The Hunnish Genetic legacy in Europe

[Creeping Death]

Mongolian spot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_spot)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Mongolianspotphoto.jpg/190px-Mongolianspotphoto.jpg
Mongolian spots are most prevalent among Mongols, Turks, and other Asian groups, such as the Chinese, Japanese, and especially the Koreans. Nearly all East Asian infants are born with one or more Mongolian spots. The incidence of Mongolian spot among East Asian infants is 90-95%.[1] It is also common if only one of the parents is East Asian.

Among East African infants it is found at rates between 90-95%, and 85-90% of Native American infants.[1]

The incidence among Caucasians, that is, the indigenous peoples of Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan, north India, Bangladesh) is between 1-10%.[1] However, it has been found to be prominent among Europeans that have had extensive interaction with Hun cultures, most notably Hungarians who have a 22.6% occurrence rate among their population.
I came across this article today, I had never heard of this before, it shows you what genetic damage can be inflicted by sub races invading territories.

[Lenny]

Sorry, but wikipedia is not a legitimate source.:rolleyes: Cite the original studies from an Academic journal for that claim about Hungarians, or toss your post in the garbage heap.

This is one of the reasons to hate Wikipedia. Any clown with an axe to grind can edit it, and whatever they write attains instant legitimacy in the eyes of 95%+ of people.


While on the subject of badmouthing Wikipedia:
-I once heard wikipedia described as a "group blog", I think that's very accurate.
-Since the loudest voice wins on Wikipedia, it becomes a huge echo-chamber for the Ruling Ideology of today (since most people were socialized to stridently believe therein); reinforcing all sorts of propaganda.

[Osweo]

I echo Lenny's concerns about Wiki, but am not so bothered about Magyars with this spot! Arpad's folk are nothing to be overly ashamed of, having made quite the mark (forgive the pun) on European history. These Steppe wandering Ugrics are not the only element in the modern Hungarian genepool, but neither are they necessarily the worst.

Brian will probably not be surprised at my attitude, considering how once "Britannia's Huns, with their long range guns, sailed in through the Foggy Dew..." :P

[Ulf]

Sorry, but wikipedia is not a legitimate source.:rolleyes: Cite the original studies from an Academic journal for that claim about Hungarians, or toss your post in the garbage heap.

This is one of the reasons to hate Wikipedia. Any clown with an axe to grind can edit it, and whatever they write attains instant legitimacy in the eyes of 95%+ of people.


While on the subject of badmouthing Wikipedia:
-I once heard wikipedia described as a "group blog", I think that's very accurate.
-It's a huge echo-chamber for the Ruling Ideology of today, reinforcing all sorts of propaganda.

Look at the sources at the bottom and draw issue with those. Just because people can edit wikipedia doesn't mean what they write will be shown. They do have moderators there fact checking. Don't get pissed off when the truth runs counter to your opinion.

[Lenny]

Look at the sources at the bottom and draw issue with those. Just because people can edit wikipedia doesn't mean what they write will be shown. They do have moderators there fact checking. Don't get pissed off when the truth runs counter to your opinion.There is no source for the claim about Hungarians "at the bottom" of that wiki-page. Nothing.

Which is why I am so upset with the good Mr. Foley for reposting that apparently-baseless claim.

[Lenny]

I did some searching for legitimate sources and found this academic paper which mentions the "spot" in passing:


Hungary is somewhat an implant in Central Europe. In average people are shorter, legbones often curved, Mongol spot and epicanthic fold, while rarity, not unheard of. And there is the language. Magyar language, in first approach, do not resemble anything. If Hungarians anywhere on Earth switch to this language, no outsider can understand anything at all. [...]

http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/OOUCHI1.htm

That kind of language implies certainly under 5%, not nearly one-quarter as the anonymous Wiki-editor claimed with no evidence.

[Creeping Death]

Brian will probably not be surprised at my attitude, considering how once "Britannia's Huns, with their long range guns, sailed in through the Foggy Dew..." :P
I think you and I could fall in Love over a couple pints of Guinness.

[Creeping Death]

Sorry, but wikipedia is not a legitimate source.:rolleyes: Cite the original studies from an Academic journal for that claim about Hungarians, or toss your post in the garbage heap.
Here is another study:

Genetics (http://hargita.awardspace.com/genetika/genetien.html)
Of Hungarians' Genetics in Brief

Aside from physiology, recent genetic research has provided clues about national origins and kinships. Within the blood group system attributed to Landsteiner, the rate of the typically Hungarian "0" and "B" blood types (31.05% and 17.90%) is off from that of Indo-European and Finno-Ugric nations, but is within the range found among Central Asian Turkic nations. Besides this, there is another blood type among Hungarians, the Diego [A+], present in no other people of Europe. The "Mongolian spot", almost unknown in Europe, has 22.6% occurrence, and Lactose intolerance (missing lactose digestive enzyme), rare elsewhere, is at 37% among Hungarians, as in Central Asia. The skin splinter system of Hungarians has Central Asian characteristic (low bend rates, but high vortices). The Gm-marker research pointed out that the Gm abst and Gm afb3 gene markers occurring among Hungarians are missing among other European populations. International Mitochondrial DNA research has also recently identified additional Central Asian characteristics among Hungarians.

[Lenny]

Here is another study:

That doesn't look like a "study" to me. Since it regularly links to wikipedia, I can only assume it lifted that stat from there.

Give us links to academic journal article(s) that actually conducted this study, not a bunch of wiki-mirrors.:rolleyes2: Or admit that you have no proof of this and delete it from your original post.

[Creeping Death]

That doesn't look like a "study" to me. Since it regularly links to wikipedia, I can only assume it lifted that stat from there.

Give us links to academic journal article(s) that actually conducted this study, not a bunch of wiki-mirrors.:rolleyes2:
Here is another study

Hungarian Genetic Relations in Asia (http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/husa/origins/matsumoto.lecture.html)

Excerpts from the lecture of Professor Hideo Matsumoto on the Third Great Scythian World Congress held in Cleveland, Ohio, in May 1990.

At this stage of the study, it would be premature to conclude that the local differences in the frequency of the Mongoloid markers are associated with certain Hungarian ethnic groups. What is clear is the fact that Mongoloid genetic markers are present in Hungarians in approximately 5%. Quoting professor Bartucz:" The mongoloid elements detected in Hungarians are not homogenous, and fall into several distinct groups that are not the different mixing forms of the same Mongoloid elements, but are original racial types within the Mongoloid race." (L. Bartucz: The Hungarian Man. in: Hungarian Land, Hungarian Race. 19??. p. 428.)

The genetic composition of Hungarians shows some similarities with that of the Japanese, so a distant relationship is undeniable. The great differences should be emphasized, however, since the Mongoloid genes are present at a much higher frequency in Mongoloids and Japanese. Is a common origin possible? There are no data available on whether or not Hungarians lived in the vicinity of Japanese. Nevertheless, the contact between Hungarians and Mongoloids are preserved in the genes, although it is not known yet when and where this contact took place.


Or admit that you have no proof of this and delete it from your original post.
Or could you counter this thread with your own material to disprove, this is an open forum for discussing genetics, if you cannot and find this subject matter offensive I ask you to not to contribute anymore to my thread.

[Bloodeagle]

I echo Lenny's concerns about Wiki, but am not so bothered about Magyars with this spot! Arpad's folk are nothing to be overly ashamed of, having made quite the mark (forgive the pun) on European history. These Steppe wandering Ugrics are not the only element in the modern Hungarian genepool, but neither are they necessarily the worst.

Brian will probably not be surprised at my attitude, considering how once "Britannia's Huns, with their long range guns, sailed in through the Foggy Dew..." :P

Oswiu, what are Britannia's Huns?
I could not find a reference for this other than the ballad.

[Lahtari]

Mongolian Spot
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Mongolianspotphoto.jpg/190px-Mongolianspotphoto.jpg
---
I came across this article today, I had never heard of this before, it shows you what genetic damage can be inflicted by sub races invading territories.

Oh, that's just horrible. I would just die if I'd got this kind of ugly spot in my ass. :eek:









[Disclaimer for the HC racialists: that was irony.. ;)]

[Osweo]

Oswiu, what are Britannia's Huns?
I could not find a reference for this other than the ballad.

