Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

[member_29325]

Seems to me that more books on the topic are a good thing, and is not a matter of competition, since all the "scholarship" of the mofos in the west need to be replaced by an equally voluminous scholarship for anti-AIT ideas. Seems like it is all good.

[shiv]

A_Gupta: yes we are talking about Rig Vedic Sanskrit, not the Panin'an one

Shiv: you better hurry up with your book! Rajiv Malhotra has beaten you to it (his new Sanskrit book, taking on Pollock, is in pre-order stage and he is doing a book lecture tour in Chennai and Bangalore!)

I am not competing with any one and my problem is that my chapters need to be linked togetherfully meaning to make a whole and I need to read and re read to make sure it is readable and interesting to the reader who reads this type of stuff. And then I will send it to some of you guys for proof reading.

[shiv]

A_Gupta: yes we are talking about Rig Vedic Sanskrit, not the Panin'an one

Shiv: you better hurry up with your book! Rajiv Malhotra has beaten you to it (his new Sanskrit book, taking on Pollock, is in pre-order stage and he is doing a book lecture tour in Chennai and Bangalore!)

I usually find out when he is in Bangalore and will attend if possible. I attended his book release for "Being Different" and also treated him for a minor ailment.

But yes - this is Rig Vedic Sanskrit. If one digs hard enough you can find references to what languages were spoken in the area where Panini lived and the approximate dates that those languages were spoken. We also know where Panini lived and and died (allegeldy killed by a lion). In that area local language changed form Sanskrit to Pali to Aramaic to Greek in a time-bound fashion. References to Panini's life speak of the languages that he had to deal with around him and certain other facts gleaned from his writing enable one to arrive at date for Panini some centuries earlier than the date he is currently given (by Indological guesswork). Panini marked the transition from Vedic Sanskrit to Classical so Vedic Sanskrit moves back some centuries before Panini - using exactly the same reasoning that was used by William Jones for dating the Vedas; reasoning that is well accepted by the likes of Witzel. This itself gives us earlier dates for Sanskrit than what Indological mofos have hammered into Indian heads so firmly that we intimately grill and try to bring down any upstart fellow Indian who tries to argue with those dates because in our minds "Western Indology is real scholarship. Others are unscientific jingos with an agenda"

This is why I am not deliberately trying to prove anything. OIT or AIT. No predetermined agenda. I will let the facts speak for themselves, but I will make sure that people have access to a lot more facts than they currently have.

[Murugan]

Sanskrit vis-a-vis Prakrit, some interesting facts:

1) 'Prakrit' is a Sanskrit Word

2) 'The "Prakrit' word for Prakrit is Paiya or Paua

3) It had no grammar till 11th Century Jain Muni Hemchandracharya devised and wrote detailed grammar in
‘Siddhahemchandrashabdanushasan’ containing one lakh and twenty-five thousand shlokas covering the grammar of Prakrit

Prakrit cannot support scientific and philosophical terms compared to Sanskrit.

[Murugan]

Also Prakrit was written in Brahmi, Brahmi is sanskrit word

[Ashok Sarraff]

^Just a general question. Ancient Indians must have spoken some language before Sanskrit, isn't it. A grammatically flawless language cannot emerge out of nowhere. So what was the language that was used in Saraswati-Indus region before Sanskrit? How did Sanskrit reach its "flawless" stage starting from the earliest language that used in Ancient India?

[shiv]

^Just a general question. Ancient Indians must have spoken some language before Sanskrit, isn't it. A grammatically flawless language cannot emerge out of nowhere. So what was the language that was used in Saraswati-Indus region before Sanskrit? How did Sanskrit reach its "flawless" stage starting from the earliest language that used in Ancient India?

Blonde Swedes developed it and went south to Eurasia and picked up horses and chariots on the way and conquered their way to India. The language died everywhere else but survived only in India - maintained by the terrible caste system that exists only in India because rest of the world is egalitarian.

More seriously - even if you accept AIT date for Rig Veda (1500-1200 BC) you are damn right that some less rigorous language must have existed before that. That language has been called PIE - or Proto Indo European. Linguists are looking for that language everywhere but in India. It cannot have come from India. Such perfection in language is not a characteristic of black heathen polytheists. In the 1800s they were honest and openly called Indians by that epithet. Now they are dishonest/politically correct and pretend that they don't say such things - but the theory about language origins has not changed.

[Ashok Sarraff]

^I am not supporting AIT, far from it. I am curious whether there has been any research from the nationalist point of view on possible antecedents of Sanskrit. Most research on Sanskrit begins from Rigvedic sanskrit, which already shows a highly advanced structure and vocabulary. Thus, there should be some language that the Ancient Indians must have spoken and written before Rigved was composed. What form of Sanskrit or another Indian language was that?

[shiv]

^I am not supporting AIT, far from it. I am curious whether there has been any research from the nationalist point of view on possible antecedents of Sanskrit. Most research on Sanskrit begins from Rigvedic sanskrit, which already shows a highly advanced structure and vocabulary. Thus, there should be some language that the Ancient Indians must have spoken and written before Rigved was composed. What form of Sanskrit or another Indian language was that?

You have decided to ask a killer question haven't you?

I will philosophize and provide what I think is an answer. Indian thought never looked at language - especially Sanskrit as a "language" but as a system that has roots in the origins of the human race and as sounds that relate to primordial sensations felt by humans as they developed speech as well as special sounds that can be sened only by the initiated - yogis and other self-disciplined people who are able to sense things on a higher metaphysical plane.

This sounds like absolute crap and is not how we of modern day rational thought are taught to think. But it is the closest I can get to an answer.

If you must do some reading here are two heavy refs speaking of the role of language. One by Aurobindo is understandable - you only need to read the earlier bits to get an idea
Secrets of the Vedas
http://www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashra ... .php?id=30

The second reference I will give you is a real toughie. This man writes about primordial "sounds" that are in nature - sounds that express the being even of things like fire or a tree. the idea that from the nothingness of Brahman, when forms appear - each form has a separate sound and those can be "heard"/sensed by yogis but would not normally be sensed by the human. AUM is one such sound. But language itself - particularly Sanskrit has been developed from primordial sounds. This would fit in with observations that the Vedas themselves are sounds or songs of the universe and not descriptions of day to day events like rishis cooking horses. But you have to drop all you think you know to go down this path of understanding.

Second ref: (very difficult to read and understand)
The Garland of Letters
http://www.mysticknowledge.org/The_Garl ... Avalon.pdf

[Nilesh Oak]

This is why I am not deliberately trying to prove anything. OIT or AIT. No predetermined agenda. I will let the facts speak for themselves, but I will make sure that people have access to a lot more facts than they currently have.

Correct theme and approach, for any research/review work!

I wrote down something similar (almost identical) when I began my project 'The Mahabharata - An ancient Narrative'.

The only thing I am adding, beyond narrative, is my proposed timeline for the events of Mahabharata as the narration proceeds.

Also, anytime I had to make sense out of inexplicable narratives, I am adding short notes or brief appendices to explain the original vs. my narration. My goal being minimal intervention in the narration itself.

[Ashok Sarraff]

Shiv sir,

Thank you. As Ramana ji once said, we are all on the same train, but you and some others are in the engine, while the rest of us are far behind, sitting in the last coach.

[Murugan]

^Just a general question. Ancient Indians must have spoken some language before Sanskrit, isn't it. A grammatically flawless language cannot emerge out of nowhere. So what was the language that was used in Saraswati-Indus region before Sanskrit? How did Sanskrit reach its "flawless" stage starting from the earliest language that used in Ancient India?

Ancient Indians did speak some language before Sanskrit, which was known as Sanskrit.

If Panini is credited with Sophistication (Samskrutam) of his contemporary language while writing his Ashtadhyayi, he also mentions work of othes viz, Dhatupatha, Ganapatha, Unadisutra, Nighantu, Nirukta.

Sakatayana, Yaska who predate Panini are also known for 'sophistication' of their contemporary sanskrit language. Panini himself mentions some of his predecessors, includes:

Agrayana
Aindra
Āpiśali (Mentioned by Panini)
Aupamanyava
Aurnabhava
Cakravarmaṇa (Mentioned by Panini)
Gālava
Gārgya
Kāśyapa (Mentioned by Panini)
Kāṣakṛtsna
Katthakya
Kautsa
Krauṣṭuki
Kuṇaravāḍava (Mentioned by Panini)
Śākalya (Mentioned by Panini)
Śākaṭāyana (Mentioned by Panini)(c. 800 BCE)
Senaka (Mentioned by Panini)
Shakapuni
Sphoṭāyana (Mentioned by Panini)

ityadi
Sophistication is nirantar

[RoyG]

Shiv,

This is for you. Start at 1:50:00. This could turn out to be the biggest development for OIT. I remember the skeleton finding news sometime back and that the samples were taken to South Korea for analysis.

