Page 1 of 3 [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

13 Apr 2015, 6:16 pm

I think studying the Turkic peoples is interesting. For example, the center of the Huns power was right around modern-day Hungary, and Attila the Hun's palace was located on the Danube, not too far from modern-day Budapest. One interesting finding is that some of the cauldrons found near Budapest greatly resemble some of the ones found in Inner Mongolia, China.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

13 Apr 2015, 6:22 pm

Yep...I find anthro/archaeology quite interesting!

This is rather a "special interest" of mine when I was around 12-13 years old.



Lazar_Kaganovich
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 412

13 Apr 2015, 6:43 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
I can't dispute that.



:thumright:


Yup. Every informed person knows it's true; even though many deny it because they don't want it to be so.

But now that we're livin' in the 21st century, it's time to use scientific and not political definitions for features of the Earth like continents for example.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,879
Location: temperate zone

13 Apr 2015, 6:45 pm

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I would say that, technically, Europe is not a "continent." It comprises probably 1/4-1/5 of the Eurasian landmass.

Geopolitically, though (whether it's fair or unfair), it is a full-fledged continent.

I would agree with the poster who stated that Europe, in reality, is merely a "sub-continent," like India is a "sub-continent."


Well no, it is not even a sub-continent. A subcontinent is a region of a (larger)continent which lies on a separate plate from the rest of the continental landmass. There is no body of water between India and the rest of Eurasia but there IS a geological boundary(in terms of an underground separation between the Eurasian plate and the Indo-Australian plate).

Europe is not only connected to Asia by thousands of miles of land, but it lies on the same tectonic plate. So in short, it is a region, but not a continent or sub-continent.


None of this is necessarily so.

Its common knowledge that the Europe was found to be a seperate landmass by geologic drilling ships in the seventies (along with reams of other discoveries that ushered in modern plate tectonic based geology) on its own plate for a period in the Mesozoic ( I was stunned as well to learn that "Europe" had more reality in nature than I previously thought when I read about the latest discoveries in geology in the Seventies).

The concept of "continents" predated the discovery of plate tectonics. So using plate tectonics isnt necessarily a guide to what is, and what is not, a "continent". The Traditional definition is a "large land mass set off by seas from other landmasses is what most still use today. And even by THAT definition Europe is not continent. But it could be a "subcontinent". And if you DO go by plate tectonics then (and were really strict about it) then: Madagascar would be its own continent, Italy would be its own continent, Jordan would be on a seperate continent from Israel, Tanzania would be on a seperate continent from Zaire/Congo, and one side of San Francisco would be on a seperate continent from the other side of San Francisco.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

13 Apr 2015, 6:51 pm

I guess it depends upon one's definition of "continent."

If it has to do with plate tectronics, then Europe is not separate from Eurasia.

If it has to do with other criteria.....then this would be material for a great discussion.



Shoggothgoat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2015
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 783
Location: Norway

13 Apr 2015, 6:53 pm

When I was in grade 8 or 9 we learned about eurasia and the other continents geography wise. Europe was just one of many parts of the world. The only people I have ever really heard talking about the european continent are americans and brits.



Lazar_Kaganovich
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 412

13 Apr 2015, 9:21 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I would say that, technically, Europe is not a "continent." It comprises probably 1/4-1/5 of the Eurasian landmass.

Geopolitically, though (whether it's fair or unfair), it is a full-fledged continent.

I would agree with the poster who stated that Europe, in reality, is merely a "sub-continent," like India is a "sub-continent."


Well no, it is not even a sub-continent. A subcontinent is a region of a (larger)continent which lies on a separate plate from the rest of the continental landmass. There is no body of water between India and the rest of Eurasia but there IS a geological boundary(in terms of an underground separation between the Eurasian plate and the Indo-Australian plate).

Europe is not only connected to Asia by thousands of miles of land, but it lies on the same tectonic plate. So in short, it is a region, but not a continent or sub-continent.


None of this is necessarily so.

Its common knowledge that the Europe was found to be a seperate landmass by geologic drilling ships in the seventies (along with reams of other discoveries that ushered in modern plate tectonic based geology) on its own plate for a period in the Mesozoic ( I was stunned as well to learn that "Europe" had more reality in nature than I previously thought when I read about the latest discoveries in geology in the Seventies).

