behind the hajnal line

**update below**

here’s a map created by jayman of average european iqs (taken from here), and on top of it i’ve added the hajnal line:

the populations behind the hajnal line (i.e. the core of europe) are characterized by:

late marriages (present since at least the early medieval period)
small family sizes (nuclear or stem families versus extended families; also present since at least the early medieval period)
– higher average iqs, in general, than populations in the periphery of europe (see map)
strong future time orientation, strong societal collectivism, strong preference for rules and order (Ordnung!), strong drive to succeed
– being more civic than populations in the periphery of europe

why?

well, maybe it’s just ’cause these populations are mostly germanic, or at least had a strong-ish germanic presence in their territory at some time in the past. maybe this is just an example of ice peoples who evolved high iqs and a lot of other neat traits ’cause they survived for a long time in adverse conditions.

but’s it’s hard to ignore how the Type A Personality areas of europe coincide with the hajnal line. at least, i find it hard to ignore. what happened behind the hajnal line?

at the risk of repeating myself (is there an echo in here?), what happened behind the hajnal line starting in the early medieval period was:

– changes in mating patterns (thanks to the church) from close relative marriage to more distant marriages, thus breaking down clans and tribes
– changes in the economic structure from whatever the h*ll went before (i have no idea) to manorialism
– changes in family structures (thanks to both the increased outbreeding and manorialism) from extended families to smaller nuclear or stem families

all of these would’ve changed the selection pressures on the populations in the areas where these practices were adopted.

inbreeding and outbreeding probably select differently for genes related to altruism, so all of the outbreeding behind the hajnal line likely selected for different sorts of altruistic behaviors than those seen in other populations — strong societial collectivistic feelings, for instance. (perhaps it looks something like this.) the changes in family structures likely also selected for different traits — for one thing, different family types have different family dynamics and some personality types likely do better in some types of families than in others.

but what’s manorialism got to do with it? like i said here

“you have this manor system in which the lord (or monks) of the manor let out land to farmers to run (they then owed the manor service or rent). the lord of the manor specifically let out land to married couples, ’cause it took two to run a small farm properly, i.e. to carry out all the necessary duties…. so who is a young and upcoming, hard-working, driven farmer going to seek out to marry? well, maybe he just marries the prettiest girl he can find — but maybe, if he’s smart, he marries someone like himself who is also hard-working and driven and wants to run a successful manor holding. they might even be attracted to one another. maybe it was exactly those sorts of couples — the smart, hard-working, industrious couples — who were the most successful and left the most descendants behind.

…so maybe manorialism contributed to higher average iqs and traits like “strong drive to succeed.”

where did manorialism occur? it started with the franks as early as the seventh century in their territory between the seine and the rhine. it was a characteristic feature of the carolingian empire and was pretty much present throughout carolingian territories.

it was introduced to northern, but not southern, italy by the carolingians. southern italy was part of the byzantine empire so manorialism wasn’t introduced there in the early medieval period, nor was it adpoted there later in the middle ages. manorialsm never took hold in greece or the balkans.

manorialism was present in england by the eighth century, but not scotland or ireland or wales. the normans brought it to ireland in the eleventh century, but its adoption was patchy at best. southern spain did not experience manorialism due to moorish rule, but parts of northern spain did.

manorialism spread eastwards during the ostsiedlung and was really the fundamental economic structure of the german settlements to the east. the system was also introduced, as late as the sixteenth century, to eastern regions of europe like poland and belarus. the eastern edge of the hajnal line — where the western and eastern churches meet — represents the limits of the manor system in europe.

the populations behind the hajnal line have a unique history (well, all populations do!) and, i think, were very much shaped in a human biodiversity sort-of way during the medieval period. there were strong selection pressures precisely in areas related to mating and reproduction that really profoundly changed northwestern/central europeans and laid the foundations for all sorts of interesting things that happened in europe. it may have also laid the foundations for our demise, but hey — you can’t have everything.

none of the populations in the periphery in europe experienced this collection of changes. they may have experienced some of the changes — like the ban on cousin marriage out to second cousins in greece and eastern europe — but because they didn’t have the manor system, they did not develop nuclear families or highly mobile individuals like the core of europe. and some populations, like the southern italians and the irish, in addition to not adopting the manor system, also just kept right on inbreeding up until very recently.

here are some excerpts from michael mitterauer’s “Why Europe?: The Medieval Origins of Its Special Path” from which i learned everything i know about manorialism [pgs. 53-57]:

“These cross-cultural examples of analogous, and markedly contrasting, agricultural systems illustrate the uniqueness of the manorial and the hide systems as they developed as components of the early medieval agrarian revolution in the Frankish heartland. The diffusion of innovations from the agrarian economy and the agrarian system very often took place in concert — as, for instance, during the great process of the colonization of the East. This was not true in every case, of course. The manorial system expanded southward, following the Frankish Empire’s specific forms of lordship and penetrating into regions where typical features of the Frankish agrarian revolution did not exist. A large, relatively homogenous area was created by these expansionist movements, which were characterized on the whole by identical or similar structures of the agrarian system and the social order it generated. Over against this ‘core Europe’ was a ‘peripheral Europe’ that did not acquire these structures until a relatively later date — or not at all. Here we can list Ireland, Wales, and Scotland in the West; the area of eastern Europe beyond the Trieste-St. Petersburg line that was unaffected by the colonization of the East; the entire Balkan region; southern Italy, which was formerly Byzantine, along with the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula that was under Moorish rule for so long a time. The political, economic, and social evolution of many regions in ‘peripheral Europe’ took a different turn because of their clinging to other, traditional agrarian systems.

“As Frankish models of the manorial system advanced through various parts of Europe, they met with quite diverse forms of social organization. In the North and East it was mainly tribal societies that were transformed by the new structures of the agrarian reovlution. They could be organized in very different ways, as was evident in medieval Europe. When Germanic tribes settled on Roman imperial land — the Franks, Burgundii, Alemanni, and Bavarii among them — categories of descent as a basis for social order played a role, a role very different from the one it played in the thinking of Celtic tribes in Ireland or of Finnish and Baltic tribes around the Baltic Sea. Consequently, the resistance of the various tribes to manorial structures was highly differentiated from region to region. In many places these structures rapidly superseded more ancient types of tribal organization; in many others, not at all. We can say that the manorial system and the tribal system were basically incompatible at the social level of the peasantry. The economic rationale for an agriculture based on manorialism cannot be harmonized with dominant organizing principles based on kinship. That proved to be the case throughout Europe wherever the social organization of the manorial and hide system supplanted tribal structures. In many non-European empires, the lack of such organizations might well have contributed to the local preservation of social forms based on descent in spite of strong influence of a central state — for instance, in China and the Islamic world….

“The manorial system of the Carolingian Empire was premised on the personal relationship of the lord with his familia [all of the people who lived and worked on the manor, most of whom were not related to one another]. This principle continued to have a more or less potent effect on every form of the manorial system that grew out of it. Any and all lordship in this tradition was lordship over a group of people organized ‘as a family….’

