Printable View
Seleukid? That´s not really any people, unless you are a mix of Macedonian, Greek, Syrian, Persian, Jewish, and a dozen other peoples.
Which of course you could be.
Personally, I´ve never felt "connected" to the Sweboz just because I´m kinda related to them, but I have always felt for the Druhtiz Skandzisku (Scandinavian Spearmen). If I´d have lived during that time that´s what I would most likely have been after all.
Exactly.Quote:
Seleukid? That´s not really any people, unless you are a mix of Macedonian, Greek, Syrian, Persian, Jewish, and a dozen other peoples.
Screw research, I'm half Makedonian and half Belgian :charge: And yes I do believe I'm related to Alexander and Ambiorix themselves.. :2thumbsup: Worship me
unreal_uk, I'm in Silure territory too. But yea, we are all African ultimately.
one quarter YueZhe, one quarter Sabean with a spread of Eskimese and Aztech... my grandmather sayd she was taken by Martians and raped, so i could be half martian too...
no seriously, i cant believe people who says they have ancestor from 2000 y ago... i can just arrive to my granfh and grand moder...
I believe we have some cultural heritages more than genetic "specific" ancestors... so very difficult to find.
Anyway who cares, we have to die like everyone other, so i dont want to be reputed like an ancestor of someone in the futur...
if i have some sons im happy, but im sure the sons of the sons of my sons will have soon forget about me, if i was a gaul, if i was a roman or if i was a baktrian...
If tomorrow my country will not exist anymore, and put the case there will be a new country named X, i think my successors, will repute them of that country rather than my actual country.
history change every Tot years, so i bet in 100, 200 years actual geography will be quite different.
I have no faith in the flag of the nations neither in that of the race.
i dont remember almost never in my life i have embraced the flag of my country... except were i were very little watching the worldcup.
Instead, we should all become Togo nationalists.
TOGOOOO!
TOGOOOO!
.
Go go Togo! :cheerleader:
:togo:
.
Were the Celts the only people to have red hair?
Several accounts by Greek writers detail redheaded people. A fragment by the Greek poet Xenophanes describes the Thracians as blue-eyed and red haired. The Greek historian Herodotus described the "Budini", probably Udmurts and Permyak Finns located on the Volga in what is modern-day Russia, as being predominantly redheaded. The Greek historian Dio Cassius described Boudica, the famous Celtic Queen of the Iceni, to: "be tall and terrifying in appearance ... a great mass of red hair ... over her shoulders".Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
Red hair was also found in Asia, notably among the Tocharians who occupied the northwesternmost province of what is modern-day China. The 2nd millennium BC caucasian Tarim mummies in China were found with red and blonde hair.[5]
According to Wikipedia
I'm a Canadian mutt...
:wink:
Test
All this mention of heritage makes me feel quite unfortunate. My mother was a hampster, you see. And my father.. well I remember nothing about him beyond his vaguely elderberryesque smell. Woe to me. Woe.
Ni!
This guy knows where the apple's gonna come down :eyebrows: http://ugly.plzdiekthxbye.net/small/s246.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by General Appo
On topic:
It was proved several times, that there never has been a ethnical celtic group. The celts were "only" a cultural family containing several ethnic groups like the gauls or britons for excample. When they conquered a foreign land they did not push the former settlers off of that area but made them part of their culture - the acting that was part of the Roman success! The Celts by that were able to generate a huge population not having to colonize conquered territory. The Germanics did it the other way around in most cases of ancient time (until the migration). So it is unlikely that the author of this thread is of celtic origin. The Celts were pushed out of Galizia and later the Vandals who most likely settled down there were also forced to migrate somewhere else a few centuries later, giving the land to the new slavic population!
The only things that really can prove ethnic populations are corpses from the swamps :eyebrows: They literally are a bessing to northern and central european research on ancient peoples :stupido:
Farewell so far :capricorn:
Chinese families tend to keep very good track of their ancestry. I have a big family scroll that shows my ancestry going back nearly one thousand years to the Song Dynasty. So I can state with great certainty that I am... Chinese.
