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

According to thise website (in Polish):

http://www.gazetarycerska.pl/readarticle.php?article_id=68&rowstart=1

Procopius of Caesarea mentions cavalry units in Byzantine service, consisting of Huns and Slavs, already in years 536 / 537.

So looks like Slavs knew mounted warfare quite well already at that time (not surprising - many of them lived in the steppes of Ukraine).

The article also says that Slavs were breeding horses very early in their history (both for transportation and for war).

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

Traitorfish said:
Do any of the sources indicate Slavic armies being accompanied by many unmounted horses? Generally, if an army made extensive use of cavalry, they'd have plenty of remounts, while if they only had one or two horses a piece, it was unlikely that cavalry were used on more than an ad hoc basis. (It's obviously possible that this varied between or within armies.)

I'm not sure about all Slavs, but Russian (Rus) Early Medieval armies were famous for fast movements, so they surely had remounts (a single horse is getting tired when carrying the rider for a long time - so they needed to change mounts from time to time to keep moving without rest).

Earliest wild horses which lived in forested areas of this part of Europe (modern East Germany and Poland) probably looked like this:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarpan_(koń)



Of course later larger breeds of horses were introduced here, and later new breeds were created (for example there was a separate breed of horse known as Polish horse in Late Medieval / Early Modern Era, and they had opinion of excellent war horses - this breed later got extinct).
 
Seriously doubt there were Slavs settled on the steppe of Ukraine. Slavs don't settle the Steppe until the Cossack develops in the early modern period from Russian/Ukrainian and Polish settlers supplementing the numbers of Slavicized Turkic speakers.

Fighting on horseback is pretty common. The Frenchies did it as we all know. The Picts and Britons fought on horseback in the early middle ages, so did the Northumbrians, though there is doubt about the English further south.

And yes, horseback warriors travelling distances (like the Mongols or even the crusaders) often had 10 or so remounts.
 
Slavs settled some parts of the steppes - as well as close vincinity of the steppes - already long before Cossacks.

Not entire steppes of course but northern and north-western parts of them:



Kiev - the capital of Early Medieval Rus - is located pretty close to the north-western limit of the steppes.

And Kievan Rus extended its rules both to the south and to the south-east and east of Kiev.

Fighting on horseback is pretty common.

Well, even Slavs who didn't live in the steppes, had steppe Nomads as their close neighbours.

And when you have steppe Nomads as your close neighbours, it is good to have a fair amount of cavalry to face them.

The Picts and Britons fought on horseback in the early middle ages

When it comes to southern Scandinavia, Central Europe and Eastern Europe:

Horse breeding (but not necessarily horseback warfare) was known in this part of Europe already during the Corded Ware culture:

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

Corded Ware culture in 3rd millennium BCE:

 
Kiev is indeed just north of the steppe. That's one of the reasons it was so important, the last significant base the Norse had before the dangerous voyage down the Dnieper through the Steppe to Constantinople. If Slavs are settled in the Steppe then, by definition, it is not the Steppe. If you read the chronicles and poetry, admittedly from the 12th century and later, being non-steppe is a diagnostic feature of being Slavic.

No question you are right though that Slavic horsemen would have frequently joined large steppe armies invading Romania. Leaders of such invasions try to recruit whoever they can, and everyone wants a piece of the Romans if they can get it! :D
 
If Slavs are settled in the Steppe then, by definition, it is not the Steppe. If you read the chronicles and poetry, admittedly from the 12th century and later, being non-steppe is a diagnostic feature of being Slavic.

Maybe, but Slavic-controlled territories deep inside the steppes were for example these ones:

Sarkel's fortress and city were captured by Kievan Rus' under prince Sviatoslav I in 965. The city was renamed Bila Vezha (Slavic for White Tower or White Fortress) and settled by Slavs. It remained Slavic until the 12th century, when the district was taken over by the Kipchaks.

