Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Attila in Britain?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hando
    replied
    Originally posted by rainbow
    They were all mixed together, under one leader.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_the_Hun

    The one about Huns also mentions Sarmations.
    The one about Attila mentions his Scythian fool, and Sarmations.

    quote from wikipedia:
    Attila's Huns incorporated groups of unrelated tributary peoples. In Europe, Alans, Gepids, Scirii, Rugians, Sarmatians, Slavs and Gothic tribes all united under the Hun family military elite. After Attila's death, some of his Huns eventually settled in Pannonia,
    But what about the original Huns and Attila, before they subjugated the Goths, Slavs etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • rainbow
    replied
    Originally posted by Hando
    Funny, you should mention that. For myself, I always think of the Huns as being much more East Asian than Caucasian in physical appearance. A European/Roman era description of the Huns is responsible for this, because it describes them to have had more Asian features. Uncomplimentary comments like the Huns having slits for eyes and big brown roundish faces/heads. Completely alien to anything these Romans had ever seen in their lives. So I am assuming that a large proportion, if not all of the Huns, whom these Romans encountered were of Mongoloid extraction and not European/Caucasian. The fact that some of the Huns had R1a doesnt mean they looked fully European either. There are large numbers of Central Asians who carry this gene, but look more Mongoloid/Asiatic.

    But then again, when I conjure up images of Attila himself, my imagination has been formed by those Hollywood movies and cartoons/sketches. And so, I picture a man who has a more European looking facial bone structure, but with slanted eyes, long jet black hair and sweeping moustache. Sort of a mix between East and west. I suppose that comes from watching all those Hollywood movies.


    Originally posted by Hando
    I agree with you about Huns and Mongols being similar in genes. But were the Scythians and Sarmatians from the same gene pool as the Mongols and Huns? I always thought Scythians and Sarmatians were Indo-European...
    They were all mixed together, under one leader.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_the_Hun

    The one about Huns also mentions Sarmations.
    The one about Attila mentions his Scythian fool, and Sarmations.

    quote from wikipedia:
    Attila's Huns incorporated groups of unrelated tributary peoples. In Europe, Alans, Gepids, Scirii, Rugians, Sarmatians, Slavs and Gothic tribes all united under the Hun family military elite. After Attila's death, some of his Huns eventually settled in Pannonia,
    Last edited by rainbow; 7 February 2008, 03:52 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hando
    replied
    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN
    Without trying to look at back messages on the subject of the Huns, I think they were a mixture of west and east. For example, the Y-DNA R1a component probably originated in the Ukrainian-Russian steppes and then moved eastward to the Altai region.

    The sketch of Attila that is often shown obviosly looks like he was a westerner. He even reminds me somewhat of my Dad - also R1a.
    Funny, you should mention that. For myself, I always think of the Huns as being much more East Asian than Caucasian in physical appearance. A European/Roman era description of the Huns is responsible for this, because it describes them to have had more Asian features. Uncomplimentary comments like the Huns having slits for eyes and big brown roundish faces/heads. Completely alien to anything these Romans had ever seen in their lives. So I am assuming that a large proportion, if not all of the Huns, whom these Romans encountered were of Mongoloid extraction and not European/Caucasian. The fact that some of the Huns had R1a doesnt mean they looked fully European either. There are large numbers of Central Asians who carry this gene, but look more Mongoloid/Asiatic.

    But then again, when I conjure up images of Attila himself, my imagination has been formed by those Hollywood movies and cartoons/sketches. And so, I picture a man who has a more European looking facial bone structure, but with slanted eyes, long jet black hair and sweeping moustache. Sort of a mix between East and west. I suppose that comes from watching all those Hollywood movies.
    Last edited by Hando; 6 February 2008, 09:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    What were the Huns?

    Without trying to look at back messages on the subject of the Huns, I think they were a mixture of west and east. For example, the Y-DNA R1a component probably originated in the Ukrainian-Russian steppes and then moved eastward to the Altai region.

    The sketch of Attila that is often shown obviosly looks like he was a westerner. He even reminds me somewhat of my Dad - also R1a.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Honeychuck
    replied
    Originally posted by burto
    I know that but my Aunt is 100% English and gets matches to those places! The question is why?
    Because there are hardly any English samples for her to match?

    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • burto
    replied
    Originally posted by Jambalaia32
    I never thought of English people as being Polish/Russian. Poles live in Poland and Russians live in Russia from what I know-I never thought of them as being 100% English.
    I know that but my Aunt is 100% English and gets matches to those places! The question is why?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hando
    replied
    Originally posted by Jambalaia32
    I never thought of English people as being Polish/Russian. Poles live in Poland and Russians live in Russia from what I know-I never thought of them as being 100% English. I don't think no less of 'em mind you,but I know they ain't English.Poles and Russians are Slavs and they have occassionally be raided by people from the East,whereas Attila the Hun probably couldn't have made it all the way over to England.Slavs are also probably a slightly different breed from English people-I for one think different location could imply different Breed .If they were English ,they'd BE from England-Poland/Russia is something Else,albeit good.Those nations are closer to the East and they all have some natural blood that matches Eastern people that's what I read somewhere.
    Attila didnt make it to Albion, but people with genes related to the Huns did.
    For example, Queen Elizabeth is partly descended from Genghis Khan through the Romanian Prince Vlad Tepes....