It's not that difficult to keep track of family lineage in China either. I mean for at least the past three hundred years, my ancestors lived in the same village northwest of Guangzhou. It wasn't until 1976 that someone from my family moved to the city. And then all of a sudden, I now have relatives living in San Francisco, Vancouver, New York, Sydney, Lima, Jakarta, and Brussels.
Since I'm of Swiss origin, I can say with some certainty that I possess many Celtic ancestors.
The Romans assimilated the Celtic peoples of present day Switzerland, but did not affect their ethnic mix to a great degree. Later on, Germanic tribes such as the Alemanni moved into to Switzerland as the Roman Empire fell into decline, and proceeded to assimilate the Romanized Celts.
So: Germanic, Celtic, with a tad of Roman :balloon2:
I'm guessing that I'm Anglo-Saxon, (Germanic). Four of my eight great Grandparents were from the same village in Yorkshire (I've never even been to Yorkshire myself!), and three are from the south coast.
But the point is that its all relative, as has already been said, the human gene pool is only so big, hence we're all related!
Speaking of that there was this one show they did a test on a caveman skeleton;this dude in the town was closely related to him .
My ancestory may be Irish, but that doesn't mean my ancestors were at Alesia. I can however take some pride in the fact that the Celts (of whom the Irish could be called an 'ethnic group') once ruled all of Europe, sacked Rome and Delphi, created beautiful works of art in gold and silver, and left behind a mythology on par with that of Greece or Mesopatamia. European ancestery (especially for Americans) is very hard to figure out, mostly because of migrations, invasions and expulsions of peoples that have occured throughout history.
And yes, we are all African in the end.
Ah Chedder Man!
I know thats more settled science...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hound of Ulster
...like global warming and the bloody big bang...
but...
would you bet the ranch on that???
Guys, you are all *everything*, and much more recently than you might expect.
400 years ago, each one of us had more than one million direct ancestors at that specific generation. 800 years ago the number of your direct ancestors at that generation exceeds the total population of the planet, meaning your ancestors 800 years ago probably included much of the adult population of the world (who had any descendants that lived). Because of human migrations, even just a few Indian and Chinese traders in south Africa who sired illegitimate children there in the 1400's, or a couple of silk road traders from the Middle East who settled in China, if 800 years ago your ancestors included even a single European, African, or Asian, then 1,600 years ago your ancestors included most of the adult populations of all three continents.
If a historical figure who lived more than 1,600 years ago had children who had descendants, that person is almost certainly among your ancestors. Everyone in the world today is most likely descended from Nefertiti, from Confucious, and from Julius Caesar (through his illegitimate children, not Julia).
And yes, I would bet the ranch, and your ranch, and everyone else's ranch, that we are all African in the end. Multiregionalism is hardly acceptable as a serious scientific alternative to RAO (you can thank your DNA for letting us be sure of this).
I'm proud that my recent ancestors have been poor farmers who had good and stable families, but anyone who is excessively proud of their ancestry, especially after anything more than about 10 generations (i.e., more than anyone in the family might directly know or remember), imho, is a little silly. I'm almost certainly descended from Caesar and Alexander and Mohammed and Genghis Khan and Socrates and anyone else you'd care to remember, and you are too!
I like you man…
But you're crazy…
crazy man…
cum by ya...
massiv zingo blingo on the hacuna matata, dude...
The only ethnic descent I can claim with any certainty is Native American. The other parts of the family came from Northern Germany and Norway and who the heck knows what goes on in those barbarian places. They're always darkened in by fog of war.
Well, if you don't choose to actually read about what "scientists" have figured out about this sort of stuff, you can have whatever ideas you like. If you aren't talking about the most reclusive and distant Polynesian-Pacific Islander or Native American peoples who might not have a single drop of European or mixed blood in their veins, then the Most Recent Common Human Ancestor (not the first of course, just the most recent one who was *common* to us all) probably lived within the last 1000 years. That would mean we all are that closely related.
Trust me...
scientists often lie...
...like dirty rugs.
You just need to figure out their motive, means, and opportunity.
