U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > United Kingdom
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-11-2016, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
2,839 posts, read 1,578,465 times
Reputation: 4521

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottawa2011 View Post
I've read that the Portuguese were pioneers of European navigation around Africa, back in the early 1400s. If the Portuguese could get around coastal Africa, why couldn't Africans go up to Europe? Makes sense to me.

If the Vikings were daffy enough to explore as far west as northeastern Canada, then I have no doubt that the occasional explorer has been venturing further than we would imagine, ever since ancient times.
Because the Africans lacked the maritime technology that the Portuguese posessed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2016, 07:50 PM
 
3,431 posts, read 2,754,753 times
Reputation: 4111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
Because the Africans lacked the maritime technology that the Portuguese posessed.
Not totally true. Maritime trade with Asia (India and even China) was conducted by African traders from the Horn of Africa and as far south as the Swahili lands. The focus was on going east to Asia.

I'm not familiar with shipping history on the west coast of Africa, unfortunately... but if Moors went into Spain by land... could ships not have gone from north west Africa up to the west coast of Europe, and even to England? I think so...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 05:31 AM
 
52,648 posts, read 75,502,369 times
Reputation: 11628
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownbagg View Post
there are studies that claim this is not true, it was two or more races back then too. that those that came from siberian and those of asian, has no gene from africa. and africa not the source of human kind.

Google it you see what they talking about.
You have to consider that the current land masses weren't always the same as today. So, you can still have mankind start in what is now Africa, even if it is a diverse lot.

People vary within current land masses today. So, that wouldn't be anything new, but there still has to be a place or form of origin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 06:34 AM
 
Location: England
22,248 posts, read 5,508,214 times
Reputation: 29113
I'm northern English, with a lot of Viking in my DNA. You know, like many Americans have Native American in their bloodline........ generally Chief's, or Princess for the women.........

My funeral is arranged, and paid for in advance. It'll be like this....... no funeral car for me........



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LClTjcyNJSI
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Wonderland
40,973 posts, read 32,696,264 times
Reputation: 57074
Nearly all my ancestors as far back as we can trace with certainty (to about the 1500s) came from England and Scotland, with one or two French and German thrown in for good measure. When I got my DNA test results back, about 70 percent showed up as being from the British Isles in general. The rest showed up as Scandinavian, Finnish, and German with a dollop of French thrown in for good measure. The Finnish ancestry surprised me.

Anyway, most of my English and Scottish ancestry that we can trace is from Northumbria and the Scottish Lowlands.

So I guess I really am a Viking. That's cool.

And I'm the whitest person I know. Not one smidgen of anything "exotic" in my DNA, unless you count those Finns. Which is fine by me because I think the history of the entire human race is interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 02:09 AM
 
4,812 posts, read 5,440,936 times
Reputation: 7586
I saw an article about four sisters who had their DNA analyzed and were surprised at how different the percentages were between them. One was twice as Irish as the others.

Over here in America, my sister recently got the results of her DNA test. Her results were 96% Europe.

Specifically . . .

33% - Europe West
25% - Great Britain
11% - Ireland
09% - Scandinavia
06% - Europe East
05% - Finland/Northwest Russia
05% - Italy/Greece
04% - Caucasas
04% - West Asia
02% - Iberian Peninsula

Considering our families came from England, Wales, Ireland, France, Germany, and Switzerland (which shares a border with Italy), there are no surprises here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2017, 09:34 PM
 
Location: NC
4,529 posts, read 7,038,627 times
Reputation: 4720
Quote:
Originally Posted by English Dave View Post
I'm northern English, with a lot of Viking in my DNA. You know, like many Americans have Native American in their bloodline........ generally Chief's, or Princess for the women.........

My funeral is arranged, and paid for in advance. It'll be like this....... no funeral car for me........



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LClTjcyNJSI

LOL!!!! I have the same profile as you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2017, 12:49 AM
 
1,342 posts, read 1,936,357 times
Reputation: 927
American here whose ancestors came from England and Scotland from 1611 until 1760 (mostly from the southeastern US Appalachians). My DNA test showed 95% British Isles (FTDNA) and the rest a small mixture of Native American, Finnish and Western Europe.

(I am living in Scotland at the moment).

I must say even if I couldn't find a non British ancestor, I am shocked at the homogeneity of the results
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2017, 06:39 AM
 
Location: Wonderland
40,973 posts, read 32,696,264 times
Reputation: 57074
I had my DNA analyzed. We have pretty extensive family records and with the exception of a few folks who lived in London, nearly all my ancestors came from southern Scotland and northern England (mostly Northumbria/Northumberland) according to the records we researched.

DNA came back 98 percent northern European and 2 percent just general "European." Not one smidgen of anything "exotic" unless you count Vikings! (Which I do.) The only bit that wasn't from countries that border the North Sea was a bit of Finnish - which was a surprise. I had quite a bit of Scandinavian in there too.

The interesting thing was that though I already knew that nearly all my ancestry was from the British Isles and Northern Europe, the latest immigrant from Europe that we know about came to North America in the early, early 1700s and many of my ancestors came in the 1600s. So my family has been in what is now the US for about 400 years - and yet still remained basically "Viking." And much of my family lived in Louisiana and New Orleans, so that's even more surprising in my opinion.

I didn't find any unknown or "exotic" DNA but that's OK because what I did find out was amazing enough. I really enjoy knowing that I'm basically a 21st century Viking!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2017, 06:46 AM
 
Location: Wonderland
40,973 posts, read 32,696,264 times
Reputation: 57074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prytania View Post
American here whose ancestors came from England and Scotland from 1611 until 1760 (mostly from the southeastern US Appalachians). My DNA test showed 95% British Isles (FTDNA) and the rest a small mixture of Native American, Finnish and Western Europe.

(I am living in Scotland at the moment).

I must say even if I couldn't find a non British ancestor, I am shocked at the homogeneity of the results
LOL we are probably related, and like you - I am also shocked at how little of anything "else" showed up in my DNA though I had a chunk of Scandinavian, and a smattering of Finnish and German/French (sometimes DNA testing can't tell the difference between German and French). We do know that we had at least one German ancestor (well, Prussian) and at least one French Huguenot.

My ancestors came from the same regions between 1640 and 1730. They settled in Virginia first (Jamestown and Yorktown) and then migrated out to PA, then south to NC, then SC, then AL and LA, and eventually "west" to MO and AR - and then Texas in the early 1800s (several ancestors fought for Texas independence). For some reason they didn't settle into the Appalachians like so many others with their ancestry did. I don't know why.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > United Kingdom
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top