Halloween mega-post / thread: horror movies, music, video games, sublime aesthetics, vtuber recommendations, ancient Indo-European origins of trick-or-treating, etc.

Let's just get the Halloween season ball rolling by thanking Holo honey Raora for hosting a watchalong for a classic horror movie, The Thing! (The canonical 1982 version.) Irys also did a watchalong for it last year...

So does that mean that Raora is a daddy's girl like Irys? It's rare for girls to have cool tastes, usually only guys do. Ame also watched a lot of classic "guy's movies," but she's a bit on the tomboy side, whereas Irys and Raora are very girly.

So where do they get their preference for cool-guy culture? From wanting to bond with their dad! Their dad is a guy, and has guy tastes, so if they want to bond with him, they'll have to develop a taste for guy movies, guy music, and so on. Raora has fondly mentioned her dad quite a bit, more so than her mom or her sister, so I think she might be a daddy's girl -- very rare, and very appreciated! ^_^

On the Holo JP side, I'm pretty sure that the Koronator is a daddy's girl -- she's mentioned the two of them bonding over classic video games while she was growing up. Marine must be a daddy's girl -- she has fondly mentioned him quite a bit on stream (he thinks Choco is pretty, he has some rules for marrying Marine, etc.). And it sounds like Lui is closer to her dad than to her mom (who is more like Lui's brother), so I think she's a daddy's girl too. And they all have cool tastes! And they're not tomboys, so they found an interest in cool things so that they'd have something to bond with their dad over. ^_^

And those are only the ones I know about -- perhaps there are others, but I just haven't seen clips or heard them talk about their families on stream before. It seems like there are a lot more daddy's girls in Glorious Nippon than in other countries. And Japanese girls *do* have cooler tastes than girls from other countries.

Probably because their men are cooler -- descendants of samurai, ninjas, pirates, and warrior-monks (yes, Japanese Buddhist monks could marry and have children). In China and Korea, the dominant classes were scholar-bureaucrats and literally castrated eunuchs, along with the military. Girls are more likely to want to bond with their dad when he has an exciting personality, which comes from leading an exciting lifestyle (not the life of a scholar-bureaucrat).

Even among the non-warriors, Japanese men were more likely to be hunters and fishermen than the Chinese and Koreans were, because Japan is so mountainous that arable land is relatively less common, so intensive agriculture is not as common as it is in China and Korea. And fishing is just another form of hunting -- more adventurous, setting off into the unknown, having to fight against hostile natural forces.

If the fish are migratory like salmon, then fishing is more like pastoralism, and the fishermen are tending to a herd of underwater livestock, much like the Pacific Northwest Indian tribes -- which makes them a lot cooler, resembling pastoralists (risk-taking, badass, culture of honor) instead of intensive agriculturalists (boring, predictable, hardscrabble).

Mongolian girls also have cool tastes, like practicing horse-mounted archery for fun! Your daughters would be cool, too, if they looked up to their fathers as the descendants of Genghis Khan! Hehe.

I'll be posting more post-length comments in the comments section shortly, just wanted to get the ball rolling...

Judaism as a Third Way / Non-Aligned religion arising on the faultline between Christian and Muslim empires during the Dark Ages

Second post collecting together related ideas from an earlier comment section, building a model for why there as an explosion of conversion to (mainly Talmudic) Judaism during the Dark Ages, where it happened, and when it happened, surveying a very broad range of Jewish communities.

* * *

As far as I can tell, there was no mass migration of Judaeans out of Judaea during / after the collapse of the Roman Empire. They mostly stayed put, first converting to Christianity, and then to Islam. Their descendants are today's Palestinians, regardless of their religion.

Where did all these Medieval Jewish groups come from, then? They were mostly converts or adopters, a process that happened in many places independently of each other -- e.g., Sephardic Jews in Iberia and the Maghreb, and Ashkenazi Jews within the Khazar Empire (mainly, the non-Turkic subjects of the Khazars).

There's no evidence that any of these Medieval Jewish groups ever spoke a Semitic language, let alone Hebrew or Aramaic, which the Second Temple Judeans did. They kept their language from pre-conversion -- Old Spanish (Ladino) for the Sephardics, Farsi for the Persian Jews, and some Indo-European pidgin (Yiddish) for the Ashkenazis. Most of their culture remained the same as well -- only their religion changed.

Why did so many groups, separated by so much space, simultaneously adopt Talmudic Judaism? I think this was an attempt to forge a Third Way religion, a Non-Aligned Movement of its time, in the broader context of the expansion of Christianity and Islam.

Christianity was spreading via the Byzantine and Frankish Empires first and foremost, but secondarily through the Nestorian Church / Church of the East in Sasanian / Abbasid territory. Islam was spreading via the first Arabian Caliphate, and later successors like the Abbasid, Moorish, Fatimid, and various Turko-Mongol ones (like the Seljuks, Ottomans, Timurids, etc.).

Cuius regio, eius religio -- if you threw in your lot with a certain polity, you had to adopt their religion as a pledge of allegiance. If you wanted some kind of political autonomy, you had to adopt a non-aligned religion -- you weren't siding with any of the Christian empires, nor with any of the Muslim empires. Non-aligned, Third Way -- Talmudic Judaism!

Crucially, though, Talmudic Judaism could position itself as overlapping in interests with both sides, as it was a fellow Abrahamic religion. And its ancient prophets were still being looked up to by both Christians and Muslims. Talmudic Judaism did not precede Christianity, but in harking back to Second Temple and earlier stages, it could claim to precede Christianity and Islam -- hence, setting itself up as a dispassionate, wise elder that could adjudicate between the younger squabbling children, Christianity and Islam.

Forgot to mention the Bulgarian Empire as the other major vector for Christianity's expansion, in Eastern Europe / Slav-dom (Kievan Rus' played little role in this -- Old Church Slavonic is really Old Bulgarian, a Southern Slavic language, not Old Russian / Ukrainian / etc. from Eastern Slavic).

This matches with the geographic distribution of Medieval Jewish groups. They're on frontier zones between Christian and Muslim empires, where the pressure to remain non-aligned would have been greatest.

If the region were mainly Christian, the pressure is simply to adopt Christianity -- there's no Muslim presence that would justify your Third Way religion, as a triangulation strategy. And vice versa in regions that are primarily Muslim -- with no Christian presence, there's no logic to a Third Way religion. At least not where that Third Way is Talmudic Judaism.

The only Jewish empire ever -- the Khazars -- were smack dab in the middle between the Christian and Muslim spheres of influence, around the Caucasus mountains and sprawling toward the north, with Christianity to the west and Islam to the east.

Ashkenazi Jews emerged from the Khazar Empire, as did the Turkic off-shoots of the Khazar elite like the Krymchak Jews of Crimea.

Sephardic Jews came from the frontier between Christian Iberia and the Muslim Maghreb. I consider Maghrebi Jews to belong to the same group, with the only difference being language -- the adopters from Iberia kept speaking Old Spanish (Ladino), while the adopters from the Maghreb side kept speaking Maghrebi dialects of Arabic / Moroccan / Berber languages.

Jews in North Africa vanish as you move away from the Christian frontier of Iberia -- e.g. in Libya, where there were mainly Muslim polities, and no room for a Third Way to emerge.

Likewise as you move toward Northwestern Europe -- no native Jews, since France and Britain and Germany were entirely Christian, no Muslims nearby, hence no way for a Third Way to emerge. This also reinforces the view that the Ashkenazis do not hail from Germany, where there was no way for a Third Way to emerge, but originally from a region with a strong Muslim presence nearby, like the Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Caucasus, etc.

Ethiopian Jews lie on a frontier between the Christian parts of Ethiopia (in the north / west) and the Muslim parts of Ethiopia and Somalia (in the south / east). So do the Yemeni Jews, who are just across the Red Sea from historically Christian Ethiopia, but also have Muslims nearby in Somalia as well as all of Arabia.

There's a tiny pocket of Egyptian Jews, at the confluence between Muslim North-central and Northeast Africa and Arabia, and the semi-Christian Levant and nearby Anatolia and Greece.

Mountain Jews reflect the same position as the Khazar and Ashkenazi Jews, around the Caucasus between the Christian west and Muslim east.

Persian Jews come from the old days when Nestorian Christianity was expanding and at its peak in Iranian-controlled lands, which included Mesopotamia and into Afghanistan and the southern part of Central Asia. They were positioning themselves between the early Muslim Abbasid rulers and the Nestorian Christians, especially in western Iran and Mesopotamia. But also further east into Afghanistan (Herat -- not so much further into Kabul, where there were few Nestorians), Samarkand, etc.

However, Nestorian Christianity disappeared during the early 2nd millennium, and Iranian lands became fairly uniformly Muslim, so the logic of the Third Way bit the dust as well, so that Jews from Iranian lands are much rarer than in other places as a result.

A fascinating example are the Cochin Jews of Kerala in Southwestern India, which not surprisingly happens to be the only state in India with both a substantial Muslim population (stemming from seaborne Arabian traders, not land-army invaders from the north), and a substantial Christian population (Nestorian, naturally, having received missionaries from Sasanian / Abbasid empires). In the 21st C, Muslims are about 25% and Christians 20% of the population of Kerala. As always, these Cochin Jews speak the same language from their pre-conversion days -- Malayalam (a Dravidian language), not Hebrew, Aramaic, or other Semitic language.

This establishes the tight spatial correlation between a faultline between Christian and Muslim empires, and adopting Talmudic Judaism (or in a few cases, Karaite Judaism -- also not Second Temple, but very much a modern-era LARP to RETVRN to pre-Talmudic ways, in the same way that Christian fundamentalists are thoroughly from the modern era).

But the temporal correlation is there as well. None of these groups practiced any strain of Judaic religion before the Dark Ages, and crucially, before the rise of Islam in the 7th C. Talmudic Judaism itself was only codefied around 500 AD. But there was no initial explosion of Talmudic Judaism in the 6th or even 7th centuries -- more like the late 1st millennium.

That is, after Muslim empires had expanded to such a broad extent, as well as the broad expansion of Christian empires in the west (which did not happen during the Roman days, or even just afterwards -- the major Germanic polity and culture, the Saxons, didn't adopt Christianity until conquered by the Frankish Empire circa 800 AD, also the time that the Slavs began adopting Christianity via the conversion of Bulgarian Tsar Boris I "the Baptizer" in the mid-9th C).

And we can infer the date of their conversion fairly tightly in some cases, like the Sephardic Jews, whose Romance language (Ladino) is a dialect of Old Spanish -- before the Castilian-led ethnogenesis, and imperiogenesis, during the Reconquista of Iberia from the Moorish Empire. It's not a dialect of Iberian late Vulgar Latin or whatever, so it's not from the early portion of the Dark Ages either.

It's from the late 1st millennium, and it is therefore more similar to Portuguese and Catalan, which were not the leaders of Spanish ethnogenesis, and did not radically revolutionize their language in order to signal that this was a whole new ethnic group being born, with a new set of shibboleths by which to identify each other.

E.g., Ladino, like Portuguese and Catalan, still uses sibilant consonants in the places where Castilian ("Spanish") transformed them into "th" at the front of the mouth and "kh" at the back of the mouth.

Which sectors of society did this Third Way strategy appeal to most? Apparently the merchants, traders, financiers, and the like. They are the least political, wanting to be left alone to hawk their wares, supervise trade routes, move the stuff along trade routes, lend money and collect loans, etc.

This government, that government, this state religion, that state religion -- who cares? I just wanna control the trade routes between them, and not get involved in their military or religious disputes.

It did not appeal to the military, which has the strongest interest in picking one side of an imperial fault-line. They're going to be the ones defending or expanding that fault-line. Jewish soldiers and Jewish jocks are the exception that proves the rule.

Nor did it appeal to the religious officials, for obvious reasons. They're there to serve the existing major religion of their empire, not abandon it for some strange foreign religion, and for no good reason (like accepting their conquest by foreigners). Jews for Jesus are another exception that proves the rule.

Didn't appeal to landed gentry / landowners / cultivators either. Perhaps cuz this sector was heavily intertwined with the military and religious sectors during the Dark Ages. The central state was fairly weak, so most armies were fielded by landed aristocrats, and the church / mosque owned a lot of productive land. Jewish hardscrabble farmer living off the land in nowheres-ville is another exception that proves the rule.

This is why Talmudic Jewish adopters were more urban than rural -- and remain so right up through the present day.

I'm leaving aside the genetic angle for the most part, since we're talking about cultural in-groups and their evolution, not tracking genetic populations over time.

But in any case, the genetic evidence is very weak for the view that Medieval Jews (and their modern-day descendants) represent a demographic migration out of Judaea, i.e. stemming from the practitioners of Second Temple Judaism and perhaps the even more distant ancestors of Second Temple Jews.

There has been a ton of admixture in every Jewish group, which confounds attempts to shed light on who their ancestors were, and especially *when* the admixture occurred. Admixture, when two distinct genetic populations start having babies with each other, wipes out a ton of the historical record on BOTH sides, rendering the merged resulting genome a lot more difficult to decipher for historical purposes.

