Reconstruction of Ancient History

[moumotta]

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?

This is getting boringly prolonged and unproductive.

If I can summarise the positions,

You are now trying to prove that Aryans are the only group that satisfy the time line. This is based on your contention that there were no migrations from West Eurasia between 9000 BP and arrival of Aryans (3500 BP or post Indus Valley Civilisation- your date of 5000BP for Aryan’s is not tenable but as long as we agree it is post IVC dates will sort themselves out).

I am saying that that is not proven for a number of reasons.

ARYAN

We have talked about Romila’s hypothesis that the people Aryans met in India were not markedly different in appearance. Were these prior people Aryans. Certainly not in an ethnic sense, they were not the people who shared a pantheon of gods with the new Aryans nor did they share a language.

There is a theory that Indo European languages originated in near east and were carried to Europe and India by farmers. This theory has its supporters and detractors.

The people Romila is talking about could well be the last wave of farmer migration. Let us see whether there are any other signs of later migrations arther than bogged down with this Aryan or unAryan question.

There are clear signs of Mediterranean type skulls in IVC Period and these could well be the people Aryans met in Indian border lands. Did they speak some old form of Proto Indo Aryan- no one knows.

Digress

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?

I have already explained the context in which racial is used here.

With your customary ignorant exuberance you proclaimed So after all this hoopla your answer is ARYAN?. You were also being childish with your insistence on naming every race.

I just toyed with your ignorance and combined the two to name it. Not very nice of me but not a criminal fault either considering the level to which this debate has descended.

EVIDENCE
Moving to pre Aryan Period, I gave you the example of the disappearance of IVC people without a trace to explain the difficulties in seeking definitive evidence of pre-historic events. Not sure if you understood it but decided to ignore it because the absence of evidence is going in your favour.

There are similar issues with the Aryan evidence that you mentioned. It all relies on language and literature; every thing else is then linked or traced based on those two. It is an accident of history that Aryan literature and language have survived while we have no idea of the language and history of the rest of the population from those times. I understand that all this may not interest you unless you have an enquiring mind.

Let us get back to what evidence we can find of pre Aryan migrations.

Back to the summary​

FARMERS
As I said Mediterranean skulls have been discovered in IVC. Question is when do these first appear in Indian sub-continent.

The Baluchistan farming sites/ and acrcaheology could be divided in a Stage One (Period I and Period II) and a later Stage two (Period III. Etc) among others.

Period I shows the first signs of farming in Baluchsitan in 9000BP. There are doubts as to whether the 9000 BP first farming signs in Baluchistan actually reflect a migration from west or they are a local culture.

Stage 1 (Period I and II) last from 9000BP to 6500BP.

The third Period lasting up to 5500BP is the one when technology has advanced and signs of trading start appearing.

In this Period there is also a change in the skeletal records which show greater similarities with near east. PhaseI skeletons are more suggestive of inheritance from the east rather than the west.

Hemphill, Lukacs, and Kennedy have found skeletal evidence for a discontinuity between the Stage One and the Mehrgarh III inhabitants. The Togau population shares important affinities with the individuals in the Mature Harappan Cemetary R-37 at Harappa, which, taken together, "bear close affinities to populations from the west, that is, from the Iranian Plateau and the Near East".(37) Lukacs feels that the Stage One population at Mehrgarh shared little with this western population, but had features pointing to a biological heritage to the east of the Subcontinent."
Page 35 Gregory Possehl, The Indus Civilization A Contemporary Perspective.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA35,M1
​

Mediterrenean skulls appear around 6000BP. Clearly there were migrations much later than 9000BP, with first archaeological records appearing in Period III (6500BP – 5500BP), they may well have continued after that as trade links developed and regular contacts were established with near east during Harappan times.

It is also doubtful if the 9000BP settlements represented migrations from West.

There is one more digression that I will make because it relates to important conclusions from the study.

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.

You are creating your own history by twisting Panchamas were added later to Panchamas were renamed later.. As usual you don’t show any evidence even when your opinion diverges from documented positions.

You are not disagreeing that many forest tribes were added later. The point, whether some Panchamas were there on day one or not is really a distraction from the main point so while disagreeing with you from your unsubstantiated position I will move forward.

The point as I mentioned earlier was that the study was not really breaking new grounds or revealing earth shattering news by showing lower European inheritance in lower castes, a community that has had successive dilution of genes from addition of forest tribes.

​

 

[Wazeeri]

We have talked about Romila’s hypothesis that the people Aryans met in India were not markedly different in appearance. Were these prior people Aryans. Certainly not in an ethnic sense, they were not the people who shared a pantheon of gods with the new Aryans nor did they share a language.

Big problem with this theory, I will not go back to the contradictions you have already made so I will deal with just this under the following two points.

1) Romilla's paper is suggesting that the initial conflict was between two communities which were racially the same. One was agrarian and the other pastoral but both were the same people. Not representative of an external invasion.

The wars between the whites and the blacks are later further movements into mainland india.

2) Romilla's paper is ASKING A QUESTION. It is not a widely accepted suggestion and you will find that THE SUGGESTION in Romilla's paper is the only support you have for this.

I just toyed with your ignorance and combined the two to name it. Not very nice of me but not a criminal fault either considering the level to which this debate has descended.

Can you please not toy anymore and not make mistakes like these so we can reach some sort of a conclusion.

Can you please clarify whether they are the same race as you declared in post 135
Or not as you claimed in posts there after.

absence of evidence is going in your favour.

OK So we agree

THE ABSENSE OF EVIDENCE GOES WITH MY THEORY.

Period I shows the first signs of farming in Baluchsitan in 9000BP. There are doubts as to whether the 9000 BP first farming signs in Baluchistan actually reflect a migration from west or they are a local culture.

You have provided evidence of this yourself. The early crops which we find in Pakistan /India have been mutated from the crops finding their origins in the fertile crescent.

I think what you mean by the two phases is that majority of the world's crops find their origins in Pakistan. This is due domestication of further grasses after the agrarian community was estalished.

Stage 1 (Period I and II) last from 9000BP to 6500BP.

Can we please establish first that in the above quote you are speaking of a continuous period in which this soceity lasted in the same place because this could turn into a continuous flow of farmers to Balochistan from E Europe as the debate progresses.

bear close affinities to populations from the west, that is, from the Iranian Plateau and the Near East".........

Mediterrenean skulls appear around 6000BP.

I think Mediterrenean is going a bit further West and there is a bit of mishighlighting up here it is the mature harrapan excavation which showed affinities with the west and the Mehrgarh showed an affinity with them.

Further to above earlier affinities with the South Asians is also limited

pg 231 One comparative study involved four skeletal series (Sarai Khola and Timaraghara in Northern pakistan, Neolithic Mehrgarh in Baluchistan, and inamgaon in Maharashtra) but apart from some dental resemblance, there is no other evidence of close biological affinity (Lukacs 1992a).

But once again just to clarify the difference between what you are proposing and what is being suggested in the study re: the 9000 average.

The Farmer migration is based on the mutation found in the crops which shows two paths one leading west from the fertile crescent and the second leading east into Pakistan.

The above differences found in the burial sites are additions of later populations which are not categorised as the farmer migration. There is a debate on whether these later additions were Indo-Aryans or Iron age Iranians.

Now back on to the task which you keep on confusing everytime you mention the farmer migration.

THE Y CHROMOSOME DATA SHOWS THE FOLLOWING
Movement between 3000-5000 years BP
E Europe (Poland, Byelorussian, Ukraine, Punjab, North West India)

Who are these people. THIS IS THE TASK OF OUR DISCUSSION not all western movements

We now have three answers
1) Aryan 2 which is a migration we do not have evidence for. All we have is a suggestion which you are taking liberties with when you date it at pre 4000 years BP. If the liberties are allowed this is still a migration without evidence.

2) Farmer's migration, above you are providing arguments against this by suggesting that the farmer settlements could have been indigenous. However if you are still arguing this then you need to understand that this is different from later additions of populations.

You also need to understand that it doesn't fit the Y chromosome data,

3) Later additions to the farmers. Varying theories of who these people could be
i) Aryans
ii) Iron age Iranians who again fail the Y Chromosome data.

4) A race we haven't discovered yet. This is plausible.

It is also doubtful if the 9000BP settlements represented migrations from West.

You earlier provided a paper which stated that the 9000 average was in line with farmer's migration. What is it?

You are creating your own history by twisting Panchamas were added later to Panchamas were renamed later.. As usual you don’t show any evidence even when your opinion diverges from documented positions.

Moumotta

We can go back to sparring and misquoting again if you like.

Here is evidence page 51
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA51,M1

Now before we go any further either retract and apologise for the above statement or go through this thread and provide an example of a time where you asked for some proof and I didn't provide it.

If you want me to do vice versa I can present 4/5 examples of places where you have accepted not having any proof.

You are not disagreeing that many forest tribes were added later. The point, whether some Panchamas were there on day one or not is really a distraction from the main point so while disagreeing with you from your unsubstantiated position I will move forward.

The crux of the argument is that the people known as the Untouchables did come into contact with the upper class. Now why weren't they included in the four Varnas?

I have no problems in accepting that some untouchables lived in the forests.
You have accepted that some didn't (after much resistance).

The issue is now whether those who didn't, did come in contact with the upper caste or not.

You are saying not, in which case you need to explain how the two non forest communities never came in contact with each other.

The point as I mentioned earlier was that the study was not really breaking new grounds or revealing earth shattering news by showing lower European inheritance in lower castes, a community that has had successive dilution of genes from addition of forest tribes.

Further breaking down of the data by Kivisild has provided highly enlightening data but we will get to that after we have answered the questions above.


Once again I will repeat the main point of the discussion

We have Y-Chromosome data
The data shows a population movement between Eastern Europe countries named above and India.
The separation is dated between 3000-5000 years BP.

Now can you please for once CLEARLY answer the following questions

1) Are the Aryans Candidates
2) Do you believe it is a race we haven't discovered.
3) Is there evidence of people genetically similar to the Aryans

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY (repeated)

TASK

Y chromosome data found between E European countries and India
Date of separation 3000-5000 years BP
Who is it?

CANDIDATES

1) Aryans
Wazeeri -->main candidates
Moumotta --> possible candidates

2) A race we haven't discovered yet
Wazeeri --->possible candidates
Moumotta--> possile candidates

3) ARYAN 2
Wazeeri---> no evidence just made up in the course of this discussion
Moumotta --> ??????

4) Farmers
Wazeeri ---> Does not fit the Y Chromosome data, not a candidate
Moumotta --> Don't care if it doesn't fit.

Can you please say whether you agree with the above summary.


FORWARD

If you still want to maintain
Farmers --> Explain Poland, Ukraine, Belarus...etc
ARYAN2 --> Provide Evidence or shelve this with the general undiscovered migration

If you accept the fight is between Aryan and an undiscovered migration
Please state it so we can move towards a conclusion.

 

[moumotta]

Big problem with this theory, I will not go back to the contradictions you have already made so I will deal with just this under the following two points.Romilla's paper is suggesting that the initial conflict was between two communities which were racially the same. One was agrarian and the other pastoral but both were the same people. Not representative of an external invasion.The wars between the whites and the blacks are later further movements into mainland india.Romilla's paper is ASKING A QUESTION. It is not a widely accepted suggestion and you will find that THE SUGGESTION in Romilla's paper is the only support you have for this.

Race can be interpreted at a number of levels. One could talk of Black race or of Zulu race. I think you are getting carried away by the term ‘racially similar’.

Can you please not toy anymore and not make mistakes like these so we can reach some sort of a conclusion.

Can we agree that your mistakes are yours and they don’t become mine if I decide to let you carry on with them.

Can you please clarify whether they are the same race as you declared in post 135Or not as you claimed in posts there after.

Again, same race is your interpretation, not mine. It is really funny because you keep insisting she is referring to the same race and then complain about me using your interpretation.

OK So we agreeTHE ABSENSE OF EVIDENCE GOES WITH MY THEORY.

Absence of evidence goes with an insistence on criminal law level of evidence.

You have provided evidence of this yourself. The early crops which we find in Pakistan /India have been mutated from the crops finding their origins in the fertile crescent.

Please remind me what evidence you are speaking of.

Can we please establish first that in the above quote you are speaking of a continuous period in which this soceity lasted in the same place because this could turn into a continuous flow of farmers to Balochistan from E Europe as the debate progresses.

Baluchistan ruins, from what I understand are not in layers, a new layer on an older civilisation. They are actually different locations. From what I know there is some continuity in dwelling types but each phase has advances in culture and technology as well. Were they the same people- hard to say.

I think Mediterrenean is going a bit further West

Please check list of countries included in Mediterrenean. Not all of them are in far west.

and there is a bit of mishighlighting up here it is the mature harrapan excavation which showed affinities with the west and the Mehrgarh showed an affinity with them.
Further to above earlier affinities with the South Asians is also limitedpg 231 One comparative study involved four skeletal series (Sarai Khola and Timaraghara in Northern pakistan, Neolithic Mehrgarh in Baluchistan, and inamgaon in Maharashtra) but apart from some dental resemblance, there is no other evidence of close biological affinity (Lukacs 1992a).
But once again just to clarify the difference between what you are proposing and what is being suggested in the study re: the 9000 average.
The Farmer migration is based on the mutation found in the crops which shows two paths one leading west from the fertile crescent and the second leading east into Pakistan.
The above differences found in the burial sites are additions of later populations which are not categorised as the farmer migration.
There is a debate on whether these later additions were Indo-Aryans or Iron age Iranians.

Can you summarise what you are saying here.
Why do you conclude the options are limited to Indo Aryans or Iranians?How do you define Indo Aryans and what are their similarities with 3500BP Aryans?

THE Y CHROMOSOME DATA SHOWS THE FOLLOWINGMovement between 3000-5000 years BPE Europe (Poland, Byelorussian, Ukraine, Punjab, North West India)Who are these people. THIS IS THE TASK OF OUR DISCUSSION not all western movements

Before testing other migrations we should also consider how well this data fits the Aryan migration and what questions it raises.
1. Why is the proportion in Iran only 10% when Aryans over ran all of Iran.

2. How is it that they represent 50% in Punjab, a proportion even higher than East Europe when Punjab has had repeated inductions of genes from several subsequent migrations.

3. How is it that three or four tiny east European countries could produce enough males to fill 30% of India, 20% of Srilanka and presumably higher proportions of Pakistan and Afghanistan?

4. While the male factory was in over production where did Aryan females go.

5. While Aryans are 51% in Punjab and 39% in Bengal what is there presence in gangetic plains for that’s where Aryans are believed to have moved from Punjab long before entering Bengal.

6. How do we explain overall Andhra proportion of 8% when they are so highly represented in all three caste groups in Visakhapatnam.

Here is evidence page 51http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...result#PPA51,M1

It would be nice if you could quote the lines or the line number.

I assume you are asking me to read the lines that refer to adi etc.

While noting that it is an ‘enlightened’ political opinion rather than a scholarly opinion the name “Adi’ they choose is interesting. Adi means original or the first one. As is widely agreed forest people are the original inhabitants of the land. That is the heritage they are referring to.

I am not sure how it proves there Panchama status at the start of caste system.

Now before we go any further either retract and apologise for the above statement or go through this thread and provide an example of a time where you asked for some proof and I didn't provide it.

Here are examples of where I have asked you to show evidence for Panchamas being present on day 1

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 in no way allows you to claim that many were non-forest people. It still needs to be proved.

All I heard before this is ‘I did not say All’
However, I will retrace ‘as usual’ as that makes it sound worse than I intended.

The crux of the argument is that the people known as the Untouchables did come into contact with the upper class. Now why weren't they included in the four Varnas?
I have no problems in accepting that some untouchables lived in the forests.
You have accepted that some didn't (after much resistance).

Which statement of mine are you referring to.

We can go on for ever. What you have to realise is that we can not rewrite history on an internet forum.

It is widely agreed that untouchability as a caste institution started in post Christian era. Even Dr Ambedkar, the messiah of Dalits, has written that it started in 4th century AD.

You already have a time line problem with the hypothesis that Aryans brought caste system 3000- 5200 years ago. You will make it worse if you insist that untouchability also arrived at the same time.

Now let me ask a question:With the constant dilution of forest tribes what value is added by showing they have a lower European genetic input than higher castes.

TASK
Y chromosome data found between E European countries and IndiaDate of separation 3000-5000 years BPWho is it?CANDIDATES
1) Aryans
Wazeeri -->main candidates
Moumotta --> possible candidates
2) A race we haven't discovered yetWazeeri --->possible candidatesMoumotta--> possile candidates
3) ARYAN 2
Wazeeri---> no evidence just made up in the course of this discussion
Moumotta --> ??????
4) Farmers
Wazeeri ---> Does not fit the Y Chromosome data, not a candidate
Moumotta --> Don't care if it doesn't fit.Can you please say whether you agree with the above summary.

Who are the people that appear late in Baluchistan and thenmore prominently in IVC. Where do you classify them.

Can you clarify what you mean by a race we haven't discovered yet. What evidence you have on farmer chromosome data. Are they all one race or there could be different races over time.[

If you still want to maintainFarmers --> Explain Poland, Ukraine, Belarus...etcARYAN2 --> Provide Evidence or shelve this with the general undiscovered migrationIf you accept the fight is between Aryan and an undiscovered migrationPlease state it so we can move towards a conclusion.

See my questions above before I answer.

My Qusetiosns:
1. Can you provide evidence that farmer migration to India finished in 9000BP.

2. Do you agree that there were migrations of West Eurasian people between 9000BP and 3500BP.

3. With the constant dilution of forest tribes do you think the study adds any value by showing they have a lower European genetic input than higher castes. If yes what is it?

Please also answer my six questions on Aryans fitting the genetic data.

PS: fomatting hasn't come out well. My apologies.

 

[Wazeeri]

Again, same race is your interpretation, not mine. It is really funny because you keep insisting she is referring to the same race and then complain about me using your interpretation.

Moumotta

I have never claimed to be a supporter of Romilla's SUGGESTION.
You can't decide what it is, you have been caught out.

You said racially similar and now you are backing down.

The task is very clear
IF THERE WERE these RACIALLY SIMILAR migrations to India under the route identified who were they.

Who are these people you have called the ARYAN 2

PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR SUPPORTING PAPERS.
COULD HAVE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH

Baluchistan ruins, from what I understand are not in layers, a new layer on an older civilisation. They are actually different locations. From what I know there is some continuity in dwelling types but each phase has advances in culture and technology as well. Were they the same people- hard to say.

Once again COULD HAVES

Please check list of countries included in Mediterrenean. Not all of them are in far west.

Yes but having been involved in discussions with you I know you are going to creep in how Mediterrenean includes all the european countries this discussion is related to hoping that I never catch it.

That was a preemptive strike.

Why do you conclude the options are limited to Indo Aryans or Iranians?How do you define Indo Aryans and what are their similarities with 3500BP Aryans?

Maybe you should do some research on evidence you provide.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA322,M1

Read page 316 onwards.

1. Why is the proportion in Iran only 10% when Aryans over ran all of Iran.

Answered already many times but you have no option but to ignore the answers, Aryans did not take over all of Iran

• They shared Iran with many other races
• Modern day Iran is not the same as Aryan day Iran, different boundaries.
• Avesta points to North Iran as the land of the Aryans.
• This makes sense as the Aryans are believed to have entered Pakistan from the North West rather than South West (Balochistan) which would make more sense for a Southern Iranian race.

Provide proof that what we know as modern day Iran was completely taken over by the Aryans. Provide an acceptable population admixture between the aryans and the other races which would give the Aryans a larger than 10% input.

2. How is it that they represent 50% in Punjab, a proportion even higher than East Europe when Punjab has had repeated inductions of genes from several subsequent migrations.

Majority of these attacks were from the North West Pakistan.
Punjab is very fertile and is known to have been a holding area of the Aryans, as many Vedas find their origins up here.
E Europe itself has had many wars and invasions.

3. How is it that three or four tiny east European countries could produce enough males to fill 30% of India, 20% of Srilanka and presumably higher proportions of Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Inane question.

The three countries mentioned could be just a part of the whole initial movement.

You are assuming that I have said that these countries alone produced the whole population, why I don't know.

The aryans populated these areas and then had further children. That may explain this to you.

4. While the male factory was in over production where did Aryan females go.

Again an illogical question.

You are assuming that just because Andhra Pradesh shows a male specific migration all the countries and areas mentioned also had very few Aryan females.

5. While Aryans are 51% in Punjab and 39% in Bengal what is there presence in gangetic plains for that’s where Aryans are believed to have moved from Punjab long before entering Bengal.

Was that an order for me to go and carry out the test on the population in the Gangetic plains?

Please provide the figures if they are contrary to any established evidence.

6. How do we explain overall Andhra proportion of 8% when they are so highly represented in all three caste groups in Visakhapatnam.

Do you want another Maths lesson?
and if there is a mathematical error are you implying that it is due to me? Is this not a question for Kivisild?

Anyway to explain this to you from the sample in Bamshad all samples with West Eurasian similarities and their percentage of HG3 Haplogroup has been shown for the castes seperately.

I am not sure how it proves there Panchama status at the start of caste system.

You were not talking about the status you asked about the name.
When you read my replies read the quotes I reference above them.

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

I have never claimed any of the above so why exactly are you asking me for proof?
Is that all you found? some mixed up pointless questions?

Do you now owe me an apology

Which statement of mine are you referring to.

The "I did not say all" and "You said not all" statement. Where you started by implying that all dalits lived in the forest, when the irrationality of the comment was made clear you said you didn't say all. When asked if not all then what about the rest, you implied that not all was my assertion.

That statement.

Now let me ask a question:With the constant dilution of forest tribes what value is added by showing they have a lower European genetic input than higher castes.

Are you saying that some of the Aryans were Panchamas?
That is the only thing I can take from the "constant dillution" comment.

1. Can you provide evidence that farmer migration to India finished in 9000BP.

I think if we claim an event occured we need to find evidence FOR IT not provide evidence that it didn't happen.

The onus is on you to prove it happened.

Allow to me to present an analogy which will make this very easy for you.

I(Wazeeri) just smoked a cigar
Prove that I didn't

2. Do you agree that there were migrations of West Eurasian people between 9000BP and 3500BP.

Yes Aryans and some we don't know about.

3. With the constant dilution of forest tribes do you think the study adds any value by showing they have a lower European genetic input than higher castes.

See my question above.
Are you suggesting that some Aryans joined the Panchama caste, if not then what exactly do we have being dilluted up here?

Please also answer my six questions on Aryans fitting the genetic data.

I have now asked every single one of your questions.
Even though I asked the questions first and you should have therefore answered them first.
I ceded to your request and answer EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS


NOW ANSWER MINE

We are discussing who these people could be who left their Y Chromosome traces.

1) Could they have been the Aryans

2) Do you have any evidence that people who were "racially similar" to the Aryans migrated to India before 4000 years BP.

3) Does anyone else support your ARYAN 2 theory. (Not suggest support)

4) Do you agree that the Farmer migration is not responsible for the Y Chromosomes.

5) Do you agree that your most preffered answer is A RACE WE HAVEN'T DISCOVERED YET?

 

[moumotta]

I have never claimed to be a supporter of Romilla's SUGGESTION.
You can't decide what it is, you have been caught out.

Can you stop acting as the judge and the jury while you keep embarrassing your self with your same race gaffe.

All I have been caught doing is pointing out your ignorance and rushed interpretations.

You went with an interpretation that you want to disown now. Do so by saying it was wrong rather than hiding behind ‘I don’t support her’. What has support got to do with it.

You said racially similar and now you are backing down.

This has been explained. If you have decided that you will refuse to understand any thing that makes you admit your mistake then there is not much any one can do. Obstinately repeating a point does not make it right or logical.

Who are these people you have called the ARYAN 2

You called them Aryans. I just gave them a name to distinguish their culture and language.

PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR SUPPORTING PAPERS.
COULD HAVE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH

When an eminent professor of history makes a suggestion it has to be regarded as a possibility.

When an experienced debater declares she is talking about Aryans then out of respect I have to keep that interpretation on table.

Once again COULD HAVES

Are you serious. We know that new races keep appearing but did they totally replace the old- may be you can tell.

Yes but having been involved in discussions with you I know you are going to creep in how Mediterrenean includes all the european countries this discussion is related to hoping that I never catch it.

That was a preemptive strike.

Allow me a hearty laugh, that was the ultimate cop out.

If you thought there was any chance of my claiming Mediterranean includes all European countries then you would have let me make that claim, nay, you would have eagerly led me to it and then announced to the world how stupid I was.

It is clearly your knowledge of Geography that is on display here.

Maybe you should do some research on evidence you provide.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...esult#PPA322,M1

Read page 316 onwards.

You have bungled once with your dump. Please quote or summarise your point.

Answered already many times but you have no option but to ignore the answers, Aryans did not take over all of Iran
· They shared Iran with many other races
· Modern day Iran is not the same as Aryan day Iran, different boundaries.
· Avesta points to North Iran as the land of the Aryans.
· This makes sense as the Aryans are believed to have entered Pakistan from the North West rather than South West (Balochistan) which would make more sense for a Southern Iranian race.

Dejavu.

From an earlier post.

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​

Provide proof that what we know as modern day Iran was completely taken over by the Aryans. Provide an acceptable population admixture between the aryans and the other races which would give the Aryans a larger than 10% input.

Punjab is 50%, Overall India is 30%. Even far flung Srilanka with only legendary stories of Aryans are 20%. How is Iran worse than them all.

Majority of these attacks were from the North West Pakistan.
Punjab is very fertile and is known to have been a holding area of the Aryans, as many Vedas find their origins up here.
E Europe itself has had many wars and invasions.

What does fertility have to do with their outgrowing other populations? What happened to earlier inhabitants and multitude of races coming afterwards. Is it not odd it still gets higher percentage than the donor locations.

The three countries mentioned could be just a part of the whole initial movement.

You are assuming that I have said that these countries alone produced the whole population, why I don't know.

The aryans populated these areas and then had further children. That may explain this to you.

This from some one who claims to pick on any answer with May be/ Could be.

Which other countries?

Aryan in India were not the only one having children. Did they outgrow other Indian populations. Why did the three East European countries (and any others you name) not grow as fast.

Again Aryans in a recepient country number many times more than those in donor countries. Any thing odd there?

Again an illogical question.

You are assuming that just because Andhra Pradesh shows a male specific migration all the countries and areas mentioned also had very few Aryan females.

An illogical answer that also indicates memory loss.

We know that a small fraction of Indian mtDNA lineages (<10%) can be ascribed to a relatively recent admixture with western Eurasians Srilanka got their Aryan genes from India so couldn’t have done any better than India. I repeat my question again hoping for a more logical answer.

4. While the male factory was in over production where did Aryan females go.

Was that an order for me to go and carry out the test on the population in the Gangetic plains?

Please provide the figures if they are contrary to any established evidence.

We are trying to establish a route. How did Arayns reach Visakhapatnam from Punjab without making much of an impact in rest of Andhra. Did they make any impact along their route.

Do you want another Maths lesson?
and if there is a mathematical error are you implying that it is due to me? Is this not a question for Kivisild?

A lesson on averages will be good.

This is not really a math question though. The 8.3% from what I can see is from a different source. The issue here is consistency of results or explain a short cut to Vizag that bypasses rest of Andhra.

Anyway to explain this to you from the sample in Bamshad all samples with West Eurasian similarities and their percentage of HG3 Haplogroup has been shown for the castes seperately.

A quote or table reference would be nice to avoid any more bungling of references.

You were not talking about the status you asked about the name.
When you read my replies read the quotes I reference above them.

So you were not even answering the question while complaining about it. This is the quote:

You are creating your own history by twisting Panchamas were added later to Panchamas were renamed later.. As usual you don’t show any evidence even when your opinion diverges from documented positions.

Here is evidence page 51

Clearly the question is about divergence from documented position. Documented position that has been discussed in this thread clearly refers to Panchamas were added later that has been quoted in Bamshad study.

While dodging the question you just proved that Panchamas themselves refer to their ‘adi’ roots.

I have never claimed any of the above so why exactly are you asking me for proof?
Is that all you found? some mixed up pointless questions?

You intentionally left out task 6 that leads to the other questions. This is how starts.

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:​

​

Do you now owe me an apology

You just proved my statement by dodging the question again, you weren’t even answering it when you started complaing.

I suggest you should apologise for repeatedly dodging the question and trying to put the blame on me when I point it out.

The "I did not say all" and "You said not all" statement. Where you started by implying that all dalits lived in the forest, when the irrationality of the comment was made clear you said you didn't say all. When asked if not all then what about the rest, you implied that not all was my assertion.

Wazeeri, you should learn to back off rather than getting glue stuck with your stance when it is proven wrong. Obstinately pretending not to understand an answer is not a good defence.

I think if we claim an event occured we need to find evidence FOR IT not provide evidence that it didn't happen.

The onus is on you to prove it happened.

Allow to me to present an analogy which will make this very easy for you.

I(Wazeeri) just smoked a cigar
Prove that I didn't

You realise how twisted that statement is. You make a statement and then ask me to disprove it. It will be a very short thread if I also adopt that line.

Can you answer the question now or would you like to derail the thread with a new approach to debating.

Yes Aryans and some we don't know about.

What timing are you placing on Aryans (the ones who wrote Vedas). Did these Aryans you refer to come before them.

When you say ‘some we don't know about’ we know they were here- agree?.

Are you suggesting that some Aryans joined the Panchama caste, if not then what exactly do we have being dilluted up here?

You are just dodging the question. Let me rephrase it for your satisfaction.

With constant addition of forest people over time to Panchama caste do you think the study adds any value by showing they have a lower European genetic input than higher castes.

I have now asked every single one of your questions.

Only if dodging questions means answering them.

1) Could they have been the Aryans

Yes

2) Do you have any evidence that people who were "racially similar" to the Aryans migrated to India before 4000 years BP.

This is a suggestion from a professor of history. She certainly knows enough to not suggest something that is not plausible at all.

3) Does anyone else support your ARYAN 2 theory. (Not suggest support)

This is not my theory. You concluded they were Aryans. You can drop it if you admit you bungled though I would be happy to carry on with it in celebration of your over confident ignorance

4) Do you agree that the Farmer migration is not responsible for the Y Chromosomes.

There are later date migrations during the spread of farming to India. We haven’t yet concluded they were not farmers.

5) Do you agree that your most preffered answer is A RACE WE HAVEN'T DISCOVERED YET?

We have discovered migrations. We know about the location they came from. Can you name any pre Aryan migrant race for me- is that what you mean by un-discovered races.

 

[Wazeeri]

Can you stop acting as the judge and the jury while you keep embarrassing your self with your same race gaffe.

All I have been caught doing is pointing out your ignorance and rushed interpretations.it.

Moumotta

Shall I reproduce the two quotes from you again?

Moumotta :Same race was your interpretation.

Moumotta :How do you get people who are not racially and appearance wise different from Aryans.

Moumotta : Not very nice of me but not a criminal fault

You have already accepted your contradiction you can try and turn this on me if you like but that will only prolong the embarrassment.

Obstinately repeating a point does not make it right or logical.

Well said now repeat that to yourself a couple of 100 times.

You called them Aryans. I just gave them a name to distinguish their culture and language.

Is the above is an answer to my question
WHO ARE THE ARYAN 2's??

Once again
Who are the ARYAN 2s.

PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR SUPPORTING PAPERS.
COULD HAVE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH

When an eminent professor of history makes a suggestion it has to be regarded as a possibility.

When an experienced debater declares she is talking about Aryans then out of respect I have to keep that interpretation on table.

So NO ANSWER as I thought

It is clearly your knowledge of Geography that is on display here.

Yes I don't know where the Mediterrenean is, ofcourse that is the answer.

Let's ignore the fact that you introduced the word Mediterrenean which includes a dozen extra countries other than the ones mention in the paper.

You have bungled once with your dump. Please quote or summarise your point.

God sakes Moumotta how hard is it to read a paragraph?
Specifically read the 2nd column of page 316, only first paragraph.

You wanted to know where I got the Iron Age Iranians from.
Read upto where it says "77 index cranial".

I can't copy and paste the text and I am not going to write it out again for you.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA316,M1

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.

Damaghan North east of Iran
Kashan central North of iran

SOUTH OF RUSSIA does not equal SOUTH OF IRAN

Contemporary anthropologists who believe in the existence of an ancient Aryan race generally have the opinion that its closest descendants today are the Persians

Which part of the above shows Aryans advancing into the South?

Ps: If you are equating Persians as the people of Iran then which genetically distinct group are you talking about?
Arabs, Hazaras, Balochis, Pathans, Tajiks, Turks?

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

Sumer was Northern Arabia and links between Sumer and Aryans is unfounded.

So your search only got you so much.??

Notice how you are not even willing to tackle the other point about the Aryans sharing Iran with other races previously mentioned.

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.

BRILLIANT POINT

One I have been waiting for you to make.
The Vedas describe Punjab and Punjab has returned the highest percentage.
Down south the percentage is dilluted.

Similarly the Avesta's describe only a small part of Iran and hence the overall average is dilluted.

What does fertility have to do with their outgrowing other populations?

If you want repetition you are welcome to it.

Fertility of the land allows the population to grow and settle because of sustainability of food supplies.

What happened to earlier inhabitants and multitude of races coming afterwards.

Most invasions afterwards were as has been explained from Afghanistan and North Pakistan.

The earlier Inhabitants and other migrations make up the other 50%.

Aryans were the dominating force as we have seen in evidence from the Vedas hence they have the highest share in the admixture.

Which other countries?

Why did the three East European countries (and any others you name) not grow as fast. Again Aryans in a recepient country number many times more than those in donor countries. Any thing odd there?

Eastern and central Russians

ryan in India were not the only one having children. Did they outgrow other Indian populations.

Yes,
They were richer
They were stronger
They were violent.

CONTRADICTION NUMBER 101

You are querying Aryans having a big population in India by arguing that they could not have reporduced faster and better.

YET YOU WANT A 100% IRANIAN RESULT

GO AND HAVE A RETHINK

We know that a small fraction of Indian mtDNA lineages (<10%) can be ascribed to a relatively recent admixture with western Eurasians Srilanka got their Aryan genes from India so couldn’t have done any better than India. I repeat my question again hoping for a more logical answer. 4. While the male factory was in over production where did Aryan females go.

I understand that Maths isn't your strongest area but I am not your maths teacher. If you pay me I will continue to teach.

THIS ONE IS JUST CHARITY

The 10% above includes Aryans and all other West Eurasian migrations.
Your Farmer's migration being one major one.

The male vs female disparity is only found in AP,

NOW THE MATHS AND READING LESSON
10% of LINEAGES
Not 10% of Women.

We are trying to establish a route. How did Arayns reach Visakhapatnam from Punjab without making much of an impact in rest of Andhra. Did they make any impact along their route.

Are you asking me to go and carry out tests on every city in the route?

A quote or table reference would be nice to avoid any more bungling of references.

Can you not keep track of the argument?

You asked a question about KIVISILD2003 TABLE 17.2
You were provided an answer for KIVISILD2003 TABLE 17.2

Clearly the question is about divergence from documented position. Documented position that has been discussed in this thread clearly refers to Panchamas were added later that has been quoted in Bamshad study. While dodging the question you just proved that Panchamas themselves refer to their ‘adi’ roots.

THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN TOO MUCH DETAIL FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE JUST CONFUSED.

Panchama the people were not given a place in the caste hierarchy because they were not and they are still not considered good enough for the 4 varnas.

Their classification and naming as Panchama, Pariah, Dalit... came later.

You have driven all over the shop with this one.

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:

If you want me to answer a question don't hide it in between other questions just to make it look as though you have a point.

You are now suggesting that there were two types of Dalits
1) Living in the forests
2) Nomads/Pastorals.

The issue is whether the latter came in contact or not.

As I am your official maths teacher allow me to teach you some logic as well.

As they were nomads at one point and not anymore, THEY DID COME INTO CONTACT WITH THE ARYANS

Now the issue is whether they came into contact with the Aryans at the point the aryans arrived in their land.

Nomads would be in direct conflict with the Aryans.
They will either have to share resources or snatch it off the other.
Their animals would be mouth watering for the Aryans going by the Aryans prayers in the Vedas.

Now you explain to me how this Nomad culture (which could be upto 25% of the population) escaped the Aryan attention despite having animals and sharing water resources for over a millenia (you claimed that they came into contact in the Christian era).

Wazeeri, you should learn to back off rather than getting glue stuck with your stance when it is proven wrong. Obstinately pretending not to understand an answer is not a good defence.

Is that your method of attack now?
Contradict yourself and when it is pointed out pretend as if I have made some gaffe.

Moumotta : I did not say all
Moumotta : You said not all

You realise how twisted that statement is. You make a statement and then ask me to disprove it. It will be a very short thread if I also adopt that line. Can you answer the question now or would you like to derail the thread with a new approach to debating.

You asked me to prove that something didn't happen

How do you prove something didn't happen?

Is the onus of proof not on the claimant?

If you don't have an answer ADMIT IT,
STOP MAKING RIDICULOUS DEMANDS

What timing are you placing on Aryans (the ones who wrote Vedas). Did these Aryans you refer to come before them. When you say ‘some we don't know about’ we know they were here- agree?.

No we agree that there is a possibility that other migrations took place.
We agreed on that ages ago.

With constant addition of forest people over time to Panchama caste do you think the study adds any value by showing they have a lower European genetic input than higher castes.

You have been RUMBLED ONCE AGAIN
WHO IS BEING DILLUTED??
You used the word DILLUTED.

You are saying that with the constant addition of the forest people the PANCHAMAS are bound to be dilluted

Moumotta: With the constant dilution of forest tribes do you think the study adds any value by showing they have a lower European genetic input than higher castes

Are you suggesting that some aryans were added to the Panchama caste?

What do you mean by Dillution?????

1) Could they have been the Aryans

Yes

REMEMBER THIS POINT

You have once again accepted ARYANS as a possibility

This is a suggestion from a professor of history. She certainly knows enough to not suggest something that is not plausible at all.

LIE

I asked you for a paper suggesting that there were Aryan migrations before 4000 years.

SHOW ME WHERE ROMILLA says that ARYANS CAME EARLIER



YOU FAILED BIG TIME

Don't give me the repetition of how, if they are the same then the first one must have come earlier.

Because even with your misinterpretation it can be argued that one race is the first wave of Aryans and the other is the second both timed post 4000 BP.

ARE YOU NOT AT ALL EMBARASSED BY YOUR BLATANT DODGING OF QUESTIONS AROUND ARYAN 2

This is not my theory. You concluded they were Aryans. You can drop it if you admit you bungled though I would be happy to carry on with it in celebration of your over confident ignorance

LETS GET SOME FACTS STRAIGHT

I did not come up with the name ARYAN 2
The name came from you.

I did not declare them the same race
You were the first one to declare that these people were "racially similar".

I know it may be embarrassing to acknowledge that you came up with the theory of ARYAN 2 but you can't put this on me.

I REPEAT


ARE YOU NOT AT ALL EMBARASSED BY YOUR BLATANT DODGING OF QUESTIONS AROUND ARYAN 2

There are later date migrations during the spread of farming to India. We haven’t yet concluded they were not farmers.

You need to touch up on what the farmer migration was.

Farmer migration is the migration in two routes 9000 BP. The later day migrations are distinct from the theory.

+ The later day migrations do not satisfy the Belarus, Ukraine, Poland...etc test.

EITHER ANSWER THE QUESTION OR ACCEPT THAT THIS WAS A RED HERRING.

We have discovered migrations. We know about the location they came from. Can you name any pre Aryan migrant race for me- is that what you mean by un-discovered races.

So we have discovered Migrations from E Europe in between 3000 years and 5000 years other than the ARYANS have we???

Can you name any pre Aryan migrant race for me- is that what you mean by un-discovered races.

When the historians discover a migration they usually give it a name but you don't need a name all you need to do is name where they came from, the time they came, anything else we know about their culture....etc

If you can't do that then we can leave it as a race we do not know about.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY


TASK

We have Y Chromosomes with traces in Eastern Europe to India
Timing 3000-5000 years BP




MY SUGGESTION

The Aryans fit the bill
The timing criteria fits
The route criteria fits


YOUR REBUTTAL

Moumotta: Why does Iran only return a 10% result for this Y Chromosome

Wazeeri: 1) Because they shared the land with other races
Moumotta: No answer


Wazeeri: 2) Because the Avesta defines the Aryan land as Northern Iran

Moumotta Attempts at proving Aryans took over all of Iran - FAILS BIG TIME




YOUR ANSWER TO THE TASK


Following Possibilities

1) ARYANS

Wazeeri That is what I have been saying all along.


2) A race/migration we have not discovered yet


WazeeriPossibility but how sensible is that conclusion?


3) ARYAN 2, People genetically similar to the Aryans arriving in India pre 4000 years BP



Wazeeri Which prominant historian supports that theory?

Moumotta: Romilla doesn't support it but she has considered it


Wazeeri: Show where romilla says that Aryans arrived pre 4000 years BP

Moumotta:: ..................................................NO ANSWER

Moumotta also attempts at suggesting Wazeeri came up with Aryan 2


4. Farmers Migration



Wazeeri : This is a Red herring because the farmer migration occured 5 millenia before our data

Moumotta: there is evidence of other migrations

Wazeeri : Do they pass the Eastern European test?

Moumotta: .................. No answer.

 

[moumotta]

[

Shall I reproduce the two quotes from you again?

Moumotta :Same race was your interpretation.

Moumotta :How do you get people who are not racially and appearance wise different from Aryans.

Moumotta : Not very nice of me but not a criminal fault
You have already accepted your contradiction you can try and turn this on me if you like but that will only prolong the embarrassment.

The third quote gives me a chuckle. The part you left out read

I just toyed with your ignorance and combined the two to name it. Not very nice of me but not a criminal fault

AS for the Aryan2 thing it is so repetitive that all I need is to remind you of these posts. You suggested she is talking of same race. I said if they were Aryans with different religious beliefs, language and customs then they need a different name.

Wazeeri: So after all this hoopla your answer is ARYAN?

Moumotta: 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.

Moumotta: 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: Race can be interpreted at a number of levels. One could talk of Black race or of Zulu race. I think you are getting carried away by the term ‘racially similar’.

Moumotta: I have already explained the context in which racial is used here.

With your customary ignorant exuberance you proclaimed So after all this hoopla your answer is ARYAN?. You were also being childish with your insistence on naming every race.

I just toyed with your ignorance and combined the two to name it. Not very nice of me but not a criminal fault either considering the level to which this debate has descended

Obstinately repeating a point does not make it right or logical.

Well said now repeat that to yourself a couple of 100 times.

Is that how many times you plan to repeat your obstinacy.

Yes I don't know where the Mediterrenean is, ofcourse that is the answer.

Let's ignore the fact that you introduced the word Mediterrenean which includes a dozen extra countries other than the ones mention in the paper.

I called it Mediterranean because that’s what it is called in the reference I quoted. Don’t multiply your embarrassment.

God sakes Moumotta how hard is it to read a paragraph?
Specifically read the 2nd column of page 316, only first paragraph.

You wanted to know where I got the Iron Age Iranians from.
Read upto where it says "77 index cranial".

I can't copy and paste the text and I am not going to write it out again for you.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...esult#PPA316,M1

That’s why I asked you to specify. You have messed it up again. The paragraph is talking about Tepe Hissar which is in northern Iran and Cemetery H which is post IVC.

:
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.

Damaghan North east of Iran
Kashan central North of iran

It is only talking about traces of earlier migration in the two places before the main Aryan migration.

Kashan is pretty much central Iran.

The line to focus on is widespread migration into the plateau started at the end of the second millennium B.C

So your search only got you so much.??

My search also got me this. Funny, isn’t it.

That is the trouble with making unresearched statements in the hope that you can cigar-smoke your way out of any request to back up your claims.