The concept of "continents" predated the discovery of plate tectonics. So using plate tectonics isnt necessarily a guide to what is, and what is not, a "continent". The Traditional definition is a "large land mass set off by seas from other landmasses is what most still use today. And even by THAT definition Europe is not continent. But it could be a "subcontinent". And if you DO go by plate tectonics then (and were really strict about it) then: Madagascar would be its own continent, Italy would be its own continent, Jordan would be on a seperate continent from Israel, Tanzania would be on a seperate continent from Zaire/Congo, and one side of San Francisco would be on a seperate continent from the other side of San Francisco.




There IS a difference between continent and sub-continent. A subcontinent is a part of a large continental landmass that lies on a distinct tectonic plate. A good example is the Indian subcontinent and the Arabian subcontinent. Italy does not rest on a single tectonic plate. In fact, the boundary between the European and the African plate passes through the southern part of the Italian peninsula. As for the African plate, yes a subcontinent is forming in eastern Africa but it has not completely split off from the African plate as of yet and won't for a few years.

And furthermore, the formation of the Eurasian landmass from the fusion of several preexisting tectonic plates and was formed over 300,000,000 years ago(375M to 325M years ago)which was a loooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnng before the existence of humans; or even mammals for that matter! What is now Europe was once part of a prehistoric continent called Laurentia which fused with several other prehistoric continental plates to form a new continent called Laurasia....which is now Eurasia. QED.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,879
Location: temperate zone

13 Apr 2015, 9:59 pm

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I would say that, technically, Europe is not a "continent." It comprises probably 1/4-1/5 of the Eurasian landmass.

Geopolitically, though (whether it's fair or unfair), it is a full-fledged continent.

I would agree with the poster who stated that Europe, in reality, is merely a "sub-continent," like India is a "sub-continent."


Well no, it is not even a sub-continent. A subcontinent is a region of a (larger)continent which lies on a separate plate from the rest of the continental landmass. There is no body of water between India and the rest of Eurasia but there IS a geological boundary(in terms of an underground separation between the Eurasian plate and the Indo-Australian plate).

Europe is not only connected to Asia by thousands of miles of land, but it lies on the same tectonic plate. So in short, it is a region, but not a continent or sub-continent.


None of this is necessarily so.

Its common knowledge that the Europe was found to be a seperate landmass by geologic drilling ships in the seventies (along with reams of other discoveries that ushered in modern plate tectonic based geology) on its own plate for a period in the Mesozoic ( I was stunned as well to learn that "Europe" had more reality in nature than I previously thought when I read about the latest discoveries in geology in the Seventies).

The concept of "continents" predated the discovery of plate tectonics. So using plate tectonics isnt necessarily a guide to what is, and what is not, a "continent". The Traditional definition is a "large land mass set off by seas from other landmasses is what most still use today. And even by THAT definition Europe is not continent. But it could be a "subcontinent". And if you DO go by plate tectonics then (and were really strict about it) then: Madagascar would be its own continent, Italy would be its own continent, Jordan would be on a seperate continent from Israel, Tanzania would be on a seperate continent from Zaire/Congo, and one side of San Francisco would be on a seperate continent from the other side of San Francisco.




There IS a difference between continent and sub-continent. A subcontinent is a part of a large continental landmass that lies on a distinct tectonic plate. A good example is the Indian subcontinent and the Arabian subcontinent. Italy does not rest on a single tectonic plate. In fact, the boundary between the European and the African plate passes through the southern part of the Italian peninsula. As for the African plate, yes a subcontinent is forming in eastern Africa but it has not completely split off from the African plate as of yet and won't for a few years.

And furthermore, the formation of the Eurasian landmass from the fusion of several preexisting tectonic plates and was formed over 300,000,000 years ago(375M to 325M years ago)which was a loooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnng before the existence of humans; or even mammals for that matter! What is now Europe was once part of a prehistoric continent called Laurentia which fused with several other prehistoric continental plates to form a new continent called Laurasia....which is now Eurasia. QED.


I didnt say humans were around when it happened.