[shiv]

^^Thanks RoyG

Looks like the topic of Sanskrit is getting more attention. Need to polish up my own act and get the book ready - i.e readable and send it to some guys for comments

[RajeshA]

A thought occurred to me today.

Why is it that Western historians like to base history on epigraphic and numismatic evidence and on bones and pots and pans? Textual evidence, oral historical traditions are not considered as valuable for determining history and based on this, often they were willing to fully neglect India's large amount of textual evidence regarding our history?

It is because Europeans themselves HAVE NO TEXTUAL HISTORY, other than the writings of a few Yavanas, whom they call Greeks. But Greek texts, quite meager if compared to the Indian textual treasures, are no substitute for history of West, North and East Europe!

The only pre-Christian text in German is from 10 century: the Merseburg Incantations and they are only 74 words in length. That is ALL.

Same goes for English literature, where the oldest poem is Beowulf, written down in the late 10th century.

Oldest French texts are from end of 11th century - Chansons des geste.

Yes there was Latin and Greek, but that was the language used in the South and by the Church.

For this reason, the Europeans are unwilling to accept the history of other people, for they don't have any history of their own to talk about! Whatever they had was destroyed, either by accident or by the Church.

If this psychological trauma of the Europeans does not allow them to accept other people's history and their chronology, then others have a duty to proceed with historical research without the approval of Europeans.

- Colonial hangover,
- Racism,
- Biblical Primacy and
- Own Historical Darkness

are the reasons the West is unwilling to accept the historical wealth of other cultures, and all these reasons are psycho-political.

[shiv]

A thought occurred to me today.

Why is it that Western historians like to base history on epigraphic and numismatic evidence and on bones and pots and pans? Textual evidence, oral historical traditions are not considered as valuable for determining history and based on this, often they were willing to fully neglect India's large amount of textual evidence regarding our history?

It is because Europeans themselves HAVE NO TEXTUAL HISTORY, other than the writings of a few Yavanas, whom they call Greeks. But Greek texts, quite meager if compared to the Indian textual treasures, are no substitute for history of West, North and East Europe!
.

This question was answered by Balu in a link posted by AGupta. History for the west starts with Christ and the "first" book - the Bible. After that all history is "attested" by contemporary sources. Everything else - including written Greek sources in tablets are taken conditionally and interpreted the way they want.

[Lalmohan]

politics plays a great part in this problem. history as we know it, i.e. written by the northern europeans, evolved to justify their role/status in the world over the part 2 centuries. therefore everything was interpreted in that context. the english and the germans had only the roman model and its written records for reference, and as they ascended over the latin world, they had to create history in their likeness, e.g. blonde white jesus, etc. this meant that all references to the east to darker peoples HAD to be downgraded or ignored. a lot of hard archeology and related scientific work is underway in the west which starts to question the narrative that is prevalent, and it speaks of older life in these lands before they were romanised (civilised) and these are opening up the challenge to the established order. soon this thinking will impact the world of 'oriental studies' too
we just have to push the door down from our side

[peter]

Peter, the issue is language. The Mongols and Arabs conquered but did not replace the language with their own. In the case of the Saraswati Sindhu civilization the story is that the language was completely replaced (at least it was 96% replaced). This has never happened anywhere else and the idea that invaders or migrants replaced all people speaking an earlier language is a fake premise unless all other possibilities are ruled out. Even after genocide in South America the original languages were not lost.

Is it untrue that most of south america is either spanish or portugese speaking?

In this day and age no one in his right senses would say what i said without checking with Googal unkal first There are millions of native language speakers despite European languages having been imposed.

More important than those numbers are the non-Portuguese substrates (Creoles) where native languages deeply influenced Portuguese. This needs to be contrasted with almost no substrate of any non IE language in Sanskrit. The percentage is negligible.

Existence of Creoles is a very pertinent observation! I am thinking out aloud : what would/might the creoles be/looklike/soundlike couple of thousand years from now?
Could they evolve into prakrit like languages that we have or the trajectory is totally different?

And, as I have indicated earlier migrants usually retain the old names of rivers and mountains even if they bring in a new language. In the case of the Saraswati Sindhu region there are no non IE names of rivers or mountains. Everything is of IE origin. Look at South American mountain names and river names and you find a whole lot that are derived from native South American languages.

Mountain names include: Aconcagua, Cotopaxi, Huascaran - etc - a Google search is what I used. Rivers are Orinoco, Parana, Putumayo, Pilcomayo, Ucayali etc.- all derived from native American languages. Where are the "native language" river names and mountain names in Saraswati Sindhu? None. All are IE

This is a powerful argument. Though some "scholars" have tried to show that names like Ganga are not of Sanskrit origin.
Infact there is a fascinating book , I forget the title, which I read some years back and it talks about river names in the north of the continent and how they echo sanskrit roots. So the suggestion of the author is that the red indians gave obscure sanskrit names to their rivers.
I wonder if it is true for southern continent too?

[peter]

People have tried asking these questions but the answers they seek from their own lens. Earliest written records of sanskrit are late in fact later than those written in prakrit. How does one devise a litmus test to nail that sanskrit was indeed the language spoken at a certain date in indian subcontinent?

You will see that when my book comes out. I have started with dates of Panini (not the dates used by AIT authors), proof from Mitanni texts that is the exact opposite of what AIT people say (proof taken from European scholars and other evidence), proof relating to dates of Zoroastrians (from a variety of sources) - all giving fairly clear links to Sanskrit as a language going back to at around 1500 to 1800 BC. Dates for Mahabharata war, texts that speak of the people and land east, west and south of the Saraswati river can only date from a time before the river dried up - that is 1800 BC.

Have you encountered this image or a variant for the settlements around Sarasvati and other rivers?

Some well known astronomical records take the dates back even earlier. And I am not trying to contradict or compete or feed off the work of people like Nilesh Oak - my own sources are pretty much independent. Everything leads to some very ancient dates.

This has the potential I feel to be the clincher. Though as of now extremely smart people are pulling in different directions. The text is the same and we have widely different dates for the war from : Dr RIyengar, Dr NAchar and Dr NOak. What do you think is the reason that these and other modern scholars cannot/wouldnot converge on a single date?

But you will have to wait for my book for details of what references I use for the evidence I have provided. In fact my original idea was to write a book on "Dating of Sanskrit language". The content is still exactly that but there is more than that - so I am struggling to gel together the various parts into one book

Noble idea on the dating of sanskrit!

The funny thing is that if you pose the same questions that you have asked about Sanskrit but ask about Avestan - you will find that Avestan language itself is utter bullshit. It does not exist and is totally cooked up by linguists. it has simply been cooked up from Sanskrit texts.

Have you bounced this off of any Parsi scholar?

[shiv]

Have you encountered this image or a variant for the settlements around Sarasvati and other rivers?

I have created my own, original maps by mapping the findings of such images with ancient and modern place-names

we have widely different dates for the war from : Dr RIyengar, Dr NAchar and Dr NOak. What do you think is the reason that these and other modern scholars cannot/wouldnot converge on a single date?

Let me reword this question and throw it right back at you:

Why do you think that Dr RIyengar, Dr NAchar, Dr NOak, David Frawley, Jacobi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the Aihole inscription in Karnataka, all give dates that are prior to 2500 BC and that "Indology" historians and scholars don't accept that? You have to admit that whatever the difference in dates they all go back before 2500 BC so there is definite commonality there. Why would those dates be wrong and the linguistic Indology dates correct?

There is a Buddhist text that has given a date for the Nanda dynasty and using that date a historian called Raychaudhuri has dated King Parikshit to 1400 BC. Parikshit in turn finds mention in Atharva Veda and we know the Rig Veda is older. William Jones arbitrarily gave each Veda 200 years to develop - so I will use his algorithm to say that Rig Veda must have been at least 200+200+200 years before Parikshit - that is 2000 BC. Therefore Sanskrit itself dates from before 2000 BC. Why is my method, based on attested documents wrong, but Western Indologists correct?

Have you bounced this off of any Parsi scholar?

The thing to note is that all my work is based on what has been written and not by asking anyone's opinions and quoting that as a point to ponder. Only my own opinions are aired, based on what others have firmly committed in writing and I commit my views in writing

Parsis in general are too few in number to have large numbers of scholars addressing this question. But among those who do there are both types - those who blindly swallow the linguists history written for them and others who reject that.

But no Parsi really disputes the links of the Venidad with the Vedas. Whatever Parsis know about their religion today is what has come down like the Vedas by recitation of Gathas and the only text records are in Sanskrit - translations of old texts. The fact that the Parsi religion is interlinked with the Vedas both in substance and in geography has plenty of references, while things like "Zend Avesta" etc are European works - details of all of which I will have in my book - I will not go there now.

