Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Spanish surnames/correction.

Expand Messages
  • faltin2001
    ... it ... recall ... clarify this? ... Hi, Alaric lived at the begining of the 5th century. The battle of Adrianople took place at the end of the 4th century.
    Message 1 of 28 , Jun 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, F. E. Jiménez Díaz <visigoth@a...>
      wrote:
      > BTW Upon re reading my previous entry I would like to clarify that
      it
      > was Fritigern at Hadrianople (over Valens), however, somehow I
      recall
      > that Alaric might have been one of the Generals. Can someone
      clarify this?
      > Thanks,
      > F.E.J.D.


      Hi,

      Alaric lived at the begining of the 5th century. The battle of
      Adrianople took place at the end of the 4th century.

      Cheers
      Dirk
    • faltin2001
      ... that ... A very sacrosanct, but highly cynical and offensive tone I detect here. ... Yes, and without recourse to cyncicism;-) I do ... No, that is not
      Message 2 of 28 , Jun 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, F. E. Jiménez Díaz <visigoth@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
      • faltin2001
        ... Dirk: We all know little about the Goths, because only little is known about the Goths in general, but I have read all (or most) of the literature on the
        Message 3 of 28 , Jun 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, OSCAR HERRERA <duke.co@s...> wrote:
          > oscargoth- dirk you know little of the goths.


          Dirk:
          We all know little about the Goths, because only little is known
          about the Goths in general, but I have read all (or most) of the
          literature on the Goths.





          Oscar:
          how spanish was invoked as a language ,well lets say we dont know.


          Dirk:
          We don't? Well is Spanish not a Romanic language?




          Oscar:
          it was spoken there before the romans arrived.




          Dirk:
          I doubt that this is correct to be honest. The Roman period in Spain
          is very important and Spanish, as a romanic language is a direct
          result.





          Oscar:
          the goths on the other hand were a well adapting germanic tribe and
          were very loyal to their own language




          Dirk:
          That is wrong I am afraid. They did keep their Germanic names, thus
          adhereing to Germanic namining practices which they shared also with
          other Germanic groups, but especially the Visigoths lost their
          Germanic language at an early time. The Visigoths arrive in Spain at
          the end of the 5th century and then in larger numbers after the
          catastrophic defeat inflicted by the Francs in 507AD. To what extend
          they still spoke Gothic at that time is uncertain, but by the middle
          of the 6th century a source distinguishes them as the Roman Goths to
          denote the fact that they had mostly become Latin speakers.






          Oscar:
          as shown by many gothic kings that ruled in spain prior to the moors
          invasion. their names were germanic,such as
          sisabut,sigeric,wallia,theudigiesel and on


          Dirk:
          Yes, Germanic naming practice was conservative and could not easily
          be transfered to Latin names.



          Oscar:
          ....history also said the goths drove the moors out.....



          Dirk:
          The Visigoths lost most of Spain and certainly their kingdom in Spain
          to the Moors. They did not drive them out. The Moslems were finally
          driven out by Spaniards not Goths centuries later.






          Oscar:
          so, why did these people give up their language and change spanish to
          its present pronunciation instead of invoking the gothic language and
          using a liitle spanish in it.


          Dirk:
          Because they were a small minority that was enitrely dependent on a
          Roman/Latin civil and clerical administration.





          Oscar:
          in conclusion gothic is nice to speak and i think the germanic
          peoples of europe should be entitled to more than just a few germanic
          languages spoken in north europe...



          Dirk:

          that is an entirely different matter. You and all Spaniards can speak
          and revive as much Gothic as they like, but it does not change the
          true ethnic composition of Spain and it does not change the history
          of that country either.

          One of the best books on the Visigoths is "Adel, Kirche und Königtum
          im Westgotenreich" by Dietrich Claude. I strongly recommend this for
          all who are interested in discussing Visigothic Spain.

