European ethno-linguistic assimilation

[Carolus I]

I've heard that on the day of Italian unification only 1 'Italian' in 100 could actually hold a conversation in standard Italian. Certainly the Greeks persisted with a 'standard' language spoken by almost nobody until they eventually had to drop it.

Standard Italian is actually the dialect of Florence. With the introduction of compulsory school education the Italians learnt to speak and write Italian.

 

[Domen]

With the introduction of compulsory school education the Italians learnt to speak and write Italian.

This was also the case with German language in several eastern regions (Lower Silesia, Upper Silesia, Pomerania, East Prussia, Lusatia, etc.).

And specifically with standard German that was the case in most of Germany (since there were local German dialects in use in each region).

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

For example let's take a look at the Lutheran parish of Główczyce (Główczëce, Glowitz) located 28 km from Słupsk (Słëpsk, Stolp):

Year (total population) - number of kashubian/polish-speakers (% of the total), number of german-speakers (% of the total):

1829 (4848) - 3297 (68%), 1551 (32%)
1850 (5122) - 1370 (27%), 3752 (73%)
1879 (5381) - 125 (2%), 5256 (98%)

In just 50 years (about two generations) population of that Lutheran parish was almost completely Germanized.

That said, such rapid Germanization was usually not the case in Roman Catholic parishes.

For example today great majority of the remaining Slavic-speaking Lusatian Sorbs of eastern Germany are Roman Catholics.

That was not always the case, but Lutheran Sorbs were Germanized, and only some of Catholic Sorbs preserved their Slavic identity.

 

[Carolus I]

This was also the case with German language in several eastern regions (Lower Silesia, Upper Silesia, Pomerania, East Prussia, Lusatia, etc.).

And specifically with standard German that was the case in most of Germany (since there were local German dialects in use in each region).

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

For example let's take a look at the Lutheran parish of Główczyce (Główczëce, Glowitz) located 28 km from Słupsk (Słëpsk, Stolp):

Year (total population) - number of kashubian/polish-speakers (% of the total), number of german-speakers (% of the total):

1829 (4848) - 3297 (68%), 1551 (32%)
1850 (5122) - 1370 (27%), 3752 (73%)
1879 (5381) - 125 (2%), 5256 (98%)

In just 50 years (about two generations) population of that Lutheran parish was almost completely Germanized.

That said, such rapid Germanization was usually not the case in Roman Catholic parishes.

For example today great majority of the remaining Slavic-speaking Lusatian Sorbs of eastern Germany are Roman Catholics.

That was not always the case, but Lutheran Sorbs were Germanized, and only some of Catholic Sorbs preserved their Slavic identity.

That's interesting.

But why led the fact that people were Protestant to their Germanization (in the sense of a linguistical change from Polish / Polish dialects to German)?

Afaik the linguistical frontier in Silesia corresponded more or less to the religious frontier. Lower Silesia was German-speaking and Protestant, while Upper Silesia was mainly Polish-speaking and Catholic.

 

[Domen]

But why led the fact that people were Protestant to their Germanization (in the sense of a linguistical change from Polish / Polish dialects to German)?

In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the Counterreformation was very successful in the 17th century.

Therefore Protestant culture and Protestant cultural centres in Poland-Lithuania declined (following the Counterreformation), numbers of Protestant religious texts published in Polish language declined, and Polish-speaking as well as other Slavic-speaking Protestants became less connected to Polish culture.

On the other hand cultural connections to Poland never ceased to exist for Polish-speaking and other Slavic-speaking Catholics who lived outside of political borders of Poland. For example Silesian Catholics regularly made pilgrimages across the border, to Jasna Góra Monastery in Częstochowa.

Lithuanians living in East Prussia were overwhelmingly Protestant and they also underwent rapid Germanization during the 19th century.

German-Lithuanian dispute for the Memelland after the end of WW1 was a dispute for remnants of Lithuanian-speaking population in East Prussia.

During the 16th - 18th centuries the number and extent of Lithuanian-speaking population in East Prussia was much greater than in 1918.

 

[Carolus I]

In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the Counterreformation was very successful in the 17th century.

Therefore Protestant culture and Protestant cultural centres in Poland-Lithuania declined (following the Counterreformation), numbers of Protestant religious texts published in Polish language declined, and Polish-speaking as well as other Slavic-speaking Protestants became less connected to Polish culture.

On the other hand cultural connections to Poland never ceased to exist for Polish-speaking and other Slavic-speaking Catholics who lived outside of political borders of Poland. For example Silesian Catholics regularly made pilgrimages across the border, to Jasna Góra Monastery in Częstochowa.

Lithuanians living in East Prussia were overwhelmingly Protestant and they also underwent rapid Germanization during the 19th century.

German-Lithuanian dispute for the Memelland after the end of WW1 was a dispute for remnants of Lithuanian-speaking population in East Prussia.

During the 16th - 18th centuries the number and extent of Lithuanian-speaking population in East Prussia was much greater than in 1918.

I see there is a relation between ethnical and religious identity. But how did it work? Did the clerics of the Protestant church encourage the members of their parishes to speak German instead of Polish/Lithuanian or whatever?

 

[Domen]

But how did it work?

It worked on many levels for sure. Surely not in just one way. What you mentioned was the case. But for example compulsory school education in German language as well. And other factors. Here is the number of Lithuanian-speakers living in East Prussia as percent of the total population of East Prussia:

1708 - 143,000 (21,15%)
1740 - 73,500 (12,25%)
1820 - 200,000 (18,52%)
1848 - 150,580 (10,26%)
1871 - 139,450 (7,65%)
1878 - 131,415 (6,91%)
1890 - 121,345 (6,19%)

Estimates for 1708 and 1740 are from a German website www.prussen.org and number for 1820 is from a Polish 1825 book by Stanisław Plater (1784-1851).