But the fact that Zoroastrianism 1) is linked with the Vedas; and 2) Has very few original records remaining and even those are in Sanskrit means that if you find a date for Sanskrit you can find a date for Zoroastrianism. There are links between Atharva Veda and Zoroastrianism. Venidad mentions Atharva Veda but Veda says nothing about Zoroastrianism suggesting that the two are either contemporary or Atharva Veda is older. If you take AIT dates of Atharva Veda as 1000 to 1200 BC (Iron age) you get a date for Zoroastrianism. Recall also that

The links of the Parsi texts with the Vedas is very clear but linguists have tried to twist it in the following way. They have said that there was some language (PIE) that came from somewhere and eventually became another fake language called "Indo-Iranian" and this Indo Iranian split up into the fake, cooked up language "Avestan" of Iran and Vedic Sanskrit of India.

However there is a spoke in this AIT wheel. Cunning Linguists refer to the Mitanni texts of Syria (of 1500 BC) as a "transit point") That is - Aryan speakers of pre-Sanskrit came from somewhere to Syria first in 1500 BC and left Mitanni texts there and then they went east - creating Parsi Avestan in Iran and finally Sanskrit in India by about 1200 BC thereby making a fine route map for Aryan invasion/migration.

This sounds very good until you examine the detail. The Mitanni texts have hundreds of middle eastern gods mentioned. And among these are the names Indra Varuna Mitra Nasatya(s). One indologist called Paul Thieme noticed that this order of names occurs in Rig Veda. He also noticed that in Rig Veda the Nasatyas are twins (in plural). In Syria also they are in plural so the link with the Rig Veda is clear. The only question is date. Did people worshipping "Indra Varuna Mitra Nasatya(s)" come to Syria from Eurasia and then travel through Iran and finally reach India? This is what linguists say. But a problem crops up here.

In the Mitanni texts all five are Gods to be respected - gods who will protect a treaty. In the Rig Veda too they are all respected names. But in Zoroastrian Iran, between Syria and India Indra and the Nasatyas are hated figures not to be worshipped.

So if we believe the cunning linguist stories we have a situation where Aryans came from Eurasia to Syria worshipping all five deities "Indra Varuna Mitra Nasatya(s)". Then as they moved into Iran they started hating Indra and the Nasatyas, and finally when they reached India they started respecting all five and Indra and the Nasatya magically became good again. This is highly far fetched. It is OK to say that they moved from Syria to Iran and on the way they started hating Indra/Asvins. But why did they suddenly change back to loving Indra in India. Was it 1500 BC pseudosecularism? The other explanation is that the linguists are wrong. They are cooking up stories. All their theories about "sound change" are bullshit because some of their sound changes are older than Sanskrit and some younger - all disputed. Indo-Aryans never passed through Syria. In fact Indi Aryans do not exist. The language likley developed near India. But no one outside India wants to hear that and in India people hate themselves enough to protest against that idea

[A_Gupta]

^^^ The linguists would simply have three branches of people radiating out from Central Asia into Anatolia, Iran and India. They would also raise the same objection to pro-deva, anti-deva, pro-deva for any Out-of-India scenario.

[shiv]

^^^ The linguists would simply have three branches of people radiating out from Central Asia into Anatolia, Iran and India. They would also raise the same objection to pro-deva, anti-deva, pro-deva for any Out-of-India scenario.

Everything can be contested and must be contested. The fact that people argue and say things should not put anyone off. The out of India bit is mainly genetic evidence (so far) and linguists have to shut up there. There is some linguistic evidence as well and obviously linguists will not accept it. But unless alternate and credible theories are aired the cunning linguists get a walk over. Continuous contesting is the only way forward especially when that case against AIT is strong and the case for OIT is not zero

As regards coming from Central Asia to India the only direct route is via Hindu Kush. No chariots can get through those passes. Maybe horses. But Rig Vedic horse was 34 rib Arabian, not 36 rib Eurasian and that apart no horse bones have been found in BMAC (Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex)/Afghanistan - as per David Anthony, an argument that can be used either way.

Interestingly even camel bones found in Harappan remains are Arabian camel and NOT the Central Asian One humped dromedary - so the horse and Camel probably came via coastal trade from the west - Arabia, possibly much earlier that claimed.

[disha]

^^ Oman.

In present day terms., the likely route is Oman-

Oman (Musandam) - Bandar Abbas - Chabahar - Karachi - Dwarka - Porbandar - Somnath - Diu - Mahuva - Bhavnagar - Khambat - Surat

Early Humans moved out of Africa along the shores and not via inland routes as thought. The shores offered both food and shelter.

[A_Gupta]

Well, one should not make specious arguments except to contest specious arguments from the other side.

---
On a different topic, is there anything definitive on the existence of horse remains in Bagor, Rajasthan, dated to 4500 BC? Bagor is supposedly one of the best explored sites in Indian archaeology.

[disha]

AGupta'ji., books by Prof. Lal and Kenoyer books have excellent epigraphic references to trade from Indus to other areas along the Gwadar.

Several S. African archeological sites along the S. African coast on the east indicated early human trades along the coast (note that one of the early hominid settlement was found in S. Africa). I will dig up the references later.

So no - I am not making specious arguments. The coastal route of human migration has been validated. I am just stringing the evidences., pointing out that the coastal routes of migration also served as trade routes.

[A_Gupta]

Sorry, I was responding to Shiv, not to you, Disha!

[member_29218]

It is probable that the first wave of humans coming out of the rift valley did move along the seacoast, entering India around 50-60,000 yrs ago. From there they are said to have moved along the shoreline into south east Asia and finally Australia (the Beachcomber Express).

It is inconceivable that they would have crossed over into Europe given the hostile geography at that time - the ice age was in full swing. Makes sense to have spent several thousand years in northwestern India.

As for the last 10,000 years, yes, perhaps they did move out of India again, this time into the Caucasus and the Caspian basin.

Disha Ji, perhaps you are referring to the homo naledi find in the Rising Star cave system in SA. Though Lee Berger is making tall claims about it, some are skeptical, like our local guy Bill Jungers who thinks it is just a variant of homo erectus. Of course the problem is that I suspect each of these big scientists is more concerned about their place in history rather than true advancement of science.

I too am very skeptical of these and similar 'new finds' in anthropology. If you look at dogs today, they look so different, almost like variable species. Imagine you found a few bones of a St. Barnard and then of a Chihuahua a million years from now. Do you think the conclusion would be that these are variants from the same species or entirely different animals altogether? They look so bloody different.

The same applies to human remains, and I don't buy the argument that a slightly longer tooth or finger bone or more curved pelvis indicates a different human ancestor from a different era. But then I am not an anthropologist, what do I know.

[johneeG]

is there any basis for out of africa theory or is it just speculation like AIT?

-----
“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked

Central to results of this extensive examination of haplogroups (7,556) was the absence of any African genes. So lacking was the sampling of African genetic involvement, the researchers stated in their introduction that, “the finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid, as well as all non-African groups do not carry either SNI’s M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262”.

http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.in/201 ... unked.html

[shiv]

Well, one should not make specious arguments except to contest specious arguments from the other side.

That is a surprising comment considering that you chose to pose a specious argument on behalf of cunning linguists:

^^^ The linguists would simply have three branches of people radiating out from Central Asia into Anatolia, Iran and India. They would also raise the same objection to pro-deva, anti-deva, pro-deva for any Out-of-India scenario.

The excuse that you have quoted on their behalf is notable because it constitutes the first of two bluffs where the origin of the language is based on speculation. The second bluff is the spread of that language which is based on the earlier bluff. My response that you chose to comment about was a response to the second meta-bluff about spread of langauge. You simply suggested that linguists will shift the goalpost by keeping the origin the same but suggest an alternate route of spread. And you think my response is specious but not the double bluff of linguists? That is odd boss.

The origin of the language itself is cooked up and the only necessity to connect it with India is the unfortunate fact (for linguists) that Sanskrit was found in India in its oldest form as the Rig Veda and they do not want to countenance the possibility that the origin may have been in or near India and need to make up stories about how it came to India. You know all this - but something seems to have snapped - and you randomly snapped at me. What for?

[A_Gupta]

@Shiv, Sorry if my brevity seems like snapping at you.

There are not one but many IndoAryan theories which all tell some form of essentially the same story; but it is this multiplicity of versions that helps keep the overall paradigm alive. Most of the linguists' arguments are specious, and they can be shown to be specious by counter- specious arguments; but the primary story that counters the IndoAryan stories cannot be specious; that will not work.

An arrangement from east to west of pro-deva, anti-deva, pro-deva can be explained in any number of ways. It can at best be secondary evidence.

