Rejection of the Aryan Migration Theory Implies Support for the Out of India Theory

The rejection of the Aryan Migration Theory to India in connection with Indo-European languages is nearly universal among intelligent and intellectual Indians, particularly high castes. The only support for the AMT among Indians is found among low castes, particularly Dalits.

It is now spreading to other anti-Whites. As I noted in an earlier post, a anti-White White commenter has recently signed on to rejection of the AMT, probably only because it is an anti-White theory. Huax, an anti-White Chinese nationalist in the comments, has also signed on recently. Probably his only reason for rejection of the AMT that that is the proper anti-White position.

A common thread here is that the AMT is a White Supremacist theory. However, it’s rare to meet a White Supremacist who subscribes to it. In fact, I’ve never in my life met one who talks about the “White Aryans” of Central and South Asia.

But it’s important to note that rejection of AMT automatically implies the Out of India Theory for Indo-European. You can’t have native Aryans in India without an OIT. While rejection of AMT is fashionable or even hip among all sorts of White-haters, the OIT is surely fringe stuff. But one leads to the other, as surely as night follows day.

Here is a recent comment by one of these Hindutva fascists. I had to edit it extensively because the guy is apparently an illiterate. My comments follow.

lol,. a typical white person response a culture based on the view that white must be superior classes everyone else as inferior…lol… amazing how a white guy with no real culture in India, has no knowledge of Indian culture, history, traditions, other than what hes read to confirm that the great Indian empires and civilizations somehow where connected with white people. lol…Krishna is a dark skinned god, not white, color in India does not refer to skin but to color of actions, you stupid white fool, white being the color of god, hence at funerals all Indians wear white, but Europeans wear black…Its so obvious that their is no white homeland, its obvious that the oldest sites for human civilization are in India, it was the Indians who left India that became the Europeans, and central Asian.

White people with looting of empires of old have not only tried to SCRIPT the history of the past as well as the plunder of each nation…This is the ideology of a ROTTEN shallow people, that’s why a group of white guys, raised in Taliban christian doctrine shipped over to India and they THINK THEY ARE THE ONES TO SCRIPT INDIAN HISTORY…

Why??…because Indian history is far greater than the Greeks the Romans and the Europeans, and hence to claim your stake the whites came up with the Aryan theory…lol…

Go to any place in Europe their is no Aryan culture present no Vedic culture present, read the bible and it has verses from the rig Veda, these white people want PEOPLE TO leave their own logic and sense and want others to believe that a barbaric tribe from nowhere land came aka Europe and overtook India the greatest and most powerful land on earth…lol…

M17 R1A1 all originate in India, India Ganges plain has the an equal claim to be the first to create agriculture, the ideology of Veda are only present in India, the destruction of the supposed Aryan theory that caste was imposed by the Aryans has been completely shattered.

More and more evidence supports the Indian who have no NEED TO CONFIRM THEIR IDENTITY, BUT WHEN A FOREIGN TALIBAN STYLE ATTACK ON INDIAN CULTURE IS BEING LAUNCHED BY A group of white people who have no interest in Indian politics or history, or its society are INVESTING TIME AND MONEY IN AN ATTEMPT TO PUSH LIES AS TRUTHS TO THE POINT ITS BECOMES A REALITY…in the face of evidence.

Europeans were from north Indians, the Vedas name no name for India as India itself, the Vedas reject any foreign homeland for themselves, archeologically speaking their is no evidence what so ever for any invasion, but with every new evidence that breaks the old theory down, whites have a long history in denial and deceit, they create a new theory which is so loose and absurd that when an Indian makes claim along those same lines but actually has a greater claim in it they ridicule it…lmao…

In the end its this the white world robbed and pillaged the world, the roman empire is what most Europeans hold onto, a slave empire, that was destined to fail, the Greeks where inferior to Indian intellect though, that’s why the numbering system was formulated in India.

History confirms India’s position as one the most powerful, hence when the British landed in India, within 200 years it went from the richest land on earth to the poorest, and the UK went from the poorest to the richest, and with that trade of wealth.

The whites wanted to create a false history that can now match the carpets and curtains, so just as they scripted Indian history to make them the creators, today Indians must revers the damage done by Nazi christian Taliban mindset that was created with the bloodshed of millions of Indian and the plunder of trillions of dollars.

India is returning back to its roots of greatness, and Europe with all its slave trade monies running out, is realizing why Asia has always been that land of the first and greatest civilizations. And with that India will break free from the slave chain of a people that have not only corrupted world societies but have the arrogance to think that they created the Asian empires, when Europe itself is contains nothing but scenarios.

Theory about this about that, a theory about how white Europeans were the first in the Americans, or about how white Europeans have a duty to enslave the black Negroes, or a theory on how the pyramids where built by white people not colored, or about how white people are superior than others., or about how white people created world civilization but history shows something completely different.

One day the DHARMIC REPUBLIC OF INDIA WILL RETURN and then we will shove every single genetic code down your throat…in the Vedas it states tribes from India where sent out, yet the same white people Europeans overlook such matters and then instead use selected passages to confirm their positions…what a joke…!!lol

Caste has been proven to be a system of governance that predates ANY ARYAN CLAIM…it’s native to India…another BLAST FROM EVIDENCE PAST that destroyed the HITLER white mentality, they defeated Hitler only because similar white Hitlers wanted it so. It was no fight for freedom it was a fight between world oppressors….

Just look at Europe today, it cannot cope with immigrants…if it where not for the fact the European governments allow such immigration shows how shallow white society is, with such loose roots, YOU NEED IMMIGRATION to generate wealth for your European culture. There is a reason why India and china has the largest populations…

THEY HAVE BEEN HERE THE LONGEST WITH CIVILIZATIONS that just didn’t crumble. Hence India holds ONTO ITS VEDIC ROOTS…whereas Europe converted to Christianity rejects any NOTION OF VEDIC CULTURE and today they wanna stake a claim having realise that the roots of European take them back to India, so Europeans take the location and move it upwards to central Asia, Russia…just enough distance to be with white people and just within enough distance of India the colored race…GENIUS.

It’s hard to say where to begin here.

The common thread here is that India is the cradle of all civilization. Many go further and state that India is the cradle of all humanity.

Agriculture surely did not originate in India. It originated in Papua New Guinea, Mexico, Egypt and China all around the same time, but not in India.

Note the now common line that all Europeans originally came from India. Ok, how come we don’t look like a bunch of elephant jockeys then?

Recently there has been a lot of talk of “Vedic” cultures in Europe dating back thousands of years. Supposedly one has been found in Croatia.

The Indo-Aryan homeland in Kazakhstan has a few sites that are now being claimed by Indians. Some of these sites were fairly modern architecturally in terms of indoor ovens, etc. The Indians insist that the nomads were too stupid to make these nice dwellings and that only superior Indians could have made them. They also say that swastikas have been found all over these old Indo-Aryan sites. This is apparently just more of their lies. The bottom line here apparently is an attempt to buttress the Out of India theory.

This typical argument throws up the usual red herrings. AMT is a White Supremacist, Nazi, Christian Taliban theory that is similar to the lines that Whites had a right to enslave Blacks, that Whites were the first in the New World, and that Whites built ancient Egypt. Most of these are either dead or fringe theories.

The notion that the hated White lands of Europe and America would be nowhere today without those glorious dark skinned immigrants, presumably Indians, is typical. It’s also probably nonsensical.

The use of ancient religious scriptures, of all things, to make the case for linguistic, archeological and anthropological facts is also typical.

There is a strain of Third Worldism and Dependency Theory in the notion that the wealth of the West is all stolen slave money from the exploited Third World.

The notion that India used to be the wealthiest and greatest land on Earth until it was ruined by evil British colonialists is typical.

Now it will rise, Phoenix-like, from the ashes of the ruins that its enemies have created for it, to rule the world and seek revenge on its enemies. This is classic fascist theory and you will note how similar it is to the classical fascism of Hitler and Mussolini. Indian nationalism is profoundly fascist; in fact, it is surely one of the larges and most dangerous fascist movement on Earth today, since it has the support of the overwhelming majority of intelligent, educated and intellectual Indians. Fascist Indian nationalism may well have 10’s of millions of fanatical followers.

Vedic culture is only present in India because that is where it was created. 3,900 YBP, Aryans migrated into North India, mixing with the native Dravidians and supplanting their languages. It was this mixture of nomadic Aryan pastoralists with Dravidian high culture that created Vedic culture.

Whether or not caste was brought to India by the Aryans or whether this rotten custom was already present is not known, but at any rate, it is not necessary to postulate that Aryans brought caste to India to support the AMT.

We see the familiar line, that the notion that the “great” Indian cultures of the past were created by the hated White man is the ultimate insult to Indian pride.

Note the extreme hatred for Christianity. This is typical of Hindutva ideologues. Christianity is associated with the diabolical Europeans who colonized and ruined India. Further, Christianity is a deadly threat to the great Hindu religion. Hindutvas carry out frequent attacks on Indian Christians, accusing them of converting Dalits to Christianity. Many Indian Christians have been murdered by Hindutvas, and Hindutvas have burned down entire Christian villages.

The notion that a “barbaric tribe from nowhere land” – these would be the Central Asian Aryans – came down from the north and conquered the greatest culture on Earth – Indian culture – is just too insulting to bear. That these Aryans were “White people” makes the insult all the more searing.

166 Comments

Filed under Agricutlure, Anthropology, Asia, Asian, Britain, Christianity, Colonialism, Culture, East Indians, Ethnic Nationalism, Europe, European, Europeans, Fascism, Hinduism, History, India, Indo-European, Kazakhstan, Language Families, Linguistics, Nationalism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, South Asia, South Asians, Whites

166 responses to “Rejection of the Aryan Migration Theory Implies Support for the Out of India Theory

  1. Sojournertroof

    Mother India the Cradle of Civilization.

    Dark Greeks, the originators of Western culture certainly look Indian, so do Italians (Romans)!! Apart from color, Indians with their fine features and straight hair certainly look quite “European” (perhaps it is the Europeans who look Indian with a loss of melanin, -the loss of melanin in European populations and the overly glamorized mutations of blonde hair and blue eyes are a condition related to Albinism and a relatively recent genetic anomaly that is detrimental to health, normal humans are dark).

    It’s not fair that you push back the Aryan Invasion Theory an extra 1500 or so years to coincide with the satellite confirmation of the dried river beds of the Vedic Sarasvatsi River and the archaelogical confirmation of an Indian origin to Sanskrit by thousands of artifacts and cities surrounding the river beds.

    The name for Scandinavia derives from the Sanskrit “Skanda Nabh” think of how preposterous it is to believe that marauding bands of blond haired barbarian nomads wearinig animal pelts moved to India and implanted such a word and concept on the locals, it is much more likely that the opposite is true.

    In that regard I post here something interesting I found on the internet, concerning the Sanskrit origin to much of Western culture :

    Sylvain Levi (1863-1935), French scholar, Orientalist and Indologist:
    ….from Persia to the Chinese sea, from the icy regions of Siberia to Islands of Java and Borneo, India has propagated her beliefs, her tales, and her civilization!

    Pierre Sonnerat (1748 – 1814), French naturalist and Explorer:
    .. India, in her splendor, gave religions and laws to all the other peoples; Egypt and Greece owed to her both their fables and their wisdom…. Ancient India gave to to the world its religions and philosophies…. it is known that Pythagoras went to India to study under Brahmins, who were the most enlightened of human beings

    Friedrich Majer (1771-1818), English statesman:
    It will no longer remain to be doubted that the priests of Egypt and the sages of Greece have drawn directly from the original well of India,

    Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire (1694-1774), French writer and philosopher:
    I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges, – astronomy, astrology, metapsychosis,.. It is very important to note that some 2,500 years ago at the least Pythagoras went from Samos to the Ganges to learn geometry…But he would certainly not have undertaken such a strange journey had the reputation of the Brahmins’ science not been long established in Europe…It did not behove us, who were only savages and barbarians when these Indians were civilised and learned, to dispute their antiquity.

    India – The Mother of Western Civilization
    by Radhasyam Brahmachari

    Whenever the Western scholars begin a discussion on any branch of their knowledge such as literature, philosophy, science, mathematics, astronomy etc., they always start from Greece. Thus they try to convince that the Greek or Hellenic civilization is the fountainhead of today’s Occidental wisdom and people like Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras etc. were the authors of their cultural heritage. In this way they try to project that the present Western civilization grew independently in Greece and hence it was not indebted to civilization of any other group of people.

    But Sir William Jones, the founder of the Asiatic Society, Calcutta, put a big question mark on the above Western notion. Sir Jones was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court in Calcutta by the East India Company and he therefore came to Calcutta in 1773. After day’s work, he started to learn Sanskrit in the evening and appointed Pundit Jagannath Tarkapanchanan to assist him as a private tutor. As soon as he entered the vast treasure of Sanskrit literature, Jones could discover many similarities between Sanskrit and the ancient European languages like Greek, Celtic, old German, old Saxon and so on. He could also notice that many Sanskrit words had entered Greek and Latin vocabulary without little alteration. He could detect that the English ‘mother’ has been derived gradually from ‘modar’ in old English and old Saxon, ‘moder’ in old German, ‘mathir’ in old Irish, ‘motre’ in old Albenian, ‘mair’ in old Armenian, ‘mater’ in Latin, ‘meter’ in Greek and ultimately from ‘matri’ in Sanskrit.

    In a similar manner, today’s English word ‘father’ has been derived from ‘fader’ in old English, ‘faeder’ in old Saxon, ‘fater’ in old Armenian, ‘pater’ in Latin and Greek and ultimately from ‘pitri’ in Sanskrit. In a similar, ‘brother’ from Sanskrit ‘bhratri’; ‘vagina’ from Sanskrit ‘bhagni’; ignite, ignition etc. from Sanskrit ‘agni’; ‘night’ from Sanskrit ‘nakta’ and so on. A comprehensive list of such similarities is so vast that it given birth to a new branch of knowledge called Comparative Philology.

    But vanity and European pride of Sir Jones prevented him to confess the truth that Sanskrit was the mother of all the European languages including his mother tongue English. So he had to invent a trick to save his face and said that all the European languages and Sanskrit had been derived from a still older language, which has now become obsolete. Thus he tried to establish a theory that the said older language is themother of Sanskrit and all the European languages of today and hence the Sanskrit and the European languages belong to a same group called Indo-European group of languages. To make his theory credible, he also said that a group of people, perhaps used to live in Asia-minor and speak in that language. This hint was later on utilized by Max Muller and according to him the said group of people were Aryans who finally scattered over a vast stretch of land and built up a civilization known as Arian civilization. And thus he laid the foundation stone of the so called Aryan Invasion Theory, which has now been rejected by most of the historians of the world.

    So long India was under the domination of the British, they could successfully distort the thought process of the people of this country by introducing all these lies into school and college curricula. As a result, many of the so called educated Indian still believe that a group or race of people called Aryan, came from outside India nearly 2500 or 3000 B.C. and they occupied this country by defeating its sons of the soil, and at the same time, they destroyed the Harappan civilization of the Dravidians. But the discovery of the ancient River Saraswati has shattered all those fabricated stories of the Western scholars. World famous archaeologist Sir Laurelstein excavated nearly 1600 sites on the bank of the River Saraswati and conclusively proved that the Saraswati Civilization was a part of the vast Vedic Civilization and the civilization now known a the Mahenjo-daro or Harappan Civilization was simply a part of the Vedic Saraswati Civilization. Many has also been able to decipher the arappan Harappan scripts and succeeded to prove that it was nothing but an ancient version of Brahmi and the language of the text was Sanskrit.

    So, it has become evident today that the said Aryan Invasion Theory was a fraud and had been invented by the European scholars and later on propagated by the colonial British rulers simply to subdue the people of this country and also to establish their illegal occupation of India on an ethical ground. It has also become evident today that the all the European languages, which, according to William Jones were the members of the so called Indo-European group of languages, had been derived from Sanskrit. Furthermore, scholars also agree that, migration deed take place, not to India but, from India to almost all over the world and these Indian immigrants carried Sanskrit with them. The also agree that the word Europe was derived from Sanskrit ‘surupa’ and these Indian immigrants were the authors of ancient civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran, Rome, Greece, North and South America and so on.

    Every Indian should be proud to know that Parasya, the original name of Persia or Iran, was derived from Sanskrit ‘parasu’ the battle axe which Lord Parasu Ram, an Incarnation of Lord Vishnu, used to carry. He should also be glad to know that the great Roman Empire was the creation of immigrant ksatriyas of India, who settled in Italy and founded the city of Rome, named after Lord Rama, the king of ayodhya. One should also notice that in Italian it is spelled Roma, not Rome, still today. According to E. Pococke, originally the name of the city was Rama and later on, Sanskrit long ‘a’ was replaced by ‘o’. There is another city in Italy, Ravenna, which many believe, has been derived from Ravana, the king of Sri Lanka. Ancient Romans used to wear dhoti and cremate the dead. Still today one finds numerous statues of Lord Shiva and Lord Ganesha and the most spectacular statue of Lord Shiva is standind beside a public fountain at a road square in Bologna. Roman priests were called ‘Pontiffs’ and scholars believe that the word has been coined from Sanskrit ‘Pundit’. They are also convinced that the word ‘Vatican’ has been derived from Sanskrit ‘Vatika’.

    Once upon a time, the two countries Norway and Sweden, collectively called Scandinavia, were ruled by Shri Kartikeya, son of Lord Shiva. It is well known that, Skanda was the other name of Shri Kartikeya and the land was therefore called Skandanavi. And scholars agree that today’s Scandinavia is a corrupt of Sanskrit Skandanavi. Similarly, the Caspian Sea was named after Rishi Kasyapa and words like August, Augustine, Augustus etc. were derived from Rishi Agastya. Arka is the other name of the sun and Sanskrit arka became arak in the West, just as dharma became dharma and karma became karam in Northern India. Gradually this arak became araak and finally today’s Iraq. In a similar manner, Surya the sun became today’s Syria.

    It would be really perplexing to every Indian to know that Lord Krishna, the son of Devaki, became Apollo in Greece. Radhakanta is the other name of Lord Krishna and, as Radha is a woman and abala (physically weak), He is also known as Abalakanta, and this Abala gradually became Apollo in Greece. Scholars also agree that the Greek god Zeus was no other than Lord Shiva of Kailash. They also agree that early Indian settlers in Greece came from Rajagriha of Magadha (today’s Rajgir in the state of Bihar). As they migrated from Rajagriha or simply ‘griha’, were called ‘Graihkas’ or ‘Graihakos’. Through passage of time, this ‘Graihako’ became ‘Graecus’ and finally ‘Greek’. In a similar manner, Sanskrit ‘griha’ became Greece.

    As said above, the early Indian settlers were from Magadh, and people from Magadh were called Madadhan in Greece. After passage of time this ‘Magadhan’ became ‘Makedan’ or ‘Macedan’, and finally ‘Macedonia’, the birth place of Alexander. Where from the name Alexander had been derived? A man of incomparable beauty in this world is called ‘Alokasundar’ in Sanskrit and after passage of time, Sanskrit ‘Alokasundar’ became ‘Alexander’ in Greece. It may be mentioned here that there are many variations variuations in spelling of Alexander in Europe and a few of them are Alexandre, Aleksander, Aleksunder and so on, and these variations supports the above view.

    Thousands of years ago people belonging to the tribe of Bhil left their dwelling place Hamman in Afghanistan and settled in Greece, where there chiefs were called Bhilpos, a corrupt of Bhilpati. Gradually this Bhilpos became Philips, the tribe to which Alexander belonged. So, it becomes evident that fore-fathers of Alexander originally were inhabitants of Hamman in Afghanistan, who later on migrated to Greece.

    There is a small place called Attak lying on the bank River Indus and nearly 942 miles north of the Arabian Sea. These people, after migrating to Greece, named their new dwelling place as Attak-sthan, which after passage of time, gradually became Atakthan Or Atthan and finally Athens, the great ancient city of Greece. The migrants from Ayodhya were called Ayodhan (people of Ayodhya) in Greece. Later on, this Ayodhan became Ionan and from Ionan, names like Ionian Island, Ionian Sea were derived. These migrants from Ayodhya were also known as Cul-ait-Ram (Family of Ram), which ultimately became Call-id-Romos. Scholars believe that a group of these people, later on, migrated to Italy and founded the Roman Empire and the city of Roma. And another branch of them migrated to Peru in South America.

    Shali is a kind of fine rice and desh-shali stands for the place where this kind of rice is cultivated. Such a place of desh-shali in Greece became Thessali, a province in Greece. Himadri is the other name of Himalay, where ‘him’ stands for cold and ‘adri’ stands for a mountain. And from this ‘adri’, the name of the sea between Greece and Italy was named the Adriatic Sea. Falguni or Phalgooni was the other name of Arjuna. This Phalgooni in Greece became Phalgoonus and the settlement of the descendants of Phalgoonus was called Phalgoonia. Today, the place is called Pelagonia, which forms a part of the province of Thessali. Another name of Arjuna was Ajeya or the undefeatable. In Greece, this Ajeya became Aegeus and his descendants were called Aigaios. And from Aegeus, the adjoining sea became Aegean Sea.

    The early settlers in Greece were also known as Pelasgians and scholars believe that the word was derived from Pelargos. But pelargos has several meanings. Firstly, Pelargos means sea and hence some scholars beliueve that they were called Pelasgians as those early settlers came to Greece by the sea. Secondly, ‘pelo’ means ‘to till’ and ‘argos’ means ‘land’. So, many believe that those early settlers were tillers of the land, or agricultural people. A third group of scholars believe that those early settlers came from the state of Bihar in India. In those days, Bihar was also known as Pelas, and hence they were called Pelasgians.

    Why did the Indians start migrating to Greece and other Western countries in large numbers? And when? Scholars believe that, after the Kurukshetra War the Kshatriya tribes, who fought for the Kauravas and survived the War, began to migrate in large numbers to escape humiliation and persecution by the winner Kshatriyas. According to the most modern estimate, the said War was fought in 3067 B.C., and hence the said migration took place nearly 5000 years ago.

    Hella is the other name of Greece and many believe that the name was coined from the mountain Hela, situated in Baluchistan in today’s Pakistan. They also believe that the people of that locality were the first among all other Indian tribes to reach Greece. The contribution of these people from Hela mountain, who were sun worshippers, played a vital role in Greek history and civilization. From this Hela, the Greek name Helios for the sun was derived. The settlement of these Hela people was called Hela-des or land of Hela, which ultimately became today’s Helados.

    There was a group of people who lived near the mouth of River Indus, who were experts in long distance sea voyage. These people worshipped snakes and hence were called ‘Phanish’ or king of snakes. Afater passage of time, they were called the Phoenicion sailors. In Greek, word ‘cori’ stands for the mouth of a river. So the people, who migrated from the mouth of Indus were called ‘cori-Indus’. Later on, this ‘cori-Indus’ became ‘Corinthus’ and their settlement became the city of Corinth.

    Many believe that the name of the Caucasus mountain was derived from Kaikeyi, the mother of Prince Bharata, the younger brother of Lord Rama. Similarly the names like Christ, Christine, Christopher etc were derived from Krishna; Adamson, Adams etc. from Sanskrit ‘adim’ and Andrew, Andrews etc. from Sanskrit ‘Indra’. Scholars agree that English ‘man’ and old English ‘mon’ were derived from Sanskrit ‘Manu’. Scholars also believe that names like Harry, Harris, Harrison etc. were corrupts of Sanskrit Hari. The renowned German scholar Max Muller was fully convinced that, ‘Max’ was a corrupt of Sanskrit ‘moksha’ and whenever he wrote a letter in Sanskrit, he used to sign it as Moksha Muller. Furthermore, during his stay at Oxford, he used to write ‘Gotirtha Nagar, in stead of Oxford.

    In Sanskrit, the word ‘kulish’ stands for lightening and Harikulish was the other name of Lord Balarama. In Greece, this ‘Harikulish’ became ‘Hercules’. Hara is the other name of Lord Shiva and, in Greece, this ‘Hara’ became ‘Haro’. Scholars also believe that the English words ‘hero’, ‘hurrah’ etc were derived from Sanskrit ‘Hara’. The English word ‘amazon’ stands for a woman warrior, or more commonly for a tall, strong and masculine woman. Scholars agree that the word was derived from ‘Uma’, the wife of Lord Shiva. In Sanskrit, ‘Umasuta’ means son of Uma. In Greece, this ‘Umasuta’ became ‘Umasuna’ or ‘Umasun’ or ‘Umasoon’ and hence ‘Umasoona’ stood for Uma’s daughter. With passage of time, ‘Umasoona’ became ‘Umazoona’ or ‘Umazona’, and ultimately “Amazon’.

    In Sanskrit, ‘ap’ means water. In many places, including Northern India and Arabia, this ‘ap’ became ‘ab’, and thus the land of pancha (five) ‘ab’ became Punjab. In a similar manner, the sacred water of the well Zem Zem in Mecca became ‘ab-e- Zem Zem. Scholars believe that the name of the Russian River Ob is also a corrupt of Sanskrit ‘ap’. They also believe that the name of the River Volga was derived from Sanskrit ‘falgu’. They are also convinced that the name of the River Danube was derived from Sanskrit ‘dhanya (paddy)+ ob’ and hence it implies that once upon a time, paddy was cultivated on the banks of the River Danube. In Sanskrit, ‘dhara’ means flow and ‘am’ means mighty and the name of the River Amu Darya is a corrupt of Sanskrit ‘am + dhara’ and similarly, the name of the River Syr Darya is a corrupt of Sanskrit ‘Sri + dhara’. Scholars also agree that the name of the River Nera in Yugoslavia was derived from Sanskrit ‘neera’ (water); River Odra in Poland from Sanskrit ‘ardra’ (wet); the Siberian river Uda from Sanskrit ‘udaka’ (water) and the river Vah in Czechoslovakia from Sanskrit ‘vah’ (to flow).

    Most of the scholars agree that the Greek epics Iliad and Odyssey are nothing but imitations of Ramayana. The prime story of Ramayana is abduction of Sita by Ravana and liberating her from captivity by Rama. Similarly the Greek epics narrate abduction and liberation of Helen, the Queen of Troy.

    How were the names of the celebrated Hellenic scholars derived? Scholars believe that Sanskrit ‘arya’ became ‘aristo’ in Greece and from this ‘aristo’ names like Aristotle, Aristarchus and English words like aristocrat, aristocracy etc have been derived. They also believe that Socrates was a corrupt of ‘Sukracharya’ or ‘Sukra’. In Sanskrit, ‘vidyapith’ means a place of learning and ‘vidyapith guru’ stands for a teacher or ‘acharya’. In Greece, this ‘vidyapith guru’ became simply ‘pith guru’, which after passage of time, became ‘pithgoras’ and from this ‘pithgoras’, finally the English word Pythagoras was derived.

    So, it becomes evident that the scholars who believed to have authored the Greek or Hellenic civilization, were, in fact, Kshatriya immigrants from India. And hence it can safely be said that, India is the mother of civilization, which is now known as Hellenic or Greek civilization. Or in broader sense, India is the mother of today’s Western civilization.

    -I remember seeing a piece on 60 minutes that India Institute of Technology (IIT) graduates command salaries far exceeding those of any other institution in the world because of their extreme intelligence, and I dont think it came so it stands to reason that it is because their ancient ancestors were from Poland.

    • mott 69

      Wow. Wow. I didn’t know whites were “not normal” humans. Go F yourself, Twoofy. How can someone that is obviously well, er… edu-macated like Sojuner Twoof mistake similar Indo-European words for this everything-came-from-India horseshit. Makes the most loony Nordo-Supermo stuff seem very rational. Soju Twoof is INSANE- I vote to BAN this individual…YOU ARE SICK IN THE HEAD, TWOOF!

      • Wade in MO

        I wouldn’t get too worked up about SojournerTroof Mott. I’ve read this morons comments for some time and either he is an expert nordicist troll trying to get non-nordicists to join his movement (doubt it) or he is a batshit crazy moron. I lean toward the second. I think he may actually be Rick Sanchez because he is a white hispanic who goes around playing the “minority card”. My own theory is that people like him are trying to drive a wedge between whites by pulling this medicist nonsense. He wants to justify his minority privileges by claiming he is part of some oppressed group.

        He’s actually called me a nordicist before…LOL!!!

        • Bay Area Guy

          Ugh, white Hispanics claiming oppressed minority status piss me off.

          While I agree with what Rick Sanchez said regarding the media, I think he’s a turd and a disingenuous asshole for playing the whole “oppressed minority” card.

        • FG

          American racial politics are weird and complicated. Though Rick Sanchez is clearly not a “POC” in the literal sense, he may wish to express solidarity with his fellow Hispanic Americans, most of whom are.

          Or perhaps it reflects the persistence of the One Drop Rule. Alot of people assume that Hispanics, regardless of their physical appearance, are mixed with something and thus are non-white.

          I’m not sure how long this state of affairs will last. With all of the interracial marriage going on, eventually both the black and Hispanic groups may have large numbers of “white-looking” members claiming to be oppressed minorities.

  2. It is really stupid to stick to still Aryan Invasion or Migration theory. I just pity you.

    • The only people who reject this are the scummy shit people from India and various other White haters.

      The whole world laughs at the Indian nationalist (really 100% of Indians) jokers. They are rejected by the academic community of the entire planet.

      Aryan Migration Theory is supported by almost 100% of the world’s academic community. The only people who reject are the world’s biggest losers and the dumbest people on Earth – Indians!

      LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Your comments show how much your views are based on facts. Just plain India hating and bashing!

        Looks like I am talking to Empty head

        • mott 69

          I was gonna see if I could constuct an “Out of Albania” Theory for Albo-Centrists, just substituting “Albania” for “India”. You’re right, Lindsay- these East Indians are the stupidest people on earth. Go starve next to a cow! Here’s to hoping the whole Sub- (and I mean SUB) Continent falls into the Indian Ocean under the weight of the scummy sub-humans that “live” there. More food for the fish! Next: the Han Chinese. Good riddance! 3 billion less dirtbags!

        • Wade in MO

          “I was gonna see if I could constuct an “Out of Albania” Theory for Albo-Centrists”

          Yeah, according to the Albanians the Ancient Greeks were really all Albanians, so this would not be surprising. In fact, they probably already have one.

        • Wade in MO

          “these East Indians are the stupidest people on earth”

          Well, they’re for sure the worst smelling.

          “Next: the Han Chinese. Good riddance! 3 billion less dirtbags!”

          I don’t know about the Chinese. I know they’ve destroyed some archaelogical remains in the past, but I wouldn’t say that they’re all bad. Many countries have done damage to ancient sites in the past. Our own government bans investigation of certain sites for political reasons (problems with native groups). If anything the Turks should come next. Who has lied about the past (and present) more than them? (excluding OIT “theorists”)

        • Bay Area Guy

          Eh, I don’t care about Turks. They have little power and influence in the world.

          Yes, I know that they were fuckers in the past, but I really don’t care about them now.

        • Wade in MO

          “Eh, I don’t care about Turks. They have little power and influence in the world.”

          Because of their geography they have more power than people think. They are probably have the second most crucial geograpical setting in the world after Iran. I suspect that Turkey will be a larger player in the next few decades than many people now think. Just look at the current situation. Who supports Albania, Bosnia, and Macedonia against Serbia and Greece? Turkey. Who else has done this? The US. Not a coincidence.

          “Yes, I know that they were fuckers in the past, but I really don’t care about them now.”

          They have destroyed and are destroying architectural and archaelogical remains all over Anatolia. They take credit for culture and art that they did not create. Some are also pursuing pan-turkist policies that could have extremely nasty outcomes for the enitre world if successful. Forgetting about them is down right foolish and dangerous.

        • Bay Area Guy

          Wade, don’t get me wrong.

          I know about Cyprus, and I even read an article by PJB (Pat J. Buchanan) about how Turkey could become the next power in the Middle East.

          That being said, at least as it pertains to U.S. foreign policy, there are other countries (namely Israel) that are a bigger problem.

          I think the U.S., besides getting oil, should just say “fuck it” with regards to the Middle East and mind its own business. That region is as fucked up as they come.

      • Satish Joglekar

        Robert if you are so smart what exactly are your achievenbets?

  3. Dirty Bull

    But Bob, it’s an incontestable fact that India has been invaded and subjugated by numerically inferior peoples many times in history, even if you put the Aryans to one side.
    There were the British, the Mughals before them (from central Asia), the Persians, the Afghans, the Arabs etc.
    For some reason, in general, Indians have shown very little martial spirit.In fact British colonialists even divide up indians into ‘martial’ and ‘non-martial’ races.Sikhs and Gurhkas were ‘martial’, Bengalis ‘non-martial’.

      • Wade in MO

        I love it how someone can cite a blog called “Controversial History” as definitive evidence.

      • Ok, you’re insane, like almost all smart Indians.

        Too bad. I will pray that you pry yourself from the fists of Indian nationalist fascism.

        • Really funny how you can justify your fanaticism with abusive comments and at the same time reject any legitimate assertiveness.

          This is not my view. It is one from west (= Aryan, For you)
          http://controversialhistory.blogspot.com/2007/04/myth-of-aryan-invasion-of-india.html

          You have to know Indians are not going to disappear because of your abusive language , You have come with better comments than this or nobody can stop from your path to insanity

        • James

          well you are in response a hypocrite and white nationalist. Face it Indian fascism doesn’t exist as you think it does and comparting Indians to the likes of mussolini and hitler is just…. wow unbelievable. Comparing the two is hypocritical. Seriously as I said before robert stop trying to act like a historian. You are not one. A true historian shows no bias and looks at things form an objective lens. He compares all sources regardless of their bias and views all sources and works as being biased and so he pieces together form all these works through analysis what actually happened. Therefore neither you nor wade are true historians and neither you or moda satva are that. You both bring religion, nationalism and immediate disregard for what the other is saying when in reality historians take all sources and use them to validate their findings not pick and choose.

          Therefore please develop an open mind for that is the only way you can interpret these theories. Regardless of which is correct AMT or OIT, or even both are wrong if you both continue to bash each other and call the other crazy you are not being objective. And by using praying that is religious in connotation and the simple fact is ones religion should not be brought up when discussing history or having anything to do with history and generally religious texts such as vedas, bible, etc are not supposed to be taken as absolute fact rather they represent symbolism to be quite honest, unless you are a nationalist maybe your a Christian nationalist given your views and he a hindutva nationalist. I myself am nonreligious and secular though not atheist. For me objectivity and understanding and analysis of all sources is key to finding out the truth.

          This is the problem with linguists: they believe language is the source of all the answers to human civilization in terms of migration, etc that they disregard the archaeological, genetic, and geological and geographical evidence or pick and choose evidence form this to back their arguments. hindutva and OIT proponents are no better. They have great theories but none are absolutely proven true.

    • Apocalypse

      east indians are aryans (north east indians) and for any of you jealous envious idiots out there that disagree go get an education. Max mueller is a fake white scholar that doesnt know $#@%! his theory about aryan invasion is bs in 1899 aryans have been around 75 bc e and even before that. and for the fella that wrote east indians are stupid truth is you are stupid i bet you didnt even know india had the first university in the WORLD! 2800 hundred years ago as early as 700 bc e Takshashila university located in north west region of india,i bet you didnt even know that before isaac Newton bhaskaracharya indian astyronomerwas the founder of the law of gravity 1200 years before newton . stupid imbecile.100 bc e the decimal system flourished in indiawithout india there wouldnt be computers that would exist because india made the numeric system zero and without that there wouldnt be proper counting and computers rely on the zero.too bad you are too dumb to even know that!

  4. johnUK

    Robert are you going to do a post on the Epstein international paedophile affair?

    It is obvious because he is a wealthy, well connected Jew that he is being protected by the media.

    http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2011/03/britains-special-representative-for.html

  5. Wade, can you please elaborate on how the Turks are destroying ancient archeological sites and why?

    • Wade in MO

      I’ll get to you tomorrow. I’ve been busy…

    • Wade in MO

      “Wade, can you please elaborate on how the Turks are destroying ancient archeological sites and why?”

      Starting to look up stories and thing I’ve read over the last 5 years.

      Here’s the begining. There are more medieval ruins than ancient. I include the area of modern Turkey, Northern Cyprus, and Turkey’s butt boy friend Azerbaijan. Much of it has to do with many of the items being christian in origin. Some of this also has to do with turkish nationalism and pan-turkism. The Grey Wolves and other groups are hostile anything greek and especially armenian and origin. They hate everyone who isn’t a turkic speaking muslim or is not part of their little clique( which includes people like the Chechens and the Kosovo Albanians)

      Cyprus:
      Destroyed medieval churches and buildings. Rare pre-iconoclast icons stolen and churches left in ruin.
      http://www.archaeology.org/9807/etc/special.html

      This site has some great documentation. Most of the larger entries with picutres are churches from late aniquity through the 18th century. The smaller entries contain information of illegal excavations of bronze age and other prehistoric and ancient sites.

      http://www.mcw.gov.cy/mcw/DA/DA.nsf/All/5C63072411078AB9C22572750055D67D?OpenDocument

      I find this one to be particularly disgusting. It is a medieval to early modern cemetary on the current territory of the state of Azerbaijan. This was a very large and very important cemetary with intricately carved headstones.

      http://www.anca.org/docs/Djulfa_Destruction.pdf

      • Wade in MO

        The link above is important. The video is a video in Armenian of a film crew catching these turds in the act.

      • Wade in MO

        continued…

        For the last few years there has been an ongoing drama with an important Assyrian monastery founded in the year 397. This is a great article which goes into some of the other atrocities these people have committed:

        http://www.assyriatimes.com/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3376

        This is all I had planned to put up. Tell me if you want more.

      • carlos

        grave looters..hoping to find treasures for themselves..

      • Satish Joglekar

        The Christians are equally guilty of destroying non Chistian places of worship. The mosque is Jerusalem is a proof of how conquering armies converted the Jewish temple into a church then in to a mosque, then into a church and finally into a mosque.
        The Portugese and Spanish inquisition was one of the most brutal in recorded history.

    • Wade in MO

      More tomorrow…

  6. Dota-player

    I’m an Indian and this is what I know:

    1) The Aryans were NOT white, never were. Whites are Caucasoids indigenous to Europe whereas the Aryans were Caucasoids indigenous to Asia. A large number of Persians and North Indian’s could pass of as the other (myself included as I’ve been told by many Persians)

    2) The Aryans did NOT invade India, they merely settled there. There is no evidence of any warfare, but plenty of evidence of a full scale migration (introduction of horses into the subcontinent, material displacements ect)

    3) The Avesta text confirms that a migration of Aryans took place and headed east towards the River Indus

    4) Archeological evidence and modern scholarship shows that the the pre Zoroastrian religion of Iran was in many ways identical to the Proto Hindu faith of india. Fortunately for the Iranians, zoraster happened. The Indians on the other hand languished, and continue to languish under the caste system. Zoroastrianism enabled Iran’s civilization to reach a level of sophistication which was retarded by the caste system in India. You can clearly see that Persians today are far more cultured and civilized than Indians, the latter which still shit on roads and in the fields during broad daylight. Persian’s have a refined way of conducting themselves in public and entertaining guests, whereas Indian’s are renowned for lacking grace, charm and decorum.

    • I agree with you that the Aryans were Eastern Caucasians. They looked a lot like present day Pashtuns, Iranians, Punjabis, etc.

      There were some battles when the Aryans moved in. These are recorded in the texts. They had stone forts, horses, chariots, and metals and this along with their mobility could have enabled them to defeat some of the settled peoples.

    • Shiv

      You bro of Osama, did he call u regarding 72 vergins?

  7. Huax

    But it’s important to note that rejection of AMT automatically implies the Out of India Theory for Indo-European. You can’t have native Aryans in India without an OIT.

    No it doesn’t. Well I don’t necessarily disagree that “Aryans” “migrated”, but I think they had a population boom in Anatolia and then spread outwards because of population pressure.

    I don’t think that they abandoned agriculture, and then decided to run off into the much colder North. They were not a horse culture, but a sedentary, agrarian one.

    That said the DNA of Andronovo was iirc 8 males with R1A, one with some kind of C. Very different from the mix of R’s in India and I+R1A in Eastern and Northern Europe.

  8. Huax

    Likewise, since you readily admit they were not white, I don’t see how opposing AMT is anti-white. Anti-Caucasoid, maybe, but not anti-white.

  9. Dota-Player

    Robert

    The reason why so many Hindu nationalists fervently reject the Aryan migration to India is ideological and not empirical.

    Hindu nationalism (‘Hindutva’) is India’s unique brand of fascism and interestingly enough its dynamics work in a similar way to communism; ie history is the product of the struggle between 2 antithetical groups/ideologies. In this case its the indigenous Indians (Hindus) versus outside ‘invaders’. Hindus are depicted as being cultured, civilized, peaceful and amicable, whereas the invaders are just the opposite: uncivilized, vicious and war like. The mark of a true Indian is Hinduism, and those following religions which were founded outside India (Islam/Christianity) are seen as being not truly Indian.

    Hinduism is seen as being completely indigenous to India and the thought that this religion entered India via migration and conquest (like the Abrahamic religions that they so despise) was abhorrent to the Hindutva fascist. Hindutvadis will have you believe that the Aryan theory was concocted by the British as a means of justifying their imperialism and racism. Ironically, Hindutvadis subscribe to the idea that India’s history is divided into 3 parts, the glorious Hindu age, the barbaric Muslim age, and then finally British imperialism (followed by independence). This way of looking at History was first articulated by the Brits, namely James Stuart Mill. This the Hindu fascists have no trouble believing, but the Aryan theory is rejected outright.

    The reason I’m writing all of this is to show you that Hindutva fascists have absolutely no credibility, neither moral nor academic. If you wish to sample some of their toxic for yourself, then read the writings of Sudheer Birodhkar. Only in India would such nonsense be taken seriously. If you continue writing posts about India and Indian history, expect a lot of Hindutvadis to drop in. My post should give you enough background information when dealing with the fools in the future.