It's just a transference of the propaganda thing the British used against the Germans in the Great War, onto the English themselves. Huns = cruel savages, sort of thing.

[Sarmata]

I found something interesting about Hunns in Switzerland: http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t5044.html

[Osweo]

I found something interesting about Hunns in Switzerland: http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t5044.html

Very odd. An unknown language (now conveniently extinct!)?!? Surely if this were true there'd be tons of material on it, and the people of the valley in question would be 'celebrities' in ethnoculturally interested circles, like the Basques or Burushaski?!?

Tantalising possibilities, of course, and I suppose that the lack of realia to examine has put off many more academic researchers.

[Äike]

It's not hard to realize why the Hungarians have some of these non-European traits.

Budapest was the capital of the Hunnic empire, enough said.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Huns_empire.png/800px-Huns_empire.png

[Loki]

It's not hard to realize why the Hungarians have some of these non-European traits.

Budapest was the capital of the Hunnic empire, enough said.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Huns_empire.png/800px-Huns_empire.png

Yes looks like even Estonia was affected. And no wonder.

[Osweo]

Huns were remembered in a predominantly positive light in Germanic saga tradition... ;)

[Äike]

Yes looks like even Estonia was affected.

If you knew history... Then you would know that Northern areas of the Hunnic empire just had to pay tribute to the Huns, so they wouldn't come to their lands. So they were, in some way under the control of the Huns. But the Huns didn't go there much. So Estonia was affected in no way. The Huns were mainly aggressive towards The Western Roman Empire.


And no wonder.

Do you have anything against Estonians?

[Loki]

If you knew history...

Are you implying I don't know history?



Do you have anything against Estonians?

No.

[Äike]

Are you implying I don't know history?

No. I was just too arrogant. I'm sure that your knowledge about history and about many other various things is very great. If it wouldn't be so, then you wouldn't be the leader of this forum.




No.

That's good :)

[Loki]

No. I was just too arrogant. I'm sure that your knowledge about history and about many other various things is very great. If it wouldn't be so, then you wouldn't be the leader of this forum.


Thanks. Well, I'm no expert and learn new things every day like everyone else.



That's good :)

To be honest I haven't met many Estonians in my life, so I can't yet formulate an opinion about them. From what I know they are mostly like Finns, who are a fascinating people.

[The Lawspeaker]

That some Huns also entered the area that would now be Estonia would make sense as it would have been on their path to the West. A funny detail that I encounter here is that a Dutch history book portrays it like if the Huns also entered what is now the Netherlands. (Geschiedenis der Lage Landen by Jaap ter Haar- book 1, for insiders the "Red Book", page 144)

Which of course does not really correspond with the map that I am seeing here now, since this would show that they didn't come much then what now would be Hannover- sorry I didn't look right at first, and that is relatively close to the border)

[Hors]

Maybe they were chasing Slavs who settled the area near Utrecht/Wiltograd? :D

[The Lawspeaker]

Well.. I checked that book just for the laughs and no Slavs are being mentioned. I checked it time and again, time and again. And Jaap ter Haar also wrote books about Russia and Russians so I am surprised that if it would have been the case (and no studies here ever found evidence of it) why it hasn't been mentioned.

But one thing is sure: there were a lot of tribes marching through what is now Germany and the Netherlands.

[Äike]

That some Huns also entered the area that would now be Estonia would make sense as it would have been on their path to the West. A funny detail that I encounter here is that a Dutch history book portrays it like if the Huns also entered what is now the Netherlands. (Geschiedenis der Lage Landen by Jaap ter Haar- book 1, for insiders the "Red Book", page 144)

Which of course does not really correspond with the map that I am seeing here now, since this would show that they didn't come much then what now would be Hannover- sorry I didn't look right at first, and that is relatively close to the border)

Estonia was a bit too north for it to be on the path of the Huns. I don't know if the Huns were in The Netherlands or not, but they were quite close at some times. One of the biggest battles between the Huns and The Western Roman Empire was fought in France.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Hunnenwanderung.png/800px-Hunnenwanderung.png

[The Lawspeaker]

Thank you, so the other map only shows the extend of their Empire ?
Now interesting because they are being mentioned in the book that I am reading now.
According to your map they would have been stopped at a battle between Châlons and Troyes in France. And Hors, since you are so persistent in that claim (it's kind of interesting) I am going to see for a museum in Utrecht which may have some archaeological finds.

[Hors]

Well, Huns originate from more or less the same location as Estonians do.

[Osweo]

Estonia was a bit too north for it to be on the path of the Huns.
I would tend to agree, and would invoke the landscape and ecological needs of steppe horsemen in the argument. A bit like how I argue against those who suggest that every Russian has Tatar in him. It's no fun riding through all those bogs and forests, just for a bit of amber and squirrel fur! At most, one or two expeditions will have had a nosey around, arranged a deal with some local big man for tribute in sable once a year, and that will have been it.

[Sarmata]

It's not hard to realize why the Hungarians have some of these non-European traits.

Budapest was the capital of the Hunnic empire, enough said.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Huns_empire.png/800px-Huns_empire.png

I found similar map:

http://i39.tinypic.com/vynml1.gif

But I doubt that they reach so far to the north...however I read once about Hunnic tombs in Lubeck(North-Eastern Germany):eek:

[Skandi]

Big difference on those would be the inclusion of Denmark and Sweden.

[Äike]

Well, Huns originate from more or less the same location as Estonians do.

Actually not, the Ural Mountains theory is quite old and wrong. Just as many other theories from the 19th century, have been proved false. So is this one false.

Visit this link you wish to know more: http://www.lib.helsinki.fi/bff/399/wiik.html

[Hors]

I read it ages ago, Karl. What you post is outdated and wrong. Sorry.

[The Lawspeaker]

A very peculiar source (http://www.scripturesforamerica.com/html2/jm0098c.htm) but if it is true that it is getting interesting:


So far, I have painted NATO as evil, while the "media-god" paints the Serbs as being the evil ones. The "media-god" has never been known to tell the TRUTH, since they are an extension, in electronic form, of Pharisee witchcraft. Jesus said that they do not "know the truth, because there is no truth in them," (John 8:31-47). So it's time for us to KNOW the TRUTH about the Serbs.
Serbs are Slavs. Slavs are also called Wends. The word WEND comes from the Slavonic Voda Kin in our Saxon words "water," and "wasser," and the Lithuanian "wandu." Slavs settled during Saxon times as far west as Utrecht in The Netherlands. The town was then called Wiltaburg. Slavs are broken into three main groups with Serbs classified as southern Slavs.
Their language is part of the great Indo-European language group, and they share customs similar to Celts and Germanics.
Those of us who have studied Israel Identity know that Saxons are Semites of Israelitish stock through Isaac (Isaac-sons, Beth-sac, Sakasuni, Sachsen, Saxon). The German people are believed to be Israelites of the tribe of Gad (Gad's troops - Guttiuda - Goths). We also know that the Scythians are the offspring of the TWELVE lost tribes of ISRAEL, not TEN as most preachers teach. (Read 2 Kings 18 and you will find only a remnant in Jerusalem and two or three small cities were not taken captive by the Assyrians.)


I don't really trust the source or the story because nothing is ever being told about the Wilts or Wends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wends). The Slavic peoples which are now living furthest to the West are the Sorbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbs) (related to the Czechs ?) which are in Eastern Germany. And there something interesting struck me:


The name of the nation is probably connected with the Polish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_language) word “stepson” (Polish: pasierb) and originally meant tribesman (the one who sucked milk of the same mother). The question of kinship of Balkan Serbs and Lusatian Sorbs is not accidental. According to one of the hypotheses, in the 5th century, after leaving their proto-Slavonic homeland, common ancestors of all Serbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs) and Sorbs divided into two groups. One of the groups (the ancestors of the Serbs), known as the White Serbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Serbs), reached the Balkans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans) through the Carpathian Mountains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Mountains) under the leadership of the Unknown Archont (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_Archont), whilst the others settled in the middle part of the Elbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe) and become 'Sorbs'. The story depicted in Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos' De Administrando Imperio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Administrando_Imperio) tells that a brother of the Archont had remained in what is today Lusatia with a part of the Serb people. It is unlikely that the name Serb developed in both of these two groups separately. The name Lusatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatia) (German: Lausitz), originally meaning marshy ground probably derives from the Slavic word ług (grove, young forest), at the same time indicating that the regions surroundings were rich in forest. Sorbs call themselvs Serbs (Serbja, Serby), and Balkan Serbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs) are referred to as South Serbs. Serbs call Sorbs - Lusatian Serbs (Лужички Срби, Lužički Srbi).
Also of course a questionable source but- could these people be related to the Wends.. ?