The decline of the % of Lithuanians after 1708 was caused by the plague in East Prussia in 1709 - 1711 (see: Great Northern War plague outbreak). It affected ethnic Lithuanians more than all other ethnic groups in East Prussia, because it swept mostly through north-eastern regions of the province, where Lithuanians were the majority. After 1740 there was a recovery in % of Lithuanian population, due to natural increase and immigration of new Lithuanians from the east.

Lithuania Minor (Prussian Lithuania) is as important for Lithuanian history, as Lower Silesia is for Polish history.

First book in Polish language was printed in Lower Silesia; first book in Lithuanian language was published in Prussian Lithuania.

Here some information about the end of Lithuanian culture in East Prussia, from a Lithuanian website:

(...) they [the Lithuanians of East Prussia] preserved their language, customs, Lithuanian way of life, and worldview and created a distinctive culture which exerted a vitalizing influence on the neighboring culture of Lithuania Major. Lithuania Minor saw the appearance of the first Lithuanian language book, the Catechism of M. Mažvydas, in 1547; the Bible was translated into Lithuanian by Bretkūnas in 1579–90; the first Lithuanian grammar was written by D. Klein in 1653. During the 17th century Lithuanian life, customs, and beliefs were extensively described by E. Wagner, M. Pretorius, K. Hartknoch, and T. Lepner, and in the 18th century the first classic of Lithuanian literature was created: the poem "Metai" ("The Year") by K. Donelaitis. However, after the great plague of 1709–11 the German colonization of Lithuania Minor began. About 23,000 colonists, mostly German farmers, moved into Lithuanian territory in 1710–36. The rights and freedoms of Lithuanians were gradually restricted; their culture was driven out of public life. In 1872–76 the use of the Lithuanian language was prohibited in schools and in all state institutions. The policy of Germanizing this territory achieved its goal: in 1736 Lithuanians still made up about 80 percent of the total population in the districts of Klaipėda, Tilžė, Ragainė, Įsrutis, and Labguva; and in 1900 – only about 20 percent. In the 20th century, the open persecution of the Lietuvininkai and the destruction of their culture began in 1933 with the accession to power of the Nazis, and the final, fatal blow was delivered by World War II and the postwar Soviet occupation. Almost all of the Lietuvininkai were then scattered over Europe and the expanses of Siberia; their territory was settled by new colonists from the Soviet Union. (...)

The historical region of Lithuania Minor corresponds roughly to the modern day Kaliningrad Oblast - with the exception of its western part.

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

In year 1525 after the secularization, the Duchy of Prussia as a vassal state of Poland, under the reign of Duke Albrecht von Brandenburg-Ansbach (former GM of the Teutonic Order), was created. The Duchy consisted of the Prussian part of the former Teutonic Order's State (in its post-1466 borders) and had an area of ca. 32,000 sq km. Almost 80% of its area was covered by forests, lakes, rivers and swamps. The Duchy was sparsely populated, partially due to Polish-Teutonic wars which had devastated it during the 15th century (in year 1400 the area of the future Duchy was inhabited by some 270,000 - 300,000 people but by 1466 that number declined to 150,000; by years 1500 - 1510 the population increased to roughly 180,000 - 215,000 depending on estimate).

Duke Albrecht von Brandenburg-Ansbach (also known as Hohenzollern) immediately in 1525 started a large colonizing action, inviting foreign settlers - mostly from Poland and from Lithuania (settlers from Poland had already lived in East Prussia before, but now he invited more of them). Only in period 1525 - 1568 as many as 293 new settlements - populated by Polish immigrants - were established in the region of Masuria. Already before that, in years 1519 - 1521, about 4000 peasants from the Netherlands were invited to the war-devastated region of Pomezania. Just in years 1555 - 1565 in the area of Insterburg (nowadays Chernyakhovsk) the number of villages increased from 171 to 411, as the result of colonization by immigrants from Lithuania. By 1540 most of the population of the new Duchy of Prussia - regardless of ethnicity (Old Prussian, German, Polish or Lithuanian, etc.) - converted to Lutheranism. Population of the duchy increased to some 360,000 by year 1626 (and if including also the Polish-held since 1466 region of Warmia, then 450,000) and around 500,000 people by year 1655.

According to estimates by Klaus-Peter Jurkat (author of www.prussen.org) ethnic composition of the Duchy of Prussia in 1708 was:

- est. 675,836; incl. 228,743 Prussians; 166,312 Germans; 142,972 Lithuanians; 127,210 Poles; 10,599 others (incl. Dutch, Scots, French, etc.).

However, I'm not sure if it is possible that the number of Prussian-speakers in 1708 was still as high as almost 229 thousand.

More likely, this refers to all people with mostly Prussian ancestry - both those still speaking Prussian, and those already assimilated into other groups.

Most of Old Prussians were assimilated perhaps into Germans and Poles. Assimilation of Prussians into Lithuanians also took place, but perhaps to a lesser extent due to smaller number of Prussian population (in fact of any population - those areas were sparsely populated) in territories colonized by Lithuanians.