    • arjen

      thats fine what you say, its your opinion. I take it back a few hundred years, when the british first landed and invaded india, soon the british where killing, murdering and looting india. They destroyed indian industries that competed with europe, they created vast famines that starved millions, they created the vast amount of poverty you see today. Vast canals were built, which today is the leading cause of maleria, still water. India before british occupation, had more land under irragation was not poverty striken and quite wealthy accros all castes. So the briisth not only having destroyed indian soceity, wealth and strucutre, also destroyed native indian schools, and replaced them with taliban style english eduation. People like thomas macauley and other believed that white people where superior, just plain racism, in the same way islamic taliban thought they are superior, in the same way the nazis thought they where, these people created and set up the educational system in india today, as well as the congress party which was created and funded by the british to create a viable, western controlled, western centred political party called congress. At the same time the british created the vast slave networks from west african to north and cental america, created the slave code, and restricted and abused every slave and many slave generations after that, all the while doing it in the name of jesus christ, just like the islamic taliban in the name of allah. So these white people, looted and abused virtually all parts of the world, be in china forcing opium onto the chinese to open up markets, laying genocide on indian people, enslaving the africans, creating barbaric slave codes, where such cutting of ears and limbs to keep the slaves under control, the absolute destruction of south america and north american soceites. The rape and plunder of africa, all these high light the intellectual though and belief process of the white man. The vast amount of wealth stolen from asia, taking it from the richest area on earth to the poorest, and at the same time, eruope went from the poorest to the richest, again white people want you overlook that that DISTINCT relationship. In europe, after the slave empire of the romans collapsed, europe fell into the dark ages where the church forbade science, cleaning one self, restricted techonology beacues through a shallow mindset all these where consdiered anti-christian, such things as to wash, as to promote education, and science, its under this ideology that the white man has raised itself. In europe the elite classes had a more rigid class structure than anywhere else in the world, master and slave classes of europe that contained the royals, the blue blood, knights, lords, and the peasant classes, the harsh and brutal treatment of the peasant classes lead to massive riots and revolts, against the oppresive regime of the elite. During the 17-19th europe waged a religous and trade war against the heathens who did not believe in christ, the same christ that was murdered and then used a promotional tool to inflicet more misery on the rest of the world, the british, the portugese, the french, the taliban europeans, enbarked on a religous war that would take over the world, such as slavery, opium wars, the spanish inquisation, the goa inquisation, on and on, the slave codes, the slave and master relationship in america that lasted 300years, the same people that stole the wealth from india, the british, are the same ones talkig about how poor india is, its this mindset we are dealing with. SO i ask again on what merit, on what grounds , on what morality, on what ethics, on what evidence we accept a racism white centric view that aryans invaded india, then it became the aryans migrated, an now its a aryan movement. The jewel on the crown of britain was the capture of india, throughout history, the greeks, the romans, the eygptians, the persians ( in the avesta and vedas, it mentions that the trbies of the zoatrians came from india and where banished from that land, not the other way round), the chinese, have all asserted that india was the ricehst, most intellectual land on earth, with a very liberal soceity. The greek maths, and sceintigic knowledge was already known in india, many greek philiopshers would go to india to study the truth, the concept of numbers, binary code all came into being in india, pythagorus therom was already known in india, the roman treasery was emptied every year with the giving of huge amounts of wealth to india in return for its produce, why didnt the romans just invade like they did with europe? So like i said i have many reason not to accept a white nazi racist version of india, and i have more reason to support a hinduvta idea of india.So its under this enviroment of white racist rule that we get the aryan theory, a perfect theory from a racist, predujical mindset, its no different from an islamic taliban mindset, and those people who label hinduvta as militant, or righ wing, are the same ones that claim slavery, opium wars, genocide of america, and india was a movement to bring civilisation, ironic?….or just a mindest of racism itself. No none can dispute the european imerial campaigns of asia and the known world, NOONE. So no one can deny that europe had a biased, racist, predujical postion in the way it dealth with matters outside of europe, its hardly big stop to make, the people that invaded the rest of the world, with brutal genocide would also defame, and humilate the peopel in text books, just like the way jews where belitle and ridiculed by most european elite. So its under this era, its by these people that we get ARYAN THEORY. Which was a direct self defence mechanism to suggest that india, the richest, most advanced land on earth, far superior than europe was in fact somehow related to the conquering whites. Can you imagine the white europeans from cold cliamtes land, with the idea that THEY are the people from a great civilisation only to realise that india and indians are far superior, and that european history acutally derives from indians. That what somethig that white could never accept, the white barbaric christian taliban style mindset, which created such genocidal action accors the world, such as slavery, war in china, india, africa, stolen austrlaian children, under this CV, the white majority and mentality was something they could not accept. Remeber people india has never asserted that it was indians who went out, even though the evidence proves this, yet the white europeans have since the 18thcentury asserted this idea over and over again, till the point that nazi hitler rose, and that racist ideology broke europe, many say that was a fight for freeom but in reality it was a fight between european dicators who for the past 300years had brought misery and genocide on to the rest of the world. So the same people that creatd such misery and poverty are now psuhing the aryan theory, now tell me, does it seem like the people who would create such a storey, have a biased, racist, predujical view???…is this assertion to greater step to make, is it hard to belive that the nazis who killed the jews, didnt humilate the jews fruther in text books,??..is this to hard to belibe or is it another hindutiva lie, beacues the history of white racist and the history of hindutva is the same right?, as you clearly know, that campiagns of hinduvta enslaved africa, china, and europe, the hinduvta armies landed in london, slaughtered many people, and then imposed an indian language on the elite…im sure you all remeber that!! So its under this history that aryan theory becomes alive, is it any wonder that such a story was conducted to fill in the gaps white european history, to me ….no…its kinda fits the actions of the people at hand. So a logical person , free from bias can see the racist, intolerant, predujical view of the white europeans, however this illogical viewpoint for many becomes the starting point of most debates, you see white people want to set up the rules in which such a debate takes place, so they purposely omit the chapters of european bruality in india, china, in kenya, etc, beacues they know that these actions then udnerline the racist, illterate viewpoint of aryan theory. Down to degradation of the caste system now tell me, whch soceity remains the same when all levels of the soceity have been ravaged, in other words, when the briitsh looted india, did they only loot the rich or the poor aswell?….did the vast amounts of wealth stolen from india contribute to the massive poverty in india today, according to all indepdant accounts the answer is a massive yes, but according to the west it was known as civilisation. Again most of you have the inteligence to work out the differnce. Just like nazis humulated the jews, today the british do the same, it was through the 200years of robbing that india is poor today, prior to briitsh, the indian educaiton was more universal to all castes, after the british only lavished after the high elite classes, like i said, who are you to belive, the whites with the 500years of absolute slavery and genocide or india with no history of religous conquest. Remeber it wasnt india that claimed the earth was made in 6days, or the universe with an age of 6000years, however in india the claim they made are more in line with modern science that anything christinity offered.it was under this intelletual shock to the white system that india, was the home of civlisations, of european history, of languae, of maths that the west invested huge amounts of wealth in creating vast nazi style english schools to further promote that idea to the middles classes of india.In the same way millions of germans where brainwashed with nazi ideology, like i said did the europeans have an agenda in india, or where they just purely their for the honorable deeds of stealing wealth and land. Think about it. Throught greek, persian, roman history they all mention one land, thats india. The source of all maths, of numbers, of algrbra, of pytharoous theorm, the first land to have vast cities acrros many miles, the land that had the oldrest univisties, the richest trade routes, the oldest sciroptures, a culture that has existed inspite of many foriegn attacks, even when the rest of the world fell to christniaty and islam, india even after being ravaged yet still REMAIN ONTO its vedic culture, you cannot convert indians as they belong the spirutal truth. Why did europe was a passage to india??….beacues it was poor?,..why did europeans all send ships to find a pasage to india, after the central route was taken by christianities, islamic sister. Why are the west indies names indies?, why are the native americans called indians?….its this extent in which the europeans searched for india, that in mistake they named the west indies, indies that american where named indians. So with little effort we can see that europeans from the dark ages have been searching for wealth and seeking treasure abroad, to the point in mistakingly calling other lands and people indians, with little effort we can see the racist, and intoleranct actions of the west and christianity in general. Its under this though process which we live today, under these intellecutal opinions that we get aryan theory.Just look today as europe, it cannot sustain itself without immigration, againn shows the roots of a young, shallow soceity, as the vast amount of stolen slave and trade wealth is now running out, places like asia, which where the richest land on earth before the west looted it, are now EASILY returning back to becoming the richest econies in the world. Asia has the biggest and largst populations, which is a KEY indicator of long sustained cilvistions. Asia has a vast population, that underlines it great history, that in itself shows the strength of asia. Even after almost 300years of europeans looting asia, stopping all developments in asias for 300years, asia is retuning to power, beacues itself is the source of wealth. Thats why aryan theory is pushed again and again, a white desperte attempt to rea-allign the creation story making them the creators and the rest followers. Again who first went onto ships and looked for india.I dont think indains ever conteplated seeking the united kingdom..lol. So for any intellecuatl to overlook the barbaric history of europe and refrain it from any bias or lies is a compelte idiot.

      Whats aryan thoery?…aryan from europe migrated and taught THE INDAINS. Quite a claim to make, after taking indias wealth, so already acecpting the supeiorority of india in looting their wealth, as you dont rob poor people right. No where in any indian sciptures do they mention ANY ARYAN HOMELAND OUTSDIE OF INDIA ITSELF..no where, actually they make the direct statement that out of india, the races of man origniate. In the bible they are called noah and his sons, shem sham and jayepti. But in india, the EXACT same story in the fish puranas, which predate the bible by many hundreds of years claim that shem, noah, sham and jepetyi were indian, and were sent out of india. Now how does a biblical story from india end up in the bible?…now recent genetic data has proven that all europeans, and many american and north africans rose out of four mTNDA groups that arose in india between 10-50,000years ago. Euuropean history is known to have been invaded by people from east, who brought farming and agriculture. Throughout pre-christian europe, the acceptace of india as the central source is united, from popes the the siege of masada, where the jews named the indian as the people to copy before the romans broke in, in terms of bravery. with more genetic data, its now proven and accepted that a back migration took place from asia back into north east africa. The eygptians claim they came from the east, today we see that many somalians, berbersb, ethopians have genetic traits that take them back to india. if we go back to the vedas, NO where does it mention a place in europe, now let see, why would a european aryan not mention AT ALL the orignial homeland of aryans??…..beacues like i said, aryan homeland is north india, and hence why mention anyplae outsdie, as it does, not. Whites stated that aryans created the caste system, again this is proven false, as caste was created as a native system of govername predating any aryan invasion claim. Distinction between hight and low castes are alomost neglible, caste organistion was creatd before any aryan theory, just this alone disproves any white outsider coming in and imposing their system, in facts it almost laughable.Dna proves this to be a joke also, but it does mention that north indian have genetic trait that is close to europeans, but..and its a big but, that the indian r1a1 gene is 4-5000years older than in europe, therefore solidifying its postion as the creator, and reinforcing the notion that out of india the people went. NO where has any evidence suggested that white aryans invaded india and desrtoyed cities, their is none NOT ONE, evidence to suggest this at any indus valley site, also what happend when the british christian talibanists claim that due to their own failing to understand the life of the earth, to be being only 6000years, they claimed a migration sorry invasion date of about 1500years ago, again genetic data has proven no large invasions of any kind into the indian population, and regard it as little to minor and prdates 10,000years. Yet in dna has proven that europe famers entered into europe as recent as 6000years ago, BRINGIN with them farming techqniues not from europe but fruther east and south.

      I dont have time to write about everything thing, i will instead post two artciles that deal with my argument better than i can make it. But before this, i asked myself has their been any other migration in recent recent historical memory from india. When the islamic armies invaded north west india, a large movement of people took place, they where called the romani gypsies. They where pushed out or ran away from the murderous armies of allah, and for the best part of 400years they had been moving steadily north and west out of india, into central asia, north afriaca and eventually europe itself. Whats so improtant is the genetic look of these people, dna has clearly shown that all romani gypsies where from punjab/rajastha, thats their homeland. Now if we go to uk, or western europe, these romani gypsies today have lighter skin tone, and look almost as native as the briitsh or other native europeans, HOWever if we take the migration route back to north west india, then we can CLEARLY see a darkening of skin type with those gypies closer to india. So here is a clear indication of how indians ventured out, and influcned european soceity, and with that dispersal the skin tone got lighter and lighgter until they reached uk, and today you cant not tell the differnce between romani gypsies from india who migrated out to western europe, and with time slwoly got lighter in skin tone to the point where they look almost white europeans. This is the out of india theory, that shows how EASILY the aryans came from india and venttured out, and today we can see this journey being made by looking at teach romani gypsi group extending from india to the uk..

      Now to get back as the commetn made in reply to my orignial post, i will post two arctlies that dispute aryan homeland outside of india itself.

      • Hindu get lost.

        You’re banned. Back to Bharat for you. Don’t step in any turds!

        • Xera

          You know Indians always complain about the Euro’s taking all the wealth from India, what exactly is this “great wealth” that was stolen, what particular objects were taken? The dude mentions canals, why don’t they simply just seal the canals and stop shitting in rivers?

        • honyok

          Damn Robert this Arjen surely has writer’s cramp by now.
          LOL
          who wants to read all that crap anyway?
          what a piece of work indeed
          You did right – ban the turd stomping geek

        • Satish Joglekar

          I feel sorry that you guys are so ignorant. Let me just quote 2 instances of British cruelty and greed
          1)The Kolar gold mines in South India had 32 tons of gold of which 29 tons landed in Britian.
          2) The British chopped off hands of textile workers and fingers of their children and women as well – the aim was to destroy the textile industry in what is now modern Bangladesh. The Indian textiles were superior to the imported English textiles – the British wanted to impose British textiles to make profits of course.

  10. arjen
    1 Recent Studies in Indian Archaeo-linguistics andArchaeo-genetics having bearing on IndianPrehistory by Dr P. PriyadarshiMBBS, MD, MRCP (UK), MRCPE Paper accepted for seminar Recent Achievements of Indian Archaeology , Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology, Lucknow University, Lucknow, India, 28-30 December 2010, Joint Annual Conference of Indian Archaeology Society (44 th Conference), Indian Society for Prehistoric and Quaternary Studies (38 th Conference), Indian History and Culture Society (34 th Conference) 2 Abstract: Recent lexical research in Indian languages conclusively indicates that there was an early andindependent evolution of agriculture in India (Fuller, 2006). On the other hand latest lexical studyalso indicates that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-Europeans had farming before their split intovarious branches and migration (Comrie, 2003). Added to this, the Indo-European languages of bothIndia and Europe contain agriculture related loan words from Munda and Dravidian families, whichwere most likely borrowed into Indo-European when all the three language families were evolvingwithin India side by side. Thus the newest linguistic evidence supports Indian origin of Indo-European language family. DNAs of cows were examined from all regions of the world. The findings conclude that Indian cow(or Zebu) had been domesticated in India before Neolithic period, and independently from the WestAsian influence. In addition to that DNA results confirm that Indian cows were carried to otherregions of the world viz. East Africa (by sea), South China, Southeast Asia, West Asia, Europe andCentral Asia during prehistoric periods. Dates suggested by various authors range from 22,000before present to 4,000 before present. Bellwood (1995) had suggested that buffalo wasdomesticated for the first time in India in Orissa-Bihar region, from where it was carried to SouthChina, where rice farming evolved with the help of buffalo. Recent DNA studies of buffalo confirmthat India was the place of domestication of first buffalo (Kumar, 2007). DNA study of barley has ruled out importation of barley cultivation from West Asia to India. It hasbeen proved that barley cultivation developed for the first time in India independently from anyexternal influence (Sang, 2009). There is evidence suggesting that the gene essential for ‘domestication’ was found only in the Indian wild bar ley. Similar DNA studies of rice show that ricecultivation evolved at two places in the world independently — one was Ganga Valley in India and theother was in South China. However the Chinese rice still contains many wild features, hinting thatthe Indian rice cultivation was earlier in time. The lexical studies of Indian languages by Fullersuggest that sweet potato, cucumbers, okra, and many other food items were originally Indian andwere domesticated in India. Study of human DNAs finally rule out any Aryan arrival from the Central Asia into India. Rather thesuggested Aryan gene R1a (M17) evolved and migrated out from India about 16,000 to 14,000 yearsback crossing through Central Asia ultimately reaching Pontic-Caspian area and Russia (Sahoo, 2006;Sengupta, 2006; Trivedi, 2008; Underhill, 2009). Study of West Asian genes also suggests that thatthere was a human migration from India to West Asia, indicated by presence of Indian genes in theWest Asian population (Y-DNA HGs: F*, L1, H (M-69), K2, C5, C*, R1a (M-17). On the other handWest Asian genes (Y-DNA: J1, G, I and R1b3) are not found in India, ruling out migration from WestAsia to India. L1, which was earlier suggested to be a marker of migration of Dravidian speakers fromElam region of West Asia, has now been confirmed to be of Indian origin from where it migrated toIran and West Asia (Sengupta, 2006; Sahoo, 2006). Presence of another gene J2 in India, West Asia, Iran and India was advocated as an evidence of Indo-European arrival from West Asia to India together with Neolithic culture. This gene has beenproved to be associated with Anatolian and South European Neolithic cultures. Latest data fromIndian population pertaining to this gene clearly militates against its arrival into India from WestAsia. Within India, its presence is more in the Dravidian population than the north Indian population.Other statistical features also suggest that it may have originated within India. Its branch J2b has anage of about 14,000 years back in India, and the most likely place of origin is in Uttar Pradesh nearNepal boarder. Hence evidence from all fields taken together concludes that farming and Indo-European languages evolved together in India, from where the two migrated to many parts of world.In the east a migration took place to Southeast Asia carrying Austro-Asiatic language and rice 3 farming from India (Y-chromosomal DNA O2a migration). Recent archaeological findings from GangaValley, where we have found the oldest Pottery Neolithic site of the world, too corroborate with theabove set of facts. It has been settled so far that after initial origin in East Africa, modern man migrated quite early(about 100,000 years before present) to India, where further human cultural and linguistic evolutiontook place. Modern man migrated out of India in many waves from that time until 10,000 years backpopulating rest of the world. FULL TEXT Recent linguistic research by Bernard Comrie 1 and by Dorian Fuller 2 point out that the Indio-European languages evolved at a place which had developed agriculture. This conclusion canbe drawn by presence of agriculture related cognate words in the languages of this familyseparated widely by geography, but all having had their origin from one common ancestrallanguage at a common place. Often such ancient agricultural words of Indo-European familyare shared by languages of Munda (Austro-Asiatic) as well as Dravidian families (see Fuller,2003, p. 201; Fuller 2006, pp. 4, 15, 18, 35, 39, 40, 55; Fuller, 2007; Fuller, 2008). In factFuller is the first author to say, on linguistic grounds, that India was an independent centreof framing. Moreover he notes that origins of Indian farming was different qualitatively fromWest Asian farming and was similar in many ways to African and Eastern North Americanorigins of farming. Fuller finds that “ evidence based on both archaeo-botanical material and colloquialagricultural terms more parsimoniously postulates that early Dravidian had an epipaleolithicpre-agricultural heritage ” and that it “originated near a South Asian core region ”. This should be read with the fact that recently Indian epipalaeolithic (microlithic) has been dated35,000 B.P. to 15,000 B.P. 3 Fuller’s assertion is an acceptance of India as the oldest place of farming culture. Fuller (2006) claims that there were several independent centres of plantdomestication within the Indian peninsula by indigenous peoples. Fuller concedes an earlierand independent rice-Neolithic in Ganga Valley and western Orissa. He accepts thatindigenous Indian plants, trees and vegetables have contributed words to Sanskrit and otherIndo-European languages. 4 Bellwood, Higham and many such authors had suggested that Austro-Asiatic speakersoriginated in South China, and from there they came to Southeast Asia, and from SE Asia to 1 Comrie, Bernard, “ Farming dispersal in Europe and the spread of the Indo- European language family”, in Bellwood, Peter and Renfrew, Colin (Eds.); Examining The Farming/language Dispersal Hypothesis , CUPArchives, Cambridge, 2003. 2 uller, D. Q.,Agricultural Origins and rontiers in South Asia: A Working Synthesis, J World Prehist 2006,20:1 – 86. Also see ———-, “An agricultural perspective on Dravidian historical linguistics: archaeological croppackages, livestock and Dravidian crop vocabulary”, in Bellwood, Peter and Renfrew, Colin (Eds.); ExaminingThe Farming/language Dispersal Hypothesis : (191-213), 2003, p. 204. 3 Petraglia, M. et al , Population increase and environmental deterioration correspond with microlithicinnovations in South Asia ca. 35,000 years ago, PNAS 2009 Aug., cgi doi 10.1073, pnas.0810842106 4 Fuller, D. Q.; Agricultural Origins and Frontiers in South Asia: A Working Synthesis, J World Prehist 2006, 20:1 – 86. 4 India with rice farming. 5 This has not been supported by DNA studies, which suggest thateastern India was the source of the AA population. 6 Other DNA studies have also confirmedIndigenous origin of Austro-Asiatic speaking tribes of India. 7 DNA studies of rice, cattle,buffalo and mice too support an Indian origin of rice farming with subsequent migration toSoutheast Asia. Jerold Edmondson of Department of Linguistics, University of Texas, hasdone a large number of detailed studies based on linguistics as well as DNA, on Neolithicand human migrations towards east of India. He found that the Tai speakers of the Kradaibranch of Austro-Asiatic language family migrated from India, and first settled in SoutheastAsia long back. They were master cultivators and they took agriculture from India toThailand and then from the latter to the Yunnan province of southwest China, and to SouthChina by 10,000 ybp during Neolithic expansion. 8 On the other hand Harvard scholar Michael Witzel has been struggling hard to prove thatthe agriculture related words in the Indo-European languages entered Sanskrit during thehypothetical stay of Indo-Aryans in Iran and then their contact with the Dravidian speakersin the Indus valley area and Munda family tribes in the Ganga Valley. 9 Yet the presence of the same word in Indo-Aryan as well as European languages indicates that these words,even if had entered from some other languages, had entered Proto-Indo-European languagein India before migration to Europe and Iran had started. Thus Aryans, which is primarily speakers of a particular language family, can no longer be considered ‘pastoralists’. Moreover it is wrong to assume that pastorals are independent of agriculture. Renfrew (1990) pointed out that pastoral life is a part of agricultural society. Hewrote: “The pastoral economy is usually symbiotic with the agricultural one as it has been shown that a major component of the diet of these pastoralists was bread. The practice of agriculture is thus a precondition of a pastoral economy.” 10 Added to this fact, the recentlynoted linguistic evidence as discussed above shows that the Aryans were farmers from thevery beginning. Earlier, Renfrew had claimed that Indo-Europeans were farmers from the very beginning,and that the Mehrgarh people and the Indus Valley people were Aryans i.e. speakers of 5 Higham, C ., Languages and Farming Dispersals: Austroasiatic Languages and Rice Cultivation, Bellwood, P.and Renfrew, C. (Eds.), Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis, Cambridge: The McDonaldInstitute for Archaeological Research, 2003. 6 Kumar, V. et al , Y-chromosome evidence suggests a common paternal heritage of Austro-Asiatic populations, BMC Evol Biol. 2007; 7: 47. 7 Chaubey, G. et al ; Phylogeography of mtDNA haplogroup R7 in the Indian peninsula, BMC Evol Biol 2008, 8:227. Maji, S. et al ,Distribution of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup N in India with Special Reference toHaplogroup R and its Sub-Haplogroup U, Int J Hum Jenet 2008, 8(1-2): 85-96. Kivisild, T. et al , The geneticheritage of the earliest settlers persists both in Indian tribal and caste populations, Am J Hum Genet 2003 Feb, 72 (2): 313-32, p. 313. 8 http://ling.uta.edu/~jerry/pol.pdf 9 Witzel, Michael, The linguistic history of some Indian domestic plants, J Biosciences 2009, 34(6): 829-833. “Fulltext” of this article is available at http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/dec2009/Witzel_fulltext.pdf . We shall referthat article as Witzel, Fulltext, 2009. 10 Renfrew, Colin, Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins , CUP Archive,Cambridge, 1990, p. 198. 5 Indo-European languages from the very onset of farming culture in these areas. 11 He hadfurther claimed that an early Indo-European language had been in place in the north Indiastretching from the Ganga Valley to Mehrgarh when Mehrgarh civilization was emerging. 12 He wrote, “Certainly the assumption that the Aryas were recent ‘immigrants’ to India andtheir enemies were ‘aborigines’, has d one much to distort our understanding of the archaeology of India and Pakistan.” 13 Renfrew wrote, “We should in other words, consider seriously the possibility that the new religious and cultural synthesis which is represented by the Rigveda was essentially aproduct of soil of India and Pakistan, and that it was not imported, ready-made, on the backof steeds of Indo-Aryans. Of course it evolved while in contact with the developing culturesof other lands, most notably Iran, so that by a process of peer polity interaction, culturesand ideologies emerged which in many ways resembled each other. It is not necessary tosuggest that one was borrowed, as it were, directly from the other. “This hypothesis that early Indo -European languages were spoken with India and Pakistanand on the Iranian plateau at the sixth millennium BC has the merit of harmonisingsymmetrically with the theory for the origin of Indo-European languages of Europe. It alsoemphasises the continuity in the Indus valley and adjacent areas from the early Neolithicthrough to the foruit of the Indus Valley Civilization — a point which Jarrige has recentlystressed. Moreover the continuity is seen to follow unbroken from that time across the DarkAge succeeding the collapse of the urban centres of the Indus Valley, so that features of thaturban civilization persists, across a series of transformations, to form the basis of laterIndian civilization. A number of scholars have previously developed these ideas of continuity.” 14 Having said this, the new evidence changes some of Renfrew’s assumptions. While Renfrew thought Anatolia was the original home of the Indo-Europeans where they had developedthe first farming culture, and from where they had migrated to Europe and North India by6,000 B.C., present evidence indicates that India was the place of origin of the Indo-Europeans and an independently evolved centre of farming. Otherwise it is impossible toexplain presence of farming related words of Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian origins in theEuropean branch of Indo- European languages. Renfrew’s views about Anatolia may have proved wrong, yet his views on South Asia hold true in light of recent evidence which will bepresented in this paper. Genetic evidence as well as linguistic evidence has made it clear that both the Dravidian andthe Austro-Asiatic languages and their speakers have evolved in India — the Dravidians in thesouthernmost part and Austro-Asiatic in the eastern part of the South Asia. The currentfindings about early Dravidian languages contradict Renfrew and many other authors who 11 Renfrew, Colin, Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins , CUP Archive,Cambridge, 1990, pp. 190, 192, 195-6. 12 Ibid , p. 190. 13 Renfrew, Colin, Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins , CUP Archive,Cambridge, 1990, p. 195. 14 Ibid. p. 196. 6 had suggested the place of origin of Dravidian in West Asia from Proto-Elamite after 10,000B.P., originally proposed by McAlpin. 15 We can now have a look at some of these farming related words in the Indo-Europeanlanguages: 1. Harvest (English), karbitas (to harvest, Proto-Germanic), kerpu (Lithuanian), kerp (PIE), kripANa (Sanskrit).2. Sow (E.), sawan (Old English), sero and sevi (Latin, to sow), semen (Latin, seed), seju and seti (Lithuanian, to sow), * se and seh (PIE, to sow), Santhal, Ho andMunda si , siu (to plow), and Munda Kharia silo (‘to plow’ ), sA- (Sanskrit, to sow), sita (Sk. a furrow of a ploughshare), sulh (Old English, a furrow or ploughshare), sira (Sk., plough, a plough ox). Related to this group of words are * sehm (PIE,grain), sasa (Sanskrit; sasam in Rig-Veda ), sasya (Sanskrit, food, seed, grain,herb), sas (Kashmiri, beans, peas, lentils), sas (Bangla, grain, fruit), sasa (Oriya,kernel, nutritious part), sabz (Iranian, green vegetable), sem (Hindi, beans), * sito- and *sitya- (PIE, ‘corn’), sitiyam (Sanskrit, corn, ploughed), siri and siri (Khowar,barley), and sili (Kalasha of Hindukush, millet) are all related. Munda familylanguage Sora has saro , sar (paddy) and Munda and Kharia have – sro and – srA (rice, as compound words in ko-soro and ko-sra ) are also related. Words sro , sre and sru meaning ‘rice’ in some Khmer (Cambodia) dialects are obvious cognates of Munda – sro , Sora saro etc meaning rice. On the other hand the root is alsofound in Caucasian — Chechen sos ‘oats’, Eastern Caucasian susV ‘rye’ which are millets. Witzel thinks that these non-IE languages borrowed these words whileIndo-European was passing across their territories. This is only partly correct–thedirection of migration was from India to West Asia, not from Central Asia toIndia, as DNAs reveal.3. Plough (E.), *plogo (Proto-Germanic), plugas (Lithuanian) and langala (Sanskrit)are cognates. The ultimate origin of the words is from Munda family (Witzel). 16 Fuller writes, “ Of interest in this regard is historical linguistic analysis forwidespread cognate terms for plough in Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Mundalanguages which may derive from early borrowing between these groups or froma common substrate, perhaps from the Harappan zone (Southworth, 2005, p. 80;Witzel, 1999, pp. 29 – 30). ” 17 4. Pita (English, bread), petta (Greek, bread), peptos (Greek, cooked), pita (bread,Modern Hibrew), pizza (Italian, a cooked food), pastry, pasta (Italian), pittha (Bihari, a cake made of rice flour), paiSHTa (Sanskrit, meaning cake; derivative of Sanskrit piSHTa meaning ground or flour, and pis meaning ‘to grind’). English‘paste’ (dough) is related. ‘Pastry’ may be related . 15 McAlpin, David W., Elamite and Dravidian: Further Evidence of Relationship, Current Anthropology 1975,16(1): 105-115. ———, Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The Evidence and its Implications , The American PhilosophicalSociety, Philadelphia, 1981. 16 Witzel, Michael, The linguistic history of some Indian domestic plants, J Biosciences 2009, 34(6): 829-833. “Fulltext” of this article is available at http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/dec2009/Witzel_fulltext.pdf . We shall referthat article as Witzel, Fulltext, 2009. 17 Fuller, 2006, p. 15. 7 5. Pestle (E.) related to Old French pestel from Latin pistillum (to pounder, topestle) from PIE *pis-to-, to grind; Sanskrit pish- (HK piS “to grind”), pishta (HK piSTa grinded), pIs (Hindi to grind).6. Mill (E.) from Old English mylen ; Latin mola , millstone and molere to grind; PIE mel / mol / ml to grind; German muhle and Sanskrit musala (grinder) are fromthe same root. In Thai language “mill – stone” is called moh .7. Grind (E.), O. E. grindan , P. Germanic grindanan , PIE * ghren , *ghreu- , * ghen ,(?* grendh- ) all have same meaning i.e. to grind. PIE *gher and *gherzdh mean ‘barley’. The Sanskrit word godhuma , Persian gandum and Tamil godhumai all meaning ‘wheat’ seem to have originated from the same root. Munda guru ,Santhal and Kherwa guRgu mean ‘grinding stone’, which is in all likelihoodrelated with the roots meaning ‘grinding’. 8. Acre> agri- from P. Germanic akraz , PIE agros field, Sk. ajra, ajras field. It is likelythat Sanskrit kriS to pull, to cultivate, may have some relation with PIE agros .9. Sanskrit sUpa and English ‘soup’ have same meaning, pronunciation and etymology. They are from PIE * sub- derived from another PIE base seue , ‘to takeliquid food’. Proto -Germanic base * supp- and English ‘supper’ are cognates to these. Tamil sappara may be a cognate. Iranian sabzi meaning ‘vegetable curry orsoup’ is a cognate. Witzel correlates Ir anian sabz- (vegetable) with Old Sanskrit sapa- (drifted reed), Old Iranian sapar-ku , Rosani (Pamir language) sabec ‘beans’, Lithuanian sapas ‘stalk’ and English dialect haver ‘stalk’, which all are possibly cognates of Sanskrit supa .10. Bread (English), bhrajj (Sanskrit, pan cake), bhrijj (Sanskrit, the act of baking,roasting or frying). Other cognates are Old Irish bruth ‘ to heat’, French braser ‘toburn’, Germanic brese ‘hot coal’, Old English beorma ‘yeast’, Old High German brato ‘to roast meat’, English brew, PIE * bhreu- ‘to brew’ etc .11. Sanskrit KshIra meaning ‘milk’ and ‘a porridge made of rice or millets in milk’ (derived from Sanskrit root-word ghas : Monier Williams), its Hindi form khir , andHindi ghee (from Sanskrit ghrita , purified butter) are derived from PIE ghwer .From PIE ghwer are also derived English burn , brandy, therm- etc. It shows someform of cooking process during PIE stage.12. Cook, coc (Old English), cocus (Vulgar Latin), coquus (Latin), from PIE pekw- (cooking). Related to this PIE root is Sanskrit pach- and pak- , Hindi pakAnA and pakwan. 13. Candy/ candid (English), qand (Persian), khanda (Sanskrit, sugar). These all arepossibly from Tamil kantu (candy), kattu (to harden).14. Meter (E.), measure (E.), matra (Sk.), metre (Fr.), metron (Gk.), Old English mete ,PIE * mat / *met . Many food items, which were measured are from this root, andthey include: Sanskrit masura , masUrikA , mas * , mishta etc , English meat, Hindi mItha (lump sugar) etc. Sanskrit mASa (a small unit of weight used by jwellers),which means a pulse ( oorad ) too, is from the same root.15. English ‘cotton’, Sanskrit kartta-na (weaving), Hindi kata-na (weaving), Munda koTNe (pillow) and Santhal kotre (pillow) are most likely from the same root.Persian kurta (upper garment), Proto-Germanic kalithas (cloth) and English ‘cloth’ are also related. Another set of related words is kapara (Hindi, cloth), kappaTam (Tamil, cloth), karpAsa (Sanskrit, cotton). 8 16. Pot (E.), potus (L. drinking vessel), pAtra (Sk. pAtra , drinking vessel, MW, p. 612).In sanskrit patra means leaf (Greek pter ). Large leaves were earlier used as dishplates in India. Presence of this word widely in IE languages clearly indicates thatthe Proto-Indo-Europeans had pottery before they migrated.17. Kanduka (Sk.), kandu , kanduk (Persian), kandouk (Armenian), xaendyg (Ossetic), kendwg (Pehlawi), kondu potarion (Middle Greek) all meaning earthenwarevessel. Old English canne , Proto-Germanic kanna , Latin canne , meaning ‘container’ or ‘vessel’ may be related. That Neolithic diffused from Indo-Iranianinto Semitic tribes can be inferred from the fact that these words have beenborrowed by Semitics in the West Asia. For example Syrian kndwk and Arabic kandu ʒ (earthen vessel) are clear borrowings from Indo-Iranian. Presence of thisword in Dravidian indicates its Indian origin. In Tamil, kantu ( kanti- ) means toburn, kanku and kankai mean ‘earthen pot – boiler’ (Dravidian Etym. Dictionary, 2 nd Ed, Burrow and Ememeau, entry no. 1458).18. Wheel (E.), cycle (E.), chakra (Sanskrit), charkha (Persian) and PIE k(w)el probablypertain to pottery-wheel.19. We get cognate words for cow, pig, goat, sheep and mouse in almost all of theIndo-European languages.20. Fuller (2008) gives a list of cognates for cotton, spindle and weaving in Indo-European and Austro-Asiatic languages, indicating that Proto-Indo-European aswell as Proto-Austro-Asiatic languages had enough contact for exchange of words. This place could only have been in India, and not West Asia or CentralAsia. Words which are related with weaving but are found in Indo-Aryan,European, Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic languages are: tantu (Sk., fiber), tantra (Sk., loom), tAna (Sk., fiber, tone, tension), tanti and tatamA (Hindi, weaver),tendon (E.), tentacle (E.) tendril (E.), tent (E.), tenter (E., loom), tenet (E.), tonti (Juang, weaver), dendra (Telgu, a weaver caste); tay (Bonda, to weave), tor (Thai,to weave), tan (Kharia, to weave), thai:n (Khasi, to weave), tan (Alak, Lave andNiahon, to weave);21. tUla (Sk., cotton), tUlika (Sk., brush), tula (Munda-Juang; cotton, feather, hair), tol (Old Mon; cotton, hair, feather), tuy (Tamil, cotton). Having proved that the Indo-Europeans were farmers, we need to settle their place of evolution. There were only two places where farming evolved the earliest. Both can beclaimed to be the place of origin of Indo-Europeans. One is Anatolia (Turkey, West Asia)and the second is India. Central Asia being a cold desert and grassland combination canhardly harbor pastoralist populations but not farming. We note a large number of words from Austro-Asiatic (Munda family) and Dravidianfamilies in the Indo-European languages located as far away as West Europe. This is a biglist. Some of them have been mentioned above. This could be only possible if the Indo-European journey started in India, having evolved over ages in neighborhood of theselanguages. Hence we can conclude, on the basis of linguistic analysis that the Indo-European languages evolved in India from where they migrated out to various regions of the world. 9 DNA studies in Origin of Cow, Pig, Buffalo, Mouse and Black Rat DNA studies of these animals, which are intimately associated with farming society, haveshown that these animals were first domesticated in India, and that they have notarrived into India from anywhere else. Domestication of Cow History has been more a matter of beliefs of the people in academic establishment thanrepository of truth about the past. Thus it was fashionable to attribute each and everyinnovation in the human prehistory to West Asia, in which the most sacred places of Jews,Christians and Muslims are located. It was largely because of this attitude that cow was thought to have been domesticated forthe first time between 8000 and 10,000 years before present at West Asia from where itwas claimed to have migrated to everywhere including India with farming. During thatimaginary migration through Iran, the Indian breed of cow evolved from the West Asianbreed, they claimed. 18 Thus such authors thought domesticated cow reached India fromWest Asia with farming. Regarding Zebu (Indian cow) in China, it was said that possibly wildancestor of Zebu reached China, where they were domesticated locally in China. 19 Andabout African Zebu (African cow of Indian breed), it was said that Arabic traders took themto Africa from India in the last 700 years. 20 Contradicting such views, Loftus et al (1994) came out with formidable genetic data provingan independent and indigenous domestication of cow in India. 21 They even postulatedmigration of Indian cow through sea to Africa, which was later proved by further DNAstudies. Since then a large number of studies have supported this. The latest among suchworks is that of Hiendleder et al (2008), which re-confirmed that there are mainly twomatrilineal populations of domesticated cows in Eurasia. One is of Indian ancestry calledZebu or Bos indicus , the other is supposedly of West Asian origin called Bos taurus. 22 Independent domestication of cow and bull in India implied an independent origin of Indianfarming culture too. A recent study of DNA of Zebu by Chen (2009) has shown that Bos indicus or Zebu had beendomesticated only in India, and not at any other place, ruling out all skepticism in thematter, and proving that it was only after full domestication in India, that Zebu migrated toother parts of the world. 23 Zebu cows have a prominent presence in China and Africa. 24 18 Epstein, H. & Mason, I. L., in Evolution of Domesticated Animals , ed. Mason, I. L., Longman, New York, 1984,pp. 6-27. 19 Lei, C. Z. et al, Origin and phylogeographical structure of Chinese cattle, Animal Genetics , 2006, 37(6):579-586. 20 MacHugh, D. E. et al , Microsatellite DNA variation, and the evolution, domestication and phylogeography of Taurine and Zebu cattle ( Bos Taurus and Bos indicus ), Genetics 1997, 146: 1071-1086, p. 1072. 21 Loftus, R. T. et al , Evidence for two independent domestications of cattle, PNAS 1994, 91:2757-2761. 22 Hiendleder, S. et al , Complete mitochondrial genomes of Bos taurus and Bos indicus provide new insight intointra-species variation, taxonomy and domestication, Cytogenetic and Genomic Research 2008, 120(1-2): 150-156. 23 Chen, S. et al ; Zebu cattle are an exclusive legacy of the South Asian Neolithic, Molecular Biology and Evolution , Sept 21, 2009, 0:msp213v1-msp213. (accepted manuscript) 10 Other researches indicated that Zebu genes are present in most of the taurine cow lineagesof Europe, West Asia, Africa and other parts of the world. 25 Even those European and WestAsian cows which are taurine in all other respect have zebuine milk protein gene. 26 Thisproves that Indian cows were the first to have been domesticated, and then they migratedto rest of the world with Neolithic migration, where local wild cows were domesticated.These data also prove that the migrated Indian cow (Zebu) hybridized all those lineages. Freeman et al (2006) found that Bos indicus was introduced into Africa by sea route and notthrough Suez. 27 Moreover Indian cow has been found in Malagasy, which is accessible onlyby sea. On the basis of these, and many other facts, Zeder (2006) claims that India was theplace of origin of the first global economy. He asserts that there was an active maritimetrade in cow in the Indian Ocean from Indian west coast during prehistoric times. 28 Now such views are gaining general acceptance. It was further noted that Zebu not onlymigrated from India to Africa, but also from Africa to Europe. It has been noted that AfricanZebu gene is interspersed in the entire range of taurine distribution in Europe and Africa(Meghen et al , 2000). 29 Thus Zebu entered West Asia and Europe by two routes, one wasthrough Iran-Iraq route, and the other was from India to East Africa to West Asia to Europe.The second one may have been the earlier one. African Zebu cows are Indian in origin, and extend deep into Africa, while non-Zebu cows of Africa are generally considered either a domesticated wild breed or an imported taurine breed from West Asia. Earlier authors thought that Indian cows had been introduced intoAfrica by Arab traders within last one or two thousand years, and taurine cows had beenintroduced into Africa during spread of Neolithic from West Asia. But such a view has notbeen supported by DNA studies. West Asia’s claim to domestication of cows was further undermined by Bradley’s work. Bradley and colleagues (1996) studied domesticated taurine cow mtDNAs from Africa andEurope. They found that taurine cow lineages split from the European cow lineages muchbefore 22,000 years back (p. 5135). This is much before the West Asian 10,000 ybp date of Neolithic and claimed date of so- called ‘first domestication’ of cattle. This destroys the hypothesis of introduction first cows into Africa from West Asia. 30 The authors not only 24 Lai, Song-Jia et al , Genetic diversity and origin of Chinese catt le”, revealed by mtDNA D -loop sequencevariation, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution , 2006, 38(1):146-154. 25 Jann, Oliver C. et al , Geographic distribution of haplotype diversity at the bovine casein locus, Geneticsselection evolution 2004, 36(2):243-257. 26 Ibeagha-Awemu, E. M. et al , Molecular Characterization of Bovine CSN1S2*B and Extensive Distribution of Zebu-Specific Milk Protein Alleles in European Cattle, Journal of Dairy Sciences 2007, 90:3522-3529. 27 Freeman, A. R. et al , Combination of multiple microsatellite data sets to investigate genetic diversity andadmixture of domestic cattle, Anim. Genet. 2006 Feb., 37 (1):1-9. 28 Zeder, Melinda A. et al , Documenting domestication: the intersection of genetics and archeology, Trends inGenetics (Genetics, Archeology and the Origins of Domestication; Elsevier) 2006, 22(3): p. 146. 29 Meghen, C. et al , “Charecterization of Kuri cattle in Lake Chad using Molecular Genetic Techniques”, in Blench, R. and MacDonald, K. C. (Eds.), The Origins and Developments of African Livestock: Archaeology,Genetics, Linguistics and Ethnography , Routledge, 2000, p. 266. 30 Bradley, D. G. et al , Mitochondrial diversity and the origins of African and European cattle, PNAS 1996 May,93(10): 5131-5135. 11 refuted the West Asian origin of African taurine cow, but also found that the African cowlineages had a population expansion at 10,000 ybp, while the date for such an expansion inEurope was 5,000 ybp. Hence African taurine lineage is older than the West Asian andEuropean ones. Thus, although it is too early to say so, we may express a possibility that the taurine cows had been domesticated for the first time in Africa, from where they reachedEurope and West Asia. Ibeagha-Awemu (2005) found that the genetic variability of Indian cows in Africa is fargreater than that of African local or taurine cows, especially in Nigeria and Cameroon. Highvariability within Indicine cow genes in Africa indicates a very old migration from India toAfrica, before domestication of taurine cow. 31 Thus time of introduction of Indian Zebu intoAfrica should be earlier than the molecular date of domestication of taurine cow in Africa,about 22,000 years back. Migration of Indian humans and Indian cows in large numbers tothe Eastern Horn of Africa at 22,000 ybp, and not via West Asia, indicates that the landroute to West Asia from India was closed because of aridity. Petraglia and many otherworkers have noted that this route was closed between about 30,000 ybp and 15,000 ybp. 32 It has been claimed that, “A fter domestication, survival and diffusion of Bos taurus completely depended on humans; thus, the phylogeographic patterns of cattle geneticdiversity should mirror human activities or movements and may provide informationcomplementary to archaeological and anthropological data ”. 33 Other studies have alsosupported this view. 34 Hence Zeder’s claim that there was a sea trade in cow to Africa and other parts of world seems to be true. If Neolithic revolution originated in the West Asia, why do we get evidence of Indian cattlefrom Ancient Egyptian paintings (4000 ybp) 35 as well as Jordanian archeological remains? 36 From Arabian littoral remains of 3 rd millennium BCE, Indian cow paintings have beenrecovered. 37 Hence we conclude that domestication of Indian cow and onset of IndianNeolithic are much older than is usually assumed. Spread of cows from India to other partsof world was of seminal value in prompting local domestications of taurine cows in otherparts of world. Post-LGM migration of domesticated cattle over land route, resulting in hybridization of Taurine and Indian cows in the area between India and Iraq has also been provengenetically, but that belongs to a later date than the Indian cow migration to East Africa by 31 Ibeagha-Awemu, E. M. et al , High variability of milk protein genes in Bos indicus cattle breeds of Cameroon and Nigeria and characterization of a new α s1 -casein promoter allele, Journal of Dairy Research , 2005, 72:1:1-9.CUP. 32 James, Hannah V. A and Petraglia, Michael D., Modern Human Origins and the Evolution of Behavior in theLater Pleistocene Record of South Asia, Current Anthropology 2005, 46( Supplement, Dec.), p.S 7 33 Pellecchia1, Marco et al , The mystery of Etruscan origins: novel clues from Bos taurus mitochondrial DNA, PNAS 2006, p. 1, doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.0258. 34 Kidd, K.K. and Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., The role of genetic drift in the differentiation of Icelandic and Norwegiancattle, Evolution 1974, 28:381 – 395. 35 Marshall, Fiona, Rethinking the Role of Bos indicus in sub-Saharan Africa, Current Anthropology 1989,30(2): 235-240. 36 Clason, A.T., Late Bronze Age-Iorn Age Zebu in Jordan? J Archaeol Sci 1978, 5: 91 – 93. 37 Clutton, Brock, Juliet, The Walking Larder , Routledge, 1990, p. 148-149. 12 sea. 38 , 39 Indian cow entered Africa by land route later by 3,500 ybp. 40 Freeman’s data and distribution-map also indicate that there is a penetration of Indian cow in South-EastEurope. Cattle migration from India to Europe has been proven by other studies also. 41 Some writings claim migration of Zebu to Italy between 30,000 ybp and 25,000. 42 Linguistic evidence corroborates well with genetic findings. English word ‘c ow ’ has cognatesin Sanskrit ( gAva , gau, go ), Farsi ( gAw ), German ( kuh or kuhe ), Dutch ( koe ), Danish ( ko ), etc. The lexical evidence also proves that India was the source of cow for China and SoutheastAsia. This is reflected in their words for cow– Pinyin Chinese gu , Cantonese ngau , and Thai koh . In Africa, Swahili word for cow ngombe . We know that ‘m’ is added to each nown as aprefix in Swahili language.Pig DomesticationMitochondrial DNA studies have shown that pig, although evolved 500,000 years back in thewild form in the Southeast Asia (which was a single piece of land then), its one branch cameto India long back. Then this branch radiated from India into many parts of the world in itswild form. It was from this wild stock of Indian radiation, that pigs have been domesticatedat several places in the world independently, the two most important and oldest beingSoutheast Asia and India.Buffalo DomesticationBellwood and many other authors think that paddy cultivation was not possible withoutbuffalo which likes water and mud. On the basis of physical features of wild buffalossurviving in world today Bellwood (1995) diagnosed that water buffalo was domesticatedfor the first time in India in Orissa and Jharkhand area (he actually wrote Bihar instead of Jharkhand, because then Jharkhand was a part of Bihar). 43 Kumar (2007) found, on the basisof DNA studies, that buffalo was domesticated in India 6,500 years back, and from here itmigrated to Southeast Asia and South China. 44 This migration implies migration with farmersor traders, because domestic buffaloes cannot migrate alone. Buffalo’s association with rice agriculture suggests to us that this migration occurred as a farming related migration. Domestication of BarleyIt was claimed, like everything else, in the past that barley was domesticated for the firsttime in West Asia. But DNA research on barley revealed that it was actually domesticated byman in western India, somewhere near modern Pakistan in circa 10,000 B.P. from Indian 38 Kumar, P. et al , Admixture analysis of South Asian Cattle, Heredity 2003, 91:43-50. See conclusion, p. 49. 39 Zeder, Melinda A. et al 2006, op. cit. , p. 146 (box). 40 Kumar, P. et al , Admixture analysis of South Asian Cattle, Heredity 2003, 91: 43-50. See conclusion, p. 49.Also see Chapter 11, FAO map of zebu cattle penetration route into Africa. 41 Negrini, R. et al , Differentiation of European cattle by AFLP fingerprinting, Animal Genetics 2009 (online2007), 38(1): 60 – 66. 42 http://www.anaborapi.it/Piem-presenta-en.htm 43 Bellwood, Peter, “ Domesticated and Commensal Mammals of Austronesia and Their Histories ” , in Bellwood,P., Fox, J. and Tryon, D., The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives , 1995. 44 Kumar, Satish et al ; Phylogenography and domestication of Indian river buffalo, BMC Evolutionary Biology 2007, 7:186. 13 wild barley, at southwestern ranges of Himalayas after the glacial ice cleared from thisregion.Badr (2000) found a rich diversity of barley varieties in the sub-Himalayan region. Diversity isan indicator of place of origin. 45 Morell and Clegg (2007), on the basis of DNA analysissuggested that there were two centers of domestication of barley, one in the FertileCrescent and the other probably 1500 to 3000 kilometers to the East in western India. 46 Thisstudy also indicated that although, the European varieties of barley originated from theFertile Crescent variant, the eastern nations received barley breeds from Indiandomestication. This leads us to conclude that barley was locally domesticated in the IndusValley area in circa 10,000 B.P.DNA research by Azhanguvel and Komatsuda (2007) further indicated that there wereeastern and western two independent centers of barley domestication in Eurasia. 47 Saisho(2007) found the eastern edge of Iran plateau was the site of domestication of easternbarley. 48 Jones (2008) finally clarified after studying the Ppd-H1 gene of barley fromEuropean farmlands that the agricultural variant of barley which has “flowering timeadaptation”, the essential adaptation for agriculture, did not originate in West Asia or the Fertile Crescent, but further east, probably in western part of India or in East Iran. 49 Sang(2009) reviewed all the scientific papers presented so far and concluded that at about10,000 B.P., barley cultivation started in western India independently from any externalinfluence. 50 Thus it is concluded by DNA study that barley was cultivated in India independent of anyWest Asian influence, and that the essential gene for farming, as noted by Jones, was foundin Indian wild breeds only, indicating that Indian domestication event was primary and theWest Asian one was secondary. This correlates well with finding of barley at Mehrgarh at9,000 to 10,000 years back. Domestication of Rice: There are two main sub-species of rice, Oryza sativa indica or Indian rice and Oryza sativajaponica or Chinese rice. It is now accepted that Oryza nivara , one of the wild species of ricefrom Central India, which is not found in China, is the immediate ancestor of cultivated rice 45 Badr, A. et al , On the Origin and Domestication History of Barley, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2000,17(4): 499-510. 46 Morell P. L. and Clegg M. T.; Genetic evidence for a second domestication of barley ( Hordeun vulagare ) eastof fertile crescent, PNAS 2007, 104: 3289-3294. 47 Azhanguvel, P. and Komatsuda, T.; A phylogenetic analysis based on nucleotide sequence of a marker linkedto brittle rachis locus indicates a diphylectic origin of barley, Ann Bot. Lond. 2007, 100: 1009-1015. 48 Saisho, Daisuke and Purugganan Michael D.; Molecular phylogenography of domesticated barley tracesexpansion of agriculture in Old world, Genetics 2007, 177: 1765-1776. 49 Jones, Huw et al ; Population-Based resequencing reveals that the flowering time adaptation of cultivatedbarley Originated east of Fertile Crescent, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2008, 25(10): 2211-2219. 50 Sang, Tao; Genes and Mutations underlying domestication transitions in grasses, Plant Physiology 2009, 149:63-70. American Society of plant Physiologists. 14 Oryza sativa . 51 O. nivara originated from another Indian wild species O. rufipogon , whoserelated wild breed is also found in Southeast Asia, but not in China. 52 Domestication of Oryza sativa ’s sub -species indica occurred in east India south of Himalayas; and that of the sub-species japonica occurred in South China. 53 Chen (1993) found that ‘deletion type Cp DNA’ is found in ‘annual’ varieties of Oryza rufipogon , which isthe ancestor of O. sativa indica . On the other hand non-deletion type CpDNA is found inwild “ perennial rufipogon ”. It was this wild perennial non-deletion type which gave birth tothe Chinese breed of rice. Thus indica and japonica were domesticated separately and fromtwo different strains of rufifipogon . Thus the Chinese rice is only distantly related to indica ,and not and ancestor of indica . Moreover Chinese rice seems to have been domesticated much later than the indica . 54 Yamane et al (2009) on the basis of another gene Hd6 supported the view that indica and japonica sub-species of rice had been domesticated independently. 55 These works rule outearlier conjecture that rice cultivation originated in South China and was later transportedto India with Austro-Asiatic farming tribes. On the basis of sh4 gene Sang (2009) claimed that indica was domesticated earlier in Indiathan the Chinese rice, and that it was from the Indian domesticated breed that this gene( sh4 ) essential for farming was transmitted into Chinese variety. The sh4 gene stopsshattering of grains on ripening, and is crucial to domestication. Without this gene, thegrains shatter and fall down from the rice plant as soon as they get ripe. 56 This geneoriginated in domesticated Oryza sativa indica in India, once only, and has by nowintrogressed into all the paddy types by cross pollination and seed selection. 57 Fuller has alleged that rice found at Lahuradewa dating back to up to 10,000 years beforepresent was not cultivated, but gathered from wild growth. In his support he cites presenceof unripe rice on the spikelets as evidence of being wild. Presence of unripe seeds on thepaddy-spikelet found at Lahuradewa only indicates that Lahuradewa farmers were forced toharvest spikelets at a relatively unripe stage, because ripening may have resulted inshattering of paddy seeds. This only implies that mutation sh4 , which is responsible forprevention of shattering in paddy plants, had not occurred by that time, and therefore theLahuradewa farmers had to harvest paddy spikelets before ripening. It was the food-valueof rice which forced man to cultivate it, not presence or absence of sh4 mutation. This 51 De Datta, S. K., Principles and Practice of Rice Production , John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1981, p. 173. 52 Grillo, M. A. et al , Genetic Architecture for the Adaptive Origin of Annual Wild Rice: Oryza nivara , Evolution , 2009, 63 (4):870-883. 53 Lonedo J. P. et al ; Phylogenography of Asian wild rice, Oryza rufipogen , reveals multiple independentdomestications of cultivated rice oryza sativa , PNAS 2006, 103, 9578-5983. Harris, David; “The Multi – disciplinary Study of Agricultural Origins: „One World Archeology‟ in Practice”, in The Future for Archeology , edited by Layton, Robert et al, Routledge Cavendish, 2006, p. 238. 54 Chen, et al; Distribution of deletion type in CpDNA of cultivated and wild rice, Japanese Journal of Genetics 1993, 68: 597-603. 55 Yamane, Hiroko et al ; Molecular and Evolutionary analysis of the Hd6 Photoperiod Sensitivity Gene WithinGenus Oryza, Rice 2009, 2:56-66. 56 Sang, Tao, 2009, op. cit . 57 Ibid. 15 mutation occurred only later after domestication, as discovered by Sang ( vide supra ), andselectively promoted by seed selection by the farmers. Fuller argues that empty husks have been found in Lahuradewa’s archaeological findings, therefore they should be considered ‘gathered’ wild paddy. Such a view is a product of naiveté about rice farming. Occurrence of empty husks is a common mishap in paddycultivation even today, and is not at all associated with wildness of the breed in those cases.Moreover, Dorian Fuller expects modern domestication features in about 9,000 years old paddy samples. It is too much. Today’s paddy is a product of ceaseless process of seed -selection by Indian famers over 10,000 years, and the earliest farmers cultivated wild breeds only. Till 1960’ s many of the cultivated breeds of Indian paddy were little different from wildbreeds, and this is natural owing to cross pollination. Fuller further alleges: i.) that Lahuradewa rice had smaller grain size, ii.) that theLahuradewa rice had red seeds, and iii.) that the plant size was tall hence the plants couldstand erect only in water-logged fields. On the basis of these arguments, he claims thatLahuradewa paddy was wild. These all allegations merely show his ignorance about paddyand paddy cultivation. Grain-size of the seed is selected by farmers even today on the basisof productivity. Long-grains are often not good at yield in most of the fields. Hence most of the farmers in the Ganga Valley grow small grains. The grain size of cultivated Indian paddyvaries widely. Till recently, red seeds were most common varieties of cultivated rice inEastern India. Desaria, an Indian domesticated breed of red rice, extincted only recently,had up to six feet tall feeble straw, which grew only in deep waters, and harvesting wasdone by farmers riding on boats. Thus Fuller’s allegations about Lahuradewa rice are notmaintainable. Fuller (2003, 2006) himself has elsewhere written that there was an early farming in theGanga Valley which gave cultivation related words to both Sanskrit and Tamil. 58 He acceptsthat there was an indigenous evolution of agriculture in India in the Gangetic valley, fromwhere agriculture related words have been derived in both Sanskrit and Tamil. “Linguistic evidence congruent with an early North Indian (Gangetic) agricultural complex comes froma range of agricultural terms found in Sanskrit, and sometimes in Dravidian languages, whichappear to derive from extinct languages of unknown affiliation.” 59 Hence his opposition toLahuradeva findings is strange. Thus the genetic evidence favours that India (Ganga Valley) was the first centre of ricecultivation with the help of ox and buffalo, and the Southeast Asians learned this from India,and cultivated their own wild rice. The process then spread to China, whose cultivated ricestill contains many wild features. The Domestic Mouse and Rat 58 Fuller, D. Q., “An agricultural perspective on Dravidian historical linguistics: archaeological crop packages,livestock and Dravidian crop vocabulary”, in Bellwood, Peter and Renfrew, Colin (Eds.); Examining TheFarming/language Dispersal Hypothesis : (191-213), 2003, p. 204. ———-;Agricultural Origins and Frontiersin South Asia: A Working Synthesis, J World Prehist 2006, 20:1 – 86. 59 Fuller, D. Q., 2003, op. cit. 16 Mouse and rat are two different species of rodents. Incidentally, both of them originated inIndia and migrated out about the same time with agriculture. Although archaeologicalevidence for agriculture starts from 10,000 years back, the black rat migration out of Indiatook place at 20,000 years back and mouse migration took place 15,000 years back(molecular dates). Domestic mice ( Mus ) have lived in and around human dwellings feeding on human storedfood and food debris for ages. In the beginning Mus lived only in north India since 900,000years back, 60 as a commensal of Homo erectus and later Homo sapiens sapiens (Ferris,1983) . 61 It diverged into three principal species, viz.Mus musculus domesticus, M. musculusmusculus and M. castaneus by 500,000 years back (Geraldis, 2008; Din, 1996). 62 When Homo sapiens sapiens inhabited India in about 100,000 ybp or earlier, these speciesof mice became adapted to live in and around human dwellings (Boursot, 1993). 63 Miceprobably felt safer in human surroundings. Tsutim et al (2008) found that humanenvironment gives protection to sparrows from being predated by carnivorous birds andanimals. 64 The same applies to mice. Groves (1984) found that many types of mice and rats had been introduced into IslandSoutheast Asia from India together with rice agriculture. 65 Mus caroli, Mus cervicolor and Rattus argentiventer are found in Southeast Asia north of Malay. They are invariablyrestricted to wet rice growing areas. Mus dunni , a small mice, native of northeast India and Rattus nitidus , a native of Nepal, are rice-field pests of Indonesia. These all speciesoriginated in India. 66 Bandicoot-rat ( Bandicota bengalensis ) a rice-field pest in Indonesia originated in Mahanadidelta in association with buffalo. 67 We have already discussed buffalo domestication andmigration from India. The other sub-species of mice which migrated out of India toSoutheast Asia is Muscastaneus . This species isadept at digging holes in soil. Probably theylearned to do this in a bid to eat tubers and sweet potatoes which grew in abundance inIndian soil. Mus caroli is another species of Southeast Asian mice which dwells in rice fields. 60 Boursot, P., et al , Origin and radiation of the house mouse: mitochondrial DNA phylogeny, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 1996, 9: 391-415. 61 Ferris, S. D. et al , Mitochondrial DNA evolution in mice, Genetics 1983, 105(3):681-721. 62 Geraldis, Armando, et al , Inferring the history of speciation in house mice from autosomal, X-linked, Y-linkedand mitochondrial genes, Molecular Ecology 2008, 17(24):5349-5363. Also, Din, W. et al , Origin and radiationof the house mouse: clues from nuclear genes, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 1996, 9(5):519-539. 63 Boursot, P. et al , Evolution of House Mice, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1993, 24:119-152. 64 Tsutim, Ido, et al. , Foraging Behavior of Urban Birds: Are Human Commensals Less Sensitive to PredationRisk than their Non-urban Counterparts, The Condor 2008, 110(4):772-776. 65 Groves, Colin P., “ Domesticated and Commensal Mammals of Austronesia and Their Histories ”, in Bellwood, P., Fox, J. and Tryon, D., The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives , 1995. Also,Groves, C. P., Of mice and men and pigs in the Indo-Australian archipelago, Canberra Anthropology 1984,7:1-19. 66 Bellwood, P. et al , 1995. 67 Ibid. 17 Black rat ( Rattus rattus ) is another species which originated in India and then migrated toother parts of the world. From India it migrated to West Asia and then to Europe. Rattus reached West Asia by 20,000 years before present, a date which is earlier than domesticmouse migration. 68 Other migration of this species was from India to Madagaskar. 69 We can guess from the dates of Ganga Valley Pottery Neolithic that Pre-Pottery Neolithicmay have started in India about 13,000 ybp to 14,000 ybp. We are forced to assume thatroughly the same time PPN migration out of India to West Asia started. Mus domesticus migration out of India to West Asia must be a direct result of Neolithic migration. Date of migration of Indian male lineage J2b from northern Ganga Valley to West Asia (13,800 yearsback) coincides with that. Mus domesticus reached the Eastern Mediterranean basin inabout 10,000 ybp. 70 , 71 The route map of mice migration as mapped by the geneticists isexactly the same as that of human migration. Rajabi-Maham et al (2008) studied mice DNA from Iran up to Europe. They found that afterreaching the Fertile Crescent mice expansion toward Europe and Asia Minor took at leasttwo routes, tentatively termed the Mediterranean and the Bosphorus/Black Sea routes.They found that another domesticated animal goat also followed the same routes almostthe same time about 12,000 years back. 72 Thus goat and mice migrated along withexpanding farming. Protracted commensality of Mus m. domesticus in India indicates that Homo sapiens sapiens was doing some primitive farming or foraging and storing food since much before actualonset of Neolithic migration. Indians of that era had possibly a settled life and home andthey depended on cereal, fruit and tuber diet.Cognate words for ‘mouse’ are found exclusively within the Indo -European family of languages ( English ‘mouse’, Latin mus , Sanskrit mUSaka , muSika, mUs, muSka , 73 Pahlavi musk ), indicating expansion of domestic mouse out of India with migrating Neolithic cultureof the Indo-European speakers of north India. Migrations and Ecology 68 Alpin, Ken in Science News, Science Daily , Feb. 6, 2008. 69 Tollenaere, C. et al , Phylogenpgraphy of the introduced species Rattus rattus in the western Indian Ocean,with special emphasis on the colonization history of Madagascar, Journal of Biogeography 2010, 37 (3): 398-410. 70 Cucchi, Thomas, Vigne J. D. and Auffray, J. C., First occurrence of the house mouse ( Mus musculusdomesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943) in the Western Mediterranean: Western Mediterranean: azooarchaeological revision of subfossil occurrences, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 2005, 84: 429-445. 71 Rajabi-Maham, H., Orth A and Bonhomme F., Phylogeography and post-glacial expansion of Mus musculusdomesticus inferred from mitochondrial DNA coalescent, from Iran to Europe, Mol Ecol 2007, 17(2): 627-641.Also, Cucchi, T. and Vigne , J., Origin and Diffusion of the House Mice in the Mediterranean, Human Evolution 2006, 21(2):95-106. 72 Rajabi-Maham, H. et al , Phylogeography and postglacial expansion of Mus musculus domesticus inferredfrom mitochondrial DNA coalescent, from Iran to Europe, Mol. Ecol. 2008, 17 (2): 627-41. 73 Monier Williams Sanskrit English Dictionary, Cologne Scanned copy on the net, pp. 824, 827. 18 Large scale human migrations have taken place mostly out of compulsion. As the numberincreases, there is a lot of competition for food and space within the members of thespecies. Causes stress. To avoid stress, members of population disperse to new ecologicalniche (Gliessman 2006). 74 Groube (1996) pays attention to carrying capacity model, andderives on ecological grounds that any migration would not have been possible from theFertile Crescent (West Asia) to either south or east as those had already been colonized wellby Homo sapiens sapiens . 75 Hence due to ecological factors alone the population of Levantand Fertile Crescent had no choice but to migrate only to the north or west. Hence ecologytoo rules out population spread from West Asia to Iran and India. The Central Role of India in Populating Europe and Asia:Study of Human Maternal Lineages Earlier, when the Out of Africa theory came, it was thought that man came out of Africathrough Suez and West Asia. That made people and scholars, alike, believe that West Asiawas the source of all further populations of Europe, Asia and beyond. This assumptioncoupled with findings at Jericho and other sites in West Asia made authors believe thatfarming originated at the West Asia, from where it travelled to Europe and India. Whilefarming went to South Europe with Indo-European language, it went to India with Dravidianlanguage — they thought (Colin Renfrew). Thus Renfrew suggested that four major languagefamilies of the world–Indo-European, Dravidian, Altaic and Afro-Asiatic — originated in theWest Asia. 76 He thought that their common precursor was Proto-Nostratic, the ancestor of Nostratic macro-family, which was located in the West Asia, sometime before 10,000 B.P.(p. 80), he suggested. But it was realized soon that the West Asian route of exit from Africa was untenable. By1998 Cavalli-Sforza and his team reached the conclusion that from Africa, Homo sapienssapiens came out quite early and only once to reach India. In India that populationexpanded, had linguistic and cultural development, and then it was from India that the restof the world was populated. 77 This finding has been further supported by a large number of extensive DNA studies by Quintana-Murci 78 , Kivisild 79 , Bamshad et al . 2001; 80 Kivisild et 74 Gliessman, Stephen, R., Agroecology , CRC Press, 2006. 75 Groube, Les, “ The impact of disease upon the emergence of agriculture ” , in Harris, D. R. (Ed.), The Originsand Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia , Routledge, 1996. 76 Renfrew, Colin; “Language families and the spread of farming”, in The Origins and Spread of Agricultureand Pastoralism in Eurasia , Ed. Harris, D. R., UCL Press, 1996; reprint Routledge, 2004. 77 Cavalli-Sforza, L.; Man and diversity of his genome: An extraordinary phase in the history of populationgenetics, Pathologie-Biologie , Paris 1998, 46 (2):98-102. [Article in French] 78 Quintana-Murci, L. et al ; Genetic evidence of an early exit of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa througheastern Africa, Nature Genetics 1999, 23:437 – 41. 79 Kivisild, T. et al ; “ The place of the Indian mitochondrial DNA variants in the global network of maternal lineages and the peopling of the Old World”, in Genomic Diversity (Ed. Papiha, S.S. et al), KluwerAcademic/ Plenum Publishers, 1999, pp. 135-152. ——— et al ; Deep common ancestry of Indian andwestern-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages, Curr Biol 1999, 9 (22) :1331-1334. ———- et al , “An Indian ancestry: A key for understanding hum an diversity in Europe and beyond,” in Archaeogenetics: DNA and the population prehistory of Europe ”, in Renfrew, C. and Boyle, K. (Eds.), McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 267 – 75. 80 Bamshad, M., Kivisild T. et al ; Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian caste populations, Genome Res 2001, 11 (6): 994-1004. 19 al 81 , Metspalu et al , Endicott et al , 2003; Forster, 2004; Forster and Matsumara, 2005;Macauley, 2005; Thangaraj et al , 2005). 82 Thus latest consensus is that there was a single exit out of Africa to India along coastal routevery early in history of human evolution about 100,000 years back, after which all the areasof world were populated by migration from India. Migration maps made by authors likeOppenheimer (2003) and Metspalu (2004) on the basis of DNA studies showed that Indiaoccupied centre-space of human evolution and dispersal. Metspalu et al reaffirmed that “Southern Coastal Route” to India was suggested by the phylogeography of mtDNA haplogroup M. The oldest Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineage is M. Metspalu noted that ‘M’ is virtually absent from North Africa and Near East. This undermined the likelihood of the initial colonization of Eurasia taking a route through Egypt and Suez. Metspalu further noted that the split between West and East Eurasian mtDNAs occurredbetween the Indus Valley and Southwest Asia, and not in the Central Asia. This contradictedthe earlier scheme in which Central Asia had been considered the central place for furtherexpansion, branching and further migration of mankind once man had left Africa. Metspaluand his colleagues explained: “It is in the South Asia that local branches of the mtDNA tree (haplogroups given in the spheres) arose ( circa 40,000 – 60,000 B.P.); and from there theywere further carried into the interiors of the continents of Asia and Europe (thinner black arrows).” 83 They further noted that the “northern route” – from northeast Africa over Sinaito the Near East – was used much later (about 30,000 to 17,000 B.P.) by East African people. The first migration out of India, which took place about 85,000 years back, was to theSoutheast Asia. Man soon reached Australia from Southeast Asia, the migrations greatlyfacilitated by Sunda shelf, which is submerged in sea but less than 100 meters deep at themost. India and Sri Lanka as well as New Guinea and Australia were also joined by land. Sucha view in favour of coastal migration of humans was earlier mooted in 1962 by evolutionary geographer Carl Saucer, who had explained on the basis of ‘ecological niche’ that forest and savanna (grasslands) were least likely to be human home during early days; and sea shoreswere the only likely place for human home (p. 42). 84 A recent review article by Endicott et al (2007) clearly concludes that India was the central player in cultural evolution of man andhis migration. 85 Recent Migrations of Male Lineages after Last Glacial Maximum 81 Kivisild, T. et al ; The genetic heritage of the earliest settlers persists both in Indian tribal and castepopulations, Am J Hum Genet 2003, 72 (2) : 313-32. 82 See details of articles in the bibliography. Endicott, P. et al ; Macaulay, V., et al ; Single, rapid coastalsettlement of Asia revealed by analysis of complete mitochondrial genomes, Science 2005, 308:1034 – 1036. 83 Metspalu, M. et al ; Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shapedduring the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans, BMC Genetics 2004, 5:26doi:1186/14
  11. arjen

