That's certainly less disjointed than your previous posts. I don't have any issue with those assumptions, though as I am obviously not an expert on either Slavic language or Slavic culture I reserve the right to change my mind should anyone come to this thread with a hundred-million citations to the contrary. I'd need to know more about who these supposed Slavs Pliny was mentioning were, however.
Breeding like rabbits?! Slavic populations in Europe between 500 CE and 1000 CE
- Thread starter Domen
- Start date
Some problems with that there:
1) The Neuri are not that clearly 'Proto-Slavs'. They were just a tribe mentioned by Herodotos to be north of Skythia. The claim they are Proto-Slavs is more or less akin to a myth of slavic noble ethnogenesis, and personally i have not seen it before.
2) Although Herodotos was the first to write a History, he is widely regarded as not the first actual Historian. The first actual Historian was Thucydides, who wrote immediately after Herodotos.
Herodotos is known to include in his work a large number of 'strange' information. In the case of the Neuri, here is some of that:
wiki article on the Neuri said:
Article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuri
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
When it comes to various archaeological cultures - such as for example the so called "Lusatian culture" and the quarrel (for example between 19th century German nationalists and Polish nationalists) whether those were Proto-Slavs, Proto-Germanic people or Proto-Someone Else:
It is also entirely possible that the Lusatian culture encompassed people who spoke different languages / many ethnic groups.
I am not sure why some historians always identify the spread of some archaeological culture with the expansion or migration of some tribe (or tribes). Why many of them don't take into consideration the simple possibility that the cultural influence could simply spread over various tribes?
For example if in year 200 BC they were using pear-shape pottery in area A and one hundred years later - in year 100 BC - they were using pear-shape pottery in area A and area B - does it mean that tribe X from area A migrated from area A to area B between 200 BC and 100 BC ???
Of course that it did not have to happen (it could be the case but it did not have to be the case).
Tribe X could stay where it was, but its invention / fashion for pear-shape pottery could spread over tribe Y.
On the other hand, some historians would say that "people of the pear-shape pottery culture expanded from area A to area B".
But this can be wrong - people could stay where they were, only their cultural influence could be adopted by another people / tribe.
It is also entirely possible that the Lusatian culture encompassed people who spoke different languages / many ethnic groups.
I am not sure why some historians always identify the spread of some archaeological culture with the expansion or migration of some tribe (or tribes). Why many of them don't take into consideration the simple possibility that the cultural influence could simply spread over various tribes?
For example if in year 200 BC they were using pear-shape pottery in area A and one hundred years later - in year 100 BC - they were using pear-shape pottery in area A and area B - does it mean that tribe X from area A migrated from area A to area B between 200 BC and 100 BC ???
Of course that it did not have to happen (it could be the case but it did not have to be the case).
Tribe X could stay where it was, but its invention / fashion for pear-shape pottery could spread over tribe Y.
On the other hand, some historians would say that "people of the pear-shape pottery culture expanded from area A to area B".
But this can be wrong - people could stay where they were, only their cultural influence could be adopted by another people / tribe.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Well, someone had to be the "Proto-Slavs" (ancestors of Slavs), because - as I wrote before - Slavs did not "suddenly emerge from nothing" in the 4th century CE and did not "explode demographically, breeding like rabbits", so that they could number 7,300,000 people just 500 years after their emergence.
Unless... the theory that Slavs did not emerge as an ethnic group but as a way of life from various ethnic groups is true.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
Yes. The Fyromanians are...
Spoiler :
When the Slavs arrived in Macedonian it is implausible that they did not breed with the existing population.
That the slavs who arrived here in the 6th century AD mixed with the locals is not implausible. But that is not what the people in Fyrom believe or claim. They claim that ancient Macedonia was the Proto-Slavic civilization
Maybe there can be some thread on that (probably not in the history forum), but i think it is unfair to debate this on a thread which is about more realistic theories of proto-slavism
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
The Slavic expansion is one of the great underplayed mysteries of European history, though all the figures quoted in the intro are worthless, since we don't have enough information even for basic speculation.
It probably has a lot to do with the largely unknown internal organization of the Avar khaganate. The Avars were nomad pastoralists and the Slavs were arable-intense farmers like the Greeks and Germans, upon whom the Avars must have relied, with many of the descendants of the Avar elite switching to Slavic (children marrying locals, and so on). Slavic itself would have been part of a dialect continuum, including lots of lost dialects and merging into Baltic, but the form of Slavic in Avaria may have been based on a particular dialect. That's not enough of course, since Slavic languages replaced other languages on every front, vis-a-vis Germanic, Balkan Latin and Finnic, but perhaps accounts for it being in the right place at the right time.
