Ar - Adunakhor
Sergeant at Arms
I know I just posted in the Persian preview page but I simply can't show enough of my admiration to the quality work done here. These soldiers are just beautiful.
TPW - Faction Preview: Samnite Federation
- Thread starter Lynores
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Sergeant at Arms
412thCadianGuardsman
Veteran
Hmm i'm tempted to try to help out with research or something...
But i don't have time; AARGH!
But i don't have time; AARGH!
Olafr
Regular
Merlkir said:
You are right in this, swastika symbol originates just from Central Europe. Later it travelled with the Proto-Scythians or Proto-Huns to Asia and India, along with the first writing and many other inventions. Today it is well-known that the Etruscans themselves belonged to this Central European, more precisely Carpatho-Balkanian culture-complex and most probably they were who've taken this symbol to the Apennine Peninsula.
http://www.michelangelo.cn/index.php?arguments=dynamic&idPagina=a90129bdd&preferredLang=uk
http://www.michelangelo.cn/download/27%20Symbols.pdf
http://www.michelangelo.cn/download/Further_27_sacred_symbols.pdf
http://www.michelangelo.cn/download/mini%20abstract%20english%20b.pdf
Merlkir
Alright. I'm not sure I want to read any more of that website's contents as it's quite clearly hardcore "Pannonici" nationalistic crap.
If I was interested in this type of nonsense panSomething theories, I'd just ask Ancalimon about his space Turks.
an example of this guy's madness:
If I was interested in this type of nonsense panSomething theories, I'd just ask Ancalimon about his space Turks.
an example of this guy's madness:
Olafr
Regular
Merlkir said:
It's not about Hungarians, but about the ancestors of them and most of the inhabitants of today's Central and North East Europe, however they were/are the only preservers of this culture. What you call as a "nationalistic crap" is the archeology discipline, and thousands of archeological findings prove that the swastika, (the triskelion and the cross itself) originate from neolithic age Europe, just as you sad, even if you like the name 'pannonici' (by an Italian) even if you not... it's just a denomination.
The statement that the first Celtic culture, the Hallstattian was born on the remains of the former Pre-Indo-European cultures of Central Europe is not a nonsense, but a fact. There are lots of evidences about this early living together. Many of the worlds are nearly the same in the Irish and in the Hungarian languages and from the roughly 3 hundred thousand Hungarian folks songs, many sounds as Celtic. Not to mention that, only the Hungarians and Irishmen have slant pentatonic scale in whole Europe and only the Hungarian, Basque and the Irish dances use counterpointing. Irishmen have the same legend (Fénius Farsaid) about the building of the Tower of Babel as the Hungarians have their (Nimrod legend), and both of them have many common mythological elements, like fairies for example...
Lebor Gabála Érenn (The Book of the Taking of Ireland) unquestionably says Gaels came from Scythia, just like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle writes about the Picts of Scotland, ancestors of the Scots. So, once more, these are not nonsenses.
Oh, and this "guy" is an elder professor, while the diction what you enhanced and considered as madness are the irony and mock.
If you don't like his scientific results - however I doubt you know it - there are many other scholars, like the etruscologist Mario Alinei (Professor emeritus) who claimed that the Etruscans, (cultural forefathers of the Romans) belonged to the mentioned Carpatho-Balkanic culture complex, they used the swastika and the successor of the Tordos-Vinca writing, just like the Hungarians later. He stated that Etruscan language was an archaic form of the modern Hungarian, moreover Professor Grover S. Krantz claimed "the Hungarian is actually the oldest in-place language in all of Europe" - just to let you know the connection between the Etruscans and Central Europe.
Anyway, it's going to be entirely offtopic, so back to the question, the swastika symbol originates from Pre-Indo-European Central Europe and it's not Indian, Siberian, Italian or Chinese in it's origin.
Merlkir
Yeah, it's not Hungarian nationalism at all. 
Dream on.
You're right up there with Ancalimon, man.
Dream on.You're right up there with Ancalimon, man.
Olafr
Regular
Merlkir said:Yeah, it's not Hungarian nationalism at all.
You're right up there with Ancalimon, man.
Ok, please point to any sentence which is not true, not proven... if you do not find, you have no right to accuse. Anyhow, the mentioned Italian, Canadian and American professors may not be Hungarian nationalists as they are not even Hungarians.