 

[Domen]

Polish language - like Lithuanian - was also on the decline in East Prussia during the 19th century. I have data from some of East Prussian counties in period 1825 - 1867 and then in 1910 (data for 1910 is for a larger number of counties; but there could be also some changes in boundaries of counties):

Data for period 1825 - 1867:



Data for 1910 (two sources):

 

[Carolus I]

I have recently come across the history of the Canarian Islands. It follows the "usual" procedure: discovery, conquest, alliances with some aborignal tribes, resistance and uprise by other tribes, crushing the uprise, immigration and assimilation.

The original language of the native Canarians died out about 200 to 300 years after the conquest.

The "average" modern Canarian is genetically the product of several generation of intermixture between (predominantly male) Europeans, (predominantly female) Canarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches#Population_genetics



Canarian prisoners are presented to the Catholic Kings of Spain



Surrender of the Canarian warrior to the Spanish Conquistadores.

 

[Domen]

Nice that you have mentioned the Canary Islands! It is a very interesting case.

Did you know that according to Ancient Carthaginian sources, the Canary Islands were uninhabited ???

But when Early Modern Era Europeans discovered the Canary Islands, their native inhabitants lived in the Stone Age.

Moreover - they were White. If we assume that Carthaginians were right that in their times the islands were not inhabited, then how could Stone Age White people populate those islands in times when entire Europe was already on the stage of development of the Bronze Age or the Iron Age ???

It seems that there took place a technological regress among those who populated the islands (maybe there were no metal deposits on the islands?).

I have seen a theory that the Canarians could be descendants of some group of random castaways.

Another famous case of technological decline was Tasmania - according to some sources, Tasmanians did not even know how to make fire (if this is true, then obviously they forgot this skill). They didn't know how to fish and they only used tree trunks to cross rivers (they did not have boats or rafts).

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

Another possibility is that Carthaginian sources were wrong and they simply did not notice that the islands were inhabited.

The original language of the native Canarians died out about 200 to 300 years after the conquest.

Did some recordings of that language survive to our times ??? Was it related to any other known language ???

 

[Carolus I]

Nice that you have mentioned the Canary Islands! It is a very interesting case.

Did you know that according to Ancient Carthaginian sources, the Canary Islands were uninhabited ???

But when Early Modern Era Europeans discovered the Canary Islands, their native inhabitants lived in the Stone Age.

Moreover - they were White. If we assume that Carthaginians were right that in their times the islands were not inhabited, then how could Stone Age White people populate those islands in times when entire Europe was already on the stage of development of the Bronze Age or the Iron Age ???

It seems that there took place a technological regress among those who populated the islands (maybe there were no metal deposits on the islands?).

I have seen a theory that the Canarians could be descendants of some group of random castaways.

Another famous case of technological decline was Tasmania - according to some sources, Tasmanians did not even know how to make fire (if this is true, then obviously they forgot this skill). They didn't know how to fish and they only used tree trunks to cross rivers (they did not have boats or rafts).

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

Another possibility is that Carthaginian sources were wrong and they simply did not notice that the islands were inhabited.



Did some recordings of that language survive to our times ??? Was it related to any other known language ???

Are you sure about the Carthagian sources? Afaik we do not know much about the Carthagian language, only a few words that survived in inscriptions. I know that the Canarian Islands were also mentioned in the works of Plinius. IIRC Roman pottery was found in one or several of the islands which indicates that Roman merchant occasionally visited the islands but Romans did not colonize it.

We know numerals, place names and some loan words which are used in the Spanish dialect of the Canary Islands. There must have been several dialects because the different islands did not have contact with one another.

The old Canarian language is likely linked to the Berber language in Northern Africa.

Indeed that is an interesting question: how did the first Canarians come to the Canary Islands?

It makes sense that they might have been some castaways from Northern Africa:

It does not seem to be too far from the African coast.

 

[Domen]

Are you sure about the Carthagian sources? Afaik we do not know much about the Carthagian language, only a few words that survived in inscriptions.

Sorry, actually those were not Carthaginian sources, but Roman sources describing Carthaginian travels. According to Pliny the Elder, the Canary Islands were uninhabited when Carthaginian traveler - Hanno the Navigator - discovered the Tenerife (it was probably around year 600 BC):

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

So according to Hanno the islands (or just the Tenerife, which seems to be the only island he visited) were uninhabited, but he allegedly discovered the ruins of some buildings there. Perhaps those ruins were the pyramids built from lava stone, which exist until today there - see the link below:

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

So maybe there had been a civil war there, like on the Easter Island (war of the "long ears" vs the "short ears"), which caused some collapse and technological decline? Maybe the Tenerife was not completely uninhabited, but just had very low population in times of Hanno. It seems that the Canarians could be descendants of people from the Atlas Mountains - question is if those were Berbers, or some pre-Berber people, later assimilated by the Berbers.

I've found claims that the Canarians (often also called the Guanches) had large percent of blonde-haired individuals among them. They lived in caves and dugouts, they had domesticated animals - pigs, sheep and goats. They didn't know bronze working and iron working, they were using just stone and wooden tools. As you say the different islands did not have contact with one another, which indicates that they apparently forgot how to sail.

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

According to Spanish sources in the 2nd battle of Barranco de Acentejo on 25.12.1494 the native army numbered 5000 warriors (quite a lot!). In early 1495 some plague swept through the island (it was called "modorra"), killing a lot of native Canarians. Looks like they were vulnerable to Spanish diseases. The conquest of the islands lasted for 95 years (between 1402 and 1496, when the last independent Canarian chief - Bentor - commited suicide).

