The hushed up southward mass migration of North Europeans

a reply to: zinc12

A lot of red haired remains ar a result of burial conditions and the Ph of the soil and not some mysterious race trotting the globe with advanced technology.

a reply to: zinc12
It is something to think about isnt it.
Other odd things are the maori name for the sun is the same as the egyptian name for their sun god.
Also the facial tattoo's of the maori,more so the forehead lines,are strikingly alike the lines on a pharoe's head dress.
And again I was told that the maori batallion that fought at al alamein in the second world war could hold a conversation with the locals using maori language,whats the chances of that. Another point is the maori "tiki" pendant,it has been said it resembles the egyptian "Baset" (sp?) in form....also a very similar pendant has been found in peru IIRC

a reply to: peter vlar
Would that also be an excuse for the red haired race called the Waitaha that say they have been here for over 1000yrs and have had DNA tests that show a strong link to Iran?
Heres some reading for anyone interested
www.elocal.co.nz...

a reply to: zinc12

If they're all Scythians (they weren't) then they didn't come from the North. Scythia would be Ukraine, Russia maybe Khazahkstan.
Part of the point of the genealogy is to link it to Noah, ie legitimacy for the Christian writers. They could all trace their ancestry to Noah, hence Cessair's inclusion.

a reply to: hiddenNZ

So are you also saying Egyptians made it to NZ and influenced Maori culture? Their language? what language were the villagers speaking? I refuse to believe that a man speaking Arabic could hold a conversation in Maori, just wouldn't happen that bloke was lying or speaking in Arabic to the villagers.

My Maori friend told me red hair Maori fellas were the descendants of the old Maori chiefs, which was a cool tale I thought.
The skeletons being around 7ft does not surprise me. Some Islanders I met were well over 7ft. So the thought some old buried guys were that tall does not really surprise me to be honest.

I'm not sure what is being hushed up? Migration patterns of our ancestors are not fully understood but there is no cover up of our ancestors migration. I mean what would be the point?
You don't hear about it all over the radio cause you probably were not listening/missed that part. Radio is dull and full of comedy, not going to have an hour of these comics talking about human migration now are ya, probably wouldn't really understand it themselves!

But peace, good discussion team

a reply to: Sparta
No i said its odd and something to think about.The 7ft tall skeletons do surprize me as that sort of height in any race way back when was not as common as it is today. And red haired maori are still around,most likely not directly related to chiefs,most likely are,who knows,they are known as "waka blonds" waka in maori is boat.

Well we don't for a fact know they were 7ft, as you mention it was 'around' 7 ft. Based on no evidence and actual measurements they may have only been 6'5 and dubbed massive. If the finders were only 5'10 for example it would seem rather large.

It was only 600 years ago (from evidence) so it wasn't too long ago. Average Polynesian men back then were 6ft according to research, so who knows.

As for the Egyptian thing it is quite the coincidence.

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: zinc12

If they're all Scythians (they weren't) then they didn't come from the North. Scythia would be Ukraine, Russia maybe Khazahkstan.
Part of the point of the genealogy is to link it to Noah, ie legitimacy for the Christian writers. They could all trace their ancestry to Noah, hence Cessair's inclusion.

The Scythians themselves are originally from the North and moved southward so yes they all can trace their ancestry back to the four city's in the north the Thutha talk about when asked where they learnt their skills, the same place where the danavas in India had come from.

originally posted by: zinc12

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: zinc12

If they're all Scythians (they weren't) then they didn't come from the North. Scythia would be Ukraine, Russia maybe Khazahkstan.
Part of the point of the genealogy is to link it to Noah, ie legitimacy for the Christian writers. They could all trace their ancestry to Noah, hence Cessair's inclusion.

The Scythians themselves are originally from the North and moved southward so yes they all can trace their ancestry back to the four city's in the north the Thutha talk about when asked where they learnt their skills, the same place where the danavas in India had come from.

Never studied genetics

a reply to: SargonThrall

The proto-Indo-Europeans spread from the Pontic steppe, not the Caucasus, according to the most up-to-date theories. Secondly, the Celts never got anywhere near the Tarim basin. There is zero proof that Celtic speakers inhabited the Tarim basin, and the tartarn means nothing as far as identifying what language they spoke.

originally posted by: SargonThrall
a reply to: zinc12
Now you are being deliberately obtuse. In your second paragraph you said that Aryans "placed their offspring at the head of the system" which is false, they did not decide their class, it was hereditary. Additionally you implied only the Brahmin class contained Indo-Europeans which is also false, they were present in every class.