    Leave a comment:


  • Jambalaia32
    replied
    Not Surprising

    Originally posted by burto
    Hi,
    I just looked into what tribes inhabited the area where my Mum and Aunts maternal English ancestors came from, and genetically people from that region are a mix of Ancient Briton, Angle, Dane and Norman. Did Attila reach the Angles and Danes before they migrated to Britain?
    Just trying to make some sense of my Aunts Tribes results which are basically Polish/Russian...she even gets some Mongolian on her world match. She's 100% English-just a random group of alleles perhaps?
    I never thought of English people as being Polish/Russian. Poles live in Poland and Russians live in Russia from what I know-I never thought of them as being 100% English. I don't think no less of 'em mind you,but I know they ain't English.Poles and Russians are Slavs and they have occassionally be raided by people from the East,whereas Attila the Hun probably couldn't have made it all the way over to England.Slavs are also probably a slightly different breed from English people-I for one think different location could imply different Breed .If they were English ,they'd BE from England-Poland/Russia is something Else,albeit good.Those nations are closer to the East and they all have some natural blood that matches Eastern people that's what I read somewhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • derinos
    replied
    Originally posted by burto
    Hi,
    It's just frustrating cus of me and Mum getting East Asian scores with ABDNA we thought "ooh maybe NA or PA Dutch ancestry etc" and now her half sister gets pure East European matches on Tribes! So is it via their mother? We are getting her tested with ABDNA too to solve the problem!

    Saying that I just looked at Tribes' sample for German and it has virtually the same matches as my Aunts and the world match is in roughly the same order, so I guess her scores must be Saxon!

    "Germany" was a collective term the Romans used for all the land and people north and east of Gaul. Even today modern Germany comprises numerous provinces with different linguistic styles (and DNA subclades, if you can afford the fees.)
    This is my day to mumble about terminology as related to what we call our ancestor groups.


    Saxon? Today it means "somebody from Saxony", a an independent province which was joined to many others to form modern Germany , less than two centuries ago ?

    Saxon? In early Welsh and Gaelic, "Saeson" or "Sassenach", meaning hated invading pagans who carried a short sword, which the owners called a "Seax". (In modern W and G, the same word means "English").
    In fact the negatively-regarded shortsworders or longknifers, were from several different tribes with homely names like "Gewissae" "Jutters" "Angles" "Mercians", moving westwards to a Britain depopulated by plagues and Roman succession wars. They moved west because of disturbances in their homelands, of which Attila's occupation was only one part.
    Anyway, your aunt can truly say she has matches in modern Germany. "Brito-Germanic" is a fair description. And we talked about one possible historic source of "Central Asian matches", perhaps a more acceptable term than "Mongol".
    Last edited by derinos; 4 February 2008, 09:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hando
    replied
    Originally posted by rainbow
    Most likely some Hun, if anything. Or Scythian or Sarmatian. As my mom would say, "Whatever. It's the same thing."
    Just different time periods and leaders, but ethnically the same thing.
    I agree with you about Huns and Mongols being similar in genes. But were the Scythians and Sarmatians from the same gene pool as the Mongols and Huns? I always thought Scythians and Sarmatians were Indo-European...

    Leave a comment:


  • derinos
    replied
    Terminology: Central Asian DNA markers.

    Sorry if I introduced a terminology debate.
    Attila is known to us, from reading ancient reports, to have been called a "Hun" ; Jingis Khan, similarly sourced, a "Mongol".

    Both hordes of hipophilic archers invaded westwards from their ancient nomadic home in the central Asian plains, and were likely, but not certain, to have maintained similar gene-pools.

    We cannot obtain samples from those actors, but form our DNA opinions and terminology from current samples from the present denizens of the region.
    We are now calling some of our newly-learned chemical identifiers, in higher levels in samples from that regional source, "mongol" identifiers.

    How these gene-bands got into our testees' bodies raises questions to be partly answered by historic deduction. But ain't it fun?

    Leave a comment:


  • burto
    replied
    Hi,
    It's just frustrating cus of me and Mum getting East Asian scores with ABDNA we thought "ooh maybe NA or PA Dutch ancestry etc" and now her half sister gets pure East European matches on Tribes! So is it via their mother? We are getting her tested with ABDNA too to solve the problem!

    Saying that I just looked at Tribes' sample for German and it has virtually the same matches as my Aunts and the world match is in roughly the same order, so I guess her scores must be Saxon!
    Last edited by burto; 4 February 2008, 01:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rainbow
    replied
    Originally posted by Hando
    Attila and his Mongols or Huns? Not being facetious, simply curious...
    I think Derinos probably meant Huns.
    I don't know about anyone else but for me (I'm American), Hun and Mongol are pretty much interchangeable/synomynous. My mom always said she thought I was part Mongolian on my fathers side, because he was half Slavic. Most likely some Hun, if anything. Or Scythian or Sarmatian. As my mom would say, "Whatever. It's the same thing."
    Just different time periods and leaders, but ethnically the same thing.
    Sarmatians were sent to England during the Roman occupation and were considered Romans because that is what their leaders were.
    So maybe Burto's aunt's father was descended from the Romans in Britain who were actually Sarmatian and that's why she gets a high match to Mongolian.
    Last edited by rainbow; 4 February 2008, 12:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hando
    replied
    Originally posted by derinos
    One of the reasons motivating a westward move of Saxons towards Britain was the arival of Attila and his Mongols in Saxony ca AD 500 ..
    Attila and his Mongols or Huns? Not being facetious, simply curious...

    Leave a comment:


  • derinos
    replied
    Attila in Saxony 500 AD

    One of the reasons motivating a westward move of Saxons towards Britain was the arival of Attila and his Mongols in Saxony ca AD 500 ..

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X