Breeding like rabbits?! Slavic populations in Europe between 500 CE and 1000 CE

[Domen]

According to:

"Conceptions on the origins of Slavic people":

http://grzegorj.w.interia.pl/lingwpl/pochoslo0.html

"Archaeologic reconstructions of the process of Slavic ethnogenesis":

http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/slavia/f6.html

H. Łowmianski estimated the Slavic population of Europe in the 11th century as 7,300,000 people.*

*It should be noted that Poland alone had at least 1,000,000 people at that time. So this is a reliable estimation (if not a low one).

K. Godłowski (supporter of the Allochtonic Theory of the origins of Slavs) estimated the Slavic population in early 6th century (shortly before their expansion from their "cradle" areas of modern Ukraine / Pripet Marshes according to Allochtonic Theory) as 300,000.

S. Kurnatowski (supporter of the Autochthonic Theory of the origins of Slavs) estimated the Slavic population in the 6th century (in a larger area than just Ukraine - since Kurnatowski supports the autochthonic theory, according to which Poland and some other Medieval Slavic areas were inhabited mostly by Slavic people much earlier than according to supporters of the allochtonic theory) as 1,600,000.

According to Josiah C. Russell ("Population in Europe"), population of Europe in year 500 (beginning of the 6th century) was 27,500,000 and in year 1000 (beginning of the 11th century) it was 38,500,000. Both numbers include population of Slavic areas (Rus included).

=========================================

This shows that European population increased during those 500 years by just 40%.

Slavic population, on the other hand, in the same time-frame increased by between 360% and 2330% !!!

How is this possible that Slavic people achieved such an enormous demographic success?

And doesn't this indicate that either Slavs lived much earlier in much larger areas than just Ukraine, or that they were extremely successful in assimilating conquered populations into their own Slavic language and culture? Otherwise such a rapid population growth is very unlikely.

==========================================

So it seems that either Slavs originally lived in bigger areas than is usually accepted according to the most popular, allochtonic theory (which usually says that Slavic tribes expanded from the area of modern Ukraine in the early 6th century AD), or that the Slavic ethnogenesis was mostly about rapid and efficient assimilation of huge local populations in conquered areas (but how they could theoretically manage to assimilate so large populations so quickly is also a mystery):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnogenesis

Because it is hard to believe that Slavs had ca. 9 / 10 up to even 58 times faster population growth rates than other Europeans.

 

[Domen]

According to the most radical version of the Allochtonic Theory, this small area around Kiev (Kijów) was the original area of Slavs in the 4th - 5th centuries (and this area could not support and could not feed more than 300,000 people according to K. Godłowski):

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimierz_Godłowski

And here early Slavic expansion since the 6th (or late 5th) until the 7th centuries:

Spoiler :

=====================================

But if this really was the case, then how to explain the inbelievably fast growth of the Slavic population from 300,000 (if indeed only this small area was inhabited by Slavs at that time) in year 500 AD to 7,300,000 in year 1000 AD (when Slavs controlled and inhabited a vast percentage of the territory of Eastern, Central and Southern Europe)?

======================

One more argument which suggests that Slavs could not live in just such a small area around Kiev shortly before year 500 (and then expand from there over half of Europe) and could not number just 300,000 people in total, is the fact that migrating Slavic populations - as well as Slavic armies - were described as very numerous by all sources from that time. Of course exaggeration of enemy numbers could be the case, but still this does not change the fact that Slavs were numerous enough that even strong states could not stop the waves of Slavic migrations. For example Byzantine Consul Tiberius* "did not have a force strong enough to resist even part of the barbarian invaders (and certainly not the whole horde of them)":

*Who later became Byzantine Emperor Tiberius II Constantine (he lived in years 520 - 582).

http://www.antropologia.uw.edu.pl/AS/as-005.pdf

Interesting article presenting an original theory on the origins and the expansion of the Slavic people:

http://postimg.org/image/5si4nwl41/

 

[Domen]

So basically this article says that Slavs did not "come from Ukraine" - it says that most likely "Slavic identity" (and language) were simply adopted by large local populations (survivors from previous invasions by Asian Nomads, tragedies, epidemies, by those who stayed in their homes during depopulation caused by westward and southward migrations of Germanic tribes, etc.) over large parts of Eastern and probably partially also Central Europe. Even former Roman citizens abandoned the Roman style of life and joined Slavic groups, becoming parts of their communities.

The Slavic language, on the other hand, emerged as a "lingua franca" used by people of various ethnic groups in all those areas of Eastern and Central Europe (also Southern Europe in the 6th century). And later of course those people (or their children) entirely forgot their previous languages, and spoke only Slavic language (which later itself split into many dialects - including three major language groups: Southern, Western and Eastern - it seems that the Southern group emerged as first, while the other two groups remained exactly the same for a longer period of time).

