[gothic-l] Re: Spanish surnames

[faltin2001]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, F. E. Jiménez Díaz <visigoth at a...> 
wrote:
> My goodness Herr Faltin,
> My post seems to have made you become unhinged. Please be assured 
that
> my intention was not to make you uncomfortable or have you take a
> flight of fancy as you have done trying to deconstruct what I have
> written. 





A very sacrosanct, but highly cynical and offensive tone I detect 
here. 






> Indeed I do hope that we are able to correct one another's mistakes
> when mistakes are made but we should do so politely and cogently. 






Yes, and without recourse to cyncicism;-)







I do
> admit that in haste I substituted Varus for Valens but that is all,







No, that is not all. Your post is full of misinterpretations or lets 
say misunderstandings and a few genuine confusions as you admitted 
yourself.








> (very similar names you know) about which you made some hay. Most
> decent people would have rather politely pointed to the oversight.








Your tone is still very offensive to me. 











> Even so, though not a historically accepted appellation I will 
choose
> to call Alaric's Gothic Victory over Valens, the "Clades Valensiana"
> (sic). 




Lets call it battle of Adrianopel and everybody will know what mean.






> Furthermore, my observation of your comportment stands. - I 
carefully
> read through your posts  #7601 and 7602. Your efforts were not
> rebuttals but reactions, so strident, so uninformed and so
> misrepresentative of ideas that I would not have answered them had I
> not read to the very end where you make a deliberate ad hominem
> attack, and even worse, a slur I shall not dignify. You sir, have 
done
> great harm to whatever credibility you might have had in these 
groups.







Well, your in my view  nationallistically teinted posts certainly did 
nothing for your credibility.









> It is also a disservice to the members of this list to demonstrate
> such unprofessional behavior.




dito





> 
> I hope everyone will read this and my next post in its entirety and
> let things stand on their merit. Even so, I am still willing to
> apologize if my original post made you uncomfortable in any way.
> 






I think your posts would make many people uncomfortable who detest 
the deliberate twisting and bending of history for the purpose of 
agrandisation of a specific ethnic group. But your apology (if meant 
sincerely) is accepted!









<snip>









> 
> > > F.E.J.D. writes:
> > > Presently Leonardo, genetic haplotyping has minimized the 
inaccuracy
> > > of population studies, which relied solely on historical data,
> > > craniometry and typology and other circuitous and highly
> > > interpretational methods. No longer do we have to accept > >
> unreliable
> > > and/or sometimes  "ulterior" subjective opinions on such things 
as 
> > the
> > > genetic contribution of people groups such as Visigoths (the 
largest
> > > of ALL Germanic tribes) 
> > 
> > 
> Faltin writes:
> > 
> > There is so much wrong with this text that I point out only a few 
> > things. The Visigoths were certainly not the largest of all 
Germanic 
> > tribes. Franks, Saxons, Alamannians, Anglo-Saxons, Bavarians and 
the 
> >North Germanic peoples were all much larger than the >Visigoths.
>  
> F.E.J.D. writes:
> First of all, please provide sources and content and stop hiding
> behind your opinion.
> Give us population numbers and approximate dates with citations for
> all of the people groups you state. 







Sorry, I assumed that you are familiar with the relevant literature, 
but I should have noticed that you are not, otherwise you would not 
have stated that the Visigoths were the largest of "all" Germanic 
peoples. For literature on this please refer to Bruno Krueger "Die 
Germanen", vol 2, but really this is so well known that I am really 
surprised by your comment.










> 
> Secondly, it is a matter of historic fact that there were only three
> sizable Germanic tribes in Iberia (the Visigoths, Vandals and Suebi)
> and the Visigoths were by far the largest. 




Well, you wrote of "ALL" Germanic peoples, not just Vandals and Suebi.







> Actually, people would have read my thought in its correct context 
had
> you not snipped the text at the point which you inserted your
> comments. The way it is snipped and separated by your comments (at 
mid
> sentence) is rather convenient though. Is it not? 
> Now that you brought up the "Franks, Saxons, Alamannians,
> Anglo-Saxons, Bavarians and the North Germanic peoples" as being
> larger, you must prove the point.
> Again - give us population numbers and approximate dates with
> citations for all of the people groups you state. 







Again, refer to Krueger's work which will provide you will all the 
information you are lacking in this respect.







---- However, you
> will surely encounter that tribal groups in Europe at the time I 
cite
> population numbers for the Visigoths (who's estimated population has
> some verifiability) are extremely difficult to attain since these
> purported tribes were extremely amorphous entities having few
> verifiable geographic delineations, and in an almost constant 
process
> of blending in and out of disparate groups. Therefore arriving at
> meaningful population numbers is extremely difficult. The latter is
> certainly so for the West Germans, (who were mainly farmers), since
> certain of the West German tribes we have come to know; the Franks 
and
> Saxons, were amalgamations of many smaller people groups having 
loose
> ties. The latter is especially true of the Alemanni, the tribal 
group
> from which some European states derive their name for the modern 
state
> of Germany. The name Aleman simply means "all men" denoting a 
melting
> pot of the checkerboard of people sharing similar culture that came 
to
> be known as Germany. 