By the way this Pre-Indo-European culture was not only "Hungarian", but European, every people belong to Y-chromosomal haplogroup R1b or R1a were part of this culture from the Celts to the Italics and Finns.
I do not know about Ancalimon and I don't believe in sci-fi "space turks" but if he've found Turkish peoples everywhere in Eurasia, he is maybe right, as the denomination Turk, Turkoi, Turci (originally török) means broking off (from a nation or tribe). The first known account about such a broke off was the betrayal of Bumin of the Gökturks, who attacked the Avars, the ruler tribe among the Rouran Khaganate. Eurasia, up to China is full of Turkic peoples with European genes who have split from the various Scythian and Hunnic confederations (7-8 million km²) through thousands of years.
Oh, and please don't say to me those condescending taunts like to dream on... I'm not your 15 yrs old friend from the school nor the chum from your closest pub. Thanks.
Merlkir
Well, you irritate me with your implausible stories of Old Europe, a version of PanEuropism I have not encountered before, but which I find incredibly dull and redundant. So, sorry about that. You're irksome.
Here's a list of this guy's statements he'd have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt for me to even listen to more of his hateful nonsense.
1) Prove that Aryans (whoever he means by that, I've come across several definitions of that term) "only" gave the modern Europeans their languages and a testosterone "angry" gene. How exactly does that work? They invade the peaceful Old Europeans and become their elite, force them to speak IE languages (which somehow incredibly differentiate) and that's it? Sounds very plausible.
2) Europeans have everything else from the Old Europeans. Firstly he needs to prove there was this Old European thing. What was it? A nation? A race? A culture? How exactly is it defined? (his abstract doesn't offer much) What archaeological proof is there beyond a few pictures of mismatched pottery, jewels and rock carvings and paintings?
3) That we inherited the "paladin" values he boasts about from the mystical Old Europeans. (seriously, I can't help but laugh at the words "democratic, egalitarian, matriarchal and peace loving". There is not, nor has there ever been, a culture like that. It's pointless adoration and idealization of this mythical culture he's made up. Reminds me of the dove-hearted Slavs the communist regime here used to put in our history books. The truth is sadly less ideal than "the good Old Europeans and the angry mean IndoEuropeans".)
Of course, If I had some time, I think I might like to read a book if he's written one, for the laugh.
I really can't help but be condescending, because just like Ancalimon you're living in a conspiracy theory. Everyone else is deluded and beleives fairy tales, only you and the selected few know the truth.
Of course.
Olafr
Regular
Merlkir said:
I see you love to use the word "pan" anytime on anything, but I've not yet spoken any kind of chauvinistic, offensive, exclusionist, unionist or white race superiority ideologies, so your adjudication what you advocated from the beginning is nothing more than a baseless convention what you don't know when to use and when not...
I think you should try to refute my statements instead of his, since you have alredy called them as nationalistic nonsenses.
Not exactly the same was what the first Greek tribes did with the Pelasgians or the Romans did with the Iberians and Italians? What Semitics did with many of the Mesopotamian agglutinative languages, what invading Slavs did on the Balkans, in Central Europe and in West Siberia (until modern ages)? Not that was what Gaels did in Ireland and Scotia, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes did in Britain, not to mention the Arab conquest which changed the whole linguistic map of the Mid East and North Africa? What about the Aryans who invaded the Iranian Plateu and obliterated all the ancient languages and who changed the written and spoken languages of the most populous nation of the ancient world in Hindustan? For me it sounds quite plausible.
The starting point is that if a symbol was present somewhere earlier than at the Achaians or at the Arverni tribes (for example), it's unequivocal that it does not come from the Greeks or the Celts.
About the "few pictures of mismatched pottery, jewels and rock carvings and paintings" - that's what archeology is. And if you ckecked some of the links I gave, there are roughly 300 examples (and there are thousands in the book) which I would not call a "few".
Not to mention the oldest writing system of the world, from which the Greek alphabet, the Germanic, Finnish and Hungarian runes evolved.