 

[Carolus I]

Sorry, actually those were not Carthaginian sources, but Roman sources describing Carthaginian travels. According to Pliny the Elder, the Canary Islands were uninhabited when Carthaginian traveler - Hanno the Navigator - discovered the Tenerife (it was probably around year 600 BC):

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

So according to Hanno the islands (or just the Tenerife, which seems to be the only island he visited) were uninhabited, but he allegedly discovered the ruins of some buildings there. Perhaps those ruins were the pyramids built from lava stone, which exist until today there - see the link below:

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

So maybe there had been a civil war there, like on the Easter Island (war of the "long ears" vs the "short ears"), which caused some collapse and technological decline? Maybe the Tenerife was not completely uninhabited, but just had very low population in times of Hanno. It seems that the Canarians could be descendants of people from the Atlas Mountains - question is if those were Berbers, or some pre-Berber people, later assimilated by the Berbers.

I've found claims that the Canarians (often also called the Guanches) had large percent of blonde-haired individuals among them. They lived in caves and dugouts, they had domesticated animals - pigs, sheep and goats. They didn't know bronze working and iron working, they were using just stone and wooden tools. As you say the different islands did not have contact with one another, which indicates that they apparently forgot how to sail.

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

According to Spanish sources in the 2nd battle of Barranco de Acentejo on 25.12.1494 the native army numbered 5000 warriors (quite a lot!). In early 1495 some plague swept through the island (it was called "modorra"), killing a lot of native Canarians. Looks like they were vulnerable to Spanish diseases. The conquest of the islands lasted for 95 years (between 1402 and 1496, when the last independent Canarian chief - Bentor - commited suicide).

Actually it is not clear which parts of the south were discovered by Hanno. But I have not read the sources.


There are some interesting articles in Spanish: http://www.laprovincia.es/lanzarote/2009/07/21/fenicios-primeros-habitantes-canarias/245813.html (The Phenicians were the first inhabitants in the Canarian Islands)

http://www.laprovincia.es/lanzarote...igara-reescribir-historia-canaria/246219.html (The find will oblige us to rewrite the Canarian history)

 

[Domen]

Coming back to Masurians (Mazurs) of East Prussia - music to Polish early 20th century (lyrics written in 1908) unofficial national anthem - "Rota" ("The Oath") - was composed by a native East Prussian - Feliks Nowowiejski (born in 1877 in Barczewo / Wartenburg in East Prussia; died in 1946 in Pozna&#324. His ancestors - the Nowowiejscy - lived in East Prussia at least since the 17th century (first mentioned in sources). He composed music to "Rota" in 1910:

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

Photos: https://www.google.pl/search?q=Feli...C4Dw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1525&bih=691&dpr=0.9

His son is Jan Nowowiejski (1933 -) and just like his father, he is a composer:

http://www.koncertplebiscytowy.pl/i...ogusaw-nowowiejski&catid=1:biografie&Itemid=5

Jan Nowowiejski plays Feliks Nowowiejski (in 2009): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTjZ__avImw

Many Germanized descendants of Polish Masurians may be living in Germany today, but the greatest Masurian composers are Polish.

Rota's lyrics were written in 1908 by a poet, novelist, writer and an activist for women's rights and Polish independence, Maria Konopnicka:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Konopnicka (born in Suwałki / Suvalkai in 1842; died in Lwów / Lviv in 1910)



"Rota" with English subtitles - it had a real chance of becoming the official Polish national anthem in 1918, but eventually lost to "Mazurek Dąbrowskiego":

Rota (English subtitles)


Link to video.

It can be safely called a Polish-Masurian anthem. It was in 50% Masurian-made.

 

[Domen]

Already in the Middle Ages Poles were seriously concerned about the spread of German language.

They also criticized the heavily corrupted Church, an institution implanted to the Pagan Slavic world largely from the German world.

Jan Ostroróg (1436-1501) in his "Monumentum pro Reipublicae Ordinatione Congestum" ("Treatise on Improving the Republic"), published in 1475, wrote:



In English:

"XXII. About Sermons in the German Language:

Oh what an ungracious and hideous thing for the Poles, that in many places in our churches sermons are given in German language, and this takes place in a lofty and magnificent setting, where only one or two old women listen to them, while at the same time the crowds of Poles are squeezed somewhere in the corner with their preacher. And because nature itself implanted eternal discord and hatred between these two languages (as well as in some other aspects), I exhort you not to say the mass in that language. Let the one who wants to live in Poland learn to speak Polish! Unless we are such simpletons that we forget that the Germans treat our language in a similar fashion in their country. And if, after all, such sermons are needed for the foreign immigrants, let them take place somewhere in secluded spots, without damage to the dignity of the Poles."



In English:

"XX. About Enrolling Monks to the Monasteries.

Lords ruling the Republic! How feeble-minded are you, that until this day you have tolerated the fact, that from monasteries - dowered with land and income by our ancestors, built on Polish soil and with its crops fed by the Poles - they are excluding our kinsmen and not allowing them to join the convents; and this only because they are bound by an act of law, which tells them to enroll only Germans to the convent. This act of law is ridiculous and contrary to church laws. Because who dares to impose such a yoke upon the sovereign Kingdom of Poland - the King of which does not recognize the lordship of anyone above him - under the false guise of an act of law? You, brave men - if you want to be considered brave - must stop allowing the Germans - and especially these boorish and effeminate monks - to make fun of the Polish nation, and to deceive it with their bogus piety."