Russians are not Europeans. They are Russians. Russia is partly in the Northern Hemisphere yes; the location in question is not. You are conflating two words to conform to your falsehood.

Northern Europe is Scandinavia. You're the first person i've ever seen try to force-fit it to mean the Caucasus.

Dude..... did you take any geography courses in school? All of Russia is in the Northern Hemisphere, including the "location in question" (which is the Pontic steppe, not the Caucasus).

I think this poster can safely be discredited.

originally posted by: Talorc

I think this poster can safely be discredited.

Doesn't he have to be credited with something other than ignorance first ?

a reply to: Talorc
Gee thanks, and you seemingly aren't aware that the Caucasus mountains are literally right under the Pontic Caspian Steppes.


Yes I agree, what they wear and even if they had similar cultural ties, has no effect on the traits of the individuals. Tocharian or whatever they call it now is likely. Celts was a misnomer on my part.

The thread author said that the "location in question" was Northern Europe, and you have not addressed that. His stretch of logic was that Russia is in the Northern hemisphere and Russians are Europeans, and thus the Steppes are in Northern Europe.

Being in the northern hemisphere doesnt mean much of anything; half of Africa is there but I dont hear anyone calling it a Northern Continent. Northern Europe traditionally refers to Scandinavia. Maybe as far as Germany. But certainly not the steppes.

a reply to: SargonThrall



What are you talking about, the steppes (in green) are at the same latitude as Ireland and the UK. How can you say UK and Ireland are north but something at the same latitude somehow isn't?

originally posted by: zinc12
a reply to: SargonThrall

What are you talking about, the steppes (in green) are at the same latitude as Ireland and the UK. How can you say UK and Ireland are north but something at the same latitude somehow isn't?

Now you are just being disingenuous. The currently most popular theory for where the Proto-Indo-Europeans (PIE) came from is the Pontic Steppe, not all the Steppes. Though some argue for Anatolia or Iran, and in fact the picture may well be much more complicated.



If you think the pink area is in Northern Europe, then you've either got your map upside down, or you are playing games. South Eastern Europe would be the best description. Remember the people at the time had no concept of "Europeans" or "Asians", they just lived where they lived.

Also, notice the direction of arrows? The PIEs (mmmmm....pies) spread outwards from this area taking their language(s) with them - eventually the descendants of these PIE languages would be spoken in Northern Europe. Not the other way round.

I can see you are desperately trying to create some kind of narrative where the Great White Man descended from the North spreading civilisation and becoming the rulers of the darker people at the Southern end of the continent. However it's just not supported by the linguistic, archaeological and genetic evidence.

a reply to: FatherLukeDuke
No I am not being disingenuous the current theory backed by dna testing is that Aryans come from the Ukrainian steppes




Look at the map, Is Ukraine on the same line of latitude as the UK and Ireland or not ?

Mysterious Indo-European homeland may have been in the steppes of Ukraine and Russia

www.sciencemag.org...

The Cradle of Indo-Europeans The dawn of Indo-Europeans on the Ukrainian steppes

ukrainianweek.com...

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke


I can see you are desperately trying to create some kind of narrative where the Great White Man descended from the North spreading civilisation and becoming the rulers of the darker people at the Southern end of the continent. However it's just not supported by the linguistic, archaeological and genetic evidence.

Please explain how this occurred :

"As one moves from lower to upper castes, the distance from Asians becomes progressively larger. The distance between Europeans and lower castes is larger than the distance between Europeans and upper castes"


"Analysis of these data demonstrated that the upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians, and the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are the lower castes. Collectively, all five datasets show a trend toward upper castes being more similar to Europeans, whereas lower castes are more similar to Asians."

originally posted by: zinc12
Look at the map, Is Ukraine on the same line of latitude as the UK and Ireland or not ?

Clearly not, from your own map - which highlights all of Ukraine, not just the steppe. And the steppe doesn't cover the northern parts of Ukraine.

Good luck going down to Odessa and telling them they are now in Northern Europe. Where does that leave Scandinavia then? Really Northern Europe?

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by: zinc12
Look at the map, Is Ukraine on the same line of latitude as the UK and Ireland or not ?

Clearly not, from your own map - which highlights all of Ukraine, not just the steppe. And the steppe doesn't cover the northern parts of Ukraine.

Good luck going down to Odessa and telling them they are now in Northern Europe. Where does that leave Scandinavia then? Really Northern Europe?

Mysterious Indo-European homeland may have been in the steppes of Ukraine and Russia

Looking at the map above is Russia above or below Ukraine?

a reply to: FatherLukeDuke

if im not mistaken, you put up an image that shows the same thing he said....and are using it as evidence that he's wrong?