---
On a different area -- I think you pointed out that the domesticated camel and donkey came from outside; why could they come without significant influx of people, but the coming of the horse requires it to be so? Did the Chinese get the horse via a major influx of I.E. people? Horse-people-language have gotten tightly tied together, it could use some unraveling.

[shiv]

On a different area -- I think you pointed out that the domesticated camel and donkey came from outside; why could they come without significant influx of people, but the coming of the horse requires it to be so? Did the Chinese get the horse via a major influx of I.E. people? Horse-people-language have gotten tightly tied together, it could use some unraveling.

Influx is not the only explanation. Trade is another. There has been trade between Harappa, BMAC and Syria starting millenniums ago. The difference is that traders go back. One thing that linguists never talk about is access routes. Access to India - apart from coastal trade, has always been difficult. The Baluchistan desert is not a friendly migration route - and even today the sparse population in that area is an indicator of poor ability to support human settlements. On the other hand Central Asia and Afghanistan have been kind to humans, perhaps less kind than India, but kind nevertheless. But the India-Central Asia route necessarily goes through the Hindu Kush - impassable even today in winter and not horse and carriage friendly. Alexander did not ride across the Hindu Kush in chariots and eventually plumbed to go back via the coastal route.

Was it you who made the post quoting Rajiv Malhotra (and Balu?) saying that we need to go back to the origins or "first bluffs" that were set in motion leading to the assumptions of today? Those first bluffs are based on India being "studied" by European anthropologists and linguists. I have dug up much stuff and written about those - thanks to you to no small extent, and that is why I am having such great difficulty in releasing my work as one book. At least half of what I have written relates to how the "first bluffs" about origins of language came about and why Sanskrit became so central to European historians and how distasteful it became for Europeans to give any credit to the black heathens of India. The "other half" of what I have written is a topic by topic analysis of how that initial bluff morphed into explanations and stories and the evidence against those stories. So essentially what I have is two books - one on "origins of the bluff" and another on rebuttal. Unfortunately the topic is so intertwined that I can't deal with origin and rebuttal together. The rebuttal in particular relates to proof available about the age of Sanskrit as a language, which essentially topples the AIT/AMT. So the book must initially describe the bluff, then rebut the bluff by diverting into the research and other findings that show that the bluff is a bluff

But once the bluff was established - as it was by about 1900, it then became "common knowledge" that other researchers could base their research. That is how you have genetics papers a hundred years later trying to prove or disprove a theory that was entirely cooked up. If I may use an analogy: I have a large home and I call you to try and catch a snake that I say I have seen at home. If I decide to bluff that I saw it in the garage - I am only sending you on a wild goose chase. Honesty demands that I should say that I suspect there is a snake and that I don't know where it is.

IndoEuropean language connections are reality. By simply making the origin in one particular place the entire "scholarly research" environment has been skewed and the old racist attitudes seem to continue even to this day. That is what needs to be smashed open.

[johneeG]

Humanity originated in Asia, not Africa.

-----

All the ancestors of contemporary Europeans apparently did not migrate out of Africa as previously believed. According to a new analysis of more than 5,000 teeth from long-perished members of the genus Homo and the closely related Australopithecus, many early settlers hailed from Asia.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... heory-out/

[Virendra]

There was a talk and PPT by Premendra Priyadarshi where he proposed that India precedes Africa in human origin.
He used genetic papers to theorize his proposal.

[johneeG]

Thanks Virendra saar for that lead.

The First Civilization of the World

Posted on November 15, 2010 by priyadarshi101

The First Civilization of the World, Siddhartha Publishers, Delhi, email arunrajive@gmail.com.
written by
Dr P. Priyadarshi, MBBS, MD, MRCP (UK)

Abstract:
Human DNA studies tell us about origins and migration routes of our species as well as our pets, pests and cattle. Fitting well into the DNA stories, large number of archaeological sites dating back to 10,000 years before present showing evidence of farming has been unearthed in the Ganga Valley and other parts of India.

Barring a few geneticists, like Kivisild, Endicott, Metspalu, Sahoo, Sengupta etc. the geneticists at large believe even today that there was an Aryan invasion on India. Traditionally, the Aryan languages have been believed to have originated in the Central Asia whereas the farming culture in the West Asia. Current study, mainly based on study of Y-chromosomal DNA haplogroups, and also to some extent mitochondrial DNA haplogroups, finds that the Aryans as well as the farming culture originated in India. The Aryan language and farming dispersal took place from India to Iran, Kurdistan, Turkey and finally South Europe after 15,000 years before present (B.P.). The Mesolithic culture too originated in India at 35,000 B.P. and it was from India that Mesolithic cultural practices spread to the rest of Asia, and East Africa. Evidence from DNA studies of man, animals and crops, from linguistics and from recent archaeology have been examined to reach conclusions.

When Cann, Stoneking and Wilson (1987), and the next year Stringer and Andrews (1988), gave their theory of African origin of Homo sapiens sapiens based on genomic studies, Renfrew suggested that Anatolia (Turkey) was the place of origin of farming as well as the Aryan languages, and both migrated together intoEurope.But this was found wrong later by DNA studies. (Chapter 6)

It was appreciated that man did not enter North Africa (from East Africa) at all until quite late, and actually man came to India about 100,000 years before present (B.P.) from where he migrated to the rest of the world including West Asia or even North Africa. It was actually India which played a central role in populating the world, and it was by back migration from India to East Africa that much of language and culture arrived into East Africa later.

It was recognised by increasingly larger number of authors, like Metspalu, Michael Petraglia, Toomas Kivisild etc. that India was central in the prehistory of mankind. (Chapter 2) Yet senior authors are still assume the West Asian route of exit out of Africa to be true (Renfrew, 2010; Majumder, 2010). The book is intended to clear confusion prevailing in this matter. As genetic study of man (R1a, J2, O2a), cow, mouse, pig, goat, rice and barley all gravitate towards India, there should be no doubt now that farming and Aryan languages originated and spread from India.

Findings of world’s oldest farming sites from Ganga Valley (India) have only supplied the missing link in the story of evolution of farming. Ganga Valley, Mehrgarh, Darestan (Baluchistan of East Iran), Zagros (West Iran), the Fertile Crescent (Iraq) and Turkey are like footsteps in the march of farming culture starting from India to Europe (Chapter 1). On the other hand, re-examination of lexicon of different languages only correlates well to the conclusions derived from the DNA studies.

DNA studies of Y-chromosomes of man from Europe and Asia confirmed that the marker DNA of farming and pottery migration (J2) originated in India. Hence the obvious conclusion is that there was a human migration starting from India to West Asia with which there was also a migration of farming culture, art of pottery-making and ceramic figurine to West Asia and South Europe. Incidentally this whole area from Ganga Valley to South Europe is inhabited today by people speaking Indo-Aryan language (Chapter 9).

At 35,000 B.P. there was a population expansion in India associated with onset of Microlithic/Mesolithic cultural revolution. At this very time, DNA studies indicate, there was domestication of cow, pig and goat in India. It is supposed that wild cereals, fruits, berries, tubers were harvested and exploited well. Some sort of housing, sedentary life, dress and social systems existed during this period. It was during this population expansion that man was forced to move out of India due to saturation of carrying capacity (Chapter 3).

Y chromosomal haplogroup R and its branches migrated out from India to Central Asia and East Africa during this period. In the East, it was Y-chromosomal haplogroup O2a which migrated to Southeast Asia and thereafter to China. Our study suggests that cow, weaving, some form of measuring system and barter trade etc went out from India to Central Asia, southeast Asia and Africa during this migration. Goat also migrated to Central Asia at this time (Chaptre 3).

West Asia and Western Iran were not habitable between 35,000 B.P. and 14,000 B.P. and hence Indian migrations did not take place to that part of Asia then. There was a climatic barrier in Iran. Earlier it was suggested that R1a is a marker of Central Asian Aryan invasion on India. But now it has been shown conclusively that this DNA originated in India. It migrated out from India at about 14,000-15,000 years back to reach Central Asia and finally Europe. R1a was blocked at the East Iran and not allowed to proceed into West Iran due to climatic barrier. It is likely that some elements of Neolithic, like pottery, reached Central Asia and then Europe with this migration. (Chapter .

I have also summarized recent DNA studies of plant and animal genome like cow, goat, buffalo, rice, barley and mice, domestic/domesticated breeds of them originated in India, not in West Asia or China. (Chapter 7). Domestic mouse evolved and lived in India exclusively until recently and migrated to out of India when Indians migrated to other parts of world. (Chapter 10).

https://priyadarshi101.wordpress.com/20 ... the-world/

[johneeG]

No Horse was domesticated in the steppe of Kazakhstan, west Siberia and Ukraine: DNA study

Posted on November 25, 2014 by priyadarshi101

Was the wild steppe horse ever domesticated?

