Reconstruction of Ancient History

[moumotta]

Wazeeri,

As far as I am concerned this debate is over. You have been posting 2 for each of my single posts and yet you are struggling to to counter my hypothesis.
All that is happening is you are prolonging it because o your inability to admit your mistakes, even though you understand it well.

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.

See, it is so simple after I explain. There are four solutions and all so different. That was the point that every calculation and every sample comes up with a widely different answer because of unusually high standard error in these numbers.

Of course you can claim that all the calculations ultimately form one estimate, just put a dash between them.

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.

So all that happens is you find the word royal in a reference to a royal tomb and conclude they are from the tribe called royal scythians. Wonder why you had to look for Siberia. Scythians also ruled parts of India. You could also claim that Indian scythian royals are from Ukraine.

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

I am sure you understand the point but your habit stops you from admitting it. Let me remind again. Here is what was said.

Wazeeri= 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. ​

When I challenged you that my references were from 1922 and 1975, rather than defend your comment you immediately hit reverse gear and brought out a reference to Scythian to support your hundred year claim.

Clearly you were referring to the race theory. Every thing before or after the 100 year reference relates to race theory.

Ignoring the fact that my references for Scythians also included most recent articles, a defence by way of changing context and course is a back down and your assumption that it will not be noticed just goes to show your inability to follow context and reference or your assumption that other do the same.

Let me know if you still can’t understand.

 

[Wazeeri]

See, it is so simple after I explain. There are four solutions and all so different. That was the point that every calculation and every sample comes up with a widely different answer because of unusually high standard error in these numbers.

Of course you can claim that all the calculations ultimately form one estimate, just put a dash between them.

Moumotta

Your inability to understand the estimates is what is causing the prolonging of the debate.
The estimates (Kivisild's one) are the estimates of the Indian populations separation from the most recent common ancestor and the Ukranian populations separation, the results are then triangulated to give one answer.

You have been struggling with the most basic of scientific calculations.

So all that happens is you find the word royal in a reference to a royal tomb and conclude they are from the tribe called royal scythians. Wonder why you had to look for Siberia. Scythians also ruled parts of India. You could also claim that Indian scythian royals are from Ukraine.

That is among the most ridiculous comments you have made.

Siberia is the link between Indo-scythians and the scythians. Hence it is an obvious place to look at for the separation.

You can't even follow a debate, read your above post and see if it makes sense.

You are using a 100 year old defunct theory to aid your argument.

Moumotta

You are making really hard work of this.

There is a difference between THEORY and a BOOK.

You used a 100 year old theory ---> Mediterranean race

You used a 100 year old book ---> The Historians' History of the World, 21 Vols., The Outlook Company, New York, 1905,

Admit your mistake, it is less embarrassing.

 

[Wazeeri]

By the way another attempt and still not a mention of any scientist or historian who supports your theories.

Just a poor attempt at face saving.

 

[moumotta]

Your inability to understand the estimates is what is causing the prolonging of the debate.
The estimates (Kivisild's one) are the estimates of the Indian populations separation from the most recent common ancestor and the Ukranian populations separation, the results are then triangulated to give one answer.

You have been struggling with the most basic of scientific calculations.

Can you show me where Kivisild did a triangulation and came up with an answer of 3300- 5200. His single answer is 4700 which you will not mention because it contrdicts the migration you are proposing.

So all that happens is you find the word royal in a reference to a royal tomb and conclude they are from the tribe called royal scythians. Wonder why you had to look for Siberia. Scythians also ruled parts of India. You could also claim that Indian scythian royals are from Ukraine.

[
That is among the most ridiculous comments you have made.

Siberia is the link between Indo-scythians and the scythians. Hence it is an obvious place to look at for the separation.

You can't even follow a debate, read your above post and see if it makes sense.

No word on how you equate a Royal Tomb to Royal Scythians.

You used a 100 year old theory ---> Mediterranean race

You used a 100 year old book ---> The Historians' History of the World, 21 Vols., The Outlook Company, New York, 1905,

Admit your mistake, it is less embarrassing.

Funny, I need to remind you to get you to defend your original argument. My point is proven.

 

[Wazeeri]

Can you show me where Kivisild did a triangulation and came up with an answer of 3300- 5200. His single answer is 4700 which you will not mention because it contrdicts the migration you are proposing.

I just want to laugh my head off at that point.

That is the triangulation.

PS: How does that not fit the migration I am proposing?

No word on how you equate a Royal Tomb to Royal Scythians.

That is how a royal scythian is defined.
It wasn't as if the royal scythians named themselves the royal scythians.

The Royals are called the royal scythians by the historians.

You're not doing too well up here are you?

Funny, I need to remind you to get you to defend your original argument. My point is proven.

Yes funny how you needed to remind me that I accussed you off using a 100 year old theory and a 100 year old book.

It is even more funny that I proved both my claims.

You are struggling up here my friend. Admit your mistake it's less embarrassing.

 

[moumotta]

I just want to laugh my head off at that point.

That is the triangulation.

PS: How does that not fit the migration I am proposing?

Because 4700 predates Aryan migration by a 1000 years.

That is how a royal scythian is defined.
It wasn't as if the royal scythians named themselves the royal scythians.

The Royals are called the royal scythians by the historians.

Pretty lose with your conclusions, don't you think. Particularly when the quote itself says they moved westward to southern Russia and Ukraine.

Yes funny how you needed to remind me that I accussed you off using a 100 year old theory and a 100 year old book.

It is even more funny that I proved both my claims.

You are struggling up here my friend. Admit your mistake it's less embarrassing.

This part of the debate is over. You can try to salavge what ever you can.

 

[Wazeeri]

Because 4700 predates Aryan migration by a 1000 years.

SO???

Pretty lose with your conclusions, don't you think. Particularly when the quote itself says they moved westward to southern Russia and Ukraine.

Are you just trying to think up of random things you can say to make it look like you have a point?

This part of the debate is over. You can try to salavge what ever you can.

Yes it was over when I provided evidence of you using a 100 year old book.
I didn't want to embarrass you, It was only you who prolonged it.

 

[moumotta]

SO???

It couldn't have been Araynas then. May be some undiscovered race :0

Are you just trying to think up of random things you can say to make it look like you have a point?

If there is no reference to moving from Ukraine back to Siberia. The Royal Tomb to Royal Scythian link is as imaginary as one can imagine.

es it was over when I provided evidence of you using a 100 year old book.
I didn't want to embarrass you, It was only you who prolonged it.

It is over because the race references were from 1922 & 1975 and Scythian references were from 1905 to right up to date. Your point never had any substance and then you failed to realise you were changing from one to the other inspite of my pointing out.

 

[Wazeeri]

It couldn't have been Araynas then. May be some undiscovered race :0

Debating with you is like teaching a 7 year old science.

How could it not have been the Aryans?

If there is no reference to moving from Ukraine back to Siberia. The Royal Tomb to Royal Scythian link is as imaginary as one can imagine.

WHAT???

It is over because the race references were from 1922 & 1975 and Scythian references were from 1905 to right up to date. Your point never had any substance and then you failed to realise you were changing from one to the other inspite of my pointing out.

Moumotta you are now a poor shadow of a man who started this thread.

If you approached this debate sensibly right from the start you would not be answering back just for the sake of it.

Your quest for the last say in this thread is only giving me more ammo to use againt you.

 

[moumotta]

Debating with you is like teaching a 7 year old science.

How could it not have been the Aryans?

WHAT???

Moumotta you are now a poor shadow of a man who started this thread.

If you approached this debate sensibly right from the start you would not be answering back just for the sake of it.

