Your origins

[Bosh]

All my known ancestors lived in Belarus, except my parents who moved to Russia.

Aaaah, a great country for your family to leave, isn't it?

1/2 Belorus (although my last name is apparently Ukranian) with some Turkic and other good stuff mixed in.
5/16 german (from near frankfurt mostly)
1/8 italian (bit south of rome)
1/16 irish (from central ireland, just barely south of N.Ireland).

[Odin]

65% Norwegian
20% German
10% Swedish
5% Czech

My dad's ancestors were fishermen in southern Norway.
My Mom's ancestors came from the area south of Berlin near the Czech border.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Lars-E


Bulgaria was part of Great Serbia. Crushed by the Turks in 1389.

Serbia was part of the Bulgarian-Empire some time before, so what? Hungary was part of "Great Austria", yet Hungarians are not Austrians...




Piktis: I know that the interpretation of Herodotos' mention isn't convincing. But you can't give me an argument why Finns should be Turko-Mongolian as there is no such argument.
Language is, in general terms, a very good indicator of defining a people's relation to others. And linguists tell us that Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian are related among each other but NOT with Turkish or Mongolian, so what does this tell us?

[VetLegion]

Serbia was part of the Bulgarian-Empire some time before, so what? Hungary was part of "Great Austria", yet Hungarians are not Austrians...

true. many other examples in the balkans. Bosnia was once part of Croatia, but also vice versa

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by VetLegion

Serbia was part of the Bulgarian-Empire some time before, so what? Hungary was part of "Great Austria", yet Hungarians are not Austrians...

true. many other examples in the balkans. Bosnia was once part of Croatia, but also vice versa

Never heard of that one...

Bulgaria was never part of Serbia to my knowledge, biggest Serbia was todays serbia(minus vojvodina) + todays FYROM, Albania, and nothern 1/2 of Greece.

However Serbia was a part of so to speak "great Bulgaria" at an earlier point in time arounf 900's, but that was the time when a true Serbian state did not even exist so it was just a territory Bulgars under their king Simeon I think conquered, but Serbs took over them later, and it stayed as Serbia today... Serbs at the beginning started in todays southern Serbia and Kosovo.

And Bosnia never had Croatia as such... Bosnia to my knowledge came to existance after Hungarian/Croatian union, and what was a big part of Croatia before, just went independant, as the Lords in what is today known as Bosnia were too strong for Hungarian king to keep paying him taxes. And they had a "first protestant" so to say church... one that was independent of the Pope - which was unthinkable at the time for the resto of Europe - and the Bosnian rulers - later to be Kings, supported the "church", I think that was the name that region get from the church (or maybe the other way around.) The church dissapeared during Turkish occupation. -or better to say 500yr rule.

[Hobbes]

100% Dutch! Ho ho ho!

[orange]

native american numbers are surprising to me

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

Piktis: I know that the interpretation of Herodotos' mention isn't convincing. But you can't give me an argument why Finns should be Turko-Mongolian as there is no such argument.

There is a tentative link between Uralic (Finns, Magyars) and Altaic (Mongols, Turks). It's not utterly proven yet.

Language is, in general terms, a very good indicator of defining a people's relation to others. And linguists tell us that Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian are related among each other but NOT with Turkish or Mongolian, so what does this tell us?

No... language is not a good indicator of relationships between ethnicities. The Arab assimilation of Egypt and Syria, for example, didn't involve a lot of Arab blood entering Egypt or Syria. The Arabs simply moved in, dominated, and allowed their culture to seep down into society. The Egyptians, for example, simply learnt Arabic for practical purposes and left Coptic behind, until they could speak only Arabic and acquired an Arab self-identity.

The same can be said, more or less, about the Sinicization of Modern China, since Chinese civilization began in an area that covers only a dozen counties today. The rest of China is a result of Chinese settlers moving outwards and intermarrying with locals - creating a nation that is culturally monolithic but genetically varied. Modern Southern Chinese are probably genetically closer to Hawaiians than Northern Chinese.

Oh and of course: going back to the question:
my ancestry is:

99% Chinese (half North, half South)
1% something else
(according to certain accounts, one of my lines *might* have European elements in it.)

