• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>B B Lal announces Neolithic site discovered in Haryana </b>Posted by: "Carlos A"

Dear friends,

Recently University of Massachusetts, Center for Indic Studies, held
a conference to resolve Aryan/Non Aryan origins of Indian
Civilization. One of the invited speakers was B.B. Lal. There he
made a revelation already known in some archaeological and academic
circles: the discovery of earlier Neolithic levels at an Harappan
site in Haryana state. Of course Witzel made a derogatory and
irascible comentary, posted in a hurry, at IndiaArchaeology Yahoo
group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaArchaeology/ , by one of
his staunch suporters, David Salomon, whose messages paradoxically
are not allowed at Farmer-Witzel's political List (a case of
servility of that Christian lawyer?).

On this matter I asked Dr Kak if he knew something. He kindly
communicated himself with Dr B.B. Lal and Dr Lal answered by mail on
7th July, 2006 as follows:

"As you may have perhaps realized by now, Witzel is one of those who
cannot accept their mistakes gracefully. What irritated him most was
my pointing out how he mis-translated the part concerned of the
Srauta Sutra, on the basis of which he propagates that the Aryans
came to India from the west. (I am sure you have seen my paper
published on this topic in one of the issues in East and West. If
not, I can post a copy of it to you.) As I could make out, he is
losing mental balance and being unable to reply to the points
raised, takes recourse to mud-slinging. May God bless him and his

B. B. Lal's most relevant part of his mail is:

"In so far as the Bhirrana (not Virana) C-14 dates are concerned,
these have been given by the Radiocarbon Laboratory of the Birbal
Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany, Lucknow, and are as follows:
Sample No. BS 2314 -- Calibrated age, 1 Sigma: 4536, 4506, 4504 BCE
Sample No. BS 2318 -- Calibrated age, 1 Sigma: 5041 BCE
Sample No. BS 2333 -- Calibrated age, 1 Sigma: 6439 BCE"

Here Dr Lal refers to the site called BHIRRANA that in many articles
was mentioned as Virana or Bhirdana.
As you can see the range 4504- 6439 BCE corresponds to the Neolithic
period of this site which is at Fatehabad district, Haryana, near
Kunal and Banawali.

Bhirrana site has 6,25 hectares. The upper levels were excavated by
ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) for two field seasons during
2003-04 and 2004-05. The excavations has revealed a well planned
fortified Mature Harappan town datable to 3rd millennium BCE. The
massive fortification wall of the town was made of mud bricks. The
houses were made of mud bricks. The other important findings from
the excavation include steatite seals, beads of semi-precious
stones, celts and bangles belonging to Mature period.

During field season 2005-06 it was anounced by ASI Director Dr B R
Mani that earlier layers were found. And journalists started to talk
of an older civilization than Indus:


The thing is that Bhirrana's news are circulating in the web since
January 2004 when the town was found.
See the article by Sushil Manav at The Tribune, "Harappan township

"Fatehabad, January 1 [2004].Clinching evidence of a township of the
5,000-year-old Indus Valley Civilisation (Harappan Era) has been
found during excavations near Bhirdana village in the district, 12
km from the town. The excavations are being carried out by the
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The excavations began on
December 14 and are likely to continue till May. These may resume
after the monsoon, if required. The ASI had earlier discovered the
presence of same townships of the Indus Valley Civilisation at two
other places, Kunal and Banawali, in the district. The evidences
found at Bhirdana include many structures made of mud bricks,
peculiar of the Harappan era; a well, a fortification wall, pottery
and other antiquities. Mr L.S. Rao, Superintending Archaeologist of
the ASI, who is leading the team of excavators here, informed that
the team, comprising a Deputy Superintending Archaeologist, three
Assistant Archaeologists and other officials like photographers,
draftsmen, artists, and surveyors, was working on the excavation
site spread across 62,500 square metres and situated on a mound.
Fifteen students of Institute of Archaeology, New Delhi, have also
been assisting the team. The excavations, being carried out under
the `Saraswati Heritage Project' of the Union Government, were part
of a series of such excavations being made to unearth the old
civilisations on the bank of the ancient Saraswati river. The
Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Haryana, had
protected the area of the present excavations, Mr Rao said. He said
the area where the excavations were being carried out was the bank
of the Saraswati. The whole riverbed had been converted in to
agricultural lands with the passage of time, he added. He said the
ASI based its findings on the antiquities collected during the
excavations on the surface of the mound. Pottery, among the
antiquities, is the main criteria for ascertaining the civilisation.
The team has collected truckloads of pottery during the excavations.
Besides, these some semi-precious stones have also been found.
Structures made of Sun-dried bricks, a peculiar feature of the Indus
Valley Civilisation, have been found. The excavators have also
discovered a 2.4-metre-wide wall considered to be the fortification
wall of the township on the excavation site. Ms Ankum, from
Nagaland, a student of the Institute of Archaeology, who was manning
the fortification area, said a clinching evidence of the township
was that the earth outside the wall comprised of virgin soil while
the one inside the fortification wall had all the evidence of
structures. Mr Prabhash Sahu, Assistant Superintending
Archaeologist, told this correspondent that it was a horizontal
excavation and the whole mound had been divided into four parts for
convenience. Mr Rao said the residents of the area were cooperative
and were showing keen interest in the excavations. Ms Swatantra Bala
Chowdhary, the local MLA, who was earlier a teacher in history, has
visited the sites".