Just like, on the cultural side, when two languages start to heavily influence each other -- a ton of old words are lost on BOTH sides, wiping out a huge swath of the historical record for BOTH languages. While not making it impossible to peer into their respective histories, it does confound the hell out of the attempt.

I think the general pattern can be seen in this recent article on Medieval DNA from a 14th-C. Ashkenazi Jewish cemetery in Erfurt, Germany.

Below the Summary section, is a Graphical Abstract. Note the graph in the middle, showing where the individuals cluster in a simplified genetic space. It shows two distinct sub-populations -- and this is confirmed in the results section by tests of bi-modality, i.e. two distinct distributions with each having a peak of its own, not just one great big happy distribution with a single peak.

In the post-Medieval era, present-day Ashkenazi Jews no longer have a bi-modal genetic cluster pattern, they're a single genetic population, which lies between the two separate ones from the Medieval era.

I interpret this to reflect that at their origins, the Ashkenazi Jews were unified on a cultural basis, like an economic niche of controlling trade routes, developing a pidgin / lingua franca like Yiddish, and being fellow subjects of the same empire (Khazar), who had recently adopted a new religion (Talmudic Judaism). They transmitted these aspects of their culture throughout the generations.

But at first, they were not genetically unified -- that only followed later, after their cultural unification / standardization. They figured, Hey, we're all following the same religion, speaking the same language, practicing similar economic roles, hailing from the same regional roots -- we might as well merge our families and clans, to cement and protect our special status as Third Way religionists and economic specialists.

And so they did -- and nowadays, the Ashkenazis are one single genetic population.

In the Medieval era, one of their sub-groups was more European -- meaning Slavic or perhaps Balkan Greek or West Anatolian Greek, not Germanic. And the other sub-group was more "Middle Eastern" -- a weasel deflecting term to insinuate they're Judaean or Levantine or Semitic without the evidence to back it up. In reality, more of an East Anatolian Greek, Caucasus region, or Iranian strain of "Middle Eastern". Not Semitic, nor any other Saharo-Arabian population.

These two sub-groups both had the same idea in the Khazar Empire -- why don't we specialize in a certain economic role, and adopt this Third Way religion so we remain neutral (but similar to both sides) in international trade routes, diplomacy, finance, and other mercantile and bureaucratic activities? It didn't matter that one was more Slavic and the other more Iranian. Politics makes strange bedfellows -- culturally at first, and later perhaps literally, as in this case.

With other groups of Jews, the story is presumably similar or more extreme.

The extreme cases are unadmixed populations, where we can directly see that they're just converts from the local genetic population. This is the case for Turkic ones, like the Krymchaks of Crimea. And the Yemeni Jews. And the Ethiopian Jews. And the Persian Jews.

The other major case of an admixed Jewish group is the Sephardics, who are a merger between Iberians and Maghrebis, i.e. the two relevant sub-groups under the control of the Moorish Empire, which straddled the Strait of Gibraltar, including much of Iberia and the Maghreb at the same time.

If some researcher discovers Medieval DNA from a Jewish cemetery in Cordoba or Tangier, and compare it to today's Sephardics and Moroccan Jews, the picture will presumably look like the Ashkenazi one linked above -- a bi-modal genetic cluster pattern during Medieval times, and a more uniform one among present-day descendants. Cultural unification and standardization first, then familial mergers and genetic admixture, after they've grown comfortable and familiar with each other within their Third Way cultural enclave.

Forgot to mention the Cochin Jews as another obvious case of conversion among the local genetic population. They look and speak exactly like their non-Jewish neighbors in Kerala.

We have to emphasize all of these extreme cases cuz the propaganda goes that "Judaism does not proselytize or welcome converts easily", as though to suggest that today's Jews are a latter-day Judaean diaspora.

The more examples we find of obvious local converts, the more that propaganda implodes. The main arguments are about the Ashkenazi and Sephardic groups not being Judaean, but there are all sorts of lesser examples from far-flung regions that, collectively, bolster the argument about a wave of conversions across the Christian-Muslim faultline during the late 1st millennium AD, independently of each other but for similar reasons (convergent evolution, not identity by descent). And not a mass migration from Classical Judaea to these many distant lands.

Another major weakness of genetic data is that determining who resembles who else, is highly sensitive to which groups are included in the comparison! Leave out the very diverse genetic populations of the Caucasus region, for example, and you can't conclude anything about Ashkenazi Jews *not* coming from that region. Or don't include many Persians, etc.

Here's an article reviewing these important points, and arguing for Ashkenazis coming from a Slavic, Iranian, and (weakly) Turkic genetic and geographical origin.

When you include a fuller, richer sample of eastern Anatolia, Iran, northern Mesopotamia, and all around the Caucasus, the results returned are Ashkenazis being something like 25% Caucasian, a conclusion that does not appear when this region is poorly and thinly sampled relative to the Levant.

When the Levant is heavily sampled, this makes them the only logical place for Ashkenazis to resemble in their "Middle Eastern" component. It's just baking in the desired result ahead of time, circular reasoning.

And again, admixture confounds the attempt to decipher genetic population history. So even to the extent that Ashkenazi Jews *do* somewhat resemble Semitic-speaking Levantines, we can't infer that this reflects a shared ancient Semitic common ancestor. Caucasus / Iranian DNA began flowing into the Levant well before the Classical era.

So perhaps the resemblance between Ashkenazi Jews on the one hand, and Lebanese or Palestinian Christians on the other, is simply pointing to them both having a very old Caucasus / Iranian bunch of DNA -- in the Ashkenazi case, cuz they're from that very region and didn't migrate, and in the Lebanese or Palestinian case, cuz they received migrants from that region several thousands of years ago.

Clustering graphs in principal components analysis, don't tell us how they came to share their genes, or when their common ancestors lived.

This is where cultural analysis excels, since the record is far richer over history -- whereas finding Medieval or Ancient or Prehistoric DNA is very very rare, in comparison. Especially since the relevant cultural groups here are all literate and from sedentary or semi-sedentary civilizations, with recorded histories.

Ashkenazi Jews are never recorded as speaking Hebrew, Aramaic, or other Semitic language, as their first, everyday language (only for liturgical purposes -- but that no more establishes their deep ancient affinity with Judaeans than the descendants of the Aztecs "preserving" Latin as a liturgical language, connects them genetically to the Romans or Byzantines).

Whereas Lebanese, Palestinians, etc. in the Levant never stopped speaking Semitic or more broadly Canaanite languages, from antiquity to the Dark Ages to the present.

Conclusion: Ashkenazis are not a diaspora that originated in the Levant. Neither are the Sephardics, who also never spoke Hebrew or Aramaic.

What about the genetic argument about "Jews resemble each other more than their local populations"?

Well, first, there are numerous examples against this dum-dum canard -- Ethiopian, Yemeni, Krymchak, Mountain (Caucasus), and Cochin Jews.

This argument really relies on the Ashkenazi and Sephardic cases. Iranian Jews have the lowest genetic relatedness to other Jewish groups, meaning they're another obvious case of local converts.

Ashkenazi Jews resemble each other more than their host populations cuz they are a unique admixture between a Slavic and an Iranian ancestor population -- who the hell else can boast of a similar lineage since the Medieval era? Nobody. Hence why they resemble each other so much, also having been endogamous ever since.

Likewise for Sephardics -- they are a unique admixture of Iberian and Maghrebi source populations, which means they resemble each other more than they resemble the relatively unadmixed descendants of Iberians and Maghrebis, among their neighbors.

So why do Sephardics and Ashkenazis resemble each other, then? They have a different set of source populations that they're admixed from. Well, not so much -- Iberians are western Indo-Europeans from the Mediterranean, and so are Greeks and Southern Slavs. This could be the shared DNA between Sephardics and Ashkenazis, respectively.

They are also highly admixed with a genetic Middle East / North Africa component, unlike Iberians or Greeks or Slavs. So perhaps their similarity is a result of having Southwestern Indo-European DNA, with a notable MENA DNA mixture as well, even if this MENA source is different for Sephardics and Ashkenazis -- it's still a point of commonality between them, which is lacking or less intense in Iberians, Greeks, and Slavs.

Likewise, the Iberian component of Sephardics separates them from other Maghrebi-derived groups, and the Slavic component of Ashkenazis separates them from other Iranian-derived groups. Both of these exceptional sources is Southwestern Indo-European, so the specifics of their exceptionality is also similar.

So, they don't have to come from the same source populations to bear a resemblance, or even more of a resemblance than they do to their neighbors. It's just that they're both highly admixed, within a relatively recent time-frame, and whose source populations are semi-related in being southern and western Indo-Europeans. That's it!

Bearing in mind all the numerous cases of obvious local converts, including the major "Mizrahi" group, Iranian Jews, this means there's no mystery to solve! They were all converts in the late 1st millennium AD, and they only differ in the degree to which they admixed with other converts from other genetic populations -- not at all for most cases, but they did for Ashkenazis and Sephardics. Moreover, one half of the sources for each of those admixed groups was semi-related (Greeks or Slavs, and Iberians, both being Southwest Indo-Europeans).

Unlike the very sparse genetic historical record -- meaning, DNA from various eras over time, not trying to decipher history from present-day DNA -- the rich cultural historical record bears this out. No mass migration, no diaspora, no preservation of Hebrew or Aramaic as the native language.

And the true descendants of Second Temple Judaeans largely became Christian, then Muslim, staying put in the Levant, amply confirmed genetically and culturally / historically.

Why the hell would anyone expect a mass migration and diaspora out of Judaea after the Roman Empire fell, and why would they have abandoned their purported native language of Hebrew or Aramaic, when the whole point is that they were an endogamous ethnic enclave that did not just melt into their host societies?

The Roman Empire included all sorts of territory -- and yet none of them are purported to have been sent scattered to the four corners of the globe as a result of the collapse of their imperial overlords.

In fact, the only recorded -- historically and genetically -- mass migrations after the Roman Empire fell were from *outside* of its territory, and outside of their Persian rivals' territory, for that matter. Namely, the Germanic and Slavic migrations in Europe, and the Turkic and Mongol migrations in Central Asia. The subjects of the Roman and Parthian empires more or less stayed put during the Dark Ages, struggling to defend themselves against these nomadic barbarian invasions.

Nobody else from the Levant, Southern Europe, or North Africa is claimed to have been sent on a mass-migrating diaspora journey after Rome collapsed. So the Judaean purported example would be without contemporary counterparts who shared the same purported causal pressure.

And no, just destroying the Second Temple and expelling Jews from the single city of Jerusalem doesn't force them into a diaspora all over the Old World. It means they hole up in the nearby Galilee instead. Sedentary people tend not to want to roam all over the place and leave their homeland behind forever to live in the wild or among strangers.

Crushing a regional revolt doesn't do that either, a la the end of the Roman-Jewish Wars -- Syria seceded during the Crisis of the Third Century (under MENA baddie Queen Zenobia), this revolt was eventually crushed as well, but it didn't send Syrians scattering all over the place.

And even if there were a Judaean diaspora post-Roman collapse, the purported direction / destination is totally backwards! When your imperial overlords and sponsors and patrons collapse, the LAST place you want to go is their home turf, cuz it's becoming more unstable, impoverished, and socially fragmenting by the day.

This is confirmed in the Roman case, where there was tons of "Eastern Mediterranean" DNA from sites in Italy during the imperial heyday of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Once they began disintegrating during the 3rd C, who the hell would want to migrate there? And who the hell would want to remain there, if they were of recent Eastern Med immigrant background? They'd want to bail off of that sinking ship, and return home -- or to some other, more promising empire.

I like empires that didn't get disintegrated...

And so, by the mid-1st millennium and after, there is *comparatively* very little Eastern Med DNA in Italian burial sites (there's still some, cuz again we can't infer history from a snapshot, and Italians have had an Eastern Med DNA component for thousands of years previously).

The only places you would want to journey to after Rome fell, would be the Frankish Empire in NE France, the Byzantine Empire around Constantinople, the Bulgarian Empire nearby in Thrace, the Sasanian Empire (counterpart of the Byzantines, as the Parthians were the counterparts of the Romans), the Abbasid Caliphate in the same place as the Sasanians later on, the Seljuk Empire that replaced the Abbasids for that matter, the Khazar Empire around the Caucasus, the Moorish Empire in the Western Med, and maybe the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt.

What do you know? These are exactly the locations where major Jewish groups suddenly appeared in the post-Classical era.

Forgot to mention the Romaniote Jews -- a group of local converts from the Byzantine Empire, who are Greeks that adopted Talmudic Judaism in the Dark Ages, and speak Byzantine-derived Greek, i.e. after the Byzantine era erased much of the case system from Ancient Greek. (In a typical process of imperiogenesis eroding inflection of its language, to make it easier for the shitloads of L2 learners that now must speak it, as the empire expands out from the founding ethnic group.) They are not Second Temple Jews, whose Greek dialect would've still had a fair amount of inflection in it.

