Discussion in 'World History' started by Gucumatz, Oct 11, 2014.
You can't draw simple connections between material culture, social culture and ethnicity.
I think it might refer to Silesia in the 13th/14th century. But this is certainly only a rough estimate. The German proportion was surely more than 0 % and lower than 100 %. The tricky thing is assimilation. If the German settlers intermixed with the native population in Silesia or wherever and their descendants speak Polish and German, are they Germans or Poles? Impossible to answer.
The connections are not simple, but complex.
As for large-scale Anglo-Saxon immigration to Britain - it is confirmed also by analysis of oxygen and strontium isotope ratios in tooth enamel from teeth found in burials characterized by material culture commonly identified with Anglo-Saxons. These ratios in tooth enamel are being fixed in childhood, and differ according to place of the world in which an individual was born. So analysis of these things in burials can tell you how many of the buried people were born locally and how many were immigrants - it also allows to establish which was the probable place of birth of an immigrant individual. Of course this method does not work for next generations - children of immigrants are going to have the same tooth enamel as native population.
So if you have a single migration event, lasting for few years, then this can help to accurately estimate the number of immigrants. But if you have a prolonged period of immigration, lasting for a few centuries, then this method can only tell you how large was the influx of people in each decade, but not how many immigrated in total because children and grandchildren of immigrants are impossible to distinguish from natives with this method.
Research with use of that method (tooth enamel) applied to human remains from early Anglo-Saxon burial sites shows that in many cases a significant percent of all buried individuals were immigrants from continental Europe, not locally born people. But of course it was never majority. Which supports the model of gradual influx of people (over at least 100 years), combined with acculturation of conquered native population.
From "Anglo-Saxon Immigration and Ethnogenesis" by Heinrich Haerke:
Rather closer to 0% than to 100% because in Lower Silesia nobody decimated native population, as German settlers were mostly invited by local dukes.
Situation was different in places which were conquered and subjugated by German and Danish crusaders during the Northern Crusades.
In Lower Silesia Germans initially (in the 1200s) settled in the Sudeten Mountains, which were sparsely populated and mostly covered by forest. So in Sudety maybe Germans could be half of the population, or even majority. But in other areas it was mostly adoption of German language by the locals.
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.
Each ethnic group, race, etc. is the product of several other ethnic groups, races, etc. which in distant past melted, forming a new entity.
Here is how 17th century English historians saw ethnic changes in ancient Poland (part of Sarmatia Europea):
Excerpts from "The Description of Poland" by John Speed, published in London in 1626 (together with a map):
The Nuremberg Chronicle from year 1493 reported - concerning rural population in the countryside around Nysa (Neisse) in Silesia - that:
"Plebs rustica polonici ydeomatis"
Polonici ydeomatis = Polish-speaking. Still in 1493. You can tell this to Beorna cuz I remember we argued about this area some time ago.
From precisely that area - from village Koperniki near Nysa (Neisse) - had originated ancestors of the clan of Koperniks.
That is really interesting to read. Härke describes three models based on archaelogical finds which can explain the process of the English ethnogenesis
1) the kin group model:
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.
2) the warband model:
3) the elite transfer model:
excerpts from: http://www.academia.edu/1178275/Ang...nogenesis._Medieval_Archaeology_55_2011._1-28
I agree but there are still some remote areas in Latin America where there is a non assimilated or intermixed Precolumbian population. The president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, is a native Indio:
Some might to choose to preserve their old British or Bangladeshi blood. But there will be certainly a higher mixture between the "old" British and the "new" British population.
I completely agree!
They did not intermix with each other too often as long as they had different language and culture. But after few centuries, the Britons became Anglo-Saxonized. Different language and culture disappeared and the two groups became undistinguishable, so they didn't even know if they marry some "proper" Anglo-Saxon or some descendant of Romano-Britons.
