Reconstruction of Ancient History

[Wazeeri]

Don’t you think you should now that you say the study only applies to Andhra.

Don't understand

NW is the entry point for Aryans coming from Iran to India.

My question was regarding where you got the idea that i was speaking of NW.

Where does it talk about Aryans originating in India. All I see is India, Trans-Caucasus and the regions between them. For an Aryan out of India you will need to delete ‘Trans-Caucasus and the regions between them for that comment and make the timing between 3000 to 5000 years.

Nit picking,
He has mentioned India as the birth place. The key word is AND
Not India OR tans-caucasus regions
India AND tans-caucasus regions.

If there was no revival of Hinduism you wouldn’t have a hindu majority which in time led to a Vaishnavite majority among hindus. That is the only relevance of Shankaracharya.

Leaps in logic, Hindu majority leads to vaishnava majority

Vaishnavite majority among Hindus is a result of bhakti movement, which almost by definition couldn’t be violent

Now you have added the bhakti movement to Shankar A. Why did you not mention this movement in the first place when it is more relevant to the question of the expansion of the Vaishnavism religion?

and how is the definition of bhakti non violent?

You denied upward mobility at that time. Can I argue that you denied the study earlier and are now supporting it.

I never denied upward mobility,
Not very sensible style of debate is this?

PS: What does the list of names at the bottom of post 78 prove. You are not suggesting that the Bamshad study is the same as the Jorde study in the article referred by you?

Yes essentially the same study. The Bamshad 2001 study was released online in 2000 before a revised version being published in print in 2001 after proof reading by other geneticists. Jorde's comments are from 1999.

Here are further comments from Jorde to confirm that for you

o, a very interesting historical insight, again consistent with some historical hypotheses that the invaders who came in about 3500 years ago, established the system, and primarily who were male, so we see the Y chromosome versus mitochondrial difference, we can still see that signature in today's genes. ...............

nd the secondary reactions to the study, we have spent, particularly Mike Bamshad has spent a lot of time talking with journalists from India to try to be very certain that our results are interpreted accurately. Professor Naidu has also spent a lot of time doing that. I think that for those of us who do studies of genetic variation in populations, that's a very important part of what we do, [an] important part of our responsibility, to be sure that the results are interpreted accurately. Thanks very much.

Are you suggesting that points can not be expanded as one gets deeper in a discussion.

No! points can be developed but the way you developed your points was as thus

You tried to explain the study,

Then

you rejected it by citing the lack of expertise in the scientists (which is assumed)

That is not developing a point and it is definitely not an objective analysis, to me it seems that you are trying everything in order to refute the study.

 

[moumotta]

Wazeeri,

You are dangerously close to derailing the discussion again. Unable to counter the arguments you have started question personalities. Can you focus on the arguments please and stop trying to win the argument by innuendos.

Kivisild can not be trusted because his research is being used by Hindutvas.

I can not be trusted because I am not objective.

Here are some of my very early reactions on the study and your inference of all male armies from it.

The genetic study is interesting and raises more questions.

For a moment assume this new theory is correct. Now think of the implications. Read all the vedic quotes again. The person writing those verses would already be half-blooded at the least. What racial purity would they be preserving- one that has already been 'sullied' by their fathers.

Wazeeri, We are talking about history here. Trust me on this. The genetic study messed up this part.

Can only reply with an emoticon
)

Very funny. Tell me how a trickle migration becomes a unified army based on a study.

Now you have added the bhakti movement to Shankar A. Why did you not mention this movement in the first place when it is more relevant to the question of the expansion of the Vaishnavism religion?

Here is a quote from my post 61.

Later from 12th to 16th century the Bhakti cult swept India. Some very talented poet saints- Chaitanya,Tulsidas, Surdas, Meera, Narsi etc- composed and sang devotional songs of Rama and Krishna. These gods with their human character were more in sync with poetic imagination than a remote non-personal Shiva. The poet saints turned Rama and Krishna in to folk heroes. Their songs became the folk songs of India.

The Vaishnav figures you quote are pre-dominantly Rama, Krishna worshippers and represent this change in popularity of cults.

and how is the definition of bhakti non violent?

Bhakti movement was led by saints, poets and mystics and took the form of personal worship, singing and dancing.

They will be non-violent the same way as sufi saints were non-violent.

Yes essentially the same study. The Bamshad 2001 study was released online in 2000 before a revised version being published in print in 2001 after proof reading by other geneticists. Jorde's comments are from 1999.

Here are further comments from Jorde to confirm that for you

Same team- not the same study. Jorde study was conducted in 1996.

Jorde study from your link

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/1220

During the genetic studies, in 1996 and 1997, researchers took blood samples from hundreds of people in southern India.

Jorde study is an earlier 96/97 study and is quoted as such in Bamshad (as a separate study)- See reference 5

PS:

My question was regarding where you got the idea that i was speaking of NW.

NW being the entry point for Aryans, any reference to Aryan invasion would be taken to mean an invasion in NW. As I said earlier I did ask you to clarify this a number of times. Anyway, if you did not mean a male Aryan invasion from NW then let us close this issue.

 

[Wazeeri]

Moumottta

The quotes you have provided reflect that you had reservations with the theory not the actual study.

You cannot deny the fact that you attempted to explain the scientific data, you were unable to hence you started questioning the acumen of the scientists and the weakness of how the study was conducted.

personalities

The next page of this thread is going to be very similar to the last because of you not me.

As for me attacking personalities, you are the one questioning the expertise of nearly a dozen scientists, I have given you a reason for why Kivisild's point of view is loaded.

You are not only questioning the knowledge of the scientists' on the subject of history and hindu caste but you are questioning their expertise in carrying out lab experiments.

Bhakti movement was led by saints, poets and mystics and took the form of personal worship, singing and dancing.

They will be non-violent the same way as sufi saints were non-violent.

Later from 12th to 16th century the Bhakti cult swept India. Some very talented poet saints- Chaitanya,Tulsidas, Surdas, Meera, Narsi etc- composed and sang devotional songs of Rama and Krishna. These gods with their human character were more in sync with poetic imagination than a remote non-personal Shiva. The poet saints turned Rama and Krishna in to folk heroes. Their songs became the folk songs of India.

The Vaishnav figures you quote are pre-dominantly Rama, Krishna worshippers and represent this change in popularity of cults.

First of all this Bhakti movement was not a unified movement. It was Vaishnavites and Shivites competiing for followers. It does not explain the heavy balance towards vaishnavites. You can argue that the vaishnavites were better at marketing their gods.

I have already accepted the point that marketing played in conversions, it was exactly the same with Christian and Muslim conversions. Forced conversions formed a small part of the movement islam and christianity had found routes in india through traders and saints many centuries before the arrival of the empires.

Marketing is always going to be a factor, I am afraid you are not open to any other factors mainly violence even though the rig veda and many smriti texts are full of accounts of violence towards the lower caste and subscriptions and orders to carry out violence against the lower caste.

If one group has all the benefits, if one group has power over the other, if one group commits attrocities towards the other (to this day).

That group is likely to gain an advantage in recruitment.

Anyway we can even forget the conversions to vaishnavism, what about the fact that Vaishnavites consider Shiva a lower god where as Shivaites hold the same respect for vishnu? Shivites have tried for many centuries to somehow prove or argue that Shiva is the same as Vishnu?

You cannot deny the part violence has played in the superiority of one group over the other.

Same team- not the same study. Jorde study was conducted in 1996.

Jorde study from your link

It is the same study here are Jorde's studies from the 90s

Jorde et al., 1998 LB Jorde, M Bamshad and AR Rogers, Using mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers to reconstruct human evolution, Bioessays 20 (1998), pp. 126–136. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (89)

Jorde et al., 1995 LB Jorde, MJ Bamshad, WS Watkins, R Zenger, AE Fraley, PA Krakowiak and KD Carpenter et al., Origins and affinities of modern humans: a comparison of mitochondrial and nuclear genetic data, Am J Hum Genet 57 (1995), pp. 523–538. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (165)

Jorde et al., 1997 LB Jorde, AR Rogers, M Bamshad, WS Watkins, P Krakowiak, S Sung and J Kere et al., Microsatellite diversity and the demographic history of modern humans, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94 (1997), pp. 3100–3103. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (157)

If you read the quote I have given you, you will find the name of Prof Naidu. Prof naidu worked with Bamshad in the mid 90s not Jorde.

if you did not mean a male Aryan invasion from NW then let us close this issue.

Closed.

 

[moumotta]

The quotes you have provided reflect that you had reservations with the theory not the actual study.

You cannot deny the fact that you attempted to explain the scientific data, you were unable to hence you started questioning the acumen of the scientists and the weakness of how the study was conducted.

I had reservations with the conclusion. I do a lot of study on history and I could sense that if the study as you presented it was true then it would have found mention in a lot of places. The fact that it did not do so raised a serious doubt. I went to find why and did so. Again rather than focus on how I got there can you focus on what I have found.

I don’t deny that because of your ongoing emphasis on the study I have read it several times and every time I discover something new. Guess what I discovered this time. Look at the names involved in the Bamshad study. The very second name is our dear friend Toomas Kivisild.

As for me attacking personalities, you are the one questioning the expertise of nearly a dozen scientists, I have given you a reason for why Kivisild's point of view is loaded.

He may be or may not be but can we just focus on his data. If there is a professional refutation of his data then I am all keen to look at it.

You are not only questioning the knowledge of the scientists' on the subject of history and hindu caste but you are questioning their expertise in carrying out lab experiments.

I have given my reasons. I have also given you a professional geneticist’s opinion that supports my arguments. You can refute them if you think they are not valid.

First of all this Bhakti movement was not a unified movement. It was Vaishnavites and Shivites competiing for followers. It does not explain the heavy balance towards vaishnavites. You can argue that the vaishnavites were better at marketing their gods.

In north India it was pretty much dominated by Rama and Krishna. I gave you a long list of poets who were all Rama or Krishna worshippers, each one of them a house hold name even today. You will struggle to find a matching galaxy of Shaivites in that time.

I have already accepted the point that marketing played in conversions, it was exactly the same with Christian and Muslim conversions. Forced conversions formed a small part of the movement islam and christianity had found routes in india through traders and saints many centuries before the arrival of the empires.

Marketing is always going to be a factor, I am afraid you are not open to any other factors mainly violence even though the rig veda and many smriti texts are full of accounts of violence towards the lower caste and subscriptions and orders to carry out violence against the lower caste.

If one group has all the benefits, if one group has power over the other, if one group commits attrocities towards the other (to this day).

That group is likely to gain an advantage in recruitment.

Anyway we can even forget the conversions to vaishnavism, what about the fact that Vaishnavites consider Shiva a lower god where as Shivaites hold the same respect for vishnu? Shivites have tried for many centuries to somehow prove or argue that Shiva is the same as Vishnu?

You cannot deny the part violence has played in the superiority of one group over the other.

I am missing your point here. Can you try and better organise it. I have told you many times that I am not arguing no violence and you agreed not to keep arising it a if I do but of all the possible questions you asked me one on the present popularity of Rama and Krishna. Can we stop this please. It becomes a bit annoying after some time.

It is the same study here are Jorde's studies from the 90s

OK

Wazeeri, You really need to think and state what it is that you are trying to prove now.

The study, leaving aside all the questions about its quality, is now agreed to apply to a small geographical area only. We don't know for sure who the Europeans were whose genes are floating in the sample population. What is it that you are now hoping to prove.

 

[Wazeeri]

I don’t deny that because of your ongoing emphasis on the study I have read it several times and every time I discover something new. Guess what I discovered this time. Look at the names involved in the Bamshad study. The very second name is our dear friend Toomas Kivisild.

I thought that was why you brought up his name. Kivisild did work on the first wave of migrants to India many years before the time this study has concentrated on, He is one of the proof readers due to this.

The fact that you are reading it again and again to nitpick is a clear indication that you are not approaching this sensibly, contrary to your request of a professional debate.

He may be or may not be but can we just focus on his data. If there is a professional refutation of his data then I am all keen to look at it.

Who is refuting the data? The data is the same, It is the conclusion which is being refuted.

I have given my reasons. I have also given you a professional geneticist’s opinion that supports my arguments. You can refute them if you think they are not valid.

1 geneticist Vs about 12.

Then you commented on me concentrating on personalities.

Wazeeri, You really need to think and state what it is that you are trying to prove now.

The study, leaving aside all the questions about its quality, is now agreed to apply to a small geographical area only. We don't know for sure who the Europeans were whose genes are floating in the sample population. What is it that you are now hoping to prove.

Like I said earlier there are two argument going on up here,
The genetic study
and the dominance of the vishwanites


GENETIC STUDY
The genetic study is applied to a small population but a population in the south of India.
The Europeans male paternity is found in the upper castes.
The caste system was created by the Aryans.
Too much a coincidence for me to look at other european migrants.

You asked me to provide you evidence of a male heavy invasion.
I did so.

You tried to tackle it.
Then failing that you started questioning the expertise of the scientists behind the study.

I have done my part in this debate, it is you who is prologing it.

Vaishvanism's dominance

We had agreed to leave this line of the debate because we had both reached the same conclusion that violence played a part in the spread of vedic religions.

You then back tracked and denied that the spread of Vaishvanism had any violence in it all. That is what has brought this debate back into the fold.

I have accepted that good marketing played a part in the spread of vishvanism what part do you think the following verses played in this?

" If a Sudra arrogantly teaches Brahmins their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears." Manu Smrti VIII.272


" Now if a Sudra listens intentionally to (a recitation of) the Veda, his ears shall be filled with (molten) tin or lac. " Gautama Dharma Sutra 12.4

" A once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin. " Manu Smrti VIII.270

" If a Sudra recites (Vedic texts), his tongue shall be cut out. " Gautama Dharma Sutra 12.5

" If he [ a Sudra ] remembers them [ Vedic Verses ], his body shall be split in twain. " Gautama Dharma Sutra 12.6

I understand that this is smriti text so please don't go down the route as that is not relevant. The above is an indication of the violence prescribed against the sudras and dalits. It glorifies the Vedas as something which are so great that they are beyond the reach of some humans.

What part do you feel the above plays in the spread of vaishvanism?

 

[Wazeeri]

I am missing your point here. Can you try and better organise it. I have told you many times that I am not arguing no violence and you agreed not to keep arising it a if I do but of all the possible questions you asked me one on the present popularity of Rama and Krishna. Can we stop this please. It becomes a bit annoying after some time.

Yes we did agree to that but here is your posts which started the argument again.

I thought that has been answered. The answer is a resounding No to any violence.

 

[moumotta]

I thought that was why you brought up his name. Kivisild did work on the first wave of migrants to India many years before the time this study has concentrated on, He is one of the proof readers due to this.

The fact that you are reading it again and again to nitpick is a clear indication that you are not approaching this sensibly, contrary to your request of a professional debate.

Don’t blame me for nit picking and finding holes. Blame the holes.

Who is refuting the data? The data is the same, It is the conclusion which is being refuted.

The data in table 17.2 of his paper? The data showing differences between Iranian and European population?

1 geneticist Vs about 12.

Then you commented on me concentrating on personalities.

I don’t see the point of 1 Vs 12 other than dramatic populism. Cavalli-Sforza has done these studies for much longer than most and knows their shortcomings.

GENETIC STUDY
The genetic study is applied to a small population but a population in the south of India.
The Europeans male paternity is found in the upper castes.
The caste system was created by the Aryans.
Too much a coincidence for me to look at other european migrants.
You asked me to provide you evidence of a male heavy invasion.
I did so.
You tried to tackle it.
Then failing that you started questioning the expertise of the scientists behind the study.
I have done my part in this debate, it is you who is prologing it.

I will ignore your spin but from what you are saying the only link with Aryans is the caste system and the higher representation of Europeans genes in it. Can you confirm that I am not misquoting you.

Vaishvanism's dominance

We had agreed to leave this line of the debate because we had both reached the same conclusion that violence played a part in the spread of vedic religions.

You then back tracked and denied that the spread of Vaishvanism had any violence in it all. That is what has brought this debate back into the fold.

I have accepted that good marketing played a part in the spread of vishvanism what part do you think the following verses played in this?
I understand that this is smriti text so please don't go down the route as that is not relevant. The above is an indication of the violence prescribed against the sudras and dalits. It glorifies the Vedas as something which are so great that they are beyond the reach of some humans.

What part do you feel the above plays in the spread of vaishvanism?

Yes we did agree to that but here is your posts which started the argument again.

Here is the full exchange.

You haven't answered my question re: how much a factor violence and the oppression of lower castes has played in the majority vishvanism has attained in India. .

I thought that has been answered. The answer is a resounding No to any violence.

The current Vaishnav majority is a result of a hindu ‘revival’ starting from Adi Shankaracharya in 8th century AD and culminating with saint poets. Shankaracharya’s movement was one of propagating his philosophy through discourses and debates. The saint poets wouldn’t even hurt a fly- they were like the hindu version of sufis.

If you wanted to prove Aryan violence then you asked the wrong question.

Vaishnavs were in a minority in the 7th century
The majority attained in present time is not related to violence.

If you can’t ask right questions, it is not my problem. Is it?

 

[Wazeeri]

Don’t blame me for nit picking and finding holes. Blame the holes.

The holes have been plugged.
I however don't know how to convince you that the scientist know what they are doing.

The data in table 17.2 of his paper? The data showing differences between Iranian and European population?

I still don't understand why you feel the data needs to be refuted. Do you consider Kivisild's rebuttal as a conclusive argument?

He is just providing an alternative theory which you don't agree with anyway.

You are deriving too much out of one sentence. Infact his statement supports the aryan race. I will highlight the line that you didn't highlight.

Indian populations has now revealed that a high frequency of this haplogroup is, however, characteristic not only of (eastern) European populations, but also of northwest India, where haplogroup 3 is characteristic of about half of the male population and is also frequent among western Bengalis (

He is just taking out Iran and a port city of Turkey from the equation.

is not necessarily related to migration to India from outside

The highlighted words above should make it clear to you that he is not providing a conclusive argument against Jorde's conclusion. He is just providing an alternative.

Here are the key things to note from your post which quoted Kivisild

Thus, both these studies suggest a substantial western malespecific gene flow to India during the Holocene.

However, several aspects .......... should be considered with caution.

high frequency in (eastern) European populations......also of northwest India

is not necessarily related to migration to India

Now we have a race X
It has travelled the region of Eastern Europe and North West India.

Kivisild is arguing that this doesn't necessarily indicate an immigration in to India.
The two possibilities are out of india or into india.

You decide.

I will ignore your spin but from what you are saying the only link with Aryans is the caste system and the higher representation of Europeans genes in it. Can you confirm that I am not misquoting you.

YES and the fact these people are known to have populated Eastern Europe and North West India.

Vaishnavs were in a minority in the 7th century
The majority attained in present time is not related to violence.

If you can’t ask right questions, it is not my problem. Is it?

Once again you have dodged the question.

I quoted the manu smriti and the Gautum Dharma Sutra,

All I want is a comment on the possible effect of that sort of a religious mentality on a potential converts choice from Vaisvanism and Sivaism.

 

[moumotta]

He is just taking out Iran and a port city of Turkey from the equation.

Why only two cities. Does this have something to with the fact that results from small sample sizes cannot be extended to general applicability?

Don’t you think it would have provided more credible results if Bamshad had also used Iran rather than European populations for his study. Remember that because of the timing of split Iranians should be genetically closer to Aryans.

The highlighted words above should make it clear to you that he is not providing a conclusive argument against Jorde's conclusion. He is just providing an alternative.

At this stage they are all alternatives. They are all hypothesis. Bamshad also presents his result as likely explanations and hypothesis and strains to establish consistency with historical data.

Here are the key things to note from your post which quoted Kivisild
Now we have a race X
It has travelled the region of Eastern Europe and North West India. .

How do we know. I am not saying that they didn’t, its rhetorical but what evidence are we using to conclude that they travelled in different directions. It is history. A tool called linguistics. Don’t you think similar tools should also be used to test conclusions from other studies?

Kivisild is arguing that this doesn't necessarily indicate an immigration in to India.
The two possibilities are out of india or into india.

You decide.

Let us put Kivilsid’s argument to test. If he is talking about pre-aryan times then we don’t have much to test his hypothesis against. If it is Aryan times then he has to explain the discrepancy with historic evidence. Same rules that should apply to all hypothesis.

YES and the fact these people are known to have populated Eastern Europe and North West India.

See above.

Once again you have dodged the question.
I quoted the manu smriti and the Gautum Dharma Sutra,

All I want is a comment on the possible effect of that sort of a religious mentality on a potential converts choice from Vaisvanism and Sivaism.

Dodging? I just explained why I said no and illustrated with the question that I was responding to. Didn’t you cite that response as your reason to whip a dead horse.

The brahmanic rules were and remain despicable.

Did it have an impact on people’s choice of sect. I don’t know but it seems rather far fetched in view of the social processes in place.

Acculturation was not an individual pick and choose.

Communities joined en-masse (we see this later during conversion to Islam in a slightly modified for where most conversions were an entire caste converting and they converted to Shia or Sunni whichever sect ever dominated the area and brought them in the fold but I digress).

In any case the leaders and more powerful people would have been accommodated in higher castes and both sects applied the caste system. To what extent these incoming leaders would have negotiated or sought better treatment for their less fortunate subordinates is anybody’s guess.

 

[Wazeeri]

Why only two cities. Does this have something to with the fact that results from small sample sizes cannot be extended to general applicability?

Don’t you think it would have provided more credible results if Bamshad had also used Iran rather than European populations for his study. Remember that because of the timing of split Iranians should be genetically closer to Aryans.

Iran is not a city and anatolia is one city in which he found a discrepancy in the genetic data. Iranians as a whole don't necessarily have to be similar to the aryans, some of their population needs to be similar to the aryans.

It seems the Aryans were less successful at populating Iran or becoming one of the largest races in Iran, maybe they just populated a few regions of Iran. Maybe later conquests from the other races managed to completely take over through genocides...etc.

Yes this is a glitch (Iran not anatolia) because the aryans are considered to have been the leading race in Afghanistan and most of Iran at some point but the glitch can be explained in many ways however what we do know is that there is a path from eastern europe through north Pakistan into India. The followers of that path have benefited from the brahmin caste structure.

How do we know. I am not saying that they didn’t, its rhetorical but what evidence are we using to conclude that they travelled in different directions. It is history. A tool called linguistics. Don’t you think similar tools should also be used to test conclusions from other studies?

Because the traces are found there, hence these people must have been in those regions at some point.

I seriously don't understand the question. Are you asking me how I know that these people travelled those regions?

Let us put Kivilsid’s argument to test. If he is talking about pre-aryan times then we don’t have much to test his hypothesis against. If it is Aryan times then he has to explain the discrepancy with historic evidence. Same rules that should apply to all hypothesis.

He is talking about Aryan times, I think you are getting confused between two studies. One study is suggesting that about 40/50 thousand years ago africans came to India. The MtDna they brought with them mutated several times to give us the various forms of Dna we have now. It doesn't have anything to do with this debate, the paper was not specifically on the topic we are discussing.

Kivisild is suggesting that because there is a bigger frequency of this haplotype in India then it is more likely that the Indian regions was the birth place of this race.

His only argument is that just because there is a similarity between the indians and the E Europeans then it doesn't mean that there was an immigration into India.

The brahmanic rules were and remain despicable.

Did it have an impact on people’s choice of sect. I don’t know but it seems rather far fetched in view of the social processes in place.

So your argument is that it seems far fetched?

So group A is stronger
Group B is opressed
Group A is richer
Group B can be killed for reading or listening to Group As literature
Group B is not allowed to even correct Group A

Is it so inconceivable that for someone making a choice as to which group to have some sort of alliance to, will not consider the disparity of social status between the two groups propogating their religion?

And let's just point out once again that you argued that it was the priests and saints who went around converting people.

Are you now arguing that these saints were the deal brokers between upper castes and lowers castes where they had the ability to allow the leaders of the lower castes upward mobility in the hierarchy?

 

[moumotta]

I will keep this brief but in the meanwhile following will help advance the discussion.

Iran is not a city and anatolia is one city in which he found a discrepancy in the genetic data. Iranians as a whole don't necessarily have to be similar to the aryans, some of their population needs to be similar to the aryans.

It seems the Aryans were less successful at populating Iran or becoming one of the largest races in Iran, maybe they just populated a few regions of Iran. Maybe later conquests from the other races managed to completely take over through genocides...etc.


Yes this is a glitch (Iran not anatolia) because the aryans are considered to have been the leading race in Afghanistan and most of Iran at some point but the glitch can be explained in many ways however what we do know is that there is a path from eastern europe through north Pakistan into India. The followers of that path have benefited from the brahmin caste structure.

It is a major glitch if Iran is not showing traces of these genes. Aryans not just passed throuh Iran. They populated it before a branch moved in to India. I will be keen to hear the exlanations.

Because the traces are found there, hence these people must have been in those regions at some point.

I seriously don't understand the question. Are you asking me how I know that these people travelled those regions?

The question, rhetorical, as I said was leading to 'we know what we know based on our knowledge of tools of history and similar toold should also be applied to all hypothesis including Bamshads'.

He is talking about Aryan times, I think you are getting confused between two studies. One study is suggesting that about 40/50 thousand years ago africans came to India. The MtDna they brought with them mutated several times to give us the various forms of Dna we have now. It doesn't have anything to do with this debate, the paper was not specifically on the topic we are discussing.

Kivisild is suggesting that because there is a bigger frequency of this haplotype in India then it is more likely that the Indian regions was the birth place of this race.

His only argument is that just because there is a similarity between the indians and the E Europeans then it doesn't mean that there was an immigration into India.

Let us park it for the moment. I have read Hindutva sites and while they refer to his research, they don't count him as a supporter of the theory.

So your argument is that it seems far fetched?

So group A is stronger
Group B is opressed
Group A is richer
Group B can be killed for reading or listening to Group As literature
Group B is not allowed to even correct Group A

Is it so inconceivable that for someone making a choice as to which group to have some sort of alliance to, will not consider the disparity of social status between the two groups propogating their religion?

And let's just point out once again that you argued that it was the priests and saints who went around converting people.

Are you now arguing that these saints were the deal brokers between upper castes and lowers castes where they had the ability to allow the leaders of the lower castes upward mobility in the hierarchy?

Seems I misunderstood your question. I thought you had moved back to the time of emergence of hinduism in BC era. If you are still talking about the Bhakti era can you clarify your conversion comment.
(effect of that sort of a religious mentality on a potential converts choice from Vaisvanism and Sivaism)
Are you talking about conversion of non hindus to hinduism or conversion from one hindu sect to the other.

 

[moumotta]

Appears to be fixed. Please delete posts 92 onwards.

 

[Wazeeri]

It is a major glitch if Iran is not showing traces of these genes. Aryans not just passed throuh Iran. They populated it before a branch moved in to India. I will be keen to hear the exlanations.

Like I said they may not have become a majority like they didn't become a majority in india but just controlled Iran. The Elam/ Jeeroftus civilisation has been known to have lasted until the 5th century BC.

My Googling talent has named the following races co-existing in Iran upto the 1 BC (Medes, Persians, Bactrians, Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Cimmerians and Alans). The Indo-arian invaders from Ukraine pushed these people to the South and South West.

Hence it can be deduced that the aryan control was Afghanistan and Northern Iran which is a plausible explanation of the lower frequency.

The question, rhetorical, as I said was leading to 'we know what we know based on our knowledge of tools of history and similar toold should also be applied to all hypothesis including Bamshads'.

I don't understand once again.

I said that we have traces of the same people in India, North Pakistan, Easter Europe, therefore we know that these people travelled these regions.