    FIRST OF ALL THE ABOVE POST, IS correct in the way you read it however due to format issues the page has not come out correctly, however when reading it , is it correct.

    the second post.!!! BTW their are many many articles that prove that aryan theory wrong, i havent the time to post all of them, so ive posted 2 articles that cover the broad area covered by them in general.

    Comprehensive population genetics data along with archeological and astronomical evidence presented at June 23-25, 2006 conference in Dartmouth, MA, overwhelmingly concluded that Indian civilization and its human population is indigenous.

    In fact, the original people and culture within the Indian Subcontinent may even be a likely pool for the genetic, linguistic, and cultural origin of the most rest of the world, particularly Europe and Asia.

    Leading evidences come from population genetics, which were presented by two leading researchers in the field, Dr. V. K. Kashyap, National Institute of Biologicals, India, and Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford University in California. Their results generally contradict the notion Aryan invasion/migration theory for the origin of Indian civilization.

    Underhill concluded “the spatial frequency distributions of both L1 frequency and variance levels show a spreading pattern emanating from India”, referring to a Y chromosome marker. He, however, put several caveats before interpreting genetic data, including “Y-ancestry may not always reflect the ancestry of the rest of the genome”

    Dr. Kashyap, on the other hand, with the most comprehensive set of genetic data was quite emphatic in his assertion that there is “no clear genetic evidence for an intrusion of Indo-Aryan people into India, [and] establishment of caste system and gene flow.”

    Michael Witzel, a Harvard linguist, who is known to lead the idea of Aryan invasion/migration/influx theory in more recent times, continued to question genetic evidence on the basis that it does not provide the time resolution to explain events that may have been involved in Aryan presence in India.

    Dr. Kashyap’s reply was that even though the time resolution needs further work, the fact that there are clear and distinct differences in the gene pools of Indian population and those of Central Asian and European groups, the evidence nevertheless negates any Aryan invasion or migration into Indian Subcontinent.

    Witzel though refused to present his own data and evidence for his theories despite being invited to do so was nevertheless present in the conference and raised many questions. Some of his commentaries questioning the credibility of scholars evoked sharp responses from other participants.

    Rig Veda has been dated to 1,500 BC by those who use linguistics to claim its origin Aryans coming out of Central Asia and Europe. Archaeologist B.B. Lal and scientist and historian N.S. Rajaram disagreed with the position of linguists, in particular Witzel who claimed literary and linguistic evidence for the non-Indian origin of the Vedic civilization.

    Dr. Narahari Achar, a physicist from University of Memphis clearly showed with astronomical analysis that the Mahabharata war in 3,067 BC, thus poking a major hole in the outside Aryan origin of Vedic people.

    Interestingly, Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan invasion theory.

    Dr. Bal Ram Singh, Director, Center for Indic Studies at UMass Dartmouth, which organized the conference was appalled at the level of visceral feelings Witzel holds against some of the scholars in the field, but felt satisfied with the overall outcome of the conference.

    “I am glad to see people who have been scholarly shooting at each other for about a decade are finally in one room, this is a progress”, said Singh.

    The conference was able to bring together in one room for the first time experts from genetics, archeology, physics, linguistics, anthropology, history, and philosophy. A proceedings of the conference is expected to come out soon, detailing various arguments on the origin of Indian civilization.

    The conference was sponsored by the Center for Indic Studies at UMass Dartmouth (www.umassd.edu/indic) with co-sponsorship from Educator’s Society for the Heritage of India (www.eshiusa.org).

    Comprehensive population genetics data along with archeological and astronomical evidence presented at June 23-25, 2006 conference in Dartmouth, MA, overwhelmingly concluded that Indian civilization and its human population is indigenous.

    In fact, the original people and culture within the Indian Subcontinent may even be a likely pool for the genetic, linguistic, and cultural origin of the most rest of the world, particularly Europe and Asia.

    Leading evidences come from population genetics, which were presented by two leading researchers in the field, Dr. V. K. Kashyap, National Institute of Biologicals, India, and Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford University in California. Their results generally contradict the notion Aryan invasion/migration theory for the origin of Indian civilization.

    Underhill concluded “the spatial frequency distributions of both L1 frequency and variance levels show a spreading pattern emanating from India”, referring to a Y chromosome marker. He, however, put several caveats before interpreting genetic data, including “Y-ancestry may not always reflect the ancestry of the rest of the genome”

    Dr. Kashyap, on the other hand, with the most comprehensive set of genetic data was quite emphatic in his assertion that there is “no clear genetic evidence for an intrusion of Indo-Aryan people into India, [and] establishment of caste system and gene flow.”

    Michael Witzel, a Harvard linguist, who is known to lead the idea of Aryan invasion/migration/influx theory in more recent times, continued to question genetic evidence on the basis that it does not provide the time resolution to explain events that may have been involved in Aryan presence in India.

    Dr. Kashyap’s reply was that even though the time resolution needs further work, the fact that there are clear and distinct differences in the gene pools of Indian population and those of Central Asian and European groups, the evidence nevertheless negates any Aryan invasion or migration into Indian Subcontinent.

    Witzel though refused to present his own data and evidence for his theories despite being invited to do so was nevertheless present in the conference and raised many questions. Some of his commentaries questioning the credibility of scholars evoked sharp responses from other participants.

    Rig Veda has been dated to 1,500 BC by those who use linguistics to claim its origin Aryans coming out of Central Asia and Europe. Archaeologist B.B. Lal and scientist and historian N.S. Rajaram disagreed with the position of linguists, in particular Witzel who claimed literary and linguistic evidence for the non-Indian origin of the Vedic civilization.

    Dr. Narahari Achar, a physicist from University of Memphis clearly showed with astronomical analysis that the Mahabharata war in 3,067 BC, thus poking a major hole in the outside Aryan origin of Vedic people.

    Interestingly, Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan invasion theory.

    Dr. Bal Ram Singh, Director, Center for Indic Studies at UMass Dartmouth, which organized the conference was appalled at the level of visceral feelings Witzel holds against some of the scholars in the field, but felt satisfied with the overall outcome of the conference.

    “I am glad to see people who have been scholarly shooting at each other for about a decade are finally in one room, this is a progress”, said Singh.

    The conference was able to bring together in one room for the first time experts from genetics, archeology, physics, linguistics, anthropology, history, and philosophy. A proceedings of the conference is expected to come out soon, detailing various arguments on the origin of Indian civilization.

    The conference was sponsored by the Center for Indic Studies at UMass Dartmouth (www.umassd.edu/indic) with co-sponsorship from Educator’s Society for the Heritage of India (www.eshiusa.org).

  12. arjen

    WHAT IS A FACIST, A RACIST????……..

    does the history of hinduvta match the racist, violent history of the europeans?..in any way, on any scale, in comparison to white racism??…

    If so prove, taking into contect, slavery, the bible being used to promote slavery, the conquest of america, the destruction of native indains american soceitys, the plunder of india, and the drug dealing opium warlords in china, the peasant revolts of europe, the spanish inquisation, the genocide of jews, taking all these aspects into consideration who has the GUTS to claim hinduvta history as ring wing as WHITE RACISM, which intellectual is goin to put hindutva along the same lines as the islamic invading armmies of the last 600years and aswell as the christiani invading armmies of the last 600years. Which person is goin to make that claim??

    • Dota-Player

      What do you care about the genocide of Native Americans and the slavery of Africans? Hindutva fascists have perpetrated the same atrocities (albeit on a smaller scale) right here in India. The anti Muslim pogroms, the caste system, the blatant discrimination that excludes so many young people from promising employment and future on account of their caste/religion. Stop talking shit.

      Furthermore, stop justifying Hindutva terror by invoking the crimes committed by Arabs and Europeans centuries ago, it sort of makes you slip of the high ground and fall flat on your face. It’s no doubt that the Brits mercilessly plundered India but it was the Hindutvadis who were also doing their dirty work by sabotaging Indian nationalism. You talk shit about imperialism when the Brahmin collaborators and their proxy RSS were the Brit’s greatest pawns. The Brahmins, so eager to maintain their power and prestige, were more than willing to sell out the rest of the population. Check out the leadership of the RSS and VHP today; they are all fucking Brahmins. You talk shit about European imperialism when the Hindutva facist government of India has clearly abandoned Nehru’s anti colonial/Non aligned stance and aligned India with Israel and US.

      Take a lesson from your racial cousins in Iran. Despite the Iranian’s utter loathing for Israel (which is justified) not a single Anti-Jewish riot has broken out in Iran. Not one to my knowledge. Even the backward Mullahs won’t stand for such naked barbarism. In India, organized mobs butcher entire neighborhoods of Muslims and then return to normal the next day, as if nothing ever happened at all. That’s the difference civilization makes.

      तुम जूतें चाट ने वाला लोग हो और हमेशा रहोगे.

      • arjen

        Any violence towards muslims in india is on the back of 600years of Islamic oppresion, Are you now goin to deny the islamic persuation of non muslims?…Are you going to deny the islamic slave trade, the dhimmi status, the kafri tax?…You talk about brahimns and yet the VERY TEXT books you use where written by the British elite educationalisT..now does that make sense?…In other words the nazis are writing the history of the jews and today IDIOTS like you refer to txts written by the british who looted, raped, and ravaged india with holocaust after holocause hardly the merit of a academia.

        • arjen

          India had a GDP of 23% before the british after it was 3.8% EXPLAIN THAT….DOTA PLAYER or should it be THE love child of BRITISH RACIST THOMASH MACALAUEY…or maybe the INDIAN IN LOOKS BUT BRITISH IN TASTE education you recieve..PEOPLE LIKE you have been bred on 18th century british education system and today you talk of pride , honor and respect..lmaooo…I mean which person is not going to objectievly look at the information he is receiving and educating himnself with. This maclauey LOVE CHILD, is raised on ethos masterminded by the british elite and their love child indains, who today through western english christian educaiton system they go to in india, BUT THE SAME GUY WILL say hes indian, right but im sure education is the basis of a person mindset, hence if he raised by racist, intolerant british chrisitn education system in india, is he going to show the same bias and igrnoance towards indian culture??YES…you are the puppet of the british regime and dont talk to me about what it is to be indian, Your a product of a racist british regime, do the jews take history lessons from the nazis after looting and murdering them, You DOTA, are the jew who was persucated by the briitsh nazis, but today through briitsh nazi education you have been brainwashed into racist ideoloogy WELL DONE. its so easy to see, and work out.SO EASY!!…An estimated 50million died during the famines caused by british, of course DOTA since you go the very school system that was created by the british, i KNOW YOUR SENSE OF HISTORY IS very VERY WARPED..the bengal famine where 4million died due to food being diverted away from india to europe, the biggest transfer of human wealth from india to europe, the millions of people killed through british wars and agitation in occupying india, the destruction of indian industry and commerce that competed with europe taking indian GDP in 1953 to 3.5% from 22% in 1700. The british created the slave trade..are you going to deny that DOTA?..the british started the opium wars , you going to deny that?..The euroopean caste system was the most brutal in all mankind, hence the peasant revolts of europe, the massacre of native indian american tribes, and looting of wealth, the genocie of australians…DOTA ARE YOU really goin to deeny this? if you are then question your own education..lol….not mine. Your a macauley LOVE CHILD, so i can see your where your igrnoance stems from. The question is are you going to belive the white euopeans with a HISTORY of slavery, of deceit, of looting, of murder, in india, in china, in african, in american, in austrlian, are you going to accept a truth which is laced with bias, are you goin to believe in the words of a people that such low morals?…..You forgot to mention when indians invaded africa, europe, china , and america to loot, to steal,to plunder and then to convert…i guess you cant right. But again in your MACAULEY education its okay, lies as truths..

          ”Sir Thomas Munro, Governor of Madras, ordered a mammoth survey in June 1822, whereby the district collectors furnished the caste-wise division of students in four categories, viz., Brahmins, Vysyas (Vaishyas), Shoodras (Shudras) and other castes (broadly the modern scheduled castes). While the percentages of the different castes varied in each district, the results were revealing to the extent that they showed an impressive presence of the so-called lower castes in the school system.

          Thus, in Vizagapatam, Brahmins and Vaishyas together accounted for 47% of the students, Shudras comprised 21% and the other castes (scheduled) were 20%; the remaining 12% were Muslims. In Tinnevelly, Brahmins were 21.8% of the total number of students, Shudras were 31.2% and other castes 38.4% (by no means a low figure). In South Arcot, Shudras and other castes together comprised more than 84% of the students!

          In the realm of higher education as well, there were regional variations. Brahmins appear to have dominated in the Andhra and Tamil Nadu regions, but in the Malabar area, theology and law were Brahmin preserves, but astronomy and medicine were dominated by Shudras and other castes. Thus, of a total of 808 students in astronomy, only 78 were Brahmins, while 195 were Shudras and 510 belonged to the other castes (scheduled). In medicine, out of a total of 194 students, only 31 were Brahmins, 59 were Shudras and 100 belonged to the other castes. Even subjects like metaphysics and ethics that we generally associate with Brahmin supremacy, were dominated by the other castes (62) as opposed to merely 56 Brahmin students. It bears mentioning that this higher education was in the form of private tuition (or education at home), and to that extent also reflects the near equal economic power of the concerned groups.

          As a concerned reader informed me, the ‘Survey of Indigenous Education in the Province of Bombay (1820-1830)’ showed that Brahmins were only 30% of the total students there. What is more, when William Adam surveyed Bengal and Bihar, he found that Brahmins and Kayasthas together comprised less than 40% of the total students, and that forty castes like Tanti, Teli, Napit, Sadgop, Tamli etc. were well represented in the student body. The Adam report mentions that in Burdwan district, while native schools had 674 students from the lowest thirty castes, the 13 missionary schools in the district together had only 86 students from those castes. Coming to teachers, Kayasthas triumphed with about 50% of the jobs and there were only six Chandal teachers; but Rajputs, Kshatriyas and Chattris (Khatris) together had only five teachers.

          Even Dalit intellectuals have questioned what the British meant when they spoke of ‘education’ and ‘learning’. Dr. D.R. Nagaraj, a leading Dalit leader of Karnataka, wrote that it was the British, particularly Lord Wellesley, who declared the Vedantic Hinduism of the Brahmins of Benares and Navadweep as “the standard Hinduism,” because they realized that the vitality of the Hindu dharma of the lower castes was a threat to the empire. Fort William College, founded by Wellesley in 1800, played a major role in investing Vedantic learning with a prominence it probably hadn’t had for centuries. In the process, the cultural heritage of the lower castes was successfully marginalized, and this remains an enduring legacy of colonialism.

          Examining Dharampal’s “Indian science and technology in the eighteenth century,” Nagaraj observed that most of the native skills and technologies that perished as a result of British policies were those of the Dalit and artisan castes. This effectively debunks the fiction of Hindu-hating secularists that the so-called lower castes made no contribution to India’s cultural heritage and needed deliverance from wily Brahmins.

          Indeed, given the desperate manner in which the British vilified the Brahmin, it is worth examining what so annoyed them. As early as 1871-72, Sir John Campbell objected to Brahmins facilitating upward mobility: “.the Brahmans are always ready to receive all who will submit to them. The process of manufacturing Rajputs from ambitious aborigines (tribals) goes on before our eyes.”

          Sir Alfred Lyall was unhappy that “.more persons in India become every year Brahmanists than all the converts to all the other religions in India put together… these teachers address themselves to every one without distinction of caste or of creed; they preach to low-caste men and to the aboriginal tribes. in fact, they succeed largely in those ranks of the population which would lean towards Christianity and Mohammedanism if they were not drawn into Brahmanism.”

          Make a choice, the people that said india was poor where the british, who creatd and stated the slave trade, where men women and children where chained up and then sent to another land to serve the whites as a god given right. Make a choice the british who invded india, looted it, took it into poverty, taking its GDP to 2% from 23% in 1700, are you going to beleive in the people that killed of the native american culture, are you going to beleive in the text books that where written by the british who forced opium drugs onto the chinese to open its markets also known as free trade, is this the moral position you talk of when addressing me?

          Now who doesnt question the books, the history written by the very people that first looted invaded and layed genocide on the indian people. DOTA DOESNT HES A LOVE CHILD..of macauley and through his racist education hes been convinced to side with the whites..the same whites that would have labelled him as a savages.lol……..PURE LOVE AND TRUST!!!LOL……

          the master and the slave lineage continuous.

          Lord Thomas Babbington Macaulay (1800-59) was the first Law Member of the Governor-General’s Legislature and is best known for introducing English education in India. Speaking in the British Parliament, he said on February 2, 1835 the following:

          “Such wealth I have seen in this country (India), such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which (backbone) is her spiritual and cultural heritage. And therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation”.

          Your dominated im NOT…you call indian terrorist beacues your education tell you to ..lmaooo…..Your the enemy of india but right now your the poodle of west, when the whites pull the english chain MACAULEYS INDIAN LOVE CHILDREN start to cry…..lol…

          The historian Gaspar Correa is quoted by Hall as to what the Vasco da Gama did next, thus:

          “When all the Indians had thus been executed (sic), he ordered them to strike upon their teeth with staves and they knocked them down their throats; as they were put on board, heaped on top of each other, mixed up with the blood which streamed from them; and he ordered mats and dry leaves to be spread over them and sails to be set for the shore and the vessels set on fire… and the small, vessel with the friar (brahmin) with all the hands and ears, was also sent ashore, without being fired”.

          A message from da Gama was sent to the Zamorin. Written on a palm leaf, it told him he could make a curry with the human pieces in the boat.

          Pitrim Alexandrovitch Sorokin (1889-1968) Russian-American sociologist of Harvard University had said:

          “During the past few centuries the most belligerent, the most aggressive, the most rapacious, the most power-drunk section of humanity has been precisely, the Christian Western world. During these centuries western Christendom had invaded all other continents; its armies followed by priests and merchants have subjugated, robbed or pillaged most of the non-Christians. Native Americans, African, Australian, Asiatic populations have been subjugated to this peculiar brand of Christian “love” which has generally manifested itself in pitiless destruction, enslavement, coercion, destruction of the cultural values, institutions, the way of life of the victims and the spread of alcoholism, venereal disease, commercial cynicism and the like.”

          If any community could claim credit for driving the British out of the country, it was the Brahmin community. Seventy per cent of those who were felled by British bullets were Brahmins”.

          As Francis Xavier saw the Brahmins: “If there were no Brahmans in the area, all the Hindus would accept conversion to our faith.”

          Hmmm WHO DO WE BELIEVE????……

          the briitsh who raped and plundered india, do we beleive in those books?………DO WE DOTA?…lol….u foool…

          I CAN GUURANTEE you did not read the RESEARCH ARTICLE THAT COMEPLETEY DISPROVE THE ARYAN THEORY…

          oh wait when did the aryan theory start??….is it mentioned in ANY INDIAN TEXTS??errr NO…wierd that is right, so when does it begin…OH wait after the occupation of india, where men women, children were tortured, raped, and killed to fill the pockets of the christians….that when the aryan theory starts!!

          Oh shooot and i though integrity, respect and logic determins education..lol…

          YOU macaauley CHILD…FOK off..I LOVE BEING HINDUVTA hinduvta till i die…WE were hinduvta when the muslims entered killed, taxed, converted , killed gurus, forced oppression onto indian, just like they did in africa, in eastern europe, in central asia, just like they do toady with blowing up people, WE where HINDUVTA when british looted, raped, and took our wealth, our diamonds, we where hinduvta when we died fightin against the oppresive chrisitan rule like in africa, in america, in europe, in china, we wher hinduvta when indian freedom fighters rallied the call to kick out the british who murderd and raped our people, we where hinduva freedom fighters, when india has the larget GDP from the 1 to the 1700 then it went from 23% of gdp to 3% of world GDP UNDER THE BRITISH..we where HINDUVTA ALWAYS…WE ARE THE FREEDOM FIGHERS THAT THE BRITISH call terrorists, we are the saffron terrorist that you are EDUCATED TO CALL US, through your BIASED, RACIST, BASELLESS, PREDUICAIAL EDUCATION SYSTEM..dota..

          You are the slave to white rule..lol……You talk to me about integrity i suggest you LOOK CLOSER TO HOME, before you start kissing ST THOMAS MACLAUEYS ASS…if thats level of education you hold to such a high degree..then you are most certainly a fool.

          * all Europeans — and by extension, many Americans — can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia.”

          -Lluís Quintana-Murci,Vincent Macaulay,Stephen Oppenheimer,Michael Petraglia,and their associates

          TRUTH IS EASY …lies are difficult to defend…

          so tell me again what is HINDUVTA…DOTA…this time try to stop your PRO MACAULEY EDUCATION FROM SPEAKING..it really does lack integrity..dont you think?…would a jew take lessons from nazis?

        • Wade in MO

          “oh wait when did the aryan theory start??….is it mentioned in ANY INDIAN TEXTS??errr NO…wierd that is right, so when does it begin…OH wait after the occupation of india, where men women, children were tortured, raped, and killed to fill the pockets of the christians….that when the aryan theory starts!!”

          That is one of the most non-sensical paragraphs ever. When did most non-mythological inquiries in to the origins of different peoples start? Certainly not in antiquity.

          My question is: If all these theories are really just there becuase of supposed white supremacy, then how does the Out of Africa theory for the origin or humanity serve such interests? That theory also came from the 1800s (from a brit – Charles Darwin) and got more popular in the 20th century. What would be the point of proposing the AMT to prove white supremacy or legitimacy of british occupation and then propose another theory that says not only that all humans come from the same source, but also at some point in time, all of our ancestors were black? That makes no sense.

          Also, since the author mentions Christianity, if the british were on some christian crusade then why did they, and the french, side with the Ottomans to defeat Russia in the Crimean War in the early 1850s and the, establish the British Raj just a couple of years later? For that matter, why did they aid largely pagan native americans on the USA’s western frontier during the 1800s? If we believe you, then they should have sided with the US instead of trying to halt it’s expansion to the west. Also, why did they have their only jewish prime minister (Benjamin Disraeli) during this same time period?
          Your accusation makes no sense.

        • Wade in MO

          “India had a GDP of 23% before the british after it was 3.8%”

          When has GDP ever been expressed as percentages? 3.8% of what? 23% of what?

          Tells me what is the USA’s GDP in percentages. (0% if our politicians keep having their way)

      • Arjen

        UNESCO pointed out that out of 128 countries where Jews lived before Israel was created, only one, India, did not persecute them and allowed them to prosper and practice Judaism in peace.

        The Jews that lived happily in india where once again persecuted by invading Muslims and then the Christians. Why??

        MACUALEY LOVER dont talk to me anymore….thanks You have been brainwashed too much by A MACALEYITE education..to its the sme as nazi education, islamic taliban education, you HAVE LOST ALL INTEGRITY….

        i expect it from robert, i dont from you, but i know why you are the way your are………AKa a love child of thomas macauley who through miseducation you beleive your the white british estalishment to be right, correct and integral…..why would you assume that????….

        • Dota-Player

          I’m not the one that quotes colonial literature you stupid turd. Hindutvadis frequently quote colonial crap such as Logan’s Malabar Manual to justify their aggression against Muslims and Christians. I quote secular modern scholarship. If your too stupid to see the advances made by Western Acedemia over the last 100 years, I suggest you enroll yourself in a western university. And the jews lived quite happily during the Abbasid Dynasty, many even reaching prominent positions in the Islamic Government. Some Muslims like the Berbers were fanatical, but Islam was never a monolithic entity. Educate yourself before spouting your Hindutva shit. You can post this garbage on India-forum.com and the receive an applause. However you’re posting on a western blog maintained and accessed by westerners, so before you further make an ass of yourself, please gtfo.

          I’ll respond to the rest of your nonsensical posts tomorrow.

      • Arjen

        call me hinduvta again i wana see what leg your standing on when you do….lol

        • Arjen

          do i care about the native americans, you miss the point…..im showing you a pattern of genocide, of deceit, of looting of plunder…where ever the white christian race went, be it africa, india, china, or america….against such SOLID and massive evidence i would like you to confirm your postion…

          on what MORAL LOGIC ETHICAL grounds to you give moral superiority to the white christian elite when attacking me as hinduvta?

          on what basis are you coming from?… why do you not take into account of the oppression by white christian around the world, but instead like a thief you elude the question, because i know if you where to take into account the genocide inflicted by the white christian race onto the world, Your arguemtn against me forbeing hinduvta is kinda of illogical right?….what high moral ground are talking from when representing the white christian core, against me?? lol pleeeaseee explainnnnn

        • Arjen

          That is one of t’he most non-sensical paragraphs ever. When did most non-mythological inquiries in to the origins of different peoples start? Certainly not in antiquity.”