“Manorialism and the hide system were just as significant for European social history on the macro level of organized lordship as they were on the micro level of household organization. Claude Levi-Strauss has coined the term societe a maison, which fits these developments in European society like a glove. Households seem to have been a central ordering principle in this case. In a peasant society, at any rate, the primary social orientation was to one’s house, not to one’s relatives. This was an essential distinguishing feature vis-a-vis societies oriented toward descent; these kinship patterns were located around the periphery of Europe, but in the main they lay beyond Europe’s borders. Belonging to a household was clearly a basic building block of the bipartite estate in the Frankish Empire. On the one hand, there was the villa, the lord’s manor, or the steward’s manor, with its resident labor force, the members of which were not tied to one another by kinship; on the other hand, there were the farms of the servi casati, that is, of the unfree laborers and their dwellings, as well as the coloni who were boind to the soil and therefore to a house. Together they formed the familia, an overarching household embracing several households…. Affiliation with a farmstead of this kind was socially determinative, not the affiliation to a group through kinship.

update: see also jayman’s IQ Ceilings?

previously: medieval manoralism and genetic relatedness and family types and the evolution of behavioral traits and assortative mating and the selection for high iq in (some) medieval european populations?

(note: comments do not require an email. snow!)

Advertisements

65 Comments

  1. I’m a little hazy on the transition to manorialism. Was it imposed by military force? Did it begin amidst the political anarchy at the end of the Roman empire?

    Reply

  2. “I’m a little hazy on the transition to manorialism. Was it imposed by military force?”

    I think that’s how it started. Franks invade, divide land into manors, Frankish king gives a manor each to his knights. Same with the Normans. The domesday book is basically the division of England into manors.

    Reply

  3. “Franks invade, divide land into manors”

    So the nobility are always genetically distinct outsiders? Does this contrast to other areas in Europe where maybe local clan leaders rise to be “kings” and “nobility.” I’m thinking about places like Scotland and Ireland and even England before the Norman Conquest.

    What about the Polish nobility, which were extremely numerous apparently? Or the Russian, where the peasantry were organized into some sort of village communes as best I can remember?

    Reply

  4. OT, but maybe you can do some posts in the future on the “happiest, healthiest communities” in the U.S., assuming there are some. Putnam, for example, has shown an inverse relationship between diversity and trust. So presumably he found some high-trust communities somewhere? Are they just neighborhoods in large metro areas? What about Lake Wobegons? Are there new ones being founded? I am thinking most likely in the Mid-West and Mountain States, maybe Texas, but don’t really know. What are Mexican-American towns like in New Mexico? P.S. Retirement communities don’t count.

    Reply

  5. (cont.) Other areas of possible interest might be Vermont, New Hampshire, and large parts of North Carolina. Maybe even (gasp!) Appalachia? Are there any high-trust communities anywhere (assuming there are some) that have above-replacement level fertility rates? I know these questions are all over the place. Sorry.

    Reply

  6. Outstanding post. This is a really nice sum-up of the work you’ve been doing on the European question these last several months, with many references all in one place. Thanks for the time you put into it. I’ll be bookmarking this one.

    Reply

  7. “So the nobility are always genetically distinct outsiders?…where the peasantry were organized into some sort of village communes”

    Not in Germany itself i’d imagine but that’s the thing. If there were traditional forms changed by various invasions: Normans in England, Franks in France, Germans in their expansion to the east, then either Germany itself should have kept those traditional forms or they must have had some kind of manorial transition beforehand?

    dunno

    Reply

  8. “the area of eastern Europe beyond the Trieste-St. Petersburg line that was unaffected by the colonization of the East”

    After 1945 German colonists have been moved back to the West and the areas have been repopulated by mix of central and eastern Polish, Checks and Hungarians.

    I think the line should be rather called Trieste – Szczecin line. Or is there any reason to divide Poland and Czechia?

    Reply

  9. @luke – “I’m a little hazy on the transition to manorialism.”

    you and me, both!

    @luke – “Was it imposed by military force? Did it begin amidst the political anarchy at the end of the Roman empire?”

    like greying wanderer said: “Franks invade, divide land into manors, Frankish king gives a manor each to his knights. Same with the Normans.” that’s right. but how it actually got started in the frankish kingdom in the first place is still not clear to me.

    mitterauer talks about roman villa rustica and how there would’ve been a lot of them in the border regions of germanic tribal territories — they were large manor-like operations, only run with mostly slaves rather than peasants (key difference as compared to the later medieval manors). the villa rustica were mainly there, if i understand it correctly, to feed and supply the roman troops. the germans — for instance, the franks — would’ve been familiar with these villa rustica and maybe took over the operation of some of them when they occupied roman territories.

    how the transition from using slaves (the germans had slaves, so that was not a foreign concept to them) to peasants happened is unclear in my mind — along with the transition of germans from tribal living peoples to manor-living lords and peasants!

    mitterauer makes connections between a couple of things that happened at the same time that reinforced one another and the whole shift to manorialism: 1) agrarian revolution: the introduction of rye & oats to northern europe plus the heavy plow and three-field rotation system — all of these “fit” well with a manor system — or, rather, the manor system “fit” well with all of them; and 2) the church and the introduction of all the crazy mating restrictions which broke down the clans/tribes — again this helped the development of the manor system ’cause suddenly there were available laborers who were not attached to some tribe somewhere.

    i’m still hazy on how it all got started with the franks, though. need to read more history. (yay!) (^_^)

    Reply

  10. @luke – “Putnam, for example, has shown an inverse relationship between diversity and trust. So presumably he found some high-trust communities somewhere?”

    presumably he did! i’ve got that paper knocking around here somewhere — i’ll take a look at it to see what he had to say. (remind me if i forget! (~_^) )

    Reply

  11. @m.g. – “Thanks for the time you put into it.”

    thanks! (^_^) and thank you for all of your thoughts! we’ve gotta talk more about those Globe surveys you posted. they’re really interesting. there’s a lot more thinking to be done about those! (~_^)

    Reply

  12. @g.w. – “Normans in England”

    mitterauer says the anglo-saxons already were already having a go at manorialism, but yeah — the normans reinforced the whole system in a big way.

    mitterauer also says that a major difference between the feudal systems of england and the rest of europe is that england did not develop “banal lordship.” -??- anybody know what that is? i don’t. =/

    Reply

  13. @germanschafff*cker – “‘the area of eastern Europe beyond the Trieste-St. Petersburg line that was unaffected by the colonization of the East’

    “After 1945 German colonists have been moved back to the West and the areas have been repopulated by mix of central and eastern Polish, Checks and Hungarians.