To this you replied "How do we know"

That is the question I didn't understand.

Let us park it for the moment. I have read Hindutva sites and while they refer to his research, they don't count him as a supporter of the theory.

I have already given you reference of where he identifies India as the area where the race is most likely to have originated.

Hinduvta do not own rights to the theory and they do not hold the register of who is a supporter or not.

Seems I misunderstood your question. I thought you had moved back to the time of emergence of hinduism in BC era. If you are still talking about the Bhakti era can you clarify your conversion comment.
(effect of that sort of a religious mentality on a potential converts choice from Vaisvanism and Sivaism)
Are you talking about conversion of non hindus to hinduism or conversion from one hindu sect to the other.

The argument applies to both the arrival of hinduism in it's vedic form and the conversion from Shivites to Vaishnavism.

The latter is what we have been debating lately.

 

[moumotta]

Like I said they may not have become a majority like they didn't become a majority in india but just controlled Iran. The Elam/ Jeeroftus civilisation has been known to have lasted until the 5th century BC.

My Googling talent has named the following races co-existing in Iran upto the 1 BC (Medes, Persians, Bactrians, Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Cimmerians and Alans). The Indo-arian invaders from Ukraine pushed these people to the South and South West.

Hence it can be deduced that the aryan control was Afghanistan and Northern Iran which is a plausible explanation of the lower frequency.

Not sure if they became a majority in India but that aside it will have to be a very small minority to be totally absorbed by other tribes and is in contrast to their influence on language, religion etc besides the fact that it gave them the name Iran, the land of the Aryans.

India is much bigger by size ad population. If European genes can be traced in India then it will be really surprising that they can not be traced in Iran. Question that arises is, are the gene similarities between Europeans and Andhra traceable to some other migration that by passed Iran, as we know that Aryans did not skip Iran on their way.

What we have here is an anomaly that needs to be explained by more than low probability conjectures or should lead to a revisit of assumptions.

I have already given you reference of where he identifies India as the area where the race is most likely to have originated.

This is what he says about the methodologies.

However, several aspects of these genetic distance and haplogroup-wise comparisons should be considered with caution

Second, great caution is required when interpreting the dates deriving from Y-chromosomal STR coalescent calculations.

If we were to use the same arithmetic and logic (sensu haplogroup 9 is Neolithic) to give an interpretation of this table, then the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe. We would also have to add that inconsistencies with the archaeological evidence would appear and disappear as we change rate estimates.​

What he is saying is be careful with your theories as they lead to absurd conclusions. If I have got him right he is mentioning ‘Indo-European languages arose in India’ as an example of absurd methodologies leading to absurd conclusions.

I have found other papers where Bamshad and Kivisild have combined their efforts. Following is one where Kivisild is leading a including Bamshad.
http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Kivisild_1999.pdf
Clearly their association goes deeper than a mere proof reading one. They are both aware of each other’s work and K must be well aware of the limitations of B’s work. If their work was defendable then you would expect Bamshad or Jorde to have issued a rejoinder in five years time since Kivisild’s work got published, rather than leave it to us, poor amateurs to debate over it.

In view of the points and explanations in the last few posts I should also revisit my question on the science behind dating the arrival of european genes to 4000 years ago. You explained that it is based on rate of mutation of genes. As it is now clear, the dating would be based on the mutation between the genes found in Europe and Andhra. The timing of the separation is not 3000- 4000 years any more (that time frame is the timing of separation of Iranian and Indian branches of Aryans). If you take it back to separation from Europeans then the date must be pushed back a couple of millennia.

The question again is what exactly was the genetic separation dated to 3000-4000 years ago,

The argument applies to both the arrival of hinduism in it's vedic form and the conversion from Shivites to Vaishnavism.

The latter is what we have been debating lately.

Let me just draw a rough sketch scenario of bhakti cult and you can challenge it.

The saint poets were worshipping Krishna or Rama. They composed poems and songs in praise of their gods and sang them in temple congregations. These songs became very popular. Congregations got bigger and people took these songs back to their villages and started singing them in their village gatherings. It led to a way in the way hindus worshipped their gods. Congregational singing and playing of stories (bhajans, playing out life stories of rama, Krishna etc) became a substantial part of the new form of worship.

If there are similarities with sufis they are not accidental. It is believed that sufis and bhakti saints influenced each other.

As we have seen earlier a hindu will worship Rama as well as Krishna and Shiva. The dividing line at grass root level is rather blurred. It is debateable to what extent they would have seen it as a process of conversion rather than singing the popular religious songs and stories of the day amd following a new style of worship.

As for your question on how the prescribed forms of punishment and segregation would have impacted their choice- these people were already in hindu fold an d followed caste rules. It is not as if singing Ram bhajans would make them subject to a harsher regime.

 

[Wazeeri]

Not sure if they became a majority in India

like they didn't become a majority in india

but that aside it will have to be a very small minority to be totally absorbed by other tribes

Who said anything about them being totally absorbed by other tribes, the data suggests a significant population. The only difference is that India and Eastern Europeans show a larger frequency.

India is much bigger by size ad population. If European genes can be traced in India then it will be really surprising that they can not be traced in Iran. Question that arises is, are the gene similarities between Europeans and Andhra traceable to some other migration that by passed Iran, as we know that Aryans did not skip Iran on their way.

The question re: Iran has been answered I hope, but just to add, Afghanistan and NW Pakistan are the regions most likely to be centre of the movement into India as they have been for many conquests to follow.

PS: Do you know of any other migration of Eastern Europeans past Iran?

What he is saying is be careful with your theories as they lead to absurd conclusions. If I have got him right he is mentioning ‘Indo-European languages arose in India’ as an example of absurd methodologies leading to absurd conclusions.

No thats not the quote I am speaking off, and you have misread it. He is arguing against the spread of farming theory by suggesting that it is not necessary that farming started off in one place and that the evidence of farming in other places at a later date is evidence of a direction of travel of the earliest farmers.

He is using the two assumptions to try and deduce a conclusion which is against other accepted evidence. I don't see the relevance of that quote of yours to this topic.

Here is the mentioned quote

6. Both Indian and Trans-Caucasian populations are characterized by generally higher diversity than European populations and their mtDNA pool contains lineages that stand in or derive from the ancestral nodes (R and HV) that are absent or rare in Europe. Thus it is highly suggestive that India, Trans-Caucasus and the regions between them were the birthplace of the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups which are now widely spread throughout Europe.

I have found other papers where Bamshad and Kivisild have combined their efforts. Following is one where Kivisild is leading a including Bamshad.
http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/...visild_1999.pdf

That is the same research, they have all shared each others data and this is Kivisild's version.

They are both aware of each other’s work and K must be well aware of the limitations of B’s work. If their work was defendable then you would expect Bamshad or Jorde to have issued a rejoinder in five years time since Kivisild’s work got published, rather than leave it to us, poor amateurs to debate over it.

I've answered that a few posts ago already.

There is nothing to refute as Kivisild is not saying they are wrong, in fact he agrees that their's is a possible conclusion. He is merely presenting a scenario which supports his earlier work.

In view of the points and explanations in the last few posts I should also revisit my question on the science behind dating the arrival of european genes to 4000 years ago. You explained that it is based on rate of mutation of genes. As it is now clear, the dating would be based on the mutation between the genes found in Europe and Andhra. The timing of the separation is not 3000- 4000 years any more (that time frame is the timing of separation of Iranian and Indian branches of Aryans). If you take it back to separation from Europeans then the date must be pushed back a couple of millennia.

Why does the date need to be pushed back? The split or mutation doesn't happen on cue to a seperation and neither do we have a timeline of the their travel to assume that it took them another 4000 years to get to Iran.

Could you elaborate with some numbers as to why you think the split should be pushed back.

The saint poets were worshipping Krishna or Rama. They composed poems and songs in praise of their gods and sang them in temple congregations. These songs became very popular. Congregations got bigger and people took these songs back to their villages and started singing them in their village gatherings. It led to a way in the way hindus worshipped their gods. Congregational singing and playing of stories (bhajans, playing out life stories of rama, Krishna etc) became a substantial part of the new form of worship.

You are changing the scenario every time.

From what has been quoted above, at what point did the leaders of the lower castes get acceptance in the upper castes? as you suggested earlier?

It is not as if singing Ram bhajans would make them subject to a harsher regime.

No but the fact that worshipper of vedic deities have the right to beat and kill the lower castes may impact their decission.

If one group is considered to be stronger then the other then automatically you will be inclined to see their way of life and their beliefs to be better then the other.

As for the comment re: same hinduism same caste system...etc, that is not entirely true is it? Hinduism the word has only been used in the past two centuries and before the bhakti movement you speak off we had the caste system imposed on the people and vishnu forced as a more powerful god then Shiva.

 

[moumotta]

Not sure if they became a majority in India

like they didn't become a majority in india

Did they!

We are talking about India- all its length and breadth and castes and communities

Who said anything about them being totally absorbed by other tribes, the data suggests a significant population. The only difference is that India and Eastern Europeans show a larger frequency.

I guess you have changed your mind and don’t consider it a glitch any more?

The significant population is not significant enough for Kivisild to conclude that the Y-chromosomal origin of 'higher' caste Telugus is least likely from Iran

PS: Do you know of any other migration of Eastern Europeans past Iran?

Not knowing the answer does not mean we latch on to the only answer we can think of and that too with 100% confidence.

Both you and I know that a larger study with more samples and a wider area of coverage within India and Iran will provide some good answers.

Alexander’s army would be a good candidate for a male lineage that reached India without leaving much of an imprint in Iran.

He is using the two assumptions to try and deduce a conclusion which is against other accepted evidence. I don't see the relevance of that quote of yours to this topic.

The relevance is that he does not come out as some one proposing Indo-European languages (read Aryans) out of India theory.

Both Indian and Trans-Caucasian populations are characterized by generally higher diversity than European populations and their mtDNA pool contains lineages that stand in or derive from the ancestral nodes (R and HV) that are absent or rare in Europe.

Thus it is highly suggestive that India, Trans-Caucasus and the regions between them were the birthplace of the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups which are now widely spread throughout Europe.

It is the same argument that is used for calling East Europe as the origin of the so called Aryan genes fund in Andhra.

I still don’t see what it has to do with Aryan out of India theory.

I don’t understand why that should lead us to ignore all his work.

If it is not relevant can we remove it from our discussion please.

That is the same research, they have all shared each others data and this is Kivisild's version.

Not exactly. There may be some sharing of data but it also includes additional data. Any way, the point I was making is that their relationship is more than one of proof reading as you maintained earlier and it is unlikely that Bamshad has been totally ignorant of the shortcomings or alternative interpretations as you call it, that Kivisild is pointing out.

There is nothing to refute as Kivisild is not saying they are wrong, in fact he agrees that their's is a possible conclusion. He is merely presenting a scenario which supports his earlier work.

That is very generous of them. They have been flogging this study for years with Jorde, Naidu and Bamshad taking it on them to explain their study and interpretations to all and sundry and when they are challenged by a geneticist they see no need to refute his interpretation.

Why does the date need to be pushed back? The split or mutation doesn't happen on cue to a seperation and neither do we have a timeline of the their travel to assume that it took them another 4000 years to get to Iran.

Could you elaborate with some numbers as to why you think the split should be pushed back.

I was only suggesting additional couple of millennia to allow for an earlier separation of people rather than extra 4000 years. As you have said it is for the time to travel to Iran, settle their and then a branch uprroted again. Remember displaced people did not have a stamped visa to know where they were going and seeking the fastest route to get there. The track would be slow and involve attempts to settle down as soon as they felt safe and until they were forced to move again.

What you are now saying is that the genetic mutation clock is approximate. I thought the 1000 year gap in the time range of 3000- 4000 was to allow for that uncertainly in estimation.

You are changing the scenario every time.

How. Please explain.

From what has been quoted above, at what point did the leaders of the lower castes get acceptance in the upper castes? as you suggested earlier?

Hopping between different time periods is really confusing us here. As I said my comment was in the context of when non-aryan communities first joined the fold and adopted caste system. Obviously there would be no lower or upper caste for the people coming in but they would have hierarchies. The chiefs and priests would be the leaders of these communities who would decide for the community and they would have been accommodated in kshatriya and Brahmin castes.

No but the fact that worshipper of vedic deities have the right to beat and kill the lower castes may impact their decission.

If one group is considered to be stronger then the other then automatically you will be inclined to see their way of life and their beliefs to be better then the other.

You seem to think that an illiterate person low down in social hierarchy will care more about reading Vedas than the day to day connectivity with his community? I don’t think you followed any of what I said on socio economic compulsions.

Any way this is now coming to a stage where you just keep repeating your view regardless of what any one can say.

As for the comment re: same hinduism same caste system...etc, that is not entirely true is it? Hinduism the word has only been used in the past two centuries and before the bhakti movement you speak off we had the caste system imposed on the people and vishnu forced as a more powerful god then Shiva.

This is why it becomes confusing. You again hop back to an earlier time without any signal.

The comment ‘same hinduism same caste system’ was about the time of bhakti cult. Why is it not true. Don’t use change of timing and context as an excuse.

 

[Wazeeri]

Did they! We are talking about India- all its length and breadth and castes and communities

Come on MouMotta

I highlighted my quote for you, read it again

THEY DIDN'T

I guess you have changed your mind and don’t consider it a glitch any more? The significant population is not significant enough for Kivisild to conclude that the Y-chromosomal origin of 'higher' caste Telugus is least likely from Iran

No like I said, it can be explained in many ways.

Kivisild's argument is that a high a frequency does not indicate origin as is deduced by Bamshad from a frequency of 47% in Eastern Europe and 30% in India. If that was the case then Anatolia and Iran can be ruled out as the birth place of this race.

He is not saying that the Aryans were never in Iran or that their following generations are insiginificant.

Alexander’s army would be a good candidate for a male lineage that reached India without leaving much of an imprint in Iran.

Alexander the great took over ALL OF IRAN EVERY INCH you got that one way wrong.

Didn't go past Multan in pakistan though.

Not knowing the answer does not mean we latch on to the only answer we can think of and that too with 100% confidence.

If that is the case then we can throw all knowledge of history out because it is all based on assumptions and a process of elimination.

The relevance is that he does not come out as some one proposing Indo-European languages (read Aryans) out of India theory.

That is not relevant at all because he is suggesting that India was the birth place of a race which travelled through India, North Pakistan all the way to Eastern Europe.

It is the same argument that is used for calling East Europe as the origin of the so called Aryan genes fund in Andhra. I still don’t see what it has to do with Aryan out of India theory. I don’t understand why that should lead us to ignore all his work. If it is not relevant can we remove it from our discussion please.

It is relevant because he is suggesting that there was a flow of these genes west wards instead of east wards as is generally accepted.

Not exactly. There may be some sharing of data but it also includes additional data. Any way, the point I was making is that their relationship is more than one of proof reading as you maintained earlier and it is unlikely that Bamshad has been totally ignorant of the shortcomings or alternative interpretations as you call it, that Kivisild is pointing out.

Bamshad 2001 is the proof read version of the earlier study in which Naidu, Jornde and Bamshad worked. Kivisild's data has been used and his conslusions refuted to some extent in bamshad and hence he is asked to proof read it.

Bamshad wrote this paper, Jorde wrote another paper, Kivisild wrote another one.


West Eurasian admixture in Indian populations may have been the result of more than one wave of immigration into India. Kivisild et al. (1999) determined the coalescence (∼50,000 years before present) of the Indian-specific subset of the West Eurasian haplotypes (i.e., U2i) and suggested that West Eurasian admixture may have been much older than the purported Dravidian and Indo-European incursions. Our analysis of Indian mtDNA restriction-site haplotypes that do not belong to the U2i subset of West Eurasian haplotypes (i.e., H, I, J, K, T) is consistent with more recent West Eurasian admixture.

That is very generous of them. They have been flogging this study for years with Jorde, Naidu and Bamshad taking it on them to explain their study and interpretations to all and sundry and when they are challenged by a geneticist they see no need to refute his interpretation.

They haven't been challenged, Kivisilds has said that their conclusion can be reached but there are other explanations. There is nothing to argue, they aren't going to get into a slanging match. Both have made their conclusions clear.

I was only suggesting additional couple of millennia to allow for an earlier separation of people rather than extra 4000 years.

So you are happy with an additional millenium? which is within the standard error range?

What you are now saying is that the genetic mutation clock is approximate. I thought the 1000 year gap in the time range of 3000- 4000 was to allow for that uncertainly in estimation.

Ofcourse it is approximate all estimates are approximates. The fact that they gave a whole millenium as the standard error should suggest that it is approximate.

You seem to think that an illiterate person low down in social hierarchy will care more about reading Vedas than the day to day connectivity with his community? I don’t think you followed any of what I said on socio economic compulsions.

I don't understand the relevance of what you are implying or what you are refuting with the above point?

Any way this is now coming to a stage where you just keep repeating your view regardless of what any one can say.

I think the above description would fit you more suitingly,
Let the sparring begin again (I am guessing I have started this, this time as well)

The comment ‘same hinduism same caste system’ was about the time of bhakti cult. Why is it not true. Don’t use change of timing and context as an excuse.

Why do you keep on calling it the Bhakti CULT?

It was a movement where people started alligning themselves to bhakti of one or few Gods. Why do you call it a cult? Are you trying to imply some sort of unified movement?

The fact these individual cults were competing for followers shows that it was different religions.

One religion had the upper hand of being able to beat and kill someone from the other group and having their gods superior to the other.

This helped the first group gain an advantage in recruiting over the other.

It wasn't as simple as the Vaishnavs having more catchy tunes to their bhajans.

 

[moumotta]

It is time we start summarising and winding up this discussion. The discussion on Kivisild is around two points.

1. His credibility in view of his Out of India theory- As I have said if he is arguing an out of India migration in the last 4000 years or so then that is a suspect hypothesis but from what we have seen he is not arguing that at all. Once it gets to the period prior to that then no one knows enough to prove him wrong. In any case it is not enough reason to rubbish a Cambridge University professor.

2. His interpretation and difference of opinion from Bamshad- All we can say is that there is a disagreement among professional geneticists.
​

I don’t see any reason to discuss it any further except to say that it means some more doubts about Bamshad/ Jorde conclusion.

Alexander’s army would be a good candidate for a male lineage that reached India without leaving much of an imprint in Iran.

Alexander the great took over ALL OF IRAN EVERY INCH you got that one way wrong.

Sure he did but the reference was to ‘without leaving much of an imprint in Iran’. Alexander conquered Iran and in a few years moved on to the next stage of his conquest. In India his troops refused to go past Punjab. Many of the troops returned with Alexander. Many others, unsure of what lay ahead on a long trek back to Macedonia, stayed in India. It can be hypothesised that the Greco-Macedonian army left a bigger genetic heritage in India than they could in Iran.

If you are just after other Europeans who reached India then add Greco Bactrains to the list.

There may have been others before Aryans that we have no record of.

Not knowing the answer does not mean we latch on to the only answer we can think of and that too with 100% confidence.

If that is the case then we can throw all knowledge of history out because it is all based on assumptions and a process of elimination.

Good point and that is what I have been arguing. Let us apply the rigours that apply to other tools of historical analysis including cross checks against other evidence.

So you are happy with an additional millenium? which is within the standard error range?

Ofcourse it is approximate all estimates are approximates. The fact that they gave a whole millenium as the standard error should suggest that it is approximate

I assume you are referring to the time period between 3000 to 4000 years as the standard error. The ‘se’ in this case is actually 500 years around a central estimate of 3500 years (3500+/-500).

Aryans are believed to have entered Iran in 3rd BC. That is already before 4000 years. Allow for some more time for them to trek from Europe to Iran and you would be talking about 5000 years ago. Now we need some significant stretching of time lines to make them barely meet let alone merge with 3000-4000 year range. In statistical terms you are talking about a probability outside 3 sigma and you know what that means.

You seem to think that an illiterate person low down in social hierarchy will care more about reading Vedas than the day to day connectivity with his community? I don’t think you followed any of what I said on socio economic compulsions.

I don't understand the relevance of what you are implying or what you are refuting with the above point?

You have been citing punishments on reading or hearing Vedas as a major factor people should have taken into account before entering the caste fold. I am saying that
1. it was not an individual decision. The entire community or tribe would have entered the caste fold and the main stream economy.
2. the decision would have been taken by the tribal elders who because of their rank would have been accommodated in higher castes.
3. The lower placed destitute would be more concerned with staying with their tribe rather than worrying about the punishments on transgressing the rules.

Let the sparring begin again (I am guessing I have started this, this time as well

I meant that as a genuine comment. May be I did not put it politely enough but I am a bit frustrated by your randomly repeating certain comments out of context. You may genuinely believe in it but it is not the best way to proceed in a discussion.

Why do you keep on calling it the Bhakti CULT?

It was a movement where people started alligning themselves to bhakti of one or few Gods. Why do you call it a cult? Are you trying to imply some sort of unified movement?

No I am not implying that though they would have been influenced by the saints before them so there was a sort of continuity of style and form.

The fact these individual cults were competing for followers shows that it was different religions.

I will like you to show me some evidence that they were out competing with each other. Tulsi, an ardent Rama devotee, in his Ramayana, shows Rama worshipping Shiva, which shows that while they had their preferred objects of devotion, it was not leading to undermining other gods.

One religion had the upper hand of being able to beat and kill someone from the other group and having their gods superior to the other.

This helped the first group gain an advantage in recruiting over the other.

It wasn't as simple as the Vaishnavs having more catchy tunes to their bhajans.

There you go again. This is what I was referring to.

Stepping back from the discussion on Bhakti times, even if you can prove, contrary to evidence that
(1) Vishnu is 100% Aryan god and Shiva 100% indigenous (2) Rama and Krsihan worshipping saints were bashing Shaivaites into conversion- even assuming for a minute that you prove all of that, it still means zilch for Aryan violence simply because the players are not Aryans or non-Aryans any more. To say it proves Aryan violence will be like saying that an Indian or Pakistani muslim terrorist is a proof of Arab or Turkish terrorism because they brought the religion to India.

 

[Wazeeri]

It is time we start summarising and winding up this discussion. The discussion on Kivisild is around two points.


1. His credibility in view of his Out of India theory- As I have said if he is arguing an out of India migration in the last 4000 years or so then that is a suspect hypothesis but from what we have seen he is not arguing that at all. Once it gets to the period prior to that then no one knows enough to prove him wrong. In any case it is not enough reason to rubbish a Cambridge University professor.

2. His interpretation and difference of opinion from Bamshad- All we can say is that there is a disagreement among professional geneticists.


I don’t see any reason to discuss it any further except to say that it means some more doubts about Bamshad/ Jorde conclusion.

I think the correct time to conclude the argument came and went long time ago and now is as good as any other time.

Kivisild is not arguing against Bamshad's timing. They agree on the timing (Kivisild 5000-3000, Bamshad/Jorde 3000-4000) of the mutation, Kivisild's argument however is that this mutation occured in North India (he means Pakistan) rather than Eastern Europe.

In any case it is not enough reason to rubbish a Cambridge University professor.

However you have found good reason to rubbish the work and expertise of professors from nearly a dozen universities?

Sure he did but the reference was to ‘without leaving much of an imprint in Iran’. Alexander conquered Iran and in a few years moved on to the next stage of his conquest. In India his troops refused to go past Punjab.

I am sure Andhra Pradesh is past Punjab.

Another thing which you have presented incorrectly is Alexander moving on from Iran. Most of his army was sent to the region between Iran and Markan Pakistan to consolidate the wins and that is where most of his army settled. The Seleucid empire stayed in Iran until 3BC, over 3 centuries.

I assume you are referring to the time period between 3000 to 4000 years as the standard error. The ‘se’ in this case is actually 500 years around a central estimate of 3500 years (3500+/-500).

You have latched onto the sarcastis remark I made to your assertion that the mutation has to fall within the time frame the Iran was reached

Wazeeri: So you are happy with an additional millenium? which is within the standard error range?

I will reproduce my first reply to you which you have ignored.

Why does the date need to be pushed back? The split or mutation doesn't happen on cue to a seperation and neither do we have a timeline of the their travel to assume that it took them another 4000 years to get to Iran.

The date is for when both parties held the majority of the same groups of MtDna's and Y chromosomes. The mutation is not geographic specific.

The reason why I suggested that you would need another 4000 years to support your query is because that is the time frame given for the first major wave of mutations. The mutation earlier would be assumed to be 4000 years before that. Hence the seperation can happen at any time in between this time frame.

You have been citing punishments on reading or hearing Vedas as a major factor people should have taken into account before entering the caste fold. I am saying that
1. it was not an individual decision. The entire community or tribe would have entered the caste fold and the main stream economy.
2. the decision would have been taken by the tribal elders who because of their rank would have been accommodated in higher castes.
3. The lower placed destitute would be more concerned with staying with their tribe rather than worrying about the punishments on transgressing the rules.

So the Priests who proposed Bhakti to a specific god/ gods only targeted the leaders of tribes?

I am confused as to how this works.

First of all the lower castes are not allowed in most Vishnu mandirs so how do the leaders of these lower castes hear the Bhajans which convince them to become Vaishnavites?

Why would the tribal leaders chose to leave their ways and move to Vaishnavism? Is it because it gives them a route to become a higher caste hence avoid the oppression and violence from the upper castes?

I meant that as a genuine comment. May be I did not put it politely enough but I am a bit frustrated by your randomly repeating certain comments out of context. You may genuinely believe in it but it is not the best way to proceed in a discussion.

I mean no malice by the following comments and will try to say them as politely as possible.

It is not as if you are answering my questions objectively.
In your very last post you avoided my point and quoted a sarcastic remark I made to one of your answers.
I feel the need to repeat my points because you are ignoring them.

I will like you to show me some evidence that they were out competing with each other. Tulsi, an ardent Rama devotee, in his Ramayana, shows Rama worshipping Shiva, which shows that while they had their preferred objects of devotion, it was not leading to undermining other gods.

I think the fact the hindu books were being written to show the supremacy of one god over the other is a great evidence of this. Shiva spreading disease in Krishna's armies and Krishna in turn spread disease in Shiva's armies. Guess what the diseases were called
Shaivuj-warum and Vaishnawuj-warum.

To add the fact there was a shift from Shivaism to Vaishnavism shows that the Vaishnav priests were targetting Shavites.

There you go again. This is what I was referring to.

Stepping back from the discussion on Bhakti times, even if you can prove, contrary to evidence that
(1) Vishnu is 100% Aryan god and Shiva 100% indigenous (2) Rama and Krsihan worshipping saints were bashing Shaivaites into conversion- even assuming for a minute that you prove all of that, it still means zilch for Aryan violence simply because the players are not Aryans or non-Aryans any more. To say it proves Aryan violence will be like saying that an Indian or Pakistani muslim terrorist is a proof of Arab or Turkish terrorism because they brought the religion to India.

And that is the problem with your arguments, you confuse yourself midway.

We have agreed on ARYAN VIOLENCE remember, that is a closed chapter. We agreed that Aryans did use violence to propogate their ideas, we agreed to disagree on the extent of this violence.

We are now talking about the role played by violence in conversion of shivites to Vaishnavism because you have claimed that violence played absolutely no part in these conversions.

Instead of getting annoyed with me, I suggest you read read post number 58.

It's you who is getting confused not me.

 

[moumotta]

However you have found good reason to rubbish the work and expertise of professors from nearly a dozen universities?

Only rubbishing their work. Not casting aspersions on their charachter.

I am sure Andhra Pradesh is past Punjab.

Yet you were suggesting a branch of Aryans may have made way to Andhra though all evidence is they went east from Punjab.

