Varnas in RgVeda book 10:
I have come across a saying like 'the caste system only appears in RgVeda Book 10'. I don't know what they really mean by that. Does that mean Varnasrama was a late development and was not part of initial Indian Vedic society? Does that mean book 10 shows onset of entry of Vedic people into the subcontinent? Anyway, I find this is one of the frogowellian arguments that people make without proper data and analysis.
I have already discussed Norse mythology and classes of PIE society.
I'll copy the Wikipedia article that deals with Norse classes equivalent to Varnasrama.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rígsthula tells how Ríg happened upon a farm-hut which was owned by Ái 'great-grandfather' and Edda 'great-grandmother'. They offered Ríg shelter and poor, rough food for a meal. That night Ríg slept between the pair in their bed and then departed. Nine months later Edda gave birth to a son who was svartan (dark/black in color). They named him Thræl (thrall, serf, slave). Thræl grew up strong but ugly. He married a woman named Thír (slave girl, bondswoman) and they had twelve sons and nine daughters with names mostly suggesting ugliness and squatness. They became the race of serfs.
Travelling further, Ríg came across a nice house where lived a farmer/craftsman, Afi "grandfather" with his wife Amma "grandmother". The food was good and this couple also let Ríg sleep between them. Nine months later, a son, Karl (churl, freeman) was born whose face and hair was red. Karl married a woman named Snör (daughter-in-law) and they had twelve sons and ten daughters with names mostly suggesting a neat appearance or being of good quality. One of the names is smiðr (smith). These become the ancestors of the lesser farmers and herdsmen.
Travelling further, Ríg came to a mansion inhabited by Faðir (Father) and Móðir (Mother). They gave him excellent food served splendidly and, nine months later, Móðir gave birth to a beautiful baby named Jarl (earl, noble) whose hair was blond and who was bleikr (bright white in color). When Jarl grew up and began to handle weapons and to use hawks, hounds, and horses, Ríg reappeared, claimed Jarl as his son, gave Jarl his own name of Ríg, made him his heir, taught him runes, and advised him to seek lordship.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted here that though stories documented during medieval period in northern Europe they nevertheless had a long oral tradition. Therefore, the comparison between Norse mythology and RgVeda hymns of greater antiquity is still valid.
What should catch our eye is the primitiveness of Norse myth about development of three classes compared to rather abstract nature of four Varnas in RgVeda.
From this point of view I would argue it is inconsequential that Varnas appear only in RgVeda book 10.
I also argue the primitiveness that prevailed in Norse society was mainly because the literate priestly class was a West Asian phenomenon. Though it is possible that bards of IE society merged with Aryan priests in Iranian lands.
If anything its elevation from folk story to sacred hymn shows meeting of IE classes (not endogamous) and purity-pollution rules of West Asia.
The concept of single great man giving rise to multiple clans/division/clans probably was part of PIE folklore. In Kerala, the legend of twelve children of Parayi (from erstwhile outcast) and Vararuchi(a brahmin) might have been built upon this concept. The twelve children in this Kerala story and in Norse mythology may be a coincidence or remembrance of the old story. But twelve children(most probably representation of people from different walks of life who became well known in Kerala) becoming part of twelve different castes(one of them is muslim) resembling Norse myth is hard to ignore.
21 comments:
Certainly there is a strong similitude between Nordic and Indo-Aryan caste mythology. But...
But why such mythology is absent in all other IE societies. Greeks or Romans or Iranians (to mention the best documented ones) do not have any such mythology. They certainly had slaves and probably castes too but no creation mythology to explain it.
I can think either on "convergent evolution" or, maybe more likely, in some mythological subset that was not universally IE but that somehow managed to travel from whichever origins it had to both Northern Europe and South Asia.
Greeks and Romans have been strongly influenced by West Asian J2a clan. However, the hybrid culture that created lost purity-pollution of West Asia and folkloral tradition of IE, I believe.
"convergent evolution"
I am a big votary of convergent evolution. But not in this case where both North Europe and North India have a shared clan in R1a1.