Marriages between Protestants and Catholics would usually lead to one of them converting to religion of the other one. Recently there was a Jewish-Muslim wedding in Israel but the Jewish spouse converted to Islam (either already before the wedding or shortly after it).
Yes, in some Latin American countries they are even large part or majority of inhabitants.
But people of mixed ancestries predominate in most countries and in Latin America as a whole.
I'm not sure if those images with text that I posted above can be seen.
Anyway, here is what John Speed wrote in 1626:
Polish Sarmatism was thus based on the belief in continuity of population from most ancient times to present:
Link to video.
English wikipedia article about Sarmatism wrongly claims, that:
Well, name Sarmatia Europea was just as much - no more, no less - "semi-legendary" as name Germania Magna. In works of ancient geographers (Poseidonius of Apameia, Pomponius Mela, Claudius Ptolemy, etc.) SE was a defined geographical area, just like GM. Of course various authors saw the boundaries of Sarmatia Europaea - particularly its western boundaries with Germania Magna - differently. Poseidonius (born in 135 BC, died in 51 BC) saw the Germania-Sarmatia border along the Elbe River or somewhere between the Elbe River and the Odra River. Mela (died in 45 AD) saw it roughly along the Odra and the Lusatian Neisse Rivers (just like modern Polish-German border). And Ptolemy (born in 90 AD, died in 168 AD) saw the Germania-Sarmatia boundary along the Vistula River.
Southern border of SE was defined by ancient geographers along the Carpathian Mountains, the Danube Delta, and northern coast of the Black Sea.
In the east ancient Sarmatia Europaea included territories of modern Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia and westernmost pieces of Russia.
Borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth happened to be nearly the same as those of ancient Sarmatia Europea:
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.
Their isolation and lack of resources led the Greenland Norse to develop a vastly different material culture to their European forebears, such as in the kinds of tools they used and the clothing they wore, despite their attempts to maintain their culture in other ways, such as sharing a religion with their Scandinavian cousins, and maintaining livestock which were manifestly unsuited to Greenland's environment. At the same time, the Greenland Norse do not seem to have consumed fish in any appreciable quantity - I believe the exact number oof fish bones found in Greenland Norse middens to be 3 - which is astonishing given Greenland's abundance of seafood; its primary export today is halibut, closely followed by cod and shrimp (see "Economy of Greenland"). This is a change in culture that completely flies in the face of ethno-linguistic similarities to Greenland's Northern European antecedents.
It is also hardly a unique situation. North Korea and South Korea share the same language and ethnography, yet have a material culture that is worlds apart. Many of the Celts and Germans that Julius Caesar encountered were known as such merely due to which side of the Rhine they originated from; a tribe described as Celtic and living on the left bank of the Rhine might actually speak a Germanic language, yet possess a material culture owing much to Brythonic influences. Quebec has a material culture and ethnography differing only in minor points with that of the rest of Canada and the United States, yet the majority of the population speaks an entirely different language.
The attempts, in this thread and others, to conflate material culture, ethnicity (or haplogroup, the current buzz term in the field) and language are, to be blunt, both foolish and misguided. This is, unfortunately, also common amongst actual researchers in this field. This is usually for the same reasons as these arguments are popular on the internet; intellectual laziness and dishonesty, combined with a lack of understanding of the field. It is far easier to group one group of people as 'German' and another as 'Slavic' based on their material culture, then assume that they must also have spoken similar languages and had similar DNA, than it is to acknowledge that, much like the adopted Cambodian child of a wealthy American family, language, material culture, and ethnicity might be three completely unrelated things.
This makes it far harder for nationalists, who are often the individuals conducting research in 'ethnic history,' to claim that their ancestors were the ones who always lived here, or that they were forced out by invaders, or that they are the descendants of this culture, or that culture, or that the linguistic evidence indicates they came from this place, or that place. It's much easier to say; that tribe used that type of pot, therefore they spoke a dialect of Celtic, therefore, the Irish came from Morocco (an actual argument I heard from a comedian recently, though he may have misunderstood the news source he was quoting). That does not, however, make it any less wrong.