Tmutarakan (or Tmutorakan) was a Mediaeval Russian principality and trading town that controlled the Cimmerian Bosporus, the passage from the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov. Its site was the ancient Greek colony of Hermonassa (Ancient Greek: Ἑρμώνασσα). It was situated on the Taman peninsula, in the present-day Krasnodar Krai of Russia, roughly opposite Kerch. The Khazar fortress of Tamatarkha (Tamantarkhan) was built on the site in the 7th century and became known as Tmutarakan (Russian: Тмутарака́нь) when it came under Kievan Rus control in the 10th and 11th centuries.

Oleshye (modern Kherson) - during the period of Kievan Rus this city was an important Slavic trading port and river gate. Steppes between Oleshye and the regions of Pereyaslavl and Kiev were also controlled by Kievan Rus, as well as steppes between Bila Vezha and the region of Pereyaslavl, although these two areas are described as disputed territories (so probably Kievan control there was not full and not constant). Between Bila Vezha and Pereyaslavl were areas inhabited by the Pechenegs in the 11th century, but disputed with Kievan Rus and probably not fully controlled by either side.

More to the south Chersonesos (in Crimea) was also controlled by Kievan Rus since the 980s (before that it was in Byzantine hands).

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

And some further info when it comes to the coastal areas of the Black Sea and area of modern Moldavia in the 15th century:

The coastal area of the Black Sea between the Boh River (aka Southern Bug) and the Dniester River were inhabited by Slavs in the 15th century. Areas to the north-east of the Boh River were inhabited by Tatars. Areas between the Dniester River and the Prut River were mixed Wallachian (Romanian) - Slavic. Areas to the south-west of the Prut River were clearly Wallachian (Romanian) areas. Crimea had a mixed ethnic composition, especially urban population.
 
So forts and trading cities aren't really related to what we're talking about. It's important to realise that Slavic farming life and Turkic nomad life are very different forms of exploitation, the skills and social organization (via social norms, customs and so on) are alien to each other and for the most part mutually exclusive. The Greeks and medieval Italians had cities and outposts there to (as you stated), and even limited agricultural establishments in the region, but that didn't make the Greeks and Italians steppe nomads. If they became that, they wouldn't really be Greeks or Italians.

Beyond that we're saying the same thing in effect, Domen. It's of course possible at the level of a state to construct forts and such things in the steppe, but actual communities of agricultural settlers is different. If that happens, the territory by definition ceases to be steppe.
 
Early Slavic armies had large proportion of cavalry.

According to Constantine Porphyrogennetos among the Chrobats proportion of mounted warriors to foot warriors was like 6 to 10.

From "De Administrando Imperio" by Constantine Porphyrogennetos:

"(...) Therefore everyone, who would like to do research about Dalmatia, can read herein about the way how the Slavic peoples took it. The Chrobats with their families came to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possesson of that land. After fighting against each other for some time, the Chrobats defeated the Avars, partially murdered them and partially forced them to submissiveness. Since that moment the country was seized by the Chrobats. (...)"

And that's apparently how modern Croatia beginned.

Artistic vision of the arrival of Croats at the Adriatic Sea in the 7th century CE by Croatian painter Oton Iveković:

Spoiler :


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

Apparently some women had very important position in Slavic socities, some were also warriors or even commanders:

From "Gesta Danorum" by Saxo Grammaticus - fights in Scandinavia in the 8th century:

"(...) The Slavic army was lead by Wisina, a woman who was adamant and very experienced in military matters. (...)"
 
Reconstructions of Early Medieval Slavic faces (based on discovered skulls / human remains):

http://historiapolski.eu/rekonstrukcje-antropologiczne-wygl-du-pierwszych-s-owian-t1964.html

http://postimg.org/image/jqsxbd0c9/



http://s23.postimg.org/glz1xrn3v/Twarze4.png



Spoiler :

And Regelinda - daughter of Polish King Bolesław I Chrobry - born in 989, died in 1030 - real Medieval sculpture:

Her mother was Emnilda the Slavic, daughter of Dobromir, who was a West Slavic monarch from Moravia or Lusatia:



From:

http://historiapolski.eu/rekonstrukcje-antropologiczne-wygl-du-pierwszych-s-owian-t1964.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqmqF0IUwzw


Link to video.

