RSS
彼得希瑟的新书， 帝国与野蛮人：罗马的沦陷与欧洲的诞生, 没有表现出 小故障 我在 Diarmaid MacCulloch 中提到的 基督教：前三千年. 希瑟成功地平衡了广度和深度的需求，我什至会提供他上一本书的半续集， 罗马帝国的堕落, 与其前身相比，是一篇优秀的学术著作（如果因为对考古学而不是文学资料的重视而作为叙事的吸引力稍逊一筹）。 作者报告说他已经工作了 15 年 帝国与野蛮人，并且它表现在论据的广泛传播和多学科性质。 简而言之，这一论点推翻了二战后考古学家和历史学家之间的正统观念，即文化进化绝大多数是通过模因的传播过程发生的，很少伴随着基因的流动或替换。 这种模式与二战前的语言转变是国家转变的结果的概念相反。 因此，曾经有人认为，英国人的崛起和凯尔特英国人的衰落是通过前者将后者驱逐到威尔士和康沃尔的沿海边缘而发生的。 二战后，这些资料被重新解释，盎格鲁-撒克逊部落被重新塑造成非常小的紧凑的战士团体，他们推翻了古老的罗马-英国精英，并将自己的语言和文化形式强加给当地民众（诺曼戴维斯的观点）此模型作为默认值 群岛)。 如果这就是英国的前景，英国成为英格兰并见证了凯尔特语和拉丁语以及随着德国人的到来而灭绝的基督教，那么自然会对大规模移民持更加怀疑的态度法兰克人、西哥特人和伦巴第人的后罗马日耳曼国家，他们对当地罗马人口的文化影响要小得多（在古代晚期和黑暗时代早期，资料来源区分了土着罗马人和各种日耳曼部落西帝国灭亡）。 在 帝国与野蛮人 彼得希瑟重申，日耳曼部落取代罗马时代人口的观点是错误的。 但是，他也强烈反对二战后的共识，该共识倾向于最大限度地减少移民、人口流动和人口流离失所的程度。 简而言之，希瑟希望恢复 民俗.
In 以前的帖子 我已经概述了一个理论框架，这意味着人们的非平凡迁移，所以我接受希瑟的修正主义。 事实上，我有点惊讶希瑟概述了一个与我在其广泛的社会历史参数中所设想的非常相似的过程，尽管他对后罗马中欧背景下一般过程的特定实例的了解自然超过了我所知道的。知道。 但在我开始之前，我想记录一个我对 帝国与野蛮人. Many times within the text Peter Heather contends that the centuries long linguistic continuity of particular Germanic tribes, for instance the Burgundians, necessarily entails that the barbarians had to have brought women on their migrations. He marshals plenty of other literary and archaeological data to support this contention. For example, literary sources and analysis of burial grounds of the Goths from this period in the Balkans attest to the existence of a wagon train of women (and children) who followed the barbarian warbands along the Roman roads. But the argument from linguistics seems very weak. We have copious cases where native-speaking women are not necessary, at least in preponderance, to perpetuate a language. Heather gives one example within the text itself, he notes that the current data seem to imply that the majority of the women whom the Norse brought to Iceland were not of Norse origin. Rather, they were likely to be Irish to British. And yet no one doubts Icelandic’s Scandinavian affinity as a language. Similarly, across much of Latin America the vast majority of the population derives from the unions of Spanish men with indigenous women. The offspring, and the societies they created, are Spanish-speaking (excluding the Guarani bilingualism in Paraguay). Someone with a better grasp of the details of sociolinguistics can enlighten us on the exact details of how language is transmitted, but I’m rather sure that women are not a necessary precondition for linguistic continuity. In fact, parts of Latin America, such as Argentina, offer up an example where a continuous flow of men could have resulted in a post-Roman Germanic society where most of the ancestry was German, even if all the female ancestors during the founding generation were Romans (Heather observes that in some cases such as England and northern Gaul it looks as if there was a continuous migration of Germans for decades, if not centuries).