          This is the xtent in which white are in denial, They church in 17th century labeled any new discoveries in the name of Christendom,

          so finding America was a white discovery, the whites looked for india and in mistake labeled west indies after it, the native Americans renamed them indians, the whites where the first to cross Africa, the whites where first to climb mount Everest, the whites where gods people….I mean under that kind of intellectual might i have to be wrong, when god himself says that white people are his people….loool.

          what this white idiot doesnt realise is this, IF the aryan came from outside why they not mention their homeland as being from outside?…at all.. Whites always remembered Europe!

          The whites for the past 300years have been re=-writing history in their image so i dont think its a great leap to make right??

          …i mean slavery, the genocide of humans, the killing of people, the enslavement of others, the capture of african savages as a JUST AND HOLY CAUSE, the opium wars in china, the stolen children of Australia, the Spanish conquistadors who layed genocide on the native Americans, the murder and rape of ireland, the massacre of native north Americans, the enslavement of Africans, the humiliation of african people in text books, cartoons, in songs, in history, where many white academics wrote such racist and ignorant information based on their OWN RACIST BACKGROUND that convinced them they where where god people…kind of remind me of how the Taliban works, it good to see that as it you can picture more easily how the sister faith Christians also worked.

          The whites took the wealth of india, hijacked its trade routes, and then destroyed temples and other places of education, completely destroyed india and you think these racist intolerant people are not going to be biased, not going got be racist in their thinking..,lmaooo…is this the caliber of your education.?

          some people like you re-define intellectualism

          like i said the invasion of the aryan theory does not begin until the whites start concocting a story based around them BEING THE innovators, …lol…..when they realized that india is in fact the original home of the Aryan…..The church demanded that every new discovery was made in the name of Christ…..For over 5000years NOT one chapter about any aryan tribes invading india NOT ONE..but that changes when the white arrive AND discover india. Just like how isaac newton discovered gravity but we all know that discovery was made earlier in india several hundred year before….just like how many indian scientific made many discovered the Europeans made several hundred years later…lol….but what do we hear. Oh these people re-write in their name, you know tarzan was the only person in african to speak to animals but not the africans..lmaoooo

          is that something the whites elite where willing to accept, after declaring the world in Christians name..lol..after declaring savages where god way of making them work, for the white man..lol it under this intellectual might we get Aryan theory, or how native Americans are actually Europeans..or how the first person to discover Africa was a white man lol not an african man cos that would be absurd, the first person to go Antarctica was white, but not oriental, that would also be absurd, or the land of the free after killing of the natives….its under this racist, child like mindset that we arrive in the 21t century.

          Im sure the jews where vilified in around europe for some time, i guess the impression of jews from white christian is a JUST, INTEGRAL, LOGICAL, MORALLY BASED judgement right,..

          6th century, when Martin Luther claimed that Jews chose “to look into the devil’s black, dark, lying behind, and worship his stench,” many of his readers likely pictured an African, not just a generic demon.

          In a 7th-century biography of clergy in Merida, Spain, a man had a vision in which he saw “some hideous and terrifying Ethiopians, giants, most vile to behold in their darkness, so that from their restless gaze and jet-black faces he was given to understand as he saw them clearly that they were beyond doubt servants of hell.” A similar linkage of the Devil to Africans also appeared in the “Passion of St. Perpetua and St. Felicity.”

          Christians eventually turned to their scriptures to “prove” Africans, American Indians, and Asians had dark skin from some divine curse. Long before that, though, they had made a connection between skin color, Satan worship, and a predisposition to immorality. So these savages where enslaved by the white christians……and everything was done in their christian name….

          And its TODAY WE Can SEE THE EXTENT IN WHICH europeans first stole, enslaved and layed genocide on the savages, and then those same people wrote the texts books that most of them still use…wow that really is the highest level of academia.

          and the most abusrd thing is THAT YOU DONT QUESTION IT, your dont critique it, yet you while go down every possible avenue to make an excuse, to justify and to give 21st morality to a christian people who for the past400eyars had layed genocide .

          the church forbade logic, science, etc..this is the REAL legacy of white rule, ignorance, Btw evolution was discovered in india many thousans of years before christians, the ten avatars of vishnu.

          and as india return to its rich roots with ease, after 200years of looting, europe enriched itself and created a world centered around them, ,……NOW we see the truth challengin that and in the end it will show only one thing

          that the whites where the inferior race and mindset, they stole the wealth of others, enslaved a whole race, to serve them,they stole the wealth of others , they pride themselves on that, yet when islamic militants are doing the exact same they scoff…lol..

          which i find deeply ironic and amusing, Euopre is already going back to peasant days, its needs immigrants to sustain its soceites, the white race are the youngest and most immature in the world, even their population cannot sustain them, the western world for the past 600years has enriched itself from the wealth stolen from others and NOW we seen that advantage running out, they have convinced themselves the wealth they have is their creation but as we know history cannot be denied, and in fact the slave and imperial days are over and today you are about to be overtaken by the two places that have always ruled this world, CHina and India…..In less than 60years both have reversed the damage of european looting, in less than 60years europe will be playin the tune of the asians…and thats reality.

          All the while white people will be complaining how immigrants are entering their land, but in reality YOU need them to sustain yourself..we dont…hence thats why your people NEED african, indian, chinese, and the americans, Just to make your soceity work…lmaoooo…..

          ”’God-fearing are commanded not to revile the dark-skinned, but to remember their own filthiness and to remember that filth of dark skin came only because of their fathers’ sin”

          Leviticus 25:44-46 “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

          The slave days of the white people are over, and now the history of your people will be exposed for it really is. No point talking to you as you yourself have lived under this education, what you deem intellectual is actually bigotry…lol…but out of All the people in the world, Its easy for you to get the two mixed up..its in your history to lie, to deciet, to use, to loot, to enslave……Tell me again of the white aryan theory….lol..this time keep a straight face.

          Remeber one thing. Your wrong. Let go of your racist intellectual heritage.

      • Arjen

        THIS IS THE REALITY OF HOW FAR WHITE LIES CAN GO…..

        THIS RESEARCH IS THE DEFINITION OF CIVILISATION. dota…IF YOU THINK YOUR AN WHITE INTELLECTUAL THEN CHALLENGE THIS INDIAN INTELLECTUAL .

        i was GOIN TO CHANGE THE FORMAT AND CORRECT any page formats..BUT i rekon if your interested you will read the data, the facts, the logic..rather than labelling me a hinduvta lmaooo

        AGAIN erase your racist, predujical macaley english education before you start reading…..you wouldnt want to be biased right?lol

        START
        Recent lexical research in Indian languages conclusively indicates that there was an early an independent evolution of agriculture in India (Fuller, 2006).

        On the other hand latest lexical study also indicates that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-Europeans had farming before their split into various branches and

        migration (Comrie, 2003). Added to this, the Indo-European languages of both India and Europe contain agriculture related loan words from Munda and Dravidian

        families, which were most likely borrowed into Indo-European when all the three language families were evolving within India side by side. Thus the newest
        Recent lexical research in Indian languages conclusively indicates that there was an early andindependent evolution of agriculture in India (Fuller, 2006).

        On the other hand latest lexical studyalso indicates that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-Europeans had farming before their split intovarious branches and

        migration (Comrie, 2003). Added to this, the Indo-European languages of bothIndia and Europe contain agriculture related loan words from Munda and Dravidian

        families, whichwere most likely borrowed into Indo-European when all the three language families were evolvingwithin India side by side. Thus the newest

        linguistic evidence supports Indian origin of Indo-European language family. DNAs of cows were examined from all regions of the world. The findings conclude

        that Indian cow(or Zebu) had been domesticated in India before Neolithic period, and independently from the WestAsian influence. In addition to that DNA

        results confirm that Indian cows were carried to otherregions of the world
        viz.
        East Africa (by sea), South China, Southeast Asia, West Asia, Europe andCentral Asia during prehistoric periods. Dates suggested by various authors range

        from 22,000before present to 4,000 before present. Bellwood (1995) had suggested that buffalo wasdomesticated for the first time in India in Orissa-Bihar

        region, from where it was carried to SouthChina, where rice farming evolved with the help of buffalo. Recent DNA studies of buffalo confirmthat India was the

        place of domestication of first buffalo (Kumar, 2007). DNA study of barley has ruled out importation of barley cultivation from West Asia to India. It

        hasbeen proved that barley cultivation developed for the first time in India independently from anyexternal influence (Sang, 2009). There is evidence

        suggesting that the gene essential for
        ‘domestication’ was found only in the Indian wild barley. Similar DNA studies of rice show that ricecultivation evolved at two places in the world

        independently

        one was Ganga Valley in India and theother was in South China. However the Chinese rice still contains many wild features, hinting thatthe Indian rice

        cultivation was earlier in time. The lexical studies of Indian languages by Fullersuggest that sweet potato, cucumbers, okra, and many other food items were

        originally Indian andwere domesticated in India. Study of human DNAs finally rule out any Aryan arrival from the Central Asia into India. Rather thesuggested

        Aryan gene R1a (M17) evolved and migrated out from India about 16,000 to 14,000 yearsback crossing through Central Asia ultimately reaching Pontic-Caspian

        area and Russia (Sahoo, 2006;Sengupta, 2006; Trivedi, 2008; Underhill, 2009). Study of West Asian genes also suggests that thatthere was a human migration

        from India to West Asia, indicated by presence of Indian genes in theWest Asian population (Y-DNA HGs: F*, L1, H (M-69), K2, C5, C*, R1a (M-17). On the other

        handWest Asian genes (Y-DNA: J1, G, I and R1b3) are not found in India, ruling out migration from WestAsia to India. L1, which was earlier suggested to be a

        marker of migration of Dravidian speakers fromElam region of West Asia, has now been confirmed to be of Indian origin from where it migrated toIran and West

        Asia (Sengupta, 2006; Sahoo, 2006). Presence of another gene J2 in India, West Asia, Iran and India was advocated as an evidence of Indo-European arrival

        from West Asia to India together with Neolithic culture. This gene has beenproved to be associated with Anatolian and South European Neolithic cultures.

        Latest data fromIndian population pertaining to this gene clearly militates against its arrival into India from WestAsia. Within India, its presence is more

        in the Dravidian population than the north Indian population.Other statistical features also suggest that it may have originated within India. Its branch J2b

        has anage of about 14,000 years back in India, and the most likely place of origin is in Uttar Pradesh nearNepal boarder. Hence evidence from all fields

        taken together concludes that farming and Indo-European languages evolved together in India, from where the two migrated to many parts of world.In the east a

        migration took place to Southeast Asia carrying Austro-Asiatic language and ricefarming from India (Y-chromosomal DNA O2a migration). Recent archaeological

        findings from GangaValley, where we have found the oldest Pottery Neolithic site of the world, too corroborate with theabove set of facts. It has been

        settled so far that after initial origin in East Africa, modern man migrated quite early(about 100,000 years before present) to India, where further human

        cultural and linguistic evolutiontook place. Modern man migrated out of India in many waves from that time until 10,000 years backpopulating rest of the

        world.

        Recent linguistic research by Bernard Comrie and by Dorian Fuller point out that the Indio-European languages evolved at a place which had developed

        agriculture. This conclusion canbe drawn by presence of agriculture related cognate words in the languages of this familyseparated widely by geography, but

        all having had their origin from one common ancestrallanguage at a common place. Often such ancient agricultural words of Indo-European familyare shared by

        languages of Munda (Austro-Asiatic) as well as Dravidian families (see Fuller,2003, p. 201; Fuller 2006, pp. 4, 15, 18, 35, 39, 40, 55; Fuller, 2007; Fuller,

        2008). In factFuller is the first author to say, on linguistic grounds, that India was an independent centreof framing. Moreover he notes that origins of

        Indian farming was different qualitatively fromWest Asian farming and was similar in many ways to African and Eastern North Americanorigins of farming.

        Fuller finds that

        evidence based on both archaeo-botanical material and colloquialagricultural terms more parsimoniously postulates that early Dravidian had an

        epipaleolithicpre-agricultural heritage ”and that it “originated near a South Asian core region ”. This should be read with the fact that recently Indian

        epipalaeolithic (microlithic) has been dated35,000 B.P. to 15,000 B.P.

        Fuller’sassertion is an acceptance of India as the oldest place of farming culture. Fuller (2006) claims that there were several independent centres of

        plantdomestication within the Indian peninsula by indigenous peoples. Fuller concedes an earlierand independent rice-Neolithic in Ganga Valley and western

        Orissa. He accepts thatindigenous Indian plants, trees and vegetables have contributed words to Sanskrit and otherIndo-European languages.Other DNA studies

        have also confirmed Indigenous origin of Austro-Asiatic speaking tribes of India.

        DNA studies of rice, cattle,buffalo and mice too support an Indian origin of rice farming with subsequent migration toSoutheast Asia. Jerold Edmondson of

        Department of Linguistics, University of Texas, hasdone a large number of detailed studies based on linguistics as well as DNA, on Neolithicand human

        migrations towards east of India. He found that the Tai speakers of the Kradaibranch of Austro-Asiatic language family migrated from India, and first settled

        in SoutheastAsia long back. They were master cultivators and they took agriculture from India toThailand and then from the latter to the Yunnan province of

        southwest China, and to SouthChina by 10,000 ybp during Neolithic expansion.

        On the other hand Harvard scholar Michael Witzel has been struggling hard to prove thatthe agriculture related words in the Indo-European languages entered

        Sanskrit during thehypothetical stay of Indo-Aryans in Iran and then their contact with the Dravidian speakersin the Indus valley area and Munda family

        tribes in the Ganga Valley.

        Yet the presence of the same word in Indo-Aryan as well as European languages indicates that these words,even if had entered from some other languages, had

        entered Proto-Indo-European languagein India before migration to Europe and Iran had started. Thus Aryans, which is primarily speakers of a particular

        language family, can no longer be considered ‘pastoralists’. Moreover it is wrong to assume that pastorals are independent of agriculture. Renfrew (1990)

        pointed out that pastoral life is a part of agricultural society. Hewrote: “The pastoral economy is usually symbiotic with the agricultural one as it has

        been shown that a major component of the diet of these pastoralists was bread. The practice of
        agriculture is thus a precondition of a pastoral economy.”

        Added to this fact, the recentlynoted linguistic evidence as discussed above shows that the Aryans were farmers from thevery beginning. Earlier, Renfrew had

        claimed that Indo-Europeans were farmers from the very beginning,and that the Mehrgarh people and the Indus Valley people were Aryans i.e. speakers of

        ndo-European languages from the very onset of farming culture in these areas.He hadfurther claimed that an early Indo-European language had been in place in

        the north Indiastretching from the Ganga Valley to Mehrgarh when Mehrgarh civilization was emerging.

        He wrote, “Certainly the assumption that the Aryas were recent ‘immigrants’ to India andtheir enemies were ‘aborigines’, has done much to distort our

        understanding of thearchaeology of India and Pakistan.”

        Renfrew wrote, “We should in other words, consider seriously the possibility that the new religious and cultural synthesis which is represented by the

        Rigveda was essentially aproduct of soil of India and Pakistan, and that it was not imported, ready-made, on the backof steeds of Indo-Aryans. Of course it

        evolved while in contact with the developing culturesof other lands, most notably Iran, so that by a process of peer polity interaction, culturesand

        ideologies emerged which in many ways resembled each other. It is not necessary tosuggest that one was borrowed, as it were, directly from the other.
        “This hypothesis that early Indo-European languages were spoken with India and Pakistanand on the Iranian plateau at the sixth millennium BC has the merit of

        harmonisingsymmetrically with the theory for the origin of Indo-European languages of Europe. It alsoemphasises the continuity in the Indus valley and

        adjacent areas from the early Neolithicthrough to the foruit of the Indus Valley Civilization—a point which Jarrige has recentlystressed. Moreover the

        continuity is seen to follow unbroken from that time across the DarkAge succeeding the collapse of the urban centres of the Indus Valley, so that features of

        thaturban civilization persists, across a series of transformations, to form the basis of laterIndian civilization. A number of scholars have previously

        developed these ideas of continuity.”

        Having said this, the new evidence changes someof Renfrew’s assumptions. While Renfrewthought Anatolia was the original home of the Indo-Europeans where

        they had developedthe first farming culture, and from where they had migrated to Europe and North India by6,000 B.C., present evidence indicates that India

        was the place of origin of the Indo-Europeans and an independently evolved centre of farming. Otherwise it is impossible toexplain presence of farming

        related words of Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian origins in theEuropean branch of Indo-European languages. Renfrew’s views about Anatolia may have
        proved wrong, yet his views on South Asia hold true in light of recent evidence which will bepresented in this paper. Genetic evidence as well as linguistic

        evidence has made it clear that both the Dravidian and the Austro-Asiatic languages and their speakers have evolved in India—the Dravidians in

        thesouthernmost part and Austro-Asiatic in the eastern part of the South Asia. The currentfindings about early Dravidian languages contradict Renfrew and

        many other authors who had suggested the place of origin of Dravidian in West Asia from Proto-Elamite after 10,000B.P., originally proposed by McAlpin.

        We can now have a look at some of these farming related words in the Indo-Europeanlanguages (In Link provided too many to list). Having proved that the

        Indo-Europeans were farmers, we need to settle their place of evolution. There were only two places where farming evolved the earliest. Both can beclaimed to

        be the place of origin of Indo-Europeans. One is Anatolia (Turkey, West Asia)and the second is India. Central Asia being a cold desert and grassland

        combination canhardly harbor pastoralist populations but not farming. We note a large number of words from Austro-Asiatic (Munda family) and Dravidian

        families in the Indo-European languages located as far away as West Europe. This is a biglist. Some of them have been mentioned above. This could be only

        possible if the Indo-European journey started in India, having evolved over ages in neighborhood of theselanguages. Hence we can conclude, on the basis of

        linguistic analysis that the Indo-European languages evolved in India from where they migrated out to various regions of the world.

        DNA studies in Origin of Cow, Pig, Buffalo, Mouse and Black Rat

        DNA studies of these animals, which are intimately associated with farming society, have shown that these animals were first domesticated in India, and that

        they have notarrived into India from anywhere else. Domestication of Cow History has been more a matter of beliefs of the people in academic establishment

        thanrepository of truth about the past. Thus it was fashionable to attribute each and every innovation in the human prehistory to West Asia, in which the

        most sacred places of Jews,Christians and Muslims are located. It was largely because of this attitude that cow was thought to have been domesticated forthe

        first time between 8000 and 10,000 years before present at West Asia from where itwas claimed to have migrated to everywhere including India with farming.

        During thatimaginary migration through Iran, the Indian breed of cow evolved from the West Asianbreed, they claimed.

        Thus such authors thought domesticated cow reached India fromWest Asia with farming. Regarding Zebu (Indian cow) in China, it was said that possibly wild

        ancestor of Zebu reached China, where they were domesticated locally in China.

        Anda bout African Zebu (African cow of Indian breed), it was said that Arabic traders took them to Africa from India in the last 700 years. Contradicting

        such views, Loftus et al (1994) came out with formidable genetic data provingan independent and indigenous domestication of cow in India.

        They even postulated migration of Indian cow through sea to Africa, which was later proved by further DNAstudies. Since then a large number of studies have

        supported this. The latest among suchworks is that of Hiendleder et al (2008), which re-confirmed that there are mainly twomatrilineal populations of

        domesticated cows in Eurasia. One is of Indian ancestry called Zebu orBos indicus, the other is supposedly of West Asian origin called Bos taurus.

        Independent domestication of cow and bull in India implied an independent origin of Indianfarming culture too. A recent study of DNA of Zebu by Chen (2009)

        has shown that Bos indicus or Zebu had beendomesticated only in India, and not at any other place, ruling out all skepticism in thematter, and proving that

        it was only after full domestication in India, that Zebu migrated toother parts of the world.Zebu cows have a prominent presence in China and Africa.

        Other researches indicated that Zebu genes are present in most of the taurine cow lineagesof Europe, West Asia, Africa and other parts of the world.Even

        those European and WestAsian cows which are taurine in all other respect have zebuine milk protein gene.Thisproves that Indian cows were the first to have

        been domesticated, and then they migratedto rest of the world with Neolithic migration, where local wild cows were domesticated.These data also prove that

        the migrated Indian cow (Zebu) hybridized all those lineages. Freemanet al (2006) found that Bos indicus was introduced into Africa by sea route and

        notthrough Suez.Moreover Indian cow has been found in Malagasy, which is accessible onlyby sea. On the basis of these, and many other facts, Zeder (2006)

        claims that India was theplace of origin of the first global economy. He asserts that there was an active maritimetrade in cow in the Indian Ocean from

        Indian west coast during prehistoric times. Now such views are gaining general acceptance. It was further noted that Zebu not onlymigrated from India to

        Africa, but also from Africa to Europe. It has been noted that AfricanZebu gene is interspersed in the entire range of taurine distribution in Europe and

        Africa(Meghen et al , 2000).Thus Zebu entered West Asia and Europe by two routes, one wasthrough Iran-Iraq route, and the other was from India to East Africa

        to West Asia to Europe.The second one may have been the earlier one. African Zebu cows are Indian in origin, and extend deep into Africa, while non-Zebu cows

        of Africa are generally considered either a domesticated wild breed or an imported taurine breed from West Asia. Earlier authors thought that Indian cows had

        been introduced intoAfrica by Arab traders within last one or two thousand years, and taurine cows had beenintroduced into Africa during spread of Neolithic

        from West Asia. But such a view has notbeen supported by DNA studies. West Asia’s claim to domestication of cows was further undermined by Bradley’s work.
        Bradley and colleagues (1996) studied domesticated taurine cow mtDNAs from Africa andEurope. They found that taurine cow lineages split from the European cow

        lineages muchbefore 22,000 years back (p. 5135). This is much before the West Asian 10,000 ybp date of Neolithic and claimed date of so-
        called ‘first domestication’ of cattle. This destroys the hypothesis of introduction first cows into Africa from West Asia.

        The authors not only refuted the West Asian origin of African taurine cow, but also found that the African cow lineages had a population expansion at 10,000

        ybp, while the date for such an expansion inEurope was 5,000 ybp. Hence African taurine lineage is older than the West Asian andEuropean ones. Thus, although

        it is too early to say so, we may express a possibility that the taurine cows had been domesticated for the first time in Africa, from where they

        reachedEurope and West Asia. Ibeagha-Awemu (2005) found that the genetic variability of Indian cows in Africa is fargreater than that of African local or
        taurinecows, especially in Nigeria and Cameroon. High variability within Indicine cow genes in Africa indicates a very old migration from India to Africa,

        before domestication of taurine cow. Thus time of introduction of Indian Zebu intoAfrica should be earlier than the molecular date of domestication of

        taurine cow in Africa,about 22,000 years back. Migration of Indian humans and Indian cows in large numbers tothe Eastern Horn of Africa at 22,000 ybp, and

        not via West Asia, indicates that the landroute to West Asia from India was closed because of aridity. Petraglia and many otherworkers have noted that this

        route was closed between about 30,000 ybp and 15,000 ybp.

        It has been claimed that, “After domestication, survival and diffusion of Bos taurus completely depended on humans; thus, the phylogeographic patterns of

        cattle geneticdiversity should mirror human activities or movements and may provide informationcomplementary to archaeological and anthropological data”.

        Other studies have also supported this view.Hence Zeder’s claim that there was a sea trade in cow to Africa and other parts of world seems to be true. If

        Neolithic revolution originated in the West Asia, why do we get evidence of Indian cattlefrom Ancient Egyptian paintings (4000 ybp) as well as Jordanian

        archeological remains? From Arabian littoral remains of 3rd millennium BCE, Indian cow paintings have been recovered.Hence we conclude that domestication of

        Indian cow and onset of IndianNeolithic are much older than is usually assumed. Spread of cows from India to other partsof world was of seminal value in

        prompting local domestications of taurine cows in otherparts of world. Post-LGM migration of domesticated cattle over land route, resulting in hybridization

        of Taurine and Indian cows in the area between India and Iraq has also been provengenetically, but that belongs to a later date than the Indian cow migration

        to East Africa by sea. Indian cow entered Africa by land route later by 3,500 ybp.Freeman’s data and distribution-map also indicate that there is a

        penetration of Indian cow in South-EastEurope. Cattle migration from India to Europe has been proven by other studies also. Some writings claim migration of

        Zebu to Italy between 30,000 ybp and 25,000.

        Linguistic evidence corroborates well with genetic findings.English word ‘cow’has cognatesin Sanskrit (gAva,gau, go), Farsi (gAw), German (kuh or kuhe),Dutch

        (koe), Danish (ko),etc. The lexical evidence also proves that India was the source of cow for China and SoutheastAsia. This is reflected in their words for

        cow– Pinyin Chinese gu, Cantonese ngau, and Thai koh. In Africa, Swahili word for cow ngombe. We know that‘m’is added to each nown as aprefix in Swahili

        language.

        Pig Domestication

        Mitochondrial DNA studies have shown that pig, although evolved 500,000 years back in the wild form in the Southeast Asia (which was a single piece of land

        then), its one branch cameto India long back. Then this branch radiated from India into many parts of the world in itswild form. It was from this wild stock

        of Indian radiation, that pigs have been domesticatedat several places in the world independently, the two most important and oldest beingSoutheast Asia and

        India.Buffalo DomesticationBellwood and many other authors think that paddy cultivation was not possible withoutbuffalo which likes water and mud. On the

        basis of physical features of wild buffalossurviving in world today Bellwood (1995) diagnosed that water buffalo was domesticatedfor the first time in India

        in Orissa and Jharkhand area (he actually wrote Bihar instead of Jharkhand, because then Jharkhand was a part of Bihar).Kumar (2007) found, on the basis of

        DNA studies, that buffalo was domesticated in India 6,500 years back, and from here it migrated to Southeast Asia and South China.This migration implies

        migration with farmersor traders, because domestic buffaloes cannot migrate alone.Buffalo’s association with rice agriculture suggests to us that this

        migration occurred as a farming related migration.

        Domestication of Barley

        It was claimed, like everything else, in the past that barley was domesticated for the firsttime in West Asia. But DNA research on barley revealed that it

        was actually domesticated byman in western India, somewhere near modern Pakistan in circa 10,000 B.P. from Indian wild barley, at southwestern ranges of

        Himalayas after the glacial ice cleared from thisregion.Badr (2000) found a rich diversity of barley varieties in the sub-Himalayan region. Diversity is an

        indicator of place of origin. Morell and Clegg (2007), on the basis of DNA analysissuggested that there were two centers of domestication of barley, one in

        the FertileCrescent and the other probably 1500 to 3000 kilometers to the East in western India. This study also indicated that although, the European

        varieties of barley originated from theFertile Crescent variant, the eastern nations received barley breeds from Indiandomestication. This leads us to

        conclude that barley was locally domesticated in the Indus Valley area in circa 10,000 B.P.DNA research by Azhanguvel and Komatsuda (2007) further indicated

        that there were eastern and western two independent centers of barley domestication in Eurasia.Saisho(2007) found the eastern edge of Iran plateau was the

        site of domestication of eastern barley.Jones (2008) finally clarified after studying the Ppd-H1 gene of barley from European farmlands that the agricultural

        variant of barley which has “flowering timeadaptation”, the essential adaptation for agriculture, did not originate in West Asia or the
        Fertile Crescent, but further east, probably in western part of India.Sang(2009) reviewed all the scientific papers presented so far and concluded that at

        about 10,000 B.P., barley cultivation started in western India independently from any external influence. Thus it is concluded by DNA study that barley was

        cultivated in India independent of anyWest Asian influence, and that the essential gene for farming, as noted by Jones, was found in Indian wild breeds only,

        indicating that Indian domestication event was primary and the West Asian one was secondary. This correlates well with finding of barley at Mehrgarh at 9,000

        to 10,000 years back.

        Domestication of Rice:

        There are two main sub-species of rice,Oryza sativa indica or Indian rice and Oryza sativa japonica or Chinese rice. It is now accepted that Oryza nivara,

        one of the wild species of rice from Central India, which is not found in China, is the immediate ancestor of cultivated rice Oryza sativa. O. nivara

        originated from another Indian wild species O. rufipogon, whose related wild breed is also found in Southeast Asia, but not in China. Domestication of
        Oryza sativa’s sub-species indica occurred in east India south of Himalayas; and that of the sub-species japonica occurred in South China. Chen (1993)
        found that ‘deletion type Cp DNA’ is found in ‘annual’ varieties of Oryza rufipogon , which is the ancestor of O. sativa indica. On the other hand

        non-deletion type CpDNA is found in wild “perennial rufipogon”. It was this wild perennial non-deletion type which gave birth to the Chinese breed of rice.

        Thus indica and japonica were domesticated separately and from two different strains of rufifipogon. Thus the Chinese rice is only distantly related to
        indica,and not and ancestor of indica. Moreover Chinese rice seems to have been domesticated much later than the indica. Yamane et al (2009) on the basis of

        another gene Hd6 supported the view that indica and japonica sub-species of rice had been domesticated independently.These works rule out earlier conjecture

        that rice cultivation originated in South China and was later transported to India with Austro-Asiatic farming tribes, the opposite is also shown in

        genetics. On the basis of sh4 gene Sang (2009) claimed that indica was domesticated earlier in Indiathan the Chinese rice, and that it was from the Indian

        domesticated breed that this gene(sh4) essential for farming was transmitted into Chinese variety. The sh4 gene stopsshattering of grains on ripening, and is

        crucial to domestication. Without this gene, the grains shatter and fall down from the rice plant as soon as they get ripe.This gene originated in

        domesticated Oryza sativa indica in India, once only, and has by nowintrogressed into all the paddy types by cross pollination and seed selection.Agriculture

        related words have been derived in both Sanskrit and Tamil. Thus the genetic evidence favours that India (Ganga Valley) was the first centre of rice

        cultivation with the help of ox and buffalo, and the Southeast Asians learned this from India,and cultivated their own wild rice. The process then spread to

        China, whose cultivated ricestill contains many wild features and later to West Asia, Europe and beyond.

        Mouse and rat

        Mouse and rat are two different species of rodents. Incidentally, both of them originated inIndia and migrated out about the same time with agriculture.

        Although archaeologicalevidence for agriculture starts from 10,000 years back, the black rat migration out of Indiatook place at 20,000 years back and mouse

        migration took place 15,000 years back(molecular dates). Domestic mice (Mus) have lived in and around human dwellings feeding on human storedfood and food

        debris for ages. In the beginning Muslived only in north India since 900,000years back,as a commensal of Homo erectus and later Homo sapiens sapiens

        (Ferris,1983).It diverged into three principal species,viz.Mus musculus domesticus, M. musculus musculus and M. castaneus by 500,000 years back (Geraldis,

        2008; Din, 1996). When Homo sapiens sapiens inhabited India in about 100,000 ybp or earlier, these species of mice became adapted to live in and around

        human dwellings (Boursot, 1993). Miceprobably felt safer in human surroundings. Tsutim et al (2008) found that human environment gives protection to sparrows

        from being predated by carnivorous birds and animals. The same applies to mice. Groves (1984) found that many types of mice and rats had been introduced into

        Island Southeast Asia from India together with rice agriculture. Mus caroli, Mus cervicolor and Rattus argentiventer are found in Southeast Asia north of

        Malay. They are invariably restricted to wet rice growing areas.Mus dunni , a small mice, native of northeast India and Rattus nitidus, a native of Nepal,

        are rice-field pests of Indonesia. These all species originated in India. Bandicoot-rat (Bandicota bengalensis) a rice-field pest in Indonesia originated in

        Mahanadi delta in association with buffalo.We have already discussed buffalo domestication andmigration from India. The other sub-species of mice which

        migrated out of India to Southeast Asia is Muscastaneus. This species isadept at digging holes in soil. Probably they learned to do this in a bid to eat

        tubers and sweet potatoes which grew in abundance inIndian soil.Mus caroli is another species of Southeast Asian mice which dwells in rice fields.

        Black rat (Rattus rattus) is another species which originated in India and then migrated toother parts of the world. From India it migrated to West Asia and

        then to Europe.Rattus reached West Asia by 20,000 years before present, a date which is earlier than domestic mouse migration.Other migration of this species

        was from India to Madagaskar. We can guess from the dates of Ganga Valley Pottery Neolithic that Pre-Pottery Neolithic may have started in India about

        13,000 ybp to 14,000 ybp. We are forced to assume that roughly the same time PPN migration out of India to West Asia started.Mus domesticus migration out of

        India to West Asia must be a direct result of Neolithic migration. Date of migration of Indian male lineage J2b from northern Ganga Valley to West Asia

        (13,800 yearsback) coincides with that.Mus domesticus reached the Eastern Mediterranean basin inabout 10,000 ybp.The route map of mice migration as mapped by

        the geneticists isexactly the same as that of human migration. Rajabi-Maham et al (2008) studied mice DNA from Iran up to Europe. They found that after

        reaching the Fertile Crescent mice expansion toward Europe and Asia Minor took at least two routes, tentatively termed the Mediterranean and the

        Bosphorus/Black Sea routes.They found that another domesticated animal goat also followed the same routes almostthe same time about 12,000 years back.

        Thus goat and mice migrated along with expanding farming. Protracted commensality of Mus m. domesticus in India indicates that Homo sapiens sapiens
        was doing some primitive farming or foraging and storing food since much before actual onset of Neolithic migration. Indians of that era had possibly a

        settled life and home and they depended on cereal, fruit and tuber diet.Cognate words for ‘mouse’ are found exclusively within the Indo-European family of

        languages (English ‘mouse’,Latin mus, Sanskrit mUSaka, muSika, mUs, muSka,Pahlavi musk), indicating expansion of domestic mouse out of India with migrating

        Neolithic culture of the Indo-European speakers of north India.

        Migrations and Ecology

        Large scale human migrations have taken place mostly out of compulsion. As the numberincreases, there is a lot of competition for food and space within the

        members of thespecies. Causes stress. To avoid stress, members of population disperse to new ecologicalniche (Gliessman 2006).Groube (1996) pays attention to

        carrying capacity model, andderives on ecological grounds that any migration would not have been possible from theFertile Crescent (West Asia) to either

        south or east as those had already been colonized well by Homo sapiens sapiens.Hence due to ecological factors alone the population of Levant and Fertile

        Crescent had no choice but to migrate only to the north or west. Hence ecology too rules out population spread from West Asia to Iran and India, rather the

        opposite from India, to West Asia, to Central Asia and finally Central Europe.In 2009 the analysis of ancient DNA from skeletons suggests that Europe’s first

        farmers were not the descendants of Stone Age hunter-gatherers in the region, but were probably migrants who came into major areas of central and eastern

        Europe about 7,500 years ago, bringing domesticated plants and animals with them.The research involved the analysis of DNA from hunter-gatherer and early

        farmer burials, and compared those to each other and to the DNA of modern Europeans.They conclude that there is little evidence of a direct genetic link

        between the hunter-gatherers and the early farmers, and 82 percent of the types of mtDNA found in the hunter-gatherers are relatively rare in central

        Europeans today.The team from Mainz University in Germany, together with researchers from UCL (University College London) and Cambridge, found that the first

        farmers in central and northern Europe could not have been the descendents of the hunter-gatherers that came before them.The new study confirms what Joachim

        Burger’s team showed in 2005; that the first farmers were not the direct ancestors of modern European. “In total, this means that more than 80 percent of

        European Y chromosomes descend from incoming farmers. In contrast, most maternal genetic lineages seem to descend from hunter-gatherers,” said Dr Patricia

        Balaresque, first author of the study. The invention of farming is perhaps the most important cultural change in the history of modern humans.

        The Central Role of India in Populating Europe and Asia:Study of Human Maternal Lineages

        Earlier, when the Out of Africa theory came, it was thought that man came out of Africa through Suez and West Asia. That made people and scholars, alike,

        believe that West Asia was the source of all further populations of Europe, Asia and beyond. This assumption coupled with findings at Jericho and other sites

        in West Asia made authors believe that farming originated at the West Asia, from where it travelled to Europe and India. While farming went to South Europe

        with Indo-European language, it went to India with Dravidian language—they thought (Colin Renfrew). Thus Renfrew suggested that four major language families

        of the world–Indo-European, Dravidian, Altaic and Afro-Asiatic —originated in the West Asia. He thought that their common precursor was Proto-Nostratic, the

        ancestor of Nostratic macro-family, which was located in the West Asia, sometime before 10,000 B.P.(p. 80), he suggested. But it was realized soon that the

        West Asian route of exit from Africa was untenable. By 1998 Cavalli-Sforza and his team reached the conclusion that from Africa, Homo sapiens sapiens
        came out quite early and only once to reach India. In India that population expanded, had linguistic and cultural development, and then it was from India

        that the restof the world was populated. This finding has been further supported by a large number of extensive DNA studies by Quintana-Murci,Kivisild,

        Bamshad et al. 2001; Kivisild et al, Metspalu et al, Endicott et al , 2003; Forster, 2004; Forster and Matsumara, 2005;Macauley, 2005; Thangaraj et al
        , 2005). Thus latest consensus is that there was a single exit out of Africa to India along coastal routevery early in history of human evolution about

        100,000 years back, after which all the areas of world were populated by migration from India. Migration maps made by authors likeOppenheimer (2003) and

        Metspalu (2004) on the basis of DNA studies showed that Indiaoccupied centre-space of human evolution and dispersal. Metspalu et al reaffirmed that“Southern

        Coastal Route” to India was suggested by the phylogeography of mtDNA haplogroup M. The oldest Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineage is M. Metspalu noted that M’
        is virtually absent from North Africa and Near East. This undermined the likelihood of the initial colonization of Eurasia taking a route through Egypt and

        Suez. Metspalu further noted that the split between West and East Eurasian mtDNAs occurredbetween the Indus Valley and Southwest Asia, and not in the Central

        Asia. This contradicted the earlier scheme in which Central Asia had been considered the central place for furtherexpansion, branching and further migration

        of mankind once man had left Africa. Metspaluand his colleagues explained:“It is in the South Asia that local branches of the mtDNA tree(haplogroups given in

        the spheres) arose (circa 40,000–60,000 B.P.); and from there theywere further carried into the interiors of the continents of Asia and Europe (thinner black
        arrows).” They further noted that the “northern route” –from northeast Africa over Sinaito the Near East–was used much later (about 30,000 to 17,000 B.P.) by

        East African people.

        The first migration out of India, which took place about 85,000 years back, was to theSoutheast Asia. Man soon reached Australia from Southeast Asia, the

        migrations greatlyfacilitated by Sunda shelf, which is submerged in sea but less than 100 meters deep at themost. India and Sri Lanka as well as New Guinea

        and Australia were also joined by land. Sucha view in favour of coastal migration of humans was earlier mooted in 1962 by evolutionary geographer Carl

        Saucer, who had explained on the basis of ‘ecological niche’ that forest and savanna (grasslands) were least likely to be human home during early days; and

        sea shoreswere the only likely place for human home (p. 42).A recent review article by Endicott et al (2007) clearly concludes that India was the central

        player in cultural evolution of man and his migration.

        Recent Migrations of Male Lineages after Last Glacial Maximum

        When it became clear on the basis of matrilineally transmitted DNA lineages, that West Asians and Central Asians or any region out of India has not

        contributed to Indian gene pool,then it was claimed, if not matrilineally, then patrilineally, Indians have descended from Central Asians (Aryans) and West

        Asians (Dravidians). Descendants of all men who originally expanded out of India, started coming back to India from Central Asia, West Asia, Tibet,China,

        Southeast Asia etc once Last Glacial ended, they claimed. Literature was flooded by imaginary stories of human male lineage arrivals. Thus the story became

        changed now. Now it was said that although matrinineally, Indians, the castes, tribes and the linguistic groups,have been there in India since 100,000 years

        back, yet most of them were fathered by arriving males from different directions, who introduced the various languages spoken in India today. From West Asia

        came Dravidian speaking fathers and brought barley and wheat agriculture,as well as bull, cow, goat and sheep. From Central Asia came Aryan fathers with

        horse, and from South China via Southeast Asia came Munda speaking fathers with rice agriculture.Each migration was wrongly identified with a Y-chromosomal

        male lineage. Thus West Asia to India, it was J2 and L1; from Central Asia to India was R1a; and from South China to India it was O2a. But fortunately

        conjectures cannot survive for ever in science. Latest researches have clarified most of the issues which were of vital importance to India.

        Origin and Migration of the Y Chromosomal Haplogroup R1a out of India after LGM: ********************************* 2dna quotes about caste, aryan, 2 mtnda

        rose in india, ********************adddd

        Y-chromosome is found in the males and is transmitted from father to son. DNA of Y-chromosomes can be used to trace male lineages. In technical language, a

        main lineage is called haplogroup. We are now able to identify lineage of any individual, and correctly tell the ancestral relationship, or time of

        separation of the two individual’s common ancestor,with any other individual with the help of DNA identification techniques. It was found that Y-chromosomal

        DNA HG R1a is found in good numbers in India, Central Asia and Europe. This prompted Wells et al (2001) to suggest that R1a (M17), and R2 which is also found

        in India and Central Asia alike, are Aryan DNAs. He suggested that Aryans carrying R1a DNA entered Europe and India from Central Asia. Cordaux et al
        (2004), on the basis of presence of both hunter-gatherer and agriculturist societies living side-by-side in modern India suggested that original Indians were

        hunter gatherer tribes, and agriculture arrived into India by “demic diffusion” from outside.NoDNA evidence was presented, an underlying theme of 18th

        century racist views which has been the basis for the past 200years of Euro-centric views. Yet this became a reference work for all future workers.Although

        Cordaux had conducted a large DNA study of Indian caste and tribes a year backwhich had shown that the Indian castes and tribes share the same gene pool, and

        that they are more closely related with East Asians than with Europeans and West Asians.Cordaux (2004) argument was adopted by Regueiro et al (2006) trying

        to envision a wave of migration of R1a starting from Turkey to Central Asia to India then to Iran (p. 140). The Aryan Invasion theory of Wells (2001) was

        contradicted by some leading genomescientists of the world, including Sahoo, Kivisild, Metspalu, Villems and their colleagues. On the basis of a large study

        (Sahooet al , 2006, p. 845), they declared that the Central Asian origin of sub-haplogroup R1a and Aryans cannot be substantiated at all on any account of

        facts.They held, “The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to

        close scrutiny and totally rejected. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the majority of the

        Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H.”

        (p.847) They found that R2, H and F* are Indian in origin, and it is from India that they have migrated to Central Asia. Their data suggested an indigenous

        origin for Aryan DNA R1a. Another team working on the same topic included Sengupta, King, Cavalli-Sforza, Underhilland colleagues. They showed that R

        (especially R1a1 and R2) diversity in India is indigenous in origin and does not support hypothesis of immigration from Central Asia or anywhere outside. R1a

        prevalence is not only high in Indo-European speaking Punjab, south Pakistan and Ganga Valley, but also in Chenchu and Koya tribes of south India (Kivisild
        et al.2003). Oppenheimer (2003) also had supported Indian origin of R1a which is also called M17 in genetic circles. He wrote, “And sure enough we find

        highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, north India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse

        in South Asia than in Central Asia but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as

        amarker of a ‘male Aryan Invasion of India.’ Study of the geographical distribution and thediversity of genetic branches and stems again suggests that

        Ruslan, along with his son M17,arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India”. Finally Underhill and colleagues (2009) presented a detailed study of R1a

        lineages. They found that R1a is oldest in India. This lineage started expanding from Gujarat about 16,000years back. By 14,000 years back or earlier, it

        reached the Ganga Valley and Indus Valley.Then people carrying R1a genes migrated out of India, through Afghanistan and Tajikistan,reaching Central Asia.

        From Central Asia they entered East Europe. They inhabited the Pontic-Caspian area. Then they populated those areas which are inhabited today by Slavicand

        Baltic speaking people. Genetics today rules out any possibility of any significant migration from Central Asia to India, and supports regular migration from

        India to Central Asia in all ages of humanprehistory. A large number of lineages of Indian origin—R1a, R2, H, F*, C5, L etc. are found in the Central Asia,

        but Central Asian lineages are not found in India.

        Migration of Lineage J2 and Farming

        There is another male lineage which expanded after the Last Glacial Maximum and which became controversial over last ten years in the genetic,

        anthropological and linguistic circlesbecause of its wide range of spread spanning from India to South Europe. This is haplogroupJ2 (M172). It is found in

        South Europe, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and India in good frequency. It was noted by King and Underhill (2002) that in Europe and in Levant, Turkey, Iraq and Iran

        this haplogroup is found in those areas which also have archaeological evidence of early farming, figurine, clay sealing stamps and painted pottery.Chiaroni
        et al (2008) showed that the haplogroup J2 is found principally in those areas of West Asia which have a good rainfall.This area is termed the Fertile

        Crescent. It is indirect evidence that this lineage came from an area which had a good rainfall, and that these people subsisted on monsoon economy. These

        findings sparked wild speculations. One group of authors thought that presence of J2in India indicates arrival of Indo-European speakers with farming to

        Mehrgarh and North India. Other group suggested that J2 was a marker of the Dravidian speakers of the WestAsia (Elam region) to north India, who were master

        farmers, and who developed Mehrgarhand Indus farming societies. None of the two conjectures were taken seriously, yet it became a common belief in the

        genetic circles that J2 is West Asian in origin and arrived into India with farming. Lately, J2 (M172) lineage has been studies in India in detail. Its study

        in India shows that its frequency is 19% in Dravidian speaking castes, and only 11% in Aryan speaking castes. Among the tribes, its frequency is 11%.Hence

        its arrival through northwest Indian corridor into India is ruled out completely. Because it was found that in the northwest India its frequency is less than

        that in south Indian caste population. Its good presence in all segments of Indian society proves that either this haplogroup originated in India, or this

        haplogroup is fixed from very old days in India, possibly since Pleistocene, and not just 8,000 years back.