As for a saga of this interesting archaeological matter, specially
respect Neolithic levels of Bhirrana and 2005-06 excavations, Dr Lal
in his mail concludes:

"These have been included in my paper, 'Can the Vedic People be
identified Archaeologically? -- An Appoach' which is about to be
printed off in Indologica Taurinesia (Torino, Italy)."

Best regards,

Carlos A..
La Paz
I am sorry I missed the significance of the point about - Bhirrana vs Virana vs Bhirdana. Can someone elaborate?
Not sure if this link has been listed here before.
Aryan Invasion Theory Myth
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Aug 9 2006, 06:18 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Aug 9 2006, 06:18 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Not sure if this link has been listed here before.
Aryan Invasion Theory Myth

Aryan Invasion Theory Myth

1. A crucial international historians' conference
2. Ancient archeological sites in India and Pakistan
3. Aryan invasion theory by Dinesh Agrawal
4. Barrier's bridge to Bharat
5. Beyond decipherment: Message of the Indus seals
6. Cracking the Indus Valley Code
7. Fixing history
8. Hindu Advocates - The Voice of India
9. Hindu timeline by Hinduism Today
10. Hinduism Today reveals the international face of Hinduism
11. Hinduism Today: A new journal, a new force
12. How Western reports maintain the stereotype
13. India's self denial by Francois Gautier
14. Interview with Voice of India
15. Myth of the Aryan invasion of India by David Frawley
16. Rewriting Indian history by Francois Gautier
17. Rewriting Indology

Some good power points on Dr. Kalyanaraman's site:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a slide show in 59 slides. The agenda set by eurocentric
indologists is ignored and a set of multi-disciplinary evidences are
presented to authenticate the ancestry and roots of Hindu

Let the eurocentric indologists respond to the evidence presented, as
Sarasvati continuum continues to nurture an 8,500 year old s'ankha
(s'angu) industry in Kizhakkarai, Tiruchendur, an arupat.aiveedu, one
of six army camps of Skanda Kartikeya. It is not mere coincidence that
in another arupat.aiveedu in Swamimalai -- on the banks of Kaveri (not
far from the Sarasvati mandiram of koottanur), the vis'vakarma
continue the cire perdue technique to create bronze and pancaloha
pratimaa in exquisite artistic metaphors.
Was forwarded in email
or, in tinyurl format:

The web directory is divided into several sections, whose titles are
the following:

Aryan Migration Theory (AMT) vs. Out-of-India Theory (OIT)
Archaeology of the Harappan (Indus Valley) Civilization
Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC)
Writing & literacy in Indus civilization
Linguistic prehistory of India
Astronomy and the dating of the Vedas
Horses, chariots and Vedic Indians
Sarasvati River
Science, mathematics and iron technology in ancient India
Afro-Dravidian connections
Austro-Asiatic connections
Genetics & prehistoric migrations of the Indian sub-continent
Sunken cities off the Indian coasts?

<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Aug 3 2006, 09:15 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Aug 3 2006, 09:15 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Post 78: <!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->AIT is all BS and their theory assigns 1500 BCE for it.

Microsoft Encarta seems to claim that the Hittite had cuneiform records written down in about 1600 BC.

Should we worry about this as the Vedas were never written down and were only orally transmitted !