Greeks and Romans have been strongly influenced by West Asian J2a clan. However, the hybrid culture that created lost purity-pollution of West Asia and folkloral tradition of IE, I believe.
And Iranians?
And Celts? And Slavs? Armenians? Most of these have their own mythologies and I am unaware of such caste-explaining legends, really.
You seem to be saying that Greeks or Romans or Iranians, but also Slavs or Celts, are less "pure" IE than Germanic or Indo-Aryan peoples, yet neither of them are really "pure", no matter how you look at it and all have their own modifying substrate (Western mostly in the case of Scandinavians, native Indian in the case of Indo-Aryans).
Germanic languages have a consonantic shift that no other IE language has, placing them quite at the margins, rather than in the center. When you compare PIE with historical languages, Latin can be as close or more to the original thing than Germanic.
Certainly Greek, Hittites of Latins were strongly influenced by earlier or conemporary pre-IE civilizations but that's clearly also the case in India too (and could well be argued for Germanics as well - though the term "civilization" there is somewhat odd).
But not in this case where both North Europe and North India have a shared clan in R1a1.
And Slavs. In fact, together with some north Indian regions, Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia... are the highest in R1a1 (while Germanics are not that high at all: only Swedes and Norwegians are somewhat close). But do you know of any Slavic myth that correlates with that?
I agree that "parallel evolution" is maybe not the answer but what about less evident currents inside the IE continuum. Not every cultural item is introduced by conquest: many are just borrowings. due to contact.
Certainly legends they can be lost too but to think something as PIE it must be clearly widespread among actual historical IEs. That's a rule in linguistics and should be in cultural ethnology too.
Just an at least equally viable hypothesis: the Indian myth arrived to Khazaria (or some other intermediate nation of that area) and was adopted by Vikings of Russia. That's certainly a possibility too. Or could be an older cultural borrowing via the Ostrogoths - or who knows?
India and Europe have been in contact via both West and Central Asia since "always". Certainly Scandinavia is pretty much on the European outskirts but both areas were in contact with a range of intermediate cultures and civilizations that could have acted as source or intermediaries for such myth. Which one? Harder to say, really.
Also, after reading in more detail about Ríg, I found the following:
1. This god seems associated to the foundation of royalty (a late event in Nordic society) and looks imported.
2. The name is oddly coincident with the Rig Veda. Too much not to be connected.
3. The narration seems to describe three historical layers of Nordic society, the thrall being the oldest (and darkest) and the jarl being the more recent arrivals.
Scandinavian prehistory certainly had several cultural/population layers:
1. Post-Magdalenian Western Europeans, who were involved in Megalithic culture and could well be darker, at least in hair. Danes who are at least 50% Western (by Y-DNA) were differentiated of Norwegians by Britons, calling them "dark haired" and the latter "fair haired".
2. Chalcolithic pre-IE Eastern Europeans (middle and late phases of Funnelbeaker culture), who did not really break the cultural continuity.
3. Indo-Europeans (Far Eastern Europeans or Central Eurasians - Single Burials culture), who supressed megalithism.
Certainly that could weight in favor of your theory. But in that case, it would be a cultural import in India, as Scandinavian Single Burials date from c.2400 BCE and Indo-European penetration in South Asia is several centuries more recent.
It's very strange, certainly. But I'm still puzzled by the lack of anything even similar in any other IE culture. It must be something not primeval but a secondary developement.
And Iranians?
There can be individual explanations for all the cases as each of these regions took their own path. Iranian religion very soon developed into prophet based system which probably gave a uniform outlook into that. Also, Iranians are not much R1a1.
And Celts? And Slavs? Armenians? Most of these have their own mythologies and I am unaware of such caste-explaining legends, really.
Certainly legends they can be lost too but to think something as PIE it must be clearly widespread among actual historical IEs. That's a rule in linguistics and should be in cultural ethnology too.