        Sengupta and colleagues (2006) found that age of J2b (M12), which is a branch of J2, is about 17,600 years to 10,000 years (mean age 13,800 years) in India.

        On the other hand the same figures for Europe for J2 were only 8,700 years and 4,300 years (mean 6,500 years). That means age of J2b, a descendant of J2, in

        West Asia and Europe is further less than 6500years. As mentioned before, conclusive evidence of the arrival of farmers into europe bringing with them

        farming and agriculture between 6,000 and 10,000years ago. The date of J2b expansion in India is thus much before the supposed date of onset of farming into

        India. This is enough evidence to suggest that J2 and J2b originated in India. Genetic diversity is a marker of age of a haplogroup in any area. HG J2

        exhibits a genetic diversity of 0.702 and lineage diversity of 0.999 in India (Trivedi et al 2008).

        Origin of J2 also must have been in India can be said by having a look at Table 3 of Trivedi. The genetic diversity of J2 in the table is 0.702,which is more

        than or almost equal to genetic diversities of other haplogroups considered Indian in origin but also found in West Asia or Central Asia viz.P, F, H, L, K,

        K2, R1a, C and R2. Moreover, there are other DNA lineages found in good numbers in West Asia like R1*, R1b3,J*, J2f, I, G and E which are in total more than

        53% population of west Asia. These are virtually absent from India (Sahoo, p. 844). Had people migrated from West Asia to India,these haplogroups would also

        have arrived into India. This evidence proves that J2 did not arrive from West Asia, because no lineage can ever migrate without other lineages also

        migrating along with it from the place of origin or expansion. On the other hand nearly all of the Indian male lineages like F*, L1, H (M-69), K2, C5, C*,

        R1a (M-17) etc. are found in West Asia, proving a definite Indian migration to West Asia. The Absence of the HIV-1 protective Delta ccr5 allele in ethnic

        populations of India, which is found in West Asia, and Central Asia too, is absent from India (Majumder and Dey, 2001).Thus on no account, any migration from

        West Asia to India can be supported.

        Sengupta et al noted that frequency and variance of J2b2 are very high in Uttar Pradeshnear Nepal boarder. Regarding place of maximum frequency and variance

        of J2b2, they remind, “It should be noted that numerous Mesolithic sites have been observed in this region (Kennedy, 2000).” Sengupta’s and Trivedi’s studies

        certainly indicate that lineage J2 originated in India. It is only a matter of time. In near future we expect to get more extensive report unequivocally

        confirming originof HG J2 in India and that Indian Neolithic migrated to West Asia with J2 and other lineages. Sengupta (2006) showed that J2 is well

        distributed in Indian population.Sengupta et al (2006) found that the haplogroup J2 had a quite high variance, and hence deep time-depthin Indian tribes and

        castes too. Moreover the frequency is higher in the Dravidian speakingsouth Indians (19%) than the Indo-European speaking north Indians (11%). This destroys

        the Aryan migration into India from West Asia hypothesis of Bellwood (2003 and 2005). The inference what we can derive from Sengupta and colleagues study’s

        data is that J2 haplogroup originated in India during Last Glacial Maximum, and migrated out of India when climate permitted. J2 is 18.7% in south Pakistan

        (Ancient India), the central place of Indus civilization. Lineage J2 and its derivatives are 23% in Iran and 22.2% in Turkey. (Regueiro et al.2006).But their

        variances are less than in India. Semino (2004) gives 18,000 ybp as the time of origin of J2. The variance was also high indicating indigenous origin of the

        haplogroup in India.J2 as well as its sub-clade J2b2 show a decreasing variance from India to the Balkans.

        Age of J2 as per Semino’s calculation is 18,000 ybp.Age of J2b (M12) in Anatolia is 8,600years (Cinnioglu, 2004, Table 2, p. 131).And that of its sub-lineage

        J2b2 (M241) is 13,800ybp (Sengupta, 2006, p. 216). Although Sengupta does not provide age of J2b, yet it must be older than its descendant’s age 13,800 years

        ago. Thus presence of J2b in India is far earlier than in Anatolia, where J2b is seen at the time of Neolithic at 8,600 years back. Another lineage L1, which

        is a branch of L, is found in India, Iran and West Asia. This finding had prompted some authors to write that L1 is a marker of Neolithic migration to India

        with Dravidian language, to Mehrgarh and Indus Valley. These authors resurrected the theory of Elamite origin of Dravidian. Sahoo and colleagues (2006)

        studied the Indian Y chromosomallineages and found that R1a, L1, F and H are of Indian origin.Not only Sahoo’s but all recent works have completely ruled out

        the possibility that L1 is a marker of West Asian origin of Dravidian speaking people of India. Current opinion is that L1 is of Indian origin and is well

        distributed in castes and tribes of both north and south India. But it is absent from East Indian states. Hence Sahoo et al rule that,“The near absence of L

        lineages within the IE speakers from Bihar (0%), Orissa (0%), and West Bengal (1.5%) further suggests that the current distribution of Y haplogroups in India

        is associated primarily with geographic rather than linguistic or culturaldeterminants.” (p. 847) On the other hand Y-chromosomal DNA distribution in West

        Asia and South Europe is surely associated with language and culture. Association of language or culture with a DNA lineage indicates immigration from

        outside,and non-association indicates an autochthonous origin within a geographical area. While Indian lineages qualify to be original of India, the West

        Asian and European lineages qualify to be immigrants to their present country, barring a few exceptions, farmers arrived into Europe, with language.

        Frequency of Y-haplogroup J2, which is a marker of farming and pottery, increases beyond the northwest boundaries of India, it has a slightly lower frequency

        in India compared to Iran, Iraq or Turkey because a large number of Y-chromosomal haplogroups like R1a, R2, J2, L, O,C, F*, H exist in India side by side,

        which evolved in India over last 70,000 years, whereas in Europe this was not the case with less Y-chromosomal haplogroups, indicator of less diversity

        therfore the recepient and of recent arrival.We are aware that India is a primary source of human migration, both male and female, to Eurasia. Hence she

        harbours the largest number of autochthonous Y-chromosomal haplogroups. The frequency of J2 increases in Tajikistan, Iran, Iraq and Turkey because of founder

        effect of an arriving population in a sparsely populated area. It is useful to remember that during the Last Glacial Maximum, Iran and West Asia had become

        almost completely depopulated. Hence whichever lineages arrived there after LGM, they grew upfast with a high frequency. This phenomenon is called founder

        effect of a gene.

        India as a Source of Neolithic: Correlation between Genographic and Archaeological Findings

        Thus it seems to be settled by now that J2, J2b, R1a and R1b originated and migrated out of India to Iran and from there to West Asia–more markedly to the

        Fertile Crescent (Kurdistan,Turkey and Levant). This finding becomes more relevant in light of latest archaeologicalfindings which show presence of Pottery

        Neolithic in the Ganga Valley in India at about9,000 to 10,000 years before present, i.e. at least 3000 years before West Asian Pottery Neolithic culture

        (Sharma 1978; Tewari 2006, 2008; Govt. of UP Communique). At that very time (9,000 ybp) we get Non-Pottery Neolithic in western part of India (now Pakistan)

        at Mehrgarh, which was supported by well trained artisans and domesticated cattle (Jarrige1984).Coppa (2006) found that agriculturist people of Mehrgarh

        suffered from dental caries, probably due to cereal diet, which had been treated by drilling by dentistry practiceas early as 9000 ybp.Sceptics have claimed

        that cereal grains recovered from 9000 ybpIndian archaelogical sites had been gathered from wild (Fuller, blogspot, 2009), and theymay be entitled to claim

        that dental caries might have been caused by eating wild cereals;but the drilling treatment of root canal could not have been done by a wild food-gatherer

        dentist at 9000 years before present. The World Dental Federation Congress recognizes today that their profession originated in India in 9000 years before

        present (Pearn 2008). Although Mehrgarh and Koldihwa-Lahuradewa cultures were contemporary, presence of pottery at Koldihwa and Lahuradewa, and their

        absence from Mehrgarh indicate that Ganga Valle Neolithic was older than Mehrgarh and was probably a source of Mehrgarh Neolithic.Hence Ganga Valley appears

        to be the earliest source of Neolithic. Its genetic correlation becomes apparent when we find in Sahoo’s maps that Ganga Valley has the densest distribution

        of R1a (Sahooet al.Fig. 2, p. 846). Possibly because of Post-LGM founder effec tR1a occupied the centre-space of the Ganga Valley. A Pre-Pottery-Neolithic

        migration out of Ganga Valley reaching west India (Mehrgarh) before 9,000 ybp can be postulated on the basis of data available so far. It is possible that

        this wave of migration is represented today by R1a distribution in the area. J2 migration seems to have occurred after R1a migration because of J2’s regular

        association with pottery in West Asia. The epicentre of J2 migration was probably 11,000 ybp to 10,000ybp Ganga Valley. Y-chromosomal haplogroup J2 has been

        found to be regularly associated with areas where Neolithic farming is recorded in archaeological excavations (Di Giakomoet al.2004). Thus J2 entered with

        agriculture into south Europe and Mediterranean islands from Levant and Anatolia (Seminoet al.2004). J2 is not only a marker of agriculture but also of

        painted pottery and figurines spreading from West Iran into South Europe through Levant/Anatolia (King and Underhill 2002). And both of these, pottery and

        agriculture, occur together for the first time in the Ganga Valley at 9000 ybp (Tewari et al , Sharma, G. R.).

        Conclusion

        Recent archaeo-linguistic studies point out that the Indo-European languages originated at a place which had agriculture. Evidence further indicates that

        this place was no farther than the place of evolution of Austro-Asiatic languages and Dravidian languages, because words from these latter languages are

        found in the oldest core vocabulary of the Proto-Indo-European language. Coupled with this, recent archaeo-genetic studies of rice, barley, cow,pig, buffalo

        and mice prove their origin in India. This supports an Indian origin of farming,and subsequent spread to the east and west of India. These studies reject the

        theory of Aryan arrival to India from Central Asia (or West Asia), Dravidian arrival from the West Asiaand Austro-Asiatic arrival from the Southeast Asia (or

        China). Finally human DNA studies rule out any migration to India from Central Asia or West Asia. On the other hand there is DNA evidence of human migration

        from India to Central Asia, Europe, West Asia and Southeast Asia.

  13. arjen

    robert lindsey it looks like you need a tan…

    Robert lindsey is he the one whos wearing a nazi uniform teaching the rest about religous freedoms..lmao

    lol comparing white nazism with hinductva..lmaooo…..white people are turly as shallow as their culture, heritage…

    like i said EUROPEANS had already accepted indian superiority when they looted, and stole from them..

    I dont think you steal from poor people , indiann or not, not really believeable that you would rob from poor people, right lol…so the briitsh already accepted the superiority of india, when they landed and robbed robbed robbed.

    and then spend the next 200years lying about their culture and origins, ((unless the indians were superior, otherwise you wounldnt bother spendin so much time and effort if they where inferior, i mean whats the point, ….so its easssyy to see why so many white people spend so much time in convincing themselvs and others,, that the people they stole from, the wealth they hoarded, the diamonds they cherisdhed where NOT FROM A SUPERIOR PEOPLE…..))…lmaooo hahahahhahahhahh HA/

    • All right elephant jockey, you’re banned.

      • Dota-Player

        Well Robert, how do you like my analysis of Hindutvadis now? See how their grotesque ideologies play out in an argument? Are you beginning to see a pattern? You shouldn’t have banned him, it would have been educational.

        • They can’t call me names. These Hindutvas just can’t seem to abide by the comments policy.

          Your analysis is fantastic. It’s top notch and right on.

        • Arjen

          im not banned. i look forward to hearing your PRO MACALEUY education taking front stage, as i breakdown your petty, racist, intolerant mind .

        • Arjen

          Well Robert, how do you like my analysis of Hindutvadis now?

          ahh the master and slave relationship in digital form…

          To make an indian beleive that the west is superior..THAT SHOULD haunt you for ever… that you DOTA are slave to a mis=-education you THANK THE WHITES FOR..lmaooooo hahahahahah…

          Go an lick THOMAS MACLAUEY ASSS… and then tell us were WRONG..lmaooo ahahahahah……

          YESTERDAY HE WAS A SAVAGE TO THE WHITES….and today he sides with teh whties..lmaooo..hahhah..its amazing what biased, racist, miseducation can do….I mean the germans themsevles through nazism fully accepted that as truths…

          lol…DOTA AN INDIAN who doesnt question the integrity, the authourity of his own CHRISTIAN ENGLISH TALIBAN EDUCATION..lol….

          now doesnt that SAY IT ALL…??…..

          Thomas maclauey wanted to create n indian in color WHICH YOU ARE !!!…and through mis=education, lies and deceit of a christian English education he will be english in though, opinion and taste..the nazis are now teaching the jews..lmaooo

          Go and check your own intelligence before you question me, I went to a one the best universities in london, and somehow doubt you have any knowledge of the west, other than your racist christian tect books, and the english media right..lmaooo…YEH you truly a fool….

          This is DOTA…

          ”LOOK LOOK LINDSAY…LOOK HOW I HAVE CRITIQUED HINDUVTA FOR YOU!!!!…….lmaooo…..”

          Now pat me on the back please!!!….ILL GIVE YOU A SLAP …AND LINDAY CAN GIVE THE SAVAGE (YOU) A PATT ON THE BACK!!

      • Bay Area Guy

        like i said EUROPEANS had already accepted indian superiority when they looted, and stole from them..

        Really, I’m curious as to how these inferior Europeans managed to conquer and rule over these superior and more numerous Indians. Care to explain?

        Oh, wait, you’re banned!

        HAND!

        (don’t mean to steal your thunder, Robert ;-))

        • Wade in MO

          One wonders if he’s actually read any modern scholarship (the only scholorship that’s actually scholarly) on the European middle ages. We hear this sort of garbage about the supposed “dark ages” all the time. At first it came from protestants and liberals, but now it’s coming more and more from these third world morons. I wish some of these diphits would actually read something that’s been written based on research instead of some moron ideology.

          Here are some really good books for those who want to know:
          http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Modern-Science-Middle-Ages/dp/0521567629/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301201864&sr=8-1

          http://www.amazon.com/Ties-that-Bound-Families-Medieval/dp/0195045645/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301201924&sr=1-1

          http://www.amazon.com/Beginnings-Western-Science-Philosophical-Institutional/dp/0226482057/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301201897&sr=1-1

          http://www.amazon.com/History-Byzantine-State-Society/dp/0804726302/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301201976&sr=1-1

          I would tell this Hindutva dipshits what I tell all morons: Books are for reading not eating.

        • We went straight from the Dark Ages to the modern era? WTF man. That’s nuts. The Middle Ages and the Renaissance never happened?

        • Wade in MO

          “We went straight from the Dark Ages to the modern era? WTF man. That’s nuts. The Middle Ages and the Renaissance never happened?”

          That;s not what I meant. There wasz a period after the fall of the WESTERN roman empire where western europe was chaotic and filled with plague and violoence. The Eastern Roman Empire existed and flourished at times for 1000 years after that. Things started getting better around 800 and more complex civilization started to come around. Then the Vikings hit northern europe. The viking eventually settled down and around 1100-1200 things really start happening. These are the “high middle ages” of scholastic philosophy and gothing architechture and such. Sscholars like Oresme and Albertus Magnus start coming in after this time. A little later men like Chaucer and Dante are writing. The period is really worth reading about. I’m not saying it’s modern times, but it’s not the stereotypical image most americans have of cavemen huddling in churches getting the plauge.

        • Wade in MO

          Here is a short biolgraphy of one of my favorite guys from the middle ages, I bet 99.5%+ of americans have never even heard of him.

          http://www.nicole-oresme.com/seiten/oresme-biography.html

          Here’s another:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus#Natural_philosopher

        • Arjen

          So you think the evolution of warfare is white man greatest achievement…..

          i rekon cos of their inferior white position, they invested heavily in warfare, to suppres the superior indian people.

          so if we take your line of logic, the nazis were superior, the islamic taliban are superior right lmaooo…and today this idiot will talk to me about morals, ethics and civilisation….

          slavery was also evolution right.?

          The whites adorned themselves with the work and effort of the indian jewelers, priceless treasure from an inferior people right, lol,…..

          According to you your sister faith the islamic taliban are very superior people.right?..when they invaded spain with moorish empire, but what did the white people call them ???….yeh thats right savages..

          and what do we call you white people…thats right savages. For you evolution of guns, warfare, slavery is an achievement of the mind, an inferior mind right!!

          I can tell!!..lol

        • Anthropologist

          “Really, I’m curious as to how these inferior Europeans managed to conquer and rule over these superior and more numerous Indians. Care to explain?”
          India was in decline during that period, and colonization made it worse, to the point where India was unable to defend itself. That plus they used race as a tactice to split the people, that made it easier to manipulate those poor Indians. Military wise, India was backwards as well at that time, making them vulnerable.

  14. Dota-Player

    Robert

    You heard about the California textbook controversy? That was a small taste of Hindutva in the US. They rode upon a wave of genuine grievance and then used it in an attempt to white wash Indian history in American textbooks. I hope Americans realize just how serious that issue was and its implications. Hindutva is a foreign ideology (not even a religion) and should not be allowed to dictate its propaganda to your children.

    • Yes I have. That was just terrible! We barely escaped from that one by the skin of our noses. They sneaked up on us and tried to put that crap into our textbooks, and then the fuckers sued the state when they lost.

      Pitiful!

      I am glad that the Board did not back down in the face of their bullying.

    • Arjen

      WAIT..what did you say ..

      you dont quote colonial literature!!!!

      SO the basis of modern western literature is NOT FROM COLONIAL LITERATURE, or from biased ancient texts,..ohh kay i see what you saying now is that colonial history DOESNT make up the western world….strange assumption to make!!

      You talk about going to western univerisity yet you tell me not to look at the preceeding 400years of colonial rule around the world…LMAOOOOOOOO…hahahahahhhhahah That made my day!!!!…

      so what your saying is the WORK, THE LITERATURE OF THE PAST600YEARS…did not have any effect on western thinking ..LMAOOOOOO HAHAHAHAH.. So greeks, roman texts, history of the salve trade, the colonial genocdie around the world, JUST DOESNT HAVE THE MERIT right??.looooooooooooooooooooooooollll….

      Someones in a corner!!!! who uses western academia as a source but then tell me to reject colonial and western imperial academia…wow thats WEIRD YOU SHOULD ASK ME TO DO THAT!! WHY??…mmm could it be the pro western macaleyite education you had…Brainwashed from a very young age, I suppose you would be the jew who take lesson from nazis..right lol…and then critise me!!..loool…

      you TRULY ARE A DOMINATED PERSON.!!!…indian in looks western in taste and opinopn…HERE IT PEOPLE..the master and slave relationship!!

      ARE YOU REALLY SAYING THAT???

      so you going to erase 400years of colonial literture from white society that makes up what most educate themselve in western universities.

      Like i said tell me HOW hinduvta is the same as white nazi and islamic racism..and give world examples please…..

      Dota You macauley LOVE CHILD……you TRULY are a dominated person today he sides with them through mis-education, and yesterday they where calling him a savage…lmaoooo

      Still amazed that the research article you have totally missed, but instead with your PRO WESTERN RACIST MACAAULEY EDUCATION…you devote your time in proving the west is right…

      hmmm what was the ethos of SIR THOMAS MACLAUEY/././to make an indian beleive the west is superior …LMAOOOO….

      ‘to make beleive’

    • Arjen

      WAIT..what did you say ..

      you dont quote colonial literature!!!!

      SO the basis of modern western literature is NOT FROM COLONIAL LITERATURE, or from biased ancient texts,..ohh kay i see what you saying now is that colonial history DOESNT make up the western world….strange assumption to make!!

      You talk about going to western univerisity yet you tell me not to look at the preceeding 400years of colonial rule around the world…LMAOOOOOOOO…hahahahahhhhahah That made my day!!!!…

      so what your saying is the WORK, THE LITERATURE OF THE PAST600YEARS…did not have any effect on western thinking ..LMAOOOOOO HAHAHAHAH.. So greeks, roman texts, history of the salve trade, the colonial genocdie around the world, JUST DOESNT HAVE THE MERIT right??.looooooooooooooooooooooooollll….

      Someones in a corner!!!! who uses western academia as a source but then tell me to reject colonial and western imperial academia…wow thats WEIRD YOU SHOULD ASK ME TO DO THAT!! WHY??…mmm could it be the pro western macaleyite education you had…Brainwashed from a very young age, I suppose you would be the jew who take lesson from nazis..right lol…and then critise me!!..loool…

      you TRULY ARE A DOMINATED PERSON.!!!…indian in looks western in taste and opinopn…HERE IT PEOPLE..the master and slave relationship!!

      ARE YOU REALLY SAYING THAT???

      so you going to erase 400years of colonial literture from white society that makes up what most educate themselve in western universities.

      Like i said tell me HOW hinduvta is the same as white nazi and islamic racism..and give world examples please…..

      Dota You macauley LOVE CHILD……you TRULY are a dominated person today he sides with them through mis-education, and yesterday they where calling him a savage…lmaoooo

      Still amazed that the research article you have totally missed, but instead with your PRO WESTERN RACIST MACAAULEY EDUCATION…you devote your time in proving the west is right…

      hmmm what was the ethos of SIR THOMAS MACLAUEY/././to make an indian beleive the west is superior …LMAOOOO….

      ‘to make beleive’

      so when did material from the last 400years of slavery, of colonial rule of imperial rule NOT become the basis of western academia???….wasnt it in the 1960 not long ago that africans where not allowed the same basic human rights as whites. So tell me the exact information you want me to read and tell me what era of western acamedia i should overlook…ohh i dnt know maybe the last 600years or so i should overlook or not pay attention to? would that help you in giving 21stcentury morality to a people that did not have any? i admit it does make it easier right to have selective intellectual arguments ..lol.

    • kumar

      Dota is a muslim from Pakistan …:)

  15. Arjen

    India had the world’s largest economy from the first to eleventh century, and in the eighteenth century, with a (32.9%) share of world GDP in the first century to (28.9%) in 1000 AD, from the eleventh century to the 1600 the Islamic Invasion of India took place, by 1700 AD with (24.4%).- Angus Maddison (The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective) A Study of Groninen University, reveals that India’s share of the world income went from 24.4% in 1700, to a low of 3.8% in 1952, at the end of the British Empire

    • India had the world’s largest economy from the first to eleventh century, and in the eighteenth century, with a (32.9%) share of world GDP in the first century to (28.9%) in 1000 AD, from the eleventh century to the 1600 the Islamic Invasion of India took place, by 1700 AD with (24.4%).

      Irrelevant. It was still a shithole, a Hobbesian nightmare state of casual brutality, sadism and horror, not much different from pre-contact Africa. The life of your average Indian was short, nasty and brutish!

      • Arjen

        ahhh let that racism show…

        come on do your ANCESTORS PROUD,..

        show that nazi attitude your ancestor had…and then talk to me about right, values, ethics and morality

        OPEN YOUR MOUTH lindsey let the people that behind the priest is a pirate with a dagger…..come on lindsey talk about how the church has paid over 1billion dollars to silence the abused..come on lindsey keep talking please…lmaoooo

        Lindsey open that dirty filthy mind of yours and take a look in the mirror

        what do you seee???? lmaooo

        You came to india becuse it was poor!!!..lmaoooooo hahahahahah

  16. Arjen

    I DONT THINK YOU WANT THE ROAD OF GIVING EXMAPLES OF BARBARITY…like i said, WHO can believe the white christians when they PROMOTED THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY in the name of god!!! lol…

    The torture by the Spanish Inquisition went on for some 350 years until it was outlawed, although incredibly inquisition itself was not disbanded until the 20th century.

    he Inquisition was a campaign of torture, mutilation, mass murder and destruction of human life perpetrated by xtians. The church increased in power until it had total control over human life, both secular and religious.
    The Vatican wasn’t satisfied with the progress made by regional leaders in rooting out heresy. Pope Innocent III commissioned his own inquisitors who answered directly to him. Their authority was made official in the papal bull of March 25th, 1199.7Innocent declared “anyone who attempted to construe a personal view of god which conflicted with the church dogma must be burned without pity.”8

    church had begun murdering people it deemed heretics in the 4th century and again in 1022 at Orléan, papal statutes of 1231 insisted heretics suffer death by fire. Burning people to death prevented spilling of blood. John 15:6 “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”
    The nazarene quote incited all of this.

    the shocking nightmare, the foulest crime and deepest shame of western civilization.” In this 300 year period, the church stepped up the mass murder and systematic torture of innocent human beings. Torturers were allowed as much time as they needed to torture their victims. Most courts demanded that prior to the torture, the victim be thoroughly shaved, claiming that any Demon left undetected in the victim’s body hair might intervene to deaden the pain that the torturers inflicted or answer for the victim.11

    Doctors would be in attendance if it seemed the victim might die from the torture. The victim would then be allowed to recover a little before more torture was applied. If the victim died during the torture, inquisitors claimed the Devil intervened with the purpose of sparing the victim further pain or preventing them from revealing his secrets.12 Those who fainted had vinegar poured into their nostrils to revive them. The victim’s families were required under law to reimburse the courts for the costs of torture. Entire estates were seized by the church. Priests blessed the torture instruments prior to their being used. Certain devices were employed to inflict the maximum pain; indisputable evidence of the sick xtian mind:

    The nude victim, was stretched out, lying face downward on the ground or on the execution dock, with his or her arms and legs spread, and tied to stakes or iron rings. Wooden crosspieces were placed under the wrists, elbows, ankles, knees and hips. The inquisitor then smashed limb after limb and joint after joint, including the shoulders and hips, with the iron-tyred edge of the wheel, taking care not to bring about the death of the victim. There were splinters of smashed bones, blood spurted everywhere and the victim’s entire skeleton was crushed and smashed. Thereafter the shattered limbs were “braided” into the spokes of the large wheel. The wheel has to be one of the most gruesome of all torture devices. The idea is, that the victims’ limbs are shattered and entwined around the spokes of the wheel, attaching them to it.

    Galileo Galilei,the famous Italian astronomer and physicist was one of the most noted victims of the inquisition. A letter in which he attempted to demonstrate the Copernican theory, that the Earth is not the center of the universe, was forwarded by some of his enemies (xtians) to the inquisitors in Rome. He was tried in 1633 and found guilty of heresy. He was forced to recant (publicly withdraw his statement) and was sentenced to life imprisonment under house arrest.

    “A particularly grave abuse was practiced in Goa in the form of ‘mass baptism’ and what went before it. The practice was begun by the Jesuits and was alter initiated by the Franciscans also. The Jesuits staged an annual mass baptism on the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul (January 25), and in order to secure as many neophytes as possible, a few days before the ceremony the Jesuits would go through the streets of the Hindu quarter in pairs, accompanied by their Negro slaves, whom they would urge to seize the Hindus. When the blacks caught up a fugitive, they would smear his lips with a piece of beef, making him an ‘untouchable’ among his people. Conversion to Christianity was then his only option.”

    The Goan inquisition is regarded by all contemporary portrayals as the most violent inquisition ever executed by the Portuguese Catholic Church. It lasted from 1560 to 1812. The inquisition was set as a tribunal, headed by a judge, sent to Goa from Portugal and was assisted by two judicial henchmen. The judge was answerable to no one except to Lisbon and handed down punishments as he saw fit. The Inquisition Laws filled 230 pages and the palace where the Inquisition was conducted was known as the Big House and the Inquisition proceedings were always conducted behind closed shutters and closed doors. The screams of agony of the culprits (men, women, and children) could be heard in the streets, in the stillness of the night, as they were brutally interrogated, flogged, and slowly dismembered in front of their relatives. Eyelids were sliced off and extremities were amputated carefully, a person could remain conscious even though the only thing that remained was his torso and a head.

    In 1567 the campaign of destroying temples in Bardez met with success. At the end of it 300 Hindu temples were destroyed. Enacting laws, prohibition was laid from December 4, 1567 on rituals of Hindu marriages, sacred thread wearing and cremation.

    All the persons above 15 years of age were compelled to listen to Christian preaching, failing which they were punished.On September 22, 1570 an order was issued that :
    -The Hindus embracing Christianity will be exempted from land taxes for a period of 15 years.
    -Nobody shall bear Hindu names or surnames.

    Mary Prince’s The History of Mary Prince, a West Indian Slave, Related by Herself is the earliest know slave narrative by a woman, which highlights the treatment of slaves. It was published in 1831, almost 300 years after the first African slave was transported from the African coast. It is a saga of overwork, abuse and sexual violence that well over 10 million unnamed slaved had experienced during Colonial Slavery. She details horrific scenes of physical abuse inflicted upon her by her mistress. She says, “To stripe me naked – to hang me up by the wrists and lay my flesh open with the cow skin, was an ordinary punishment for a slight offense. However, she soon details a far worse scene of brutal treatment towards the slaves by describing what happened to a fellow slave of hers named Hetty after a cow she had tied up had gotten loose. She says, her “master flew into a terrible passion, and ordered the poor creature(Hetty) to be stripped naked, notwithstanding her pregnancy, and to be tied up to a tree in the yard. He then flogged her as hard as he could lick, both whip and cow skin, till she was all streaming with blood. He retired, and the hit her again and again. Her shrieks were terrible.” After the brutal beating, she was brought to bed where she give birth to a still born child. After seemingly recovering, she was again repeatedly beaten by the mistress and master and later died due to her injuries. Mary goes on to say that that day filled her with horror and could not bear to think of it, but it was always present in her head for a long time. This small statement showcases not only the physical trauma that the slaves suffered but also the emotional and psychological trauma they experience and developed due to inhumane treatment of themselves and other fellow slaves on the plantation.

    Olaudah Equinao was a former slave who authored a slave narrative when freed. In the narrative he witnessed a horrific scene also. He says he saw, “a negro man staked to the ground and cut most shockingly, and then his ears cut off, bit, bit by bit, because he had been connected to a white woman, who was a common prostitute!” As if it were no crime in the whites to rob an innocent African girl of her virtue; but most heinous of a black man only to gratify a passion of nature, where the temptation was offered by one of a different color, though the most abandoned woman of her species.”

    The act of raping an African slave was legal and a normal occurrence during slavery. Due to the fact that Africans where not thought of as humans, but as property, they did not have rights which whites enjoyed. Rape by nature is a violent act, whether the victim puts up a struggle or not. This is because rape is when a victim is forced into a sexual act against his or her will. The fact that it was legal to rape an African, because she was a slave, shows the barbaric and inhumane nature of slavery.

    Rape is just many of the gruesome and violent acts committed against Africans during slavery. As noted in the slave narratives, many of the slaves were beaten so severe that their injuries were life threatening. The psychological effect of being beaten brutally or seeing someone else beaten could cause post traumatic syndrome.

    . It was the wealth of 18th century India which attracted the commercial pirates of England and France . This wealth was created by the Hindus’ vast and varied industries and trade. It was to reach India of fabulous wealth that Columbus sailed the seas. It was this wealth that the East India Company proposed to appropriate. Already in 1686 its Directors declared their intention to “establish …a large, well grounded, sure English dominion in India for all time to come.”

    The British were perhaps the most successful pirates in history. They came to India, pillaged the country in the name of trade and then enslaved it in the name of civilization.”

    They chopped the hand of master indian weavers to save the industry in England. The British killed upto 10million indians after the war of independence. Men, women and children were left to starve, even though food grains where in storage the British refused to give. Up to 50million indians died through famines caused by British rule during their 150year occupation.

    CARLOS i suggest you check you your own morality and human rights…on what moral ground are talking from again???……

    Like i said white chriistian have invaded, killed, enslaved, occupied, looted, converted and then edited and changed history to make them the liberators but in reality they where the abusers…..

    Just like in the bible where many passgaes have been edited to show alternative meanings…..CARLOS…would you believe in a person who has inflicted more misery, more pain, more blood than any other in history….Like i said on what moral ground are you talking from?..lol

    You think that having such a violent taliban christian history its not goin to be reflected in the history books wriiten by liers and thives..lmaooo

    WHO DO YOU BELIEVE?????.

    genocide on every continent, in every race, in every land, of every class, THIS IS CHRISTIANITY………

    do you believe a christian terrorist on what india was like?…..when they called them heathesn and called african savages…lol….HARDLY THE ACADEMIA you use to justify yourself…lol

    • Wakjob

      Who gave India the IT industry, millions of good tech jobs, and lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty in India? For free? White Americans (who invented the IT industry) did. Whatever crimes were or were not comitted by the west in the past are insignificant to the good the west has done for the world. Who created and built modern civilization? The west. Who invented every new industry and technology that employs people and makes lives easier? The west. And if you want to talk about attrocities and genocide you need look no further than India – the most corrupt and evil country on planet earth today.

      Brits tried to bring civilization to India, but Indians rejected it. After all, this is the home of cow urine soft drinks and 40 million teenage prostitutes. Christianity has brought western civilization to the world. Hinduism is uncivilized.

    • Wakjob

      Slavery was first invented by Muslims, not whites. Look it up.

  17. Pingback: Arjen the Hindutva Was Banned | Robert Lindsay

  18. ganesh

    I think that the original post itself needs to be clear as to why “Aryan Migration” replaces “Aryan Invasion” nowadays. Two years back, the left-wingers in this post were saying that people rejecting “Aryan Invasion” were Hindutvadis and now it has changed to rejecting “Aryan Migration”. Has anything changed in this regard? List out the differences between “Aryan” “Invasion” and “Migration”

    Since the whole “Aryan” theory (whether invasion or rejection as it has been renamed nowadays) is based on the four earlier vedas in Sanskrit, how many of you actually know Sanskrit? If none of you can read, write or speak even a word, then all you are doing is Believing the word of “scholars” who claim to have deciphered the whole thing. You guys are holding to a belief system too. It is just covered up by a lot of links from Google search. Now parts of your belief may be true but until someone does some independent research, it would be hard to take you seriously. I believe that there was a gradual assimilation of different tribes in India and there never was an invasion and genocide like the white invasion of North America.

    Another claim is that the “Aryans” introduced the caste system to India and pushed the “Dravidians” southwards. So by implication, the caste system should not be as prevalent in the South. But this is not true at all. If you look at a typical Tamil community, there are gounders, chettiars, karaiyars, paravars, and a gazillion others. It is highly improbable that all of a sudden, they were influenced by the vedic caste “system” and sprouted these classifications. We still need more research and cannot just go by linguistic similarities. Of course, languages are similar to each other as there always have been migrations of communities from different places. Thats why the whole “Aryan Invasion” claim from the beginning was suspicious. It is a drastic claim to make just on the basis of language similarities and the fervor with with people have either adopted it completely can only lead to the conclusion that people had their own agendas in totally espousing this.

    Who knows, maybe there was an invasion after all. But until then, keep believing in it!