但在一本数据密集、分析丰富的书中，这只是一个小问题。 希瑟的论点非常合理和温和。 许多对古代部落身份进行后现代理解的更极端的倡导者认为，像“哥特人”这样的群体几乎可以从无限多样化的人口中自发出现（你知道有人有很多方法，但当他们经常使用最平庸和最无问题的术语的引用）。 罗马参议员抚养儿子穿着裤子并用哥特语讲话的例子可以作为规范提供，这样哥特式精英几乎可以立即从当地人口中出现。 所需要的只是一小群战士从下面触发仿真。 就这样，汪达尔人、哥特人和盎格鲁撒克逊人的文化形式席卷了整个欧洲，只有微不足道的人流。 它也与罗马帝国没有沦陷，没有被入侵，而是进化和转变的修正相吻合。 Heather 不相信，如果哥特人的原始身份如此脆弱、流动和开放，那么几个世纪以来，在一个说拉丁语的土著人远远超过他们的环境中，像哥特人这样的部落身份的持续存在可能会持续存在。 相反，他似乎认为存在一个伦理核心，有些人可以吸收它，但它的核心是来自中欧的原始人口脉搏。 我觉得这很有说服力，因为我已经确信，文化观念在社会中传播的速度远没有我们长期以来的假设那么快，至少在前现代时期是这样。 哥特人和其他野蛮人带来了一套特殊的、独特的、语言的、宗教的和服装的特征作为一个整体，并在几代人甚至几个世纪以来坚持他们的独特性。 在西欧大陆的后罗马世界中，它们最终被罗马基质同化，我几乎看不到它们的遗传影响的证据。 与当地人相比，他们真的相形见绌， 但即使整个中欧部落搬迁，这仍然是正确的 集体 进入罗马帝国。 在许多罗马省份，一个 50,000 人的部落在人口统计上是杯水车薪，但如果其中 10,000 人是武装人员，那么在罗马晚期，这需要强大的投射和执行武力的能力。 在英国，情况有些不同，有基因数据表明确实发生了一些实质性的替代，特别是在“撒克逊海岸”。 当人们考虑到 7 世纪成为英格兰的低地几乎完全废除了罗马-英国的规范和形式时，这些数据是完全可以理解的，这与 罗曼尼塔斯 在法兰克人、伦巴第人和西哥特人中。
对我来说，二战后关于罗马帝国衰落的考古共识很可能是错误的，以至于希瑟的揭穿并不是特别感兴趣。 相反，我对他提供的迁移的基本原理或原因更加好奇。 他的论点是复杂的、多层次的，但我认为其中一个方面是他的论点，即在德国中欧实行的相对低强度的农业形式并没有产生足够的盈余来满足德国自由阶级对奢侈品的需求。男性。 由于靠近罗马帝国，对奢侈品的品味出现了，罗马帝国出口奢侈品以换取特定地区的奢侈品（琥珀）或商品。 冒险家和士兵从石灰岩以外迁移到罗马帝国，通常是在服兵役，早于野蛮人的迁移。 相反，希瑟认为，匈奴人在 4 世纪末和 5 世纪初的推动，加上罗马帝国财富的经济拉动，导致了大规模 同时 在此期间，来自德国心脏地带的战士精英的运动。 人民的运动，而不是一群兄弟。 虽然罗马国家可以像在 2 世纪和 3 世纪那样处理一两个部落，但同时从莱茵河口向下推到多瑙河口的行动太多了。 尽管一些德国团体被击败，但其他团体却没有，一旦最初的突破发生，就会形成一个积极的反馈循环，因为其他部落纷纷涌入以利用帝国的弱点。
这一时期武士精英及其家属的选择性迁移产生了重大的长期影响。 希瑟认为，正是在这一时期，人们见证了从波兰到波希米亚和北巴尔干半岛的大部分东中欧地区从日耳曼语向斯拉夫语的转变。 毫无疑问，在罗马帝国崩溃之后，他们的精英们移民到德国农民那里。 希瑟不相信他们被灭绝了，相反，他指出文学和考古证据表明，斯拉夫移民群体中有一套规范可以吸收和同化其他边缘化群体（有趣的是，俄罗斯扩张就是这种情况进入西伯利亚，许多穆斯林突厥团体被吸收为俄罗斯东正教的身份并成为哥萨克人）。 希瑟暗示斯拉夫扩张的部分原因是生产方式的改变，转向更集约化的农业技术，导致人口增长和四面八方的流行扩散，特别是更普遍地向波兰和波罗的海地区扩散。 由于相对缺乏文学证据，这本书的这一部分并不完全有说服力，但事实仍然是，500 年的德语大部分是 1000 年的斯拉夫语。
帝国与野蛮人 结束于 1000 年。到那时，集约化农业和城市文明，至少是零散的，已经到达了欧洲的大部分地区。 地方精英的期望不再是昙花一现，整个民族的大规模迁移不再符合任何人的利益（得不偿失！）。 非地中海的三田耕作系统以及改良的耕作技术，已将人口重心向北转移。 精英财富和社会复杂性的极端梯度是欧洲的特征 Pax Romana 不再起作用。 如果没有梯度，流量自然会减少。 罗马崛起和中世纪欧洲兴起之间的巨大混乱人口过渡已经结束。
请注意： 丝绸之路帝国 和 马，轮子和语言 是很好的补充 帝国与野蛮人 .
图片来源：维基百科：
我最近读到了一份关于黑暗时代的罗马-英国遗嘱的记载，其中（大概）很好地说明了农民家庭将拥有什么。该书的作者指出，该群体那个时代的考古发现总数加起来少于遗嘱中列出的物品。后罗马时期的英国发生了一些具有决定性破坏性的事情。 （他还指出，如果不是德国入侵者是异教徒，因此埋葬了随葬品，我们就不会有太多证据证明他们拥有什么。）
It’s pity that historians don’t read papers on genetics and therefore produce outdated books from the very beginning. In recent paper Underhill at al. 2009 it was shown, that typical Slavic clades of hg R1a1 were present in Poland much earlier than migration period:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n4/abs/ejhg2009194a.html