Almost two-thirds of Iran's people are of Aryan origin— their ancestors migrated from Central Asia. The major groups in this category include Persians, Kurds, Lurs, and Baluchi.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Asia-and-the-Pacific/Iran.html​

Notice how you are not even willing to tackle the other point about the Aryans sharing Iran with other races previously mentioned.

Again, compare with India. Aryans had minimal genetic impact in south. They shared the land with previous and newer populations. Yet their male ratio is 30% (females is another matter that casts doubts over what this 30% really represents)

BRILLIANT POINT

One I have been waiting for you to make.
The Vedas describe Punjab and Punjab has returned the highest percentage.
Down south the percentage is dilluted.

Similarly the Avesta's describe only a small part of Iran and hence the overall average is dilluted.

This point was made over a week ago. Is this all you could figure out in that time. let us carry it further then.

Is there an area in Iran, the Avesta land showing over 50%.
Are there neighbouring areas to this Avesta land with 30%- 40%.
Aryans influenced the language of part of India and contributed to a mixed religion.
Aryan influence on Iranian language and religion was no smaller.
Every thing other than your Haplogroup 3 suggests Aryans had a significant impact on Iran’s beliefs and population mix.
How do you explain the anomaly in influence Vs ‘genetic’ contribution.

What does fertility have to do with their outgrowing other populations?

If you want repetition you are welcome to it.

Fertility of the land allows the population to grow and settle because of sustainability of food supplies.

Question is not about growing. It is about outgrowing.

Most invasions afterwards were as has been explained from Afghanistan and North Pakistan.

The earlier Inhabitants and other migrations make up the other 50%.

Aryans were the dominating force as we have seen in evidence from the Vedas hence they have the highest share in the admixture.

Come on buddy. Punjab was the play ground of all invaders that entered from Afghanistan. Parthians, Scythians, Kushans, White Huns, Greeks, Greco Bactrians, Jats, Gujars and Muslims from Mahmud down to Mughals all romped in and through Punjab.
Funny how you argue for Aryans sharing down to 10% in Iran but have no problem with 50% in Punjab which should also have had a lot of sharing to do.

Eastern and central Russians

Is their any genetic evidence to support it. What are their population sizes and HG3 proportions.

Aryan in India were not the only one having children. Did they outgrow other Indian populations.

Yes,
They were richer
They were stronger
They were violent.

I like simple, uncomplicated minds. Why analyse when one bigoted comment and it is all explained.

YET YOU WANT A 100% IRANIAN RESULT

Did I say 100%. If you read the last post I was suggesting numbers comparable to India.
Hyperbole Number 102. YET YOU WANT A 100% IRANIAN RESULT

The 10% above includes Aryans and all other West Eurasian migrations.
Your Farmer's migration being one major one.

The male vs female disparity is only found in AP,

NOW THE MATHS AND READING LESSON
10% of LINEAGES
Not 10% of Women.

Wonderful exposition of creative logic. Out of the 10%, majority are farmers. The remaining are lineages so that will explain their being equal to over 30% of population.
Here is more for you to refute.

The supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,000–4,000 years before present therefore did not make a major splash in the Indian gene pool. This is especially counter-indicated by the presence of equal, though very low, frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=d34f4d77fc39f006ee8dc30c25ccda47
​

Now don’t tell me very low does not mean well below 30%.

Are you asking me to go and carry out tests on every city in the route?

So no evidence. All that talk of Route Is Important was only based on some isolated points here and there. Its not a route. It’s random frog leaps.

Interestingly no comment on 8% Andhra Vs Vizag anomaly.

THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN TOO MUCH DETAIL FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE JUST CONFUSED.

Panchama the people were not given a place in the caste hierarchy because they were not and they are still not considered good enough for the 4 varnas.

Their classification and naming as Panchama, Pariah, Dalit... came later.

You have driven all over the shop with this one.

The study said Panchamas were added later.
You twisted that to say Panchama name was added later.
Wazeeri refuses to understand when pointed out. As simple as that.

If you want me to answer a question don't hide it in between other questions just to make it look as though you have a point.

Hello! This was point 6- right on top and before 6A etc not in between. Don’t blame your inability to answer on me.

You are now suggesting that there were two types of Dalits
1) Living in the forests
2) Nomads/Pastorals.

The issue is whether the latter came in contact or not.

As I am your official maths teacher allow me to teach you some logic as well.

As they were nomads at one point and not anymore, THEY DID COME INTO CONTACT WITH THE ARYANS

Now the issue is whether they came into contact with the Aryans at the point the aryans arrived in their land.

Nomads would be in direct conflict with the Aryans.
They will either have to share resources or snatch it off the other.
Their animals would be mouth watering for the Aryans going by the Aryans prayers in the Vedas.

More Wazeeri spin.
Non Aryans were included in other castes.
Aryans are only 8% in Andhra. According to you they have grown much faster than other communities. They could not have covered every available piece of land.

You really have no evidence so want to prove it using twisted logic. Why not just say ‘you think they were in contact’ rather than ‘‘you know they were in contact’.

Now you explain to me how this Nomad culture (which could be upto 25% of the population) escaped the Aryan attention despite having animals and sharing water resources for over a millenia (you claimed that they came into contact in the Christian era).

You continue making up numbers as we go. Where do 25% come from. As has been explained earlier Panchamas, the fifth caste is 16%, many of them were forest tribes but Wazeeri’s hyperbole 103 just keeps romping.

Is that your method of attack now?
Contradict yourself and when it is pointed out pretend as if I have made some gaffe.

Moumotta : I did not say all
Moumotta : You said not all

Wazeeri, let me explain your twisted logic.
There is a population (A+B) of panchamas.
I show that A equals C (forest tribes).
Wazeeri says Is A equal A+B (Many equals all)
I say A is not all (All is A+B)

What does the above lead to:

Logic says we do not know if B is C or not.
Wazeeri says B is NOT C.
When asked to prove he says because I said A is not A+B, and A = C therefore B is Not C.

You asked me to prove that something didn't happen

How do you prove something didn't happen?

Is the onus of proof not on the claimant?

If you don't have an answer ADMIT IT,
STOP MAKING RIDICULOUS DEMANDS

Onus of proof is not on the claimant?

You made a statement that farmer migrations to Baluchistan ended in 9000BP. You were not there at the time so you are not speaking from personal experience and your statement needs to be supported.
What are the possibilities:

1. You read about it some where

2. You made it up.

If you read about it cite a reference. If you did not then admit you lied.
Wazeeri smokes a cigar was not a good answer, it was a stupid way to shirk responsibility.

You have been RUMBLED ONCE AGAIN
WHO IS BEING DILLUTED??
You used the word DILLUTED.

You are saying that with the constant addition of the forest people the PANCHAMAS are bound to be dilluted

Moumotta: With the constant dilution of forest tribes do you think the study adds any value by showing they have a lower European genetic input than higher castes

Are you suggesting that some aryans were added to the Panchama caste?

What do you mean by Dillution?????

You have decided you will not answer that question. You will raise every issue under the sun to avoid a direct answer.

Table 17.2 shows 20% for Panchama but that is not what we are discussing.

I revised the statement to remove dilute so don’t hide behind it.
I know that you know the answer. I also know that it is very painful for you to say it. I have pretty much got my answer from your dithering.

REMEMBER THIS POINT

You have once again accepted ARYANS as a possibility

When was it contested. You back to your tricks again. When losing an argument you try to restate my position to some how give the impression that you dragged me to it. You tried it earlier with Aryan violence. At least try some thing new from your bag of tricks.

This is a suggestion from a professor of history. She certainly knows enough to not suggest something that is not plausible at all

LIE

I asked you for a paper suggesting that there were Aryan migrations before 4000 years.

SHOW ME WHERE ROMILLA says that ARYANS CAME EARLIER

You have twisted and lied so many times in this post. Quote the full statement.

Moumotta: When an eminent professor of history makes a suggestion it has to be regarded as a possibility.

When an experienced debater declares she is talking about Aryans then out of respect I have to keep that interpretation on table.

Where did I say she is talking about Aryans coming earlier. Aryans is clearly your interpretation.

YOU FAILED BIG TIME

Don't give me the repetition of how, if they are the same then the first one must have come earlier.

Because even with your misinterpretation it can be argued that one race is the first wave of Aryans and the other is the second both timed post 4000 BP.

ARE YOU NOT AT ALL EMBARASSED BY YOUR BLATANT DODGING OF QUESTIONS AROUND ARYAN 2

This is becoming embarrassing that I am even carrying this discussion with some one who refuses to understand inconvenient answers and then deliberately misquotes, dodges questions and then claims victories even while on the floor.

Moumotta= This is not my theory. You concluded they were Aryans. You can drop it if you admit you bungled though I would be happy to carry on with it in celebration of your over confident ignorance

Wazeeri= LETS GET SOME FACTS STRAIGHT

I did not come up with the name ARYAN 2
The name came from you.

You said they were Aryans. I said if they were Aryans with different religious beliefs, language and customs then they need a different name.

The baby is yours. I just named it.

If you come up with stupid interpretations and I just play them up how does that make it my fault.

I did not declare them the same race
You were the first one to declare that these people were "racially similar".

You should read the thread before complaing. It has been explained racially similar is what she is suggesting.
I quote again.

Moumotta: 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.

Wazeeri, You are now desperate.

The cool, confident debater is gone. What we have now is some one who is twisting quotes, evading questions and refusing to read answers, some one who is trying to make up for lack of arguments by posting in technicolor and large font sizes. All that is left is screaming at the top of your voice.

There are only two possibilities
1. must be something wrong with your comprehension and ability to understand comments that prove you wrong.
2. Having lost repeatedly on every point you are now getting desperate that your last hope of salvaging some pride on the last topic of genetic evidence, a topic that you chose with great hopes to end this discussion, is slipping out of your hands.

After reading your last few post and seeing how it is quickly degenerating in to a obstinate refusal to answer questions or support statements and a general attitude that you can smoke your cigar out of any requirements to prove any thing I am really wondering if I should be a part of this discussion any further.

You have to realise that posting in technicolor or different font sizes does not make the arguments any stronger.

This will be my last post. Feel free to fill empty spaces with your frustrations.

 

[Wazeeri]

AS for the Aryan2 thing it is so repetitive that all I need is to remind you of these posts. You suggested she is talking of same race. I said if they were Aryans with different religious beliefs, language and customs then they need a different name.


Quote:
Wazeeri: So after all this hoopla your answer is ARYAN?

Let's see who mentioned it first

POST 135 Moumotta : How do you get people who are not racially and appearance wise different from Aryans.

POST 136 Wazeeri : So after all this hoopla your answer is ARYAN?


EMBARRASSED YET?????????????

ONCE YOU DISCOVERED THAT YOU HAVE MADE A BIG GAFFE
YOU CAME UP WITH

Moumotta: Race can be interpreted at a number of levels.

Racially similar???

You just jump into an argument with no idea what so ever and then it is really fun watching you struggle to get to the shore.

I called it Mediterranean because that’s what it is called in the reference I quoted. Don’t multiply your embarrassment.

MOUMOTTA LIE NO 101


Here is the reference

Hemphill, Lukacs, and Kennedy have found skeletal evidence for a discontinuity between the Stage One and the Mehrgarh III inhabitants. The Togau population shares important affinities with the individuals in the Mature Harappan Cemetary R-37 at Harappa, which, taken together, "bear close affinities to populations from the west, that is, from the Iranian Plateau and the Near East".(37) Lukacs feels that the Stage One population at Mehrgarh shared little with this western population, but had features pointing to a biological heritage to the east of the Subcontinent."
Page 35 Gregory Possehl, The Indus Civilization A Contemporary Perspective.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...result#PPA35,M1

That’s why I asked you to specify. You have messed it up again. The paragraph is talking about Tepe Hissar which is in northern Iran and Cemetery H which is post IVC.

Maybe if you weren't so busy trying to divert the conversation you would keep track of it. You asked me why I was claiming that later additions to the farmers were being considered as influx of Indo-Iranians and Iron age Iranians.

The line to focus on is widespread migration into the plateau started at the end of the second millennium B.C

You mean this line?

widespread migration of the Aryan tribesmen into the Iranian plateau started at the end of the second millennium B.C.

Into the Iranian Plateau, now where does it say that all of Modern Day Iran is taken over?

Into means that they entered into Iran,

MISSION FAILED

Have another go.

Almost two-thirds of Iran's people are of Aryan origin— their ancestors migrated from Central Asia. The major groups in this category include Persians, Kurds, Lurs, and Baluchi.

Way hay after three tries you find one mention of two thirds people being Aryans. What is this fact based on, no bibliography, no index...

Lurs claim descendants from Mesopotamians, Sumerians and Aryans.
Kurds existed before the Aryans entered the Iranian plateau

KURDS One of the most cited works is an article by a British scholar G. R. Driver. The scholar finds early mention of the word Kurd in Sumerian clay tablet from 3rd millennium B.C

Baluchi : Neither should one object on these methods for historical research, nor doubt the fact that there had been an admixture of various people with Baloch like the Scythians, Pathians, Ashkanis, Sakas, Kushans, Huns, Turks and many others; nor contest the proposition that Baloch, culturally, were greatly influenced by Tigris-Euphrates civilization at different stages of history. " {Janmahmad**

So once again your unsubstantiated source has provided you with unsubstantiated claims of ordinary people with mixed ancestory talking about their forefathers 3/4000 years ago.

Again, compare with India. Aryans had minimal genetic impact in south. They shared the land with previous and newer populations. Yet their male ratio is 30% (females is another matter that casts doubts over what this 30% really represents)

Maybe the fact that India has a north as well as the south should help you understand this.

Is there an area in Iran, the Avesta land showing over 50%.

Possibly I personally haven't done the genetic studies so I don't know.

Are there neighbouring areas to this Avesta land with 30%- 40%.

Again I didn't carry out the study on the Iranians hence I can't break the data down for you.

But Khorosan is next to Afghanistan if that helps.

Every thing other than your Haplogroup 3 suggests Aryans had a significant impact on Iran’s beliefs and population mix. How do you explain the anomaly in influence Vs ‘genetic’ contribution.

1) Aryans not taking over all of Modern day Iran
2) Other strong populations existings

Question is not about growing. It is about outgrowing.

If you grow faster than other people then you outgrow them.

Come on buddy. Punjab was the play ground of all invaders that entered from Afghanistan. Parthians, Scythians, Kushans, White Huns, Greeks, Greco Bactrians, Jats, Gujars and Muslims from Mahmud down to Mughals all romped in and through Punjab.

As I said post Aryan time invasion from North West. So invasions of people who possibly have Aryans ancestory. Hence dillution slowed.

And if your line of argument is taken then why would any race have 50%?

Is their any genetic evidence to support it. What are their population sizes and HG3 proportions.

Once again are you asking me to carry out genetic studies in those areas?

I like simple, uncomplicated minds. Why analyse when one bigoted comment and it is all explained.

You know someone has lost a comment when words like NAZI, BIGOT, RACIST, FASCIST, EXTREMIST....etc start coming out.

Funny how you argue for Aryans sharing down to 10% in Iran but have no problem with 50% in Punjab which should also have had a lot of sharing to do.

Do you not have a mind of your own?

You are querying Aryans having a big population in India by arguing that they could not have reporduced faster and better.

YET YOU WANT A 100% IRANIAN RESULT

The reason why this argument applies to you and not me before you ask is because I am not the one who has any notion of what percentage the Aryans should count towards in any area.

You are the one who has been arguing about the 50% in Punjab and 10% in Iran based on nothing.

Did I say 100%. If you read the last post I was suggesting numbers comparable to India.

Why numbers comparable to India?

Maybe they were more successful in one place then the other, maybe they found better living conditions in one place then the other.

Why do we have to have numerical parity?

Wonderful exposition of creative logic. Out of the 10%, majority are farmers. The remaining are lineages so that will explain their being equal to over 30% of population.

So you are failing on five things
Maths
Reading skills
clarity of thought
lack of logic
and desperation to get out of the hole you have dug for yourself.

What the hell do you mean by remaining are lineages?
That doesn't even make sense.

If you read the quote properly before trying to find a mathematical fault you wouldn't have to make ridiculous statements like that.

Now don’t tell me very low does not mean well below 30%.

Before I teach you reading and maths again let's just highlight a fact which will demonstrate your desperation.

Were you not the one who was trying to explain why there was a disparity between female and male genes?

Were you not the one who said
ARYANS KILLED THEIR BABY DAUGHTERS?
ARYANS PRACTICED POLYGAMY HENCE THE FEMALE ARYANS WERE BOUND TO LOSE OUT?

Remember that Moumotta?
EMBARRASSED YET?
You have no memory of what you said 10 posts ago and hence you keep on contradicting yourself and I keep on highlighting it.

Now to deal with the same question once again.
The above comment is based on Kivisild's 10% MTDNA lineages.
There is no mention of the population having West Eurasian MtDna.

So no evidence. All that talk of Route Is Important was only based on some isolated points here and there. Its not a route. It’s random frog leaps.

No Evidence?
So are you suggesting that they leap frogged?
Are you so desperate?

Interestingly no comment on 8% Andhra Vs Vizag anomaly.

You mean the 8% I explained earlier?
PS: what do you mean exactly by Andhra Vs Vizag?
I don't know too much about Indian cities but Is Visag not in Andhra?

Can you elaborate, where does Vishwakapatnam come into this debate?

The study said Panchamas were added later. You twisted that to say Panchama name was added later. Wazeeri refuses to understand when pointed out. As simple as that.

I think I am going to use this word a lot DESPERATION
Study says all the Panchamas were added later?

Non Aryans were included in other castes. Aryans are only 8% in Andhra. According to you they have grown much faster than other communities. They could not have covered every available piece of land. You really have no evidence so want to prove it using twisted logic. Why not just say ‘you think they were in contact’ rather than ‘‘you know they were in contact’.

Ok so I am guessing that we have established that they did not come into contact with the Dalits then?

I missed where that happened.

Ok now let's tackle your new line of reasoning.

Aryans accepted people into the caste system AGREED

BUT for nearly 25% of the population the caste system was closed and all vacancies were full hence this 25% of the population was not even considered good enough to be the lowest caste, a new sub human caste had to be created for them.

You continue making up numbers as we go. Where do 25% come from. As has been explained earlier Panchamas, the fifth caste is 16%, many of them were forest tribes but Wazeeri’s hyperbole 103 just keeps romping.

http://www.dalitnetwork.org/

250 million

Indian population 1129 million

250 / 1129 = 22% NOT 25%

I apologise.

Where did I say she is talking about Aryans coming earlier. Aryans is clearly your interpretation.

MOUMOTTA SPECIAL BACKTRACK MANEUVER



racially similar to the Aryans????????
Are those not your words?

And before you try to put this on me read the start of this post, I have already embarrassed your claims about who came up with this first.

Now once again who were these people you named ARYAN 2 (because of me somehow).
Who are they?
Where did they come from?
Which historian supports their existence?

This is becoming embarrassing that I am even carrying this discussion with some one who refuses to understand inconvenient answers and then deliberately misquotes, dodges questions and then claims victories even while on the floor.

So you are no longer claiming that people from E Europe came into India pre 4000 BP??

Shall I take it that this is another one of the many occassions where you have no answer and you want to blame it on my lack of understanding?

You said they were Aryans. I said if they were Aryans with different religious beliefs, language and customs then they need a different name.

I may have declared them as Aryans but you claimed that they were RACIALLY SIMILAR to the ARYANS to come up with some mangled answer to the simple question on the route.

You should read the thread before complaing. It has been explained racially similar is what she is suggesting.

And as has been explained to you she is suggesting an inter communal rivalry. She is not suggesting a different migration which you desperately need to prove your points.

 

[Wazeeri]

You have to realise that posting in technicolor or different font sizes does not make the arguments any stronger.

Your modus operandi has changed to confusion and lies.

You lie through your teeth and when it is highlighted you lie even more.

I have realised this and therefore I highlight everytime you get rumbled because it makes it easier to find later on.

What we have now is some one who is twisting quotes, evading questions and refusing to read answers,

Let's see who is evading questions

Who are the ARYAN 2s? Which historian supports their existence? Where did they come from?

ASKED 7 times.
REPLIES ZERO

All I got was attempts from you to somehow blame me for coming up with the ARYAN 2 race.

How does the Farmers migration satisfy the route test?
Is the Farmer migration a red herring?

Asked three times
REPLIES ZERO

Wazeeri, You are now desperate.

Let's see who is getting desperate

Moumotta: I did not say all
Moumotta:‘Not all dalits living in forests’ (or jungle as you insist on calling it) is your theory, not mine.


Moumotta:How do you get people who are not racially and appearance wise different from Aryans.
Moumotta:For the n’th time you came up with same race by misinterpreting a Romial quote.

Moumotta:European female genes were socially disadvantage
Moumotta:While the male factory was in over production where did Aryan females go????

Having lost repeatedly on every point

Let's see who has lost repeatedly

Moumotta:I made up 1 in 20. What else did I make up.

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

Moumotta:This was a mistake. Thanks for picking it up. Now bash me as much as you can.

Moumotta:We know that a small fraction of Indian mtDNA lineages (<10%)
Moumotta:Out of the 10%, majority are farmers. The remaining are lineages so that will explain their being equal to over 30% of population.

 

[Wazeeri]

IF YOU WANT TO COME OUT OF YOUR SELF IMPOSED EXILE START BY ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING.

1) ARYAN 2

• Which historian supports a migration of E Europeans into India pre the Aryans in the time period we are discussin?

2) FARMERS MIGRATION

• Does the Farmer's migration satisfy the route test (Belarus, Poland, Ukraine)

If you don't have answer but you still wish to appear as though you have apoint then come back and tell me about how desperate I am and how I am avoiding questions and how I am not confident anymore,.....etc

 

[moumotta]

Wazeeri,

This thread is not going anywhere at the moment. I will like to take this thread to its logical conclusion but that can happen only when you answer questions and provide support for your statements.

I will make one more attempt. If you are seriously interested in carrying it forward please answer questions. I will start with two unanswered questions.

1. You made a statement that farmer migrations to Baluchistan ended in 9000BP. You were not there at the time so you are not speaking from personal experience and your statement needs to be supported.
What are the possibilities:

A. You read about it somewhere
B. You made it up.
If you read about it cite a reference. If you did not then admit you lied.



2. The study shows 20% European mix in lower castes which is well below upper castes.
You have admitted that many of the lower castes were forest tribes who were added later.

If that is the case then what value is added by the study showing that they have lower European proportion.


Now, let us continue.

Let's see who mentioned it first

POST 135 Moumotta : How do you get people who are not racially and appearance wise different from Aryans.

POST 136 Wazeeri : So after all this hoopla your answer is ARYAN?


EMBARRASSED YET?????????????

Yes embarrassed that I have to repeatedly answer the same question. Please scroll up and find appropriate answers.

ONCE YOU DISCOVERED THAT YOU HAVE MADE A BIG GAFFE
YOU CAME UP WITH

Moumotta: Race can be interpreted at a number of levels.

Racially similar???

Wazeeri, It is bad enough that you try to interpret me. It is worse when you try to second guess my thought process.

I understand that lack of knowledge is not a sufficient reason to stop you from making your statements and claims but can you stop trying to calendarise the sequence of my thought processes.

KURDS One of the most cited works is an article by a British scholar G. R. Driver. The scholar finds early mention of the word Kurd in Sumerian clay tablet from 3rd millennium B.C

Wazeeri, Here is the full quote including the last sentence you left out that totally rubbishes your argument.

One of the most cited works is an article by a British scholar G. R. Driver. The scholar finds early mention of the word Kurd in Sumerian clay tablet from 3rd millennium B.C., on which a land of Kar-da or Qar-da was inscribed. This land was the region of the south of Lake Van (in eastern Turkey) inhabited by the people of "Su" who were connected with the Qur-ti-e, a group of mountain dwellers. The evidence though is too inconclusive to rely on.
http://www.nineveh.com/Assyria or Kurdistan.html​

Please explain why you truncated the quote to leave out such important information that totally rubbishes your point.

Lurs claim descendants from Mesopotamians, Sumerians and Aryans.

Baluchi : Neither should one object on these methods for historical research, nor doubt the fact that there had been an admixture of various people with Baloch like the Scythians, Pathians, Ashkanis, Sakas, Kushans, Huns, Turks and many others; nor contest the proposition that Baloch, culturally, were greatly influenced by Tigris-Euphrates civilization at different stages of history. " {Janmahmad**

No one is claiming that any population is pure 100% single ethnic stock. No one, Eastern Europeans, Punjabis or Andharites is 100% pure single race. So what does it prove.

So once again your unsubstantiated source has provided you with unsubstantiated claims of ordinary people with mixed ancestory talking about their forefathers 3/4000 years ago.

Unsubstantiated - just because they differ from your pet opinions. I don’t quote from glossy Sunday magazines, you know that.

Maybe the fact that India has a north as well as the south should help you understand this.

Childishly inane. The point was not whether India has a south or not. Point is it had very little Aryan impact in its vast territories of south and yet India shows an average of 30%.

Possibly I personally haven't done the genetic studies so I don't know.

Again I didn't carry out the study on the Iranians hence I can't break the data down for you.

Once again are you asking me to carry out genetic studies in those areas?

Do you not have a mind of your own?

Maybe they were more successful in one place then the other, maybe they found better living conditions in one place then the other.

So you really have no idea and no information. You are just making things up and can’t support any of them when questioned. What was the point of mentioning Avesta land if you know nothing about their population mix.

1) Aryans not taking over all of Modern day Iran
2) Other strong populations existings

As you have admitted earler you have no idea about the genetic mix of any area in Iran. Please stop trying to rationalise a result when you have no idea about what you are saying.

As I said post Aryan time invasion from North West. So invasions of people who possibly have Aryans ancestory. Hence dillution slowed.

Most of the invading races are the same that you are blaming for dilution in Iran so that argument falls flat.

Most races came via Iran which itself does not have enough East European genetic input to slow down dilution.

Mughals came from central asia but they were part Mongol any way.

Do you want to try again?

And if your line of argument is taken then why would any race have 50%?

Good question for any one who supports the studies and claims to have all the evidence.

Funny how you argue for Aryans sharing down to 10% in Iran but have no problem with 50% in Punjab which should also have had a lot of sharing to do?

Do you not have a mind of your own?

Kudos to any one who can understand what that answer means!!!

Why numbers comparable to India?

Maybe they were more successful in one place then the other, maybe they found better living conditions in one place then the other.

Why do we have to have numerical parity?

We don’t have to have parity if you mean exact correspondence but if Iran is vastly lower then how can it be en-route.

Aryans entered India and Iran at the same time.

India is a much bigger land and population size than Iran.

Yet they show much higher proportion than Iran.

Was Iran really en-route this migration or is the 10% merely a spill over from neighbouring India?

So you are failing on five things
Maths
Reading skills
clarity of thought
lack of logic
and desperation to get out of the hole you have dug for yourself.

What the hell do you mean by remaining are lineages?
That doesn't even make sense.

If you read the quote properly before trying to find a mathematical fault you wouldn't have to make ridiculous statements like that.
Before I teach you reading and maths again let's just highlight a fact which will demonstrate your desperation.

Were you not the one who was trying to explain why there was a disparity between female and male genes?

Were you not the one who said
ARYANS KILLED THEIR BABY DAUGHTERS?
ARYANS PRACTICED POLYGAMY HENCE THE FEMALE ARYANS WERE BOUND TO LOSE OUT?

Remember that Moumotta?
EMBARRASSED YET?
You have no memory of what you said 10 posts ago and hence you keep on contradicting yourself and I keep on highlighting it.

So much written with so little sense as you hide behind word play.

1. Do you have any memory of what you said when I was explaining narrowing of female proportions.

2. When did I say Aryans killed their daughters. Please show. Remember no spin doctoring, no second hand interpretations. Show me saying Aryans killed their daughters or admit to misquoting my comment.

Now to deal with the same question once again.
The above comment is based on Kivisild's 10% MTDNA lineages.
There is no mention of the population having West Eurasian MtDna.

Again hiding behind lineage Vs proportion. The interpretation is based on his full paper which is more than 10%, and it is an expert scholarly interpretation rather than Wazeeri’s spin doctoring.

Now back to the question.

Why is their no MtDNA evidence similar to the male migrations.

No Evidence?
So are you suggesting that they leap frogged?
Are you so desperate?

Show me the route, please.

You mean the 8% I explained earlier?
PS: what do you mean exactly by Andhra Vs Vizag?
I don't know too much about Indian cities but Is Visag not in Andhra?

Remind me please. What was the explanation.

Visakhapatnam (Vizag) is the district in which the Bamshad samples were taken.

PS: Vizag is in Andhra. The question is about Vizag readings being so much higher than Andhra average.

I think I am going to use this word a lot DESPERATION
Study says all the Panchamas were added later?

There is no all or many here for you to play with.
DESPERATION, Indeed. How do you spin it.

http://www.dalitnetwork.org/

250 million

Indian population 1129 million

250 / 1129 = 22% NOT 25%

I apologise.

http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol87No2/171.pdf
Page 171- In contemporary India, the government refers to Panchama or untouchables as scheduled castes. Scheduled caste members comprised about 139 million people, or more than 16 per cent of the total population of India.

Ok so I am guessing that we have established that they did not come into contact with the Dalits then?

I missed where that happened.

Ok now let's tackle your new line of reasoning.

Aryans accepted people into the caste system AGREED

BUT for nearly 25% of the population the caste system was closed and all vacancies were full hence this 25% of the population was not even considered good enough to be the lowest caste, a new sub human caste had to be created for them.

Again no real information. No references. Just enlightened opinions!!.
Remember your task is to show the proportion of Panchamas 3000 years ago.

racially similar to the Aryans????????
Are those not your words?

And before you try to put this on me read the start of this post, I have already embarrassed your claims about who came up with this first.

It has been explained how racially similar follows from the quote. BTW you are maintaining that they are ‘racially same’-
[Wazeeri: she is suggesting an inter communal rivalry]

Make up your mind. Don’t sit on the fence and throw stones on both sides.

Now once again who were these people you named ARYAN 2 (because of me somehow).
Who are they?
Where did they come from?
Which historian supports their existence?

Has been done so many times.
You said they were Aryans.
I said if they were Aryans with different religious practices, customs and language then they need to be differentiated from the Aryans that every on ethinks of- the Sanskrit speaking, Indra & other god worshipping, vedic Aryans.

Who supports they followed different religious practices, customs and language- Romila.

Who supports they were Aryans-Wazeeri

Who gave them a name- Moumotta

Which one of these are you objecting to.

Now, you can read that answer every time you repeat that question.

So you are no longer claiming that people from E Europe came into India pre 4000 BP??

Shall I take it that this is another one of the many occassions where you have no answer and you want to blame it on my lack of understanding?

Don’t put words in my mouth.

Let us figure out who your main candidates were, where they came from, what route they took and where they left their females before we move on to my alternatives.

I don’t want a situation again where you petition for your theory to be accepted with supplementary marks and then raise the bar for other theories to attain High Distinction.

Let us see how lack of evidence plays out with your argument.

I may have declared them as Aryans but you claimed that they were RACIALLY SIMILAR to the ARYANS to come up with some mangled answer to the simple question on the route.

Am I the only one confused. Can they be Aryans without being racially similar- nay racially same (something I have never claimed). Don’t tie yourself in tangles Wazeeri.

And as has been explained to you she is suggesting an inter communal rivalry. She is not suggesting a different migration which you desperately need to prove your points.

So you are supporting Aryan 2 with religious, language and cultural differences and all. All you are debating is if they came together or separately. Right?



I notice that your rumble count continues even when you are on the floor. Will you give up and accept defeat on count of ten or will I need to remind you.

 

[Wazeeri]

1. You made a statement that farmer migrations to Baluchistan ended in 9000BP. You were not there at the time so you are not speaking from personal experience and your statement needs to be supported.
What are the possibilities:

A. You read about it somewhere
B. You made it up.
If you read about it cite a reference. If you did not then admit you lied.

Moumotta

Nice one are you trying to imply that I haven't answered your questions?
You and I both now know that you are in a desperate position, you went through the whole debate to find one point in which you could send the argument into another spin.

First of all I raised a question re: the farmer's migration which you keep on ignoring.
Does the farmer's migaration satisfy the Belarud, Ukrain, Poland test?
Answer = NO.
So why are we still talking about the Farmer's migration?
Because you want to appear as if you have an answer other than the Aryans.

Now to answer your question, Indus Valley Civilisation was established by 7000 BC hence the migration was complete.

Now you are implying that further migrations occured,
THE ONUS OF PROOF IS ON YOU.

I can't prove something DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Once you prove that I didn't just smoke a Cigar I will prove that no further migrations happened.

This is childishness and desperation at it's worst.

2. The study shows 20% European mix in lower castes which is well below upper castes.
You have admitted that many of the lower castes were forest tribes who were added later.

If that is the case then what value is added by the study showing that they have lower European proportion.

Wow! So you are not going answer my question.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY DILLUTION.

Do you think that you will miss out my points and I will not notice.
You are stuck my friend either answer the question or admit that you have once again made a BIG GAFFE

Yes embarrassed that I have to repeatedly answer the same question. Please scroll up and find appropriate answers.

So who said that this race is similar to the ARYANS?
Was it a) Wazeeri???? or b) Moumotta

B) MOUTMOTTA

Correct

Congradulations you have lost a bit more respect.

Please explain why you truncated the quote to leave out such important information that totally rubbishes your point.

Nice to see you still can't follow a debate.,

The point being that the quote you provided declared races as Aryans when no one knows of their origins.

But i understand anything is good enough for a desperate man.

No one is claiming that any population is pure 100% single ethnic stock. No one, Eastern Europeans, Punjabis or Andharites is 100% pure single race. So what does it prove.

Yes your source declares them as descendants of the Aryans and you tried to use that to prove the 10% incorrect.

Your source relies on them being 100% pure stock to prove 10% incorrect otherwise your quote was pointless.

BTW nice to see you gave up on proving the Aryans took over all of Modern Day Iran.

Unsubstantiated - just because they differ from your pet opinions. I don’t quote from glossy Sunday magazines, you know that.

Can you please point out the bibliography in the source you provided.
I must be blind because I can't find where they got that number from.

Childishly inane. The point was not whether India has a south or not. Point is it had very little Aryan impact in its vast territories of south and yet India shows an average of 30%.

So who is lying up here then? Kivisild?
It's his data mate.

So you really have no idea and no information. You are just making things up and can’t support any of them when questioned. What was the point of mentioning Avesta land if you know nothing about their population mix.

Moumotta, with every post you show me just how little comprehension skills you have.
Allow me to break this down for you.

Avesta describes a land in the north east of Iran.
I don't have a break up of Iran to explain this to you.

I am explaining to you how Iran can return 10%.

Most of the invading races are the same that you are blaming for dilution in Iran so that argument falls flat.

If you pondered over your arguments before typing them up you would not embarrass yourself so much.

You are talking about subsequent invasions of people who have already been dilluted by the Aryans. Not people who were living before the Aryans undilluted.

You just can't handle the fact that this data fits as much as it does.

Mughal kings claim Mongol heritage but guess where their armies came from.
Same area described in the Avesta.

Good question for any one who supports the studies and claims to have all the evidence.

stumped ????
You are the one who is questioning data,
I am just arguing that it supports my theory.

Kudos to any one who can understand what that answer means!!!

Awwwwwww! So innocent,
I made the point about you questioning Iranian low result based on Iran being the hub of the Aryans accoding to you, yet you at the same time have a problem with Punjab having a high result even though Punjab was also a hub of the Aryans.

Then you thought about reversing that onto me without realising the lack of logic of the point when addressed to me as I am not claiming modern day Iran as the hub.

Was Iran really en-route this migration or is the 10% merely a spill over from neighbouring India?

Or only part of Iran was fully consolidated.

2. When did I say Aryans killed their daughters. Please show. Remember no spin doctoring, no second hand interpretations. Show me saying Aryans killed their daughters or admit to misquoting my comment.

Moumotta post number 4 in this very thread
Aryans had a preference for male child. The preference continues in India today with added economic compulsions. In ancient times it was a religious and cultural preference. Proper ritual funeral could only be performed by a son, death anniversaries could only be performed by sons. A son was a passport to a better after-life. Did this preference lead to a lower survival ratio for females.

Don't try to void the point that you were at one point arguing that Aryan women were less likely to pass on their genes.

Moumotta once again post no.4
1. European female genes were socially disadvantage and

You were at one point trying to explain how the Aryan males could leave more genes then females and now you are arguing against it.

GET SOME CLARITY MY FRIEND OR YOU WILL CONTINUE TO BE EMBARRASSED.

Why is their no MtDNA evidence similar to the male migrations.

Why are you assuming there isn't?
We can't match MtDna with Y chromosome hence we can't say which MtDna belongs to the same race as a specific Y Chromosome.

Show me the route, please.

HOW MANY TIMES

I wrote it out not so very long ago that the following countries and areas are mentioned the route goes through them(unless these people had teeleporting capabilities).

Poland, Russia, Byelorussian(Belarus), Ukraine, NW India, West Bengal

See Kivisild2003 table 17.2

IS THIS YOUR ONLY OPTION?
ASK FOR INFO AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN TILL I GET TIRED

MATE I AM NOT GOING TO GET TIRED SO TRY MAKING SENSE IF YOU WISH TO REACH A CONCLUSION.

Remind me please. What was the explanation.

Visakhapatnam (Vizag) is the district in which the Bamshad samples were taken.

PS: Vizag is in Andhra. The question is about Vizag readings being so much higher than Andhra average.

I can't find where you are getting Vizag from it's not on my copy of Bamshad.

But anyway if you can't be bothered to go back and read my answer here is a clue for you.

Look at the table we are speaking off http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003a.pdf Table 17.2

Now for all the data on Andhra Pradesh add up the percentages.
You will notice that they don't add upto 100%, neither Bamshad nor Kivisild unlike all other Kivisild numbers.

Also notice how there are a few ND ie Not Determineds.

Bamshad did not carry out the same tests as Kivisild, these are two different approaches. Bamshad concentrated on a different set of Haplogroups and his main test was seeing the difference between west eurasians and Indians. You are comparing apples and oranges.

There is no all or many here for you to play with.
DESPERATION, Indeed. How do you spin it.

Put me out of my misery then, what exactly do you wish to say all or many?
Do you want me to argue against every possibile argument you can come up with or will you state one argument so I can save time.

http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol87No2/171.pdf
Page 171- In contemporary India, the government refers to Panchama or untouchables as scheduled castes. Scheduled caste members comprised about 139 million people, or more than 16 per cent of the total population of India.

Let's have a link fight.
http://www.hvk.org/articles/1103/136.html

Again no real information. No references. Just enlightened opinions!!.
Remember your task is to show the proportion of Panchamas 3000 years ago.

Is that my TASK now?
I seem to be getting a lot of tasks.
How about we share some work load up here?

Make up your mind. Don’t sit on the fence and throw stones on both sides.

I don't care for suggestions and questions. I don't need to stand on any side of the fence because I don't care. It's pointless to the debate until you provide some support for either interpretation.

You said they were Aryans.

Please clarify one more thing please.
Was that before or after you said that they were racially similar to the Aryans?

Who supports they followed different religious practices, customs and language- Romila.

Was that the question I asked???
No
Who supports a theory of people "racially similar" to the Aryans coming to India in the sort of time period we are concerned with.

Am I the only one confused. Can they be Aryans without being racially similar- nay racially same (something I have never claimed). Don’t tie yourself in tangles Wazeeri.

Let's get one thing straight my friend

All these wonderful races you have created in your mind exist only in your mind.

I am just picking your theories apart.

I don't believe in any such race, I don't think they are racially similar to the Aryans

I don't think they are Aryans.

I don't even think they exist.

So you are supporting Aryan 2 with religious, language and cultural differences and all. All you are debating is if they came together or separately. Right?

If you want me to present my interpretation then here it is:

Romilla is arguing against the USE of the word Dasyu to support the invasionary scenario. She is arguing that there is no different race hence the violence between the two groups is not indicative of an outside race coming in and taking over instead this story is just telling of violence in between the two groups which live along side each other.

If you want to suggest that Romilla is arguing that the Aryans came in and took over from people who were racially similar to them, racially similar people who came to India a lot earlier then that is fine with me.

BUT if you want to present that as a candidate for our little task then you need to provide me support of Historians supporting such a scenario not just presenting it (under your interpretation) alongside many other explanations provided for the word Dasyu.

r. Will you give up and accept defeat on count of ten or will I need to remind you.

Guess I will have to paste what I wrote earlier

Let's see who is getting desperate

Moumotta: I did not say all
Moumotta:‘Not all dalits living in forests’ (or jungle as you insist on calling it) is your theory, not mine.


Moumotta:How do you get people who are not racially and appearance wise different from Aryans.
Moumotta:For the n’th time you came up with same race by misinterpreting a Romial quote.

Moumotta:European female genes were socially disadvantage
Moumotta:While the male factory was in over production where did Aryan females go????

Quote:
Having lost repeatedly on every point


Let's see who has lost repeatedly

Moumotta:I made up 1 in 20. What else did I make up.

MoumottaK so I didn't exactly answer your question.

Moumotta:This was a mistake. Thanks for picking it up. Now bash me as much as you can.

Moumotta:We know that a small fraction of Indian mtDNA lineages (<10%)
Moumottaut of the 10%, majority are farmers. The remaining are lineages so that will explain their being equal to over 30% of population.

How long do you think you can avoid answering my questions?? This is getting beyond pathetic

1.1) Who supports your theory of people racially similar to Aryans coming to India pre 4000 BC? NOT PEOPLE WHO SUGGEST IT AS PER YOUR INTERPRETATION but historians who support this scenario.

1.2) What was the culture of these people?

1.3) Which Historian has worked on these people?

1.4) Other than your mind do they exist in any books?


2.1) Does the farmers migration answer the TASK? Did the farmer's migration come through Belarus, Ukraine, Poland?

2.2) IF NOT then do you agree that this is a red herring and you have been arguing it just to prolong the debate?

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

• You seem to have put your sissy fit behind you which is very good news.
• Once again you avoided the two questions which will end your struggle, the two sets of questions above. You have been avoiding them for a good 7 posts
• I answered how Iran's results can be explained by the Aryans only taking over parts of it. You tried to prove how they took over south Iran but failed miserably
• You want me to prove something DIDN't HAPPEN. To prove the irrationality of the request I would like you to prove that I have NOT just smoked a cigar.

You need to answer the following, DON'T FORGET TO ANSWER THIS TIME

• Do the farmer's migration satisfy the Belarus, Ukraine and Poland test? If not then do you admit that you have taken the argument off track with a red herring?
• Which historian supports the theory of a race similar to the Aryans yet not ARYAN coming to India in the time frame we are concerned with?

PS: Any comments on the following LIE of YOURS???

Moumotta: I called it Mediterranean because that’s what it is called in the reference I quoted. Don’t multiply your embarrassment.

Hemphill, Lukacs, and Kennedy have found skeletal evidence for a discontinuity between the Stage One and the Mehrgarh III inhabitants. The Togau population shares important affinities with the individuals in the Mature Harappan Cemetary R-37 at Harappa, which, taken together, "bear close affinities to populations from the west, that is, from the Iranian Plateau and the Near East".(37) Lukacs feels that the Stage One population at Mehrgarh shared little with this western population, but had features pointing to a biological heritage to the east of the Subcontinent." Page 35 Gregory Possehl, The Indus Civilization A Contemporary Perspective.

Now let's see our conversation on the above topic

Wazeeri: I think Mediterrenean is going a bit further West

Moumotta: Please check list of countries included in Mediterrenean. Not all of them are in far west.

Wazeeri: Yes but having been involved in discussions with you I know you are going to creep in how Mediterrenean includes all the european countries this discussion is related to hoping that I never catch it. That was a preemptive strike.