He doesn't have to prove this "old European thing", geneticists, paleoantropologists alredy proved it. Linguists alredy showed it that the Germanic, Finnic, Celtic and Balto-Slavic languages have an earlier linguistic substrata. Or perhaps you never met with the phrase pre-Greek or pre-Roman? After all how do you imagine it? All the peoples of Europe grow from the soil around 5-7 thousand years ago, when the Proto-Indo-European language was probably born? The R1 Y-chromosomal haplogroup is a bit older, around 30 thousand years old, the R1b and the R1a itself is even older with it's 15-20 thousand years.
You are very brave to claim things like this with a shrug. Even the elder scientists refrain from such statements, you must be omniscient. Please tell me how did the egalitarian or matriarchal expressions come into existence if such a society never existed? By the way these are the similes of Marija Gimbutas (was a Lithuanian-American Professor of European Archaeology)... you are certainly better informed than she were in her discipline.
There is nothing special. There were a peace-loving agricultural community (the Carpatho-Balkanian region was continuosly inhabited through tens of thousands of years) and a pastoralist military elite who invaded Europe and (with the Celtic culture) spreaded the Indo-European languages in there, just as I showed you many historical examples about earlier and later language-shifting.
I never sad such a thing. On the contrary, you were who tried to criticise every way what I say, so from my part it seems that you are the one who think everyone else is wrong and deluded, although you have no knowledge in these disciplines.
One thing is sure, if I were you, I would not start arguing in topics which I am not familiar with...
Best regards.
Merlkir
The word "pan" has nothing to do with the list you present. You posted links to an abstract of some guys' article/book where he talks of a great Old European civilization from which all Europeans are descended. That's what I called pan-europism.
Are you saying something different than he is? I'm confused.
Show me a Pelasgian person, or traits which a current living population inherited from the Pelasgians. There should be a majority of these traits, only angry genes and language should be greek.
Rest of your examples are simple invasions and occupations. It's not the same thing as claiming that a whole continent was invaded and ruled by some IE elite which had no other impact than languages and an angry gene, because they were so evil.
Cultural fusion/cohabitation simply does not work this simplisticly.
Yes. What is not true and not implied - that this symbol was specific and exclusive to a single, massively widespread homogenic civilization. (which is what I objected to)
again, the same objection as above.
It's the wonderful idealized combination of the traits I find implausible. If anyone tells me there was a culture which was "peace loving", I'll immediately distrust this person.
Now I can imagine a late neolithic society which might be fairly egalitarian (not in the ultimate sense of course), maybe even democratic. Matriarchal, weeell, that would depend on location and specific culture, but ok. But peace loving? How the hell do you know?
Especially with archaeology this old, it's a great risk to try guessing stuff like this and I find it very unprofessional if an academic makes person such statements.
Eh, no further comment.
Yeah yeah, I know nothing, I'm mean, therefore I'm wrong. I don't think everyone else is wrong, I think you are wrong. I started arguing on topics I am fairly familiar with, even if I'm not an expert. Because what you present is an idealistic wish, not a plausible scientific hypothesis.
(in which respect you're the same as Ancalimon)
I'll give you one thing - aside from calling me ignorant and rude, you're pretty polite and that's a good thing. Well done. Still annoying though.
Olafr
Regular
Merlkir said:
Truly? And if I'm speaking about Africa and the birthplace of all the humankind, that will be a Pan-Africanism here? I must guffaw at your overwhelming demagogy.
Yes, I sad many things which you could not able to disprove.
I think it's unnecessary to turn over and to push all words to extremes. No one can deny that the arriving Greek tribes have obliterated the earlier civilizations of the Balkan and Crete. Later Mycenians destroyed Troy, while the founders of Sparta used aboriginal inhabitants as their slaves and as prey. Before that time Pelasgians had toilets, bathrooms, palaces, high agriculture, writing system (maybe the Linear B, the Linear A, the Hieroglyphic B, Hieroglyphic A, not to mention the oldest ones, the alphabets of the Phaistos Disk and of the Dispilio tablet). Mycenians destroyed most of this, and the later arrived Greek tribes finished the job.
About Pelasgians? Albanians have clear Pelagic ancestry, Hungarians, Romanians, Macedonians, Greeks and Serbs have it too. Their genetic trait is the clade E1b1b1a1b (E-V13).