Only Slavs are of importance. Celts and Armenians have very low R1a1. I am not talking about caste here but class. Caste I would define is a religious sanctioned endogamous system. Class is an observed social division. It need not be endogamous by religious decree. It is very evident that neither Norse society or Slavic society became endogamous units based on certain divisions. Therefore,it need not be a surprise that in many folklores these stories have been lost. We are plain lucky that it survived in Norse mythology(After all, most of these were written down after 10th century... therefore...many stories...socially irrelevant like class divisions...might have been lost centuries before that)
India and Europe have been in contact via both West and Central Asia since "always". Certainly Scandinavia is pretty much on the European outskirts but both areas were in contact with a range of intermediate cultures and civilizations that could have acted as source or intermediaries for such myth. Which one? Harder to say, really.
We probably can apply the rule that if two cultures so apart have borrowed certain aspects then intermediated cultures need to show them too. Anyway, I would say are just lucky to have that myth in Norse mythology though it was religiously/socially irrelevant to their society. Here you can add a condition for cultural aspects with PIE roots need not survive in every culture if they are socially inconsequential.
it would be a cultural import in India, as Scandinavian
It would be a cultural import in India as well as in Scandinavia. After all, 60-80% of Scandinavians are non R1a1. I am not sure whether burial culture is important in India. I believe R1a1 bards merged with West Asian priests and developed a new cremating culture in India (I am not sure if burial culture was observed in India).
Post-Magdalenian Western Europeans, who were involved in Megalithic culture and could well be darker, at least in hair.
It is easy if you accept western Europeans were dark 5-6000 years ago ;-). Light skin might have became dominant among east Europeans first. But I feel blond hair is a northern European phenomenon.
But in that case, it would be a cultural import in India, as Scandinavian Single Burials date from c.2400 BCE and Indo-European penetration in South Asia is several centuries more recent.
I am sorry, I didn't think about it much. Yes, it is a possibility that IE culture developed among R1b and I specific communities and moved to pure R1a1 regions of eastern Europe or Central Asia.
Though it would make north and western Europe were rather static/sedentary communities and steppe R1a1 highly mobile.
But it is surprising that bards of didn't become of part of R1a1 people of steppe. India almost completely lack R1b and I.
But how important is burial culture for R1a1 IE people. Is it observed in India? May be we are just overlapping north European burial culture which moved east with IE culture of older antiquity.
Also, Iranians are not much R1a1. (...) Celts and Armenians have very low R1a1. (...) I believe R1a1 bards (...)
Why that obsession with R1a1? You are telling me that low R1a1 Dravidians (not even IE-speakers) have that myth: we are talking of something cultural, not biological.
Danes have quite low R1a1. Even Swedes have only intermediate levels of that clade. Other Germanic peoples may have even less of that lineage.
And, btw, bards were a Celtic caste or class (low R1a1), just like the Druids. The non-religious equivalent in old Germanic societies is skald (but they were just poets, not priests like pre-Christian bards).
Only Slavs are of importance.
But not for their R1a1 but because they are in the middle, along with Tajiks. Btw, Tajiks are high R1a1 and are Iranians (their language is a Persian dialect).
We probably can apply the rule that if two cultures so apart have borrowed certain aspects then intermediated cultures need to show them too.
There should be some intermediary. But probably it was erased by other elements, like Turks and the like. Maybe it's a Scythian, Sarmathian or Cimmerian legend.
Anyway, I would say are just lucky to have that myth in Norse mythology though it was religiously/socially irrelevant to their society.
Was it? Wasn't the Nordic society divided in castes too? Like most of the ancient world. There's also a somewhat similar (in the sense that explains the ascension of royalty and division of society in classes or castes) legend among Tartessians. It's the only known Tartessian myth actually. Tartessians were not IE nor high in R1a1.
Here you can add a condition for cultural aspects with PIE roots need not survive in every culture if they are socially inconsequential.
Rome was divided in two castes: Patricians and Plebeians (aristocrats and commoners), plus the undercaste of slaves. They do not have such legend and explain the origin of Patricians as function of being (mythically) older settlers. Their society was not really different from that of Nordics but they explain it differently (for instance they have no myth to explain slavery: it was just a fact of life), not even plebeians were honored with a founding myth. Only patricians had theirs.