[orange]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Modern Southern Chinese are probably genetically closer to Hawaiians than Northern Chinese.

Erm, while I agree with the rest of what you said, I don't think this is remotely true...

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by orange


Erm, while I agree with the rest of what you said, I don't think this is remotely true...

That could be an exaggeration, yes.

On the other hand, there IS some truth in it, in that:

1) Around 500 - 200 BC, Chinese move southwards, displacing/assimilating the pre-Chinese tribes of the south. Many of them simply stay and become Chinese. Some begin to migrate.

2) The Austronesians were certainly among these tribes, and they move southwards, onto Taiwan.

3) Some stay in Taiwan (surviving as the "Taiwanese Aborigines"), others cross over to Philippines, and from there, much of Indonesia/Malaysia.

4) The original peoples of Indonesia and Malaysia were probably more like Papuans/Austr. Aborigines. They are displaced into the hills and jungles due to the superior agriculture of the Austronesians.

5) Austronesians acquire amazing navigational skills, move out towards Polynesia and become Hawaiians.

All these happened in a pretty short time (2 millennia). Basically, we have an ethnicity that moved from South China to Taiwan to Philippines to Indonesia to Polynesia. Of course some of them stayed, and contributed to a part of the South Chinese gene pool.

Hence, I was exaggerating, but it was mainly to illustrate how "monolithic" races like Arabs and Chinese are actually the result of assimilation.

[VetLegion]

And Bosnia never had Croatia as such...

it never 'had' Croatia, but in some period around 1400, under the king Tvrtko I (I think) Bosnia was pretty big and included Croatian coast. It did not include north Croatia, Slavonia or Kvarner, but it did include Middle Dalmatia (Nin, Knin.. etc) where medieval Croatian Kingdom emerged and which is cradle of Croatian culture.

this map shows approx how big medieval Bosnian Kingdom was at that time: http://www.balcanica.org/history/1335-1451.html

Ofcourse in only lasted a little while because of stubborn nobles, contesting heirs and other medieval thingies

And ofcourse then the Turks came and there was no fun in the Balkans for 500 years

but we more then made up for it later

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Aivo½so
What does a Finno-Ugric look like and what is the difference between them and Scandinavians?

Finno-Ugric = finns, estonians, lapps, hungarians etc. it doesn't really matter what they look like in this context.

Scandinavian = no/se/dk and I would throw in Icelandic and Faroese too (norwegian descent).

[orange]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
That could be an exaggeration, yes.

On the other hand, there IS some truth in it, in that:

1) Around 500 - 200 BC, Chinese move southwards, displacing/assimilating the pre-Chinese tribes of the south. Many of them simply stay and become Chinese. Some begin to migrate.

2) The Austronesians were certainly among these tribes, and they move southwards, onto Taiwan.

3) Some stay in Taiwan (surviving as the "Taiwanese Aborigines"), others cross over to Philippines, and from there, much of Indonesia/Malaysia.

4) The original peoples of Indonesia and Malaysia were probably more like Papuans/Austr. Aborigines. They are displaced into the hills and jungles due to the superior agriculture of the Austronesians.

5) Austronesians acquire amazing navigational skills, move out towards Polynesia and become Hawaiians.

All these happened in a pretty short time (2 millennia). Basically, we have an ethnicity that moved from South China to Taiwan to Philippines to Indonesia to Polynesia. Of course some of them stayed, and contributed to a part of the South Chinese gene pool.

Hence, I was exaggerating, but it was mainly to illustrate how "monolithic" races like Arabs and Chinese are actually the result of assimilation.

Ok, i see what you're getting at, but are you sure your timetable isn't a bit skewed? That puts the settlement of polynesia around 1 - 500 AD?

[ranskaldan]

no, I said two millennia, not two centuries...

[Frankychan]

Where's Winston? This thread is another ethnicity thread is disguise!!!

Anyway, 50% Nihongin! some "Oceanian" i.e.=Hawaiian. Spanish (or as my mother side says, Castilian ) English and German. With some Irish flava for ya!