Your quest for the last say in this thread is only giving me more ammo to use againt you.

Doesn't take much for you to show your colours.

Anyways rather than the last comment, I will be content with the last meaningful comments and not reply to random insults or meaningless comments.

 

[Wazeeri]

OK so you derail the thread into fighting by going against your own rules, highlighting replies in red and calling me desparate but when I attack you start throwing a sissy fit.

If you can't take it don't dish it.

What else do you expect when you make the most inane of comments?

When I prove that you have made howlers and you pretend that it didn't happen?

When you make the most random of comments?

When you have agreed to my conclusion but you just don't want to do it clearly because that in your mind would be a clear cut acceptance of some sort of defeat.

 

[Wazeeri]

I understand that these last few posts from you are just an attempt at pushing my last few posts back into some forgotten memory space in a hard drive far far away hence I will highlight once again.

• You have admitted that you don't have one scientist supporting your theories
  
  
• You have used a 100 year old theory to support your arguments, a theory which the scientists stopped believing in after the 1960s
  
  
• You used a 100 year old science book to support your theory. You denied it but the proof is in the posts before these.

 

[moumotta]

I understand that these last few posts from you are just an attempt at pushing my last few posts back into some forgotten memory space in a hard drive far far away hence I will highlight once again.

What a joke. I am not the one cluttering the thread with multiple posts.

You have admitted that you don't have one scientist supporting your theories


You have used a 100 year old theory to support your arguments, a theory which the scientists stopped believing in after the 1960s


You used a 100 year old science book to support your theory. You denied it but the proof is in the posts before these.

There are 3 scientists mentioned in this thread. Bamshad, Kivisild and Kashyap. Of these only one supports your theory.

I am not the one who tried to decry scientists by questioning tehir integrity when they don't speak in my favour.

My references go up to 1975 as has been pointed out many times.

 

[Wazeeri]

There are 3 scientists mentioned in this thread. Bamshad, Kivisild and Kashyap. Of these only one supports your theory.

I can give you a list of scientists who actually support my theory

How many support yours????

ZERO

My references go up to 1975 as has been pointed out many times.

But your argument relies on a theory which was rejected about 50 years ago.

Your references can go upto 2009 if you like but you don't have scientists supporting your theory. You have YOU trying to join bits and pieces from here and there.

Here is something in red highlight for you as you like it so much

• You used a 100 year old science book as an argument, you tried denying it but now you can't
  
  
• Not a single scientist or historian to support any of your alternative theories
  
  
• You need a theory (which was rejected 50 years ago) to support one of your theories (that too very weakly)

I rest my case.

This whole debate has been one desparate measure after another for you. You could have taken a sensible approach and not let it get to this point.

 

[moumotta]

Wazeeri, You will do well to learn to keep your balance and not get mad every time some one gets the better of you.

Never mind.

 

[Wazeeri]

Nice reparte Moumotta,

A cautious approach to subject matters you don't understand is advisable in the future.

 

[moumotta]

Nice reparte Moumotta,

A cautious approach to subject matters you don't understand is advisable in the future.

I will wait till I can see it benefit you.

 

[Wazeeri]

Don't need to wait, read through the thread

 

[moumotta]

Don't need to wait, read through the thread

Thread only shows it didn't benefit you much.

 

[Wazeeri]

Maybe you need to see the effect of the thread on the other guy who is living in the 1900s.

Anyway until the argument goes any further I'm going to end it with the magic three points.

1) You have admitted that no scientist or historian supports your other theories

2) You need help from a 100 year old rejected theory

3) You used 100 year old science books to support your theory

 

[moumotta]

You have admitted that no scientist or historian supports your other theories

Every thing I quoted is from historians and archaeologists. None of it contradicts any scientifically agreed theories. Rather than hiding behind sloganeering to cover up your inability to argue you should try and contradict my points.

You need help from a 100 year old rejected theory

You used 100 year old science books to support your theory

As I said I am not hung up on race nor is it essential for my hypothesis. All it needs is that people moved from a common.

Race theories may be right or wrong but you are hardly the right person to question them with a straight face.

Not when you claim that Aryans are a race and every language group is a race but Mediterraneans are not. But then, in a sign of genius you have demonstrated that you are capable of holding contradicting views with equanimity.

Let me leave you with a parting gift that exposes this muddled thinking.

How old is the Aryan race theory. How is it regarded now. You might remember reading this.

Now the nineteenth century scholars, this includes people like Max Muller were fully aware that language and race are different things and yet frequently they confused languages with the race and equated them. And that is where in many ways the problem arises. They talked about an Aryan race on the basis of people speaking the same languages. Strictly speaking they should be speaking not about the Aryans but about the Aryan speaking people. But since this is an awkward phrase to use it got cut down to the Aryans. It ceased to be just a language label and became a label for a racial entity as well. The difference between language and race is enormous. The two cannot be equated. ​

You think European race claims are outdated while at the same time arguing that in our neck of the woods there is a race in every possible sub- division of society,

You think that language groups like Bengali, Gujrati are racial identities. Yet you started your arguments very early on by claiming that upper castes in different language groups have more genetic commonality with each other than with the lower castes in their own language groups. Do you see any contradiction between the two arguments that lead to a multi-dimensional race matrix.

 

[Wazeeri]

Every thing I quoted is from historians and archaeologists. None of it contradicts any scientifically agreed theories. Rather than hiding behind sloganeering to cover up your inability to argue you should try and contradict my points.

Yes but you can't find one historian to back your statements.

All you have is bits and pieces from here and there joint very loosely. No wonder you are the first one to claim common origin of the Tryppilians and the Pakistanis.

Not when you claim that Aryans are a race and every language group is a race but Mediterraneans are not. But then, in a sign of genius you have demonstrated that you are capable of holding contradicting views with equanimity.

The meditteranean race has been proven to not be a race.

This is shameless, you presented an argument and you have been shown that scientist don't believe in it anymore and you still childishly continue to argue.

I have debunked your claim in as clear a manner as possible.

You think European race claims are outdated while at the same time arguing that in our neck of the woods there is a race in every possible sub- division of society,

Moumotta you are not doing yourself any favours by wriggling out of arguments.

The Aryans not being a race is not a universally held argument. You are arguing that no such thing a race exists which is rather bizarre.

There is an argument that only the language was passed from Eastern Europe along with an insignificant influx of humans.

For the millionth time:

IF THIS WAS THE CASE : Then a big population moved from India to Eastern Europe carrying the R1a haplogroup.

WE DON't HAVE EVIDENCE of this.

So we go back to my original conclusion, it is either the Aryans or another migration which we have not categorised yet.

You think that language groups like Bengali, Gujrati are racial identities. Yet you started your arguments very early on by claiming that upper castes in different language groups have more genetic commonality with each other than with the lower castes in their own language groups. Do you see any contradiction between the two arguments that lead to a multi-dimensional race matrix.

You are not capable of comprehending the modern concept of race, which is a relative term.

One set of people with common inherritance are a different race from another group with different ancestory.

Bengalis are a race when compared to Punjabis and within Bengalis there are further races.

The upper castes are a different race because of their paternal ancestory but at the same time their maternal ancestory is generally the same as that of the lower castes.


SUMMARY

Once again more pointless repitition.

You know your argument has been completely defeated and that is why you keep on coming back to try and tackle the problem through another direction but unfortunately all you have is re-worded repetition.

Here is your argument so far,

1) Two populations worshipping cows shows that they have the same ancestory.
2) Two skeletal types of the Mediterranean race show common origin. You keep on arguing this despite the fact that the scientists have shelved the idea of the mediterranean race. Your continuing mention of this theory shows you desparation.
3) A book written in 1905 said that majority of the Punjabis are from the Scythian race.