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.
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.
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.
That approach to ethnicity belongs squarely in the 19th century. Are there even serious scholars calling themselves 'ethnographers' any more?
Your "popular" and to be honest quite vague (lack of) understanding of ethnicity has nothing to do with scientific approach.
Both of you guys - JS and FP - talk about ethnicity in "pop culture", not as a concept in research of anthropologists, historians, geopoliticians, etc.
But I don't really know what are your reservations about, FP. You wrote: "You can't draw simple connections between material culture, social culture and ethnicity." What does it mean? Where was I "drawing simple connections between material culture, social culture and ethnicity" - plz cite relevant parts of my posts.
IMO you are annoyed that someone is wondering about the extent of population replacement / continuation in England during the Migrations Period.
So you are saying that Anglo-Saxons could fit into their new country (Britain) without changing their genetics ??? Etc., etc.
OK - but what does it have to do with anything? Who claimed that they could not fit into Britain? Did somebody claim so?
We were wondering how did ethnically Romano-Briton Britain transform into ethnically Anglo-Saxon Britain, what was the extent of population immigration, what was the extent of population replacement and what was the extent of assimilation / acculturation of locals and population continuity.
These are complex issues and I am by no means drawing simple connections. If you don't have enough proofs then you shouldn't draw any connections. That's why certain amount of evidence of all kinds is necessary to support one or another theory. But there is no shortage of evidence.
That is THE scientific, serious approach to ethnicity.
I am not talking about ethnicity in pop culture where asking "what is your ethnicity?" is like asking "what is your favourite band?".
I am not "drawing simple connections". These are complex issues so I try not to draw simple - but complex - connections. I know that there are people who claim that there was no Anglo-Saxon immigration to Britain. That only a small band of warriors came and that local Celts miraculously adopted their language. You know what, there are also some people who claim this for the German so called "Ostsiedlung". They claim that German migrations did not happend, that only few German crusaders and merchants visited those territories, and that local people adopted language from them.
For example historian Ewa Maleczyńska writes:
"(...) One must keep in mind that all this extensive settlement has been built and managed by Polish hands. Strangers there were still a few: these are the group we already know as the Walloons, the others were Jews who have had a cemetery of their own. Germans, however, as far as we do not want to count temporarily present merchants, had barely settled. (...)"
This is about the city of Wrocław (Breslau). And those Jews perhaps were also locals who converted to Judaism!
So one historian claims that 400,000 Germans migrated eastward during 200 years, another one claims that Germans "had barely settled" anywhere.
When it comes to Old Prussians (the Prusai) - here is the approximate extent (ca. 65,800 km2) of the pre-conquest territory of Prussian tribes:
During years and centuries following the conquest of Old Prussians by Teutonic Knights with help of German, Polish, Russian and other European crusaders, groups of settlers started to settle in Prussia (some of those settlers of course eventually started to intermingle with local Old Prussian population):
- western and northern parts were destinations for mostly German settlers
- southern and eastern parts became destinations for mostly Polish settlers
- north-eastern parts became destinations for mostly Lithuanian settlers
Here are approximate directions of colonization by various ethnic groups of settlers: Polish settlers settled in regions which later became known as Masuria / Mazury (due to the fact that Poles who settled there were mostly Mazurs - that is, people from Mazovia), southern Warmia (Ermland), Powisle, southern Suvalkija and Podlasie. Lithuanian settlers settled in regions which later became known as Klein Litauen (Lithuania Minor / Prussian Lithuania / Mažoji Lietuva), Suvalkija and Memelland. Some Belarusians / East Slavs settled in Podlasie as well:
German-made ethnic map from year 1847 showing divisions for German-majority, Lithuanian-majority and Polish-majority areas in East Prussia:
Red line = border of East Prussia:
Green colour (in the north-west) = territories with German-speaking majority
Yellow colour (in the south) = territories with Polish-speaking majority
Grey colour (in the north-east) = territories with Lithuanian-speaking majority
Of course it shows only majorities in each area. But each group extended also beyond areas where they were majority.