Actually the continent was "Euramerica": what is now europe (sans Italy, but pretty much all of European Russia), and North America. This slammed into Asia forming the super continent of Pangea (thrusting up the Urals). Then later in the days of the dinosaurs the Atlantic opened up between Europe and North America causing North America and Eurasia to become seperate continents. So Europe went from being joined to America to be joined to Asia even though it may never have actually been drifting free as a unit. Its still was a geological unit nonetheless.

"Continent"is a bit subjective. Like the word "planet".

There was that big stink a few years ago when astronomers agreed to demote Pluto down from the status of "planet'.

Folks forget how the term "planet" had already changed over the centuries. When the word "Planet" (meaning 'wanderer') was first coined back in the ancient times Pluto, Neptune, and Uranus, and not yet been discovered. And the Moon, and Sun, were both called "planets", but the Earth was NOT considered to be a "planet". Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, retain their ancient label of "planet".

The little lights in the night sky that didnt move were called "stars", so the other lights that did move about the sky were "wanderers", and the thing we stand on that obviously doesnt move, and is obviously is the center of the Universe, can't possibly be "a planet'!



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Apr 2015, 10:49 pm

The notion that Europe is a continent is, I think, based more on Euro-centrism. That is, Europeans have had an idea of their own separate cultural and ethnic identity keeping them apart from Asians, and thus they believe themselves to be a whole other continent from Asia. In fact, if any racial and cultural notions were to be dropped, we'd be speaking Eurasia.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Lazar_Kaganovich
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 412

14 Apr 2015, 1:19 am

naturalplastic wrote:

I didnt say humans were around when it happened.

Actually the continent was "Euramerica": what is now europe (sans Italy, but pretty much all of European Russia), and North America. This slammed into Asia forming the super continent of Pangea (thrusting up the Urals). Then later in the days of the dinosaurs the Atlantic opened up between Europe and North America causing North America and Eurasia to become seperate continents. So Europe went from being joined to America to be joined to Asia even though it may never have actually been drifting free as a unit. Its still was a geological unit nonetheless.

"Continent"is a bit subjective. Like the word "planet".



Not really. It is a landmass that rests on its own tectonic plate. That is the most consistent definition. Regardless, Europe does meet *any* definitions of a continent: It is not surrounded by water on all sides, it has no geological boundary between itself and Asia, and the eastern geographical boundary has been changed over history. Even the ancient Greek historian and cartographer Herodotos knew that Europe and Asia were part of the same landmass! Euroweenies and white nationalists can make as much of a stink about it as they want but no matter how pedantic you get, Europe ain't no continent. And that's the whole point.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

14 Apr 2015, 12:27 pm

Why is this in PPR? This concerns scientific classification. I'm guessing it has to do with unintelligent nationalism.

The reality is both classifications exist, one is older and one newer. There at least 6 interpretations of the continents.

It is discussed in detail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent

The key thing is the earth just is, classifications are just modeling. It doesn't make neat boundaries for us.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,879
Location: temperate zone

15 Apr 2015, 10:42 pm

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:

I didnt say humans were around when it happened.

Actually the continent was "Euramerica": what is now europe (sans Italy, but pretty much all of European Russia), and North America. This slammed into Asia forming the super continent of Pangea (thrusting up the Urals). Then later in the days of the dinosaurs the Atlantic opened up between Europe and North America causing North America and Eurasia to become seperate continents. So Europe went from being joined to America to be joined to Asia even though it may never have actually been drifting free as a unit. Its still was a geological unit nonetheless.

"Continent"is a bit subjective. Like the word "planet".





Not really. It is a landmass that rests on its own tectonic plate. That is the most consistent definition. Regardless, Europe does meet *any* definitions of a continent: It is not surrounded by water on all sides, it has no geological boundary between itself and Asia, and the eastern geographical boundary has been changed over history. Even the ancient Greek historian and cartographer Herodotos knew that Europe and Asia were part of the same landmass! Euroweenies and white nationalists can make as much of a stink about it as they want but no matter how pedantic you get, Europe ain't no continent. And that's the whole point.


You need to get a grip on reality dude.

First you pick a fight with someone who AGREES with you that Europe is not a continent (me). And then when I go further into the cause of agreeing with you by saying Europe is a subcontinent like India you respond by abusing me for the crime of agreeing with you!