Moumotta: If you thought there was any chance of my claiming Mediterranean includes all European countries then you would have let me make that claim,

Wazeeri :Let's ignore the fact that you introduced the word Mediterrenean which includes a dozen extra countries other than the ones mention in the paper.

Moumotta: I called it Mediterranean because that’s what it is called in the reference I quoted.

Comments please.

 

[sticky wicket]

wazeeri man i work with software developers and generally you will find that it is the Indian ones who will wriggle like snakes rather than admit that there is a bug in their code. Anyway this quote may be of use to you:

"never argue with an idiot. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

 

[moumotta]

Wazeeri,

As your material is diminishing your posts are getting longer, more ornamental and more numerous. All poor substitutes for substance.

You are shooting in all directions except on target.

You have stopped substantiating your claims and turned wriggling in an art form.

What is worse you have resorted to clear cut distortions and deception.

Here is the latest example.

Wazeeri= KURDS

One of the most cited works is an article by a British scholar G. R. Driver. The scholar finds early mention of the word Kurd in Sumerian clay tablet from 3rd millennium B.C

Moumotta= Wazeeri, Here is the full quote including the last sentence you left out that totally rubbishes your argument.

One of the most cited works is an article by a British scholar G. R. Driver. The scholar finds early mention of the word Kurd in Sumerian clay tablet from 3rd millennium B.C., on which a land of Kar-da or Qar-da was inscribed. This land was the region of the south of Lake Van (in eastern Turkey) inhabited by the people of "Su" who were connected with the Qur-ti-e, a group of mountain dwellers. The evidence though is too inconclusive to rely on.

http://www.nineveh.com/Assyria or Kurdistan.html


Please explain why you truncated the quote to leave out such important information that totally rubbishes your point.

I am sure you understand the significance of what I am asking and its implications. I gave you a chance to respond.

Here is your reply:

Wazeeri= Nice to see you still can't follow a debate.,

The point being that the quote you provided declared races as Aryans when no one knows of their origins.

But i understand anything is good enough for a desperate man.

Now how does your answer explain your clear cut attempt at deception. You are intelligent enough to understand that your answer has nothing to do with the question. Your answer is stupid enough as it is. The fact that it is hoping to cover up deception just makes it more lame.

Even Worse, you had a chance to admit and apologise like a man. You blew it.

Let us see what you did and how it reflects on you.

You copied a quote but left out a line that totally changes the meaning of the quote. You couldn’t have missed it. It is in the same para and separated by just one line.

To complete your deception you decided not to post a link. When you were copying the quote how difficult was it to copy a link. You avoided that hoping that I will never find it and you can continue your merry way.

You failed to provide any link, certain that I will never find it out.

You refused to face up to it when questioned.

If this is not cheating what is it.

You have been caught red handed.

Yes, Caught Cheating RED HANDED.



Put that on top of the Super Rumble Board.

 

[moumotta]

While you do not reply to my questions, I will do the right thing and reply even though no replies are due until we have tested the route of your preferred migration.

Do the farmer's migration satisfy the Belarus, Ukraine and Poland test? If not then do you admit that you have taken the argument off track with a red herring?

What is the test. What I can see from our discussions is
1) there are two points on the map. East Europe and North India. There is no route, just two points.
2) We are told that there is a route but it has been diluted.

With that information how do you conclude where from these migrations happened.
(1) From East Europe to India (Aryan),
(2) from India to East, or
(3) from a third place to both India and East Europe. A third place that has since been diluted.

The third possibility is interesting and is totally in line with your arguments that continuous people movement can dilute genetics to any level. If these migrations started in fertile crescent, they could well be farmer migrations-

You can offcourse challenge that if you can substantiate that farmer migrations to Baluchsitan finished in 9000 BP.

Which historian supports the theory of a race similar to the Aryans yet not ARYAN coming to India in the time frame we are concerned with?

Let me say any West Eurasian people will satisfy the similar appearance, dissimilar culture, language and religious practice requirement.

I wonder which historians support West Eurasian migrations.

PS: Any comments on the following LIE of YOURS???

Moumotta: I called it Mediterranean because that’s what it is called in the reference I quoted. Don’t multiply your embarrassment.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA107,M1

Read about 10 lines from bottom.

‘The second or Mediterranean type of skull ..... ’

This was in my draft but got left out in final post. If this is lying then you know what intentionally deceptive quotes should be called. You can find the right words to describe it. Meanwhile I will call it cheating.


If you want to continue discussion all you have to do is pick my questions and answer them honestly.

 

[Wazeeri]

Now how does your answer explain your clear cut attempt at deception. You are intelligent enough to understand that your answer has nothing to do with the question. Your answer is stupid enough as it is. The fact that it is hoping to cover up deception just makes it more lame.

Moumotta you are now searching for crumbs.
Even the full quote supports my POV being that their origins are not known.

Poor state to be in, I seriously have started to pity you.

While you do not reply to my questions, I will do the right thing and reply even though no replies are due until we have tested the route of your preferred migration.

You do not get tired of lying and getting embarrassed?
Which question of yours have I not answered?

With that information how do you conclude where from these migrations happened.
(1) From East Europe to India (Aryan),
(2) from India to East, or
(3) from a third place to both India and East Europe. A third place that has since been diluted.

Another extremely poor attempt at wriggling out of the question.
We don't know whether these people came from a comletely different place.
We don't know what has been dilluted.

What we do know is that a significant population in these areas is pointing to a presence of a common race. We know areas where their population is not significantly dilluted, hence who ever these people were, they managed to settle in these areas,

The question is who fits the bill, not every single minute possibility out there.

Let me say any West Eurasian people will satisfy the similar appearance, dissimilar culture, language and religious practice requirement.

I wonder which historians support West Eurasian migrations.

So all West Eurasians look the same??
So an Iraqi looks the same as a polish?

Poor Poor attempt.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...esult#PPA107,M1

Read about 10 lines from bottom.

‘The second or Mediterranean type of skull ..... ’

This was in my draft but got left out in final post. If this is lying then you know what intentionally deceptive quotes should be called. You can find the right words to describe it. Meanwhile I will call it cheating.

LIE ONCE AGAIN



You don't give up do you?

The first book you quoted was The Indus Civilisation by Gregory L Possehi

Then you went to search for any book which speaks of mediterranian skulls and you found

Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilization By John Marshall, John Hubert Marshall Sir, Asian Educational Services

You probably thought that just because both books have the word Indus Civilsation I will fall for it

Once again no answer to my question even though I highlighted it

You just desperately tried to find something which could counter the fact that I have shown you to be a liar.

Does the farmer's migration satisfy the Belarus, Ukraine, Poland test ie does it come from these areas?
If not do you agree that you have taken this discussion off track by introducing this red herring or atleast continuing with it for the last 10 or so posts?

 

[moumotta]

Moumotta you are now searching for crumbs.
Even the full quote supports my POV being that their origins are not known.

Poor state to be in, I seriously have started to pity you.

Full quote merely says that it is not conclusive. The point is not what other evidence you had or could find. The point is that instead of making an honest attempt at justifying your position you tried to cheat your way.

You are caught cheating. Caught red handed. It shows you could adopt any lowly tactics to win an argument.

Yet you think it does not matter. You think it is crumbs.

It is not crumbs mate. It is a full gourmet spread.

It is something you will have to live with in this thread and in your future debates with every one.

Live with the reputation that Wazeeri was caught cheating.

Another extremely poor attempt at wriggling out of the question.
We don't know whether these people came from a comletely different place.
We don't know what has been dilluted.

What we do know is that a significant population in these areas is pointing to a presence of a common race. We know areas where their population is not significantly dilluted, hence who ever these people were, they managed to settle in these areas,

The question is who fits the bill, not every single minute possibility out there.

Keep struggling. Wake me up when you can show who does not fit the bill.

So all West Eurasians look the same??
So an Iraqi looks the same as a polish?

Poor Poor attempt.

Your logical skills have deserted you. Happens when one is flustered.

Does an Indian descendent of your preferred migrants look the same as a Polish?

Dilution, my dear Sir. Dilution is the magic world.

The first book you quoted was The Indus Civilisation by Gregory L Possehi

Then you went to search for any book which speaks of mediterranian skulls and you found

Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilization By John Marshall, John Hubert Marshall Sir, Asian Educational Services.

You are hilarious. )

I told you it was left out.

What you are suggesting is that I conjured a fictitious reference to Mediterranean Skulls in my dream factory.

I had no idea what I was talking about and totally out of context I dreamt of Mediterranean Skulls.

When challenged I went searching for a reference to Mediterranean Skulls in Indian archaeology.

Hey Presto, I found it. Ain’t I lucky, should buy a lottery ticket.

Yet another of your fall flat moments.

The fact that you even challenged me on it shows you know nothing about archaeology of Indus Valley.

Once again no answer to my question even though I highlighted it

You just desperately tried to find something which could counter the fact that I have shown you to be a liar.

I can’t figure out what this refers to. What question and what liar.

You are creating too many highlights to please your self and confuse others.

If a question is left out, point out rather than make vague references.

Does the farmer's migration satisfy the Belarus, Ukraine, Poland test ie does it come from these areas?

If not do you agree that you have taken this discussion off track by introducing this red herring or at least continuing with it for the last 10 or so posts?

This has been replied earlier but let me re-explain.

Tell me again what is the test and why does it have to come from these areas.

Why can’t both East Europe and India have received their genes from a third place.

After your stand in last few posts any migration from West Eurasia or Mediterranean should satisfy the test.

You do not get tired of lying and getting embarrassed?
Which question of yours have I not answered?

You think that by merely quoting my questions followed by some irrelevant rumble, you can give the impression that you are answering questions. Let us look at your answers and what they convey.

The study shows 20% European mix in lower castes which is well below upper castes.
You have admitted that many of the lower castes were forest tribes who were added later.

If that is the case then what value is added by the study showing that they have lower European proportion.

Wow! So you are not going answer my question.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY DILLUTION.

Do you think that you will miss out my points and I will not notice.
You are stuck my friend either answer the question or admit that you have once again made a BIG GAFFE

Why are you hiding behind dilution.

Regardless of what the opening mix of Panchamas was, and they show about 20% so it is not as if there is no European mix in them, so regardless of their starting position- 0% or 50%, continued injection of tribal blood would mean they will end up lower in the end. Do you agree with that or do you want to keep avoiding an answer.

When did I say Aryans killed their daughters. Please show. Remember no spin doctoring, no second hand interpretations. Show me saying Aryans killed their daughters or admit to misquoting my comment

Moumotta post number 4 in this very thread
Aryans had a preference for male child. The preference continues in India today with added economic compulsions. In ancient times it was a religious and cultural preference. Proper ritual funeral could only be performed by a son, death anniversaries could only be performed by sons. A son was a passport to a better after-life. Did this preference lead to a lower survival ratio for females.

Don't try to void the point that you were at one point arguing that Aryan women were less likely to pass on their genes.

I did tell you no second hand interpretations.

You do understand the difference between killing and dying from lower care. I understand your penchant to re-interpret and second guess comments but don’t try to portray as if your interpretations came from my mouth.

Embarrassed?

Was Iran really en-route this migration or is the 10% merely a spill over from neighbouring India?

Or only part of Iran was fully consolidated.

Which part. You had admitted you had no genetic information for any part of Iran.

 

[Wazeeri]

Live with the reputation that Wazeeri was caught cheating.

Moumotta Moumotta Moumotta

So I prove that you lied on numerous occassions and all you could come up with was the fact that i quoted half a paragraph

EVEN THOUGH HALF A PARAGRAPH AND THE FULL PARAGRAPH BOTH SUPPORT MY POSITION

You are desperate my friend and like I said you are now worthy of pity.

Does an Indian descendent of your preferred migrants look the same as a Polish?

Not after 4000 years
You are making a joke out of yourself.

What you are suggesting is that I conjured a fictitious reference to Mediterranean Skulls in my dream factory

Awww Moumotta gets caught lying and is now equipped with nothing but random sentences and smilies for his aid.

POOR POOR STATE TO BE IN.

I can’t figure out what this refers to. What question and what liar.

The question followed the highlight Genius.

Why can’t both East Europe and India have received their genes from a third place.

Because common sense dictates that the two places with the biggest results must have been two of the strongest holds of these races and hence the most likely places to launch invasions and migrations from.

Ocfourse common sense is rejected up here because you are in a corner and you need obscure possibilities to support your stand.

Anyway let's take you up on this.
1) What is this third place?
2) When did this split occur?
3) Do you have any references from papers of Historians suggesting such a split or categorising this migration?

If not then do you accept that this can be slotted into the category of a migration which the historians have not categorised yet?

Regardless of what the opening mix of Panchamas was, and they show about 20% so it is not as if there is no European mix in them, so regardless of their starting position- 0% or 50%, continued injection of tribal blood would mean they will end up lower in the end. Do you agree with that or do you want to keep avoiding an answer.

Once again who are these tree people dilluting?

Are you suggesting that some of the Aryans were added to the Panchama race and then the repeat introduction of the tree people into their community dilluted them?

If not then the tree people are essentially just reproducing with their own kind. So where is the dillution?

You don't have an ounce of common sense and that is why you keep on making these howlers.

Get some clarity my friend.

I did tell you no second hand interpretations.

You do understand the difference between killing and dying from lower care. I understand your penchant to re-interpret and second guess comments but don’t try to portray as if your interpretations came from my mouth.

Embarrassed?

) What a cop out.

WHY ARE YOU NOT COMMENING ON THE FACT THAT YOU FIRST TRIED TO EXPLAIN WHY THERE WERE LESS ARYAN FEMALES THEN MALES AND NOW YOU ARE QUESTIONING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE MALE TO FEMALE RATIO TO SOMEHOW DERIVE A FAULT?????

Please comment.

You have such a short memory, you can't even remember what you started off arguing

Which part. You had admitted you had no genetic information for any part of Iran.

Wow that is one intelligent comment after another.

Which part??????
For the millionth time NORTH EAST IRAN as described in the AVESTA

I am trying to explain why Iran does not have as high a percentage.
If I had the breakdown I would show you why Iran does not have as high a percentage.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

Your State

• You have been reduced to petty fights and avoiding of any points, a real shame.
• Your lie has been caught again and again and all you could come up with is "Oh Sorry I forgot"

Your arguments

• You made a mistake of agreeing that the Aryans are a possibility, now you are trying to totally reject them because you are left with little options.
• You insist that I go an do further genetic tests on Iran to confirm what the genetic data suggests.
• I provided references from the Zorostrian religious book pointing only to Northern Iran. You tried to prove that all of Iran was taken over FAILED
• You tried to induce a standard error into the Farmer's migration, you showed complete lack of understanding of the whole concept and eventually that lead to you making an EMBARRASSING HOWLER which you had to admit.
• You have been avoiding my questions for the last dozen posts and finally when I embarrass you into answering them you reduce your arguments to a distinct possibility not confirmed or recognised by the historians.
• You started the debate off by trying to explain why there are more Aryan males then females. You argued that Aryans neglected their daughters hence they died and they married women from outside of the race. NOW YOU ARE ASKING WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, you completely forgot what you started off arguing.

Where the argument stands

• ARYANS -
  We both agree this is a possibility (even though you have started to question it to save face)
• ARYAN 2 -
  I think you have made this up.
  You have not provided any support from historians and you keep on dodging this question.
• Farmer's migration
  I don't think this is relevant to the debate, it is 5000 years out and entering India from a completely different route.
  You have been avoiding questions regarding this for ages now but your last post seems to suggest that this is another possible migration which the historians haven't studied yet.
• A migration we do not know off yet
  We both agree that this is a possibility

So we really have only two possibilities
ARYANS
or
A migration which the historians are yet to counter,

You support the latter because that is the least irrational option open to you.

 

[moumotta]

You have been reduced to petty fights and avoiding of any points, a real shame.

Don’t blame me. It is obvious that knowing full well you were losing the debate you started trying to win it on ‘technical count’. Unsure of your arguments you tried to make up for it by other means.

Double and triple postings aside, your posts turned more feral and more pedantic, substance reduced and ornamentation increased. You started screaming in bigger and bigger font sizes and multiple colours.

I even tried to withdraw from this useless style of debate but you provoked me back in to it.

Your lie has been caught again and again and all you could come up with is "Oh Sorry I forgot"

Wazeeri, when I make a mistake I admit it. I don’t try to wriggle my way out or try to change the topic.

All you had in defence is ‘So what, it was a half quote’. An intentional half quote that changes the meaning altogether.

Heard about the guy who was using religious support for his debased life style.
He quoted, “You drink, You gamble, You indulge in fornication” from his book to justify his behaviour.
The very next line read, “you will burn in hell’, a half quote that totally changes the meaning.

A silly joke but shows well that half quotes that change the meaning in full are a dangerous thing in the hands of manipulative people.

You made a mistake of agreeing that the Aryans are a possibility, now you are trying to totally reject them because you are left with little options.

I agreed they were a possibility. You said they were the main possibility. Naturally I wouldn’t be as supportive of it as you even though you struggle to back your support.

Having said they were the main possibility you are now trying to argue as if they are the only possibility. You are the one who needs to explain the inconsistency in your stand.

You insist that I go an do further genetic tests on Iran to confirm what the genetic data suggests.

Cop it sweet, my friend. You live in your make believe world of mis-interpretations and try to put them in other people’s mouths. I never asked you to do any tests.

If anything I did point out very early that we can’t always find evidence for things that happened so far back in time. You ridiculed the suggestion claiming all lack of evidence goes in your favour.

I just showed you how it does not always go one way. If you don’t have it just say you don’t have evidence to support your claims. No need to act like a chhui-mui mimosa.

I provided references from the Zorostrian religious book pointing only to Northern Iran. You tried to prove that all of Iran was taken over FAILED

Obviously wrong. Your argument fails on so many counts.

You had no data for any part of Iran.

I showed you Baluch in South Iran. I showed you central Iran. Your only argument is they have been mixed and are not pure Aryans. As if you have anything to support existence of 100% Aryans in north Iran.

I also showed you India also has a south that was very thinly populated by Aryans and yet India show 30% ‘East European’ count.

Fact is that you have shot yourself in the foot on Iran. You have argued against every point that you now need to counter ‘dilution at source’.

You tried to induce a standard error into the Farmer's migration, you showed complete lack of understanding of the whole concept and eventually that lead to you making an EMBARRASSING HOWLER which you had to admit.

You are still trying to win on techical points. I wouldn't bother listing your howlers and classic quotes as the one most recent is enough to disqualify you on points.

That aside, don’t you wish you could also admit your mistakes. You have been trying to wuss your way out of bigger mistakes and charges of cheating rather than accept them. Different people, different characters.

You have been avoiding my questions for the last dozen posts and finally when I embarrass you into answering them you reduce your arguments to a distinct possibility not confirmed or recognised by the historians.

Presence of different races in Indus Valley has been noted by archaeologists and their findings have been reported by historians.

You started the debate off by trying to explain why there are more Aryan males then females. You argued that Aryans neglected their daughters hence they died and they married women from outside of the race. NOW YOU ARE ASKING WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, you completely forgot what you started off arguing.

This is even stevens. You were the one saying that lower female ratios are evidence of all male army and telling me all the while that my arguments don’t make any sense.

Good to see that you changed ‘killed’ to ‘neglected’. Thanks.

ARYANS -
We both agree this is a possibility (even though you have started to question it to save face)

Has been answered above.

ARYAN 2 -
I think you have made this up.
You have not provided any support from historians and you keep on dodging this question.

I am not sure if you are merely trying to hold on to your stand or are really finding it hard to understand. The reference was to people who did not have visibly different features to attract comments in Vedas. These could be the ‘Mediterranean skull’ people of Indus Valley Civilisation or an earlier Aryan migration that has been noticed in some parts of Iran in 3rd century BC and may have made their way to India.

Farmer's migration
I don't think this is relevant to the debate, it is 5000 years out and entering India from a completely different route.
You have been avoiding questions regarding this for ages now but your last post seems to suggest that this is another possible migration which the historians haven't studied yet.

It has been established that migrations from West Eurasian countries did occur before Aryans arrived in 2nd century BC.

There are traces of early Aryan migrations in third century BC in Iran. These are timed well before the authors of Vedas and Avesta moved in Iran and India.

There are also migrations of farmers after 9000 BP. It has been established that migrations continued and around 6000 BP there was a change in the features of the population- as a newer people, Mediterraneans started arriving. They were quite a sizeable proportion of Indus Valley Civilisations.

These people lived in farming communities. If you don’t want to call them farmers and want to give them some other name because it contradicts your stand then do so.

·

A migration we do not know off yet
We both agree that this is a possibility

See above. There are migrations that we know of from archaeological evidence.

So we really have only two possibilities
ARYANS
or
A migration which the historians are yet to counter,

You support the latter because that is the least irrational option open to you.

More Wazeeri speak. See above.

Where we stand now

The task to show alternative migrations has been accomplished. There will never be any 100% answer with definite evidence. They all have to be possibilities including your Aryan theory.

Rather than continue with this feral debate taht has lost its intellectual edge long ago, I will like to close it at this point.

If you don’t agree then we will just have to disagree.

 

[Wazeeri]

Moumotta

I have had my fun with exposing your lies and contradictions. I would continue reminding you but that only prolongs the debate.

All you had in defence is ‘So what, it was a half quote’. An intentional half quote that changes the meaning altogether.

You are implying that if I was to post the full quote that would somehow defeat my point and hence I didn't post it.

Even the full quote supports my position as well.

This is nothing but desperation my friend. You just wish I made gaffes as big as yours or lies as big as yours so you could try and get some respect back by dragging me down as well.

Having said they were the main possibility you are now trying to argue as if they are the only possibility.

Once again your inconsistency is exposed and instead of explaining yourself you deseprately try to find a way of accusing me of irrationality.

If I was claiming Aryans as the ONLY possibility would I mention that I accept that migrations which we havn't yet studied or discovered being a possibility in every single summary for the past thousand posts.

I just showed you how it does not always go one way. If you don’t have it just say you don’t have evidence to support your claims. No need to act like a chhui-mui mimosa.

Moumotta if you wanted to discuss something sensibly you wouldn't have been asking childishly for breakdowns of studies you know aren't available.

What is the percentage in Khorosan
What is the percentage in the areas of Russia bordering Belarus
....etc are questions only someone who knows he las lost all other avenues of debate would ask.

I showed you Baluch in South Iran. I showed you central Iran. Your only argument is they have been mixed and are not pure Aryans. As if you have anything to support existence of 100% Aryans in north Iran.

Putting words in my mouth, 100% in Northern Iran. Very poor attempt.

Ps: Baloch has been answered and central Iran (that too North) is not all of modern day Iran hence it would have been sensible to accept my point that not all of modern day Iran was taken over.

I also showed you India also has a south that was very thinly populated by Aryans and yet India show 30% ‘East European’ count.

And what does that have anything to do with it?
Once again why should there be parity between two different lands?

Fact is that you have shot yourself in the foot on Iran. You have argued against every point that you now need to counter ‘dilution at source’.

Fact is Moumotta that you have not made one coherent argument against my points.

You made a comment in your last post about how you accept when you make a mistake.

So far you made a claim without checking first regarding the aryans conquering all of Iran you tried to prove that all of Iran was taken over.
All you could find was three links which mentioned a provice in North Central Iran, South Russia and provinces in North of Iran.

Then after I repeatedly heckled you for not even trying to tackle my other argument you searched frantically for anything on the internet which would show that most of the Iranians were of Aryan descent.
All you could manage was ONE website which claims that most Iranians are descendants of Aryans, NO BIBLIOGRAPHY, NO REFERENCES. Then we found that the origins of 3 of the four of these races was mixed or unknown.

You didn't really accept your mistake here did you?

That aside, don’t you wish you could also admit your mistakes. You have been trying to wuss your way out of bigger mistakes and charges of cheating rather than accept them. Different people, different characters.

Please list them so I can apologise to you one by one

All you have so far is me not posting a full paragraph even though both half a paragraph and a full paragraph support my claim.

Presence of different races in Indus Valley has been noted by archaeologists and their findings have been reported by historians.

What a wishy washy answer which means absolutely nothing.
If you are talking of the differences in skull types then an explained to you, this is not the farmer's migration. A lot of historians hold these people to be Aryans.

So even your mysterious skulls have atleast one path which leads to the Aryans.

Now seeing that you can't answer the question directly can we conclude that all of your theories can be slotted into the category of "Migrations which we haven't identified, categorised or studied yet?".

This is even stevens. You were the one saying that lower female ratios are evidence of all male army and telling me all the while that my arguments don’t make any sense.

Even Stevens ???

Awwwwwwww! Do you want a hug

No it isn't even stevens because I am not arguing that whole of India was taken over by males only and neither am I arguing that there is some irregularity between 30% Aryan male population and 10% female lineage.

What happened to accepting your mistake?

The reference was to people who did not have visibly different features to attract comments in Vedas. These could be the ‘Mediterranean skull’ people of Indus Valley Civilisation or an earlier Aryan migration that has been noticed in some parts of Iran in 3rd century BC and may have made their way to India.

When you say could haves do you mean that historians have not identified such a migration?

If so can we slot this into the magic slot of "we don't know?"

It has been established that migrations from West Eurasian countries did occur before Aryans arrived in 2nd century BC.

Through Poland, Belarus, Ukraine?????

There are traces of early Aryan migrations in third century BC in Iran. These are timed well before the authors of Vedas and Avesta moved in Iran and India.

These people were insignificant in Iran how many of them moved to India and did they all manage to extablish an Agrarian soceity before the Aryans got there?

As we have found evidence of them arriving in Iran 5000 years ago. Has any Historian presented similar evidence of India?

If not would it be right to slot this into the magic slot?

It has been established that migrations continued and around 6000 BP

WRONG

It has been established that certain crops moved from Balochistan into mainland India.
The most sensible conclusion is that the populations at Mehrgarh took them forward.

If you are arguing that a race from Eastern Europe came and overtook the Mehrgarh population then this is a distinct MIGRATION.

Do we know of any Eastern European migration which travelled westwards faster(many magnitudes) than all of the other farmer populations and they beat the Balochis into India?

Do we have any support of this from any historian?

If not would it be right to place this is in the magic slot?


SUMMARY

We have two answers left even though Moumotta doesn't accept it

1) ARYANS

or

2) A MIGRATION WHICH THE HISTORIANS ARE YET TO STUDY, A MIGRATION WE DO NOT YET KNOW OFF.

Moumotta accepts Aryans but prefers the 2nd option.

Wazeeri supports Aryans and accepts the possibility of a race we haven't discovered yet.

When you know of a migration and the evidence supports it, it is more sensible to opt for something that is staring you in the face rather than all minute possibilities.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

We have two answers left even though Moumotta doesn't accept it

1) ARYANS​

OR

2) A MIGRATION WHICH THE HISTORIANS ARE YET TO STUDY, A MIGRATION WE DO NOT YET KNOW OFF.​

​

Moumotta accepts Aryans but prefers the 2nd option.

Wazeeri supports Aryans and accepts the possibility of a race we haven't discovered yet.

When you know of a migration and the evidence supports it, it is more sensible to opt for something that is staring you in the face rather than all minute possibilities.

 

[moumotta]

You are implying that if I was to post the full quote that would somehow defeat my point and hence I didn't post it.

Even the full quote supports my position as well.

I am not implying, I am saying that you cheated by not quoting the full reference and hiding your link.. You are just trying to deflect the issue by claiming that you did not benefit from it.

You intended to prove that the name Kurd goes back to pre-Aryan times. You quoted a reference showing the existence of a tablet dating back to 3rd millennium B.C. You hid the source of the quote to cover your tracks but I found it and the very same paragraph said the evidence was not conclusive.

If an evidence is not conclusive it should be cast aside. In your desperation, you are now claiming that a reference that should be discarded proves your point. How unashamed can one get in pursuit of a victory in debate.

Cheating is about intent and action, not consequences. Even if you did not benefit, which itself is a false statement, your intent and action are sufficient to prove that you cheated.

You know that your defence will not last one minute in a real life situation and you have done permanent damage to your reputation. You know it well.

If I was claiming Aryans as the ONLY possibility would I mention that I accept that migrations which we havn't yet studied or discovered being a possibility in every single summary for the past thousand posts.

That’s another inconsistency. You want evidence for everything yet you are suggesting that you support an alternate answer about which you know nothing.

Can you explain why you think there is another possibility about which we know nothing.

How many migrations have been discovered by their race before Aryans.

Moumotta if you wanted to discuss something sensibly you wouldn't have been asking childishly for breakdowns of studies you know aren't available.

What is the percentage in Khorosan
What is the percentage in the areas of Russia bordering Belarus
....etc are questions only someone who knows he las lost all other avenues of debate would ask.

Keep that in mind when you ask me for evidence.

I showed you Baluch in South Iran. I showed you central Iran. Your only argument is they have been mixed and are not pure Aryans. As if you have anything to support existence of 100% Aryans in north Iran.

Putting words in my mouth, 100% in Northern Iran. Very poor attempt.

Really!!. A comment that begins with ‘As if’ is putting words in your mouth. Very poor attempt indeed!!

Get you comprehension tested. Just because you have been caught trying to put words in my mouth does not mean you can accuse me of the same. You have to try harder to get even.

Ps: Baloch has been answered

This is what you quoted.

Baluchi : Neither should one object on these methods for historical research, nor doubt the fact that there had been an admixture of various people with Baloch like the Scythians, Pathians, Ashkanis, Sakas, Kushans, Huns, Turks and many others; nor contest the proposition that Baloch, culturally, were greatly influenced by Tigris-Euphrates civilization at different stages of history. " {Janmahmad

All your answer mentioned was is Baluch have over time mixed with various people. Where does it confirm that there was no Aryan in Baluch.

central Iran (that too North) is not all of modern day Iran hence it would have been sensible to accept my point that not all of modern day Iran was taken over.

Pedantics my dear friend. The very next line you quoted shows me saying that India was also not taken over completely by Aryans and yet you keep harping on it as if not being completely taken over some how justifies it being enroute with low ratio.

And what does that have anything to do with it?
Once again why should there be parity between two different lands?

Fact is Moumotta that you have not made one coherent argument against my points.

You made a comment in your last post about how you accept when you make a mistake.

So far you made a claim without checking first regarding the aryans conquering all of Iran you tried to prove that all of Iran was taken over.
All you could find was three links which mentioned a provice in North Central Iran, South Russia and provinces in North of Iran.

Then after I repeatedly heckled you for not even trying to tackle my other argument you searched frantically for anything on the internet which would show that most of the Iranians were of Aryan descent.
All you could manage was ONE website which claims that most Iranians are descendants of Aryans, NO BIBLIOGRAPHY, NO REFERENCES. Then we found that the origins of 3 of the four of these races was mixed or unknown.

You didn't really accept your mistake here did you?

Here is more Wazeeri speak.

Did I make a claim or did I try to prove it. Please quote what your are referring to so I can be saved the torture of decoding your garbled comments.

Your description of my frantic searches is hilarious. Can you also check in your crystal ball and tell us if Laden is alive.

As I said Iran has been a disaster for you. The straw that broke camel’s back.

Did I say this.

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.

Here is more to complete your disastrous experience on Iran.

A great god is Ahuramazda, who created this earth, who created yonder sky, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Darius king, one king of many, one lord of many.

I am Darius the great king, king of kings, king of countries containing all kinds of men, king in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.

http://www.livius.org/da-dd/darius/darius_i_t01.html
​

An Aryan king worshipping an Avesta God.

and here is his Achaemenid Empire extending from India to Macedonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire.jpg

Please list them so I can apologise to you one by one

Where would I start.

Rama Ravana mythological war imposing Rama worship on a Ravana worshipping population or

when you argued ‘If abortion is the answer then the dillution needs to take into account the killing of babies from the lower caste women brought in, in previous periods’ and then when questioned backed out of any further discussion or

your 1 geneticist Vs about 12 comment or

when you asked ‘Are you suggesting that I am casting aspersions on Kivisild's character?’ Followed by ‘Fair enough’ the next post or

your Iranian glitches when you agreed

Iran was a glitch and

aryans are considered to have been the leading race in Afghanistan and most of Iran​

and then tried to back out of it losing all credibility in the process.

However, before all of that you should apologise for
1. Cheating
2. Your constant attempts to put your words in my mouth

What a wishy washy answer which means absolutely nothing.
If you are talking of the differences in skull types then an explained to you, this is not the farmer's migration. A lot of historians hold these people to be Aryans.

So even your mysterious skulls have atleast one path which leads to the Aryans.

Please provide reference and explain what time frame are you talking about. Are we talking about the people of and skulls found in Indus Valley Civilisation times.

No it isn't even stevens because I am not arguing that whole of India was taken over by males only and neither am I arguing that there is some irregularity between 30% Aryan male population and 10% female lineage.

What happened to accepting your mistake?

There is an inconsistency between the male and female proportions. This is not a question of what you are arguing. Your opinion matters zilch compared to scholars.

I did quote that Aryan invasion of India did not make a major splash in the Indian gene pool. This is inconsistent with the study on males. The inconsistency in Vizag is more than a local phenomenon.

I tried to find an explanation in the context of Vizag study.

You also had an explanation based on all male army. One that you are trying to back out of now.

The problem still remains. It does not go away because you now prefer to ignore it. Lineage is a poor attempt to confuse the issue unless you argue that your squirming attempts are superior to scholars’ answers.

When you say could haves do you mean that historians have not identified such a migration?

Historians have identified the presence of Mediterranean skulls in India.

Through Poland, Belarus, Ukraine????? /

Why does it have to be through these countries.

These people were insignificant in Iran how many of them moved to India and did they all manage to extablish an Agrarian soceity before the Aryans got there?

As we have found evidence of them arriving in Iran 5000 years ago. Has any Historian presented similar evidence of India?

If not would it be right to slot this into the magic slot?

It is funny how you squirm and whinge every time I ask for evidence yet it does not stop you from asking for it from others for every thing that moves.

It has been established that certain crops moved from Balochistan into mainland India.
The most sensible conclusion is that the populations at Mehrgarh took them forward.

If you are arguing that a race from Eastern Europe came and overtook the Mehrgarh population then this is a distinct MIGRATION.

Do we know of any Eastern European migration which travelled westwards faster(many magnitudes) than all of the other farmer populations and they beat the Balochis into India?

Do we have any support of this from any historian?

If not would it be right to place this is in the magic slot?

You forgot the discussion we had on newer people appearing in later stage of Mehrgarh and in Indus Valley that counters your sensible answer. I never argued that they came from Eastern Europe. The sensible answer is that the necks carrying Mediterranean skulls came from Mediterranean.

However, if you want to call them a separate migration from farmers to show some scraps for your efforts than that is fine by me. However, having an archaeological evidence for them how can they be slotted in your mystery slot.

To end some general points.

1. It is your choice to make as many posts as you like if you feel that you haven’t been able to make your point in one post. However, please be aware that I can not guarantee they will all be read or answered. If you really want them answered then wait for your next turn.

2. I notice that you still try to summarise my views despite my pointing our that your attempts to put words in my mouth are not welcome. I will summarise my points when I want to. I don’t need your helping hand. Please refrain from doing so.

 

[Wazeeri]

Cheating is about intent and action, not consequences. Even if you did not benefit, which itself is a false statement, your intent and action are sufficient to prove that you cheated.

Moumotta

Do you realise how desperate you are coming off.

The best thing you have to argue is claiming that I hid something even though if I didn't hide it, it would still support my conclusion.

Can you explain why you think there is another possibility about which we know nothing.

How many migrations have been discovered by their race before Aryans.

You live in some other world.
Ancient history is not an exact science hence ofcourse there are other possibilities.

What I am arguing is that when you have one race staring you in the face it is more sensible to opt for it in your conclusion.

et you comprehension tested. Just because you have been caught trying to put words in my mouth does not mean you can accuse me of the same. You have to try harder to get even.

That is brilliant, Moumotta's new modus operandi.

If Wazeeri accuses me of something just reword it and accuse him of the same.
You have no arguments left.

All your answer mentioned was is Baluch have over time mixed with various people. Where does it confirm that there was no Aryan in Baluch.

A mixed ancestory means that counting the whole population as Aryan Origin is wrong.

AND when did I say that there is no possibility of any Aryan contributing to the Baloch genes?

If someone has mixed ancestory then you cannot use their whole population to counter the 10% result in Kivisild's paper.

Do you even have a point?

Pedantics my dear friend. The very next line you quoted shows me saying that India was also not taken over completely by Aryans and yet you keep harping on it as if not being completely taken over some how justifies it being enroute with low ratio.

The point Moumotta is very simple you just don't want to accept it because you have no arguments left and juvenile stabs in the dark is all you have.

India and Iran are two different countries, Aryans in both countries took up different customs and cultures, the host populations were different, the populations density of the countries was different.

When there are so many variables to consider we cannot justify claiming that both these countries should have the exact same results.

Did I make a claim or did I try to prove it.

Guess you enjoy being embarrassed.
Just to remind you why I am reproducing the quotes below, you are arguing that you never tried to prove that the Aryans took over all of Iran.

Moumotta : What you are trying to argue is that the Iranian branch remained stuck in northern region.


Moumotta : Here are some quotes that contradict your stuck in ‘Northern Shangrila’ theory.

Moumotta :This was a continued wave of invasion starting from Eurasian plains south of Russia and advancing into the south from two fronts.

Moumotta :My search also got me this. Funny, isn’t it.

Moumotta :Almost two-thirds of Iran's people are of Aryan origin

I am Darius the great king, king of kings, king of countries containing all kinds of men, king in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.

So Darius impregnated all of the women in the Iranian plateau

PS: Hitler also claims Aryan descent

Brilliant POINT. WELL DONE YOU DESERVE A SALUTE )

and here is his Achaemenid Empire extending from India to Macedonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire.jpg

) About 2000 years after the time we are speaking off.
DESPERATE DESPERATE MAN.

Rama Ravana mythological war imposing Rama worship on a Ravana worshipping population or Rama Ravana mythological war imposing Rama worship on a Ravana worshipping population or

when you argued ‘If abortion is the answer then the dillution needs to take into account the killing of babies from the lower caste women brought in, in previous periods’ and then when questioned backed out of any further discussion or

your 1 geneticist Vs about 12 comment or

when you asked ‘Are you suggesting that I am casting aspersions on Kivisild's character?’ Followed by ‘Fair enough’ the next post or

your Iranian glitches when you agreed

Iran was a glitch and

aryans are considered to have been the leading race in Afghanistan and most of Iran

and then tried to back out of it losing all credibility in the process.

However, before all of that you should apologise for
1. Cheating
2. Your constant attempts to put your words in my mouth

So I actually show you direct contradictions in your claims, I show you lies you have told and all you can come up with is

Arguments from another thread which we decided to stop debating
You showing me that I have attacked the character of a scientist
Some delusional belief that you have been able to answer the Iranian problem

You have done yourself no favours my good man.

Please provide reference and explain what time frame are you talking about. Are we talking about the people of and skulls found in Indus Valley Civilisation times.

Why do you need to be told something a 100 times?
Why don't you listen the first time?

HERE'S THE ANSWER FROM ANOTHER SOURCE DON'T ASK FOR IT AGAIN.

This is from the 2nd Book you quoted
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA107,M1

PAGE 107, READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH

Some writers have jumped hastily to the conclusion that they were Vedic-Aryans,

I did quote that Aryan invasion of India did not make a major splash in the Indian gene pool. This is inconsistent with the study on males. The inconsistency in Vizag is more than a local phenomenon.

This is more to do with your comprehension skills then anything else.
You have struggled with all the scientific data you have presented yourself.

And why do you keep on bringing up Visag after every two posts.

So far the pattern has gone like this.
You ask about the difference
You are given an explanation and explained how you are comparing completely different things
You then go quiet for a post or two
Then when you are out of points you ask again.

PS: the 10% MtDna and the 30% are both Kivisild's data. These are questions you should ask him. I can only argue with the data in front of me.

Historians have identified the presence of Mediterranean skulls in India.

Mediterranean TYPE OF skulls. Get the quote right.
PS: The the indus valley civ book is a bit more specific "Iranian Plateau and the Near East".

PSS: SOME SCHOLARS CLAIM THAT THESE PEOPLE WERE ARYANS

You forgot the discussion we had on newer people appearing in later stage of Mehrgarh and in Indus Valley that counters your sensible answer.

That is not the farmer's migration my friend,
The crops which came with the farmer's migration were complete by then.
This is a distinct migration which happened a few millenia later.
A migration which some historians link to the Aryans.

However, having an archaeological evidence for them how can they be slotted in your mystery slot.

Because they are still a mystery
Some scholars say they are Iron age Iranians / Sumerians or Aryans.



SUMMARY

Your/Moumotta's desperation

You have now nothing left but trying to discredit me after I caught out so many of your gaffes.

Your best attempt is claiming that I intentionally provided only half a paragraph when even the full one supports my argument.

TASK

• A migration between E Europe and India
• In between 3000 years and 5000 years.

Answers so far

Aryans
Believed to have come into Pakistan/India from the northwest
3700 years.

Farmer's migration
You have now given up on the Farmer's migration.
You are concentrating on the supposed anthropological differences between different indus valley civilisations in the later stages.
These difference are explained as Sumerian or ARYAN migrations.

ARYAN 2
After asking you for evidence repeatedly and you not providing it.
It seems you have finally given up on this.
Good for you, now we can move on a bit more sensibly.

Where do we stand
We now have ARYANS and mystery migratons which some historian believes are Aryans.

So once again
ARYANS
VS
MIGRATION WE ARE NOT SURE OFF





Your other stabs

You have been reduced to attacking the very report you presented yourself.
You think Kivisild;s comments re: 10% female lineages is contradictory to the 30% HG3 results for India.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

Your/Moumotta's desperation

You have now nothing left but trying to discredit me after I caught out so many of your gaffes.

Your best attempt is claiming that I intentionally provided only half a paragraph when even the full one supports my argument.

TASK

• A migration between E Europe and India
• In between 3000 years and 5000 years.

Answers so far

Aryans
Believed to have come into Pakistan/India from the northwest
3700 years.

Farmer's migration
You have now given up on the Farmer's migration.
You are concentrating on the supposed anthropological differences between different indus valley civilisations in the later stages.
These difference are explained as Sumerian or ARYAN migrations.

ARYAN 2
After asking you for evidence repeatedly and you not providing it.
It seems you have finally given up on this.
Good for you, now we can move on a bit more sensibly.

Where do we stand
We now have ARYANS and mystery migratons which some historian believes are Aryans.

So once again
ARYANS
VS
MIGRATION WE ARE NOT SURE OFF





Your other stabs

You have been reduced to attacking the very report you presented yourself.
You think Kivisild;s comments re: 10% female lineages is contradictory to the 30% HG3 results for India.

Then how can we forget you desperate attempt at coming back from the list I produced of your contradictions, lies and poor maths.

I produced quotes of you aplogising and all you could come up with was

• Me questioning the character of a scientist
• An argument we decided to leave
• And the ever famous Iran

IRAN

You asked why Iran has such a low percentage

I explained that not all of modern day Iran was taken over

You tried to prove that the aryans got to the south
YOU FAILED TO FIND ONE REFERENCE even though you tried to imply South of Russia = South of Iran

You tried to prove that most of Iranians are decsendants of Aryans to prove the 10% figure wrong.
YOU FAILED WHEN I SHOWED THAT PEOPLE BEING COUNTED IN YOUR FIGURES HAVE MIXED OR MYSTERIOUS ORIGINS

Ofcourse then you claimed that I only posted half a paragraph which somehow shows that I cheated even though the full paragraph supports my argument.
You are now a ver desperate man.

 

[moumotta]

The best thing you have to argue is claiming that I hid something even though if I didn't hide it, it would still support my conclusion.

Wazeeri, that is just shameless procrastination.

You know that you have done permanent damage to your reputation and this thread is fast becoming a nightmare for you.