By comparison body & reconstruction of Otzi - who died in the Alps between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago:

 
Various theories indicate different origins of Slavs, depending on which branch of science (listed in the post title) they are based. A truly complex theory, encompassing and analyzing results of research of all branches of science into one logical conclusion, has yet to be developed.

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

An excerpt from this book ("Anthropology about the origins of Slavs", published in 2008 in Poznań):

The book was published by scholars of the Institute of Anthropology of Poznań University:

Here is their website: http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/html/indexe.html



"Dąbrowski (...) used for his research 168 male and female skulls of the Roman period, including 28 skulls classified as Przeworsk culture and 140 as Wielbark culture. Author has proven, that skulls classified as Przeworsk culture are not morphologically different from skulls classified as Wielbark culture, which means, that they are not distinguishable as two different populations. (...) In his comparative research Dąbrowski uses skulls classified as Chernyakhovsk culture (90 male skulls and 94 female skulls) and craniological materials from the Early Medieval period: Eastern Slavs - 835 male skulls and 456 female skulls, Western Slavs - 2652 male skulls and 2246 female skulls. Skulls were from various burial-grounds and represented, in case of Eastern Slavs, such ethno-tribal groups as: Dregowicze, Krywicze, Polanie, Radynicze, Siewierzanie, Słowenie, Wiatycze. In case of Western Slavs groups were distinguished basing on geographical-historical criterion: Czechs, Lesser Polans, Mazovians, Moravians, Pomeranians, Slovakians, Silesians, Greater Polans. Between 15 mentioned groups of Early Medieval Slavs Dąbrowski, thanks to data about individual sizes of skulls, counted so called D2 Mahalanobis biological distances. The analysis of this data has proven, that there exists a certain tendency that groups located closer to each other in geographical space, are more similar to each other. One such common group consists of skulls of Western Slavs, the other one of skulls of Eastern Slavs. (...) similar intergroup ties are present in case of both sexes. (...) Results of analyses published by Dąbrowski (2003, 2004, 2006, 2007) have been complemented by studies with use of new statistical methods and by larger number of chronologically diversified populations. Using matrixes of biological distances, present in Dąbrowski's work from 2007, we conducted comparative analysis of same morphorogical features of skulls in diachronic approach, that is comparing populations of the Roman period to Slavic populations. We have established a very high level of similarity between populations of both Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhovsk cultures to Slavic population (ill. 5, 6). Obtained by Dąbrowski (2007) and confirmed by us with use of another method, results of analyses indicate that populations living in basins of Oder and Vistula rivers during the period of Roman influences, were no different in terms of morphology from populations living in the same area during the Early Medieval period. Moreover, results of Dąbrowski's research have been complemented by comparative analysis of Roman period populations (populations of Wielbark, Przeworsk and Chernyakhovsk cultures) with populations of basins of Oder and Vistula rivers from Medieval period as well as with Medieval populations from Scandinavia (cf. Piontek 2006, 2007, Piontek and others 2007). In our comparative analysis we used the method of counting biological distance (square Euclidean distance) and the method of arranging matrixes according to Ward's method. Dendrogram divided the examined set of populations into two subgroups: the first subgroup - Medieval populations from basins of Oder and Vistula and Roman period populations, the second subgroup - Medieval and Late Medieval populations from Scandinavia and Western Pomerania. After comparing 22 populations in terms of 6 defined morphological features of skull it has been proven, that populations of Wielbark, Przeworsk and Chernyakhovsk cultures are characterized by very high level of morphological similarity with Medieval populations from basins of Vistula and Oder rivers. On the other hand, populations of these Roman period cultures bear no morphological resemblance to populations from Scandinavia, that is to populations to whom populations of Goths who allegedly lived in basins of Vistula and Oder rivers during the Roman period should be very similar, and with whom Roman period populations are often being ethnically identified."
 
Probable original homeland of Proto-Slavs and at the same time probable area of ethnogenesis of Slavs:



As you can see, anthropology indicates a larger area than archaeology.

Statistical differences between Medieval skull shapes of Germanic people and Slavic people were significant:



To better show differences between skull shapes of Slavic populations and Germanic ones, I marked them below:





To summ up both of my posts:

Roman era people of Vistula and Oder basins had statistically very similar skull shapes to Medieval Slavic populations of the same area.