In English:

"XVIII. About the Pride of Priests:

Many of you, or maybe all of you, even if less fit to pastoral work, are applying for the priestly dignity, because idleness tends to be pleasant and attractive, while inaction tends to be nice and engaging. Perhaps, if I am not mistaken, the thing which encourages them to do this, is what Saint Paul said: Who desires a bishopric, desires something good. However, they don't know, that desiring itself is evil. One who steals gold, steals something good, but stealing itself is evil. And every priest, if we believe church laws, is a bishop, generally speaking. Sirs! Have you read what I wrote above, as well as what Hieronymus wrote, many of you would have chosen another way of life, and really valued the afterlife more than the earthly life. Myself being a Pole, and seeing what is happening in Poland now, I could not be silent about this."

All in all Ostrorog's concerns about the spread of German language among Poles were justified - considering that several centuries later guys like Otto von Bismarck or Adolf Hitler were convinced that all areas with German-speaking inhabitants should be annexed by Germany.

 

[Domen]

Above I posted numbers concerning Germanization of Poles and Lithuanians in East Prussia in the 19th century. But already since year 1739 compulsory lessons of German language were introduced in Polish & Lithuanian schools there:

Schumacher informiert, dass der König 1739 verfügte, in den litauischen und masurischen Schulen auch die deutsche Sprache zu lehren, wodurch die Eindeutschung dieser fremdsprachigen Bevölkerungsteile Ostpreußens in bedeutsamer Weise vorbereitet wurde.

As you can see in figures posted above, during the 19th century Germanization became faster. It continued in the Inter-War period and WW2, until 1944, but an even harder blow was inflicted by WW2. In late 1944 the Red Army approached East Prussia. Flights and evacuations of civilian population started in October 1944 and continued until the end of the battle for East Prussia. During those flights and evacuation at least 50% of the remaining (not Germanized) Poles left the region. Those who stayed until the end of the war, however, were nationally verified by Polish authorities and thus avoided deportation, unlike local Germans. The census of 1950 counted approximately 100 thousand Masurians and Warmiaks in the former East Prussia (now powiaty = counties of the Regained Lands belonging to bialostockie and olsztynskie wojewodztwa = voivodeships). Here is the breakdown of autochthons in mentioned voivodeships in 1950, by county:

1) Masurians: 63,474 persons:

Woj. białostockie:

pow. ełcki - 3005
pow. olecki - 992
pow. gołdapski - 507

Woj. olsztyńskie:

pow. mrągowski - 19739
pow. szczycieński - 12587
pow. ostródzki - 8412
pow. giżycki - 5940
pow. piski - 4193
pow. nidzicki - 3262
pow. kętrzyński - 3017
pow. węgorzewski - 1820

2) Warmiaks: 39,282 persons:

Woj. olsztyńskie:

pow. olsztyński - 24220
pow. reszelski - 6548
Miasto Olsztyn - 4417
pow. lidzbarski - 1651
pow. bartoszycki - 955
pow. braniewski - 850
pow. iławecki - 641

3) Powislans: 21,050 persons:

Woj. olsztyńskie:

pow. suski - 2173
pow. morąski - 1993
pow. pasłęcki - 704

Woj. gdańskie:

pow. sztumski - 8276
pow. malborski - 3044
pow. kwidzyński - 2755
Miasto Elbląg - 1639
pow. elbląski - 466

4) Autochthonous Poles of Free City Danzig: 31,549 persons:

Woj. gdańskie:

Miasto Gdańsk - 22213
pow. gdański - 7127
Miasto Sopot - 2209

5) Kashubians of Lauenburg-Buetow and Slovincians: 15,257 persons:

Woj. gdańskie:

pow. lęborski - 3114

Woj. koszalińskie (north-eastern part):

pow. słupski - 6739
pow. bytowski - 4315
Miasto Słupsk - 1089

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

According to a 2010 publication by Poland's Kancelaria Sejmu (Chancellery of the Sejm), titled "Informacja o sytuacji mniejszości narodowych i etnicznych w Województwie Warmińsko-Mazurskim" ("Information concerning the situation of national and ethnic minorities in Warmia-Masuria Voivodeship"), there are currently (despite emigration to Germany since the 1970s) around 40,000 "Germans", Warmiaks and Masurians in this voivodeship - "Germans" are in fact Masurians and Warmiaks. The largest community of these autochthons (several thousand) is in the city of Olsztyn. In censuses of 2002 and 2011 much smaller numbers of people declared German or Masurian national identity in this voivodeship, but this doesn't contradict the above mentioned data from 2010 (since many of autochthons declare Polish identity). Some part of these minorities are people from mixed parents and families (autochthons + Poles who came after WW2).

 

[Domen]

Map: Territories inhabited by Slavic peoples in the mid-9th century (ca. 850 AD):

(thick black lines) ludność słowiańska w zdecydowanej przewadze ======== Slavic population constitutes vast majority
(thin black lines) ludność słowiańska w rozproszeniu ================== dispersed settlement of Slavic population
(small red circles) ludność słowiańska poza głównym terytorium osiedlenia == Slavic people outside of main settlement area



Boundaries of ethnic Slavic territories underlined:



Map is originally from:

"Słowianie, ich wędrówki, siedziby i otoczenie etniczne we wczesnośredniowiecznej Europie"
("Slavs, their migrations, homelands and ethnic environment in Early Medieval Europe")
by Adam Sengebusch

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

And by comparison situation around 350 (or a bit more) years earlier:

Here is the probable (mostly according to archaeology) extent of Slavic-inhabited territories (a, b, c, h) shortly before 500 AD:



In the 6th century AD they expanded rapidly.