[Äike]

I read it ages ago, Karl. What you post is outdated and wrong. Sorry.

If you don't believe me, then you could read a few books by Kalevi Wiik. I also believed the Ural theory, but after reading books by Kalevi Wiik. I came to the logical conclusion.

[Hors]

Tristan

You may check Guenther. I believe he says about Slavs reaching The Netherlands as well.

[Osweo]

A very peculiar source (http://www.scripturesforamerica.com/html2/jm0098c.htm) but if it is true that it is getting interesting:

:eek:

I had to wash my eyes after reading that filth! Don't subject us to this again!

[Hors]

If you don't believe me, then you could read a few books by Kalevi Wiik. I also believed the Ural theory, but after reading books by Kalevi Wiik. I came to the logical conclusion.

I read works of Mr. Wiik when you, perhaps, still couldn't read.

The most recent data says the origin of Finno-Ugrians and all bearers of the N haplogroup is on the other side of the Ural mountains.

[The Lawspeaker]

:eek:

I had to wash my eyes after reading that filth! Don't subject us to this again!
Me too. But it is the only place where they are being mentioned. :confused: Melis Stoke, a medieval Netherlandic writer seems to mention those Slavs or Wiltaburg. But I don't have the book and getting it will be hard.


Tristan

You may check Guenther. I believe he says about Slavs reaching The Netherlands as well.
Guenther ?

[Äike]

I read works of Mr. Wiik when you, perhaps, still couldn't read.

No need for insults that aren't true.




The most recent data says the origin of Finno-Ugrians and all bearers of the N haplogroup is on the other side of the Ural mountains.

That's your opinion and you are quite loyal to your beliefs, so I'm not going to argue with you. There is no point.

[Hors]

They suppress the truth about Slavs in the Netherlands, quite like Germans destroying excessive archeological evidence of Slavic presence on Ruegen amd elsewhere in Germany.

[Skandi]

They suppress the truth about Slavs in the Netherlands, quite like Germans destroying excessive archeological evidence of Slavic presence on Ruegen amd elsewhere in Germany.

When did they do that? was it just in the Nazi era?

[Hors]

That's your opinion and you are quite loyal to your beliefs, so I'm not going to argue with you. There is no point.

It's not my opinion. It's a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_(Y-DNA)

[The Lawspeaker]

But I wouldn't know why. Melis Stoke in the 13th century apparently wrote about it but it is never being mentioned anymore. The Dutch have no history of animosity with any Slavic nations. The Netherlands and Russia have a war history of I think 0.0 (if you count out the French and German occupations). And the same goes with the Poles, Czechs, Bulgarians, you name 'em. Only with Serbia.. and that was only once.

[Hors]

When did they do that? was it just in the Nazi era?

I was actually talking about more recent period. I've read an article about Ruegen archeology, and the author says that Slavic antiquities are neglected at the best.

Arkona, for example, disappears day by day because of the sea, and nobody is worried.

[Guapo]

The name of the nation is probably connected with the Polish word “stepson” (Polish: pasierb) and originally meant tribesman (the one who sucked milk of the same mother)


Also of course a questionable source but- could these people be related to the Wends.. ?

The word Serb could be of Sarmatian origin.As for Wend I think the Germanics called everyone "Wende" (Foreigners).the Anglo-Saxons called the Britons "Wealh".

[The Lawspeaker]

Now I find something interesting. On google I found something about the Genoechlicke ende lustige historiën (http://books.google.nl/books?id=w6fT3JviFmgC&dq=Genoechlicke+ende+lustige+histori%C3%ABn&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=x7eA-cJsi_&sig=ocj2ZGvJCjz6iSDGnqHohciHWVI&hl=nl&ei=KdmRSprKDtSE-QaFlaHyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=wiltenburg&f=false) (Laat Middeleeuwse geschiedschrijving in de Nederlanden). And guess what: on page 185 there is a small note regarding the Coronike van Frieslandt where it is supposedly mentioned that Frisians and "Wilten" allied themselves against "Brythons"- the native Britons and sailed to England together.. (This must have been around 416).
Wiltenburg is also being mentioned on 184 and another name also appears somewhere else: Vlaardingen.. or Slavenburg. For those that doesn't know, it made me sit upright as Vlaardingen is the far west of the country and in those days must have been on the North Sea.

Well- too bad for you it is all in Dutch and too bad for me it is pretty difficult stuff (and I really need to take some time to read it all). But I am going to buy this book somewhere as this is really interesting.
And I know one thing : when I was still a schoolboy they must have left a lot of interesting stuff out !:mad:

[The Lawspeaker]

Copied it and pasted it including the mistakes.


One of the most interesting people of the mountain valleys of Switzerland are the inhabitanst
of Anniviers.

The swiss history sources regarding them are inexhaustible, but their true origin never has been cleared.Their lifestyle, habits, customs, build, folkmusic, ethnological treasures are alien for the people of Wallis. Because their origin -the solution of the "mistery"- has been searched only amongst neighbouring people close or distant by the historians living in the vecinity of them,a conclusion never have been reached.

The hungarian Horváth Mihály in the magazine "Századok" (Centuries),from 1881,in the article
"Egy kis hun-kérdés több nagy között" (A little hunnic question among other greater) consider them the descents of the huns. This view he supports with the fact that this strange people consider and considered themselves the descendets of the huns. He writes about them in the followings:

"They say they are the descendents of the old huns. This little tribe lives in the Wallis canton, made up of 4-5000 souls,considering themselves too the sons of the huns and speak a peculiar language,in other ways you can hardly distinguish them from the other inhabitanst of Wallis .The majority of them have lightblue eyes or grayish green eyes,blonde or brown hair, with large
and bony forehead, with a slightly outstanding yoke-bone. They have a common nose,broad chin, proeminant shoulders and neck and they are in general low
statured.

Their language -which is on the verge of dying out due to the spread of french language and culture-is disimilar to any european language and also never have been studied thoroughly nor their customs, but what the world have learned about them supports in some way or degree what they say about themselves.

It is an extremly interesting fact that at burial they weep and shout besides the dead for hours ,and after the burial they have long and vivid feast,and for last they have a tendency for wandering.

Some of the placenames have totally hungarian sonority like .Penszék, Kuimez, Luk, Náva, Návaszék, Kalló, Barma, Feja etc.It would be a great loss if their languge would die out, before experts would have the occasion to study it in a detailed way. "

In the past they did not intermarried with the outsiders.
Anton Karl Fischer writes about them :"With the strangers they are open,friendly and hospitable and never subserviant,they are self-conscious
and free of pride." The arhitecture,insulation,cover material,the shindeling of their houses is the same one used also by the székelys (szeklers in their english name).

In their tales Kurtaczavas is a name for night spirit,also Ladonna,Follaton. Tupil is the bad spirit.
Gargantos is the giant.

The inhabitants of Annievers valley lived for a long time isolated from the people living in the neighbouring valleys,especially isolated form the
inhabitanst of Rhône valley.To this contributed to
a great extent the inaccessibility of the valley. This isolation lasted for centuries,so the people of
the valley could rely only on themselves and their isolation from the Rhône valley was total until
the 18 century. In 1834 Val d'Annivierst was hit by a natural disaster,huge floods and avalanche inundated the valley causing great damages. The self-recpecting people of the valley refused the charity saying "we are able to overcome every adversity of the fate through
our own power "

Mark Theodor Bourrit,the chorister of the cathedral from Geneva writes in 1781 how much trouble was for the bishopric of Sion the people of Eifisch-valley (Val d'Anniviers) who were pagan and stubbornly sticked to
their pagan religion when all the Wallis was christian since a very a long time.

What does the history tell us about them?