You tried to show that the name Kurd goes back to pre-Aryan times. You quoted a reference showing the existence of a tablet dating back to 3rd millennium B.C. You hid the source of the quote to cover your tracks but I found it and the very same paragraph said the evidence was not conclusive.

If an evidence is not conclusive it should be cast aside. In your desperation, you were claiming that a reference that should be discarded proves your point.

Your defence that you did not benefit from cheating and the meaning of full quote is no different from half quote has crashed. It was never a meaningful defence any way.

All you are saying now is that hiding, intentionally hiding something and then trying to cover your tracks is OK. What world are you living in.

You live in some other world.
Ancient history is not an exact science hence ofcourse there are other possibilities.

Mark that for future.

What I am arguing is that when you have one race staring you in the face it is more sensible to opt for it in your conclusion.

We know that there are weaknesses with Aryan theory as well. Why do you want to adjust your bar to just let Aryans slip through and block others.

That is brilliant, Moumotta's new modus operandi.

If Wazeeri accuses me of something just reword it and accuse him of the same.
You have no arguments left.

Are you still accusing me of putting words in your mouth or is this just your back down style.

A mixed ancestory means that counting the whole population as Aryan Origin is wrong.

AND when did I say that there is no possibility of any Aryan contributing to the Baloch genes?

If someone has mixed ancestory then you cannot use their whole population to counter the 10% result in Kivisild's paper.

Do you even have a point?

The point? You agree that Aryans did reach South Iran.
All you are now arguing is that they mixed with other populations. How is that different from any where else- north Iran, India, East Europe.

The point Moumotta is very simple you just don't want to accept it because you have no arguments left and juvenile stabs in the dark is all you have.

India and Iran are two different countries, Aryans in both countries took up different customs and cultures, the host populations were different, the populations density of the countries was different.

When there are so many variables to consider we cannot justify claiming that both these countries should have the exact same results.

The point is very simple. The data does not support Iran enroute. The only argument you can hold now, without much evidence, is that they diluted to very small proportions for reasons that are vague.

Guess you enjoy being embarrassed.
Just to remind you why I am reproducing the quotes below, you are arguing that you never tried to prove that the Aryans took over all of Iran.

All you can quote is my challenge that Aryans moved beyond north Iran, a statement that you converted in a straw man to claim I was claiming aryans conquering all of Iran

As usual Wazeeri’s climb downs are spectacular. He keeps claiming victories while backing out big time.

So Darius impregnated all of the women in the Iranian plateau

PS: Hitler also claims Aryan descent

Brilliant POINT. WELL DONE YOU DESERVE A SALUTE )

) About 2000 years after the time we are speaking off.
DESPERATE DESPERATE MAN.

Are these even arguments or the incoherent jabber of a bewildered man who does not know what has hit him. As usual smilies take over where words fail Wazeeri.

In your bewilderment you can’t even get your math right, champ. A mid first millennium empire is not 2000 years after Aryan arrival in 2nd millennium BC.

Anyway, I did not realise that all your claims of Aryan confinement in north Iran only applied to the time before they moved south!!!. Its not too late to spell out your time scale now.

So I actually show you direct contradictions in your claims, I show you lies you have told and all you can come up with is

Arguments from another thread which we decided to stop debating
You showing me that I have attacked the character of a scientist
Some delusional belief that you have been able to answer the Iranian problem

You have done yourself no favours my good man.

Don’t get defensive so early. There will be lots more but let us keep focusing on the main argument for the moment.

Why do you need to be told something a 100 times?
Why don't you listen the first time?
HERE'S THE ANSWER FROM ANOTHER SOURCE DON'T ASK FOR IT AGAIN.

This is from the 2nd Book you quoted
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...esult#PPA107,M1

PAGE 107, READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH

Some writers have jumped hastily to the conclusion that they were Vedic-Aryans,

It is always fun seeing you wriggle when asked to substantiate. This time is no different.

Never mind that one line down it says no evidence has been found to support these contentions. Wazeeri just stops reading further when it contradicts him.

Worse, you are even ready to sleep with Hindutva scholars if it suits your argument.

Do you think most historians agree with these scholars.

Do you yourself agree with these scholars that Aryans were part of Indus Valley Civilisation? If not what is the point of quoting them other than showing your confused state of mind

This is more to do with your comprehension skills then anything else.
You have struggled with all the scientific data you have presented yourself.

And why do you keep on bringing up Visag after every two posts.

So far the pattern has gone like this.
You ask about the difference
You are given an explanation and explained how you are comparing completely different things
You then go quiet for a post or two
Then when you are out of points you ask again.

PS: the 10% MtDna and the 30% are both Kivisild's data. These are questions you should ask him. I can only argue with the data in front of me.

So no answers.

I feel for you Wazeeri. Why do I ask you any questions at all. Why don’t I just leave you to wallow in your delusions.

PSS: SOME SCHOLARS CLAIM THAT THESE PEOPLE WERE ARYANS

[/QUOTE]A migration which some historians link to the Aryans.[/QUOTE]

The fun continues as does Wazeeri’s new found love affair with Hindutvas.

So were there Aryans in Indus Valley in 3rd millenium BC and before.

However, having an archaeological evidence for them how can they be slotted in your mystery slot.

Because they are still a mystery
Some scholars say they are Iron age Iranians / Sumerians or Aryans.

There are also different opinions on origin of Aryans and of Indo European languages. They have varied from Nordic peoples of northern Europe ,southwestern steppes of present-day Russia, ancient Germany or Scandinavia, to Baltics and being indegenous to India.

By your argument Aryans should also be included in the magic mystery slot.

Where now:

Wazeeri, You are now in a hole and you just keep digging it deeper and deeper with every post.

You have tried every thing you could in your desperation.

You have tried ornamenting your posts in technicolor with large font sizes and smilies.

Your have tried screaming in large sizes and in technicolor

You have been constantly putting words in my mouth.

You have tried doctoring your quotes intentionally leaving out lines that contradict your own points. AKA Cheating

You have even started using arguments of Hindutva supporters. You are contradicting your own positions, claiming no pre vedic Aryan migration of Aryans in one post and then arguing for Aryans being members of Indus Valley in another.

Knowing well that your arguments lack consistency and quality you are trying to get in monologues where you ask your own questions and then answer them from my side.

You create your own little play corner where you play the prosecution, the plaitiff, the judge the jury and the executioner. All child play in search of boosting your sagging morale.

You have started obstinately holding on to losing positions like a person, being dragged by his feet grabs hold of a pole with all his might and does not want to let it go because once he loses hold of the pole of procrastination there is no end to how far he will be dragged.

Your monologues and your ‘khamba pakar’ approach can only delay the inevitable. It won’t prevent it.



It is time to accept defeat and salvage what ever credibility you can.

It is also time to apologise for cheating and constantly putting words in my mouth.

 

[Wazeeri]

Wazeeri, that is just shameless procrastination.

Moumotta

You are desperately holding on to a losing card my friend.
Give up, you are very much in the toilet with this one.

I proved that the people you were claiming as of Aryan heritage have no determined origins.

Half a quote and the full quote both support my theory.
You are in a dire need for a point in your point scoring expedition and you should really reassess the situation if you feel this is the best avenue for it.

The point? You agree that Aryans did reach South Iran.
All you are now arguing is that they mixed with other populations. How is that different from any where else- north Iran, India, East Europe.

Aryans reached Andhra as well.
Did they score very highly down there?
Answer = NO.

Hence once again I repeat, Do you have a point.

The point is very simple. The data does not support Iran enroute. The only argument you can hold now, without much evidence, is that they diluted to very small proportions for reasons that are vague.

Being concentrated in tyhe North and dilluted is not a vague answer.
At the end of the day there is only one objection to the Aryan theory and that has possible answers.
Where does that lead to?

All you can quote is my challenge that Aryans moved beyond north Iran, a statement that you converted in a straw man to claim I was claiming aryans conquering all of Iran

As usual Wazeeri’s climb downs are spectacular. He keeps claiming victories while backing out big time.

Poor attempt once again.
I pin you down and all you have is "Wazeei does X Y Z". NO ANSWERS

Anyway, I did not realise that all your claims of Aryan confinement in north Iran only applied to the time before they moved south!!!. Its not too late to spell out your time scale now.

Once again Moumotta gets caught out royally and instead of owning upto his gaffe he comes up with a smart ass question.

To answer your question however. If the people claiming decsendance from Aryans take over Japan, that will not mean that the whole population of Japan will suddenly develop an Aryan male ancestory.

What happens 2000 years later is inconsequential to the Y Chromosome data. If South of Iran showed zero paternal lineage from HG3 then we could argue that these people are not Aryans.

Never mind that one line down it says no evidence has been found to support these contentions. Wazeeri just stops reading further when it contradicts him.

Wow Moumotta well done.
Is that why there are DISAGREEMENTS?

You're a right old genius aren't you.

Do you think most historians agree with these scholars.

Do you yourself agree with these scholars that Aryans were part of Indus Valley Civilisation? If not what is the point of quoting them other than showing your confused state of mind

You have no clue. You lose track of the argument so fast that it is unbelievable.

You are asking me who inserted the new genes into the Indus Valley.
You are arguing that these people could be the reason for the Y Chromosome data
I am arguing that this should be slotted into the migration we know little off because
THE HISTORIANS ARE ARGUING OVER WHETHER THEY ARE ARYANS OR SUMERIANS
Hence you are presenting a mysterious migration as an answer.

So no answers.

I feel for you Wazeeri. Why do I ask you any questions at all. Why don’t I just leave you to wallow in your delusions.

So I give you the answer two times and your reply is no answer.

PS: Why am I supposed to answer for a supposed inconsistency between two pieces of data from the paper that YOU INTRODUCED INTO THE DISCUSSION TO COUNTER ME.
Unfortunately for you every paper that you have presented I have been able to use to strengthen my argument.

PSS: The inconsistency is in your head because you have no grasp of science or Maths what so ever.
You have provided ample proof of that.

The fun continues as does Wazeeri’s new found love affair with Hindutvas.

So were there Aryans in Indus Valley in 3rd millenium BC and before.

That is all you are left with spin and misdirections.
I will answer your question (even though you will try to align me to the hinduvtas again) but first of all let's get some clarity back in your confused state.

You are presenting this supposed anthropological difference as an answer to the Y Chromosome data.

The two proposed answers we do have are ARYANS and The Sumerians/Iron age iranians.
If we both agree on the former then the argument ends, if we say it is the latter then it fails the route test because we will then need to explain their little trip to Belarus.

I have argued that the only option you have is to slot this into the migration we do not know enough about if it is to be the answer.

To answer your question no body knows of the dates of these skeletons, Wheeler et al use this to dismiss the differences in dates.

There are also different opinions on origin of Aryans and of Indo European languages. They have varied from Nordic peoples of northern Europe ,southwestern steppes of present-day Russia, ancient Germany or Scandinavia, to Baltics and being indegenous to India.

By your argument Aryans should also be included in the magic mystery slot.

Yes and we have a migration which is confirming one of these theories.
The timing is right and the route is right.


SUMMARY

Once again no progress made as you are concentrating on trying to come back from the list of your gaffes and your lies instead of arguing sensibly.

You have been brought down to trying to misinterpret my arguments because you have no answers left to the questions.

You continue to hang on to the questions which you attempted to answer yourself at the start of the argument. Your short memory span has been shown too many times and lead to one too many embarrassing situations for you.

Arguments which you started but now have given up on

ARYAN 2
I asked for support from any scientists
You provided none and now we don't bring it up.

Farmers
After repeatedly showing you that this cannot be the answer
It seems you have finally accepted but you are unwilling to do this openly.

Aryans took over all of Iran
You are now backing out of this by claiming that you only wanted to show that they got to a certain area.
You tried in your post before last to continue the quest but all you managed was an empire nearly 2 millenia after the event.

Arguments you have left now

Anthropological differences between early and late IVCs

The current theories to identify these people support the Aryans or the Sumerians
Sumerians fail the route test hence they could not be the ones who left the Y chromosome
The only option you have left is a mysterious migration which we do not know off.

My Cheating

This is another one of your laughable attempts at getting back from when I exposed your lies.

I quoted half a paragraph
I am accussed of cheating
Even though the full paragraph also supports my position as well.

There is no cure for a desperate man.

Way forward

Leave the red herrings aside and aknowledge the point which the debate has reached.

Aryans VS an unknown migration.

You want to support the latter because supporting the former would lead promptly to the inevitable which is your defeat.

• The worst thing about this whole sage Moumotta from your point of view is that you present a paper to support your argument, that paper ends up supporting my argument. Then you argue against the paper you presented in the first place.
  
• Not to forget the fact that you tried answering a question when it was against your position, then after a few dozen posts you completely forgot that you were trying to answer the question and started to ask the same question in order to induce some sort of inconsistancy in the data YOU PROVIDED.

Keep struggling my friend, you are only increasing the final list of your gaffes and lies.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

Once again no progress made as you are concentrating on trying to come back from the list of your gaffes and your lies instead of arguing sensibly.

You have been brought down to trying to misinterpret my arguments because you have no answers left to the questions.

You continue to hang on to the questions which you attempted to answer yourself at the start of the argument. Your short memory span has been shown too many times and lead to one too many embarrassing situations for you.

Arguments which you started but now have given up on

ARYAN 2
I asked for support from any scientists
You provided none and now we don't bring it up.

Farmers
After repeatedly showing you that this cannot be the answer
It seems you have finally accepted but you are unwilling to do this openly.

Aryans took over all of Iran
You are now backing out of this by claiming that you only wanted to show that they got to a certain area.
You tried in your post before last to continue the quest but all you managed was an empire nearly 2 millenia after the event.

Arguments you have left now

Anthropological differences between early and late IVCs

The current theories to identify these people support the Aryans or the Sumerians
Sumerians fail the route test hence they could not be the ones who left the Y chromosome
The only option you have left is a mysterious migration which we do not know off.

My Cheating

This is another one of your laughable attempts at getting back from when I exposed your lies.

I quoted half a paragraph
I am accussed of cheating
Even though the full paragraph also supports my position as well.

There is no cure for a desperate man.

Way forward

Leave the red herrings aside and aknowledge the point which the debate has reached.

Aryans VS an unknown migration.

You want to support the latter because supporting the former would lead promptly to the inevitable which is your defeat.

• The worst thing about this whole sage Moumotta from your point of view is that you present a paper to support your argument, that paper ends up supporting my argument. Then you argue against the paper you presented in the first place.
  
• Not to forget the fact that you tried answering a question when it was against your position, then after a few dozen posts you completely forgot that you were trying to answer the question and started to ask the same question in order to induce some sort of inconsistancy in the data YOU PROVIDED.

Keep struggling my friend, you are only increasing the final list of your gaffes and lies.

 

[moumotta]

you are very much in the toilet with this one.

Showing your class, eh?

I proved that the people you were claiming as of Aryan heritage have no determined origins.

Half a quote and the full quote both support my theory.
You are in a dire need for a point in your point scoring expedition and you should really reassess the situation if you feel this is the best avenue for it.

You admit you distorted the quote by leaving out an important disclaimer and hid your source.

That is enough to prove cheating.

In mitigation you claim full and half quote mean the same.

In half quote you claimed existence of a tablet that used a word sounding like Kurd.

Full quote showed that the evidence was inconclusive.

Only in Wazeeri’s weird word the two mean the same thing.

You cheated and your mitigation claim is a lie.

Aryans reached Andhra as well.
Did they score very highly down there?
Answer = NO.

Hence once again I repeat, Do you have a point.

Thanks for bringing that point on table.

The proportion for whole of Iran (10%) is comparable to Andhra (8%) which was just touched by Aryans. Unlike Iran Indo European languages never spread to Andhra. Iran’s proportion can not be compared with the whole of India, let alone north India. It can only be compared with Andhra on genetic proportion and that contradicts the influence Aryans had on Iran’s culture, religion and language.

There are only two alternatives from here.

1. Aryans got diluted in Iran due to some mystery reason.
2. The race being examined is not Aryan.

Being concentrated in the North and dilluted is not a vague answer.
At the end of the day there is only one objection to the Aryan theory and that has possible answers.
Where does that lead to?

You have repeatedly accepted your inability to give any evidence to support higher concentration in Iran. I don’t think you can continue to use North Iran as an argument.

Dilution is a possibility but that raises serious doubts whether Iran was enroute at all.

As usual Wazeeri’s climb downs are spectacular. He keeps claiming victories while backing out big time.

Poor attempt once again.
I pin you down and all you have is "Wazeei does X Y Z". NO ANSWERS

It is funny when you start believing in your own monologues. Even your ‘All of Iran’ strawman disintegrated into pieces when I showed you an Aryan empire extending to all of Iran and well beyond and you claim to pin me down.

Wazeeri= So Darius impregnated all of the women in the Iranian plateau
PS: Hitler also claims Aryan descent
Brilliant POINT. WELL DONE YOU DESERVE A SALUTE )
) About 2000 years after the time we are speaking off.DESPERATE
DESPERATE MAN.

Moumotta= Are these even arguments or the incoherent jabber of a bewildered man who does not know what has hit him. As usual smilies take over where words fail Wazeeri.

In your bewilderment you can’t even get your math right, champ. A mid first millennium empire is not 2000 years after Aryan arrival in 2nd millennium BC.

Anyway, I did not realise that all your claims of Aryan confinement in north Iran only applied to the time before they moved south!!!. Its not too late to spell out your time scale now.

Wazeeri= Once again Moumotta gets caught out royally and instead of owning upto his gaffe he comes up with a smart ass question.

You spin faster than a Spinning Derwish. Follow the argument and decide who has been caught out royally.

You come up with some of the most stupid remarks seen on this thread and then claim to have won the argument.

To answer your question however. If the people claiming decsendance from Aryans take over Japan, that will not mean that the whole population of Japan will suddenly develop an Aryan male ancestory.

You keep creating strawmen based on 100% ancestry and then complain about putting words in your mouth & 100% in Northern Iran. Rather than show your confused state why don’t you make up your mind for once.

Defending against a 100% strawman hardly helps you. There is a big gap between 100% and the 10% that you are actually trying to defend.

]What happens 2000 years later is inconsequential to the Y Chromosome data. If South of Iran showed zero paternal lineage from HG3 then we could argue that these people are not Aryans.

Classic double star **. You have no data for anywhere except all of Iran and yet you keep posting of differences between north and south genes.

1. Are you now claiming that anything above 0% is good enough for you?

2. From 2nd millennium BC to mid first millennium BC is not 2000 years, get your maths right.

3. Every where else they could trace genes after 4000 years but in Iran it all evoparated down in less than 1500 years.

Never mind that one line down it says no evidence has been found to support these contentions. Wazeeri just stops reading further when it contradicts him.

Wow Moumotta well done.
Is that why there are DISAGREEMENTS?

You're a right old genius aren't you.

A lack of evidence is different from disagreement unless you mean the kind of disagreement between flat earth society and space scientists.

So I give you the answer two times and your reply is no answer

PS: Why am I supposed to answer for a supposed inconsistency between two pieces of data from the paper that YOU INTRODUCED INTO THE DISCUSSION TO COUNTER ME.
Unfortunately for you every paper that you have presented I have been able to use to strengthen my argument.

PSS: The inconsistency is in your head because you have no grasp of science or Maths what so ever.
You have provided ample proof of that.

Please remind me. Make sure it is an answer and not a wriggling attempt. Make sure you answer the scholarly opinion I quoted rather than wriggle your way around it.

Why you have to answer for it is simple. Because you are mis-interpreting it to mean something totally different from what the author intended.

The two proposed answers we do have are ARYANS and The Sumerians/Iron age iranians.
If we both agree on the former then the argument ends, if we say it is the latter then it fails the route test because we will then need to explain their little trip to Belarus.

That is too vague for any agreement. Are you suggesting Aryans in Indus Valley as an earlier wave of aryans or are you moving the whole vedic aryan migration back two thousand years.

To answer your question no body knows of the dates of these skeletons, Wheeler et al use this to dismiss the differences in dates.

Please provide reference and explain what difference in dates you are talking about.

Don’t act hurt again. With your reputation nothing can be accepted at face value.

Yes and we have a migration which is confirming one of these theories.
The timing is right and the route is right.

The route has been blown away.
The timing of separation is anything upto 10000BP.
There is no reference to Aryan culture and religion in the history of Eastern Europe
It is all too uncertain to hang your hat on any one migration and location as the main answer.




I will leave your monologues as your play thing that help you regain your composure in your make believe world except to visit your play area from time to time to show you reality.

ARYAN 2
I asked for support from any scientists
You provided none and now we don't bring it up.

All you have to do is put your finger on your mouse wheel and scroll up to find answers.

The worst thing about this whole sage Moumotta from your point of view is that you present a paper to support your argument, that paper ends up supporting my argument. Then you argue against the paper you presented in the first place.

This is why your monologues are so interesting.

You first tried to discard Kivisild by discrediting him with imaginary stories of ‘Seven Mothers of Europe’.

Then you admitted Iran was a glitch and that aryans are considered to have been the leading race in most of Iran.

You alo agreed that Kivisild is taking out Iran from the equation.

You then had a change of heart and started back tracking. Iran became enroute and ‘most of Iran’ became ‘North Iran’.

You put your own spin on Kivisild’s conclusions to create a ‘Route is Important’ hypothesis hoping that the discussion had already moved from Aryans to alternatives.

When I put you on the spot testing Aryan migration you are lost for answers and are now pleading that I should accept yout mis-interpretations of Kivisild’s paper because somehow by presenting his paper I become responsible for all you do with it.

You have no answer to my questions and are now looking for an escape route from your mis-interpretations by blaming me for questioning it.

Not to forget the fact that you tried answering a question when it was against your position, then after a few dozen posts you completely forgot that you were trying to answer the question and started to ask the same question in order to induce some sort of inconsistancy in the data YOU PROVIDED.

Has been explained. That was a discussion in the context of Vizag data when you were supporting lower female genetic input as evidence of ‘All Male Army’. A stupid conclusion that you don’t even want to touch with a barge pole now.

You are now putting your own spin on scholarly interpretation to say there is no male/ female inconsistency.

Your spins on data and conclusions I provided have been pointed out earlier. You agreed they were a problem with Iran and then did a total U turn on your own admissions a week later. Some consistency!!

 

[Wazeeri]

You admit you distorted the quote by leaving out an important disclaimer and hid your source.

That is enough to prove cheating.

When did I admit I hid something on purpose?
This is all in your head my friend.

I Repeat
Whether I presented half the paragraph as I did
OR I presented the full paragraph,

THEY BOTH SUPPORT MY ARGUMENT.

It is so lame that you feel that this issue is the one which you can score points on.
If this is the best you have got then I feel really sorry for you.

There are only two alternatives from here.

1. Aryans got diluted in Iran due to some mystery reason.
2. The race being examined is not Aryan.

Well your powers of reasoning have already been shown up to be extremely weak and above is another proof.

There is a third explanation which is that modern day Iran was not completely conquered or populated by the incoming Aryan populations as is suggested by the Avestas.

Once again why are you arguing that the results should be identical when as explained already the countries have different dynamics, population density, different host populations, different landscape....etc

There are too many variables which need to be identical for the results of Iran and India to be identical.

You have repeatedly accepted your inability to give any evidence to support higher concentration in Iran. I don’t think you can continue to use North Iran as an argument.

Poor poor poor,
I am only explaining how Iran can represent a smaller percentage. You want me to carry out genetic tests on the populations in Northern Iran. Sorry I just don't have that time.

You had only one objection against my proposal and I have shown you how your objection is incomplete.

Dilution is a possibility but that raises serious doubts whether Iran was enroute at all.

How does dillution raise doubts over whether Iran was enroute?

It is funny when you start believing in your own monologues. Even your ‘All of Iran’ strawman disintegrated into pieces when I showed you an Aryan empire extending to all of Iran and well beyond and you claim to pin me down.

Yes about 2 millenia after the event.

Classic double star **. You have no data for anywhere except all of Iran and yet you keep posting of differences between north and south genes.

Moumotta you have next to zero reading and understanding skills.

Aryan empires were established later on in most of the sub continent at one point or another. Hence the Aryans would have populated most places to some extent.

If there was zero HG3 lineage in South Iran then you could argue that this is some other race.

That is a conclusive contradiction or irregularity not your small percentage theory.

2. From 2nd millennium BC to mid first millennium BC is not 2000 years, get your maths right.

2000 - 500 = 1500 years
I am so sorry for calling it nearly 2000 years.
Pathetic.

3. Every where else they could trace genes after 4000 years but in Iran it all evoparated down in less than 1500 years.

Like you said there is a difference between 100% and 10%

Similarly there is a difference between 10% and 0%.

A lack of evidence is different from disagreement unless you mean the kind of disagreement between flat earth society and space scientists.

The historians who have concluded have got two explanations which they have got from likely possibilities.

Lack of conclusive evidence may point to a myterious migration if you like.

Please remind me. Make sure it is an answer and not a wriggling attempt. Make sure you answer the scholarly opinion I quoted rather than wriggle your way around it.

How many times?
10% MtDna speaks of western lineages in the Indian genepool.
Once again cricket analogy "Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Mcgrath, Warne"
50% of the bowling styles found were spin and 50% pace.

The Table 17.2 speaks of results in individuals.

PS: You are asking me why there is a difference in Aryan Female and Male populations.
Can you please confirm once again that you started off by arguing that Aryan females were disadvantaged when passing on their genes?

So at one point you were arguing that less female gene transfer is the most probable outcome in Aryans. And now you are calling this an irregularity.

Why you have to answer for it is simple. Because you are mis-interpreting it to mean something totally different from what the author intended.

I am deriving a conclusion from his data. If you want to argue the lack of Western Female lineage then nothing I say or do can have an affect on the discussion because the data is there for everyone to see.

HG3 is a western Eurasian haplogroup. We have the results for it.
If you don't want to believe my Female lineage explanation (even though it says lineage in the paper) you have got per your misunderstanding 10% western eurasian females.

This is not what I am saying this is in the data,

Hence your problem is with Kivisild and science in general, not me.

That is too vague for any agreement. Are you suggesting Aryans in Indus Valley as an earlier wave of aryans or are you moving the whole vedic aryan migration back two thousand years.

Are you suggesting that I support the Aryan invasion of the indus valley?
Did you not understand my whole explanation?

Please provide reference and explain what difference in dates you are talking about.

Don’t act hurt again. With your reputation nothing can be accepted at face value.

Guess you will have to be embarrassed once again.

And just so you don't throw a sissy fit I will not use a pro-Aryan invasionist historian's book. I will use the book of someone who is against this theory.

.......and the poorly recorded excavations leave the date of the various groups of skeletal remains in doubt.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA78,M1

End of the 2nd last paragraph page 78.

The route has been blown away.
The timing of separation is anything upto 10000BP.
There is no reference to Aryan culture and religion in the history of Eastern Europe
It is all too uncertain to hang your hat on any one migration and location as the main answer.

You are yet to provide one decent argument too declare anything has been BLOW away.

You are now in your desperation trying to take on historians by rubbishing everything.

Soon you will be arguing that no race such as the aryans existed.

You are a poor state of a man.

All you have to do is put your finger on your mouse wheel and scroll up to find answers.

So I have to repeat my explanations for you instead of asking you to go back and refer to one of the posts in the thread.

Where as you just tell me to look up.

You have provided no answers other than saying Romilla may have suggested it (which has been proven wrong as well).

You don't have one scientist who supports such a scenario.

When I put you on the spot testing Aryan migration you are lost for answers and are now pleading that I should accept yout mis-interpretations of Kivisild’s paper because somehow by presenting his paper I become responsible for all you do with it.

Once again you have been rumbled.

You brought Kivisild's paper into the discussion and when I turned it onto you, you started questioning the paper.

You first tried to argue that Aryan men were bound to pass on more genes then Aryan women.

Later on when you were out of arguments you started questioning how Aryan men and women don't have the same gene flow.

Your spins on data and conclusions I provided have been pointed out earlier. You agreed they were a problem with Iran and then did a total U turn on your own admissions a week later. Some consistency!!

You are a desperate man looking for crumbs. I explained the glitch in the very paragraph you are referring to but you chose to only reproduce one line from my quote.

Has been explained. That was a discussion in the context of Vizag data when you were supporting lower female genetic input as evidence of ‘All Male Army’. A stupid conclusion that you don’t even want to touch with a barge pole now.

Oh brilliant we have Vizag brought up again. Perfectly to the pattern.
Have you finished adding up the totals yet Moumotta?


SUMMARY

No progress made once again.

Desperate attempts at attacking me

I quoted half a paragraph
The full paragraph supports my argument as well
BUT somehow I cheated,

This is the best avenue you have found of derailing the discussion from the actual topic of debate.

1500 Vs 2000

I said nearly 2000 years but in fact it was 1500 years.
This is another great point you have raised.
The point has no relevance but well done still.

Iran

After accepting Aryans as a possibility you are now turning away because you know it defeats your argument.

You asked me why Iran was so low.

I explained to you that only parts of modern day Iran was initially populated by Aryan tribes. I gave you references from the Avesta.

You tried to prove that wrong and got as far as Northern Central Iran with your Aryan tribes.

Eastern Europe

You are also now arguing that Aryans were never in Eastern Europe by nitpicking historical evidence.

If we go with this method then we can easily conclude that the Aryans never existed.

Your suggestions

Aryan 2

Once again I asked you to provide me support from one historian and I was told to LOOK UP

Still waiting

Where do we stand

You are going to try and find something to derail this argument and I will pretty much repeat my summary.

You have lost all hopes of coming back from some huge gaffes and lies hence you are concentrating on ways to draw me into an out and out slanging match rather than answering the questions.

You are arguing against the data YOU PROVIDED

You are asking questions which YOU WERE TRYING TO ANSWER AT ONE POINT

You have tried to play with Maths and had to apologise.

You have lied.

You have to be asked a dozen times before getting an answer out of you.

You have left all your arguments behind and now all you have got left is attacking a supposed "cheating" of mine and arguing childishly with an argument which is at best subjective.

I will summarise your main argument up here
Why 10%?

Just think you have only ONE argument against my proposal (which you accepted btw).

And that argument is based on your assertion that Iran should have more than 10%.

Thats IT.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

No progress made once again.

Desperate attempts at attacking me

I quoted half a paragraph
The full paragraph supports my argument as well
BUT somehow I cheated,

This is the best avenue you have found of derailing the discussion from the actual topic of debate.

1500 Vs 2000

I said nearly 2000 years but in fact it was 1500 years.
This is another great point you have raised.
The point has no relevance but well done still.

Iran

After accepting Aryans as a possibility you are now turning away because you know it defeats your argument.

You asked me why Iran was so low.

I explained to you that only parts of modern day Iran was initially populated by Aryan tribes. I gave you references from the Avesta.

You tried to prove that wrong and got as far as Northern Central Iran with your Aryan tribes.

Eastern Europe

You are also now arguing that Aryans were never in Eastern Europe by nitpicking historical evidence.

If we go with this method then we can easily conclude that the Aryans never existed.

Your suggestions

Aryan 2

Once again I asked you to provide me support from one historian and I was told to LOOK UP

Still waiting

Where do we stand

You are going to try and find something to derail this argument and I will pretty much repeat my summary.

You have lost all hopes of coming back from some huge gaffes and lies hence you are concentrating on ways to draw me into an out and out slanging match rather than answering the questions.

You are arguing against the data YOU PROVIDED

You are asking questions which YOU WERE TRYING TO ANSWER AT ONE POINT

You have tried to play with Maths and had to apologise.

You have lied.

You have to be asked a dozen times before getting an answer out of you.

You have left all your arguments behind and now all you have got left is attacking a supposed "cheating" of mine and arguing childishly with an argument which is at best subjective.

I will summarise your main argument up here
Why 10%?

Just think you have only ONE argument against my proposal (which you accepted btw).

And that argument is based on your assertion that Iran should have more than 10%.

Thats IT.

 

[moumotta]

When did I admit I hid something on purpose?
This is all in your head my friend.

You have had several opportunities to clarify that. Here is one more.

1. Did you read the ‘evidence is inconclusive’ remark before you posted?

2. If you did why did you leave it out?

I Repeat
Whether I presented half the paragraph as I did
OR I presented the full paragraph,

THEY BOTH SUPPORT MY ARGUMENT.

Wzeeri’s Khambha Pakar style on full display.

Parrot like repeating cuts no ice.

The fact that you are even avoiding quoting my rebuttal of ‘they both mean the same’ shows how nervous you are. Let me remind you again.

In mitigation you claim full and half quote mean the same.

In half quote you claimed existence of a tablet that used a word sounding like Kurd.

Full quote showed that the evidence was inconclusive.

Only in Wazeeri’s weird word the two mean the same thing.

You cheated and your mitigation claim is a lie.​

There is a third explanation which is that modern day Iran was not completely conquered or populated by the incoming Aryan populations as is suggested by the Avestas.

You have been struggling for a long time to prove anything about this option.

Avesta only shows their presence in north iran at a particular time. It tells you nothing about where and how they moved after that time.

Once again why are you arguing that the results should be identical when as explained already the countries have different dynamics, population density, different host populations, different landscape....etc

There are too many variables which need to be identical for the results of Iran and India to be identical.

You forgot climate and weather pattern in your list of excuses.

As for identical, we are discussing the large difference between 10% Vs 30%, not your strawmen of 100% or identical.

You have repeatedly accepted your inability to give any evidence to support higher concentration in Iran. I don’t think you can continue to use North Iran as an argument

Poor poor poor,
I am only explaining how Iran can represent a smaller percentage. You want me to carry out genetic tests on the populations in Northern Iran. Sorry I just don't have that time.

You had only one objection against my proposal and I have shown you how your objection is incomplete.

You have nothing to back up your claims. As simple as that but you claim poor as if I am struggling. You just lose more credibility every time you claim victory while gasping to get on your feet.

It is very simple. Put Up or Shut Up.

How does dillution raise doubts over whether Iran was enroute?

Because it is at best an explanation of an inconsistency rather than an evidence of route.

Yes about 2 millenia after the event.

Is that an argument? All you can do is draw one more line to prolong the argument as each of your challenges are defeated.

Moumotta you have next to zero reading and understanding skills.

Aryan empires were established later on in most of the sub continent at one point or another. Hence the Aryans would have populated most places to some extent.

If there was zero HG3 lineage in South Iran then you could argue that this is some other race.

That is a conclusive contradiction or irregularity not your small percentage theory.

1. Which Aryan empire covered all of South India.
2. South India never adopted Indo European unlike Iran.
3. Yet Andhra shows 8% which is close to all of Iran.

2000 - 500 = 1500 years
I am so sorry for calling it nearly 2000 years.
Pathetic.

If you are being pedantically stubborn the Achaemenid Empire was established in 550 BC. The maximum, assuming Aryans entered Iran on the stroke of 2nd millenium BC is 1450 years. Based on rounding that is closer to 1000 than 2000.

The actual would be even lower than 1450 unless they were waiting at the gates for the buzzer to strike commenement of millenium.

Now you can eat your heart out compaining about it.

Like you said there is a difference between 100% and 10%

Similarly there is a difference between 10% and 0%.

Now you are talking sense. Remember 100% and 0% are different from 10% so let us not talk about strawmen.

The historians who have concluded have got two explanations which they have got from likely possibilities.

Lack of conclusive evidence may point to a myterious migration if you like.

If you mean mystery about their race then how many pre 5000BP races can you name.

How many times?
10% MtDna speaks of western lineages in the Indian genepool.
Once again cricket analogy "Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Mcgrath, Warne"
50% of the bowling styles found were spin and 50% pace.

The Table 17.2 speaks of results in individuals.

PS: You are asking me why there is a difference in Aryan Female and Male populations.
Can you please confirm once again that you started off by arguing that Aryan females were disadvantaged when passing on their genes?

So at one point you were arguing that less female gene transfer is the most probable outcome in Aryans. And now you are calling this an irregularity.

That was not the question I asked. I posted a scholar’s opinion who sure understands the lineage Vs population proportion issue better than you do and yet he concluded that Aryan migration did not leave a major splash in India.

His opinion should also carry more weight than your all male army or my Aryan females disadvantage.

I am deriving a conclusion from his data. If you want to argue the lack of Western Female lineage then nothing I say or do can have an affect on the discussion because the data is there for everyone to see.

HG3 is a western Eurasian haplogroup. We have the results for it.
If you don't want to believe my Female lineage explanation (even though it says lineage in the paper) you have got per your misunderstanding 10% western eurasian females.

This is not what I am saying this is in the data,

Hence your problem is with Kivisild and science in general, not me.

You get so defensive when questioned.

Yes there is a problem with a new technology that has not been tested sufficiently. There are problems of small sample sizes and isolated patchy studies. . There is no exhaustive database yet. Which is why you have so many studies giving contradictory messages.

You make these your problems by selectively picking data or arguing for one study against the other and trying to overlook their contradictions when the correct conclusion should be that these are early days to conclude much from genetics.

What you are saying is you can mis-interpret Kivisild as much as you like but the moment there is a question it should be answered by the person whose paper and figures you are twisting.

Are you suggesting that I support the Aryan invasion of the indus valley?
Did you not understand my whole explanation?

No. Please explain.

Please provide reference and explain what difference in dates you are talking about.

Don’t act hurt again. With your reputation nothing can be accepted at face value.

Guess you will have to be embarrassed once again.

And just so you don't throw a sissy fit I will not use a pro-Aryan invasionist historian's book. I will use the book of someone who is against this theory.

.......and the poorly recorded excavations leave the date of the various groups of skeletal remains in doubt.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...result#PPA78,M1

End of the 2nd last paragraph page 78.

Firstly, isn’t it childish of you to claim that your providing a reference will embarrass me. I guess you forgot that you are not in your play area.

Providing a reference should be normal when you claim a quote. For some reason you have developed a habit of hiding them and acting all hurt when asked.

Coming to the actual reference you cited, you made a very big open-ended statement that no body knows of the dates of these skeletons.

As you have now correctly quoted, the question is about different layers of ruins from which they are recovered, no one is doubting that they are all from Indus Valley Civilisation. Not the same thing as your first quote, don’t you think.

You are yet to provide one decent argument too declare anything has been BLOW away.

You are now in your desperation trying to take on historians by rubbishing everything.

Soon you will be arguing that no race such as the aryans existed.

You are a poor state of a man.

Come on. You are the one desperately switching positions and rueing your inability to provide any supporting evidence.

Am I the one who is resorting to half truths and straw men on Iran. Am I the one who kept changing positions from ‘Iran is out of the equation’ and ‘aryans are considered to have been the leading race in most of Iran’ to they only occupied North Iran and then claiming injustice and hurt soul when asked to substantiate with figures.

So I have to repeat my explanations for you instead of asking you to go back and refer to one of the posts in the thread.

Where as you just tell me to look up.

You have provided no answers other than saying Romilla may have suggested it (which has been proven wrong as well).

You don't have one scientist who supports such a scenario.

If you want to hear it all again, here it is:

AS for the Aryan2 thing it is so repetitive that all I need is to remind you of these posts. You suggested she is talking of same race. I said if they were Aryans with different religious beliefs, language and customs then they need a different name.

Quote:
Wazeeri: So after all this hoopla your answer is ARYAN?

Quote:
Moumotta: 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.

Quote:
Moumotta: 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.

Quote:
Moumotta: Race can be interpreted at a number of levels. One could talk of Black race or of Zulu race. I think you are getting carried away by the term ‘racially similar’.

Quote:
Moumotta: I have already explained the context in which racial is used here. With your customary ignorant exuberance you proclaimed So after all this hoopla your answer is ARYAN?. You were also being childish with your insistence on naming every race.I just toyed with your ignorance and combined the two to name it. Not very nice of me but not a criminal fault either considering the level to which this debate has descended

​

As usual you are finding it hard to accept that I turned your mis-interpretation back on you. You made a total fool of yourself.

I did explain to you the context in which racial was used. The way you have been mis-interpreting quotes and misreading texts all through it is no surprise you totally misread the argument and came up with ‘So after all this hoopla your answer is ARYAN’’.

As if all that was not bad enough for you, you have now brought to table an option that IVC skeletons could be Aryan.

You keep shooting yourself in the foot.

It is so uncharacteristic of you to accept your mistake but I will keep reminding you of your gaffe and how you made a total fool of yourself on Aryan 2.

Once again you have been rumbled.

You brought Kivisild's paper into the discussion and when I turned it onto you, you started questioning the paper.

You first tried to argue that Aryan men were bound to pass on more genes then Aryan women.

Later on when you were out of arguments you started questioning how Aryan men and women don't have the same gene flow.

You probably did not understand it, as usual. Let me post it again to show you who has been rumbeld.

This is why your monologues are so interesting.

You first tried to discard Kivisild by discrediting him with imaginary stories of ‘Seven Mothers of Europe’.

Then you admitted Iran was a glitch and that aryans are considered to have been the leading race in most of Iran.

You also agreed that Kivisild is taking out Iran from the equation.

You then had a change of heart and started back tracking. Iran became enroute and ‘most of Iran’ became ‘North Iran’.

You put your own spin on Kivisild’s conclusions to create a ‘Route is Important’ hypothesis hoping that the discussion had already moved from Aryans to alternatives.

When I put you on the spot testing Aryan migration you are lost for answers and are now pleading that I should accept yout mis-interpretations of Kivisild’s paper because somehow by presenting his paper I become responsible for all you do with it.

You have no answer to my questions and are now looking for an escape route from your mis-interpretations by blaming me for questioning it.​

You are so proud that you turned it on me by mis-interpreting Kivisild but when asked question you want to hide behind him for arguments that are yours and not his.

You are a desperate man looking for crumbs. I explained the glitch in the very paragraph you are referring to but you chose to only reproduce one line from my quote.

I understand your problem. You have been trying to explain ever since with your half-quotes, cheat attempts, strawmen, shifting positions and claims of unfair play any time I ask you support any thing.

Has been explained. That was a discussion in the context of Vizag data when you were supporting lower female genetic input as evidence of ‘All Male Army’. A stupid conclusion that you don’t even want to touch with a barge pole now.

Oh brilliant we have Vizag brought up again. Perfectly to the pattern.
Have you finished adding up the totals yet Moumotta?

I miss your point. Does it bring back any unpleasant child hood memories?

Isn’t this whole discussion about a study conducted in Vizag.




Wazeeri,

We are struggling to make progress as we are stuck with your khambha pakar attitude on Iran where you keeps flip flopping between 0%, 100% and identical results while making all sorts of excuses to avoid the main issue, if the proportion in Iran is so disproportionate to Aryan influence on Iran’s religion, culture and language how can it point to an Aryan gene.

You will use every excuse but not provide any evidence and counter anything presented with half truths.

We are also waiting for you to confirm if you cheated or whether it was a mistake and you posted the quote without reading the full paragraph.

 

[Wazeeri]

You have had several opportunities to clarify that. Here is one more. 1. Did you read the ‘evidence is inconclusive’ remark before you posted? 2. If you did why did you leave it out?

Because it was pointless.

As has been explained to you both the full paragraph and half the paragraph support my theory.

Your point has been defeated and you are arguing over my method.
If there was a better show of desperation I would like to see it.

Here was my conclusion which you failed to notice post 170

Wazeeri: So once again your unsubstantiated source has provided you with unsubstantiated claims of ordinary people with mixed ancestory talking about their forefathers 3/4000 years ago.

In half quote you claimed existence of a tablet that used a word sounding like Kurd. Full quote showed that the evidence was inconclusive.

Moumoutta just the fact that you want hang onto something which is a lost cause shows how badly your point has been defeated.

For the races you mentioned I showed alternate theories of lineages other than Aryans for all.

Avesta only shows their presence in north iran at a particular time. It tells you nothing about where and how they moved after that time.

Avesta describe their initial settlements and area of control this supports my theory that only part of Iran was occupied.

If we have evidence of their movement into the rest of Iran then please provide it.