    “I think the line should be rather called Trieste – Szczecin line. Or is there any reason to divide Poland and Czechia?”

    well, the hajnal line doesn’t actually demarcate the eastern edge of german medieval expansion in europe.

    john hajnal happened to notice that east of a line running roughly from trieste to st. petersburg, people tended to marry young, whereas west of it, they married late. (mitterauer says this goes back to at least the early medieval period.) hajnal’s line just happens to coincide with german settlements and/or the farthest extension of manorialism in eastern europe AND the border between the western and eastern christian churches.

    i got the line from wikipedia, but i haven’t seen hajnal’s original article (published in the ’60s). it could be that the line shouldn’t be so perfectly straight, bisecting poland and the czech republic. maybe it’s supposed to follow national/cultural/ethnic borders. not sure.

    Reply

  14. “mitterauer says the anglo-saxons already were already having a go at manorialism, but yeah — the normans reinforced the whole system in a big way.”

    yeah i’m not convinced by this to be honest – or not exactly. the main point of a manor was to support a knight – a very specialized and expensive warrior that required a whole village to support – and the anglo-saxons still fought on foot. the knights during the conquest were all Norman.

    however i’m wondering if it might have been the church again – monasteries and abbeys were manors too, except supporting monks and priests rather than a knight? so if what Mitterauer says is true – and i’ve read a fair bit about the period without coming across elite manorialism being common before the conquest – then maybe it was the church.

    Reply

  15. “yeah i’m not convinced by this to be honest”

    actually, ignore that, would need to do some more recent reading

    Reply

  16. @g.w. – “actually, ignore that, would need to do some more recent reading”

    lemme go see what mitterauer actually said. first, some coffee….

    Reply

  17. “lemme go see what mitterauer actually said. first, some coffee”

    no he’s right. i’ve been swotting. manorialism and feudalism (the specifically military aspect) are separate things. they often overlap but i had them entwined.

    Reply

  18. @g.w. – “manorialism and feudalism (the specifically military aspect) are separate things. they often overlap but i had them entwined.”

    yeah, exactly. they overlap, but all manors were not there to support a knight, although there were a lot of manors that did just that, and that were given to knights by the king to support them. (how the whole thing got started, tho, i’m still not sure!)

    for the record, here’s what mitterauer has to say about the early, anglo-saxon manors in england [pgs. 43-45]”

    “In England, unlike in Ireland, we find an embryonic manorial system developing as early as the eighth century, which puts its origins almost as far back as the Frankish Empire’s. We find mention — in the laws of King Ine of Wessex (688-726) — of a gebur (or geburo), that is, a peasant ‘outfitted’ by his lord and obliged to perform plowing service on the demesne. This service was to play an essential role in subsequent years on the manors of the Anglo-Saxon nobility…. There was also a counterpart to the Frankish hide system that emerged within the framework of the manorial system…. The Anglo-Saxon hide had already been defined by the Venerable Bede (673-735) as a terra unis familiae, a term later applied to the Frankish Hube. Bede understood the family to consist of a married couple with children. The hide had to provide a livelihood for a family so defined, and it became a unit of productivity, a measurable unit for tax purposes, and a unit of land measurement — exactly like the Hufe….

    “On one point, however, the English manorial system diverged from the continental one: banal lordship did not take hold in England. This important difference between the successors to the Carolingian Empire and other, contemporary European forms of lordship will concern us below, and more than once.”

    Reply

  19. “how the whole thing got started, tho, i’m still not sure!”

    North Europeans are now more outbred than Southern or Eastern Europeans. So either North Europeans were more outbred before the cousin ban came into force or the cousin ban was applied more strictly in the north – or at least on average. Your posts about Scandinavia, Ireland etc seem to imply they were more likely to be at least the same and possibly more inbred at the time than the south. If so there needs to be a reason the cousin ban was applied more strictly in the North.

    i’m wondering if it may have been instigated by agricultural changes. my swotting threw up the idea of a new type of plough invented around the 500s made strip-farming the most efficient form which implied farmers in the appropriate terrain moving from scattered farms to one big village. Farmers in more hilly country stayed as they were.

    Now what if those farmers in both types of terrain were originally in one of the forms or communal family? This would create a split based on geography: remote, upland, swampy, pastoral etc stay in the old communal form, fertile flatland, new form.

    In itself this wouldn’t neccessarily lead to a more nuclear form of family – as shown by the continuance of the communal family structure within large villages in places like China and Russia – but maybe in the big communal villages it was easier to enforce the cousin ban?

    So then Todd’s map might (at least in part) be a map of proportions of farmland that were suitable for the manorial system i.e. flatland – where manorial in this instance is defined as a type of big village farming as opposed to a type of scattered extended family farmhouse farming?

    ///

    http://www.scribd.com/MGMiles/d/72270658-Todd-s-Family-Systems-Map-1500-1900

    If you list Todd’s family structures so,

    Nuclear
    Egalitarian Nuclear
    Authoritarian
    Egalitarian Authoritarian
    Community
    Egalitarian Community

    i think you can mostly map it to a sequential change in inbreeding to outbreeding for two reasons.

    1) If you believe relatedness acts as a brake on violence then the more related you are the more of you can live under the same roof without killing each other.
    2) The more related you are the more egalitarian you are towards your closely related group – if not anybody else.

    So you could see the colors in sequence yellow, blue, light green, dark green, red, pink as greater to lesser outbreeding with
    – pink as the human default
    – red as the improved version of default with intermarriage between a few lineages
    – and (yellow, blue, light green, dark green) as a varying product of suitable terrain -> manorialism (in the sense of big village) and the cousin ban

    If so it kinda fits except it would mean
    – most of spain should be green not blue imo as the central part is upland. the coast and the ebro valley maybe blue but not the centre
    – germany itself may not have suited manorialism – or was too traditional to change – but they exported it to the east because of the feudalism / manorialism link?
    – that red blob in the middle of France would have to be the massif central
    – the blue part of northern italy must be flat-ish
    – i’d expect Germany to have more of a mixture like France

    (plus various more speculative observations e.g. czechs, poles, slovaks, rumanians etc)

    I think Todd may have taken samples from some places and extrapolated e.g. a flat part of Spain was extrapolated to the central meseta and a hilly part of Germany may have been extrapolated too widely.

    Reply

  20. @g.w. – “i’m wondering if it may have been instigated by agricultural changes. my swotting threw up the idea of a new type of plough invented around the 500s made strip-farming the most efficient form which implied farmers in the appropriate terrain moving from scattered farms to one big village.”

    “in the appropriate terrain” here is a key point. my buddy, mitterauer, makes the same argument, too — manorialism happened in places where the environment was suitable — where the climate was right to grow the key crops (rye & oats), where the soil was heavy so you needed the heavy plow — basically in places where the strip farming made sense. none of these things ever took hold in, for instance, mountainous areas of the balkans or even in the vast forested expanses of russia ’cause it just made more sense to keep goat herding or slashing & burning there.

    however, the strip farming and all that came after the decline of the clans/tribes (i.e. after the marriage bans were in place) — at least after the start of the decline of the tribes. and as the germans migrated eastward and introduced their new farming techinques & the manor system, conversion to christianity AND bans on cousin marriage had been there first. there was no place in europe where it worked the other way around — at least during the later middle ages anyway.

    i need to read up on how the pre-christian germanic tribes lived. what were their settlements like? what was their agricultural system like? i’m really working in the dark, here. i’ve read that there was this great transition in early medieval “core” europe, but i really don’t know what went before. transformed from what to the non-tribal manor-based society?