Another thing which you have presented incorrectly is Alexander moving on from Iran. Most of his army was sent to the region between Iran and Markan Pakistan to consolidate the wins and that is where most of his army settled. The Seleucid empire stayed in Iran until 3BC, over 3 centuries.

Seleucid empire extended upto Indus until Chandragupta won it from him. Anyway, this is all besides the point.

You have latched onto the sarcastis remark I made to your assertion that the mutation has to fall within the time frame the Iran was reached

Wazeeri: So you are happy with an additional millenium? which is within the standard error range?

I will reproduce my first reply to you which you have ignored.

Why does the date need to be pushed back? The split or mutation doesn't happen on cue to a seperation and neither do we have a timeline of the their travel to assume that it took them another 4000 years to get to Iran.

The date is for when both parties held the majority of the same groups of MtDna's and Y chromosomes. The mutation is not geographic specific.

The reason why I suggested that you would need another 4000 years to support your query is because that is the time frame given for the first major wave of mutations. The mutation earlier would be assumed to be 4000 years before that. Hence the seperation can happen at any time in between this time frame.

Back to where it started. How did the team pick 3000-4000 years ago as the timing of genetic mix.

So the Priests who proposed Bhakti to a specific god/ gods only targeted the leaders of tribes?

I am confused as to how this works.

The reference is to joining the caste fold and economy- at the time of emergence of classical hinduism.

First of all the lower castes are not allowed in most Vishnu mandirs so how do the leaders of these lower castes hear the Bhajans which convince them to become Vaishnavites?

They couldn't have picked up bhajans during their ritual beating either, could they?

 

[Wazeeri]

Only rubbishing their work. Not casting aspersions on their charachter.

Are you suggesting that I am casting aspersions on Kivisild's character?

Yet you were suggesting a branch of Aryans may have made way to Andhra though all evidence is they went east from Punjab.

Shall we start the genetic argument from scratch?

Seleucid empire extended upto Indus until Chandragupta won it from him. Anyway, this is all besides the point.

No it isn't besides the point because you have claimed that Alexander's army had only briefly been through Iran. That is clearly not the case.

Back to where it started. How did the team pick 3000-4000 years ago as the timing of genetic mix.

We keep on coming back to where it started because either you can't understand the concept or I can't explain it really well.

Bamshad+Jorde time the split at 3000-4000 years
Kivisilds 3000-5000 years

This split represents a time when the first major wave of mutations are statistically thought to have occured and the race split into distinct groups. This does not represent the people moving from one area to another.

Bamshad and Jorde claim that these calculations are in line with the movement of Aryans into India 3000-4000 years ago.

Another Analogy


-You have two brothers (triplets same DNA)
-You have a mutation every generation (you reproduce assexualy like a potato so no added genes from outside women)
-Accept DNA as an identifier.

TIME 1)

Two of your brothers move from E Europe to Iran. The Moumotta DNA is the same for both locations EE and Iran.

TIME 2)

One of these brothers then moves to India. The Moumotta DNA of India Iran and EE the same.

TIME 3)

Then they all reproduce,
Upto 3 different variations of DNA now exist,
one distinct in India, one in Iran and one in EE.


Now replace the triplets with the Aryans
One generation with 4000 years
and hopefully you will understand why your proposed glitch doesn't mean anything.

As long as the complete movement was within 3000/4000 years there is no glitch to be explained.

The reference is to joining the caste fold and economy- at the time of emergence of classical hinduism.

I am still confused, the above doesn't help.

Shankar Asharya started a movement.
A group of Bhakti promoting priests went around spreading their religion.

They targeted the leaders of the lower castes.

The leaders gained upward mobility.

Question : Were the leaders influenced by
a) Bhajans / Marketing?
b) Violence from upper castes?
c) Money?

Why should we discount violence completely?

They couldn't have picked up bhajans during their ritual beating either, could they?

Relevance of above comment please.

Are you suggesting there wasn't any beatings of the lower caste?

 

[moumotta]

Are you suggesting that I am casting aspersions on Kivisild's character?

This is what I meant. You can argue it is not an aspersion on his professional integrity.

Kivisilid was a commentator of the 7 mothers of Europes study. He has personal losses involved with the idea of aryan movement into India as he has written books claiming that it was infact Indians who invaded Europe. This is called the out of India theory which is supported by many anti-Imperialist Hindu nationalists as well as Kivislind who want to propose the idea of all the pure Vedas having origins in Bharat.​

No it isn't besides the point because you have claimed that Alexander's army had only briefly been through Iran. That is clearly not the case.

OK.

The point though was that there are other european populations that have moved to India.

We keep on coming back to where it started because either you can't understand the concept or I can't explain it really well.

Bamshad+Jorde time the split at 3000-4000 years
Kivisilds 3000-5000 years

This split represents a time when the first major wave of mutations are statistically thought to have occured and the race split into distinct groups. This does not represent the people moving from one area to another.

Bamshad and Jorde claim that these calculations are in line with the movement of Aryans into India 3000-4000 years ago.

Here mutation is used as a marker for a split. 3000-4000 may tie in with arrival of Aryans but what does it say about the timing of separation.

I will have to leave points not relevant to the thread out now otherwise we will never end.

Feel free to take it to another thread on medieval history.

 

[Wazeeri]

This is what I meant. You can argue it is not an aspersion on his professional integrity.

Fair enough.

Key however is that you don't agree with his theory but you support his rebuttal which infact supports his theory.

OK.

The point though was that there are other european populations that have moved to India.

From E Europe through NW Pak/India?

Here mutation is used as a marker for a split. 3000-4000 may tie in with arrival of Aryans but what does it say about the timing of separation.

2 things

1) That it was close to that point but not much older than 6000-8000 years (Bamshad) 6000-10000 years (Kivisild).

2) At 3000-4000 (/5000) years Indian Aryans and E Europeans were distinct from each other.

 

[Wazeeri]

I will have to leave points not relevant to the thread out now otherwise we will never end.

I am guessing that is the Vaishnavism Vs Shaivism debate which is being left and not something to do with the genetics.

 

[moumotta]

Fair enough.

Key however is that you don't agree with his theory but you support his rebuttal which infact supports his theory.

We have discussed this before. I don't agree with Aryans out of India. I have no basis to challenge a migrations from India in prior ages.

From E Europe through NW Pak/India?

OK so I didn't exactly answer your question.

2 things

1) That it was close to that point but not much older than 6000-8000 years (Bamshad) 6000-10000 years (Kivisild).

2) At 3000-4000 (/5000) years Indian Aryans and E Europeans were distinct from each other.

So there is nothing in the study that points to Indo Aryans by itself. It is an assumption based on their understanding of history.

I am guessing that is the Vaishnavism Vs Shaivism debate which is being left and not something to do with the genetics.

I will say we focus back on Aryan debate and ancient history rather than recent events.

 

[KB]

Alexander the great took over ALL OF IRAN EVERY INCH you got that one way wrong.

Didn't go past Multan in pakistan though.

That comment did spark a tangential thought, which I cannot claim is especially relevant to the on-going discussions, but nevertheless I will append as a footnote.

Before the Common Era and in the early Common Era, compared with other Indian areas, primarily the Gangetic Valley, Deccan and Kalinga, the Indus Valley was subject to great disruption from a variety of conquerors from the north and west. Persians (under Cyrus), Greeks (under Alexander), Greek-Bactrians, Scythians, Parthians, and the Kushanas, all at some point conquered the Indus areas. Thus the land that Pakistan would inherit was brought under a variety of influences and ideas, which increased diversity in the territories (in the aforementioned periods, it was also part of the Mauryan Empire, the first time in known history that the Gangetic and Indus regions were under the control of one ruler). The territorial heritage of Pakistan is thus quite plural.

One of of the reasons for this is the geographic position, which historically exposed it to the threat of invaders from the north and west. Under British rule, the Pakistani territory was acquired for security rather than commercial reasons and was viewed as a 'security state', a buffer between the rest of India and potential 'intruders'. As such authoritarian and autocratic tendencies were allowed to persist for longer in those areas at the expense of representative institutions, during the Colonial era. Needless to say that this had implications for the fate of democracy in Pakistan.

Even now, Pakistan's geographic significance provides it with a larger than life personality than would otherwise have been the case for a nation of this size.

Pakistan sits at the cross-roads of various regions - Central Asia, West Asia and South Asia. Influenced by all these regions, and the privileged inheritor of diverse historical and cultural traditions, Pakistan may be economically poor and politically unstable, but it is culturally rich.

 

[Wazeeri]

We have discussed this before. I don't agree with Aryans out of India. I have no basis to challenge a migrations from India in prior ages.

We are not speaking of prior periods we are speaking of a migration in between India and Eastern Europe in the last 4000 years.

OK so I didn't exactly answer your question.

The question needs answering for your position to be held.
A migration between India and easter europe in the last 4000 years.

If you want to take the extreme liberties and use the most flexibility allowed to you by the genetic study then we can call it 7/8000 years.

So there is nothing in the study that points to Indo Aryans by itself. It is an assumption based on their understanding of history.

I hope you can see that I am being forced to repeat my points rather than just mindlessly repeating my arguments.

• Migration between India and E Europe
• In the last 4000 years best estimate
• The genes make their way into the top of the hierarchy set by the Aryans

Same question once again, who else can it be?

I will say we focus back on Aryan debate and ancient history rather than recent events.

we weren't going to reach an understanding on that point anyway.

 

[moumotta]

We are not speaking of prior periods we are speaking of a migration in between India and Eastern Europe in the last 4000 years.

This has been discussed before.

What he is saying is be careful with your theories as they lead to absurd conclusions. If I have got him right he is mentioning ‘Indo-European languages arose in India’ as an example of absurd methodologies leading to absurd conclusions.

The relevance is that he does not come out as some one proposing Indo-European languages (read Aryans) out of India theory

The question needs answering for your position to be held.
A migration between India and easter europe in the last 4000 years.

If you want to take the extreme liberties and use the most flexibility allowed to you by the genetic study then we can call it 7/8000 years.

I hope you can see that I am being forced to repeat my points rather than just mindlessly repeating my arguments.
· Migration between India and E Europe
· In the last 4000 years best estimate
· The genes make their way into the top of the hierarchy set by the Aryans

Same question once again, who else can it be?

There are too many assumptions and uncertainties in it.

3000- 4000, 4000-5000 or right back up to 8000 years ago or some period in between.

There have been so many migrations in the 2000 years or so since the arrival of Aryans that it will be naïve to assume there were none before them.

We know nothing about earlier migrations, does not mean they did not happen.

We are not even sure who the IVC people were ethnically. We do know that they had trading links as far as Mesopotamia.

The caste system would not appear until first millennium BC. You can’t rely on it if your event timing is 4000 years. It may well be that these people had hieracrchical advantage before the caste system arrived and placed themselves in upper caste when it did.

Aryan origins in east Europe itself is not a universally accepted theory.

 

[Wazeeri]

What he is saying is be careful with your theories as they lead to absurd conclusions. If I have got him right he is mentioning ‘Indo-European languages arose in India’ as an example of absurd methodologies leading to absurd conclusions.

The relevance is that he does not come out as some one proposing Indo-European languages (read Aryans) out of India theory

Moumotta

I have already answered the above quote and you are not even acknowledging it.

I have provided you a paragraph in the section conclusion in one of his papers where he says just that. He has proposed that India (he means the area of NW India and Pakistan) is one of the most likely areas where this race originated.

After the above post you can no longer accuse me of going around in circles because you have just reposted something without even acknowledging the reply.

There are too many assumptions and uncertainties in it.

3000- 4000, 4000-5000 or right back up to 8000 years ago or some period in between.

In your opening post you spoke of something along the lines of looking at the available evidence and coming to the most probable conclusion.

Infinite number of possibilities exist, the dating of the earliest Vedas and Avestas which form the basis for the dates we take as the gospel of history are based on the types of glue used on the books or the scrolls, the estimates of the time when a certain location was populated, the handwriting style, spellings, mentions of certain items and the expression with which they are mentioned (is the writer surprised or exited about the existence of bronze items hence suggesting early bronze age, or is it mentioned as an everyday item?).

All of these are based on further assumptions of how much the earth shifted in certain locations, the estimated time of the invention of certain chemicals, estimates of how long literature takes to significantly develop into a new form.

Just because something is based on estimates and assumptions it doesn’t mean we need to discard it. If that was the case then we would DISCARD ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.

Could there have been a movement of E Europeans through NW India into India?
YES

Do we know of one pre Aryans?
NO

So why are we willing to opt for the conclusion which we have no knowledge of rather than the one which is staring us in the face? Is it just because the obvious conclusion goes against your argument?

Just to correct you on a few things,
Kivisilds and Bamshad are not arguing over the dates of Bamshad’s data.
They agree roughly on the dates the mutation in question took place.
Kivisild is just arguing that the ancestors had been in India when the mutation took place and from there the people most probably spread into Europe.

8000 years would be a date taken by someone who really really wants to prove that these were people other than the Aryans. The best estimates lie in between 3000 years and 5000 years.

 

[moumotta]

I have already answered the above quote and you are not even acknowledging it.

I have provided you a paragraph in the section conclusion in one of his papers where he says just that. He has proposed that India (he means the area of NW India and Pakistan) is one of the most likely areas where this race originated.

Sorry, it remained inconclusive last time but to revisit it, the paragraph in K's conclusion is not talking about a migration out of India in Aryan times.

In your opening post you spoke of something along the lines of looking at the available evidence and coming to the most probable conclusion.


Infinite number of possibilities exist, the dating of the earliest Vedas and Avestas which form the basis for the dates we take as the gospel of history are based on the types of glue used on the books or the scrolls, the estimates of the time when a certain location was populated, the handwriting style, spellings, mentions of certain items and the expression with which they are mentioned (is the writer surprised or exited about the existence of bronze items hence suggesting early bronze age, or is it mentioned as an everyday item?).

All of these are based on further assumptions of how much the earth shifted in certain locations, the estimated time of the invention of certain chemicals, estimates of how long literature takes to significantly develop into a new form.

Just because something is based on estimates and assumptions it doesn't mean we need to discard it. If that was the case then we would DISCARD ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.

When there are alternative explanations coming from expert historians we don’t pick one as absolute truth and discard the other because we don't like the person. We recognise it as a subject for further research. That is not what you are suggesting here.

Continuing with the history analogy, we know how wrong early 19th century researchers got their facts and timelines. It was still an improvement compared to the state of knowledge at the time but if historians had stopped looking further then we wouldn’t be where we are. I am not discarding Bamshad, absolutely not. All I am saying is there are enough uncertainties for us to hang every coat on it.

Do we know of one pre Aryans?
NO

So why are we willing to opt for the conclusion which we have no knowledge of rather than the one which is staring us in the face?

Firstly I am not opting for a conclusion. I am asking how strong the conclusion is. You seem to regard it as a very strong proof. I am saying there are doubts.

Let me illustrate with an example.

There is a door and people keep entering through it. There is also a CCTV camera installed to capture footage of who enters. As we start examining the footage from the camera we find that it keeps getting blurred as we roll back and beyond a certain point you can’t see anything. Would you then conclude that no one entered through the door before the last semi-blurred shot. You may well do that as a working hypothesis but in reaching any conclusions from this hypothesis you will have to remain aware of the big assumption you have made.

If I could take you back to the brief discussion we had on Romila’s paper, she was illustrating that the reference to dasyu being black comes much later in Vedas. The hypothesis was leading to prior western migrations to India. It is not something I have suddenly created out of the blue on page 3 of this thread.

Is it just because the obvious conclusion goes against your argument?

Could that also be suggested about your total disregard for Kivisild and the fact that you tried to discredit him as soon as his name was mentioned.

Just to correct you on a few things,
Kivisilds and Bamshad are not arguing over the dates of Bamshad's data.
They agree roughly on the dates the mutation in question took place.
Kivisild is just arguing that the ancestors had been in India when the mutation took place and from there the people most probably spread into Europe.

8000 years would be a date taken by someone who really really wants to prove that these were people other than the Aryans. The best estimates lie in between 3000 years and 5000 years.

He is also saying that profoundly inconsistent time estimates can be reached when different calibration methods are used and arguing that the time of origin question be left unanswered until reliable dating methods are worked out.

………….

It is clear that genetics is at an early stage of its development. You can see it in vastly different conclusions being proposed by different scientists in a number of areas and the debate that accompanies these new ‘discoveries’. It may well become the principal and undisputed tool to identify population movements but at the moment it is in its infancy and has to continue developing its methods and expand the database.

 

[Wazeeri]

Sorry, it remained inconclusive last time but to revisit it, the paragraph in K's conclusion is not talking about a migration out of India in Aryan times.

That's once again a misdirection of the argument, Kivisild has timed the mutation at 3000-5000 years. Now around about that time if Kivisild's conclusion is to be accepted a migration either took place from India to E Europe or E Europe to India for their to be traces in all these regions.

When there are alternative explanations coming from expert historians we don’t pick one as absolute truth and discard the other because we don't like the person. We recognise it as a subject for further research. That is not what you are suggesting here.

There are two theories in relation to this debate,
One where the aryans originated in India and spread towards Europe
And the other the other way around.

You can say that we shouldn't discard one theory over the other but the fact is that you have already discarded one theory.

Moumotta: On the Aryans out of India theory I am on record saying that it does not agree with linguistic evidence- the very first post in this thread where I lait out my broad positioning on ancient history.

You can't use Kivisild's alternative theory and discard it at the same time.

Could that also be suggested about your total disregard for Kivisild and the fact that you tried to discredit him as soon as his name was mentioned.

It was also more a case of the fact that we both disagree with him

If I could take you back to the brief discussion we had on Romila’s paper, she was illustrating that the reference to dasyu being black comes much later in Vedas. The hypothesis was leading to prior western migrations to India. It is not something I have suddenly created out of the blue on page 3 of this thread.

Another misdirection, that is not close to what Romila suggested.

You are implying that a first wave of europeans came and wrote the first half of the book and then another wave came and wrote the second half.

Do note that the dating of the arrival of the Aryans is based on the very first books, hence the first wave is the Aryans we know off and if there was this hypothetical second wave then it came much after.

The timeline is not moved back it is moved forward for the 2nd wave.

Please do elaborate on this quote of yours because I don't understand exactly how this is supposed to work.

He is also saying that profoundly inconsistent time estimates can be reached when different calibration methods are used and arguing that the time of origin question be left unanswered until reliable dating methods are worked out.

These methods are far more conclusive then checking the glue on the books, the ink on the scrolls….etc
Your only objection seems to be that they reach a different conclusion then you wished.

Do you want to wait for better methods of dating linguistics to come about as well? If so then we can discard the whole concept of any invasion in pre-historic times.

We can only use the tools available to us. Maybe we will be proven wrong in the future when new information pops up, but at this moment we don't have this information so we can't use it in anticipation that at some point in the future it will be discovered.

I am not discarding Bamshad, absolutely not. All I am saying is there are enough uncertainties for us to hang every coat on it.

That's a weaker position than the first one you opted for where you suggested that Bamshad did not have the expertise in carrying out a lab test nor did he and his team have the knowledge of Hindu Castes.

As long as you are willing to acknowledge that this conclusion is a possibility then the argument has ended.

As for the undertanities, your earlier list of uncertainties has been answered.

 

[moumotta]

That's once again a misdirection of the argument, Kivisild has timed the mutation at 3000-5000 years. Now around about that time if Kivisild's conclusion is to be accepted a migration either took place from India to E Europe or E Europe to India for their to be traces in all these regions.

Not sure where you get 3000- 5000 years. He does mention 4700 years but then in table 17.3 also illustrates how different methods can give you different time periods.

There are two theories in relation to this debate,
One where the aryans originated in India and spread towards Europe
And the other the other way around.

You can say that we shouldn't discard one theory over the other but the fact is that you have already discarded one theory.

That bemuses me time and again. Not sure if you are yourself confused or trying to confuse others.

You linked Indian mtDNA in Europe (Seven Mothers) a totally different hypothesis relating to a much earlier era with Aryans out of India.

Then you try to mis-interpret his comments to imply he is supporting the indigenous theory where as he is clearly warning that the methods, logic and the genetic markers chosen extended to different Indian samples actually lead to quite an opposite conclusion. He is not reaching that conclusion or defending it. He is merely pointing out the flaws in logic.

If genetics has not found supporting evidence to prove Aryans came form outside, that does not disprove the theory- it never relied on genetic evidence in the first place. Nor does pointing out that genetics hasn’t found the answer make Kivisild a biased scientist.

It was also more a case of the fact that we both disagree with him

See above on why it doesn’t cause me pangs of conscience.

While on disagreeing with theories, I hope you are aware that the very same genetics and time clock theories that you so ardently argue for are also being used to estimate and time the divergence of species- humans, apes and further on. I am sure you will have reasons to disregard them in those situations. The science will become in-exact, there will be just those minor factors and qualifications that make rationalisation so easy.

Another misdirection, that is not close to what Romila suggested.

She was talking about the absence of marked physical differences. How do you get people in India who are not markedly different from the new arrivals without prior migrations.

You are implying that a first wave of europeans came and wrote the first half of the book and then another wave came and wrote the second half.

Do note that the dating of the arrival of the Aryans is based on the very first books, hence the first wave is the Aryans we know off and if there was this hypothetical second wave then it came much after.

The timeline is not moved back it is moved forward for the 2nd wave.

Please do elaborate on this quote of yours because I don't understand exactly how this is supposed to work.

What I was suggesting is that composers of early stages of Vedas may not have encountered darker people, until later generations pushed much deeper in India- different stages of composition are related to different geographic locations. These non-dark people don’t have to be Aryans.

Your only objection seems to be that they reach a different conclusion then you wished.

There we go- more potshots.

Do you want to wait for better methods of dating linguistics to come about as well? If so then we can discard the whole concept of any invasion in pre-historic times.

We can only use the tools available to us. Maybe we will be proven wrong in the future when new information pops up, but at this moment we don't have this information so we can't use it in anticipation that at some point in the future it will be discovered.

While tools are imperfect, we use results as working assumptions but realise the limitations and the fact that there is much wider scope for different interpretations until tools are refined.

That's a weaker position than the first one you opted for where you suggested that Bamshad did not have the expertise in carrying out a lab test nor did he and his team have the knowledge of Hindu Castes.

As long as you are willing to acknowledge that this conclusion is a possibility then the argument has ended.

There is a long list of reasons why it will not be a high probability.

However, if all you are seeking is ‘it is a possibility’ then yes it is. Can I say it is impossible that Bamshad got it right. No. We all have experienced how we sometimes get things right despite far bigger uncetainties.

The position you are now seeking is much weaker than where you started. You are now moving from ‘Aryans invaded South India’ to a ‘ possibility that Aryans may have invaded a pocket of Andhra’.

I have no problem with that.

As for the undertanities, your earlier list of uncertainties has been answered.

A tall claim indeed!

If anything the list has got longer since I last posted it and have been pretty much established with quotes and examples. I will list them, you can verify which ones have been answered but if all you are looking for is an absence of 100% rejection then there is no need for you to bother with it anymore.

1. Too small a sample- both in the local study as well as for the overseas population and lack of clarity on sampling techniques.
2. Evolving science application- conflicting results from different studies
3. Geographically restricted study hence impossible to generalise
4. European similarity used as a proxy for Aryan
5. Erroneous historical understanding of patterns and stages of migration
6. Differences among professional geneticists, alternative interpretations by high profile geneticists
7. Conclusions ignored by historians and lack general acceptance
​

 

[Wazeeri]

Not sure where you get 3000- 5000 years. He does mention 4700 years but then in table 17.3 also illustrates how different methods can give you different time periods.

You will find 4700 is in between 3000 and 5000.
But I will show you exactly where I got 3000-5000 from.
http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003a.pdf

Table 17.3 3300years -5200 years

You linked Indian mtDNA in Europe (Seven Mothers) a totally different hypothesis relating to a much earlier era with Aryans out of India.

You failed to understand both arguments hence you have been jumping from one conclusion to another. Kivisild is suggesting India as the launch pad of human migration in to Europe.

The widely accepted theories have been that the human migration started in Africa from Africa the humans reached ME/Arabia and from there one branch went East(India, China, Asutralia, USA) and the other West (Europe). Kivisild has argued India as the natural place where Europeans came from.

That is the relevance of his comment on this argument.

He is merely pointing out the flaws in logic.

I will post his conclusion for the 4th time.

6. Both Indian and Trans-Caucasian populations are characterized by generally higher than European populations and their mtDNA pool contains lineages that stand in or derive the ancestral nodes (R and HV) that are absent or rare in Europe. Thus it is highly suggestive that India, Trans-Caucasus and the regions between them were the birthplace of the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups which are now widely spread throughout Europe.

He is suggesting a migration from the East towards the West. That is a theory you have said you don't agree with.

Can you stop ignoring this

While on disagreeing with theories, I hope you are aware that the very same genetics and time clock theories that you so ardently argue for are also being used to estimate and time the divergence of species- humans, apes and further on. I am sure you will have reasons to disregard them in those situations. The science will become in-exact, there will be just those minor factors and qualifications that make rationalisation so easy.

Nice try but that is again a made up fact, the tests we are speaking off are Intra-MtDna tests. Animals have shown to have a longer MtDna sequences and their rate of mutation is also much faster than ours.

Using the above tests between animals and humans would not make sense. The test is based on the haplogroups of humans which number 40. The difference between species is so large that the above tests give no meaningful conclusions. You cannot even determine the haplogroups beween species.

What I was suggesting is that composers of early stages of Vedas may not have encountered darker people, until later generations pushed much deeper in India- different stages of composition are related to different geographic locations. These non-dark people don’t have to be Aryans.

Before this line of argument gets any more confused I would like to remind you how we got here.

You suggested that the DNA evidence could be explained by an earlier migration as early as 8000 years (because that is the maximum flexibility allowed by the calculations, even though it has a low probability)

I asked which other pre-Aryan E European migration do you know off?

You tried to give an answer but failed.

Then you sargued that you didn't just make up the theory of earlier evolutions up and that it was supported by Romilla suggesting different waves of migrations.

I WILL POINT OUT ONCE AGAIN
The dates of the aryan migration which are widely accepted are based on the earlier part of the Vedas, not the later parts which are thought to have been written anywhere as late as the 10th century BC.

You still need to provide an explanation of which other pre-aryan e european migration you know off.

1. Too small a sample- both in the local study as well as for the overseas population and lack of clarity on sampling techniques.

The sample is across a vast region, Andhra Pradesh, Indian Punjab, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Ukraine, Some parts of Russia,

This is nit picking at best.

You are once again questioning the acumen of many scientists (100s now)

2. Evolving science application- conflicting results from different studies

No, the same results from different studies, different conclusions which will be discussed.

3. Geographically restricted study hence impossible to generalise

Again not geographically restricted, the 40ish human haplotypes have been mapped from all across the globe.

4. European similarity used as a proxy for Aryan

Eastern European,

You are yet to provide an alternative theory of who else it could be.

5. Erroneous historical understanding of patterns and stages of migration

According to you. I am sure a few dozen doctors of science would have considered these apprehensions before concluding. However you are free to hold an assumption without even knowing who these highly educated individuals are.

6. Differences among professional geneticists, alternative interpretations by high profile geneticists

The conclusion is roughly the same. Both are arguing a migration between a set of points.

The direction of the migration is the limitation of genetic data. You agree and disagree with both conclusions.

7. Conclusions ignored by historians and lack general acceptance

According to you once again.
Bamshad 2001 has been referred in over 30 papers.
Kivisild refers to him in 3 of his papers.
Kivisild has been referred to in many papers including books.

