Re: Haplogroup I

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 8/2/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Here is my version.
> I realized last night this is what might have happened.
>
> ************
> When the Przeworsk http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Przeworsk_ culture
> and Zarubintsy
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Zarubintsy_ culture
> cultures made contact, they mixed, and a (more or less forced)
> division of labor arose: Slavic (from Zarubintzy) speaking farmers,
> Germanic (from Przeworsk) speaking predators/rulers.
>
> ****GK: Complete nonsense****
>
> A number of
> people, refugees from the Mithridatic war north of the Black sea
> arrives, carrying I1a, once carried by only a small group of people.
> Somehow a few of them take over.
>
> ****GK: As above. Not the tiniest shred of evidence.*****
>
> Woden/Ariovistus/ Harjagist- ,
>
> ****GK: Nonsense.****
>
> who had led a major campaign through the
> Wetterau valley and had almost completed the conquest of what is now
> Southern Germany (south of the river Main) from the Boii and
> Helvetii,
>
> ****GK: We have no idea as to who "led" and who "followed" in this
> "major campaign". The involvement of Jastorf and Przeworsk elements
> is clear. But we simply don't have enough facts to verify your
> hypothesis about the status of Ariovistus in these events . We
> can't rule out the dominant participation of the Volcae, or that
> Ariovistus was simply a mercenary for them then as later for the
> Arverni and Sequani.

The oppida in the Wetterau disappear at that time. If he was a
mercenary for them, he was as big a pain as he later was to the
Arverni and Sequani.

> A man "without a roof"...

His Germani had been on a war footing for fourteen years. That must
have taken place somewhere. And with some success or they would have
left him.

> [Cf. DBG 6.24: quae gens [Volcae] ad hoc tempus [years after the
> defeat of Ariovistus!] his sedibus sese continet [the most fertile >

areas of Germania north of the Hercynian forest] summamque habet

> iustitiae et bellicae laudis opinionem. Nunc quod in eadem inopia, >

egestate, patientia qua Germani permanent, eodem victu et cultu

> corporis utuntur.]

And it continues
http://www.romansonline.com/Src_Frame.asp?DocID=Dbg_Bk06_24&Lat=L
[Gallis autem provinciarum propinquitas et transmarinarum rerum
notitia multa ad copiam atque usus largitur, paulatim adsuefacti
superari multisque victi proeliis ne se quidem ipsi cum illis virtute
comparant. ]
The whole passage is translated there:
'Which nation to this time retains its position in those settlements,
and has a very high character for justice and military merit; now also
they continue in the same scarcity, indigence, hardihood, as the
Germans, and use the same food and dress; but their proximity to the
Province and knowledge of commodities from countries beyond the sea
supplies to the Gauls many things tending to luxury as well as
civilization. Accustomed by degrees to be overmatched and worsted in
many engagements, they do not even compare themselves to the Germans
in prowess.'
There is a contrast here: the Volcan nation is said to 'retain its
position' but 'now' they 'continue in the same scarcity, indigence,
hardihood, as the Germans' (there is no 'also' in the Latin text). The
'sese continet' must be "remains" or "holds out", their claim to those
areas having become purely formal after the Germani have harassed them
out of them (cf the purely nominal claim many European nations have to
areas formerly theirs but now outside their effective control). Also,
the two last paragraphs are one in the Latin text: *because* they have
access to overseas luxury products they are now being beaten by the
Germani.

> There is no evidence Ariovistus had much status
> in Roman (and probably Norican) eyes prior to his big victory at
> Magetobriga in 61 BCE.

And? And there is not much evidence about Noricum, period.

> BTW it is probable that the same thing
> happened to the Volcae in the years subsequent to DBG that almost
> happened to the Sequani in 58 BCE: their Germanic auxiliaries
> simply took over, and there was no Caesar to help... (just in
> passing)****

Or before.

>
> was hired by the Arverni and Sequani to wage war on the Aedui,
>
> ****GK: I will admit that we have no clear indication as to the

exact year of this "hire", and will not insist on 72/71 BCE. But the
conflict went on for some time, enough for the mercenary warlord to
acquire a knowledge of the Gallic language [DBG 1.47). It is, however,
also possible that Ariovistus learned "Gallic" while still in Southern
Germany as a Volcan mercenary...****

>

Their enemy, rather.

> the
> arrangement being, as usual, that the farmers in the land where they
> were stationed should provide food (and accommodation? ) for them.
> Since the Aedui were officially friends of the Romans, Caesar as
> Roman consul negotiated with Ariovistus and after getting an
> agreement that A. would get out of his employment with the Arverni
> and Sequani and stop waging war on the Aedui, A. was pronounced a
> friend of the Roman people. However, A. does not leave Sequani
> territory. The Aedui and Sequani reach an agreement that this can't
> be tolerated, so they together attack A., but are routed.
>
> ****GK: Nonsense. You've completely misunderstood Caesar's text.
> Julius uses expressions like "Gallia omnis" or "tota Gallia" in at
> least three distinct senses.
> In 1.1 it includes Belgae and Aquitani (and even Helvetii as
> "Gauls"!).