For example when Prussia was Poland's vassal state, in 16th - 17th centuries, Poles were 30% of inhabitants of the city of Konigsberg.
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..
I understand it is not uncommon, for example, for Americans to see themselves as citizens of their state before citizens of the United States. So, for example, they would see themselves as a Virginian, a Southerner, and an American, in that order. In South Africa, people often see themselves as white, then Afrikaaner, then Souther African, to use another example.
Ethnicity is merely another layer of one's identity. You are correct in stating that ethnicity is not entirely a matter of self-identification; to use my Cambodian example from earlier, she might see herself as American, but if enough people saw her as Cambodian, or, more likely, as 'Asian' - or some offensive variation thereof - 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.
Also, ethnography is no longer a serious science. To expand on what I wrote earlier, it's essentially pseudoscientific nationalist tripe. I'm disappointed to see that it dominates the history forum here. When I first started lurking, it was far less common, and usually quickly smacked down by people like Dachs, LightSpectra, Plotinus and the like. I recall long rambling arguments from Afro-Centrists before I stopped lurking, and I recently came back - about a month or so ago - to find it has become the norm. Disappointing.
Ethnicity is layered as well, but ethnicity =/= identity. Ethnicity is primarily about objective affiliation, only to a lesser degree about identity. If I identify as a Cherokee, it doesn't make me one (BTW check the requirements one must fulfill to join the Cherokee tribe). Ethnicity can be complex. Ethnic groups can have structures consisting of many degrees (like in case of other social groups). There can be an ethnos which is part of a larger ethnos, which is part of an even larger ethnos. They can split and merge. They can overlap. There can be common parts for few larger ethnoses. Example of a layered ethnicity (lower level -> higher level) "Bavarian -> German".
Example of a layered ethnos which was shared by few larger ethnoses - "Prussian" (one coud be "Prussian -> German", "Prussian -> Polish", among them Masurians etc., "Prussian -> Lithuanian" or "Prussian -> Prussian" aka Old Prussian) or Silesian ("Silesian -> German", "Silesian -> Polish", "Silesian -> Czech").
However, in ethnic classifications such regional groups are often called ethnographic groups, while name "ethnicity" is restricted for major groups.
But "human" is not an ethnicity, neither is "sexy beast".
White is not an ethnicity, but a racial concept and a racial identity.
South African is a citizenship and perhaps 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 in this case.
But very few African-Americans who live in the South woud see themselves as "Southerners", if by Southerners you mean "Rednecks".
And if by "Southerners" you mean just a geographical location where one lives, then in such case it cannot be considered an ethnicity.
This woud be just a racial perception of this person - based solely on her physical appearance and nothing else. Ethnic groups are not classified based on physical appearance or genes (though of course genes will tell you that her ancestors were most likely members of some ethnic group from Cambodia).
"Classification and exclusion" - why exactly do you think that these two words have anything to do with each other?
These two words are as much related as "refrigerator and stone" - you can misuse stones by throwing them at a refrigator, but that's it.
Humanity doesn't have any obsession but is simply genetically "programmed" to cluster into groups of various kinds.
Transformation of all human groups into a "globalized shapeless biological mass" is not exactly a good thing from perspective of cultural diversity.
Most of these identifications are not even ethnic identifications. And objectively you are ethnically just a British Australian.
Bullpoo. The risk of descending into nationalism is certainly not higher than in history, archaeology, genetics, anthropology, etc.
And ethnigraphy might not be a science of its own - at least under this name - but is a field of interest of other scholars.
I'm far from being an Afro-Centrist but it is laughable when people who claim that races don't exist then claim that Egyptians "were definitely not Black".