They were not "evils" as you say... it's not some kind of a fantasy story, they were a military elite who invaded Central Europe and the Balkan, first time they probably assimilated into the autochtonous populations, while later waves have taken on many local cultural elements but moved toward into West Europe and have spreaded what we know today as Celtic culture and Proto-Celtic language. There were many well-known and hypothesised waves of Indo-European speakers, like of the Celts, the Sea peoples, the Aryans, the Achaians, Ionians, Dorians, Thraco-Phrygians, Germans, Balto-Slavs, Slavs, etc.
Cultural "fusion" works even more simplier. The Slavs are a good example. They came into Central Europe and changed the language and the culture of many different nations; in the Balkan of the Bulghar Turks, the remnants of the Thracians, Pelasgians, Macedonians; in Central and East Europe of the Finno-Ugric Chudes, the varegs of the Rus, Kypchak Cumans, Germans, remnants of the Celts, Sarmatians, the Baltic peoples and so on... through a few centuries!
Why not?? Everything has a beginning, every symbol had an "inventor", someone who wanted to symbolise something in the very past, through a picture, a form. Letters of the first alphabets took shape just for the same goal, to illustrate something.
About swastika: you can find this symbol everywhere at ancient civilisations, where the R1a Y-chromosomal haplogroup was found through and through Eurasia.
This is nothing, this isn't an answer and no way a refutation. Pick up my lines and collapse them with arguments, counter-arguments, with genetic, linguistic, anthropologic, archeologic evidences, because your view, your judgement I do no care. I'm only interested in the facts, scientific results and arguments.
That's absolutely irrelevant what you (or me) can imagine and what can not.
Otherwise it's not me, but professors of archeology who say a high civilisation - discoverers of most kinds of metals, inventors of metal mining and metallurgy - without weapons in their buries, in their homes, in their lands should be a peace-loving and not a warfaring one.
Oh, I apologize.. if you find it unprofessional so, is quite another.
Does not surprise me...
Brave speech... Allright, if you think I am wrong, then show me your evidences against what I (and many of the scientists, professors of the world) maintain. Come up with them.
I did not say you are ignorant and rude, but yes, you are right in these. You are without any kind of rhetoric skill, are without arguments and the most important, you are without the basic knowledge of what you quarrel about. Even so you constantly assert that everybody is idiotic apart from you. You are not ashamed to call acknowledged professors (many of them "best" at their discipline) as stupid and ignorant, although you were practically unable to bring something as a refutation against them.
Merlkir
There are just as many professors and famous historians (writing them history books I've read) who would not agree with this malarky, your argument "but you're a nobody, thus you're wrong" doesn't hold up.
And still, even with your superior rhetorical skills () you fail to grasp the simple nature of what I'm disagreeing with.
There is no evidence for a single unified prehistoric European civilization, from which we inherited most of our culture. This idea that a wonderfully ideal culture, homogenous all over the continent, peace loving and democratic, living in harmony with nature, was overthrown by barbaric invaders who contributed nothing but their language and an "angry" gene is simply hilarious and entirely implausible. For far too many reasons to explain.
It's an idealistic approach driven by some kind of political agenda, clearly. Why? Because cultural diffusion usually works both ways - people living in Great Britain aren't just Britons with Anglo Saxon nobility speaking English and having an angry gene. Sure, the cultural exchange isn't always entirely symmetrical, but it isn't this purposefuly unilateral as you present either.
I am amused by your claim that there exists a clear trace of Pelasgic ancestry. Considering we know diddly squat about the Pelasgians, this is quite the bold statement.
But that's not really all that important in the big picture. I called this theory pan-Europic, because it is. It speaks of a massive unified European civilization. That's what PAN stands for.
And yes, if you tried to persuade me there was a single African civilization, my reaction would be similar.
You don't seem to understand what my issue with this actually is. I'm not saying Europe was a desolate wasteland inhabited only by dolphins before the glorious and noble IndoEuropeans arrived, hell no. I am simply objecting to this claim that there was clearly a single Old European civilization, from which we inherited most of our culture.
A couple of symbols looking vaguely similar doesn't prove anything if you pull them out of context. Ancalimon is doing exactly this and his conclusion is that we're all Turks. And just as you, he doesn't see any holes in his approach.
It is certainly possible to try and describe a culture's view and way of life based on burial finds. Of course. But one should not fall into the trap of idolizing and idealizing it.
