is 100% descendant of A and other person is 100% descendant of B. Even if you go just several centuries back, you will meet hundreds of your genetic ancestors who were alive at that time.
Unless your family practiced extreme inbreeding (in such case the number of your ancestors several centuries ago was much smaller).
Look for example at Latin America - entire Mestizo population were once either 100% genetically immigrants or 100% genetically natives. After several centuries of interbreeding, they are all part native and part immigrant in genetic terms. So for example in modern England it is not like some people are descendants of Romano-Britons and some are descendants of Anglo-Saxons. All of them have ancestors from both groups, because during centuries they melted.
After next 200 years Bangladeshi genes will also be common in England, but probably there will be not many people of pure Bangladeshi ancestry.
I completely agree!Each ethnic group, race, etc. is the product of several other ethnic groups, races, etc. which in distant past melted, forming a new entity.
So we have two different ethnical groups in the same community with different culture, language, religion. These two groups did not intermix with one another.
That is probably similar to the situation we now have in many societies: recent migration (since 1950 or 60s) has led to many ethnical groups within the native population. Often these immigrants do not intermix with the population but choose to intermarry within their ethnical groups. Even marriages between Protestants and Catholics within the old native population were quite uncommon until the 1980s. This can only work if both partners do not fear that their children might lose their ethnical, linguistical, religious or whatever identity of one side. On the other hand: some people might choose a spouse from the other group to improve their social status.
I agree but there are still some remote areas in Latin America where there is a non assimilated or intermixed Precolumbian population.
[Poland] is part of Sarmatia Europea, and the first inhabitants were the Sauromatae a Scythian people (...) It was next possest by the Vandalls, an active Nation (...) briefly were the Vandalls natives or were they invaders, here they were found and ejected by the Sclavonians, and these were the third Inhabitants of Polonia. She was over-runne at the same time, and had the same fortune with Bohemia: they were both lost [by the Vandals] to their old Lords, and divided betwixt the two runagate brothers of Croatia, Zechius and Lechius, who being forced (for a murder) out of their own soyle, brought on their crue into these parts, about the yeare 550, and here they have continued (in their posteritie) to this day. They are as yet remembred in the very names of the people. For the Bohemians in their proper language call themselves Zechians, and in the Great Poland there is still extant a Territorie, knowne by the title of Regnum Lechitorum. (...) And so is Pole-land interpreted out of Sclavonish tongue. It was before called Sarmatia (...) it was divided from another Sarmatia by the River Tanais: that on the one side was called Asiatica, for the most part wilde, heathenish Idolaters (...) this other is Europea, which being joyned with some parts of Germany West-ward to the River Odera, Silesia, & Moravia make up the Kingdome of Polonia as it is here described. (...)
Sarmatia (in Polish, Sarmacja) was a semi-legendary, poetic name for Poland that was fashionable into the 18th century, and which designated qualities associated with the literate citizenry of the vast Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
I am in absolute agreement with this. One need only look at the Greenland Norse, who spoke a language that seems to have been almost identical to Icelandic, yet had a vastly different material culture to any European state. Ethnically one can probably assume they were similar to the Icelanders, in that there was a melting pot of Scandinavian and Celtic influences, but there may well have been a little Inuit or Native American in there as well.You can't draw simple connections between material culture, social culture and ethnicity.
That's an excellent point. I'm falling into the trap of using the same incorrect terminology as the people I am arguing against. My mistake. I won't edit, because that would essentially render your post pointless, but I am in full agreement.I agree with all of that with one caveat - ethnicity is about how people characterise themselves, while genetics are about the composition of people's DNA. Usually there's some correlation there, but they're not the same thing. To use your Cambodian example, the adopted child may well adopt an American ethnicity to fit into their new country without changing their genetics. It's a matter of terminology more than anything, I think.
ethnicity is about how people characterise themselves, while genetics are about the composition of people's DNA
How people characterise themselves is "identity", not ethnicity. Saying that ethnicity is about how people characterise themselves is an exceedingly individualistic approach to a phenomenon and concept in understanding the nature of which central is "community", not an individual. Ethnicity from perspective of ethnographers (scholars dealing with ethnic groups) is how can people be objectively characterized by them. Example - in Kaliningrad Oblast today there is a group of people who characterize themselves as Old Prussians. But every ethnographer knows that objectively they are Russians, not Old Prussians.
