Re: That old Ariovistus scenario.

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

>
> --- On Wed, 6/24/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, gknysh@ wrote:
> >
> > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > > > GK: Ariovistus was certainly a name for Caesar.
> > > (TP)He didn't know any better.
> > >
> > > GK: Without Caesar you would know practically nothing of
> > > Ariovistus (:=))
> >
> > Irrelevant.
> >
> > (GK)As is everything which deviates from your Snorrist
> > orthodoxy (:=)).
> >
> It's irrelevant to the discussion of whether Ariovistus is a name
> or a title. Stay focused.
> And if you think I'm ignoring evidence which contradicts a proposal
> I made, please tell me.
>
> > > End of discussion since what follows is likely: did too- did
> > > not-- did too-- did not---
>
> ****GK: I am. And what is happening is exactly as predicted: Caesar knows whether Ariovistus is a name or a title-- no he doesn't-- yes he does--- no he doesn't etc... yawn. End of discussion.****
> >
> >
> > > > His title (since 59 BCE) was "rex".
> > >
> > > Not to his men it wasn't.
> >
> > GK: You interviewed them? (:=))
>
> You did?
>
> ****GK: End of discussion. "Refute the unrecorded and arbitrarily posited. Ortherwise it's "science"." No thank you.*****

The problem is that in situations where we don't have much
information, standard MO is to assume as null hypothesis that nothing
happened, all parties stayed in place and grew their potatoes. But
that assumption does not deserve special place since assuming absence
of action in the face of absence of evidence is methodologically
wrong as anyone can see with a little reflection. Positing the
assumed null hypothesis is no less arbitrary than positing any other
hypothesis. And as long as it doesn't collide with facts known
otherwise, Snorri et al. is a source like any other.

> > > GK: How would one translate "rex" into 1rst c. BCE German?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Ariovistus
> > 'He was recognised as a king by the Roman Senate, but how closely
> > the Roman title matched Ariovistus' social status among the
> > Germans remains unknown.' "Called", rather.
> >
> > > That's what his men would call him.
> >
> > A baseless postulate.
> >
> > GK: And "irrelevant" of course. As above (:=)))
>
> No, baseless.
> On the word *kuningas, cf.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/12139
>
> ****GK: I was hoping the great linguist Pedersen would rtwist out
> something from the "ric" suffix borrowed from Celtic.

Communis opinio, AFAIK, on Gmc.-Celtic contacts is that according to
linguistic data (shared words) they came late.

> But perhaps this doen't fit the Snorrist relevancy,****

???

> As you can see it has something to do with the Ukraine.
>
> ****GK: "The" is now considered insultingly anachronistic. Thanks
> for continuing to popularize it.*****

OK. Live and learn.

> You must be very proud now.
>
> > > That was what the Romans called him. Besides the difference
> > > wasn't that great, cf dux/herizogo.
> > > Check for yourself
> > > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Ariovistus# Etymology
> > >
> > >
> > > GK: Most of this analysis supports the notion that "Ariovistus"
> > > was a name not a title. You'd better find a better source.
> >
> > Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology is
> > a good enough source for me.
> >
> > GK: Once one tosses out the "irrelevancies" (:=)))
>
> That etymology is the only one of Smith's Wikipedia mentions. What
> is it you accuse me of ignoring here?
>
> ****GK: The fact that most of the analysis supports the "name"
> hypothesis rather than the "title" hypothesis.****

There were several hypotheses. One of them were that 'Ariovistus' was
a title. I chose that one, since it would fit into my scenario, which
is legitimate.

> > Besides, as a linguist I like to make my own etymologies.
> >
> > GK: Bypasses the point of "name" versus "title" (typical)
>
> ???
>
> > > (The citations which follow here are irrelevant since you've
> > > not made the major point.
> >
> > What does that mean? That I haven't addressed a major point in
> > your reply?
> >
> > > Fairly typical procedure on your part.)
> >
> > If you want to accuse me of something, could you please be more
> > clear?
> >
> > > >(GK No point in rehashing the Odin pseudo-history of Snorri
> > > > Sturluson BTW.
> > >
> > > Not with you there ain't. I look forward to you actually
> > > refuting it.
> > >
> > > GK: It's been refuted a zillion times, and not only by me.
> >
> > I don't think you know what 'refute' means. You refute someone's
> > proposal by showing it can't have happened that way. You have
> > never done that.
> >
> > GK: Snorri's "history" runs counter to all that we know of
> > factual events in this area of the world on the basis of
> > contemporary documents and archaeology. That has been
> > demonstrated to you ad nauseam.
>
> That's almost too funny. You knew zilch about the archeology of
> Germania
>
> *****GK: Again, the usual red herring. The archaeology and "factual
> events" I am referring to are those of Easternmost Europe. in the
> first c. BCEl

Well, say so, since the part from Przeworsk onwards is close to being standard now.

> Or have I missed your jettisoning Snorri's fantasies about Asgard
> and Vanaland? Now that would be progress indeed!!*****

You haven't missed anything like that I'm afraid.

>
> until I translated the relevant passages of Peschel, Hachmann,
> Kossack and Kuhn, which described an invasion from the Przeworsk
> area into the Wetterau, which fact Polish archaeologists equate
> with Caesar's description of the Ariovistus invasion. Which of the
> facts I translated for you (for which you were appropriately
> grateful, thank you very much; I'm not angling for more
> appreciation, just setting the record straight) do you feel you
> have used, and ad nauseam at that, to prove to me that Snorri's
> scenario couldn't have happened?
>
> ****GK: If you have indeed shifted your ground (Przeworsk has
> nothing whatever to do with Asgard etc..)then that is momentous and
> I apologize for not having recognized it.