    Reply

  21. something hail said a while back is worth thinking about again (well, i think about it regularly — haven’t forgotten it!):

    “The Voelkerwanderung period itself may be a better explanation. There are few such meta-events, that shake a continent to its core and alter its destiny forever, as the explosion forth of the Germanics in all directions in the centuries after the Roman multicultural Empire’s rotting edifice finally caved-in. This was such a social shock that it would be strange indeed if it did not induce serious changes in all sorts of ways. How can a group declare itself the new lords of a region, with its pre-existing population, if they use goofy ‘clan’ patterns? They would never be able to incorporate the new people, and would be faced with neverending domestic insurrection. So any clan patterns of their grandfathers had to go.”

    well, plenty of tribal peoples have gone out and conquered new regions and not lost their tribal ways (the arabs are a prime example), but perhaps the voelkerwanderung did put internal pressures on the germanic tribes that made them more “primed” to fall apart. might depend on how the clans/tribes were structured beforehand — like you (g.w.) asked, how much inbreeding was there amongst the germanics beforehand? i dunno. but hail’s thought is worth thinking about, i think.

    Reply

  22. @g.w. – “If you believe relatedness acts as a brake on violence then the more related you are the more of you can live under the same roof without killing each other.”

    that’s a great way of putting it! (^_^)

    @g.w. – “most of spain should be green not blue imo as the central part is upland. the coast and the ebro valley maybe blue but not the centre”

    yeah, definitely a lot more of spain should be authoritarian or “stem” family, iow green. gotta check that out. -??-

    @g.w. – “that red blob in the middle of France would have to be the massif central”

    it’s part of it, definitely. well spotted!

    @g.w. – “the blue part of northern italy must be flat-ish”

    it is! and the central red area of italy is, of course, mountainous.

    Reply

  23. “however, the strip farming and all that came after the decline of the clans/tribes (i.e. after the marriage bans were in place)”

    Yes, i’m not saying the manorial system caused the outbreeding. I’m saying after centuries of the cousin-ban the north was more outbred than the south (on average) so what caused the cousin ban to be enforced more in some places than others?

    I’m saying what if the manorial system – because it created one big village in suitable areas – was what made the cousin ban easier to enforce in those areas?

    relief map of europe:

    Todd’s map:

    http://www.scribd.com/MGMiles/d/72270658-Todd-s-Family-Systems-Map-1500-1900

    Now take yellow, blue and light green as lowland and green and red as upland. Pretty close fit.

    Assumption 1: His Spanish examples were from the Ebro valley or the coast extrapolated wrongly into the upland meseta which would turn most of upland Spain green.

    Assumption 2: His German examples were from the uplands in the south extrapolated wrongly to the lowlands near the coast where the family structure is more like Holland and Denmark turning lowland northern Germany blue.

    If those two assumptions were correct then the fit goes from a pretty close fit to a very close fit.

    So
    1) Lowland regions: well-enforced cousin ban because one big village and on-site priest.
    2) Upland regions: less well-enforced cousin ban because of scattered communal family farms.

    So the possible reason for the north-south and northwest-southeast divide in outbreeding by 1500-ish can be seen on the relief map – proportions of upland and lowland.

    Reply

  24. @g.w. – “I’m saying what if the manorial system – because it created one big village in suitable areas – was what made the cousin ban easier to enforce in those areas?”

    i see, i see! yes, that could very well be. certainly it was not just the church pushing for and enforcing all their regulations on marriage (incld. the ban on cousin marriage). sure, the church could do it pretty easily ’cause if you wanted to get married in the church — and at some point everybody did — then they would just check your background and if you weren’t eligible to marry, well then you were out of luck.

    but historian, giorgio ausenda, in “Kinship and marriage among the Visigoths” points out that kings also had an interest in stopping the close marriages ’cause they wanted rid of clans/tribes/etc. (at the same time, of course, royals themselves wanted to marry closely to keep their kingdoms in the family!) i quoted him in this post:

    “In conclusion, the strenuous effort [by the Church] to penetrate the countryside entailed a long-drawn battle against traditional religion, whose vehicle was the kin group, and substituting the authority of the elders of the kin group with that of a religious elder, the presbyteros. At the same time the king’s rule was undermined by revolts on the part of the most powerful kin groups, clans or sections, whose conspiracies and murders menaced the power of the state. Thus Church and State became allies in trying to do aways with the political power of extended kin groups utilizing all manners of impositions. One of the most effective among them was to destroy their cohesiveness by prohibition of close kin marriage.“

    to kings i’d add — which would go along with what you’re saying, i think — the lord of the manor. it’s not in the lord’s interest that there should be strong clans. quite the contrary. maybe the lord of the manor would only let out land to good, god-fearing folk who went to church every sunday — in other words, couples who definitely weren’t related. and the lord could (pretty) easily keep track of who was whom on his manor/in the village, and who shouldn’t be marrying whom! yes, definitely makes sense.

    Reply

  25. @g.w. – “So the possible reason for the north-south and northwest-southeast divide in outbreeding by 1500-ish can be seen on the relief map – proportions of upland and lowland.”

    nice!! i think you’ve cracked it. (^_^)

    Reply

  26. @g.w. – “Assumption 1: His Spanish examples were from the Ebro valley or the coast extrapolated wrongly into the upland meseta which would turn most of upland Spain green.

    Assumption 2: His German examples were from the uplands in the south extrapolated wrongly to the lowlands near the coast where the family structure is more like Holland and Denmark turning lowland northern Germany blue.”

    i’ll check those.

    Reply

  27. @g.w. – “Assumption 1: His Spanish examples were from the Ebro valley or the coast extrapolated wrongly into the upland meseta which would turn most of upland Spain green.”

    from what i can tell, todd seems to be right about spain — not green (i.e. not authoritarian or “stem” family), but blue (egalitarian nuclear family).

    going by his bibliography in “The Explanation of Ideology,” he looked at a couple of spanish censuses from the 1970s — can’t find those anywhere online (and i don’t read spanish anyway…). also, a couple of works about castile, which is right in central spain. and “The People of the Sierra” by pitt-rivers, which i had a quick glance at, and that seems to back up todd — and it’s about southern spain.

    david sven rehrer [opens pdf] also backs up todd (and he should know what he’s talking about). he even says there’s an expression in spain: casada casa quiere — “the bride (or groom) demands a home.” newlyweds typically moved into their own home. most spaniards (except for some minorities in the north, like basques) did not, apparently, live in extended family situations.