The dum-dum argument about the Ashkenazis having "Roman" DNA is that they poured into Italy during Rome's heyday, and also after its collapse as they fled Judaea. Maybe during the heyday -- everyone else did so as well, it was the place to be. But when it collapsed, they would not have moved onto Germany, since that place was a backwater, not a rising prosperous empire (which was further to the western side of the Rhine, in the nascent Frankish Empire). They definitely did not pour into Italy during / after the 3rd C, when it was disintegrating.

If the story was they picked up some Italian DNA from visiting Rome during its 1st and 2nd C heyday, then fled back home, or to some other rising empire where they are documented to have been, after Rome fell, OK. But that's not the argument, which is instead that the Ashkenazi left Italy for Germany, where they later emerged as Yiddish-speakers, and only after that, a portion of them migrated east into Slavic lands.

Bzzt, wrong direction! There was no rising empire in Germany to attract far-flung strivers looking to make a quick stable buck. The only direction could have been from Italy back to the Eastern Med, either remaining in Greece / Anatolia, or wandering through the Bulgarian Empire (Slavic) or the Khazar Empire (multi-ethnic, not Germanic though), or the Sasanian / Abbasid / Seljuk empire to the further east (even less Germanic). And only from these empires, migrating to the north and west to eventually wind up in Germany -- last.

This "follow the money" argument agrees with Wexler's argument about Yiddish not being an entirely Germanic language originally, let alone one from the Rhineland. But beginning as a Slavic language that was later re-lexified to a Germanic vocabulary and perhaps some morphology, while retaining Slavic syntax and phonology.

There was plenty of money to chase in the Bulgarian Empire, as well as among Slavic subjects of the Khazar Empire -- but comparatively far less among the Germanic groups to the east of the Rhine. If they had joined the Frankish Empire, they wouldn't speak a Germanic language anyway -- the Franks quickly adopted a Romance language, leaving behind their Franconian dialect of German. But the Ashkenazi have never spoken a Romance language as their native tongue, so we can rule out an early stay among the Franks as well.

As I said before, Yiddish has very little inflection compared to other Germanic languages, or languages in general. Even less case inflection than Standard German, which is already somewhat lacking in inflection cuz it became an imperial language with lots of L2 learners, during Germany's imperiogenesis.

So either Yiddish began as a lingua franca in a multi-ethnic context, with lots of L2 learners -- in the Khazar Empire. Or it was adopted very late, after German had already gone through the loss of much of its inflection system, and because the Ashkenazi were L2 learners at the outset, it served as a lingua franca and so lost even more inflection by the time it solidified into Yiddish.

In either case, they did not have a Germanic language as their native language in the 1st millennium, when their ethnogenesis took place.

The earliest recorded use of Yiddish is 1272 -- very damn late into the Dark Ages, well after the other major Jewish conversions. And they were literate! This wasn't their first exposure to literacy, and they're just expressing a language that was previously only spoken for centuries.

We know they're in Germany from those 14th-C burials in Erfurt, albeit still genetically separated. They're culturally unified -- buried in the same cemetery, with no spatial segregation within this Jewish cemetery. But they may have only very recently adopted / constructed Yiddish.

What language did they speak during the cultural unification of the previous several centuries? Either some other language that was re-lexified into a Germanic vocabulary and some morphology, or something else entirely. But presumably a Slavic language, given how much Slavic influence there is in Yiddish.

If that Slavic language came from illiterate Slavs from the Khazar Empire -- and not the literate Slavs from the Bulgarian Empire (and adjoining Slavic cultures near Kiev and Moscow and etc, where Cyrillic spread, or Western Slavs where Roman letters spread), then the lack of a historical literate record is not surprising. It was a spoken lingua franca among a multi-ethnic group that had a lot of illiterate Slavs, and official records were kept in Arabic, Farsi, Turkic, etc., as the main bureaucratic and administrative languages.

The whole logic of (purported) diaspora Jews being an ethnic enclave is that they were endogamous, so did not genetically intermix very much with their hosts, and were culturally apart as well -- different religion, attire / grooming, food taboos, residential living areas, and so on. They are purported to be an ethnic enclave of migrants into the host society.

That is contradicted by the absence of the purported ancestral language, in every single one of these Jewish communities outside of Judaea. When migrants show up and form a semi-enclosed enclave, they maintain their native language! Sometimes it's the *only* language they speak, and even if they also pick up the hosts' language, they retain their native one alongside for awhile -- until they start assimilating. But the Jews never did assimilate, they kept their distinctive religion, clothing, grooming, food taboos, and the rest of their purported cultural heritage.

When Chinese migrants leave China, they form Chinatowns -- and they continue speaking Chinese. Before Italians assimilated into America, they kept speaking Italian languages. So did the Germans, Greeks, and everyone else who wasn't already Anglophone.

Languages are hard to sever over time because there are such huge switching costs to adopting a new native language -- a second language, OK, but not replacing the old native one with a new native one. Very rare, and usually not voluntary, but related to imperial conquest.

So it's damning that no Jewish group is recorded to have spoken Hebrew or Aramaic outside of Judaea, when there's so much inertia behind keeping your language, yes even in a diaspora situation. And if you do give up your native language for that of your hosts, you also give up the other cultural distinctions, in a broad process of assimilation. But we know that Medieval Jews were culturally separate from their Christian or Muslim hosts in all sorts of readily identifiable ways -- not the least being their religion.

Genes and language are correlated, if not perfectly. So isn't it strange that the one cultural component that could most strongly bolster a claim for a Judaean origins of Medieval Jews, is the exact opposite of expectation? They speak the languages of their "hosts" -- because they originated from the exact same culture! They're converts, not migrants.

They are like Euro-descended Americans who speak English while adopting Zen Buddhism, yoga, feng shui, green tea, kimonos, flip-flops, vegetarian diets, and other cultural markers of Buddhist East Asia. These cultural markers are easier to fake for converts, compared to learning a new language -- no white American Buddhists speak fluent Japanese, Chinese, Thai, etc. They speak American English! And their community always will!

Language, more so than the relatively easy-to-fake markers, is the main place to look as to a group's history. It's not perfect, but it does shed light.

And in the case of Medieval Jews, and their modern descendants, they are clearly local adopters who altered their religion, clothing, grooming, diet, etc., to fall in line with Talmudic Judaic precepts, while not adopting a Hebrew or Aramaic or other Canaanite language. Just like white American Buddhists.

It's morbidly ironic that the present-day Jewish state is filled with migrants (or their children), NONE OF WHOM can claim a genetic *or* cultural heritage stemming back to ancient Judaea. And that the people they've spent their entire society's history wiping out -- the Palestinians, and at times other Levantines -- are those who have stayed put in that place this whole time!

Genetically, this is settled.

But even culturally, none of the Zionists or their ancestors spoke a Semitic language. The Palestinians and their ancestors did.

The Zionists are not a diaspora which is RETVRN-ing to its ancestral homeland -- anymore than Aztec-descended Catholics who invaded and occupied Rome, or perhaps Toledo, would be RETVRN-ing to their ancestral homeland. Or white American Buddhists who laid waste to Thais in Thailand. It's such a sick obvious joke!

I know, I'm not retarded enough to believe that historical dynamics are shaped mainly by ideas or anything cerebral and nerdy like that. It's material, including social cohesion that is shaped by material militarized invasion near one's physical home turf.

The Jewish state has been propped up by various empires in various states of stagnation and collapse since its inception -- the moribund Ottoman Empire at the outset of settlement, then the British care-takers after the Ottomans bit the dust, then the Americans after the British bit the dust yet only during the late 1970s. America bitchslapped Israel out of the Sinai Peninsula during the Suez phase of the Arab-Iraeli Wars, in 1956, by threatening to annihilate Israel's British imperial overlords economically.

Really the only time Israel had to fight for itself was after 1956 and before 1978, during which it won one war (in '68) and then stalemated in another (in '73), before giving up its autonomous fight and agreeing to vassalage to the American Empire (in '78).

But with America collapsing now, and with new people becoming unified in their struggle against the Zionist invasion -- mainly in Southern Lebanon and Syria -- Israel will have no external sponsor to back it up in reality, and will face ever-mounting forces from their rising-asabiya neighbors, Hezbollah.

These material dynamics are what shape history, not academic debates and evidence about whether or not the Zionists truly have a legitimate claim to that land.

It's just worth emphasizing, for the sake of the truth -- if not for anything that affects the course of history -- how totally upside-down the entire project has been about restoring the Jewish homeland.

Luckily for the true descendants of the Second Temple society, this sick joke is rapidly coming to an end.

The geographic origin of Talmudic Judaism was Iran, not the Levant. The standard Talmud is the Babylonian one, i.e. written near historical Babylon, but administered by Iranian empires ever since the Achaemenids of the mid-1st millennium BC, right up until it was conquered by the Mongols, and then winding up in the Ottomans' possession, a British then American care-taker relationship, etc. Baghdad hasn't been under true local autonomy for 2500 years.

The Palestinian Talmud composed in Jerusalem is *not* the standard one.

So even at the very outset of the Talmudic / Rabbinical era in the mid-1st millennium, before the mass conversions of the last 1st millennium, the source of innovations and standardizations within Judaic religion and culture had decisively left the Levant for Iranian-controlled lands.

If Zionists wanted to RETVRN to Baghdad and restore the glory of original Talmudism, that would be one thing. That's where their particular religion actually comes from, not the Levant. And as it turns out, that's where a lot of their genetic and other cultural heritage comes from -- although more on the Iranian side proper, not Iranian-administered Iraq. Still, closer than their connection, genetic or cultural, to Judaea.

More on Yemeni Jews and the pretzel-twisting nonsense that academics and propagandists talk themselves into, in order to promote the overall grand narrative of a vast Judaean diaspora in the late Roman or post-Roman era...

Autosomal DNA shows that present-day Yemeni Jews are the same as other Yemenis and Arabians, not genetically distinct at all.

Even without this genetic evidence, they don't resemble other Jewish groups culturally, but do resemble their non-Jewish neighbors.

For example, their wedding ceremonies don't have a bridal canopy, they don't walk around anything or anyone ("circumambulation"), and their costumes don't look like any other Jewish group's wedding costumes (highly decorated and elaborate, and really emphasizing the color gold).

Without any blood evidence, I can tell they do not share a common *cultural* ancestor with the Ashkenazis (who are, instead, Indo-European from somewhere near the Caucasus).

Their seder ceremonies are also unique, neither Sephardic nor Ashkenazi.

They don't play egg-tapping games or decorate eggs for their springtime renewal holiday (Passover), which is an Indo-Euro thing that Ashkenazis do (and in some very weakened form, Sephardics do outside of Passover, due to their Iberian heritage).

These three have nothing in common within the past 2000 years, culturally or genetically. Three separate groups who adopted Talmudism, while retaining much of their pre-existing local culture (and genepool -- the only innovation there being admixture among Jewish adopters of different sub-populations, but within the same geographic region, e.g. Slavs and Iranians near the Khazar Empire to yield Ashkenazis).

There is also a risible attempt to portray the rulers of the Himyarite Kingdom which controlled much of southern Arabia / Yemen, as converts to Judaism as of circa 400 AD. If true, this would go against my claim that major conversions to Judaism appeared only after the rise of Islam, and where Islam and Christianity cohabited, opening up Judaism as a Third Way / Non-Aligned Movement.

The only concrete conclusions we can draw from Himyarite religion in the late 4th through 5th centuries, is that it became monotheistic, or maybe henotheistic (emphasizing one senior god above other lesser gods within a polytheistic pantheon). And that this was influenced by both Jews and Christians from the Levant -- they came under Byzantine pressure to adopt Christianity, but they wanted to remain politically autonomous, so rejected Christianity.

But they didn't "adopt Judaism" -- what would that even mean in 400 AD? There was no Talmud compiled until a century later, so Talmudic Judaism is out. The Second Temple was long destroyed, so Second Temple Judaism, with its priestly caste that oversaw the sacred ceremonies of its focal religious site, is out as well. This was a limbo period for the descendants of the Second Temple people -- nothing very defined and elaborated for anyone else to adopt.

References to the "Lord of the Jews" or "Lord of Israel" are epithets that non-Jews use as well, like Christians. Did they have material copies of the Torah or the entire Hebrew Bible? Or at least orally transmitted "copies"? Nope. Did they follow kosher dietary laws? Who knows, probably nope. Did they circumcise their babies? IDK, but no reference that they do. Did they celebrate Passover? These are the kinds of things that would identify them as specifically Jewish in religion, not merely "vaguely Jewish-influenced or Jewish-inflected monotheism".

This was a time of all sorts of syncretic religions showing up, typically with some Abrahamic influence, whether Second Temple Judaism, Christianity, or otherwise. Like the popular Manichaeism. So the most accurate term, given the evidence, is not "Judaism" but "Himyarite monotheism" or "Jewish-influenced Himyarite monotheism".

This was a time of all sorts of syncretic religions showing up, typically with some Abrahamic influence, whether Second Temple Judaism, Christianity, or otherwise. Like the popular Manicheanism. So the most accurate term, given the evidence, is not "Judaism" but "Himyarite monotheism" or "Jewish-influenced Himyarite monotheism".