Little should we care what these Indologists claim.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm with you on this. (I'll enlarge my warning at the top of the first Encarta-post larger and copy them to the top of the other posts). I don't believe in the AIT, in Aryans and Dravidians, nor in Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages - yes, from what I've read, I have decide that IE really is a matter of faith than anything else.
I just posted the articles and excerpts that I thought others might not generally have access to/might not have looked at. They reveal many underlying things that are not necessarily related to the IE view.

For instance:
- The fact that the Hittite records are 1600bce is probably used as proof that it is older than Vedas whose date was randomly assigned;
The fact that the dating for the Hittite-Mitanni treaty is found to be older than the date randomly accorded the AI of India is supposedly an additional proof that IE language was introduced into India. (The linguistic gymnastics to prove that the Mitanni treaty was written in an 'older' form of 'Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian' can be ignored. This is based on the IE assumption and they merely want to prove it with their linguistic exercise using their biased rules). Some indologists thought that it has been proven that AI of India was in 1500bce and so call upon the Mitanni treaty as proof that an Indian-like language existed external to India before the AI. (Elst also mentioned an example case of where indologists assume the 1500bce automatically when trying to defend the AIT/AMT)
- That indologists have grouped Kashmiri separately from the other Indian languages, and that it is 'Dardic' (?) and that this might be an Indo-Iranian subbranch separate of 'Indo-Aryan' and Iranian.
- About the Encarta statement: "By 1800 the close relationship between Sanskrit, ancient Greek, and Latin had been <i>demonstrated</i>." Nothing had been demonstrated. It had only been argued informally; then this gave rise to the IE linguistic rules which then 'proved' that the informal arguments were true. See the cyclical proof:
informal proposition that they are genetically related languages (belong to family) <-> biased with that assumption, rules are created to prove these languages are part of the same family <-> family tree once created obeys all these linguistic rules, hence 'proving' initial informal argument. "Q.E.D."
- Telling statement from Encarta: "The early Indo-European studies established many principles basic to comparative linguistics."
So, these rules and principles were created (and influenced) when they had first decided that the languages must be related. Linguistics is not Quantum Physics - even if it has to still be content to carry out its work in theoretical space, it bases itself on maths and works with mathematical proofs. Linguistics <i>insists</i> on working in theory only - even though it doesn't have to, because the other fields like archaeology, genetics, anthropology can track down populations and their movements and can confirm or contradict the large-scale models generated by linguistics. (Each language in the old times needed speakers to transmit them, unless all societies had the same alphabet and were literate.)
- Encarta statement: "Hindu grammarians had systematically classified the formative elements of their ancient language. To their studies were added extensive grammatical and phonetic comparisons of European languages."
Europe wasn't objective in this at all, because it became a matter of their own identity (IE is very much connected with European identity)
Is the forum aware of the motivations which led to the development of IE? Sir William Jones's main motivation was to prove the biblical origin of the world. He propunded the "Common origin of Languages" to prove the biblical Tower of Babel. Then he goes on to say that Ham (called Ram in India) fathered the Indian race whose brother was Japhet.
So my question has any one proven ( I have not seen a proof) that Iranian of Avesta is the precursor to Sanskrit? I have read Jones, we know his motivations. Even modern linguists that I have read accept Jones as gospel. But has anyone seen a carefully constructed proof?

<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Aug 23 2006, 12:45 PM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Aug 23 2006, 12:45 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky,
  Is the forum aware of the motivations which led to the development of IE? Sir William Jones's main motivation was to prove the biblical origin of the world. He propunded the "Common origin of Languages" to prove the biblical Tower of Babel. Then he goes on to say that Ham (called Ram in India) fathered the Indian race whose brother was Japhet.
So my question has any one proven ( I have not seen a proof) that Iranian of Avesta is the precursor to Sanskrit? I have read Jones, we know his motivations. Even modern linguists that I have read accept Jones as gospel.  But has anyone seen a carefully constructed proof?


I am just cross-posting a previous post.

To try and see firsthand what Jones was trying to do - I looked up the internet. Looks like the writings of Mr. William Jones has been published in 1993 as "The Collected Works of Sir William Jones" which contains 6240 pages!! It is only printed by New York University Press, it costs a 1000 USD, and is out of print currently. I have also searched the cataogues of libraries I have access to, and the book is not available anywhere.

Here is the info from NYUP. http://www.nyupress.org/books/The_Collecte...ts_id-2036.html

Any idea where his works can be accessed? And how come NYUP is publishing his works - Rather than UK or Indian presses??? Is that normal?