Are you now trying to insult may native country? The Alamanni did not 
form the sole basis for what is known as Germany today. This, also 
includes Saxons, Bavarians, Hessian, Franks, Frisians and many more. 
The Alamanni consisted almost exclusively of Elbe Germanic groups, 
probably mostly Semnones and Hermunduri. They later incorporated also 
people like Thuringians, and eastern Danube Suebi, while 
archaeological evidence suggests the settlement of Gepids in the 
Basle region as well. 







> . The Alemanni were in fact a composite nation formed from the 
Suevian
> and other tribes, on the upper Rhine; same goes for the Franks. 
People
> on the lower Rhine formed a "loose" conglomerate under that name. In
> fact, most of the tribes in Central Europe remained largely 
amorphous
> and unfocused until quite late, as is the case of the Franks who
> largely remain that way until just before the time they are reported
> as harassing the Visigoths.
> Interestingly, quite often scholars have questioned the extent to
> which these small tribes were committed to one another or to a 
larger
> parent tribe. The only evidence of such is a text of Ammianus
> Marcellinus that refers to the pactum vicissitudinis redendae, a 
pact
> just promising mutual aid; ------- so much, for the cohesiveness of
> these (great tribes?). It is just mere common sense that tribes 
could
> not have had much association with one another or that many large
> tribes could have existed in the type of dense forests typical in
> Central Europe at the time and well into the early medieval period.
> "Bury states that we must picture Germany as consisting of small
> territories each of which was surrounded by a dense impenetrable 
ring
> of primeval forest". That ring of woodland impeded attack from other
> tribes around them. It is known through archaeological evidence that
> "tribal groups" existed in small territories that were claimed from
> these dense woodlands. Small tribes grew into large ones and much,
> much later into Nation states when these small tribes grew and had 
to
> chop down more of the forest for their expansion. The latter allowed
> small tribes to come into contact with other tribes and to establish
> some sort of (treaty or understanding) between one another in order 
to
> keep war at bay etc. 






Nevertheless, people like the Alamanni had a shared common identity 
and did act as united polities when needed. Thus, the population of 
the Alamannia amounted to about 500,000 to 800,000 mln according to 
most estimates and if we believe Marcellinus they fielded an army of 
70,000.  








The reason that East German tribes were large is
> because the geographic and environmental area in which they lived 
was
> not densely wooded but rather open and prairie-like and for the most
> part were not sedentary farmers.
> (Please see The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians. Especially 
pp10.)
> 











> 
> >
> > 
> > to the Spanish population. Simply by 
> > > understanding, contrasting and comparing the relevant 
haplogroups 
> >>and.
> 
> > > haplotypes within a given population one is able to tell if 
there 
> > has
> > > been any extraneous admixture. It is interesting however that 
before
> > > there was haplotyping it had been thought (quite correctly) by 
many
> > > scholars, that the Visigoths numbered 
> > approximately
> > > 300,000 in a peninsula of (at the time) 
> > 
> >
> >
> Faltin writes:
> > This is likely far to high a number. More like 100,000 perhaps 
more 
> > and many of them were, according to the historical sources, 
hangers 
> > on. Runaway Roman peasants, slaves, Roman mine workers and so on, 
>
> > who joined the Visigoths on their way to Spain. 
> > 
> 


> F.E.J.D. writes:
> There is wide debate in this actual number. I've seen as much as
> 500,000 and as little as 100,000, nonetheless...You AGAIN fail to
> provide sources and content;




As you say yourself estimates range widely between 100k and 500k. So 
why restate sources that you say you know yourself. 








 this time, in order to substantiate your
> estimate and the idea that many Visigoths were in fact not from
> Germanic people groups but rather "hangers on" et al. 
> 
> Here, you are making a point of quantifying (AND QUALIFYING), when 
it
> was only necessary to quantify the number of Visigoths. You qualify
> the types of individuals who joined the Visigoths by emphasizing 
that
> "many" of those that joined were Roman and on (what has historically
> been termed) the margins of society. You do so by using such words 
as
> "hangers on" "Slaves", "peasants", "mine workers", etc. On the other
> hand you avoid using individuals having other estates and 
occupations,
> which may have also joined Visigothic ranks.





The Roman historian who provided us with this information used 
exactly these terms. I would have to look up the source, but it is 
once again a well established fact that the ranks of the migrating 
Visigoths were swelled by people on the margins of society, 
especially poor Roman peasants, runaway slavs and disgruntled miners. 








 Though it is true that
> the lower classes openly welcomed the Visigoths. It is also true 
that
> you deliberately inserted QUALIFYING criteria when qualifying 
criteria
> was not needed. 




You get this wrong completely, I just used the terms provided in the 
sources. You were obviously keen to show that the modern Spanish 
population is significantly Germanic, which I think is wrong because:

a) I think the number of the Visigoths are overstated
b) the Visigoths included large parts of non-Germanic people.