Even then, this does point to the crucial role of Christianity as the state religion of empires, and the desire for polities seeking political autonomy to adopt some Jewish-ish religion as a cultural marker for their political autonomy. It's just that there was no Islam, let alone Muslim empires, to serve as the other pole, with Judaism being a triangulating strategy. Perhaps Old South Arabian polytheism served as this other pole, but I doubt it. I just don't think the Himyarites were Judaic in religion, just monotheistic and influenced in some ways by Judaean religion.

Soon after this Himyarite monotheism, though, it was conquered by the Christian nation / empire of Axum from Ethiopia, which crossed the Red Sea. Then it became Christian, even as it eventually became administered by the Sasanian Persian Empire -- much like the way they tolerated Nestorian Christianity within the core of their empire.

The island of Socotra, to the south of Yemen and to the east of Somalia, was an outpost of Nestorian Christianity as well.

So in the Dark Ages, Yemen had Christian pressures primarily from the expanding state of Axum from Ethiopia, then internally within Yemen, and from a nearby major island. We think of that whole area as nothing but Muslim today, but it was fairly Christian back then. And of course there was a major Muslim presence after the rise of Islam -- it was near ground zero.

So, the perfect place for a group of locals to adopt Talmudic Judaism as a Third Way, which is exactly what happened. Wikipedia's entry on Yemeni Jews has a timeline that is only legendary for ancient times, overblown BS for the early Dark Ages (equating Himyarite monotheism with "converting to Judaism"), and then absent until the early 2nd millennium, when they become part of an international body of Jewish groups, e.g. corresponding with Maimonides.

So that's a good indicator of their date of conversion -- in the late 1st millennium, well after the rise and spread of both Christianity and Islam within their region.

Worth reviewing the extent of Christianity in Iranian-controlled lands during the Dark Ages, since it was huge. It was Nestorian Christianity, or the Church of the East, headquartered near or in Baghdad, and covering much of present-day Iraq and the western half of Iran proper, then extending in pockets off toward the east, covering the western part of Afghanistan, up into southern Central Asia, including Merv, Samarkand, Bukhara, and Tashkent.

And notice the outposts in Southwestern Arabia & Socotra, as well as Southern India. Once Muslims showed up in these places, it opened the door to Yemeni Jews and Cochin Jews as a Third Way religion.

Eventually it reached into China during the Tang, Song, and Yuan periods. Along the way some Mongol tribes adopted it, including the Kerait clan, who made up the wives of Genghis Khan's sons, and their sons as well.

But it began very early, in the 5th C, in present-day Iraq -- under Sasanian rule, whose state religion was Zoroastrianism, but which tolerated Nestorian Christianity as a counterweight to their Orthodox Byzantine rivals. They were not necessarily Semitic speakers, it stretched up into Northern Mesopotamia which would've been more Indo-European and Iranian. The common factor is -- at the core of the Sasanian Persian Empire. Hence one of its nicknames being the Persian Church, not the Iraqi or Arabian Church.

As Islam spread throughout these Iranian-controlled lands during the Abbasid and later eras, this opened up Talmudic Judaism as a Third Way between Nestorian Christianity and Islam. And that's exactly where Jews are in Iran and to the east.

However, Christianity was late to arrive in the more eastern lands, and so was Islam. Nestorian Christianity went into decline during the 14th C, and was more or less wiped out by Timur, to be replaced solely by Islam. This dried up the Third Way logic in the eastern parts of the Sasanian Empire and beyond.

And so "Persian Jews" have remained more of a presence in Western Iran, where the Nestorian Church had existed since a far earlier time and up to a later date -- and where Byzantine Christian pressures were not so far away to the west, along with Frankish Crusader pressures in the Levant. These two were not exactly right along the frontier, as the Nestorian nucleus in Mesopotamia and Western Iran was, but still a powerful and looming Christian pressure, unlike the void of Christianity to the east after the rise of the Timurid Empire.

Needless to say this Mesopotamian and Western Iranian region was also home to many Muslims as well -- Persian Jews sprung up, and have remained along a local Christian-Muslim faultline, where Talmudic Judaism offered them a Third Way / Non-Aligned religion.

The next big question is -- does this pattern exist elsewhere or at other times? Not where Christianity and Islam are the two poles, and Judaism as the Third Way. But say, Hinduism and Buddhism as the poles, and some other minority / niche religion being the Third Way.

I don't know enough about niche religions in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, or Southeastern India, but those are all places where Buddhism and Hinduism should have opened up a niche for a Third Way.

The Parsis in India, maybe? That would be with Islam and Hinduism as the two poles, in western / northwestern India. They're the only group practicing that religion, though -- not a whole series of converts from across the Muslim-Hindu faultline in South Asia. They arrived with a Third Way religion already, as a fairly well documented diaspora / migration, not local adopters.

The problem with looking for other examples is that perhaps there's something unique about the relationship between Christianity, Islam, and (Talmudic) Judaism, where the niche Third Way is not just any ol' Third Way -- it's one that overlaps decently with each of the two major poles, and in some sense can claim to precede each of them.

That's the ideal Third Way -- it's non-aligned, compatible with both sides, and can demand respect from the two majors, as the elder religion of the trio.

Maybe in other times and places, the Third Ways available are not as ideal -- only similar to one pole, not the other, or maybe not similar to either side. A recent invention rather than preceding them both. Etc.

Hinduism precedes Buddhism, and is related to it, but Hinduism did not spawn another major religion that is territorially close to Buddhist lands, to serve as the other pole, with Hinduism acting as a niche Third Way. Rather, Hinduism is a major pole in its own right, not like Judaism.

Could be something going on in sub-Saharan Africa, or the Americas, I have no clue.

One thing I don't think works, though, is a fusion of the two poles into a Third Way. That's not non-aligned, which is "neither/nor" -- fusion is saying "both/and". Fusion is clearly trying to please both sides disingenuously, while non-aligned is saying I have no dog in the fight, leave me alone and I'll leave you alone, not I'm trying to pledge allegiance to two rival sides at the same time, which is unsustainable.

Judaism really hit the sweet spot in the context of rising Christian and Muslim empires. It's its own coherent religion, not a transparently fence-sitting, both-sides-ing fusion. And yet it's not any ol' non-fusion religion -- it is still similar to each, making it palatable to both without being a deliberate ass-kiss. And it at least partly precedes either side -- so it wasn't recently invented for the purpose of diplomacy, making it more trustworthy. And being older, at least in some sense, it gets respect for being the wise elder.

A looottt of traits had to line up in a single religion for it to see such an explosion of growth in conversions, for a religion that doesn't prosyletize or easily welcome converts. And all doing so independently of each other, at the group level. A very rare event indeed, so that it's the only religion where -- purportedly, but not really -- the majority of its practitioners are in a diaspora, not near where it began.

But that's no great mystery after all -- it's so widespread cuz of adoption, not migration! But to be widely and independently adopted, so many favorable traits had to be working in its favor, within its historically contingent political and cultural environment.

It's miraculous!

The non-Judaean origins of Medieval and modern Jews, who were local converts

Collecting together all of the evidence and conclusions from the previous comment section, on the general topic of the origins of Medieval Jews and their present-day descendants. Just cutting & pasting the comments into two standalone posts, on related but slightly different themes, so it's easier to find with search engines.

* * *

I'm now convinced that Ashkenazi Jews are originally from Khazaria, i.e. the territory of the Khazar Khaganate and drawn from the variety of genetic and cultural groups under its administration. Not the Turkic elite themselves, but not being a WASP doesn't make you not-American. So in that sense, they were Khazars, which is a cultural, not a genetic, designation.

I'll probably write up a separate post, since it touches on a lot of what's gone wrong in science during the 2010s.

Most of it will be reviewing what others have said, but I do have some original contributions of my own to weigh in with -- linguistic ones, about the nature of Yiddish. Namely, it bears all the hallmarks of a language with a large share of its speakers being L2 learners.

That did not characterize the speech community once they were in Germany or Poland or Lithuania -- they were the sole speakers, non-Jewish Germans, Poles, and Lithuanians never bothered learning Yiddish.

So it must reflect the state of the language before they showed up in Germany, Poland, etc. And the only place where a language of Jewish religionists would have been spoken by lots of L2 speakers, is in an international / polyglot empire or an international / polyglot trade network. And the Khazar Khaganate was both of those, as was the Silk Road's western terminus, even before the Khazars began expanding into a steppe empire.

The genetics of Ashkenazi Jews in Germany in the High Middle Ages reflects that -- there were two separated / bi-modal sub-groups even genetically, with one being more "Middle Eastern" and one being more "Eastern European".

See Waldman et al (2022), "Genome-wide data from medieval German Jews..."

That attests to the highly heterogeneous origin population, and is consistent with that source being polyglot -- and needing a lingua franca that changed to be easy for L2 learners to pick up. And that's what Yiddish was.

Briefly, if Yiddish were the language for a speech community with mostly / all L1 learners, and the cultural and genetic group were mostly endogamous, it would be highly complex morpho-syntactically -- but it is in fact simplified like crazy, about as much as the imperial lingua franca of English. And unlike the never-imperial never-lingua-franca like Icelandic, or Lithuanian.

And phonologically, they don't distinguish long from short vowels, seems to be stress-timed -- not mora-timed, at any rate, like pre-imperial Latin, Ancient Greek (pre-Byzantine Empire), Lithuanian, Japanese, pre-expansion Arabic, and so on and so forth.

Yiddish speakers were never leaders of an expanding empire in Europe, and Yiddish was not a lingua franca with non-Jewish people in Central or Eastern Europe. And it doesn't go back to Classical or Antiquity times. They never led an empire during the Middle Ages, so that only leaves the trade network and incorporation into someone else's empire as the explanations -- and that puts it within the time-and-place of the Khazar Empire.

Dum-dums see "Roman" or "European" DNA in Ashkenazi Jews, and assume the only way that could've happened is if the Jews left Judaea, traveled into Rome -- or at least the Italian peninsula -- picked up Roman DNA from a static Roman population, then left along with this newly acquired Roman DNA, and wound up in Germany with some of their original Middle Eastern DNA, plus the Roman DNA they picked up along the way.

As though intermixing is a passive activity like stepping in mud, and you're tracking the mud into your destination building.

What if the mud found you -- somewhere else?

Well, mud can't move around, but people sure as hell can.

And in a post-imperial collapse environment, they have every incentive to GTFO and roam in search of greener pastures. I.e., in search of a thriving empire, which has tons of wealth and activity and dynamism and chances for upward mobility, etc. All the reasons why people come to America rather than Iceland these days.

In that part of the world, the Roman Empire went into terminal decline during the 3rd C -- no point in flocking there, or staying there, after that point.

Then there was the Byzantine Empire -- but they went into terminal decline in the 8th C -- no point in flocking there, or staying there, after that point.

In NW and Northern Europe, there was the Frankish Empire, but that bit the dust in the 9th C. Even its successor, the French Empire, was in NW Europe -- not near the Greco-Roman region. And the Viking Empire was even more remote.

There was the Abbasid Caliphate, but that might be a bridge too far for Greco-Roman people. Ditto for the later Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt. Islam was just too different.

That only leaves the Khazar Khaganate for enterprising strivers of the late 1st millennium. If you're in Italy or Thrace in 800 AD, what's keeping you there? Empires that collapsed centuries ago, or are currently in terminal decline? Thanks but no thanks -- let's try out luck in this whole Khazar Khaganate deal...

Eastern Meds flocked to the Italian peninsula when the Roman Empire was the place overflowing with riches and opportunities -- why wouldn't Italians and Greeks flock to the Caucasus and Pontic Steppe if that's where all the imperial action was at, in the 700s and 800s?

Empires are materialist magnets for genetic and cultural out-group members looking to move on up in the world, so of course the Khazar Khaganate would've drawn Italians and Greeks into it, mirroring and paralleling the Eastern Med migrations to the Roman Empire many centuries earlier, when *that* was the place to be.

Or maybe Jews met these Italians and Greeks in eastern Anatolia, still next to the Caucasus, somewhat earlier when the Byzantine Empire was still highly attractive to foreigners.

Point being -- especially during a weak central state / nomad-dominant era like the Dark Ages, people roam around wherever they think they'll make a better life for themselves and their posterity. Not everyone -- but a large enough minority to create an enclave within the destination. And maybe, like Italians and Irish who migrated into the American Empire, those enclave borders won't stay solid for too long...

If someone who's "mostly Irish" American has some Italian DNA, we don't conclude his Irish ancestors migrated through Italy before migrating to America. Maybe the Irish and Italians were both migrants to the same foreign destination, whether they both stayed there or not after inter-mixing.

So it must have been with foreigners of all sorts of source populations that poured into the Khazar Khaganate's territory, once they were an expanding empire and in control of massively lucrative trade routes on the Silk Road.

In Ashkenazi weddings, as one tell-tale example, there's the ritual of one or both of the bride / groom walking around a focal location near where the final marriage ceremony takes place, and the number of circles completed is either 3 or 7.

In Ashkenazi weddings, it's only the bride, not also the groom, who does the circling -- she walks around the groom, typically 7 but in some sub-traditions 3 times, at the wedding canopy location.

