|
Solid Poopsnake posted:Is it time for the thread to host some lunatic again already? I like when it's not me.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
New page, let's share wacky facts about the Egyptians! Did you know that Pharaoh had to jack off into the Nile every year to keep the floods regular?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:New page, let's share wacky facts about the Egyptians! Scans of King Tut's Tomb Reveal Hidden Rooms, Egypt's Antiquities Ministry Says quote:Radar scans of King Tut's tomb have revealed two spaces on the north and east chambers of the pharaonic mausoleum that could contain the "discovery of the century," Egypt's antiquities ministry said Thursday. Prepare for more wonderful things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Scans of King Tut's Tomb Reveal Hidden Rooms, Egypt's Antiquities Ministry Says Five bucks says they find King Tut's cumvase.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
That radar is the real treasure. For archaeologists and nerds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
More archeology news: A man’s discovery of bones under his pub could forever change what we know about the Irish quote:DNA research indicates that the three skeletons found behind McCuaig's are the ancestors of the modern Irish and they predate the Celts and their purported arrival by 1,000 years or more. The genetic roots of today's Irish, in other words, existed in Ireland before the Celts arrived. Not a field I know a lot about, but I like old stuff so this is interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:More archeology news: And of course they were found in a pub.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:And of course they were found in a pub.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
That article is weird. It lays out the debate about the development of Celtic language/culture out well, but the bone finding seems to have no relevance to it. Like, aren't they just pre-Indo-European bones? So what? Did people think that the Celts arrived into an empty Ireland? This is just buzzword reporting and a weird refusal to accept the polysemy of the word "Celtic".
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:this is not "changing what i know about the irish," headline writers No this is probably the first time a pub stumbled into an irishman rather than the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:And of course they were found in a pub. Well Ireland is 60% pubs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 22:07
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Ras Het posted:That article is weird. It lays out the debate about the development of Celtic language/culture out well, but the bone finding seems to have no relevance to it. Like, aren't they just pre-Indo-European bones? So what? Did people think that the Celts arrived into an empty Ireland? This is just buzzword reporting and a weird refusal to accept the polysemy of the word "Celtic". Yeah this is something of a non-story. It's been known that the earliest post-Ice Age inhabitants of Britain arrived far before 2000 BC, so why would Ireland be any different. This is just some solid evidence for that. What this does prove is that when the "Celts" first arrived in Ireland, they didn't replace the earlier population. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Mar 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
What does it mean for an ethnic group to originate?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What does it mean for an ethnic group to originate? It's maddeningly difficult to boil down to a few sentences, especially since I've been awake for more than 24 hours. Have a JSTOR link.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What does it mean for an ethnic group to originate? They grow out of dragon's teeth and spring with a fully-formed cultural tradition in the lands which God has prepared especially for them to have and hold for all time
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:They grow out of dragon's teeth and spring with a fully-formed cultural tradition in the lands which God has prepared especially for them to have and hold for all time That only applies to this ethnic group: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
sullat posted:That only applies to this ethnic group: That was an inside job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What does it mean for an ethnic group to originate? This is a good example of a very astute question that has no real answer. You have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere, and it's up for debate what that line is. If you pressed me for a definition I'd say it's when a group speaks a language recognizably related to their modern one and has cultural traditions that they maintain for a lengthy period of time. Both those are pretty fuzzy categories but I don't know what you use other than language and culture. So for Roman ethnicity, we need a population of people around where Rome is founded who are speaking some sort of proto-Latin. I guess Rome isn't the best term, you'd call them Latins since they were around before Rome itself. The language is a recognizable ancestor of Latin and they engage in religious rites that we recognize as being related to the Roman pantheon. The first one that comes to mind as tough is China, because the Shang people were speaking and writing a language that clearly is ancient Chinese, but their culture was really weird. The Zhou/proto-Zhou were much more culturally like what you'd consider Chinese. These days I sort of lean towards the Zhou being the real first Chinese people instead of the Shang but it's very much debatable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:What this does prove is that when the "Celts" first arrived in Ireland, they didn't replace the earlier population. Well, once again we see that that practically never happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:This is a good example of a very astute question that has no real answer. You have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere, and it's up for debate what that line is. The Sorities Paradox is a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:The Sorities Paradox is a bitch. No, for practical purposes it's trivial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:The Sorities Paradox is a bitch. It's solved by nuance. You just need a logic system that isn't limited to "completely true" and "completely false" Surprise, when asking "Who the ancestors of X are?" you can almost never give a nice clean answer. I speak a Slavic language, look fairly "Slavic", but if I'm anything like the genetic research shows my nationality to be, I'm a fairly even mix of Slavic, proto-European, and Greek(ish) with bits of Celtic, Roman, and whoever_dropped_by_in_the_last_few_millenia thrown into the mix.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What does it mean for an ethnic group to originate? It means pretty much the same thing as it does for a story to begin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