Every historical source agrees that the inhabitanst of Eifisch-valley (Val d'Anniviers) were christianed later then the other inhabitants of Rhône-valley.
Sigmund Furrer writes in Geschichte, Statistik und Urkundensammlung (Sitten) ,1881, that the Eifisch-valley was conferd as feudal tenure in XI century by one of the
ancestors of Savoya counts ,Ulrich for his bishop nephew Aimo II as reward for the christening of the valley.
The legend of conversion to christianity of the Eifisch-valley was written by Mario (Troillet) in 1889 with the title: Un vieux pays, croquis valasians.

The research ( non-hungarian ) regarding the origins of Val d'Anniviers did not succeeded ,due
to also to the fact the researchers did not know hungarian.Unfortunately their language died out,we are in the last minute, but we can reach the
past in their family names and placenames.

J. J. Rousseau born in Geneva writes about them in the XVIII century:
"The annievards are very simple,exceptionaly dilligent,the idleness is unknown for them. They are very simpatic very hospitable even if they are
very modest. They can sunnily support the greatest unjustice . They have this ability for a long time,which was developed by the obligative adaptation to their hostile sorroundings since old times "

Mark Theodor Bourrit writes in 1781 in Description des Alpes Pennines et Rhetiennes (Genéve)that "a hunnic fraction found refuge in the valley ,at the beginnings in a very primitive situation,very hardly reached the point to become a very go-ahead people "

A swiss history book written in 1786 mentions the name "Tschudi" as a member of swiss federal council . According to the author "this man is foreigner,
he could be a 'madschare' who got in the captivity of the allemans in the time of roamings, about them we know they often ravaged in those times the
abendland provincies from Hungary "

A german traveller relates this about them (this account is retelled by Toldy Schedel Ferenc in Hun maradék a helvétiai havasok -Hun remaining in swiss alpines ):
"Among the people of the fair from Sion the traveller's attention was arouse by the particular features of peasant woman who was selling besides some wares pieces of ores collected in the mountains and she did not speak neither french,nor german or italian but an alien, ununderstandable dialect. A priest,the parish priest of the nearby lying Hérémence village (probably Grimentz) told to the traveller that she is his fellow countrywoman, both had been born in Anniviers valley (in german Eifisch) . The public holds that they are of asian origin,the remainings of Attila's army who raided this region ,from the fields of Piemont they had to withdraw in the mountains,in uninhabited valley "

Horváth Mihály was the first who checked the parish registers of Vissoie village which contained the oldiest family names of the village,the earlier registers probably were distroyed by fire. This book contained the names of baptised,married ones,dead ones,of wittnesses at marrieged. He found 50 names simmilar to hungarian names between them names like Bartha, Bond (apears also in the Székely chronicler ),Rua (the name of Attila's uncle ),Kálló (apears also in the Székely chronicler)

The name of their villages(in hungarian spelling):

Penszék, Viszój, Ajer, Grimencz, Prász, Major, Külmez, Luk, Návaszék.

Penszék as they say is their oldies place ,(the szeklers name their places with -szék in the end ) it lies on the top of a mountain,fen in hungarian is up ,Fenszék in hungarian expresses well this.

Luk is a very secluded,isolated,hided village lying in a hardley accessible valley.Lyuk in hungarian means hole,this expresses well it.

The name of the mountaine ridges
Ponset; Sándolin; Tinyózsa; Ruaz; Tónó; Barnózsa,Irek, Vujbe, Bendéle, Cziruk, Czászele

The names of revulates:
Navezsencz, Gugra

The name of the pastures:

Tarampon, Labarma, Leszeitisz

Some Words:
viez=viz water
borra = boru &n bsp; sadness
feja = fejos & nbsp; milking ,in milk
vujku = kuvik & nbsp; owlet
dorbade = dorbézolás debauch

Mitological names:

Gargantoa, Tupil, Ladonna, Kurtaczavas (the hungarian csorvás), Follaton

They had the burial after feast custom which was not usual in Wallis.

The true researcher of the valley was Anton Karl Fischer,the transylvanian saxon scientis-engineer, who published in 1896 the monography:
Die Hunnen im schweizerischcen Eifischtale und ihre Nachkommen bis auf die heutige Zeit.
This is the bible of every Einfish valley researcher. Everybody uses this as source basis.

He writes about their language that they do not know the nasal voices and they pronouns the words simmilar to the hungarian ear.He writes "their language was peculiar language a dilect slighly different from hungarian". He also their tendency to use double vocals like the szeklers.


Source:

This is a partial translation of
KISZELY ISTVÁN: A SVÁJCI "HUN VÖLGY" (THE SWISS "HUNNIC VALLEY")


http://mek.oszk.hu/01500/01522/index.phtml

http://mek.oszk.hu/01500/01522/html/image879.jpg

Val d'Anniviers placenames.

http://mek.oszk.hu/01500/01522/html/image887.jpg

http://mek.oszk.hu/01500/01522/html/image889.jpg

"Accidents" does not exists, but only unknown logical necessities.
The "turn" in the research of Val d'Anniviers was signified by the test conducted by Dr. Jean-Marc Caloz the local doctor of Vissoie during which he collected blood samples from the aboriginals of the valley.
The samples were sent to Osaka for professor Hideo Matsumoto.
The blood samples testify that a part of the aboriginal people carry inner asiatic gene markers, which is not characteristic for European population, but is typical for the territories from were
the huns came,at the same time occurs in the old countries of hungarians and avars. (Gm marker research pointed out that the Gm abst and Gm afb3 gene markers occuring among Hungarians are missing among other European populations. International mitochondrial DNA research has also recently identified additional Central Asian characteristics among Hungarians). This facts only lead us to the conclusion that the ancestors of anniviards are not ancient europeans but huns or avars or they are the remains (living in Switzerland) of the conquering hungarians.



Source: some "Gerik" on a forum (http://www.allempires.net/topic7796_post142588.html)- it seems to have been posted back in 2005.

[Zyklop]

As for Wend I think the Germanics called everyone "Wende" (Foreigners).the Anglo-Saxons called the Britons "Wealh".The Germanic word for foreigner was Walha (German: welsch) and refers mostly to Celts and Romans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha

The word Wende refers to the Vistula Veneti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti).

[Jarl]

I came across this article today, I had never heard of this before, it shows you what genetic damage can be inflicted by sub races invading territories.

Mongolian spots are a scientific fact. They do exist in solution in most European countries.


The prevalence of Mongolian spots varies among different ethnic groups according to the overall depth of pigmentation. Mongolian spots are common among Asian, East Indian, and African races, but rare among Caucasian and other races. Reported incidences in representative ethnic infants are as follows:
Asian: 95-100%, East African: 90-95%, Native American: 85-90%, Hispanic: 50-70%, Caucasian: 1-10%

I think Brian might be correct:


Hungarian Genetic Relations in Asia


Aside from physiology, recent genetic research has provided clues about national origins and kinships. Within the blood group system attributed to Landsteiner, the rate of the typically Hungarian "0" and "B" blood types (31.05% and 17.90%) is off from that of Indo-European and Finno-Ugric nations, but is within the range found among Central Asian Turkic nations. Besides this, there is another blood type among Hungarians, the Diego [A+], present in no other people of Europe. The "Mongolian spot", almost unknown in Europe, has 22.6% occurrence, and Lactose intolerance (missing lactose digestive enzyme), rare elsewhere, is at 37% among Hungarians, as in Central Asia. The skin splinter system of Hungarians has Central Asian characteristic (low bend rates, but high vortices). The Gm-marker research pointed out that the Gm abst and Gm afb3 gene markers occurring among Hungarians are missing among other European populations. International Mitochondrial DNA research has also recently identified additional Central Asian characteristics among Hungarians.

Excerpts from the lecture of Professor Hideo Matsumoto on the Third Great Scythian World Congress held in Cleveland, Ohio, in May 1990.

At this stage of the study, it would be premature to conclude that the local differences in the frequency of the Mongoloid markers are associated with certain Hungarian ethnic groups. What is clear is the fact that Mongoloid genetic markers are present in Hungarians in approximately 5%. Quoting professor Bartucz:" The mongoloid elements detected in Hungarians are not homogenous, and fall into several distinct groups that are not the different mixing forms of the same Mongoloid elements, but are original racial types within the Mongoloid race." (L. Bartucz: The Hungarian Man. in: Hungarian Land, Hungarian Race. 19??. p. 428.)