OH YES I forgot, you have already tried and failed

As for identical, we are discussing the large difference between 10% Vs 30%, not your strawmen of 100% or identical.

So this argument is also all in your head. How do you know a difference of 10% and 30% is large?
What difference would you be satisfied with?

Your only argument against my proposed answer is that it doesn't sound right to you.

It is very simple. Put Up or Shut Up.

You asked me to explain something and I explained it.

Now you are being a baby and asking me to carry out detailed tests, area by area on the Iranians.

We can only play with the data we have my friend.

I have given you two possible explanations, there may be many more but the point is that you raised an objection and it has been proven how your objection is not enough to rubbish the proposed answer.

Because it is at best an explanation of an inconsistency rather than an evidence of route.

Fine then you are arguing now that this was some other race which didn't settle in Iran but went through it hence it has left some genetic traces behind.

Fine we can add that into your magical migrations.
I will stick to the Aryans.

Is that an argument? All you can do is draw one more line to prolong the argument as each of your challenges are defeated.

Yes you present something happening nearly 2 millenia (I'm sorry 1500 years) after the event and I am the one prolonging the debate.

1. Which Aryan empire covered all of South India.

Why is that relevant but just to embarras you.

2. South India never adopted Indo European unlike Iran. 3. Yet Andhra shows 8% which is close to all of Iran.

So Aryans were successful in one place and not the other?

If you are being pedantically stubborn the Achaemenid Empire was established in 550 BC. The maximum, assuming Aryans entered Iran on the stroke of 2nd millenium BC is 1450 years.

Oh no I got it wrong again, it's not 1500 years it's 1450 years
I just have to commit suicide now.

What was that thing about prolonging the debate Moumotta?

If you mean mystery about their race then how many pre 5000BP races can you name.

No I mean mystery as in an identification of who these people were, where they came from, why they came, what they brought with them....etc

You know the kind of things Historians generally try to answer about migrations.

Answer to your question BTW: Farmers.

That was not the question I asked. I posted a scholar’s opinion who sure understands the lineage Vs population proportion issue better than you do and yet he concluded that Aryan migration did not leave a major splash in India.

Moumotta you are confusing yourself BIG TIME, let's take your line of reasoning for a minute.

The scholar you are speaking of was quoting Kivisild's paper which talks of only 10% mtdna lineages.

In Kivisild's other paper we have the data for male lineage.

Now what are you suggesting that this scholar is claiming?
That Kivisild got the test wrong? Or Kivisild's data is dubvious?

These questions are to be put to Kivisild not me.

Yes there is a problem with a new technology that has not been tested sufficiently. There are problems of small sample sizes and isolated patchy studies. . There is no exhaustive database yet. Which is why you have so many studies giving contradictory messages.

Oh we are back to the problems in the data.

May I remind you that this has been left as something we agree to disagree on until we have established what the data we have suggests.

PS: There is a massive database, read up on the human genome project.

And another thing the studies are not giving contraidctory messages, the scientists are giving contradictory conclusions.

What you are saying is you can mis-interpret Kivisild as much as you like but the moment there is a question it should be answered by the person whose paper and figures you are twisting.

Which data have I misinterpreted?
Kivisild's paper has shown HG3 to be 30% in India
Kivisild's paper has declared recent eurasian mtDna lineages to account for 10%.

How have I misinterpreted that?

No. Please explain.

No problem as many times as you like, I will really baby it down for you.

There are two explanations to the supposed anthropological differences
1) ARYANS
2) SUMERIANS
We know that there is little evidence to suggest either of the above hence there is another explanation
3) UNIDENTIFIED MIGRATION

If we accept 1) then that defeats your argument
If we accept 2) then you need to explain Belarus, Poland, Ukraine
If we accept 3) then we do something that I have been asking you to do for 14 posts.

Firstly, isn’t it childish of you to claim that your providing a reference will embarrass me.

No my friend it is childish to suggest that I have a reputation of making things up.

You have had nothing but punches for the last couple of posts because of your lack of argument. This particular punch missed it's target hence you are embarrassed.

As you have now correctly quoted, the question is about different layers of ruins from which they are recovered, no one is doubting that they are all from Indus Valley Civilisation. Not the same thing as your first quote, don’t you think.

Different layers are what determine their timings.
Guess we are going to need more references.

Dales pointed out that the stratigraphic context of these skeletons had not been recorded properly and so it was impossible to verify if they really belonged to the period of the Indus civilization.

Am I the one who is resorting to half truths and straw men on Iran. Am I the one who kept changing positions from ‘Iran is out of the equation’ and ‘aryans are considered to have been the leading race in most of Iran’ to they only occupied North Iran and then claiming injustice and hurt soul when asked to substantiate with figures.

No you are the man who

Tried to argue that a race similar to the Aryans THE ARYAN 2 came to India before the Aryans.
When asked for historians who support this you were the man who provided nothing.

You are the man who questioned the Iranian results, when given an explanation you tried to disprove it. You failed an then asked me to prove that something didn't happen.

You are the one who argued about the farmers theory after me repeating that they don't answer the question a couple of dozen time you finally faded it out.

You are the one who played around with maths to prove that your theory was right. You are the one who had to apologise when I caught you out.

You are the one who tried to explain the data and failing that you are the one who started questioning it's validity.

The only thing you have against me is that I called the Iranian result a glitch and then explained it in the very next sentence, however your selective amnesia only allows you to remember the first sentence.

Quote: Wazeeri: So after all this hoopla your answer is ARYAN?

Quote: Moumotta: 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.

Quote: Moumotta: 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.

Quote: Moumotta: Race can be interpreted at a number of levels. One could talk of Black race or of Zulu race. I think you are getting carried away by the term ‘racially similar’.

Quote: Moumotta: I have already explained the context in which racial is used here. With your customary ignorant exuberance you proclaimed So after all this hoopla your answer is ARYAN?. You were also being childish with your insistence on naming every race.I just toyed with your ignorance and combined the two to name it. Not very nice of me but not a criminal fault either considering the level to which this debate has descended

) you keep on embarrassing yourself

How comes this conversation starts with post 136 and not post 135.
When I said so it was Aryans all along what was I speaking off?

Here is the quote which started this off

Moumotta: How do you get people who are not racially and appearance wise different from Aryans.

PS: You have misinterpreted Romilla and I have already shown that in a post before but let's accept your line of thinking.

Once again which historian supports a theory of people racially and appearance wise similar coming to India before the Aryans.

EITHER SAY THEIR NAMES OR ACCEPT THAT THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR MYSTERIOUS MIGRATIONS.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO ASK A QUESTION TO GET AN ANSWER

When I put you on the spot testing Aryan migration you are lost for answers and are now pleading that I should accept yout mis-interpretations of Kivisild’s paper because somehow by presenting his paper I become responsible for all you do with it.

What have I misinterpreted?


Did Kivisild get his science wrong?

Or did I misinterpret it?

You can't make your mind up can you.

if the proportion in Iran is so disproportionate to Aryan influence on Iran’s religion, culture and language how can it point to an Aryan gene.

How is it so disproportionate?
What percentage would you be happy with?

The British were no where close to 10% and their language is now the official language of Pakistan and India. What do you base your disproportionate comment on?





SUMMARY

No progress made as I said in my last post.

Latest round

You continue to hang up on small things in order to score some sort of a point.

.......Nearly 2 millenia is wrong it is actually 1500 years
Oh no it is 1450 years hence wrong again....

This is the extent of your victory

You continued trying to declare me a cheat even though the half a paragraph I presented and the full one support my POV.

You keep on saying 10% is not enough but you don't explain what percentage is enough.

You were once arguing that Aryan females are bound to not contribute enough to the genepool. But now you are questioning why they are not.

OPTIONS you have presented

Aryan 2

You keep on avoiding the issue.
Aryan2 can only be an answer if you can tell us which race similar to the Aryans came to India before the Aryans.

You have not provided support from one historian of this theory even though I have been asking for it for a 2 pages on this thread.

At best you have an misinterpretation of a historian "suggesting" this.

Farmers migration
Finally put to rest

Anthropological differences between different periods of IVC
You have an option from a mystical races, Aryans or sumerians.
Sumerians don't fit the data.
If you want the data to fit then you have a mystical race.

Where to now

Conclusion: It is either the Aryans or a race historians have not identified yet.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

No progress made as I said in my last post.

Latest round

You continue to hang up on small things in order to score some sort of a point.

.......Nearly 2 millenia is wrong it is actually 1500 years
Oh no it is 1450 years hence wrong again....

This is the extent of your victory

You continued trying to declare me a cheat even though the half a paragraph I presented and the full one support my POV.

You keep on saying 10% is not enough but you don't explain what percentage is enough.

You were once arguing that Aryan females are bound to not contribute enough to the genepool. But now you are questioning why they are not.

OPTIONS you have presented

Aryan 2

You keep on avoiding the issue.
Aryan2 can only be an answer if you can tell us which race similar to the Aryans came to India before the Aryans.

You have not provided support from one historian of this theory even though I have been asking for it for a 2 pages on this thread.

At best you have an misinterpretation of a historian "suggesting" this.

Farmers migration
Finally put to rest

Anthropological differences between different periods of IVC
You have an option from a mystical races, Aryans or sumerians.
Sumerians don't fit the data.
If you want the data to fit then you have a mystical race.

Where to now

Conclusion: It is either the Aryans or a race historians have not identified yet.

 

[moumotta]

Moumoutta just the fact that you want hang onto something which is a lost cause shows how badly your point has been defeated.

For the races you mentioned I showed alternate theories of lineages other than Aryans for all.

Did the alternative theory prove their ancestry excluded Aryan.

Avesta describe their initial settlements and area of control this supports my theory that only part of Iran was occupied.

Only initially, not for ever. It says nothing about what happened after Avesta was composed.

If we have evidence of their movement into the rest of Iran then please provide it.

Aryan ancestries of Lurs, Kurds and Baluch.

Achaemedian empire covering all of modern day Iran and beyond in about one millennium after their entry in Iran.

Spread of Indo European language in all of Iran. How did Aryan language spread to rest of Iran if they were themselves confined in the north.

So this argument is also all in your head. How do you know a difference of 10% and 30% is large?

Well then what is all the debate about. Let us end it here and now.

No differences are large enough to look for any answer. 3%, 10%, 30%, 50%, are all the same. It is all in our heads.

You asked me to explain something and I explained it.

Now you are being a baby and asking me to carry out detailed tests, area by area on the Iranians.

We can only play with the data we have my friend.

I have given you two possible explanations, there may be many more but the point is that you raised an objection and it has been proven how your objection is not enough to rubbish the proposed answer.

Stop claiming I am asking you to do any thing.

You have given no evidence for Aryans stuck in north Iran, neither historic nor genetic. You have a 3500 year old evidence in Avesta and you want to argue time stops there.

Yes you present something happening nearly 2 millenia (I'm sorry 1500 years) after the event and I am the one prolonging the debate.

Nearly one millennia, though I am not sure what time has got to do with it.

We are talking about establishment of an empire to answer your point that Aryans did not take over all of modern day Iran or moved out of north Iran.

Why is that relevant but just to embarras you.
Picture of Ashokan empire removed

You have changed your mind. This is what you said some days ago.

WAZEERI= I don't think I have claimed that the Aryans took over all of India, There are only two or three empires which managed that.​

Unlike Darius, Mauryans never identified them selves as Aryans.
Mauryans did not follow Aryan religion. Chandragupta was a Jain and Ashoka did more than any one to propoagate Buddhism.
There are various theories about the origin of Chandragupta, most common being that he was the illegitimate child of a sudra prince. There are also suggestions he may have been a Scythian.

If you are being pedantically stubborn the Achaemenid Empire was established in 550 BC. The maximum, assuming Aryans entered Iran on the stroke of 2nd millenium BC is 1450 years.
The actual would be even lower than 1450 unless they were waiting at the gates for the buzzer to strike commenement of millenium

Oh no I got it wrong again, it's not 1500 years it's 1450 years
I just have to commit suicide now.

What was that thing about prolonging the debate Moumotta?

Don’t blame me. I did point out earlier that the time gap was not 2 millenia. When you insisted on repeating your claim I have no option but to prove it wrong.

Remember that even the 1450 is a maximum. You rounded up 1450, already a a maximum, to 1500 and then again rounded up 1500 to 2 millennium.

No I mean mystery as in an identification of who these people were, where they came from, why they came, what they brought with them....etc

You know the kind of things Historians generally try to answer about migrations.

Answer to your question BTW: Farmers.

Designing a question to fit the answer.

1. Let us apply it to Aryans. Where did they came from, why they came, what they brought with them.

2. As for farmers
Where did they come from?
What race were the farmers.
Why did they migrate.
What was there appearance like.
What language did they speak.
What were their beliefs.

Moumotta you are confusing yourself BIG TIME, let's take your line of reasoning for a minute.

The scholar you are speaking of was quoting Kivisild's paper which talks of only 10% mtdna lineages.

In Kivisild's other paper we have the data for male lineage.

Now what are you suggesting that this scholar is claiming?
That Kivisild got the test wrong? Or Kivisild's data is dubvious?

These questions are to be put to Kivisild not me.

Which data have I misinterpreted?
Kivisild's paper has shown HG3 to be 30% in India
Kivisild's paper has declared recent eurasian mtDna lineages to account for 10%.

How have I misinterpreted that?

Kivisild is quoting these figures as examples of inconsistency. If the answer was as simple as population Vs lineage proportions then he would have mentioned that as well.

You have tried to argue there is no inconsistency.

Why do you think he is quoting low Iran and Caucasus figures. Because these places are supposedly linked with Aryans. He is removing these places from the equation, You are doing your best to include Iran in your route.

When you depart from his interpretation, you are on your own.

PS: There is a massive database, read up on the human genome project.

And another thing the studies are not giving contraidctory messages, the scientists are giving contradictory conclusions.

What is the relevance of Genome Project. Ho much of that project information has been used in the study or in our discussion.

No problem as many times as you like, I will really baby it down for you.

There are two explanations to the supposed anthropological differences
1) ARYANS

2) SUMERIANS
We know that there is little evidence to suggest either of the above hence there is another explanation
3) UNIDENTIFIED MIGRATION

If we accept 1) then that defeats your argument
If we accept 2) then you need to explain Belarus, Poland, Ukraine
If we accept 3) then we do something that I have been asking you to do for 14 posts.

I don’t think we can totally rule out Aryans or Sumerians. We know that there were Aryans in Iran in 3rd BC. It is conceivable that they made their way to Indus Valley. We also know that IVC had trade contacts with Mesopotamians.

Having said that even the historians you quote are merely looking for answers from popular alternatives. I will prefer to go for what they have been described by historians, Mediterranean.

What I have done so far is to show you that there were migrations before Aryans from West Eurasia upto 6000 years ago.

You will have to hold your assertions till I move to discussing the alternatives.

Different layers are what determine their timings.
Guess we are going to need more references.
http://vishalagarwal.voiceofdharma.com/articles/indhistory/whatisamt/partc.htm
Dales pointed out that the stratigraphic context of these skeletons had not been recorded properly and so it was impossible to verify if they really belonged to the period of the Indus civilization.

Most historians have not gone that far in questioning Aryan invasion theory. They haven’t thrown the baby with the bath water.

Detailed skeletal examinations revealed that vast majority of Indus Valley sites contained "proto-Mediterranean" types (Journal of Indo-European Studies (1973) Volume 1. Proto-Mediterranean people are gracile, small toothed, and Caucasoid, while Negroids are robust and large toothed, or mega-dont (Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Great Britain and Ireland 14:183-186,)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK5PYF7WN5W4WB

BB Lal in AL Basham’s Cultural History of India states that the cosmopolitan population of Indus Valley included Mediterranean, Proto-Australoids, Alpines and Mongoloids.

How comes this conversation starts with post 136 and not post 135.
When I said so it was Aryans all along what was I speaking off?

Here is the quote which started this off

Moumotta: How do you get people who are not racially and appearance wise different from Aryans.

PS: You have misinterpreted Romilla and I have already shown that in a post before but let's accept your line of thinking.

Once again which historian supports a theory of people racially and appearance wise similar coming to India before the Aryans.

EITHER SAY THEIR NAMES OR ACCEPT THAT THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR MYSTERIOUS MIGRATIONS.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO ASK A QUESTION TO GET AN ANSWER

This has been answered. The Mediterraneans were a substantial portion of population when Aryans entered India. You have also introduced the possibility of Aryans being in IVC.

Coming to your theory of inter-communal conflict- the conflict is clearly between agrarian and pastoral societies.

Where is any reference to migration of agrarian Aryan in history.

References to different religious rites, customs and language also argue against it being inter-communal.

How is it so disproportionate?
What percentage would you be happy with?

The British were no where close to 10% and their language is now the official language of Pakistan and India. What do you base your disproportionate comment on?

Very different times, social/ political structure and state of technology, not sure what your comparison provest

Different means of travel and communication that allowed British to rule India, as a colony without massive transfer of population.

Very different sizes of administrative machinery, employment opportunities and need for and means of education from pre-historic times that allowed English to become a business language.

Yet how many people actually speak it as their first language in homes rather than for education, business and employment- things that did not really exist to any material level 3000 years ago.

How many farmers, potters and iron-smiths in India and Pakistan speak English. How many clerks, executives and scholars were there 3000 years ago.

Farmers migration
Finally put to rest

This is where it rests.

There are also migrations of farmers after 9000 BP. It has been established that migrations continued and around 6000 BP there was a change in the features of the population- as a newer people, Mediterraneans started arriving. They were quite a sizeable proportion of Indus Valley Civilisations.

These people lived in farming communities. If you don’t want to call them farmers and want to give them some other name because it contradicts your stand then do so.​

Wazeeri, It is all getting childish, the way you keep up your chants of embarrassed every few lines and keep claiming victories.

I have also pointed out that your attempts to summarise the points with your own sanitized version and trying to keep a commentary on updates are not really appreciated. You are a participant in a discussion and not a judge, jury, observer or commentator. Please refrain from playing roles you are not supposed to be playing.

I am leaving out controversies from my reply but if you want to bring this thread on rails and end with some semblance of good will then you need to reciprocate.

 

[Wazeeri]

Did the alternative theory prove their ancestry excluded Aryan.

Not what it proved was that you claimed an aryan ancestory for races which have many theories on their origins. Hence your argument against the 10% result is once again weak.

Only initially, not for ever. It says nothing about what happened after Avesta was composed.

Thank you for finally accepting this Avesta point.

Yes it says nothing about what happened after but this was the region from which the Aryans drove out the existing inhabitants and estalished a near complete Aryan hold.

The 10% can be explained by this fact because the region we are now referring to as Iran contains land which was not heavily populated by the Aryans and received the Aryan gene later through dilluted armies.

What happened 1500 years later becomes less conclusive due to inter-marriages and subsequent invasions.

Aryan ancestries of Lurs, Kurds and Baluch.

Let's not play games, that point has already been proven to be a weak postulation.

Spread of Indo European language in all of Iran. How did Aryan language spread to rest of Iran if they were themselves confined in the north.

The answer is in your post, the Archaemedian empire covering the Iranian plateau.

Achaemedian empire covering all of modern day Iran and beyond in about one millennium after their entry in Iran.

An empire having a king claiming Aryan ancestory explains how their language spread across the land, I believe I gave an example of the British earlier.

An empire having a king claiming Aryan ancestory does not conclude that the Aryan gene becomes dominant in the region. British example once again.

Well then what is all the debate about. Let us end it here and now. No differences are large enough to look for any answer. 3%, 10%, 30%, 50%, are all the same. It is all in our heads.

When you speak about ancient history the data is suggestive.
The data indicates regions where the gene had a chance to spread.
Iran was identified as somewhere where you expected a better result.
Two explanations have been forwarded.

Stop claiming I am asking you to do any thing. You have given no evidence for Aryans stuck in north Iran, neither historic nor genetic. You have a 3500 year old evidence in Avesta and you want to argue time stops there.

I have given you an explanation to show why your objection to my position is not conclusive because your objection is not complete as there is an explanation for a smaller result from Iran.

You are asking me to break Kivisild's data down for you, knowing fully well that this is not available to either one of us.

Hence the only option I have is to carry out the genetic studies.

You have changed your mind. This is what you said some days ago.
WAZEERI= I don't think I have claimed that the Aryans took over all of India, There are only two or three empires which managed that.

And I still don't claim any such, the answer was to show you a similarity to your Archaemedian empire theory.

And you haven't answered my question.
Why is this relevant?

Unlike Darius, Mauryans never identified them selves as Aryans. Mauryans did not follow Aryan religion. Chandragupta was a Jain and Ashoka did more than any one to propoagate Buddhism. There are various theories about the origin of Chandragupta, most common being that he was the illegitimate child of a sudra prince. There are also suggestions he may have been a Scythian.

Yes and there are also suggestions that they were Aryans.
There is a very big possibility that the armies consisted of people of Aryan ancestory.

Once again we are playing around with could have and would haves without actually you declaring what your point exactly is.

Don’t blame me. I did point out earlier that the time gap was not 2 millenia. When you insisted on repeating your claim I have no option but to prove it wrong.

Sorry for calling 1450 nearly 2 millenia.

1. Let us apply it to Aryans. Where did they came from, why they came, what they brought with them.

I am sure we have already been here but lets go again

Where? Possibly
North Eastern Europe
North Central Europe

What did they bring?
Language
Religion
Arts

2. As for farmers Where did they come from? What race were the farmers. Why did they migrate. What was there appearance like. What language did they speak. What were their beliefs.

They came from the fertile crescent or they came from the near east and the migration was a mere technology exchange between neighbouring settlements.

They were Possibly Dravidian or Austronesians (possibly same)

We don't know what their appearance was like.

We don't know what language they spoke, the earlier migrants did not a written language. Their later generations may have developed a language but it has not been decypherd yet.

Why do you think he is quoting low Iran and Caucasus figures. Because these places are supposedly linked with Aryans. He is removing these places from the equation, You are doing your best to include Iran in your route. When you depart from his interpretation, you are on your own.

Once again you have asked a tonne of questions and confused yourself.

Let me remind you that the data you are having trouble with is
10% MtDna lineages and
30% HG3
Not about the Y chromosome data in different places.
Both these pieces of data are from Kivisild.

You are saying that the female contribution should be comparable (even though it has been explained to you) to the male. You have a problem with 30% Vs 10%.

I have not misinterpreted the data, it is there for all to see.
So your question should be to Kivisild not me.

What is the relevance of Genome Project. Ho much of that project information has been used in the study or in our discussion.

It was in answer to your suggestion that the technology is in it's infancy and there is no large database on genes.

Having said that even the historians you quote are merely looking for answers from popular alternatives. I will prefer to go for what they have been described by historians, Mediterranean.

Or more precisely Iranians or West Eurasians from Near East.

Anyway let's accept that it was mediterranean and any of the countries which could be described as a mediterranean country.

Now are Belarus, Ukraine and Poland Mediterranean countries?

If not is this not a red herring?

BB Lal in AL Basham’s Cultural History of India states that the cosmopolitan population of Indus Valley included Mediterranean, Proto-Australoids, Alpines and Mongoloids.

Your point??

Coming to your theory of inter-communal conflict- the conflict is clearly between agrarian and pastoral societies. Where is any reference to migration of agrarian Aryan in history. References to different religious rites, customs and language also argue against it being inter-communal.

So once again you have not answered my question even though it was written in capitals.

Anyway your questions should be put to Romilla however here is something which may help

If the distinction is not racial, it is linguistic, social and cultural. There is a difference, but it consists of other features. And if this is the distinction, then the terms, Arya and Dasa would have gradually acquired these distinctions and become intertwined with social hierarchies.
...............

So this old theory of the superior aryas who came in, invaded and conquered these poor indigenous people, poverty stricken and submissive, this certainly does not come from this picture.

The above two quotes show that Romilla is arguing that the violence narrated in the Rig veda does not show a host nation and an invading nation. These events could be from a post Aryan migration period in which people of the same race became distinct due to sociopolitical circumsances and choices of lifestyles.

Anyway whether Romilla is proposing that a race similar to the Aryans came to India before the Aryans or not, I don't really care because I consider this a red herring.

However if it is the former then for the millionth time.
Show me a historian who supports this hypothesis.
Show me where Romillas says that a race similar to the Aryans arrived in India before the Aryans.

Different means of travel and communication that allowed British to rule India, as a colony without massive transfer of population. Very different sizes of administrative machinery, employment opportunities and need for and means of education from pre-historic times that allowed English to become a business language.

Near all massive conquests have been due to armies defeating local armies and enrolling the surviving soldiers into their own.

You never have massive invasions where a population totally displaces the host.
Hence the invading forces don't always rely on population transfers.

The language of the invaders is bound to become the official language. The schools teach the official languages and chances of getting official jobs are dependant on learning the strongest languages.

The introduction of sanskrit as a language of the learned, the practicing of rituals in sanskrit...etc is enough to influence the local population, especially over a few thousand years.

Yet how many people actually speak it as their first language in homes rather than for education, business and employment- things that did not really exist to any material level 3000 years ago. How many farmers, potters and iron-smiths in India and Pakistan speak English. How many clerks, executives and scholars were there 3000 years ago.

How many Tamils speak sanskrit?

Dravidian and Vedic languages have both accepted and contributed to each other.

There are also migrations of farmers after 9000 BP. It has been established that migrations continued and around 6000 BP there was a change in the features of the population- as a newer people, Mediterraneans started arriving. They were quite a sizeable proportion of Indus Valley Civilisations.

I will start with a side note, the medditeranian skulls are based on a cephalic study. These studies are conclusive of nothing because it has been shown that the cephalics of a parent and a child can be different. Cephalics of one generation to the next can be different.

So finding skulls which have a cephalic index of modern day mediterraneans doesn't necessarily show a migration.

However it is more appropriate to believe that this was due to a migration then a sudden change in the cranial index of a population from one generation to another and it is also sensible to conclude that these people are most likely to be mediterranean (Iran and Neat West).

BUT if this is to be believed then we have to conclude that this was a fresh migration as these people are different from the farmers who came to India.

All of the above however is pointless because neither the Farmer migration nor the subsequent migration have been through Belarus, Ukraine or Polnad for these to be answers to the genetic data,

Wazeeri, It is all getting childish, the way you keep up your chants of embarrassed every few lines and keep claiming victories.

Moumotta I am not the only one who is claiming these childish victories and you may have noticed that I stopped chasing you on your contradictions until you started trying to find them in mine.

I have also pointed out that your attempts to summarise the points with your own sanitized version and trying to keep a commentary on updates are not really appreciated

Moumotta once again I say this with no mallice but you have changed positions on arguments too many timesfor me to remember them off by heart, I need to keep summaries so I can review them faster.

The other point of keeping a summary is to try and get you to summarise your points as well. That is the only way this argument is going to get anywhere near a conclusion.

I will once again Summarise feel free to do so yourself.

SUMMARY

Task

Y chromosome data heavily populated in following areas
Belarus, Poland, Ukraine, Punjab,

Date of seperation
3000 - 5000 years

Suggestions

Aryans

Came to India 3700 years ago
Believed to have originated in Central / Eastern Europe

Farmers
Out by upto 5000 years
Did not go through E Europe

Meditteranian skulls
Does not explain Belarus, Poland, Ukraine

Aryan 2
No support provided from any Historian

Migration we have not yet categorised
Always a possibility

Conclusion

So we really have an option from

ARYANS
OR
Migration we haven't yet categorised.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

Task

Y chromosome data heavily populated in following areas
Belarus, Poland, Ukraine, Punjab,

Date of seperation
3000 - 5000 years

Suggestions

Aryans

Came to India 3700 years ago
Believed to have originated in Central / Eastern Europe

Farmers
Out by upto 5000 years
Did not go through E Europe

Meditteranian skulls
Does not explain Belarus, Poland, Ukraine

Aryan 2
No support provided from any Historian

Migration we have not yet categorised
Always a possibility

Conclusion

So we really have an option from

ARYANS
OR
Migration we haven't yet categorised.

 

[moumotta]

Not what it proved was that you claimed an aryan ancestry for races which have many theories on their origins. Hence your argument against the 10% result is once again weak.

Alternative explanations weaken both ways. The conclusion then would be that we are not sure if the dilution or penetration to south Iran happened or not.

An empire having a king claiming Aryan ancestry explains how their language spread across the land, I believe I gave an example of the British earlier.

An empire having a king claiming Aryan ancestry does not conclude that the Aryan gene becomes dominant in the region. British example once again.

British empire and spread of English is not a very good example because of many additional needs language fulfils in recent times compared to 3000 years ago.
Rather than continuing to argue about Iran etc let us move to the alternatives to Aryan explanation.

I am sure we have already been here but lets go again

Where? Possibly
North Eastern Europe
North Central Europe

What did they bring?
Language
Religion
Arts
They came from the fertile crescent or they came from the near east and the migration was a mere technology exchange between neighbouring settlements.

They were Possibly Dravidian or Austronesians (possibly same)

We don't know what their appearance was like.

We don't know what language they spoke, the earlier migrants did not a written language. Their later generations may have developed a language but it has not been decypherd yet.

The point is that when we are talking about events 3000 years ago and earlier there will always be mysteries. We don’t know for sure where Aryans came from and why did they leave their homelands at all.

For farmers there is not much we know other than migration of domesticated crops and animals. We don’t even know to what extent it was migration of people Vs diffusion of farming knowledge from contacts.

Or more precisely Iranians or West Eurasians from Near East.

Anyway let's accept that it was mediterranean and any of the countries which could be described as a mediterranean country.

Now are Belarus, Ukraine and Poland Mediterranean countries?

If not is this not a red herring?

Let us move to the business end now. We have recorded archaeological evidence of Mediterraneans in India. There is also similar skeletal evidence of Mediterraneans in East Europe. These people are thought to have been in Ukraine from around 4th century BC, very close to the time when they start appearing in Indus Valley Baluchistan start. Clearly, with one group of Mediterraneans moving to India and another to Ukraine there is a strong chance of showing genetic similarities and a separation about 6000 BP.

The most significant memorials of eneolith in Ukraine is associated with so the called Trypillya tribes. This name originates from the village of Trypillya of Kyiv, where the famous archeologist Vikentij Khvojka have found remains of this culture for the first time. As it was cleared up with time, this culture existed since the second half of the IV century to the end of the III century B.C. on the great settlement tract at the meeting point of the Dnipro and Dniestr Rivers approaching on the south the Black Sea steppes and on the north – Volyn’ and Kyiv Polissya of the Desna River.

According to typological features and geographic-space extension the Trypillya culture was related to memorials of the Danube basin, Balkan Peninsula, insular Eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor of that time that proved their reference to the cycle of cultures, which have formed the European Mediterranean civilization. The Trypiltsi belonged to grain-grower and cattle breeding tribes with advantageous farming, their stated cult of fertility goddess “Mother the Great” prove this fact (anthropomorphic image of Mother the Great has been found during archeological dig of almost every Trypillya settlement). Today the most scientists guided by the analysis of skeleton remains, associate identification of the Trypiltsi with the Mediterranean race
http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/printable_article?art_id=2473829
​

BB Lal in AL Basham’s Cultural History of India states that the cosmopolitan population of Indus Valley included Mediterranean, Proto-Australoids, Alpines and Mongoloids.

Your point??

That most historians accept presence of Mediterranean people in India during IVC time.

If the distinction is not racial, it is linguistic, social and cultural. There is a difference, but it consists of other features. And if this is the distinction, then the terms, Arya and Dasa would have gradually acquired these distinctions and become intertwined with social hierarchies.

So this old theory of the superior aryas who came in, invaded and conquered these poor indigenous people, poverty stricken and submissive, this certainly does not come from this picture.

The above two quotes show that Romilla is arguing that the violence narrated in the Rig veda does not show a host nation and an invading nation. These events could be from a post Aryan migration period in which people of the same race became distinct due to sociopolitical circumsances and choices of lifestyles.

Remember that she is discussing Arya- dasa dispute. References to dasa (daha) also appear in Avesta and they refer to non Aryan people.

Also note that when she refers to a conflict between aryans she says it very clearly as in ‘aryas and dasas are not invariably enemies. There are references to aryas fighting aryas’.

The point she is making is that the dispute between Aryans and dasas is about many things but it is not about race.

Anyway whether Romilla is proposing that a race similar to the Aryans came to India before the Aryans or not, I don't really care because I consider this a red herring.

However if it is the former then for the millionth time.
Show me a historian who supports this hypothesis.
Show me where Romillas says that a race similar to the Aryans arrived in India before the Aryans.

The presence of Mediterraneans should be sufficient proof of the hypothesis. I think you are confusing racially similar with racially identical and asking me to provide evidence to fit your mis-read.

 

[Wazeeri]

Alternative explanations weaken both ways. The conclusion then would be that we are not sure if the dilution or penetration to south Iran happened or not.

Moumotta

The point is that there is only one objection to the Aryan theory and even that can be explained.

The point is that when we are talking about events 3000 years ago and earlier there will always be mysteries. We don’t know for sure where Aryans came from and why did they leave their homelands at all.

For farmers there is not much we know other than migration of domesticated crops and animals. We don’t even know to what extent it was migration of people Vs diffusion of farming knowledge from contacts.

We have a very good idea where Aryans may have come from and the Y chromosome data fits a scenario.

Lack of conclusive evidence does not mean that we should not form any conclusions. The study of history would get no where if we took that approach.

Let us move to the business end now. We have recorded archaeological evidence of Mediterraneans in India. There is also similar skeletal evidence of Mediterraneans in East Europe. These people are thought to have been in Ukraine from around 4th century BC, very close to the time when they start appearing in Indus Valley Baluchistan start. Clearly, with one group of Mediterraneans moving to India and another to Ukraine there is a strong chance of showing genetic similarities and a separation about 6000 BP.

With both of these migrations reaching India and Ukraine by 6000 BP we are looking at a separation long before before 6000 BP so we are pushing the time period by a couple of millenia.

However even if we ignore that fact, we have found no evidence of the Trypillya culture reaching India. There are far fetched theories linking it with guess who, the Aryans.

This is a key issue up here because if we are arguing that an insignificant number somehow managed to reach India and settled there then how did this insignificant population leave such a large genetic foot print?

If the migration was significant then how did this migration leave such a large genetic footprint without leaving any of their culture behind or any evidence of their culture behind.

The point she is making is that the dispute between Aryans and dasas is about many things but it is not about race.

You are confusing the point of the debate once again.

You argued that Romilla was suggesting that an earlier migration occured of people who were racially similar to the Aryans.

Wazeeri: What does the racial distinction point have to do with the timing of their arrival? You are trying to prove earlier migrants remember.

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?

The assumption being that when the Aryans invaded they found this race existing their which had come from the outside earlier.

The issue was never about a fight because of racial distinction. Romilla was arguing against the use of these verses as evidence for an invasion.

The presence of Mediterraneans should be sufficient proof of the hypothesis. I think you are confusing racially similar with racially identical and asking me to provide evidence to fit your mis-read.

No I am not confusing anything with anything. Romilla's words are "If the distinction is not racial,".

On the topic of Mediterrenaneans or more specifically "Iranians or the near east", we are yet to establish a link with the Ukrainian, Polish and the Belrussians.

If you are going to argue that it was the Trypillians then first there are questions which need to be answered (asked above) and once again if we don't have answers for the questions or if we don't have scholars supporting any such migration then we can still accept the possibility that these people moved to India but we have to slot this migration as one which is yet to be studied or categorised.


So once again we are still stuck between the ARYANS and a migration which the scholars have not studied as yet.

 

[moumotta]

The point is that there is only one objection to the Aryan theory and even that can be explained.

We have a very good idea where Aryans may have come from and the Y chromosome data fits a scenario.

It is a major objection because as you declared Route Is Important. Yet I am Ok to give Aryans a seat at the table. Meanwhile yoru mystery guest has also arrived and he is Mediterranean.

However, if you are after counting objections you also need to look at the history of Scythians in India.

The extent of the Scythian invasion has been variously estimated. Some scholars believe that they virtually supplanted the previous population of the Punjab region and there seems little doubt that by far the most numerous section of the Punjab population is of Scythian origin.

Compare that with the 50% reading quoted by Kivisild and you wonder if Scythians are being picked up in his readings.

There are also genetic studies that contradict the whole results of Western genetic input to Y chromosome.

Testing a sample of men from 32 tribal and 45 caste groups throughout India, Kashyap's team examined 936 Y chromosomes.

The data reveal that the large majority of modern Indians descended from South Asian ancestors who lived on the Indian subcontinent before an influx of agricultural techniques from the north and west arrived some 10,000 years ago.

The Indian subcontinent may have acquired agricultural techniques and languages—but it absorbed few genes—from the west, said Vijendra Kashyap, director of India's National Institute of Biologicals in Noida.

The finding disputes a long-held theory that a large invasion of central Asians, traveling through a northwest Indian corridor, shaped the language, culture, and gene pool of many modern Indians within the past 10,000 years.​

If Kashyap is right then we have been wasting our time trying to find possible candidates to a genetic input that is being disputed.

We have a very good idea where Aryans may have come from and the Y chromosome data fits a scenario.

Lack of conclusive evidence does not mean that we should not form any conclusions. The study of history would get no where if we took that approach.

We were talking about mysteries. There are mysteries about the details of almost every ancient event. Aryan migration has received so much more attention than any other event and yet there are many un-answered questions about them.

With both of these migrations reaching India and Ukraine by 6000 BP we are looking at a separation long before before 6000 BP so we are pushing the time period by a couple of millenia.

Guess work. No one knows if it is 2000 years or 500 years. In any case it still remains within the range you quoted earlier.

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

However even if we ignore that fact, we have found no evidence of the Trypillya culture reaching India. There are far fetched theories linking it with guess who, the Aryans.
This is a key issue up here because if we are arguing that an insignificant number somehow managed to reach India and settled there then how did this insignificant population leave such a large genetic foot print?
If the migration was significant then how did this migration leave such a large genetic footprint without leaving any of their culture behind or any evidence of their culture behind.

The cultural and technological improvement a people bring depends on the stage of development of the host population. Ukraine was a primitive society and the impact of new people is more clearly visible their than in India which already had a relatively advanced culture.

The migration to India could not have been insignificant. Of the skeletons that were racially identified, Mediterraneans represent 6 out of the 11 skeletons. A small sample but it does nothing to show these were an insignificant presence.

You are confusing the point of the debate once again.

You argued that Romilla was suggesting that an earlier migration occured of people who were racially similar to the Aryans.

Wazeeri: What does the racial distinction point have to do with the timing of their arrival? You are trying to prove earlier migrants remember.

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?

The assumption being that when the Aryans invaded they found this race existing their which had come from the outside earlier.

This horse has been whipped more than it needs to. Presence of Mediterranean blood lines in Ukraine and India should put it to rest.

The issue was never about a fight because of racial distinction. Romilla was arguing against the use of these verses as evidence for an invasion.

No I am not confusing anything with anything. Romilla's words are "If the distinction is not racial,".

Let us drop this topic. Looks like we will never agree on it and it is not relevant any way.

On the topic of Mediterrenaneans or more specifically "Iranians or the near east", we are yet to establish a link with the Ukrainian, Polish and the Belrussians.

If you are going to argue that it was the Trypillians then first there are questions which need to be answered (asked above) and once again if we don't have answers for the questions or if we don't have scholars supporting any such migration then we can still accept the possibility that these people moved to India but we have to slot this migration as one which is yet to be studied or categorised.
So once again we are still stuck between the ARYANS and a migration which the scholars have not studied as yet.

The link has been pretty much established with archaeological evidence. Scholars support these results. That is all we need to prove a genetic impact. Rest of the information you seek is a nice to have but does nothing to challenge the genetic impact.

We know that they existed. You will struggle to call them a mystery.

 

[Wazeeri]

It is a major objection because as you declared Route Is Important. Yet I am Ok to give Aryans a seat at the table. Meanwhile yoru mystery guest has also arrived and he is Mediterranean.

The point re: the meditteraneans has been countered.

Regarding the route yes it is important and the 10% result for Iran does not disprove the aryan theory as there are explanations for it.

If Kashyap is right then we have been wasting our time trying to find possible candidates to a genetic input that is being disputed.

I have been saying this for a long time, your questioning will lead to doubting the Aryan invasion.

The extent of the Scythian invasion has been variously estimated. Some scholars believe that they virtually supplanted the previous population of the Punjab region and there seems little doubt that by far the most numerous section of the Punjab population is of Scythian origin.

The book was written in 1907, history and geneology has moved on since then.

The data reveal that the large majority of modern Indians descended from South Asian ancestors who lived on the Indian subcontinent before an influx of agricultural techniques from the north and west arrived some 10,000 years ago.

No one said that the majority of Indians were of western origin and if Kashyap...etc are to be believed then we are talking about a migration out of Pakistan rather than into Pakistan.

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

First of all the margin is 3000-5000 years.

Touching the above margins means that these people teleported or a mutation occured in the genepool and all people with the mutation managed to group themselves into one large group and emigrated.

You have misquoted and misunderstood but let's assess your claim.

• First of all if we are looking at teleportation then you are already pushing these parameters with 6000BP.
  
• If we look at anything over 2000 years then you have crossed the limit by Bamshad.
  
• We haven't even established that these are the same people in fact NO Historian supports or hypothesises the common origin of Trypillians and the medits in India.
  
• Can you not see how you have to push at improbabilities to support your claim.

The migration to India could not have been insignificant. Of the skeletons that were racially identified, Mediterraneans represent 6 out of the 11 skeletons. A small sample but it does nothing to show these were an insignificant presence.

Atleast we have established that you are arguing that they were significant in numbers even though your argument to support this is wrong but lets accept it.

You also argue that the Ukrainian culture was primitive and that is why they accepted so much of the Trypillian culture where as India's culture and environment was more advanced.

The fact remains that these people came over in large numbers according to you yet they left no ZERO traces of their culture behind.

There is no historian who supports a migration of tryppilians into India.

This horse has been whipped more than it needs to. Presence of Mediterranean blood lines in Ukraine and India should put it to rest.

No it hasn't because for one there is no presence of blood lines in Ukraine. The hypothesis is based on cranial indexes which is far from conclusive and secondally why are you trying to imply that the medditeranean is one big race?

You are yet to prove that there was a migration from Ukraine, Poland and Belarus into India before the Aryans.

Let us drop this topic. Looks like we will never agree on it and it is not relevant any way.

If you are willing to accept that there is no support for such a migration then fine otherwise why shall I concede a point which supports my argument?

The link has been pretty much established with archaeological evidence. Scholars support these results. That is all we need to prove a genetic impact. Rest of the information you seek is a nice to have but does nothing to challenge the genetic impact.

Yes they existed in the shape of Iranians and near east not Trypplians.

If you can't provide a link between the two then unfortunatley all progress we have made on page 5 of this thread is

ARYANS Vs a migration we are yet to discover or categorise.

Your arguments need improbabilities and that is why there is no historian who supports them.

 

[moumotta]

The point re: the meditteraneans has been countered.

Regarding the route yes it is important and the 10% result for Iran does not disprove the aryan theory as there are explanations for it.

As we have seen earlier, a counter does not mean it has been disproved.

I have been saying this for a long time, your questioning will lead to doubting the Aryan invasion.

It is unscientific to stop questioning for fear of where an enquiry might lead. If different studies are giving different results it again comes back to how reliable these studies are.

The book was written in 1907, history and geneology has moved on since then.

If people think they were such a sizeable migration then Scythians need to go on board as another candidate in addition to Mediterraneans, particularly as they were also a sizeable presence in East Europe.

First of all the margin is 3000-5000 years.

Touching the above margins means that these people teleported or a mutation occured in the genepool and all people with the mutation managed to group themselves into one large group and emigrated.

You are not backing out of 6000-8000 years (Bamshad) 6000-10000 years (Kivisild)?

Humans move in groups. Descendents from a particular mutation would belong to the same tribe and would more likely move together. It’s not such a low probability outcome.