This almost exactly parallels the saptapadi or saat phere ritual in Indo-Aryan weddings, where both the bride and groom walk around the sacred fire 7 times, and this sacred fire is located under / inside of a wedding canopy.

In Greek, Bulgarian, Russian, and Georgian Orthodox weddings (at the least -- all Eastern Orthodox that I checked), both the bride and groom walk around the altar 3 times near the completion of the wedding. Reminder that "Greek" culture used to extend throughout Anatolia to the base of the Caucasus, and Georgia itself is part of the Caucasus.

So, the Ashkenazi wedding derives from a source somewhere between the Balkans and northern India, and north of the Semitic / Saharo-Arabian cultural sphere.

Sephardi Jews have nothing to do with this walking-around ritual in any shape or form whatsoever. It's not part of their "common heritage" as Jews. And the Ashkenazi did not pick it up from the ancient Babylonian captivity, when they absorbed some Persian / Iranian influences -- otherwise the Sephardic ceremony would have it, too. But they don't.

So, there are only two possibilities:

1. The Ashkenazi used to share a culture with the Sephardic Jews, in ancient and early Medieval times, but the Ashkenazi alone came into contact with these mainly Indo-Euro cultures and swapped out their own Semitic rituals (that would have been shared with the Sephardic) for new Indo-Euro ones. Or,

2. The Ashkenazi did not share much culture with Sephardics to begin with. So the fact that their wedding rituals look more Indo-Euro than Semitic simply reflects their own largely Indo-Euro cultural origins. This implies that a mainly Indo-Euro group adopted a Jewish religion sometime in the Middle Ages.

Given how stubborn rituals are to change, especially at highly important rites of passage like weddings, the 2nd possibility is far more likely.

This is not the only piece of evidence like this (for weddings, or culture in general) -- and in their totality, they point to a largely Indo-Euro cultural origin for the Ashkenazis.

Forgot to mention the Armenian ritual of circling 3 times -- not at the church itself, but around the firepit ("tonir") in the groom's home. This firepit is not just a utilitarian cooking tool -- it is blessed and treated with holy water to consecrate it against demonic forces. So it is just like the sacred fire in the Indo-Aryan wedding.

This also seems to delineate the 3 vs. 7 circles divide, with the Caucasus being the far-eastern end of the 3-times ritual, and to the east, it's the 7-times ritual.

I'll have to dig deeper to see where the Iranians fall within this divide, though. And presumably, it's an Iranian group who the Ashkenazis either descend from, or came into contact with, in the Middle Ages.

Ashkenazis and Armenians also share the wedding ritual of breaking a plate, and both the bride and groom's sides have to do this. Sephardics do not do this.

To only briefly cover the genetic side, since that's the least important side -- we're talking about ethnic groups, i.e. culturally defined in-groups.

This highlights the importance of including as many east-of-Italy genepools when trying to tease apart the Ashkenazis' genetic history. In ones that include Greek, those work just as well or better than Italian. And crucially they must include genes from the Caucasus, covering all the distinct linguistic groups. And then various Iranian groups, from as far west as possible, like Kurds, middle ones like the Ossetians, and Persians and Tajiks and Pashtuns to the east.

Most studies lazily condense all of the "Middle East" into one genepool, or don't even include the Caucasus in the first place!

The question is not "Middle East" vs. somewhere else -- the question is Semitic from the Levant, or maybe also Semitic from Mesopotamia, vs. Indo-Euro from the northern part of the "Middle East", and separately (though far less likely) Turkic from this same northern part.

If the story of the "Middle Eastern" origins of Ashkenazi Jews turns out to be mainly about (eastern Anatolian) Greeks, Caucasians, (western) Iranians, and (eastern) Slavs -- that's not exactly establishing their Levantine Semitic bona fides, is it?!

Ashkenazi Jews build bonfires in springtime for Lag B'Omer -- I swear to God, if I find out that at some point in history, they used to *jump over* these public fires of springtime renewal, I'm going to shit myself...

But so far, it seems like they limit their interaction with the fire to forming a circle around it, either standing still to behold it or dancing around it -- but at some distance, since these tend to be rather large bonfires, not the smaller ones that you can jump over, like the Persian Nowruz or the Turkish Hidirellez (reflecting their pre-Turkic conquest culture).

Of course that could reflect the May Day ritual from Indo-Euros, but among those closest to the Ashkenazi urheimat, like Bulgarians and Greeks (not to mention Anatolians and Persians), they jump over the fire too, not just circle around it.

Jumping over the fire is the best confirmation, but just building them and circling around them is fairly suggestive itself.

I wonder if the apocalyptic, messianic strain in Ashkenazi culture -- whether overtly religious or secularized -- actually comes from their partial Iranian roots.

Greeks and Persians already influenced the ancient Judaeans in a more heaven-and-hell, resurrection of the dead, kind of direction. Especially Zoroastrianism, with the heavily dualistic good-and-evil, messiah / saoshyant, apocalypse, end of the world as we know it, light and dark, truth vs. lies, etc.

But then that seems to have dissipated among the Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews, sometime in the Middle Ages.

Whereas right up through the present day, there are so many latter-day prophets who write or speak jeremiads about the upcoming apocalypse, due to the people having strayed from the path of righteousness, a savior perhaps backed up by a cadre of angels will deliver the good people from destruction, delivering them into eternal paradise, while the wicked are sent to hell and punished in a reciprocal way in which they were wicked on Earth.

Karl Marx, Trotsky, Chomsky, Allen Ginsburg, Carl Sagan (climate change, nuclear weapons, superstition, etc.), Bernie Sanders, and so on and so forth. There's so many of them, it's hard to keep track of them all, just off the top of my head.

I thought that was just part of their ancient Judaean roots, a la the Old Testament, perhaps reflecting even further-back Iranian / Zoroastrian influences.

But why didn't these ancient strains persist in the non-Ashkenazi groups of Jews? It sure as hell did among Ashkenazi Jews -- perhaps because the latter were fairly Iranian (and/or Greek, and/or Armenian -- but all reflecting Indo-Euro religion and folklore). They held onto those Iranian influences cuz they're heavily Iranian / Indo-Euro to begin with! Not just borrowing a foreign influence, like ancient Judaeans.

Ashkenazis also have old Slavic roots, not just Anatolian / Caucasus / Iranian roots. Genetically and culturally. From the DNA, looks like the Ashkenazi began as a confederation, with a Slavic group and an Anatolian-Caucasian-Iranian group.

At first the union was purely cultural, economic, and political, with genetically segregated sub-populations (as shown in the Ashkenazi burials at Erfurt in Germany from the 14th C.). Only later did they start to genetically unify and mix, such that their present-day population has genetically homogenized to a mid-point between the two source genepools.

Point being -- we can investigate the deep Slavic roots of Ashkenazi culture, not just their Anatolian, Caucasian, and Iranian roots. Not cuz they adopted such Slavic culture after they settled into the Pale of Settlement in the Early Modern era -- but cuz they brought those elements with them to their confederation during and just after the Khazar Empire.

I don't know the exact percentage, but the Slavic roots are in the minority, and the Anatolian / Caucasian / Iranian roots are in the majority.

Given how badly Israel is getting its ass whooped by Lebanon and Yemen, already a total pariah internationally -- I think the next gen of Ashkenazi Jews (meaning, under 40 or 50) will actually LIKE reconceiving of their roots, to being an exotic melange of Anatolian Greek, Caucasus, and Iranian, with a minority of East Slavic blended in as well.

Hardly Semitic at all -- but I don't think they're so committed to having Semitic / Levantine / literal descendants of Moses being the core of their identity, like the Zionist generations did.

Fun-packed, topsy-turvy times ahead!

Aaron Swartz (hacker who was Ashkenazi) looks Persian, not Palestinian (saw a pic recently on Red Scare subreddit).

Ashkenazi beatnik from 1960s Greenwich Village -- or future Ayatollah of Iran?

That is WAY more what we mean by "looks Jewish" than, say, Yasser Arafat:

Just eye-balling, without whipping out the calipers, seems like Ashkenazis -- like other Indo-Euros from the Middle East -- have higher and more prominent cheekbones, compared to Saharo-Arabian groups (whether Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, etc.).

High and prominent cheekbones are most typical of East Asians, but "Ancestral North Eurasians" ("Paleosiberians") intermixed with the Steppe pastoralists to the west, just north of the Caucasus, who went on to become the Indo-Europeans. Part of the East Asian heritage of Indo-Euros is our higher and more prominent cheekbones.

Could be other phenotypic similarities, just one that popped out to me.

I'm more interested in the ancestral DNA and cultural similarities, but it's worth a brief visit to the skull-measuring lab in order to clarify what we mean by someone "looking Jewish" -- Michael Tracey (who's half Southern Italian) says he gets mistaken for being Jewish. And so could a young Ayatollah Khamenei.

It's an Indo-Euro look, from the central region of the meta-family (not West Euro, not Indo-Aryan).

This is also related to Ashkenazi braininess and intellectual / cultural accomplishment. Sure, when they settled in Europe, they underwent positive genetic selection for such traits when they were restricted to economic niches that required being brighter than the average bulb, for centuries, and with little gene flow in or out (by that point). The Cochran, Hardy, and Harpending story.

But that story is a lot more plausible if they already began somewhat higher on average, compared to other groups. And if they had deep cultural traditions for intellectual and cultural creativity.

In the "selection for Ashkenazi IQ" article, they mention that nobody ever commented on how smart the Sephardic or other Jewish groups were -- only the Ashkenazis.

But also, that people *did* comment that Greeks were smart, Armenians were smart, and Persians were valued so much in empires of Semitic origin (like the Abbasid Caliphate) that they made up a large share of the scientists, mathematicians, poets, philosophers, etc.

If Ashkenazis started off smack dab in the middle of these various groups who were famous for being smart, and if they played a key role in mercantile activity in that part of the Silk Road (similar to their later niches in Europe), then maybe they were already halfway toward their final state, during the Khazar Empire.

Slavs, particularly East Slavs, punch above their weight intellectually as well -- although it requires societal institutional support of the kind found in empires, in order for these traits to be expressed in actual scientific discovery, musical composition, etc. Point being -- the minority of Ashkenazi genes + culture that are Slavic, would also give them a boost creatively.

Iranians punch above their weight in the International Math Olympiad, and chess (youngest grandmaster to have a 2800 rating is an Iranian Zoomer). Both fields that Ashkenazis (but not other groups of Jews) have a penchant for as well.

Twins separated at birth!

"This is what Tehran looked like before the Islamic Revolution" -- or host of Cosmos?

Susanna Hoffs, ageless super-babe rocker chick from the Bangles, is Ashkenazi on both sides of her family. She has an exotic Middle Eastern look -- but the Middle East is a vast place, with a major division between Saharo-Arabian and Indo-European regions.

So which side of that divide does she resemble? Why, she looks just like half-Armo super-babe Kim Kardashian, especially pre-plastic surgery!

Amazing similarity! Like Kim Kardashian, who is also half-British, Ashkenazi Jews are minority Slavic -- not exactly West European, but still from the Euro side of Indo-Euro.

She doesn't look like a Levantine Semitic super-babe like Fairouz or Bella Hadid (half-Palestinian, half-Dutch).

Again, I'm not whipping out the calipers to analyze which specific features are responsible for these distinctions -- cuz they're obvious at the first-glance, gestalt level.

Ashkenazi Jews are the only supposedly non-Indo-Euro group who perform egg-tapping games during their springtime new year holiday.

All sub-regions of Indo-Euros perform this game, and they are the only ones who do so. It's heavily concentrate from the British Isles all the way through Iran, but it is also attested in the far northeast of India (Assam).

The holiday may be adapted to various developments that came after the original Indo-Euro culture -- Easter and Christianity in the West and Caucasus, a cattle holiday (Goru Bihu) in Assam, Nowruz in Iran, and Hidirellez in Turkey. But all are springtime renewal holidays, putting the long difficult times of winter behind, looking forward to a newly reborn world with the arrival of spring.

The counterpart to Easter in Judaism is Passover (putting a long difficult time behind, looking optimistically toward a renewal to come), particularly the Seder dinner and ritual. Wiki claims without citing any source that Jews are known to play the egg-tapping game on this occasion, but I did track down some sources that confirm it.

They may also do a minor variation, where the game is to crack a hard-boiled -- not raw -- egg on someone's head.

All of these references are to Ashkenazi Jews, not Sephardic or Mizrahi or other Jews of the broad Middle East.

While you could claim that the Ashkenazis picked this game up from the Indo-Euro societies that they settled among, that is not necessary -- anymore than it is to suppose that the British picked it up from contact with the French, or the Serbs from contact with the Greeks, or the Greeks from contact with the Armenians, or the Armenians from contact with the Persians, or the Assamese from contact with the Persian-ified Mughals.

The distribution of the game plainly fits the Indo-European territory, so the default assumption is that Ashkenazi Jews belonged to this territory as well when they first practiced the tradition, and that they all stem from a very deep ancient common ancestor game played among the Indo-Europeans during their springtime renewal New Year holiday.