That is all you have,

 

[moumotta]

Yes but you can't find one historian to back your statements.

All you have is bits and pieces from here and there joint very loosely. No wonder you are the first one to claim common origin of the Tryppilians and the Pakistanis.

You agree that every thing I quoted is from historians and archaeologists and none of it contradicts any scientifically agreed theories yet you can’t accept it even though those very quotes speak of the presence of Mediterranean people in both cultures.

The meditteranean race has been proven to not be a race.

This is shameless

Is that how you want to end it. If you think that disagreeing with biased and prejudiced interpretations is shameless then you will have to create your own dictionary.
In my dictionary shameless is a person who is caught cheating red handed and yet brazenly refuses to admit it.

you presented an argument and you have been shown that scientist don't believe in it anymore and you still childishly continue to argue.

I have debunked your claim in as clear a manner as possible.
Moumotta you are not doing yourself any favours by wriggling out of arguments.

The Aryans not being a race is not a universally held argument. You are arguing that no such thing a race exists which is rather bizarre.
You are not capable of comprehending the modern concept of race, which is a relative term.

One set of people with common inherritance are a different race from another group with different ancestory.

Bengalis are a race when compared to Punjabis and within Bengalis there are further races.

The upper castes are a different race because of their paternal ancestory but at the same time their maternal ancestory is generally the same as that of the lower castes.

Sure, and you will soon show us numerous quotes from scientists supporting your scientific theory of relativity of races that covers every possible combination of genetic, social and cultural mix except east mediterraneans.

You know your argument has been completely defeated and that is why you keep on coming back to try and tackle the problem through another direction but unfortunately all you have is re-worded repetition.

Two populations worshipping cows shows that they have the same ancestory.

Wazeeri and his attempts to spin and claim victories are fast becoming a legend.

This is an example of classic spin attempt. Remove all references and context from a statement, change a few words here and there and present your own version of what I said.

If it was that simple then you wouldn’t have made several failed attempts to challenge bull cult on ridiculous grounds like limiting the spread of a culture to the village where it was first found or claiming that it only applies to the south bank of a river and not across to the other side nor would you be in knots over the question of mediterraneans..

Two skeletal types of the Mediterranean race show common origin. You keep on arguing this despite the fact that the scientists have shelved the idea of the mediterranean race. Your continuing mention of this theory shows you desparation.

As I have said earlier Mediterranean race is not crucial to my hypothesis, though it is a nice bonus because it reveals your two faced hypocrisy on race issues.

A book written in 1905 said that majority of the Punjabis are from the Scythian race.

The book quoted historians and scholars from its time. It is a fact even today that over 60% of the population of Punjab comprises of groups like Jutts, Gujjars and Rajputs. Many scholars even today consider these groups to have arisen from Scythian migrations. Leaving that aside there is near unanimity that they are not derived from Aryan migration. If you are looking for a strain that accounts for 50% of Punjabis then it certainly can’t be Aryan migration.

Going by a simple process of elimination, Aryans can be ruled out as carriers of R1a to Punjab. That only leaves Scythians and an earlier migration from east mediterraneans as possible candidates.

 

[Wazeeri]

You agree that every thing I quoted is from historians and archaeologists and none of it contradicts any scientifically agreed theories yet you can’t accept it even though those very quotes speak of the presence of Mediterranean people in both cultures.

You have quoted bits and pieces from different scientists which DO NOT FIT IN WITH YOUR THEORIES.

You have taken two mediterranean skeletals and argued that they are of common origin.

There is NO SCIENTIST backing that claim.

If you think that disagreeing with biased and prejudiced interpretations is shameless then you will have to create your own dictionary.

Are you saying that the whole scientific community is prejudice?
NO SCIENTIST believes in the 4 european race theory anymore.

Sure, and you will soon show us numerous quotes from scientists supporting your scientific theory of relativity of races that covers every possible combination of genetic, social and cultural mix except east mediterraneans.

EAST mediterraneans? Where are you getting that from?

WE have Mediterranean skeletals. These skeletals do not show that these people were from any particular place. They could be from China to Russia to Africa.

We haven't established that these people were MEDITERRANEAN.

If it was that simple then you wouldn’t have made several failed attempts to challenge bull cult on ridiculous grounds like limiting the spread of a culture to the village

You were the one who provided the boundaries my friend not me.

As I have said earlier Mediterranean race is not crucial to my hypothesis, though it is a nice bonus because it reveals your two faced hypocrisy on race issues.

Ofcourse it is crucial.
What other evidence do you have to link the tryppilians and the Pakistanis?

Going by a simple process of elimination, Aryans can be ruled out as carriers of R1a to Punjab.

HOW???

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

Finally some progress made

• You admit that you quoted a science book from a 100 years ago
• You are backtracking on the mediterranean race theory

You argue that the mediterranean race theory is not important to your hypothesis yet you only have two arguments for the Tryppilian migration to India.

• Cow worship
• Skeletal remains which fit the mediterranean type

Scythians

• How do the Scythians satisfy the 3000-5000 time period when the Indo-Scythians and the Scythians (if the same race) were still in contact with each other as early as 2400 and as late as the 2nd century.

Trypplians

• If you now accept that the skeletal remains do not show common origin (as the scientist community would tell us) What other evidence do you have for this theory other than parts of both communities worshipping cows?

The funny thing is that you are not even attempting to answer my queries around your theories. You think making half baked suggestions is an argument.

 

[moumotta]

You admit that you quoted a science book from a 100 years ago
You are backtracking on the mediterranean race theory

Says the man who has been going on about a 140 year old race theory.

You argue that the mediterranean race theory is not important to your hypothesis yet you only have two arguments for the Tryppilian migration to India.

Cow worship
Skeletal remains which fit the mediterranean type

Where does cow worship come in this.

How do the Scythians satisfy the 3000-5000 time period when the Indo-Scythians and the Scythians (if the same race) were still in contact with each other as early as 2400 and as late as the 2nd century.

This is so annoyaing when you push a discussion beyond sight with your multi- postings and then after 10 posts come back to points that have been clearly discredited in previous discussions. Your timing of 3000- 5000 has been totally discredited as are your attempts to move scythian separation by half a millennia.


You have distorted quotes and presented them as scientific arguments. You find a common word here or there and allow your fantasy to interpret it quite differently from what it is saying- forest steppes north of black sea become Siberian forest steppes, a royal tomb becomes a tomb belonging to royal scythian tribe.

Not a single argument to support a common king or army ruling Ukraine and Siberia nor any evidence of a migration from Ukraine to Siberia has been presented that can challenge 3100 BP.

If you now accept that the skeletal remains do not show common origin (as the scientist community would tell us) What other evidence do you have for this theory other than parts of both communities worshipping cows?

I have quoted historians who called them Mediterraneans. Neither I nor any historian has referred to cows & pigs.

Here is where the discussion stands.

Time of Separation

It has been clearly demonstrated that the separation time calculations are rubbery numbers with very large standard errors. No scientist has suggested 3000- 5000 as a range. The range is a result of your branch of science that combines ‘bits and pieces’ from here and there. Let this range be buried for good as this range has been mentioned by any scientist.

Mediterraneans, Race, Racism & Science

You may wish to forget it but I have given you quotes from historians that called these people Mediterraneans. While the argument can stand without any reference to race it is odd that you are the person referring to scientists who argue against all sorts of race and racist definitions.

You have been feeding liberally on Aryan race theory for eons while now choosing to get all-scientific about Mediterranean. The race theory may be right or not but you are hardly the person who can challenge it, let alone challenge it selectively. Make up your mind where you stand.