Languages don't expand like that unless they are associated with a particularly successful technology or form of social organization. The way I imagine it, and this is merely speculation based on parallels with English expansion in Britain at the same time, the key in the Balkans is probably the failure of Roman social organization. At a local level this had been dependent on a big state network whereby there were castes of demilitarized farmers and traders who relied on the Roman state and army for economic well-being and protection. The failure of this in the 6th and 7th centuries encouraged the expansion of Slavic gangster protection rackets from Avaria. These became tribes, and as Slavic became the language of the cool kids, people abandoned the language of St Martin and Justinian for the new tongue of the toughs.
If northern 'French' and southern 'French' were unintelligible in the early modern era, they certainly weren't in the early middle ages. Indeed all Latin languages in western Europe were mutually intelligible in the middle ages, at least the later years. There's still a lot of mutual intelligibility in Slavic languages. In both cases it's the innovative languages (the ones that change the most) that break up the pattern. In Romance's case that's French and Romanian, and in Slavic's case, that's Russian and Polish. The intelligibility of Germanic languages reflects the same principle, with English and High German causing the issues.
It probably has a lot to do with the largely unknown internal organization of the Avar khaganate. The Avars were nomad pastoralists and the Slavs were arable-intense farmers like the Greeks and Germans, upon whom the Avars must have relied, with many of the descendants of the Avar elite switching to Slavic (children marrying locals, and so on). Slavic itself would have been part of a dialect continuum, including lots of lost dialects and merging into Baltic, but the form of Slavic in Avaria may have been based on a particular dialect. That's not enough of course, since Slavic languages replaced other languages on every front, vis-a-vis Germanic, Balkan Latin and Finnic, but perhaps accounts for it being in the right place at the right time.
Languages don't expand like that unless they are associated with a particularly successful technology or form of social organization. The way I imagine it, and this is merely speculation based on parallels with English expansion in Britain at the same time, the key in the Balkans is probably the failure of Roman social organization. At a local level this had been dependent on a big state network whereby there were castes of demilitarized farmers and traders who relied on the Roman state and army for economic well-being and protection. The failure of this in the 6th and 7th centuries encouraged the expansion of Slavic gangster protection rackets from Avaria. These became tribes, and as Slavic became the language of the cool kids, people abandoned the language of St Martin and Justinian for the new tongue of the toughs.
If northern 'French' and southern 'French' were unintelligible in the early modern era, they certainly weren't in the early middle ages. Indeed all Latin languages in western Europe were mutually intelligible in the middle ages, at least the later years. There's still a lot of mutual intelligibility in Slavic languages. In both cases it's the innovative languages (the ones that change the most) that break up the pattern. In Romance's case that's French and Romanian, and in Slavic's case, that's Russian and Polish. The intelligibility of Germanic languages reflects the same principle, with English and High German causing the issues.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Actually, as you probably know (or don't know yet) majority of modern European languages have common origin, as they were in prehistoric times (some 6000 years ago, or 4000 years Before Christ) one and the same, Proto-Indo-European language:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-language
So around 3700 BC all Proto-Indo-Europeans spoke one language.
All of Indo-European languages later developed from this language in various times in prehistoric and historic times (and of course were also heavily influenced by other languages, encountered along the routes of migrations and expansion of early Indo-European peoples):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
Major part of modern languages spoken in Europe (for example both Greek language and Polish language) originate largely from Proto-Indo-European language because Indo-European people eventually conquered / settled almost entire Europe and assimilated local populations. But many words from indigenous languages of Europe (before the arrival of Indo-Europeans) were also adopted / mixed with languages of newcomers.
Major language groups (branches) of Indo-European languages in Europe (Baltic and Slavic languages had a common ancestor language):
Here something about languages spoken in Europe before the arrival of Indo-Europeans:
http://pl.scribd.com/doc/8670/Languages-in-prehistoric-Europe-north-of-the-Alps
About Germanic languages having a relatively high % of non-Indo-European words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis
Languages in the Black Sea area around 6000 BC and the probable original area inhabited by speakers of the Indo-European language (1):
=============================================
Some words in modern English which date back to pre-Indo-European inhabitants of Europe:
http://grzegorj.w.interia.pl/lingwpl/germannieindo.html
Modern English word (probable pre-Indo-European word):
mare (marxa)
milk (melka) ----> this is also similar in Polish (mleko)
oak (aik)
ice (īsa)
axe (akwesī
earth (erþō
knife (knība)
leather (leþra)
path (paþ)
plough (plōga) -------------> also similar in Polish (płóg)
whelp (xwelp)
well (walljō
-------------> in German too (Quelle)And many more.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
It is believed that among the oldest languages which developed from the original Proto-Indo-European language were Indian language, Hittite language and Hellenic language (including Proto-Greek language).