Digvijay : Since you say you have read Jones, please educate me how. Which book of his, and how to get it...is there an online resource...I saw website of Asiatic soceity calcutta too, nothing major available on Jones.....

<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Aug 25 2006, 12:22 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Aug 25 2006, 12:22 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Aug 23 2006, 12:45 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Aug 23 2006, 12:45 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky,
  Is the forum aware of the motivations which led to the development of IE? Sir William Jones's main motivation was to prove the biblical origin of the world. He propunded the "Common origin of Languages" to prove the biblical Tower of Babel. Then he goes on to say that Ham (called Ram in India) fathered the Indian race whose brother was Japhet.
So my question has any one proven ( I have not seen a proof) that Iranian of Avesta is the precursor to Sanskrit? I have read Jones, we know his motivations. Even modern linguists that I have read accept Jones as gospel.  But has anyone seen a carefully constructed proof?


I am just cross-posting a previous post.

To try and see firsthand what Jones was trying to do - I looked up the internet. Looks like the writings of Mr. William Jones has been published in 1993 as "The Collected Works of Sir William Jones" which contains 6240 pages!! It is only printed by New York University Press, it costs a 1000 USD, and is out of print currently. I have also searched the cataogues of libraries I have access to, and the book is not available anywhere.

Here is the info from NYUP. http://www.nyupress.org/books/The_Collecte...ts_id-2036.html

Any idea where his works can be accessed? And how come NYUP is publishing his works - Rather than UK or Indian presses??? Is that normal?

Digvijay : Since you say you have read Jones, please educate me how. Which book of his, and how to get it...is there an online resource...I saw website of Asiatic soceity calcutta too, nothing major available on Jones.....


I know the difficulty in getting to Jones's books. American university is publishing because no one else is interested!
Best would be to get a hold of these two books:

1) Aryans and British India by Thomas R. Trautmann (Paperback - Jan 2004)

2) The Aryan Debate (Oxford in India Readings: Debates in Indian History and Society) by Thomas Trautmann (Hardcover - Oct 21, 2005)

Trautmann is a prof at University of Michigan and has extensive quotations from Jones's works.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet attempts to construct a highly articulated Indo—European family tree beg one
crucial question: Why are well—established subgroups like Greek and Indo—Iranian
defined by many distinctive innovations, while higher—order groups are defined by
only a few? Even if we can add structure to the Indo—European tree, the subgroups
in (1) are still in some sense the ‘real’ ones, and the intermediate nodes in (2) are
nameless precisely because we do not need to refer to them. This requires an

According to Nichols, the explanation has to do with the dispersal of Indo—
European. She argues that<b> ‘[m]ultiple branching at or near the root of a [family]
tree points to abrupt dispersal of the protolanguage in a large spread’ (Nichols
1997b: 371). </b>A ‘spread zone’ is defined as ‘an area of low [linguistic] density where
a single language ... occupies a large range, and where diversity ... is reduced by
language shift and language spreading. A conspicuous spread zone is the
grasslands of central Eurasia, in which ... four different spreads have carried
different language families across the entire steppe and desert as well as into central
Europe and Anatolia’ (Nichols 1997b: 369). In reverse chronological order, these
four spreading families are Mongolian, Turkic, Iranian, and Indo—European.
Nichols’ dynamic approach to linguistic geography is original and creative, and
I have no quarrel with the general model she proposes, nor with the specific claim
that central Eurasia has represented a linguistic spread zone in several cases. For
the Indo—European case, this does conflict with the standard archaeological view of
the so—called ‘homeland’ and the dispersal of the family. The standard view is that
the language corresponding to Proto—Indo—European was spoken somewhere in the
Pontic—Caspian steppe – in other words, just north of the Black Sea and Caspian

<b>What Nichols calls the ‘locus’ of Proto—Indo—European was, on the standard
view, not far from the area where Proto—Indo—Iranian later emerged.</b>
For Nichols it is important that Indo—European ‘has the greatest number of
primary branches of any known genetic grouping of comparable age’, since this is
‘the hallmark of <b>a language family that enters a spread zone as an undifferentiated
single language and diversifies while spreading’ </b>(Nichols 1997a: 138).

