Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spunjer
so, what's your definition of old? as you said of my kris:
ok, so to you it's a suspect at first because ivory was used but after being refuted you decided to change your tune and back your statement up with:
and this:
so are you saying that late 1800 krises as recent? so again, how definitive are you that these alleged pictures you saw from smithsonian were old? again, are there tell tale signs that these were "old"? we would like to know this new methodology of aging these weapons.
turko. vikingo.
lol, that's funny-o.
|
correction: I did not change my tone. I said it's 19th century, and if you want me to put a ball park, it's mid 19th century upto mid 20th century. I did not change.
I just told you in archaelogy, the development of tools is from simple to complex. The more intricate it looks, the more recent it is.
if you are an antiquarian or antique collector, 1800 artifact is ancient. For anthropologists or historians ancient means centuries ago.
Stop nitpicking. It was you who said turko was introduced by the spanish, and I refuted that idea since vikingo does not exist in our Lexicon. Bombay exists. It's because early Filipinos did meet early Indians, and there were indians living in cainta, rizal as early as mid 1700.
As I studied Philippine languages, it seems that we don't have early names for foreigners our forefathers had not met. Vikingo is a case in point. Yes, I checked the DNA chart, Filipinos do not have any viking genes.
By the way, I think the r1b I thought is actually rxr1 coming from the australian aborigines and cameroon, africa. It is explainable. We have negroid natives in the philippines such as aetas.
Now why would Philippines sumatra, and borneo have a eurasian haplogroup? I think that's where the turkish ottomans enter the scene.