Later other language groups separated from the Proto-Indo-European language (or from some of already separated Indo-European languages). Slavic and Baltic languages are probably relatively the youngest languages in the family (i.e. they split / separated from the rest of them relatively late).
This is the reason why major part of Slavic languages are still relatively similar to each other and also to Baltic languages.
Later other language groups separated from the Proto-Indo-European language (or from some of already separated Indo-European languages). Slavic and Baltic languages are probably relatively the youngest languages in the family (i.e. they split / separated from the rest of them relatively late).
This is the reason why major part of Slavic languages are still relatively similar to each other and also to Baltic languages.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
BTW, it is important to stress for those who don't realise how great 'Slavic expansion' was. There were Slavic tribes in the Peloponnese in the 10th century, i.e. near places like Sparta and Argos, and in the same era Slavic had been brought to the vicinity of Hamburg! Were it not for the Franks preserving Roman big-state protection in the era, Slavic may I might suggest have become the language of places like Paris and Cologne not long after.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
They also settled on the outskirts of Magdeburg (well at that time there was no Magdeburg, but the place where it is located) and Venice as well!
When Frankish king Dagobert I lost the war against Slavic Samo's State (including the battle of Wogastisburg in 631) it was closer than ever. At the same time the Byzantine Empire was also not able to stop the flood of Slavic settlers crossing its borders and reaching places like Dalmatia and Thessaly.
Slavs also had amazing ability to assimilate both conquered people and people who conquered them. For example the Proto-Bulgars conquered local Slavs and established the Bulgarian Empire, but within perhaps +/- 200 years Bulgars completely assimilated themselves into the local Slavic population:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire
This is one more proof that the Slavs were already very numerous shortly after they "emerged from the darkness of history".
In the late 500s and in the 600s the Slavic populations were already huge, while before the 400s they did not exist in any written sources...
At least not under the name "Slavs", because as I wrote - historians assume that various Ancient tribes could be "Proto-Slavs"...
As you wrote Pangur Ban - the Slavic expansion is one of the great underplayed mysteries of European history...
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
The Slavicization of the peninsula appears to have happened as a result of poor central authority in the region. Greek survived there by the skin of its teeth thanks to the narrow survival of urbanism, and re-Hellenilization through the reestablishment of Roman/Byzantine power.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
The Byzantine Empire was trying to prevent Slavic migrations to its territory.
At least this was the case in the late 6th century - maybe later they changed this policy?
Emperor Tiberius II Constantine even used Avar forces (mercenaries?) to defend his Empire against Slavic invaders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_II_Constantine
wikipedia said:
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
For those who don't understand why social form is important, here is an explanation.
Roman social structure: Administrators and landlords and religious authorities in urban centres; bureaucrats with limited local connections imposed on locality but dependent on centre; professional/caste soldiers in military camps; dependent, demilitarized highly-taxed peasantry and merchants supporting it
Slavic social structure: Locally-based farmer warriors; household clusters with high-skilled warrior/s and dependent relatives and slaves; administration through kinship relation management, in 'tribe', with elders/chiefs; chiefs and elders selected on grounds of kinship and experience, with small warbands of teenagers/young men (too young to have their own land because of living fathers) and slaves/dependents from other tribes; some priests
With the Roman structure, the failure of the top makes the rest of it unsustainable. The more flexible Slavic form slips into the gap. No big military defeat will have any effect. No large state is necessary (and indeed is antithetical). The peasants left by the Roman state just become the dependents of groups of Slavic warriors, who probably kill many males, marry many of the females, and make the others dependents. The warbands, generated by the free farmers, may be the basis for expansion. Teenagers/young men in warbands don't die as often through internal conflict, because it is easier to take a Vlakh village than fight brothers for limited land. Slavic women have more children because they know there will be opportunity, speeding up the process. And so on and so forth.
Roman social structure: Administrators and landlords and religious authorities in urban centres; bureaucrats with limited local connections imposed on locality but dependent on centre; professional/caste soldiers in military camps; dependent, demilitarized highly-taxed peasantry and merchants supporting it
Slavic social structure: Locally-based farmer warriors; household clusters with high-skilled warrior/s and dependent relatives and slaves; administration through kinship relation management, in 'tribe', with elders/chiefs; chiefs and elders selected on grounds of kinship and experience, with small warbands of teenagers/young men (too young to have their own land because of living fathers) and slaves/dependents from other tribes; some priests
With the Roman structure, the failure of the top makes the rest of it unsustainable. The more flexible Slavic form slips into the gap. No big military defeat will have any effect. No large state is necessary (and indeed is antithetical). The peasants left by the Roman state just become the dependents of groups of Slavic warriors, who probably kill many males, marry many of the females, and make the others dependents. The warbands, generated by the free farmers, may be the basis for expansion. Teenagers/young men in warbands don't die as often through internal conflict, because it is easier to take a Vlakh village than fight brothers for limited land. Slavic women have more children because they know there will be opportunity, speeding up the process. And so on and so forth.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Ajidica said:
Yes they surely interbreeded with local Greeks and other local populations - but eventually those Greeks were Slavicized (adopted Slavic languages, assimilated with the newcomers), not inversely.