Then you proclaim that the litmus test is "being on its own tectonic plate" which (a) contradicts your own admission that Italy is divided between the African and Eurasian plate, and (b) if you really wanna be a tectonic fundamentalist you would just abandon the whole concept of "continents" altogether as a quaint archaic concept. But you insist on having it both ways-old fashioned and modern. And you even admit that that doesnt work- you yourself point to all of the plate boundries running through continents that demonstrate that your definition of "continent" is nonsense. So you debate yourself as well as debating me while I am agreeing with you!

Jeeze!

But like Zero said above-check out the Wiki article. Its shows how subjective the whole concept of "continents" is.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

16 Apr 2015, 12:08 am

naturalplastic wrote:
A local free newspaper (not THE major paper, just a local rag) has a question and answer column for readers. One reader asked "why is it that the Russians didnt discover America first because the tip of Russia is so close to Alaska?".

The reader's question was based upon the assumption that the modern political boundries you see on maps today are the same as the boundries that existed in 1492- which is a gigantically dumb assumption.

The reader didnt grasp the concept that the Empire of the Czars didnt even reach the Ural Mountains until 1580, and further back (when Columbus sailed in 1492) Russia wasnt even a unified state yet (even the part within Europe). And that even in 1580 the Eastern boundry of Russia in the Urals was twice the distance to Alaska as the width of the Atlantic Ocean that Columbus had to cross. The reason the Russians didnt discover America was 1)the Russian state didnt exist yet, and (2) When the Russian state did form it was twice as remote from America as Spain (or any country on the west coast of Europe) so they were last place you would expect to "discover America".


Don't forget about Leif Erikson and his crew, they were likely the first Europeans to walk on the American mainland by visiting Canada around the year 1000. Greenland is also part of the American continent and was discovered before that.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

16 Apr 2015, 12:10 am

0_equals_true wrote:
Why is this in PPR? This concerns scientific classification. I'm guessing it has to do with unintelligent nationalism.


Because the Science&Technology forum is mostly used to talk about gadgets and computers and nothing else. It has a different crowd than PPR. I think anything relating to history and geography will get more responses in PPR.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,879
Location: temperate zone

16 Apr 2015, 8:07 pm

trollcatman wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
A local free newspaper (not THE major paper, just a local rag) has a question and answer column for readers. One reader asked "why is it that the Russians didnt discover America first because the tip of Russia is so close to Alaska?".

The reader's question was based upon the assumption that the modern political boundries you see on maps today are the same as the boundries that existed in 1492- which is a gigantically dumb assumption.

The reader didnt grasp the concept that the Empire of the Czars didnt even reach the Ural Mountains until 1580, and further back (when Columbus sailed in 1492) Russia wasnt even a unified state yet (even the part within Europe). And that even in 1580 the Eastern boundry of Russia in the Urals was twice the distance to Alaska as the width of the Atlantic Ocean that Columbus had to cross. The reason the Russians didnt discover America was 1)the Russian state didnt exist yet, and (2) When the Russian state did form it was twice as remote from America as Spain (or any country on the west coast of Europe) so they were last place you would expect to "discover America".


Don't forget about Leif Erikson and his crew, they were likely the first Europeans to walk on the American mainland by visiting Canada around the year 1000. Greenland is also part of the American continent and was discovered before that.




The age of European colonization of the Americas began with Columbus, and not with the Vikings.

But yes-even if you take away Columbus, and substitute Leif Erickson my point would be the same.

The point being that - back in the Middle Ages- an adventurer going west by sea from any west european country (like either Columbus's Spain, or Erickson's Norway) would be more likely to stumble upon America, than an Adventurer going east from (what is now) European Russia hiking the whole then unexplored length of Siberia.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

17 Apr 2015, 12:45 pm

If you are a geologist you should be unconcerned by the definition of continents. Nature doesn't define continents they are arbitrary. The historical definition of continents had nothing to do with geology at all (which wasn't understood at the time), so the premise that Europe is not a content "under any definition" is false.

If you are a statistician, you might use a definition, but you could use any definition, as long as you are consistent.

A scientist should only use a definition, in order to select a group of territories or arbitrary geographical region, or arbitrary geographical, or arbitrary demographic for hypothesis or experiment.

The majority of major geological feature you might use for defining continents were created long before nation or even people.

This isn't a subject to get hot-headed about it is arbitrary.