Ethnic mix of Punjab

With 60% Jutts, Rajputs, Gujjars and Ahirs in addition to more recent migrations from middle east and Iran clearly one has to look beyond Aryans to account for a 50% R1a.


Scythians
You Started by claiming common army and king for Ukrainians and Siberians then did a quick change to claim Ukrainians ruled Siberian steppes not realizing that the quote you cited referred to Steppes north of black sea. Bungled attempts continued when you latched on to a royal tomb to claim it belonged to Ukrainian royal scythians.

Rather than these attempts at mis-interpretation of texts can we get a clear reference for what you are trying to claim. It is becoming rather boring with your insistence on misquotations.

 

[Wazeeri]

Two weeks of wait and all we see from Moumotta is misdirections and not a single direct answer. The padded post above is just a waste of time if you are not willing to answer the questions.

No support for common link between Tryppilians and the Pakistanis,

No explanation of how two skeletons being classified as Mediterranean shows common origin even though the modern day scientists are against that conclusion.

You are playing to the audience now, both of us know you have been resoundingly defeated but you want to appear as though you have an answer by posting a random post which adds nothing to the debate.

Your audience can read post no. 245 and 254 which you still haven't answered.

You made another laughable comment in your reply. You are now claiming that the scientists called them mediterranean not mediterranean race. Fine which of the twenty countries and which of the 100s of races within those countries did these people come from. You lose both ways my friend.

SUMMARY of your bizarre arguments.

• Cow worship means common origins.
• Mediterranean race means common origins.
• 60% of the Punjabis are jatts gujjars....etc hence we need to discount R1a for some reason. (whatever the hell that means)
• The best estimates provided by scientists do not fit in with your argument hence you reject them

So far for every single theory you have provided, you have provided support from a scientist for not a single one. You don't think you have to and that says all that can be said about your argument.

 

[moumotta]

Good to see that you are now resorting to posturing rather than arguments.
This is how you tried to prove the link between Royal Scythians and the word royal tomb in your post 245 that you refer to so proudly.

No word on how you equate a Royal Tomb to Royal Scythians.

That is how a royal scythian is defined.
It wasn't as if the royal scythians named themselves the royal scythians.

The Royals are called the royal scythians by the historians.

You're not doing too well up here are you?

A royal scythian is defined by a royal tomb? Not a very smart argument.
If you did a little research you would find:

Burial mounds or kurgans are found all over Europe and Asia and are a mark of several cultures.

Most prominent leaders were buried in individual kurgans, now called "Royal kurgans".

These royal kurgans or royal tombs are found in a number of cultures and many of them predate scythians.

Clearly, the word royal tomb is used based on the assumed status of the person buried rather than his tribe.

So much for your claim that a royal tomb defines royal scythians.

Yet another example of distorting quotes and then stubbornly refusing to admit them when pointed out.

I ask again, do you have any argument to support a scythian migration from Ukraine to Siberia.

On science and race the point is very clear. You just refuse to admit it.
We can go with politically correct scientific view and say that there were no Mediterranean and Aryan race. You wouldn’t do that because your entire edifice in this and earlier thread will collapse if you go with scientific argument.

There are no audience to play to. They have already left but typically, when you start playing to the galleries, like a little kid expecting to deflect any blame you blame me of doing what you are doing.

Funny how you keep referring to scientists while every evidence you have quoted is distorted- from All male army to a 3000- 5000 range that you are now doing your best to avoid supporting to claiming that the date of separation between East Europeans and Indians could be after their entry to India, all arguments that you have failed to support against any enquiry.

 

[Wazeeri]

We can go with politically correct scientific view and say that there were no Mediterranean and Aryan race.

Moumotta

You go from one desperate attempt to another, It is so funny that you are trying to claim that all the scientists are just being politically correct and only you can see the true light.

Who said that the Aryan race has been disproven?

The concept of the 4 european races has been disproven a concept which never left the hypothesis age. Mediterranean race theory has been disproven and rejected by the scientist community.

You are in a quandry as to whether accept this theory and risk losing out on a clear show a desperation or reject this theory and have the very basis of your argument rejected,

I ask again, do you have any argument to support a scythian migration from Ukraine to Siberia.

What exactly is your point?
Are you arguing that the Scythians never got to Siberia?

You don't even know what your point is do you?

Burial mounds or kurgans are found all over Europe and Asia and are a mark of several cultures.

Most prominent leaders were buried in individual kurgans, now called "Royal kurgans".

You have no clue do you,

Kurgan Cultures are divided, archeologically, into different sub-cultures, such as Timber Grave, Pit Grave, Scythian, Sarmatian, Hunnish and Kuman-Kipchak.

A seasoned archaeologist—he had spent a dozen summers on Russian excavation teams—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.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature7/

Funny how you keep referring to scientists while every evidence you have quoted is distorted- from All male army to a 3000- 5000 range t

Bamshad 3000-4000
Kivisild 3300 - 5200

Have another go.


SUMMARY

Moumotta still supporting the mediterranean race theor, a theory which the scientific community has rejected. It was never proven in the first place.

Moumotta's argument - The Scientists are being politically correct.

 

[moumotta]

The more you continue this debate the more you tangle yourself in contradictions.

You go from one desperate attempt to another, It is so funny that you are trying to claim that all the scientists are just being politically correct and only you can see the true light.

Who said that the Aryan race has been disproven?

The concept of the 4 european races has been disproven a concept which never left the hypothesis age. Mediterranean race theory has been disproven and rejected by the scientist community.

You are in a quandry as to whether accept this theory and risk losing out on a clear show a desperation or reject this theory and have the very basis of your argument rejected,

We are not talking about four races theory. We are talking about science vis-à-vis Mediterranean and Aryan races. You can easily put it to rest by quoting a scientist who supports the concept of Aryan race. The hypocrisy is quite clear when you argue scientists support one race theory and not the other.

Moumotta= I ask again, do you have any argument to support a scythian migration from Ukraine to Siberia.

Wazeeri= What exactly is your point?
Are you arguing that the Scythians never got to Siberia?

You don't even know what your point is do you?

Hope you are not trying to deliberately dumb down the debate. The point was very clear- you just have to read the quote you are replying to- do you have any argument to support a scythian migration from Ukraine to Siberia. This is the point that you have been trying to make for the last two pages and each of your claims from
- one king one army ruling both places to
- confusing black sea forest steppes with Siberian forest steppes to
- royal scythians taking over siberia in 400BC.
All your attempts were based on your own misunderstanding and distortion of quotes and failed to survive any enquiry.

Let me repeat. The question is not whether Siberian Scythians were scythians or not. The question is:

do you have any argument to support a scythian migration from Ukraine to Siberia after so many failed attempts.

You have no clue do you,

Kurgan Cultures are divided, archeologically, into different sub-cultures, such as Timber Grave, Pit Grave, Scythian, Sarmatian, Hunnish and Kuman-Kipchak.

A seasoned archaeologist—he had spent a dozen summers on Russian excavation teams—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.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature7/

I am sure that must be a very good answer if only we knew what question you are answering.

Bamshad 3000-4000
Kivisild 3300 - 5200

Have another go.

Very funny. When did Kivisild suggest 3300- 5200 as a range. He only estimated the durations for two samples as 3300 & 5200 respectively. Here is what’ happening.

A scientist makes a study at one location and estimates a value of 3000 from his observation.. He makes another study at another location and the value this time is 5200.

Now our resident scientist takes over and claims that all other observations have to fall between these two values.

The range is not mentioned by the scientist.