You have misquoted and misunderstood but let's assess your claim.
· First of all if we are looking at teleportation then you are already pushing these parameters with 6000BP.
· If we look at anything over 2000 years then you have crossed the limit by Bamshad.
· We haven't even established that these are the same people in fact NO Historian supports or hypothesises the common origin of Trypillians and the medits in India.
Can you not see how you have to push at improbabilities to support your claim.

I mentioned 2000 years as an extreme- extreme and yet it remains within Bamshad’s 8000. Kivisild will give me up to 10000 years. In reality you know that it wouldn’t take them 2000 years.

There is no teleportation involved with a comfortable 500- 1000 years to track to the new lands. Even with 2000 years we are just touching it but that is not relevant any way. Nor is there any improbability in descendents of a particular mutation banding together.

When location and time coordinates match there is a strong likelihood of them being the same people. Historians agree they were both Mediterranean people.

Atleast we have established that you are arguing that they were significant in numbers even though your argument to support this is wrong but lets accept it.

You also argue that the Ukrainian culture was primitive and that is why they accepted so much of the Trypillian culture where as India's culture and environment was more advanced.

The fact remains that these people came over in large numbers according to you yet they left no ZERO traces of their culture behind.

There is no historian who supports a migration of tryppilians into India.

I am saying it is not easy to identify individual contributions from events 6000 years ago. How does that disprove appearance of Mediterraneans in archaeological records. It does not make them vanish.

No it hasn't because for one there is no presence of blood lines in Ukraine. The hypothesis is based on cranial indexes which is far from conclusive and secondally why are you trying to imply that the medditeranean is one big race?

We are talking about Mediterranean physical type, people with similar physical types should share genetic link. Nothing in ancient history is conclusive. What I am proposing is a strong possibility that common people migrated in two different directions. If you are looking for conclusive evidence there isn’t any for any of the migrations.

You are yet to prove that there was a migration from Ukraine, Poland and Belarus into India before the Aryans.

That is based on your theory that the only possible explanation was a migration from East Europe to India. It is not relevant to my hypothesis but if all you want is a theory then there is the Sarkar hypothesis in God- apes and fossil book cited earlier that claims Harappan progenitors reached the Indus Valley via a route across the Ukraine.

If you are willing to accept that there is no support for such a migration then fine otherwise why shall I concede a point which supports my argument?

I am not asking you to concede anything but we will never agree on it while you read lines rather than paragraphs.

Yes they existed in the shape of Iranians and near east not Trypplians.

If you can't provide a link between the two then unfortunatley all progress we have made on page 5 of this thread is

ARYANS Vs a migration we are yet to discover or categorise.

Your arguments need improbabilities and that is why there is no historian who supports them.

The link is location and time. It is funny that that you don’t need any evidence of their cultural influence if they are from near east but want it if they are from another place.

Similarly you have nothing to support cultural affiniy between Aryans and Ukrainians and yet you want to see evidence of such affinity for Mediterraneans.

 

[Wazeeri]

As we have seen earlier, a counter does not mean it has been disproved.

My point exactly, you have raised an objection against the route criteria and I have shown you how that objection is not complete enough to disprove my argument.

It is unscientific to stop questioning for fear of where an enquiry might lead. If different studies are giving different results it again comes back to how reliable these studies are.

To reach a conclusion we have to use the process of elimination. You and I have already discarded the "Out of India theory" to get to an answer.

PS: The data does not go against the data provided earlier, it's only the conclusions which are different.

If people think they were such a sizeable migration then Scythians need to go on board as another candidate in addition to Mediterraneans, particularly as they were also a sizeable presence in East Europe.

Different time period of movement to the one we are looking at and the book you presented was 100 years old so it doesn't represent what the scholars think now.

You are not backing out of 6000-8000 years (Bamshad) 6000-10000 years (Kivisild)?

No I am just highlighting that you have a theory which has no support and even if it did you need to touch improbabilities to support it anyway.

I wanted to highlight that you are not even attempting to match the time criteria anymore.

Humans move in groups. Descendents from a particular mutation would belong to the same tribe and would more likely move together. It’s not such a low probability outcome.

If the mutation took place at the point of separation then it is very unlikely that a whole group moved.

I mentioned 2000 years as an extreme- extreme and yet it remains within Bamshad’s 8000. Kivisild will give me up to 10000 years. In reality you know that it wouldn’t take them 2000 years.

We don't even know where they came from.

It hasn't even been established that they represent the same people, why are you estimating a point of separation when this is the case?

When location and time coordinates match there is a strong likelihood of them being the same people. Historians agree they were both Mediterranean people.

What location has been matched? Meditteranean?

This description covers more then just one continent and more then a dozen countries.

Spain, France, Monaco, Italy, Malta, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Greece ,Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Israel , Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.

Are you claiming all of these people are the same?

I am saying it is not easy to identify individual contributions from events 6000 years ago. How does that disprove appearance of Mediterraneans in archaeological records. It does not make them vanish.

I think my point was very clear,

You are suggesting that the Trypillians arrived in India and the Ukraine at the exact same time from somewhere in the meditteranean 6000 years ago.

I want to know why they have left ZERO evidence of their existence in India behind. (Don't say the skeletons are the evidence please because we are trying to establish who they are).

You are arguing that 6000 years is too long for history to be tracked but this is a weak point because 6000 years ago these very same people left behind enough evidence to start of a separate subject in ancient history.

I am not asking you to concede anything but we will never agree on it while you read lines rather than paragraphs.

I am sorry Moumotta but it is the other way around.

You tried to imply that a line from Romilla's article/paper suggested an earlier migration of people similar to the Aryans. You misinterpreted her paper as she was arguing against the use of that line to support an invasionary scenario.

I have asked you to provide me with scientific/scholarly backing and you haven't done so.

We are talking about Mediterranean physical type, people with similar physical types should share genetic link. Nothing in ancient history is conclusive. What I am proposing is a strong possibility that common people migrated in two different directions. If you are looking for conclusive evidence there isn’t any for any of the migrations.

Mediterranean physical type???? what does that mean?
Are you saying everyone who can be described as a mediterranean looks the same?

And what strong possibility?
How did you reach the conclusion that the possibility of these people being from the same location is strong when we don't have an ounce of evidence for it?

That is based on your theory that the only possible explanation was a migration from East Europe to India.

I think you are confusing the issue up here. It has nothing to with my theory.

We are trying to explain the Y Chromosome data.

Your suggestions so far don't match.

The link is location and time.

There is no link to time: These migrations reached India and the Ukraine at the same time.

There is no link to location: because we are yet to establish that these people are the same or even where they came from.

It is funny that that you don’t need any evidence of their cultural influence if they are from near east but want it if they are from another place.

Similarly you have nothing to support cultural affiniy between Aryans and Ukrainians and yet you want to see evidence of such affinity for Mediterraneans

1stly You keep on using the word mediterranean as if it represents one race or one people.

We have evidence of shared culture between Pakistan and the Iranians 6000 years ago.We have evidence of technology transfer. Besides why should I ask for evidence of this when neither are you supporting it and neither am I arguing against it?

2ndly there is support for aryans in Ukraine from many historians and scholars, there is nothing evenly remotely equivalent for this new theory of trypillian migration to India.

This is another one of the migrations which can be slotted into "Migrations not discovered yet".

So still we have ARYANS vs "Migrations which we haven't discovered yet".

 

[moumotta]

My point exactly, you have raised an objection against the route criteria and I have shown you how that objection is not complete enough to disprove my argument.

You could also add your counter to Mediterraneans to the example

To reach a conclusion we have to use the process of elimination. You and I have already discarded the "Out of India theory" to get to an answer.

Out of India has no relevance here. The article clearly says he is agreeing with importation of language from outside.

PS: The data does not go against the data provided earlier, it's only the conclusions which are different.

Please share what data you are talking about. I have only seen a conclusion that speaks clearly against significant genetic importation from West.

Different time period of movement to the one we are looking at and the book you presented was 100 years old so it doesn't represent what the scholars think now.

Here is more recent information.

Scythian in East Europe
A group of Indo-European tribes that controlled the Southern Ukrainian steppe in the 7th to 3rd centuries BC. They first appeared there in the late 8th century BC after having been forced out of Central Asia
http://www.brama.com/news/press/001022scythian_history.html

Scythian kingdom in Indian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indo-ScythiansMap.jpg

Clearly they remain a strong candidate.

No I am just highlighting that you have a theory which has no support and even if it did you need to touch improbabilities to support it anyway.

I wanted to highlight that you are not even attempting to match the time criteria anymore.

There is no improbabilities as explained last time. I am giving you candidates at both ends of the spectrum- Mediterraneans and Scythains.

If the mutation took place at the point of separation then it is very unlikely that a whole group moved.

What is your point.

We don't even know where they came from.

It hasn't even been established that they represent the same people, why are you estimating a point of separation when this is the case?

What location has been matched? Meditteranean?

This description covers more then just one continent and more then a dozen countries.

Spain, France, Monaco, Italy, Malta, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Greece ,Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Israel , Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.

Are you claiming all of these people are the same?

I am not the one that came up with the term Mediterranean race. It is used by Marshall in his excavation report.

point was very clear,

You are suggesting that the Trypillians arrived in India and the Ukraine at the exact same time from somewhere in the meditteranean 6000 years ago.

I want to know why they have left ZERO evidence of their existence in India behind. (Don't say the skeletons are the evidence please because we are trying to establish who they are).

Trypillian is a name given after a Ukraine village. The skeletons have been identified and named by people and accepted by historians and archaeologists. If you want to float alternative theories do so but they will remain alternative theories.

You are arguing that 6000 years is too long for history to be tracked but this is a weak point because 6000 years ago these very same people left behind enough evidence to start of a separate subject in ancient history.

If you are referring to 6000 years ago in Ukraine then it has been explained why a sudden up-shift in culture is more likely to leave a noticeable mark.

The arrival of a new people in India has left an archaeological mark in their remains. All you are questioning is why there is no visible cultural change at the time. Our ability to identify cultural changes is limited when we have lost all language information from that age. Even for Aryans, despite all the language heritage there is very little cultural link established with any people.

I am sorry Moumotta but it is the other way around.

You tried to imply that a line from Romilla's article/paper suggested an earlier migration of people similar to the Aryans. You misinterpreted her paper as she was arguing against the use of that line to support an invasionary scenario.

I have asked you to provide me with scientific/scholarly backing and you haven't done so.

We are going in circles. I was referring to your hypothesis of inter- community dispute. As for Aryans meeting people ‘similar to Aryans’- people of non-dark skin, This has been clarified. Mediterraneans were those people.

Mediterranean physical type???? what does that mean?
Are you saying everyone who can be described as a mediterranean looks the same?

And what strong possibility?
How did you reach the conclusion that the possibility of these people being from the same location is strong when we don't have an ounce of evidence for it?

People who share physical attributes with a race identified as Mediterraneans. People of same race will share genetic links.

I think you are confusing the issue up here. It has nothing to with my theory.

We are trying to explain the Y Chromosome data.

Your suggestions so far don't match.

Why not. A migration from a common area to two different places will carry genetic material with them. All you are questioning is whether these people were genetically linked before migration. Since they are both described as Mediterranean race and share similar features there is a good chance they were.

There is no link to time: These migrations reached India and the Ukraine at the same time.

There is no link to location: because we are yet to establish that these people are the same or even where they came from.

Unless you can prove they took vastly different times to reach two places, there will be a link.
Location link has been established. All you are arguing is whether these people had genetic links. The fact that historians called it a race would suggest they did.

1stly You keep on using the word mediterranean as if it represents one race or one people.

Check Marshall’s book. The section I quoted earlier is titled Mediterranean Race. It is not a phrase I have created.

We have evidence of shared culture between Pakistan and the Iranians 6000 years ago.We have evidence of technology transfer. Besides why should I ask for evidence of this when neither are you supporting it and neither am I arguing against it?

2ndly there is support for aryans in Ukraine from many historians and scholars, there is nothing evenly remotely equivalent for this new theory of trypillian migration to India.

This is another one of the migrations which can be slotted into "Migrations not discovered yet".

So still we have ARYANS vs "Migrations which we haven't discovered yet".

Iran is going a bit too far east for the origin of Mediterranean people unless you are arguing they were from a stream of a migration that passed through and part settled in Iran

 

[Wazeeri]

You could also add your counter to Mediterraneans to the example

No I wouldn't go that far because that is a very poorly constructed theory,
I don't just have an objection against I am asking for any sort of evidence to support it.

So far all you have is the word mediterranean.

Out of India has no relevance here. The article clearly says he is agreeing with importation of language from outside.

Please share what data you are talking about. I have only seen a conclusion that speaks clearly against significant genetic importation from West.

The out of India theory also supports migration out of India into West Eurasia after droughts in the Indus valley.

It is always a must to read the actual paper before presenting it in the argument.
whereas R1a occurs at the highest frequencies in
populations of India, East Europe, and Central Asia.

In other words, if the source of R1a variation in India comes from Central Asia, as claimed by Wells et al. (18) and Cordaux et al. (19), then, under a recent gene flow scenario, one would expect to find the other Central Asian-derived NRY haplogroups

Like I said earlier the genetic data can only tell you where a certain race has visited, the direction of travel is open to different conclusions.

The reason why Kashyap declares a very low Western Influx is because he has declared one of the Y chromosomes to be Indian as opposed to West Eurasian like most other geneticists.

Scythian in East Europe
A group of Indo-European tribes that controlled the Southern Ukrainian steppe in the 7th to 3rd centuries BC. They first appeared there in the late 8th century BC after having been forced out of Central Asia
http://www.brama.com/news/press/001...an_history.html

Scythian kingdom in Indian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indo-ScythiansMap.jpg

Moumotta if we are to keep this discussion civil then we have to be sensible,
Please don't intoduce more red herrings into the discussion.

Indo-Scythian Kingdom started in 200 BC. Which is nearly a good 2 millenia out of the date we are looking at,

You presented a quote from a book and you were unaware that it was from 1907. Why can't you just accept that and leave it at that. Why persist with a mistake?

There is no improbabilities as explained last time. I am giving you candidates at both ends of the spectrum- Mediterraneans and Scythains.

Yes there are, you are crossing the limits as per Bamshad and you are crossing the most accomodating calculations of Kivisild.

On top of that you haven't even presented the time of separation.
Because we don't know where the separation took place.

I am not the one that came up with the term Mediterranean race. It is used by Marshall in his excavation report.

And you are dodging the point up here, which of the mediterranean races is this then?

Trypillian is a name given after a Ukraine village. The skeletons have been identified and named by people and accepted by historians and archaeologists. If you want to float alternative theories do so but they will remain alternative theories.

You are dodging the question which very clear,

It doesn't matter where they got their name from, the name was given just to identify them.

The point is which hitorian supports these people coming to India?

If you are referring to 6000 years ago in Ukraine then it has been explained why a sudden up-shift in culture is more likely to leave a noticeable mark.

The arrival of a new people in India has left an archaeological mark in their remains. All you are questioning is why there is no visible cultural change at the time. Our ability to identify cultural changes is limited when we have lost all language information from that age. Even for Aryans, despite all the language heritage there is very little cultural link established with any people.

Please be sensivble, I already preempted your reply and you ignored it.

WE are trying to establish who the skeletons belonged to. The skeletons themselves are not evidence of the Tryppillians. You are assuming something and then presenting it as your argument.

This is your theory.

It is supported by no historian.

Please provide support.

PS: This isn't about the Tryppilians leaving much evidence of their culture in Ukraine and little in India. This is about the Tryppilians leaving ZERO evidence in India.

We are going in circles. I was referring to your hypothesis of inter- community dispute. As for Aryans meeting people ‘similar to Aryans’- people of non-dark skin, This has been clarified. Mediterraneans were those people.

Mediterraneans tend to have dark skins as well.

This is going around in circles because you keep on sending it into circles.

The fact of the matter is that you were trying to suggest that the verses were speaking of a race similar to that of the Aryans which the Aryans took over even though Romilla was arguing specifically against the notion that the verse support some invasionary scenario.

Another thing which you keep on dodging is the link of these mediterraneans to the three E European countries named.

People who share physical attributes with a race identified as Mediterraneans. People of same race will share genetic links.

So Egyptians, Turkish, French, Italians, Spanish...and many many more people are the same race?

Why not. A migration from a common area to two different places will carry genetic material with them. All you are questioning is whether these people were genetically linked before migration. Since they are both described as Mediterranean race and share similar features there is a good chance they were.

Once again you are hiding behind the mediterranean categorisation even though it is clear that this applies to many races.

Unless you can prove they took vastly different times to reach two places, there will be a link.
Location link has been established. All you are arguing is whether these people had genetic links. The fact that historians called it a race would suggest they did.#

Name the location what is it?

You claim that these people are linked by location but you haven't even name the location.

Check Marshall’s book. The section I quoted earlier is titled Mediterranean Race. It is not a phrase I have created.

Marshall is only distinguishing these people from the Mongloids, Austroloids and the earlier Indians.

Here is what he says "The second or Mediterranean type of skull "


You are forcing me to do a summary because you keep on dodging the question

TRYPPILIANS

• You are claiming that the Tryppilians landed in India at the same time as they landed in Ukraine
• However they have left ZERO evidence in India of their existence
• Once again another one of your suggestions has ZERO backing from historians and scholars

Mediterranean

• You have mediterranean type of skulls in India
• You have a hypothesis that the Trypplians were of Mediterranean origins
• You are putting two and two together even though the meditteranean includes 20 different countries with various races within each one of them

To clear the confusion

• What is the location these people separated from? ie one went to Ukraine and the other to India?
• Provide support from a historian of this scenario.

If you can't then can you please accept that this is a new theory of yours and you have no support of it.


We have still made no progress from ARYAN Vs Undiscovered Migration.

 

[moumotta]

I will keep it short and to the point. That is the only way to keep it civil.

The out of India theory also supports migration out of India into West Eurasia after droughts in the Indus valley.

It is always a must to read the actual paper before presenting it in the argument.
whereas R1a occurs at the highest frequencies in
populations of India, East Europe, and Central Asia.

In other words, if the source of R1a variation in India comes from Central Asia, as claimed by Wells et al. (18) and Cordaux et al. (19), then, under a recent gene flow scenario, one would expect to find the other Central Asian-derived NRY haplogroups

Like I said earlier the genetic data can only tell you where a certain race has visited, the direction of travel is open to different conclusions.

The reason why Kashyap declares a very low Western Influx is because he has declared one of the Y chromosomes to be Indian as opposed to West Eurasian like most other geneticists.

He is only suggesting that the evidence does not support much gene flow to India in recent times. What has that got to do with Out of India.

Moumotta if we are to keep this discussion civil then we have to be sensible,
Please don't intoduce more red herrings into the discussion.

Indo-Scythian Kingdom started in 200 BC. Which is nearly a good 2 millenia out of the date we are looking at,

You presented a quote from a book and you were unaware that it was from 1907. Why can't you just accept that and leave it at that. Why persist with a mistake?

It will help if you follow the progress of argument correctly. Scythians reached Ukraine in 8th century BC. The group that later arrived in India came form central asia, they did not come Ukraine. The time of separation is the separation of European branch of scythions from their central asian brothers. This separation is before 8th century BC and corresponds well with 3000BP and earlier time zone.

And you are dodging the point up here, which of the mediterranean races is this then?

I am not dodging any point. All I am saying is that the race has been defined by archaeologists and anthropologists. If you don't like it or have doubts then this is a question you should be asking them.

You are dodging the question which very clear,

It doesn't matter where they got their name from, the name was given just to identify them.

The point is which hitorian supports these people coming to India?

Historians support arrival of Medietrranean people and influence in India. Some of the place names mentioned include Sumeria and Crete.

Trypillian culture is linked to Eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor.

You can see what area they are talking about.

There are also signs of some common religious motif in areas from Mediterranean to East Europe and Harappa.

Mediterraneans tend to have dark skins as well.

This is going around in circles because you keep on sending it into circles.

The fact of the matter is that you were trying to suggest that the verses were speaking of a race similar to that of the Aryans which the Aryans took over even though Romilla was arguing specifically against the notion that the verse support some invasionary scenario.

It appears we are not even reading the same article. I will just leave this with a yaawwwn. You can cntinue to believe what ever you want to believe in.

Marshall is only distinguishing these people from the Mongloids, Austroloids and the earlier Indians.

Here is what he says "The second or Mediterranean type of skull "

Please keep it honest. Where does it mean that he is using Mediterranean as some kind of a filler for an unknown race.

He is using similar language for all four races strating with ‘the first of these types’ and goes on to say ‘Of the third or Mngolean branch’ and ‘Of the fourth or Alpine type”. Please tell me how you could read any doubts in his mind from describing the four types in sequence.

 

[Wazeeri]

He is only suggesting that the evidence does not support much gene flow to India in recent times. What has that got to do with Out of India.

Moumotta

Please read my last post again, I have already explained that.

Kashyap is declaring R1a to be an Indian Y Chromosome, that is why he has been able to conclude that there is little gene inflow into India. That is the position of the Out of India theorists who declare that due to droughts in the River Indus there was an exodus into the west.

It will help if you follow the progress of argument correctly. Scythians reached Ukraine in 8th century BC. The group that later arrived in India came form central asia, they did not come Ukraine. The time of separation is the separation of European branch of scythions from their central asian brothers. This separation is before 8th century BC and corresponds well with 3000BP and earlier time zone.

Once again that is at best a stab in the dark. You are just throwing numbers about without anything to back them up.

The widely accepted theory is that if the Indian-Scythians were in fact related to the Scythians of Europe then they came from them. Scythian origins are thought to be in a region extending from Ukraine to Iran. Under King Ateas Scythia extended strongly into Central Asia bordering the Yu-chis.

Yue-Chis are the people who are thought to have displaced them from their lands and lead to the subsequent move of Scythians in Bactria.

I am not dodging any point. All I am saying is that the race has been defined by archaeologists and anthropologists. If you don't like it or have doubts then this is a question you should be asking them.

Once again you are dodging the question. There is no anthropological link of the skeletons found in the Indus Valley. Marshall is very clear about that.

The question is simple which of the mediterraneans was it?

You are saying this as if the Tryppilians and the Skeletons in Pakistan are mentioned in the same paper and hence Mediteranean cranial index is speaking of the same people.

It is two different papers, two different authors, two different theories.

Historians support arrival of Medietrranean people and influence in India. Some of the place names mentioned include Sumeria and Crete.

Trypillian culture is linked to Eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor.

You can see what area they are talking about.

There are also signs of some common religious motif in areas from Mediterranean to East Europe and Harappa.

What signs?
Which mediterranean people?
Have we established that those skeletons are from Asia minor?
why are you being vauge?

It appears we are not even reading the same article. I will just leave this with a yaawwwn. You can cntinue to believe what ever you want to believe in.

No ofcourse not, so you are not going to answer.

Please keep it honest. Where does it mean that he is using Mediterranean as some kind of a filler for an unknown race.

He is using similar language for all four races strating with ‘the first of these types’ and goes on to say ‘Of the third or Mngolean branch’ and ‘Of the fourth or Alpine type”. Please tell me how you could read any doubts in his mind from describing the four types in sequence.

Maybe you missed out the big quote you posted which clearly stated that there is no anthropological evidence. Cranial Indexes are only used to distinguish different people at the same time.


SUMMARY

• Once again you are hiding behind the word Mediterranean, you are claiming that the mediterraneans mentioned by two different scholars in two different papers is talking about the same people. Even though the Mediterranean includes 20 different modern day countries.
  
• You are having to jump at conclusions, they must have separated 2000 years ago, This would fit in nicely with the X Y Z model.
  
• You have no scientist backing your claim of the common origin of the Trypplians and the skeletons found in Pakistan.

The way forward

• Either specify which of the mediterraneans the two scientists are speaking off.
  OR
• Show that they are speaking of the same mediterranean race, prove that there is some sort of a standard that depicts that whenever two scientists speak of the mediterraneans they are speaking of X people.
  
  Furthermore
• Show support from a historian of the same origin of the Trypplians and the skeletons in Pakistan. That is a simple task and it would end the debate.
  

Your dodging of the issue by saying that the anthropologists have established a race known as the mediteraneans.

Current position

We still have my argument of the Aryans which you accept as a possibility

AND

Your list of possibilities all of which have either failed the criteria directly or have no backing from any scientists what so ever.

So ARYANS VS Undiscovered migration.

 

[moumotta]

Kashyap is declaring R1a to be an Indian Y Chromosome, that is why he has been able to conclude that there is little gene inflow into India. That is the position of the Out of India theorists who declare that due to droughts in the River Indus there was an exodus into the west.

So Kashyap is guilty by association even if he not talking any where about the exodus from Indus Valley.

The hypothesis of R1a as an Aryan marker has been questioned by many scientists.

There is a whole range of theories including Stephen Oppenheimer’s who has come to the conclusion through his genetic findings that "South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors", and that "one estimate for the age of this line in India is as much as 36,000 years old".

Once again that is at best a stab in the dark. You are just throwing numbers about without anything to back them up. The widely accepted theory is that if the Indian-Scythians were in fact related to the Scythians of Europe then they came from them. Scythian origins are thought to be in a region extending from Ukraine to Iran. Under King Ateas Scythia extended strongly into Central Asia bordering the Yu-chis.Yue-Chis are the people who are thought to have displaced them from their lands and lead to the subsequent move of Scythians in Bactria.

The widely held theory is that scythians were from central Asia. They migrated from Central Asia toward Eastern Europe, occupying today's Southern Russia and Ukraine and the Carpathian Basin and parts of Moldova and Dobruja.

Indian scythians came from central asia. This is the migration route of Yuezhis through Central Asia. It goes no where near Ukraine.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Yueh-ChihMigrations.jpg

Once again you are dodging the question. There is no anthropological link of the skeletons found in the Indus Valley. Marshall is very clear about that. The question is simple which of the mediterraneans was it?You are saying this as if the Tryppilians and the Skeletons in Pakistan are mentioned in the same paper and hence Mediteranean cranial index is speaking of the same people.It is two different papers, two different authors, two different theories.

Both researches were done in early 20th century. Mediterranean race theory was well in use during this time. You are not suggesting that reputed archaeologists were not aware of these discussions and came up with their independent and divergent definitions.

Here is how Anthropologists defined Mediterranean race in 19th and early 20th century.

The Mediterranean race was one of the three sub-categories into which the people of Europe were divided by anthropologists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, following the publication of William Z. Ripley's book "The Races of Europe" (1899). The others were Nordic and Alpine.

What signs?

There is the bull cult that extended from Aegean Sea to the Indus Valley of Pakistan and the Danube River in eastern Europe.

Which mediterranean people?Have we established that those skeletons are from Asia minor?why are you being vauge?

Please, there is no point just denying every thing or asking for unreasonable details. You can only get details that are available.

You have to realise that we are discussing possible candidates, none of them will have 100% evidence when details have been blurred by time. If you are looking for the kind of evidence required to prove a murder case then you are in the wrong thread and every possible candidate including your Aryans will be classified as a mystery race.

Historians have accepted the two people as from Mediterranean race and I told you the place names that have been mentioned, east Mediterranean, crete island, asia minor and Sumeria.

Researchers did not identify the post codes of the skeletons.

Maybe you missed out the big quote you posted which clearly stated that there is no anthropological evidence. Cranial Indexes are only used to distinguish different people at the same time.

Not sure what you are referring to but clearly you are not asserting any more that “The second or Mediterranean type of skull’ some how implied that Marshal was discounting their being Mediterranean.

I will ignore your summaries and way forward suggestions as impolite breaches of code of decency. They are your summaries and clearly reflect your biases, prejudices and stonewalling. Don’t you think that I should move forward as I think fit and not as you want.

I can pretty much discount your ever agreeing to any thing but we can try to keep it polite while disagreeing.

 

[Wazeeri]

There is a whole range of theories including Stephen Oppenheimer’s who has come to the conclusion through his genetic findings that "South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors", and that "one estimate for the age of this line in India is as much as 36,000 years old".

Have we not been through this before?

Genetic data cannot tell you the direction of the migration.

The Eastern European and the Indian population separated 3000-5000 BP.
It doesn't matter when we think the R1a separated from the R lineage.

Do we know of any migration from India into Eastern Europe in that time period?

It gets tiring when we go through the same thing again and again.

The widely held theory is that scythians were from central Asia. They migrated from Central Asia toward Eastern Europe, occupying today's Southern Russia and Ukraine and the Carpathian Basin and parts of Moldova and Dobruja.

Not exactly but lets accept your version of history.
The earliest evidence of Scythians in central asia is from the late 8th century. Hence if they moved to Ukraine post that we have the earliest separation at 2800BP.

So the time criteria is not met and as expected this is what the scientist also say.

Genetic research in modern populations reveals[33] that the same paternal Y-chromosome haplogroup (R1a1) represents a genetic lineage currently found in central and south Asia, in Slavic populations of Europe, and to a lesser extent western Asia. The distribution of this haplogroup has been posited to represent the spread of peoples from the Ukrainian steppelands which served as an ice-age refuge during the LGM. This latter culture is associated with the spread of Indo-European languages in the "Kurgan hypothesis". The R1a allele thus far predates the Scythians, and its distribution consequently cannot be used simplistically to trace Scythian migrations in particular.

The distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup (G2) from Pakistan and northwest India and out to Spain rather closely mirrors the spread of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and their offshoot, the Alans. Haplogroup G2 reaches its highest worldwide concentration in the Caucasian Russian Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, and the present-day Ossetians, who speak a Scythian Northeast Iranic language are the last remnant of the ancient Alans.


The first Scythian state arose among Scythians who penetrated in the seventh century BC from the territories north of the Black Sea into the Near East. It was dominated by interethnic forms of dependency based on subjugation of agricultural populations in eastern South Caucasia

Both researches were done in early 20th century. Mediterranean race theory was well in use during this time. You are not suggesting that reputed archaeologists were not aware of these discussions and came up with their independent and divergent definitions.

I just noticed this, so that's another book you have quoted from about a 100 years ago.

Now can you find me people who still follow the 3 or 4 european race theory. I found where you got the above paragraph from. The paper ends with the comment about how this theory saw it's end post the 1960s.

So a 100 year old book and a 100 year old theory which is now defunct are what you are using for your argument.

Is that sensible?

I will ignore your summaries and way forward suggestions as impolite breaches of code of decency.

Lets just look at it this way I have a theory which you have objections to, your objections have been answered but there are still objections.

I can find half a dozen prominent historians and geneticist who support my thoery.


All you have to do is find me one historian who supports the common origins of the Tryppilians and the skeletons found in Pakistan.

Otherwise can you please accept that this is a link that you have drawn for yourself and it is not accepted by any historian.

Which will ofcourse lead us to once again the Aryans Vs a migration yet to be discovered,

MY argument

Fits many pieces of the puzzle
Is supported by geneticists and historians

Your argument(s)

Originates with you
Is not supported by any historian
And you need improbable scenarios and 100 year old theories which are no longer used to support them.

 

[moumotta]

Have we not been through this before?

Genetic data cannot tell you the direction of the migration.

The Eastern European and the Indian population separated 3000-5000 BP.
It doesn't matter when we think the R1a separated from the R lineage.

Do we know of any migration from India into Eastern Europe in that time period?

It gets tiring when we go through the same thing again and again.

The separation time is not gospel and can not be used to conclusively challenge other evdience. It is not based on a natural law. It is based on an average rate of random mutation. Which is why estimates vary so widely.

Kashyap is not the only geneticist challenging the size of genetic input from later migrations. Nor is genetics the only branch challlenging it. There are archaeologists too who doubt it based on their study of excavations..

Kenneth A.R. Kennedy, a U.S. expert who has extensively studied such skeletal remains, observes, "Biological anthropologists remain unable to lend support to any of the theories concerning an Aryan biological or demographic entity.

Kennedy who examined 300 skeletons from the Indus Valley civilization, concludes that the ancient Harappans “are not markedly different in their skeletal biology from the present-day inhabitants of Northwestern India and Pakistan”.

Not exactly but lets accept your version of history.
The earliest evidence of Scythians in central asia is from the late 8th century. Hence if they moved to Ukraine post that we have the earliest separation at 2800BP.

So the time criteria is not met and as expected this is what the scientist also say.

Scholars generally classify the Scythian language as a member of the Eastern Iranian languages, and the Scythians as a branch of the ancient Iranian peoples expanding into the steppe regions north of Greater Iran from around 1000 BC.

Genetic research in modern populations reveals [33] that the same paternal Y-chromosome haplogroup (R1a1) represents a genetic lineage currently found in central and south Asia, in Slavic populations of Europe, and to a lesser extent western Asia. The distribution of this haplogroup has been posited to represent the spread of peoples from the Ukrainian steppelands which served as an ice-age refuge during the LGM. This latter culture is associated with the spread of Indo-European languages in the "Kurgan hypothesis". The R1a allele thus far predates the Scythians, and its distribution consequently cannot be used simplistically to trace Scythian migrations in particular.

Scientists are guessing (Posit- assume as a fact).

In any case all this quote is saying is if R1a predates Scythians then it can not beused to trace their migration as there may be other communities carrying the same chromosome. It takes away nothing form my argument that does not rely on a genetic trace of scythians.

The distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup (G2) from Pakistan and northwest India and out to Spain rather closely mirrors the spread of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and their offshoot, the Alans. Haplogroup G2 reaches its highest worldwide concentration in the Caucasian Russian Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, and the present-day Ossetians, who speak a Scythian Northeast Iranic language are the last remnant of the ancient Alans.

Your editing skills again at work. The very next line reads “Although this may be indirect evidence of Scythian "genetic legacy", it is likewise of Neolithic origin and cannot be used as a one-to-one identification of Scythian ancestry.

The first Scythian state arose among Scythians who penetrated in the seventh century BC from the territories north of the Black Sea into the Near East. It was dominated by interethnic forms of dependency based on subjugation of agricultural populations in eastern South Caucasia

What is the relevance of this dump?

I just noticed this, so that's another book you have quoted from about a 100 years ago.

Now can you find me people who still follow the 3 or 4 european race theory. I found where you got the above paragraph from. The paper ends with the comment about how this theory saw it's end post the 1960s.

So a 100 year old book and a 100 year old theory which is now defunct are what you are using for your argument.

Is that sensible?

All western race theories have gone out of fashion in the new PC age. That includes your Aryan theories as well. But the distinctive features of Mediterranean populations continued to be recognized.

Historians also continue to accept the classification. The Basham book I referred to was published in 1975.

Lets just look at it this way I have a theory which you have objections to, your objections have been answered but there are still objections.

I can find half a dozen prominent historians and geneticist who support my thoery.

There are many who don’t. Aryan/ Indo European has received so much attention and time from historians and yet there is no consensus on their origins.

There is no answer as to why they left their home land.

No one can explain how tiny lands of east Europe could send enough people to father 30% of sub-continental populations.

As for my theory I showed you that B and C derive from A.
I showed you that A, B and C have some commonality in their sacred motifs.
It is all supported by evidence.
You are saying that unless I can show a historian who can draw a line connecting B and C then it all amounts to nought.
Does that make sense.

You now have three alternatives to arayns.

1. Mediterranean race migrations to India and East Europe.

2. A spit of scythians in two branches over 3000 years ago, a europen branch that reached east Europe and a later Scythian migration from central asia to India.

3. Scholars ranging from geneticists to archaeologists who question if the Aryan migration brought about any significant change in the genetic mix of India.

 

[Wazeeri]

The separation time is not gospel and can not be used to conclusively challenge other evdience. It is not based on a natural law. It is based on an average rate of random mutation. Which is why estimates vary so widely.

No evidence is conclusive but these calculations give us suggestions.

Why do you revert to this argument every time the evidence goes against your stance?

We know no evidence is conclusive but evidence is evidence and that is all we have.

Kenneth A.R. Kennedy, a U.S. expert who has extensively studied such skeletal remains, observes, "Biological anthropologists remain unable to lend support to any of the theories concerning an Aryan biological or demographic entity.

Kennedy who examined 300 skeletons from the Indus Valley civilization, concludes that the ancient Harappans “are not markedly different in their skeletal biology from the present-day inhabitants of Northwestern India and Pakistan”.

Most of what we know as Biological Anthropology has been disregarded by modern anthropology. Only dental and some forensic techniques are being used now a days from this branch of science.

Biological anthropology is too limited in it's scope to be able to distinguish races at this level.

Scholars generally classify the Scythian language as a member of the Eastern Iranian languages, and the Scythians as a branch of the ancient Iranian peoples expanding into the steppe regions north of Greater Iran from around 1000 BC.

Let's ignore the fact that you have scientists telling you that R1a predates the Scythians for a minute.
2 things

1) The great steppe noth of Greater Iran includes Ukraine
2) The timeline once again defeats this argument unless you are arguing that at exactly 1000 BC the Indian Scythians and Ukrainians separated, giving them no time what so ever to consolidate a new piece of land and breaking ties with the old.

Scientists are guessing (Posit- assume as a fact).

In any case all this quote is saying is if R1a predates Scythians then it can not beused to trace their migration as there may be other communities carrying the same chromosome. It takes away nothing form my argument that does not rely on a genetic trace of scythians.

I have no idea what you mean by the last sentence.

And no posit does not mean "guessing".

The fact of the matter is that the scientists have disregarded the Scythians from being the carriers of R1a hence your introduction of the scythians is once again a red herring.

Yes, it could be some other races but the whole point of the debate is to establish who those races are.

What is the relevance of this dump?

The point was for you to see which country is in the north of the Black sea.

All western race theories have gone out of fashion in the new PC age. That includes your Aryan theories as well. But the distinctive features of Mediterranean populations continued to be recognized.

Historians also continue to accept the classification. The Basham book I referred to was published in 1975.

The features are used to distinguish different skeletons from each other it has no other anthropological value.

You are trying to establish a link between the tryppilians and the skeltons found in Pakistan. You need more then the fact that they don't fall into the Nordic races to support this theory.

You are making a massive leap in assumptions by stating that the mediterranean classification of both people means that they have common ancestory.

As for my theory I showed you that B and C derive from A.
I showed you that A, B and C have some commonality in their sacred motifs.
It is all supported by evidence.
You are saying that unless I can show a historian who can draw a line connecting B and C then it all amounts to nought.
Does that make sense.

Yes when someone is being stubborn and ignoring points on purpose then the best option is to appeal to authority.

Neither one of us are scholars and your scientific knowledge if I may say so is weak. I have objected to the links between the A B and C as you have not put forward a complete argument.

We are arguing over your proposal which I feel is illogical and full of holes. You disagree.

Hence It is completely sensible to then propose that if your argument is sensible then you should have historians supporting it.

and BTW you have provided NO EVIDENCE.

1. Mediterranean race migrations to India and East Europe.

2. A spit of scythians in two branches over 3000 years ago, a europen branch that reached east Europe and a later Scythian migration from central asia to India.

3. Scholars ranging from geneticists to archaeologists who question if the Aryan migration brought about any significant change in the genetic mix of India.

Number 1) Which of the mediterranean races?
Why do you insist on this line of argument when you know this classification has no anthropological significance.

Number 2) I have shown you scientists telling you that Scythians are not candidates for the R1a gene flow. The timeline just as it is, is also questionable.

Number 3) is not an alternative to the Aryans, it is an alternative to the Aryan human migration argument and as I have argued that we don't have evidence for a migration from India. You can choose to believe this if you like but this is a theory we are yet to categorise.


Nearly every alternative you have provided thus far has failed one criteria or another.
You are clinging on to an argument (ie the 4 race theory) which has no significance anymore.

You have to accept
1) Mediterranean skeletal types does prove common ancestory
2) Scythians are not candidates of R1a
3) You are the first person (a non scientist, a non historian) to argue the common ancestory of the Tryppilians and the skeletons found in Pakistan.

We are still at the same place
ARYANS VS Migration we haven't discovered.

 

[moumotta]

No evidence is conclusive but these calculations give us suggestions.

Why do you revert to this argument every time the evidence goes against your stance?

We know no evidence is conclusive but evidence is evidence and that is all we have.

Exactly, you can’t use an inconclusive evidence to shoot another hypothesis. All you can say is that they contradict each other.

Most of what we know as Biological Anthropology has been disregarded by modern anthropology. Only dental and some forensic techniques are being used now a days from this branch of science.

Biological anthropology is too limited in it's scope to be able to distinguish races at this level.

I am sure professor Kennedy understands the limitations of his science and yet he felt confident enough to put his opinion on record. Funny how you want a historian’s or scientist’s endorsement yet you don’t mind rubbishing them when they speak against your point.

Let's ignore the fact that you have scientists telling you that R1a predates the Scythians for a minute.
2 things

1) The great steppe noth of Greater Iran includes Ukraine
2) The timeline once again defeats this argument unless you are arguing that at exactly 1000 BC the Indian Scythians and Ukrainians separated, giving them no time what so ever to consolidate a new piece of land and breaking ties with the old.

Not sure how pre-dating means any thing against their migration. Anyways,
1000BC is 3100BP.
They started moving 3100BP. They were in Ukraine in 800BC.
Separations happen when people move because not every joins the exodus at least not at the same time ( just as in your theory the separation of Indo Aryans from east Europeans would have happened when the Indo Iranian branch started moving).

Separation would have happened in 3100BP or in worst case some time between 3100BP and 2900BP.

I have no idea what you mean by the last sentence.

R1a predating Scythians means nothing unless you know where they came from and where they were before 1000BC.

And no posit does not mean "guessing".

The fact of the matter is that the scientists have disregarded the Scythians from being the carriers of R1a hence your introduction of the scythians is once again a red herring.
Yes, it could be some other races but the whole point of the debate is to establish who those races are.

It is not guessing but it is just a hypothesis.
I don’t see where they have been conclusively proven not to carry R1a. Your quotes certainly don’t show that.
This is an even weaker argument than your 3000-5000 BP attempt where you use a hypothesis that is it self in the dock to shoot other hypothesis.

The features are used to distinguish different skeletons from each other it has no other anthropological value.

You must be joking. If it was really so meaningless then why would they be distinguished at all using race names.

You are trying to establish a link between the tryppilians and the skeltons found in Pakistan. You need more then the fact that they don't fall into the Nordic races to support this theory.

You are making a massive leap in assumptions by stating that the mediterranean classification of both people means that they have common ancestory.

Firstly, like every thing pre-historic no one can claim they definitely had common ancestry. It is all about possibilities.

Common physical attributes are accepted as markers of race.
How do people develop similar physical attributes, by living together and acquiring common genetic ancestry. If there are physical similarities to the extent of being regarded as a race then there is a strong possibility that they are genetically related.

It is not a massive leap.

Yes when someone is being stubborn and ignoring points on purpose then the best option is to appeal to authority.

Neither one of us are scholars and your scientific knowledge if I may say so is weak.

I could remind you of your historical understanding and the kind of dodgy historians you have quoted from time to time but that will just take it back to more arguments.

I have objected to the links between the A B and C as you have not put forward a complete argument.

We are arguing over your proposal which I feel is illogical and full of holes. You disagree.

Hence It is completely sensible to then propose that if your argument is sensible then you should have historians supporting it.

and BTW you have provided NO EVIDENCE.

Evidence is
Archaeologists describing skeletons as Mediterranean using the racial classifications in vogue at the time.
Historians continue to use the classification.
Commonality of bull worship cult in all three places.

The evidence I have provided is better than some of the ‘historian views’ you have quoted elsewhere. As I said nothing is going to be conclusive when we are trying to reconstruct history based on limited evidence but it is enough to support a possibility.

East Mediterranean, particularly north Syria, iraq, turkey and greek islands had far more interaction of people than allowed under toady’s political structures. Trying to divide them by present day political boundaries is meaning less.


Your summary arguments have all been answered above. You have to realise that we are talking about possibilities. Nothing will ever be conclusive.
Mediterraneans are a possibility.