    • ArjenHinduvta
      are you stupid!!!. i have shown you clear scientific , genetics, evidence from the past 20years that conclusively prove that the indians migrated OUT OF INDIA and that NO Aryan invasion took place, and Europeans are descendants of north Indians. Have you not read that research article, it clearly states, gives the evidence and completely disproves the Aryan theory. If you not basing it on evidence then on what are you ? have proven that caste was native to india, and that its almost indistinguable betwen low and high castes, we have proven that india was central to human migration, we have proven that Sanskrit has Tamil and ,munda loan words associated with farming of which these words are also present in the indo Europeans languages, the only way to explain that is that the indo languages began in india, this is now almost proven without a doubt. You cannot get tamil and munda loan words in the euopeans languages unless it started in india itself. We have proven that buffalo , pigs, goat, rats, mice, traveled out of india with the aryan migration OUT OF INDIA, we have proven that rice, barley, wheat was first cultivated in india. Its people like you that find it hard to go against almost 200years of racist euro centric ideology. The Christians looted, raped, enslaved india these actions are from the same mindset that went onto become indias western idoloogist, of which most if not all modern English literature is based on. What is the basis of western intellectual ideology for the past 400eyars, that white people where gods people, with this mindset they inflicted slavery genocide, plunder in africa., america, india , china and autrlaia. This is the modern world. Dont try to justify an era that was just racist, intolerant, bigoted, talibaneqsue ethos. Where christian under the guidance of the bible concucted that african and people of dark skin where of the devil and were made to suffer for the white people.. THIS IS UNDENIABLE. Their are many hundreds of examples of how christians looted, raped and occupied land with complete terror around the world. It was under these tution that created the racist english education system. The british forced english onto india as a way to undermine indian unity and history. in the same the muslims enforced arabic. The british destroyed india taking it form the one of the richest lands on earth to the poorest, it destroyed its industries and took it the poverty you see today!!!! They same people that looted india, then created biased racist educaitonal books to miseducate the indian people into accepting western autority over their own. You cannot deny the british invaded india, you cannot deny that india went into poverty during this era, and you MUST ASSUME that the people then who created the english eduaiton system did not have an ulterior motive in doing so.what kind of integrity is THAT!!….its like the nazis teaching the jews about indian history. So yes the western world has pushed aryan theory , to estalbish in peoples mind that THIS WAS SSO..yet the same people wher involved in the biggest mass murdering in human history..ARE THESE ETHICS that created YOUR SO CALLED LITERATURE. By pushin english in india, the british and the west can dictate the ideoloyg of the indian elite through MISEDUCATION.. Ask youyrself under what era , what envirmoent was the ethos for indain eduation created, where you educated yourself today. The racist british, on purpose created an altered indian history to make them the invaders, i mean is it something that those briitsh at that time would do??…do the actions of the briitsh in slavery, in genocide, in plunder of african, china, the americas, and india….indicate that the literture that they also wrote at those times are NOT BIASED, AND LACED WITH PREDUJICE, AND RACISM…lmaoo whos gona say that!!!…..because that would seem very stupid. Now is it possible that western literature for the past 300years is LACED with racism, bigotry, ignorance, prejudice, just as their actions speak?….I think its almost PROBABLE. India today is the on the back of 200years of looting, raping, plundering india, yest its dirty, yes theirs poverty, and thats thanks to the invading christians, ..so the next 50years wil be uncovering the past 200years..and i can gruantee you the image of india and britain will be totally reveresed.For india its the time of realization…..and ironically so …it will be for europeans as well..Those indian that call others hinduvta will be shown to be by products of an 18th century others , that you are ihinduvta will be shown THEIR REAL HISTORY OF THEIR PEOPLE AND INTELLECUTAL THOUGHT………that you are in fact A MACAULAYS CHILD.who references books from the British who looted and raped india, and its by that high level of integrity you go by LETS END it with that…. they said from europe india was populated..TRUTH IS WHAT? * all Europeans — and by extension, many Americans — can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia.” THE BRITISH USED DIVIDE AND CONQUER TACTICS, IN africa, indai, china, america, The christians humilated the jews, the muslims, the chinese , the indians, in their literature, the actions of the christian for the past 500years is also reflected in their literature. A racist ideolofy from a racist mindset. The christians on pupose promoted a distorted view of natives around the world, to create svages out of them , to defame them, to humilate them, and then this became the basis of so called modern western literature. THEY SAID HIGH CASTES DID NOT EDUCATE LOW CASTES…truth is…. ”Sir Thomas Munro, Governor of Madras, ordered a mammoth survey in June 1822, whereby the district collectors furnished the caste-wise division of students in four categories, viz., Brahmins, Vysyas (Vaishyas), Shoodras (Shudras) and other castes (broadly the modern scheduled castes). While the percentages of the different castes varied in each district, the results were revealing to the extent that they showed an impressive presence of the so-called lower castes in the school system. Thus, in Vizagapatam, Brahmins and Vaishyas together accounted for 47% of the students, Shudras comprised 21% and the other castes (scheduled) were 20%; the remaining 12% were Muslims. In Tinnevelly, Brahmins were 21.8% of the total number of students, Shudras were 31.2% and other castes 38.4% (by no means a low figure). In South Arcot, Shudras and other castes together comprised more than 84% of the students! In the realm of higher education as well, there were regional variations. Brahmins appear to have dominated in the Andhra and Tamil Nadu regions, but in the Malabar area, theology and law were Brahmin preserves, but astronomy and medicine were dominated by Shudras and other castes. Thus, of a total of 808 students in astronomy, only 78 were Brahmins, while 195 were Shudras and 510 belonged to the other castes (scheduled). In medicine, out of a total of 194 students, only 31 were Brahmins, 59 were Shudras and 100 belonged to the other castes. Even subjects like metaphysics and ethics that we generally associate with Brahmin supremacy, were dominated by the other castes (62) as opposed to merely 56 Brahmin students. It bears mentioning that this higher education was in the form of private tuition (or education at home), and to that extent also reflects the near equal economic power of the concerned groups. As a concerned reader informed me, the ‘Survey of Indigenous Education in the Province of Bombay (1820-1830)’ showed that Brahmins were only 30% of the total students there. What is more, when William Adam surveyed Bengal and Bihar, he found that Brahmins and Kayasthas together comprised less than 40% of the total students, and that forty castes like Tanti, Teli, Napit, Sadgop, Tamli etc. were well represented in the student body. The Adam report mentions that in Burdwan district, while native schools had 674 students from the lowest thirty castes, the 13 missionary schools in the district together had only 86 students from those castes. Coming to teachers, Kayasthas triumphed with about 50% of the jobs and there were only six Chandal teachers; but Rajputs, Kshatriyas and Chattris (Khatris) together had only five teachers. Even Dalit intellectuals have questioned what the British meant when they spoke of ‘education’ and ‘learning’. Dr. D.R. Nagaraj, a leading Dalit leader of Karnataka, wrote that it was the British, particularly Lord Wellesley, who declared the Vedantic Hinduism of the Brahmins of Benares and Navadweep as “the standard Hinduism,” because they realized that the vitality of the Hindu dharma of the lower castes was a threat to the empire. Fort William College, founded by Wellesley in 1800, played a major role in investing Vedantic learning with a prominence it probably hadn’t had for centuries. In the process, the cultural heritage of the lower castes was successfully marginalized, and this remains an enduring legacy of colonialism. Examining Dharampal’s “Indian science and technology in the eighteenth century,” Nagaraj observed that most of the native skills and technologies that perished as a result of British policies were those of the Dalit and artisan castes. This effectively debunks the fiction of Hindu-hating secularists that the so-called lower castes made no contribution to India’s cultural heritage and needed deliverance from wily Brahmins. Indeed, given the desperate manner in which the British vilified the Brahmin, it is worth examining what so annoyed them. As early as 1871-72, Sir John Campbell objected to Brahmins facilitating upward mobility: “.the Brahmans are always ready to receive all who will submit to them. The process of manufacturing Rajputs from ambitious aborigines (tribals) goes on before our eyes.” Sir Alfred Lyall was unhappy that “.more persons in India become every year Brahmanists than all the converts to all the other religions in India put together… these teachers address themselves to every one without distinction of caste or of creed; thety preach to low-caste men and to the aboriginal tribes. in fact, they succeed largely in those ranks of the population which would lean towards Christianity and Mohammedanism if they were not drawn into Brahmanism.” They call others heathens and savages , and assume a morally just postion, just like the islamic taliban who morelly think they are just in their actions,But actions speak louder than words…The chrsitian slave trade, genocide of the known world…the truth is.. Gaspar Correa is quoted by Hall as to what the Vasco da Gama did next, thus: “When all the Indians had thus been executed (sic), he ordered them to strike upon their teeth with staves and they knocked them down their throats; as they were put on board, heaped on top of each other, mixed up with the blood which streamed from them; and he ordered mats and dry leaves to be spread over them and sails to be set for the shore and the vessels set on fire… and the small, vessel with the friar (brahmin) with all the hands and ears, was also sent ashore, without being fired”. A message from da Gama was sent to the Zamorin. Written on a palm leaf, it told him he could make a curry with the human pieces in the boat. ”’God-fearing are commanded not to revile the dark-skinned, but to remember their own filthiness and to remember that filth of dark skin came only because of their fathers’ sin” Leviticus 25:44-46 “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. and today INDIAN UNDER edcuation of SUCH PEOPLE..of such mindset, are miseducated to call others hinduvta, because their white english christian racist indian education teaches them from day one… Lord Thomas Babbington Macaulay (1800-59) was the first Law Member of the Governor-General’s Legislature and is best known for introducing English education in India. Speaking in the British Parliament, he said on February 2, 1835 the following: “Such wealth I have seen in this country (India), such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which (backbone) is her spiritual and cultural heritage. And therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation”. NOW YOU KNOW why i laugh when people call other hinduvta…..what background are you coming from? lol AND thess people PUSHED THE ARYEN THEORY for they know !!!!!…that who ever can claim to be the aryan then hold the key for both indian and european history..as we all know the whites under that glittering history of slavery, of persecution, of genocide, of seeing themselvs like their sister faith the wonderful taliban that white were given full right by none other than god himself…..so i doubt they where willing to accept that their real history is that they are decendants of indian people and civlisation…….and just like their racist actions their literture for the past 300years is also heavily laced as you would expect… but the aryan theory is no more.and if after all this you still dont accept, then you are truly one dominated person who refuses to beleive the sky is blue just because its written its not. Or are you the jew now being taught by the nazis…to call others hinduvta while overlooking your own history!! READ !!! and LEARN!! THANKS FOR THE BAN LINDSAYY…u truly got owned. Now pat DOTA on the back….and convince yourself that you came to india beacuse it was poor..lol. Recent lexical research in Indian languages conclusively indicates that there was an early an independent evolution of agriculture in India (Fuller, 2006). On the other hand latest lexical study also indicates that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-Europeans had farming before their split into various branches and migration (Comrie, 2003). Added to this, the Indo-European languages of both India and Europe contain agriculture related loan words from Munda and Dravidian families, which were most likely borrowed into Indo-European when all the three language families were evolving within India side by side. Thus the newest Recent lexical research in Indian languages conclusively indicates that there was an early andindependent evolution of agriculture in India (Fuller, 2006). On the other hand latest lexical studyalso indicates that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-Europeans had farming before their split intovarious branches and migration (Comrie, 2003). Added to this, the Indo-European languages of bothIndia and Europe contain agriculture related loan words from Munda and Dravidian families, whichwere most likely borrowed into Indo-European when all the three language families were evolvingwithin India side by side. Thus the newest linguistic evidence supports Indian origin of Indo-European language family. DNAs of cows were examined from all regions of the world. The findings conclude that Indian cow(or Zebu) had been domesticated in India before Neolithic period, and independently from the WestAsian influence. In addition to that DNA results confirm that Indian cows were carried to otherregions of the world viz. East Africa (by sea), South China, Southeast Asia, West Asia, Europe andCentral Asia during prehistoric periods. Dates suggested by various authors range from 22,000before present to 4,000 before present. Bellwood (1995) had suggested that buffalo wasdomesticated for the first time in India in Orissa-Bihar region, from where it was carried to SouthChina, where rice farming evolved with the help of buffalo. Recent DNA studies of buffalo confirmthat India was the place of domestication of first buffalo (Kumar, 2007). DNA study of barley has ruled out importation of barley cultivation from West Asia to India. It hasbeen proved that barley cultivation developed for the first time in India independently from anyexternal influence (Sang, 2009). There is evidence suggesting that the gene essential for ‘domestication’ was found only in the Indian wild barley. Similar DNA studies of rice show that ricecultivation evolved at two places in the world independently — one was Ganga Valley in India and theother was in South China. However the Chinese rice still contains many wild features, hinting thatthe Indian rice cultivation was earlier in time. The lexical studies of Indian languages by Fullersuggest that sweet potato, cucumbers, okra, and many other food items were originally Indian andwere domesticated in India. Study of human DNAs finally rule out any Aryan arrival from the Central Asia into India. Rather thesuggested Aryan gene R1a (M17) evolved and migrated out from India about 16,000 to 14,000 yearsback crossing through Central Asia ultimately reaching Pontic-Caspian area and Russia (Sahoo, 2006;Sengupta, 2006; Trivedi, 2008; Underhill, 2009). Study of West Asian genes also suggests that thatthere was a human migration from India to West Asia, indicated by presence of Indian genes in theWest Asian population (Y-DNA HGs: F*, L1, H (M-69), K2, C5, C*, R1a (M-17). On the other handWest Asian genes (Y-DNA: J1, G, I and R1b3) are not found in India, ruling out migration from WestAsia to India. L1, which was earlier suggested to be a marker of migration of Dravidian speakers fromElam region of West Asia, has now been confirmed to be of Indian origin from where it migrated toIran and West Asia (Sengupta, 2006; Sahoo, 2006). Presence of another gene J2 in India, West Asia, Iran and India was advocated as an evidence of Indo-European arrival from West Asia to India together with Neolithic culture. This gene has beenproved to be associated with Anatolian and South European Neolithic cultures. Latest data fromIndian population pertaining to this gene clearly militates against its arrival into India from WestAsia. Within India, its presence is more in the Dravidian population than the north Indian population.Other statistical features also suggest that it may have originated within India. Its branch J2b has anage of about 14,000 years back in India, and the most likely place of origin is in Uttar Pradesh nearNepal boarder. Hence evidence from all fields taken together concludes that farming and Indo-European languages evolved together in India, from where the two migrated to many parts of world.In the east a migration took place to Southeast Asia carrying Austro-Asiatic language and ricefarming from India (Y-chromosomal DNA O2a migration). Recent archaeological findings from GangaValley, where we have found the oldest Pottery Neolithic site of the world, too corroborate with theabove set of facts. It has been settled so far that after initial origin in East Africa, modern man migrated quite early(about 100,000 years before present) to India, where further human cultural and linguistic evolutiontook place. Modern man migrated out of India in many waves from that time until 10,000 years backpopulating rest of the world. Recent linguistic research by Bernard Comrie and by Dorian Fuller point out that the Indio-European languages evolved at a place which had developed agriculture. This conclusion canbe drawn by presence of agriculture related cognate words in the languages of this familyseparated widely by geography, but all having had their origin from one common ancestrallanguage at a common place. Often such ancient agricultural words of Indo-European familyare shared by languages of Munda (Austro-Asiatic) as well as Dravidian families (see Fuller,2003, p. 201; Fuller 2006, pp. 4, 15, 18, 35, 39, 40, 55; Fuller, 2007; Fuller, 2008). In factFuller is the first author to say, on linguistic grounds, that India was an independent centreof framing. Moreover he notes that origins of Indian farming was different qualitatively fromWest Asian farming and was similar in many ways to African and Eastern North Americanorigins of farming. Fuller finds that “ evidence based on both archaeo-botanical material and colloquialagricultural terms more parsimoniously postulates that early Dravidian had an epipaleolithicpre-agricultural heritage ”and that it “originated near a South Asian core region ”. This should be read with the fact that recently Indian epipalaeolithic (microlithic) has been dated35,000 B.P. to 15,000 B.P. Fuller’sassertion is an acceptance of India as the oldest place of farming culture. Fuller (2006) claims that there were several independent centres of plantdomestication within the Indian peninsula by indigenous peoples. Fuller concedes an earlierand independent rice-Neolithic in Ganga Valley and western Orissa. He accepts thatindigenous Indian plants, trees and vegetables have contributed words to Sanskrit and otherIndo-European languages.Other DNA studies have also confirmed Indigenous origin of Austro-Asiatic speaking tribes of India. DNA studies of rice, cattle,buffalo and mice too support an Indian origin of rice farming with subsequent migration toSoutheast Asia. Jerold Edmondson of Department of Linguistics, University of Texas, hasdone a large number of detailed studies based on linguistics as well as DNA, on Neolithicand human migrations towards east of India. He found that the Tai speakers of the Kradaibranch of Austro-Asiatic language family migrated from India, and first settled in SoutheastAsia long back. They were master cultivators and they took agriculture from India toThailand and then from the latter to the Yunnan province of southwest China, and to SouthChina by 10,000 ybp during Neolithic expansion. On the other hand Harvard scholar Michael Witzel has been struggling hard to prove thatthe agriculture related words in the Indo-European languages entered Sanskrit during thehypothetical stay of Indo-Aryans in Iran and then their contact with the Dravidian speakersin the Indus valley area and Munda family tribes in the Ganga Valley. Yet the presence of the same word in Indo-Aryan as well as European languages indicates that these words,even if had entered from some other languages, had entered Proto-Indo-European languagein India before migration to Europe and Iran had started. Thus Aryans, which is primarily speakers of a particular language family, can no longer be considered ‘pastoralists’. Moreover it is wrong to assume that pastorals are independent of agriculture. Renfrew (1990) pointed out that pastoral life is a part of agricultural society. Hewrote: “The pastoral economy is usually symbiotic with the agricultural one as it has been shown that a major component of the diet of these pastoralists was bread. The practice of agriculture is thus a precondition of a pastoral economy.” Added to this fact, the recentlynoted linguistic evidence as discussed above shows that the Aryans were farmers from thevery beginning. Earlier, Renfrew had claimed that Indo-Europeans were farmers from the very beginning,and that the Mehrgarh people and the Indus Valley people were Aryans i.e. speakers of ndo-European languages from the very onset of farming culture in these areas.He hadfurther claimed that an early Indo-European language had been in place in the north Indiastretching from the Ganga Valley to Mehrgarh when Mehrgarh civilization was emerging. He wrote, “Certainly the assumption that the Aryas were recent ‘immigrants’ to India andtheir enemies were ‘aborigines’, has done much to distort our understanding of thearchaeology of India and Pakistan.” Renfrew wrote, “We should in other words, consider seriously the possibility that the new religious and cultural synthesis which is represented by the Rigveda was essentially aproduct of soil of India and Pakistan, and that it was not imported, ready-made, on the backof steeds of Indo-Aryans. Of course it evolved while in contact with the developing culturesof other lands, most notably Iran, so that by a process of peer polity interaction, culturesand ideologies emerged which in many ways resembled each other. It is not necessary tosuggest that one was borrowed, as it were, directly from the other. “This hypothesis that early Indo-European languages were spoken with India and Pakistanand on the Iranian plateau at the sixth millennium BC has the merit of harmonisingsymmetrically with the theory for the origin of Indo-European languages of Europe. It alsoemphasises the continuity in the Indus valley and adjacent areas from the early Neolithicthrough to the foruit of the Indus Valley Civilization—a point which Jarrige has recentlystressed. Moreover the continuity is seen to follow unbroken from that time across the DarkAge succeeding the collapse of the urban centres of the Indus Valley, so that features of thaturban civilization persists, across a series of transformations, to form the basis of laterIndian civilization. A number of scholars have previously developed these ideas of continuity.” Having said this, the new evidence changes someof Renfrew’s assumptions. While Renfrewthought Anatolia was the original home of the Indo-Europeans where they had developedthe first farming culture, and from where they had migrated to Europe and North India by6,000 B.C., present evidence indicates that India was the place of origin of the Indo-Europeans and an independently evolved centre of farming. Otherwise it is impossible toexplain presence of farming related words of Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian origins in theEuropean branch of Indo-European languages. Renfrew’s views about Anatolia may have proved wrong, yet his views on South Asia hold true in light of recent evidence which will bepresented in this paper. Genetic evidence as well as linguistic evidence has made it clear that both the Dravidian and the Austro-Asiatic languages and their speakers have evolved in India—the Dravidians in thesouthernmost part and Austro-Asiatic in the eastern part of the South Asia. The currentfindings about early Dravidian languages contradict Renfrew and many other authors who had suggested the place of origin of Dravidian in West Asia from Proto-Elamite after 10,000B.P., originally proposed by McAlpin. We can now have a look at some of these farming related words in the Indo-Europeanlanguages (In Link provided too many to list). Having proved that the Indo-Europeans were farmers, we need to settle their place of evolution. There were only two places where farming evolved the earliest. Both can beclaimed to be the place of origin of Indo-Europeans. One is Anatolia (Turkey, West Asia)and the second is India. Central Asia being a cold desert and grassland combination canhardly harbor pastoralist populations but not farming. We note a large number of words from Austro-Asiatic (Munda family) and Dravidian families in the Indo-European languages located as far away as West Europe. This is a biglist. Some of them have been mentioned above. This could be only possible if the Indo-European journey started in India, having evolved over ages in neighborhood of theselanguages. Hence we can conclude, on the basis of linguistic analysis that the Indo-European languages evolved in India from where they migrated out to various regions of the world. DNA studies in Origin of Cow, Pig, Buffalo, Mouse and Black Rat DNA studies of these animals, which are intimately associated with farming society, have shown that these animals were first domesticated in India, and that they have notarrived into India from anywhere else. Domestication of Cow History has been more a matter of beliefs of the people in academic establishment thanrepository of truth about the past. Thus it was fashionable to attribute each and every innovation in the human prehistory to West Asia, in which the most sacred places of Jews,Christians and Muslims are located. It was largely because of this attitude that cow was thought to have been domesticated forthe first time between 8000 and 10,000 years before present at West Asia from where itwas claimed to have migrated to everywhere including India with farming. During thatimaginary migration through Iran, the Indian breed of cow evolved from the West Asianbreed, they claimed. Thus such authors thought domesticated cow reached India fromWest Asia with farming. Regarding Zebu (Indian cow) in China, it was said that possibly wild ancestor of Zebu reached China, where they were domesticated locally in China. Anda bout African Zebu (African cow of Indian breed), it was said that Arabic traders took them to Africa from India in the last 700 years. Contradicting such views, Loftus et al (1994) came out with formidable genetic data provingan independent and indigenous domestication of cow in India. They even postulated migration of Indian cow through sea to Africa, which was later proved by further DNAstudies. Since then a large number of studies have supported this. The latest among suchworks is that of Hiendleder et al (2008), which re-confirmed that there are mainly twomatrilineal populations of domesticated cows in Eurasia. One is of Indian ancestry called Zebu orBos indicus, the other is supposedly of West Asian origin called Bos taurus. Independent domestication of cow and bull in India implied an independent origin of Indianfarming culture too. A recent study of DNA of Zebu by Chen (2009) has shown that Bos indicus or Zebu had beendomesticated only in India, and not at any other place, ruling out all skepticism in thematter, and proving that it was only after full domestication in India, that Zebu migrated toother parts of the world.Zebu cows have a prominent presence in China and Africa. Other researches indicated that Zebu genes are present in most of the taurine cow lineagesof Europe, West Asia, Africa and other parts of the world.Even those European and WestAsian cows which are taurine in all other respect have zebuine milk protein gene.Thisproves that Indian cows were the first to have been domesticated, and then they migratedto rest of the world with Neolithic migration, where local wild cows were domesticated.These data also prove that the migrated Indian cow (Zebu) hybridized all those lineages. Freemanet al (2006) found that Bos indicus was introduced into Africa by sea route and notthrough Suez.Moreover Indian cow has been found in Malagasy, which is accessible onlyby sea. On the basis of these, and many other facts, Zeder (2006) claims that India was theplace of origin of the first global economy. He asserts that there was an active maritimetrade in cow in the Indian Ocean from Indian west coast during prehistoric times. Now such views are gaining general acceptance. It was further noted that Zebu not onlymigrated from India to Africa, but also from Africa to Europe. It has been noted that AfricanZebu gene is interspersed in the entire range of taurine distribution in Europe and Africa(Meghen et al , 2000).Thus Zebu entered West Asia and Europe by two routes, one wasthrough Iran-Iraq route, and the other was from India to East Africa to West Asia to Europe.The second one may have been the earlier one. African Zebu cows are Indian in origin, and extend deep into Africa, while non-Zebu cows of Africa are generally considered either a domesticated wild breed or an imported taurine breed from West Asia. Earlier authors thought that Indian cows had been introduced intoAfrica by Arab traders within last one or two thousand years, and taurine cows had beenintroduced into Africa during spread of Neolithic from West Asia. But such a view has notbeen supported by DNA studies. West Asia’s claim to domestication of cows was further undermined by Bradley’s work. Bradley and colleagues (1996) studied domesticated taurine cow mtDNAs from Africa andEurope. They found that taurine cow lineages split from the European cow lineages muchbefore 22,000 years back (p. 5135). This is much before the West Asian 10,000 ybp date of Neolithic and claimed date of so- called ‘first domestication’ of cattle. This destroys the hypothesis of introduction first cows into Africa from West Asia. The authors not only refuted the West Asian origin of African taurine cow, but also found that the African cow lineages had a population expansion at 10,000 ybp, while the date for such an expansion inEurope was 5,000 ybp. Hence African taurine lineage is older than the West Asian andEuropean ones. Thus, although it is too early to say so, we may express a possibility that the taurine cows had been domesticated for the first time in Africa, from where they reachedEurope and West Asia. Ibeagha-Awemu (2005) found that the genetic variability of Indian cows in Africa is fargreater than that of African local or taurinecows, especially in Nigeria and Cameroon. High variability within Indicine cow genes in Africa indicates a very old migration from India to Africa, before domestication of taurine cow. Thus time of introduction of Indian Zebu intoAfrica should be earlier than the molecular date of domestication of taurine cow in Africa,about 22,000 years back. Migration of Indian humans and Indian cows in large numbers tothe Eastern Horn of Africa at 22,000 ybp, and not via West Asia, indicates that the landroute to West Asia from India was closed because of aridity. Petraglia and many otherworkers have noted that this route was closed between about 30,000 ybp and 15,000 ybp. It has been claimed that, “After domestication, survival and diffusion of Bos taurus completely depended on humans; thus, the phylogeographic patterns of cattle geneticdiversity should mirror human activities or movements and may provide informationcomplementary to archaeological and anthropological data”. Other studies have also supported this view.Hence Zeder’s claim that there was a sea trade in cow to Africa and other parts of world seems to be true. If Neolithic revolution originated in the West Asia, why do we get evidence of Indian cattlefrom Ancient Egyptian paintings (4000 ybp) as well as Jordanian archeological remains? From Arabian littoral remains of 3rd millennium BCE, Indian cow paintings have been recovered.Hence we conclude that domestication of Indian cow and onset of IndianNeolithic are much older than is usually assumed. Spread of cows from India to other partsof world was of seminal value in prompting local domestications of taurine cows in otherparts of world. Post-LGM migration of domesticated cattle over land route, resulting in hybridization of Taurine and Indian cows in the area between India and Iraq has also been provengenetically, but that belongs to a later date than the Indian cow migration to East Africa by sea. Indian cow entered Africa by land route later by 3,500 ybp.Freeman’s data and distribution-map also indicate that there is a penetration of Indian cow in South-EastEurope. Cattle migration from India to Europe has been proven by other studies also. Some writings claim migration of Zebu to Italy between 30,000 ybp and 25,000. Linguistic evidence corroborates well with genetic findings.English word ‘cow’has cognatesin Sanskrit (gAva,gau, go), Farsi (gAw), German (kuh or kuhe),Dutch (koe), Danish (ko),etc. The lexical evidence also proves that India was the source of cow for China and SoutheastAsia. This is reflected in their words for cow– Pinyin Chinese gu, Cantonese ngau, and Thai koh. In Africa, Swahili word for cow ngombe. We know that‘m’is added to each nown as aprefix in Swahili language. Pig Domestication Mitochondrial DNA studies have shown that pig, although evolved 500,000 years back in the wild form in the Southeast Asia (which was a single piece of land then), its one branch cameto India long back. Then this branch radiated from India into many parts of the world in itswild form. It was from this wild stock of Indian radiation, that pigs have been domesticatedat several places in the world independently, the two most important and oldest beingSoutheast Asia and India.Buffalo DomesticationBellwood and many other authors think that paddy cultivation was not possible withoutbuffalo which likes water and mud. On the basis of physical features of wild buffalossurviving in world today Bellwood (1995) diagnosed that water buffalo was domesticatedfor the first time in India in Orissa and Jharkhand area (he actually wrote Bihar instead of Jharkhand, because then Jharkhand was a part of Bihar).Kumar (2007) found, on the basis of DNA studies, that buffalo was domesticated in India 6,500 years back, and from here it migrated to Southeast Asia and South China.This migration implies migration with farmersor traders, because domestic buffaloes cannot migrate alone.Buffalo’s association with rice agriculture suggests to us that this migration occurred as a farming related migration. Domestication of Barley It was claimed, like everything else, in the past that barley was domesticated for the firsttime in West Asia. But DNA research on barley revealed that it was actually domesticated byman in western India, somewhere near modern Pakistan in circa 10,000 B.P. from Indian wild barley, at southwestern ranges of Himalayas after the glacial ice cleared from thisregion.Badr (2000) found a rich diversity of barley varieties in the sub-Himalayan region. Diversity is an indicator of place of origin. Morell and Clegg (2007), on the basis of DNA analysissuggested that there were two centers of domestication of barley, one in the FertileCrescent and the other probably 1500 to 3000 kilometers to the East in western India. This study also indicated that although, the European varieties of barley originated from theFertile Crescent variant, the eastern nations received barley breeds from Indiandomestication. This leads us to conclude that barley was locally domesticated in the Indus Valley area in circa 10,000 B.P.DNA research by Azhanguvel and Komatsuda (2007) further indicated that there were eastern and western two independent centers of barley domestication in Eurasia.Saisho(2007) found the eastern edge of Iran plateau was the site of domestication of eastern barley.Jones (2008) finally clarified after studying the Ppd-H1 gene of barley from European farmlands that the agricultural variant of barley which has “flowering timeadaptation”, the essential adaptation for agriculture, did not originate in West Asia or the Fertile Crescent, but further east, probably in western part of India.Sang(2009) reviewed all the scientific papers presented so far and concluded that at about 10,000 B.P., barley cultivation started in western India independently from any external influence. Thus it is concluded by DNA study that barley was cultivated in India independent of anyWest Asian influence, and that the essential gene for farming, as noted by Jones, was found in Indian wild breeds only, indicating that Indian domestication event was primary and the West Asian one was secondary. This correlates well with finding of barley at Mehrgarh at 9,000 to 10,000 years back. Domestication of Rice: There are two main sub-species of rice,Oryza sativa indica or Indian rice and Oryza sativa japonica or Chinese rice. It is now accepted that Oryza nivara, one of the wild species of rice from Central India, which is not found in China, is the immediate ancestor of cultivated rice Oryza sativa. O. nivara originated from another Indian wild species O. rufipogon, whose related wild breed is also found in Southeast Asia, but not in China. Domestication of Oryza sativa’s sub-species indica occurred in east India south of Himalayas; and that of the sub-species japonica occurred in South China. Chen (1993) found that ‘deletion type Cp DNA’ is found in ‘annual’ varieties of Oryza rufipogon , which is the ancestor of O. sativa indica. On the other hand non-deletion type CpDNA is found in wild “perennial rufipogon”. It was this wild perennial non-deletion type which gave birth to the Chinese breed of rice. Thus indica and japonica were domesticated separately and from two different strains of rufifipogon. Thus the Chinese rice is only distantly related to indica,and not and ancestor of indica. Moreover Chinese rice seems to have been domesticated much later than the indica. Yamane et al (2009) on the basis of another gene Hd6 supported the view that indica and japonica sub-species of rice had been domesticated independently.These works rule out earlier conjecture that rice cultivation originated in South China and was later transported to India with Austro-Asiatic farming tribes, the opposite is also shown in genetics. On the basis of sh4 gene Sang (2009) claimed that indica was domesticated earlier in Indiathan the Chinese rice, and that it was from the Indian domesticated breed that this gene(sh4) essential for farming was transmitted into Chinese variety. The sh4 gene stopsshattering of grains on ripening, and is crucial to domestication. Without this gene, the grains shatter and fall down from the rice plant as soon as they get ripe.This gene originated in domesticated Oryza sativa indica in India, once only, and has by nowintrogressed into all the paddy types by cross pollination and seed selection.Agriculture related words have been derived in both Sanskrit and Tamil. Thus the genetic evidence favours that India (Ganga Valley) was the first centre of rice cultivation with the help of ox and buffalo, and the Southeast Asians learned this from India,and cultivated their own wild rice. The process then spread to China, whose cultivated ricestill contains many wild features and later to West Asia, Europe and beyond. Mouse and rat Mouse and rat are two different species of rodents. Incidentally, both of them originated inIndia and migrated out about the same time with agriculture. Although archaeologicalevidence for agriculture starts from 10,000 years back, the black rat migration out of Indiatook place at 20,000 years back and mouse migration took place 15,000 years back(molecular dates). Domestic mice (Mus) have lived in and around human dwellings feeding on human storedfood and food debris for ages. In the beginning Muslived only in north India since 900,000years back,as a commensal of Homo erectus and later Homo sapiens sapiens (Ferris,1983).It diverged into three principal species,viz.Mus musculus domesticus, M. musculus musculus and M. castaneus by 500,000 years back (Geraldis, 2008; Din, 1996). When Homo sapiens sapiens inhabited India in about 100,000 ybp or earlier, these species of mice became adapted to live in and around human dwellings (Boursot, 1993). Miceprobably felt safer in human surroundings. Tsutim et al (2008) found that human environment gives protection to sparrows from being predated by carnivorous birds and animals. The same applies to mice. Groves (1984) found that many types of mice and rats had been introduced into Island Southeast Asia from India together with rice agriculture. Mus caroli, Mus cervicolor and Rattus argentiventer are found in Southeast Asia north of Malay. They are invariably restricted to wet rice growing areas.Mus dunni , a small mice, native of northeast India and Rattus nitidus, a native of Nepal, are rice-field pests of Indonesia. These all species originated in India. Bandicoot-rat (Bandicota bengalensis) a rice-field pest in Indonesia originated in Mahanadi delta in association with buffalo.We have already discussed buffalo domestication andmigration from India. The other sub-species of mice which migrated out of India to Southeast Asia is Muscastaneus. This species isadept at digging holes in soil. Probably they learned to do this in a bid to eat tubers and sweet potatoes which grew in abundance inIndian soil.Mus caroli is another species of Southeast Asian mice which dwells in rice fields. Black rat (Rattus rattus) is another species which originated in India and then migrated toother parts of the world. From India it migrated to West Asia and then to Europe.Rattus reached West Asia by 20,000 years before present, a date which is earlier than domestic mouse migration.Other migration of this species was from India to Madagaskar. We can guess from the dates of Ganga Valley Pottery Neolithic that Pre-Pottery Neolithic may have started in India about 13,000 ybp to 14,000 ybp. We are forced to assume that roughly the same time PPN migration out of India to West Asia started.Mus domesticus migration out of India to West Asia must be a direct result of Neolithic migration. Date of migration of Indian male lineage J2b from northern Ganga Valley to West Asia (13,800 yearsback) coincides with that.Mus domesticus reached the Eastern Mediterranean basin inabout 10,000 ybp.The route map of mice migration as mapped by the geneticists isexactly the same as that of human migration. Rajabi-Maham et al (2008) studied mice DNA from Iran up to Europe. They found that after reaching the Fertile Crescent mice expansion toward Europe and Asia Minor took at least two routes, tentatively termed the Mediterranean and the Bosphorus/Black Sea routes.They found that another domesticated animal goat also followed the same routes almostthe same time about 12,000 years back. Thus goat and mice migrated along with expanding farming. Protracted commensality of Mus m. domesticus in India indicates that Homo sapiens sapiens was doing some primitive farming or foraging and storing food since much before actual onset of Neolithic migration. Indians of that era had possibly a settled life and home and they depended on cereal, fruit and tuber diet.Cognate words for ‘mouse’ are found exclusively within the Indo-European family of languages (English ‘mouse’,Latin mus, Sanskrit mUSaka, muSika, mUs, muSka,Pahlavi musk), indicating expansion of domestic mouse out of India with migrating Neolithic culture of the Indo-European speakers of north India. Migrations and Ecology Large scale human migrations have taken place mostly out of compulsion. As the numberincreases, there is a lot of competition for food and space within the members of thespecies. Causes stress. To avoid stress, members of population disperse to new ecologicalniche (Gliessman 2006).Groube (1996) pays attention to carrying capacity model, andderives on ecological grounds that any migration would not have been possible from theFertile Crescent (West Asia) to either south or east as those had already been colonized well by Homo sapiens sapiens.Hence due to ecological factors alone the population of Levant and Fertile Crescent had no choice but to migrate only to the north or west. Hence ecology too rules out population spread from West Asia to Iran and India, rather the opposite from India, to West Asia, to Central Asia and finally Central Europe.In 2009 the analysis of ancient DNA from skeletons suggests that Europe’s first farmers were not the descendants of Stone Age hunter-gatherers in the region, but were probably migrants who came into major areas of central and eastern Europe about 7,500 years ago, bringing domesticated plants and animals with them.The research involved the analysis of DNA from hunter-gatherer and early farmer burials, and compared those to each other and to the DNA of modern Europeans.They conclude that there is little evidence of a direct genetic link between the hunter-gatherers and the early farmers, and 82 percent of the types of mtDNA found in the hunter-gatherers are relatively rare in central Europeans today.The team from Mainz University in Germany, together with researchers from UCL (University College London) and Cambridge, found that the first farmers in central and northern Europe could not have been the descendents of the hunter-gatherers that came before them.The new study confirms what Joachim Burger’s team showed in 2005; that the first farmers were not the direct ancestors of modern European. “In total, this means that more than 80 percent of European Y chromosomes descend from incoming farmers. In contrast, most maternal genetic lineages seem to descend from hunter-gatherers,” said Dr Patricia Balaresque, first author of the study. The invention of farming is perhaps the most important cultural change in the history of modern humans. The Central Role of India in Populating Europe and Asia:Study of Human Maternal Lineages Earlier, when the Out of Africa theory came, it was thought that man came out of Africa through Suez and West Asia. That made people and scholars, alike, believe that West Asia was the source of all further populations of Europe, Asia and beyond. This assumption coupled with findings at Jericho and other sites in West Asia made authors believe that farming originated at the West Asia, from where it travelled to Europe and India. While farming went to South Europe with Indo-European language, it went to India with Dravidian language—they thought (Colin Renfrew). Thus Renfrew suggested that four major language families of the world–Indo-European, Dravidian, Altaic and Afro-Asiatic —originated in the West Asia. He thought that their common precursor was Proto-Nostratic, the ancestor of Nostratic macro-family, which was located in the West Asia, sometime before 10,000 B.P.(p. 80), he suggested. But it was realized soon that the West Asian route of exit from Africa was untenable. By 1998 Cavalli-Sforza and his team reached the conclusion that from Africa, Homo sapiens sapiens came out quite early and only once to reach India. In India that population expanded, had linguistic and cultural development, and then it was from India that the restof the world was populated. This finding has been further supported by a large number of extensive DNA studies by Quintana-Murci,Kivisild, Bamshad et al. 2001; Kivisild et al, Metspalu et al, Endicott et al , 2003; Forster, 2004; Forster and Matsumara, 2005;Macauley, 2005; Thangaraj et al , 2005). Thus latest consensus is that there was a single exit out of Africa to India along coastal routevery early in history of human evolution about 100,000 years back, after which all the areas of world were populated by migration from India. Migration maps made by authors likeOppenheimer (2003) and Metspalu (2004) on the basis of DNA studies showed that Indiaoccupied centre-space of human evolution and dispersal. Metspalu et al reaffirmed that“Southern Coastal Route” to India was suggested by the phylogeography of mtDNA haplogroup M. The oldest Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineage is M. Metspalu noted that M’ is virtually absent from North Africa and Near East. This undermined the likelihood of the initial colonization of Eurasia taking a route through Egypt and Suez. Metspalu further noted that the split between West and East Eurasian mtDNAs occurredbetween the Indus Valley and Southwest Asia, and not in the Central Asia. This contradicted the earlier scheme in which Central Asia had been considered the central place for furtherexpansion, branching and further migration of mankind once man had left Africa. Metspaluand his colleagues explained:“It is in the South Asia that local branches of the mtDNA tree(haplogroups given in the spheres) arose (circa 40,000–60,000 B.P.); and from there theywere further carried into the interiors of the continents of Asia and Europe (thinner black arrows).” They further noted that the “northern route” –from northeast Africa over Sinaito the Near East–was used much later (about 30,000 to 17,000 B.P.) by East African people. The first migration out of India, which took place about 85,000 years back, was to theSoutheast Asia. Man soon reached Australia from Southeast Asia, the migrations greatlyfacilitated by Sunda shelf, which is submerged in sea but less than 100 meters deep at themost. India and Sri Lanka as well as New Guinea and Australia were also joined by land. Sucha view in favour of coastal migration of humans was earlier mooted in 1962 by evolutionary geographer Carl Saucer, who had explained on the basis of ‘ecological niche’ that forest and savanna (grasslands) were least likely to be human home during early days; and sea shoreswere the only likely place for human home (p. 42).A recent review article by Endicott et al (2007) clearly concludes that India was the central player in cultural evolution of man and his migration. Recent Migrations of Male Lineages after Last Glacial Maximum When it became clear on the basis of matrilineally transmitted DNA lineages, that West Asians and Central Asians or any region out of India has not contributed to Indian gene pool,then it was claimed, if not matrilineally, then patrilineally, Indians have descended from Central Asians (Aryans) and West Asians (Dravidians). Descendants of all men who originally expanded out of India, started coming back to India from Central Asia, West Asia, Tibet,China, Southeast Asia etc once Last Glacial ended, they claimed. Literature was flooded by imaginary stories of human male lineage arrivals. Thus the story became changed now. Now it was said that although matrinineally, Indians, the castes, tribes and the linguistic groups,have been there in India since 100,000 years back, yet most of them were fathered by arriving males from different directions, who introduced the various languages spoken in India today. From West Asia came Dravidian speaking fathers and brought barley and wheat agriculture,as well as bull, cow, goat and sheep. From Central Asia came Aryan fathers with horse, and from South China via Southeast Asia came Munda speaking fathers with rice agriculture.Each migration was wrongly identified with a Y-chromosomal male lineage. Thus West Asia to India, it was J2 and L1; from Central Asia to India was R1a; and from South China to India it was O2a. But fortunately conjectures cannot survive for ever in science. Latest researches have clarified most of the issues which were of vital importance to India. Origin and Migration of the Y Chromosomal Haplogroup R1a out of India after LGM: ********************************* 2dna quotes about caste, aryan, 2 mtnda rose in india, ********************adddd Y-chromosome is found in the males and is transmitted from father to son. DNA of Y-chromosomes can be used to trace male lineages. In technical language, a main lineage is called haplogroup. We are now able to identify lineage of any individual, and correctly tell the ancestral relationship, or time of separation of the two individual’s common ancestor,with any other individual with the help of DNA identification techniques. It was found that Y-chromosomal DNA HG R1a is found in good numbers in India, Central Asia and Europe. This prompted Wells et al (2001) to suggest that R1a (M17), and R2 which is also found in India and Central Asia alike, are Aryan DNAs. He suggested that Aryans carrying R1a DNA entered Europe and India from Central Asia. Cordaux et al (2004), on the basis of presence of both hunter-gatherer and agriculturist societies living side-by-side in modern India suggested that original Indians were hunter gatherer tribes, and agriculture arrived into India by “demic diffusion” from outside.NoDNA evidence was presented, an underlying theme of 18th century racist views which has been the basis for the past 200years of Euro-centric views. Yet this became a reference work for all future workers.Although Cordaux had conducted a large DNA study of Indian caste and tribes a year backwhich had shown that the Indian castes and tribes share the same gene pool, and that they are more closely related with East Asians than with Europeans and West Asians.Cordaux (2004) argument was adopted by Regueiro et al (2006) trying to envision a wave of migration of R1a starting from Turkey to Central Asia to India then to Iran (p. 140). The Aryan Invasion theory of Wells (2001) was contradicted by some leading genomescientists of the world, including Sahoo, Kivisild, Metspalu, Villems and their colleagues. On the basis of a large study (Sahooet al , 2006, p. 845), they declared that the Central Asian origin of sub-haplogroup R1a and Aryans cannot be substantiated at all on any account of facts.They held, “The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny and totally rejected. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the majority of the Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H.” (p.847) They found that R2, H and F* are Indian in origin, and it is from India that they have migrated to Central Asia. Their data suggested an indigenous origin for Aryan DNA R1a. Another team working on the same topic included Sengupta, King, Cavalli-Sforza, Underhilland colleagues. They showed that R (especially R1a1 and R2) diversity in India is indigenous in origin and does not support hypothesis of immigration from Central Asia or anywhere outside. R1a prevalence is not only high in Indo-European speaking Punjab, south Pakistan and Ganga Valley, but also in Chenchu and Koya tribes of south India (Kivisild et al.2003). Oppenheimer (2003) also had supported Indian origin of R1a which is also called M17 in genetic circles. He wrote, “And sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, north India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as amarker of a ‘male Aryan Invasion of India.’ Study of the geographical distribution and thediversity of genetic branches and stems again suggests that Ruslan, along with his son M17,arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India”. Finally Underhill and colleagues (2009) presented a detailed study of R1a lineages. They found that R1a is oldest in India. This lineage started expanding from Gujarat about 16,000years back. By 14,000 years back or earlier, it reached the Ganga Valley and Indus Valley.Then people carrying R1a genes migrated out of India, through Afghanistan and Tajikistan,reaching Central Asia. From Central Asia they entered East Europe. They inhabited the Pontic-Caspian area. Then they populated those areas which are inhabited today by Slavicand Baltic speaking people. Genetics today rules out any possibility of any significant migration from Central Asia to India, and supports regular migration from India to Central Asia in all ages of humanprehistory. A large number of lineages of Indian origin—R1a, R2, H, F*, C5, L etc. are found in the Central Asia, but Central Asian lineages are not found in India. Migration of Lineage J2 and Farming There is another male lineage which expanded after the Last Glacial Maximum and which became controversial over last ten years in the genetic, anthropological and linguistic circlesbecause of its wide range of spread spanning from India to South Europe. This is haplogroupJ2 (M172). It is found in South Europe, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and India in good frequency. It was noted by King and Underhill (2002) that in Europe and in Levant, Turkey, Iraq and Iran this haplogroup is found in those areas which also have archaeological evidence of early farming, figurine, clay sealing stamps and painted pottery.Chiaroni et al (2008) showed that the haplogroup J2 is found principally in those areas of West Asia which have a good rainfall.This area is termed the Fertile Crescent. It is indirect evidence that this lineage came from an area which had a good rainfall, and that these people subsisted on monsoon economy. These findings sparked wild speculations. One group of authors thought that presence of J2in India indicates arrival of Indo-European speakers with farming to Mehrgarh and North India. Other group suggested that J2 was a marker of the Dravidian speakers of the WestAsia (Elam region) to north India, who were master farmers, and who developed Mehrgarhand Indus farming societies. None of the two conjectures were taken seriously, yet it became a common belief in the genetic circles that J2 is West Asian in origin and arrived into India with farming. Lately, J2 (M172) lineage has been studies in India in detail. Its study in India shows that its frequency is 19% in Dravidian speaking castes, and only 11% in Aryan speaking castes. Among the tribes, its frequency is 11%.Hence its arrival through northwest Indian corridor into India is ruled out completely. Because it was found that in the northwest India its frequency is less than that in south Indian caste population. Its good presence in all segments of Indian society proves that either this haplogroup originated in India, or this haplogroup is fixed from very old days in India, possibly since Pleistocene, and not just 8,000 years back. Sengupta and colleagues (2006) found that age of J2b (M12), which is a branch of J2, is about 17,600 years to 10,000 years (mean age 13,800 years) in India. On the other hand the same figures for Europe for J2 were only 8,700 years and 4,300 years (mean 6,500 years). That means age of J2b, a descendant of J2, in West Asia and Europe is further less than 6500years. As mentioned before, conclusive evidence of the arrival of farmers into europe bringing with them farming and agriculture between 6,000 and 10,000years ago. The date of J2b expansion in India is thus much before the supposed date of onset of farming into India. This is enough evidence to suggest that J2 and J2b originated in India. Genetic diversity is a marker of age of a haplogroup in any area. HG J2 exhibits a genetic diversity of 0.702 and lineage diversity of 0.999 in India (Trivedi et al 2008). Origin of J2 also must have been in India can be said by having a look at Table 3 of Trivedi. The genetic diversity of J2 in the table is 0.702,which is more than or almost equal to genetic diversities of other haplogroups considered Indian in origin but also found in West Asia or Central Asia viz.P, F, H, L, K, K2, R1a, C and R2. Moreover, there are other DNA lineages found in good numbers in West Asia like R1*, R1b3,J*, J2f, I, G and E which are in total more than 53% population of west Asia. These are virtually absent from India (Sahoo, p. 844). Had people migrated from West Asia to India,these haplogroups would also have arrived into India. This evidence proves that J2 did not arrive from West Asia, because no lineage can ever migrate without other lineages also migrating along with it from the place of origin or expansion. On the other hand nearly all of the Indian male lineages like F*, L1, H (M-69), K2, C5, C*, R1a (M-17) etc. are found in West Asia, proving a definite Indian migration to West Asia. The Absence of the HIV-1 protective Delta ccr5 allele in ethnic populations of India, which is found in West Asia, and Central Asia too, is absent from India (Majumder and Dey, 2001).Thus on no account, any migration from West Asia to India can be supported. Sengupta et al noted that frequency and variance of J2b2 are very high in Uttar Pradeshnear Nepal boarder. Regarding place of maximum frequency and variance of J2b2, they remind, “It should be noted that numerous Mesolithic sites have been observed in this region (Kennedy, 2000).” Sengupta’s and Trivedi’s studies certainly indicate that lineage J2 originated in India. It is only a matter of time. In near future we expect to get more extensive report unequivocally confirming originof HG J2 in India and that Indian Neolithic migrated to West Asia with J2 and other lineages. Sengupta (2006) showed that J2 is well distributed in Indian population.Sengupta et al
      • Listen curry breath, why don’t you quit spamming my blog, you fuckin psycho? Don’t you have to take a shit after all that writing? I should think so. It surely took you 24 hours to write and most folks defecate once a day or so. Can’t you go find a nice shady spot on a nearby sidewalk to go pinch a loaf and contemplate your permafucked, ruined land?

        • LaFleur

          Hee hee!

          Please to be fucking off!

        • Wade in MO

          At least he doesn’t support rightwing economics…

        • ganesh

          I wonder where people get their “information” from. This Arjen seems to be one hell of a sensitive guy…..

          Anyways, Nobody answered the question: How is the “Aryan Invasion” theory compatible with the existence of castes in south india?
          Telugus: Reddy, Kamma, Kapu, Raju, Achukatlavandlu, DudeKula, etc.
          Tamils: Chettiyar, Gounder, Karaivar, blah blah.
          Kannadas: Badaga, Billava, Bunt, Chambar, Teli, Thiya blah…
          Malayalam: Ahom, Ambalavasi, Deeevara, Ediga etc

          The only logical reason is that these existed before the “Aryans” came over. Otherwise, the onus is on the proponents (and their followers) of the “Aryan Invasion” theory to list out the parts of “Hindu”/ Sanskrit texts where such a division is mentioned and documented: each and every one of them.

          Oh by the way, for those claiming that the “Hindu” religion was the factor holding “India” from achieving the “Heights” of the Persian civilization, I have to say this:

          Sure and look at where the “Persian” civilization is now. Overrun by a religion of goat fuckers started by a self appointed “Prophet”.

  19. Dota-Player

    “”At least he doesn’t support rightwing economics…””

    Hindutvadis tend to be rather neo conservative in their economic views whereas congress pretends to be pro corporate responsibility. I’m afraid the Hindutvadis have no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

  20. Iran is a great modernizing country. So they are Muslims. So what, Ganesh the Hindutva? All Muslims are “goat-fuckers?” What the Hell is your problem?

    I’m not well versed on this issue. Caste appears to have arrived with Hinduism if I am not mistaken. Hinduism arrived with the Aryans 3400 YBP. Before 3400 years ago, there was no Hinduism in India. If caste came with Hinduism, then surely it just spread on down to the South as Southerners converted to Hinduism.

    • ganesh

      “I’m not well versed on this issue”
      Meaning you are following the religion of “Brand any ‘Hindu’ who does not agree with you or asks questions that you cannot answer as a Hindutvadi”
      Keep drinking the kool aid bro.

      “If caste came with Hinduism, then surely it just spread on down to the South as Southerners converted to Hinduism.”

      Wrong answer! People had their own gods and goddesses in south India (and still do have them) that are vastly different from the ones of north India. Sure, the migrations may have influenced them so that they also included other gods into their way of life. Nobody “converted” to anything. Well, other than a few converting to limited, organized religions like Christianity and Islam which are rife with slavery, murder and looting in the guise of spreading the message. Followers of these religions in other countries believe that yoga is evil. That is enough said.

      “Iran is a great modernizing country”.
      Sure try to take your blog into the great modernizing country and watch the results first hand when they stuff your dick in your mouth.

      India is screwed up in vast parts (and so are a lot of the “Hindu” beliefs). But, if you ask the Jews that settled there, or the Parsis that fled Iran when the muslims fucked them, they can tell you one thing: there is no disrespect for different ways of life in India in general. Also, everybody is a minority: including the “Hindus”. There is not a thing as “Hindu”. Just a collection of different beliefs clubbed into one so that it fits whatever models the westerners could come up with (and their pantheons of devotees such as the ones in this forum).

      I truly believe in “Satyameva Jayate” but what is “Satyam”? We’ll find out soon.
      In the meantime, somebody please fucking invent the fucking time machine

      • I do not like your tone, you Hindutva dog, so I am banning your patchouli-flavored ass.

        Vedic Hinduism came to India 3,400 years ago. Then it spread throughout India, and Vedic Hinduism was presumably adopted by the vast majority of Indians. We have references to caste in the Vedas. After that, caste appears throughout India as Vedic Hinduism spreads throughout the country. It appears that southerners abandoned their traditional religion and adopted Vedic Hinduism.

  21. ArjenHinduvta

    YOU KNOW YOUR A RACIST WHEN?

    1 YOU reject your own racist past of almost 400years in africa, in india, in china, in american, in austrlia.. This legacy of racism is in fact NO reason to think your a natural racist right?hmmm

    2. YOU call others hinduvta not knowing or willing to admit your own racist, intolerant past, hence your need to call others hinduvta is your self defense mechanism.

    3. You look at slavery, the genocide of indina, america, chinese and it doesnt effect you at all…But in fact your opinion is so warped that you actually convince yourself that the greed, lust and murderous intentions of the west was actually LIBERATING..lol….like the treatment of jews was also liberating, the use of slavery,

    4. You know your a brainwashed indian, when you KISS thomas macaleys ass, and REHASH the words of eurocentrics…WHEN THE thomas macauley created an education that would create indian in looks and color but west in taste…I WAS REALLY HAPPY TO MEET DOTA, some people need genetics, pictures, any kind of evidence,…..BUT DOTA IS INDIAN IN PERSON..that is the truth of the education that he recieved…LOL… Brainwashed by euro-centric educaition that HE CONSIDERED FREE FROM BIAS…and COLONIAL RACISM..lmaooo hahaha

    yesterday they called him a savage and today they patt him on the back!!

    5. Genetics prove you wrong. yet your racist mentality which u cant see blurs your intelligence..

    THANKS FOR THE BAN I WILL ADHERE TO IT.

    The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving toIndia together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny. Recentclaims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for
    the majority of the Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are
    rejected, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H
    .

    (p. 847)They found that R2, H and F* are Indian in origin, and it is from India that they havemigrated to Central Asia. Their data suggested an indigenous origin for Aryan DNA R1a

    lmaooooooooooooooooooooo

    DOTA PLAYER i like how you avoided the truth of colonial rule, lol, you avoided looking at the genetic data, but you went back to your racist, intolerant education which you consider the height of morality…

    and went back to your biased racist christian education YOU TRULY ARE A MACALEUYS CHILD…..

    LOOK LOOK LINDSAY look how ive critiqued hinduvta for you..lmaooo,…

    Lord Thomas Babbington Macaulay (1800-59) was the first Law Member of the Governor-General’s Legislature and is best known for introducing English education in India. Speaking in the British Parliament, he said on February 2, 1835 the following:

    ” for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation”.

