Olafr
Regular
Merlkir said:Way to make me feel inferior, man. I am not a professor of archeology, I am nothing. My thoughts are worthless.
Of course I'm not saying your thoughts would be worthless, merely that in scientific questions a layman's opinion does not equal with the "expert's".
My point was to say I'm not at all convinced, that's my opinion. That's all.
There is always need for a little healthy scepticism.
Are there perhaps any reaction articles to this hypothesis? And peer reviews?
You should read about the subject first before asking for peer rewiews.
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.
Look at this genetic map and decide it, we may talk about independent appearances in Eurasia?
http://www.michelangelo.cn/download/Magyars_genetics_genetika_r1a1a.pdf
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.
You are absolutely right in what you say about the representation of the Sun, but, like any phenomenon or any concept with a sacral meaning, there are many ways to depict the Sun itself. The mode of representation from such a simple geometric base can be quite complex... and much more complex symbols exist.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/685/sunmp.png/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/833/triskele.png/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/543/spirals.png/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/638/stag.png/
The same is the case with the swastika, which appears from Central and Southern Europe to Siberia, South India and East Asia. This of course can not be coincidental (look at the map).
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.
I guess in this case it comes that American geneticist found some kind of coherence in his research, but since he had no enough or wide-ranging knowledge about other sciences (as a geneticist), he didn't know it to what to associate his discoveries.
On the website of professor M. Naddeo you may read this in the introduction: The last two centuries have seen the best resources in terms of historical, archaeological and linguistic research devoted to emphasising the Indo-European identity of the old world.
However, Europe was not uninhabited before the Indo-Europeans came, as has even been suggested! What have we inherited from the first, indigenous, populations of Europe? Who were they? How did they live? Who did they worship? What language did they speak? What was their society, art and culture like?
The aim is to restore to the collective European conscience the heritage that has come from our earliest ancestors, so that we may all be equally and with good reason proud of the common Finno-Ugrian, Saharian and Indo-European origins of our civilisation.
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.
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)
Of course he has some books just as other scholars researching on this field have books... If I could give you an advice, I would recommend these articles for perusal:
http://www.michelangelo.cn/download/paper_04_Eng.pdf
http://www.michelangelo.cn/download/honfoglalas_eng.pdf
http://www.michelangelo.cn/index.php?arguments=dynamic&idPagina=a90129bdd&preferredLang=uk (check the abstracts)
http://www.michelangelo.cn/download/Magyar_Genetika_Hungarian_Genetics.pdf
http://www.michelangelo.cn/index.php?arguments=dynamic&idPagina=dec2e2952&preferredLang=uk
I would add that the author is frequently describes these related populations as "Magyars", more often as "Hungarians", but this is due to the fact that these folks have no accepted name in useage, only denominations given by external observers like Greeks, Persians, Chinese; and that all the mentioned (related) folks, Sarmatians, Avars, Magyars, etc migrated back to the Carpathian Basin where they became what is now the Hungarian nation.