The largest Slavic settlement from that period, found so far, was Prague (over 600 houses in the late late 6th century):

http://www.archaeobotany.org/download/posters/novak_roztoky_abstract_whv2010.pdf

 

[Carolus I]

Map: Territories inhabited by Slavic peoples in the mid-9th century (ca. 850 AD):

(thick black lines) ludność słowiańska w zdecydowanej przewadze ======== Slavic population constitutes vast majority
(thin black lines) ludność słowiańska w rozproszeniu ================== dispersed settlement of Slavic population
(small red circles) ludność słowiańska poza głównym terytorium osiedlenia == Slavic people outside of main settlement area



Boundaries of ethnic Slavic territories underlined:



Map is originally from:

"Słowianie, ich wędrówki, siedziby i otoczenie etniczne we wczesnośredniowiecznej Europie"
("Slavs, their migrations, homelands and ethnic environment in Early Medieval Europe")
by Adam Sengebusch

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

And by comparison situation around 350 (or a bit more) years earlier:

Here is the probable (mostly according to archaeology) extent of Slavic-inhabited territories (a, b, c, h) shortly before 500 AD:



In the 6th century AD they expanded rapidly.

The largest Slavic settlement from that period, found so far, was Prague (over 600 houses in the late late 6th century):

http://www.archaeobotany.org/download/posters/novak_roztoky_abstract_whv2010.pdf

There are some red circles in southern areas as in Southern Spain (Andalucía), Italy, but also at the Rhine which was part of the Frankonian Empire in the 9th century. On which facts is the presence of Slavic people based?

Possibly they were allies or slaves of the Franconians and therefore some of them migrated to thre Franconian heartland?




Southern Spain was at that time under Arab control (Emirate of Cordoba). There was some slave trade. Were pagan Slavs sold as Slaves to the Arabs? Afaik it is not a coincidence that the words Slavs and Slaves are quite similar (not only in English, but also in German, French, Spanish and surely in many other languages). But the Latin word (in antiquity) is servus.



and what about Italy? Bella Italia? early tourists? Dolce Vita, Pizza, vino

 

[Domen]

On which facts is the presence of Slavic people based?

It is described in this publication from which the map is taken (see the title above).

I will check what is says on each group that you asked about.

Here is what it says about Slavic populations at the Volga River (see the map) in the 9th century:

(...) Let us now move to one of the most mysterious and at the same time controversial issues concerning the geographical range of Slavic settlement in the Early Middle Ages. In publications describing Slavic homelands this issue - usually - has no answer to, or - at best - is briefly mentioned in passing. However, we really have numerous clues concerning this issue, which in our opinion cannot be ignored when discussing the history of Slavs in Eastern Europe. Let's thus take a look at surviving to our times testimonies suggesting the existence of Slavic settlement in the area of middle and lower Volga. Their authors were Muslims, who due to their trading and political areas of interest provided us as the only ones with accounts worthy of paying attention to. And so Ibn Hurdadbeh mentions: "... to Hamlih (Itil), which is located at the river flowing from the country of Slavs and draining into the Jurchen (Caspian) Sea...". Mentioned river is Volga. Under the name Nahr al Saqaliba (River of the Slavs), Volga is mentioned in the work of Ibn Hardadbeh several times. Apart from him also Ibn Atem-al-Kufi and Ibn Rusta - describing the Arab-Khazar conflict of the 730s - also call Volga like this. Moreover, Ibn Fadlan in his account from the diplomatic travel to Volga Bulgaria consistently (as many as 16 times! - which means that it could not be a technical or a factual mistake) calls the ruler of this realm Malik as-Saqaliba (King of the Slavs).

Equally mysterious news is provided by Al-Baladuri when he described rivalry between the Islamic world and the Khazars in the 8th century: "Marwan attacked the Slavs living in the land of the Khazars, and took into slavery 20,000 [Slavic] families". Another, often neglected by historians document allowing us to place the early homelands of the Volga Slavs is the letter of Khazar Kagan Joseph written to Spanish Jew Hasday ben Shaprut. In that letter we find an excerpt mentioning tribes living under the suzerainty of the Khazars: ".... Some of them live in open spaces, other in fortified strongholds. Here are their names: Bulgars, Savirians, Erzya, Cheremises, Vyatichi, Severians, [Volga] Slavs (!). All of them serve and pay them tribute."

(...)

... testimonies based on direct talks between Arab chroniclers and inhabitants of Kama Bulgaria: "Two Arab writers ad-Dimaski and Ibn al-Atir, basing on some older, unknown to us, source, quote a statement of a large group of Kama-Bulgarian Muslim pilgrims who traveled to Mecca in years 1041/1042. Asked by inhabitants of Baghdad, where they made a stop on their way to Mecca: who actually are the Kama Bulgars?, they answered, that this nation can trace their origins to Turks and Slavs."

(...)

"It is also worthy to quote information given by Yaqut in his Mu'gam al-buldan, where he wrote, that in Aleppo he met Muslim students, whose ancestors were from Kama Bulgaria, and they had fair skin and blonde hair."

(...)

Arab and Persian writers distinguished between Bulgar tribes from Eastern Europe and those from the Balkan Peninsula, calling the former al-Bulgar (Bolgar) and the latter Burdzan.

(...)