    Some Indian are truly DOMINATED…..aint that right DOTA

    ask linsay to pat you on the pack..cos yesterday you where a savage to him..reject the genetic data, evidence..and you can go back to patting yourself on the back, without realising that you truely are the most racist people on earth, your history shows, your culture shows, the episodes of slavery, of genocide of native indiana, the slavery of african, the plunder of india, the opium wars of china, the peasants revolts of europe…YEH i can see the postion from which you are talking..lmaoooo

    IT WAS GOOD chating with a bunch of racist, and making them realise where their roots actually stem from and that goes to the Macauley eduacted indian…

    indian color western in taste …its like the nazis teaching the jews…lol..

    Pitrim Alexandrovitch Sorokin (1889-1968) Russian-American sociologist of Harvard University had said:

    “During the past few centuries the most belligerent, the most aggressive, the most rapacious, the most power-drunk section of humanity has been precisely, the Christian Western world. During these centuries western Christendom had invaded all other continents; its armies followed by priests and merchants have subjugated, robbed or pillaged most of the non-Christians. Native Americans, African, Australian, Asiatic populations have been subjugated to this peculiar brand of Christian “love” which has generally manifested itself in pitiless destruction, enslavement, coercion, destruction of the cultural values, institutions, the way of life of the victims and the spread of alcoholism, venereal disease, commercial cynicism and the like.”

    ‘In 2009 the analysis of ancient DNA from skeletons suggests that Europe’s first

    farmers were not the descendants of Stone Age hunter-gatherers in the region, but were probably migrants who came into major areas of central and eastern

    Europe about 7,500 years ago, bringing domesticated plants and animals with them.The research involved the analysis of DNA from hunter-gatherer and early

    farmer burials, and compared those to each other and to the DNA of modern Europeans.They conclude that there is little evidence of a direct genetic link

    between the hunter-gatherers and the early farmers, and 82 percent of the types of mtDNA found in the hunter-gatherers are relatively rare in central

    Europeans today.The team from Mainz University in Germany, together with researchers from UCL (University College London) and Cambridge, found that the first

    farmers in central and northern Europe could not have been the descendents of the hunter-gatherers that came before them.The new study confirms what Joachim

    Burger’s team showed in 2005; that the first farmers were not the direct ancestors of modern European. “In total, this means that more than 80 percent of

    European Y chromosomes descend from incoming farmers. In contrast, most maternal genetic lineages seem to descend from hunter-gatherers,” said Dr Patricia

    Balaresque, first author of the study. The invention of farming is perhaps the most important cultural change in the history of modern humans.

    On the basis of a large study

    (Sahooet al , 2006, p. 845), they declared that the Central Asian origin of sub-haplogroup R1a and Aryans cannot be substantiated at all on any account of

    facts.They held, “The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to

    close scrutiny and totally rejected. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the majority of the

    Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H.”

    FACTS AND SCIENCE DISPROVE YOUR RACIST 18TH THEORIES.

    Sahoo, Kivisild, Metspalu, Villems and their colleagues. On the basis of a large study

    (Sahooet al , 2006, p. 845), they declared that the Central Asian origin of sub-haplogroup R1a and Aryans cannot be substantiated at all on any account of

    facts.They held, “The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to

    close scrutiny and totally rejected. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the majority of the

    Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H.”

    (p.847) They found that R2, H and F* are Indian in origin, and it is from India that they have migrated to Central Asia. Their data suggested an indigenous

    origin for Aryan DNA R1a. Another team working on the same topic included Sengupta, King, Cavalli-Sforza, Underhilland colleagues. They showed that R

    (especially R1a1 and R2) diversity in India is indigenous in origin and does not support hypothesis of immigration from Central Asia or anywhere outside. R1a

    prevalence is not only high in Indo-European speaking Punjab, south Pakistan and Ganga Valley, but also in Chenchu and Koya tribes of south India (Kivisild
    et al.2003). Oppenheimer (2003) also had supported Indian origin of R1a which is also called M17 in genetic circles. He wrote, “And sure enough we find

    highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, north India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse

    in South Asia than in Central Asia but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as

    amarker of a ‘male Aryan Invasion of India.’ Study of the geographical distribution and thediversity of genetic branches and stems again suggests that

    Ruslan, along with his son M17,arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India”. Finally Underhill and colleagues (2009) presented a detailed study of R1a

    lineages. They found that R1a is oldest in India. This lineage started expanding from Gujarat about 16,000years back. By 14,000 years back or earlier, it

    reached the Ganga Valley and Indus Valley.Then people carrying R1a genes migrated out of India, through Afghanistan and Tajikistan,reaching Central Asia.

    From Central Asia they entered East Europe. They inhabited the Pontic-Caspian area. Then they populated those areas which are inhabited today by Slavicand

    Baltic speaking people. Genetics today rules out any possibility of any significant migration from Central Asia to India, and supports regular migration from

    India to Central Asia in all ages of humanprehistory. A large number of lineages of Indian origin—R1a, R2, H, F*, C5, L etc. are found in the Central Asia,

    but Central Asian lineages are not found in India.

    lmaooooooooooooooooooooo

    DOTA PLAYER i like how you avoided the truth of colonial rule, lol, you avoided looking at the genetic data, but you went back to your racist, intolerant education which you consider the height of morality…

    and went back to your biased racist christian education YOU TRULY ARE A MACALEUYS CHILD…..

    LOOK LOOK LINDSAY look how ive critiqued hinduvta for you..lmaooo,…

    Lord Thomas Babbington Macaulay (1800-59) was the first Law Member of the Governor-General’s Legislature and is best known for introducing English education in India. Speaking in the British Parliament, he said on February 2, 1835 the following:

    ” for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation”.

    Some Indian are truly DOMINATED…..aint that right DOTA

    ask linsay to pat you on the pack..cos yesterday you where a savage to him..reject the genetic data, evidence..and you can go back to patting yourself on the back, without realising that you truely are the most racist people on earth, your history shows, your culture shows, the episodes of slavery, of genocide of native indiana, the slavery of african, the plunder of india, the opium wars of china, the peasants revolts of europe…YEH i can see the postion from which you are talking..lmaoooo

    IT WAS GOOD chating with a bunch of racist, and making them realise where their roots actually stem from and that goes to the Macauley eduacted indian…

    indian color western in taste …its like the nazis teaching the jews…lol..

    Pitrim Alexandrovitch Sorokin (1889-1968) Russian-American sociologist of Harvard University had said:

    “During the past few centuries the most belligerent, the most aggressive, the most rapacious, the most power-drunk section of humanity has been precisely, the Christian Western world. During these centuries western Christendom had invaded all other continents; its armies followed by priests and merchants have subjugated, robbed or pillaged most of the non-Christians. Native Americans, African, Australian, Asiatic populations have been subjugated to this peculiar brand of Christian “love” which has generally manifested itself in pitiless destruction, enslavement, coercion, destruction of the cultural values, institutions, the way of life of the victims and the spread of alcoholism, venereal disease, commercial cynicism and the like.”

    ‘In 2009 the analysis of ancient DNA from skeletons suggests that Europe’s first

    farmers were not the descendants of Stone Age hunter-gatherers in the region, but were probably migrants who came into major areas of central and eastern

    Europe about 7,500 years ago, bringing domesticated plants and animals with them.The research involved the analysis of DNA from hunter-gatherer and early

    farmer burials, and compared those to each other and to the DNA of modern Europeans.They conclude that there is little evidence of a direct genetic link

    between the hunter-gatherers and the early farmers, and 82 percent of the types of mtDNA found in the hunter-gatherers are relatively rare in central

    Europeans today.The team from Mainz University in Germany, together with researchers from UCL (University College London) and Cambridge, found that the first

    farmers in central and northern Europe could not have been the descendents of the hunter-gatherers that came before them.The new study confirms what Joachim

    Burger’s team showed in 2005; that the first farmers were not the direct ancestors of modern European. “In total, this means that more than 80 percent of

    European Y chromosomes descend from incoming farmers. In contrast, most maternal genetic lineages seem to descend from hunter-gatherers,” said Dr Patricia

    Balaresque, first author of the study. The invention of farming is perhaps the most important cultural change in the history of modern humans.

    On the basis of a large study

    (Sahooet al , 2006, p. 845), they declared that the Central Asian origin of sub-haplogroup R1a and Aryans cannot be substantiated at all on any account of

    facts.They held, “The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to

    close scrutiny and totally rejected. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the majority of the

    Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H.”

    FACTS AND SCIENCE DISPROVE YOUR RACIST 18TH THEORIES.

    Sahoo, Kivisild, Metspalu, Villems and their colleagues. On the basis of a large study

    (Sahooet al , 2006, p. 845), they declared that the Central Asian origin of sub-haplogroup R1a and Aryans cannot be substantiated at all on any account of

    facts.They held, “The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to

    close scrutiny and totally rejected. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the majority of the

    Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H.”

    (p.847) They found that R2, H and F* are Indian in origin, and it is from India that they have migrated to Central Asia. Their data suggested an indigenous

    origin for Aryan DNA R1a. Another team working on the same topic included Sengupta, King, Cavalli-Sforza, Underhilland colleagues. They showed that R

    (especially R1a1 and R2) diversity in India is indigenous in origin and does not support hypothesis of immigration from Central Asia or anywhere outside. R1a

    prevalence is not only high in Indo-European speaking Punjab, south Pakistan and Ganga Valley, but also in Chenchu and Koya tribes of south India (Kivisild
    et al.2003). Oppenheimer (2003) also had supported Indian origin of R1a which is also called M17 in genetic circles. He wrote, “And sure enough we find

    highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, north India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse

    in South Asia than in Central Asia but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as

    amarker of a ‘male Aryan Invasion of India.’ Study of the geographical distribution and thediversity of genetic branches and stems again suggests that

    Ruslan, along with his son M17,arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India”. Finally Underhill and colleagues (2009) presented a detailed study of R1a

    lineages. They found that R1a is oldest in India. This lineage started expanding from Gujarat about 16,000years back. By 14,000 years back or earlier, it

    reached the Ganga Valley and Indus Valley.Then people carrying R1a genes migrated out of India, through Afghanistan and Tajikistan,reaching Central Asia.

    From Central Asia they entered East Europe. They inhabited the Pontic-Caspian area. Then they populated those areas which are inhabited today by Slavicand

    Baltic speaking people. Genetics today rules out any possibility of any significant migration from Central Asia to India, and supports regular migration from

    India to Central Asia in all ages of humanprehistory. A large number of lineages of Indian origin—R1a, R2, H, F*, C5, L etc. are found in the Central Asia,

    but Central Asian lineages are not found in India.

    A white racist usually calls indians hinduvat because their own slave ridden, genocide driven religion and ideology commands them to do so without even realizing..lol

    • Why don’t you get the fuck off my blog, you Indian psycho? WTF is your Goddamn problem, dog?

      • Pepperoncini

        Indian/Hindu Nationalists live in some in some alternative universe where their echo chamber discounts Western and indeed World academic Indology scholarship .
        They go soo far as to even question or ouright reject the science of Linguistics, because what does not comport with their manufactured history is to be denounced as a Western plot to deny Aryans their rightfull place as the creators and origin of everything.

  22. ArjenHinduvta

    IM talking to a WHITE RACIST linsay!!…whats YOUR PROBLEM..!!!…cant you argue back with genetics?.proof, evidence?…

    YOU CAN ATTACK ME AS HINDUVTA, BUT GENETICS PROVE YOU AS RACIST……DOTA is a macauleys love child.Pat on back!

    Recent archaeo-linguistic studies point out that the Indo-European languages originated at aplace which had agriculture. Evidence further indicates that this place was no farther thanthe place of evolution of Austro-Asiatic languages and Dravidian languages, because wordsfrom these latter languages are found in the oldest core vocabulary of the Proto-Indo-European language. Coupled with this, recent archaeo-genetic studies of rice, barley, cow,pig, buffalo and mice prove their origin in India. This supports an Indian origin of farming,and subsequent spread to the east and west of India. These studies reject the theory of Aryan arrival to India from Central Asia (or West Asia), Dravidian arrival from the West Asiaand Austro-Asiatic arrival from the Southeast Asia (or China). Finally human DNA studiesrule out any migration to India from Central Asia or West Asia. On the other hand there isDNA evidence of human migration from India to Central Asia, Europe, West Asia and Southeast Asia. Impossible toexplain presence of farming related words of Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian origins in theEuropean branch of Indo-European languages, unless all three started in india and expanded out.

    It has been claimed that, “After domestication, survival and diffusion of Bos taurus completely depended on humans; thus, the phylogeographic patterns of

    cattle geneticdiversity should mirror human activities or movements and may provide informationcomplementary to archaeological and anthropological data”.

    Other studies have also supported this view.Hence Zeder’s claim that there was a sea trade in cow to Africa and other parts of world seems to be true. If

    Neolithic revolution originated in the West Asia, why do we get evidence of Indian cattlefrom Ancient Egyptian paintings (4000 ybp) as well as Jordanian

    archeological remains? From Arabian littoral remains of 3rd millennium BCE, Indian cow paintings have been recovered.Hence we conclude that domestication of

    Indian cow and onset of IndianNeolithic are much older than is usually assumed. Spread of cows from India to other partsof world was of seminal value in

    prompting local domestications of taurine cows in otherparts of world. Post-LGM migration of domesticated cattle over land route, resulting in hybridization

    of Taurine and Indian cows in the area between India and Iraq has also been provengenetically, but that belongs to a later date than the Indian cow migration

    to East Africa by sea. Indian cow entered Africa by land route later by 3,500 ybp.Freeman’s data and distribution-map also indicate that there is a

    penetration of Indian cow in South-EastEurope. Cattle migration from India to Europe has been proven by other studies also. Some writings claim migration of

    Zebu to Italy between 30,000 ybp and 25,000.

    Linguistic evidence corroborates well with genetic findings.English word ‘cow’has cognatesin Sanskrit (gAva,gau, go), Farsi (gAw), German (kuh or kuhe),Dutch

    (koe), Danish (ko),etc. The lexical evidence also proves that India was the source of cow for China and SoutheastAsia. This is reflected in their words for

    cow– Pinyin Chinese gu, Cantonese ngau, and Thai koh. In Africa, Swahili word for cow ngombe. We know that‘m’is added to each nown as aprefix in Swahili

    language.

    Pig Domestication

    Mitochondrial DNA studies have shown that pig, although evolved 500,000 years back in the wild form in the Southeast Asia (which was a single piece of land

    then), its one branch cameto India long back. Then this branch radiated from India into many parts of the world in itswild form. It was from this wild stock

    of Indian radiation, that pigs have been domesticatedat several places in the world independently, the two most important and oldest beingSoutheast Asia and

    India.Buffalo DomesticationBellwood and many other authors think that paddy cultivation was not possible withoutbuffalo which likes water and mud. On the

    basis of physical features of wild buffalossurviving in world today Bellwood (1995) diagnosed that water buffalo was domesticatedfor the first time in India

    in Orissa and Jharkhand area (he actually wrote Bihar instead of Jharkhand, because then Jharkhand was a part of Bihar).Kumar (2007) found, on the basis of

    DNA studies, that buffalo was domesticated in India 6,500 years back, and from here it migrated to Southeast Asia and South China.This migration implies

    migration with farmersor traders, because domestic buffaloes cannot migrate alone.Buffalo’s association with rice agriculture suggests to us that this

    migration occurred as a farming related migration.

    Domestication of Barley

    It was claimed, like everything else, in the past that barley was domesticated for the firsttime in West Asia. But DNA research on barley revealed that it

    was actually domesticated byman in western India, somewhere near modern Pakistan in circa 10,000 B.P. from Indian wild barley, at southwestern ranges of

    Himalayas after the glacial ice cleared from thisregion.Badr (2000) found a rich diversity of barley varieties in the sub-Himalayan region. Diversity is an

    indicator of place of origin. Morell and Clegg (2007), on the basis of DNA analysissuggested that there were two centers of domestication of barley, one in

    the FertileCrescent and the other probably 1500 to 3000 kilometers to the East in western India. This study also indicated that although, the European

    varieties of barley originated from theFertile Crescent variant, the eastern nations received barley breeds from Indiandomestication. This leads us to

    conclude that barley was locally domesticated in the Indus Valley area in circa 10,000 B.P.DNA research by Azhanguvel and Komatsuda (2007) further indicated

    that there were eastern and western two independent centers of barley domestication in Eurasia.Saisho(2007) found the eastern edge of Iran plateau was the

    site of domestication of eastern barley.Jones (2008) finally clarified after studying the Ppd-H1 gene of barley from European farmlands that the agricultural

    variant of barley which has “flowering timeadaptation”, the essential adaptation for agriculture, did not originate in West Asia or the
    Fertile Crescent, but further east, probably in western part of India.Sang(2009) reviewed all the scientific papers presented so far and concluded that at

    about 10,000 B.P., barley cultivation started in western India independently from any external influence. Thus it is concluded by DNA study that barley was

    cultivated in India independent of anyWest Asian influence, and that the essential gene for farming, as noted by Jones, was found in Indian wild breeds only,

    indicating that Indian domestication event was primary and the West Asian one was secondary. This correlates well with finding of barley at Mehrgarh at 9,000

    to 10,000 years back.

    Domestication of Rice:

    There are two main sub-species of rice,Oryza sativa indica or Indian rice and Oryza sativa japonica or Chinese rice. It is now accepted that Oryza nivara,

    one of the wild species of rice from Central India, which is not found in China, is the immediate ancestor of cultivated rice Oryza sativa. O. nivara

    originated from another Indian wild species O. rufipogon, whose related wild breed is also found in Southeast Asia, but not in China. Domestication of
    Oryza sativa’s sub-species indica occurred in east India south of Himalayas; and that of the sub-species japonica occurred in South China. Chen (1993)
    found that ‘deletion type Cp DNA’ is found in ‘annual’ varieties of Oryza rufipogon , which is the ancestor of O. sativa indica. On the other hand

    non-deletion type CpDNA is found in wild “perennial rufipogon”. It was this wild perennial non-deletion type which gave birth to the Chinese breed of rice.

    Thus indica and japonica were domesticated separately and from two different strains of rufifipogon. Thus the Chinese rice is only distantly related to
    indica,and not and ancestor of indica. Moreover Chinese rice seems to have been domesticated much later than the indica. Yamane et al (2009) on the basis of

    another gene Hd6 supported the view that indica and japonica sub-species of rice had been domesticated independently.These works rule out earlier conjecture

    that rice cultivation originated in South China and was later transported to India with Austro-Asiatic farming tribes, the opposite is also shown in

    genetics. On the basis of sh4 gene Sang (2009) claimed that indica was domesticated earlier in Indiathan the Chinese rice, and that it was from the Indian

    domesticated breed that this gene(sh4) essential for farming was transmitted into Chinese variety. The sh4 gene stopsshattering of grains on ripening, and is

    crucial to domestication. Without this gene, the grains shatter and fall down from the rice plant as soon as they get ripe.This gene originated in

    domesticated Oryza sativa indica in India, once only, and has by nowintrogressed into all the paddy types by cross pollination and seed selection.Agriculture

    related words have been derived in both Sanskrit and Tamil. Thus the genetic evidence favours that India (Ganga Valley) was the first centre of rice

    cultivation with the help of ox and buffalo, and the Southeast Asians learned this from India,and cultivated their own wild rice. The process then spread to

    China, whose cultivated ricestill contains many wild features and later to West Asia, Europe and beyond.

    Mouse and rat

    Mouse and rat are two different species of rodents. Incidentally, both of them originated inIndia and migrated out about the same time with agriculture.

    Although archaeologicalevidence for agriculture starts from 10,000 years back, the black rat migration out of Indiatook place at 20,000 years back and mouse

    migration took place 15,000 years back(molecular dates). Domestic mice (Mus) have lived in and around human dwellings feeding on human storedfood and food

    debris for ages. In the beginning Muslived only in north India since 900,000years back,as a commensal of Homo erectus and later Homo sapiens sapiens

    (Ferris,1983).It diverged into three principal species,viz.Mus musculus domesticus, M. musculus musculus and M. castaneus by 500,000 years back (Geraldis,

    2008; Din, 1996). When Homo sapiens sapiens inhabited India in about 100,000 ybp or earlier, these species of mice became adapted to live in and around

    human dwellings (Boursot, 1993). Miceprobably felt safer in human surroundings. Tsutim et al (2008) found that human environment gives protection to sparrows

    from being predated by carnivorous birds and animals. The same applies to mice. Groves (1984) found that many types of mice and rats had been introduced into

    Island Southeast Asia from India together with rice agriculture. Mus caroli, Mus cervicolor and Rattus argentiventer are found in Southeast Asia north of

    Malay. They are invariably restricted to wet rice growing areas.Mus dunni , a small mice, native of northeast India and Rattus nitidus, a native of Nepal,

    are rice-field pests of Indonesia. These all species originated in India. Bandicoot-rat (Bandicota bengalensis) a rice-field pest in Indonesia originated in

    Mahanadi delta in association with buffalo.We have already discussed buffalo domestication andmigration from India. The other sub-species of mice which

    migrated out of India to Southeast Asia is Muscastaneus. This species isadept at digging holes in soil. Probably they learned to do this in a bid to eat

    tubers and sweet potatoes which grew in abundance inIndian soil.Mus caroli is another species of Southeast Asian mice which dwells in rice fields.

    Black rat (Rattus rattus) is another species which originated in India and then migrated toother parts of the world. From India it migrated to West Asia and

    then to Europe.Rattus reached West Asia by 20,000 years before present, a date which is earlier than domestic mouse migration.Other migration of this species

    was from India to Madagaskar. We can guess from the dates of Ganga Valley Pottery Neolithic that Pre-Pottery Neolithic may have started in India about

    13,000 ybp to 14,000 ybp. We are forced to assume that roughly the same time PPN migration out of India to West Asia started.Mus domesticus migration out of

    India to West Asia must be a direct result of Neolithic migration. Date of migration of Indian male lineage J2b from northern Ganga Valley to West Asia

    (13,800 yearsback) coincides with that.Mus domesticus reached the Eastern Mediterranean basin inabout 10,000 ybp.The route map of mice migration as mapped by

    the geneticists isexactly the same as that of human migration. Rajabi-Maham et al (2008) studied mice DNA from Iran up to Europe. They found that after

    reaching the Fertile Crescent mice expansion toward Europe and Asia Minor took at least two routes, tentatively termed the Mediterranean and the

    Bosphorus/Black Sea routes.They found that another domesticated animal goat also followed the same routes almostthe same time about 12,000 years back.

    Thus goat and mice migrated along with expanding farming. Protracted commensality of Mus m. domesticus in India indicates that Homo sapiens sapiens
    was doing some primitive farming or foraging and storing food since much before actual onset of Neolithic migration. Indians of that era had possibly a

    settled life and home and they depended on cereal, fruit and tuber diet.Cognate words for ‘mouse’ are found exclusively within the Indo-European family of

    languages (English ‘mouse’,Latin mus, Sanskrit mUSaka, muSika, mUs, muSka,Pahlavi musk), indicating expansion of domestic mouse out of India with migrating

    Neolithic culture of the Indo-European speakers of north India.

    Migrations and Ecology

    Large scale human migrations have taken place mostly out of compulsion. As the numberincreases, there is a lot of competition for food and space within the

    members of thespecies. Causes stress. To avoid stress, members of population disperse to new ecologicalniche (Gliessman 2006).Groube (1996) pays attention to

    carrying capacity model, andderives on ecological grounds that any migration would not have been possible from theFertile Crescent (West Asia) to either

    south or east as those had already been colonized well by Homo sapiens sapiens.Hence due to ecological factors alone the population of Levant and Fertile

    Crescent had no choice but to migrate only to the north or west. Hence ecology too rules out population spread from West Asia to Iran and India, rather the

    opposite from India, to West Asia, to Central Asia and finally Central Europe.In 2009 the analysis of ancient DNA from skeletons suggests that Europe’s first

    farmers were not the descendants of Stone Age hunter-gatherers in the region, but were probably migrants who came into major areas of central and eastern

    Europe about 7,500 years ago, bringing domesticated plants and animals with them.The research involved the analysis of DNA from hunter-gatherer and early

    farmer burials, and compared those to each other and to the DNA of modern Europeans.They conclude that there is little evidence of a direct genetic link

    between the hunter-gatherers and the early farmers, and 82 percent of the types of mtDNA found in the hunter-gatherers are relatively rare in central

    Europeans today.The team from Mainz University in Germany, together with researchers from UCL (University College London) and Cambridge, found that the first

    farmers in central and northern Europe could not have been the descendents of the hunter-gatherers that came before them.The new study confirms what Joachim

    Burger’s team showed in 2005; that the first farmers were not the direct ancestors of modern European. “In total, this means that more than 80 percent of

    European Y chromosomes descend from incoming farmers. In contrast, most maternal genetic lineages seem to descend from hunter-gatherers,” said Dr Patricia

    Balaresque, first author of the study. The invention of farming is perhaps the most important cultural change in the history of modern humans.

    The Central Role of India in Populating Europe and Asia:Study of Human Maternal Lineages

    Earlier, when the Out of Africa theory came, it was thought that man came out of Africa through Suez and West Asia. That made people and scholars, alike,

    believe that West Asia was the source of all further populations of Europe, Asia and beyond. This assumption coupled with findings at Jericho and other sites

    in West Asia made authors believe that farming originated at the West Asia, from where it travelled to Europe and India. While farming went to South Europe

    with Indo-European language, it went to India with Dravidian language—they thought (Colin Renfrew). Thus Renfrew suggested that four major language families

    of the world–Indo-European, Dravidian, Altaic and Afro-Asiatic —originated in the West Asia. He thought that their common precursor was Proto-Nostratic, the

    ancestor of Nostratic macro-family, which was located in the West Asia, sometime before 10,000 B.P.(p. 80), he suggested. But it was realized soon that the

    West Asian route of exit from Africa was untenable. By 1998 Cavalli-Sforza and his team reached the conclusion that from Africa, Homo sapiens sapiens
    came out quite early and only once to reach India. In India that population expanded, had linguistic and cultural development, and then it was from India

    that the restof the world was populated. This finding has been further supported by a large number of extensive DNA studies by Quintana-Murci,Kivisild,

    Bamshad et al. 2001; Kivisild et al, Metspalu et al, Endicott et al , 2003; Forster, 2004; Forster and Matsumara, 2005;Macauley, 2005; Thangaraj et al
    , 2005). Thus latest consensus is that there was a single exit out of Africa to India along coastal routevery early in history of human evolution about

    100,000 years back, after which all the areas of world were populated by migration from India. Migration maps made by authors likeOppenheimer (2003) and

    Metspalu (2004) on the basis of DNA studies showed that Indiaoccupied centre-space of human evolution and dispersal. Metspalu et al reaffirmed that“Southern

    Coastal Route” to India was suggested by the phylogeography of mtDNA haplogroup M. The oldest Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineage is M. Metspalu noted that M’
    is virtually absent from North Africa and Near East. This undermined the likelihood of the initial colonization of Eurasia taking a route through Egypt and

    Suez. Metspalu further noted that the split between West and East Eurasian mtDNAs occurredbetween the Indus Valley and Southwest Asia, and not in the Central

    Asia. This contradicted the earlier scheme in which Central Asia had been considered the central place for furtherexpansion, branching and further migration

    of mankind once man had left Africa. Metspaluand his colleagues explained:“It is in the South Asia that local branches of the mtDNA tree(haplogroups given in

    the spheres) arose (circa 40,000–60,000 B.P.); and from there theywere further carried into the interiors of the continents of Asia and Europe (thinner black
    arrows).” They further noted that the “northern route” –from northeast Africa over Sinaito the Near East–was used much later (about 30,000 to 17,000 B.P.) by

    East African people.

    The first migration out of India, which took place about 85,000 years back, was to theSoutheast Asia. Man soon reached Australia from Southeast Asia, the

    migrations greatlyfacilitated by Sunda shelf, which is submerged in sea but less than 100 meters deep at themost. India and Sri Lanka as well as New Guinea

    and Australia were also joined by land. Sucha view in favour of coastal migration of humans was earlier mooted in 1962 by evolutionary geographer Carl

    Saucer, who had explained on the basis of ‘ecological niche’ that forest and savanna (grasslands) were least likely to be human home during early days; and

    sea shoreswere the only likely place for human home (p. 42).A recent review article by Endicott et al (2007) clearly concludes that India was the central

    player in cultural evolution of man and his migration.


    The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny. Recen tclaims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for
    the majority of the Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are totally
    rejected, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H.

  23. ArjenHinduvta

    LINDSAY AND DOTA…

    rather than overlooking you racist past..which you cant deny EVER..if you call me hinduvata which i dont mind, but in the context which your saying it , you lace it with racism and predujice, and its that ignorance i cant stand..If you call people hinduvta, then i will show you the full history of the white racist europeans from the last 600years, and in doing that i will show HOW deep your OWN RACISM RUNS…

    and NO ONE no one..with such a racist ideological past has the moral ground to label hinduvta like Christian nazis .Not in a million years.But if you want i can post MANY articles, evidence, proof of the MOST BRUTAL RACIST REGIME IN ALL OF MAN KIND…the Taliban Europeans.

    ”’God-fearing are commanded not to revile the dark-skinned, but to remember their own filthiness and to remember that filth of dark skin came only because of their fathers’ sin”

    Leviticus 25:44-46 “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

    Why not challenge the genetic data…?

    instead of acting like your ancestors!!!…

    Galileo Galilei,the famous Italian astronomer and physicist was one of the most noted victims of the inquisition. A letter in which he attempted to demonstrate the Copernican theory, that the Earth is not the center of the universe, was forwarded by some of his enemies (xtians) to the inquisitors in Rome. He was tried in 1633 and found guilty of heresy. He was forced to recant (publicly withdraw his statement) and was sentenced to life imprisonment under house arrest.

    “A particularly grave abuse was practiced in Goa in the form of ‘mass baptism’ and what went before it. The practice was begun by the Jesuits and was alter initiated by the Franciscans also. The Jesuits would go through the streets of the Hindu quarter in pairs, accompanied by their Negro slaves, whom they would urge to seize the Hindus. When the blacks caught up a fugitive, they would smear his lips with a piece of beef, making him an ‘untouchable’ among his people. Conversion to Christianity was then his only option.”

    YET YOU QUESTION MY ROOTS AND MOTIVES..lmaooo…..

    YESTERDAY THEY WHERE DOING THIS TO DOTA….

    The Goan inquisition is regarded by all contemporary portrayals as the most violent inquisition ever executed by the Portuguese Catholic Church. It lasted from 1560 to 1812. The inquisition was set as a tribunal, headed by a judge, sent to Goa from Portugal and was assisted by two judicial henchmen. The judge was answerable to no one except to Lisbon and handed down punishments as he saw fit. The Inquisition Laws filled 230 pages and the palace where the Inquisition was conducted was known as the Big House and the Inquisition proceedings were always conducted behind closed shutters and closed doors. The screams of agony of the culprits (men, women, and children) could be heard in the streets, in the stillness of the night, as they were brutally interrogated, flogged, and slowly dismembered in front of their relatives. Eyelids were sliced off and extremities were amputated carefully, a person could remain conscious even though the only thing that remained was his torso and a head.

    and WITH RACIST THOMAS MACEULEY EDUCATION TO CREATE AN INDIAN IN LOOK BUT BRIITSH IN TASTE…

    WE GET dota…….BUT DOTA..doesnt see the links?…lmaooo hahaha..

    HE just doesn’t get it, how the British looted india, raped india, started slavery in Africa, layed genocide in America and china…YET DOTA does not THINK that the briitsh who where capable of such horific crimes did , and then they created the INDIAN ENGLISH EDUCATION system…HE DOESNT THINK THE TWO HAVE ANYY LINKS…lmaooo

    hahahahaha NOW THAT IS FUNNY…and goes to show the level of intellect you really have ..DOTA..THE LOVE CHILD OF MACAULEY..

    am still waiting for YOUR response..You macauley racist..eduacated to be racist….by the same people that did this to you!!

    The British were perhaps the most successful pirates in history. They came to India, pillaged the country in the name of trade and then enslaved it in the name of civilization.”

    They chopped the hand of master indian weavers to save the industry in England. The British killed upto 10million indians after the war of independence. Men, women and children were left to starve, even though food grains where in storage the British refused to give. Up to 50million indians died through famines caused by British rule during their 150year occupation.

    • Dota-Player

      I’ve spoken out against british imperialism on several occassions, Wade and the others can testify to that. Ive spoken out against the center preiphery relationship and the drain of India’s capital. Unlike you however, I do not allow the ‘glories’ of the past to obscure the reality that modern India sucks donkey nuts. I call you a Hindutvadi because I see a familiar pattern to your bullshit. Your animosity towards Muslim and Christians is typical and predictable, as is your ‘secular’ opposition to western hegemony. People like you pretend to be secular, but in reality, your just as likely to look the other way as Muslims and Christians are butchered by Hindutva mobs. Your definition to Indianness is tied to Hinduism. In short, I feel that people like you represent the scum of humanity. In short, I feel that Indian society is uncivilzed and brutish. Civilization is much more than inventoing mathematical theorams and constructing Architectural wonders, it also holds that human beings are destined for a higher purpose. But to arrive at that stage of thinking , a society must first believe that all humans are equal in worth (if not status), and that morality is universal in scope. Hinduism is inherently anti-thetical to this as it holds that some humans are inherently inferior. That Hitler modeled his philosophy after the Aryans of India and not those of Iran should speak volumes about Hinduism. If Ashok the great had abolished Hinduism and replaced it with Budhism, perhaps Indians would have attained the level of civilization that their distant cousins in Persia did. Now please leave, your making a fo0l of yourself. Why don’t you post on India-forum.com? It’s a slime pit of Hindutva that should make you feel at home.

  24. Anthropologist

    Who cares, Aryans werent white, they were darkish-_-

  25. Pingback: Dravidian history no one talks about … « 2ndlook – View From A Square Prism

  26. Reply from an Aryan Brahmin

    Robert Lindsay Why do you white people love identifying with Aryans? its very funny considering the fact that before colonialism and the discovery that Sanskrit was related to European languages by the Brits and Germans, no White people called themselves “Aryans”. You can’t twist facts to suit your hidden agenda of white supremacy.Your views sound more like a child’s tantrums and is devoid of any real logic.You and people like you love to live under the darkness of ignorance You are a deliberately trying to twist facts and spun a lie so that you can fit yourself into your stupid design. Why don’t you research enough before making any lame and unintelligent statement.It seems you feel extremely threatened by the fact that most indians are smarter,more intelligent and richer than people like you. Jealousy could be one of the reasons why you feel such a prejudice against people of a particular Nationality.
    All White people need to realize a fact that not all whites are Aryans
    Only those people with Y DNA Haplogroup R1a can make such a claim – like the Slavs, Ukrainians, Russians,Tajiks,Pashtuns,Hindu Brahmins and Kshatriyas of India, and all others who belong to the Y DNA paternal lineage of R1a.
    In ancient times Iran,Afghanistan,Pakistan and India were all Aryan nations.
    Most White Americans are Celts with Y DNA lineage of R1b or else they have some other Scandinavian Y DNA haplogroup like i2.
    As a good will I would advise you to read the book Indica by Megasthenes to enlighten yourself with the knowledge about the origins of Indian aryans.In his book, Megasthenes clearly tells that none of the races in India have a foreign origin but all are indigenous. I hope you know that he authored this book many thousand years ago during the reign of the great Chandragupt Maurya also known to the ancient greeks as Sandrokiptos.

  27. MuslimMotherfukah

    Islam is,was and always will be a religion of Shit glorifying paedophile murderers and rapists.
    Islamofascist claiming Islam to be a religion of peace are biggest liars and deceivers.
    The concept of Jihad is good enough proof to nail their fabricated lie and catch these gay muslis with their pants down.
    All Muslis are mother-fucked,sister-fucked inbred suicide bombing shit hogging lunatic terrorist bastards and losers.
    If the world wants any peace these gay muslis should be wiped off from the face of earth for ever never to see these cunts anymore.

    To all the Muslis out there I got 3 words for you suck my dick!

  28. kumar

    Lindsay, How did rosary come in christianity catholic belief system?Ponder over it.Read about early christianity and gnosticism.How did Buddhism and Hinduism influence early christianity
    Essenes sect of which christ was a part and Hindu monasticism are linked as before christ celibacy was not practised among Jewish Prophets and in Judaism, there is no concept of celibacy among their Rabbis or sages even today ?it is a fact that christ was asian and he was influenced by Buddhism/Hinduism,

    Have you ever seen intersections between Jewish Caballah and Hinduism? Ask a educated secular Jew and he will tell you about it.Jewish Caballah and Hinduism have same system of Chakras.

    .http://essenes.net/index.php?Itemid=1203&id=792&option=com_content&task=view

    I challenge you here to disprove me.

    This Dota is a Muslim convert from Pakistan or India ,but he is not arab if he is from Indian subcontinent that includes Pakistan and Bangladesh ,.Check out the Muslim of India and Pakistan,how they were either low caste Hindu converts or high caste Hindus who were converted by Sword of Islamic fanatics..
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Rajput

  29. kumar

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagram
    another common link between Judaism and Hinduism

  30. kumar

    reincarnation in judaism and Hinduism,another common link:

    Here is the link between Kaballah and Hinduism
    http://www.yogiphilosophy.com/docs/ParallelsinBuddhismHinduismKabbalah_web.pdf
    Judaism and Buddhism

    http://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakras_and_sefirot.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jew_in_the_Lotus

    Read this link also :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Pagels#Buddhism_and_Gnosticism

    Mr Robert Lindsay,I am challenging you openly here that you disprove my findings about Hinduism and its ancient links with your religion of which it seems a very poor knowledge of its history and tradition.Your bible is half complete with no mention of the teachings of the foremost disciple of christ – Mary Magdalene and St Thomas.Your bible is based on : St Paul,who was never an apostle of christ and hijacked christianity.The christianity you are brain washed with is called “churchiaity” and do not reflect complete teachings of christ.Read gospel of thomas and Gospel of Mary Magdalene to get full knowledge of holy christ.
    In the mean while,take this challenge of mine to disprove me .Truth should come out 🙂

    • Dota

      To answer your question in advance Robert: Yes, he’s for real.

      • These people are so fucking pitiful. That is from an American Leftist’s POV of course, but these guys are just sad. If this is how the average Indian Hindu thinks, then their whole culture and society is fucked to the core. At least Islam has reformers, secularizers and modernists. Hinduism has none of this, and the forseeable future holds little hope for more. A very sad and sick society, to the core.

        • Bay Area Guy

          A very sad and sick society, to the core.

          And if good ol’ Nicholas Kristof and various other pundits are correct, a future superpower as well.

          The very thought that India might become a superpower makes me shudder.

        • BAG and Robert…The other day I said I encountered a Zionist crazy in Santa Monica, handing out flyers about WWIII, with Israel, the U.S and India on one side, and China, Russia and the “Iranians/Muslims” on the other?

          This is exactly what I am talking about! I’ve seen this developing for years!

          I can tell you this…Thank God it’s only a pipe dream. The U.S/Israel and India, vs. China, Russia and all them “Muslims?” Who’s side would you rather be on?

        • I mean for Christ’s sake…Where have all the adults gone!?!?!?

        • Bay Area Guy

          I mean for Christ’s sake…Where have all the adults gone!?!?!?

          Cyrus, I’ve been asking myself that for a long time.

          I also keep asking myself, “how the hell did it come to this?”

        • Dota

          The very thought that India might become a superpower makes me shudder.

          It might, depending on how you define superpower. If you’re referring to a nation able to exert its military and economic reach globally, India may very well become a superpower. But even if it comes to pass, Indian society will still be miserable, backward, and devoid of humanity. And the denizens will continue to endure their agony in silence, as their religion has instructed them to do so for over 3000 years.

        • Hacienda

          The world has always been run by fools, criminals, and children. It’s always been this way. The times when sane, competent men run a country are the exceptions, not the rule.

          The US is broken. Luckily other countries are more broken. An Americans organize around greed, a great organizing principle.

        • The U.S/Israel and India, vs. China, Russia and all them “Muslims?” Who’s side would you rather be on?

          I would be on the side of the Axis of Evil, of course, like I always am.

          😉

        • Where have all the adults gone!?!?!?

          The adults? It’s 1 AM, and we just woke up.

  31. kumar

    Robert Lindsey,I am still waiting for your answer .come on take the challenge disputing my facts I have presented to you .let us see your level of IQ here and take it as a challenge instead of just spitting venom on Hindus.Let us the depth of your knowledge about your fake churchainity and world religion or you have decided to remain a barbarian in this birth also?

  32. kumar

    I do not know if you have the guts to take up my challenge but I have an alternative solution for you keeping in mind your personal traits For that you will be needing assistance of wahabi delusional anti semitic anti hindu therapist – Dota.He will also get you retirement benefit of eternal heaven with numerous nubile virgins after mission is accomplished because truly speaking you are *not* a christian at all but a hatred promoting venom spitting fanatic who thinks in black and white but comes clothed in the garb of a fake intellectual blogger to air his views because of his own maladjustment.Good luck .Btw,You have a very uncanny resemblance to Mr Jeffrey Dahmer

  33. Sandeep P S, Bangalore, IND

    Mr. Lindsay. go and check the DNA test of your family…

    I will definitely welcome you all to the home…

    • Don’t need one. Homeboy is from Europe. You know, the home of civilization. Not like your pathetic backwater Bharat or anything like that.

    • Sir, I honestly would not mind if I had Black, Amerindian, Pygmy, Aborigine or whatever DNA, as long as I get to keep my brains, looks and personality. One’s background isn’t really important. But my folks don’t go back to India. We’re civilized. We come from Europe.

    • Jaipal

      @Sandeep,

      There is plenty of evidence that proves that India was the original homeland of Indo-Europeans and the
      migration was from India to Europe. I have given the evidence for this on this site.

      • Jaipal

        Mr. Lindsay,

        I’m going to give you a challenge and lets see if you can refute the linguistic points
        that I am going to give in favor of OIT( Out of India Theory)……
        Do you accept or not the challenge?

        • Jaipal

          Mr Lindsay, here is the linguistic argumen below. See if you can answer it….

        • Jaipal

          The Linguistic Evidence

          Erdosy speaks of the “disciplinary divide” between linguistics and archaeology.

          And it is Michael Witzel whom Erdosy pits against the archaeologists whose papers are included in the volume: “Placed against Witzel’s contribution, the paper by J.Shaffer and D. Lichtenstein will illustrate the gulf still separating archaeology and linguistics.”32

          We will not assume that Witzel’s papers in this particular volume represent the sum total of the linguistic evidence, but, since the volume does pit him against the archaeologists, let us examine the linguistic evidence stressed by him.

          According to Erdosy, “M. Witzel begins by stressing the quality of linguistic (and historical) data obtainable from the Rgveda, along with the potential of a study of linguistic stratification, contact and convergence. Next, the evidence of place-names, above all hydronomy, is scrutinised, followed by an evaluation of some of the most frequently invoked models of language change in light of this analysis.”33

          We have already examined Witzel’s “models of language change” by which he seeks to explain away the lack of archaeological evidence. We will now examine “the evidence of place-names, above all hydronomy”, on the basis of which Witzel apparently contests the claims of the archaeologists and proves the Aryan invasion.

          Witzel does not have much to say about place-names. He points out that most of the place-names in England (all names ending in -don, -chester, -ton, -ham, -ey, -wick, etc., like London, Winchester, Uppington, Downham, Westrey, Lerwick, etc.) and in America (like Massachussetts, Wachussetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Chicago, etc) are remnants of older languages which were spoken in these areas.

          But, far from finding similar evidence in respect of India, Witzel is compelled to admit: “In South Asia, relatively few pre-Indo-Aryan place-names survive in the North; however, many more in central and southern India. Indo-Aryan place-names are generally not very old, since the towns themselves are relatively late.”34

          Witzel clearly evades the issue: he refers to “relatively few pre-Indo-Aryan place names” in the North, but judiciously refrains from going into any specifics about these names, or the number of such names.

          He insinuates that there are “many more” pre-Indoaryan place-names in Central and South India, but this is clearly a misleading statement: by Central India, he obviously means the Austric-language speaking areas, and by South India, he definitely means the Dravidian-language speaking areas, and perhaps other areas close to these. So, if these areas have Austric or Dravidian place-names respectively, does it prove anything?

          And, finally, he suggests that the paucity (or rather absence) of any “pre-Indo-Aryan” place-names in the North is because the towns concerned “are relatively late” (ie. came into being after the Aryan influx). This excuse is rather strange: the Indus people, alleged to be “pre-Indo-Aryans” did have towns and cities, but no alleged earlier place-names have survived, while the American Indians (in the U.S.A.) did not have large towns and cities, but their place-names have survived in large numbers.

          Witzel goes into more detail in respect of the hydronomes (ie. names of rivers), but the results of his investigation, and even his own comments on them, are intriguing.

          According to Witzel: “A better case for the early linguistic and ethnic history of South Asia can be made by investigating the names of rivers. In Europe river-names were found to reflect the languages spoken before the influx of Indo-European speaking populations. They are thus older than c. 4500-2500 BC (depending on the date of the spread of Indo-European languages in various parts of Europe). It would be fascinating to gain a similar vantage point for the prehistory of South Asia.”35

          It is indeed fascinating. Witzel finds, to his chagrin, that “in northern India, rivers in general have early Sanskrit names from the Vedic period, and names derived from the daughter languages of Sanskrit later on.”36

          Witzel tries to introduce the non-Aryan element into the picture: “River names in northern India are thus principally Sanskrit, with few indications of Dravidian, MuNDa or Tibeto-Burmese names. However, Kosala, with its uncharacteristic -s- after -o- may be Tibeto-Burmese (Sanskrit rules would demand KoSala or KoSala, a corrected form that is indeed adopted in the Epics).”37 Likewise, “there has been an almost complete Indo-Aryanisation in northern India; this has progressed much less in southern India and in the often inaccessible parts of central India. In the northwest there are only a few exceptions, such as the names of the rivers GangA, SutudrI and perhaps KubhA (Mayrhofer, 1956-1976).”38

          Thus, there are four river-names which he tries to connect with “pre-Indo-Aryan” languages. But three of them, Kosala, SutudrI and KubhA are clearly Indo-European names (the hairsplitting about the letter -s- in Kosala is a typical “linguistic” ploy which we will refer to later on in our examination of linguistic substrata), and only GaNgA is generally accepted as a possible non-Indo-European name.

