My post which sketched out the model of Slavic expansion northeast into the lands of the Finnic peoples generated a fair number of comments. I tend to agree with those who suggest that Slavic access to more efficient or superior agricultural traditions is probably the explanation for why they absorbed the Finns, and not the reverse. But while thinking about these topics, I thought it might be useful to make explicit an idea which I think we're all using implicitly as a background assumption: location matters. The Slavs were more likely to have access to innovations because they were connected to many more peoples and lay athwart several trade routes (e.g., the amber route north-south, others going west-east). An analogy might be the advantages that native peoples had when they were the first to gain access to European weaponry and horses; they were more likely to use this against their further antagonists, who for reasons of historical coincidence or geography did not have access to European goods and know-how then they were against the aspiring colonialists. An analogy from my post on graph theory also works; the Slavic heartland was a "high temperature" nexus, sandwiched between civilization and Finns, polar opposite elements if there ever were such things! (evidence for the last assertion below the fold)
- Log in to post comments
I quite enjoyed that.
This conclusion would be on more solid ground with some actual examples of superior agricultural techniques that the Slavs brought :) It's possible that this was a reason, but as it is now the argument is a bit circular. As a counterexample, I think it would be misleading to attribute the success of Anglo-Saxon language(s) and culture in England to superior agricultural techniques?
And what role did the Rus and their empire-building play in this? (Given this amusingly rosy description of Kievan Rus in Wikipedia, who can blame the Finnic tribes if they adopted the culture of the largest and 'one of the most culturally advanced' contemporary European states!)
The Slavic expansion northeast probaply have something to do whit Medieval Warm Period around 800-1300 AD. Finno-ugric have no time adjust and where just out numbered by slavs.
As a counterexample, I think it would be misleading to attribute the success of Anglo-Saxon language(s) and culture in England to superior agricultural techniques?
we/i know more about this. so theoretical conjecture is less necessary! as it is, the books on slavic expansion i've read deal primarily with central and south/east europe. the model there was not political conquest by and large it seems (the slavs entered the balkans under avar hegemony).
Windy: "This conclusion would be on more solid ground with some actual examples of superior agricultural techniques that the Slavs brought :)"
Yes, definitely. That is the thing I was originally complaining about: there isn't much archeological research about pre-Russian times, because such research has been politically incorrect.
I suggested agriculture as the critical factor for other reasons. Clearly the Slavs must have had some advantage over the Finns, and agriculture seems the only fit. While it requires more work to get daily food, it can support much higher population density.
Alternatives like weaponry or religion would be known from other sources.
I suggested agriculture as the critical factor for other reasons. Clearly the Slavs must have had some advantage over the Finns, and agriculture seems the only fit. While it requires more work to get daily food, it can support much higher population density.
right. the russian archaeology i have seen suggests that slavs expanded as population densities increased, and they "opened up" many marginal lands to cultivation. unless the finns were trying hard to remain "in balance with the earth" or something like that i don't understand why they wouldn't push themselves up against their malthusian limit...unless they simply didn't happen to have the toolkit to extract more yield beyond the modest population levels they'd already attained. this of what the potato did in ireland, for example.
Another factor that drew certain, mostly Slavic, Finnic and Germanic peoples towards the unexploited parts of eastern and northern Europe must have been fur trade.
The Primary chronicle suggest that Novgorod--"the cradle of Russia"--was more Finnic (three tribes) than Slavic (one tribe) to begin with. My guess is that in that early phase Novgorod functioned as a trading post "collecting" furs (and a few other items) from the Finnic hunters and then delivering them further along Dnieper and other rivers either to western Europe or to the Arabs and "Greeks". Perhaps it's natural that the people spoke the same language as the hunters at first--and to some degree long into the Middle Ages, Finnic texts have been found form the 13th century I seem to remember.
But it was a Slavic, and to a degree Germanic languages, that won in the long run. One explanation could be that it was more profitable and "finer" to and speak the language of the people who bought the furs closer to the "civilization".
After that it would have been only a question of time when all of the elite would speak those elite languages. Peasantry would then change their language more slower but in an accordance to a well-known mechanism. In some parts, though, Finnic languages never disappeared.