The genetic composition of Hungarians shows some similarities with that of the Japanese, so a distant relationship is undeniable. The great differences should be emphasized, however, since the Mongoloid genes are present at a much higher frequency in Mongoloids and Japanese. Is a common origin possible? There are no data available on whether or not Hungarians lived in the vicinity of Japanese. Nevertheless, the contact between Hungarians and Mongoloids are preserved in the genes, although it is not known yet when and where this contact took place.

There are surnames and titles of publications given in these excerpts. Some of this info is not entirely made up. As for the source of information on the Mongolian spots among Hungarians:

http://hargita.awardspace.com/genek/genetien.html

It seems to be some amateur home-made website. I am wondering where does the figure 22.6% come from? It does not look like a random, made-up number.



That some Huns also entered the area that would now be Estonia would make sense as it would have been on their path to the West. A funny detail that I encounter here is that a Dutch history book portrays it like if the Huns also entered what is now the Netherlands. (Geschiedenis der Lage Landen by Jaap ter Haar- book 1, for insiders the "Red Book", page 144)

Which of course does not really correspond with the map that I am seeing here now, since this would show that they didn't come much then what now would be Hannover- sorry I didn't look right at first, and that is relatively close to the border)

The maps of the Hunnic Empire are only hypothetical. There is evidence for very some limited Hunnic presence North of the Carpathians. Probably, at its peak during Attila's reign, Huns controlled most of Germania and Sarmatia, taking tribute from the locals. However, there is no evidence for any larger permanent settlements. I seriously doubt they reached as far as Jutland and Scandinavia (or generally as far as the shores of Baltic), or crossed the forest boundary, beyond which lived the Baltic tribes.

[Jarl]

If we look at it. There are some recent migrants still present:

- 800, 000 Turks in Bulgaria

- 44, 000 Turks in Romania

- 350, 000 Tatars in Ukraine

But there are also some survivors from the past too:

- 178 000 Gagauz in Moldova, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine, they are probably living remnants of several waves of Turkic invaders - mainly Bulgars, but also the Pechengs (Oghuz) and Kipchaks (Cumans), still speaking an archaic language of the Oghuz branch of the Turkic languages.

Someone here pointed to a possible Turkic-Hungarian link in form of Szekely people:


Attila's brother Bleda is called Buda in modern Hungarian. The city of Buda has been said to derive its name from him. Until the early 20th century, many Hungarian historians believed that the Székely people were the descendants of the Huns, but that is no longer the scholarly consensus.

The Székely (Hungarian pronunciation: [ˈseːkɛj]) or Szekler people (Hungarian: Székely, Romanian: Secui, German: Szekler, Latin: Siculi), are a Hungarian-speaking ethnic group. They are an ethnic subgroup of the Hungarian nation.[1] It is now generally accepted that they are true Hungarians, or Magyars[2], transplanted there to guard the frontier, their name meaning simply “frontier guards.”[2] Their organization was of the Turkic type, and they are probably of Turkic (possibly Avar) stock.[3] By the 11th century they had adopted the Hungarian language.[3]

[EWtt]

The most recent data says the origin of Finno-Ugrians and all bearers of the N haplogroup is on the other side of the Ural mountains.

So what? :coffee:

That's the supposed geographic origin of the haplogroup, but what exactly has it to do with any racial considerations? Finno-Ugrics were in Northeastern Europe thousands of years before any Huns. You'll find that these haplogroup N carriers in Northeastern Europe are mostly tall, fair-haired and light-eyed Europids.

The Kyrgyz have 63% incidence of haplogroup R1a:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Kyrgyz_Manaschi%2C_Karakol.jpg

Using your logic, that should make all R1a carriers Asiatic.

Don't brag about something you don't seem to have the slightest clue about, all you are doing is exclaiming your limited capacity of comprehension on this subject.

[Jarl]

Hungarians coming from the Volga basin in the early Medieval Ages, were people who often came into contact with the Turkics. They were part of the Gokturk Empire (Khazar khaganate). Apparently Bashkirs and Hungarians used to be Ugric, however, the former were assimilated by the Turkics:


Meanwhile, the descendants of those Magyars who stayed in Bashkiria remained there as late as 1241. As a consequence, earlier scholarship considered the Magyars and the Bashkirs as two branches of the same nation[citation needed]. The earlier Bashkirs, however, were decimated during the Mongol invasion of Europe (thirteenth century) and assimilated into Turkic peoples[citation needed].

In fact these close Magyar-Turkic relations are reflected in linguistics:


Both the Kabars and earlier the Bulgars may have taught the Magyars their Turkic languages; according to the Finno-Ugric theory[citation needed], this is used to account for at least three hundred Turkic words and names still in modern Hungarian.

By the time they reached Pannonia, it must have been a predominantly Slavic country, with the remnants of Turkic Avars heavily slavicised. Along with the Magyars, their close allies - the Turkic Kabars, also settled in Transylvania and gradually underwent magyarisation:


The Kabars joined the proto-Magyar migration from the steppes of the Ukraine to the Danubian Steppes of modern Hungary, assisting the Magyars in conquering Pannonia. Many Kabars settled in the Bihar region of the later Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania. Some historian believe that the character recorded by Gesta Hungarorum as lord Marot and his grandson Menumorut, dux of Biharia, were of Kabar descent[citation needed]. One of the names on the Kievian Letter is "Kiabar", which may suggest that Kabars settled in Kiev as well. At least some Kabars were Jewish; others may have been Christians, Muslims or shamanists.[5]

The Kabars eventually assimilated into the general Magyar population, leaving scattered remains and some cultural and linguistic imprints. Some scholars[citation needed] believe that the Székely are their descendants.

I guess the final outcome roughly reflects the ratio of founding populations. In Ukraine, the remaining Turkic nomads were most likely assimilated by the Ruthenians. In Bulgaria, the Turkic Bulgars, were overcome by the Slavs, even though they constituted the elites. While in Hungary it was the opposite. The Hungarians assimilated both Slavs as well as Avars and Kabars.

[Jarl]

The Kyrgyz have 63% incidence of haplogroup R1a: Using your logic, that should make all R1a carriers Asiatic.

One must be very careful with these studies. The Kyrgyz R1a frequency is based on a single study by Wells et al. (2001) using a sample of 52 Kyrgyz. In contrast, frequencies for the Poles or Russians are based on many studies of over 1000 individuals.The sample size is crucial, as well as the source. Let me point to the fact that:

- a study Semino et al. (2000) conducted on 45 Hungarians (a little bit less than the Kyrgyz) found 60% of R1a

- a more recent study by Tambets et al. (2004) conducted on 113 Hungarians found 20.3% R1a

... the discrepancy is ridiculous.

[Loki]

The Kyrgyz have 63% incidence of haplogroup R1a:


It's probably the other 37% which makes the phenotypical difference. And, not all Kyrgyz look Mongoloid either.

[EWtt]

It's probably the other 37% which makes the phenotypical difference. And, not all Kyrgyz look Mongoloid either.

I understand that, and that's exactly the reason why I used this sort of comparison on Hors' theories.