It is our resident expert who is reaching a pretty unscientific conclusion without any regard to the variance of the observed values and with no understanding of what confidence interval is implied by it and with no explanation of how two observations become two limits of a range.

 

[Wazeeri]

We are not talking about four races theory. We are talking about science vis-à-vis Mediterranean and Aryan races. You can easily put it to rest by quoting a scientist who supports the concept of Aryan race. The hypocrisy is quite clear when you argue scientists support one race theory and not the other.

You have no idea what you are talking about,Aryan race and Mediterranean races are completely different concepts.

The 4 race theory is a different concept from the Aryan race theory. The Aryan race theory started from a hypothesis on a race which has some historic, linguistic and genetic backing.

The four race theory was a concept which initiated in a man's head. A man who thought that the europeans could be separated into four communities based on appearances. This theory was rejected and proven wrong by the scientist in the 50s and by the 60s it was dead,

One is a theory on a race the other is a hypothesis on skeletons and their relevance to the field of anthropology.

The fact that you are drawing comparisons shows what little grasp you have of anthropology.

You can easily put it to rest by quoting a scientist who supports the concept of Aryan race.

Bamshad, Spencer Wells, Lynee jorde

"are consistent with a historical scenario in which invading Caucasoids, primarily males,established the caste system and occupied the highest positions, placing the indigenous population, who were more similar to Asians, in lower caste positions."

do you have any argument to support a scythian migration from Ukraine to Siberia. This is the point that you have been trying to make for the last two pages and each of your claims from

Depending on whether you believe the Scythians originated in Central Asia or Ukraine we can conclude that there was a migration in either direction. If Scythians originated in Central Asia then they migrated to Siberia from there if they originated in Ukraine then they migrated to Siberia.

What is your point?

- one king one army ruling both places to
- confusing black sea forest steppes with Siberian forest steppes to
- royal scythians taking over siberia in 400BC.

That is a very weak supper or crumbs for you.

You have no point yet to try to point score on imaginary arguments.

I am sure that must be a very good answer if only we knew what question you are answering.

For umpteenth time you get proven wrong and that is all you have.

You were trying to imply that Kurgans have nothing to do with Scythians hence the Kurgans discovered were not Scythian.

After being proven wrong you are playing dumb.

Very funny. When did Kivisild suggest 3300- 5200 as a range. He only estimated the durations for two samples as 3300 & 5200 respectively. Here is what’ happening.

A scientist makes a study at one location and estimates a value of 3000 from his observation.. He makes another study at another location and the value this time is 5200.

Now our resident scientist takes over and claims that all other observations have to fall between these two values.

The two ranges were worked out on the Most recent common ancestor, these are triangulated to come to an estimate which Kivisild stated as 4700 years. Remember the 4700 figure he came up with?

For the hundredth time Moumotta shows that he has no grasp of any science what so ever.

You keep on bringing up the same questions again and again just to be embarrassed.

Remember this argument:

Wazeeri : The estimates (Kivisild's one) are the estimates of the Indian populations separation from the most recent common ancestor and the Ukranian populations separation, the results are then triangulated to give one answer.

Moumotta : Can you show me where Kivisild did a triangulation and came up with an answer of 3300- 5200. His single answer is 4700 which you will not mention because it contrdicts the migration you are proposing.

Wazeeri: I just want to laugh my head off at that point. That is the triangulation.

 

[Wazeeri]

SUMMARY

Moumotta's latest attempt

• Moumotta shows he has no idea how the mediterranean race theory and the aryan race theory are different.
  
• Moumotta once again brings up the question regarding the scientific estimates and again is reminded that this was already answered before when moumotta quietly left the discussion
  
• Moumotta's attempt at distorting facts regarding the scythian grave in Siberia is caught so he acts dumb.

General state of debate

• You have been shown that R1a predates the Scythians
• Your answer is that the scientists got it wrong or the science is wrong
  
• You have been shown that Mediterranean race does not show common origin
• Your answer is that the scientists are being politically correct
  
• You have already accepted my theory but you forget that and keep on attacking it every now and then to distract attention from the weakness in yours.
  
• You have admitted that not a single scientists supports any one of your theories and you don't think that that has any relevance.

The argument ended ages ago, the only reason it is going ahead is because you decided to make it into a matter of prestige.

History apparently was a strong subject for you but you completely disregarded the fact that you may have grown up on Hindu nationalist propoganda and now that has been shown up.

I suggested earlier that the only two options we have for the genetic data are

ARYANS

You have accepted this as a possibilities and it fits the genetic data very well.

Migrations we haven't discovered

You have admitted that your theories do not have scientific backing which fits them into this category but you don't want to admit this because that prove that I was right all along.

You just reply to posts to pretend as if you have an answer to play to your perceived public.

 

[moumotta]

It is very funny how your postings change when you are under pressure. You start answering some imaginary questions rather than the ones being discussed. Your summary becomes longer than the original posts as you try to divert the focus of discussion in all directions. Points that you were fighting every inch for get dropped as if they never mattered to you.

Behind all this pretence you do realise that this thread has come to a conclusion as you have failed to support any evidence against Scythian separation in 3100BP. Their migrations in large numbers to India and Ukraine have been well documented and they now emerge as the leading candidate to explain the presence of Hg3 in the two populations.

do you have any argument to support a scythian migration from Ukraine to Siberia. This is the point that you have been trying to make for the last two pages and each of your claims from

Depending on whether you believe the Scythians originated in Central Asia or Ukraine we can conclude that there was a migration in either direction.
If Scythians originated in Central Asia then they migrated to Siberia from there if they originated in Ukraine then they migrated to Siberia.

If Siberian scythians did not come from Ukraine to Siberia then 3100BP time of separation stands.

For umpteenth time you get proven wrong and that is all you have.

You were trying to imply that Kurgans have nothing to do with Scythians hence the Kurgans discovered were not Scythian.

After being proven wrong you are playing dumb.

Love this innocence. Your half a dozen attempts to move the time of migration from 3100BP to mid first millennium have just been demolished and you still think I was arguing against the link between Kurgans and Scythians. Its like after being bowled around your legs you argue that I was trying to bowl on seventh stump.

You have been shown that R1a predates the Scythians

This attempt to distort a quote has been defeated in the past but thanks for bring it back again. Allows me to highlight a point or two.

It became apparent very early in this and the earlier thread that you had some serious problems wit your reading comprehension. You interpret texts out of context and reach very different interpretations then any one else would. I clearly illustrated this in post #234 with your forest steppes reference.

This was the quote

The R1a allele thus far predates the Scythians, and its distribution consequently cannot be used simplistically to trace Scythian migrations in particular.

Now read this a few times as I explain further.

1. All it is saying is that the spread of R1a does not have to be necessarily because of Scythians. As R1a predates them there may be other populations carrying it as well.
2. Regardless of that lesson in comprehension, R1a also predates Arayns so if it rules out Scythians then it also rules out other migrations.
3. Leaving out 1 & 2, and this is really illuminating; your original quote has been removed by the garbage cleaners on wiki. Not only you misinterpret quotes, you also have a tendency to go for dodgy references. It is a double whammy- poor selection of references with even poorer interpretations of them.

Conslusion

Now that all your attempts against Scythian migrations as the answer have failed it is time to bring out the presentation party. Scythains are on top of the board. Unlike Aryans who are only recognised as a language group with uncertain ethnicity and disputed origins there is no doubt that scythains overran Ukraine and India in large numbers.

If Aryans want to be counted as a possibility they will stand way down in the rankings. Your safety catch of untraced migration can slid in to the annonimity that it deserves.