          Cheers
          Dirk
        • faltin2001
          ... posting, which clears up the other one which arrogantly belittled the Visigothic contribution to the Iberic Peninsula. It seems that many scholars nowadays
          Message 4 of 28 , Jun 4, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Jorge Alexandre S G <dowrgwyns@y...>

            wrote:
            > It was very comforting to read this superb and scientifically based
            posting, which clears up the other one which arrogantly belittled the
            Visigothic contribution to the Iberic Peninsula.
            It seems that many scholars nowadays are actually politically
            biased ,which shows in itself the great danger of science being seen
            as truely neutral, as I once learned when I took one year of Social
            Sciences ,cause its objectivity is only an ideal,its being highly
            influenced by many subjective and political reasons.


            Dirk:
            That is true, and that is why some people glorify ethnic groups and
            distort their history. Certainly, these distortions are often to the
            taste of many people, which, however, does not make them any more
            correct.

            Cheers
            Dirk
          • Denis Glenard
            Hi Dirk, Hi everyone, I m not a scholar in these things, but there are a couple points from your previous Emails I d like to press here: Dirk: I doubt that
            Message 5 of 28 , Jun 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Dirk,
              Hi everyone,

              I'm not a scholar in these things, but there are a couple points from your previous Emails I'd like to press here:

              "Dirk:
              I doubt that this is correct to be honest. The Roman period in Spain
              is very important and Spanish, as a romanic language is a direct
              result."

              Spanish is definitely a romance language. We should perhaps be very precise and call it castilian, as there are many other languages in Spain.
              Castilian is only a romance dialect, mainly spoken by the southern basques/castilians at the beginning of the 2nd millenium, hence the pronunciation of modern "spanish" is derived from basque (that's why they "sound" the same). The fact that the Reconquista was undertaken from the northern territories, including the Basque Country, helped impose this dialect as the main one in the kingdom, although many others were and still are spoken locally (whether these are languages or dialects is not relevant here, there are many battles going around this, quite a few of them political).

              The Iberian language, the language spoken before the Roman invasion of Spain, is quite well known. It has it's own alphabet and although some of it is still not understood, progress is made every year.

              Modern Spanish language is therefore made of bits and pieces taken from the languages spoken by it's invaders and original inhabitants, Celts, Iberians, Basque, Goths, Moors, etc. in varyiing degrees, obviously.

              Dirk, you state in your other Email : "modern Spaniards (...) include a
              rich mixure of ethnic groups including people like Celt-Iberians,
              Romans, Greeks, North Africans, Jews and of course Germanics."

              I resent your leaving out the Basque, who were there before almost all of the other ethnic groups, who have fought every battle to free Spain from every kind of invader. You also leave out the Phoenicians (the palm fields in Elche (Elx) were planted by them as a food resource for their maritime trips) and the Cartaginese (although one could say they're part of the "north Africans").
              I'm not sure either I agree with you assertion of the mixture with the Moors and Jews. The mixture was rare, for religious, not race reasons.
              The Moors (who weren't that many to start with) did not take in converts, simply beacause christians paid more taxes. As for Jews, it is a well known fact that they do not proselytise and you are only Jewish because your mother was Jewish. This is why it was easy for the Catholic Kings to root out Muslims and Jews in 1492; had they been mixed within the general population, it would have been impossible.
              This of course does not mean 100% separation, just that mixing was so small than it would probably be impossible to trace nowadays.

              Sorry if I've been a bit long on this one, but the Basque can never be taken for granted ;-)))

              Denis GLENARD








              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • faltin2001
              ... Spain ... precise and call it castilian, as there are many other languages in Spain. ... basques/castilians at the beginning of the 2nd millenium, hence
              Message 6 of 28 , Jun 4, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Glenard" <denisglenard@y...>
                wrote:
                > Hi Dirk,
                > Hi everyone,
                >
                > I'm not a scholar in these things, but there are a couple points
                from your previous Emails I'd like to press here:
                >
                > "Dirk:
                > I doubt that this is correct to be honest. The Roman period in
                Spain
                > is very important and Spanish, as a romanic language is a direct
                > result."
                >
                > Spanish is definitely a romance language. We should perhaps be very
                precise and call it castilian, as there are many other languages in
                Spain.
                > Castilian is only a romance dialect, mainly spoken by the southern
                basques/castilians at the beginning of the 2nd millenium, hence the
                pronunciation of modern "spanish" is derived from basque (that's why
                they "sound" the same). The fact that the Reconquista was undertaken
                from the northern territories, including the Basque Country, helped
                impose this dialect as the main one in the kingdom, although many
                others were and still are spoken locally (whether these are languages
                or dialects is not relevant here, there are many battles going around
                this, quite a few of them political).