[Jarl]

Turkic nomads were also assimilated by Ruthenians - Ukrainians and Russians. Some elements of dressing, warfare and even hairstyle (like that of Cossacks) were a result of these contacts. A piece by Alexander Borodin from the "Kniaź Igor" opear, named "Polowieckie (Cuman/Kipchak) dances"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmptWExyKEw

The opera tells the story of a battle between Kipchaks and Igor Swiatosławowicz, prince of Seversk (one of principalities of Rus), which took place in 1185. Cumans/Kipchaks sacked Kiev in 1203. The field of Igor Svyatoslavich's battle with the Kypchaks by Viktor Vasnetsov:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Igorsvyat.jpg

Later Cumans and Ruthenians allied facing the common enemy - Mongols. After joint Cuman-Rus forces were defeated by the invading Mongol armies, most Cumans fled to Hungary:


Like most other peoples of medieval Eastern Europe, they put up resistance against the relentlessly advancing Mongols, but they were finally crushed in 1238, when a Cuman and Russian army was defeated near Astrakhan. Previously, in 1229, they had asked for asylum from king Béla IV of Hungary, who in 1238 finally offered refuge to the remainder of the Cuman people under their leader Kuthen (Hungarians spelled his name Kötöny). Kuthen in turn vowed to convert his 40,000 families to Christianity. King Béla hoped to use the new subjects as auxiliary troops against the Mongols, who were already threatening Hungary. The king assigned various parts of central Hungary to the Cuman tribes. A tense situation erupted when Mongol troops burst into Hungary. The Hungarians, frustrated by their own helplessness, took revenge on the Cumans, whom they accused of being Mongol spies. After a bloody fight the Hungarians killed Kuthen and his bodygards, and the remaining Cumans fled to the Balkans. After the Mongol invasion Béla IV of Hungary recalled the Cumans to Hungary to populate settlements devastated by war. The nomads subsequently settled throughout the Great Hungarian Plain. Throughout the following centuries the Cumans in Hungary were granted various rights, the extent of which depended on the prevailing political situation. Some of these rights survived until the end of the 19th century, although the Cumans had long since assimilated with Hungarians.

Some Cumans settled in Romania, in Moldavia and Vallachia, while others, in Ukraine, were absorbed by the Mongols/Tatars:


The Cumans who remained east and south of the Carpathian Mountains established a country named Cumania, in an area consisting of Moldavia and Walachia. The Hungarian kings claimed supremacy on the territory of Cumania, among the nine titles of the Hungarian kings of the Árpád and Anjou dynasties were rex Cumaniae.

The Cuman influence in the region of Wallachia and Moldavia was so strong that the earliest Wallachian rulers bore Cuman names (Tihomir and Bassarab I). In lack of convincing archaeological evidence of a Cuman civilisation, however, it is most possible that the Cumans did not constitute the majority of local population, but they made up the ruling elite in Wallachia. As in case of Bulgaria, this ruling elite was gradually assimilated by the majority population they governed, which became Romanian.

Basarab I, son of the Wallachian prince Tihomir of Wallachia obtained independence from Hungary at the beginning of the 14th century. The name Basarab is considered as being of Cuman origin, meaning "Father King". It is generally believed that the Bulgarian mediaеval dynasties Asen, Shishman and Terter had at least some Cuman roots.


It is worth to remember that there was succession of Turkic tribes in the Pannonian plain. Before the decline of the Cumans/Kipchaks, Hungarians also assimilated the remnants of Pechengs.


Pechenegs were slain or absorbed. They were again defeated by the Byzantines at the Battle of Beroia in 1122, on the territory of modern day Bulgaria. For some time, significant communities of Pechenegs still remained in Hungary, but finally the Pechenegs ceased to be a distinct people and were assimilated into their neighbours—Bulgarians, Magyars and Gagauz. In the 15th century Hungary some people adopted the surname Besenyö, which is Hungarian for Pecheneg. They were most numerous in county Tolna. Abu Hamid al Garnathi in the late 12th century referred to Hungarian Pechenegs who were probably Muslims living disguised as Christians. Others survived within the ranks of the pastoral nomadic tribes of the Balkan Highlands as Yörüks, eventually adopting Islam.[citation needed]

Rus borrowed the excellent blacksmithing skills from the steppe nomads and was known for production of quality swords in early Medieval Ages.


Kipchaks (Cumans, Polowcy) and Pechengs (Oghuz):

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/9250/w2x9tbj5hn6.jpg

http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/invaziile/turanicii/cuman_01.jpg

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/9742/pecenegii01yn1.jpg

Pechengs ruled the Black Sea and Danube steppes from IX till the end of XI century:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Khazarfall1.png

...and were subsequently defeated and replaced by the Kipchaks/Cumans who would control most of these territories until mid XIII century when they were defeated by the Mongols. Kipchak Chanate (covered roughly the same territory as that of the Pechengs, but extended more towards the East and Caspian Sea):

http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt319/janklo-vandam/forum/PremongolEurasia.png

Turkic people assimilated very easily in Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine alike. Today the only last remaining Turkic-speakers (apart from Turks) are the Gagauz people, once inhabiting Bulgaria, and after XIX century mostly restricted to Moldavia.

[Tabiti]

Turkic nowadays is used mostly in linguistic, not anthropological way. Many Eurasian steppe nations (including Bulgarians, and even Scythians by some) have been wrongly labeled with "turkic" since years, because their later influences on Central Asiatic people. In fact today real "turks" live in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, parts of Russia, China and Mongolia.
Tatars were one of the Mongolian tribes, formed in 5th century and almost completely exterminated by Chengiz Khan in 12th century. That, what reached Europe like "Tatars" with the Golden Horde were various Asiatic tribes. Even today, there is no such thing like "pure" Tatars. Volga Tatars, for example are that what left from Volga Bulgarians after the Mongolian invasion in 13th century, being "tatarized" mainly by communists, not to pretend for independence. Crimean Tatars are completely different, for example, even in anthropological view (Volga ones are mostly Europeids of Pontid type).
Establishing Danubian Bulgaria, Bulgarians weren't outnumbered by any nation, since the middle Balkans were almost a deserted after the numerous Goth invasions (if we don't count possible survivors from the numerous IE Balkanic tribes, many of them counted as "slavs"). In fact, the first Bulgarian settlements in the area around Danube started in 4th century. Most were in service of the Byzantium empire to guard the lands against Goths. In old Byzantium chronicles, Bulgarians were often called Scythians. Seems they didn't make much difference between the numerous Eurasian steppe nations.
That what is called "Church Slavonic" and Cyrillic writing was used by the Byzantium empire mainly for spreading the christianity and has little to do with the origin and ethnic composition of the Bulgarians, but their orthodox faith in 7-8 th century.
Today, it's impossible to tell what was the original Bulgarian language, but recently it came out the Iranic words were majority, not the so claimed "turkic" ones. The anthropological type was Europeid. Today, there is a lack of any Central Asiatic haplogroups here, proving again the wide spread, official Iranic theory today.
The story about Gagauz people seems to be complicated, since there are no cultural, linguistic, religious, anthropological differences between the so called Gagauz and local people here.

In few words, you have a Hunnish moderator, since I've never claimed any Slavic ancestry (only linguistic):D

[Jarl]

In case of ethnogenesis I only follow the current consensus:


Bulgars were a seminomadic people, probably of Turkic descent originally from Central Asia, who during the 2nd century migrated into the North Caucasian steppe.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] Between 377 and 453 they took part in the Hunnic raids on Central and Western Europe. Anthropological data collected from early Bulgar necropolises from Dobrudja, Crimea and the Ukrainian steppe shows that Bulgars were a high-statured Caucasoid people with a small Mongoloid admixture, and practiced artificial cranial deformation of the round type.[64][65][66][67][68][69] After Attila's death in 453, and the subsequent disintegration of the Hunnic Empire, the Bulgar tribes dispersed mostly to the eastern and southeastern parts of Europe. In the late 7th century, some Bulgar tribes, led by Asparukh and others, led by Kouber, permanently settled in the Balkans, and formed the ruling classe of First Bulgarian Empire in 680-681. It is possible that only a cultural and low genetic Bulgar influence was brought into the region, without modifying the genetic background of the local population.[70] The minor portions of Asian genes present within some modern Bulgarians, were likely introduced from the Bulgars and other steppe's peoples who also contributed to the Bulgarian ethnogenesis, as numbers of Kumans, Pechenegs and Avars, which is indicated through the limited presence of some rare alleles and haplotypes.[71][72]

Some Asian genes do exist among Bulgarians. The exact character and origin of Bulgarians remains disputable. However, most sources seem to indicate a Turkic origin:


The Bulgars (also Bolgars, Bulghars, Huno-Bulgars[1] or Proto-Bulgarians) were originally semi-nomadic people, probably of Turkic descent, originating in Central Asia,[2] who from the 2nd century onwards settled in different parts of Europe. In the 7th century the Bulgars established the states of Great Bulgaria, Volga Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian Empire in three separate locations of the continent. The Bulgar language spoken by the Bulgar elites was a member of the Oghuric branch of the Turkic language family, alongside with Hunnic, Khazar and Turkic Avar.[2] They used a script known as the Kuban alphabet,[citation needed] a member of the family of the Old Turkic script.