Read this article and you will begin to understand what inspired
British/European indologists to manufacture the Aryan invasion myth.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Issue 127 , October 2006
Myths of British ancestry
by Stephen Oppenheimer
Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our
ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the
Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of
these islands
Stephen Oppenheimer's books "The Origins of the British: A Genetic
Detective Story" and "Out of Eden: The Peopling of the World" are
published by Constable & Robinson    The fact that the British and
the Irish both live on islands gives them a misleading sense of
security about their unique historical identities. But do we really
know who we are, where we come from and what defines the nature of our
genetic and cultural heritage? Who are and were the Scots, the Welsh,
the Irish and the English? And did the English really crush a glorious
Celtic heritage?

Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us
are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from
Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while
most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from
indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around
the fringes.

Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the
meaning of the words "Celtic" or "Anglo-Saxon." What is more, new
evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the
Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined
genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had
much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the
Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.

The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came
to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500
years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke
away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent
separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of
southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely
with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first
settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a
tongue related to the unique Basque language.

Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when
farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive
most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as
the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern
perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent
invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent
immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event
contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.

          Many myths about the Celts

Celtic languages and the people who brought them probably first
arrived during the Neolithic period. The regions we now regard as
Celtic heartlands actually had less immigration from the continent
during this time than England. Ireland, being to the west, has changed
least since the hunter-gatherer period and received fewer subsequent
migrants (about 12 per cent of the population) than anywhere else.
Wales and Cornwall have received about 20 per cent, Scotland and its
associated islands 30 per cent, while eastern and southern England,
being nearer the continent, has received one third of its population
from outside over the past 6,500 years. These estimates, set out in my
book The Origins of the British, come from tracing individual male
gene lines from continental Europe to the British Isles and dating
each one (see box at bottom of page).

If the Celts were not our main aboriginal stock, how do we explain
the wide historical distribution and influence of Celtic languages?
There are many examples of language change without significant
population replacement; even so, some people must have brought Celtic
languages to our isles. So where did they come from, and when?

The orthodox view of the origins of the Celts turns out to be an
archaeological myth left over from the 19th century. Over the past 200
years, a myth has grown up of the Celts as a vast, culturally
sophisticated but warlike people from central Europe, north of the
Alps and the Danube, who invaded most of Europe, including the British
Isles, during the iron age, around 300 BC.

Central Europe during the last millennium BC certainly was the time
and place of the exotic and fierce Hallstatt culture and, later, the
La Tène culture, with their prestigious, iron-age metal jewellery
wrought with intricately woven swirls. Hoards of such jewellery and
weapons, some fashioned in gold, have been dug up in Ireland, seeming
to confirm central Europe as the source of migration. The swirling
style of decoration is immortalised in such cultural icons as the Book
of Kells, the illuminated Irish manuscript (Trinity College, Dublin),
and the bronze Battersea shield (British Museum), evoking the western
British Isles as a surviving remnant of past Celtic glory. But
unfortunately for this orthodoxy, these artistic styles spread
generally in Europe as cultural fashions, often made locally. There is
no evidence they came to Britain and Ireland as part of an invasion.

Many archaeologists still hold this view of a grand iron-age Celtic
culture in the centre of the continent, which shrank to a western rump
after Roman times. It is also the basis of a strong sense of ethnic
identity that millions of members of the so-called Celtic diaspora
hold. But there is absolutely no evidence, linguistic, archaeological
or genetic, that identifies the Hallstatt or La Tène regions or
cultures as Celtic homelands. The notion derives from a mistake made
by the historian Herodotus 2,500 years ago when, in a passing remark
about the "Keltoi," he placed them at the source of the Danube, which
he thought was near the Pyrenees. Everything else about his
description located the Keltoi in the region of Iberia.

The late 19th-century French historian Marie Henri d'Arbois de
Jubainville decided that Herodotus had meant to place the Celtic
homeland in southern Germany. His idea has remained in the books ever
since, despite a mountain of other evidence that Celts derived from
southwestern Europe. For the idea of the south German "Empire of the
Celts" to survive as the orthodoxy for so long has required determined
misreading of texts by Caesar, Strabo, Livy and others. And the
well-recorded Celtic invasions of Italy across the French Alps from
the west in the 1st millennium BC have been systematically
reinterpreted as coming from Germany, across the Austrian Alps.

