Posted on 03/31/2004 7:24:50 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster
Local scholars in Korea lean toward Xiongnu(Hun?) as a likely candidate who showed up in S.E. Korea and left these artifacts in their tombs. They employed the same burial method as Xiongnu's found in N.W. China.
There's been some recent debate over delineating what's "Celt" vs. what's "Scythian", discussed here:
Peter S. Wells, Beyond Celts, Germans, and Scythians: Archaeology and Identity in Iron Age Europe
For myself, I try to base my usage of these terms on how they were originally used by classical authors (what I'll call the linguistic definition of the Celts and Scythians), and to interpret archaeological finds (what I'll call the archaeological definition) in relation to that usage. Linguistically speaking, Herodotus introduced subsequent authors to the names "Celt" (History 2.33: "For the river Ister begins in Celtic country and the city of Pyrene cleaves Europe in two. The Celts dwell beyond the Pillars of Heracles, and they have common borders with the Cynesii, who live furthest of all people that inhabit Europe toward the west") and "Scythian" (History 1.15, etc.--see esp. the beginning of Book 4 where Herodotous discusses various ideas about Scythian origins). Since Herodotus other references to the Scythians have been found in Assyrian writings. My approach to defining the Scythians is to start with linguistic definitions based on the descriptions of Herodotus and the Assyrians, and to identify cultural characteristics and generate archaeological definitions on that basis. I take a similar approach to defining the Celts, starting from the descriptions of Herodotus, Caesar, Livy, etc. Applying this approach tends to define the Celts and Scythians as distinct groups living in distinct geographic areas during specific time periods as described by Herodotus and others.
A different approach is to define these groups by proceeding from archaeological data--so for instance, defining the Celts in terms of archaeological interpretations of finds at Halstatt and La Tene. This approach tends to define the Celts and Scythians less distinctly (cf. for example Celts and Scythians Linked by Archaeological Discoveries).
Based on the above considerations, I think it may be helpful in this type of discussion to distinguish between the Celts and Scythians as linguistically-defined groups and as archaeologically-defined groups, and when using the archaeological definition, to distinguish common ancestors/descendants of these groups from the groups themselves as defined by the archaeological sites/strata they are associated with. The term "proto-Celt" I believe blam used in one post is useful here. We might also speak of "proto-Scythians", as well as descendants of the Celts and/or Scythians--I don't know what we'd call those; I don't like "post-Celts" or "post-Scythians", but something that expresses that idea, maybe.
I think that's a hypothesis worth exploring. It'd be interesting to compare the finds from this site with Scythian sites in Iran, Russia, and Kushan-dynasty India. The Scythians conquered India in 120 AD, which would be only a short period before the 3rd-century AD Scythian migration mentioned in the article.
Great. Victor H. Mair converted me.
You've probably seen me make this comment previously on other threads, "I would be the least suprised if the first emperor of China is a tall, red-headed guy." (The Chinese will not allow anyone to open his tomb)...and, they conviscated Victor Mair's DNA samples of/from the mummies.
A couple of 'zingers' for you:
1. Are these Caucasian people in the Tarim Basin refugees from the Black Sea flood in 5600BC?
2. Did some of the migrating Xiongnu migrate to Scotland and are known today as the Picts?
The Huns were traced to a nomadic tribe in Central Europe (the Steppes near the Black Sea). It is still uncertain whether the Huns in Europe were the same as Xiongnu (which sometimes are also called Huns) [see Encyc. Britannica].
Huns in Europe appeared around 370 AD, while the presence of Xiongnu was felt in China during Qin dynasty (221 BC). The result of conflict between Han dyasty and Xiongnu was a division of Xiongnu. Part of the Xiongnu tribe was "sinicized" (Hanized?), as recorded in history about Wang2 Zhao1 Jun1 and Han Wudi. The others were driven away. It is not surprising that after several hundred years, they actually showed up in Europe.
Hungary, which obviously is derived from the word "Hun", has a language of Uralic origin. It is quite certain that Hungary had heavy influence by the Huns. Interestingly, a Hungarian friend told me that Hungarians put their family first when they address people, which is distinctly different from other European culture, but similar to Chinese culture. Whether this is the influence of the original Huns or the Mongolian occupation later in 1200 AD is uncertain.
Huns are significantly different from Hakka in their cultural behavior. Although both Huns and Hakkas are migratory, Huns never settled in one place. They kept moving, conquering and moving. Huns mainly made their living by snatching from the conquered while Hakkas are agriculturally based and self-sufficient. Huns were illiterate and had no idea about civilization and knowledge preservation, while Hakkas have a tradition of strong emphasis on education and intellectualism. These two cultures are totally dissimilar and incompatible. Huns finally disappaered and was integrated with Europeans without a trace of their original "culture". Xiongnu in China also intermarried Han people. During the downfall of West Jin dynasty, the Han people cross the yangtze River and settled in southern China, bringing with them some Xiongnu soldiers and servants. While Xiongnu descendents established "Han" Kingdom in the north, gradually became sinicized. Han Kingdom was destroyed by Zhao kingdom (Jie2 ethnic group), which was in turn destroyed by Han people again.