The same happened with populations conquered by Turks - modern Turks do not look like their ancestors from the time of the First Crusade (just over 900 years ago). At that time Turks had Asiatic look (you can check illustrations from the period showing Turkish soldiers - all of them look like Asians).
So either modern Turks are the result of assimilation of local people with European look (and their genetic poll is largely that of white race / European people), or the original Turkish population - during several centuries / nearly 1000 years of living in Asia Minor - evolved towards look typical for white race.
After all it is true that climate and environment gradually change the look of subsequent generations of people who live in a certain area.
For example if all Britons were resettled to Central Africa in 2014, perhaps after many thousand years they would all be dark black and their look would be no different from local inhabitants (even without interbreeding). But are these changes really fast enough to happen during just 900 years ???
Probably 900 years is not enough to change people with Asiatic look into people with European look. Which means that assimilation of local populations (which would be classified as "white race") had to play a great role in the fact that modern Turks look like the rest of Europeans, not like Mongols.
================================
When it comes to native Americans.
They all originated from the same small group of settlers who came from Siberia and looked similar (like modern day Inuits perhaps).
That group was small that there was even complete lack of one blood group among those people (as the result not a single native American person prior to European contact had this blood group - I don't remember which blood group exactly that was, though).
But during many thousand years, the look of people in Americas changed depending on the area they lived in.
Tribes living in tropical forests in the middle of South America looked completely different than tribes in Eastern Canada. Etc., etc.
==============================
Pangur Ban said:
We are talking about times 300 - 400 years earlier - from ca. 500 CE to ca. 700 CE:
(please note that Bulgars are marked as non-Slavic people on this map - they assimilated with the Slavs only in the 700s and 800s):
A modern artistic depiction of migrating Early Slavs (and their numerous cattle):
Depiction of Slavic warriors (a footman and a horseman) dated 6th or early 7th century, found in the area of modern Thessaly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessaly
A footman has a large axe and a small shield, while a horseman has a larger shield and a sword:
Early Medieval Slavic fashion:
Link to video.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Pangur Ban said:
In the period of Slavic expansion, majority of Slavs were rather semi-Nomadic pastoralists (farming was less important in their economy):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoralism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/seminomadic
Of course farming (and pastoral farming) were gradually becoming more important.
But cattle and slaves (war prisoners) were more important for the Early Slavic people than farming.
As the article I quoted in Post #2 on page 1 of this thread claims, Slavs were assimilating captured war prisoners (slaves) into their societies.
This suggests that Slavic populations could indeed grow rather fast, through assimilation of slaves they captured during their expansion.
Pangur Ban said:
This. I agree. But perhaps they did not kill many males, but rather turned them into slaves and then assimilated them (see above).
Perhaps children of such male slaves*, were already allowed to be free people**, but of low social status. Maybe if they distinguished themselves in warfare (or in anything else), then they could progress to higher status / position within the clan or tribe - and this also encouraged further assimilation.
As the result war prisoners captured by Slavic warriors could be fully assimilated within 1 - 2 generations.
============================================
*In case if they had any children.
**It is known that later, in the 800s, West Slavic societies in the area of modern East Germany and Poland did not have many slaves (no more than few % of the society were slaves, vast majority were free peasants). Which supports the theory that children of slaves were already becoming free people.
Slave trade was quite popular in Slavic countries at that time, but slaves were rather not very numerous among Slavic socities in the 800s.
Indeed multiple marriages were quite common among Slavic people during the pagan period.
Even Poland's duke Mieszko I before he was baptised (in 966) had many wifes - some historians say that he had 7 wifes (at one time!).
When he adopted Christianity in 966, he had to divorce with all his 7 wifes and marry Czech princess Dobrawa.
Polish 1974 movie "Gniazdo" (about Mieszko I) has a scene showing how Mieszko's pagan wifes are moving out of his residence.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
This is certainly not true. Archaeological evidence overwhelmingly points to a culture that is intensely concentrated on arable farming. Also, if they were, their expansion wouldn't have been possible (the role you are describing, in the Balkans, was left to the Latin speakers).
Similar threads