It would be a cultural import in India as well as in Scandinavia.
Probably.
I am not sure whether burial culture is important in India. I believe R1a1 bards merged with West Asian priests and developed a new cremating culture in India (I am not sure if burial culture was observed in India).
Burial customs also changed among Western Indo-Europeans. Early IEs used individual burials (except in some principal tombs maybe, where slaves could accompany their master) in contrast with the Megalithic tradition that was clannic (collective burials). Many were of the kurgan style, specially in the first milennium or maybe more.
Later (one or two milennia later) most Western IEs adopted cremation (Urnifields). Practice that also extended to some non-IEs (Etruscans, some Iberians) but not to all IEs (Greeks never adopted it). Other attested practices are to leave the dead in battle to be eaten by vultures (late Iberian Celtic practice), that were considered to carry the hero to some sort of netherworld.
Anyhow, I did not mean that burials were necesarily important, just that in the Scandinavian case the Single Burials culture (an offshot of Corded Ware culture) marks the beginning of Indo-European (and possibly proto-Germanic) stage.
How do you explain that Celts and other Western IEs adopted suddenly cremation c. 1300 BCE? I really have no idea: fashion?, foreign influence? new religion? crowded cemeteries?
But how important is burial culture for R1a1 IE people.
It's important (among other elements) to describe and understand archaeological cultures. Just that. Possibly it was associated to religion and myths but I meant nothing: just that Single Burials culture is the first Scandinavian IE culture. Just that: it just happens to have that name.
I feel blond hair is a northern European phenomenon.
Possibly. But it's all a matter of degree. Danes can be percieved as darker than Swedes, Basques as fairer than Andalusians or Punjabis as fairer than Tamils.
I really don't know the exact origins of Western Eurasian blondism but its selection must be older than IEs - probably related with darker (cloudier) climate in NW Europe. So, yes, surely it makes no sense that color association among Nordics, really.
it is a possibility that IE culture developed among R1b and I specific communities and moved to pure R1a1 regions of eastern Europe or Central Asia.
I didn't mean to imply that. I'm of the opinion that R1a1 is the most clear marker of all IE expansion. They migrated, conquered and mixed and migrated, conquered and mixed... so when they arrived to Britain or Spain (later than to India, much later in the British case), they were just only slightly R1a1.
But culturally they were as IE as the purest Scythian, or almost.
As you are so interested in Y-DNA genetics, I will add that Western IEs (the cultural ancestors of Germanics, Celts, Italics, Blato-Slavs, Illyrians...) are a peculiar offshot of the Kurgan core: they conquered Central Europe, slowly, with some setbacks, during a whole milennium. In the meantime they were quite intensely "Danubized" (Europeized) by the post-Neolithic peoples they had around (and under) them. At then end of this process they also conquered Scandinavia.
Then they were very quiet for another whole milennium. And then with the Urnfields culture (cremation, but not homogeneous), they began expanding again (from Central Europe). Taking gradually Italy and Western Europe.
In all that time the small groups of early invaders got totally mixed with the "Neolithic" natives. The admixture was smaller in marginal areas like Sweden or Norway, where there were fewer natives to assimilate. But as the invaders were also few, the result is still so-so.
But the Western IE culture was probably quite well preserved anyhow. Maybe the "Scythian" (Indo-Iranian) branch is more true to the steppary origins of IEs, both culturally and genetically. But Germanics belong 100% to the Western branch (Slavics could be more intermediate if you wish). It's really hard to see how, if the myth was a universal PIE myth, is not found in other groups, western or eastern.
Why that obsession with R1a1?
You have answered it yourself.
I'm of the opinion that R1a1 is the most clear marker of all IE expansion.
You are telling me that low R1a1 Dravidians (not even IE-speakers) have that myth: we are talking of something cultural, not biological.
Probably you missed it. The myth is part of Brahmin folklore though linguistically they are Dravidians. So it can be still biological.
If you conflate caste with class you can bring whole world into this.
"Why that obsession with R1a1?"
You have answered it yourself.