The Bulgar language was, alongside Khazar and Chuvash, a member of the Oghuric branch of the Turkic language family.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] It is supported, among other things, by the facts that some Bulgar words contained in the few surviving stone inscriptions[23] and in other documents (mainly military and hierarchical terms such as tarkan, bagatur, and probably kan (khan) and kanartikin - "prince") appear to be of Bulgar origin, that the Bulgars apparently used a 12-year cyclic Bulgar calendar similar to the one adopted by Bulchar and Mongolian peoples from the Chinese, with names and numbers that are deciphered as Turkic, and that the Bulgars' supreme god was apparently called Tangra, a deity widely known among the Turkic peoples under names such as Tengri, Tura etc.[24] Some also point out the presence of a small number of Bulchar loanwords in the Slavic Old Bulgarian language, and the fact that the Bulgars used an alphabet similar to the Bulchar Orkhon script, although this alphabet has not been satisfactorily deciphered yet: fortunately, the Bulgar inscriptions were sometimes written in Greek or Cyrillic characters, most commonly in Greek, thus allowing the scholars to identify some of the Bulgar glosses. Supposedly, the name Bulgar is derived from the Turkic verb bulģa "to mix, shake, stir"[25] and its derivative bulgak "revolt, disorder",[26] transliterated most commonly as the "rebels".[27]

This seems like a pretty strong and credible evidence in favour of the Turkic origin of Bulgarians. I could not find many sources in favour of Iranian origin. Archeology seems to support the Turkic hypothesis too:


"Further evidence culturally linking the Danubian steppe traditions was the layout of the Bulgars' new capital of Pliska, founded just north of the Balkan Mountains shortly after 681. The large area enclosed by ramparts, with the rulers' habitations and assorted utility structures concentrated in the center, resembled more a steppe winter encampment turned into a permanent settlement than it did a typical Roman Balkan city."[28]

More info here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars#Language_and_culture

As for the Slavic contribution to ethnogenesis, it had to considerable too:


The Slavs emerged from their original homeland (most commonly thought to have been in Eastern Europe) in the early 6th century, and spread to most of the eastern Central Europe, Eastern Europe and the Balkans, thus forming three main branches - the West Slavs, the East Slavs and the South Slavs. The easternmost South Slavs became part of the ancestors of the modern Bulgarians, which however, are genetically clearly separated from the tight DNA cluster of the most Slavic peoples. This phenomenon is explained by “the genetic contribution of the people who lived in the region before the Slavic expansion” [45]. A portion of the eastern South Slavs assimilated the Thracians before being themselves incorporated by the Bulgar elites into the First Bulgarian Empire.[10] The frequency of the proposed Slavic Haplogroup R1a1 ranges to 14.7% in Bulgaria.

This source clearly points to the fact that by Medieval Ages Bulgarians were mainly Slavic, with nomadic Bulgar elites. Here some info on the Firsth Bulgar Empire:


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

Background

During the time of the late Roman Empire, the lands of present-day Bulgaria had been organised in several provinces - Scythia Minor, Moesia (Upper and Lower), Thrace, Macedonia (First and Second), Dacia (north of the Danube), Dardania, Rhodope and Hemimont, and had a mixed population of Romanised Getae and Hellenised Thracians. Several consecutive waves of Slavic migration throughout the 6th and the early 7th century led to the almost complete slavicisation of the region, at least linguistically.

(...)

After the decisive victory at Ongala in 680 the armies of the Bulgars and Slavs advanced to the south of the Balkan mountains, defeating again the Byzantines who were then forced to sign a humiliating peace treaty which acknowledged the establishment of a new state on the borders of the Empire. They were also to pay an annual tribute to Bulgaria. In the same time the war with the Khazars to the east continued and in 700 Asparough perished in battle with them. The Bulgars lost the territories to the east of the Dnester river but managed to hold the lands to the west. The Bulgars and the Slavs signed a treaty according to which the head of the state became the Khan of the Bulgars who had also the obligation to defend the country against the Byzantine, while the Slavic leaders gained considerable autonomy and had to protect the northern borders along the Carpathian mountains against the Avars.[4]


Establishing Danubian Bulgaria, Bulgarians weren't outnumbered by any nation, since the middle Balkans were almost a deserted after the numerous Goth invasions (if we don't count possible survivors from the numerous IE Balkanic tribes, many of them counted as "slavs"). In fact, the first Bulgarian settlements in the area around Danube started in 4th century. Most were in service of the Byzantium empire to guard the lands against Goths. In old Byzantium chronicles, Bulgarians were often called Scythians. Seems they didn't make much difference between the numerous Eurasian steppe nations.

As fot the exact ratio. Noone will ever know, yet the indigenous probably constituted the majority:


It is assumed that the Bulgars were greatly outnumbered by the Slav population among whom they had settled. Between the 7th and the 10th centuries, the Bulgars were gradually absorbed by the Slavs, adopting a Bulgaro-South Slav language[16] and converting to Christianity (of the Byzantine rite) under Boris I in 864. At that time the process of absorption of the remnants of the old Romanised Thracian population from south of the Danube had already been significant in the formation of this new ethnic group. Modern Bulgarians are normally considered to be of Southern Slavic origin, even though the Slavs were only one of the peoples that took part in the formation of their ethnicity.

Some recent studies suggest that the Bulgars were much more numerous than originally thought. This theory is getting more support amongst new Bulgarian historians.

The Old Church Slavonic was created precisely for the purpose of conversion, because majority of population spoke a Slvonic tongue:


Creation of the Slavic Writing System

Although the Bulgarian Knyaz succeeded in securing an autonomous Church, its higher clergy and theological books were still Greek which impeded the efforts to convert the populace to the new religion. Between 860 and 863 the Byzantine monks of Greek origin[21] Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius created the Glagolitic alphabet, the first Slavic alphabet by order of the Byzantine Emperor, who aimed to convert Great Moravia to Orthodox Christianity. However these attempts failed and in 886 their disciples Clement of Ohrid, Naum of Preslav and Angelarius, who were banished from Great Moravia, reached Bulgaria and were warmly welcomed by Boris I. The Bulgarian Knyaz commissioned the creation of two theological academies to be headed by the disciples where the future Bulgarian clergy was to be instructed in the local vernacular. Clement was sent to Ohrid[22] in southwestern Bulgaria where he taught 3,500 pupils between 886 and 893. Naum established the literary school in the capital Pliska, moved later to the new capital Preslav. In 893, Bulgaria adopted the Glagolitic alphabet and Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) language as official language of the church and state and expelled the Byzantine clergy. In the early 10th century the Cyrillic alphabet was created at the Preslav Literary School.


There is no mention of desolated, uninhabited Moesia/Thrace. Before the Bulgars arrived, having seceded from the Chazar Khaganate, these lands were invaded and populated by Slavs (in VI century) who reached as far as Greece (once the Ostrogoths and Lombards departed for Italy). Im assuming the Bulgars were not as numerous in compariosn to locals, as the Hungarians. Otherwise Bulgaria would not be the place where the firs Slavic alphabet was invented and put to use.

[Hweinlant]

You'll find that these haplogroup N carriers in Northeastern Europe are mostly tall, fair-haired and light-eyed Europids.


There is hardly any HG N anywhere, least in Europe. These HG N-theories ala Horos are sheer nonsense and intellectual dishonesties. Typical Euro-N is N1c*. Strangely originating place of the oldest ancestral clade, N , is so highlighted. Same time these people often celebrate "aryan" R1a. Where did the oldest ancestral clade R originate ? In Asia. HG N is not HG N1c (TAT-C), just like HG R is not HG R1a. Originating place of HG N (perhaps 20.000 years ago) has nothing to do with contemporary carriers of HG N1c*.

[Guapo]

In few words, you have a Hunnish moderator, since I've never claimed any Slavic ancestry (only linguistic):D

So who slavicized the Bulgars?

Edit:I read somewhere ages ago that the Bulgars were part of the Hunnic tribes allied with Attila.