De Jubainville's Celtic myth has been deconstructed in two recent
sceptical publications: The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern
Invention by Simon James (1999), and The Celts: Origins, Myths and
Inventions by John Collis (2003). Nevertheless, the story lingers on
in standard texts and notably in The Celts, a Channel 4 documentary
broadcast in February. "Celt" is now a term that sceptics consider so
corrupted in the archaeological and popular literature that it is

This is too drastic a view. It is only the central European homeland
theory that is false. The connection between modern Celtic languages
and those spoken in southwest Europe during Roman times is clear and
valid. Caesar wrote that the Gauls living south of the Seine called
themselves Celts. That region, in particular Normandy, has the highest
density of ancient Celtic place-names and Celtic inscriptions in
Europe. They are common in the rest of southern France (excluding the
formerly Basque region of Gascony), Spain, Portugal and the British
Isles. Conversely, Celtic place-names are hard to find east of the
Rhine in central Europe.

Given the distribution of Celtic languages in southwest Europe, it is
most likely that they were spread by a wave of agriculturalists who
dispersed 7,000 years ago from Anatolia, travelling along the north
coast of the Mediterranean to Italy, France, Spain and then up the
Atlantic coast to the British Isles. There is a dated archaeological
trail for this. My genetic analysis shows exact counterparts for this
trail both in the male Y chromosome and the maternally transmitted
mitochondrial DNA right up to Cornwall, Wales, Ireland and the English
south coast.

Further evidence for the Mediterranean origins of Celtic invaders is
preserved in medieval Gaelic literature. According to the orthodox
academic view of "iron-age Celtic invasions" from central Europe,
Celtic cultural history should start in the British Isles no earlier
than 300 BC. Yet Irish legend tells us that all six of the cycles of
invasion came from the Mediterranean via Spain, during the late
Neolithic to bronze age, and were completed 3,700 years ago.

          Anglo-Saxon ethnic cleansing?
        The other myth I was taught at school, one which persists to
this day, is that the English are almost all descended from
5th-century invaders, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, from the Danish
peninsula, who wiped out the indigenous Celtic population of England.

The story originates with the clerical historians of the early dark
ages. Gildas (6th century AD) and Bede (7th century) tell of Saxons
and Angles invading over the 5th and 6th centuries. Gildas, in
particular, sprinkles his tale with "rivers of blood" descriptions of
Saxon massacres. And then there is the well-documented history of
Anglian and Saxon kingdoms covering England for 500 years before the
Norman invasion.

But who were those Ancient Britons left in England to be slaughtered
when the legions left? The idea that the Celts were
eradicated—culturally, linguistically and genetically—by invading
Angles and Saxons derives from the idea of a previously uniformly
Celtic English landscape. But the presence in Roman England of some
Celtic personal and place-names doesn't mean that all ancient Britons
were Celts or Celtic-speaking.

The genocidal view was generated, like the Celtic myth, by historians
and archaeologists over the last 200 years. With the swing in academic
fashion against "migrationism" (seeing the spread of cultural
influence as dependent on significant migrations) over the past couple
of decades, archaeologists are now downplaying this story, although it
remains a strong underlying perspective in history books.

Some geneticists still cling to the genocide story. Research by
several genetics teams associated with University College London has
concentrated in recent years on proving the wipeout view on the basis
of similarities of male Y chromosome gene group frequency between
Frisia/north Germany and England. One of the London groups attracted
press attention in July by claiming that the close similarities were
the result of genocide followed by a social-sexual apartheid that
enhanced Anglo-Saxon reproductive success over Celtic.

The problem is that the English resemble in this way all the other
countries of northwest Europe as well as the Frisians and Germans.
Using the same method (principal components analysis, see note below),
I have found greater similarities of this kind between the southern
English and Belgians than the supposedly Anglo-Saxon homelands at the
base of the Danish peninsula. These different regions could not all
have been waiting their turn to commit genocide on the former Celtic
population of England. The most likely reason for the genetic
similarities between these neighbouring countries and England is that
they all had similar prehistoric settlement histories.

When I looked at exact gene type matches between the British Isles
and the continent, there were indeed specific matches between the
continental Anglo-Saxon homelands and England, but these amounted to
only 5 per cent of modern English male lines, rising to 15 per cent in
parts of Norfolk where the Angles first settled. There were no such
matches with Frisia, which tends to confirm a specific Anglo-Saxon
event since Frisia is closer to England, so would be expected to have
more matches.