If races supposedly don't exist (which is not my opinion but of people you mentioned) then it is impossible to tell what race were Ancient Egyptians.
Actually research of DNA of modern Egyptians shows that 14% of their DNA is Sub-Saharan-African, which indicates the presence of either Sub-Saharan African or mixed-race ("Mulatto") people in Egypt throughout history, and miscegenation between "white" Egyptians and those "black" Egyptians, resulting in an 86/14 mix of today.
So Afro-Centrists are slightly, but partially, right. Also historical records confirm that Egypt was at times ruled by foreign invaders. Including "Black" Nubians.
Nubian pharaohs were undoubtedly black-skinned. Whereas famous red-haired pharaohs were an ethnically Hyksos, Indo-European dynasty, also intruders.
Of course Nubian pharaohs were from Nubia and therefore had a different DNA, etc., than African-Americans, most of whom came from Western Africa.
So when African-Americans during "Black History Month" and such, celebrate "Black Egyptians", they don't exactly celebrate "their ancestors".
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.
Tell that to my wife!
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.
If the people who believe themselves to be 'white' affiliate themselves with others 'white' people, then 'white' is an ethnicity in the context of South African society. Much as 'black' is an ethnic group in New Zealand, where I believe it connotes a specific sub-set of the Maori people, rather than African or African-American people as elsewhere.
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.
What does journalism have to do with this discussion? The concept of race was discredited in the late '70s.
The Out of Africa hypothesis is currently the most likely hypothesis for the spread of humanity across the globe. There are very few people that oppose it.
There's a big difference between people who believe the OOA hypothesis and radical Afro-Centrists. Radical Afro-Centrists (I was unfair in just using the term 'Afro-Centrists' earlier) are the nutters that argue for things like Black Athena or Black Olmecs[/URL]. Those are two very different sociological viewpoints. The former fits the evidence, the latter in Ancient Astronaut level nonsense.
Just because the South Africans used the incorrect term 'race' to describe their ethnic affiliation does not mean the term is not an ethnic identity. No matter how many people call themselves a 'race,' it does not make them a race.
Look - South African Apartheid was about race, not about ethnicity. You could speak perfect English with nice accent, be a Protestant, drink tea at 5 o'clock every day, eat British breakfasts, read Shakespeare, enjoy British humour, adher to other British customs and traditions, etc. - but it did not matter, because if you were Black, then you still had to sit at the back of the bus and could be deported to a Bantustan. So Apartheid was clearly about race - not ethnicity.
Actually biologists commonly divide many species of wild (not just domesticated) animals into races.
For example, they distinguish between several races of a chimpanzee and several races of a gorilla.
If other species of primates are being divided into races, then humans can be too, as we are also primates.
That was 30 years before scientists learned to read the complete human genome. "Prehistory"!
So that research must be now considered obsolete because they had no sufficient tools nor sufficient evidence to either discredit or confirm the concept - yet despite lack of evidence some of them did that, motivated by political and ideological agenda, as well as by historical events. But you should know that even in the 1970s there was never any scientific consensus on races. Even at that time many scientists supported the validity of the concept of human races.
I mentioned journalists because they are the ones who shout loudest when issues of race are discussed. Especially journalists from certain political circles pretend that there is a scientific consensus on this, while there is no (so far).
As for OOA of course it is the most widespread theory today. I think it is right but it is not exactly known when and how it happened (what percent of people left Africa, how representative were they for humanity of their times as a whole, how many migrations were there, how numerous, how isolated and how endogamous were various groups of early humans in Africa and after emigration, etc.). And also today we know that people in various parts of the world interbred with other species of Homo. For example in Europe with Neanderthals. Africa had the largest variety of other species of Homo and humans in Africa mixed with them too. Google e.g. "Albert Perry" (and Perry's ancestral tribe), "Khoisan", "Biaka", or "Mbuti", etc.
Separate names with a comma.