You ask me for scientific data to disprove this theory of yours. It doesn't work this way I'm afraid (although I'd be glad to do that, once I'm sure of what exactly you're trying to say here). You're trying to convince us of something, the burden of proof is on you. So far you've shown us a bunch of pictures and rambled a bit, no doubt irritated by my aggressive posts.
While I understand why you should feel defensive, I can't help it. I'm simply fed up with you pan-Something idealistic pseudo-nationalist types.
And still, even with your superior rhetorical skills (
) you fail to grasp the simple nature of what I'm disagreeing with.There is no evidence for a single unified prehistoric European civilization, from which we inherited most of our culture. This idea that a wonderfully ideal culture, homogenous all over the continent, peace loving and democratic, living in harmony with nature, was overthrown by barbaric invaders who contributed nothing but their language and an "angry" gene is simply hilarious and entirely implausible. For far too many reasons to explain.
It's an idealistic approach driven by some kind of political agenda, clearly. Why? Because cultural diffusion usually works both ways - people living in Great Britain aren't just Britons with Anglo Saxon nobility speaking English and having an angry gene. Sure, the cultural exchange isn't always entirely symmetrical, but it isn't this purposefuly unilateral as you present either.
I am amused by your claim that there exists a clear trace of Pelasgic ancestry. Considering we know diddly squat about the Pelasgians, this is quite the bold statement.
But that's not really all that important in the big picture. I called this theory pan-Europic, because it is. It speaks of a massive unified European civilization. That's what PAN stands for.
And yes, if you tried to persuade me there was a single African civilization, my reaction would be similar.
You don't seem to understand what my issue with this actually is. I'm not saying Europe was a desolate wasteland inhabited only by dolphins before the glorious and noble IndoEuropeans arrived, hell no. I am simply objecting to this claim that there was clearly a single Old European civilization, from which we inherited most of our culture.
A couple of symbols looking vaguely similar doesn't prove anything if you pull them out of context. Ancalimon is doing exactly this and his conclusion is that we're all Turks. And just as you, he doesn't see any holes in his approach.
It is certainly possible to try and describe a culture's view and way of life based on burial finds. Of course. But one should not fall into the trap of idolizing and idealizing it.
You ask me for scientific data to disprove this theory of yours. It doesn't work this way I'm afraid (although I'd be glad to do that, once I'm sure of what exactly you're trying to say here). You're trying to convince us of something, the burden of proof is on you. So far you've shown us a bunch of pictures and rambled a bit, no doubt irritated by my aggressive posts.
While I understand why you should feel defensive, I can't help it. I'm simply fed up with you pan-Something idealistic pseudo-nationalist types.
Lynores is offline till 22nd april so....I think its stopped for a while....I dunno why but, it has been much time till Lynores is out of here and I´m sad..
412thCadianGuardsman
Veteran
Ehm it's June... Don't tell me he's only coming back next year?!
Olafr
Regular
Merlkir said:
What you don't understand is that it does not count altogether what is probable according to you and what not.
You, who are not a professor in any relevant subject, have no right to criticize any scientific opinions, unless you can disprove it scientifically. And I would call your attention to it: your thoughts that "I think it's impossible" or "it's not plausible" - these sentences do not count as scientific arguments, and we didn't hear anything else from you yet till now.
The science will live as long as it has the ability to admit new data. If it's not the case anymore, we are talking about dogmas...
With the technological development many new recearch methods became available in the past decades, which have fundamentally changed the generally accepted views previously treated as facts.
Nowadays the historical, genetical (and in first place the linguistical) researches work rather onto some political pressure. The main goal is a pre-determined result, not the revealing of the truth (M. Naddeo talks about this process when he mentions Indo-Germanists, for example).
If a geneticist claims that half of the people of Hindustan belongs to the R1a Y-chromosomal haplogroup, some Indo-Europeanists immediately declare it that these are the tracks of the Aryans, because this haplgroup is common in Europe.
If a French archeologist found a tree of life symbol in an Iron Age Celtic grave, he will claim, it originates from the Celtic culture, and does not regard the fact that symbol has 6 thousand years old Pre-Celtic origin in Central Europe.
It works the same way with every disciplines.
