Your origins

[The Vagabond]

OK, thanks guys. You enlightened me a bit.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


Because you are wrong. The Celts almost died off in that great plague along with their King Arthur. Today's English were the Anglo-Saxon invaders of back then.

But if you say Scots are Celtic, then I won't dispute with you.

Oh buggers! No, I'm right! Genetic marker studies show very little genetic linkage, only about 15 to 20%, between the current inhabitants of England and the areas of Germany, Netherlands, and Denmark from which the Angles and Saxons came. Furthermore King Arthur was a fiction of a French writer, and yet furthermore there was no great plague in the British Isles around the time that the Angles and Saxons invaded!

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by orange
What is Shadow? Is Mimbari an African tribe?

If your actually serious, they are races from the sci-fi show "Babylon 5".

[Ramo]

~100% Bengali (South Asian)

[Drake Tungsten]

English, Scottish and Welsh on my mom's side.
German on my dad's side.
With a splash of Illinois Indian on my mom's side for flavor.

And Arthur isn't a myth...

[Tolls]

Adding to what the good Dr Strangelove has said, the genetic studies done in various places tend to show that invasions have little effect on the populace itself outside of the ruling classes...

There are some exceptions, in the north of England (York for instance) the Norse seem to have blended with the population better. I think Kent and bits of Anglia have more Saxon, but beyond the fringes (Midlands, West, South West and North West) there was little settling done beyond the top bosses.

And for all the scant data we have Arthur may as well be a myth. He's been identified as a Roman commander, a Celtic warlord, god knows what else. He's been identified as based on the Welsh borders, in Wales, in the South West, in the South...in other words as the leader of any post-Roman group spanning some 200 years.

[TheStinger]

all this national origin bollocks was started in the 19 Century by nationalistic historians trying to justify tehri countries variuos claims to land and greatness.

People wanted to be anglo saxon so they wern't the same as the Irish or ONTH people wanted to be Celtic so they wern' the same as the English.

Little facts such as all europeans are basicaly the same just get in the way.

[Wernazuma III]

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.

OK, I awaited this, I put it badly. Of course, where two ethnicities live together, there is mingling, or one dominant language, whether it's the conqueror's language (in the case of Arabs in Egypt) or the language of the populace (Bulgaria).
None of this seems to be the case with the Finns or the Hungarians, except for the unpreventable mingling with the population which already inhabited the area and it surely was not the language of those people who lived there before them.

Thus I agree, genetic relation directly not, but the Finnish and Hungarian "culture-nuclei" must have come from an earlier Finno-Ugric culture nucleus, which is different from Turko-Mongolic.

BTW, I don't have a problem with stating that Finno-Ugrian and Turko-Mongolians have SOME distant common origin. Yet, already Turkic and Mongolian peoples have drifted apart quite a bit, so this relation must be somewhat very distant - less close than that of "Aryan" Indians and European peoples.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Gangerolf

well how would I know if my grandma had an affair with a dutchman?

Wooden shoes left carelessly on the landing?

[Jay Bee]

100% Celtic. Celtic Iberian of course. Not all Celts come from the British Isles. Have you guys ever heard of the Eight Celtic Nations?

[Sikander]

I'm:

English
Welsh
Scotch-Irish
American Indian
Irish
French

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by paiktis22

That's just an artificial later attempt to give "historical depth" to finougrishturkish which came from the same ethnic group and assimilated what herodotus talks about which were nothing in comparison with the finougrish turkish.

Well, yes, in one way they came from the same ethnic group. The Mongols. But that's still very far away in the past.

Note that all speakers of Finno-Ugric or Samoyedi languages aren't bound together with ethnic roots. Yes, we all speak Uralic languages, but we're still not related to each other as you claim.

I'm still wondering what your source is. Byzatine archives? Have you seen the documents? My evidence is in several lingustic books I've read.

Minus one point to Paiktis.
Plus one point to Wernazuma.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by ranskaldan

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

And that's for the languages actually. Not the ethnic bounds.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

Thus I agree, genetic relation directly not, but the Finnish and Hungarian "culture-nuclei" must have come from an earlier Finno-Ugric culture nucleus, which is different from Turko-Mongolic.

Exactly. This is what we so far know about the speakers of Uralic languages. The language has spread from the region of the Volga river and somewhat more east to the Ural mountains. Culture wasn't necessarily common, but the language was when it was Uralic, after it divided into 2 (Ugric and Samoyedi) and later on the Finno-Ugric languages took form. Of course several of them are very closely related like the ones spoken in the region of the Baltic Sea (Finnish, Estonian, Karelian, Livonian, Vepsian, Ludian and Ingrian).



Map over all Uralic languages that exist. Note that the Kamas has already died out. Plus I have no idea who has marked Slovenian as a Uralic language on this map, but it's not Uralic, so only Hungarian should be pointed out.

[TheStinger]

they speak welsh in patagonia, in 2000 years time there are going to be argentinain welsh speakers arguing just like this.