Now if you will hold on to the mike it is time for the scythains to do a lap of honour.

 

[Wazeeri]

Behind all this pretence you do realise that this thread has come to a conclusion as you have failed to support any evidence against Scythian separation in 3100BP. Their migrations in large numbers to India and Ukraine have been well documented and they now emerge as the leading candidate to explain the presence of Hg3 in the two populations.

Ha!

I am supposed to prove something happened when I am not even claiming it?
You make a claim, you can't prove it but somehow it is prove because I can't disprove it.

How does one prove that something DIDN't happen when it didn't happen?

I smoked a cigar, prove that I didn't.

If Siberian scythians did not come from Ukraine to Siberia then 3100BP time of separation stands.

HA! once again, You are confused out of your brain.

If they didn't come from Ukraine then the link is broken. The whole point of you bringing up the Scythians was because they explained the Ukraine and India connection. Now you are arguing they didn't come from Ukraine.

Make your mind up.

Your memory lasts for about two posts, after that you make a complete joke out of your argument,

Love this innocence. Your half a dozen attempts to move the time of migration from 3100BP to mid first millennium have just been demolished and you still think I was arguing against the link between Kurgans and Scythians. Its like after being bowled around your legs you argue that I was trying to bowl on seventh stump.

You're the one who is arguing the separation happened 3100 years ago.
From what we know Scythia separated after the decline in the 4th and 5th century.

You are yet to backup your claim that Scythia separated 3100 years ago.

and even so isn't it such a big coincident that as soon as the parties separated, their genes mutated at the same moment and we had the genetic results we have now.

The R1a allele thus far predates the Scythians, and its distribution consequently cannot be used simplistically to trace Scythian migrations in particular.

Moumotta's comprehension lessons, the above doesn't rule out the Scythians somehow.
That is great, what school did you go to again?

1a also predates Arayns so if it rules out Scythians then it also rules out other migrations.

Where the hell did you get that from.
Waiting for the answer.

And the smileys come out

Moumotta has crossed the line of desparation.

 

[Wazeeri]

Summary

For umpteenth time in this thread Moumotta dodges all questions posed to him in my post.

Moumotta thinks that the words "R1a predates the Scythians" does not rule out the Scythians.

Moumotta doesn't even comment on the embarrassing contradictions in his posts presented to him.

Moumotta ends up having to post smileys because the Hindu nationalist propoganda has not given him enough ammunition to see science through.




Story of the thread so far....

• Moumotta presents not a single scientist to support any of his theories
• Moumotta claims scientists got their science wrong
• Moumotta claims historians got their history wrong
• Moumotta uses a 100 year old theory, when reminded that the scientists don't believe in it anymore he argues that the scientists are just being politically correct.
• Moumotta uses a 100 year old science book, first he denies it but once it is proven to him he says that the book is supported by many articles he has posted. However he doesn't mention which articles those are

.

 

[moumotta]

Ha!

I am supposed to prove something happened when I am not even claiming it?
You make a claim, you can't prove it but somehow it is prove because I can't disprove it.

How does one prove that something DIDN't happen when it didn't happen?

I smoked a cigar, prove that I didn't.

After trying unsuccessfully for 2 pages and close to 2 months to disprove 3100BP, now you want to claim that it can not be disproven. I can only feel for you.

Don’t you think it is rather late to take up smoking cigars after 2 months of repeated failures.

If they didn't come from Ukraine then the link is broken. The whole point of you bringing up the Scythians was because they explained the Ukraine and India connection. Now you are arguing they didn't come from Ukraine.

Yes the link is broken. In common language it is called separation!!!

Your memory lasts for about two posts, after that you make a complete joke out of your argument

This is classic child psychology, you blame me of doing things that you have been caught doing. You even feigned ignorance of where the argument on Siberian scythians was going, quite ignoring that you created an imaginary migration of scythians from Ukarine to Siberia. If you had done any research you would have known that scythian archaeological sites in Siberia predate their appearance in Ukarine.

I have been having fun with it for two months as you stumbled from one pathetic attempt to another.

and even so isn't it such a big coincident that as soon as the parties separated, their genes mutated at the same moment and we had the genetic results we have now.

Wow, that’s a great argument. You now saying that your 3000 years as time of separation is not really 3000. You need additional margins over 3000. Some great home conconcted science you are resorting to.

Moumotta=The R1a allele thus far predates the Scythians, and its distribution consequently cannot be used simplistically to trace Scythian migrations in particular.

Now read this a few times as I explain further.

1. All it is saying is that the spread of R1a does not have to be necessarily because of Scythians. As R1a predates them there may be other populations carrying it as well.
2. Regardless of that lesson in comprehension, R1a also predates Arayns so if it rules out Scythians then it also rules out other migrations.
3. Leaving out 1 & 2, and this is really illuminating; your original quote has been removed by the garbage cleaners on wiki. Not only you misinterpret quotes, you also have a tendency to go for dodgy references. It is a double whammy- poor selection of references with even poorer interpretations of them.

Wazeeri=Moumotta's comprehension lessons, the above doesn't rule out the Scythians somehow.
That is great, what school did you go to again?

Are you for real. How does it rule them out and from what. Stop embarrassing your self.

Regardless of that lesson in comprehension, R1a also predates Arayns so if it rules out Scythians then it also rules out other migrations.

Where the hell did you get that from.
Waiting for the answer.

It doesn’t matter as your dodgy quote has disappeared from the face of earth, lies can only live so long but just because you asked.

Some earlier studies came to the conclusion that R1a may have arisen 15,000 years ago in the vicinity of Ukraine, possibly expanding from either the Ukrainian LGM refuge following the end of the last ice age, or from the Pontic-Caspian steppe as a result of the hypothetical Kurgan migrations theory.

However, some newer studies show that R1a lineages may have their origins in North India [11][12] [2]. Oxford University geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer 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".

The first carriers of the R1a1 haplotype are believed to have been nomadic farmers in the steppes of east Europe about 10,000 years ago.

And the smileys come out

Not just the smileys. It is a full on party. Do join after you have got over your disappointment.

Just in case it hasn’t sunk in yet, here it is again.

Conslusion

Now that all your attempts against Scythian migrations as the answer have failed it is time to bring out the presentation party. Scythains are on top of the board. Unlike Aryans who are only recognised as a language group with uncertain ethnicity and disputed origins there is no doubt that scythains overran Ukraine and India in large numbers.

If Aryans want to be counted as a possibility they will stand way down in the rankings. Your safety catch of untraced migration can slid in to the annonimity that it deserves.

 

[Wazeeri]

After trying unsuccessfully for 2 pages and close to 2 months to disprove 3100BP, now you want to claim that it can not be disproven. I can only feel for you.

So you make a claim and instead of you having to prove your claim, I have to disprove it.

Most people with any common sense would tell you how illogical that is.

Yes the link is broken. In common language it is called separation!!!

What???
You are making no sense what so ever.

You are claiming that Indo-Scythians didn't come from the Scythians and that they did come from the scythians in one sentence.

Are you for real. How does it rule them out and from what. Stop embarrassing your self.

Once again Moumotta thinks the following sentence does not rule the Scythians out.

The R1a allele thus far predates the Scythians, and its distribution consequently cannot be used simplistically to trace Scythian migrations in particular.

Some earlier studies came to the conclusion that R1a may have arisen 15,000 years ago in the vicinity of Ukraine, .......................one estimate for the age of this line in India is as much as 36,000 years old".

Oh dear god, how many times do we need to do this?

Age estimates of the origin of R1a does not show us anything. If 36,000 years ago R1a mutation came into being in Africa, Australia and America and all those people moved to India or Ukraine, it shows us absolutely nothing.