Archaeology and DNA

Sir William Ridgeway had noted on anatomical grounds that the Przewalskii was not the ancestor of the caballus horses (1905:425). Further than this the US Bureau of Animal Husbandry noted in its Report (1910:165) that the modern horse had come from many sources: “But notwithstanding the absence of well preserved skulls it has been possible by making use of the new methods to obtain a considerable amount of evidence that the domestic horses had a multiple origin, that they include amongst their ancestors not only varieties allied to the wild horse which still survives in Mongolia, and varieties adapted for a forest life, but also varieties specialized for ranging over boundless deserts and plateaus, and for living amongst foothills and upland valleys.” (emphasis added). The contribution of the horse genes from many regions in the domestication of horse has been proved, yet any contribution from the steppe-horse has not been supported by these DNA studies of the caballus and the Przewalskii horses (Jansen 2002; Bowling 2003; Wade 2009; Cai 2009:481; Achilli 2011).

The official position in science is that the steppe horse Equus przewalskii has different chromosome number, and that has not been found in any domestic horse and hence it is an entirely different species (Oakenfull 2000; Clark 2006) from which the modern caballus horse could not have descended.

Confirming the non-domesticablility of the Przewalskii horse, Jansen et al (2002:10910) noted, “Modern breeding of the wild Przewalski’s horse initially encountered problems such as pacing, excessive aggression, impotence, and infanticide, leading the Przewalski’s horse to the brink of extinction. The Przewalski’s horse is not ancestral to domestic horses, but if their wild ancestors were similarly intractable, it is unlikely that the technique was mastered many times independently during prehistory. The ease of domestic horse breeding today may be the genetic consequence of selections of particularly amenable beasts some thousands of years ago.”

It can be proposed that the true horse might have lived along with the Przewalskii in the steppe. But that imagination is not allowed. The non-Przewalskii horse could not have lived along with the Przewalskii in the steppe because of the Gause’s Law of Competitive Exclusion, which states: “No two species can equally and successfully occupy the same niche in the same habitat at the same time.” With time one species completely eliminates the other by competition. Hence all the horse bones recovered from the steppe must be considered those of the wild Przewalski. This view is consistent with Levine’s findings too; and the bones with evidence of domestication must be considered imported from outside into the steppe-region.

None of the archaeological claims made so far for the presence of the domestic horse in the steppe have been uncontestable. Outram (2009) found evidence of mare’s milk on pottery at Botai. However the bones of the Botai horses, particularly the vertebral bones showed no damage to them which normally occurs due to riding. After her detailed examination Levine noted, “the material from Botai examined so far most probably was from wild individuals” (Levine 2005:107). Thus presence of milk on a potsherd does not necessarily mean evidence of domestication. It was easy to capture a Przewalskii full-term pregnant mare, keep her captive through delivery, then use her milk for some time before slaughter. For the domestication status of any animal there should be complete package of evidence, not just a stray finding.

More than this, the Bronze Age Botai horses examined by Outram were not indigenous but were imports from outside, as Outram himself noted: “Metrical analysis of horse metacarpals shows that Botai horses resemble Bronze Age domestic horses rather than Palaeolithic wild horses from the same region.” The import of the steppe horses from outside during the Bronze Age is further confirmed by ancient DNA studies (vide infra). Morphological studies too have shown that metrically, the Bronze Age and later domestic horses of Eurasia resembled the European and Indian fossil horses (stenonis, sivalensis etc), but not with the steppe horse.

Ancient Horse DNA

Ancient DNAs of horse recovered from archaeological samples do not support the steppe origin or domestication of horse. Keyser-Tracqui (2005) examined 13 horse DNAs recovered from a third century BC Scythian Era frozen tomb at Berel in Kazakhstan. “It shows that the 15 ancient Asian horse’s sequences obtained did not form a separate cluster.” (p. 206). This means they did not have a common source of origin, and they were not locally domesticated. The study revealed that the DNAs had come from six different clades of Vila.  “No clear geographical affiliation of the specimens studied was thus determined”, they noted.

Intriguingly, none of these third century Scythian horse samples matched with Akhal Teke (Turkmenistan) breed of horse. Keyser-Tracqui noted, “Whereas no matches were found with the Akhal-Teke specimens, some complete matches were observed with Chinese Guanzhong and Tuva horses (the Tuva republic is localized between the Siberia and the Mongolia) as well as with Anatolian horses.” (p. 208)

This finding helps us understand the origin of the Akhal Teke horse. The South Central Asian horse Akhal Teke has no contribution from the hypothetical source of horse located in the steppe. It also means that the Akhal Teke breed is not as old as we think, and it has been formed after the Scythian Era from admixture of Iranian and other breeds.

Many of these ancient horses in Kazakhstan had arrived from north Europe: “None of the Scythian haplotypes matched those provided for Przewalski’s horses, which are considered to be a relic population of wild horse of Eurasia (Lister et al. 1998; Oakenfull & Ryder 1998). Interestingly, we noted that BER10-11-13 sequences perfectly matched that of a Viking Age horse bones found in a restricted area in Sweden (Vila` et al. 2001) as well as that of an Icelandic horse, which represents an ancient Norwegian breed.” (p. 208)

This indicates arrival of the European as well as the Chinese horse in Kazakhstan during or before the Scythian period. Older Bronze Age DNAs from the steppe are not reflected in these third century BC samples, implying that the Scythian Era horses were fresh arrivals from other places and the Bronze Age horses had been replaced by the imported horse during the Scythian period. Two of the samples belonged to haplogroup A6, two to hg D and three to C1 (p. 205). Thus the haplogroups ascribed to the horses in this study were A, C and D. The Bhutia (Himalayan, Country Bred Indian) breed of horse has haplogroup composition of A, C, D, F, and it is possible that there was a significant arrival of Himalayan horse from North India to Berel.

The mtDNA haplotypes detected in the ancient horse from Kazakhstan and West Siberia from the periods Copper and Bronze Ages were X3, X3c1, X5, X7a, G3, K2 and D3 (Cieslac 2010:Figure 2). These have not been found in the modern Indian horses (Devi and Ghosh 2013:5862 Table 1). The X5 which was confined to this region during the Bronze Age is found today in the Fulani horse of Africa (Cieslac 2010:3 pdf). Further investigation is needed to confirm that the X5 reached Africa and the steppe both from a common source in Europe. Likewise the X3 too was found in the steppe during the Bronze Age. It appeared later in China in the Iron Age (ibid). This lineage is possibly European in origin and indicates a migration of European horse to the steppe during the Bronze Age. These ancient lineages are absent from the modern Kazakh breed of western China (Tao Zhang 2012:923). This means the steppe horse of the Copper and Bronze Ages neither contributed to the horse population of later India nor to the breeds Kazakh and Akhal Teke.

In the study of Iranian horse breeds by Moridi, it was found that the Sistani breed, native of the Sistan-and-Baluchistan province (adjoining Baluchistan of Pakistan) had the maximum number of haplogroups. The European haplogroup B was present only in the coastally located Arabian-Irani and the Sistani breeds and was not found in the northerly located breeds viz. Kurd, Caspian-Short and Turkoman. In Devi’s study of Indian breeds, only the Marwari and Kathiawari breeds which are nearer to Sistan-and-Baluchistan had haplogroup B, but others including Bhutia, Spiti, Zanskari and Spiti did not have this haplogroup.

The haplogroup B has been found in Guizhou breed of South China and the Mongolian breed of northwest China too (Tao Zhang 2012:923, 924). It is also present in the ancient Chinese DNA (2.9%) and modern Mongolian (6.1%), Korean Cheju (17.6%), Tuva (9.1%, north of Mongolia), Mesenskaya (27.8%) and Orlov (16.7%) breeds (Dawei Cai 2009:838 Table 3).

Thus there is a circumscribed region where the haplogroup B is absent. This region is Tibet, Turkmenistan, Kurdistan and Himalayan India. This fact too indicates that apart from some introgression in the Marwari and Kathiawari breeds, the Indian breeds are pure and have been free from Central Asian and Western influence.

In China there are five regional indigenous horse types viz. Mongolian, Kazakh, Hequ, Tibetan and the Southwest, to each of which several breeds belong (Tao Zhang 2012). The Kazakh breed of the Chinese native horse is the one which was most probably imported from Kazakhstan in the historical periods. Haplogroup B is not found in the Kazakh breed of Chinese horse, and is absent from the Tibetan horse too (Tao Z.:923; Dawei Cai: Table 3). Haplogroup B was not found in Kazakhstan in the Bronze Age, although it appears in the Iron Age (Ceislac 2010:Fig 2) to disappear again from the Kazakh breed. This shows that there were some European horse arrivals to the steppe during the Iron Age.