Early Slavic people according to this article were semi-Nomadic (pastoral) populations of free peasants, who emerged after the collapse of the Roman civilization and after depopulation of areas previously inhabited by Germanic tribes (but of course not completely depopulated).

So they did not come from the East, but they were indigenous populations (except of westernmost and southernmost areas, which were invaded by Slavic tribes later - from the 6th century onward). This also explains the initially primitive political and social organization of Slavic people (they didn't even have tribes in the beginning - they lived in clans / large families, loosely connected with other clans by social and economic ties).

================================

This theory seems to be a compromise between the Autochthonic (which says that Slavs lived "here" before) and Allochtonic (which says that they migrated here) theories. It admits that Slavs were not newcomers in majority of their territories, but at the same it says that Slavic ethnos emerged late, as a product of the collapse of Rome and migrations of tribes (as well invasions of Europe by Asiatic Nomads) of the period.

 

[Domen]

This means that there are some similarities between the origins of early Slavs and the origins of Cossacks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossacks

 

[Traitorfish]

Why are you talking about "Slavs" like they're an even vaguely coherent entity?

 

[Ajidica]

Considering 'Slav' seems to encompass everything from Poland to Russia to Macedonia, we might as well talk about 'Eastern Europeans'.

 

[Domen]

Why are you talking about "Slavs" like they're an even vaguely coherent entity?

They were. Originally there was only one Slavic language. Later appeared first differences in language between Western, Southern and Eastern Slavs. But even at that time for example language spoken by Polish tribes was almost exactly the same as language spoken by Czech and Moravian tribes (this is mentioned by Early Medieval sources). Only later further differences were developed and modern languages (Polish, Czech, Slovak, Russian, etc.) appeared.

 

[Traitorfish]

They were. Originally there was only one Slavic language. Later appeared first differences in language between Western, Southern and Eastern Slavs. But even at that time for example language spoken by Polish tribes was almost exactly the same as language spoken by Czech and Moravian tribes. Only later further differences were developed and modern languages (Polish, Czech, Slovak, Russian, etc.) appeared.

Sharing a language doesn't make for a single, coherent historical entity. Just look at German.

 

[Domen]

Yeah, no.

There is clear evidence that Slavic languages developed from one language.

There are words which are common for all Slavic languages (words which still even nowadays sound very similar in all of them, which means that they originated in times before the development of the three major Slavic language groups - Western, Southern and Eastern).

One of such words is "sword" (Russian "mec", Serbian "mac", Slovene "mec", Polish "miecz").

Also Early Medieval German sources say that there was no difference between Polish and Czech language at that time.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Yeah, no" as in "I don't think that resolves my criticism", not as in "I am interested in your weird Völkisch preoccupation with language groups, tell me more". See edit.

 

[Ajidica]

Considering that Northern and Southern French were almost unintelligible, I find it highly suspect that a much less unified (if Medieval France could be considered vaguely unified) region spread over a far greater geographic area with no vaguely common history would have a mutually intelligible language.

There are words which are common for all Slavic languages (words which still even nowadays sound very similar in all of them, which means that they originated in times before the development of the three major Slavic language groups - Western, Southern and Eastern).

English shares a lot of words with German and Romance languages but I would be hard pressed to argue that similar sounding words means the language was unified. (Let alone the minefield of unified language=unified culture (whatever that means.))

 

[Domen]

Sharing a language doesn't make for a single, coherent historical entity. Just look at German.

And the article I placed in my post #2 also supports this view.

Just look at German.

German is a modern language, it developed during the Middle Ages (and that old German was still very different from modern German).

But in the Frankish Empire the official language was the same in every part of it, I suppose. Later the Frankish Empire split into three parts and look what we have - French, Italian and German languages. Of these three, French and Italian were more heavily influenced by Latin language than German.

English shares a lot of words with German and Romance languages

Of course. After all, both the Romans and the Germanic tribes invaded and settled in Britain.

Modern French and Italian languages are Romance languages, they developed mostly from mixture of Latin with Celtic and Germanic languages.

 

[Domen]

I would be hard pressed to argue that similar sounding words means the language was unified.

They don't necessarily mean that the language was unified, but they mean that these particular words did not develop independently in each of these languages, so they had to develop as part of one language (or at least a group of very close languages). BTW - there are some words which sound similar in all Indoeuropean languages (these are words which originated in very Ancient times of Proto-Indo-European language and survived until nowadays in similar "shape").

For example the verb "to make love" is very old and also similar in all Slavic languages (originally in Proto-Slavic language it was "jebati"):

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jebati

From Proto-Slavic *jebati, from Proto-Indo-European *h₃yebʰ-. Cognate with Ancient Greek οἴφω (oíph&#333, Sanskrit यभति (yabhati).

