2150 years old Hun tombs found
- Thread starter ancalimon
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Nope, genetic Adam and genetic Eve lived tens of thousands of years apart, so not a single couple (long-distance relationships work even worse when the distance is measured in time).ancalimon said:
Bromden said:
Turk was the unification of people who wanted to make other people belong with this unification. Really a social human behavior. "To meet other people" in contrast with "despise other people". The first Turkic writings shows this to us. When they are talking about conquering other people, they don't talk about how they looked like or what they did. All they talk about is "bringing İL to those people".
İL: to thing that makes other belong with you. Civilization. Some sort of welcoming that comes from afar. Of course when there are people who oppose others, this would be seen as a bad thing; a sickness even. Which I think gives us from where the word "illness" comes from. Those that wanted unification called it "well". Those that did not called it "ill".
NikeBG said:
So humans consists of two different species that evolved at different times?
So Turks cannot be the origin of everybody, because there were other people who they wanted to unificate with. But let's say they were the core of a civilization. Was that civilization centralized or nomadic? If centralized, where was the centre, with their flying cars and 4D cinemas and whatnot? If nomadic, how could they become so ****ing wise and knowall, without fixed cultural bases to develop knowledge and technology?
Bromden said:
It was nomadic where technology was not sufficient to live settled in certain geographical and climate conditions. It was centralized where it was possible.
People did not choose to live as nomads or settled people. Geography and climate choose this for people.
From what we know there was a hill with trees on it. It was called Ötüken. People voted and choose a khan and the khan sat on top of Ötüken. Thus he ruled the people. This was where the khan made other people katılık by bringing İL to them. Ötüken is a concept.
Bromden said:
The only place left on Earth where a boss sits at a place meaning hill with trees is Vatican and that's as I said countless times already from Etruscan culture.
And I don't know about the greatest achievement of this superculture.
Living inside stone houses in my opinion was invented by people who were used to hiding inside caves, while living inside tents was invented by people that were >not< hiding inside caves.
Yeah, you really don't know much about that.
And there ain't much forest in vatican. They have buildings instead, with wealth, libraries, offices and whatnot in them. You know, the stuff that a continents-wide superculture's centre would need.
edit: Lovely grasp you have on humanity's history. "Build houses to hide in". Wow. I would have thought they used tents to be able to easily move from one pasture to another, and those who grew their food around one place built houses (you know, because they don't have to pick it up and put it somewhere else). But your version makes much more sense.
And there ain't much forest in vatican. They have buildings instead, with wealth, libraries, offices and whatnot in them. You know, the stuff that a continents-wide superculture's centre would need.
edit: Lovely grasp you have on humanity's history. "Build houses to hide in". Wow. I would have thought they used tents to be able to easily move from one pasture to another, and those who grew their food around one place built houses (you know, because they don't have to pick it up and put it somewhere else). But your version makes much more sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Hill
So my proposed etymology is Turkic through Etruscan
Here are some possibilities
Vatican < Otağ Khan : Tent of the khan
Vatican < Öte Ken: City beyond
Then suddenly! We were all Turks...
Pause for reflection people, pause for reflection.
Pause for reflection people, pause for reflection.
Partially yes, if by "two different species" you mean homo sapiens sapiens and the neanderthals (which would be incorrect, since they're not two separate species, I think). Otherwise - no. Our common mother (Eve) lived at one time (around 200 000 years ago), while our common father (Adam) lived at a later time (around 140 000 years ago). Meaning that our human species has faced several bottlenecks, which had reduced the human population to such a minimum, that eventually only the offspring of those two people (one descended from the other, in the span of 60 000 years) managed to survive. Of course, it's likely there would've been at least several other males besides Adam in his time, but for some reason their lineage eventually ended (either immediately or with time).ancalimon said:
Heck, didn't one of your fans/alts post a video about the genetic Adam in a thread of yours not more than several months ago?
Oh, and would you tell me what "khan" means in Turkic/Altaic? Preferably not the modern/late medieval meaning, but the oldest one.
Merlkir
so, no, they were the same "species". Pretty different, but the same species.
Amman d Stazia
Master Knight
the Romans were ridiculously good at defining multiple cultures under one umbrella, usually with geographical logic.
try:
Germanii - generally understood that the Romans meant all the tribes and peoples who inhabited an area bordered by the Baltic, Main-Danube and Rhine, and over a space of several hundred years. The same several centuries saw the great 'Volkerwanderung' - that is the migration of entire peoples - from the Urals to the Atlantic, so I'm 100% certain the Romans had this one name for many different ethnicities.
or Pictii - literally, "painted ones' - generally understood that the Romans meant the tribes and races inhabiting the British Isles, in particular those parts not under Roman rule at the time of usage: This varied depending on the time of usage from continental celtic peoples (belgic britons) to pre-celtic tribes of the Scottish Islands as well as the Irish and all the others....
I'll give them their due though: Most explorer-conqueror cultures asked the natives "what are your people called" and the answer, in the indigenous language, was 'us' or 'the people'
(I'm sure there's at least one example of the answer being 'you'd look good stuffed with herbs, turned over a slow fire'....)