It is therefore very unlikely that Central Europe was Germanic before 500 A.D. and became Slavic after 500 A.D. can. There is nothing in genetics, anthropology, language or archeology that would support such theory.
Linguists like F Kortland say:
”Gothic is closer to Upper German than to Middle German, closer to High German than to Low German, closer to German than to Scandinavian, closer to Danish than to Swedish, and that the original homeland of the Goths must therefore be located in the southernmost part of the Germanic territories, not in Scandinavia (1982, 1984, 1987a, 1987b, 1992). I think that his argument is correct and that it is time to abandon Jordanes’ classic view that the Goths came from Scandinavia”.
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art198e.pdf
So it looks like Goths didn’t come from Scandinavia. No surprise as Jordanes’ stories are quite often fantasies. He wrote for example about some struggle of Goths with Egyptian pharaoh after living their homeland.
Most likely Germanic tribes which later became Goths originated somewhere in southern Germany and went along Danube before reaching Ukraine. They had nothing to do with Sweden or Poland.
There is no much evidence for very old Germanic presence in Poland. No trace of Germanic language in hydronyms, no influence on Polish language which is considered to be the most archaic among Slavic languages and closest to PIE.
There is also no evidence of any substantial and not recent Germanic genetic input. There is very little I1 in Poland, and not all of it can be linked to Germanic I1 as MRCA for typical Polish clade I1-P is calculated to be older than typical Scandinavian clades I1-Norse or Germanic I1-AS. See:
http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/MRCA%20Ages.ppt
R1b-U106 is also very scarce among native Poles. No Goths related haplotypes have been identified so far.
Historians base their speculations mostly on Tacitus’, Jordanes’ or Ptolemy’s writings. But Tacitus or Ptolemy were not researching ethnicity of various tribes living in geographical region called Germania Magna. They didn’t study their languages or genes. It seems now that most of those tribes if not all living east of Elbe river and north of Carpathian mountains were actually R1a1 and speaking Slavic before 500 A.D. and after 500 A.D.