 

[moumotta]

You will find 4700 is in between 3000 and 5000.
But I will show you exactly where I got 3000-5000 from.
http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003a.pdf

Table 17.3 3300years -5200 years

I will avoid any digs at the exactness of you quotes but you would have noticed that in the same table he shows other calculations to show how mutation rates for different Hgs can give different answers.

You failed to understand both arguments hence you have been jumping from one conclusion to another. Kivisild is suggesting India as the launch pad of human migration in to Europe.

The widely accepted theories have been that the human migration started in Africa from Africa the humans reached ME/Arabia and from there one branch went East(India, China, Asutralia, USA) and the other West (Europe). Kivisild has argued India as the natural place where Europeans came from.

That is the relevance of his comment on this argument.

He is suggesting a migration from the East towards the West. That is a theory you have said you don't agree with.

Can you stop ignoring this

Can I suggest you are so engrossed in your own argument that you fail to see my side. The migration Kivisild is talking about happened over 30,000 years ago. How does it prove or disprove a migration to India 3500 years ago. It may put some holes in Bamshad’s arguments but why would that make it unacceptable to me.

Nice try but that is again a made up fact, the tests we are speaking off are Intra-MtDna tests. Animals have shown to have a longer MtDna sequences and their rate of mutation is also much faster than ours.

Using the above tests between animals and humans would not make sense. The test is based on the haplogroups of humans which number 40. The difference between species is so large that the above tests give no meaningful conclusions. You cannot even determine the haplogroups beween species.

Right on cue. When it gets in conflict with your ideas you will stop accepting the word of experts and come up with multiple reasons to make their conclusions meaningless.

I WILL POINT OUT ONCE AGAIN
The dates of the aryan migration which are widely accepted are based on the earlier part of the Vedas, not the later parts which are thought to have been written anywhere as late as the 10th century BC.

You still need to provide an explanation of which other pre-aryan e european migration you know off.

I gave you the example of CCTV a couple of posts ago and will repeat again.

There is a door and people keep entering through it. There is also a CCTV camera installed to capture footage of who enters. As we start examining the footage from the camera we find that it keeps getting blurred as we roll back and beyond a certain point you can’t see anything. Would you then conclude that no one entered through the door before the last semi-blurred shot. You may well do that as a working hypothesis but in reaching any conclusions from this hypothesis you will have to remain aware of the big assumption you have made.​

However, if only hard core evidence are acceptable from now on then what is the evidence that Aryans were from E Europe.

The sample is across a vast region, Andhra Pradesh, Indian Punjab, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Ukraine, Some parts of Russia,

This is nit picking at best.

These arguments have been all given before and the best you have come up with is some weak denials or ‘I don’t think so’ style responses. I will repeat them just once more.

I am not the only one nit picking. Here is the quote from geneticist Cavalli-Sforza that I mentioned earlier

“the low numbers tested in genetics, the poor representiveness of the samples, the uncertainties of the methods available and the rush to publish make the majority of current statements rather unsatisfactory”.​

You also agreed with it earlier in this quote:

The problem with the studies as your quote has pointed out is with sampling not with the genetic evidence. To mitigate that problem a massive sample is needed from the whole human population, this is being done at the moment (human genome project).​

You are once again questioning the acumen of many scientists (100s now)

Every one understands that small sample sizes are due to under funding of projects. 12 universities combined could come up with just enough funding to sample 300 persons in Andhra. Don’t make it sound like the sizes were restricted by choice. I have already given quotes from geneticists to prove that it is not satisfactory.

Again not geographically restricted, the 40ish human haplotypes have been mapped from all across the globe.

The indian study was geographically restricted to a small area in Andhra.

You are yet to provide an alternative theory of who else it could be.

Interesting how you switch between wanting evidence to lack of alternative evidence but if you want theories of Aryan origin you can take a pick between North Pole, Germany, Steppes, Central Asia, if you only accept Bamshad then West Eurasians who migrated from Europe, the Near East, Anatolia, and the Caucasus 3000–8000 years ago.

According to you. I am sure a few dozen doctors of science would have considered these apprehensions before concluding. However you are free to hold an assumption without even knowing who these highly educated individuals are.

Clearly they think Aryans are the first and last migration, I also showed you how they did not have expert advice on whether Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are middle caste or upper caste.

Following is an extract from their acknowledgements. Not a flattering endorsement of their official channels of advice.
We acknowledge the contributions of an anonymous reviewer who suggested that the Kshatriya and Vysya be analyzed separately from the other upper castes.​

The conclusion is roughly the same. Both are arguing a migration between a set of points.

The direction of the migration is the limitation of genetic data. You agree and disagree with both conclusions.

Can I hear that again please

According to you once again.
Bamshad 2001 has been referred in over 30 papers.
Kivisild refers to him in 3 of his papers.
Kivisild has been referred to in many papers including books.

I was talking about historians and references outside of genetics field and political interest groups. The sign of a new theory or research getting wider accepance is that it gets used by people outside the specific specialised field. Haven’t seen Bamshad’s conclusions anywhere in history or books and you agree it is so. If it had wider acceptance it should have caused a rewrite of history books to absence of females and invasion of south India. Kivisild appears to have done much better in this respect.


It has got to a stage where we are repeating old arguments. I don’t expect you to leave your last stand entirely even though you have significantly weakened it. I suggest we call it quits or state what it is that you are trying to prove now.

 

[Wazeeri]

I will avoid any digs at the exactness of you quotes but you would have noticed that in the same table he shows other calculations to show how mutation rates for different Hgs can give different answers.

By HGs I guess you mean haplogroups. Ofcourse different haplogroups will give different time estimates. What Kivisild is referring to is the different time estimates coming from the same haplogroup ie 3300 and 5200.

Which ever time estimate you use the answer only points to one race. the ARYANS.

And are you seriously going to point score, on me stating 3000-5000 instead of 3300-5200. I aplogise for shifting the estimates 200 years backwards. Please do let me know the relevance of this error.

Can I suggest you are so engrossed in your own argument that you fail to see my side. The migration Kivisild is talking about happened over 30,000 years ago. How does it prove or disprove a migration to India 3500 years ago. It may put some holes in Bamshad’s arguments but why would that make it unacceptable to me.

This is getting tiring.

• KIVISILD IS ARGUING THAT INDIA IS THE LAUNCH PAD FOR MIGRATION FROM AFRICA SPLITTING EAST AND WEST WARDS.
• KIVISILD IS ALSO ARGUING THAT INDIA WAS THE LAUNCH PAD FOR THIS LATEST MIGRATION 3300 YEARS TO 5200 YEARS AGO.
• KIVISILD IS ARGUING THAT THE MIGRATION DID NOT TAKE PLACE FROM THE MIDDLE EAST AS INDIA IS THE NATURAL LAUNCH PAD FOR MIGRATION HAVING THE MORE DIVERSE GENE POOL.

He is arguing that India was where this migration took place.

You have once again completely ignored the conclusion I posted 4/5 times now.

Right on cue. When it gets in conflict with your ideas you will stop accepting the word of experts and come up with multiple reasons to make their conclusions meaningless.

So I catch you out on a misinformation once again and somehow that proves your point.

I gave you the example of CCTV a couple of posts ago and will repeat again. There is a door and people keep entering through it. There is also a CCTV camera installed to capture footage of who enters. As we start examining the footage from the camera we find that it keeps getting blurred as we roll back and beyond a certain point you can’t see anything. Would you then conclude that no one entered through the door before the last semi-blurred shot. You may well do that as a working hypothesis but in reaching any conclusions from this hypothesis you will have to remain aware of the big assumption you have made. However, if only hard core evidence are acceptable from now on then what is the evidence that Aryans were from E Europe.

I will highlight the points you haven't answered so you don't forget in your next post

This is brilliant, I caught you out once again and you totally changed the topic. Please answer the question in your post next time.

You were using Romilla's paper to suggest that there was an earlier migration and you didn't make it up.

The above is not the answer, I got your CCTV analogy but that means nothing when you are trying to analyse available information.

I am not the only one nit picking. Here is the quote from geneticist Cavalli-Sforza that I mentioned earlier “the low numbers tested in genetics, the poor representiveness of the samples, the uncertainties of the methods available and the rush to publish make the majority of current statements rather unsatisfactory”. You also agreed with it earlier in this quote: The problem with the studies as your quote has pointed out is with sampling not with the genetic evidence. To mitigate that problem a massive sample is needed from the whole human population, this is being done at the moment (human genome project).

So you are relying on misquoting me and linking a general comment made by one scientist to the studies we have been discussin to get your point across.

Let me finish my quote the sample may be small according to you but it is big enough to show us a pattern and increasing the sample is only going to give us a more precise percentage. It is not going to change the message.

I will repeat your only argument after attempting to explain the genetic data is to cry foul and declare the study invalid. Not a very compelling argument.

The indian study was geographically restricted to a small area in Andhra.

One of the studies was restricted to AP, however you can add to that list Gujarat, Punjab, Iran and Ukraine.

Interesting how you switch between wanting evidence to lack of alternative evidence but if you want theories of Aryan origin you can take a pick between North Pole, Germany, Steppes, Central Asia, if you only accept Bamshad then West Eurasians who migrated from Europe, the Near East, Anatolia, and the Caucasus 3000–8000 years ago.

I think this point has become a bit of a check mate.
You are not going to answer it are you?

Clearly they think Aryans are the first and last migration, I also showed you how they did not have expert advice on whether Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are middle caste or upper caste.

Moumotta if all you have got left is a footnote in the paper to support your argument then you really need to reconsider your position.

Can I hear that again please

Haha that must have been like Xmas for you,
I will oblige

The direction of the gene flow is the limitation of the genetic data,


Once again we have two options
Eastern Europe to India
India to Eastern Europe

Your choice.

I was talking about historians and references outside of genetics field and political interest groups. The sign of a new theory or research getting wider accepance is that it gets used by people outside the specific specialised field. Haven’t seen Bamshad’s conclusions anywhere in history or books and you agree it is so. If it had wider acceptance it should have caused a rewrite of history books to absence of females and invasion of south India. Kivisild appears to have done much better in this respect.

Yes and which groups has Kivisild gained popularity with?
More importantly do you agree with these groups?

It has got to a stage where we are repeating old arguments. I don’t expect you to leave your last stand entirely even though you have significantly weakened it. I suggest we call it quits or state what it is that you are trying to prove now.

Cue the punches and kicks.

Let me just point out who's position has been weakened.

You have accepted Bamshad's conclusion as a possibility which has pretty much made these three pages pointless.

You tried to explain the genetic data but you failed, so you started questioning the researchers

You tried answering which other migration could have taken place in the time period suggested. You were proven wrong and now you are avoiding the issue.

I will summarise the argument in the next post.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY​

There are now two issues left to argue over

• A migration occured between India and Eastern Europe,
  You have suggested it could be a race other than the Aryans
  
• The weakness in the genetic study

MIGRATION

There are traces of a race from India to Easter Europe

Bamshad suggested the seperation at 3000-4000 years
Kivisild suggested it at 3300 - 5200 ( I am so so sorry for suggesting it was 3000-5000 years earlier)

So we know that there was a migration in between these areas at around about that time.

You don't agree with the India to Eastern Europe suggestion.

So once again
A migration between Eastern Europe and India
From 3000 years to 8000 years., ideally in between 3000-5000 years.
Other than the Aryans.

Here is your effort so far

Wazeeri
Do you know of any other migration of Eastern Europeans past Iran?

Moumotta
Alexander’s army would be a good candidate for a male lineage that reached India without leaving much of an imprint in Iran.


Wazeeri
Alexander the great took over ALL OF IRAN EVERY INCH you got that one way wrong.


Moumotta
Sure he did but the reference was to ‘without leaving much of an imprint in Iran’. Alexander conquered Iran and in a few years moved on to the next stage of his conquest. In India his troops refused to go past Punjab.



Wazeeri
Another thing which you have presented incorrectly is Alexander moving on from Iran. Most of his army was sent to the region between Iran and Markan Pakistan to consolidate the wins and that is where most of his army settled. The Seleucid empire stayed in Iran until 3BC, over 3 centuries.


Moumotta
Seleucid empire extended upto Indus until Chandragupta won it from him. Anyway, this is all besides the point.


Wazeeri
No it isn't besides the point because you have claimed that Alexander's army had only briefly been through Iran. That is clearly not the case.


Moumotta
OK.
The point though was that there are other european populations that have moved to India.


Wazeeri
From E Europe through NW Pak/India?


Moumotta
OK so I didn't exactly answer your question.

So now you need to tell me which other race we know off which made this journey.

You have the flexibility of upto 8000 years which is not probable but you can use it.

Please also add an explanation of how Romillas paper suggests an earlier migration and you didn't make that point up.

Moumotta: The hypothesis was leading to prior western migrations to India. It is not something I have suddenly created out of the blue on page 3 of this thread.

Genetic Study

Your argument is that the sample was too small.

Answer:
We will not agree on that
There are a few scientists who don't agree with that
A pattern has been identified across many countries.

and isn't it convenient that the studies which go against your point of view have been unlucky enough to pick the sample which doesn't represent the population.

You however do have one general comment made by one scientist on samples in genetic studies as a whole.

Your argument is that different calculations give different answers

The different times we have are 3000 years, 4000 years and 5200 years.

Now we know the range of the error. We have a time between 3000 years and 5200 years to play with.

Play on.

The general inconclusiveness of the gentic data

You had earlier relied on liguistic data to suggest that the out of India theory is not right.

Question: How conclusive is the timing of liguistics please.

 

[moumotta]

This is getting tiring.

• KIVISILD IS ARGUING THAT INDIA IS THE LAUNCH PAD FOR MIGRATION FROM AFRICA SPLITTING EAST AND WEST WARDS.
• KIVISILD IS ALSO ARGUING THAT INDIA WAS THE LAUNCH PAD FOR THIS LATEST MIGRATION 3300 YEARS TO 5200 YEARS AGO.
• KIVISILD IS ARGUING THAT THE MIGRATION DID NOT TAKE PLACE FROM THE MIDDLE EAST AS INDIA IS THE NATURAL LAUNCH PAD FOR MIGRATION HAVING THE MORE DIVERSE GENE POOL.

He is arguing that India was where this migration took place.

You have once again completely ignored the conclusion I posted 4/5 times now.

Let us deal with the issue of Out of India theory first as this seems to be causing a lot of mis-understanding. We can rerturn to the rest of the discussion once this is dealt with. I will leave out point 2 (MIGRATION 3300 YEARS TO 5200 YEARS AGO) for the time. Being. Points 1 & 3 relate to ‘Out of Africa via India’, if I can phrase it that way for clarity.

This is the quote you were referring to:

6. Both Indian and Trans-Caucasian populations are characterized by generally higher than European populations and their mtDNA pool contains lineages that stand in or derive the ancestral nodes (R and HV) that are absent or rare in Europe. Thus it is highly suggestive that India, Trans-Caucasus and the regions between them were the birthplace of the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups which are now widely spread throughout Europe.

He is suggesting a migration from the East towards the West. That is a theory you have said you don't agree with.

Most common European MtDNA is U5 which is a sub-node of R. The estimate according to the ‘Out of Africa via India’ theory for this node reaching Europe is 50,000+ years ago. The HV node is realatively younger but it is supposed to have first arisen as a sub-node of R in Caucasus rather than India.

Clearly for any Out of India theory to include Indo European languages we will have to assume that this language in what ever form existed 50,000 years ago at the least. That requires a big, very big assumption in the unknown. Kivisild is obviously not making any such statement. If some other group picks his theory and uses its imagination to fill in a long space of blank with their assumption then that does not automatically put Kivisild in a sin bin. I personally have no view for or against his theory. Nor does it follow that we can ignore rest of his work.

There are too many unknowns if one wants to link ‘Out of Africa via India’ with ‘Aryans Out of India’. 50,000 years is a very long period to even hypothesize about. There are too many gaps. No where does it follow that these people migrating long- long ago were Aryans nor does it follow that they spoke some form of proto-IE language. The big assumption here is that any group that populated Europe was Aryan. If we forget ‘Out of Africa via India’ and just use the ‘Out of Africa’ theory does it follow that the people who migrated from mid-east to Europe spoke IE. If not why must it follow that if those people went via India then they must speak IE.

The fallacy you are falling for is that anything that says 'out of india' automatically has Aryan added before it.


Does ‘Out of Africa via India’ invalidate Aryans coming to India 3500 years ago- definitely not.

 

[Wazeeri]

Most common European MtDNA is U5 which is a sub-node of R. The estimate according to the ‘Out of Africa via India’ theory for this node reaching Europe is 50,000+ years ago. The HV node is realatively younger but it is supposed to have first arisen as a sub-node of R in Caucasus rather than India.

Clearly for any Out of India theory to include Indo European languages we will have to assume that this language in what ever form existed 50,000 years ago at the least. That requires a big, very big assumption in the unknown. Kivisild is obviously not making any such statement.

I don't think either of us understand what you have written up here.

Kivisild's argument is that the genes were present in India from the first African migration. The gene mutation of HG3 occured in India 5200 years ago and we then transported this into Europe. He is suggesting that the HG3 is an overlap of either R or HV. That is the relevance of the "out of africa via india" theory.

and exactly how is this the thing we need to discuss before we can move on?

I have summarised the argument above.
Even if we accept that Kivisild is not suggesting the out of India theory what relevance does that have anymore?

We know that a race travelled between Easter Europe and India 3000-5200 years ago.

Who was it?

 

[moumotta]

I don't think either of us understand what you have written up here.

Kivisild's argument is that the genes were present in India from the first African migration. The gene mutation of HG3 occured in India 5200 years ago and we then transported this into Europe. He is suggesting that the HG3 is an overlap of either R or HV. That is the relevance of the "out of africa via india" theory.

and exactly how is this the thing we need to discuss before we can move on?

I have summarised the argument above.
Even if we accept that Kivisild is not suggesting the out of India theory what relevance does that have anymore?
We know that a race travelled between Easter Europe and India 3000-5200 years ago.

Who was it?

I am amazed. Last several posts you have been accusing me of ignoring KIvisild 'conclusion' on Out of India despite your posting it several times.

Now you are pretending as if I wasted your time talking about it and it was never an issue. That may be part of your gamesmanship but can we now agree that he is not arguing out of india and that your curiosity on his conclusion is satisfied.

You have once again completely ignored the conclusion I posted 4/5 times now.?

I will post his conclusion for the 4th time.

6. Both Indian and Trans-Caucasian populations are characterized by generally higher than European populations and their mtDNA pool contains lineages that stand in or derive the ancestral nodes (R and HV) that are absent or rare in Europe. Thus it is highly suggestive that India, Trans-Caucasus and the regions between them were the birthplace of the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups which are now widely spread throughout Europe.

He is suggesting a migration from the East towards the West. That is a theory you have said you don't agree with.

Can you stop ignoring this.?

 

[Wazeeri]

I am amazed. Last several posts you have been accusing me of ignoring KIvisild 'conclusion' on Out of India despite your posting it several times.

Now you are pretending as if I wasted your time talking about it and it was never an issue. That may be part of your gamesmanship but can we now agree that he is not arguing out of india and that your curiosity on his conclusion is satisfied.

Moumotta

I am sorry if it isn't obvious to you but Kivisild is arguing the Out of India theory.

Everytime I try to break the argument down you claim some sort of victory.

I have explained to you Kivisild's argument in as much detail as I can, I am sorry if you don't understand.

If it is just a matter of you not understanding the papers and you being reluctant of accepting my interpretation then I can present the interpretation of others.

Anyway it is really funny that despite me explaining how Kivisild is arguing the OIT theory you choose to highlight the point where I say that it is not relevant to further the debate.

Please tackle the rest of the argument as well.

 

[moumotta]

I am sorry if it isn't obvious to you but Kivisild is arguing the Out of India theory.

Everytime I try to break the argument down you claim some sort of victory.

I have explained to you Kivisild's argument in as much detail as I can, I am sorry if you don't understand.

If it is just a matter of you not understanding the papers and you being reluctant of accepting my interpretation then I can present the interpretation of others.

Anyway it is really funny that despite me explaining how Kivisild is arguing the OIT theory you choose to highlight the point where I say that it is not relevant to further the debate.

Please tackle the rest of the argument as well.

No problem with the non-relevance but the way you changed tack after consistently complaining about my ignoring it was off-putting. If it is not relevant let us move on.

In the interest of resolution I will skip rest of the post 115 and move to your summary post now. Let me know if that is not OK with you.

There are now two issues left to argue over
· A migration occured between India and Eastern Europe,
You have suggested it could be a race other than the Aryans
· The weakness in the genetic study


MIGRATION

There are traces of a race from India to Easter Europe

Bamshad suggested the seperation at 3000-4000 years
Kivisild suggested it at 3300 - 5200 ( I am so so sorry for suggesting it was 3000-5000 years earlier)

So we know that there was a migration in between these areas at around about that time.

You don't agree with the India to Eastern Europe suggestion.

So once again
A migration between Eastern Europe and India
From 3000 years to 8000 years., ideally in between 3000-5000 years.
Other than the Aryans.

So now you need to tell me which other race we know off which made this journey.

You have the flexibility of upto 8000 years which is not probable but you can use it.

The issue here is, were there any other western people before the Aryans who contributed to the Indian gene pool. Check this quote. It clearly talks about genetic evidence of a number of West Eurasian contributions with an average date of 9000 years ago. Keep in mind that this is not a single migration they are talking about. You need a range around 9000 to allow for the dispersal of various migration streams about the average. In addition you also need an interval for the error of estimation. Where does that take us- 7000-11000, 5000-13000.

The primary clustering of mtDNA lineages is not language-specific (Hindi, Dravidic) and only a small fraction of Indian mtDNA lineages (<10%) can be ascribed to a relatively recent admixture with western Eurasians (Ref. I; Table 1). An attempt to date their arrival was made that yielded an estimate of about 9,000 years. This date, however, is most likely an average of a number of different West Eurasian donations to the Indian gene pool. Yet, it is more consistent with the time when domesticated cereals could have reached India from the Fertile Crescent Cavalli- Sforza et al. 1994) than with later Bronze age migrations http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publicatio...sild2000PhD.pdf​

Please also add an explanation of how Romillas paper suggests an earlier migration and you didn't make that point up.

This is what I said in post 35. If I made it up I made it up weeks ago.

Are we certain that Aryans were the first migrants to enter India from West. If not then is it possible that Aryans met these earlier entrants in India. Post #35​

And this is Romila saying the people Aryans met had different language and culture (hence they clearly are not Aryans) but were not necessarily physically different. How do you get Indians looking not too different from newly arriving westerners?

Let me turn now to the tricky question of the definition of the Arya and the Dasa. Was there in fact a racial distinction? Remember I told you that the argument was that the Arya race came and conquered the local race of the dasa. What is very interesting is that the physical differences that are mentioned all occur in the last books of the Rgveda, not in the first books. If there was a strong physical difference, marked physical difference, you would expect that from the very first compositions the composers would say that these dasa who are black skinned, thick lipped, bull jawed etc. all the descriptions, but no, the descriptions come in the tail end in the second half of the first book and the tenth book of the Rgveda. What you have then if one looks for the definition of the arya varna and the dasa varna from the Rgveda, these are groups of people that have distinctive languages, because the dasas are spoken of as being mrdhravac, speaking a hostile language or not speaking the language correctly. They are also described frequently as avrata--they do not perform the rites, the religious rites, which the aryas perform. They are also akarman, they do not observe the customs that the aryas observe.​

Genetic Study

Your argument is that the sample was too small.

Answer:
We will not agree on that
There are a few scientists who don't agree with that
A pattern has been identified across many countries.

and isn't it convenient that the studies which go against your point of view have been unlucky enough to pick the sample which doesn't represent the population.

You however do have one general comment made by one scientist on samples in genetic studies as a whole.

I have never said that one study suffers more than the other. That is just a cheap shot. They all have limitations of a new evolving field of study and cost constraint. I am quoting some studies merely to play on your chosen field. Don’t blame me for it.

After all with a sample of 300 how can you pick a sample that is even representative of a state let alone India. They could not even cover more than one district of AP.

The one scientist is a distinguished geneticists, a professor at Stanford University who has more years of reaseach and work under his belt than Bamshad and Kivisild's age. What did you expect me to show. A procession of geneticists marching down streets against their funding constraints.

Your argument is that different calculations give different answers

The different times we have are 3000 years, 4000 years and 5200 years.

Now we know the range of the error. We have a time between 3000 years and 5200 years to play with.

Play on.

Leaving aside all issues, let me for a moment agree with you that these people were Aryans who came placed themselves in higher castes. What does it lead to. The study concludes-

the distance between Europeans and middle castes is smaller than the upper caste-European distance. These trends are the same whether the Kshatriya and Vysya are included in the upper castes, the middle castes, or excluded from the analysis.​

Who are these people in the middle castes. They are not Brahmins. They are not Kshatriya and Vysya either for these two castes are being tested in and out of different groupings.

Clearly they are Sudras. The methods section also seems to suggest that lower castes in the study are Panchama which as the report says ‘was added at a later date’.

Now as the report says the middle castes (which comprise of Sudras) are genetically closer to Europeans than higher castes. The lower caste (Panchama) did not exist when Aryans devised the caste system.

The conclusion then will have to be that Aryans occupied all four castes with a higher representation in the lowest caste of Sudra.

The general inconclusiveness of the gentic data

You had earlier relied on liguistic data to suggest that the out of India theory is not right.

Question: How conclusive is the timing of liguistics please.

That’s a free hit you are giving me but at this late stage in discussion I am reluctant to add one more issue to the list. Let me just say that my reliance on linguistics to contradict out of India is not relevant to the discussion.

 

[Wazeeri]

No problem with the non-relevance but the way you changed tack after consistently complaining about my ignoring it was off-putting. If it is not relevant let us move on.

In the interest of resolution I will skip rest of the post 115 and move to your summary post now. Let me know if that is not OK with you.

I was more interested in the fact that you declared that Kivisild's opinion was the key factor which needed to be resolved before we moved ahead with the debate.

The primary clustering of mtDNA lineages is not language-specific (Hindi, Dravidic) and only a small fraction of Indian mtDNA lineages (<10%) can be ascribed to a relatively recent admixture with western Eurasians (Ref. I; Table 1). An attempt to date their arrival was made that yielded an estimate of about 9,000 years. This date, however, is most likely an average of a number of different West Eurasian donations to the Indian gene pool. Yet, it is more consistent with the time when domesticated cereals could have reached India from the Fertile Crescent Cavalli- Sforza et al. 1994) than with later Bronze age migrations http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publicatio...sild2000PhD.pdf

MtDna not Y chromosome, moumotta you need to read the whole thing rather than selectively picking paragraphs to suit you and presenting them out of context.

The domesticated cereal migration started in Africa, two routes were taken one from Egypt, through Iran into south West India. The other distinct wheat migration went to Europe esp Ukraine.

Not the same route as we are working with.

This process started 14000 years ago and is not relevant to the debate because it doesn't fit the criteria.

A migration from E Europe to India (or vise versa for some people).

This example is as good as the Alexander the Great one.

The one scientist is a distinguished geneticists, a professor at Stanford University who has more years of reaseach and work under his belt than Bamshad and Kivisild's age.

The distinguished scientist is making a general comment not specific to the study we are discussing.

You are ignoring the fact that we now have data from a number of regions showing us a pattern.

Clearly they are Sudras. The methods section also seems to suggest that lower castes in the study are Panchama which as the report says ‘was added at a later date’.