We can hence conclude that the modern Kazakh breed of horse was imported into Kazakhstan from the Himalayan provinces of India and northeast Iran during the Iron Age, wherein the haplogroup B was absent then. The Bhutia, Spiti, Zanskari and Manipuri Indian horses have remained isolated from the Muslim period influence on the horse breeds in India. The Turkoman, Caspian Short and Tibetan breeds too have remained in isolation. Clearly, instead of being the source of horse to Europe or India or even to Turkmenistan, the steppe was the recipient of the European DNA haplogroup B from Europe, and also several horse lineages from India.

The mtDNA haplogroups A and F were the commonest lineages in the Chinese ancient horse, and were the only ones in the pre-domestication samples (Dawei Cai 2009:837, 840). None of the ancient DNAs recovered from the steppe as reported by Cieslac, belonged to the haplogroup F (Cieslac 2010: Table 1). In the modern horse breeds these two (A and F) in the highest frequency are found in Chinese and Indian Himalayan breeds (34%; Devi and Ghosh 2013:5862 Table 1). F is present in the modern Kazakh breed.

However this combination (high proportion of both A and F) is not present in Russian horses. In fact the minimum frequency of F is found in Vyatskaya (Russia), Mesenskaya (Russia), Orlov (Russia) and European horses (ibid), indicating that the domestication of the Chinese horses was distinct and separate from the steppe and the European horses. The low level of the hg F might have come into the Russian horses as the result of some horse migration from China. McGahern’s study too noted the absence of haplogroup F from the Orlov and Akhal Teke, and its very low frequency in Vyatskaya breeds of steppe and adjoining areas (2006: Fig 1).

Thus haplogroup F belongs to a domestic horse clade which once lived in Himalayan India, Tibet, China and Mongolia, but did not live in the steppe. We can say that the steppe region (Kazakhstan, Ukraine, West Siberia) received migrant domestic horses from China/Mongolia (hg A, F), Tibet (hg E, D, A), Europe (hg and India (A, D, F), particularly during the Iron Age and after. Our conclusion is supported by ancient DNA study by Keyser-Tracqui. The ancient DNA study of the domestic horse remains from the Scythian Period recovered from the steppe proved that they all had been imported from outside regions like Anatolia, China etc (Keyser-Tracqui 2005). None of the thirteen such DNAs matched the DNA of today’s horse breeds from Central Asian, steppe and other neighbouring region such as Yakut, Mongolian, Akhal Teke (Turkmenistan) horses, or the Pleistocene horse from northeast Asia, which are generally conjectured as the close relatives of the ancient steppe horse. Matching was not done with the Indian horse.

These DNA findings are consistent with the archaeological finding from the Scythian era that the domestic horse of the south Ural region (Siberia; e.g. Rostovka, Preobrazhenka, Samus’ IV etc) came from Central Asia at about 1300 BCE (Kuz’mina and Mallory 2007:200). In our study, we surmise that these horses had reached Central Asia from further south like Iran and India, and not from north to south. It is consistent with Warmuth’s DNA study which found that the no horse migration from north to south took place in Eurasia (2012b:7).

In a study of horse DNA from ancient horse remains found from China showed 75% of Chinese horses (from 2000 BCE and later) had same DNA as those found from earlier periods, implying their local domestication from the pre-existing wild Chinese horse (Cai 2009:481). The remaining 25% DNAs of post-2000 BCE were new arrivals from outside, but not from the steppe. The conclusion is that the 75% of the late Bronze Age horses of China had been domesticated locally from the wild Chinese horses, and they had contributed to the steppe domestic horse population too; however, none of the Late Bronze Age domestic horses of the steppe had any local ancestry from the wild steppe horse. This type of solid DNA evidence is lacking for the steppe.

Similar DNA study of ancient horse remains from Iberian Peninsula (Spain) revealed many of the modern Spanish lineages had been present throughout the early Neolithic, Copper Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age, indicating a local domestication within the Iberian Peninsula itself from the local wild horse population (Warmuth 2011). Cieslak found that the domestic horse’s DNA lineages B, H1 and J originated from within the Iberian Peninsula and were domesticated probably during the Copper/Bronze Age.

However, some East/Southeast Asian lineages (namely A, D2, X4a) were too present in Iberia at the Bronze Age indicating an early arrival of some domestic horses from outside from the south-east Eurasia possibly through North Africa and India (Cieslak 2010:3). In our view, horse migration from Southeast Asia to the Iberian Peninsula necessarily involved passing through South Asia under a state of domestication. Luis (2006) found that the modern American horses were related to the ancient Iberian (Spanish) horse DNAs from the prehistoric dates.

Cieslak found that all the regions of Eurasia had local Pleistocene horse DNAs preserved in continuity into the modern primitive breeds of the regions. The steppe region, however, was the only exception in this respect which showed no such continuity of lineages in Cieslak’s study. His has been supported from the DNA study of the second millennium BCE remains of horse from the steppe (supra). Thus we conclude that no horse was domesticated in the steppe.

Modern DNA Studies

Yinghui Ling (2010: Fig 1) examined the Y chromosomes of the existing Chinese horse breeds. They found that there were two male lineages in the Chinese horse, designated haplogroup A and haplogroup B. The haplogroup A was distributed all over China, but the haplogroup B was found only in the southern regions of China adjoining the Indian boarders and Southeast Asia. The study was not extended to include India. However from the data generated it can be said that there the male horse lineage (hg was domesticated in the Himalayan region, and that this lineage extended into Tibet and Southeast Asia, but it has not spread far north into China.

The genome-wide SNP data study of the horse breeds showed that the modern Iberian and three Middle Eastern breeds (viz. Caspian, Arabian and Akhal Teke breeds) formed one single genetic cluster (Petersen 2013:6 pdf; 7pdf Fig2). The Middle Eastern breeds clustered with the Iberian breeds, indicating ancient migrations of domestic horse between Iberia and the respective regions of Middle East. Such migrations involved North Africa, Arabian Peninsula and Iran when the climate was better during the Bronze Age or before. From Iran horses were taken to Central Asia during the Copper and Bronze Ages, when there was large scale human migration from Iran to Central Asia. Yet the migrations seem to have taken place from East Iran during the Scythian Era because the Akhal Teke DNA does not match any ancient Scythian DNAs. Or, the Akhal Teke was formed after this time. Thus horse came to the steppe from south, west and east. It is also notable from the study of Petersen that the steppe, or Central Asia or Ukrainian breeds of horses do not form any cluster (see dendrogram Petersen: Figure 2), indicating that they did not originate from any distinct or demarcatable source.

The mitochondrial DNA haplogroups A to G are widely distributed in world. However there is some pattern. McGahern’s study demonstrated that the domestic horse breeds of the world belong to two distinct genetic cohorts, eastern and western, on the basis of their mtDNA variation. However the steppe countries like Kazakhstan and Ukraine did not come within any of the two cohorts indicating mixed origins from both east and west (McGahern 206:495).

The haplogroup F, very common in China, Mongolia, Tibet, Kazakhstan and India is absent from the Kurd, Turkoman and Sistani breeds of Iran (Dawei Cai 2009:Table 3; Devi and Ghosh 2013; Moridi:4 pdf, Fig1). However the hg F is present in the Arabian and the Caspian breeds, in which it might have reached from India and Tibet during the historical Arabian Empire period. In the steppe region consisting of Kazakhstan and West and South Siberia, the hg F occurs in the Bronze Age but not in the Iron Age (Cieslac 2010:Fig 2; Keyser-Tracqui 2005). That means the Iron Age import into the steppe was mainly from south (Iran) and west (Europe) where haplogroup F did not exist then.

Similarly, the haplogroup B is considered European (Iberian) in origin and it is not found in the Indian country-bred or the mountain breeds of India and Kazakhstan. Some of the Iranian breeds have haplogroup B, others do not (Moridi: Fig 1). In the ancient samples, B is absent from China, Korea and Mongolia (Cieslac 2010:Fig 2). It is absent from West and South Siberia and Kazakhstan during the Bronze Age but appears there in the Iron Age (ibid). Today it is absent from the Kazakh breed of China yet is found in the western steppe breeds. This indicates migration of some horse from Europe to the steppe during the Iron Age.

Lira and colleagues (2010) demonstrated that horse was domesticated in Iberia from the wild horses present there since Late Pleistocene period. They also found that haplogroup D1 had not been present in Bronze Age Iberia and arrived there during the medieval period. Warmuth and colleagues (2011:4 pdf, Fig 1B) too concluded that horse was domesticated in Iberia from native wild horses.

Warmuth (2011) noted that apart from Iberia, there was another likely source for the European domestic horse–the region of Iran south of the Caspian Sea. The archaic Caspian breed lives here. “Our investigation of genetic diversity in traditional European horse breeds reveals two hotspots of genetic diversity, one in the Caspian region of western Asia and one in the Iberian Peninsula.” (Warmuth 2011:2 pdf). However the steppe was not found to be a genetic hotspot in their study. This study was not extended to the further east and had not included India and China.