You can also see clear similarities between "yabhati" from Sanskrit and "jebati" from Proto-Slavic (in this word j is pronounced as y in English).

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't know what you think articles written in a language nobody else can read are supposed to prove.

 

[Domen]

I don't know what you think articles written in a language nobody else can read are supposed to prove.

Nobody can read English? I am talking about the article "The Slavic Expansion" I posted in Post #2. It is in English.

Author of this article suggests that Slavic language originated as "lingua franca" or at least quickly became a "lingua franca", which means that it started to be spoken by large numbers of people who did not share this language as their "mother tongue":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca

 

[Domen]

, I find it highly suspect that a much less unified (if Medieval France could be considered vaguely unified) region spread over a far greater geographic area with no vaguely common history would have a mutually intelligible language.

"No vaguely common history",

Not really, if we accept the theory which says that Slavs originally (before 500 CE) lived only in a small part of the area inhabited by them later.

The common history was the fact that - at least according to this Allochtonic theory of the origins of Slavs - Slavic people expanded from a relatively small area of modern Ukraine, into half of Europe (from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, from the steppes of Central Russia to the Elbe river) in a relatively short period of time. Before that expansion all Slavs lived in a small area (smaller than area of modern Poland), so they shared the same language.

Differences in the language appeared after the expansion.

The origins of Slavs (and the area inhabited by them before their name was first time mentioned in written sources) = one of the biggest misteries of history.

===========================================

Slavs did not exist in written sources until they appeared at the northern borders of the Byzantine Empire in the 6th century CE. How is this possible that a "non-existing" population suddenly is strong and numerous enough to invade the Byzantine Empire (and not only this state, because Slavs expanded in every direction) and settle there? Of course in modern times historians started to speculate that various tribes with different names mentioned by Ancient Greco-Roman writers and historians were Proto-Slavs, but there is still no clear evidence to confirm this).

Moreover - Slavs were described by Early Medieval sources (including Byzantine) as relatively primitive people.

But the same sources said that Byzantine armies "were not strong enough to repulse even part of the barbarians" who invaded the Balkans and Greece.

So either Slavs were very numerous, or very clever - because their weapons and armours were not better than Byzantine for sure.

Anyway - Slavs appeared in written sources only during their intensive expansion. Before that - there is no such name, no such people in sources.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nobody can read English? I am talking about the article "The Slavic Expansion" I posted in Post #2. It is in English.

Ah, my mistake.

Author of this article suggests that Slavic language originated as "lingua franca" or at least quickly became a "lingua franca", which means that it started to be spoken by large numbers of people who did not share this language as their "mother tongue":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca

That has nothing to do with "the Slavs" being a coherent historical entity. (The Slavs did this, the Slavs came from here, etc.) If anything, it undermines it, because it demonstrates that Slavic was a language (or more realistically, cluster of related dialects) which could be adopted into regular use without the presence of "the Slavs" as any sort of historic personality. What we're seeing is socially, geographically and culturally disparate peoples assuming Slavic dialects for their own, local ends, without any particular hint that this entailed participation in some pan-Slavic volk.

Further, the sources you post suggest that a concious "Slavic-ness" didn't emerge until Slavic-speaking polities began to confront the Byzantine Empire, and in fact seems to have been an originally Byzantine construction, so it makes even less sense to talk about the Slavic-speaking peoples who undertook the initial migrations as "Slavs", because that's not a category they, their neighbours or their contemporaries would understand. You keep bringing up "ethnogenesis", but using it justify the sort of primordial narratives about ethnolinguistic oneness the concept was developed in opposition to. It doesn't really work.


(edit: I wonder if any of our heavyweights might care to weigh in on this? I can't imagine that either of us are getting it all right.)

 

[Lord Baal]

Speaking a Slavic-language makes one Slavic in the same way that speaking a Germanic-language makes one German. This man is Austrian:

Boris Kodjoe.

He was born and raised in Austria and speaks four languages, all of them Western European. His place of employment and residence is the US, which has English as its official language. This in no way means he is a descendant of some sort of unified German culture.

The original Slavs - if it is even possible to use such a term - were likely an important enough culture for their neighbours to adopt their language in either full or in part. We know for a fact that several Slavic-speaking groups existed as steppe nomads, which obviously enables a language to spread farther than the language of a more-sedentary people - until the great trans-continental voyages after Columbus landed in the Caribbean - and some of these groups established hegemony over the inhabitants of areas they conquered. The best-known of these groups were the Khazars, Bulgars and Pechenegs. Obviously, since they dominated regions, their languages became a lingua franca among their subject-peoples as well as neighbouring groups, contributing greatly to the spread of Slavic languages. The same exact thing happened with the Greek language after the conquests of Alexander the Great and Latin after the rise of the Roman Empire. The Slavs are in no way exeptional in any of this. They're no different from the British, French, Chineses or Turks, not to mention countless other groups.