It doesn't specify which sub-region of Indo-Euro territory they came from, but it does rule out a Saharo-Arabian territorial and cultural origin.

Also linking Passover Seder rituals with Nowruz rituals is the similarity between the Seder plate and the Haft-sin ("7 S's") plate, which even the midwits at Wikipedia have noticed.

Both accompany the major meal for the springtime renewal holiday. Both have the magical number 7 elements (sometimes counted as "6 + matzot" for the Seder plate), arranged in separate small containers around a plate, each one having a detailed rationale and narrative that is overtly pointed out and discussed during the ceremony. Other key items are present at the table, but not on the plate itself. Many of these items overlap or are similar (boiled / roasted egg, herbs, sweet pudding / mashed dessert, etc.). And a key sacred religious text is physically present, and read from during the ceremony.

Unlike the egg-tapping game, this ritual is far more localized within the Indo-Euro territory -- mainly Iran, with partial attestations in neighboring Armenia (boiled eggs, growing sprouts from wheat, lentils, etc. ahead of time to place on the table), and Afghanistan (the "Haft Mewa" or 7-item dessert salad made of fruit and nuts).

This narrows down the Ashkenazi origins to somewhere with a heavy Iranian influence, which have historically stretched westward to south of the Caucasus and bordering eastern Anatolia. That was the furthest extent of the Sasanian Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate, from the relevant time periods.

Encyclopedia Iranica says the nature of Haft Sin has changed over the centuries:

...Sasanians greeted Nowruz by growing seven kinds of seeds on seven pillars (setuns) and placed on their Nowruz table trays containing seven branches of vegetables (wheat, barley, peas, rice, etc) as well as a loaf of bread made from seven kinds of grain (Ketāb al-maḥāsen wa’l-ażdād, p. 361)...

They argue for a narrow view of what counts as Haft Sin, ruling out the obvious similarity to this Sasanian practice. If we're taking the broad view, this goes back to Sasanian times, but the form today must have originated later, perhaps as early as the Abbasid era but possibly as late as the Early Modern / Safavid era.

The Passover rituals were only first standardized during the Dark Ages / Talmudic era in Judaism, alongside the Sasanian era in Iran. The main Talmud historically has been the so-called Babylonian Talmud -- composed near historical Babylon, but by that time, under Persian / Iranian occupation and influence.

But much like the Haft Sin, Passover rituals seem to have varied much over the centuries. At least by the Early Modern era in Europe, Ashkenazi Jews are shown performing fairly contempo-looking Seder dinners, long after they lived anywhere near Iran or Babylon.

The two rituals are not identical, and the "four glasses of wine that punctuate the ceremony at intervals" seems to be an older, specifically Judaean practice. But it does incorporate other elements that bear an uncanny resemblance to the Haft Sin of Persian Nowruz -- which, again, is not even broadly shared outside of present-day Iran among their close cultural neighbors.

This points to a Persian (not ethnically Semitic, not religiously Jewish) origin specifically for the group whose ethnogenesis sometime in the late 1st millennium / early 2nd millennium would result in the Ashkenazi Jews (when they adopted Judaism).

Finally, there's egg decoration, which is mainly associated with the Indo-Euro springtime renewal holiday.

There is only one key area outside the Indo-Euro territory that practices this ritual for their springtime renewal holiday -- Egypt. But by all accounts, it originally was introduced to them by Christians (whose center of gravity was the Byzantine Empire, part of the Indo-Euro region), during the Dark Ages. It was maintained by Muslims as well, after the Muslim conquest. There doesn't seem to be any proof of it existing in the Bronze Age in Egypt, when it was totally Saharo-Arabian, before Hellenization and later Christianization.

And since Christianity is a global religion, and Egypt was conquered and influenced by the Byzantine Empire, I conclude the Egyptian practice is a foreign import from the Indo-Euro Byzantines.

Oddly enough, another Jewish sub-group enjoys eggs whose shells are colored / dyed / marbled -- Sephardic Jews and huevos haminados. However, these eggs are not prepared specifically for the springtime renewal holiday, but for the typical weekly Sabbath stew. So although they have a similar appearance to Easter / Nowruz eggs, they don't share the links to the important once-a-year holiday with the arrival of spring. So they seem to be a separate development altogether.

It's also not clear that they deliberately altered the appearance of the eggs -- they were just one of many items thrown into the stew pot, and after hours of slow cooking, they changed color -- like many other kinds of food after slow-cooking. Easter / Nowruz eggs are deliberately altered in appearance, to indicate it's a special ritual occasion.

By now, Sephardic Jews have been heavily influenced by Indo-Euro cultures of various types, including by the Ashkenazi Jews in Israel. (And as outlined in the next post, Sephardic Jews are local converts as well, with a substantial Indo-Euro source from Iberia, but this post is about the non-Judaean origins of the Ashkenazis specifically.) So they may presently do the more deliberate altering of the egg's appearance, but still, not limited to the springtime renewal holiday alone -- that's the only time that Christians, Nowruz celebrators, and pagan Slavs decorated them prior to eating.

Ashkenazi Jews include a roasted egg on the Seder plate for Passover, and after roasting, the shell does take on an unusual and special color and pattern. And because this is the only time they do this during the year, their ritual is similar to Easter and Nowruz, not to the Sephardic weekly Sabbath stew (and the start of Passover does not necessarily land on a Sabbath day, further severing any link between the two Jewish practices).

Although egg decoration for the springtime renewal holiday is widely attested among Indo-Euros, it isn't 100% -- no mention of it among ancient Greeks or Romans or Celts, and it doesn't seem to be present in India, even where the egg-tapping game is played (all the pictures from Goru Bihu show normal white eggs).

So this would seem to localize it to the Balkans or more likely Anatolia, through the Caucasus, including the Slavs to the north, and eastward into Iran.

Those are just the groups that other evidence points to the Ashkenazi Jews as descending from. So their special-looking ceremonial egg for their springtime renewal holiday is in agreement with a mixed Iranian and Slavic origin, and goes against a Levantine or broader Saharo-Arabian origin.

Imperial disintegration update, as Year of the Five Emperors continues

The all-out coordinated assault by the media sector against Biden remaining the nominee, in the wake of his abysmal debate performance, finally resolves the open question I had about why the 2024 polling and reporting was so different, compared to 2016 and '20.

Because everyone on Twitter and the rest of the media are take junkies, they cannot remember what happened five seconds ago, let alone five years ago. Not having my brain constantly plugged into the dIsCouRsE vortex, I retain my ability to see things clearly, including developments over time -- where there are clear trends or reversals, whereas the take junkies only experience a chaotic swirling flux of factoids.

In a thread from December of last year, I asked what no one else was asking -- why is the 2024 polling so uniformly pro-Trump and anti-Biden? In 2016 and '20, the propaganda said Trump was destined to lose with voters, when he won with voters both times (first time catching the DNC flat-footed and able to waltz into the White House, second time having it stolen by a very well prepared DNC). Suddenly there's an about-face -- the propaganda keeps saying how badly Trump is going to schlong Biden.

At first I speculated that the Democrats were going to let Trump have the White House rather than steal it again, since the past 3-4 years have gone so horribly for the Biden admin -- better to let Trump be the fall guy for the current stage of imperial disintegration.

But then in a comment from February of this year, I added that maybe they were only going to try to kick out Biden specifically, and then steal the election on behalf of Biden's replacement. The clue was that they kept harping on Biden's weakness, Biden's this, Biden's that -- and not the Democrats as a whole. Sounded like they just wanted to steal the election again, but on behalf of Anybody But Biden.

The same media sector that has been pumping out all of this polling propaganda has now called for Biden to step aside, in the interest of defeating Trump. So that settles it -- they plan to steal it again in November, only with someone else on the D ticket. They are still committed to taking the blame for the current stage of imperial disintegration, as long as they get to occupy the office -- nothing like jumping onto a sinking ship. But that's how overweening ambition corrupts people's minds.

They are no longer getting stinking rich off of occupying the White House, since our wealth levels continue to plummet (Central Bank money-printing shut off, interest rates jacked up, contracting rather than expanding the funny-money supply), our trade deficit soars off the charts, and our lucrative partnerships and patron-client relationships with wealthy foreigners go up in flames one month after the next. Not to mention that the purchasing power of the money they get from occupying the White House has eroded like crazy, with inflation off the charts, and global de-dollarization accelerating.

At this point, they are simply in it for the status and prestige of being on top of the pyramid, no matter how toothless its enforcement mechanisms are (couldn't get the country to wear masks or get vaxxed), and no matter how puny the material benefits are for parasitizing the White House. It's just about winning and coming out on top, rather than losing. Student government strivers on steroids.

Hyper-competitiveness is now driving the entire society right off of the cliff -- a process that has been going since the Reagan / yuppie revolution of the 1980s, and even incubating during the Me Decade of the Silent and Boomer generations during the '70s.

So my initial analysis of the post-2020 system is still correct -- we're at the Year of the Five Emperors stage of Roman disintegration, 193 AD. I first made this remark shortly after the Great Ballot Count Stoppage on election night of 2020, and followed up in a little more detail in this full post from July of '21.

The Roman Empire reached its stagnation stage under the Antonine dynasty in the mid-2nd century, much as the American Empire did under the Reagan era of 1980-2020. The chaos of the Year of the Five Emperors is spread out into maybe 4 or 5 years in our timeline, but is qualitatively the same transition to a new stage, of imperial collapse rather than mere stagnation.

There's no point in coping about the pace of collapse -- slowly, then rapidly. That's like saying when you throw a body out of an airplane, it only falls slowly at first, so there's still hope, it's not in free-fall or collapse yet. Yes it is -- it will accelerate as it plummets, and fall *really* fast later on, before crashing into the ground to its death. But it's already over the moment it's tossed out of the airplane without a parachute.

That is true for Roman decline, which began in 193, and hit the rapid free-fall sub-stage in the 230s, when one "barracks emperor" after another was assassinated and replaced from within the military.

I don't know what sector the American counterparts to the barracks emperors will be drawn from -- perhaps from the military again, one general after another replaced or assassinated. Maybe it will be finance or tech bros, who will shove each other aside in rapid succession and in a climate of leaderless chaos. The C-suite emperors. But something qualitatively like that will follow the initial stage of collapse that we have already entered as of 2020-'21.

Likewise in the American case, it doesn't matter that our collapse begins slowly and picks up speed over time -- it's a single indivisible stage, qualitatively different from the previous stage of stagnation (which itself was qualitatively different from the previous stage of expansion), and will be qualitatively different from the "recovery from rock bottom" stage that will follow it.

In the Roman case, that was the Tetrarchy under Diocletian in the late 3rd century. Who knows what individual will usher that in for America? But it will be qualitatively the same -- an impotent figure within the context of the former expanding / stagnant empire, but who has restored stability within the rump-state left after the hangover / free-fall collapse.

Diocletian not only had to rule with a junior partner, he had to concede the eastern half of the empire to the proto-Byzantines. That's a long, plunging fall from the powers and status of Marcus Aurelius of the mid-2nd century (stagnant stage) -- but a bump up from the abyss of the barracks emperors chaos of the mid-3rd century.

Just as there was no Roman renaissance with Diocletian, or any of his followers, for at least 1000 years later, there will be no American renaissance when we inevitably bounce back to a stable rump-state, after the current and coming collapse. Anyone peddling these hopes, on either side of the partisan aisle, and whether in government or outside it, and whether from an elite or wannabe position, is just another hyper-competitive opportunist trying to wring a few extra bucks out of the imperial treasury during its implosion, to pad their own personal crash-landing.

The only interesting open questions are events that don't necessarily happen during every imperial collapse -- like will one of our future leaders be slain on the battlefield during one of many hopeless and pointless attempts to shore up the contracting boundaries of its influence, a la Julian the Apostate trying to defeat the Persian empire in the Middle East and biting the big one near Baghdad.

Given how wicked and traitorous our elite class has become and promises to remain for the foreseeable future -- one can only hope so.

Read the rest of those extensive comment threads and posts for a broader survey of distractions to avoid, like any hope that we're in the French or Russian Revolution (those were pre-collapse), or Japanese sengoku (the Tokugawa shogun that followed it was *more* powerful, not less, than the shoguns that preceded sengoku), or any stage of Roman history before 193 -- like will there be an American Caesar, etc?

We already had a Caesar -- Abraham Lincoln, trailblazing leader and unifier and assassinated during the integrative civil war. Hoping for a second American Caesar in the 21st century or later, is just as hopeless as hoping for one in Rome during the Crisis of the Third Century and after.

The only worthwhile tasks now are preserving what our empire has already created, not hopelessly attempting another renaissance, and softening our landing / speeding the recovery into a minimized and relatively powerless rump-state, not hopelessly trying to cling to the plateau level that we reached in the 20th century.

Everything else is emotion-inflaming fan-fiction, and doomed overweening ambition.

Names and American ethnogenesis, from Dark Age revivals to purely New World creations

I still have plenty to cover in American architecture, but I hit on something pretty big that's worth exploring first. This is not exhaustive -- the big picture, with plenty of details, and as usual more to appear in the comments section.