Now as the report says the middle castes (which comprise of Sudras) are genetically closer to Europeans than higher castes. The lower caste (Panchama) did not exist when Aryans devised the caste system.

The conclusion then will have to be that Aryans occupied all four castes with a higher representation in the lowest caste of Sudra.

The Sudras are included as a part of the middle caste they are not THE MIDDLE CLASS

The other parts are the Telega who are a warrior/alcohol brewing caste.

The lower castes is the indigenous population which wasn't even considered good enough to be included in the 4 varnas.

Once again I will have to question the relevance.
Are you suggesting that the Aryans didn't setup the caste?
Or did you just want to make the point that they didn't take up just the top castes?

That’s a free hit you are giving me but at this late stage in discussion I am reluctant to add one more issue to the list. Let me just say that my reliance on linguistics to contradict out of India is not relevant to the discussion.

Feel free to take the free hit if you like but you will find that all evidence used to paint the scenario of history widely believed in is based on estimates most with much greater standard errors than you will find with the genetics data. Some of these methods and estimates do not even have a way to quantify the standard error.

I think we need to agree to disagree on the issue of the weakness in the studies. You are not going to be satisfied if the sample was doubled or trebled Or even if the standard was brought down to below a millenium.

 

[moumotta]

MtDna not Y chromosome, moumotta you need to read the whole thing rather than selectively picking paragraphs to suit you and presenting them out of context.

The domesticated cereal migration started in Africa, two routes were taken one from Egypt, through Iran into south West India. The other distinct wheat migration went to Europe esp Ukraine.

Not the same route as we are working with.

This process started 14000 years ago and is not relevant to the debate because it doesn't fit the criteria.

A migration from E Europe to India (or vise versa for some people).

This example is as good as the Alexander the Great one.

Domestication of cereals is credited to the fertile crescent around 10000 years ago. You also ignored clear references to 'western Eurasians' and average migration periods of 9000 years.

MtDNA Vs Y chromosome is just taking nitpicking too far. Don't tell me they were all female migrations.

The distinguished scientist is making a general comment not specific to the study we are discussing.

You are ignoring the fact that we now have data from a number of regions showing us a pattern.

The comment applies to genetic studies in general. To prove that any specific study is exempt you will have to show that the study used a larger than average sample which is certainly not the case. I have more than made my point. Can't force you to accept it.

The Sudras are included as a part of the middle caste they are not THE MIDDLE CLASS

The other parts are the Telega who are a warrior/alcohol brewing caste.

Telega, Kapu and Turpu are all sub-groups of the same caste.

The lower castes is the indigenous population which wasn't even considered good enough to be included in the 4 varnas.

Lower castes were mainly forest people who joined the society much after the caste divisions were set.

Once again I will have to question the relevance.
Are you suggesting that the Aryans didn't setup the caste?
Or did you just want to make the point that they didn't take up just the top castes?.

The study is pointing to Aryans being more dominant component of Sudra caste compared to upper castes. If this is true then all the arguments on Aryans placing themselves in positions of power will turn upside down.

I think we need to agree to disagree on the issue of the weakness in the studies. You are not going to be satisfied if the sample was doubled or trebled Or even if the standard was brought down to below a millenium.

Obviously we both view it differently but agree to leave it out.

 

[Wazeeri]

Domestication of cereals is credited to the fertile crescent around 10000 years ago. You also ignored clear references to 'western Eurasians' and average migration periods of 9000 years.

MtDNA Vs Y chromosome is just taking nitpicking too far. Don't tell me they were all female migrations.

Less nitpicking more a fact that you are trying to avoid directly answering the question.

The race we have identified has travelled a different path through IRAN so once again this is as good an explanation as that of Alexander the Great which was also West Eurasian so your highlight of the word West Eurasian is irrelevant.

The race we are speaking of came in between 3000 years and 5000 years through N Pakistan/India very little impact on Iran hence there is no cross over of this particular Y Chromosome with the MtDna which is being discussed hence this is not nitpicking it is pointing out the obvious.

Timing difference of from 5 millenia to 7 millenia.

If we are to ignore the fact this movement went through Iran and accept your dating of the movement as 10,000 years this is pushing the 8000 years limit by 2 millenia the limit which by itself is highly improbable and an extreme scenario.

The comment applies to genetic studies in general. To prove that any specific study is exempt you will have to show that the study used a larger than average sample which is certainly not the case. I have more than made my point. Can't force you to accept it.

Once again feel free to ignore the fact that the genetic data now extends way past india now.

Lower castes were mainly forest people who joined the society much after the caste divisions were set.

They were all tree people??
So these people who are thought to have populated India in the neolithic period all lived in trees?
They stayed in the trees for over 10/20,000 years and then decided to join the regular castes?
So not so long ago every 4th person in India was living in the jungles?

The study is pointing to Aryans being more dominant component of Sudra caste compared to upper castes. If this is true then all the arguments on Aryans placing themselves in positions of power will turn upside down.

Telega and Turpu maybe Kapus but Telegas are a warrior caste. Tarpus are famers.

Yadava the other "Sudra" race included in the study is also a warrior race, same race by some claims as Krishna.

So in the Sudra classification you have two warrior races people who refer to themselves as Higher Sudras or even Kshatriyas.

 

[moumotta]

Less nitpicking more a fact that you are trying to avoid directly answering the question.

The race we have identified has travelled a different path through IRAN so once again this is as good an explanation as that of Alexander the Great which was also West Eurasian so your highlight of the word West Eurasian is irrelevant.

The race we are speaking of came in between 3000 years and 5000 years through N Pakistan/India very little impact on Iran hence there is no cross over of this particular Y Chromosome with the MtDna which is being discussed hence this is not nitpicking it is pointing out the obvious.

Timing difference of from 5 millenia to 7 millenia.

If we are to ignore the fact this movement went through Iran and accept your dating of the movement as 10,000 years this is pushing the 8000 years limit by 2 millenia the limit which by itself is highly improbable and an extreme scenario.

You are picking every number while doing your best not to look at the one direct and glaring figure of 9000 years ago as the date for an average of a number of different West Eurasian donations. Where did 10000 years come from. No one said the migration happened the day after cereals were domesticated.
For your information west euarasia is the European part of Eurasia- guess what area would that be. Nitpicking is that you now want to me to trace the flight path of migrations.
You asked me to show:

1. A migration between Eastern Europe and India From 3000 years to 8000 years., ideally in between 3000-5000 years. Other than the Aryans.
2. an explanation of how Romillas paper suggests an earlier migration and you didn't make that point up.​

Both these have been done. Can we move on.

Once again feel free to ignore the fact that the genetic data now extends way past india now.

We agreed to leave this as a disagreement. I will not further it by replying.

They were all tree people??
So these people who are thought to have populated India in the neolithic period all lived in trees?
They stayed in the trees for over 10/20,000 years and then decided to join the regular castes?
So not so long ago every 4th person in India was living in the jungles?

You must be desperate to deliberately start mis-quoting. In an earlier post a comment in the acknowledgemnt section became a foot note because it did not go in your favour. Now forest people become tree people. For your information forest people is a term for tribes that lived in jungles and followed a hunter gatherer life style. I will not bother you with historical dumps on how growing spread of agriculture lands and main stream society forced these people to abandon their chosen life styles but references to them appear as late as in Ashoka rock edicts.

Telega and Turpu maybe Kapus but Telegas are a warrior caste. Tarpus are famers.

Yadava the other "Sudra" race included in the study is also a warrior race, same race by some claims as Krishna.

So in the Sudra classification you have two warrior races people who refer to themselves as Higher Sudras or even Kshatriyas.

Telega and Turpu are Kapus. Kapus are defined as Sudras. As simple as that.

Many sudras in time became kings. How does it matter what they became or what they claims to become. Their status and claims today are irrelevant. All we are concerened with in this study is their caste status as it was set at the time of migration and that status is Sudra.

 

[Wazeeri]

You are picking every number while doing your best not to look at the one direct and glaring figure of 9000 years ago as the date for an average of a number of different West Eurasian donations. Where did 10000 years come from. No one said the migration happened the day after cereals were domesticated.
For your information west euarasia is the European part of Eurasia- guess what area would that be. Nitpicking is that you now want to me to trace the flight path of migrations.
You asked me to show:

1. A migration between Eastern Europe and India From 3000 years to 8000 years., ideally in between 3000-5000 years. Other than the Aryans.
2. an explanation of how Romillas paper suggests an earlier migration and you didn't make that point up.


Both these have been done. Can we move on.

No we can't move on because it isn't that easy to shrug off this key part of the debate.

The task is not to give me random data suggesting migration in a specific time, the task is to determine which other migration we know other than the Aryan race which could give rise to the Y-chromosome data.

Your posts suggested the migration of the farmers.

These are two different migrations, if this explanation was good enough then Alexander's army would have been good enough as well. The route is really important.

This migration came through Iran the process started 14,000 years ago and according to you 10,000 years ago. The reason why the date is important is because at that point the populations were distinct.

The average is not good enough because a small European migration was witnessed only a century ago. What would that do to the average.

Just because he has mentioned that it is an average that does not prove that some migrations took place in between 3000 and 5000 years.

However If we are adamant that one did, then once again we know of only one that fits the bill the aryan migration.

You have to name the race we know off which migrated to India from EEurope in the time period of 3000 to 5000 years other than the Aryans. If you can't then you need to explain why you are rejecting that it is the Aryans the only one option that is staring us in the face?

I have even allowed the highly improbable 8000 years for the sake of argument.

2. an explanation of how Romillas paper suggests an earlier migration and you didn't make that point up.

You haven't even mentioned Romilla's paper in the last two posts.

There are two routes from this point

1) Admit that you made it up
2) Show how Romilla's paper suggests an earlier migration.

I will not bother you with historical dumps on how growing spread of agriculture lands and main stream society forced these people to abandon their chosen life styles but references to them appear as late as in Ashoka rock edicts.

To suggest that all Dalits were living in the Jungles when the Aryans arrived is a historic inaccuracy. Farming predate the aryans, the caste system post dates the aryans. The maths is simple for us to see.

Telega and Turpu are Kapus. Kapus are defined as Sudras. As simple as that.

Many sudras in time became kings. How does it matter what they became or what they claims to become. Their status and claims today are irrelevant. All we are concerened with in this study is their caste status as it was set at the time of migration and that status is Sudra.

The fact that two of these races are considered warrior races has no leverage?

 

[moumotta]

These are two different migrations, if this explanation was good enough then Alexander's army would have been good enough as well. The route is really important.

This migration came through Iran the process started 14,000 years ago and according to you 10,000 years ago. The reason why the date is important is because at that point the populations were distinct.

If passing through Iran invalidates a migration than Aryans also don’t qualify because we know that they did pass through Iran. You rationalised that saying

It seems the Aryans were less successful at populating Iran or becoming one of the largest races in Iran, maybe they just populated a few regions of Iran. Maybe later conquests from the other races managed to completely take over through genocides...etc.
Yes this is a glitch (Iran not anatolia) because the aryans are considered to have been the leading race in Afghanistan and most of Iran at some point but the glitch can be explained in many ways however what we do know is that there is a path from eastern europe through north Pakistan into India. The followers of that path have benefited from the brahmin caste structure.

You can’t now claim that every one else has to pass the skip Iran test where as Aryans get a special dispensation. What ever excuses you used for Aryans not leaving a mark in Iran can apply to others. Make up your mind.

The average is not good enough because a small European migration was witnessed only a century ago. What would that do to the average.

A small migration will only change the average by a small amount. What’s your point. Do you think the authors of the comment do not understand such simple concepts. Suddenly you develop a mistrust of scientists’ abilities to comprehend basic facts when they go against you.

You haven't even mentioned Romilla's paper in the last two posts.

There are two routes from this point

1) Admit that you made it up
2) Show how Romilla's paper suggests an earlier migration.

There is a third route. You go back and read post 121.

To suggest that all Dalits were living in the Jungles when the Aryans arrived is a historic inaccuracy. Farming predate the aryans, the caste system post dates the aryans. The maths is simple for us to see.

I did not say all. If you are taking the position that 100.00% is my territory and every thing from 0% to 99.99% proves me wrong then that is plain wrong.

Panchama is a later day addition. All those who joined the society after caste system had become firm and closed to new entrants would have ended up outside the four castes.

The fact that two of these races are considered warrior races has no leverage?

What they are considered today has no leverage in the context of how Aryans placed themselves in caste structure 3000 years ago.

The study clearly proves that there is higher representation of Aryans among Sudra caste than among the higher caste.

 

[Wazeeri]

If passing through Iran invalidates a migration than Aryans also don’t qualify because we know that they did pass through Iran. You rationalised that saying

You can’t now claim that every one else has to pass the skip Iran test where as Aryans get a special dispensation. What ever excuses you used for Aryans not leaving a mark in Iran can apply to others. Make up your mind.

There is no clarity in that argument. Let me bullet point it for you.

We have identified a race which has travelled India and regions through to E Europeans.
We have dated their seperation to 3000-5000 years.
They have made little impact to the population pool of Iran.

We are trying to identify who this race is.

I say that it is the Aryans.
You claim it is not the Aryans hence you need to tell me which other migration fits

• the route
• The time frame

So far you have provided the farming migration.

• Which took place upto 7 millenia before the migration we are speaking off
• It entered South Western India (now Pakistan Baluchistan)

So a completely different migration.

The answer to the question is still pending.

A small migration will only change the average by a small amount. What’s your point. Do you think the authors of the comment do not understand such simple concepts. Suddenly you develop a mistrust of scientists’ abilities to comprehend basic facts when they go against you.

That comment was just bizarre.

The scientist (s?) have said that the recent admixture is dated at an average of 9000 years.
How am I even arguing against them?
The aryan invasion is a part of that average.

I am just showing you how you cannot use that as an answer.

The answer has to be a name of the migration other than Aryans.
The only thing which you quoted from the scientist is the farming migration.
See above for why that is not the answer to our debate.

There is a third route. You go back and read post 121.

So I take it that you don't have an answer

Instead of telling me what to read why don't you just present your arguments.
The scientific data is hardly from Romilla's paper is it?

You said that Romilla argued that there was an earlier invasion.
Show me where that is in Romilla's paper or
Agree that you made it up

Moumotta: The hypothesis was leading to prior western migrations to India. It is not something I have suddenly created out of the blue on page 3 of this thread.

Panchama is a later day addition. All those who joined the society after caste system had become firm and closed to new entrants would have ended up outside the four castes.

Once again a lack of clarity

Panchamas/Dalits make up nearly a 4th of India's population as they stand right now, ignoring those who you claim were accepted into the varna system.

You are saying that 1/4th of India's population was living in the jungles until the varna system was established. Which could be from 1000 bc to 10bc.

The study clearly proves that there is higher representation of Aryans among Sudra caste than among the higher caste.

Them being Warriors and considered higher Sudras does have an impact on the conclusion.

 

[moumotta]

There is no clarity in that argument. Let me bullet point it for you.

We have identified a race which has travelled India and regions through to E Europeans.
We have dated their seperation to 3000-5000 years.
They have made little impact to the population pool of Iran.

We are trying to identify who this race is.

I say that it is the Aryans.
You claim it is not the Aryans hence you need to tell me which other migration fits

You need some gall to continue that line after the big concession you made on Aryans failing the route test.

the route
The time frame

Give me some straight answers.

• Do you agree that Aryans fail the route test.

• Do you agree that an average of 9000 with multiple migrations could easily include migrations 8000 years ago and earlier.

So I take it that you don't have an answer

Instead of telling me what to read why don't you just present your arguments.

The scientific data is hardly from Romilla's paper is it?

You said that Romilla argued that there was an earlier invasion.
Show me where that is in Romilla's paper or
Agree that you made it up

Moumotta: The hypothesis was leading to prior western migrations to India. It is not something I have suddenly created out of the blue on page 3 of this thread.

Do you lack basic comprehension. You said I did not reply to the point.
I said read post 121.
Did you bother to read it. It contains the reply. How hard is it to just scroll up.

Once again a lack of clarity

Panchamas/Dalits make up nearly a 4th of India's population as they stand right now, ignoring those who you claim were accepted into the varna system.

You are saying that 1/4th of India's population was living in the jungles until the varna system was established. Which could be from 1000 bc to 10bc. .

One in four includes scheduled tribes. I am not saying anything about where they lived.

Panchamas or scheduled caste are more like 1 in 6. Their habitat was being eroded and their numbers must have been significant enough as late as Ashola’s time to earn mention and warnings in his rock edicts.

If you have a better estimate of forest people numbers mention it.

Them being Warriors and considered higher Sudras does have an impact on the conclusion.

You are just being obstinate with these broken record one line statements that mean nothing
Again some straight answers needed here. . Let me just ask you again.

• Of the four castes which caste does the middle caste in study belong to.

 

[Wazeeri]

You need some gall to continue that line after the big concession you made on Aryans failing the route test.

Moumotta

Either admit you don't have an answer or answer the question.

I have already explained the route of the aryans.

This is something you have ressurected from about a dozen posts ago just because you have ran out of answers.

Give me some straight answers.

* Do you agree that Aryans fail the route test.

* Do you agree that an average of 9000 with multiple migrations could easily include migrations 8000 years ago and earlier.

This is getting desperate.

We have already agreed on COULD HAVES and WOULD HAVES.

The task is for you to tell me which other migration took place in between 3000-5000 years. I know you are intelligent enough to understand that and I know you are all out of answers now and thus we have these cat and mouse games.

Do you lack basic comprehension. You said I did not reply to the point.
I said read post 121.
Did you bother to read it. It contains the reply. How hard is it to just scroll up.

So once again you don't have an answer, but I will entertain you.

If there was a strong physical difference, marked physical difference, you would expect that from the very first compositions the composers would say that these dasa who are black skinned, thick lipped, bull jawed etc

How does that answer the question?.

Let me remind you.
You were using Romilla's paper to suggest there were earlier migrations which could explain the Y Chromosome data.

HAVE ANOTHER GO

One in four includes scheduled tribes. I am not saying anything about where they lived.

Panchamas or scheduled caste are more like 1 in 6. Their habitat was being eroded and their numbers must have been significant enough as late as Ashola’s time to earn mention and warnings in his rock edicts.

If you have a better estimate of forest people numbers mention it.

So another thing you don't have an answer to.

You are just being obstinate with these broken record one line statements that mean nothing
Again some straight answers needed here. . Let me just ask you again.

* Of the four castes which caste does the middle caste in study belong to.

Speaking of broken records, how many europeans in the lower castes?
How many warriors in the middle class?


AS I AM A BROKEN RECORD- I WILL REPEAT ONCE AGAIN

• We know that there was a movement of people between E Europe, NW PAK/India. 3000-5000 years ago.
• The movement made little impact on Iran genetically
• If it wasn't the Aryans, WHICH OTHER MIGRATION FITS THE BILL

Really simple.

 

[Wazeeri]

Moumotta

Just so you don't avoid answering the question I am going to post the main issue one more time in a new post


AS I AM A BROKEN RECORD- I WILL REPEAT ONCE AGAIN

• We know that there was a movement of people between E Europe, NW PAK/India. 3000-5000 years ago.
• The movement made little impact on Iran genetically
• If it wasn't the Aryans, WHICH OTHER MIGRATION FITS THE BILL

Really simple.



An average of 9000 years shows nothing.

You could have equal migrations at 14,000 years and 4000 years
Equal migrations every 1000 years over 18000 years to now.
One big migration 9000 years ago.

This data proves nothing.

Once again which migration do we know off which fits the criteria above.


Please also answer the question re: Romilla because I am having a lot of fun with that one.

 

[moumotta]

I have already explained the route of the aryans.

This is your ‘route of the aryans’.

Posted by Wazeeri- It seems the Aryans were less successful at populating Iran or becoming one of the largest races in Iran, maybe they just populated a few regions of Iran. Maybe later conquests from the other races managed to completely take over through genocides...etc.
Yes this is a glitch (Iran not anatolia) because the aryans are considered to have been the leading race in Afghanistan and most of Iran at some point but the glitch can be explained in many ways however what we do know is that there is a path from eastern europe through north Pakistan into India. The followers of that path have benefited from the brahmin caste structure​

Now tell me, why was this route via May Be not available to other migrants.

This is something you have ressurected from about a dozen posts ago just because you have ran out of answers.

I was happy to leave you with your excuses but then you decided that route is all important in testing my alternatives. If this was your weak point then you should not have raised the route issue again. May be it was your amnesia moment, now live with it rather than crying foul.
OK, now prove that Aryan migration meets the route requirement.

Subject your conclusions to the same level of scrutiny that you want for other’s.
Fair deal! Don’t you think!!

The task is for you to tell me which other migration took place in between 3000-5000 years. I know you are intelligent enough to understand that and I know you are all out of answers now and thus we have these cat and mouse games.

So the mighty Wazeeri is now curling in to a defensive round ball. What happened to 8000 years. Not so confident now, aha!

You know that your time lines are elastic. Even if they are one standard error range one-third of possible migrations can fall outside 3300- 5200 year range.

I showed you that there are clear marks of other migrations. Now you want me to name the migrants. Why don’t you also tell me which village in Europe they came from so I can match their addresses as well.

If there was a strong physical difference, marked physical difference, you would expect that from the very first compositions the composers would say that these dasa who are black skinned, thick lipped, bull jawed etc

How does that answer the question?.

You conveniently ignored the first highlighted sentence where she starts with a clear question ‘Was there in fact a racial distinction’ and then gives reasons against it.

So another thing you don't have an answer to.

Don’t raise your hopes yet. I was just checking if you have any views of your own or is your strategy limited to throwing pebbles at the passing traffic.
Just for you- a quote showing that the move out of forests continued as recently as 100 years ago.

Tribal roots
There is evidence that as recent as 100 years ago many interior tribal people who moved out of forests to find sustenance during famines were incorporated as Malas by the caste Hindu cultivators. These people holds the surname as Mannem or Manne. In telugu Mannem means forest area where tribal live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mala_(caste)​

and another opinion.

Personally I feel it also possible that while there may have been additions over the centuries, the original malas were a very widespread, large, specific pre-agricultural or primitive-agricultural food gathering hunting tribe, who found their way of life vanishing as the agricultural peoples slowly took over the countryside. Finally when the forests were not sufficient to support them, the remaining malas reluctantly joined the new agricultural society.....as labourers. (this seems to have happened to several other tribes, like the madiga too.) (Now this happened many thousands of years ago and is not really associated with the prevalence of Buddhism .) The process is still at work, and can be seen among the Koyas in north andhra pradesh, for instance.
http://indculture0.tripod.com/mala.htm​

You are just being obstinate with these broken record one line statements that mean nothing
Again some straight answers needed here. . Let me just ask you again.

Of the four castes which caste does the middle caste in study belong

Speaking of broken records, how many europeans in the lower castes?
How many warriors in the middle class?

I take it that you will not answer my question. I can understand. The study clearly says they are sudras. You don’t want to agree with it yet you can’t question the study either. Such are your stakes in it. It’s tough to try and squeeze between a rock and a hard place isn’t it.

We know that there was a movement of people between E Europe, NW PAK/India. 3000-5000 years ago.
The movement made little impact on Iran genetically
If it wasn't the Aryans, WHICH OTHER MIGRATION FITS THE BILL

If it was Aryans, explain why they did not leave an impact in Iran. If the Y chromosome failed to leave a mark in Iran how can it belong to Aryans. Did Aryans leave their Y chromosomes safe in a locker before entering Iran?

An average of 9000 years shows nothing.

You could have equal migrations at 14,000 years and 4000 years
Equal migrations every 1000 years over 18000 years to now.
One big migration 9000 years ago.

This data proves nothing.

Come on Wazeeri. You should do better than come up with a school boyish answer.

You think the scientists were out to deliberately bluff and mislead people by calling it an average if it was just one big migration or if it was an average of two migrations ten thousand years apart.
This level of logic may do credit to a 12 year old. You are just trying to playing dumb in a grown ups’ debate.

You had set two tests. These are your tests that you so proudly announced in your moment of amnesia before I reminded you of what you had openly admitted earlier. Don’t run away from them now.
Let us put your theory to test.


Your two tests were-
-Route and
-Time

Let us see how Aryans fare.

Aryans fail the route test spectacularly. The Y chromosome you mentioned is not found to any material level in Iran despite Aryans leaving such a huge impact on Iran in other respects. Don’t tell me they went without their Y chromosomes.

Aryans barely meet the time test- they only meet it if you assume they did a double march from NW India to Andhra

I said there could have been other migrations before them and I gave you evidence.

Now play like a grown up. It is your chosen field- one in which you claim to be an expert. Don’t act so defensive and curled in.

 

[Wazeeri]

Now tell me, why was this route via May Be not available to other migrants.

Moumotta

I am fully aware that you have understood the argument completely but you are prolonging it unnecessarily.

Let's break this down. Following is where your logic fails you.

1) You are suggesting that an average of 9000 years somehow proves that there was a race other than the Aryans 3000-5000 years ago.

There could have been one YES

Do we know of one NO

Which one do we know off THE ARYANS

2) The migration suggested is the farmers in 8000BC
This migration had a completely different route to the Aryans it went through Iran
This migration left traces in Iran.
The migration we are speaking of left little traces.
This migration entered India through SOUTH PAKISTAN
This migration did not come from E Europe
This migration was 5 millenia before the Aryans. this is the point you don't even wish to consider.

You can prolong this as much as you like but you will eventually have to answer the question.

You know that your time lines are elastic. Even if they are one standard error range one-third of possible migrations can fall outside 3300- 5200 year range.

I showed you that there are clear marks of other migrations. Now you want me to name the migrants. Why don’t you also tell me which village in Europe they came from so I can match their addresses as well.

Moumota

Once again read this very slowly

The average of 9000 years indicates that there may have been migrations between E Europe and India in between the time period.

We know that there was one. It was the Aryans.

You are claiming that it wasn't hence you need to tell who it was.

PS: 8000 years is a highly unlilely scenario but it is still open to you.

You conveniently ignored the first highlighted sentence where she starts with a clear question ‘Was there in fact a racial distinction’ and then gives reasons against it.

Moumotta

I am not going to let you leave without answering this question.

What does the racial distinction point have to do with the timing of their arrival?

You are trying to prove earlier migrants remember.

Either admit that you have made it up, which is obviously the case
Or
Explain how Romilla's paper suggests an earlier arrival.

Please really break this down for me, I am not very bright.

Don’t raise your hopes yet. I was just checking if you have any views of your own or is your strategy limited to throwing pebbles at the passing traffic. Just for you- a quote showing that the move out of forests continued as recently as 100 years ago. Tribal roots There is evidence that as recent as 100 years ago many interior tribal people who moved out of forests to find sustenance during famines were incorporated as Malas

Many = All?

Remember what you are arguing now Moumotta.

The Panchama were all jungle people and they were accepted into the caste system after it was formed.

Otherwise you need to explain what the Panchamas who were not living in the jungles were declared as.

Remember that we are dealing with 22-25% of the population, the people accepted as Sudras are not included in the above percentage.

Either all Dalits were living in the jungles until the caste system was formed or they were not considered human enough to be included in the caste system.

I take it that you will not answer my question. I can understand. The study clearly says they are sudras. You don’t want to agree with it yet you can’t question the study either. Such are your stakes in it. It’s tough to try and squeeze between a rock and a hard place isn’t it.

Let's keep on repeating this to each other for all eternity.
Two SUDRA tribes in there are Warriors.

If it was Aryans, explain why they did not leave an impact in Iran. If the Y chromosome failed to leave a mark in Iran how can it belong to Aryans. Did Aryans leave their Y chromosomes safe in a locker before entering Iran?