Yes.

> In 1.30 and 1.31 it is restricted to the non-Belgo/Aquitanian
> "pars".

Yes.

> And in 1.43 and 1.44 it is merely that part of Gaul which is
> dominated by the Aedui.

No, he says they were the leading nation in Gaul

> You mistakenly (as I remember) considered that "omnes Galliae
> civitates" in 1.44 (Ariovistus' speech) included the Sequani.

I do.

> It did not. As is abundantly obvious from the context. Why would
> the Sequani continue to hold Aeduan hostages (cf. DBG 1.33 and
> 1.35) if they, per your fantasy, "reach an agreement" with their
> historic foes, attack Ariovistus and are then routed?

Replace "reach an agreement" with "reach an understanding". The Aedui
could be relied upon to join in a common attack on Ariovistus even
without a release of hostages.

> And nowhere are we told that Ariovistus had Sequanian
> hostages...That's because he only defeated the Aedui alliance in
> battle.****

Read 1.31 and 1.32 again.-
'But a worse thing had befallen the victorious Sequani than the
vanquished Aedui, for Ariovistus the king of the Germans, had settled
in their territories, and had seized upon a third of their land, which
was the best in the whole of Gaul, and was now ordering them to depart
from another third part, because a few months previously 24,000 men of
the Harudes had come to him, for whom room and settlements must be
provided. The consequence would be, that in a few years they would all
be driven from the territories of Gaul, and all the Germans would
cross the Rhine; for neither must the land of Gaul be compared with
the land of the Germans, nor must the habit of living of the latter be
put on a level with that of the former. Moreover, [as for] Ariovistus,
no sooner did he defeat the forces of the Gauls in a battle which took
place at Magetobria, than [he began] to lord it haughtily and cruelly,
to demand as hostages the children of all the principal nobles, and
wreak on them every kind of cruelty, if every thing was not done at
his nod or pleasure; that he was a savage, passionate, and reckless
man, and that his commands could no longer be borne.'

> A., who suspects Caesar has had a role to play in this betrayal,
> now has to find someone trustworthy to provide provisions, so he
> demands another third of the Sequani land
>
> ****GK: He does that. But he had no battle with his employers. He
> simply tore up their previous agreement. The Aeduan leader notes
> that it is only the Aedui who had been defeated (at Magetobriga)
> (DBG 1.31)

That's simply not true. He says 'Gauls'.

> The Sequani were "victorious" and still held Aeduan hostages at the
> time Ariovistus turned on them.****

Yes, relative to the Aedui they were. Apparently this is a wholly new
development, since the Sequani aren't happy to owe up to it (1.32)

> and sends for the Charudes/Hrvaty/ Croats from the Carpatians,
>
> ****GK: Errant nonsense. There were no "Croats from the Carpathians"

at that time.****

Isn't that one of the proposed Urheimats for the Slavs?
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59262

> so that they might take over evicted farms (this is not a type of
> work, the Germani part of A.'s army want to bother with here or
> elsewhere). The plan backfires, A. is defeated, and the
> Charudes/Hrvaty/ Croats are stuck en route, property-less,
>
> ****GK: The Harudes had been in Gaul with Ariovistus for some
> months prior to the Aeduan appeal to Caesar (DBG 1.31; 1.37), and
> they participated in the battle with the Romans which annihilated
> Ariovistus' power (DBG 1.50). ****

That's true. I stand corrected. But it doesn't change the fact that
Harudes are later found at Hamburg (the naval expedition to Germania
mentioned by the Monumentum Ancyranum must have been the supply fleet
Vellejus Paterculus mentions sailing up the Elbe), later in Jutland
and Norway. And the timing of their arrival fits with a scenario in
which they are to replace potentially hostile Celtic farmers. That
they participate in the battle is natural since Caesar presented a
major threat.

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

> most of them probably in Noricum, ruled by A.'s brother-in-law,
> king Voccio.
>
> ****GK: BTW Ariovistus had become Voccio's b-i-l only after his
> successes in Gaul (DBG 1.52)

While in Gaul.

> This supports the view that he had very little international
> significance before Magetobriga.****

Not enough significance for king Voccio, who obviously was a prudent
man and always wanted to come down on the winning side.

> They have now become a political
> embarasment to king V. in his relationship with the Romans and he
> decides to get rid of A.'s and his advisors' helmets at Negow,
>
> ****GK: Way below Markey's speculation, itself a brittle
> hypothesis.****

Anything concrete?

> eventually bequeathing his realm to the Romans on his death in 15
> BCE, probably with some kind of understanding that this would avert
> reprisals, and the unwanted Charudes/Hrvaty/ Croats begin to migrate
> south, becoming the South Slavs.
>
> ****GK: Errant nonsense.****
>

So. I don't know how to respond to the accusations of '(reinforcer)
nonsense'. If you add something concrete, I will.


Torsten