I've covered names before on the blog, over 10 years ago, looking at trends over time, linking the rise of unique names with the status-striving cycle (vs. egalitarian times, when people feel compelled to give their kids the same names, so no one sticks out like a diva), and other matters.

But now we'll look at the role that given names play within the process of ethnogenesis. Strikingly, Americans began breaking from their British / European / Western / Olde Worlde roots right after landing in the New World -- *not* after the integrative civil war had wrapped up, which is when all other forms of cultural evolution take a distinctly, newly constructed American turn.

Already in the 17th-century, Puritans were giving their kids unique names by the standards of their cousins and ancestors back in Britain -- Prudence, Humility, Chastity, and other "virtue" names. Some of them have stuck, like Faith, Hope, Grace, and Felicity.

Benjamin Franklin, born in 1706, was given a name light-years ahead of its time, even in America, let alone back in Europe, where it was still distinctly Jewish -- 100 years after Franklin's birth, Benjamin Disraeli was the only Euro statesman with that name, and he was Jewish. And Franklin was not an outlier -- two other Benjamins signed the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Harrison V and Benjamin Rush.

A quick look over the other Founding Fathers (signers of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution), reveals all sorts of names that were unusual by contempo Euro standards -- Daniel (x3), Nathaniel (x2), Caesar, Titus, Abraham (x2), Josiah, Gunning, Jacob, Stephen (way ahead of its time), Richard (x5), Jared, Rufus, Arthur, etc.

As for US presidents, unusual names are already apparent with those born in the late 1700s and early 1800s, and it never stopped -- Zachary, Millard, Franklin, Abraham, Ulysses, Chester, Grover, Benjamin, Theodore, Woodrow, Warren, Calvin, Herbert, Franklin again, Dwight, Richard (more common in America by that time, but still not a typical Euro name), Gerald, Ronald, Donald, and Barack (Barry while growing up -- but even Barack, with its weak initial vowel, sounds more like a typically all-American 20th-century name like Brock, Rock, Doc, Spock, etc.)

Masculine names are far more conservative in their trends than feminine names, so the fact that this critical break with the Olde Worlde shows up in early male leaders is quite a testament to how eager we were to fashion a new identity for ourselves once we began adapting to a whole new environment in America.

Why do names defy the usual pattern of a new cultural identity being constructed only after the integrative civil war? Perhaps not as much cohesion is required to introduce new names into circulation via your own flesh-and-blood offspring. It's not like putting together Elizabethan stage plays, Viennese symphonies, or monumental architecture. Your children going to get a name no matter what it is, why not use the opportunity to make it a new one? It's cost-free and doesn't require much teamwork to make it happen, unlike the major cultural products like buildings, dramas, and paintings.

It seems like dialectal variation should behave the same way -- it costs you nothing to introduce a new sound pattern. But it does require lots of cohesion, since all the other members of your speech community must agree to the new sound pattern for it to catch on. Such cohesion only comes about from intense asabiya being born on a meta-ethnic frontier, and the outcome of an integrative civil war, when there is a strong sense of a new Us being fashioned, not just the old Us vs. Them -- but one Us vs. another Us, to determine who among the varied Us gets to set the new standard.

Names are not quite as demanding on cohesion -- not everyone has to give their kids the same new name, whereas everyone does have to pronounce the vowels in "cot" and "caught" the same, if that's to be a new sound pattern. Probably the other members of the community, when they hear a new name, think "Huh, that's a little odd-sounding... but all the other cues tell me it's a member of Team Us, so I guess that's just a new name that some of Us are giving Our kids, better make an exceptional note of it and put it on the safe-list."

Whereas if they hear a funny-sounding name, and all the other cues point to it being a member of Team Them, the strange name is just another aspect of Them-ness, and to blacklist the name as belonging to Outsiders. The other cues being grooming, clothing, subsistence mode, religion, language, totem symbols, folk customs, food traditions, music, dance, and the rest of it.

* * *

Within the general population, Americans have been even more eager to fashion a new cultural identity for themselves, separate from Olde Worlde roots (especially Euro / Western, with Ancient Saharo-Arabian being a possible exception). Right up through the end of the American Century, the top 50 names for baby girls in 1999 included purely American creations, chosen for sounding too exotic for Euro ears, like Samantha, Madison, Jessica, Alyssa, Kayla, Brianna, Grace, Destiny, Brittany, Amber, Savannah, Danielle, Brooke, and Sierra.

Quibblers will claim that Jessica comes from Shakespeare, after the character in The Merchant of Venice. But that was not a real person's name, only a character's name in a stage play. And in the play, it's the name of a Venetian, not an English speaker. It never caught on after that -- and Shakespeare in general, and that play in particular, have always been popular. It was only used on rare occasion, by offbeat parents who wanted to show how cultured or unique they were.

The true reason for Jessica's rise in popularity is its sound similarity to already popular names -- the skyrocketing Jennifer, along with recently trendy names ending in "-ica" like Veronica and Monica, and the appeal of making a feminine form of the popular male name Jesse. Jennifer and/or Jessica also spun-off the name Jenna circa the 1970s and '80s, which is *not* from Shakespeare, but does sound like an already popular name, whether Jennifer or Jessica or both. Jenna then spawned rhyme-mates McKenna / Kenna and Sienna.

There's another character in The Merchant of Venice named Nerissa, and yet that name has never become popular -- outside of the same rare offbeat parents, and the cultured individual who chose the stage name for the Hololive vtuber Nerissa Ravencroft.

To the extent that Nerissa is appealing enough to become the stage name for a major entertainment brand like Hololive, it is due to being a member of a rhyming class of names -- Melissa, Alyssa, Kissa, etc. In fact, it's a minimal mutation of Melissa, changing the initial nasal to another nasal, and the medial liquid to another liquid. Phonology, not semantics and referents, are what drive the evolution in names.

Portia, another character from the same play, caught on somewhat better than Nerissa, but it's not clear that it's due to that character, instead of the prestigious car manufacturer's name, Porsche, pronounced the same in American English. In fact, the spelling variant Porsha is another trendy American name -- and as usual, the midwits who spin their BS folk etymologies behind names, claim that it's a German word meaning "offering". Nope -- it's just a typically American-sounding name, regardless of any false cognates it may have in the world's myriad languages or its literatures or its luxury brands.

No one behaves according to what a name "means" across the zillions of false cognates it may have somewhere out there -- it's how it *sounds* that drives our behavior.

This is because names are not a private affair -- they serve as shibboleths in a social context, identifying members of Us from members of Them. If you don't recognize anyone's names, you must be dealing with Them. If their names are already known, or familiar-sounding enough, you must be dealing with Us. Shibboleths are about pronunciation and sound, not meaning or substance. I don't care what your name alludes to -- it sounds totally weird to my ears, so you must be an outsider, to be treated like one.

As America separated itself from its British, Euro, Western, and Olde Worlde roots, the names belonging to the latter groups became contaminated-sounding -- too Them, not sufficiently Us. Hence the present situation, where the top 50 baby girls names for 2023 include not only many of those from 1999 listed above -- but wait, there's more!, like Ava, Mia, Chloe, Avery, Addison (rhymed from Madison), Zoe (rhyming with Chloe), Layla (rhymed from the already popular Kayla, not descended from or alluding to its false cognate in Arabic), Brooklyn, and Maya (with lower-ranking but still popular rhyme-mates Kaia, Gaia, probably Raya, Vaya, and who knows what else next).

Gotta love the absolutely desperate cluelessness of the semantic-focused spin-meisters at thebump.com (as in, baby bump), who claim that the name Kaia has Scandinavian, Estonian, Greek, Japanese, Hawaiian, and Hebrew roots -- a post hoc rationalization for everybody! Nope -- it simply rhymes with the already popular Maya, and doesn't sound Euro, so it's suitably American.

I got a pleasant chuckle from hearing Dasha on Red Scare saying she was eager to have a baby boy so she could name him Honor, with the usual wahmen's rationalization about it being semantic -- a latter-day virtue name. But nope, it's simply a rhyming variant of the already popular Connor. She was so eager and bubbly while spinning the rationalization, though, that I hate to "decode" what was really guiding her decision -- typical male-brain always trying to analyze things, just let a girl feel her feelings, sheesh! ^_^

BTW, we can probably add McKenzie to the pure American creation list -- it's tempting to think of it as adopting a surname to a given name, but it also comes in the non-surname form of Kenzie, without the Celtic patronymic prefix "Mc / Mac". The same goes for McKenna, which comes in the non-surname form of Kenna.

Ultimately these all trace back to the earlier popular name Mikayla, which may be a purely new creation, or a novel feminine form of the male name Michael -- but in any case, where the initial sounds of "mik" are not a patronymic prefix at all. Mikayla comes in a rhyming pair with Kayla, and that supposed shortening does not involve dropping a patronymic prefix -- so we don't need to assume that process is happening either with McKenna to Kenna, or McKenzie to Kenzie.

Also, the supposed Celtic surnames are tightly constrained by phonotactics -- there are a zillion Celtic surnames that begin with Mc / Mac, and yet the three most popular ones belong to popular rhyming classes. Mikayla, Kayla, Layla, Shayla, Jayla, etc. And Kenna, Jenna, Sienna, etc. (Kenna may also be a novel feminine form of the recently popular male name Ken.) And even Kenzie is a close rhyme for the popular late-20th-C girl's name Lindsey.

The stressed vowel is produced a little higher in the mouth for Lindsey, but given the tendency for Western American dialects to lower front vowels (e.g., Valley Girls pronouncing "bitch" as "betch"), maybe they were already pronouncing Lindsey as "Lendsey", making Kenzie a perfect rhyme for it after all.

I'll only briefly reiterate Stanley Lieberson's important finding that naming trends do not follow appearances in popular culture, but rather the opposite -- some name is already climbing from obscurity into prominence, and the culture creators sense that just as well as their everyman audience does, so they choose it for their cultural work. They're two sides of the same coin, not one causing the other.

There are a few exceptions, IIRC, but in general it is pure post hoc rationalization to point to some pop culture character that came out before a name became super-popular and say, that figure made the name popular. It was already becoming popular before the character, and the character's creator was jumping on the bandwagon just as much as real-life mothers were.

Just as one example, Wikipedia, citing one of those dumdum baby name sites, claims that Kayla's popularity was due to a character by that name who debuted in 1982 on Days of Our Lives, a popular American soap opera TV show. In reality, Kayla's popularity was already shooting through the roof before 1982 -- it ranked #578 in '81, up from #594 in '80, way up from #678 in '79 and #677 in '78, up from #694 in '77, way up from #854 at the start of the '70s.

It did shoot up big-time during '82, when it ranked #132, but this is just how exponential growth and decay works -- it builds slow, then goes really fast, then slows down / tapers off, then gently declines, then crashes, then mellows out. That is a completely endogenous process, it doesn't get some external injection of oomph just before entering its steep-climb phase. And Kayla's growth was already well under way before a soap opera writer jumped on the bandwagon at the right time.

Good culture creators do not influence the everyday lives of millions of people -- they have an intuitive knack for spotting what is already in demand, and delivering it to the audience. Someone senses that the name Kayla is building steam among real-life mothers -- well, if that's what they want, then that's what they'll get, a new (fictional) person in their lives named Kayla.

* * *

That brings us to regional variation within America. As usual, the main source of cultural innovation is along the meta-ethnic frontier with the Indians, Mexicans, and somewhat the Japanese -- out West. Back-East names are more conservative, notwithstanding the Puritans' novel virtue names. Back then, Puritans *were* on the meta-ethnic frontier with Indians -- but over time, that frontier shifted further and further out West, leaving East Coasters to favor Euro-LARP-ing names more than West Coast Americans do.

Here is a data visualization from over 10 years ago, demonstrating the pattern that everyone always finds with names in America. The distinctive, new, all-American, non-Euro names are born from the Midwest to the Pacific Coast. Even within the Deep South, Louisiana or Mississippi is more likely to spawn a new popular name than Georgia or South Carolina.

Take just one salient example, the quintessentially American name Brittany. It was rhymed from the already popular Whitney, not the false cognate from the name of a region in Northwestern France, which pronounces the "a" vowel, unlike the American girl's name, which is pronounced BRIT-nee, where the "a" is silent, and where the stressed syllable is first rather than last, just like Whitney. The spelling variant Britney, as in Britney Spears, makes this clear.

At its peak of popularity, circa 1980, it was most distinctive of Utah and a broad swath of states from the Plains and Rocky Mountains region, and only somewhat distinctive of states east of the Mississippi River (Britney Spears was an outlier for being born in Mississippi).

This geographic gradient reflects the general pattern -- constructing a new identity is done by those closest to the meta-ethnic frontier, where they are being shaped into a whole new people by their conflict with the meta-ethnic nemesis, and must cohere very intensely into a new Us in order to fend off and perhaps even conquer Them.

The standard dialect in American and Canadian English is Western -- East Coast dialects sound the most harshly non-standard, whether Yankee or Confederate. And so the pattern goes with names, a linguistic element that is also strongly based on sound / phonology for determining how standard it is. It's a shibboleth.