You're looking for crumbs now I can repost my earlier post which you have quoted in this very post or I can provide you exactly why Iran has a small sample.

The Avesta also gives a vivid description of the home of the Avestan people. Based on the Avesta, historians place the Avestan country in Northern Iran, roughly in the land known as Khorasan.

Iran was not totally occupied by the Aryans. The part of the post you didn't highlight was my list of other races which lived in Iran along side the Aryans.

You think the scientists were out to deliberately bluff and mislead people by calling it an average if it was just one big migration or if it was an average of two migrations ten thousand years apart. This level of logic may do credit to a 12 year old. You are just trying to playing dumb in a grown ups’ debate.

Moumotta

I think during the course of these debates you have played the Wazeeri vs the scientists card too many times. It hasn't worked so you can lose it now.

I am not arguing against the scientist I am arguing against the interpretation you are trying to derive from their data which has no relevance to this debate.

How do two big migrations equate to me suggesting the scientists were trying to deceive us? The babied down explanations were given to show you the endless possibilities of the average.

The average cannot be used as a conclusion.

I am going post another thread to make sure you don't avoid answering the questions.

 

[Wazeeri]

If you think I am going to give into you avoiding the questions you are wrong. Until you answer the question the following will be repeated.

We have agreed to disagree on the robustness of the scientific data and once we set that disagreement aside, the scientific data suggests only one thing.

TEST 1

RACE travelling between E Europe and India
TIME 3300-5200 years

ARYANS fit the bill

You think it's someone else

WHO else do we know that fits the bill?


GAME 1

How does Romilla's paper suggest an earlier migration.

Don't give me random posts suggesting same race...etc
Explain the quotes.

 

[moumotta]

Let me summarise the route issue. There is a migration according to the study. It did not leave any genetic trace in Iran. We know from all available indicators that Aryans left substantial mark in Iran in all other respects. This is a major anomaly and needs to be explained by more than may be and could be before you continue any further along the path of claiming the migration as Aryan. It is not good enough to say that we only know about Aryans so they must be the one, it could well be an earlier migration.

If there are questions about earlier migrations there are also questions about Aryans. You can’t give one a hundred % pass and the other a zero. They will both have to be possibilities.

I am not going to let you leave without answering this question.

What does the racial distinction point have to do with the timing of their arrival?

You are trying to prove earlier migrants remember.

The question has been answered but I will spell it out for you again.

How do you get people who are not racially and appearance wise different from Aryans. Were they indigenous Indians. If not where could they come from?

If they were there when Aryans came did they come before Aryans or after them.

Many = All?

You have tried it several times, haven’t you. Twist my statements and then claim victory when I correct you. Did I say all? This is what I said-

Lower castes were mainly forest people who joined the society much after the caste divisions were set.​

Mainly = All?

Remember what you are arguing now Moumotta.
The Panchama were all jungle people and they were accepted into the caste system after it was formed.

Before you twist it any further, this is why I am arguing.

They were mainly forest tribes- already illustrated.

They were a later date addition to the caste system-

This fifthvarna was added at a later date to include the so-called untouchables, who were excluded from the other four varna
Bamshad et al​

Let's keep on repeating this to each other for all eternity.
Two SUDRA tribes in there are Warriors.

We don’t have to repeat it if you understand that I am talking about their status when castes were formed. Not their status today.

Were they warriors at the time of caste formation? If so why are they not kshatriya. Is there any explanation except that they became warriors much later.

How do two big migrations equate to me suggesting the scientists were trying to deceive us? The babied down explanations were given to show you the endless possibilities of the average.

Love this cop out. You agree that your explanation was childish and are now trying to put a spin on it.

The average cannot be used as a conclusion.

That’s a classic quote. What does it mean.
Let me break it into easy steps for you.
An average is derived from a number of observations.
Some observations are below the average, some above it.
Around each observation is a confidence interval that can easily be 3000 years wide. Observations below 9000 will get in the 8000 and earlier time frame.

RACE travelling between E Europe and India
TIME 3300-5200 years

ARYANS fit the bill

You think it's someone else

WHO else do we know that fits the bill?

Aryans are a possibility but not a very good fit because of-
1. the glitch in Iran and
2. they only appear 3000 kilometers away at a time close to the end of the range.

Are Aryans the only possibility- No
Were there other migrations- yes

I am sure you understand the point but keep pretending that Aryans fit the bill 100%.

 

[Wazeeri]

Let me summarise the route issue. There is a migration according to the study. It did not leave any genetic trace in Iran. We know from all available indicators that Aryans left substantial mark in Iran in all other respects.

Hold on a minute mate, zero does not equal 10% go read it again. They did leave traces just not an overwhelming majority.

It is not good enough to say that we only know about Aryans so they must be the one, it could well be an earlier migration.

Until we know of another migration why should we reject the one migration we know off, the one that is staring us in the face?

The question has been answered but I will spell it out for you again.

How do you get people who are not racially and appearance wise different from Aryans. Were they indigenous Indians. If not where could they come from?

If they were there when Aryans came did they come before Aryans or after them.

So they were both Aryans?

So after all this hoopla your answer is ARYAN?

Wow that was a lot of hard work. (I will ignore your misinterpretation of Romilla's work)

They were a later date addition to the caste system-

This fifthvarna was added at a later date to include the so-called untouchables, who were excluded from the other four varna
Bamshad et al

So you are not even sure what you are arguing.

• The caste system was established.
• Not all Dalits were living in the jungle.(RIGHT?)

The ones who weren't living in the jungle were kept out of the Caste system because they were not considered worthy of being included in the 4 Varnas.

So again after the merry go around we come back to what I said originally.

Were they warriors at the time of caste formation? If so why are they not kshatriya. Is there any explanation except that they became warriors much later.

Panchjanya, meaning five people, is the common name given to five most ancient vedic kshatriya tribes. It is supposed they are all descendants of Five Folks and are known by that name for e.g. yadav for descendants of yadu, paurav for descendants of puru and so on. Some scholars believe they were different tribes who came as different waves of immigrants.

Love this cop out. You agree that your explanation was childish and are now trying to put a spin on it.

I know that you understood it perfectly well and calling it childish is the only way out.

That’s a classic quote. What does it mean.
Let me break it into easy steps for you.
An average is derived from a number of observations.
Some observations are below the average, some above it.
Around each observation is a confidence interval that can easily be 3000 years wide. Observations below 9000 will get in the 8000 and earlier time frame.

That is absolutely brilliant.

Yes an average is derived from a series of observations.
But what you are doing is deriving observations from an average.

Kudos on the random 3000 years standard error to bring it in line with requirement. That was an absolute classic.

BTW Why not 4000 years because that would have been absolutely perfect.

But anyway you have once again missed the point completely (on purpose)
Lets make the standard error 5000 years for amusement sake. This brings the time into 4000 years ago (or 13000 years ago ).
The question still remains how do we know these are not aryans?

The paper suggested that the results were in line with the farmers migration of 8000 BC. So we can discount that now and we are back at square one, If not Aryans then who?

Aryans are a possibility but not a very good fit because of-
1. the glitch in Iran and
2. they only appear 3000 kilometers away at a time close to the end of the range.

Are Aryans the only possibility- No
Were there other migrations- yes

I am sure you understand the point but keep pretending that Aryans fit the bill 100%.

Iran point explained
2nd point illogical, the seperation is from the E Europeans not North Indians.


Are Aryans the only possibility NO
Are they the only ones we know at the moment YES?

Why are we rejecting the only race we know off? WE DON'T KNOW.

Summary to follow once again.

 

[Wazeeri]

Progress made

You answered the Romilla query by saying that the earlier migrations were ARYANS

You accepted that the Aryans were the possible answer from the study and you have not provided an answer as to who else it could be.

You prefer the theory that it was some unknown migration which we haven't yet discovered.

 

[moumotta]

Hold on a minute mate, zero does not equal 10% go read it again. They did leave traces just not an overwhelming majority.

So they did take the Iranian route.
1. You still have to explain why it is so disproportionately low to their influence in other respects. Are we confident that we testing Aryan gene in the study.
2. Why was the issue of Iranian route raised for other migrations.

Until we know of another migration why should we reject the one migration we know off, the one that is staring us in the face?

This is now becoming so repetitive.
1. Other migrations are staring in your face but you are refusing to open your eyes.
2. Not rejecting, it remains a candidate but there are enough issues to make it a less than a clear cut choice.

So they were both Aryans?

So after all this hoopla your answer is ARYAN?

Wow that was a lot of hard work. (I will ignore your misinterpretation of Romilla's work)

Ignorance is bliss mate. You showing your total ignorance and repeating your amnesia of earlier posts. More than half the quote was about differences in culture and language. Racially similar, culturally diverse. Hence not Aryans

So you are not even sure what you are arguing.
· The caste system was established.
· Not all Dalits were living in the jungle.(RIGHT?)

The ones who weren't living in the jungle were kept out of the Caste system because they were not considered worthy of being included in the 4 Varnas.

So again after the merry go around we come back to what I said originally.

I have showed that many of Panchamas were living in forests when caste system was established. That clarifies that Panchamas were not 16% of the population in earlier times (as I pointed out earlier your 25% is grossly inaccurate). The size has increased regularly over time as more people leave their tribal life style and join the main stream community.

To claim that the rest were not considered worthy of being included in the 4 Varnas you will have to show that they were in contact and part of the social and economic community available for classification when the system was established.

Panchjanya, meaning five people, is the common name given to five most ancient vedic kshatriya tribes. It is supposed they are all descendants of Five Folks and are known by that name for e.g. yadav for descendants of yadu, paurav for descendants of puru and so on. Some scholars believe they were different tribes who came as different waves of immigrants.

You can find similar stories about all castes including Mallas and Madigas who also claim higher origins but I am glad you are at least coming round to arguing that Yadavas are not sudras and the study misclassified them. Now find some more stories about the other three sudra communities.

Once you are done we could be arguing that Mallas and Madigas were also misclassified.

Let the fun continue.

That is absolutely brilliant.

Yes an average is derived from a series of observations.
But what you are doing is deriving observations from an average.

Again you are trying to wear your lack of logical thinking as a badge of honour. Can an average exist without a number of observations? If you are told the average income of a group is 60,000 will you bet your bank on all of them being exactly 60K or conclude that they should vary within a reasonable range from say 40K to 80K or .30K to 90K.

Kudos on the random 3000 years standard error to bring it in line with requirement. That was an absolute classic.

BTW Why not 4000 years because that would have been absolutely perfect.

Did they teach you problem solving as part of your training.
Let us do some analysis.
For a given method of statistical estimation the range of uncertainties is related to the distance being measured.
Your time range of 3300-5200 has an average of 4250 and a range of 1900. The ratio of range to average is 44%.
What would be your estimate of the range for an average of 9000. Surprise surprise. It is 4023. So yes 4000 is a better estimate and also perfect as you say.
Now come up with your baby argument on why I am being silly.

You answered the Romilla query by saying that the earlier migrations were ARYANS

Read above for why they were not Aryans.

You accepted that the Aryans were the possible answer from the study and you have not provided an answer as to who else it could be.

You prefer the theory that it was some unknown migration which we haven't yet discovered.

I prefer the theory that it could be any one from a number of migrations that are staring in your face.

 

[Wazeeri]

So they did take the Iranian route.
1. You still have to explain why it is so disproportionately low to their influence in other respects. Are we confident that we testing Aryan gene in the study.
2. Why was the issue of Iranian route raised for other migrations.

Moumotta

Once again your lie gets caught and you try to hide that by confusing the topic.

The other route is through Iran and into South West Pakistan.
The farmers settled in Iran and in Pakistan and they have left a siginificant gene pool in both places in most tribes of the Balochis.

This is now becoming so repetitive.
1. Other migrations are staring in your face but you are refusing to open your eyes.
2. Not rejecting, it remains a candidate but there are enough issues to make it a less than a clear cut choice.

Which other migrations
NAME THEM

Ignorance is bliss mate. You showing your total ignorance and repeating your amnesia of earlier posts. More than half the quote was about differences in culture and language. Racially similar, culturally diverse. Hence not Aryans

RACIALLY SIMILAR = ARYANS
We are talking about genes not their clothing or dance moves.

This is check mate, MATE

I have showed that many of Panchamas were living in forests when caste system was established. That clarifies that Panchamas were not 16% of the population in earlier times (as I pointed out earlier your 25% is grossly inaccurate). The size has increased regularly over time as more people leave their tribal life style and join the main stream community. To claim that the rest were not considered worthy of being included in the 4 Varnas you will have to show that they were in contact and part of the social and economic community available for classification when the system was established.

You are full of classic quotes, I will cherish these forever.

So a disadvantaged class, with less money, food and resources, with less education and access to medication somehow managed to out grow the richer populations?

Even if we ignore the above let's just analyse what you have said.

Not all Dalits were living in the jungle.

What happened to those who were living outside the Jungle.

How did they become Dalits?

You can find similar stories about all castes including Mallas and Madigas who also claim higher origins but I am glad you are at least coming round to arguing that Yadavas are not sudras and the study misclassified them. Now find some more stories about the other three sudra communities. Once you are done we could be arguing that Mallas and Madigas were also misclassified. Let the fun continue.

So once again after days of reetition we are all out of answers.
Leaving aside the fact that the locals weren't even considered human enough to be included in the caste system Two of the sudras you used as argument have warrior history.

Can an average exist without a number of observations? If you are told the average income of a group is 60,000 will you bet your bank on all of them being exactly 60K or conclude that they should vary within a reasonable range from say 40K to 80K or .30K to 90K.

Moumotta

This branch was lost long time ago.

I am not saying that it is 9000 years or anything because an average cannot be used to conclude on the observations.

You can get from a set of Observations to an average but from an average you get to infinite set of observations.

The scientists themselves said that this was more in line with the migration of the farmers. If you disagree with that then w cn argue that this was due to the Aryan invasion.

How is an average conclusive of a migration other than the Aryans?
And if it is once again
NAME IT
What do we know about them other than the fact that you believe they existed?

Your time range of 3300-5200 has an average of 4250 and a range of 1900. The ratio of range to average is 44%. What would be your estimate of the range for an average of 9000. Surprise surprise. It is 4023. So yes 4000 is a better estimate and also perfect as you say. Now come up with your baby argument on why I am being silly.

Dear Dear God,

Following 2 points to demonstrate your lack of understanding.

• First of all the 3300 and 5200 is not a range. Kivisild was using a method which gave the difference of E Euroeans(3300) from the next halotype (one up from what was being observed) and the same from the indian samle(5200). Bamshad used a method with a range of 3000-4000 years. That was Kivisild's whole point of using two different methods to sow that the Indians and E europeans can be shown to have evolved at different times hence giving a different date range, not a standard error. Please read up on the two different methods one uses an explicit population model in genealogical inference the other doesn't.
• MtDna has more accurate estimates then Y-Chromosomes due to a more comlex mutation process of the Y-Chromosome

Now back onto your wonderful Maths.
Even if we ignore the fact that you got the above assumtions wrong
LET's tackle your maths.

5200 - 3300 = 1900
Average (5200, 3300) = 4250

Well done you were right upto there, unfortunately the maths gets a bit tricky for you from here onwards hence pay close attention.

4250 is an average
9000 is an average

The standard error range from this average is not 1900 but half of that ie 950
4250 + 950 = 5200 (not 4250 +1900 = 6150 )
4250 - 950 = 3300 (not 4250 - 1900 = 2350 )

950/4250 = 22.35%
Apply this to the 9000 average
22.35% x 9000 = 2012 years

Awwwwww that is half of the 4000 and even less than your 3000.

care to comment on whether this was just a mistake or you thought I wouldn't pick up on it and you will get away?

I prefer the theory that it could be any one from a number of migrations that are staring in your face.

Please name a few in between Europe and India
from 3300 to 5200 years.


Summary to follow once again.

Please do answer the questions highlighted in Red above

 

[Wazeeri]

PROGRESS MADE

MIGRATION
You have said that there are other migrations which are staring me in the face other than the Aryans.
ie Migrations

• in between E Europe
• in between 3300 - 5200 BP

You are in your next posts going to name them so we can conclude that you are right.

ROMILLA

You have agreed that the earlier invasions (if there were any) were ARYANS as well, with maybe different dresses, food recipes and dance routines.

 

[moumotta]

The other route is through Iran and into South West Pakistan.
The farmers settled in Iran and in Pakistan and they have left a siginificant gene pool in both places in most tribes of the Balochis.

There is no confusion accept your changing mind. You accepted it was a glitch. Then tried to explain it away and are now pretending as if it was never a problem.

You also need to show where you got your 10% from and how is it consistent with the results we are discussing. What are the gene pool ratios for farmer migrations and how are they inconsistent with the study.

Which other migrations
NAME THEM

Are Cavalli-Sforza study and Aryan 2 (see below) acceptable names. Who were the Aryans before Max Muller named them. Did they exist 3000 years ago or did they only exist from 19th century after Max Muler named them.

RACIALLY SIMILAR = ARYANS
We are talking about genes not their clothing or dance moves.

You know well that culture and language are more than clothing or dance moves. If you read the quote again the differences include- they have distinctive languages, do not perform the rites, the religious rites, do not observe the customs that the aryas observe.

Anyway rather than go in this debate on names I am Ok with what ever you want to call them but note that these people did not follow the language, religioun, rituals, customs and traditions of Aryans. That alone requires identifying them as a separate group. Would you be happy to call them Aryan 2 to denote a separate religion, culture and language.

You are full of classic quotes, I will cherish these forever.

So a disadvantaged class, with less money, food and resources, with less education and access to medication somehow managed to out grow the richer populations?

You mean outgrow in terms of numbers, right. What has been the point of all the discussion in terms of many new forest tribes joining until as recently as 100 years ago. New tribes joining will help grow the numbers over time, Right?

Even if we ignore the above let's just analyse what you have said.

Not all Dalits were living in the jungle.

What happened to those who were living outside the Jungle.

How did they become Dalits?

‘Not all dalits living in forests’ (or jungle as you insist on calling it) is your theory, not mine.

I will repeat the question I asked earlier.

To claim that the rest were not considered worthy of being included in the 4 Varnas you will have to show that they were in contact and part of the social and economic community available for classification when the system was established.​

If these people joined the main stream after castes were set then their classification would have been the same way as forest tribes. Disadvantaged and accepted at the fringe.

So once again after days of reetition we are all out of answers.
Leaving aside the fact that the locals weren't even considered human enough to be included in the caste system Two of the sudras you used as argument have warrior history.

I can’t see how you exetnd your lack of answers to conclude‘we are out of answers’ Let me summarise where we have got to.

The study shows higher European gene content among sudras than the higher castes.
I asked you if you thought the study had misclassified them as sudra. The correct answer as you would have guessed is NO. The classification had been made for them thousands of years ago when castes were formed.

This is what you have said.
(1) sudras include an Aryan tribe (yadava) and
(2) warrior tribes.

The first point (yadava) merely confirms why sudra should have higher Aryan genes. It is not very clear what your second point means but it does nothing to challenge the study and its results.

If you have run out of answers and have nothing to add then accept the result of the study that sudras have the highest European gene content of all castes.

You can get from a set of Observations to an average but from an average you get to infinite set of observations.

I am not arguing that one can recreate the original observations from an average because that information has been lost in the process. However, you have to agree that those observations must have been on both sides of the average.

The scientists themselves said that this was more in line with the migration of the farmers. If you disagree with that then w cn argue that this was due to the Aryan invasion.

More in line = totally in line?
Yes it could be due to the Aryan invasion. That’s a possibility but we can’t conclude it is the only possibility.

How is an average conclusive of a migration other than the Aryans?
And if it is once again
NAME IT
What do we know about them other than the fact that you believe they existed?

Scientists believe that they existed. They wouldn’t cease to exist if we don’t attach a name to them.

care to comment on whether this was just a mistake or you thought I wouldn't pick up on it and you will get away?

This was a mistake. Thanks for picking it up. Now bash me as much as you can.

 

[nikred]

Kapus were always considered sudras be it turpu, telega or munnuru. Most of these communities were farmers during peaceful times but when required could act as soldiers too. But Kapu in telugu means Protector, so maybe the origin of these communities had different purpose.

 

[moumotta]

Kapus were always considered sudras be it turpu, telega or munnuru. Most of these communities were farmers during peaceful times but when required could act as soldiers too. But Kapu in telugu means Protector, so maybe the origin of these communities had different purpose.

Nikred,

While castes were occupation based, people could over time change their occupation to those other than dictated by their castes, this wasn't always easy but it is known to have happened. Nand and Maurya dynasties are said to be of sudra origin and during Shivaji's campaigns many lower caste marathas become soldiers.

While changing occupation is easy, changing caste is very very hard- again not impossible.

 

[Wazeeri]

There is no confusion accept your changing mind. You accepted it was a glitch. Then tried to explain it away and are now pretending as if it was never a problem..

Moumotta

It is very nice to see that you completely ignore the answers when given and bring up the questions again when you have ran out of options to put the topic off track. I will answer once again.

Modern day Iran has not always been there, at one point it was part of Hadhrat Umar's rule from Syria to Pakistan. At another point it was Syria Iraq and Iran.

It is very likely that Iran was only partly populated by the Aryans.

If you look at the map of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan it makes sense that only the north was populated otherwise we would see the invasion through South West Pakistan which is a lot more simple.

We also know that the Avesta describes the land in North Iran.

Geographical Iran is not the same as the Iran of the Avesta as shown to you not too many posts ago which you ignored.

You also need to show where you got your 10% from and how is it consistent with the results we are discussing. What are the gene pool ratios for farmer migrations and how are they inconsistent with the study

Either you can't comprehend a paragraph or you are playing dumb.

There are two pieces of data up here.

1) MTDNA from Eurasia averages 9000 BC

2) The timing is consistant with farmer migration.

Let me clarify what you are trying to argue.
You claim that this 9000BC is made up of migrations in between 3000-5000 BP(before present) which are non-aryans. (If not then this is irrelevant)

Hence you are rejecting that this migration is consistant with farmer's migration.

The farmer's migration started 14000 BP in Africa and by 9000BP it was complete in Balochistan. The migration went through SOUTH IRAN, into Balochistan (South Western Pakistan).

The farmer migration is not the answer because it took place 5 millenia before the time we are concerned.

This side of the argument from you is a red herring.

as for the 10% http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003a.pdf
Table 17.2 Iran=10.8% Vs 30.4% India.

Are Cavalli-Sforza study and Aryan 2 (see below) acceptable names. Who were the Aryans before Max Muller named them. Did they exist 3000 years ago or did they only exist from 19th century after Max Muler named them.

Cavallu-Sforza is a name of a sudy not a name of a race. NICE TRY but they speak of the farmers' migration.

Aryan 2 is your theory but it essentially just shows that they were Aryans. Which makes it irrelevant because the question arises which of the two passed on their genes for the data we have today and Why does it matter?

And by the last comment am I to take that you are rejecting the Aryans existed or is this just you confirming that you believe that there was another race but we are yet to discover it.

Anyway rather than go in this debate on names I am Ok with what ever you want to call them but note that these people did not follow the language, religioun, rituals, customs and traditions of Aryans. That alone requires identifying them as a separate group. Would you be happy to call them Aryan 2 to denote a separate religion, culture and language.

How are language and culture going to affect the genetic data?
Even after all the misinterpretation and misdirections all you could come up with was a race which was Aryan genetically.

You mean outgrow in terms of numbers, right. What has been the point of all the discussion in terms of many new forest tribes joining until as recently as 100 years ago. New tribes joining will help grow the numbers over time, Right?

Make your mind up

Were they all living in the jungle or not?

‘Not all dalits living in forests’ (or jungle as you insist on calling it) is your theory, not mine.

Once again Mr Moutmotta has his arguments defeated and therefore decides to backtrack.
This is what you said in post #127

Moumotta: I did not say all.

Like I said make your mind up

The first point (yadava) merely confirms why sudra should have higher Aryan genes. It is not very clear what your second point means but it does nothing to challenge the study and its results.

I am not challenging the study or it's results.
What has happened up here is that you thought you were on to something and it turned out to be a dud.

I am not arguing that one can recreate the original observations from an average because that information has been lost in the process. However, you have to agree that those observations must have been on both sides of the average.

Could HAVE would HAVE

I know anything could have happened

But what do we know has happened?

We know there was a migration in the period 11000 - 9000BC
And we know that there was a migration in between 3000BC -4000BC

More in line = totally in line?
Yes it could be due to the Aryan invasion. That’s a possibility but we can’t conclude it is the only possibility.

Then we need to NAME the other possibilities

Scientists believe that they existed. They wouldn’t cease to exist if we don’t attach a name to them.

Which scientists believe they existsed?
What was the timing of their existence.

Please provide backup so I can apologise to you.

This was a mistake. Thanks for picking it up. Now bash me as much as you can.

Wow this is the first time in the whole debate you have accepted that you made a mistake. I was expecting some Random comments about standard errors and how they can sometimes be multiplied by 2....etc

This call for a

CELEBRATION​

Summary to follow

 

[Wazeeri]

PROGRESS

No progress made,

You still accept the Aryans as a possibility but you think it is more likely that it was a race which we are yet to discover.

I don't see us moving forward from this.

 

[moumotta]

It is very nice to see that you completely ignore the answers when given and bring up the questions again when you have ran out of options to put the topic off track. I will answer once again.

I have explained it before. You can’t have a situation in which you can use conjectures and possibilities as explanation and then ask me to prove every thing with name and address. Route was a weakness in linking Aryan’s with the genetic evidence in the study. Similarly you had Aryan time lines stretched to fit with the observations. I was happy to leave it at that, just noticing that it reduces the likelihood but does not entirely invalidate the hypothesis.

When it came to alternative hypothesis you suddenly decided that the bar now is different. You can’t have different standards while defending and challenging. If a hundred % proof is required then every hypothesis should fail.

Modern day Iran has not always been there, at one point it was part of Hadhrat Umar's rule from Syria to Pakistan. At another point it was Syria Iraq and Iran.

Every country has had population movements. How is that different from India for example? No one is arguing that political boundaries have remained unchanged. In fact there were no political boundaries 3000 years ago for any country which is what made population movements so easy.

It is very likely that Iran was only partly populated by the Aryans.

If you look at the map of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan it makes sense that only the north was populated otherwise we would see the invasion through South West Pakistan which is a lot more simple.

We also know that the Avesta describes the land in North Iran.

Aryans entered Iran from north. From there one branch moved to India and the other to Iranian main land. That is the accepted version. What you are trying to argue is that the Iranian branch remained stuck in northern region.

Geographical Iran is not the same as the Iran of the Avesta as shown to you not too many posts ago which you ignored.

Please give a post reference or quote.

Let me clarify what you are trying to argue.
You claim that this 9000BC is made up of migrations in between 3000-5000 BP(before present) which are non-aryans. (If not then this is irrelevant)

Hence you are rejecting that this migration is consistant with farmer's migration.

The word was more consistent. To say that it may have included bronze age or pre bronze age/ late farmer migration age migrations does not reject that it is more consistent with farmer's migration.

Even if you only limit it to farmer migrations the dates for Indus Valley are as recent as 4th millennium BC.

The farmer's migration started 14000 BP in Africa and by 9000BP it was complete in Balochistan. The migration went through SOUTH IRAN, into Balochistan (South Western Pakistan).
The farmer migration is not the answer because it took place 5 millenia before the time we are concerned.

This side of the argument from you is a red herring.

That’s ridiculously wrong. How can the average of migrations between 14000BP and 9000BP be 9000 BP.

Cavallu-Sforza is a name of a sudy not a name of a race. NICE TRY but they speak of the farmers' migration.