    Reply

  28. @g.w. – “Assumption 2: His German examples were from the uplands in the south extrapolated wrongly to the lowlands near the coast where the family structure is more like Holland and Denmark turning lowland northern Germany blue.”

    todd’s got a lot of sources for germany (and austria) — a LOT — and they all seem to be in agreement that germany=the authoritarian or “stem” family (green), not a nuclear family system (blue). =/

    Reply

  29. “todd’s got a lot of sources for germany (and austria) — a LOT — and they all seem to be in agreement that germany=the authoritarian or “stem” family (green), not a nuclear family system (blue).”

    ah shame.

    i was hoping there might be a line roughly following the protestant-catholic line

    on the basis
    – cousin ban
    — northern flatland
    — manorialism
    —- strong enforcement
    —– outbreeding
    —— centuries
    ——- shift from local identity to national identity
    ——– protestantism as side-effect of nationalism
    — southern upland
    — no manorialism
    —- weaker enforcement
    —– reduced outbreeding
    —— centuries
    ——- local identity and traditionalism
    ——– catholic

    such a neat theory. never mind :)

    Reply

  30. Anyway the step i missed out. The heavy pough and manorialism (all a bit jumbled).

    1) http://listverse.com/2007/09/22/top-10-inventions-of-the-middle-ages/

    “In the basic mouldboard plough the depth of the cut is adjusted by lifting against the runner in the furrow, which limited the weight of the plough to what the ploughman could easily lift. These ploughs were fairly fragile, and were unsuitable for breaking up the heavier soils of northern Europe. The introduction of wheels to replace the runner allowed the weight of the plough to increase, and in turn allowed the use of a much larger mouldboard that was faced with metal. These heavy ploughs led to greater food production and eventually a significant population increase around 600 AD”

    2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology

    “The heavy wheeled plough with a mouldboard first appears in the 5th century in Slavic lands, is then introduced into Northern Italy (the Po Valley) and by the 8th century it was used in the Rhineland. Essential in the efficient use of the rich, heavy, often wet soils of Northern Europe, its use allowed the area’s forests and swamps to be brought under cultivation.”

    ###

    3) This is an aside as it’s not strictly relevant but if the heavy plough was first developed up there then the timing of the slav migrations is a bit of a coincidence.

    Makes me think a population explosion may have driven the expansion. If the sequence slav -> north italy -> germany is true then you’d get a population density equilibrium on the slav-german border around the 8th century.

    ###

    4) This new plough seems to be the catalyst for moving to communal villages where suitable.

    http://climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/kuehnast_lecture/l4-txt.htm

    “Sometime in the sixth century A.D. a different plow appeared …With this plow deeper rooted vegetation could be removed and the heavier (finer textured) more inherently fertile soils of northern Europe could also be worked.”

    “This new plow, in addition to being heavier, was also longer as more than two animals were frequently used to pull the plow. This necessitated a major change. For more efficient use of the plow, the shape of fields was changed from square to rectangular…Another change wrought by this plow was the development of cooperatives (Burke, 1978). The plow, together with the animals to power it, represented major investments. Thus, in most cases the investment required could only be accomplished through the peasants banding together in cooperatives and sharing ownership.”

    http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/lecture_mid_civ.htm

    “Cultivated fields were farmed in strips, largely because of the turning radius of the heavy plow.”

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

    “Open fields appear to have developed in the medieval period, and were particularly well suited to the very heavy ploughs that were used to cut through the heavy clay soils common in north-western Europe. The ox teams which pulled the ploughs were very expensive, and thus tended to be shared among the families of a village.

    “Contrary to popular belief, not all areas of England had open-field farming in the medieval period. Parts of south-east England, notably parts of Essex and Kent retained a pre-Roman system of farming in small, square, enclosed fields. In much of west and north-west England, fields were similarly either never open, or enclosed earlier. The primary area of open field management was in the lowland areas of England in a broad swath from Yorkshire and Lincolnshire diagonally across England to the south, taking in parts of Norfolk and Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, large areas of the Midlands, and most of south central England. This area was some of the most populous and profitable; it was also the main grain-growing region (as opposed to pastoral farming).

    5) http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture22b.html

    “By the 6th century a series of new farm implements began to make their appearance. The first development was the heavy plow which was needed to turn over the hard soil of northern Europe…The heavy plow, by eliminating the need for cross-plowing, also had the effect of changing the shape of fields in northern Europe from squarish to long and narrow. The old square shape of fields was inappropriate to the new plow — to use it effectively all the lands of a village had to be reorganized into vast, fenceless open fields plowed in long narrow strips. This invited cooperation.

    The only drawback as that it required an increased amount of animal power to draw it across the soil. So, a second innovation attempted to overcome this drawback: the introduction of teams of oxen. This became possible through the adoption of two pieces of technology known to the Romans: the rigid horse collar and the tandem harness. The rigid collar and tandem harness allowed teams to pull with equal strength and greater efficiency. And this invited cooperation as well for how many peasants can be said to have owned eight oxen, the number requisite to pull the heavy plow? If they wished to use this new piece of technology they would have to pool their teams. Added to this was the fact that each peasant might “own” and harvest fifty or sixty small strips scattered widely over the entire arable land of the village. The result was the growth of a powerful village council of peasants to settle disputes and to decide how the total collection of small strips ought to be managed. This was the essence of the manorial system as it operated in northern Europe.”

    6) http://www.le.ac.uk/users/grj1/asl.html

    “Settlement patterns as well as village plans in England fall into two great categories: scattered farms and homesteads in upland and woodland Britain, nucleated villages across a swathe of central England. The chronology of nucleated villages is much debated and not yet clear. Yet there is strong evidence to support the view that nucleation occurred in the tenth century or perhaps the ninth”

    “Scholars have seen nucleation as the coming-together of scattered or individual farmsteadings…Another explanation – and quite likely the two should be considered together – is that nucleation was a forced consequence of the introduction of open-field agriculture. Large, large strip fields from the Carolingian period have been identified in Saxony which are similar to strip fields found in England. It is quite likely that existing farms and hamlets had to be evacuated…Both processes betoken central authority. Thus is no surprise to find that nucleated villages have either a regular form, planned in one or more rows fronting streets, or are polyfocal, like frogs-spawn, possible agglomerations of farms which had moved in together from their previous locations elsewhere in the district or landed unit. That nucleation was accomplished by lordly power seems to be supported by the numbers of villages where the church is sited so as to appear as an appendage of the manor house – which indeed is how thousands of churches originated.”

    “What of the remaining villages where the church site does not fit so neatly into the overall plan? It is possible that in some cases of nucleation at least, the choice was made to found the new central village at the site of a pre-existing church or cemetery or some other sacred site.”

    7) Three field rotation http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1318.htm

    8) horse collar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_collar

    9) so either the heavy plough started the move to communal villages from scattered farmholds by itself or originally just meant higher population density, starting in the slav lands somewhere then spreading clockwise through italy and then northwest, simply through the ability to plough heavier soils and then only later in conjunction with the three field rotation and horse collar starting the move to the communal villages, who knows, all a bit confusing

    however…

    i think what is clear is there was a movement to communal villages in suitable terrain starting some time between the 6th and 9th centuries and becoming widespread by at least the 1000s.