* * *

I'll wrap up with a discussion of a very broad and in-depth discovery I made in the comments to the previous post, about America being a Dark Age culture out of sync with the Old World timeline, which left the Dark Ages behind circa 1300 -- but was part of a previous Dark Age before circa 700 BC, with Classical eras from 700 BC to 300 AD and from 1300 AD to present.

I explained this cycle by referring to the relative dominance of nomadism vs. sedentarism, with much of Eurasia being united by the Steppe as a source of nomadism, putting them all on the same timeline and cycle. Nomadic dominance leads to weak central states, and other aspects of Dark Purity cultures. Sedentary dominance leads to strong central states, and other aspects of Enlightened Perversion cultures.

But there are notable exceptions that spun off from the Eurasian landmass -- America and Japan, which remained a Dark Age / feudal culture until very recently, and arguably remains one, just like America.

(As a timely reminder of America's weak central state, look at who is sent to deal with all the anti-Zionist protests on college campuses right now -- not a federal organization like the US Army, FBI, etc., but city-level forces like the NYPD or state-level ones like the Texas National Guard, under the authority of mayors or governors, who are like regional counts, dukes, or barons from the feudal Dark Ages, not the president or any other federal official, who are like the king and central royal court from the Dark Ages. In Europe, where central states are stronger, they would send in a national-level gendarmerie like Spain's Guardia Civil for protests erupting around the nation.)

Looking over the names of American presidents, and having delved into the European Dark Ages so much recently, I can't help but be struck by three presidents having names that end in "-ald", as though they were a Frankish or Viking chieftain named Theobald or Grimwald.

This is one domain of naming trends where substance, meaning, and allusion do come into play -- not at the level of individual names, which are tightly constrained by sound patterns, but broad sources of inspiration to draw from, while obeying the all-important sound patterns. Not every name can be a totally original coinage.

In the 19th century, in the Old World itself, there was a general backlash against the centuries-long consolidation of central states and their overly rigid and dehumanizing / domesticating cultures. The Romantic movement, the Gothic novel, the Grimm brothers collecting and publishing fairytales, a Gothic revival in architecture (technically part of the civilizing phase of the cycle, but the earliest stage of it, and so feeling more thankfully barbarian in comparison to Neoclassical), Wagnerian operas about the Dark Ages and Bronze Age mythologies of Germanic peoples, and so on and so forth.

This didn't last very long in Europe as a major cultural phenomenon, not making it out of the 19th century, but it does still linger as a minority tendency. It was more of a temporary pressure relief valve for all that stultifying order and domestication that had been building up since 1300 -- not an endless new trail they were going to blaze.

Heavy metal bands that tap into Britain's Stonehenge era will always be more popular in America, a bona fide Dark Age feudal society. And as the Old World empires all bit the dust in the early 20th C, most of them fell under American vassalage (except for China), and so they adopted some degree of our very eager indulging in the Dark Age cultures of the Olde Worlde.

In names, this backlash and Dark Age revival showed up in old Germanic names making a comeback within Europe itself -- in Britain, Albert, Herbert, and other -berts, along with Robert, which never fell totally out of fashion after the Dark Ages. The first and only British prime minister to have such a neo-bert name, other than Robert, was H. H. Asquith -- Herbert Henry -- born in 1852. Among royalty, Prince Albert (husband to Queen Victoria) was born in 1819, and several generations of his male descendants were named Albert as well.

America would take that revival and make it permanent, with Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump.

Elsewhere in Europe, Engelbert made a 19th-C comeback in the eastern German-speaking lands, including places in their sphere like Slovenia. Oswald made a brief comeback in Eastern Europe as well.

But in America, not only did we elevate the popularity of Robert to all-time heights during the early-mid 20th century, and maintain other lesser ones such as Albert, Herbert, Norbert, and Gilbert, we enshrined this Dark Age suffix as a full name unto itself -- Bert / Burt. For real people like Burt Lancaster and Burt Reynolds, this may have been a nickname for Burton, but that's still a nickname that no British Burtons had used before. And in the case of Bert from Sesame Street's Bert & Ernie duo, it was spelled like the suffix and was not a shortened form of Burton / Berton / Bertram / etc.

The open-ended productive use of -bert continues outside of existing -bert names, into American novelty names in pop culture. There's icons like the Dilbert comic strip, the Q*bert video game character (a very rare American-created, rather than Japanese, arcade game from the Golden Age), the name Goobert that the most popular English vtuber, Gawr Gura (alias Gooba), gives to some of the characters she plays as in video games, as well as fellow Hololive EN vtuber Fauna naming her sourdough starter culture Doughbert. All part of her love for fantastical fairytale forest culture. Back when men had real names like Dagobert, Rigobert, and Humbert. ^_^

(The protag from Lolita, Humbert Humbert, is supposed to be stereotypically Euro, and a fish out of water in America, and yet he has a very American name -- a Dark Age Germanic -bert name. The only finishing touch to Americanize it would be shortening it to a monosyllabic nickname like Hum.)

Born around the same time as the first -bert prime minister was the first -ald, Archibald Primrose. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, two separate Harold prime ministers were born, Macmillan and Wilson. (Harold was Harald in the Dark Ages.)

Sidenote: Boris Johnson has a Dark Age name, after the greatest of the Bulgarian emperors, from the 9th century, who is responsible for Christianizing Eastern Europe, bringing literacy to them, and establishing the foundation for Slavic liturgies.

I think the -ald ending is not as productive in American English cuz it's not such a well-formed syllable, lacking an initial consonant. Maybe just -bald or -wald would work, but -bald has a false cognate with negative associations. And we're familiar enough with German toponyms that -wald sounds too much like the name of a place, not a person. IDK.

Aside from these Germanic names from the Dark Age, there are several others originally from Greek -- meaning Byzantine, not Hellenic. We're Dark Age, so must our Greek inspirations -- either Byzantine or Bronze Age.

Christopher and Stephen were only common during the Dark Ages in Europe, going into decline during the Renaissance and falling into total oblivion after then. But in the 20th C., there can be no more all-American names than Chris and Steve (the most ubiquitous Boomer name). As pointed out earlier, America was *really* early on the Stephen trend, with a signer of the Declaration of Independence being a Stephen. In fact, although he went by Grover in adulthood, the late 19th-century president Cleveland was born and raised as Stephen.

The last and only British ruler named Stephen was king during the 12th century, during their empire's integrative civil war (the Anarchy), as the English were consolidating their initial victory over their meta-ethnic nemesis (the Vikings / Danelaw, who were expelled by the Norman Conquest).

Then there are Bronze Age Greek names like Jason, that were never that popular even during Hellenic Greece. Nor was it popular during the Dark Ages. There's one Italian born in the 1400s named Giasone (del Maino), and another born in the 1500s (De Nores). Otherwise, almost all Jasons of any note are Americans born in the 1800s and after. It's so iconically American that it has been chosen as a rhyming inspiration -- for Mason, Payson, Grayson, Chayson, Kayson, Brayson, etc.

There are so many Greek names from the Classical era that we are famililar with -- Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Archimedes, Euclid, and the list goes on and on -- yet we have decided to entirely ignore them, preferring instead the monster-battling heroes of the pre-Classical era, or the heroic Christian martyrs of the Byzantine / Dark Age era. Nothing could be less appealing to American honor-culture sensibilities than "being good at math and philosophy" or "being a theater kid".

Speaking of "monster-battling" -- Bronze Age epithets like Homer's "swift-footed Achilles" fell into disfavor during the Classical era. Too concrete, and therefore animalistic or barbaric. The Romans did include a descriptive term like "august" within their 17 other elements of a full name, but that dilutes its power. And like "august," they weren't so concretely physical.

It just doesn't pack a punch like Charles the Bald, a 9th-century Carolingian emperor, whose own father was the emperor Louis the Pious. Or the 12th-century Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa / Rotbart -- Redbeard. Or the 10th-century Viking king, Harald Bluetooth. Or the 7th-century Byzantine emperor Justinian II the Slit-nosed. Or the 12th-century British king, Richard the Lionheart. Or back to Boris of the 9th-century Bulgarian Empire -- known as The Baptizer. And on and on and on...

Well, leave it to a neo-Dark Age culture like America, where our politicians are now known as Crooked Hillary Clinton, Lyin' Ted Cruz, Sleepy Joe Biden, etc. During Trump's first primary campaign, I pointed out that he descended from literal Vikings -- the clan MacLeod, whose namesake was a Viking ruler named Ljotr. At least that's the tradition, it could be a case of legitimizing one's group by means of an illustrious legendary foreign founder, much like the Rurikid dynasty in Russia claiming descent from a non-existent, legendary Viking ancestor.

Whether he has authentic Norse DNA in his veins or not, Trump surely is a Dark Age feudal leader of a weak central state, and he knows what buttons to push to resonate with its cultural values. And weak central state people love nothing more than blunt epithets. See also the once-common Italian-American practice of blunt epithets like Fat Tony, Danny No-Shoes, Jimmy Too-Short, etc. Or African-American rappers and gang members using epithets like Fat Joe, Megan Thee Stallion, etc.

Europeans haven't named leading figures "fat" since the days of Louis the Fat (also, the Fighter), a 12th-century king of the Franks. Maybe there are a few straggler examples into the 13th or 14th centuries, but once the proto-Renaissance showed up during the 1300s, it was all over for blunt epithets.

I'll bet that's a very broad phenomenon, but I don't have time to look into Dark Age Middle Eastern, South Asian, Central Asian, or Chinese cultures right now.

I'll bet Japan loved blunt and concrete epithets from about 1200 or 1300 onward, perhaps right up to the present day. The most popular vtuber in Japan, Marine, has a family name Houshou, meaning "treasure bell/chime", which seems to function more like a concrete descriptive epithet, and not a family name indicating who her parents are. Likewise, Korone is known by the epithet in place of a family name, Inugami, meaning "dog(gy)-god".

So when translating their full names into English, instead of Marine Houshou, it's Marine the Treasure-bell. And instead of Korone Inugami, it's Korone the Doggy-god, like good ol' Dark Age epithets. ^_^

Although the English Hololive girls don't have this format for their names, as members of Dark Age America and Canada, some of them do make epithets of their own, like Gura referring to herself as the Shark, Mumei as the Owl, Bae as the Rat, etc.

Without getting further into the Dark Age weeds, I'll just note that Geoffrey (later, Jeffrey) and Richard were common Dark Age Germanic names that were resurrected and made super-common in America during the 20th century.

Also, Arthurian legendary names. Not just Arthur, but Morgan, Guinevere / Jennifer (and similar-sounding names like Gwendolyn, Gwen, and Gwyneth, which most Americans pronounce as Gweneth, all of which also hint at the character Gawain), Elaine, Lynnette, Taliesin (Frank Lloyd Wright's headquarters), and perhaps not Lancelot -- but Lance! That has to be the connection. Monosyllabic shortening -- of what other possible longer name? Gotta be from Lancelot, given how much we're obsessed with Camelot. Some of these, but not all, were part of the limited 19th-century Romantic backlash in Europe, but we made them permanent, or are entirely responsible for (like Lance).

Speaking of Frank Lloyd Wright, and the Franks, that given name was confined to the Dark Ages until resurrected in America during the 19th century, including the birth of the Father of Modern and American architecture himself. Post-Dark Age Euros only used variations like Francis, Francisco, Francois, Francesco, etc. -- not Frank itself, or even the related Franklin, which was also resurrected in America during the 19th century, including the greatest president in our history, the New Deal trailblazer himself, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The name Frank just sounds too, well, frank, to domesticated sophisticates, so they could only preserve it in the frilly-and-gay embellishment Francis, Francois, etc. In America, nothing could sound more embarrassingly prissy than the name Francis, in place of the honorable alternative Frank. I think San Francisco would sound -- and then become -- less gay if it were renamed San Franco!

I have no idea if there's a case of convergent evolution between American names and Euro Dark Age names, in the same way that our similar environments have produced similar architectural styles (closed-solid-heavy slabs and caves and fortresses). There may be something there, but I haven't looked into it yet. Maybe later, in the comments. That would require cross-cultural confirmation as well, and I really doubt I'll get into the evolution of popular name sound patterns all across Eurasia, from the Bronze Age to present.

But just based on how Frank went to Francis / Francois / etc., then back to Frank in America, there could be something to how prissy-and-sissy names sound during the 1000 years of the cycle when sedentarism is dominant over nomadism. Francis has changed the hard "k" into a sibilant "s", then added a high-front vowel (connoting things that are small, weak), and another "s" after it.

I mean, you can totally make up a barbarian name -- and yet instantly recognize it as barbarian. Conan, Thundarr, Krull, Chewbacca, etc. Only some of that is semantic association with known, existing barbarian names. Some of that has to be purely an effect of sound symbolism, e.g. the absence of high-front vowels and sibilants (at least voiceless ones like "s" and "sh" -- "z" is "zh" are OK).

Alfred, Dagobert, Harald, Arthur -- no high-front vowels, no sibilants (especially voiceless ones). Just a brief impression, without a systematic survey, but may be something there...