Aryan 2 is your theory but it essentially just shows that they were Aryans. Which makes it irrelevant because the question arises which of the two passed on their genes for the data we have today and Why does it matter?

And by the last comment am I to take that you are rejecting the Aryans existed or is this just you confirming that you believe that there was another race but we are yet to discover it.

What I am saying is that not every migration has the race named. Even the Aryan migration which had tremendous impact on study of languages did not have a name until the 19th century.

How are language and culture going to affect the genetic data?
Even after all the misinterpretation and misdirections all you could come up with was a race which was Aryan genetically.

It does not affect the genetic data. No migration whether Aryan or non Aryan will affect the genetic data. They will affect the conclusions though. We are discussing the study only because of the social, cultural and political conclusions it leads to.

Make your mind up

Were they all living in the jungle or not?

Once again Mr Moutmotta has his arguments defeated and therefore decides to backtrack.
This is what you said in post #127

Moumotta: I did not say all.

Like I said make your mind up

Let us see where we have got to
1. Panchamas were added at a later date
2. We know that many of them are forest tribes that were certainly added later, some as recently as upto 100 years ago.
3. Not every group within Panchama has been studied in detail so we can not claim that all were forest tribes. It does not prove the rest were not forest tribes either. It is just a grey area we have to live with.
4. We do not know how the people in the grey area became Panchams, what we do know (and I just repeat it from the study) is that Panchamas were added at a later date.

Do you disagree with any of the above?

I am not challenging the study or it's results.
What has happened up here is that you thought you were on to something and it turned out to be a dud.

What I am on to here is related to where this debate started. If Aryans invaded South India and obtained position of power what did they do with this power. Fill the lowest caste with their kind.

 

[Wazeeri]

When it came to alternative hypothesis you suddenly decided that the bar now is different. You can’t have different standards while defending and challenging. If a hundred % proof is required then every hypothesis should fail.

Moumotta

It has been explained to the very D to you but you are in search of some consolation hence you will continue this line.

The Farmer migration is not the answer because it is a different route and 5 millenia out.

IN SIMPLE WORDS
We are trying to work out who these people were who left their Y Chromosome
Their route is the one we are concerned with.

Please give a post reference or quote.

I will reproduce the post for you.

The Avesta also gives a vivid description of the home of the Avestan people. Based on the Avesta, historians place the Avestan country in Northern Iran, roughly in the land known as Khorasan.

I will also reproduce the list of people living with the Aryans hence dissolving the Aryan presence in the gene pool. Elams, Medes, Persians, Bactrians, Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Cimmerians and Alans (Then the arabs took over).

The word was more consistent. To say that it may have included bronze age or pre bronze age/ late farmer migration age migrations does not reject that it is more consistent with farmer's migration.

Even if you only limit it to farmer migrations the dates for Indus Valley are as recent as 4th millennium BC.

Let's get a bit of clarity up here, You are the one who is rejecting the farmer's migration theory by stating that the 9000 BP could have been at a later time.

PS: The random info on the Indus Valley is also irrelevant, it doesn't matter how long the indus valley lasted. A civilisation does not equal an ongoing migration.

That’s ridiculously wrong. How can the average of migrations between 14000BP and 9000BP be 9000 BP.

Are you trying to come back from your maths gaffe?
Read the quote again, it started in Africa 14,000 BP, it was complete in Balochistan 9000 BP.

What I am saying is that not every migration has the race named. Even the Aryan migration which had tremendous impact on study of languages did not have a name until the 19th century.

Yes it could be any of the millions of migrations we haven't discovered but which migration is staring us in the face??

It does not affect the genetic data. No migration whether Aryan or non Aryan will affect the genetic data. They will affect the conclusions though. We are discussing the study only because of the social, cultural and political conclusions it leads to.

We are discussing the genetic data,
The best answer you could come up with was another Aryan wave.

Let us see where we have got to
1. Panchamas were added at a later date
2. We know that many of them are forest tribes that were certainly added later, some as recently as upto 100 years ago.
3. Not every group within Panchama has been studied in detail so we can not claim that all were forest tribes. It does not prove the rest were not forest tribes either. It is just a grey area we have to live with.
4. We do not know how the people in the grey area became Panchams, what we do know (and I just repeat it from the study) is that Panchamas were added at a later date.

Do you disagree with any of the above?

You have already contradicted yourself hence your only option now is to say WE DON't KNOW

There are two options,
1) The panchamas all lived in the jungles and joined the castes hierarchy later on hence missed a chance to get into one of the Varnas.
2) Not all of them were living in the jungles, some of them met the creators of the new hierarchy but the panchamas were considered too lowly to be included in the 4 varnas

Moumotta: I did not say all.

Moumotta: ‘Not all dalits living in forests’ (or jungle as you insist on calling it) is your (Wazeeri's) theory, not mine.

This is what I mean when I say you need clarity in your argument. You just punch in every direction in an attempt to get a knockout and that is why every single one of your arguments has been disected.

What I am on to here is related to where this debate started. If Aryans invaded South India and obtained position of power what did they do with this power. Fill the lowest caste with their kind.

So we are going to go back to all the branches of debates which we left behind just because you cannot answer the genetic studies anymore?

Then when we reach a deadlock there you will start an argument about the genetic studies again.

PS: Could you tell me how many Aryan dalits exist?

 

[Wazeeri]

PROGRESS MADE

Once again None,

You are unwilling to clearly state your conclusion because it is clearly irrational.

We have a migration between E Europe and India
3000-5000 years ago.

The Aryan race seems to be staring in our face.


You accept the Aryans as a possibility BUT

You claim it is a race we haven't discovered yet because accepting that the genetic data points to the Aryans would completely defeat your point.


NOTICE HOW YOU HAVEN'T CLEARLY STATED YOUR CONCLUSION FOR A DOZEN POSTS NOW.

 

[moumotta]

The Farmer migration is not the answer because it is a different route and 5 millenia out.

IN SIMPLE WORDS
We are trying to work out who these people were who left their Y Chromosome
Their route is the one we are concerned with.

Two things.
1. The route requirement was not a part of the challenge you set me. You brought it out only after I mentioned farmer migration. You know well that farmer migrations did not finish in 9000 BP and the route has been added as an after thought to give you more room to spin.
2. If you want to add this requirement now then don’t complain if I ask you to prove it for Aryan migration as well.

The Avesta also gives a vivid description of the home of the Avestan people. Based on the Avesta, historians place the Avestan country in Northern Iran, roughly in the land known as Khorasan.

Vedas also describe the land of Saptasindhu (Punjab). Does not mean they remained stuck there for ever. They moved eastwards just as Iranian Aryans moved south.
Here are some quotes that contradict your stuck in ‘Northern Shangrila’ theory.

As a whole it is believed that the widespread migration of the Aryan tribesmen into the Iranian plateau started at the end of the second millennium B.C. Although traces of their arrival have been noted at Tappeh Hessar, near Damghan or Tappeh Silk, near Kashan, during the third millennium B.C, in all probability this was the first migration of the Aryans into the heart of the Iranian mainland. But the second migration differed from the first invasion. This was a continued wave of invasion starting from Eurasian plains south of Russia and advancing into the south from two fronts.
http://www.freeiran.biz/aryan_migration.htm


Contemporary anthropologists who believe in the existence of an ancient Aryan race generally have the opinion that its closest descendants today are the Persians
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Aryanism


About 6,500 Years ago, successive waves of people were migrating into a land which is now called Iran and northern Iraq. They called themselves the black-headed (dark- haired) people. We know them as the Aryan/Sumerian, ancestors of Iranians and the land in which they settled as the land of Sumer (Iran Plateau)
http://www.peymanmeli.org/index.asp​

If the study fails to pick Y chromosomes in Iran the question has to be asked, are they really testing an Aryan gene. Or even, is there such a thing as an Aryan gene.

I will also reproduce the list of people living with the Aryans hence dissolving the Aryan presence in the gene pool. Elams, Medes, Persians, Bactrians, Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Cimmerians and Alans (Then the arabs took over).

Did they also dilute farmers genes or were they only mixing with Aryans.
This is down to excuses now. You realise that each such rubbery excuse you make is weakening your case.

Let's get a bit of clarity up here, You are the one who is rejecting the farmer's migration theory by stating that the 9000 BP could have been at a later time.

PS: The random info on the Indus Valley is also irrelevant, it doesn't matter how long the indus valley lasted. A civilisation does not equal an ongoing migration.

No one is talking of Indus Valley Civilisation. I was talking about Indus Valley, a geographic area. Here is the full quote from a historian:

In time the settlement of farmers and pastoralists spread from the middle east to the Iranian plateau and Central Asia, and from there, around the sixth millennium BC, into the Indian subcontinent on the Sind- Baluchistan border and then, a couple of thousand years later into the Indus Valley.

Abraham Eraly​

Here is another source that uses a modelling approach but comes up with the same 6000 BP as the date for last farmer migration.

The four F snapshots show an F wave (farmer migrations) spreading from the fertile crescent along the coast into India (11000 B.P.–6,000 B.P.). The fourth F snapshot represents the final distribution of F.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8714.full​

Are you trying to come back from your maths gaffe?
Read the quote again, it started in Africa 14,000 BP, it was complete in Balochistan 9000 BP.

Let me explain. We know that there was more than one wave of migration.
You are saying the migrations finished in 9000BP (last migration). The earlier migrations must have been before 9000 BP.
If you have a set of observations that are 9000 BP and earlier how can they produce an average of 9000 BP.

We are discussing the genetic data,
The best answer you could come up with was another Aryan wave.

This is what Max Muller has to say on the subject.

I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language… To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar.​

Leaving that dump aside the only reason we are discussing genetic data is because of possible conclusions about Aryans conquering south India and imposing a caste system as a means of capturing all the higher positions. If it is an earlier race without Aryan beliefs then they could not have imposed the caste system. The caste system would have arrived separately and the study has no relevance to any conclusions on equations.

Has it started making sense yet?

Let us see where we have got to1. Panchamas were added at a later date2. We know that many of them are forest tribes that were certainly added later, some as recently as upto 100 years ago.3. Not every group within Panchama has been studied in detail so we can not claim that all were forest tribes. It does not prove the rest were not forest tribes either. It is just a grey area we have to live with.4. We do not know how the people in the grey area became Panchams, what we do know (and I just repeat it from the study) is that Panchamas were added at a later date.Do you disagree with any of the above?

You have already contradicted yourself hence your only option now is to say WE DON't KNOW

There are two options,
1) The panchamas all lived in the jungles and joined the castes hierarchy later on hence missed a chance to get into one of the Varnas.
2) Not all of them were living in the jungles, some of them met the creators of the new hierarchy but the panchamas were considered too lowly to be included in the 4 varnas.

Moumotta: I did not say all.

Moumotta: ‘Not all dalits living in forests’ (or jungle as you insist on calling it) is your (Wazeeri's) theory, not mine.

You can’t really deal with uncertainty, can you? For you every thing has to be 0% or 100%.

We know that many of them lived in forests. For the others, they may have lived in or out of forests. How does it follow that those not living in forests were in contact and were available to become part of the community. While ‘In the Forest Out of Contact’ works, the opposite ‘Out of Forest Must mean In Contact’ is not a valid.

However, to cut it short whether there were some Panchamas on day 1 or not is not really relevant to where I am leading to. The point is that regardless of the starting position Panchamas have had constant dilution from the ongoing mix of indigenous forest tribes over time. A genetic difference for them means zilch. In fact it would be odd if they were found to have the same European mix as other castes.

CONCLUSION

Farming migrations continued as recently as 6000 years ago. The 8000 barrier is easily broken. We are still 800 years away from 5200 but we are also several thousand kilometres from the coast of Andhra Pradesh. Enough distance to explain a time gap.

Aryan 2 are another candidate for the genetic study. They could well have been pushed further south by the Aryan push.

Both farmer migrations and Aryan 2 did not follow Aryan language, culture and religion.
They could not have brought the Aryan culture and caste system with them to impose it on the host population- Caste system would have come much later.
That would mean that any linkage between genetic study and caste system are incidental.

Both these scenarios are more consistent with historical evidence that the Aryan culture reached South via Gangetic plains in the first millennium BC rather than straight from Punjab more than 3000 years ago..

 

[Wazeeri]

1. The route requirement was not a part of the challenge you set me. You brought it out only after I mentioned farmer migration. You know well that farmer migrations did not finish in 9000 BP and the route has been added as an after thought to give you more room to spin.
2. If you want to add this requirement now then don’t complain if I ask you to prove it for Aryan migration as well.

What are you talking about?

The route challenge has been there from the start. How can one race leave it's Y Chromsome in one place and MTdna in a completely different place?

And you are speaking as if you have jus failed the route test. Have you shown me a migration roughly on the same route in between 3000-5000 years BP?

You have failed all tests and your argument has been brought down to a belief in a race which we haven't yet discovered.

This was a continued wave of invasion starting from Eurasian plains south of Russia and advancing into the south from two fronts.

South of Russia is south of Iran?
Advancing into the south from two fronts. TWO FRONTS IN RUSSIA.

If the study fails to pick Y chromosomes in Iran the question has to be asked, are they really testing an Aryan gene. Or even, is there such a thing as an Aryan gene.

Once again WHO IS IT?
E Europe to India, found a lot in N/W Pakistan, Punjab (50.7).

PS: Ofcourse there is an Aryan gene, if these peole existed as a unit then ofcourse they would pass on their genes to their descendants.

Did they also dilute farmers genes or were they only mixing with Aryans.
This is down to excuses now. You realise that each such rubbery excuse you make is weakening your case.

Moumotta you lost the position to attack long time ago. Stay on the defensive.

You clearly don't understand what this is all about.

The farmer theory is not based on genes. This is the spread of farming in the world. It started in Africa 14,000 years BP and spread to the other continents.

Have you got data on how much their genes were dilluted?

What is the point of your question? What are you refuting?

Here is another source that uses a modelling approach but comes up with the same 6000 BP as the date for last farmer migration.

Moumotta I apologise for saying this but you aren't coming across as very intelligent in this exchange.

Let's break the quote down so you can understand.

1) spread from the middle east to the Iranian plateau and Central Asia,
2) and from there, around the sixth millennium BC, into the Indian subcontinent on the Sind- Baluchistan border
3)and then, a couple of thousand years later into the Indus Valley.

There are no new migrations from West Eurasia.
The migrants settled in Sindh/ balochistan and then they moved to the Indus Valley.

Leaving that dump aside the only reason we are discussing genetic data is because of possible conclusions about Aryans conquering south India and imposing a caste system as a means of capturing all the higher positions. If it is an earlier race without Aryan beliefs then they could not have imposed the caste system.

Ok let's attack your misinterpretation,

What were the beliefs of this earlier invasion?
Where has this distinction been documented and noticed?
What was the custom of these Aryans?

Has it started making sense yet?

Not to you.

While ‘In the Forest Out of Contact’ works, the opposite ‘Out of Forest Must mean In Contact’ is not a valid.

Moumotta

I suggest you quietly ignore this part of the debate because you have made a mess of it.
The more you struggle the harder it will become.

So in what scenario would these guys not come in contact with the invaders? After all the invaders will be taking the land from them.

Explain the "out of the forest not in contact" theory and provide evidence that this was the case.

If you can't explain what happened to them, were they considered sub human to be included in the 4 varnas?

You are saying the migrations finished in 9000BP (last migration). The earlier migrations must have been before 9000 BP.
If you have a set of observations that are 9000 BP and earlier how can they produce an average of 9000 BP.

Moumotta you have already demonstrated your weak grasp at Maths so I would understand an inane question regarding averages but the issue up here is that you don't even read the posts to you.

The average could be anything. Please read my previous posts where I have mentioned the Aryan race contributing to the average and the minute contributions of a century and a bit ago.

What you don't understand is that the average cannot be conclusive.

You need to attach a migration to the average which you have done with the Farmers. This has been proven to be false.

Farming migrations continued as recently as 6000 years ago. The 8000 barrier is easily broken. We are still 800 years away from 5200 but we are also several thousand kilometres from the coast of Andhra Pradesh. Enough distance to explain a time gap.

Moumotta you are just prolonging the inevitable. In the end you have to admit that you are speaking of a race we haven't discovered or the Aryans.

First of all STOP LYING
The 6000 years BP is the spread from Sindh Balochistan into India it is not further addition of West Eurasian blood.

Is this what you now have to resort to?

Just for future reference know that if you provide me a study, I will read it.

Both these scenarios are more consistent with historical evidence that the Aryan culture reached South via Gangetic plains in the first millennium BC rather than straight from Punjab more than 3000 years ago..

very poor attempt at putting words in my mouth.

 

[Wazeeri]

PROGRESS

• You seem to have backed down on the suggestion that this is a race which we haven't discovered. Guess you realised how irrational that sounds.
  
• You are pushing the Aryan 2 theory. Now you need to tell us other than your misinterpretation of Romilla's work where else have we found evidence of this different culturally wave.
  What was their culture
  What was their belief
  A bit more detail on this new theory of yours please.
  
• You have to explain how a population doesn't come in contact with a population which invades their lands.
  
• Also comment on your lie that there was a continued migration from West Eurasia upto 6000 years ago.

 

[moumotta]

Your last post is nothing but diversions and procrastination.

Rightfully this debate should have come close to conclusion when I showed you a 9000 average years migration that was an average of a number of different West Eurasian donations. For a number of different migrations with an average of 9000 will easily include 8000. You could argue if it includes 5000, but challenging 8000 needs some serious procrastination. Only childish obstinacy could help you prolong it and it came out quick. The trend has continued.

It is also interesting how you only have to make statements and I need evidence with names, routes, dates and addresses to challenge them. It is clear you will just keep prolonging the debate until I start asking you to back up your statements.

How about we go for a level field now. Its time to stop throwing rocks from your trench and time to get to the work bench. I will number the points that you need to validate rather than just throw in the air before we proceed further.

What are you talking about?

The route challenge has been there from the start. How can one race leave it's Y Chromsome in one place and MTdna in a completely different place?

And you are speaking as if you have jus failed the route test. Have you shown me a migration roughly on the same route in between 3000-5000 years BP?

Go to your Summary post No 116 to see what was there.

Task 1. Map the route you are proposing and show how it is supported by Bamshad.

Task 2. Show how Aryans meet this route test.

South of Russia is south of Iran?
Advancing into the south from two fronts. TWO FRONTS IN RUSSIA.

Is that all you could find in three separate quotes supporting Aryans moved to all of Iranian plateau, only some distortion of words for random rock throwing!

Task 3. Show that Aryans did not move south from northern Iran.

PS: Ofcourse there is an Aryan gene, if these peole existed as a unit then ofcourse they would pass on their genes to their descendants.

That must be so different from farmers and other non-genetic migrations.

The farmer theory is not based on genes. This is the spread of farming in the world. It started in Africa 14,000 years BP and spread to the other continents.

Can you explain that again. That the farmer theory is not based on genes.
Are you suggesting that they were a mixed race people, each wave that moved in different direction from fertile crescent had no particular genetic commonality, rather they were some kind of a UN mixed delegation.

Moumotta I apologise for saying this but you aren't coming across as very intelligent in this exchange.

Let's break the quote down so you can understand.

1) spread from the middle east to the Iranian plateau and Central Asia,
2) and from there, around the sixth millennium BC, into the Indian subcontinent on the Sind- Baluchistan border
3)and then, a couple of thousand years later into the Indus Valley.

There are no new migrations from West Eurasia.
The migrants settled in Sindh/ balochistan and then they moved to the Indus Valley.
Let us get some intelligence into it,

Yes, let us get some intelligence in. Start by explaining why you are talking about Africa when separation of populations and most of the domestication happened in Fertile Crescent and the Levant.

Task 4. Show that the migration wave reaching Indus Valley was from Baluchistan and not an independent subsequent wave.

Ok let's attack your misinterpretation,

What were the beliefs of this earlier invasion?
Where has this distinction been documented and noticed?
What was the custom of these Aryans?

You are not attacking buddy. You are just groping in the dark with your obstinacy. This is what I meant by you prolonging the debate with silly questions.

We know that they were not Aryan beliefs and customs. More than half the quote was about - they have distinctive languages, do not perform the rites, the religious rites, do not observe the customs that the aryas observe.

Task 5. Show us your interpretation and demonstrate what misinterpretation I am making.

So in what scenario would these guys not come in contact with the invaders? After all the invaders will be taking the land from them.

Explain the "out of the forest not in contact" theory and provide evidence that this was the case.

If you can't explain what happened to them, were they considered sub human to be included in the 4 varnas?

And the procrastination continues.
You are suggesting that every one out of forest was IN CONTACT.

Task 6. Show it. If you don’t know where to start you need to do the following:

6A- show that Panchamas were not added later
6B…show that none of the non-forest tribes were following a nomadic life style that needs no regular interaction with other communities
6C---show that they were living in Aryan settlements and that none of them moved away from these settlements
6D---finally show that those who satisfied 6B and 6C were not added to the other four castes​

​

Moumotta you have already demonstrated your weak grasp at Maths so I would understand an inane question regarding averages but the issue up here is that you don't even read the posts to you.

The average could be anything. Please read my previous posts where I have mentioned the Aryan race contributing to the average and the minute contributions of a century and a bit ago.

What you don't understand is that the average cannot be conclusive.

You need to attach a migration to the average which you have done with the Farmers. This has been proven to be false.

All that verbosity merely to avoid answering the question and then you add a gem like ‘The average could be anything’. Can you explain what it means.

Let me repeat the question.

Task 7 You are saying the migrations finished in 9000BP (last migration). The earlier migrations must have been before 9000 BP. If you have a set of observations that are 9000 BP and earlier how can they produce an average of 9000 BP.

Task 8 While you are at it, how about some evidence that farmer migrations finished in 9000BP.

very poor attempt at putting words in my mouth.

Which words are you objecting to? That they came form Bihar or from Punjab.

Task 9 Tell us what route Aryans took to Andhra.

 

[Wazeeri]

Rightfully this debate should have come close to conclusion when I showed you a 9000 average years migration that was an average of a number of different West Eurasian donations. For a number of different migrations with an average of 9000 will easily include 8000. You could argue if it includes 5000, but challenging 8000 needs some serious procrastination. Only childish obstinacy could help you prolong it and it came out quick. The trend has continued.

Moumotta

Have a read of the above and ask yourself whether that sounds ridiculous or not.

We are trying to work out who these people were who left their Y Chromosome in the regions mentioned already.

You have been told that a significant contribution of MTDna in India had made in the recent past and it averages 9000years BP. We know that the Aryans came into India and contributed to the genepool hence they contributed to the average regardless what you say.

PS: Do you know how inane it sounds when you say the 9000 average probably has 8000 but not 5000. Even though that is completely besides the point.

Is that all you could find in three separate quotes supporting Aryans moved to all of Iranian plateau, only some distortion of words for random rock throwing!

Task 3. Show that Aryans did not move south from northern Iran.

If an event occurs then the onus is on the claimant to prove it.
It is getting dire for you. You can't prove something hence you want me to disprove it.

That (Aryan genes) must be so different from farmers and other non-genetic migrations.

Yes because they are seperated by 5 millenia.

Can you explain that again. That the farmer theory is not based on genes.
Are you suggesting that they were a mixed race people, each wave that moved in different direction from fertile crescent had no particular genetic commonality, rather they were some kind of a UN mixed delegation.

You don't have a clue do you?

You queried whether the farmer's genes had been dilluted in Iran as the Aryans had.

You are completely confused.

The paper you provided mentioned recent MTDna input into India averaging at 9000 years BP. There was no further analysis on this, the paper suggested that the timeline in consistant with the migration of the farmers.

The genes of the farmers has not been identified, the gene flow of different CROPS is being discussed.

You seriously need to read papers before you produce them.

Start by explaining why you are talking about Africa when separation of populations and most of the domestication happened in Fertile Crescent

) ) )

Guess where upper and lower egypt are, yes that's right Africa.
Absolute Classic,

Moumotta: Why talk about Africa when domestication started in the fertile crescent. ) )

Task 4. Show that the migration wave reaching Indus Valley was from Baluchistan and not an independent subsequent wave.

That is another ridiculous comment.
You are becoming more desperate by the post.

So a race took 2000 years to get to Balochistan. And then another wave travelled that distance in a matter of years overtaking the settlers.

Can you not see how ludicurous that sounds.

Task 5. Show us your interpretation and demonstrate what misinterpretation I am making.

So you are not going to answer the questions.

First of all Romilla was suggesting something not producing evidence, that is one thing you need to consider, 2ndally the following is where you misinterpreted.

Romilla was suggesting that the Agrarian soceity the Dasyu and the Aryans were both one race. She is arguing that the verses in the Rig Veda may not be describing the invasion but inter-social fighting.

The Aryans the aggressors went ahead and setup the caste system. So even with your Aryan 2 theory, we are essentially speaking of the same Aryans.

JUST SO YOU TRY TO WRIGGLE YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS ONE, PROVIDE EVIDENCE OTHER THAN YOUR OPINION WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE WERE TWO WAVES OF THE ARYANS CONQUERING LANDS

Task 6. Show it. If you don’t know where to start you need to do the following: 6A- show that Panchamas were not added later 6B…show that none of the non-forest tribes were following a nomadic life style that needs no regular interaction with other communities 6C---show that they were living in Aryan settlements and that none of them moved away from these settlements 6D---finally show that those who satisfied 6B and 6C were not added to the other four castes

That is all you have left now, confusing the argument.

I never claimed that none of the Dalits were living in the forests at some point.

I am not claiming that the Panchama branch was added later.

The fact that the Aryans are supposed to have invaded their land should be reason enough to show they had contact.

You cannot come back from your contradiction so don't try.
I didn't say all
It was you who said not all
It wasn't all
There was no contact

You are now just coming out with whatever wishy washy thing that comes out of your head.

Which words are you objecting to? That they came form Bihar or from Punjab. Task 9 Tell us what route Aryans took to Andhra.

I haven't even made a comment about where they came from.
Are you trying to put words in my mouth in order to get some consolation win?

Task 1. Map the route you are proposing and show how it is supported by Bamshad. Task 2. Show how Aryans meet this route test.

Bamshad???
The route came about from the Kivisild paper you provided

List of areas suggested as highly populated by the genetic studies
Poland, Byelorussian, Ukraine, Punjab, North West India, Andhra Pradesh (Higher castes)
List of areas co-populated
Iran, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh.


Summary to follow again.

 

[Wazeeri]

Summary

You completely ignored the last post so I will resummarise.

• You have given up on a race we haven't discovered yet theory because you know that sounds irrational
• You earlier accepted that the Aryans were a possibility but as that would lose the debate for you, you have created a new race called ARYAN 2
• You were requested for a bit more detail on this Aryan 2, you didn't even attempt
• You have given up on trying to find a migration in 3000-5000 years BP, you are now only concentrating on the highly unlikely scenario of 8000 year BP
• You have suggested that the spread of farming went upto Balochistan and then it stopped. And then a new Eastern European over took the settlers and went into India, even though the first time they tried it, it took them just 2000 years to get to Balochistan.

You are now trying to take the approach "I can't explain or prove my theory so you disprove it".

 

[moumotta]

PS: Do you know how inane it sounds when you say the 9000 average probably has 8000 but not 5000. Even though that is completely besides the point.

It will sound inane when you put it in your words. What I am saying is that it has a very high probability of including 8000BP (and after), much higher than of including 5000 because in a probability tail 5000 is included in 8000 (and after).

Your lack of understanding of averages, as has been exposed else where is to blame for your confusion. No wonder you argue that averages can be anything and for a range of observations they can actually be at the extreme end of the range of values.
I will bring you back to the question that you have been refusing to answer.