                Hi Dennis,

                thanks for elaborating the point. This is exactly what I thought as
                well. Thus, Spanish is a Romanic language of course and Spanish is
                due to the Roman presence in Spain.






                >
                > The Iberian language, the language spoken before the Roman invasion
                of Spain, is quite well known. It has it's own alphabet and although
                some of it is still not understood, progress is made every year.
                >


                Dirk:
                Yes, an intesting alphabet too which bears casual similarity with
                Germanic runes, although it has nothing to do with Runes.





                > Modern Spanish language is therefore made of bits and pieces taken
                from the languages spoken by it's invaders and original inhabitants,
                Celts, Iberians, Basque, Goths, Moors, etc. in varyiing degrees,
                obviously.



                Dirk:
                Yep, but nontheless Spanish is clearly recognisable a Romanic
                language it is infact so close to Italian that Italian often claim to
                understand Spanish without any prior study.







                >
                > Dirk, you state in your other Email : "modern Spaniards (...)
                include a
                > rich mixure of ethnic groups including people like Celt-Iberians,
                > Romans, Greeks, North Africans, Jews and of course Germanics."
                >
                > I resent your leaving out the Basque, who were there before almost
                all of the other ethnic groups, who have fought every battle to free
                Spain from every kind of invader.



                Dirk:
                True, I just foregot the Basques. In fact, I probably foregot a few
                more other groups and I did not claim to have presented a
                comprehensive list. The Basques are however, more important and
                should not be left out.







                Denis:
                You also leave out the Phoenicians (the palm fields in Elche (Elx)
                were planted by them as a food resource for their maritime trips) and
                the Cartaginese (although one could say they're part of the "north
                Africans").


                Dirk:
                As I said the list was not meant to include all.




                Denis:
                > I'm not sure either I agree with you assertion of the mixture with
                the Moors and Jews. The mixture was rare, for religious, not race
                reasons.




                Dirk:
                We certainly know that Visigoths and Moors intermarried at the
                highest levels of society. Many Spanish Jews converted to Catholicsim
                thus removing the religious barrier. Spain traditionally had a very
                strong Jewish population and I guess a lot of intermarriage took
                place over time, but I cannot be certain.








                Denis:
                > The Moors (who weren't that many to start with) did not take in
                converts, simply beacause christians paid more taxes.





                As I said we know that the Moslem elite married with Visigothic
                elites. So the barrier cannot have been too high. Also, I included
                the Berbers with the actual Arabs.






                Denis:
                As for Jews, it is a well known fact that they do not proselytise and
                you are only Jewish because your mother was Jewish. This is why it
                was easy for the Catholic Kings to root out Muslims and Jews in 1492;
                had they been mixed within the general population, it would have been
                impossible.



                Dirk
                That is probably correct, but we are discussing ethnic (non-
                religious) backgrounds. Thus, many Spanish Jews converted to
                Catholicism (I think there was even a special name for them) and
                those will to a large extend have been absorbed into the modern
                Spanish population.






                > This of course does not mean 100% separation, just that mixing was
                so small than it would probably be impossible to trace nowadays.


                Dirk:
                That might be the case, but this is probably also true for the
                Visigothic input.




                >
                > Sorry if I've been a bit long on this one, but the Basque can never
                be taken for granted ;-)))
                >



                Newer research suggests that the Basques may have played a much
                bigger role in holding of the Moslems from the North than was
                traditionally acknowledged.

                Cheers
                Dirk
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.