Your insertion of just certain types of estates and
> occupations is also rather curious since it is extraneous to the
> question of (how many individuals comprised the Visigoths and then
> other tribes). The latter makes it appear that you inserted the 
latter
> purposely. 



see above.



Furthermore, I can think of no other reason for doing so
> other that to qualify the types of people that entered Spain.



I recommmend you read the relevant sources.




> Therefore you selectively make it seem that "many" Visigoths that
> entered Spain were in fact not the descendants of ethnic Visigoths 
but
> rather Romans and slaves, what has historically been considered as 
the
> offal of society. Could it be that you would want readers to come 
away
> with the idea that the Visigoths that entered Spain were less
> desirable or somehow tainted by such individuals among their ranks?





You should not engage in speculation without reading the relevant 
sources first. Have a look at Wolfram's book which will direct you to 
the primary source.









> Could it also be that you would like others to think that the 
Spanish
> populace are in part descended from (as you say) "slaves, peasants
> etc..." If so, let it be. 






 Slaves, peasants and miners were part of the heritage of most modern 
population. I think you will agree that your argumentation is now 
absurd.







However, your point is absurd, one cannot
> delineate the Visigoths in such away. Though it is now obvious that
> they were not all direct descendants of the original people groups
> that we have come to know as Goths. They were more importantly the
> originators and representatives of certain ideas that greatly 
impacted
> the European world, which is why they are interesting and worthy of
> study. As such, whatever type of individual joined their ranks 
matters
> little. They certainly held together well by culture and language 
but
> certainly also by certain ideas that transcended territorial origin,
> occupation and estate. A good lesson for all of us in this day and 
age.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [3,500,000 inhabitants
> > > (Kenneth W. Harl, Tulane U. 1998)]. Likewise, (Stanley Payne, 
1973)
> > > concluded that the same number existed after the time of Alaric 
II
> > > (484-507); a ratio of (11.66) to (1). The later ratio is in 
fact 
> > close
> > > to the present ratio of African-Americans to European Americans 
in 
> > the
> > > U.S, a sizable element in the overall population. Even so, it is
> > > further thought that despite pressures from disease etc; the
> > > Visigothic law of "thirds", (where 2/3 of each Hispano-Roman 
villa 
> > was
> > > confiscated by Visigoths), would have given the Visigoths a 
greater
> > > advantage in increasing their numbers, that, since the ability 
to
> > > raise comestibles by having more land and better soils would 
have
> > > favored Visigoth families over those who had poor soil and less 
land
> > > and could not raise as much food. Furthermore, by projecting the
> > > previous trend to 711CE  (a period of some 200 years) it is 
quite
> > > conceivable that the Visigoths could have narrowed the 
previously
> > > stated ratio to as little as 10 to 1. You must also notice that 
I 
> > have
> > > not factored-in other people Germanic people already in the 
> > peninsula,
> > > they are simply not included as part of the Visigothic 
population,
> > > namely the Suebi, which probably numbered around 80,000, and the
> > > remnant Vandals that remained in Spain or returned to the 
Balearic
> > > Islands and elsewhere after their ruinous mission to the south,
> > > however these were probably few. – Nonetheless, underpinning 
the 
> > best
> > > estimate of Visigoth admixture in Spain is the presence of 
suspect
> > > genetic signatures in the Y-chromosome and/or mtDNA of extant
> > > individuals where an inference may be made. The latter is in the
> > > process of being collected from the extant populations of  
(Spain,
> > > Pomerania, Gotland, and Southern Sweden as well as other 
suspected
> > > homelands.
> > 
> > Faltin writes: 
> >
> > One cannot, but smile and shake ones head at such nonsense.
> > I am sure you will succeed in calculating the Spanish into a 
Germanic 
> > people, strange only that most of them just don't look the part;-)
> > Dirk
> 
> F.E.J.D. writes:
> The last part of my post seems to have made you writhe 
uncomfortably.
> I can actually picture you "shaking your head" in disgust.
> However, I ask myself however, why would you say such things? It is
> terribly discourteous and unprofessional to behave in such a way
> towards anyone. If you have disagreements, I suggest you 
substantiate
> them (as I have) in an intellectual cogent manner. 



F.E.J.D, my aim was not to attack Spaniards or the Spanish nation and 
I have not done so. In contrast, my aim was to give due notice to the 
true ethnic heritage of the Spaniards, who are not Germanic but who 
certainly have absorbed some Germanic people about 1500 years ago. If 
you reread your texts, you might see that you constantly glorify the 
Visigothic people out of all proportions and that you seek to give 
the impression that modern Spaniards are essentially Visigoths or 
largly Germanic. They are not in my view. Instead, they include a 
rich mixure of ethnic groups including people like Celt-Iberians, 
Romans, Greeks, North Africans, Jews and of course Germanics. I did 
perceive your texts as highly nationalistic and they did make me 
uncomfortable as you rightly expected. You have apologised for this 
and I have accepted. I apologise for my final sentence, which was 
never intended to be slanderous, but it was intended as bonafide 
remark reflecting may overall disapproval with the tone of your 
posts. 

Cheers
Dirk  






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/wWMplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/