"I'm of the opinion that R1a1 is the most clear marker of all IE expansion".
So according to that, English are not Indo-European, nor are Spanish, Greek or Iranians (or nearly anybody).
What I say is that people mix a lot, specially when they invade as a small bunch in the middle of many natives. In such cases, elite dominance alone is not enough to impose their genome, not even the male lineages, but it's more than enough to impose language and culture, including all sort of legends.
The myth is part of Brahmin folklore though linguistically they are Dravidians. So it can be still biological.
Rather ideological.
Myths are not biological: most Christians now are not Hebrew, not even Caucasoid. Buddha is an Indian myth, yet most Buddhists have no Indian genetics. Basques have at least one legend that is a copycat from the Odissey - they are not Greek at all though.
Lineages can be part of cultural transmission but it is just a possibility, not a necessity. Assimilation and difussion are much more common.
If you conflate caste with class you can bring whole world into this.
:D
I am not the one inventing that obvious correlation: castes are just hereditary classes. Non-hereditary classes have become castes once and again through history. And when the contradiction between heredability and reality of class and power come into conflict, the old castes are either reformed or totally supressed in favor of the new rich, who either are absorbed into the old elites or just displace the old dominant castes into oblivion.
Even in India it's documented how whole jatis have migrated from one varna to another when their reality was not anymore in correlation with the theory.
So according to that, English are not Indo-European, nor are Spanish, Greek or Iranians (or nearly anybody).
You have completely deviated there. I didn't find any connection. It is most probably unresolved doubts that you have about origin and spread of IE languages. I am open to all kinds of scenario. As of now I don't see any scenario affecting my theories :-). May be sometimes only language remains associated with your genes sometimes only culture.
Rather ideological.
Not when 30-40% of brahmins in South India belong to R1a1 clan.
May be sometimes only language remains associated with your genes sometimes only culture.
Sometimes just nothing.
Genes are much more stable than language and culture. Common people tend instinctively to assimilate into the elites, the elites tend to naturally assimilate their subjects into their culture and religion.
You are thinking in Paleolithic terms, when people had no relevant hierarchies and family was all. What we are discussing instead is post-Neolithic hierarchical societies.
Romans had a very minor genetic influence in their Empire, but a huge cultural and linguistic one, later re-expanded by non-Italic Romance speakers of Spain, Portugal and France. Romans themselves were a IE speaking people (like most of Italy c. 500 BCE) with nearly none R1a1.
Or just look at Turkey or Azerbaijan: near zero Turco-Mongol genetics and 100% language. Maybe these are extreme cases but I'd rather think that the unusually high spread of R1a1 in South Asia is the exception rather than the norm. Not even the Arab expansion in North Africa is comparable.
Would South Asia be a scarcely populated region, it would make some sense, but we know it was densely populated already before the Aryan invasions.
You argument is like a Greek arguing that there is not much Greek genetic input among Pathans as only negligible E3b is observed.
Turks started as C but once they crossed Central Asia and Iranian lands they are mainly R1a, R1b and C. Once they reached Azerbaijan they are overwhelmingly R1a, R1b, J2a and some C. Once they reach Turkey C can be negligible but Turkic speakers are represented by R1b, R1a, J2a.
Therefore, the descendants of original Turkic speakers in Turkey can still from 30-40% of the population (my own numbers based on other considerations).
Consider R1a1.
Western route:
Started R1a1. Central-north Europe, R1a1 and R1b. Further west more R1b and less R1a1. Furthest west negligible R1a1 and overwhelmingly R1b.
Southern route:
Steppe -> R1a1; Central Asia -> R1a1; north Pakistan R1a1.
Only in Central-west India (Maharashtra) Haplogroup H dominates though it is an Indo-Aryan speaking region. More like R1b in western Europe.
Romans themselves were a IE speaking people (like most of Italy c. 500 BCE) with nearly none R1a1.
Have they tested Roman Y-DNA already. What are major haplogroups?
You argument is like a Greek arguing that there is not much Greek genetic input among Pathans as only negligible E3b is observed.