Scandinavian and other Germanic people had statistically very different skull shapes from Roman era populations of Vistula and Oder basins.

Conclusion:

Goths and other Germanic people did not live in significant numbers in Vistula and Oder basins of the Roman Era.

There could be Gothic and other Germanic tribes living in this area, but they were just minority of entire population living there.
 
To summ up both of my posts:

Roman era people of Vistula and Oder basins had statistically very similar skull shapes to Medieval Slavic populations of the same area.

Scandinavian and other Germanic people had statistically very different skull shapes from Roman era populations of Vistula and Oder basins.

Conclusion:

Goths and other Germanic people did not live in significant numbers in Vistula and Oder basins of the Roman Era.

There could be Gothic and other Germanic tribes living in this area, but they were just minority of entire population living there.
Measuring skulls? Really? You know, if your goal is to show that Poland's moved out of the twentieth century and become an Enlightened Member of the Central European Community, you're doing it wrong.
 
In the former Soviet block, advocating dubious 19th century anthropological and cultural theories is considered the Hip New Thing compared to old Marxism-Leninism.
 
Lone Wolf said:
advocating dubious 19th century anthropological and cultural theories is considered the Hip New Thing compared to old Marxism-Leninism.

Here I answer some questions that I was asked on another forum regarding those two posts above:

michael mills said:
How is it possible to tell from a 2000-year-old skull what language was spoken by its owner when alive?
It is not about language it is about ancestry.

It says that majority of Slavs who lived in this area in Medieval were descendants of people who lived in this area in the Roman era.

It doesn't necessarily mean that those people spoke Slavic languages already in the Roman era.

It doesn't say what language they spoke in the Roman era. But Anthropological data suggests that it is untrue that the bulk of population of this area moved somewhere else (to the West and to the South), and then was replaced by new population coming from the East.

If such a massive population replacement took place, Western Slavs would have different skulls than Roman era population of the same land.

On the other hand, the results of anthropological research show that most of Medieval population in Vistula and Oder basins were descendants of Roman era population from the same territory - not of people who came from the East after local population moved on to the West and South.

It also shows that people from Scandinavia (i.e. migrating Goths) were not a significant portion of population in Vistula and Oder basins. Not only Scandinavians, but also populations from lands of modern Germany had different anthropological features than Vistula-Oder population.

michael mills said:
The similarity of skulls of the medieval population of a particular area to the skulls of a much older population living in the same region simply shows that there was no physical replacement of population in the intervening period, ie the medieval population was physically descended from the older one.

However, such similarity does not exclude the possibility of changes in the culture and language of that population between the two periods examined. That is to say, the fact that a particular language was spoken in the area where the medieval skulls were found does not mean that the same language was spoken by the physically similar population that lived in the same area in much earlier times, say Roman times.

An example is provided by the extensive germanisation of large Slavic populations in medieval times in the territory east of the Elbe. Presumably a Slav-speaker who learned to speak German and adopted a German culture would not thereby undergo a change of skull-shape.

Thus, the German-speaking population of a particular area might be substantially descended from a population that was Slavic-speaking in previous centuries, and therefore would have the same skull-shape as its physical ancestors, despite the change in language and culture.

In similar vein, a medieval Slavic-speaking population might be substantially descended from a population that spoke a Germanic language in Roman times.

Exactly! All of your points are correct. But it shows that the story about great migration of entire population, who left only deserted land behind them, and then was replaced by new (Slavic-speaking) population who came from the East - is wrong. Moreover, it shows that majority of Medieval Slavic-speaking population had ancestors in the same territory in the Roman era (which of course doesn't mean that those ancestors were also Slavic-speaking, but it denies the old theory of complete switch of population, with a period of totally deserted land in between).