Study of the autosomal genes by Warmuth (2012b:7pdf) demonstrated that there was a general migration of the true horse from east to west before domestication. However, horses of Lithuania and Kazakhstan showed evidence of recent arrival from the East, implying import after domestication. This fact about Kazakhstan militates against Central Asia having been a place of domestication of horse.

The study (2012b:7) ruled out any migration of horse from north to south: “There was no significant correlation between genetic diversity and latitude, despite written accounts documenting a continued flux of horses from the steppe lands in the north into both India and much of China (Gommans 1994)” (Warmuth 2012b:7pdf). This finding rules out the common conjecture that the horse arrived into Iran and India from north.

DNA study of living Greek horses revealed that many of them (Crete, Pindos and Pinias breeds) had arrived there from the Middle East route, and not from Ukraine/East Europe route (Bömcke 2010:7/9pdf). This too goes against the domestication of the horse in the steppe, and is consistent with the arrival of the horse from Iran and India to Middle East and from there to Southeast Europe.

Hence the steppe region of today was not the source of the horse populations for Central Asia, China, India, Iran, Greece and Spain–we can say from the above studies. The study by Warmuth (2012b:5,Table 1) also showed that Ukraine, Kalmykia (Russia) and Kyzilorda (Kazakhstan) of the steppe had no private or unique alleles, while other regions like Jammu (India), Yunnan (Southwest China adjoining northeast India) and Naryn (Kyrgyzstan not far from the northern reaches of India) had many unique alleles each indicating local evolution in these areas.[1] Thus Kyrgyzstan, located immediately to the north of Pamir, was the only place north of the Indo-Iranian plains where we find any evidence of in-situ horse domestication. No place to the further north, including Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Siberia has any DNA evidence of local domestication of horse.

This reflects that Ukraine and the other steppe regions possibly had received all their domestic horse DNAs from outside, while Jammu, Kyrgyzstan and Yunnan—the regions adjoining the Himalayas where sivalensis, the Indian wild horse once prevailed–had local domestication of horse. Considering facts from every angle it becomes obvious that the steppe origin of horse domestication cannot be sustained any more, and it was an academic hoax.

The Multiple Primary Domestication events of Horse:

Necessarily associating the horse domestication with the Aryans was the most unfortunate event of historiography. The DNA studies revealed that horse had not been domesticated only at one or a few places, but at seventy seven places throughout Eurasia, and can be grouped into seventeen DNA types (Jansen, 2002; Vila, 2001; Lippold 2011a; Cieslak 2010). Lippold (2011b) noted that the DNA remains of the wild horse from ancient Siberia, Alaska and Yukon proved that they all belonged to the Przewalskii, and it is enough to prove that the caballus horse had not lived there in the wild then. Lippold also found that all the ancient remains of horse with features of domestication (dated 800 BCE) belong to the non-Przewalskii type of DNA, clearly indicating the arrival of the domestic horse from outside the range of the Przewalskii horse.

All the regions of Eurasia other than Mongolia, Siberia and the steppe at the Bronze Age had domestic horses which had been locally captured (Kavar 2008). Clearly Siberia, Mongolia (and North America and steppe) were the regions where ancient domestic horses had been imported from outside, and not locally domesticated.

Lindgren (2004) and Lau (2009) found (DNA study) that although wild mares had been recruited from all over Eurasia, yet on the male side there were only one or just a few stallions. It was also confirmed that none of the male progenitors was the steppe or Central Asian Przewalskii stallion (Lindgren:336). In our opinion this progenitor stallion could have been from the sivalensis stock (vide infra).

DNA studies found that some northwest European domestic ponies namely the Fjord, Icelandic and Shetland ponies have a single cluster of DNA, which originated very early just after the Late Glacial period (about 10,000 BCE; Jansen:10908). Achilli (2011) found one lineage of European horse (haplogroup L) was domesticated in Europe from where it seems to have spread to Middle East and Asia.

Study of DNA recovered from the Neolithic and Bronze Age horse bones showed that many of the extant European lineages had already been there at those times, and some even during the late Pleistocene (Achilli 2011:3-4 pdf; Cieslak 2010:3; Lira 2012). In fact at least one lineage of modern domestic horse Lusitani Group C had been domesticated quite early, possibly during the Neolithic period itself (Lira 2009). The haplogroup D lineage, which is the most prominent lineage of Iberia, arrived here only during the Bronze Age. Another study found that at least one breed of horse had been domesticated in Spain much before Indo-European linguistic arrival to the area (Achilli et al 2011:4 pdf). Solis (2005) showed many horse breeds of the Iberian Peninsula are autochthonous and have been domesticated locally in Europe itself (Solis: 677). The study by Royo noted common DNA motifs in Iberian and Barb (North African) horses, which is consistent with our view that the late Bronze Age arrivals of the domestic horse to Iberia took place through North Africa. These studies rule out the association of the European horse with the Indo-European culture.

A recent study by Devi (2013) revealed that the 59 Indian horse samples studied carried 35 haplotypes, which gives one of the highest index of genetic diversity in the word. Such figure is consistent with the oldest horse domestication event having taken place in India. A total of seven major mtDNA haplogroups (A–G) was identified in the Indian horse breeds that indicated the abundance of mtDNA diversity. The haplogroup D constituted 33% of Indian horse breeds. The Manipuri breed of horse comes from the eastern end of India and it has remained segregated from the other horse breeds of India and outside. It is presumed to be the local descendant of the Wild Asiatic Horse. However, it was noted that the Manipuri horse showed closest affinity with the various Indian horse breeds as well as the Thoroughbred horse, and not with the Chinese or Central Asian breeds (ibid).

Horse statue (three feet tall) dating 7000 BCE was found recently from Asir (Arabia Felix, near Abha, southwest Arabia; Science News, BBC News, Reuters etc). Arabia was not inhabitable by horse during the last glacial owing to cold desert like conditions. Any early Holocene presence of the horse must have been from India, where the sivalensis horse had survived the Last Glacial maximum. There is plenty of evidence of Indian migration to the East Arabian coast (human DNA, Underhill 2009:2 and 3; shrew, mice, Duplantier) during late Pleistocene and early Holocene. Evidence from the other regions indicates that the Indian sivalensis was domesticated as early as 8,000 BCE. Hence it could have been taken to the Arabian coastal region by the early Holocene migrants.

xxxx

Climate change and the arrival of the Domestic Horse in Central Asia:

The archaeology of the steppe has confused the archaeologists because the steppe archaeological sites have horse bones which had been hunted for meat, or captured live then sacrificed ritually. They belong to the Przewalskii horse which was never domesticated, but lived in the wild in the steppe. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make distinction between the Przewalskii and the true-horse bones. There is no evidence to support that any non-Przewalskii type wild horse lived in the steppe about 2000 BCE or earlier.

In spite of the several horse hoaxes raised about the steppe, the recent archaeological studies serious challenge the long held view that steppe was the home of the true horse which we have today as the domestic species. The archaeological study done at Begash (Kazakhstan) confirmed in a recent study: “While pastoral herding of sheep and goats is evident from the Early Bronze Age, the horse appears only in small numbers before the end of the first millennium BC” (Frachetti and Benecke 2009: Abstract).

The paper adds the “horse use seems to commence gradually and is not highly associated with early and middle Bronze Age pastoralists.” (ibid:1025). The authors find, the “percentages of horse remains at Begash remain below 6 per cent until approximately AD 50 (Phase 3b)”, and “The domestic horse is documented at Begash by the start of the second millennium BC, but its impact on pastoralism is not clear.” In our view, such stray domestic horses as the ones documented from the second millennium BC Begash were Bronze Age imports from the further south i.e. Iran and northwest India.  Challenging the whole hypothesis, Frachetti and Benecke note: “Thus the data from Begash draw into question the general view that Eurasian pastoralism diffused eastward as a result of mounted horsemen in the Bronze Age”.

A study at Tentek-sor (northern Caspian, Kazakhstan) revealed that horse bones do not increase between 4000 BCE and 2000 BCE (Koryakova), and the samples did not contain any domestic sheep or cattle, even wild aurochs was only 5% (Frachetti 2012:7; Koryakova 2007). However, after 2000 BCE, we get a very large number of domestic cattle (60 to 90%) in the steppe and Central Asia, indicating the arrival of pastoralists with cattle into this region only after 2000 BC (Koryakova:88, 65, 146-147). This indicates that probably all the horse bones from earlier than 2000 BC dates are of the wild horses.