It begins with that an archeologist finds a seven thousand years old clay tablet on which he discovers a kind of writing. Later more findings turn up, and the image of a very ancient Central European-Steppic culture is outlined finally. Geneticists come and find that the determining genetic marker of this folk was the haplogroup R1a, whereupon every Western European Tv-channels report about it they found the original bearers of the Indo-European "culture" and language, establishing everything on that among today's Slavic-speakers this haplogroup is common (ignoring the fact that R1a is a frequent genetic marker throughout Eurasia, from Iceland through South Asia up to China; it's bearers speak Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Hungarian and Finno-Ugric languages, Altaic Turkic, Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan and many more language families; that the Slavic language in the 5th century AD was a protolanguage and it had no writing until the Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets of the 9th century AD).
After they ascertain this writing is similar to the Eurasian Scythian alphabet, they declare that Scythians may have been none but Indo-Iranian speakers (though there is no indication about this from the 5 known glosses; not to mention that the Slavs and all other Indo-European speakers cremated their dead as opposed to the Scythians who buried theirs).
Suddenly all the Western European and Slavic-speaker countries start favouring the hypothesis that the Eurasian Scythians may have been the original Indo-Europeans, who conveyed the language to the natives of Europe (again, ignoring the facts that the haplogroup R1a is virtually absent from Western Europe; and that the oldest presence of this haplogroup R1a was found in Central Europe and in Crete ~11 kys BCE therefore it's also indigenous in Europe and predates the Indo-European arrival and their earliest hypothesised protolanguage).
It's all about that they simply create a pre-determined guideline, a preconception based on partial data, while they ignore others (much more), then they progress on (with this "demonstration") making a newer hypothesis upon this, and so on...
And with the help of the kinds of A. Merkel or J. M. Barrosso this "science" gets political support. This is the real Pan-Europeanism, Pan-Indo-Europeanism and Pan-Slavism.
You may chide Professor Naddeo for the irony and harsh critic in their writings, but from this he is still right in that what he says.
And still, even with your superior rhetorical skills (
If the simplicity or naturality of a dabblef opinion would be enough to set up or to ruin scientific hypothesises, no one should go and learn for years on universities, no one would devote his life for researching.
Otherwise, if you are skilled at the probability calculation, calculate it how much the chance for (only) 5 symbols to appear in (only) 2 different, unattached spots in the world.
And the swastika, the triskele, the cross, the tulip, the spiral-motives (and a hundred more) appeared not only 2 locations, but dozens of places in different times and became a folk element since their first appearance in Central Europe.
You don't need to explain reasons! You need arguments and scientific data instead if you - at all costs - want to refuse any further.
Otherwise no one spoke about an unified prehistoric culture. If it was unified, it would have appeared in approximately the same time on different parts of Europe - but not this was the case.
Onto the Balkan it was transferred with the mixing of the Central Europeans and Pelasgians (and through them to the first Greeks), into Western Europe it was most probably taken away with the spreading of the Celtic culture (from Hallstatt and La Téne cultures), while into Scandinavia by the ancestors of the Finns and Hungarians.
This Central European culture, of course did not remain a peace-loving one, but started to use bows (and later horses and wagons) throughout Eurasia upon their wanderings... as the Scythians, for thousands of years were forming the world's strongest military power, though they fought mostly defensive wars against the Greeks, Persians, Romans and Germanic tribes.
Anyway, you are wrong, since in the early ages, there was a kind of linguistic unity, and not only in Europe. Most of the ancient languages were agglutinative languages, like the Sumerian, Elamite, Hurrian, Hattic, Gutian, Urartian, Kassite (probably Etruscan and Pelasgian too) and other ancient but living languages like Altaic, Japonic, Austronesian, Dravidian, Caucasian, many native North American, South American, Mesoamerican and African languages, the Basque, the Uralic and the Hungarian (from which the Hungarian is the most advanced). In Europe, Pre-Indo-European languages survived only in isolated areas, like the Basque in the Pyrenees, the Finnish and Estonian in Scandinavia and some kind of Hungarian in the Carpathian Basin, maybe the Dacian, Avaric or Szekler (if we may believe the contemporary sources).
In my opinion, original Indo-European speakers belonged to the J2, I1, I2 or maybe to the E1 Y-chromosomal haplogroups. Of course they did not disappear naturally and there are many traces of these hgs in Europe from Great Britain to Iberia, to the Apennine Peninsula and to Scandinavia.