If Hakka were actually sinicized "non-Han", then Hakka migration from north to south would not be "fleeing" the "northern foreign invasion" to "preserve" their own culture. Intead, Hakkas would have to be the actual "invaders" from the north trying to spread their own culture to the south. However, how a non-Han minority could preserve the Han culture better than the true Han people would be very difficult to explain. And it would be even more difficult to explain why the poems in Shijing (The Book of Poems) popular in the Chunqiu-Zhanguo period (pre-Qin) rhymes better with Hakka than Mandarin. Xiongnu although had attempted invasion of the northern kingdoms during the Chunqiu-Zhanguo period, they could hardly have had major settlement in "China" prior to Han dynasty.
The "theory" on Hun origin of Hakka was based on very fragmentary blood typing and DNA analysis done by Japanese and Russian researchers. According to DNA typing by Hideo Matsumoto (1966) who gathered blood from China, Korea, Rusia, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia countries and found the folloiwng: [extracted from Kiang's book] ¡@ GM genes ¡@ AG AxG ABST AFBB North Mongoloids (Koreans, Japanese, Hakka) 45% 15% 25% 15% Malaysian, Polynesian, Southern Chinese 10% 5% 85% Burma, Assam, Tibetan, Nepal, Malayo-Polynesian ~0% ~100% The author thus concludes that Hakkas like Koreans and Japanese were from Baikal Lake as a subgroup of the Altaic people. Similarity in bloodtype between Japanese, Hakka and Koreans, however, should not be the only way to classify Hakkas. In fact, using blood-type is not a good way to define a culture. Undoubtedly, the original Hakkas migrated under the pressure of the northern intruders. During this cultural conflict, there could be a small portion of the population derived from voluntary or involuntary marriages causing the inclusion of non-Han factors. However, blood-typing does not explain the deeply rooted Han culture of Hakka people. Xiongnu as an ethnic group "foreign" to Han culture and just starting to occupy northern China during Jin period. Never in history before was class distinction more obvious than Jin dynasty. The Royal Jin families and other Han aristocrats might have brought some surrendered Xiongnu soldiers and servants to the south. The number cannot be larger than Han. It was estimated 60% of the Han in the north crossed the Yangtze River. It is also doubtful that under such social discrimination, sinicized Xiongnu could received the proper education to evolve a large number of poets and other literati such as Han Yu, Du Mu in Tang dynasty, which is the dynasty immediately following the short-lived Jin dynasty.
After hundreds of years of migration and settlement in the south, Hakka people likely carry all kinds of genotypes. And there is no distinction any more on Man, Yi, Yong, Di, which are all Han people. Whether Hakkas were blood-related to Xiongnu is beside the point. Hakka culture should be basically Han culture and not Xiongnu culture. More discussion on this topic is available in the following section on Hakka and Xiongnu.
Last updated September 20,1996.
Of course, this is terribly oversimplified but just the same, these dicoveries in combination with the continuing debate over the location and travels of the Indo-European peoples, suggest that the supposed great emptyness of the of interior Asia is critically important. Very little study has been done in this unstable region but we aren't going to know critical information until we can fit it in.
On the Picts, here's a good site with a couple of useful links and resources at the bottom:
Also:
There are numerous (Chinese) poems lamenting the green eyes of the Han emperors...and, other sources mention that the Han emperors' 'magic men' had red hair.
"The names of the seven sons were Fib, Fidach, Foltlaig, Fortrenn, Caitt, Ce and Circinn. Fib is equated with Fife, the site of Fidach is uncertain, the others being Athfotla, Fortriu, Caithness, Aberdeenshire and Angus respectively."
My dad had a brother (who died in his teens) who was named Angus. I've never known or heard of anyone else named Angus and my father had no idea of its origin. Hmmmm
Excellent question?
I have been wondering the same thing. It seems that if you go back far enough in time, the landscape seems to be populated with Caucasian or proto-Caucasian skeletons. I'm reminded of something that James Chatters said in his book (Ancient Encounters) about Kennewick Man (maybe) being a proto-Caucasian and a proto-Asian. (...or, something to that effect)
Could a 'split' have occurred as recent as 4,000-6,000 years ago?
Hey, maybe you're part Pict/Hakka! :) Is your father's family Scottish?
Here's some more on the name "Angus":
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.