In fact... there is not much Greek genetic input among Pathans, because (among other reasons) only negligible E3b is observed. I fully agree with that. :)
... the descendants of original Turkic speakers in Turkey can still from 30-40% of the population (my own numbers based on other considerations).
Not sure. But the "genuine" Turkic ascendancy of each Anatolian Turk is really negligible, even if each has a tiny drop of Atilla himslef (as probably do many other Europeans and Asians, btw, who nevertheless have no Turkic culture whatsoever).
Consider R1a1.
Western route:
Started R1a1. Central-north Europe, R1a1 and R1b. Further west more R1b and less R1a1. Furthest west negligible R1a1 and overwhelmingly R1b.
Southern route:
Steppe -> R1a1; Central Asia -> R1a1; north Pakistan R1a1.
Not sure what you mean but you can't really compare the loosely populated cold plains of Eastern and Northern Europe with the densely populated Pakistan. It's only logical that IEs had mre of a genetic impact where there was very low density (comparing Sweden and Denmark also yields similar results). But it's not so logical that they had almost the same impact in densely populated South Asia.
This is a real problem, as I see it, and it can mean two things:
1. IEs really made a much more radical genocide (at least in the male side) in parts of South Asia, comparable to the colonization of America by the Spanish (but thousands of years before and without gunpowder nor vulnerability to smallpox and common flu by the natives - wonder if Bronze tech and horses really gave them such a huge advantage).
2. There was not just one wave of invaders/immigrants but many succesive ones.
The two possibilities are not really incompatible.
Have they tested Roman Y-DNA already. What are major haplogroups?
Italy is Y-DNA wise, mostly R1b1c (like 40-50%), but also has some "oriental" clades like J, E3b, I, K2 (now called "T"?). R1a1 is anecdotic.
Anyhow it would be nearly impossible to make such study: Rome was a single city and all the Latin league was not much larger. Rome did not just export (mostly to Italy itself) some colonists and magistrates but also imported many many immigrants (willful immigrants and slaves). So unless we start studying the aDNA of historical pre-Imperial Roman bones, it looks like something very hard to do.
Yet, we know that pre-Roman Iberians (for instance) were virtually the same as modern Catalans, so the Roman input seems negligible. What is in concordance with what we know from history: Roman attitude was that of making everybody a Roman, slowly but steadily. They built colonies here and there but we can't be sure of how truly Roman were they, in fact.
In any case they would have never been able to make much of a colonization beginning with such tiny population, so what they actually did was to assimilate allies and conquered peoples, first Italians (Rome invented Italy, as the privileged core of the Empire), then the rest (as more and more locals were assimilated into provincial Romanity, until "Roman citizenship" was granted to all).
In fact... there is not much Greek genetic input among Pathans, because (among other reasons) only negligible E3b is observed. I fully agree with that. :)
Okay. Greeks were 100% E3b-s 2000 years back.
you can't really compare the loosely populated cold plains of Eastern and Northern Europe with the densely populated Pakistan
Indus valley declined and cities were largely abandoned by 1700 BCE. Hence I can compare.
2. There was not just one wave of invaders/immigrants but many succesive ones.
Agree with that.
Regarding Romans, I was expecting a study comparable to Etruscans.
Roman attitude was that of making everybody a Roman, slowly but steadily.
Roman massacre of Italian tribes(who wanted to be full Romans and rebelled they were not accepted) must be a figment of the imagination of present day novelists.
Okay. Greeks were 100% E3b-s 2000 years back.
LOL.
It seems pretty realistic that E3b is at least Epiplaeolithic in Greece. But that's not the only reason anyhow. K-means clustering of Eurasian populations (autosomal SNP analysis) also show strong differences between Greeks and Pathans. Or Kalash for the case, who are the onse that claim some sort of Greek ancestry (Pathans don't).
Indus valley declined and cities were largely abandoned by 1700 BCE. Hence I can compare.
IF Indus Valley was left virtually desert, not just the cities but specially the fields, I could agree.