To use your Cambodian example, the adopted child may well adopt an American ethnicity to fit into their new country without changing their genetics. It's a matter of terminology more than anything, I think.
That approach to ethnicity belongs squarely in the 19th century.
Identity, and therefore ethnicity, is layered. Meaning I am a human, an Australian, a New South Welshman, a Western Sydney non-bogan (I'm like the Mohican of my area), an Earthling, a Pommie-descendant, and a sexy beast, in that order. For some people, they would be a Western Sydney bogan first, then an Australian, then a New South Welshman, etc..How people characterise themselves is "identity", not ethnicity. Saying that ethnicity is about how people characterise themselves is an exceedingly individualistic approach to a phenomenon and concept in understanding the nature of which central is "community", not an individual. Ethnicity from perspective of ethnographers (scholars dealing with ethnic groups) is how can people be objectively characterized by them. Example - in Kaliningrad Oblast today there is a group of people who characterize themselves as Old Prussians. But every ethnographer knows that objectively they are Russians, not Old Prussians.
I understand it is not uncommon, for example,
In South Africa, people often see themselves as white, then Afrikaaner, then Souther African, to use another example.
So, for example, they would see themselves as a Virginian, a Southerner, and an American, in that order.
her ethnicity would be considered 'Asian.'
That is part of humanity's obsession with classification and exclusion
and unfortunately we are yet to do away with that.
Meaning I am a human, an Australian, a New South Welshman, a Western Sydney non-bogan (I'm like the Mohican of my area), an Earthling, a Pommie-descendant, and a sexy beast, in that order. For some people, they would be a Western Sydney bogan first, then an Australian, then a New South Welshman, etc.
Also, ethnography is no longer a serious science. To expand on what I wrote earlier, it's essentially pseudoscientific nationalist tripe.
I recall long rambling arguments from Afro-Centrists
I don't disagree with this. The part about ethnicity being about affiliation is a way of putting the situation I've not heard before. It makes sense.Ethnicity is layered as well, but ethnicity =/= identity. Ethnicity is primarily about affiliation not identity. Ethnicity can sometimes be complex. Ethnic groups can have structures consisting of many degrees (like in case of many other social groups). There can be an ethnos which is part of larger ethnos, and which is part of an even larger ethnos. They can split and merge. They can even overlap. There can be common parts for a few ethnoses.
Example of a layered ethnicity "German -> Bavarian".
Tell that to my wife!But human is not ethnicity, neither is sexy beast.
There is no such thing as race. That's the problem you're having, Domen. You're using terms and 'science' that was discredited before I was born. No scientist or scholar considers the word 'race' to seriously describe anything other than Nascar and horse these days.White is not an ethnicity, but a racial concept and a racial identity.
South African is a citizenship and maybe a national identity - it might be also an ethnicity, but a newly emerged one (after 1990).
Afrikaaner is the only thing which is clearly an ethnicity here.
'science' that was discredited before I was born.
'white' is an ethnicity in the context of South African society.
What does journalism have to do with this discussion? The concept of race was discredited in the late '70s.If there is no such thing as race, then Afrocentrists are always right.
Unless, of course, the out-of-Africa theory for the HSS is wrong.
Journalists aren't in a position to discredit science (even though they think they are).
Apartheid was not based on ethnicity but on race - 'white' in SA was a racial perception.
Ethnicities are things like Boers, British or Zulu, white and black were not ethnicities.
anything other than Nascar and horse these days.
The concept of race was discredited in the late '70s.