[Hweinlant]

:I read somewhere ages ago that the Bulgars were part of the Hunnic tribes allied with Attila.

Volga Bolgaria was established few hundred years after the times of the Huns, around 700AD. Bolgars themselves prolly came somewhere from Central Asia, Their connection with the Huns is pretty dubious. Modern Russian Tatars and Chuvasses consider themselves as Volga Bolgar offspring, enriched by the Mongol master race.

West from the Volga Bolgaria was Khazaria, Jewish Empire of east Europe. They propably did harbour some serious Hunnish genes. South Russia / Ukraine would be obvious place for those genes.

http://azerbaijanhistory.net/images/maps/Khazaria1.jpg

[Jarl]

So who slavicized the Bulgars?

Edit:I read somewhere ages ago that the Bulgars were part of the Hunnic tribes allied with Attila.

Slavs. Most likely the Sklaveni. In VIth century they flooded the whole Danube valley, crossed the river and invaded Illyricum, Moesia, Thrace and Greece.


Volga Bolgaria was established few hundred years after the times of the Huns, around 700AD. Bolgars themselves prolly came somewhere from Central Asia, Their connection with the Huns is pretty dubious. Modern Russian Tatars and Chuvasses consider themselves as Volga Bolgar offspring, enriched by the Mongol master race.

West from the Volga Bolgaria was Khazaria, Jewish Empire of east Europe. They propably did harbour some serious Hunnish genes. South Russia / Ukraine would be obvious place for those genes.

Bulgars appear on the scene along with several Turkic peoples. The Chazar Khaganate was a an off-shoot of the Gokturk Empire which covered whole of Central Asia. Yet they first entered Europe along with the Huns, apparently:


In the early 2nd century, some groups of Bulgars migrated from Central Asia to the European continent and settled on the plains between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea. The Bulgars appear (under the ethnonym of ‘Bulensii’) in certain Latin versions of Ptolemy’s second century AD mapping, shown as occupying the territory along the northwest coast of Black Sea east of Axiacus River (Southern Bug).[42][43][44]

Between 351 and 389, some of the Bulgars crossed the Caucasus to settle in Armenia. Toponymic data testify to the fact that they remained there and were eventually assimilated by the Armenians.

Swept by the Hunnish wave at the beginning of the 4th century, other Bulgar tribes broke loose from their settlements in Central Asia to migrate to the fertile lands along the lower valleys of the rivers Donets and Don and the Azov seashore, assimilating what was left of the Sarmatians. Some of these remained for centuries in their new settlements, whereas others moved on with the Huns towards Central Europe, settling in Pannonia.

Those Bulgars took part in the Hun raids on Central and Western Europe between 377 and 453. After the death of Attila in 453, and the subsequent disintegration of the Hunnish empire, the Bulgar tribes dispersed mostly to the eastern and southeastern parts of Europe.

At the end of the 5th century (probably in the years 480, 486, and 488) they fought against the Ostrogoths as allies of the Byzantine emperor Zeno. From 493 they carried out frequent attacks on the western territories of the Byzantine Empire. Later raids were carried out at the end of the 5th century and the beginning of the 6th century.

In the middle of the 6th century, war broke out between the two main Bulgar tribes, the Kutrigur and Utigur. To the west, the Kutrigurs fell under Avar dominion and became influential within the Khaganate. The eastern Utigurs fell under the western Göktürk empire in 568.

Though Im not certain if thats supported by the sources. The first well-documented historical presence of Bulgars was during Kubrat's reign and establishment of Greater Blugaria:

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

Bulgars were overcome by the Chazars and had to depart from the steppes.

[Erik]

But I cannot believe that the Slavic tribe of Wilts reached the Netherlands and
founded Wiltenburg in Utrecht. Nonsense. There is no prove!

And that Guenther wrote that in the north of Netherlands there also are so-called
East Baltic typoes is nonsense too. He confused the East Baltics with the Falish/Cro-
Magnons types who are very frequent in the north of the Netherlands.

[Jarl]

But I cannot believe that the Slavic tribe of Wilts reached the Netherlands and
founded Wiltenburg in Utrecht. Nonsense. There is no prove!

And that Guenther wrote that in the north of Netherlands there also are so-called
East Baltic typoes is nonsense too. He confused the East Baltics with the Falish/Cro-
Magnons types who are very frequent in the north of the Netherlands.

Nah. Slavic settlements did not cross Limes Saxonicus in the North, and only in one place crossed the Elbe (Wendland). However, Slavic raids into Saxon territories were frequent.

[Svipdag]

Wherever in this thread the Huns have been mentioned, they are treated as if they were an ethnically and racially homogeneous people. Way back when, I learned that there were three types of Huns, the White, or Hephthalite Huns, the Black Huns, and the Red Huns. What kind of Huns are we talking about in this thread ?

[Majar]

I came across this article today, I had never heard of this before, it shows you what genetic damage can be inflicted by sub races invading territories.

Kiss my blue, spotty butt.

[Vlad The Impaler]

Huns are cool.

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx70/MurderMaterial/huns.jpg

[Guapo]

the Black Huns,

"Black Huns" simply meant that they were not Christians at the time. Black=demonic :eek:White= good christians :p

[Pallantides]

The Huns were one of few people alongside the Moors that the Norse feared and sort of respected, there are even legends and folktales about Huns settling in Norway.(guess the presence of Q in Norway gives some strength to the myth.)


Wherever in this thread the Huns have been mentioned, they are treated as if they were an ethnically and racially homogeneous people. Way back when, I learned that there were three types of Huns, the White, or Hephthalite Huns, the Black Huns, and the Red Huns. What kind of Huns are we talking about in this thread ?

Black Huns were Indo-European and White Huns were Asiatic atleast according to this Norwegian wiki article about the Huns.
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunere

Kinesiske skribenter delte hunerne inn i sorte hunere (europeiske) og hvite hunere (asiatiske).

translation: Chinese Scribes seperated the huns into black huns(Europeans) and white huns(asiatic)

[Vlad The Impaler]

Huns were not of fully Mongoloid stock. They were all a mixed bunch consisting of the original Altaic people from north-west China, who started the original migration west-ward, and then later on the subjegated Indo-European people living in the steppes were absorbed into the Hunnish confederation. The Huns were like a tumor, expanding in size as they absorbed subdued people from their frontiers. Ultimatley, the last people who were assimilated into the Hunnish ranks were the 'barbarians' who did not flee when the Huns arrived in Europe. The Ostrogoths, Gepids, Rugians, Scirii, Thuringians, Scythians, Bastarnae, Taifals, Alamanni all became Hunnish subjects.

I would say the Huns were of a Turanid phenotype.

[Ibericus]

The Huns and Mongols (not the same) had a pretty minor impact on the European population because they arrived late, when Europe's population was already well established in cities and towns. The Mongols had a much bigger impact on Central Asia (especially Kazakhstan, were Mongols now constitute over half of the population), northern Iran and Afghanistan (e.g. Hazara people).

[Osweo]

Huns were not of fully Mongoloid stock. They were all a mixed bunch consisting of the original Altaic people from north-west China, who started the original migration west-ward, and then later on the subjegated Indo-European people living in the steppes were absorbed into the Hunnish confederation.
Gumilev, the Russian historian, linguist, archaeologist and theorist, held that the Ugrian element that the Huns absorbed en route from the Mongol Steppe to Central Europe was the defining ethnic ingredient that differentiated Attila's horde from the people of similar name that had been the 'significant other' to the Han Empire.

Even when Attila's (male line?) ancestors had interacted with the Han, Chinese authors remarked upon their racial distinction from the 'black headed ones' of the Middle Kingdom, especially commenting on their aquiline noses.

[poiuytrewq0987]

However, it has been found to be prominent among Europeans that have had extensive interaction with Hun cultures, most notably Hungarians who have a 22.6% occurrence rate among their population.That is interesting, it tells how significant the influence was on Magyarized populations in Pannonia. It seems like 20% of Magyars in Hungary carry significant traces of original Magyar/Mongolian influenced blood.

[poiuytrewq0987]

That is interesting, it tells how significant the influence was on Magyarized populations in Pannonia. It seems like 20% of Magyars in Hungary carry significant traces of original Magyar/Mongolian influenced blood.

bump