When I examined dates of intrusive male gene lines to look for those
coming in from northwest Europe during the past 3,000 years, there was
a similarly low rate of immigration, by far the majority arriving in
the Neolithic period. The English maternal genetic record (mtDNA) is
consistent with this and contradicts the Anglo-Saxon wipeout story.
English females almost completely lack the characteristic Saxon mtDNA
marker type still found in the homeland of the Angles and Saxons. The
conclusion is that there was an Anglo-Saxon invasion, but of a
minority elite type, with no evidence of subsequent "sexual

The orthodox view is that the entire population of the British Isles,
including England, was Celtic-speaking when Caesar invaded. But if
that were the case, a modest Anglo-Saxon invasion is unlikely to have
swept away all traces of Celtic language from the pre-existing
population of England. Yet there are only half a dozen Celtic words in
English, the rest being mainly Germanic, Norman or medieval Latin. One
explanation is that England was not mainly Celtic-speaking before the
Anglo-Saxons. Consider, for example, the near-total absence of Celtic
inscriptions in England (outside Cornwall), although they are abundant
in Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Brittany.

          Who was here when the Romans came?

So who were the Britons inhabiting England at the time of the Roman
invasion? The history of pre-Roman coins in southern Britain reveals
an influence from Belgic Gaul. The tribes of England south of the
Thames and along the south coast during Caesar's time all had Belgic
names or affiliations. Caesar tells us that these large intrusive
settlements had replaced an earlier British population, which had
retreated to the hinterland of southeast England. The latter may have
been the large Celtic tribe, the Catuvellauni, situated in the home
counties north of the Thames. Tacitus reported that between Britain
and Gaul "the language differs but little."

The common language referred to by Tacitus was probably not Celtic,
but was similar to that spoken by the Belgae, who may have been a
Germanic people, as implied by Caesar. In other words, a Germanic-type
language could already have been indigenous to England at the time of
the Roman invasion. In support of this inference, there is some recent
lexical (vocabulary) evidence analysed by Cambridge geneticist Peter
Forster and continental colleagues. They found that the date of the
split between old English and continental Germanic languages goes much
further back than the dark ages, and that English may have been a
separate, fourth branch of the Germanic language before the Roman

Apart from the Belgian connection in the south, my analysis of the
genetic evidence also shows that there were major Scandinavian
incursions into northern and eastern Britain, from Shetland to Anglia,
during the Neolithic period and before the Romans. These are
consistent with the intense cultural interchanges across the North sea
during the Neolithic and bronze age. Early Anglian dialects, such as
found in the old English saga Beowulf, owe much of their vocabulary to
Scandinavian languages. This is consistent with the fact that Beowulf
was set in Denmark and Sweden and that the cultural affiliations of
the early Anglian kingdoms, such as found in the Sutton Hoo boat
burial, derive from Scandinavia.

A picture thus emerges of the dark-ages invasions of England and
northeastern Britain as less like replacements than minority elite
additions, akin to earlier and larger Neolithic intrusions from the
same places. There were battles for dominance between chieftains, all
of Germanic origin, each invader sharing much culturally with their
newly conquered indigenous subjects.

So, based on the overall genetic perspective of the British, it seems
that Celts, Belgians, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings and Normans were
all immigrant minorities compared with the Basque pioneers, who first
ventured into the empty, chilly lands so recently vacated by the great
ice sheets.

        Note: How does genetic tracking work?
        The greatest advances in genetic tracing and measuring
migrations over the past two decades have used samples from living
populations to reconstruct the past. Such research goes back to the
discovery of blood groups, but our Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA
are the most fruitful markers to study since they do not get mixed up
at each generation. Study of mitochondrial DNA in the British goes
back over a decade, and from 2000 to 2003 London-based researchers
established a database of the geographically informative Y-chromosomes
by systematic sampling throughout the British Isles. Most of these
samples were collected from people living in small, long-established
towns, whose grandparents had also lived there.

    Two alternative methods of analysis are used. In the British
Y-chromosome studies, the traditional approach of    principal
components analysis was used to compare similarities between whole
sample populations. This method reduces complexity of genetic analysis
by averaging the variation in frequencies of numerous genetic markers
into a smaller number of parcels—the principal components—of
decreasing statistical importance. The newer approach that I use, the
phylogeographic method, follows individual genes rather than whole
populations. The geographical distribution of individual gene lines is
analysed with respect to their position on a gene tree, to reconstruct
their origins, dates and routes of movement
Pioneer Book Reviews 25 Sept. 2006
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Invasion that never took place
What NS Rajaram has done in this in-depth study is to hit a mortal blow to the Aryan invasion conjecture, using archaeology and pre-historic anthropology to establish the ancient roots of Indic civilisation, writes MV Kamath


One of the biggest lies ever propagated by our foreign masters, the British, was that India was originally inhabited by a "rabble of aboriginal savages" and that civilisation was brought to India by so-called Aryans who invaded it from somewhere in Central Asia or Europe, while another branch of the same people migrated westward towards Europe to become ancestors of the modern Europeans.