my dad posted:It's solved by nuance. You just need a logic system that isn't limited to "completely true" and "completely false" You forgot to mention the turks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:You forgot to mention the turks. Surprisingly little influence left by them, at least the last time I read articles on such research. Not that it would matter either way, we are who we are, I am who I am.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Wait, are we talking genetically or culturally? Because, as far as the former goes, the Turks are a mix of older ethnic groups themselves, aren't they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Kassad posted:Wait, are we talking genetically or culturally? Because, as far as the former goes, the Turks are a mix of older ethnic groups themselves, aren't they? Genetically. Huh, now I'm going to have to start looking for that article again, it's possible that I misread it in that regard. Culturally, they left a hell of a lot of influence. (though things that resulted from proximity to the final stretch of the Silk Road and the pre-Ottoman rule trade with ERE, Persia and beyond tend to be attributed to the Ottomans too because "it's all the same amirite?") my dad fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
No you're right. The cultural influence was huge but genetic was not. The Turks were always a relatively small group ruling over the much larger pre-existing population. Genetically speaking people in Turkey are basically Greeks, there simply weren't enough Turks to make any significant changes there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Speaking of genetics, I really like this map: What's "K" doing in Serbia? Hey Hogge, where did you get that one from?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:No you're right. The cultural influence was huge but genetic was not. The Turks were always a relatively small group ruling over the much larger pre-existing population. Genetically speaking people in Turkey are basically Greeks, there simply weren't enough Turks to make any significant changes there. The difference is basically religion really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Any time you start trying to get into genetic identification of groups that, at their core, are cultural constructs you get into a big, messy ball of poo poo. The problem is that everyone who really cares deeply about what it means to be a True Irishman (or German, or Turk, or Serbian, or Chinese, or. . . ) doesn't want to view things as anything but cut and dry. They want a measure of Irish-ness that says before this time there were no Irish and then after this time there were, and using these tools we can identify that Mr. McDublin is 100% Irish. Meanwhile Mrs. O'Boston is 50% Irish, and little Timmy London is only 25% and never knew it because his lovely grandparents covered up the fact that one of them was born in Cork. What they DONT want to hear is that it's more like a specific profile of a few tens of thousands of distinct traits, and that there is no perfect Irishman. Nuances, sliding scales, and subtleties don't play well in conversations about determining the genetic makeup of a group that is really defined more by a shared culture than by who their great-great-grandmother hosed. edit: to clarify this isn't to say that there aren't genetic markers that are typical of one region or another. It's just that it's never going to be as simple as "this is Turkish and this is Greek and this is Armenian" and more "these 20 things are generally kind of typical of SE Europe and the northern Mid-east, I guess we can say they are broadly Turkic? Oh, but they're not exclusively Turkic and not all Turkic peoples have to have all of them. . . ." Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
So would you say that there is no true Scotsman?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:So would you say that there is no true Scotsman? The true scotsman is a social construct and no true scotsman would believe otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:What's "K" doing in Serbia?  Considering that the chart gives Serbia a significantly larger concentration of it than, er, literally anyone else on that map if I'm reading it right, I'll venture a guess that it's either a mistake by the map-makers or something related to the Vinča culture. Then again, I'm making wild guesses, and your guess is as good as mine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:edit: to clarify this isn't to say that there aren't genetic markers that are typical of one region or another. It's just that it's never going to be as simple as "this is Turkish and this is Greek and this is Armenian" and more "these 20 things are generally kind of typical of SE Europe and the northern Mid-east, I guess we can say they are broadly Turkic? Oh, but they're not exclusively Turkic and not all Turkic peoples have to have all of them. . . ." So does this mean that those Ancestry DNA tests are bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Hamlet442 posted:So does this mean that those Ancestry DNA tests are bullshit? No, different areas have different patterns of genetic markers and you can trace people by them. The point is there's no hard line between groups that have had a lot of contact. The genetic groups of, say, Irish and Japanese are quite distinct but Norwegian and Swedish are going to be very similar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
my dad posted:
First I suspected that "K" stands for "Kebap", but here you go: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_K_mtDNA.shtml
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:First I suspected that "K" stands for "Kebap", but here you go: Huh, that's cool to know. Thanks. I don't associat K with kebab because I call it ćevap, sorry.  e: I guess it was a mistake by the mapmakers, considering that the thingie you linked gives us a fairly low concentration of it. e2: Wait, apparently kebab is also what we call ražnjić? Huh. Not exactly similar meals. my dad fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Well, once again we see that that practically never happens. Well yeah. The European colonizations of North America and Australia are pretty much the only large-scale exceptions I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:What's "K" doing in Serbia? Hey Hogge, where did you get that one from? That country is very high in potassium.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:15
|
|