As for Scythians you are just testing it using one-sided theories. It is a circular argument, R1a has not been accepted as an Aryan marker and there is no evidence that scythians did not carry it. The time line, as I illustrated fits perfectly.

As for 3, the argument again relies on R1a arising in Ukraine, which is just a hypothesis with many holes as exposed by geneticists and others and leaves many unanswered questions.

 

[Wazeeri]

Exactly, you can’t use an inconclusive evidence to shoot another hypothesis. All you can say is that they contradict each other.

You keep on confusing the point that we are trying to work backwards.

I have presented the Y Chromosome data and suggested that it is the Aryans, because my argument is that from all the migrations we know off only Aryans fit the bill.

We are trying to work out who brought the HG3 Y Chromosome.

You presented the Scythians as an option and they clearly don't fit the bill.

You are confusing the argument.

I am sure professor Kennedy understands the limitations of his science and yet he felt confident enough to put his opinion on record. Funny how you want a historian’s or scientist’s endorsement yet you don’t mind rubbishing them when they speak against your point.

Yes he does and that is why he adds the following in the very same paper

"The quest for the elusive Aryans lies far outside the agenda of present-day skeletal biologists, who acknowledge the fall of the biological race concept in our discipline, Racial palaeontology went defunct in the middle part of this century when botanical and zoological systematists recognised that the subspecies concept was invalid for all organisms"

Not sure how pre-dating means any thing against their migration. Anyways,
1000BC is 3100BP.
They started moving 3100BP. They were in Ukraine in 800BC.
Separations happen when people move because not every joins the exodus at least not at the same time ( just as in your theory the separation of Indo Aryans from east Europeans would have happened when the Indo Iranian branch started moving).

Separation would have happened in 3100BP or in worst case some time between 3100BP and 2900BP.

You have completely ignored the point that the scientists have told you that the Scythians have been ruled out from the contenders.

2ndly you are arguing that they separated into two distinct populations as soon as they were recognised in history.

There is ofcourse no historic evidence to point to such a separation and two distinct communities calling themselves Scythians.

Thirdly you ignored that Ukraine is part of the Great Steppe.

R1a predating Scythians means nothing unless you know where they came from and where they were before 1000BC.

You didn't understand the quote once again, Indian R1a pre-dates the scythian migration. This isn't just the estimate of when R1a mutated this is mutation within Indian specific R1a.

You must be joking. If it was really so meaningless then why would they be distinguished at all using race names.

Are you missing the point that this isn't used anymore?
You are talking about a methodology which was used about 100 years ago and was eliminated about 50 years ago.

Common physical attributes are accepted as markers of race.

No!
DISTINCT physical attributes are accepted as markers of different races.

It is not a massive leap.

It is a massive leap because as I have said about a dozen time the mediterranean region covers 20 different countries. You are arguing common ancestory of all of these people.

Not even that if you take the mediterranean race then you are covering from 15% to 25% of the whole of the world's population. That just throws the whole argument into chaos.

Which tells us that the 4 race method is not good enough for modern times and it shows us why it was discarded.

You are not identifying a particular race, you are opening up 2,3 dozen possibilities.

Commonality of bull worship cult in all three places.

Can you please elaborate and provide some references so I know what you are speaking off.

Your summary arguments have all been answered above.

No they haven't because I illustrated the possibilities from our discussion.

R1a

Scientists have ruled out the Indo-Scythians from this, your assertion that how can they when they don't know when the split happened is due to not understanding how the scientists reached the conclusion.

There are only two migrations which fit the R1a with a high probability
1) Aryans
2) A migration at the same time in the opposite direction.

Which leads us back to
Aryans Vs a migration we have not discovered yet.

 

[moumotta]

You keep on confusing the point that we are trying to work backwards.

I have presented the Y Chromosome data and suggested that it is the Aryans, because my argument is that from all the migrations we know off only Aryans fit the bill.

We are trying to work out who brought the HG3 Y Chromosome.

You presented the Scythians as an option and they clearly don't fit the bill.

You are confusing the argument.

How am I confusing.
The alternatives are Mediterraneans and Scythians. Only thing stopping you from admitting the possibility is that it requires you to shift from your stated position.

The other possibility based on scientific opinion is that the question itself may be invalid. What is interesting here is that Bamshad after his one research has pretty much gone into oblivion and hasn’t come back to challenge his challengers where as Kivisild, Oppenheimer and Kashyap have all been busy producing more research and published matter.

Yes he does and that is why he adds the following in the very same paper

"The quest for the elusive Aryans lies far outside the agenda of present-day skeletal biologists, who acknowledge the fall of the biological race concept in our discipline, Racial palaeontology went defunct in the middle part of this century when botanical and zoological systematists recognised that the subspecies concept was invalid for all organisms"

This is a different discussion on the non-discrete nature of sub-species and associated difficulties in identifying them.

You have completely ignored the point that the scientists have told you that the Scythians have been ruled out from the contenders.

2ndly you are arguing that they separated into two distinct populations as soon as they were recognised in history.

There is ofcourse no historic evidence to point to such a separation and two distinct communities calling themselves Scythians.

Thirdly you ignored that Ukraine is part of the Great Steppe.

Not sure if any of the objections are valid.
1. The two quotes you supplied were merely objecting to tracing Scythian migration using R1a G2. They say nothing about ruling out scythians from contenders.
2. Why is separation at the time of recognition an impossibility particularly when that recognition is linked to a movement of populations. Separations happen when populations move.
3. Not sure what the third point means. Scythians moved from central asia towards Ukranie and south Russia and the movement separated them from those who remained in central asia.

You are also ignoring that I showed you the path of Yuezhis who pushed Indo-scythians from central asia to India and the path goes no where near Ukraine. Here it is again.

You didn't understand the quote once again, Indian R1a pre-dates the scythian migration. This isn't just the estimate of when R1a mutated this is mutation within Indian specific R1a.

You are mixing up. The reference was to R1a1. If it is an Indian mutation then what is the debate about.

Are you missing the point that this isn't used anymore?
You are talking about a methodology which was used about 100 years ago and was eliminated about 50 years ago.

It is a massive leap because as I have said about a dozen time the mediterranean region covers 20 different countries. You are arguing common ancestory of all of these people.

Not even that if you take the mediterranean race then you are covering from 15% to 25% of the whole of the world's population. That just throws the whole argument into chaos.

Which tells us that the 4 race method is not good enough for modern times and it shows us why it was discarded.

You are not identifying a particular race, you are opening up 2,3 dozen possibilities.

You are missing the points that historians have continued to call them Mediterranean and none of them has referred to a migration from Spain or Morocco or Libya. It has always pointed to east Mediterranean.

Can you please elaborate and provide some references so I know what you are speaking off.

bull cult
prehistoric religious practice that originated in the eastern Aegean Sea and extended from the Indus Valley of Pakistan to the Danube River in eastern Europe. The bull god’s symbol was the phallus, and in the east the bull often was depicted as the partner of the great goddess of fertility and thereby represented the virile principle of generation and invincible force. Numerous pictorial and plastic representations of the bull have been uncovered, many designed to be worn as a charm or amulet; these representations were probably copies of larger statues constructed in tribal sanctuaries. The bull cult continued into historic times and was particularly important in the Indus Valley and on the Grecian island of Crete. In both places the bull’s “horns of consecration” were an important religious symbol.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84330/bull-cult

 

[Wazeeri]

How am I confusing.
The alternatives are Mediterraneans and Scythians. Only thing stopping you from admitting the possibility is that it requires you to shift from your stated position.

We are trying to work out who the R1a belongs to.
You are presenting the Scythians.

The scientists have ruled out Scythians as a possibility. The R1a allele predates the Scythians.

This is as simple as it can get, what don't you get?

The other possibility based on scientific opinion is that the question itself may be invalid. What is interesting here is that Bamshad after his one research has pretty much gone into oblivion and hasn’t come back to challenge his challengers where as Kivisild, Oppenheimer and Kashyap have all been busy producing more research and published matter.

I am not even going to comment on your Bamshad comment, it is childish and lacking awarebess at best.

As for the alternative, I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated.

If R1a is Indian origin then fine we can accept that but it then means that there is a migration from India to Eastern Europe in between 3000 BP and 5000 BP.

An undiscovered migration

This is a different discussion on the non-discrete nature of sub-species and associated difficulties in identifying them.

I don't understand what the point of quoting the above was.
The more relevant line is
The quest for the elusive Aryans lies far outside the agenda of present-day skeletal biologists, who acknowledge the fall of the biological race concept in our discipline,

Which is the answer to your original point.

Not sure if any of the objections are valid.
1. The two quotes you supplied were merely objecting to tracing Scythian migration using R1a G2. They say nothing about ruling out scythians from contenders.

What do you mean by "R1a G2"??
They rule out Scythians as contenders for the carriers of R1a.
I have said that about 2 dozen times. Why is this so difficult.

Please be a bit more clear in your points. I don't understand what the objection or point is that you are trying to make.

2. Why is separation at the time of recognition an impossibility particularly when that recognition is linked to a movement of populations. Separations happen when populations move.

Because we have a race emerging at 3100 BP.

Immediately it breaks into two distinct groups (we have no evidence of this).

The groups break off ties with each other.

And very conveniently they also go through mutations which distinguishes them from each other biologically.

I don't even see why I am arguing this when I have provided you quotes of the scientists clearly stating that the R1a predates the scythians.

3. Not sure what the third point means. Scythians moved from central asia towards Ukranie and south Russia and the movement separated them from those who remained in central asia.

The third point was in answer to your quote which showed the Scythians appearing North of greater Iran in the steppes.

The great steppe includes Ukraine.
That was the point.

You are also ignoring that I showed you the path of Yuezhis who pushed Indo-scythians from central asia to India and the path goes no where near Ukraine. Here it is again.

I am going to present a map which should put this argument to rest.
Have a look at your map and now have a look at this.

Notice how the area under Scythian control which the Yeuzhi attacked included Ukraine.
Hence that throws the argument that the Ukrainian Scythians and Indian Scythians split into two distinct groups at 3000 BP out of the window.

You are mixing up. The reference was to R1a1. If it is an Indian mutation then what is the debate about.

First of all I am not mixing anything up, here is the reference for you one again,

The R1a allele thus far predates the Scythians, and its distribution consequently cannot be used simplistically to trace Scythian migrations in particular.

Secondly even if I had got it wrong and the quote actually said R1a1, my point would still stand as R1a1 is a mutation post R1a. So I don't see the relevance of the objection either way.

You are missing the points that historians have continued to call them Mediterranean and none of them has referred to a migration from Spain or Morocco or Libya. It has always pointed to east Mediterranean.

I am sorry I will have to argue that you are missing the point (on purpose maybe).

The mediterranean race is a defunct theory and it offers no anthropological evidence. This was clearly stated by Marshall in regards to the Indian skeletons.

You can have mediterranean skulls in North of England and Nordic skulls in even africa hence it means absolutely nothing and this idea has therefore been shelved.

The origins of these people is based on different arguments and different evidence. If you want to argue the common origin then atleast use relevant studies and relevant theories.

Not a theory which is rejected by modern day scientists and even if it was accepted it doesn't answer the question of origins anyway.

bull cult
prehistoric religious practice that originated in the eastern Aegean Sea and extended from the Indus Valley of Pakistan to the Danube River in eastern Europe. The bull god’s symbol was the phallus, and in the east the bull often was depicted as the partner of the great goddess of fertility and thereby represented the virile principle of generation and invincible force. Numerous pictorial and plastic representations of the bull have been uncovered, many designed to be worn as a charm or amulet; these representations were probably copies of larger statues constructed in tribal sanctuaries. The bull cult continued into historic times and was particularly important in the Indus Valley and on the Grecian island of Crete. In both places the bull’s “horns of consecration” were an important religious symbol.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...84330/bull-cult

Unfortunately for your argument, the Danube river doesn't flow in Ukraine and the Aegean sea is also no where near.

Proposing animal worship as evidence of common culture or origin is an extremely weak argument.


SUMMARY

No progress from ARYAN vs A migration we are yet to discover.

 

[moumotta]

We are trying to work out who the R1a belongs to.
You are presenting the Scythians.

The scientists have ruled out Scythians as a possibility. The R1a allele predates the Scythians.

This is as simple as it can get, what don't you get?

Firstly Scythians did not fall from sky. They had a history that we do not know hence it is impossible to conclude what mutations they inherited.

Let us take your argument that a predated allele can not be a part of a group of people identified later. By that argument this new group will have to invent a newer set of DNA because they could not carry any mutations that pre-date them.

I am not even going to comment on your Bamshad comment, it is childish and lacking awarebess at best.

As for the alternative, I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated.

If R1a is Indian origin then fine we can accept that but it then means that there is a migration from India to Eastern Europe in between 3000 BP and 5000 BP.

An undiscovered migration

Don’t compalin if I remind you again that 3000-5000 is a rough estimate that has been debunked earlier.
The separation time is not gospel and can not be used to conclusively challenge other evdience. It is not based on a natural law. It is based on an average rate of random mutation. Which is why estimates vary so widely.

I don't understand what the point of quoting the above was.
The more relevant line is
The quest for the elusive Aryans lies far outside the agenda of present-day skeletal biologists, who acknowledge the fall of the biological race concept in our discipline,

Which is the answer to your original point.

Because the second line explains the objection to any biological analysis based on race. Regardless, the point remains that there is no evidence of a significant genetic impact of Aryans in India.

What do you mean by "R1a G2"??
They rule out Scythians as contenders for the carriers of R1a.
I have said that about 2 dozen times. Why is this so difficult.

There should have been a coma between R1a & G2. My apologies for the typo. It referred to the two quotes you supplied none of which ruled them out as carriers of R1a (or G2 for that matter).

Because we have a race emerging at 3100 BP.

Immediately it breaks into two distinct groups (we have no evidence of this).

The groups break off ties with each other.

And very conveniently they also go through mutations which distinguishes them from each other biologically.

I don't even see why I am arguing this when I have provided you quotes of the scientists clearly stating that the R1a predates the scythians.

How does any of that prove anything against my hypothesis? The pre-dating argument has been replied earlier.

The third point was in answer to your quote which showed the Scythians appearing North of greater Iran in the steppes.

The great steppe includes Ukraine.
That was the point.

Again, what does that prove?

I am going to present a map which should put this argument to rest.
Have a look at your map and now have a look at this.

Notice how the area under Scythian control which the Yeuzhi attacked included Ukraine.
Hence that throws the argument that the Ukrainian Scythians and Indian Scythians split into two distinct groups at 3000 BP out of the window.

I suggest you look at the map again. Ukraine is to the far north west of the orange mass. Indo-scythians in the bottom right hand corner are already in India in the map, being followed by Yuezhis.

Your map pretty well shows why a Yuezhi population from east could not go all the way to west and then chase East European scythians back through central asia in to India.

The R1a allele thus far predates the Scythians, and its distribution consequently cannot be used simplistically to trace Scythian migrations in particular.

You are twisting that comment else where to mean that Scythains are ruled out as carriers of R1a when it says nothing to that effect.

Secondly even if I had got it wrong and the quote actually said R1a1, my point would still stand as R1a1 is a mutation post R1a. So I don't see the relevance of the objection either way.

I was not debating about R1a or R1a1. I was talking about your comment “You didn't understand the quote once again, Indian R1a pre-dates the scythian migration. This isn't just the estimate of when R1a mutated this is mutation within Indian specific R1a” .

.

I am sorry I will have to argue that you are missing the point (on purpose maybe).

The mediterranean race is a defunct theory and it offers no anthropological evidence. This was clearly stated by Marshall in regards to the Indian skeletons.

You can have mediterranean skulls in North of England and Nordic skulls in even africa hence it means absolutely nothing and this idea has therefore been shelved.

The origins of these people is based on different arguments and different evidence. If you want to argue the common origin then atleast use relevant studies and relevant theories.

Not a theory which is rejected by modern day scientists and even if it was accepted it doesn't answer the question of origins anyway. .

I understand your point but my point is simple. Historians continue to accept the origin of the two people in east Mediterranean. I also showed you a common religious practice between three areas that you have tried to refute with geographic misrepresentations.

As I said your grief should be with the historians. While they continue to accept them as mediterraneans it has to remain as a possibility in our discussion.

Unfortunately for your argument, the Danube river doesn't flow in Ukraine and the Aegean sea is also no where near.

It must be really getting desperate but distorting geography is lot more difficult than distorting history or science.

The Danube itself flows through the lower part of Ukraine and is divided into three branches, one of which – the Kiliya – forms the border between Ukraine and Romania.
http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/ukraine.htm

Known to history as one of the long-standing frontiers of the Roman Empire, the river flows through — or forms a part of the borders of — ten countries: Germany (7.5%), Austria (10.3%), Slovakia (5.8%), Hungary (11.7%), Croatia (4.5%), Serbia (10.3%), Romania (28.9%), Bulgaria (5.2%), Moldova (1.7%), and Ukraine (3.8%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube


Aegean sea is what separates Turkey and Greece.


The practice of bull cult shows a shared uniformity between Indus valley, east Mediterranean and East Europe.

Proposing animal worship as evidence of common culture or origin is an extremely weak argument. .

Sure, you make the rules as you they suit you. I can only be amused.

 

[Wazeeri]

Firstly Scythians did not fall from sky. They had a history that we do not know hence it is impossible to conclude what mutations they inherited.

Let us take your argument that a predated allele can not be a part of a group of people identified later. By that argument this new group will have to invent a newer set of DNA because they could not carry any mutations that pre-date them.

Moumotta

It is quite evident now that you don't understand the science behind this.
What you have written above makes no sense what so ever.

Don’t compalin if I remind you again that 3000-5000 is a rough estimate that has been debunked earlier.
The separation time is not gospel and can not be used to conclusively challenge other evdience. It is not based on a natural law. It is based on an average rate of random mutation. Which is why estimates vary so widely.

When exactly was it debunked?

Kivisild provided his calculation and you are struggling to even meet his criteria of 3300 BP to 5200BP as well.

Don't you think it is just a tad immature to say that it is not gospel hence it's not evidence?
Where do you put carbon dating then? Is that also something we can ignore just because it is an average rate of random events?

If that is the case then we will have to put aside a hell of a lot of historic evidence.

Because the second line explains the objection to any biological analysis based on race. Regardless, the point remains that there is no evidence of a significant genetic impact of Aryans in India.

This is the type of argument from you which leads us into low level sparring.

You made a point and I completely answered it but you are still not willing to concede.

There should have been a coma between R1a & G2. My apologies for the typo. It referred to the two quotes you supplied none of which ruled them out as carriers of R1a (or G2 for that matter).

Please go read the quote again.

The timing of the G2 matches the Scythian entry into India, that is what is being presented as the Scythian haplogroup. R1a is from an earlier time hence the Scythians have been ruled out.

How does any of that prove anything against my hypothesis? The pre-dating argument has been replied earlie

The whole point of this latest round is to argue the merit of R1a.

I have provided you references from scientists who have said R1a predates the entry of the scythians into India. That is not good enough for you.

I have used your own timings to show you how it doesn't fit the criteria and that isn't good for you.

Again, what does that prove?

That proves that if they are from Ukraine then we can't say the split happened with in the criteria because the people we know as the Scythians were one at that point and they split later on.

I suggest you look at the map again. Ukraine is to the far north west of the orange mass. Indo-scythians in the bottom right hand corner are already in India in the map, being followed by Yuezhis.

Your map pretty well shows why a Yuezhi population from east could not go all the way to west and then chase East European scythians back through central asia in to India.

Please be sensible

We know that as far down as the 2nd and 1st century BC the Ukranian Scythians and those who were residing in Bactria were in contact with each other. They were ruled by one king and they had one army.

You are twisting that comment else where to mean that Scythains are ruled out as carriers of R1a when it says nothing to that effect.

I will reproduce it for you shall I
The R1a allele thus far predates the Scythians,

I was not debating about R1a or R1a1. I was talking about your comment “You didn't understand the quote once again, Indian R1a pre-dates the scythian migration. This isn't just the estimate of when R1a mutated this is mutation within Indian specific R1a” .

Once again if you think that there is some inconsistancy in my two quotes then that shows that you don't understand the subject matter. R1a1 is a subgroup of the R1a haplogroup.

I understand your point but my point is simple. Historians continue to accept the origin of the two people in east Mediterranean. I also showed you a common religious practice between three areas that you have tried to refute with geographic misrepresentations.

No they don't, Marshall has specifically said that there is no anthropological evidence for the skeletons.

If you understood my point as you claim then you would not continue to bring up the mediterranean race.

As I said your grief should be with the historians. While they continue to accept them as mediterraneans it has to remain as a possibility in our discussion.

That's the problem, they don't recognise them as mediterraneans.

It just so happens that a certain skeletal structure has retained the name mediterranean which was originally thought of as one of the 3/4 races of europe. This is no longer the case and no one considers a certain skeletal group to belong to certain race.

It must be really getting desperate but distorting geography is lot more difficult than distorting history or science.

So we are using words like desperate now, where as i have been holding back even though you have been quoting books from 100 years back, you made the R1a gaffe, you made the Kennedy gaffe, you are talkiing about bamshad who has written 3 papers just recently as disappearing of the map.

and all over what?

A tributary of Danube touching the border of Ukraine miles away from Tripolje. So a culture which stops at the borders of Ukraine.

Secondly are you seriously arguing that bull worship shows common origin?
If that is the case then the egyptians, jews, greeks, romans, celts.

You are arguing against genetic mutations because they are based on averages and you present this as an argument?

ANSWER THIS QUESTION PLEASE TO FINISH THIS

Do you agree that out of all the candidates only Aryans have any scientist/historian backing?

If not can you please provide backup from prominent historian for

• Common origin of the skeletons in Pakistan and Tryppilians
• Not your links, a historians showing the links

If you can't do that then do you accept that the argument is between Aryans and a migration historians haven't discovered yet?

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

TASK

A movement in between Eastern Europe and Pakistan
Time period 3000 BP and 5000 BP.
Haplogroup R1a.

Scythians

You made a mistake of quoting a book which was written 100 years ago.
I picked you up on it and instead of accepting your mistake you continue to argue that the Scythians are candidates.

• Despite the fact that the scientists have said that the r1a allele in India predates the arrival of the Scythians.
  
• Despite the fact that the Scythians appear as one group just at 3100 BP and we have no evidence of them splitting into two distinct groups
  
• We know that they were one unit upto 1 century BC hence your argument of them splitting 3000 years ago is thrown out the window

Mediterranean race

About a 100 years ago biological anthropologists believed that there were 4 european races. One of them the mediterranean.

This idea has been rejected by the modern day scientists.

You have been using this as an argument.

Trypplians

A race which appears simultaneously as the skeletons in Pakistan.

You are trying to draw a link.

You have no support from any scientists.

There is no anthropological evidence from the skeletons in Pakistan.

This is a theory which you have created.

Conclusion

Maybe you are onto something big and you are on your way to writing a paper to prove the existence of a link between the Pakistani skeletons and the Trypillians.

But that is work in progress hence it is a migration which we haven't discovered.

The only migration which the historians have categorised and which fits the bill of the genetic data is the ARYANS.

So we have the Aryans Vs a migration which we haven't discovered.

 

[moumotta]

This is again getting out of control with no new arguments and mere repetitions of old positions.

When exactly was it debunked?

Kivisild provided his calculation and you are struggling to even meet his criteria of 3300 BP to 5200BP as well.

Don't you think it is just a tad immature to say that it is not gospel hence it's not evidence?
Where do you put carbon dating then? Is that also something we can ignore just because it is an average rate of random events?

If that is the case then we will have to put aside a hell of a lot of historic evidence.

The argument against the rigidity of 3000-5200 is summarised in Kivisild’s table 17.3, the same table form which you got your 5200. He says very clearly, “note that each calibration involves large error margins”.

Clearly with large calibration errors mean that both 3000 or 5200 are both approximations with large likely variations.

That proves that if they are from Ukraine then we can't say the split happened with in the criteria because the people we know as the Scythians were one at that point and they split later on.

Please read the quote again.

Scythians as a branch of the ancient Iranian peoples expanding into the steppe regions north of Greater Iran from around 1000 BC​

Expanding into the steppe region not coming out of the steppe region. They were moving from central asia (part of greater Iran) towards the steppe regions.

We know that as far down as the 2nd and 1st century BC the Ukranian Scythians and those who were residing in Bactria were in contact with each other. They were ruled by one king and they had one army.

Can you share the source of your information that Scythians in Ukraine and Bacteria were ruled by one king and had one army.

You are twisting that comment else where to mean that Scythains are ruled out as carriers of R1a when it says nothing to that effect.

I will reproduce it for you shall I
The R1a allele thus far predates the Scythians,

I will reproduce it for you. This is what it says.
". The R1a allele thus far predates the Scythians, and its distribution consequently cannot be used simplistically to trace Scythian migrations in particular.’

This is what you are claiming.
Scythains are ruled out as carriers of R1a
Leaving aside the fact that there is considerable difference among scientists on the origin and timing of R1a the quote is not saying that scythians don’t carry R1a so what are they ruled out of?

Clearly there is a difference between the quote and what you are claiming it means. Instead of explaining how you reach your conclusion of “Scythians ruled out” you have just kept repeating that line for last several posts. Please explain how pre-dating rules out and remember just repeating the quote is not enough because it is not saying that they are ruled out as carriers of R1a. Nor is it good enough to say I don’t understand while you just keep flipping between the quote and your claim without explaining how you conclude the quote leads to your claim.

That's the problem, they don't recognise them as mediterraneans.

I did give you a quote from Cultural History of India by AL Basham.

A tributary of Danube touching the border of Ukraine miles away from Tripolje. So a culture which stops at the borders of Ukraine.

Not sure what you mean by the highlighted section.
Danube (not just a tributary of it) flows through Ukrain but even if it didn’t, say it went 100 miles from their borders what would that prove. You are not suggesting that today’s political borders some how define and restrict the spread of cultures six thousand years ago.
BTW just because Trypillian culture derives its name form from the village of Trypillia does not mean its spread was limited to that village.

Secondly are you seriously arguing that bull worship shows common origin?
If that is the case then the egyptians, jews, greeks, romans, celts.

You are arguing against genetic mutations because they are based on averages and you present this as an argument?

ANSWER THIS QUESTION PLEASE TO FINISH THIS

Do you agree that out of all the candidates only Aryans have any scientist/historian backing?

If not can you please provide backup from prominent historian for
· Common origin of the skeletons in Pakistan and Tryppilians
· Not your links, a historians showing the links

If you can't do that then do you accept that the argument is between Aryans and a migration historians haven't discovered yet?

I am arguing that common forms of worship in pre historic times suggest interaction between people and when the commonality is over as wide an area as India, East Mediterranean and East Europe then the only reasonable possibility is that migrating people carried these beliefs.

I have given you historians who support Mediterranean presence in Indus Valley and Trypillian cultures.

I have also pointed out commonality of religious cults in the two areas with the common belief believed to have originated in east Mediterranean which could only have been carried by people holding those beliefs.

I don’t think that the absence of a historian linking the two cultures is an argument against common origin of part of the population in the two cultures.

Remember that we are not talking about absolute ir-refutable proof. If we had such evidence for any migration then we would not be searching or even allowing for alternatives. We are looking for possibilities.

To summarise, there are three possible answers: Aryans, Mediterraneans and Scythians, none of them can be entirely ruled out besides the other alternative that the approximate nature of calculations as mentioned earlier means that we may not even be looking at the right time period.

 

[Wazeeri]

The argument against the rigidity of 3000-5200 is summarised in Kivisild’s table 17.3, the same table form which you got your 5200. He says very clearly, “note that each calibration involves large error margins”.

Clearly with large calibration errors mean that both 3000 or 5200 are both approximations with large likely variations.

That's the problem Moumotta, you quote things out of context and without understanding. He is speaking about the Phylogenetic rate not the pedigree rate. The phylogentic rate is inconsequential to our debate because we are talking about a relatively recent migration anyway.

You are looking for anything to disregard this time scale which is further evidence of the fact that you have failed to match it.

Whatever you try this is the best estimate. Unless you have a better one this is the one which gets used.

Please read the quote again.

Scythians as a branch of the ancient Iranian peoples expanding into the steppe regions north of Greater Iran from around 1000 BC

Expanding into the steppe region not coming out of the steppe region. They were moving from central asia (part of greater Iran) towards the steppe regions.

Even though this is now irrelevant I suggest you have a quick look at a map of the globe, the steppes are more central asia then Greater Iran.

It doesn't say that they expanded out of Greater Iran.

Can you share the source of your information that Scythians in Ukraine and Bacteria were ruled by one king and had one army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia

Clearly there is a difference between the quote and what you are claiming it means. Instead of explaining how you reach your conclusion of “Scythians ruled out” you have just kept repeating that line for last several posts. Please explain how pre-dating rules out and remember just repeating the quote is not enough because it is not saying that they are ruled out as carriers of R1a. Nor is it good enough to say I don’t understand while you just keep flipping between the quote and your claim without explaining how you conclude the quote leads to your claim.

What part of predate is difficult to understand????

The R1a predates the Scythian entry into India hence they are not the carriers.

How hard is that to understand?

Cultural History of India by AL Basham

God sake Moumotta

Balsham was talking about the mediterranean race. IT MEANS NOTHING.

Your memory span is very small, we just went through how this theory is defunct.

Not sure what you mean by the highlighted section.
Danube (not just a tributary of it) flows through Ukrain but even if it didn’t, say it went 100 miles from their borders what would that prove. You are not suggesting that today’s political borders some how define and restrict the spread of cultures six thousand years ago.
BTW just because Trypillian culture derives its name form from the village of Trypillia does not mean its spread was limited to that village.

Basically to start of with you have provided an extremely weak argument based on animal worship.

You have then provided one quote to support it and even with that argument you are struggling to satisfy the link as the quote defines the "Bull cult" existing between the indus valley and the border of Ukraine.

It doesn't matter how far the Tryppilian culture extended, the bull cult was not part of it.

You are jumping from conclusions and missing the mark each time.

I am arguing that common forms of worship in pre historic times suggest interaction between people and when the commonality is over as wide an area as India, East Mediterranean and East Europe then the only reasonable possibility is that migrating people carried these beliefs.

I repeat (and you will ignore again) Bull worship occurs in nearly every pre-historic region. This is an extremely weak argument and as this is the best you can come up with you should reanalyse your position.

And we know that people migrated between the lands of greater Iran and Pakistan. They carried with them agricultural technology as well as cultures but unfortunately they arrived long before your "mediterraneans".

I don’t think that the absence of a historian linking the two cultures is an argument against common origin of part of the population in the two cultures.

So you agree that no historian or scientist supports your position.

You have to admit that your knowledge of genetics is weak (it is fairly obvious from your posts I can produce a list to prove it if you wish) hence you need support from a scientist for your arguments.

The fact that you have no support shows that the arguments you are providing are haphazardly constructed and that is why there are so many holes in them.

To summarise, there are three possible answers: Aryans, Mediterraneans and Scythians, none of them can be entirely ruled out besides the other alternative that the approximate nature of calculations as mentioned earlier means that we may not even be looking at the right time period.

You are back on mediterraneans.
This is really annoying.

"Mediterranean" skeleton does not mean that they were from the mediterranean.

They could have been from anywhere.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

My proposal
You accept my position as a possibility.

Your proposals

Scythians

You have scientists telling you that the R1a in India predates the Scythian migration.
You are arguing that it doesn't mean that Scythians have been ruled out.

I don't understand what you mean, If the R1a reached India before the Scythians then how can the Scythians still be contenders.

Tryppilians
Mediterranean

I feel like bashing my mediterranean skull in.

You are using a theory which was used about 100 years ago.
It was rejected about 50 years ago.

Bull Cult
Bull worship is found everywhere.

The Bull cult doesn't cover the Tryppilians as per the boundary suggested by your quote.

So we had a major movement from Ukraine to India (or some common point of origin), in Ukraine these Tryppilians formed a whole culture but in India all we can find is bull worship.

Conclusion

You have accepted that my argument is a possibility

You have accepted that you have no support from scientists and historians for your arguments.

The Scythian argument is weak and rejected by the scientists.

So all you have is this possible migration of people who's skeletons are of the Mediterranean type possibly having a link with the tryppilians.

No scientist or historian to back you up on your claim.

ARYANS VS A migration yet to be discovered.


You just don't want to explicitly say that your proposals are migrations which haven't been discovered yet because that would just prove what I have been saying for a very long time.

 

[moumotta]

That's the problem Moumotta, you quote things out of context and without understanding. He is speaking about the Phylogenetic rate not the pedigree rate. The phylogentic rate is inconsequential to our debate because we are talking about a relatively recent migration anyway.

You are looking for anything to disregard this time scale which is further evidence of the fact that you have failed to match it.

Whatever you try this is the best estimate. Unless you have a better one this is the one which gets used.

You keep prodding me into it, don’t you.

Any number in this context is at best an estimate with the likely answers being in a large range around this average, it is the size of this range that makes the singular number a very rough estimate. The average number of generations to a mutation might be estimated as 200 generations with possible answers being in the range of 100 to 350 generations. That’s not all. The scientists then have to estimate the average age gap between each generation and you get very different answers depending upon whether you assume each generation is 20 years, 25 years or 35 years. Clearly there is a lot of guessing going on which is why claiming any single answer is meaningless. What you need is a confidence interval range for a range of possible answers.

The 3000-5200 you are using is not a range. It is two independent and entirely different calculations for two different locations. To some how think that you can get a range by combining two different averages and that all acceptable answers have to fall in this so created range is a misinterpretation of the whole concept of a range or confidence intervals. This is why scientists think that the upper range could be as large as 10000 years. Similarly the lower range would also be a number much smaller than 3000. The 3000- 5200 is just a line in the sand that has no meaning.

Even though this is now irrelevant I suggest you have a quick look at a map of the globe, the steppes are more central asia then Greater Iran.

It doesn't say that they expanded out of Greater Iran.

Not sure what you are trying to get at. You can get any number of references to support scythians moved from central asia to east Europe as well as that greater iran included a number of central asian countries.

I will be happy to help you with the searches if you can’t find them.

Can you share the source of your information that Scythians in Ukraine and Bacteria were ruled by one king and had one army. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia.

That’s very disappointing. I ask you a clear question to support your claim that Scythians in Ukraine and Bacteria were ruled by one king and had one army and all I get is a link to a five page article that says nothing about my question or your claim.

Should I take it that you can’t support your claim and that it was just a stab in the dark on your part.

What part of predate is difficult to understand????

The R1a predates the Scythian entry into India hence they are not the carriers.

How hard is that to understand?

That’s interesting, another direct question avoided. The quote said nothing about India nor about scythians not carrying R1a. Clearly your claim has nothing to do with the quote, it is your own creation.

Any way if I go with your interpretation then the age for HG3 in Indian population is given as 5200BP (it does not say if these people have been in India for all these 5000 years) but ignoring that minor detail 5200 pre dates both the Aryan migration and the scythain migration. By your logic both migrations are therefore ruled out as carriers.

All your arguments against Scythians are collapsing. Worse still you are inadveratantly arguing to rule out Aryans while trying to create arguments against Scythains.

God sake Moumotta

Balsham was talking about the mediterranean race. IT MEANS NOTHING.

Your memory span is very small, we just went through how this theory is defunct.

This is getting circular. All race references are defunct in the new PC age including the Aryan race. However, the point was that historians have continued to use these terms. If you dispute that then your beef is with historians. I am just using their information.

Basically to start of with you have provided an extremely weak argument based on animal worship.

You have then provided one quote to support it and even with that argument you are struggling to satisfy the link as the quote defines the "Bull cult" existing between the indus valley and the border of Ukraine.
It doesn't matter how far the Tryppilian culture extended, the bull cult was not part of it.

Some hasty assumptions here. You tried to argue that Trypillian culture was no where near Danube. Now you are changing that to say that Trypillians had nothing to do with bull cult. You still some how seem constrained by modern political borders when thinking of events thousands of years ago. Any ways, this should put your argument to rest.

The Trypillia people knew many handicrafts, including weaving and knitting. At Stage C, the Trypillia people began making sophisticated earthedware but at the same time they started making weapons, both metal and stone. Their religion and cults dealt, in all evidence, with such issues as cosmogony and afterlife. Among the more developed cults were those of Mother Earth, Cult of the Bull, and that of the Fire.
http://www.trypillia.com/articles/eng/re3.shtml​

I repeat (and you will ignore again) Bull worship occurs in nearly every pre-historic region. This is an extremely weak argument and as this is the best you can come up with you should reanalyse your position.

And we know that people migrated between the lands of greater Iran and Pakistan. They carried with them agricultural technology as well as cultures but unfortunately they arrived long before your "mediterraneans".

You just cited example of places that were in direct contact with bull cult followers and then generalised it to say it happens every where. Did it happen in China, East Asia or America. It only happened among people who were in contact with or received migrations from cult followers.

 

[Wazeeri]

The 3000-5200 you are using is not a range. It is two independent and entirely different calculations for two different locations. To some how think that you can get a range by combining two different averages and that all acceptable answers have to fall in this so created range is a misinterpretation of the whole concept of a range or confidence intervals. This is why scientists think that the upper range could be as large as 10000 years. Similarly the lower range would also be a number much smaller than 3000. The 3000- 5200 is just a line in the sand that has no meaning.

You have once again shown your lack of understanding of simple scientific arguments. The two different figures show the individual separation from the most recent common ancestor. The method is used to triangulate the results to find a common date of separation between the two populations. This likely to fall between 3300 and 5200 as per Kivisilds calculations.

You can vary and query the figures as much as you like but the indication is clear that the separation is between those two periods, add the fact that another separate study and calculation of Bamshad puts the separation at 3000-4000 years and you have a very strong argument.

You keep on going back to the same defeatist arguments by questioning the accuracy of estimates. These rate of mutations are based on 100s of studies and research papers on pedigree studies. So it's not a matter someone saying a generation is 25 years, 30 years or 35 years.

All evidence and all arguments have a level of error. The best estimates are used to argue for and against a theory. I have already said this but I will repeat if you want, all chronology of history is based on estimates of land shifts, rate of technology advance or mere arguments on linguistics a rate of error for which cannot even be quantified, yet you are happy not to question that.

You keep on going back to the same defeatist arguments by questioning the accuracy of estimates. These rate of mutations are based on 100s of studies and research papers on pedigree studies. So it's not a matter someone saying a generation is 25 years, 30 years or 35 years.

Thanks but the oldest reference of them that you provided was 1000 BC and that is what we are discussing.

That’s very disappointing. I ask you a clear question to support your claim that Scythians in Ukraine and Bacteria were ruled by one king and had one army and all I get is a link to a five page article that says nothing about my question or your claim.

Should I take it that you can’t support your claim and that it was just a stab in the dark on your part.

Wow we're on to highlighting as well now are we along with using the word desparate...etc
When I do it, it is a sign of losing an argument.

I apologise I wasn't very clear in my first quote the people who fled to Bactria and Sogdiana from the Yeuhzi and the Scythians in Ukraine were under one King, King Ateus (The Scythians fleeing Bactria was post the break up of Scythia)

King Ateus ruled over a region from Eastern Ukraine all the way to Siberia in the 4th century BC. He lost some parts of europe to Philip II and the celts upon his death but his Kingdom across the region lasted till 250 BC not 2nd century as I said earlier.

However we know that upto 330 BC and as late as 250 BC we have the Scythians from Ukraine to Siberia under one king. Which is less then 2500 BP, way away from our time period.

That’s interesting, another direct question avoided. The quote said nothing about India nor about scythians not carrying R1a. Clearly your claim has nothing to do with the quote, it is your own creation.

Here is the full quote

Genetic research in modern populations reveals that the same paternal Y-chromosome haplogroup (R1a1) represents a genetic lineage currently found in Central and South Asia, in Slavic populations of Eastern Europe, and to a lesser extent Western Asia. The distribution of this haplogroup has been posited to represent the spread of peoples from the Ukrainian steppelands which served as an ice-age refuge during the LGM. This latter culture is associated with the spread of Indo-European languages in the "Kurgan hypothesis". The R1a allele thus far predates the Scythians, and its distribution consequently cannot be used simplistically to trace Scythian migrations in particular.

South Asia (which we know includes Pakistan and India), Central Asia, Eastern Europe,

You are making really hard work of this.

Any way if I go with your interpretation then the age for HG3 in Indian population is given as 5200BP (it does not say if these people have been in India for all these 5000 years) but ignoring that minor detail 5200 pre dates both the Aryan migration and the scythain migration. By your logic both migrations are therefore ruled out as carriers.

You have not got a clue,

The 5200 BC is the estimated date of when the population separated from the common ancestor of the Indians and the Ukrainians, not the entry date into India.

You are not coming across as very intelligent in the last few posts of yours.

This is getting circular. All race references are defunct in the new PC age including the Aryan race. However, the point was that historians have continued to use these terms. If you dispute that then your beef is with historians. I am just using their information.

That is poor attempt at answering the question.

The argument is simple, Mediterranean race was once used as a distinct race of europeans based on differences in skeletons.

We have now found that "mediterranean race" skeletons can be found in every part of the world and it has no anthropological value.

The scientists have discarded the anthropological value of this theory.

You need the anthroplogical assertion from a 100 years ago to aid your argument.

I have no beef with the scientists because they don't claim common ancestory of two races with mediterranean skeletons.

You do and you know that it is incorrect.

You still some how seem constrained by modern political borders

Moumotta

You shot yourself in the foot by providing the quote. It has nothing to do with modern political borders. You provided the borders in your quote.

Indus valley to the aegean sea to the danube rive. Tripole falls way outside that border hence we are not speaking of the same cult.

The Trypillia people knew many handicrafts, including weaving and knitting. At Stage C, the Trypillia people began making sophisticated earthedware but at the same time they started making weapons, both metal and stone. Their religion and cults dealt, in all evidence, with such issues as cosmogony and afterlife. Among the more developed cults were those of Mother Earth, Cult of the Bull, and that of the Fire.

Once again many races in the past worshipped the bull, famously the jews at the time of moses, Egyptians, Northern Europeans...etc

Worshipping the same animal is not evidence of a migration. If that was the case then we would say that the Arabs were also related to the Tryppilians because a lot of arabs at the time of the prophet(pbuh) worshipped fire.

Lets accept your argument that the bull worship of the tryppilians and the indus valley were exactly the same. However let's look at the very next line in the quote which you conveniently left out.

The artifacts found in the archeological excavations suggest that the Trypillia people maintained trade with other tribes of Central and Eastern Europe, or may be even spread even further.

Here is another avenue for the sharing of ideas and religions, infact a better one then migration.

Anyway ignoring your selective quoting you are saying the worship of the Bull only originates in one place and it was exported to all of the regions from just one place which is clearly not the case as Egyptians were involved in Bull worship with a completely different mythology of that of the Mesapotamians which shows that they were two distinct ideas.

16,000 years ago which is about 10,000 years before the Tryppilians, Lascoux France was involved with bull worship.

If this is the best evidence you have then you really need to think about the state of your argument.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

Task

A migration between E Europe and India
3000-5000 years ago.

My Argument

Aryans

• Came to India in waves in between 4000 and 3000 BP.
• You have accepted them as a possibility
• You have realised that after accepting as a possibility your arguments have been weakened hence in your impetuosity you are arguing that the timing is based on estimates.
  
  ALL EVIDENCE IS BASED ON ESTIMATES

Your arguments

Numerous

• Numerous of your arguments have been binned and you don't even mention them anymore

Scythians

• You have scientists telling you that the spread of the R1a post dates the spread of the Scythians. You have presented some very amusing arguments against it.
• You have evidence that as late as 250BC the Scythians and the people who went on to possibly become the Indian-Scythians were under one rule.
• You presented a book which is said that 50% of the Punjabis were of Scythian origin, you didn't notice that the book was written in 1907.