    The epitome of this process might be those places with the highest concentration of lowlands e.g. Holland, with the opposite extreme in places like the Highlands of Scotland.

    Reply

  31. “david sven rehrer [opens pdf] also backs up todd”

    Yes he’s the one that gave me the idea

    “The dividing line, in some ways, is actually much simpler,
    with the center and north of Europe (Scandinavia, the British Isles, the
    Low Countries, much of Germany and Austria
    ), together with North American
    society, being characterized by relatively weak family links, and the
    Mediterranean region by strong family ties
    .’ The specific boundaries of different
    family systems are often not crystal clear, and subregional differences
    abound. Eor example, in some respects Ireland does not fit well into
    northern European family patterns, northern and southern Erance often
    appear to walk divergent paths
    , and the southern fringes of Spain, Italy, or
    Portugal often show characteristics distinct from the northern parts of those
    same countries.”

    however i missed

    “The geography of these strong and weak family systems does not appear
    to follow the classic division of Europe into stem-family and nuclearfamily
    regions.”

    he wasn’t talking about the same thing.

    Reply

  32. @g.w. –

    – cousin ban
    – northern flatland
    — manorialism
    —- strong enforcement
    —– outbreeding
    —— centuries
    ——- shift from local identity to national identity
    ——– protestantism as side-effect of nationalism
    – southern upland
    — no manorialism
    —- weaker enforcement
    —– reduced outbreeding
    —— centuries
    ——- local identity and traditionalism
    ——– catholic

    such a neat theory. never mind :)

    hey! don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. (~_^) i think this is broadly right … or you’re on to something … or something. everything’s pretty right here, it’s just that the family types don’t coincide perfectly with inbreeding/outbreeding or lowland/manorialism versus upland/no manorialism.

    you need outbreeding to get to the nuclear family, i think, but you can have different forms of the nuclear family depending on circumstances. i don’t know what all of those different circumstances are, yet … but otherwise the way you’ve broken this down is pretty right, i think. or close to right. (^_^)

    Reply

  33. @g.w. – “The heavy wheeled plough with a mouldboard first appears in the 5th century in Slavic lands, is then introduced into Northern Italy (the Po Valley) and by the 8th century it was used in the Rhineland.”

    huh! invented by the slavs. how curious! i thought for sure it was some germanic/frankish thing. it’s the franks who really put it to good use (inventing their manor system) in the rhineland.

    @g.w. – “This new plough seems to be the catalyst for moving to communal villages where suitable.”

    cool. yeah, mitterauer is all about this new plow — not so much the horsepower as oxen-power (i haven’t followed closely his arguments for why he insists on this point) — and the new crops, rye & oats. oh, and rotating crops (ah! your point number 7).

    speaking of the open field system — did you know there is still such a field system in nottinghamshire — and it’s in use?! next time i’m in england, i know where i’ll be heading. (^_^)

    @g.w. – “The ox teams which pulled the ploughs were very expensive, and thus tended to be shared among the families of a village…. The result was the growth of a powerful village council of peasants to settle disputes and to decide how the total collection of small strips ought to be managed. This was the essence of the manorial system as it operated in northern Europe.”

    now, if you can just explain to me how it goes from being a system “shared among the families of a village” to a manor system with a lord or monks in charge…. -?- or maybe that only happened in some places — amongst the franks and, later, areas of central europe where the franks/germans settled as they moved eastwards. -?-

    @g.w. – “all a bit confusing”

    i’m confused. (^_^)

    @g.w. – “i think what is clear is there was a movement to communal villages in suitable terrain starting some time between the 6th and 9th centuries and becoming widespread by at least the 1000s.”

    maybe encouraged by the lord of the manor (or someone who became the lord of the manor)? — some guy with a high iq who could see what needed to be done to improve things — someone with resources. maybe previous clan leaders? — or maybe new guys who completely usurped the old leaders’ powers?

    questions, questions, questions….

    thanks for all those awesome links!

    Reply

  34. @luke – “I’m a little hazy on the transition to manorialism. Was it imposed by military force? Did it begin amidst the political anarchy at the end of the Roman empire?”

    here’s a bit from “A concise economic history of the world: from Paleolithic times to the present” (handy!), pgs. 45-46:

    “Underlying the feudal system, but with older and quite different origins, was the form of economic and social organization called (in English) manorialism. Manorialism began to take shape under the later Roman Empire, when the latifundia (large farms) of Roman nobles were transformed into self-sufficient estates, and cultivators were bound to the soil either by legislation or by more direct and immediate economic and social pressures. The barbarian invastions modified the system, mainly by introducing tribal chieftains and warriors into the ruling class, and manorialism received its ‘definitive’ stamp in the eighth and ninth centuries, during the Saracen, Viking, and Magyar invasions, when it became the economic basis of the feudal system.

    “The earliest documentary evidence that provides direct information on the operation of the manorial system dates from the ninth century. By that time it was already well established in the areas between the Loire and Rhine rivers (northern France, the southern Low Countries, and western Germany) and in the Po valley of northern Italy. Subsequently it spread, with modifications, to England with the Norman Conquest [note: there was already some amount of manorialism in england amongst the anglo-saxons], to reconquered Spain and Portugal, to Denmark, and to central and eastern Europe. Some areas, such as Scotland, Norway, and the Balkans, were never effectively manorialized; even within the areas of manorial economy some regions, usually hilly or mountainous, maintained different forms of organization.”

    plus all the stuff greying wanderer said above. (^_^)

    Reply

  35. “i think this is broadly right … or you’re on to something … or something. everything’s pretty right here, it’s just that the family types don’t coincide perfectly with inbreeding/outbreeding or lowland/manorialism versus upland/no manorialism.”

    Yes, reading more on the european marriage thing it seems there’s multiple components
    – oriental form: kin vs occidental form: conjugal
    – cousin ban
    – late marriage
    – stem vs nuclear (Todd’s thing ish)
    – strong vs weak families (rener’s thing)

    the upland/pastoral vs lowland thing is a close fit with the distribution for strong vs weak families so it might fit more as a separate layer on top of the family type.

    .
    “you need outbreeding to get to the nuclear family,”

    Yes, agreed.

    .
    “huh! invented by the slavs. how curious! i thought for sure it was some germanic/frankish thing. it’s the franks who really put it to good use (inventing their manor system) in the rhineland.”

    Well that’s the thing. The plough itself may not be the main factor in manorialism or at least not on its own. I think the plough allowed for a big population expansion – hence the slav expansions at that time – because it allowed massive forest clearances and farming heavier soils. Apparently a lot of places names starting “New” come from this time.

    Manorialism itself may not have clicked until it reached the Rhineland with the added components of the three field rotation and the horse collar (horses can plough 50% more than ox teams per day apparently). No one seems sure where or when the three field rotation came about.

    .
    “not so much the horsepower as oxen-power”

    yes it was oxen till the horse collar, i think they had multiple pairs of oxen in line ahead hence being so long hence needing a big turning circle hence needing the long strips in fields.