We know genetic makeup of Germanic tribes of that time. In Capelli at al. 2003 migrations of Germanic tribes into central England were studied:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/capelli-CB-03.pdf
It is evident that we have there negative correlation between Germanic and R1a1. By studying PCP of Figure 3. and hg. frequencies in Figure 1. we can see that the most Germanic areas of England (ie. the regions where Germanic input is over 60% like York, Norfolk, Western Isles etc.) have R1a1 level of barely 2%, much below the country’s average and thirty times lower than Slavic countries like Poland.
The conclusion is that Germanic people cannot be associated with R1a1 and indigenous Germanic tribes(i.e. coming from territories where German language originated) invading England– Jutes, Saxons, Angles, Frisians – at that time had very little of R1a1, if anything at all.
It is good that you mentioned books like “Empires of the Silk Road” and “The Horse, the Wheel, and Language”. Modern genetic studies showed that only R1a1 had been identified among aDNA of IE steppe people. Not a single haplotype of hg. R1b-M269 or I1 – which are Celtic and Germanic markers – has so far been found among Indian higher caste Brahmins (descendants of IE Aryans, which are linked with Andronovo and Yamna cultures).
This proves that Celtic and Germanic ethnos cannot be related to Tocharian and Yamna cultures as many fantasized. There is no evidence for this. Genetics shows that it is rather impossible. Those books are therefore wrong in their speculations concerning ethnicity of Tocharian, Yamna, Maykop or other steppe cultures and linking them with Celts or Germans. Anthony’s book is also completely wrong in its linguistic part. It is a total nonsense to ignore most important IE languages, most archaic and closest to PIE with all the necessary vocabulary for wheel, horse etc. from which all other IE words can easily be derived. In my opinion such mistakes and disregard for genetics make it a crap worse than Wikipedia or some other internet “science” produced by Celtic or Germanic nationalists. It is sad, that some people treat seriously all those fantasies about Celtic or Germanic ‘history’.
I haven’t read Peter Heather’s new book yet, but from your description I can see that it is repeating old mistakes and has disregard for genetics and scientific discoveries of recent years. So I don’t expect much from it.
I’m sure the size of a foreign pinnacle-elite matters in itself. But what about endogamy. Perhaps Italy etc would have been very slowly germanized (genetically and culturally) if the Germanics there had remained endogamous? Is there any evidence that the Germanics did/didn’t remain endogamous in England, in Italy/etc?
Is there any evidence that the Germanics did/didn’t remain endogamous in England, in Italy/etc?
the literary evidence from italy exists because italy was a literate society, and the royal family of theodoric managed to intermarry with other visigoths. some of this obviously due to religion, the goths were arian, the romans catholic. OTOH, the royal family of the vandals accrued some prestige by intermarrying with the imperial families of the west. additionally, i believe that the christian bias toward monogamy took a few generations to “take hold” in many of these barbarian european tribes, who were loosely polygynous quite often at the elite levels. so the german males could have it both ways (look at charlamagne’s numerous concubines, 4 centuries after the christianization of the franks).
in england, the genetic data, which is subject to great deal of interpretation, slightly indicates that the male ancestry is more likely to be german than the female. so i don’t see support for endogamy there. in fact, some of the male forebears of the dynasty of wessex had celtic first names, suggesting that elite british males were integrated into the west saxon order.
> i believe that the christian bias toward monogamy took a few generations to “take hold” in many of these barbarian european tribes, who were loosely polygynous quite often at the elite levels.
I’ve heard similar about the vikings, when they were first christianized, later on in history.
> so i don’t see support for endogamy there. in fact, some of the male forebears of the dynasty of wessex had celtic first names, suggesting that elite british males were integrated into the west saxon order.
Fools! If only had read Greg Clark, they would know they could probably have replaced the whole country if they stayed endogamous, thus maxing out their fitness.
Maybe such norms aren’t easy to enforce even if someone wants to, though. It must often go against the individual interest.