Task 7 Over dueYou are saying the migrations finished in 9000BP (last migration). The earlier migrations must have been before 9000 BP. If you have a set of observations that are 9000 BP and earlier how can they produce an average of 9000 BP.

And a related task
Task 8 While you are at it, how about some evidence that farmer migrations finished in 9000BP.
​

Is that all you could find in three separate quotes supporting Aryans moved to all of Iranian plateau, only some distortion of words for random rock throwing!

Task 3. Show that Aryans did not move south from northern Iran. ]

If an event occurs then the onus is on the claimant to prove it. . ]

That’s a cunning misdirection of ;onus to prove;. The only onus to prove is with regards to the Bamshad study. If you don’t remember let me remind you. The only reason other migrations were even mentioned was because when pushed in a corner you took the line that there were no other migrations hence it must be Aryans. If you think lengthening the thread with double postings will make that link fuzzy you are seriously mistaken. I will keep reminding you of the route and mile stones in the discussion.

Yes because they are seperated by 5 millenia.

Again moving tangentially from the point under discussion. The reference was you arguing farmers had no genetic identity where as Aryans did.

) ) )

Guess where upper and lower egypt are, yes that's right Africa.
Absolute Classic,

Moumotta: Why talk about Africa when domestication started in the fertile crescent. ) )

The uncharacteristic and abundant overflow of smilies shows how nervous you would have been when trying to clutch on to your stand. I asked for intelligence. All we get is more obstinatacy.

I suggest you look at that map again. What does it show you- parts of Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel. I ask again. Why are you calling it Africa.

It is one thing to make a mistake. It is another to obstinately try and argue for it after it has been picked up.

So a race took 2000 years to get to Balochistan. And then another wave travelled that distance in a matter of years overtaking the settlers.

Can you not see how ludicurous that sounds.

What’s the problem. Stick with the standards you have set. No doubt you will soon name the races migrating to Baluchistan and Indus Valley and prove that they were the same.

First of all Romilla was suggesting something not producing evidence, that is one thing you need to consider, 2ndally the following is where you misinterpreted.

Romilla was suggesting that the Agrarian soceity the Dasyu and the Aryans were both one race. She is arguing that the verses in the Rig Veda may not be describing the invasion but inter-social fighting.

The Aryans the aggressors went ahead and setup the caste system. So even with your Aryan 2 theory, we are essentially speaking of the same Aryans.

JUST SO YOU TRY TO WRIGGLE YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS ONE, PROVIDE EVIDENCE OTHER THAN YOUR OPINION WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE WERE TWO WAVES OF THE ARYANS CONQUERING LANDS

Same race was your interpretation, not mine. I just said at that time that it does not matter for my purpose. If they were same race it will be hard to explain how they speak different languages, customs and how one would have acquired wealth in transit while the other is always dreaming of invading them to take the wealth off them.
However, if all you are after is more than one wave of Aryan migration then here you go.

But the invasion theory came to be disc arded in favour of alternative theories of how the language, Indo-Aryan, entered the sub-continent. In 1968, I had argued at a session of the Indian History Congress that invasion was untenable and that the language –Indo-Aryan - had come with a series of migrations and therefore involving multiple avenues of the acculturation of peoples.
Romial Thapar​

I am not claiming that the Panchama branch was added later.

That is straight from the study, that Panchama were added later. If you disagree then you need to show why.

I never claimed that none of the Dalits were living in the forests at some point.

The fact that the Aryans are supposed to have invaded their land should be reason enough to show they had contact.

When invaded every one stays around? No one runs away or gets pushed back to another territory. This is where your simplistic and sweeping generalisations come to the fore.
Those who had contact were included in four castes. You are now arguing that even those who were added much later to a non-caste identity were in contact. All you can provide for evidence is a twisting of my ‘I did not say all’.

You cannot come back from your contradiction so don't try.
I didn't say all
It was you who said not all
It wasn't all
There was no contact

You are now just coming out with whatever wishy washy thing that comes out of your head.

This should take the cake in twisting arguments. Let me show you how ‘not said all’ came about.
What I showed was that many Panchamas were forest tribes.
You then asked me if many = all.
I said I did not say all. Did I show that all were forest tribes. No I did not..
Now you are quoting it as if I said they were definitely non-forest people. All I said was I did not show that all were forest people. That in no way allows you to claim that many were non-forest people. It still needs to be proved. So, please forget this I said all or no all business.

I haven't even made a comment about where they came from.
Are you trying to put words in my mouth in order to get some consolation win?

It is very simple. I was saying that the scenario of caste system arriving separately from the genetic input and at a later date is consistent with historical evidence of Aryans spreading south from Bihar in the first millennium BC. Arrival of caste system in a time line of 3000 years and earlier will have to mean Aryans rushing to Andhra straight after entering Punjab (or even before entering Punjab but lets ignore that complication).
While I did not particularly ascribe that statement to you, you did raise the suggestion earlier if Aryans didn't go in two different directions from Punjab.
It is funny how you are so worried about route else where but want to sit on the fence this time.

List of areas suggested as highly populated by the genetic studies
Poland, Byelorussian, Ukraine, Punjab, North West India, Andhra Pradesh (Higher castes)
List of areas co-populated
Iran, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh.

Now show us how Arayns satisfy this route requirement in Iran. Any déjà vu is related to different requirements of proof as modified by Wazeeri.

You are now trying to take the approach "I can't explain or prove my theory so you disprove it".

The approach I am taking is a replica of the approach you have been using lately. If you want every possible migration to include their exact time, name of race and route mapped with genetics then it is fair enough that these standards are back dated to where we started.

In fact they need to apply more to the defending position than to the alternatives. What you are doing is take advantage of the blurred picture I mentioned as you roll the CCTV camera back before pre- Aryan days. After having failed in every other respect you are now saying that it is the last migration about which we have some kind of name/ route detail therefore it becomes the one we adopt by default despite a plethora of demonstrated weaknesses in the study and its conclusions.

You are now trying to switch the onus of proof to me as if all the territory belongs to your opinion and other opinions must prove their point before they can occupy any chunk of it.

Let me tell you that it is your Aryan theory that is in the dock here. That is the one that has to be proved to claim its territory.

As before I will not separately respond to points that have already been replied.

If you want to make statements rather than arguments you might as well make them in the reply thread. You do that all the time any way.

 

[Wazeeri]

Task 7 Over dueYou are saying the migrations finished in 9000BP (last migration). The earlier migrations must have been before 9000 BP. If you have a set of observations that are 9000 BP and earlier how can they produce an average of 9000 BP.

And a related task
Task 8 While you are at it, how about some evidence that farmer migrations finished in 9000BP.

Moumotta

I am going to give you the rest of the argument in AT BEST AT WORST format.

At best your arguments are based on could haves and would haves.

At worst you don't understand the data.
Let me once again (I am sure not for the last time) break this down for you.

• The 9000 average is speaking of all recent migrations.
• Forget about my genetic data, We know the Aryans came around about 4000 years ago

The 9000 average is not speaking of a specific migration, it is speaking of ALL recent West Eurasian migrations into the subcontinent.

The Aryans ARE included in the average.

Hopefully that has made it very clear for you.

Now yes another migration could have occured in the period from 8000 BP to 5000 BP.

BUT the magic word is COULD HAVE.

There is one migration which fits into our requirement and we have evidence from many fields for it.

It is the ARYANS.

If you don’t remember let me remind you. The only reason other migrations were even mentioned was because when pushed in a corner you took the line that there were no other migrations hence it must be Aryans.

AND THE POINT STILL STANDS

you are yet to tell me which other migration we know off.

Let me remind you of the answers you have given so far

• A race we haven't discovered yet
• Aryan 2

Again moving tangentially from the point under discussion. The reference was you arguing farmers had no genetic identity where as Aryans did.

Moumotta some careful reading would really help.

Allow me to remind you and make this clear for you again.

I SAID that the Aryan genes have been dilluted in Iran due to other races.
YOU SAID So have the farmers genes not been dilluted?

To which I SAID We don't have the data to say whether it did or NOT.

I think you are confusing yourself because the paper spoke about mutations. Those mutations were of the cereal not humans.

Hope that is clear

I suggest you look at that map again. What does it show you- parts of Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel. I ask again. Why are you calling it Africa.

It is one thing to make a mistake. It is another to obstinately try and argue for it after it has been picked up.

I apologise for the smilies but I actually did laugh out loud. You read some quote about the fertile crescent and decided to challenge me on my reference to Africa.

I do re-read my post because the first draft is unintentionally very rough and very demeaning. I have not been doing that lately and I apologise, that is not how I should debate.

Anyway Without realising that the fertile crescent starts in Africa you challenged my reference to Africa.

Now when you were typing this up you should have realised that there were going to be two outcomes.

AT BEST You would only further highlight your error by bringing it up again
AT WORST I will prove you wrong as has been the case over the course of this debate numerous times.

Read the third line from the bottom.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

What’s the problem. Stick with the standards you have set. No doubt you will soon name the races migrating to Baluchistan and Indus Valley and prove that they were the same.

Moumotta acting childishly is not arguing sensibly.
You are suggesting that a fresh wave of immigration took over the one that started off 2 or 3 thousand years earlier?

Now if someone was moving at such a speed defeating the inhabitants we should know of them. As recent as 6000 years ago the effect of this fresh induction of culture would have an impact and we would find evidence like we have done of the influx of the Aryans.

We would atleast find whatever means of travel and fighting equipment they were using to explain their dominating speed and movement.

WHO ARE THEY?

Can you not see that to support your weak position you have to have to look at absurd scenarios and improbabilities.

Same race was your interpretation, not mine. I just said at that time that it does not matter for my purpose.

Once again another contradiction caught

Moumotta : How do you get people who are not racially and appearance wise different from Aryans. Were they indigenous Indians. If not where could they come from?

I suggest you think about the scenario you are supporting clearly because in the last few post you have contradicted yourself too many times?

However, if all you are after is more than one wave of Aryan migration then here you go.

You keep on going back in circles.

The first migration has been dated at about 4000 years ago. The waves have no relevance to our debtate. Remember that you are arguing that there was a race which came from E Europe before 4000 years to prove me wrong.

You earlier tried to argue that there were earlier Aryans who came to India and they are responsible for the genetic data but they had a different culture.

Now you have backtracked from that because of the illogical assertions you will need to seek help from to support it,

If you still maintain that the Aryans existed in India before 4000 years ago then you need to provide evidence. When did they first arrive?

What was their culture?

How long was the gap between them and the immigration we know as the Aryans, to explain the fact they had no difference in appearance?

That is straight from the study, that Panchama were added later. If you disagree then you need to show why.

You don't read my replies do you?

They were not considered good enough to be added to the Varna system (they still aren't). They were considered sub human, the Panchama status was added much later to obtain a vedic name for their existence.

The subhuman status was always there, the name Panchama came later.

All you can provide for evidence is a twisting of my ‘I did not say all’.

Moumotta I wasn't even going to bring that up this time, I have already had my fun with it but if you insist.

Moumotta : I did not say all
Moumotta : you said not all

So, please forget this I said all or no all business.

Forgotten, just stop reminding me.

While I did not particularly ascribe that statement to you, you did raise the suggestion earlier if Aryans didn't go in two different directions from Punjab.

You didn't "not particularly ascribe" the reference to me??
Is that an apology?

Now show us how Arayns satisfy this route requirement in Iran. Any déjà vu is related to different requirements of proof as modified by Wazeeri.

Eastern Europeans populating north west Pakistan/India with spread into rest of India and Iran does not satisfy the Aryans???????????

Is this the new track? Suggest some sort of inconsistancy when one doesn't exist?

As before I will not separately respond to points that have already been replied.

You will not respond to points.

Now that is going to take this debate forward is it.

If you want to make statements rather than arguments you might as well make them in the reply thread. You do that all the time any way.

I have been asking you to tell me about the ARYAN 2 race that you have just come up with.

You keep on dodging this.
See my questions above.

Summary to follow again.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

• You earlier gave up on the theory of "A RACE WE HAVEN't DISCOVERED YET" it creeped back in, in your last post
• You are still maintaining the ARYAN 2
• You are yet to explain this race and explain why you are the only one who has claimed that the Aryans came to India before the date estimated.
• You have backtracked on ARYAN 2 and ARYAN 1(?) being the same racially. Why do you call them ARYAN 2 then?

You made a reference to the CCTV again.

Can you please just confirm that you are arguing for a race which we don't have any evidence for and it has not be recognised and documented anywhere.

The only argument we have for this is that evidence is so old that it is fuzzy or lost.

Can you also please confirm whether you think Aryans (the established Aryan theory Aryans) are candidates for the Y-chromosome data we are a candidate.


Answer to the above is the crux and it will end the debate on something we can agree to disagree on.

 

[moumotta]

You quoted the two questions and yet avoided to answer them.

I will have to start by repeating them again.

Task 7: You are saying the migrations finished in 9000BP (last migration). The earlier migrations must have been before 9000 BP. If you have a set of observations that are 9000 BP and earlier how can they produce an average of 9000 BP.And a related task

Task 8: While you are at it, how about some evidence that farmer migrations finished in 9000BP.

I am going to give you the rest of the argument in AT BEST AT WORST format.At best your arguments are based on could haves and would haves.At worst you don't understand the data.Let me once again (I am sure not for the last time) break this down for you. · The 9000 average is speaking of all recent migrations. · Forget about my genetic data, We know the Aryans came around about 4000 years agoThe 9000 average is not speaking of a specific migration, it is speaking of ALL recent West Eurasian migrations into the subcontinent.The Aryans ARE included in the average.Hopefully that has made it very clear for you.Now yes another migration could have occured in the period from 8000 BP to 5000 BP.BUT the magic word is COULD HAVE.There is one migration which fits into our requirement and we have evidence from many fields for it.It is the ARYANS.

Back to your ‘If You Did Not Sign The Book You Never Came’ Approach’.

Not a very intelligent approach considering we already know that there is a lot that we do not know, let alone the events about which we do not even know that we don’t know. Any way leaving that aside, we know that there are the farmers who arrived some where between the average and Aryan times.

The Aryans ARE included in the average

Once you make up your mind on whether Aryans included females or were they all male.

Anyway Without realising that the fertile crescent starts in Africa you challenged my reference to Africa.Now when you were typing this up you should have realised that there were going to be two outcomes.AT BEST You would only further highlight your error by bringing it up againAT WORST I will prove you wrong as has been the case over the course of this debate numerous times.Read the third line from the bottom.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...num=6&ct=result

You have changed your answer now. First up you saw the map and got excited that a tiny part of Africa was included in fertile crescent. Having realised how silly that argument is you are now changing it to ‘I always meant Africa’.

Actually looking back to some of your other quotes it may well be right that you were always thinking of migrations from Africa. That will explain why you were quoting 14000 BP to 9000 BP as the migration period. I hope you realise that fertile crescent dates are the relevant dates for spread of farming to India

You are suggesting that a fresh wave of immigration took over the one that started off 2 or 3 thousand years earlier?Now if someone was moving at such a speed defeating the inhabitants we should know of them. As recent as 6000 years ago the effect of this fresh induction of culture would have an impact and we would find evidence like we have done of the influx of the Aryans. We would atleast find whatever means of travel and fighting equipment they were using to explain their dominating speed and movement.WHO ARE THEY?Can you not see that to support your weak position you have to have to look at absurd scenarios and improbabilities.

That’s a whole lot of could have and would have.

In any case it is not very hard to over take settled stationary sparse populations. Social, political organisations required for a major fight would not have existed. Also remember we are talking about an age when there was no transport, no iron. no copper, no structures.

Can you also remind me what evidence we have found of the influx of Arynas and how do we identify the evidence with Aryans. Serious question to understand what kind of evidence you are looking for?

Once again another contradiction caughtMoumotta : How do you get people who are not racially and appearance wise different from Aryans. Were they indigenous Indians. If not where could they come from?I suggest you think about the scenario you are supporting clearly because in the last few post you have contradicted yourself too many times?

If you go back to the post where it first came up I did point out that I wasn’t particularly keen on same race. Same race was your interpretation. I just took it to its logical conclusion.

If you must know what I think, I was using racially similar here means similar in appearance rather than groups with close ethnic links. What Romila was suggesting was that Aryans met people who did not look distinctive in appearance.

JUST SO YOU TRY TO WRIGGLE YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS ONE, PROVIDE EVIDENCE OTHER THAN YOUR OPINION WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE WERE TWO WAVES OF THE ARYANS CONQUERING LANDS

However, if all you are after is more than one wave of Aryan migration then here you go.

You keep on going back in circles.The first migration has been dated at about 4000 years ago. The waves have no relevance to our debtate.

Hello, I quoted series of migrations because you asked for it. Don’t complain when all I am doing is answering your question.

You earlier tried to argue that there were earlier Aryans who came to India and they are responsible for the genetic data but they had a different culture.Now you have backtracked from that because of the illogical assertions you will need to seek help from to support it,If you still maintain that the Aryans existed in India before 4000 years ago then you need to provide evidence. When did they first arrive?What was their culture?How long was the gap between them and the immigration we know as the Aryans, to explain the fact they had no difference in appearance?

Off you go again. Aryan was your interpretation not mine.

They were not considered good enough to be added to the Varna system (they still aren't). They were considered sub human, the Panchama status was added much later to obtain a vedic name for their existence.

Come again! To obtain a vedic name? What is vedic about Panchama.

The subhuman status was always there, the name Panchama came later.

So you are claiming Panchama name was added later rather than ‘Panchama were added later. Panchama is not even a universally recognised description.

You didn't "not particularly ascribe" the reference to me??Is that an apology?

I don’t apologise for things I did not say or do.

Eastern Europeans populating north west Pakistan/India with spread into rest of India and Iran does not satisfy the Aryans???????????Is this the new track? Suggest some sort of inconsistancy when one doesn't exist?

Looks like you want to gradually build up to old problems rather than get there quick. Want to talk about the glitch. Iran, not Anatolia.

Also can you confirm what route Aryans took to Andhra.

As before I will not separately respond to points that have already been replied.

You will not respond to points.Now that is going to take this debate forward is it.

points that have already been replied in reply to your double postings.

I have been asking you to tell me about the ARYAN 2 race that you have just come up with.You keep on dodging this.

For the n’th time you came up with same race by misinterpreting a Romial quote. I just gave it a name.

You earlier gave up on the theory of "A RACE WE HAVEN't DISCOVERED YET" it creeped back in, in your last post

You made a reference to the CCTV again.Can you please just confirm that you are arguing for a race which we don't have any evidence for and it has not be recognised and documented anywhere.The only argument we have for this is that evidence is so old that it is fuzzy or lost.

The CCTV analogy extends to more than just no evidence. Even when we have reasonable grounds to believe a migration the available evidence can be missing or only circumstantial. We are talking about an age when there were no metals. No written records. No permanent structures to leave ruins. None of the things that leave permanent marks for future generations.

You tend to overestimate our knowledge of past and ignore the massive gaps in our knowledge.

Let me just ask you what do we know about the IVC people, a much later civilisation.Do we know where they went after they left their cities? This was a massive civilisation for its time. Massive number of people and a whole technology and civilisation disappeared without an identifiable archaeological or literary trace of their movement.

Do you think they were suddenly beamed up by Scotty. They would have moved to other places but there are no clear traces. If that could happen with an event 4000 years ago and we can't even trace a people about whom we know so much, you can imagine the gaps of evidence with earlier people movements that were much smaller population sizes and less interconnected with each other.

You are still maintaining the ARYAN 2

The argument is that the people Aryans met on arrival in India were not markedly different from them in appearance. You totally misinterpreted Romila’s argument to conclude that they were Aryans.

You are yet to explain this race and explain why you are the only one who has claimed that the Aryans came to India before the date estimated.

Not relevant, see earlier question.

Can you also please confirm whether you think Aryans (the established Aryan theory Aryans) are candidates for the Y-chromosome data.

We have done this before. I have mentioned the problems with the study and its conclusions but if that’s all you are after then as I said earlier they are a candidate.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

I am going to include the summary at the to top of the post because you take that as an excuse to not answer it.

THE TASK

We have a migration between E Europe and India
Date 3000-5000 years ago

Aryans fit the time and location.

THE ANSWER

You have presented three possibilities so far for who it could be.

1) ARYAN 2
2) FARMERS
3) A race we haven't discovered yet


ARYAN 2
Aryan 2 as in a second wave of the Aryans. This wave occured at around about 1800 BC, if Aryan 2 is the third wave of Aryans then this occured 14/500 BC. Ie it doesn't meet the criteria.

But even if it does we have the same answer. ie Aryans.

Now if you are arguing that it was an Aryan migration before 4000 years ago then you need to provide evidence. If you can't do that than essentially alternative 1 and 3 are the same.

FARMERS
This migration doesn't meet the criteria
1) It was 4/5 millenia before the time we are looking at
2) It entered sub continent from the South West (Balochistan)

Remember we are trying to work out who left the Y-Chromosome genetic data not just any migration at any point from the east.

A RACE WE HAVEN'T DISCOVERED YET

This is the only plausible alternative to the Aryans.

Yes this could have happened

Anything could have happened

But how rational is it to reject the one Race which fits the criteria for one we haven't yet discovered?


NOW FORWARD

Now to take this conversation forward or come to a conclusion. State which of the 2 (Aryan Vs UNDISCOVERED), you believe is most likely.















Following are the answers to your questions just in case you bring it up as a point where I dodged an issue. You don't have to answer if you don't want to just answer the above.

Task 7: You are saying the migrations finished in 9000BP (last migration). The earlier migrations must have been before 9000 BP. If you have a set of observations that are 9000 BP and earlier how can they produce an average of 9000 BP.And a related task

I have already answered that question

HOW CAN I EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU??

9000 is the AVERAGE OF ALL RECENT migrations.

The farmer migration is considered to have been the first to populate regular settlements but here is a list of West Eurasian migrations.

Farmers migration 11,000 to 9000 BP
Aryans 5000 BP
Hadhrat Umar's(RA) seven armies on the conquest of the Persian empire which started in Sindh and Balochistan 1350 BP
Mohammad Bin Qasim's six thousand Syrians 1300 BP
Subsequent traders and immigrants in Sindh.
Mahmud Ghaznavi' 7 expeditions into India
Many of the above conquests included mamluk's and turks
Mughal empire 500 BP
Dutch British Portuguese 400 BP

Task 8: While you are at it, how about some evidence that farmer migrations finished in 9000BP.

By 7000 BC the farmers had established settlements in Balochistan. These establishments are thought to have moved to the Indus valley by the 3rd century BC.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT AN AGRIAN RACE TOOK THEM OVER.


We have the date of the arrival of the farmers.
We don't have evidence of another wave of West Eurasian Farmer's migration.
How do I show something that didn't happen?

You are the one who is claiming that there were further migrations,
You show me the evidence.

Not a very intelligent approach considering we already know that there is a lot that we do not know, let alone the events about which we do not even know that we don’t know. Any way leaving that aside, we know that there are the farmers who arrived some where between the average and Aryan times.

So we are concluding based on what we don't know?

What relevance is the farmer's migrations between 9000 and the Aryan arrival?
How can we conclude that they are the ones who left the Y-chromosome when they did not even venture into the same areas?

Once you make up your mind on whether Aryans included females or were they all male.

First of all you are confusing yourself between Aryans arrival and Aryan invasion of areas of India. 2ndly you seem to forget that you have asked a question and received an answer.

Already been explained in post #70 will reproduce

. It is very probable that post an invasion further migration was witnessed to consolidate the gains. These further migrations may have brought females but their numbers appear to be very small.

You have changed your answer now. First up you saw the map and got excited that a tiny part of Africa was included in fertile crescent. Having realised how silly that argument is you are now changing it to ‘I always meant Africa’.

Are you serious?
I was laughing at the fact that you thought that the fertile crescent and Africa were two completely distinct areas. You made an enormous howler why keep on highlighting it?

Actually looking back to some of your other quotes it may well be right that you were always thinking of migrations from Africa. That will explain why you were quoting 14000 BP to 9000 BP as the migration period. I hope you realise that fertile crescent dates are the relevant dates for spread of farming to India

That is a desperate attempt at putting words in my mouth.
When you are proven wrong it is better to silently ignore the point and hope that it goes away.

I have always said that it began in Africa.

WazeeriRead the quote again, it started in Africa 14,000 BP, it was complete in Balochistan 9000 BP.


WazeeriThis migration came through Iran the process started 14,000 years ago and according to you 10,000 years ago.

WazeeriThis is the spread of farming in the world. It started in Africa 14,000 years BP and spread to the other continents.

You have been proven wrong on two accounts, there is no way you can turn this on me now.

In any case it is not very hard to over take settled stationary sparse populations. Social, political organisations required for a major fight would not have existed. Also remember we are talking about an age when there was no transport, no iron. no copper, no structures.

What evidence do we have off this?
Was a new crop brought over?
Was a new culture witnessed?

Again another one of your argument is based on could haves

Can you also remind me what evidence we have found of the influx of Arynas and how do we identify the evidence with Aryans. Serious question to understand what kind of evidence you are looking for?

see above for the type of evidence

Evidence linked to the Aryans
Vedic Language
Religion
New pottery styles
Genetics

Hello, I quoted series of migrations because you asked for it. Don’t complain when all I am doing is answering your question.

So I ask a question, you give an inane response and I pick you up on it.
You plead not understanding the question.

How about you answer my questions in the context of the discussion instead of trying to get out of a difficult position.

For the n’th time you came up with same race by misinterpreting a Romial quote. I just gave it a name.

Off you go again. Aryan was your interpretation not mine.

You have already been embarrassed by this claim.
Here is what you said originally

MOUMOTTA: How do you get people who are not racially and appearance wise different from Aryans.

So was it me who said that these people were the same race or was it Mr Moutmotta?

WHY DO YOU CALL IT ARYAN 2 if it was a different race?

Come again! To obtain a vedic name? What is vedic about Panchama.

Quote:
The subhuman status was always there, the name Panchama came later.


So you are claiming Panchama name was added later rather than ‘Panchama were added later. Panchama is not even a universally recognised description.

Yes the Panchama name was added later on, and yes I know it is not a universal name and I also know that this point of yours has no relevance.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

I am going to include the summary at the to top of the post because you take that as an excuse to not answer it.

THE TASK

We have a migration between E Europe and India
Date 3000-5000 years ago

Aryans fit the time and location. YOU ACCEPT THAT MY ANSER IS A POSSIBILITY

THE ANSWER

You have presented three possibilities so far for who it could be.

1) ARYAN 2
2) FARMERS
3) A race we haven't discovered yet


ARYAN 2
Aryan 2 as in a second wave of the Aryans. This wave occured at around about 1800 BC, if Aryan 2 is the third wave of Aryans then this occured 14/500 BC. Ie it doesn't meet the criteria.

But even if it does we have the same answer. ie Aryans.

Now if you are arguing that it was an Aryan migration before 4000 years ago then you need to provide evidence. If you can't do that than essentially alternative 1 and 3 are the same.

FARMERS
This migration doesn't meet the criteria
1) It was 4/5 millenia before the time we are looking at
2) It entered sub continent from the South West (Balochistan)

Remember we are trying to work out who left the Y-Chromosome genetic data not just any migration at any point from the east.

A RACE WE HAVEN'T DISCOVERED YET

This is the only plausible alternative to the Aryans.

Yes this could have happened

Anything could have happened

But how rational is it to reject the one Race which fits the criteria for one we haven't yet discovered?


NOW FORWARD

Now to take this conversation forward or come to a conclusion. State which of the 2 (Aryan Vs UNDISCOVERED), you believe is most likely.