Man-made global warming; plain lies, miss steps, bad data, fake charts, and false graphs.
Big Bang and the outward expanding universe, yet we have the predicted massive collision of M31 and Via Lactea in the year 3 billon and 1?
Africa First, discovery of point-of-origin directly related to relatively small modern population, little vegetation, exposed geology, and hot-dry modern climate.
Face it dude, you live in world created by science in seven days, a lemming's paradise, where there's never any right, nor wrong, and you will never prove a thing worth knowing; cause the science tells you so?
As today, the road to good intentions, is paved with bogus science.
And the bogus science is the good science.
And whom were these illegitimate children of Julius Caesar?
So you probably have some Viking blood in you, too. Jórvík go go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
Lulz. Over-skepticism much?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Mnergh. On-topic; I've got at least Germanic and Finnish blood in me, and possibly some Swedish and/or Russian blood, too. Who knows? And, of course, my Germanic, or, err, German forefathers might've carried some Celtic blood, too, and perhaps some western Slavic too (again, who knows? Those are just groups that lived nearby and might've mixed, hence my assumption).
My Finnish bloodline (I've got mostly Finnish blood in me, the Germanic fore-father of my father's line migrated into Eastern Finland some time during the 1500s...) most likely contains relatively "pure" blood. I mean, inbredness is what we can attribute at least some of our (Finns) inheritable diseases to. Small populations ftl.
Whoaah, easy there...Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Although I do agree man-mad warming is false, but the data, charts and graphs aren't fake, they're just arranged badly: We know global warming isn't due to greenhouse gases, since the upper atmosphere is not heating slower than the troposphere, as it would in a greenhouse gas scenario, besides even if it were, 95% of the greenhouse gases is H2O vapour. Besides overlapping the charts you see the CO2 line following the temperature line. There have been many Universities that have dismanteled this thing as just an excuse to tax the most ubiquotus byproduct of burning processes.
But the rest, come on... Africa was the birthplace of humanity, both the first evolution towards a bipedal mammal from the primates there and Homo sapiens sapiens 80000 yrs ago.
The Universe may be expanding at a faster and faster rate, but it's structure is collapsing from the initial uniform soup of matter to the current string like shapes of thousands of galaxies that have clumped together due to gravitational forces.
Uh Julius Caesar was a notorious womanizer. Of course he had lots of illegitimate children. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
As for the rest of that kooky stuff, how do you start with the idea that scientists are generally lieing? I'd much rather trust people who are trained to do their research, then draw conclusions from it, than the other way around - if you are so sure all these scientists are just making things up, then you probably have your answers already in your head and no one is going to convince you otherwise. It makes for bad science and bad history too when applied that way.
Didn't the marching song of Caesar's legionaries go something like "here comes our bald whoremonger..." ? :sweatdrop:
Personally, I tend to trust the scientists unless given strong reasons not to in individual cases. Partly because they get results - case in point being the electronic hardware I'm typing this with. And partly because while their method for "filling in the blanks" may not be perfect, it's at least the best one around and they tend to keep each other in check readily enough. "Peer review", remember ?
Had to give you guys something better to write about. This threat was becoming a total cum by ya bore.
Good to see you're up to speed on MMGW. Did you read about the problems with the urban recording site data? The real problem here is the unsupportable rate of global population growth.
Expanding yet collapsing, could cover all the bases in theory, and I'm sure someone has found somebody to invent the math to support it? But does that make it right, or do we need a new theory? Maybe if one had a stationary point to stand and about a billion years, give or take 50 mill, to plot the paths of several galaxies. Everyone knows that the observational results from singular reference are directly related to chronometric exposure, distance, and relative prospective. How about blackholes followed by bangs, wherein some bangs are much bigger than others?
Humanity, and Homo Sapiens are not quite the same as bipedal primates. I believe, the actually evidence for the first Humans comes from the Near East and not Africa.
Are innovation and science the same, and is there a direct relationship between peer-review, correct grammar, career, and so-called public funding? But you're all right about some science being 'kooky stuff,' but that of course may also depend on ones point of reference.
Remember, this is all made in good cheer.