    .
    “did you know there is still such a field system”

    i didn’t. very cool, especially the reason stated for its survival.

    .
    “now, if you can just explain to me how it goes from being a system “shared among the families of a village” to a manor system with a lord or monks in charge…. -?- or maybe that only happened in some places — amongst the franks and, later, areas of central europe where the franks/germans settled as they moved eastwards. -?-”

    Yes quite. the anglo-saxon article talked about two types of village where one type looked planned and the other didn’t. the planned ones had the church attached to the manor house and everything arranged around a couple of roads etc. the second kind looked like people from the vicinity had clustered more randomly around the local church.

    so maybe a jumble of both?

    also one of the things i read mentioned the proportions of land holding in England. iirc it was
    – 20% royal
    – 50% aristo
    – 30% church

    i wonder if that made a difference? i’d imagine most aristo land would have manors but maybe church and royal land didn’t always? like a village that supplied milk or honey or something directly to the king? or church lands being different somehow?

    .
    “it was like a breeding program”

    and possibly tied to differences between royal, church and aristo land i.e. the church might not have the same rights?

    .
    “and manorialism received its ‘definitive’ stamp in the eighth and ninth centuries, during the Saracen, Viking, and Magyar invasions”

    that’s another reason for a move to communal villages now you mention it. protection.

    Reply

  36. Hi , I thought I read somewhere on your blog, where those extra lines came from but I couldn’t find it again – was it a paper written after Hajnal that added the curvy lines?

    I understand the logic of Spain and Ireland but I’m not ‘getting’ why the Finnish line has to have the right hand side of the curve, and ditto S Italy, is there a reason why the line has to continue down the Adriatic after it has cut off the end of Italy?

    Hope you’ve got time to answer

    Kate

    Reply

  37. @big nose kate – “I thought I read somewhere on your blog, where those extra lines came from but I couldn’t find it again – was it a paper written after Hajnal that added the curvy lines?”

    yes, i think a bunch of subsequent research has shown that hajnal’s findings apply to other areas in addition to the east/west divide he had found. there are some links on wikipedia to some of that other research.

    @big nose kate – “I’m not ‘getting’ why the Finnish line has to have the right hand side of the curve, and ditto S Italy, is there a reason why the line has to continue down the Adriatic after it has cut off the end of Italy? “

    i think the line down the adriatic is just there to keep the balkans populations in their places. (~_^) not sure why there’s a line dividing finland and russia. -?- maybe there hasn’t been any/much research done on russia? or the wikipedia author hasn’t read the research from russia? dunno.

    Reply

  38. “but I’m not ‘getting’ why the Finnish line has to have the right hand side of the curve”

    The hajnal line is mainly related to a specific marriage form and the potential connection with IQ is that the north euro marriage form could have led to the shedding of a greater amount of genetic load – if the genetic load idea is correct – than other marriage forms. If the marriage form was connected to manorialism then it would be connected to where manorialism was concentrated which is in turn connected to terrain and climate i.e. geography, hence Finland being on the other side of the line.

    There’s a separate idea that IQ has a connection to latitude with places like Finland being at the apex.

    Reply

  39. Thanks for your replies.

    I didn’t find a source for the additional curves but I did find a curvy version of Hajnal’s line, demoblography.blogspot.com/2008/01/hajnal-line.html

    and except for SE Poland it fits HBDC’s Manorial line. Not so surprising if the change in marriage frequency resulted from the manorial system. In fact, Hajnal’s line follows from HBDC’s. And also, HBDC’s ‘additional lines’ across Italy, Spain and Britain have a data source. Using HBDC’s manorial lines for standard comparison would be more robust and more accurate?

    Looking at the various maps, what I see is a maritime culture dominating the Atlantic and North Sea coasts and some of the Baltic and Med. And, taking into consideration the spread of manorialism, the culture seems to have sprung up around the Gulf Stream and spread from there. There was a thriving herring fleet down the east coast of Britain until the 1950s. (thinking aloud – maybe the manorial system was a reproduction of ships on land).

    Reply

    1. @Big Nose Kate:

      “I understand the logic of Spain and Ireland but I’m not ‘getting’ why the Finnish line has to have the right hand side of the curve”

      With regard to Finland, see here:

      Finland & Japan « JayMan’s Blog

      The south coastal part of Finland was the area of heavily Swedish settlement, so perhaps that has something to do with things.

      In any case, the Finns apparently had a much longer history of marrying young, hence their position outside the Hajnal line.

      Reply

  40. Hi Jayman. I read the page and lots others on your blog, lots of times :)
    Can you tell me, when you say some people put the HL farther east, do you mean farther east than the Wiki line? It’s not clear to me where the Wiki lines come from. The squiggly HL is a better fit with IQ and family systems as well as being a near exact fit for manorial-ism. I don’t see the need to straighten the line but perhaps there is a reason.

    Reply

  41. “Looking at the various maps, what I see is a maritime culture dominating the Atlantic and North Sea coasts and some of the Baltic and Med.”

    Personally i think that’s a geographical artifact of the north european plain being the ground zero

    although now you mention it the gulf stream is a good candidate for what limited how far east into Poland the process could spread (as that’s been a bit of a flaw up till now imo).

    I think the sequence was:

    1) Northern Europe had a lot of land that couldn’t be fully farmed until the invention and adoption of the heavy plough (and other related things like the horse-collar) and so mostly remained forested.

    2) Starting from around the 800s in the Austrasia region – but with say 1066 as a convenient mid-point for the date of adoption across the north european plain overall – a lot of forest was cleared and a lot of *new* settlements were built across that whole region leading to a population explosion.

    3) The explosion of new manorial settlements meant:

    a) the settlers would come from multiple pre-existing more inbred settlements thereby having a similar outbreeding effect on a smaller scale to the outbreeding effects of industrialization and urbanization,

    b) the Catholic Church’s ban on cousin marriage could be enforced (at least among the middling sort),

    c) the lord of the manor had a say in who married who.

    4) (optional personal view) The arrival of high-density agriculture and the subsequent population explosion led to a need for a method of population control to create a safety buffer between the population and the malthusian limit. The standard method, female infanticide, adopted much earlier elsewhere was blocked by the Church leading to the need for a different method.

    5) All (or some) of the above led to the north european marriage model and more outbreeding (but within natural endogamous limits caused by geography and technology. I think this is critical because exogamy within an endogamous limit doesn’t only make you less related to your closest relatives – which has negative consequences – it also makes you *more* related to the other people in your vicinity – which has positive consequences – so if the numbers work out the latter may outweigh the former.

    The end-result of that process – populations marrying exogamously within an endogamous limit – being populations more related to each other on average than clannish populations are* – and that potentially being the root for all sorts of things.

    (*I think the Danes or Icelanders probably exemplify this the best because of smaller population size. If you have a larger population marrying exogamously even within an endogamous national limit then over time i’d imagine the average relatedness would get very low? I’m not sure how to do the sums on this. So if this effect does exist and at its optimum point is almost entirely beneficial it may require a population to be within a certain range.)