          But the answer to this is given by Witzel himself: “Rivers often carry different names, sometimes more than two, along their courses. Even in a homogenous, monolingual country, such as Japan, this can be the case as names change as soon as the river passes through a major mountain range. In South Asia, to quote one well-known example, the BhAgIrathI and AlaknandA become the GaNgA. This increases the probability of multiple names from various languages for one and the same river of which only one may have survived in our sources.”39 (It may be noted that the Rigveda itself refers to the river as both GaNgA and JahnAvI).

          Witzel cannot escape the “evidence of hydronomy” as he calls it, and he tries to explain it away by suggesting that “there has been an almost complete Indo-Aryanisation”40 of the river-names in northern India.

          But his explanation rings hollow: “The Indo-Aryan influence, whether due to actual settlement, acculturation, or, if one prefers, the substitution of Indo-Aryan names for local ones, was powerful enough from early on to replace local names, in spite of the well-known conservatism of river-names. This is especially surprising in the area once occupied by the Indus civilization, where one would have expected the survival of earlier names, as has been the case in Europe and the Near East. At the least, one would expect a palimpsest, as found in New England, with the name of the State of Massachussetts next to the Charles River formerly called the Massachussetts River, and such new adaptations as Stony Brook, Muddy Creek, Red River, etc. next to the adaptations of Indian names such as the Mississippi and the Missouri. The failure to preserve old hydronomes even in the Indus Valley (with a few exceptions noted above) indicates the extent of the social and political collapse experienced by the local population.”41

          Apart from anything else, does this last bit at all harmonize with the claim made elsewhere in the same volume (to explain the lack of archaeological-anthropological evidence of any invasion) that the “Indo-Aryanisation” of the northwest was a “gradual and complex” rather than a “cataclysmic” event?

          Witzel starts out with the intention of pitting the linguistic evidence of place-names and river-names against the evidence of archaeology; and he ends up having to try and argue against, or explain away, this linguistic evidence, since it only confirms the archaeological evidence.

          The long and short of the evidence of place-names and river-names is as follows:

          The place-names and river-names in Europe, to this day, represent pre-Indo-European languages spoken in Europe before 2500 BC. The same is the case with Armenia: “among the numerous personal and place-names handed down to us from Armenia up to the end of the Assyrian age, there is absolutely nothing Indo-European.”42 And with Greece and Anatolia: “numerous place-names… show that Indo-Europeans did not originate in Greece. The same can be said for Italy and Anatolia.”43

          On the other hand, northern India is the only place where place-names and river-names are Indo-European right from the period of the Rigveda (a text which Max Müller refers to as “the first word spoken by the Aryan man”) with no traces of any alleged earlier non-Indo-European names.

          Witzel’s attitude towards this evidence is typical of the generally cavalier attitude of Western scholars towards inconvenient evidence in the matter of Indo-European origins: he notes that the evidence is negative, finds it “surprising” that it should be so, makes an offhand effort to explain it away, and then moves on.

          And, later on, in his second paper included in the volume, he actually refers complacently to the whole matter: “in view of the discussion of hydronomy and place-names in the previous paper, it is also interesting that the Indo-Aryans could not, apparently, pronounce local names.”44

          But, like it or not, the evidence of place-names and river-names is a very important factor in locating the Indo-European homeland in any particular area. And India, and India alone, passes this test with flying colours.

        • Jaipal

          THE EVIDENCE OF LINGUISTIC ISOGLOSSES

          One linguistic phenomenon which is of great help to linguists in their efforts to chalk out the likely scenario of the migration schedule of the various Indo-European branches from the original homeland, is the phenomenon of linguistic isoglosses.

          A linguistic isogloss is a linguistic feature which is found in some of the branches of the family, and is not found in the others.

          This feature may, of course, be either an original feature of the parent Proto-Indo-European language which has been lost in some of the daughter branches but retained in others, or a linguistic innovation, not found in the parent Proto-Indo-European language, which developed in some of the daughter branches but not in the others. But this feature is useful in establishing early historico-geographical links between branches which share the same isogloss.

          We will examine the evidence of the isoglosses as follows:

          A. The Isoglosses
          B. The Homeland Indicated by the Isoglosses
          III.A. The Isoglosses

          There are, as Winn points out, “ten ‘living branches’… Two branches, Indic (Indo-Aryan) and Iranian dominate the eastern cluster. Because of the close links between their classical forms – Sanskrit and Avestan respectively – these languages are often grouped together as a single Indo-Iranian branch.”59 But Meillet notes: “It remains quite clear, however, that Indic and Iranian evolved from different Indo-European dialects whose period of common development was not long enough to effect total fusion.”60

          Besides these ten living branches, there are two extinct branches, Anatolian (Hittite) and Tocharian.

          Of these twelve branches, one branch, Illyrian (Albanian), is of little use in this study of isoglosses: “Albanian… has undergone so many influences that it is difficult to be certain of its relationships to the other Indo-European languages.”61

          An examination of the isoglosses which cover the other eleven branches (living and extinct) gives a more or less clear picture of the schedule of migrations of the different Indo-European branches from the original homeland.

          Whatever the dispute about the exact order in which the different branches migrated away from the homeland, the linguists are generally agreed on two important points:

          1. Anatolian (Hittite) was the first branch to leave the homeland: “The Anatolian languages, of which Hittite is the best known, display many archaic features that distinguish them from other Indo-European languages. They apparently represent an earlier stage of Indo-European, and are regarded by many as the first group to break away from the proto-language.”62

          2. Four branches, Indic, Iranian, Hellenic (Greek) and Thraco-Phrygian (Armenian) were the last branches remaining behind in the original homeland after the other branches had dispersed:

          “After the dispersals of the early PIE dialects,… there were still those who remained… Among them were the ancestors of the Greeks and Indo-Iranians…63

          “Greek and Sanskrit share many complex grammatical features: this is why many earlier linguists were misled into regarding them as examples of the most archaic stage of Proto-Indo-European. However, the similarities between the two languages are now regarded as innovations that took place during a late period of PIE , which we call stage III. One of these Indo-Greek innovations was also shared by Armenian; all these languages it seems, existed in an area of mutual interaction.”64

          Thus we get: “Greek Armenian, Phrygian, Thracian and Indo-Iranian. These languages may represent a comparatively late form of Indo-European, including linguistic innovations not present in earlier stages. In particular, Greek and Indic share a number of distinctive grammatical features……”65

          The following are some of the innovations shared only by Indic, Iranian, Greek and Armenian (Thraco-Phrygian); features which distinguish them from the other branches, particularly the other living branches:

          a. “The prohibitive negation *mE is attested only in Indo-Iranian (mA), Greek (mE) and Armenian (mi); elsewhere, it is totally lacking… and there is no difference in this respect between the ancient and modern stages of Greek, Armenian or Persian”;66 or, for that matter, sections of Indic (eg. the prohibitive negation mat in Hindi).

          b. “In the formation of the Perfect also, there is a clear ‘distinction’ between Indo-Iranian and Armenian and Greek on the one hand, and all of the other languages on the other.”67

          c. The “Indo-European voiceless aspirated stops are completely attested only in Indo-Iranian and Armenian… Greek… clearly preserves two of the three voiceless aspirated stops whose existence is established by the correspondence of Indo-Iranian and Armenian.”68 All the other branches show “complete fusion”69 of these voiceless aspirated stops.

          d. “The suffix *-tero-, *-toro-, *-tro- serves in bell Indo-European languages to mark the opposition of two qualities, but only in two languages, Greek and Indo-Iranian, is the use of the suffix extended to include the formation of secondary adjectival comparatives… This development, by its very difference, points to the significance of the Greek and Indo-Iranian convergence… Armenian, which has a completely new formation, is not instructive in this regard.”70 But, “Latin, Irish, Germanic, Lithuanian and Slavic, on the other hand, borrow their secondary comparative from the original primary type.”71

          e. “The augment is attested only in Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Greek; it is found nowhere else.”72 And it is “significant that the augment is not found in any of the other Indo-European languages… The total absence of the augment in even the earliest texts, and in all the dialects of Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic, is characteristic.”73

          Hence, “the manner in which Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic eliminated the imperfect and came to express the preterite presupposes an original, Indo-European, absence of the augment throughout this group of languages. We thus have grounds for positing two distinct Indo-European dialect groups.”74

          f. The division of the Indo-European branches into two distinct groups is confirmed by what Meillet calls the Vocabulary of the Northwest: “There is quite a large group of words that appear in the dialects of the North and West (Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Celtic and Italic) but are not found in the others (Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek)… their occurrence in the dialects of the North and West would indicate a cultural development peculiar to the peoples who spread these dialects.”75
          While Anatolian (Hittite) was “the first group to break away from the protolanguage”, and Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek were “those who remained” after “the dispersals of the early PIE dialects”, the other branches share isoglosses which can help in placing them between these two extremes:

          1. “Hittite, the first to separate itself, shares many isoglosses with Germanic and Tocharian.”76

          2. “Celtic, Italic, Hittite, Tocharian and (probably) Phrygian share an interesting isogloss: the use of ‘r’ to indicate the passive forms of verbs. This feature… does not occur in any other Indo-European language.”77

          3. Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavonic, as we have seen, constitute one distinct group (in contradistinction to another distinct group consisting of Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek).

          However, within themselves, these five branches link together as follows:

          a. Italic and Celtic: “Comparative linguists have long been aware of the links between Italic and Celtic, which share a number of archaic features. These links suggest that the two branches developed together.”78 Among other things: “Vocabulary is identical in parts; this is true of some very important words, particularly prepositions and preverbs.”79

          b. Baltic and Slavonic: “The general resemblance of Baltic and Slavic is so apparent that no-one challenges the notion of a period of common development… Baltic and Slavic are the descendants of almost identical Indo-European dialects. No important isogloss divides Baltic from Slavic… the vocabularies of Slavic and Baltic show numerous cognates – more precisely, cognates that are found nowhere else or cognates that in Baltic and Slavic have a form different from their form in other languages.”80

          c. Italic, Celtic and Germanic: “The Germanic, Celtic and Italic idioms present… certain common innovational tendencies.”81 But, Italic apparently separated from the other two earlier: “Germanic, Celtic and Italic underwent similar influences. After the Italic-Celtic period, Italic ceased undergoing these influences and underwent others… Germanic and Celtic, remaining in adjacent regions, developed in part along parallel lines.”82

          d. Germanic, Baltic and Slavonic: “Because Germanic shares certain important features with Baltic and Slavic, we may speculate that the history of the three groups is linked in some way.”83

          To go into more precise detail: “The difference between a dative plural with *-bh-, eg. Skr.-bhyah, Av. -byO, Lat. -bus, O.Osc. -fs, O.Ir.-ib, Gr. -fi(n), and one with *-m-, eg. Goth. -m, O.Lith. -mus, Ol.Sl. -mU, is one of the first things to have drawn attention to the problem of Indo-European dialectology. Since it has been established, principally by A. Leskien, that there was no unity of Germanic, Baltic and Slavic postdating the period of Indo-European unity, the very striking similarity of Germanic, Baltic and Slavic which we observe here cannot… be explained except by a dialectical variation within common Indo-European.”84 It is, therefore, clear “that these three languages arose from Indo-European dialects exhibiting certain common features.”85

          To sum up, we get two distinct groups of branches:

          Group A: Hittite, Tocharian, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavonic.

          Group B: Indic, Iranian, Thraco-Phrygian (Armenian), Hellenic (Greek).

          No major isogloss cuts across the dividing line between the two groups to suggest any alternative grouping: the phenomenon of palatalization appears to do so, but it is now recognized as “a late phenomenon” which took place in “a post-PIE era in which whatever unity that once existed had broken down and most of the dialect groups had dispersed”,86 and we will examine the importance of this phenomenon later on.

          Other similarities between languages or branches which lie on opposite sides of the above dividing line are recognizable as phenomena which took place after the concerned branches had reached their historical habitats, and do not, therefore, throw any light on the location of the original homeland or the migration-schedule of the branches.

          The following are two examples of such similarities:

          1. The Phrygian language appears to share the “r-isogloss” which is found only in the Hittite, Tocharian, Italic and Celtic branches. However:

          a. The Phrygian language is known only from fragments, and many of the linguistic features attributed to it are speculative. About the “r-isogloss”, it may be noted, Winn points out that it is shared by “Celtic, Italic, Hittite, Tocharian and (probably) Phrygian”.87

          b. Armenian, the only living member of the Thraco-Phrygian branch, does not share the “r-isogloss”, and nor did the ancient Thracian language.

          c. The seeming presence of this isogloss in Phrygian is clearly due to the influence of Hittite, with which it shared its historical habitat: “Phrygian later replaced Hittite as the dominant language of Central Anatolia.”88

          2. Greek and Italic alone share the change of Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirated stops (bh, dh, gh) into voiceless aspirated stops (ph, th, kh). Sanskrit is the only language to have retained the original voiced aspirated stops, while all the other branches, except Greek and Italic, converted them into unaspirated stops (b, d, g).

          But this similarity between Greek and Italic is because “when Indo-European languages were brought to Mediterranean people unfamiliar with voiced aspirated stops, this element brought about the process of unvoicing”,89 and this change took place in the two branches “both independently and along parallel lines”.90 Hence, this is not an isogloss linking the two branches.

          Therefore, it is clear that the two groups represent two distinct divisions of the Indo-European family.

          III. B. The Homeland Indicated by the Isoglosses

          The pattern of isoglosses shows the following order of migration of the branches of Group A:

          1. Hittite.
          2. Tocharian.
          3. Italic-Celtic.
          4. Germanic.
          5. Baltic-Slavonic.
          Some of these branches share certain isoglosses among themselves which represent innovations which they must have developed in common after their departure from the original homeland, since the remaining branches (Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek) do not share these isoglosses.

          This clearly indicates the presence of a secondary homeland, outside the exit-point from the original homeland, which must have functioned as an area of settlement and common development for the migrating branches.

          The only homeland theory which fits in with the evidence of the isoglosses is the Indian homeland theory:

          The exit-point for the migrating branches was Afghanistan, and these branches migrated towards the north from Afghanistan into Central Asia, which clearly functioned as the secondary homeland for emigrating branches.

          As Winn points out: “Evidence from isoglosses… shows that the dispersal cannot be traced to one particular event; rather it seems to have occured in bursts or stages.”91

          Hittite was the first to emigrate from Afghanistan into Central Asia, followed by Tocharian.

          Italic-Celtic represented the next stage of emigration. The four branches developed the “r-isogloss” in common.

          Germanic was the next branch to enter the secondary homeland, and it developed some isoglosses in common with Hittite and Tocharian.

          The Baltic-Slavonic movement apparently represented the last major emigration. And its sojourn in the secondary homeland was apparently not long enough for it to develop any isoglosses in common with Hittite or Tocharian.

          The five branches (Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavonic, in that order) later moved further off, north-westwards, into the area to the north of the Caspian Sea, and subsequently formed part of the Kurgan III migrations into Europe. The Slavonic and Baltic branches settled down in the eastern parts of Europe, while the other three proceeded further into Europe. Later, the Italic branch moved towards the south, while the Germanic and Celtic branches moved to the north and west.

          Meanwhile, the other branches (barring Indic), Greek Armenian and Iranian, as also, perhaps, the one branch (Illyrian or Albanian) which we have not taken into consideration so far, migrated westwards from India by a different and southern route.

          The scholars, now, generally accept the evidence of the isoglosses, so far as it concerns the schedule of migrations of the different Indo-European branches from the original homeland, or the interrelationships between different branches. However, when it comes to determining the actual location of the original homeland, on the basis of this evidence, they abandon their objective approach and try to make it appear as if the evidence fits in with the particular homeland theory advocated by them, even when it is as clear as daylight that they are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.

          The homeland theory generally advocated by the scholars is the South Russian homeland theory. Shan M.M. Winn advocates the “Pontic-Caspian area” within this region as the particular location of the homeland.

          An examination shows that the South Russian homeland theory (“Pontic-Caspian” or otherwise) is totally incompatible with the evidence of the isoglosses:

          1. To begin with, it is clear that we have two distinct groups of branches, which we have already classified as Group A and Group B.

          As per the evidence of the isoglosses, the branches in Group A are the branches which migrated away from the original homeland, and those in Group B are the branches which remained behind in the homeland after the other branches had departed.

          At the same time, all the branches in Group A are found to the north of the Eurasian mountain chain (except for Hittite in Anatolia, but this branch is known to have migrated into Anatolia from the north-east), while all the branches in Group B are found to the south of the Eurasian mountain chain (the northernmost, Greek, is known to have migrated into southeastern Europe from the south-east).

          The logical corollary should have been that the original homeland is also to the south of the Eurasian mountain chain, and that it is located in the historical habitat of one of the branches in Group B.

          However, the scholars regularly advocate homeland theories which place the homeland in the area of one or the other of the branches in Group A.

          2. The branches in Group A developed certain isoglosses in common after they had migrated away from the homeland. As we have pointed out, this makes it likely that there was a secondary homeland where they must have developed these isoglosses.

          However, any homeland theory which locates the homeland in a central area, like South Russia or any area around it, makes the location of this secondary homeland a problem: the Tocharian branch is historically located well to the east of South Russia, the Hittite branch is located well to the south of South Russia, and the Germanic and Italic-Celtic branches are located well to the west of South Russia. It is difficult to think of a way in which all these branches could have moved together in one direction from South Russia before parting from each other and moving off in totally opposite directions.

          It is perhaps to avoid this problem that Winn suggests that the isoglosses shared in common by these branches are not innovations developed by these branches in common, but archaic features which have been retained by otherwise separately migrating branches.

          In respect of the r-isogloss, for example, Winn puts it as follows: “Celtic, Italic, Hittite, Tocharian, and (probably) Phrygian share an interesting isogloss: the use of ‘r’ to indicate the passive forms of verbs. This feature, which does not occur in any other Indo-European language, is probably an example of the ‘archaism of the fringe’ phenomenon. When a language is spread over a large territory, speakers at the fringe of that territory are likely to be detached from what goes on at the core. Linguistic innovations that take place at the core may never find their way out to peripheral areas; hence dialects .spoken on the fringe tend to preserve archaic features that have long since disappeared from the mainstream… Tocharian… was so remote from the center that it could hardly have taken part in any innovations.”92

          However, it is more logical to treat this isogloss as an innovation developed in common by a few branches after their departure from the homeland, than to postulate that all the other, otherwise disparate, branches eliminated an original “use of ‘r’ to indicate the passive forms of verbs”.

          3. What is indeed an example of the “archaism of the fringe” phenomenon is the phenomenon of palatalization.

          Winn describes it as follows: “Palatalization must have been a late phenomenon; that is, we date it to a post-PIE era, in which whatever unity that once existed had now broken down, and most of the dialect groups had dispersed: looking at the geographical distribution of this isogloss, we may note its absence from the peripheral languages: Germanic (at the northwest limit of Indo-European language distribution); Celtic (western limit); Italic, Greek and Hittite (southern limit); and Tocharian (eastern limit). It is the languages at the center that have changed. Here, at the core, a trend towards palatalization started; then gradually spread outward. It never reached far enough to have any effect on the outlying languages.”93

          Note that Winn calls it a “post-PIE era, in which whatever unity that once existed had now broken down, and most of the dialect groups had dispersed”, and that he locates every single other branch (except Indic and Iranian), including Greek, in its historical habitat. He does not specifically name Baltic-Slavonic and Armenian, but it is understood that they are also located in their historical habitats, since he implies that they are “the languages at the centre” (ie. languages in and around South Russia, which is, anyway, the historical habitat of these branches).

          Indic and Iranian alone are not located by him in their historical habitats, since that would clearly characterize them as the most “peripheral” or “outlying” branches of all, being located at the extreme southern as well as extreme eastern limit of the Indo-European language distribution. And this would completely upset his pretty picture of an evolving “center” with archaic “outlying languages”, since the most outlying of the branches would turn out to be the most palatalized of them all. Hence, Winn without expressly saying so, but with such a location being implicit in his argument, locates all the other branches, including Greek, in their historical habitats, but only the Indic and Iranian branches well outside their historical habitats and still in South Russia, and keeps his fingers crossed over the possibility of the anomaly being noticed.

          Here we see, once again, how the manipulation required to locate the Indo-European homeland in South Russia compels the scholars, again and again, to postulate weird and unnatural schedules of migrations which make the Indo-Iranians the last to leave South Russia, and which locate them in South Russia long after all the other branches, including Greek, are already settled in their historical habitats: a picture which clashes sharply with, among other things, the extremely representative nature of the Rigvedic language and mythology, the purely Indian geographical milieu of the Rigveda (and the movement depicted in it from east to west, as we have seen in this book), and the evidence of the names of places and rivers in northern India right from the period of the Rigveda itself.

          The “late phenomenon” of a “trend towards palatalization” which started “at the core” and “then gradually -spread outward”, and “never reached far enough to have any effect on the outlying languages”, can be explained naturally only on the basis of the Indian homeland theory: the trend started in the “core area”, in north and northwest India, and spread outwards as far as the innermost of the branches in Group A: Baltic and Slavonic, but not as far as the outermost of the branches in Group B: Greek.

          Incidentally, here is how Meillet94 depicts the interrelationships between the various extant branches (he does not include Hittite and Tocharian in the picture, but it is clear that they will fall in the same group as Germanic, Celtic and Italic). (Figure on next page.)

          While the north-south axis clearly divides the non-palatalized branches in the west from the palatalized branches in the east (where we must locate the “core” area where palatalization started), the northeast-southwest axes neatly divide the branches into the three tribal groupings testified by Indian literary records, (click on next link).

          Click Here

          Click Here

          4. More than anything else, the one aspect of the evidence of the isoglosses, which disproves the South Russian theory, is the close relationship between Indic or Indo-Iranian and Greek, which is not satisfactorily explained by any homeland theory other than the Indian homeland theory.

          In dismissing Colin Renfrew’s Anatolian homeland theory, Winn cites this as the single most important factor in disproving the theory: “All the migrations postulated by Renfrew ultimately stem from a single catalyst: the crossing of Anatolian farmers into Greece… For all practical purposes, Renfrew’s hypothesis disregards Tocharian and Indo-Iranian.”95

          Supporters of Renfrew’s theory, Winn points out, “have tried to render the Indo-Iranian problem moot. They argue that the Indo-Iranian branch was somehow divided from the main body of Proto-Indo-European before the colonists brought agriculture to the Balkans. Greek and Indic are thus separated by millenniums of linguistic change – despite the close grammatical correspondences between them (as we saw in Chapter 12, these correspondences probably represent shared innovations from the last stage of PIE).”96

          Winn’s very valid argument against the Anatolian theory is just as applicable to the South Russian homeland theory, or any other theory which seeks to bring Indic and Iranian into their historical habitats through Central Asia: this involves an extremely long period of separation from Greek, which does not fit into the evidence of the isoglosses which shows that Indic and Greek have many “shared innovations from the last stage of PIE”.

          Archaeology, for one, completely rules out any links between the alleged Proto-Indo-Iranians located by these scholars in Central Asia, and the Greeks: Winn, as we saw, tries to identify the Andronovo culture which “covers much of the Central Asian Steppe east of the Ural river and Caspian Sea”,97 with the “Proto-Indo-Iranians” during their alleged sojourn in Central Asia.

          However, not only does he admit that “it is still a hazardous task to connect (this) archaeological evidence of Indo-Iranians in the Central Asian Steppe with the appearance of Iranian (Aryan) and Indic (Indo-Aryan) tribes in Iran, Afghanistan and India,”98 but he also accepts that these so-called Proto-Indo-Iranians in Central Asia have “no links with… south-eastern Europe”,99 ie. with the Greeks.

          It is only the Indian homeland theory which fits in with the evidence of the isoglosses. It may be noted again that:

          a. The evidence of the isoglosses suggests that the Indic, Iranian, Armenian and Greek branches, as well as the Albanian branch, were the last to remain behind in the original homeland after the departure of the other branches.

          b. These (naturally, barring Indic) are also the same branches which show connections with the BhRgus/ AtharvaNas, while those which departed show connections with the Druhyus.

          c. Again, all these branches form a long belt to the south of the Eurasian mountain chain, while the other (departed) branches are found to its north.

          d. And, finally, these are the only branches which are actually recorded in the DASarAjña hymns as being present in the Punjab area during the time of SudAs.

  34. aksum

    The Aryans only overcame and largely replaced the original populations of India, in some areas, due to their much larger populations. Its the same everywhere, where the different Caucasian groups have replaced the original peoples of a region, like in pre-historic Egypt for example. It wasn’t because of superior intelligence but because of a much larger population pushing away or breeding the original population out.

    • Jaipal

      @Aksum,

      Nothing of that kind ever happened in India. There is actually no evidence for any Aryan Migration
      to India. The evidence actually shows that there were a series of emigrations from India towards
      the West.

  35. Mikhail

    Mr.Lindsay,
    i don’t konw the reason behind your unnecessary India(Hindutva) bashing!come on mate we are living in the 21st century for chrissakge!while the Indian bloggers have repeatedly challenged you to produce evidence regarding the Aryan Invasion Theory,instead of accepting their challenges you have been constantly ranting all those White Supremacy Theory and abusing all Indian people as sub-standard human being.so i would like to provide some facts regardingt he Indo-American community living in your country(The U.S.).Indians constitute only around 0.3% of
    the American population yet they are the most successful immigrants in the U.S.you’ll be happy to know the fact that nearly 38% of all the doctors in U.S. are Indians,nearly 10% ofall the engineers in U.S. are Indians,nearly 38% ofall employees of IBM in U.S. are Indians.furthermore you’ll be happy to know that the current director of the World Bank is an Indian(Suma Chakraborty) a British Indian.so instead of ranting utter B.S. about the inferiority of the Indian people please 1st try to learn something constructive about India.and btw before terming me as a hindutavadi and abusing me let me clarify the fact that I am an Indian but not a hindu by religion(rather i belong to a minority community of India)!

    • If you reject the Aryan Migration Theory, then you are a Hindutva pure and simple. So really the vast majority of Indians are in effect Hindutvadis.

      Indians suck because their minds are full of all these shit ideas like reject of good scientific theory like the Aryan Migration theory.

      • Dota

        “”If you reject the Aryan Migration Theory, then you are a Hindutva pure and simple. So really the vast majority of Indians are in effect Hindutvadis.””

        Not necessarily, he might be a secular Indian nationalist. Many of those around, like Shashi Tharoor for example. Lots of them Muslim too (like the women in my family). There’s obviously a lot of overlap between the 2, but Hindutva throws in Hindu chauvinism and a lot more pseudo science into the mix

        • Never met a secular Indian nationalist. All the ones I met were Hindutvadis, more or less. What’s weird is that these guys all got really mad when I called them Hindutvadis. Apparently Hindutvadi has become the default typical mindset for your average Hindu intellectual. And Indian nationalism seems to be all tied up with the Hindutvadi stuff and vice versa.

          We did have one Muslim Indian nationalist on here a while back. He was a real jerk.

        • Pepperoncini

          Yeah but Robert is specifically talking about AIT/AMT and not necessarily Indian Nationalism .

    • Pepperoncini

      Pushing OIT / Opposition to Aryan as foreig intruders and asking for proof is akin to opposing the Theory of Evolution and askin for proof. The traditionalists (Lindsay )and others who ascribe to the accepted Academic view do not really need to keep proving the academic consensus.
      As the philological , linguistic and archaeological evidence catergorically proves against Aryans being native, there is no reason for anyone to engage those who espouse an unsubtantiated claim/s.

      It is totally irrelevant to AIT/AMT that Indian Americans are successfull in the US; following this logic White Americans can deny they colonised the Americas and point to their success as a reason their claim be accepted. Also by stating Indian American success in the US, you are giving the impression that Indian Americans are a homogenous group that opposse AIT/AMT . Some of the groups and people who opposed Hindutva revisionism in the California Textbook Controversy were Indian Americans. In India, it is by no means an accepted fact that Aryans are native, especially not in the South.

      • Actually, I wrote a number of long articles taking apart opposition to this theory. If you look around on the site, you can find them. So I have offered support for theory, and AFAIK I have already countered all of their rejoinders.

  36. Santa

    To support your view one must go scientifically from A. A is in Africa some 180 000 as mytochondrial Eve. There are always extraterestrials in game, but we will ignore even 200 000 years old cities in South Africa in this game. Next step is Toba disaster theory. It is scientifically proven, that humans went thru genetical selection somewhere 70 000 years ago. Who could survive cataclism after Toba? Far enough, high enough and protected by filter. All leads north of Asian mountains behind Caucasus.
    Pontic stepes are cradle of civilization as survivals. Next step was Ice age. Ocean level was 120 meters lower as today. Ice took all water and bunch of carbon from air. Then earth poles shifted. Todays north pole was in Hudson bay,Canada. Ohio got 1.5 km of ice. Siberia frozed fast and that caused migration south and to americas. Uralic people moved thru scandinavia as far as Iberian peninsula and Northern Africa. They are called Iberian race or Mediteranean race. It was 16 000 years ago but their religion got swastika as symbol and is called Mari. Godess Tara was called Mari … Inhabitants of British isles are genetical Basques and so was their language. Note hill of Tara in Ireland. Ireland is called Eire. That was only Great moving of nations. Those people created western european nations, and name of Iberia come from Eber I bet word hebrew has same roots. I alway thought that egyptian civilization has something with those guys. And yes, DNA from King Tut grave prove that.
    Those guys who stayed created all east coast mediterranean civilizations. Aratta and Kamyana mohyla in Ukraine, Arkaim Russia, Yamna-Andronovo. Andronovo is proven to use spoked wheel chariot, plow,breed horses. Arkaim was vedic academy, astrology center and academi of Magi with oldest proven bronze and iron melting sites.
    Next step was Black sea deluge 5500 years ago. So they spread by rivers to Mesopotamia. Vedic goddess of water is Dana. All rivers goes to Black sea bear her name. Ancient god of storm and war was Perkunos as derivatives we have Perun in slavic mythology and Perseus with Perseopolis.
    Founder of monoteism was Ibrahim Zeradust 1800 BC,first Zoroaster, who introduced his teachings to Bactrian kings.
    This race was fair skinned blond-red haired as we can see google History of red haired race. Cloud people in south america, american indians have r1a dna as well, Tarim basin in china- see Tara, red haired Scythians, Sclavi, Ashkenoy all the way to Egyptian pharaos as Hyksos were actually aryans. Mitani spoke Sanskrit,sanskrit was never spoken in India except brahmis,had vedic gods as Mithra,Varuna, and they were related to Egyptian pharaos as Tyie,Tuya and Nefertiti was probably Mitani princes. King Tuts grave DNA show this Iberian but also r1. It is not known if a or b. I bet B. But is the same as r1a. Hittite and Hatusha were their brothers. There lotta swastikas in Byblos and Hattusha. All this great civilization had been destroyed by their brothers Myceans, Homer wrote about ancient ruins with 7 meter thik walls as has Arkaim and troy. Civil war with Sea people ended the game. Even Crete was destroyed by sea people. There lotta potery with swastika on Crete and Greece from this period. It is not just swastika. Near Knossos was labyrinth. Labyrinth is ancient symbol found on rock painting all over world but also on bone at Siberia. Another symbol is winged disc as Zoroastrian but mostly Egypt. Obelisk as sun ray. No doubt that Akhenaten was vedic. Many letters to Hittite and Mitani. When king Tut died his wife sent letters to Mitani for king. Prince was murdered on his way. Center of this is mount Ararat with Lake Urmia and there were traced origins of gnosticism. From there we can go thru Nazorean Essene to Jesus. Religion are doctrines not fairy tales. Judaism, christianity and islam are based on Zoroastrian doctrines. In times of Jesus oficial religion in Rome was Mithraism. Mithra killed bull on Crete was the same story with Minos in center as derivative of first egyptian king name. Mithra lived in cave, near labyrinth near Knossos are caves.
    I personally believe that bible are stories mixed of Iberian race with Aryan stories and this happened in Babylonia and Egypt. Biblical Pharisee are Farsi or Parsi persian Zoroastrian priests. Bon religion in Tibet has lots of similarities with Zoroastrism as has Jesus with Mithra.

  37. Pepperoncini

    Honyok said:
    “Honestly Sir
    Nobody really gives a good Rats Ass about any of this bullshit.”

    Western academics whos expertise is on the SubContinent do give a rats arse; some prominient Indologists & Sanskritologists have debunked Hindutva lies.

  38. Such a disgraceful, Fraud attempt by Hindu Fascist Nationalists to prove Humans migrated from India to the rest of the world… To prove India is the center of Human Evolution…

    To prove ‘Out of India’ Theory instead ‘Out of Africa’ Theory… To Prove Aryans migrated from India to Europe… An International Educational Scandal… A Conspiracy carefully engineered but caught… The conspiracy becomes complicated because of the technical DNA/Genetic terms used. The conspiracy simply tries to demonstrate using scientific jargon that people of India were indigenous to India..

    To show the Indian Culture is always better than anyone.. The Illusionary Superiority, Egotistical, Self centered….

    To prove Indian culture was thriving for eons ago… Yeah!!! Right, Make Perfect Sense… Hunter Gatherers building Civilization… They built civilization even before Agricultural Revolution and that too during the Glacial Period…

    A Statement which I saw in National Geographic website with regards to Genographic Project… “I realized that, my god, modern humans might have wiped out Homo Heidelbergensis in India”…

    I was just wondering didn’t Homo Heidelbergensis died out 200,000 years ago… and Modern Humans reached South Asia only about 60,000 Years ago… Homo Heidelbergensis lived in Europe; possibly Asia (China); Africa (eastern and southern), but not in India… The Narmada Fossil Taxonomy is still debated…

    Posting a letter sent to Harvard University by Michael Witzel…

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/witzelletter.pdf

    • Idiot

      Such a disgraceful attempt by western historians from the 19th century to prove Europe as the cradle of civilization , to show that whites and Caucasians were the first to be civilized. To prove that indo European language being originally spoken by whites and being spread by them throughout Asia and Europe.To prove that Aryans migrated from Europe to India. To show European culture is better than anybody else’s.
      To Prove Europeans were thriving eons ago….YEAH! Right barbarians and hunter gatherers building civilization!
      Moral= everything else which wasn’t copy pasted by you can be completely reversed.

      • Ruru Koshy Varghese

        @Idiot…. Who on Mars told you that Europeans run around and say that Europe is the Cradle of Civilization… They never told that they were the first civilized people… Did they? Modern Humans evolved in Africa… Mesopotamia (A Region in Middle East) is the Cradle of Civilization… Neither India Nor Europe… and Aryans Migrated from Central Asia to Europe and to India… not from Europe to India… Don’t be such an abso-ucking-lute chump…

  39. Scholar

    Well Robert Let’s discuss this like Intelligent human beings okay –
    1st Lets assume that Aryans or Indo-Europeans originated in Ural regions or in South Russian Caucasus mountains, so during 2000 BC the Indo-Aryans along with their other European counterparts started leaving their homeland and began to move towards new destinations (god knows why) and reached India while composing the rig vedic verses (they must have because oldest sections of the RV are around 1700 BC) during the 1500BC after the collapse of harappan civilization (because no proof of war or invasion have been unearthed from Indus civilization) and by that time other indo-European languages and beliefs got differentiated quite a bit form Greco-roman , Celtic and Norse beliefs and one branch came into near east and eshtabilished the kingdom of Mittani (which was indo-Aryan) and Hittite, but we encounter a problem here, the Mittani kingdom was at the height of its power during the 15th century BC so it must have been formed around 17th century BC, and so we must conclude that indo-Aryan and Indo Iranian must have been separated by then and so we encounter a paradox, the Mittani people with their purely vedic gods have become a separate Identity before the time Aryans reached India and established the vedic cultures but they PURELY represent vedic cultures at their full height and even their names are in pure well formed Sanskrit. This means that Indo-Aryans must have settled in Mittani then moved to India but it is quite impossible since Geography of rigveda stretches from Afghanistan to western uttar pradesh (roughly) and moreover nearby clay tablets unearthed speak of Mittani and vedic gods (some of them are 1900-2100BC old) more over the Rig vedic composers shared geographic regions with composers of Avesta as seen by their similarity, so Indo-Aryan prevailing in a region west of India before advent of Indo-Iranians is very unconvincing.
    what do you say about this?

    • I believe that an early branch of Indo-Aryan went west and formed the Mittani group, yes, then later they go southeast to South Asia.

      • Untouchable The Great Horseshit ROBUTTHURT Lindsay the One Who Sucks Little Boy Cocks And Puts Black Nigger Dick Into Inbred Mouth Of His Fuck Him Damn To Hell Bitch Fuck Cunt Face!!!!!!!!LMFAO LOL ROFLMAO!!!!

        RoBUTThurt Lindsay u r truly the Great One Piece Of Shit Award. U falsely accuse India of being the primitives when u r a son of ancient the Indians. Fuck u and suck a Diiick!!!!!! Hahahahaha, and i bet u will ban me like the pussy man, instead of facing me like brave man. U r even lower trash than aboriginal nigger GOOK, u can trash talk the bad mouth India alll u want, but soon ur actions catch u as i fuck ur wife. Ur wife saying my big Aryan cock is bigger than ur small sizes hillybillys redneck cock, and ur wife want to bear my SON!!!!!!!!! Fuck u worthless trash, and Indian men will breed u out as we fuck all ur women cuz the redneck have small inbred dick. My ancestor was Aryan the noble people and urs was a dick sucking faggoty fuckface redneck with inbred the bloodlines. Fuck you again. Go to redneck HELLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Faggot fuck cunt redneck your mother was the slut for the other mans cocks.

      • The treaty of Mitanni linguistically reflects a Middle Indo Aryan language that has a greater commonality with Prakrit from around 600 BC. For example satta in the Mitannian language and sata in Prakrit

      • The Mitanni language reflected more of a Middle Indo Aryan form, which is younger than the Rigvedic sanskrit

      • Varun

        Robert, Mittani Indo Aryans follows a theory that Indo-Iranian seperated much early, almost soon after they split from Proto-Indo-Europeans. Also, they must have meet some Dravidian (who didn’t have great many retroflexes) tribes in Central Asia itself. This follows that BMAC was Dravidian, Harappa was Dravidian, proto-Iran was also Dravidian. But some of these Dravidians were markedly different from one another. This is where PIE will fail as one needs to solve the puzzle of these so called Dravidians. Who exactly were they? How did they enter Iran and India? Who did they intermixed with on their great voyage and from where did they start? I think it is a good idea to make proto-proto-Dravid (I don’t know what the hell that would be). But both Iran and India have great many secrets about Aryans in the form of these proto-proto-Dravids. Elam is their Homeland? Then what do we know about Elam? And why do we see Dravidian-like litter all over coastal India and Iran? Dravidians, I think, had gone through more waves, more mixing, more wars, and more recent admixture as well.

        • VARUN Black Dravidans never lived in Central Asia. Too cold for their slender black bodies.

          I’ve seen them shiver in a Dubai winter. They are made for hot weather.

        • Varun

          Trash,

          I came across a few articles in last few years claiming Dravidians to be South-Central Asians (basically north of Afghano-Pakistan area). I’ll link the articles (research paper) later. I’m just mentioning basics here.

          1) Dravidians meet Indo-Aryans outside India. This means that place has to be central Asia, possiblly southern part of it.
          2) Soma cult, the famous Indo-Iranian drinking ritual made from ephedra, is not found either in India or in West or Central Europe. But since Soma plant only grow in colder mountains of Central Asia or Himalaya, some Dravidian types must have been venturing into Central Asia, though they were not the same as Indian Dravidians.
          3) German has some Dravidian words, the most famous is Amma means ‘mother’ in Dravidian but ‘nurse, step mother’ in German.
          4) Russian repeatedly found some Dravidian looking skulls, not sure whether there were Caucasiods or Australoids or some mix.
          5) Retroflexes are another area of debate. It was believed that retroflexes, a unique trait of ALL Indian languages, must be from Dravidians. But then, closure analysis of modern Indian languages suggest a fluctuation. For example, Gujarati has passed on some retroflexes in reverse order, i.e they came from south and passed onto north Indians. But arent Dravidians lived in much of North India?

          In short, there is now enough evidence from multiple disciplines to support the fact that Dravidians too are invaders or migrants in India. Many followed coastal routes, from South Iran, south Baluchistan, Sindh, Gujarat, Maharashtra way down to Kerala/Tamilnadu. But retroflexes distribution is more local.

          For example, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and much of Hindi belt had Dravidians polulation. But the retroflex distribution is rather reverse and recent. This is in line with the distribution of Portuguese words too, they also originated in south and went up north. I am even reluctant to believe that Indian history is more than 3000 years old. Before 1000 BC, India must be jungles that were cleared only when Indo-Aryans came with Metal axes throughout west, east, and South India. Google the myth of axe man, ie Parshuram, who is famous to clear jungles in south and employ those nigga in farming. But Dravida were already farming. So yeah, they came from North too.

        • Varun

          When I said North, I meant North of India, outside of India, then into mainland. Of course, one must account for the 5000 year old Indus valley culture. But that could well be from a combination of Mediterranean settling around Indus river in 7000 BC, them more Dravidians hordes must have come and fought each other as well while mixing with other natives. Why would only Aryans come in a series or waves of invasions? Why couldn’t Dravidians do the same? Afterall, dominant Dravidians look damn Caucasiods, So yeah, they are foreigners.

  40. Pingback: Aryan Invasion Theory - Page 52

  41. Vishnu Sharma

    Robert Lindsay I want to ban you from:
    robertlindsay.wordpress.com

    YOU ARE BANNED ! from posting anymore of your drivel on your own forum.

    Because you suck ! You cannot make a single coherent counter argument to all the intelligent stuff being posted in favor of the OIT.

    You are a racist turd muffin who cannot accept that his ancestors came from India. Yes India had a civilization 10 thousand years ago, when neanderthals roamed Europe and you are probably descended from them.

    These Neanderthals were displaced or wiped out by invading Indian horsemen who brought their superior culture to Europe. The Gauls, Celts, Germani and Slavs are all descendents of us Indians.

    Now, Go to sleep ! Because I know you cannot post a coherent counter-argument !

    • Well Hindu, you are clearly insane as are almost all Hindus. If you are a Hindu, you are insane. That’s pretty much how it works. All Hindus are bonkers. So you are nothing new.

      PS elephant jockey, you are banned.

    • POGGLE HINDUVATA Some Arab from Turkey or Russian cow herder raped your Dravidian female ancestor who liked his big penis so her black Dravidian males were shoved aside to form the caste system.

      Dravidian blacks never went to France. Or even Kashmir.

    • Black Dravidians migrated out of India and became French? Get off the dope, Hinduvata.

  42. TAMILKELVAN

    The Aryan Invasion theory is based on BACKWARD INTEGRATION. Maxmuler based his theory on SAYANA’S classification into ten mandalas in fourteenth century AD then comparing withbIbn Batuta/Alberuni then Arab Conquest of Sind/Hieun Tsang/Fahien/Arya Bhatta’ s reference to Kaliyuga/Saka and Aihoe inscription of Pulakedi I then Info Greek kings like Demetrius/Kushans/Megasthenes/Darius I Buddha Jataka stories then Satapada Brahmana and finally AIT. The nearest truth is Indian history starts only from invasion of Darius I. At that time India was only Janapadas of Jainism. Initially Jainism did not have Brahmins but over the period the ascetics were considered as grest– Brahmins. There was no difference between Jainism and Vaidism since both had Upaveetham/Gayathri Manthra/Chaturmadyam. Vedic hymns praising Indra show Jain attributes– always youthful and sensual but protector which is the characteristics of elevated souls. Jain kings were Samrats unlike latter Hindu kings and hence in Tamil literature Jain epics were frowned upon for materialism. The Vedas don’t have any use without application and here comes Grihyasutras. Even though tall claims were made in Grihyasutras about references to North India essentially they are Deccan centric and encouraged Only in South Western India. All the kingdoms including Tamil kingdoms lay only in S.W India. That is why all South Indian kings performed vedic sacrifices while there was no North India kings ever performed sacrifices but for Bengal and Gupta’s who themselves cannot be considered as Aryan. Throughout South India till Sayana arrived Vedic studies were made according to the needs of Grihyasutras. From the inscriptions prior to Sayana the major Vedic studies were in Taittrium/Talavakaram/Samam/Jaiminiyam/Chandam/Agniveshyam. Those who rely on Sayana should specify the context under which the controversial topics such as Casa/Dasyu/Dasarnava war are being used. There is much difference between North India/South India. From the period of Kadambas/Satavahana/Cholas there was uniform social set up of Path in end is gaya far/Valangai/Idangai/mercantile towns of nagaraj/coastal towns of pattinam. Now the question is whether Satavahanas/Kadambas//Cholas were Aryas/Dravidas? Why did they encourage Sanskrit which was completely absent in North? The first Sanskrit dramas was by Bhada in first century BC relating to Jain king Udayanas. Except Ghana in sixth century AD/RAJASEKHARA the early Sanskrit poets belonged to Deccan only. Though Gupta inscriptions extensively deal with geography how did it fail in North while even after ransacking by Muslims from Malik Kafir period to Moghul period South India still retain the Kadamba/Satavahana/Chola model towns? The question is even now the best Sanskrit scholars are in Karnataka only. The South did not witness large scale emigration from North but for Gowda Saraswath Brahmins which itself is puzzling since Malnadbis having its own history of Sanskrit for more than two thousand years. The reference to ACHCHIRATRA in Gangs/Kadamba inscriptions may itself be insignificant since both claim descendent of Gangs denoting migration of Jain preceptor and not kings. Lastly people having belief in AIT may call EUROPO INDIANS OR ARYO INDIANS since Indians is a later term and it is absurd to Info Europeans or Info Aryans which itself suggest acknowledging out of India theory

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s