By the way - genetic (haplogroups) research shows the same conclusion, and we already had a discussion about this on another forum.

michael mills said:
Those are the sort of factors that make it very difficult to draw conclusions from the comparison of alleged "Slavic" skulls with alleged "German" skulls. If skulls from two different areas show marked differences in form, that shows a degree of genetic distance between the populations of those two areas, but those physical differences say nothing about the cultural and linguistic relationship of the two populations.
Yes, the research doesn't say that those were Slavic skulls. But it says that those were skulls of descendants of Medieval Slavic population of the same territory, rather than of descendants of Medieval Germanic population of diffferent parts of Europe (where Goths and other Germanic tribes, who allegedly lived in large numbers in the area of modern Poland during the Roman era, migrated). In other words - when you want to look for Medieval descendants of people who lived at the Vistula during the reign of Emperor Augustus, you will find majority of them living in the same place (also at the Vistula) during the reign of Charlemagne - rather than somewhere else (for example in Italy and Spain, where the Goths migrated).

michael mills said:
Thus, the German-speaking population of a particular area might be substantially descended from a population that was Slavic-speaking in previous centuries, and therefore would have the same skull-shape as its physical ancestors, despite the change in language and culture.
Yes, when you change language, the shape of your skull is not changing because of this. So there are many modern Germans who descend from Medieval Slavs of Vistula and Oder basins, who in turn descend from Ancient population of the same area (Vistula and Oder basins).

This research is not completely denying that some migrations of various ethno-linguistic groups took place.

But this research is showing that majority of population of Vistula and Oder basins was stationary between Ancient and Medieval times. This contradicts the old theory that entire population moved away to Western and Souther Europe, being replaced by new population from the East.

beorna said:
skulls measuring and all this is like the nazi research before 1945 or Virchow -style.
Nazi measuring was claiming that one skull (and its owner) is inherently better than another skull (and its owner). And they claimed this basing on differences in skull shapes, which are completely immaterial except for purely comparative and parentage researching purposes.

It would be like claiming that people with fair hair are better because of hair colour (actually that's what the Nazis also claimed).

beorna said:
These 19th century research thought to classify people by skull features. Thas was already shown as nonsense decades ago.
Anthropology was shown as nonsense decades ago? Then why is this science still existing?

The 19th century research was thought to prove that owners of some skulls are superior to owners of other skulls because of their skulls (and such). But it is a matter of fact that various populations have - statistically - different shapes of nose, face, mouth, eyes, skull, etc.

Another thing is that shapes of skull, nose, eyes, etc., have no impact on mental abilities of its owner.

beorna said:
Not Anthropology is nonsense, but to make conclusion for ethnic groups on the base of skull features or genetic research.
If you define ethnic groups as language groups (like me) then it is not making any conclusions.

It makes conclusions when it comes to parentage, descent.

It concludes that descendants of Medieval Slavic population did not come from the East, but lived where they were.

It is possible that their Roman era descendants did not speak Slavic languages, of course.

But this research also proves, that there were no significant and / or long-lasting populations of Goths from Scandinavia in Vistula and Oder basins. Either there were relatively small groups of Goths from Scandinavia, or there could be large groups who quickly moved forward without staying in this area (Vistula-Oder) for a long time, and without interbreeding much with local populations.

If there were significant Gothic populations for long time, more skulls with Scandinavian shapes would be found.
 
Genetic (haplogroup) research is only confirming anthropological evidence quoted above:

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

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0054360

Some fragments from the study in the link above:

"(...) Based on the newest anthropological data it has been suggested that the area between the Oder and Vistula rivers witnessed continuity of human settlement between the Roman period and the early Middle Ages. Indeed, based on morphological features of skeletal materials it has been established that populations of the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Cherniakhovo cultures from the Roman period bear close similarities to the early medieval Western Slavs and not to the medieval Germanic-speaking populations [10], [11]. Furthermore, paleodemographic studies also point to the biological continuity of the populations inhabiting the Oder and Vistula basin in the Roman period and the early medieval Slavic populations of this region [10]. Therefore, anthropological data received thus far make the “allochtonic” hypothesis less plausible, especially in its extreme migrationist form. (...)"