Koryakova (p.54) noted “but horse bones are extremely rare in the Kurgans”, and “a larger group of specialists share the idea that classical steppe nomadism appeared in the first millennium BCE” (ibid:55). This is consistent with the palaeo-climatic studies of Asia too. Earlier than this period there were forests in Central Asia and South Siberia although breaking and fast changing into open grass-lands due to human interference after 2000 BC. Yet forests dominated the region up to 1000 BC which were cleared by the farmers for agro-pastoral purposes. However, it is the total conversion into grassland and desert ecosystem which would have forced man to adopt the nomad existence. Thus nomadism was not the product of the mood or temperament of the particular nationality, but a geographic-ecological compulsion. It was a specialized niche for man.

The fossil pollen studies from Central Asia, South Siberia, Northern and Western China and other steppe zones have shown that the steppes converted into forests in the early Holocene (8000-6000 BC). Jiang (2006) found that the inner Mongolian steppe changed into birch-pine (Betula/Pinus) forest at 10,500 BC-7,200 BC period, and evolved into woodland with these trees dominating at 7,200-4,700 BC period, but reverted back to the steppe after 4,700 BC. It is at this very time, i.e. at 8,500 BC that the North American horses became extinct, a latest report based on ancient DNA says (Haile 2009). Earlier such extinction was stated to have taken place about 12,000 BC on the basis of fossil studies (Buck and Bard 2007). Clearly extinction of the North American horse occurred owing to the same climatic reasons which were operative in Central Asia and India. In Asia too horse became extinct from the region which we call the steppe.

Conversion back to the steppe and desert ecosystems took place at different times in different areas. Many areas remained forest as late as 2000 BC. At Yolin Am steppe (Southern Mongolia), it was found that it was a forest between c. 3600 BC and 2000 BC, and Betula (birch) andSalix (willow) trees dominated (Miehe 2007:156, Table 1). In general, however, after 3000 BC, more and more of Central Asia converted into steppe and desert (Zhao 2009; Zhao 2008: cited in F. Chen Editorial 2009:1). There was an abrupt change to arid climate at 2500 BC in many regions of China (Zhao 2009: Abstract; Chen, W. 2009). Miehe et al noted in their study of the succession of ecologies in the Gobi desert, that birch and willow pollens and charcoal were present in the soil layers up to 3000 BC (calibrated radiocarbon date), however birch became extinct from that site after that time (Miehe 2007:163; 156 Table 1).

Dense forest and desert are the places where horses die. In the dense forest, that harbours tiger, panther etc, horse can be easily predated because it cannot run fast enough in there to escape from the carnivores. Hence in all likelihood, hardly any horse may have lived before 4000 BC in the regions which we know today as the Eurasian steppe.

On the other hand, northwest India became a semi-arid region in about 33,000 BC and continued to be so until the end of the Glacial period (Petraglia 2009). Semi-arid ecosystems consist of deserts and grasslands like savannah, steppe, Sahel etc, but no dense forests. The Sivalensishorse must have found the northwest Indian grasslands as the ideal habitat. This situation lasted up to 6,000 BC, after which the region became moist leading to the growth of dense forests in Northwest India, which was not a friendly ecosystem for the horse. But then, the former Thar Desert evolved into grasslands (Deotare 2004a:Abstract), which stayed so until 2200 BC. Thus horses could have lived conveniently in the Thar between 6,000 BC and 2200 BC.

On the basis of the recent archaeological and palaeo-environmental studies, we are in a position to say that the horse domestication could have been possible in Central Asia and the north Pontic-Caspian steppe only after 2000 BC, if at all it took place in any of the two regions. The Bronze Age economy of this region remained mainly cattle and goat dominated and the classical horse based nomadism appeared only in the first millennium BCE after the aridity of the region increased enough to eliminate the possibility of farming-pastoralism.

[1] Number of private alleles: Whole of Europe 3; Whole of Kazakhstan 2; Kyrgyzstan 5; Xinjiang 5; India (only Jammu district) 4; Altai 2; Mongolia 2; Yunnan (Southeast Asia, politically part of Republic of China) 3.

And read more in http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Dates-Vedas ... 6909021633

https://priyadarshi101.wordpress.com/20 ... dna-study/

[member_29218]

Humanity originated in Asia, not Africa.

-----

All the ancestors of contemporary Europeans apparently did not migrate out of Africa as previously believed. According to a new analysis of more than 5,000 teeth from long-perished members of the genus Homo and the closely related Australopithecus, many early settlers hailed from Asia.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... heory-out/

JohneeG Ji, with respect, I don't buy that.

Simply looking at a phenotypic trait like teeth cannot authenticate genetic origins of an entire species. As I mentioned earlier about the Chihuahua vs St. Bernard, today's human beings are quite different looking from each other depending upon where you go. If you take the facial bone structure of the Chinese vs the Bantu they would obviously give the impression of different genetic origins, but the genetic material is almost identical.

My point is that given the huge variation in size and shape even within the same ethnic group (tall vs short, flat-nosed vs sharp nosed etc), it would be easy to make a wrong assumption simply based on a few skeletal fragments unless there was enough genetic material to do so. Paleo-anthropologists keep coming up with 'new species' with such limited evidence that IMHO the whole science is suspect. Then they claim that this one was discovered 2 million years ago while the other one was a thousand miles away and 2.3 million years ago, ergo they must be different species.

I need to do some more reading on my own, had ventured into this area in 2008, have to dig up my materials again, both old and new.

For now I am skeptical of all 'not-out of Africa' claims. A simple query of Unkil Googal reveals a plethora of such claims, some citing Australia as the origin of the species, others claiming Greece, one guy says all Europeans are Dravidian Albinos!

Suffice it to say, nothing is simple. Will get back on this one.

[shiv]

What my old pal Primus stove says is right. Genetic mutations caused by time are like scratches on a car. The model and colour of car is always recognizable but the number of scratches increases with age. So the cars with the greatest number of scratches are the oldest.

So how does anyone recognize scratches in chromosomes. Digging into my memory it's like this(any errors are mine)

Each chromosome carries genes on a long string-like structure. The string is not packed tight with genes; there are gaps of non-functioning code between actual genes. Over thousands of years the genes remain more or less the same (Explaining this will take too long) but the non working bits between genes change over time due to mutations. These changes are the scratches in the paint.

If you get a set of chromosomes from a grave 2000 years old and compare it with a modern specimen, you can see the changes (scratches in paint) that have occurred in 2000 years. If you get an even older specimen - you get one more older marker. That is why ancient DNA is so useful. Unfortunately it is hard to come by, but it appears that all humans have the same genes but he "scratches on the paint" indicating the oldest mutations are among Africans. Hence "out of Africa". Those who live outside Africa have less old mutations

Of course this assumes that with the largest concentration of ancient genes Africans have stayed in Africa for the longest time. It is still possible that the ancient genes developed in Sweden but the first man and woman - Abdul and his begum quickly went from Sweden to Africa and stayed there so that future generations would be fooled into thinking that the first genes were in Africa. But this is unlikely. Travel was expensive for aam Abdul thousands of years ago and if aab-dana (water-food) were available locally he would stay there and not migrate out.

[member_29325]

What my old pal Primus stove says is right. Genetic mutations caused by time are like scratches on a car. The model and colour of car is always recognizable but the number of scratches increases with age. So the cars with the greatest number of scratches are the oldest.

Isn't this the same principle behind using H Pylorii to determine the direction of movement of peoples? The older group has a more diverse set of mutations and variations in the H Pylorii DNA in the populace (like in Africa and India) and the subgroup that migrated has a smaller subset of the DNA that is found in the older group, and there is not chance that this subset will end up with a larger set of variations than the original, if we assume that new variations are created at the same rate from a given set of DNA (implying that a group will larger variations will continue to have larger variations over time)...just my understanding of this...trying to see if that sounds right.

[Virendra]

Are we talking about haplo group diversity?
I read in a paper that haplo group diversity is not always (i.e. 100 %) accurate in calculating age and direction of migration.

Regarding Out of Africa vs Out of India origin .. is it possible that :
-- a line went from India to Africa.
-- their left overs in India get decimated, no trace.
-- one branch from those Africans came back later as part of 'Out of Africa'.

I don't quite remember the exact specifics from his video. But it was remotely something like this perhaps

[johneeG]

Out of Africa theory was floated before genetics field came to be. Out of Africa was proposed by Darwin. I think his idea was that if humans evolved from monkeys, then africans must be the earliest humans as they are closest to monkeys. In short, this sounds like a racist theory based on speculation. Anyway, this out of africa theory has now been debunked. Genetic studies show that russian all non-africans have no african markers. So, africans can't be there ancestors. So, Asians are the ancestors of Human beings non-africans. Question is: which Asians? Answer is: Most probably Indians. Genetics, linguistic, historical and archeological evidence shows that Indians are the ancestors of non-Africans.