I have already told you that the possibility that R1a originating in Northern Pakistan / Afghanistan / Kashmir is acceptable but the problem is that then we have a large population from these areas going towards Ukraine at around about the time of separation.

We do not know of any migration hence this theory gets put into the magical category of
"MIGRATIONS WE HAVE NOT DISCOVERED YET"

To me all these desparate smileys are an acceptance of defeat.

 

[Wazeeri]

Moumotta

Once again you have not answered any of the questions put to you.

You have made a claim and you have not been able to prove it. You are suggesting that I should disprove it and anyone with any common sense would tell you that, that is illogical.

You are making such a mockery of yourself that it is becoming embarrassing for anyone who reads this. You make random illogical statements and start posting banana smileys as if you have made a point.

It's really unfortunate because when you started off this thread it seemed as if you knew what you were talking about. But unfortunately the more we debated the more it became apparent that all you had was regurgitation from the Hindu Nationalists History Curriculum that an Indian is fed in the early part of his life.

I can post a list of all the times you have been cornered and embarrassed but you have embarrassed yourself enough already.

It is a shame to see you degenerate like this.

I will reply to you once you provide

Support from a modern scientist or historian for your theories surprise surprise you still haven't been able to do that.




.

 

[moumotta]

So you make a claim and instead of you having to prove your claim, I have to disprove it.

Most people with any common sense would tell you how illogical that is.

I did not just make a claim. I cited references in support of my claim. You could have made your mercy plea then that you couldn’t refute my references. It looks so meek to accept defeat now after you have spent two months trying to refute them. I would love to cite your repeated failed attempts if you want further embarrassment.

Any way it is never too late so an acceptance of your defeat after multiple attempts to refute 3100BP is accepted.

What???
You are making no sense what so ever.

You are claiming that Indo-Scythians didn't come from the Scythians and that they did come from the scythians in one sentence.

Where am I claiming that Indo Scythians did not come from Scythains. You will do well to read my posts rather than listen to voices in your head.

Once again Moumotta thinks the following sentence does not rule the Scythians out.

The R1a allele thus far predates the Scythians, and its distribution consequently cannot be used simplistically to trace Scythian migrations in particular.

Interesting how your replies reduce to one-line repetition of statements when you are unsure of yourself. You again fail to explain how it rules them out and from what. Clearly you are just using a jump in logic from A to Z without any basis to delay the inevitable.

In any case the issue is dead regardless of your weird comprehension because the reference you are relying on is non-existent.

Oh dear god, how many times do we need to do this?

Age estimates of the origin of R1a does not show us anything. If 36,000 years ago R1a mutation came into being in Africa, Australia and America and all those people moved to India or Ukraine, it shows us absolutely nothing.

I have already told you that the possibility that R1a originating in Northern Pakistan / Afghanistan / Kashmir is acceptable but the problem is that then we have a large population from these areas going towards Ukraine at around about the time of separation.

Thanks for that tangential diversion. Now can you get back to the point under discussion.
Your reference, the dodgy quote that has now disappeared from the face of earth said that R1a predates scythians.
I pointed out and proved that it also predates Aryans.
Now tell us what is your conclusion about predating ruling out any one.

We do not know of any migration hence this theory gets put into the magical category of
"MIGRATIONS WE HAVE NOT DISCOVERED YET"

Now it is the royal ‘WE’ to suggest that you are not alone in your delusions.

To me all these desparate smileys are an acceptance of defeat.

Thanks for providing a cue. Acceptance of defeat is when you make numerous attempts to counter 3100BP and after they have all been defeated you change tack to ‘it was never your responsibility’.

Once again you have not answered any of the questions put to you.

You have made a claim and you have not been able to prove it. You are suggesting that I should disprove it and anyone with any common sense would tell you that, that is illogical.

You are making such a mockery of yourself that it is becoming embarrassing for anyone who reads this. You make random illogical statements and start posting banana smileys as if you have made a point.

Explained above, it is not just a claim. It is a claim backed by references that you have tried your best to disprove and are now left in the unenviable position of pleading helplessness.

It's really unfortunate because when you started off this thread it seemed as if you knew what you were talking about. But unfortunately the more we debated the more it became apparent that all you had was regurgitation from the Hindu Nationalists History Curriculum that an Indian is fed in the early part of his life.

I shouldn’t even bother to reply to that. Every one knows who draws inspiration from fundoo right wing ideas.

I can post a list of all the times you have been cornered and embarrassed but you have embarrassed yourself enough already.

It is a shame to see you degenerate like this.

I will reply to you once you provide...

You realise how hapless that sounds. Any one vaguely familiar with child psychology will see it for what it is.

You could find a better way of expressing your situation.

If you want to get into a post-mortem of 6 pages and earlier thread it will only make it worse for you. There are a number of things that I will like to explore further including your dodgy scientific interpretations, your edited half quote references that amounted to cheating and your reading comprehension difficulties on a number of weird interpretations you made besides the ones I have already pointed out.

Support from a modern scientist or historian for your theories surprise surprise you still haven't been able to do that.

This is a thread on history and we are talking about migrations in history. You have failed to provide any backing from historians for yoru claims.

Even yoru science is a your own weird home concoctions. Show me one scientist you have interpreted correctly.
-Bamshad’s paper led you to conclude All Male Army.
-Kivisild’s observed values became two limits of your range and
-the unnamed dodgy scientist's predating Scythains some how became a reason to rule out Scythains’.

Besides your intentional distortions of scientists and your inability to correctly comprehend written references the other big reason you have failed to make any impression in this thread is your total lack of appreciation of history, both the bigger picture and in detail.

SUMMARY

Many moons ago we agreed that the only remaining debate was on possible migrations to explain a Y chromosome finding.

That debate has concluded.

It is very clear to every one that your attempts to counter scythians have flopped in a big way.

As I have amply demonstrated Scythains are on top of the board as a candidate. Unlike Aryans who are only recognised as a language group with uncertain ethnicity and disputed origins whereas there is no doubt that scythains overran Ukraine and India in large numbers and contributed to the genepool of the two countries.

You have admitted that you can’t disprove my arguments.

That for me concludes this thread.

If you want to discuss other issues or conduct a post mortem then start a new thread.

 

[Wazeeri]

Another attempt and still you haven't answered the question. This is how it stands.

• Wazeeris argument has dozens of scientists supporting it.
• Moumotta has failed to provide support from scientists for a single one of his arguments.

I will make this very simple for you. All you need to do is

1) Show that a scientist or Historian accepts your theory of tryppilians having the same origins as the people of the indus valley. Not a cocktail of loosely jointed statements from a 100 years ago

2) Show that the Scythians separated into two separate groups 3100 years ago.

Easy as that, just number the answers 1 and 2. Very simple.

 

[tdigi]

Looking at all this debate, I suggest you guys meet each other one day over a cup of coffee. I will happily pay the bill

 

[nikred]

This debate has been going on for 6 freakin' months. That too between only two posters. WOW!!!!!!! Is it some kind of a record?

 

[Wazeeri]

Well it has been a long circle of me requesting the same info again and again and Moumotta finding a new way of dodging the question.

I would love to meet Moumotta over a coffee that way he wouldn't be able to dodge the questions.

An example of Moumotta dodging the question is just above
He made a claim that Scythians split into two different groups 3100 years ago. I asked for proof which he couldn't provide so he started asking me to disprove a claim that he has made.

That is like me claiming that Unicorns exist and then asking you to prove that they don't instead of the onus of proof being on me to prove my claim.