You are yet to provide a decent argument for this migration
So far you have

• The scientists got it wrong.
• The science is weak

Trypplians
Your arguments so far

• They worship the bull as do the Indians
• They have a certain type of skeleton

Counter arguments

• A lot of different races have in the past worshipped the bull it doesn't mean they are the same. Jews, Egyptians, Iranians, Indians, French, Germans.
• See mediterranean race argument below

Your evidence
Books

• You are quoting books from 1907

Mediterranean race

• This was a theory from 100 years ago.
• Scientists used to believe that certain skeletal shapes meant that people were of common origin.
• This theory was discarded in the 1960s.
• You are using this theory despite being shown that it is wrong.

Your lack of evidence

• You have so far provided support for none of your arguments what so ever from experts.
• Not a single one of your arguments so far has scientist or historian backing.

Conclusion

We only have two options ARYANS
and a migration historians are yet to discover and study.

 

[moumotta]

You have once again shown your lack of understanding of simple scientific arguments. The two different figures show the individual separation from the most recent common ancestor. The method is used to triangulate the results to find a common date of separation between the two populations. This likely to fall between 3300 and 5200 as per Kivisilds calculations.

You can vary and query the figures as much as you like but the indication is clear that the separation is between those two periods, add the fact that another separate study and calculation of Bamshad puts the separation at 3000-4000 years and you have a very strong argument.

You keep on going back to the same defeatist arguments by questioning the accuracy of estimates. These rate of mutations are based on 100s of studies and research papers on pedigree studies. So it's not a matter someone saying a generation is 25 years, 30 years or 35 years.

All evidence and all arguments have a level of error. The best estimates are used to argue for and against a theory. I have already said this but I will repeat if you want, all chronology of history is based on estimates of land shifts, rate of technology advance or mere arguments on linguistics a rate of error for which cannot even be quantified, yet you are happy not to question that.

Ok. Let me get it right. The difference between 3300 and 5200 is simply that they are based on two samples, one in East Europe and the other in India. There is no allowance for statistical variance or inaccuracy in estimating the generation age.

Then there is one more set of calculations that comes up with 3000- 4000 again, I presume, with no allowance for any estimation errors. Now all these numbers from 3000 to 5200 are best estimates. I am blessed if I should ever question the approximate nature of these numbers or point out that best estimates that can be anything from 3000 to 5200 have to be called approximations. What I should remember is that once calculated, these numbers are all set in concrete and any hypothesis will fail or succeed depending on whether it can fall outside or inside these scientific calculations.

You keep on going back to the same defeatist arguments by questioning the accuracy of estimates. These rate of mutations are based on 100s of studies and research papers on pedigree studies. So it's not a matter someone saying a generation is 25 years, 30 years or 35 years.

Thanks but the oldest reference of them that you provided was 1000 BC and that is what we are discussing.

I can’t really figure out what you refer to. You appear to be answering your own quotes here.

I apologise I wasn't very clear in my first quote the people who fled to Bactria and Sogdiana from the Yeuhzi and the Scythians in Ukraine were under one King, King Ateus (The Scythians fleeing Bactria was post the break up of Scythia)

King Ateus ruled over a region from Eastern Ukraine all the way to Siberia in the 4th century BC. He lost some parts of europe to Philip II and the celts upon his death but his Kingdom across the region lasted till 250 BC not 2nd century as I said earlier.

However we know that upto 330 BC and as late as 250 BC we have the Scythians from Ukraine to Siberia under one king. Which is less then 2500 BP, way away from our time period.

Thanks for admitting that scythians in Bactria and Ukraine were never under one king.

Your new claim is even more improbable and makes quite a few sweeping assumptions. You need to show that Ateus actually ruled over siberia, not just stretching up to it and that siberia had scytian populations that fled all the way to India. I will wait for you to provide your supporting evidence.

Also remember you have argued in Iran discussions that empires do not necessarily mean people intermingling.

Genetic research in modern populations reveals that the same paternal Y-chromosome haplogroup (R1a1) represents a genetic lineage currently found in Central and South Asia, in Slavic populations of Eastern Europe, and to a lesser extent Western Asia. The distribution of this haplogroup has been posited to represent the spread of peoples from the Ukrainian steppelands which served as an ice-age refuge during the LGM. This latter culture is associated with the spread of Indo-European languages in the "Kurgan hypothesis". The R1a allele thus far predates the Scythians, and its distribution consequently cannot be used simplistically to trace Scythian migrations in particular.


South Asia (which we know includes Pakistan and India), Central Asia, Eastern Europe,

You are making really hard work of this.

Ok, the scientists are assuming that R1a arose in Ukraine and spread to other places according to the Kurgan hyposthesis. If we assume all this is right then R1a cannot be used simplistically to trace Scythian migrations.

That’s very illuminating. If we assume that R1a spread from Ukraine and was carried by Kurgan people then all other migrations will fail under that hyposthesis. Is this the science that you have been telling me about.

You have not got a clue,

The 5200 BC is the estimated date of when the population separated from the common ancestor of the Indians and the Ukrainians, not the entry date into India.

You are not coming across as very intelligent in the last few posts of yours.

Sorry, my mistake. So what date is the SCIENTIST using for R1a in India?

That is poor attempt at answering the question.

The argument is simple, Mediterranean race was once used as a distinct race of europeans based on differences in skeletons.

We have now found that "mediterranean race" skeletons can be found in every part of the world and it has no anthropological value.

The scientists have discarded the anthropological value of this theory.

You need the anthroplogical assertion from a 100 years ago to aid your argument.

I have no beef with the scientists because they don't claim common ancestory of two races with mediterranean skeletons.

Basham is not a scientist, he is a historian and an indologist. He wasn’t even born 100 years ago. The reference is from his 1975 book.

The fact that historians are continuing to use it shows your argument does not have universal acceptance.

You shot yourself in the foot by providing the quote. It has nothing to do with modern political borders. You provided the borders in your quote.

Indus valley to the aegean sea to the danube rive. Tripole falls way outside that border hence we are not speaking of the same cult.

Your argument is that the Trypillian culture is named after Trypillia. Trypillia is away from Danube hence Trypillian culture must also fall way outside Danube.

Don’t you think an argument that a culture’s spread is limited to the location of its first excavation is a bit childish when we know that the Trypillia settlements were discovered in the forest-and-steppe zone that stretched from the Carpathians and the Danube all the way to the Dnipro River.

However let's look at the very next line in the quote which you conveniently left out.

Here is another avenue for the sharing of ideas and religions, infact a better one then migration.

Anyway ignoring your selective quoting

I can understand what you are trying to get at but there is hardly anything selective here. If you are interested I can show why parallels don’t work in this case.


What you have to understand with your arguments is that I am showing possibilities. As I have said earlier nothing will ever be proven 100%- not for Mediterraneans, not for Scythians and not for Aryans. You may show as many other possibilities as you like just as I can and have showed alternative possibilities and problems with Aryans. They don’t mean that my interpretation is not a possibility and if it is not ruled out then it is right up there as an alternative explanation.

 

[Wazeeri]

Ok. Let me get it right. The difference between 3300 and 5200 is simply that they are based on two samples, one in East Europe and the other in India. There is no allowance for statistical variance or inaccuracy in estimating the generation age.

Moumotta

You have corroborating studies both pointing to a certain time period. If it wasn't for the fact that you couldn't meet this time period would you be questioning this?

The fact is that even if you extend the timeline to 10,000 years you struggle to match other criteria provided by the Y-chromosome data.

Thanks for admitting that scythians in Bactria and Ukraine were never under one king.

Your new claim is even more improbable and makes quite a few sweeping assumptions. You need to show that Ateus actually ruled over siberia, not just stretching up to it and that siberia had scytian populations that fled all the way to India. I will wait for you to provide your supporting evidence.

Also remember you have argued in Iran discussions that empires do not necessarily mean people intermingling.

That is why I kept on reminding you that the Scythians and Indo-Scythians may not in fact be the same race.

The Scythian society was divided into different types of Scythians, the Royal scythians, Nomadic Scythians, Kindred Scythians and 2 types of Agricultural Scythians....etc. The divisions were not necessirily just a social hierarchy because there was a geographical element to it. The royals lived closer to Ukraine where as the Kindred Scythians lived pretty much exclusively in Siberia.

It is possible that the kindred, agricultural and ploughing scythians were the conquered rather than a part of the conquerers.

The Scythians reached the forest steppe in Siberia under King Ateus in 350ish BC. It was the population from here which is supposedly the ancestors of the Indo-Scythians.

Now you can take two views up here of the Kindred Scythians
1) These Scythians were known as Scythians due to Scythian being a nationality or a culture which these siberians accepted from their overlords rather than a race. OR
2) These people were in fact the Scythian race which took over Siberia and expelled the local population or co-lived with the local population.

If [1] then there is no question of this meeting the criteria because there is no genetic link with Eastern Europe.
If [2] then this once again doesn't meet the criteria because we know that the physical split between the Ukrainians and the Siberians occured close to 350 BC and as late as 250 BC.

Sorry, my mistake. So what date is the SCIENTIST using for R1a in India?

PICK ONE

Kivisild has presented a Pedigree date of in between 3300 - 5200 BP
Most Phylogenetic dates calculated are in the region of 35,000 years BP.
Dates arrived from microsatellite diversity are 10,000 to 15,000 years BP.

All predate the Scythian arrival to India.
So whoever carried this Y-chromosome went from E-Europe to India or India to eastern Europe before 3300 BP and after 5700 BP and was seperated from the ancestor haplogroup in between 10,000-40,000 BP.

Basham is not a scientist, he is a historian and an indologist. He wasn’t even born 100 years ago. The reference is from his 1975 book.

The fact that historians are continuing to use it shows your argument does not have universal acceptance.

Please stop being childish Moumotta, you have understood the point well and clear.

The scientists use skeletal studies to define structures and differences in distinct populations, not provide anthropological arguments for similarity in races.

The scientist do not believe anymore that two mediterranean type skeletons mean common origin.

You are arguing that two distinct populations with mediterranean skeletal classification means that they have a common origin.

That is you who is claiming that not a scientist. BB Lal's paper is just highlighting the fact that a minimum of 4 different types of people contributed to the genepool which inhabited the indus valley and ganga regions, Showing a cosmopolitan settlement.

You are just play acting now to make it appear as if you have answer to this problem and this is not sensible at all.

Your argument is that the Trypillian culture is named after Trypillia. Trypillia is away from Danube hence Trypillian culture must also fall way outside Danube.

My argument is very simple the bull cult you provided a quote for does not equal the Tryppilians culture, nearly all of which lies outside the boundaries you defined.

I can understand what you are trying to get at but there is hardly anything selective here. If you are interested I can show why parallels don’t work in this case.

I have already shown you why parallels don't work in the case of bull worship as well.

The point is that the evidence you have provided is weak.

What you have to understand with your arguments is that I am showing possibilities. As I have said earlier nothing will ever be proven 100%- not for Mediterraneanize, not for Scythians and not for Aryans. You may show as many other possibilities as you like just as I can and have showed alternative possibilities and problems with Aryans. They don’t mean that my interpretation is not a possibility and if it is not ruled out then it is right up there as an alternative explanation.

Moumotta we reached that understanding ages ago.

The bone of contention between the two of us is that you are not willing to accept that some of your possibilities do not match the evidence provided and those that may are based on your theories which have no scientific/historian backing and neither do they have strong supporting evidence.

Some of the Aryan models match the DNA data perfectly and the alternatives (migration from India) from the DNA data provided have no other supporting evidence.

There an infinite possibilities for what may happen and that is why I accept the possibility of a migration which the historians have not discovered so far.

From the migrations we do know off so far the Aryans are the only ones to fit the bill.

 

[Wazeeri]

Summary

We are nearly there I think, the only two things left are the following.

Mediterranean Race

You are arguing that scientists believe that two mediterranean skeletal types means a common origin.

This is not the case and I have provided you ample proof of that.

If it was the case then the common origin could be Anything south of Ukraine to Pakistan to Ethiopia to Russia to South Africa to Kenya.

You continue to provide vague answers suggesting that the scientists believe it suggests common origin, witout actually saying it clearly because you know what the truth is.

Aryans Vs Undiscovered Migrations

You have other supposed migrations.

They have very weak alternative evidence.

Their ideas originates with you.

You have not been able to provide support from one scientist or historian for them.

Yet you don't want to call them undiscovered migrations because that fits in with my original claim.

 

[moumotta]

You have corroborating studies both pointing to a certain time period. If it wasn't for the fact that you couldn't meet this time period would you be questioning this?

The fact is that even if you extend the timeline to 10,000 years you struggle to match other criteria provided by the Y-chromosome data.

You mean if I did not have to challenge you then it you could have got away with it.

As I said you prod me into highlighting the weaknesses of these numbers by bringing it up every time despite knowing that all numbers quoted are exteremely rough approximations but if I did not do it you will still be going on about 3000-4000 BP.

Think of it, two samples, two scholars and four best estimates varying from 3000 to 5200.

That is why I kept on reminding you that the Scythians and Indo-Scythians may not in fact be the same race.

The Scythian society was divided into different types of Scythians, the Royal scythians, Nomadic Scythians, Kindred Scythians and 2 types of Agricultural Scythians....etc. The divisions were not necessirily just a social hierarchy because there was a geographical element to it. The royals lived closer to Ukraine where as the Kindred Scythians lived pretty much exclusively in Siberia.

It is possible that the kindred, agricultural and ploughing scythians were the conquered rather than a part of the conquerers.

The fact that the Scythian society had segregated in various exclusive sub tribes is a clear sign of prolonged separation.

The Scythians reached the forest steppe in Siberia under King Ateus in 350ish BC. It was the population from here which is supposedly the ancestors of the Indo-Scythians.

1. Asian scythians were in Siberia before 350BC.

2. Ateas and his predecessors were focused on expanding their kingdom mainly to the west. There is no sign of their ruling over siberia

3. Regardless of above, the hypothesis that Indian scythians were from Siberia is not a universally accepted hypothesis.

Kivisild has presented a Pedigree date of in between 3300 - 5200 BP
Most Phylogenetic dates calculated are in the region of 35,000 years BP.
Dates arrived from microsatellite diversity are 10,000 to 15,000 years BP.

All predate the Scythian arrival to India.
So whoever carried this Y-chromosome went from E-Europe to India or India to eastern Europe before 3300 BP and after 5700 BP and was seperated from the ancestor haplogroup in between 10,000-40,000 BP.

It is interesting that your scientist keeps flip flopping between R1a predating entry to India and predating the time of separation. Clearly none of the dates above are dates of entry of R1a to India. Mentioning entry to India as a criteria and then using dates of separation merely shows a confused state of mind. The only meaningful argument that can be constructed is around timing of separation.

Obviously the scientist you are quoting has forgotten about Bamshad’s 3000 BP which does not pre date Scythian separation. Would you remind him of it.

May be this scientists after all is not as good as you think he is.

Please stop being childish Moumotta, you have understood the point well and clear.

The scientists use skeletal studies to define structures and differences in distinct populations, not provide anthropological arguments for similarity in races.

The scientist do not believe anymore that two mediterranean type skeletons mean common origin.

You are arguing that two distinct populations with mediterranean skeletal classification means that they have a common origin.

Scientists arguments are based on lack of subspeciation among humans. It is an argument that has been heavily influenced by a number of issues from white man’s burden to civil rights and political correctness. It argues against all kinds of racial classifications and should not sit easy with some one who has been going on about Aryan and other races since day 1.

That is you who is claiming that not a scientist. BB Lal's paper is just highlighting the fact that a minimum of 4 different types of people contributed to the genepool which inhabited the indus valley and ganga regions, Showing a cosmopolitan settlement.

More shifting of feet. Just a couple of posts earlier you were complaining that he was talking about the mediterranean race. Please make up your mind.

My argument is very simple the bull cult you provided a quote for does not equal the Tryppilians culture, nearly all of which lies outside the boundaries you defined.

What boundary does it fall outside of? Don’t you think you are just wasting time constantly shifting from Danube not in Ukraine to confusing the location of Trypillia village with the location of Trypillian culture and then about the spread of Trypillian culture. You are now on to some unstated definition of bounaries.

I can understand what you are trying to get at but there is hardly anything selective here. If you are interested I can show why parallels don’t work in this case.

I have already shown you why parallels don't work in the case of bull worship as well.

The point is that the evidence you have provided is weak.

Are you answering my comment or is this a random tangential shoot?

Moumotta we reached that understanding ages ago.

The bone of contention between the two of us is that you are not willing to accept that some of your possibilities do not match the evidence provided and those that may are based on your theories which have no scientific/historian backing and neither do they have strong supporting evidence.

Some of the Aryan models match the DNA data perfectly and the alternatives (migration from India) from the DNA data provided have no other supporting evidence.

There an infinite possibilities for what may happen and that is why I accept the possibility of a migration which the historians have not discovered so far.

From the migrations we do know off so far the Aryans are the only ones to fit the bill.

The bone of contention is the fact that you were not aware of any migrations between 9000BP and Aryans nor had you thought or were aware of migrations to Ukraine and India that could explain common genes.

You have been constantly changing your arguments on a number of points which merely shows that the arguments are not based on reasoning, they merely show your inability to accept that I have raised issues that never occurred to you. With that attitude I don’t see any end to this. Rather than basing judgement on reasoning you are struggling to create reasons that bak your pre-made jusdgement.

Unfortunately, I don’t have more time to spend on this end less pursuit when you have already made up your mind that your answer to anything new is going to be a shake of head and a NO. I will give you one or two more posts to consolidate your arguments and then I will be leaving this thread.

 

[Wazeeri]

As I said you prod me into highlighting the weaknesses of these numbers by bringing it up every time despite knowing that all numbers quoted are exteremely rough approximations but if I did not do it you will still be going on about 3000-4000 BP.

Think of it, two samples, two scholars and four best estimates varying from 3000 to 5200.

Moumotta

The fact that you have to question the best calculations just highlights the weakness in your argument. You have given up in trying to explain the data hence your only option is to attack the science behind it.

BTW there are only 2 best estimates, not 4.

The fact that the Scythian society had segregated in various exclusive sub tribes is a clear sign of prolonged separation.

It shows more that they were not all the same race but if you want to argue separation then we know that the royals took over Siberia in 400BC and could have stayed there till the 215BC. Both of these times are outside the criteria.

1. Asian scythians were in Siberia before 350BC.

This has been a pattern throughout the debate, you continue to forget your initial point.
You are trying to link the indo-scythians to the Ukranians. If they were he same race and the culture reached Siberia from Ukraine then it came under King Ateas in a series of campaigns which started in the 6th century and were complete in the 4th Century when Scythia was at it's peak.

2. Ateas and his predecessors were focused on expanding their kingdom mainly to the west. There is no sign of their ruling over siberia

I apologise for passing judgement but that is really poor attempt.
You read a sentence in the link I provided and thought you will argue with it's help.

Here is a quote, please re assess whether you still feel you can use it to justify your claim above.

Written sources tell that expansion of the Scythian state before the fourth century BC was mainly in the western direction.

and

In the second half of that century, Scythians succeeded in dominating the agricultural tribes of the forest-steppe and placed them under tribute. As a result their state was reconstructed with the appearance of the Second Scythian Kingdom which reached its zenith in the fourth century BC.

Clearly they had to go east to take over the forest steppes.

3. Regardless of above, the hypothesis that Indian scythians were from Siberia is not a universally accepted hypothesis.

Nothing is universally accepted, this is the most well accepted hypothesis.

Anyway if indo-scythians and the scythians are the same people then they came from somewhere in between Siberia and Ukraine. All that is going to happen in such a scenario is that your will have to delay the time of separation even further because Siberian tribes were the first to disengage from the mainland Scythians.

If the Siberian separation is timed at the 4th century at the earliest then anything in between will move further away from the criteria.

It is interesting that your scientist keeps flip flopping between R1a predating entry to India and predating the time of separation. Clearly none of the dates above are dates of entry of R1a to India. Mentioning entry to India as a criteria and then using dates of separation merely shows a confused state of mind. The only meaningful argument that can be constructed is around timing of separation.

Once again you are highlighting from the above quote that you have no clue.

The date of entry lies in between the two dates of separation, that is the most sensible conclusion. Unless you are suggesting that the Indians separated from the Ukrainians and stayed at an isolated place and then all moved into India post 3000 BP.

Obviously the scientist you are quoting has forgotten about Bamshad’s 3000 BP which does not pre date Scythian separation. Would you remind him of it.

May be this scientists after all is not as good as you think he is.

Unfortunately the scientist is not pushing at imprbabilities and he isn't trying to pursue a lost cause such as yourself. Hence he does not accept that the Scythians and the Indo-Scythians separated from each other anywhere near 3000 BP.

Scientists arguments are based on lack of subspeciation among humans. It is an argument that has been heavily influenced by a number of issues from white man’s burden to civil rights and political correctness. It argues against all kinds of racial classifications and should not sit easy with some one who has been going on about Aryan and other races since day 1.

The subspeciation comment which you picked up from my reply to you is your continued attempt at derailing the argument from reaching the obvious conclusion.

The lack of evidence of speciation or even sub speciation among skeletons is not the only reason why the four race theory was rejected. The four race theory has been proven wrong because Europeans have been shown to share recent ancestors.

Aryan race is still scientifically accepted, just as the Pathan race is accepted, Jats, Gujjar, Gujarati, Sindhi, Tamil, Bengali....etc.

The four race theory has been rejected because it was based on no substantiable arguments, it was rejected because it was shown that races with in themselves can have Nordic, Medit and Alpine traits and by the fact that all racial classifications could be found in all corners of the world.

Racial classifications on the basis of physical features has been dropped long ago. FACT.

You are using a 100 year old defunct theory to aid your argument. THINK ABOUT IT.


The concept of a distinctive Alpine race is no longer generally used within physical anthropology, as genetics are presently regarded as the correct way to classify ethnic groups.

Even if we accept this childish stubborn attitude in the face of clear cut facts.

Mediterranean race is not a small enough a group to show common origin. You might as well say that they were humans because that is how precise the "mediterranean race" concept is.

and please don't repeat your tested and failed arguments of me having a problem with scientists because that would not make sense in this case.

You don't have scientist claiming common origin of the Tryppilians and the Indus valley inhabitants. It's you who is inferring this.

More shifting of feet. Just a couple of posts earlier you were complaining that he was talking about the mediterranean race. Please make up your mind.

WHAT?????

What boundary does it fall outside of? Don’t you think you are just wasting time constantly shifting from Danube not in Ukraine to confusing the location of Trypillia village with the location of Trypillian culture and then about the spread of Trypillian culture. You are now on to some unstated definition of bounaries.

The boundary you provided was the aegean sea, indus valley and the Danube river.

The boundary of the tryppilian culture is in the north of that it does not fall within the boundary you provided.

Hence two separate entities.

Are you answering my comment or is this a random tangential shoot?

Are you playing innocent?
Worship of an animal does not show common origin.

 

[Wazeeri]

Moumotta

I will just summarise the debate for you.

• You could not match the time period hence you stared questioning the science behind the dates. So THE SCIENCE IS WRONG and you are right.
  
• I proved that the Indo-Scythians and Scythians were in contact upto at least 4 century BC. So you started arguing against the accepted place of origin of the indo scythians. SO THE HISTORY IS WRONG and you are right.
  
• You have accepted that you don't have one scientist supporting any of your theories.
  
• You used science books from a 100 years ago to support your theory
  
• You used a theory which came into existence in the 19th century and is now rejected by the scientists.
  
• You are arguing that two populations worshipping a cow shows that they were once the same people.

You have not even attempted to meet the best estimates set by the genetic data. Each one of your theories needs to question the science and the history and it has no support from any scholar or scientists.

That is where your argument lies.

 

[moumotta]

The fact that you have to question the best calculations just highlights the weakness in your argument. You have given up in trying to explain the data hence your only option is to attack the science behind it.

BTW there are only 2 best estimates, not 4.

You just add to my fun defending numbers that you have your self been changing and chopping. Didn’t we have 3000- 4000 from Bamshad and then 3300 & 5200 from Kivisild. Looks like you want to back out of 3000 now that it gives you trouble with Scythians.

It shows more that they were not all the same race but if you want to argue separation then we know that the royals took over Siberia in 400BC and could have stayed there till the 215BC. Both of these times are outside the criteria

This has been a pattern throughout the debate, you continue to forget your initial point.
You are trying to link the indo-scythians to the Ukranians. If they were he same race and the culture reached Siberia from Ukraine then it came under King Ateas in a series of campaigns which started in the 6th century and were complete in the 4th Century when Scythia was at it's peak.

Trouble is your arguments are built on mis-reads of references. You have been rushing to conclusions about reaching Siberia from Ukraine for all the wrong reasons as you will see next.

I apologise for passing judgement but that is really poor attempt.
You read a sentence in the link I provided and thought you will argue with it's help.

Here is a quote, please re assess whether you still feel you can use it to justify your claim above.

Written sources tell that expansion of the Scythian state before the fourth century BC was mainly in the western direction.

and

In the second half of that century, Scythians succeeded in dominating the agricultural tribes of the forest-steppe and placed them under tribute. As a result their state was reconstructed with the appearance of the Second Scythian Kingdom which reached its zenith in the fourth century BC.

Clearly they had to go east to take over the forest steppes.

I see, so that’s where your Siberian link comes from.

This is really funny. You read a reference to forest steppe and draw out of context conclusions about conquering Siberia, not knowing that forest steppes extend all the way from East Europe to Eastern parts of Siberia including forest steppes in Ukraine itself.

This is what the paragraph says.

After being defeated and driven from the Near East, in the first half of the sixth century BC, Scythians had to re-conquer lands north of the Black Sea. In the second half of that century, Scythians succeeded in dominating the agricultural tribes of the forest-steppe and placed them under tribute. . As a result their state was reconstructed with the appearance of the Second Scythian Kingdom which reached its zenith in the fourth century BC.

Clearly the ‘forest steppe’ reference is to the forest steppes north of black sea and not thousands of miles to the east.

I shouldn’t pass judgement but you need to sharpen your skills in reading. Reading the full text and paragraphs in order to understand the context instead of individual lines will be a good start and will avoid lot of self created confusions. Thinking of each senetnce as a disjointed and discrete statement that has no regard to what comes before or after it will always result in struggles with interpretation of texts.

Nothing is universally accepted, this is the most well accepted hypothesis.

Anyway if indo-scythians and the scythians are the same people then they came from somewhere in between Siberia and Ukraine. All that is going to happen in such a scenario is that your will have to delay the time of separation even further because Siberian tribes were the first to disengage from the mainland Scythians.

If the Siberian separation is timed at the 4th century at the earliest then anything in between will move further away from the criteria.

All this based on a misreading of forest steppe reference. This is just a comedy of errors.

Once again you are highlighting from the above quote that you have no clue.

The date of entry lies in between the two dates of separation, that is the most sensible conclusion.
Unfortunately the scientist is not pushing at imprbabilities and he isn't trying to pursue a lost cause such as yourself. Hence he does not accept that the Scythians and the Indo-Scythians separated from each other anywhere near 3000 BP.

I do have a clue that your sensible answer is really an exercise in contradictions. Entry to India should follow separation not the other way round or some where between separations unless your argument is that separations are not separations.

You have departed so far from what ever the poor scientists were saying that anything you add just makes it more ridiculous. Your problem is that you have collected some details from science and made your own hotch- potch from it to come up with a special Wazeeri branch of science.

Unless you are suggesting that the Indians separated from the Ukrainians and stayed at an isolated place and then all moved into India post 3000 BP.

That is what the scythian history says, not sure what isolated place means but they were not interbreeding with Ukrainian Scythians and had not entered India either.

The subspeciation comment which you picked up from my reply to you is your continued attempt at derailing the argument from reaching the obvious conclusion.

The lack of evidence of speciation or even sub speciation among skeletons is not the only reason why the four race theory was rejected. The four race theory has been proven wrong because Europeans have been shown to share recent ancestors.

You do like claiming credits don’t you even when you have no idea of my information sources. Remember when you were going on about my finding a reference to Mediterranean as an after thought. Regardless, recent sharing of ancestors merely shows that racial classifications are blurred. It means zilch for 6000 years ago when these people were moving out of east Mediterranean to populate the world.

Aryan race is still scientifically accepted, just as the Pathan race is accepted, Jats, Gujjar, Gujarati, Sindhi, Tamil, Bengali....etc.

You are utterly confused. Gujarati, Sindhi, Tamil, Bengali are language groups as were the Aryans. Only right wing politicians and their likes present them as races.

The four race theory has been rejected because it was based on no substantiable arguments, it was rejected because it was shown that races with in themselves can have Nordic, Medit and Alpine traits and by the fact that all racial classifications could be found in all corners of the world.

Racial classifications on the basis of physical features has been dropped long ago. FACT.

You are using a 100 year old defunct theory to aid your argument. THINK ABOUT IT.

The references I quoted were from 1922 to 1975. Your rounding skills are still as rough as before.

Even if we accept this childish stubborn attitude in the face of clear cut facts.

Mediterranean race is not a small enough a group to show common origin. You might as well say that they were humans because that is how precise the "mediterranean race" concept is.

and please don't repeat your tested and failed arguments of me having a problem with scientists because that would not make sense in this case.

You don't have scientist claiming common origin of the Tryppilians and the Indus valley inhabitants. It's you who is inferring this.

I am not too hung up on race but don’t you think it is odd that you claim Aryans a race when we know nothing about their origins and yet think that people from east Mediterranean were not ethnically similar despite their common geographical origins when Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Greece together cover an area much smaller than Pakistan and Afghanistan combined and we know that there had been a lot more intra-regional population movements and mixing in East Mediterranean..

The boundary you provided was the aegean sea, indus valley and the Danube river.

The boundary of the tryppilian culture is in the north of that it does not fall within the boundary you provided.

Hence two separate entities.

Is this a joke or are you trying some primary school trick.

 

[moumotta]

I will just summarise the debate for you.

Please don’t.

You could not match the time period hence you stared questioning the science behind the dates. So THE SCIENCE IS WRONG and you are right.

You have been constantly chopping and changing your numbers. Most recent example is when 3000 dropped out of your science when it became apparent that you could not exclude Scythians from 3000BP.

You know that I am only questioning the rigidity of best estimates where you are more certain of the calculations than the scientists proposing them. A 95% confidence interval for an estimate of 5000 is quoted as ranging from 10000+ to 3000 in scientific journals yet you think 5000 should be met correct to a minute.

I proved that the Indo-Scythians and Scythians were in contact upto at least 4 century BC. So you started arguing against the accepted place of origin of the indo scythians. SO THE HISTORY IS WRONG and you are right.

This has become a joke, the way you jumped on a reference to forest steppes and in your ignorance thought it equates to Siberian forest steppes but then you have struggled to come up with any semi- decent argument about Scythian migration all through.

You have accepted that you don't have one scientist supporting any of your theories.

Scientists and historians agree that Indus Valley and Trypillians had populations from East Mediterranean. I also showed you that there was a commonality of religious beliefs among these people. This is better evidence than a lot of your dodgy and out of context references.

You used science books from a 100 years ago to support your theory.
You used a theory which came into existence in the 19th century and is now rejected by the scientists.
You are arguing that two populations worshipping a cow shows that they were once the same people.

References from 1922 to 1975 rounded in special Wazeeri approximation to 100 years.
Bull worship shows a continuity of religious beliefs people carry with them which together with common geographic origin indicates that these people did live together before spreading out to different areas.

You have not even attempted to meet the best estimates set by the genetic data. Each one of your theories needs to question the science and the history and it has no support from any scholar or scientists.

You have four best estimates, yes best estimates- oh irony, yet Scythians meet 3000 a best estimate you would like to disown now.

I am not the one questioning Scythian history with a new and incorrect argument every post nor am I questioning spreading out of Mediterranean populations or assuming that culture can dissolve in waters of Danube so that when these people emerge on the other side of river they have to create a new set of beliefs.


Any ways this is my last post in this thread. I have played along to let you argue against my points and all you have come up with is some choppy science where your arguments have departed far from anything the scientists said and a public demonstration of inability to read and interpret simple texts. Can't waste any more time.

I know well that you will not agree with what I am saying but then that is not my problem.

So long till we meet in some other thread.

 

[Wazeeri]

You just add to my fun defending numbers that you have your self been changing and chopping. Didn’t we have 3000- 4000 from Bamshad and then 3300 & 5200 from Kivisild. Looks like you want to back out of 3000 now that it gives you trouble with Scythians.

Moumotta

This is the height of desparation, anyone reading this would be laughing at that comment.

One scientist dated the separation at 3000-4000 and another 3300-5200. You think these are completely different numbers,

And where am I backing out of 3000 BP?
You can't even match that with your scythian theory.

A 95% confidence interval for an estimate of 5000 is quoted as ranging from 10000+ to 3000 in scientific journals yet you think 5000 should be met correct to a minute.

Have you met the 10,000 confidence interval then?

Sorry I must have missed it.

Scientists and historians agree that Indus Valley and Trypillians had populations from East Mediterranean

Really so what is stopping these scientists from accepting the common origin of the two?

No one knows where the Tryppilians came from and no one has a clue where the Mediterranean skeletons in the Indus valley came from.

This is really funny. You read a reference to forest steppe and draw out of context conclusions about conquering Siberia, not knowing that forest steppes extend all the way from East Europe to Eastern parts of Siberia including forest steppes in Ukraine itself.

So you are having trouble reading simple lines now?

Anyway the forest steppes were conquered in the 6th/7th century by the Scythians. If you don't believe me then I hope you believe National Geographic.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature7/

Digging beneath a kurgan, or burial mound, in the Republic of Tuva, a little-known precinct of Siberia, Leus had just squinted into a log-walled vault. He saw two skeletons and the dim glow of gold. Lots of gold.


Leus had just become the first person in 2,700 years to look into this chamber, a royal tomb of the shadowy people we call Scythians. Nomads and fierce warriors, they lived in Central Asia as early as the ninth century B.C., and their culture spread westward to southern Russia and Ukraine, and even into Germany, before gradually disappearing early in the Christian era.

I do have a clue that your sensible answer is really an exercise in contradictions. Entry to India should follow separation not the other way round or some where between separations unless your argument is that separations are not separations.

If there is anyone you know who can make sense of the above please ask him or her to translate it for me.

The entry into India does follow the separation but the separation itself predates the Scythian separation.

I hope that has made it easier for you.

That is what the scythian history says, not sure what isolated place means but they were not interbreeding with Ukrainian Scythians and had not entered India either.

The Scythian history says that they emerged in the 9th century BC.
It says that the Scythian Kingdom separated in 3rd century BC.

Even If we ignore the second part. For your theory to hold we need the Scythians to break into two distinct groups as soon as they make their mark on history and by an extreme conincidence one group to have a mutation in their Y Chromosome which becomes the dominant Y-Chromosome in it's respective group.

You do like claiming credits don’t you even when you have no idea of my information sources. Remember when you were going on about my finding a reference to Mediterranean as an after thought. Regardless, recent sharing of ancestors merely shows that racial classifications are blurred. It means zilch for 6000 years ago when these people were moving out of east Mediterranean to populate the world.

All races are defined by a mixture of geographic and genetic traits. All humans come from the same origin but a group of people in one area for a long period of time breeding with people close by become a distinct race overtime. Race is therefore a relative term.

Even now most geographic regions have a higher concentration of a particular Y chromosome or MtDna then others. This is always less in the cities but that doesn't mean that genes plays no part in defining a race.

You are utterly confused. Gujarati, Sindhi, Tamil, Bengali are language groups as were the Aryans. Only right wing politicians and their likes present them as races.

That is why they show specific MtDna traits in all these areas. Any two distinct populations not interbreeding will become separate genetic races over time. Gujaratis are a different race to Bengalis, within Gujaratis there are different races, within Bengalis there are different races.

It is you who is completely confused. Aryans were a people known to have originated in a geographic area moving to other areas. The argument is that they carried with them a genetic marker.

Just like we have seen that the Punjabis are overwhelmingly R1a populated. If they were now to go around invading lands they will carry this genetic marker with them.

You can try to derail the argument with the definition of race....etc but it's not going to work.

Aryans a race when we know nothing about their origins and yet think that people from east Mediterranean

First of all you don't know where the Tryppilians came from.

2ndly you don't even know when exactly they separated from migration which got to Pakistan in 6000 BC.

You are just taking stabs in the dark.

Thirdly you have just dodged the question which quiet laughable.

The question was at your poor attempt at trying to suggest that two mediterranean skeletons show common origin of the people.

This is something which is not believed by all scientists now. A Nordic skeletal parent can have a mediterranean skeltal child.

You just dodged the question, how about you answer it?

The references I quoted were from 1922 to 1975. Your rounding skills are still as rough as before.

Oh really?

here is your quote from Wikipedia

Moumotta:The extent of the Scythian invasion has been variously estimated. Some scholars believe that they virtually supplanted the previous population of the Punjab region and there seems little doubt that by far the most numerous section of the Punjab population is of Scythian origin.

Now which book is that from????

H.S. Williams, The Historians' History of the World, 21 Vols., The Outlook Company, New York, 1905, Vol. 2, pp. 481.

2009-1905 = 104 years old.

 

[Wazeeri]

Summary

Your attempt so far

• You think that two estimates one 3000-5000 and another 3300-5200 are so different that they are questionable.
• You think two groups both having a small population within them worshipping cows is proof of common origin
• You have been using a theory from a 100 years ago, which has been rejected by scientists now to support your theory
• You used science books from 100 years ago (before the sciene of genes started), you denied doing so but please see my last post for proof.
• You have admitted that no scientist or historian supports any of your claims.
• You have agreed that my prposal is acceptable
• You came up with various other possibilities all of which have been proven wrong

Hence all we are left with is the
ARYANS

VS

A theory which you have come with yourself, with no support from any scientist or historians.
(Your poor grasp of science requires you to have support from scientists atleast)

VS

A migration which we haven't yet discovered.

The sensible approach

If you have a migration which is staring you in the face,
A migration which went through the places where we find traces of the Y chromosome
A migration which arrived in india at the time the scientists provide as the best estimate

Is it not sensible to accept that as the conclusion rather than a migration which may or may not have happened and the historians and scientists have no evidence for it as yet?

 

[moumotta]

Wazeeri, I am not re-entering the debate. I will leave you to struggle with your ever changing arguments while you hope that something will ultimately stick. While debate on different interpretations is over you have made some outright incorrect statements that I must point out.

This is the height of desparation, anyone reading this would be laughing at that comment.

One scientist dated the separation at 3000-4000 and another 3300-5200. You think these are completely different numbers

There are four dates, two for each sample. For Kivisild’s calculations we have enough details to see that he is talking about 3300 and 5200, not 3300 to 5200. This is what I meant when I said that you take numbers from scientists and then make a hotch potch, a special khichri to create a Wazeeri branch of science.

Moumotta=This is really funny. You read a reference to forest steppe and draw out of context conclusions about conquering Siberia, not knowing that forest steppes extend all the way from East Europe to Eastern parts of Siberia including forest steppes in Ukraine itself. This is what the paragraph says.

After being defeated and driven from the Near East, in the first half of the sixth century BC, Scythians had to re-conquer lands north of the Black Sea. In the second half of that century, Scythians succeeded in dominating the agricultural tribes of the forest-steppe and placed them under tribute. . As a result their state was reconstructed with the appearance of the Second Scythian Kingdom which reached its zenith in the fourth century BC.

Clearly the ‘forest steppe’ reference is to the forest steppes north of black sea and not thousands of miles to the east.

I shouldn’t pass judgement but you need to sharpen your skills in reading. Reading the full text and paragraphs in order to understand the context instead of individual lines will be a good start and will avoid lot of self created confusions.

Thinking of each senetnce as a disjointed and discrete statement that has no regard to what comes before or after it will always result in struggles with interpretation of texts.

Wazeeri= So you are having trouble reading simple lines now?

Anyway the forest steppes were conquered in the 6th/7th century by the Scythians. If you don't believe me then I hope you believe National Geographic.

While you will never admit it, you have clearly understood your mistake that the reference you quoted was for forest steppes north of black sea not the forest steppes in Siberia which is why you are no longer claiming that Scythians moved from Ukraine to Siberia. Instead you have yet another new argument which now says that they moved from Siberia to Ukraine- a 180 degree somersault in the space of one post.

I certainly believe national geographic. They are the people who also published Kashyaps research

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0110_060110_india_genes.html

Wazeeri= The four race theory has been rejected because it was based on no substantiable arguments, it was rejected because it was shown that races with in themselves can have Nordic, Medit and Alpine traits and by the fact that all racial classifications could be found in all corners of the world.Racial classifications on the basis of physical features has been dropped long ago. FACT.You are using a 100 year old defunct theory to aid your argument. THINK ABOUT IT.

Moumotta= The references I quoted were from 1922 to 1975. Your rounding skills are still as rough as before.

Wazeeri= Oh really?

here is your quote from Wikipedia

Moumotta:The extent of the Scythian invasion has been variously estimated. Some scholars believe that they virtually supplanted the previous population of the Punjab region and there seems little doubt that by far the most numerous section of the Punjab population is of Scythian origin.

Now which book is that from????

H.S. Williams, The Historians' History of the World, 21 Vols., The Outlook Company, New York, 1905, Vol. 2, pp. 481.

2009-1905 = 104 years old.

More Wazeeri spin. The original quote (quoted above) where you claimed 100 year old reference was for race theory, not for Scythians. Again, you have to change the context to justify 100 years on a Scythian quote while talking about race theory, an entierely different point where the references, as I said were from 1922 & 1975.

You just proved my other point that you are incredibly lax with your use and understanding of context.

 

[Wazeeri]

There are four dates, two for each sample. For Kivisild’s calculations we have enough details to see that he is talking about 3300 and 5200, not 3300 to 5200. This is what I meant when I said that you take numbers from scientists and then make a hotch potch, a special khichri to create a Wazeeri branch of science.

Ofcourse there are 4 different times, there are two different populations and two scientists.
2 x 2 = 4.

There are only two different esitmates though.

It is amazing how you struggle with the most basic of concepts.

Instead you have yet another new argument which now says that they moved from Siberia to Ukraine- a 180 degree somersault in the space of one post.

You live in your own world Moumotta,
Where exactly did this summersault take place?

The reference has shown you that the royals were present in Siberia 2700 years ago.

I certainly believe national geographic. They are the people who also published Kashyaps research

Unfortunately you don't have the capacity to understand the difference between Kashyaps research and that of the Wells and numerous others,

Kashyap's conclusions are completely acceptable but unfortunately we don't have evidence to support them. Hence they go into the category of undiscovered migrations.

More Wazeeri spin. The original quote (quoted above) where you claimed 100 year old reference was for race theory, not for Scythians. Again, you have to change the context to justify 100 years on a Scythian quote while talking about race theory, an entierely different point where the references, as I said were from 1922 & 1975.

See Moumotta that is the problem, you make a mistake but you just can't own upto it,

I have provided proof of you quoting 100 year old science books but you don't want to accept your mistake instead you come up with the above pointless input.

Here is something which you may find embarrassing, this is where the 100 year old book issue started. see post number 206.

Moumotta: If people think they were such a sizeable migration then Scythians need to go on board as another candidate in addition to Mediterraneans, particularly as they were also a sizeable presence in East Europe.

Wazeeri: ...... the book you presented was 100 years old so it doesn't represent what the scholars think now.

Learn to accept your mistakes my friend it's less embarrassing.

 

[Wazeeri]

Summary

As expected instead of accepting that you used a 100 year old book as an argument you just presented the weirdest excuse. Even though I have provided a quote from you in a science book dated 1905.

Over a 100 posts from you and still not a single scientist or historian supporting your position on any of your theories.

Still arguing childishly that time estimates of 3000-4000 years is completely different from another time difference from another scientist of 3300-5200 years.

Still arguing childishly that 2 time estimates for Indians and two time estimates for Ukranians equals four different time estimates.

You haven't presented a very clever and mature image of yourself on this thread.