I wonder if similar--and well documented-- mechanism could be found in North America with the English, French (and Finns, too) and Natives.
Come to think of it, the analogy with America doesn't work because the natives look clearly different. Adopting a language wouldn't be enough to become integrated. The dynamics must have been totally different.
No decent--well documented--analogy comes to mind right off.
I don't dispute that agriculture must have intensified when the Slavs moved in and populations increased (otherwise they'd have starved). But perhaps I am interpreting "toolkit" more narrowly than you. Like Lassi hinted in the other thread, for a long time agriculture in Finland proper was restricted to the western and southern coastal areas. But there is no reason that the same agricultural toolkit would not have worked in the southern inland (as it later did). Should we conclude that the Finns voluntarily held themselves back for thousands of years? Or that they were too conservative to think of colonization? Not necessarily, perhaps the combination of farming and extensive fishing and hunting grounds was too cushy to allow farmers to move inland, and the Malthusian limit operated within that arrangement.
Lassi:
If the Slavs moved in about 600 AD (perhaps even later in more northern regions), religion and civilization came not far behind. I'm not actually sure that it's necessary to postulate extensive assimilation of Finno-Ugrics in the small gap from the arrival of the Slavs to the establishment of the first states (when it seems that Finnic tribes were still a major presence in the region, if the chronicles mentioned by Tomi are any clue). After that, war and religion would have operated alongside possible agricultural benefits to make turning Slav more desirable.
By the way, the fellows in the video use masks as far as I know (except for the bass player).
But it was a Slavic, and to a degree Germanic languages, that won in the long run. One explanation could be that it was more profitable and "finer" to and speak the language of the people who bought the furs closer to the "civilization".
this is a model for the dominance of german until recent the cities of central europe where the hinterlands were non-german, as well as along the baltic coast. apparently the influx of peasants into cities such as prague combined with nationalist ideology was great enough that this ceased in the 19th century.
Should we conclude that the Finns voluntarily held themselves back for thousands of years? Or that they were too conservative to think of colonization? Not necessarily, perhaps the combination of farming and extensive fishing and hunting grounds was too cushy to allow farmers to move inland, and the Malthusian limit operated within that arrangement.
hm. the problem is that cushiness invites population growth...which invites migration to maximize your chances if you are a marginal. conservatism is a real dynamic, it does prevent new farming techniques from spreading quickly. also, extremely isolated peoples have a tendency of losing techniques if they are small population levels.
hm. the problem is that cushiness invites population growth...which invites migration to maximize your chances if you are a marginal.
I meant 'cushy' to whoever was in control of the hunting grounds. Assuming there were such people.
also, extremely isolated peoples have a tendency of losing techniques if they are small population levels.
however, grave goods point to Finns being reasonably well connected during the Iron Age - no idea what the finds are like in Northern Russia.
I meant 'cushy' to whoever was in control of the hunting grounds. Assuming there were such people.
in 'after the ice' steve mithen suggests that ozzie abos purposely didn't pick up agriculture, since they were in contact with trobiand islanders who did practice it. one could chalk this up to traditionalism or a rational calculation that hunting & gathering was a more relaxed lifestyle. but the key insight this might offer is that the expansion of slav peasants was simply due to the fact finns didn't like what they saw when it came to the slav lifestyle...but that lifestyle did result in greater natural increase, so the finns were marginalized/absorbed simply because they were outbred. the important point to contrast with the slavicization with the finns the swedisation or germanization of various peoples is that it seems likely that it wasn't simply elite emulation. slavs didn't really have much of an elite in the balkans for example, the ruling caste was non-slavic (avars, bulgars, magyars, etc.). rather, it was absorption from below as slavic peasants had a successful lifestyle. anyway, more later.
Perhaps, but don't forget that in Russian city-states the elite were Slavic (or slavicized Scandinavian) relatively early.
I've read that the rainfalls in Australia are simply so unpredictable that it's not possible to develop agriculture, and that some tribes did occasionally sow before the rainy season and harvest afterwards, but never relied on it, because they couldn't have relied on it.
Yes, that's why Australia has no agriculture now.
Oh wait.....