But I have no reason to think that's the case. Also what about Northern India. Some studies give highest R1a1 concentrations (over 50%) in NW Kashmir and (hold your breath)... Uttar Pradesh, the most densely populated region of India, alone more populated than many large sovereign countries. There was no IVC in Uttar Pradesh but they seem to have been agriculturalist anyhow. And I also doubt of desertization in that case.
Maybe it's just the Brahmins of all India that go to Varanasi to take a bath? ;)
Sorry but I find that scenario very unbelievable, realy. I'd rather believe in IEs puring out of India to become nomads and conquer the World (as some claim).
You can't blame the Greeks either. :P
Regarding Romans, I was expecting a study comparable to Etruscans.
Etruscans were studied in aDNA and modern Tuscan (and other: Basque, Anatolian) DNA for their origins, not their descendants. Before Rome began to expand, Etruria was a lot larger than the whole Latin league, that was for long just a Etruscan dependence. The border of the Etruscan league was at the very gates of Rome.
It could be interesting to make some study about ancient Roman genetics... but I guess everybody just expects them to be represented in modern Italians (and less so in others) and to be a mix since their very beginnings.
What would be the hypothesis to test? We take aDNA from the bones of Caesar and Brutus and compare it with modern... looking for what? How many people can claim the "Caesar gene"?
I wouldn't know how to focus such study. But maybe someone does.
By the moment those of Iberians and Catalans should be enough.
Roman massacre of Italian tribes(who wanted to be full Romans and rebelled they were not accepted) must be a figment of the imagination of present day novelists.
Rome quelled bloodly several uprisings and defects in Italy and elsewhere. The bloodiest one was maybe that against Etruscans, not sure. But they probably never made a real democide (except in Palestine).
Sure: the war methods of the time were brutal. The defeated were enslaved or had their right hand cut off (so they would never carry a weapon again). Sometimes, like in Numantia or Massada, the people prefered to suicide to submit. But overall, what victories achieved was the removal of the rebellious leaders and their replacement by submissive ones and/or direct administration.
Most often anyhow, cities and tribes just made a deal with Rome and kept huge autonomy. There were three kind of cities: allies (federated), regular (autonomous) and conquered (without rights). The two first types were clearly dominant. And the same rules applied to tribes largely.
Romans had to defeat their Latin allies once, for instance, but that doesn't mean they burned each and every city and enslaved or killed each and every person. No way. They needed those allies, they just secured their hegemony manu militari and punished the rebel leaders.
Just politics as usual.
Look at Greece: Macedonia was certainly annexed after three wars but the rest were basically allied, so they were incorporated by (more or less) friendly means. Same in other places. Some provinces (Asia, Cilicia and Crete) were even "inherited" by the Roman Republic without firing an arrow.
What did happen under Roman rule was that the unified territory was open for migration. They did resettle many legionaries upon license for instance, but eventually these were not just Roman or Italian but from anywhere in the Empire and its periphery. So it's more like a generalized shaking (always limited) of the Mediterranean melting pot than a single-origin colonization. Often they were resettled near their area of origin actually.
Manjunat
"
Turks started as C but once they crossed Central Asia and Iranian lands they are mainly R1a, R1b and C. Once they reached Azerbaijan they are overwhelmingly R1a, R1b, J2a and some C. Once they reach Turkey C can be negligible but Turkic speakers are represented by R1b, R1a, J2a."
Please if you dont know the truth , dont comment . There are lots of wrong information on internet because of that people.
Turkic people were not started with C. Go and look to Xiongnu,Gokturk , Yenisei Kyrgyz,Dingling genes. They were mostly Q,N,R1a and C. First known Turkic tribes : Xiongnu , Yenisei Kyrgyz,Dingling. Except Xiongnu, the other 2 were mostly R1a
So what's your story, tolga uzun? You mean to suggest majority Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups of the Turks in Turkey is derived from the original Siberian founders? Anyway, this blog isn't a reference for anything. You may want to spend your time on research articles. The Wikipedia article, if anything, I suppose more reliable than this blog. And it doesn't contradict whatever the comment I've made. Maybe along with C I should have added Q as a major haplogroup.
Post a Comment