Neither Vyatichi, nor Krivichs, nor Ilmen Slavs were reaching the discussed region [Volga River] as early as the 8th century. Those areas were at that time inhabited by Meria, a tribe of Finnic origin and - which is less certain - remnants of Baltic population. (...) Therefore the suzerainty of Kama Bulgars over some groups of Slavic people did not refer to historical East Slavic tribes living far away to the west of them, [but to Slavs living at the Volga River].

(...)

Immediate western neighbours of Volga Bulgars were not Slavic, but Finnic: Mordvins, the Meshchera and Muromians.

(...)

In our opinion in the Early Medieval period in territories controlled by the Khazars or acknowledging their suzerainty lived two, or maybe even three, large groups of ethnic Slavic population. The first was located in the basin of Kama (and Vyatka) and was probably the remains from times when ancestors of Slavs had migrated from Asia to Europe*. An anonymous Arab source from late 9th/early 10th centuries contains, among many information about peoples of Eastern Europe, also this one: "between the land of the Pechenegs and that of Bulgar Slavs are the boundaries of the land of Magyars" - this excerpt describes situation in the late 8th century, time when Magyar homeland was still located in the vicinity of Southern Urals (at the Belaya River). It could mean that these Slavs should be identified with Slavs living at the Kama (middle Volga).

Lands located much more to the south, between the lower Don and the lower Volga, were also inhabited by Slavs (see: the account about Marwan's campaign against the Khazars). They settled in that region after the collapse of Great Bulgaria, perhaps under permission from rulers of Sarkel and Itil. They (or part of them) could also be invited or resettled there by some Turkic peoples, including the Khazars, who wanted to develop those sparsely populated and yet fertile lands by Slavs, as well as to protect those lands from dangerous Arab invasions. The collapse of mass Slavic settlement in that area took place most probably by the end of the 9th century, as the result the invasion by Pecheneg tribes, who - as far as we know - contrary to the Khazars or the Magyars, did not have great skills when it comes to cooperation with agricultural populations.

On the other hand in the middle Volga area ethnic Slavic element started to lose its distinctness, when Bulgars converted to Islam, abandoning their previous religious beliefs. The process of assimilation could last several hundred years, but by the time of the Mongol Invasion the last traces of Slavic ethnos were already rubbed away. (...)

* Author has a theory (outlined in the first part of this study) that Ancient (in centuries BC) ancestors of Slavs had originally lived in the forest-steppe zone of Western Siberia, and were, partially or fully, nomadic (only later at some point switching to agriculture and more sedentary lifestyle).

And also:

Yaqut ibn-'Abdullah al-Rumi al-Hamawi called the capital of Volga Bulgars - Bulgar - "the city of Slavs".

Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari called Volga - "the Slavic River".

Persian 10th century explorer Ahmad ibn Rustah wrote that Itil (Volga) "flows through the lands of Khazars and Slavs".

Ahmad ibn Fadlan, called the ruler of Volga Bulgars - "the Tsar of Slavs (Sakaliba)".

Ali Ibn al-Athir, when describing Volga Bulgars, wrote: "this nation trace their origins to Turks and Slavs".

Mentioned Yaqut al-Hamawi wrote that in Aleppo he met students from Volga Bulgaria, who had "fair skin and blonde hair".

 

[Domen]

BTW, according to this study, Constantine Porphyrogennetos mentioned over 200 ethnic groups (!) which inhabited the Byzantine Empire in the Early Middle Ages (of course this number refers to the whole empire, not just to the Balkans). After the Slavic expansion, such huge diversity of other ethnic groups (still living next to newcomers - Slavs) could perhaps accelerate their Slavization. Assuming that Slavs immigrated in numbers sufficient to make them the single most numerous ethnic group in the Balkan Peninsula, that would give them an advantage in that diverse mosaic of other, much smaller in numbers, ethnic groups.

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

That theory about Slavic origins in Western Siberia is something like this:

Spoiler :

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

Bulgars themselves (and I mean the earliest Bulgars, not those after expansion) were most probably a mixture of Turks and Slavs.

The name "Bulgars" itself literally means "mongrels" (mixed people). So, that nation emerged as a union of several different peoples.

Austrian historian researching mainly Germanic migrations - Herwig Wolfram - wrote:

"Whenever in sources appeared an ancient or an early medieval nation, it always consisted of many peoples, united into one."

Ethnogenesis is a complex process that works on many levels, not just natural increase from a fixed founder population.

Slavs during their migrations were also absorbing foreign populations into their ethnos.

 

[Domen]

About Slavs in Asia Minor - they came there mostly from the Balkans:

Asia Minor... area inhabited in early period of existence of the Empire by the Greeks, the Izaurians, the Celts, the Armenians, the Arabs, the Jews, the Persians and other, more or less numerous peoples. During the 7th century into that melting pot of ethnic groups penetrated also Slavs, some of whom migrated to that region of their own free will, while others were resettled there [by Byzantine rulers] with use of force.

[such resettlements of Slavs from the Balkans - both prisoners of war from independent tribes and subjects from conquered tribes - into Asia Minor were organized by Byzantine Emperors in years: 656 AD, as well as ca. 690 AD, ca. 710 AD - after victory over Bulgars in the battle of Salonica - and later by Emperor Constantine V (741-775) and by Empress regnant Irene of Athens (after 780)]

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

Some Slavic tribes migrated to Asia Minor - with permission from Byzantine Emperors - of their own free will:

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

According to account by Nikephoros I after internal struggles for power between Bulgarian clans in the 760s and the takeover of power by Khan Telec, who supported hostile policies towards the Byzantine Empire and Slavic tribes, over 200,000 Slavs asked the Emperor for asylum. The Emperor granted them asylum and entire mass of people settled in Bithynia along the Artanas River and in the region of Sinope. Other, perhaps not that numerous, Slavic communities were settled by Byzantine authorities as military settlers (to defend the borders) near the Byzantine-Arab border, and later, near the borders with Turkish states.

