Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones tell a different story

Re:Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones ... by vacri on Thursday March 23, 2017 @08:12AM (#13939057)

So, they weren't barbarians because some of them farmed? Seems to be a rather low bar.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones ... by pacala on Thursday March 23, 2017 @08:49AM (#13939264)

> Some bones suggested that the individual was born into a roaming tribe but later settled down; others indicated the opposite lifestyle change.

Not sure what history Susanne Hakenbeck studies, but asiatic hersdmen populations in Eastern Europe have a long documented history of looting for slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean%E2%80%93Nogai_raids_in...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones ... by qordoba on Thursday March 23, 2017 @10:22AM (#13939959)

If your argument is correct US and European slave trade in 19th and 20th century shows us what?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones ... by pacala on Thursday March 23, 2017 @10:51AM (#13940202)

It shows that observed mixture of populations doesn't imply peaceful coexistence. Which refutes the main thesis of the article / research.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones ... by namenotrequired on Thursday March 23, 2017 @08:41AM (#13939215)

My interpretation of what the article says is they weren't all barbarians because some of them seem to have coexisted with the locals peacefully.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones ... by vacri on Thursday March 23, 2017 @07:20PM (#13945254)

A 'barbarian' doesn't have to be a violent invader. It's just an 'uncouth and uncivilised' person.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones ... by mythrwy on Thursday March 23, 2017 @08:19AM (#13939101)

Washington Post has become a rather low bar in general the last few years. I've stopped reading it all together and am disappointed to see the number of articles from it cropping up on HN lately.

Also (off topic) they have begin a policy of shadowbanning commenters in their comment sections who disagree with their "official" policy on things. It's really barely one step above Brietbart now days in my opinion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones ... by dpark on Thursday March 23, 2017 @10:50AM (#13940188)

> Also (off topic) they have begin a policy of shadowbanning commenters in their comment sections who disagree with their "official" policy on things.

This policy is known to exist or you believe it does? Serious question.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones ... by mythrwy on Thursday March 23, 2017 @02:27PM (#13942616)

You mean is it a published policy? Not that I know of.

Does it happen? At least once (personally observed) and I assume more.

They really ought to get rid of comments if they are going to shadowban. An echo chamber of Clinton support is kind of sad at this point and I doubt it fools anyone.

It is their paper and they have a right to publish whatever propaganda they want. And they certainly have been doing that. It's kind of sad to see the major paper of our nations capital sunk to this level but I guess it's the trajectory of big media right now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians – their bones ... by qordoba on Thursday March 23, 2017 @10:16AM (#13939911)

...and Romans were drinking Soylent and sending probes to Mars?

[ Parent | on HN ]