And:

"(...) Indeed, we show here the existence of genetic continuity of several maternal lineages in Central Europe from the times of Bronze and Iron Ages. Thus, the data from complete mitochondrial genomes collected so far seems to indicate that the ancestors of Slavs were autochthonous peoples of Central and Eastern Europe rather than early medieval invaders emerging in restricted areas of the Prut and Dniestr basin and expanding suddenly due to migration, as suggested by some archeologists [9]. In this respect, the complete genome data on several mitochondrial subhaplogroups of probable Central European origin presented in this and previous studies [51], [52] are in a perfect agreement with the recent findings of physical anthropology, suggesting continuity of human settlement in central Europe between the Roman period and the early Middle Ages [11] as well as with earlier anthropological data pointing to the central Europe as the “homeland” of Slavs [54]. (...)"

And:

"(...) In order to deepen the understanding of the origin of the Slavs,
we have completely sequenced the mtDNAs of 63 Slavic samples
representing haplogroups H5 and H6. Comparison of these
haplotypes with the available complete mtDNA sequences allows
us to identify a number of novel subclades. Further analysis
enables us to demonstrate that both the founder node and the
oldest subclusters within haplogroup H5 could be traced back to
the time of last glacial period or even earlier in the case of
haplogroup H6. These are mainly represented by samples of
southern European origin, which further supports the idea of
Europe repopulation from southern European refugia after LGM
[12,46,47]. As expected, we show here that potentially Slavicspecific
components of H5 haplogroup are much younger than H5
subclades of southern Europe, as their evolutionary age was
calculated to approximately 4 kya. The formation of these clades
coincides with the expansion of Central and Eastern European
haplogroups U4a2, U5a2a and U5a2b1 [48,49]. Taken together,
this data points to a genetic continuity of several maternal lineages
in Central Europe from the times of Bronze and Iron Ages.
Interestingly, this picture could be also confirmed by expansion
time of Y-chromosome subcluster R1a1a1-M458 [51]. Thus, one
may exclude the migrationist assumption that Central European
territories were populated by the Slavs only at the very beginning
of sixth century, following whole scale depopulation of the
northern areas of Central Europe [1]. Indeed, the data presented
herein indicates that visible changes of material culture of Central
Europe in the fifth century did not result from extensive
demographic changes, but were rather accompanied by continuity
of some maternal and paternal lineages between Bronze and early
Middle Ages. (...)"

And:

"(...) Moreover, we were able to pinpoint some lineages which could possibly reflect the relatively recent contacts of Slavs with nomadic Altaic peoples (C4a1a, G2a, D5a2a1a1). (...)"

And also:

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=21698

About haplogroup R1a in English.

"We found that the most ancient R1a subclades (R1a1-M198- and R1a1a-M198+/M417-) bearers of which currently live in Europe (the present day haplotypes are scattered between England and the Balkans) appeared in Europe at least 7300 ybp,

The Z283 subclade split ~ 5500 ybp into three branches. One of them, Z280 (the Central Eurasian branch) moved east to the Russian Plain in 4800 - 4600 ybp, and formed at least 16 sub-branches there and in the course of the later westward repopulation of Europe in the 1st millennium BC – 1st millennium CE.

In the middle of 1st millennium CE, the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire, multiple migrations of R1a were taking place eastward and westward; these migrations gradually formed the current landscape of R1a in Europe. All 38 branches and their datings are listed in the Appendix of this paper; current distribution maps are shown in the body of the paper."

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

Conclusions:

By genetic parentage (haplogroups) as well as anthropologically / morphologically, majority of Medieval population of Vistula and Oder basins were descendants of majority of Roman era population of this area, while at the same time not being descendants of Goths from Scandinavia.

So called "great migrations" (in both directions) are thus vastly overrated, at least when it comes to their scale.
 
This should be a soapbox thread in the Tavern; at least then it would be fun to read. :(
 
This should be a soapbox thread in the Tavern; at least then it would be fun to read. :(
Why? It's a polemic to prove something that doesn't really matter, can't really be proven anyway, and the arguments for it are based off of erroneous assumptions and archaic methods.

This thread is the equivalent of somebody making a Science and Technology thread talking about observable dephlogistication.
 
Because in the Tavern we could troll it and have more fun.

I didn't mean to imply that Domen's comments would be more fun to read. :mischief:
 
Top Bottom