No, it's name is not Pan-European, but Pre-Indo-European which term is a scientific designation.
You have a right to think what you just want, until you come with it in a public topic.
I do not care about Ancalimon and I have nothing to do with him or his ideas, you shouldn't come with him again. I don't think we are all Turks, since the Turkic languages are young, just as the Turkish peoples and the name itself, although Turkish derives from the Eurasian Scythian and Hunnic cultures, so (in some questions) he is right in some way, although in a very distant manner, I think.
I agree with this.
Hmm...
I set many statements, but my first was that the swastika symbol originates from Central European cultures and it's not Indian, Siberian, Greek, etc in it's origin.
Please tell me, how a Canadian-Italian scholar or an Italian etruscologist (just to mention a few) could be Hungarian nationalists? I have no idea.
Merlkir
Good grief.
Way to make me feel inferior, man. I am not a professor of archeology, I am nothing. My thoughts are worthless.
Actually, my intent was not to disprove a hypothesis, because I'd have to spend more time on that. First up, I'd have to read the whole thing (which I couldn't for time reasons, also the article you linked is short and only hints at the ideas presented)
Then I'd have to go through other sources, gather points I disagree with, evidence contradicting them...yadayada. You know the drill.
My point was to say I'm not at all convinced, that's my opinion. That's all.
Are there perhaps any reaction articles to this hypothesis? And peer reviews?
As for the probability issue - that's actually something I really can do, supported by my irrelevant education. So, yes, I have an idea. And I still say it's not necessarily a sign of homogenous widespread culture. Sure, it's cultural trade perhaps, but a few symbols do not a culture make. Also many of them may not be related, but rather independently emerged. Ancalimon (sorry, last time I talk about him) loves the sun wheel, for him it symbolizes Turks everywhere. But if you think about it, it's such a universal symbol - a circle, or a cross. It appears with the circle, but without the cross, vice versa, the cross has varying amount of arms...
It's not difficult to draw a circle after you came up with the wheel, if you look at the sun. It's not difficult to come up with a cross. That's the very basics of geometry.
As for your last question - there are strange people in this world. I am not saying this absolutely is the case here. But I've read panTurkist articles written by an American geneticist for example. People want to present shocking hypotheses, go against the flow, think outside the box. (which is of course generally desirable)
And genuinely reasonable work can be misinterpreted and misused - that is very often the case with nationalists.
Goddamit, is there a book about this already? Or is it summed up in an article or something? I don't want to leave you with just my worthless opinion, I'd like to actually read about the supposed evidence behind this.
Way to make me feel inferior, man. I am not a professor of archeology, I am nothing. My thoughts are worthless.
Actually, my intent was not to disprove a hypothesis, because I'd have to spend more time on that. First up, I'd have to read the whole thing (which I couldn't for time reasons, also the article you linked is short and only hints at the ideas presented)
Then I'd have to go through other sources, gather points I disagree with, evidence contradicting them...yadayada. You know the drill.
My point was to say I'm not at all convinced, that's my opinion. That's all.
Are there perhaps any reaction articles to this hypothesis? And peer reviews?
As for the probability issue - that's actually something I really can do, supported by my irrelevant education. So, yes, I have an idea. And I still say it's not necessarily a sign of homogenous widespread culture. Sure, it's cultural trade perhaps, but a few symbols do not a culture make. Also many of them may not be related, but rather independently emerged. Ancalimon (sorry, last time I talk about him) loves the sun wheel, for him it symbolizes Turks everywhere. But if you think about it, it's such a universal symbol - a circle, or a cross. It appears with the circle, but without the cross, vice versa, the cross has varying amount of arms...
It's not difficult to draw a circle after you came up with the wheel, if you look at the sun. It's not difficult to come up with a cross. That's the very basics of geometry.
As for your last question - there are strange people in this world. I am not saying this absolutely is the case here. But I've read panTurkist articles written by an American geneticist for example. People want to present shocking hypotheses, go against the flow, think outside the box. (which is of course generally desirable)
And genuinely reasonable work can be misinterpreted and misused - that is very often the case with nationalists.
Goddamit, is there a book about this already? Or is it summed up in an article or something? I don't want to leave you with just my worthless opinion, I'd like to actually read about the supposed evidence behind this.