I really have no idea what you're trying to get at here, Domen. The Slavs weren't out-breeding the rest of Europe. That wasn't even really possible until modern medical advances. They were simply dominant-enough over the less-developed portions of Eastern Europe to impose their languages upon it. They certainly didn't impose their culture, since our evidence suggests that there really wasn't much change in the region after the Slavs arrived. They may have given the pre-existing gods some new names, and the Cyrillic alphabet then made it more difficult for any Slavic peoples to revert to the Latin alphabet afterwards - though this did happen in several cases - ensuring the continuation of Slavic-languages in areas they may otherwise have died out.

What exactly are you trying to argue?

 

[Domen]

Speaking a Slavic-language makes one Slavic in the same way that speaking a Germanic-language makes one German.

It should be noted that original Germanic languages were more similar to modern Scandinavian languages (Norwegian, Swedish, Danish) than to modern German language. Germanic people, after all, originally (probably in period 750 BC - 500 BC) lived only in Scandinavia, with the southern border of their settlement being more or less where the modern border between Denmark and Germany is. Only later they expanded from that area to the south, south-west and south-east over large areas of Europe. Modern German language was considerably shaped by influence of non-Germanic languages on its development, while it is very likely that modern Scandinavian languages (Norwegian, Danish and Swedish) were not influenced by non-Germanic language to such a considerable extent. So it is reasonable to assume that these languages are more similar to Germanic languages from times of the battle of the Teutoburg forest, than modern German is.

The original Slavs - if it is even possible to use such a term

Proto-Slavs is a better term perhaps. Just like we can't really speak about Germanic people before 750 BC (only about Proto-Germanic people).

I really have no idea what you're trying to get at here, Domen.

Mainly I am arguing with the idea that Slavic language emerged late and in a very small area.

It is probable that they existed already before they were explicitly mentioned by written sources.

For example according to the map I posted above Wenedowie (Venetoi / Venedi / Vinedi / Vindi) lived only here in year 500:

But in fact already Pliny the Elder mentioned them in the 1st century CE in Historia naturalis and Cornelius Tacitus in Germania (also in the 1st century CE), Cornelius Tacitus did not notice them as a separate ethnic group, but had big problems whether to qualify them as Germanic or Scythian (in the end he assumed that they were "Scythianized" - heavily subjected to Scythian influence - Germanic tribe). Also Tabula Peutingeriana, a Roman map of roads from the Late Imperial period, shows this tribe (to the north of the Carpathian Mountains and near the delta of the Danube). Then you have them mentioned again by Gothic historian Jordanes who lived in the 6th century CE and mentioned them living at the Vistula. Jordanes also claimed that they had common origins with the Sclaveni and the Antes (Antae).

So in year 500 CE they would live more to the west and south according to these sources mentioned above than according to the map.

And the first reference to Proto-Slavic people in written sources is sometimes assumed to be the Neuri mentioned by Herodotus:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurowie

Herodotus saw their homeland to the north-west of the Black Sea (sea the map by Herodotus below), but modern historians also assumed that they could live in the basin of the Dniester, Boh and Pripet rivers or (another theory) more or less between the Bug river and the Vistula river.

Map of the world by Herodotus:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Orbis_Herodoti.jpg

Spoiler :

 

[Domen]

But there is also the theory presented above in the article in English I quoted ("The Slavic Expansion") - which can be an alternative explanation to the rapid expansion of Slavs allegedly from "non-existence" to being one the most numerous ethnic groups in Europe just 500 years later - and this theory assumes that Slavic people emerged not as an ethnic group from the beginning, but rather as a way of life adopted by people of various tribes from various ethnic groups - who later also adopted common, Slavic language, as their "lingua franca" (which would make their originis quite similar to origins of the Cossacks - who later transformed into modern Ukrainians after mixing with local Rusyns / Ruthenians):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossacks

Cossacks (Russian: казаки, kazaki; Ukrainian: козаки́, kozaky), are a group of predominantly East Slavic people who originally were members of democratic, semi-military and semi-naval[1] communities in Ukraine and Southern Russia. They inhabited sparsely populated areas and islands in the lower Dnieper,[2] Don, Terek, Ural basins, and played an important role in the historical development of both Ukraine and Russia.[3] Today self-identification "Cossack" is an important part of cultural heritage of people in modern Ukraine, Southern Russia, Volga, Ural, Siberian regions and the Russian Far East. Cossack societies exist throughout Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and worldwide.