No, sorry.

> There are other problems of course but that's nothing compared to
> what you advanced before.*****

It would rather seem that you have realized you can't fight the part
between Przeworsk and Wetterau, since you realized it is now or will
be communis opinio.

> > If your scientific "technique" consists in postulating
> > historically unrecorded events
>
> Sorry, they were recorded both by Caesar, Snorri, Saxo, plus a host
> of minor sagas.
>
> *****GK: We are now talking about entirely different things it
> seems (??)

???

> > (which by definition cannot be refuted
>
> That depends. We both agree (I presume, following Peschel et al.
> and after the long discussions we had on the various movements in
> the Wetterau valley and surroundings) that there was an invasion
> from the east in Germania at the relevant time. My claim is that
> this invasion is what Snorri, Saxo et al. describe as Odin's
> conquest of land in Germany. Your claim is that everything they say
> is fabrication or has to do with a much later time. Both our claims
> are unverifiable, since we don't have access to those guys' minds
> since they're dead, so we can't prove one way or another that they
> didn't lie. But my proposal is the most economical one, since it
> requires the fewest assumptions; if we assume they were making up
> their stories we will have to explain why so much of it matches
> what we know from other sources.
>
> *****GK: So Snorri is OK from the point where he talks about
> "Odin"sarrival in Germania and spread westward. And everything to
> do with Asgard etc.. is now recognized as fantastic speculation? Is
> this your latest position? If so, state this clearly please.****

It would seem to be your latest position. It isn't mine.

> > > > (GK)The old idea that there were "Slavs" in 1rst c. BCE
> > > > Przeworsk is untenable.
> > >
> > > They would only have had to be there long enough, coming from
> > > the east, to join Ariovistus' campaign.
> > >
> > > GK: Where is your evidence that Slavs (as distinct from
> > > Baltoslavs) were an identifiable group in the time of
> > > Ariovistus?
> >
> > The identifiable group or rather the identifiable group name is
> > Hrvaty/Charudes/ Horouathos.
> >
> > GK: The Croats were certainly not Charudes.
>
> Why not? It would certainly explain the odd distribution of
> haplogroup I, on Scandinavians and Croatians.
>
> ****GK: What does this have to do with Slavs?****

It explains the presence of southern Slavs where they are, with a
center of local origin in Slovenia (in the chain Slovenia ->
Bulgaria, languages get progressively more creolized, Slovenian being
the most archaic).

> > Nor were they Slavs in the 1rst c. BCE.
>
> There were Charudes
>
> ****GK: Who were not Slavs.****

Baseless assumption again. The genetics matches, and people change languages.

> > The name is not even attested until the 3rd c.AD (Bosporan
> > Kingdom).
>
> Ah, so you do recognize the name on the Tanais stone to represent
> "Croat".
>
> ****GK: I would accept this. The standard view is that originally
> the "Croats" were a non-Slavic (perhaps Iranic?) group which later
> mingled with some Slavs and transferred their name to them
> (something akin to the "Bulgar" phenomenon, and I could give other
> examples).
>
> Tanis is another area with high concentration of haplogroup I.
>
> ****GK Whatever that proves it doen't prove Slavdom"***

No, but it proves Haruditude.

> Furthermore that group seems to have gone through a bottleneck, ie.
> have consisted at a time of very few men. How does that link up
> with Snorri et al.?

Since I'll have to answer this one myself: Very well, thank you.

> > You rate an F- on this one.
> >
> > And on the question of method: I don't have to prove it happened
> > a certain way, since that is in principle not possible. I have to
> > make sure instead that my proposal does not contradict known
> > facts.
> >
> > GK: That is precisely what your Snorrist idee fix does.
>
> Which ones?
>

>
> > P.S. Do read Shchukin.
>
> My Russian sucks. It would take me weeks to translate the whole
> site. Could you point out the paragraphs you find relevant?
>
> ****GK: His main point is that "Slavs" begin to emerge in the Late
> Zarubinian epoch (i.e. from ca. the end of the 1rst, beginning of
> the 2nd c. AD) and that prior to that the various constituent
> elements of Slavdom had not yet coalesced.

I wanted you to point out the relevant paragraphs, so could read
them, myself. I think I'll translate the wholle page and get back
when I'm finished.

> You had Bastarnians,
> Balts, Scythians, Thracians, Germanics, but no "Slavs as such". The
> first genuine Slavic culture (that from which all subsequent
> identifiable cultures emerge) is, according to him (and I agree),
> the "Kyivan culture" which is fully formed by the end of the 2nd c
> AD.=== I would add to Schukin that the area of this culture is
> recorded in Ptolemy (Marinus of Tyre?) as that of the "Stavani".
> And I would also add the "Illyrian" component which Shchukin
> doesn't distinguish from the "Bastarnian" one. Shch. says that
> Slavs were formed in the "area of mutual fear" mentioned by Tacitus
> (between Germanics and Sarmatians). Linguistically, the idiom was a
> "modernization" of Baltic.****

Some well-known linguist, I forgot which, characterized Proto-Slvic
as a language with no surviving concepts above that of basic
survival, which would fit Shchukin's scenario. But every language has
a predecessor, and the Charudes could have a language of that type.
If they were a social and ethnic group before the formation of
Shchukin's purely Slavic culture, they might have been farmers in an
area teeming with migrant robbers of other ethnicity. You wouldn't
discover them archaeologically that way. Actually this would
correspond to the situation in eg. the later Austria-Hungary: Germans
(or German-speakers) in the cities, Slavic-speakers in the country).
It worked then for centuries, so why couldn't it have been so even
earlier?



Torsten