Just for the record the questions are

1) Show that a scientist or Historian accepts your theory of tryppilians having the same origins as the people of the indus valley.

2) Show that the Scythians separated into two separate groups 3100 years ago.

 

[moumotta]

The case for Scythians 3100BP was made in post 213 onwards. Your numerous unsuccesful attempts to challenge it have followed that post. Make your way through the swamp created by your multi-posts designed to push your failed attempts out of sight and read at your leisure to refresh your memory.

I have given you all the time and space to ask questions and did not call it until you ran out of arguments and threw your hands up. It is funny that you now want to claim the proof non-existent after spending two months trying to prove it wrong.

If you feel you can do better given another chance then tough luck. I know that you will like nothing better than to hit the rewind button and then stall any conclusion the way you have stalled on many other issues such as ‘R1a predating scythians --> Scythains ruled out’ and ‘Full quote meaning the same as Half quote’ when caught cheating on page 4 to name a few.

After 5 pages of Butcher and six pages of this thread, the game is finally over. Winning runs have been hit. Don’t plead for the result to be cancelled and for another chance.

I am leaving this thread with no hard feelings. Hope you can do the same.

 

[moumotta]

Guys, this thread was meant to encourage forumers to search for answer about the past with open mind rather than becoming a boxing bout but things don't always turn out as planned.

I tried to leave this a few times in disgust but have always been lured back but this time it is for good.

 

[Wazeeri]

The case for Scythians 3100BP was made in post 213 onwards. Your numerous unsuccesful attempts to challenge it have followed that post

That is what I am talking about.

You never provide the reference you just tell me that you have already done it somewhere in the thread. You have posted so many posts, how hard is it just to tell me exactly what reference I am looking for and where it is?

If you are telling the truth then why dodge the question each time?

 

[Wazeeri]

At the end of the day, We had a task to identify who the genetic data belonged to. My theory has support from dozens of scientists on top of that you have accepted my theory.

On the other hand after asking repeatedly you have provided support from not a single scientist for anyone of your claims. You have tried to explain the genetic data but when you failed we had the following arguments.

• Scientists got their numbers wrong
• Scientists don't understand the subject matter

Then we had other questionable attempts

• You used a 100 year old theory which the scientists have rejected,
• your answer to that is that the scientists have rejected the theory because they are being politicially correct.
• You have played around with maths and then you have had to apologise when caught.
• You presented an argument and then forgot and started arguing against it

I only stuck around in the thread because your motive for this childish argumentative approach to the thread was due to a political agenda which you have been fed at school.

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/03/us-to-return-17000-looted-ancient-artefacts-to-iraq

The United States is returning more than 17,000 ancient artefacts that were looted and smuggled out of Iraq after the 2003 US invasion, including a 3,500-year-old clay tablet that bears part of the Epic of Gilgamesh, Iraq has said.

Tens of thousands of antiquities disappeared from Iraq after the invasion that toppled its leader, Saddam Hussein. Many more were smuggled out or destroyed by Islamic State (Isis), which held a third of Iraq between 2014 and 2017 before it was defeated by Iraqi and international forces.

US authorities working to recover the artefacts, recently reached an agreement with Baghdad to return items seized from dealers and museums in the United States, the Iraqi culture and foreign ministries said.

“The US government seized some of the artefacts and sent them to the [Iraqi] embassy. The Gilgamesh tablet, the important one, will be returned to Iraq in the next month after legal procedures are finalised,” the culture minister, Hassan Nadhim, said.

US authorities seized the Gilgamesh tablet in 2019 after it was smuggled, auctioned and sold to an art dealer in Oklahoma and displayed at a museum in Washington DC, the department of justice said, adding that a court ordered its forfeiture last month.

It said that a US antiquities dealer bought the tablet from a London-based dealer in 2003. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a 3,500-year-old Sumerian tale considered to be one of the world’s first pieces of literature.

Nadhim said other artefacts being returned included other tablets inscribed in cuneiform script.

Iraq’s ancient heritage has been decimated by conflict, destruction and looting, especially since 2003. Thousands of artefacts are still missing.

After 2014, Isis raided and wrecked historical sites on what Unesco called an “industrial” scale, using loot to fund its operations through a smuggling network that extended through the Middle East and beyond.

With the help of international agencies, Iraqi authorities have been trying to track down, return and preserve the country’s archaeological relics.

 

[James]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-59943179

<b>Vast Roman settlement found by archaeologists</b>

Archaeologists working on the route of the HS2 high-speed railway have found a vast wealthy Roman trading settlement.

The discovery was made during excavations at the site in south Northamptonshire.

A team of about 80 archaeologists have been working on the site for a year and discovered numerous artefacts, including more than 300 Roman coins.

Site manager James West said it was "extraordinary and tells us so much about the people who lived here".

The site, known as Blackgrounds after the black soil found there, is near the villages of Edgcote and Chipping Warden.

Archaeologists said it was an Iron Age village, formed of more than 30 roundhouses, believed to have been established in about 400 BC, that developed into a wealthy Roman trading town.

Discoveries showed the settlement expanded over time, becoming more prosperous during the Roman period, with new stone buildings and roads being built.

The team uncovered a 10m (33ft) wide Roman road, described as "exceptional in its size", running through the site.

HS2 archaeologists found evidence of workshops, kilns, several "beautifully preserved wells" and fiery red-coloured earth, which indicates activities such as bread-making and metal work occurred.

Alongside the coins found, glass vessels, highly decorative pottery, jewellery and evidence of make-up was uncovered.

Traces of the mineral galena - lead sulphide - a substance that was crushed and mixed with oil as make-up, was found on the site, archaeologists said.

Mr West said it was one of the "most impressive sites" Museum of London Archaeology (MOLA) had discovered working on HS2.

He said the Blackgrounds area "spans multiple time periods" and had given the team several "high-quality finds".

"The site really does have the potential to transform our understanding of the Roman landscape in the region and beyond," he added.

 

[James]

<b>Ancient Egyptian 'Green Coffin' returned to Cairo by US</b>

looted ancient Egyptian sarcophagus that was on display at a US museum has been returned to Egypt.

The 2.9m (9.5ft) long "Green Coffin" dates back to the Late Dynastic Period, which spanned 664BC to 332BC, and belonged to a priest called Ankhenmaat.

It was looted from the Abu Sir necropolis in north Egypt by a global art trafficking network, which smuggled it through Germany into the US in 2008.

A collector loaned it to the Houston Museum of Natural Science in 2013.

The sarcophagus was repatriated after an investigation that lasted several years and was formally handed over by US diplomats at a ceremony in Cairo on Monday.

The event was attended by Egypt's Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry and Tourism and Antiquities Minister Ahmed Issa.

"Today's ceremony is emblematic of the long history of co-operation between the United States and Egypt on antiquities protection and cultural heritage preservation," said US chargé d'affaires in Egypt, Daniel Rubinstein.

Mr Issa said the return of the sarcophagus showed Egypt's strenuous efforts to recover smuggled artefacts.

In September, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said the Green Coffin, which was valued at over $1m (£830,000), was illegally trafficked out of Egypt by a multinational network of antiquities smugglers.

The network was also responsible for trafficking the "Gold Coffin", which was which was returned to Egypt in 2019; the Stele of Pa-di-Sena, which is also from the Late Dynastic Period and was handed over in 2020; and five pieces seized from New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art last year.

The US is not the only country to have returned antiquities to Egypt recently.

In 2021, Israel handed over 95 relics which had been smuggled into the country or found for sale in Jerusalem.

Last month, a university in the Republic of Ireland said it was planning to repatriate a sarcophagus, mummified human remains and canopic jars.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-64147545