    Reply

  42. As an aside i think that giant northern forest is what protected europe from the steppe raiders (most of the time) – unlike China who’d cut their forests down a lot earlier.

    Reply

  43. @GW:

    Great ideas overall, and

    “5) All (or some) of the above led to the north european marriage model and more outbreeding (but within natural endogamous limits caused by geography and technology. I think this is critical because exogamy within an endogamous limit doesn’t only make you less related to your closest relatives – which has negative consequences – it also makes you *more* related to the other people in your vicinity – which has positive consequences – so if the numbers work out the latter may outweigh the former.

    The end-result of that process – populations marrying exogamously within an endogamous limit – being populations more related to each other on average than clannish populations are* – and that potentially being the root for all sorts of things.”

    I think that’s a beautiful description of what’s up with NW Euros.

    Reply

  44. @big nose kate – “I didn’t find a source for the additional curves…”

    oh, dr*t. i really thought there were some useful links on that wikipedia page (i think there used to be). i’ll have to try and dig up some info for you on why finland is outside the hajnal line. putting it on my “to do” list (remind me if i forget!).

    @big nose kate – “…I did find a curvy version of Hajnal’s line.”

    cool! thanks for the link.

    @big nose kate – “Not so surprising if the change in marriage frequency resulted from the manorial system. In fact, Hajnal’s line follows from HBDC’s.”

    yes, well, the connection between the hajnal line and manorialism is not one that i made — i got it from michael mitterauer’s Why Europe? he talks at length, too, about the church’s bans on cousin marriage and the effects this had on clans/extended families (although he doesn’t get into the biology of it — he’s an historian).

    @big nose kate – “The squiggly HL is a better fit with IQ and family systems as well as being a near exact fit for manorial-ism. I don’t see the need to straighten the line but perhaps there is a reason.”

    i’m sure the line ought to be/is in reality squiggly. it’s just that when hajnal first proposed it’s existence, he (or, perhaps, it’s been subsequent researchers) described it as a line running from st. petersburg to trieste. i’m sure he didn’t mean that it was perfectly straight, though — as the crow flies. (^_^) just that that was the general pattern — late marriages to the west of the line, early marriages to the east of it.

    (i have yet to read the original hajnal article which is in this volume. haven’t managed to get my hands on it yet.)

    Reply

  45. @big nose kate – “And, taking into consideration the spread of manorialism, the culture seems to have sprung up around the Gulf Stream and spread from there.”

    @g.w. – “Personally i think that’s a geographical artifact of the north european plain being the ground zero…”

    yeah, absolutely (what greying wanderer said). the manor system got going with the franks in austrasia and spread outwards from there, especially eastwards during the ostsiedlung (which i really want to know more about — so if anybody knows about a good book and/or articles [preferably in english] about the medieval ostsiedlung, please, lemme know!).

    @g.w. – “…although now you mention it the gulf stream is a good candidate for what limited how far east into Poland the process could spread (as that’s been a bit of a flaw up till now imo).”

    yeah, that’s really good! i’ve just been thinking that poland is as far as they managed to settle given the amount of time they had (and the technology available, i.e. they weren’t working with combine harvesters) — but maybe there was an environmental/climatic limitation to the spread of the manor system. maybe they just couldn’t grow the new grains (wheat and whatever) that far east given the agricultural techniques that they had. dunno. very interesting idea, though!

    @g.w. – “The explosion of new manorial settlements meant: the settlers would come from multiple pre-existing more inbred settlements….”

    yes, and no, i think. i think — and this is just me imagining how it worked, so i could be wrong — that towards the beginning of the medieval period, the settlers would’ve been coming from more inbred settlements, but as time went on, and the settlers spread eastwards, there would’ve been less and less of that. settlers moving east later in the period would’ve been coming from previously settled areas. of course, they may have incorporated inbred slavs into their newly settled communities to some extent or another.

    Reply

  46. “that towards the beginning of the medieval period, the settlers would’ve been coming from more inbred settlements”

    Yes, mostly at the beginning. This would be true even outside the east if there was a process of internal colonization e.g. if you had a valley in Northern France with ten pre-existing more inbred settlements and other 400 years or so 20 extra new manors were cut out of the forest then the first one would only get settlers from the original 10 inbred settlements but at the mid-point when there were 10 each the proportions in a new manor would be 10/10 and for the last one 19/10 (and that’s assuming the new manors had the same population and the more inbred settlements remained immune to the effects both of which seem unlikely to me).

    Reply

  47. […] So obviously, selective breeding doesn’t have to include to include mass sterilization of those deemed inferior, and that’s not how we approach it today. Traditional hierarchies make use of naturally arising human differences, while modern men want to efface or deny them, through social engineering if not through genetic engineering. Manorialism was better for the Western gene pool than any sterilization committee; no one wants a degenerate to multiply, but make the degenerate a serf and see if his ills remain. The inferior can’t be treated equally, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be treated with—to use a horribly abused term—human dignity. Tradition can be a thoroughly civilizing influence; Christianity more or less eliminated barbarism in the West, for example, as historical trends in familial and economic structures illustrate. […]

    Reply

  48. I just discovered your blog, it’s awesome so far I want to eat it up yummy!!!! So much knowledge…the internet is so evil when you have a brain that is like a black hole for knowledge! Just imagine what a renaissance our understanding of reality is going to be once we get over this pseudo-religious crap and can study our species with honestly like you’re doing here. I can’t wait for that day when instead of being called a racist you are called a scientist and truth seeker!

    I have that Germanic spirit from my ancestors in me, from my dad’s mom and her grandpa and from my mom’s side too. We are strong, smart, hard working females too! When I’ve talked to my grandma about how she was treated by her husband, as if her brain wasn’t valuable bc she doesn’t have a degree, well, I’m glad for feminism. I like having my brain power be considered, why the hell else do I have so much of it if not to be used? On the other hand, feminism is going to breed those traits out of us if we take all that hard work, smarts, and determination and don’t also put it into being mothers. I have a blog post about it. My smart friends are smart but not smart enough see that their decisions affect the biological reality of the future and aren’t just about themselves. I guess this is why we used to have religion….Darwin is watching!

    http://notthatgungho.com/weneedyourdnatoo/

    Reply

  49. Pages 17-20 of this book (in Polish) talk about marriage in Old Poland and Hajnal Line. According to this information, the Hajnal Line did not cut through the middle of Poland, but rather was along the present-day eastern border of Poland, with regions such as Mazovia and Lesser Poland marrying late (women after 23 years of age, men after 26 or after 27 years of age) and regions such as Red Ruthenia (today Western Ukraine) marrying early (around 18-19 years of age): http://homoeconomicus.uwb.edu.pl/pdf/Struktury_demograficzne.pdf

    Reply

  50. Japan was feudal, too, of a sort.
    Also, Fukuyama says that the Catholic Church restricted cited cousin marriage among the Germans, which had a major effect – may have caused some of the cultural norms mentioned.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Greying Wanderer Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s