From among Slavic settlers and prisoners of war arised some of well-known Byzantine historical figures. Some of them left good impression of themselves, some other caused chaos and left bloody stains in chronicles. For example in 779 died the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nicetas, who was of Slavic descent. 44 years later died famous Thomas, known as the Slav. This Thomas in 820 gained support from the Arabs and from European provinces of the Empire, and declared himself the new Emperor. He fought bloody and fierce combats against his counter-candidates to the throne. During the rebellion of Thomas, his antagonist - Michael II - was concerned that Peloponnesian Slavic tribes would support Thomas, but the rebellion probably had more of a political and economic than "national" or ethnic background.

Slavic communities living in Asia Minor were getting assimilated relatively slowly. In 949 Byzantine units preparing to recapture Crete from Muslim hands consisted mostly of Slavs recruited from Slavic communities living in the region of Opsikon. What is interesting, those units were also led by Slavic commanders. Even after dozens of years, there were still Slavic-speaking communities in Bithynia. One of them was called Sagoudaos. John II Comnenus (1118 - 1143) contributed to the strengthening of Slavic ethnos in that region, colonizing some areas near Nicomedia with captured Serbian prisoners. Information about Serbian settlements in that region continue to appear even during the 13th century.

In 663 AD a group of 5,000 Slavs supported the Arab invasion under certain Abderachman, son of Chaledos. After the invasion they returned with his army to Arab lands and settled in Syria in the region of Apamea, in and near the town of Seleukobolos. Several dozen years later another group of Slavic traitors (traitors to the Byzantines, not to themselves) - 20,000 under the leadership of certain Nebulos - supported the Arabs. In reward for their support, Arab Caliph granted them land to settle in northern Syria, near Antioch.

In 737 Muslim army (numbering according to sources even 100,000 men), under command of certain Marwan (future Caliph) attacked Slavic-inhabited lands of the Khazar realm. When returning back to his land, Marwan took with him 20,000 Slavic families (!) and settled them in his land.

In the 9th century in Muslim lands there were large Slavic-speaking communities for example near al-Chusus (near the Arab-Byzantine border), in Hisn Salman (near Aleppo), near Hisn Zijad (at the upper Euphrates). According to one Muslim writer in the 9th century there were also enclaves of independent, self-governing Slavic communities in southern Armenia - and they were still Pagan (!).

Some Slavs achieved high-ranking status in the Arab world. During the reign of Marwan ibn Muhammad (744-750), his chamberlain was a liberated slave, and he was ethnically Slavic (according to Al-Baladuri). Two individuals of Slavic descent (but converted to Islam) - Salman and Zijad - were commanders of Muslim armies fighting in Armenia and Asia Minor in the mid-8th century. Slavs were especially favoured by Fatimid rules. Certain Muzaffat, Slavic by descent, was in 952 - 975 the governor of the eastern part of the Caliphate. And Slavic general of Fatimid armies - Dzauha - conquered Egypt for this dynasty, and founded the city of Cairo.

Slavs also lived in cities and villages of Arabic Mesopotamia - usually they were slaves, and according to one of Muslim early 9th century poets, their number was so great that the streets of Baghdad looked like fields infested by locust (he could easily distinguish Slavs from locals, because Slavs had fair skin and most of them had fair hair).

Muslim "ethnographer" - Al-Gahiz - wrote some opinions about ethnic Slavs living in what is today Iraq, both free people (settlers) and slaves. For example, he wrote:

"Slavs are more avaricious than the Byzantines."

Another of his opinions was:

"When among two Slavic brothers, coming from the same mother and the same father, even if they are twins, you castrate one (and not the other one), then this castrate will become better in working, smarter, more clever and more suitable to various kinds of services and manual labour. You will also find him to be more intelligent in discussion."

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

And one more of his (Al-Gahiz's) opinions:

"Among Slavs, abominable and ugly are their smoothness of hair [as opposed to curly hair] and delicateness, as well as blonde or ruddy colour of their hair and of their beards, as well as whiteness [bright blonde colour] of their eyelashes."

And one more philosophical consideration by Al-Gahiz (who was apparently "brown"):

"Tell me friend, after how many generations a Zang became black, and a Slav became white?"

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

and what about Italy? Bella Italia? early tourists? Dolce Vita, Pizza, vino

Actually some of them were soldiers in Muslim service, others were pirates, others could be settlers who settled after the Muslim conquest:

(...) In the third decade of the 10th century, due to Byzantine threat, came from Tripoli Emir Masud the Slav (Masud Sāqlābi) - of Slavic descent - and together with his druzhina he captured the strategically important castle of Santa Agata. From the same period we have information about Slavic settlements on Sicily - one of them was called Sclafani - and about the district of Palermo called Hārat as-Sāqāliba. Also bases of Slavic pirates existed on that island - those could be pirates from the South Slavic tribe of Narentines, who during their pirate raids plundered even the coasts of Spain. Last information about Slavs in that region is from the 12th century. (...)

And Slavs in Central Italy were also invaders, settlers and pirates (for example in Bari and its vicinity).

Paul the Deacon described combats between Langobards and Slavs in that region (in those combats Langobard duke Arion was killed).

Slavic identity among descendants of Slavic settlers in Calabria survived until the 12th century.