This theory helped the British in two ways. In the first place, they could divide Indians into two parts: Successors to the so-called Aryans living in the north; and, the people who originally lived in the north but were driven away from their homes to migrate to the south (Dravidians). A north-south divide was thus created. In the second place, it gave the British a moral justification to rule India.

As a BBC report (October 6, 2005) puts it succinctly, "If (the Aryan invasion theory) gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British raj, they could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans has done thousands of years earlier." The idea mooted by the BBC had been propagated decades ago by the British not only to justify their role as conquerors but also give Indians a tremendous inferiority complex.

In the House of Commons in 1929, when Britain was at the height of its power, British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin observed, "Now after ages... the two branches of the great Aryan ancestry have again been brought together by providence... By establishing British rule in India, God said to the British, 'I have brought you and the Indians together after a long separation... It is your duty to raise them to their own level as quickly as possible... brothers as you are."

The myth of an Aryan invasion of India may have been originally propagated by a German-turned-Briton, Max Mueller, but the theory went unchallenged for a long time. For decades, Indians brought up under British rule accepted the insult until scholars - more objective and inquiring - began to look at Indian civilisation more scientifically and come to clear conclusions that dispelled myth imposed on Indians. One myth was that India had been invaded by Aryans.

The Aryan invasion theory was totally exposed as untrue. This made it clear that everything associated with India - whether in the realm of science, philosophy, language and civilisation - was cent per cent Indians. It was proved beyond doubt that the Harappan writing was more than a thousand years older than the oldest West Asian writings, that the Indian artist anticipated the Greek artist by more than 2,000 years, that Indian intellectuals were the first to conceive astronomy even earlier than the Greeks, that it was India which originated the concept of zero and the decimal system and that genetic evidence shows that the people of India lived by themselves within the Indian borders for tens of thousands of years and were not foreigners to the Indian soil.

Conclusive scientific evidence has now been obtained to show that there never has been such a people as an "Aryan race", which is racist in conception. Besides, it is wrong to connect the Indian caste system to the concept of Aryan invasion that equated "upper caste'' Hindus genetically closer to west Europeans than lower caste Hindus - a theory not only unscientific, but also bordering on fabrication.

What NS Rajaram has done in this brilliant study is to hit a mortal blow to the Aryan invasion theory, using archaeology and pre-historic anthropology to push his argument through. In this, of course, he had to bring in the history of the river Saraswati and the origins of the Indus-Saraswati civilisation that was in existence for more than a thousand years before the supposed Aryan invasion.

What Western 'scholars' in their ignorance forget was that there is a not a single mention of any alien invasion or migration of 'Aryans' in ancient Indian literature; what has been noted instead is migration of Indians out of India. In other words, it was India that took civilisation to the west and not the other way round. Western scholars could not accept that the Sanskrit word 'Arya' merely meant 'noble' and had no association with race. Rajaram quotes the Sanskrit saying, Mahakula kulin arya sabhya sajjana sadhavah, that meant "an arya is one who hails from a noble family, is of gentle behaviour and demeanour, is good natured and of righteous conduct''.

But where does the river Saraswati come in the picture? It was alongside the river Saraswati that the great Harappan civilisation prospered. The end of that age occurred around 2000 BC with the final drying up of the river. It was the drying up of the river that caused the collapse of the Harappan civilisation and not any invasion.

The Rig Vedic people were in India as early as 4000 BC. They were not aliens and the decipherment of the Indus script clearly shows that Vedic Sanskrit Indian civilisation was more ancient than the Mesopotamian civilisation. This has been proved by recent finds of underwater settlements in Gujarat and Tamil Nadu dating to before 7000 BC.

The falsity of an Aryan invasion has been exposed before - as in 1993 by S Talgeri - but Rajaram has produced fresh evidence that is unchallengeable. It was not the so-called Aryans who brought civilisation to India but it was the Indian who took civilisation to the West.

The Vedic people were a maritime people who lived in the enormous riverine delta and it is now a scientific fact that biological connections between South-East Asia and India are much closer than that of India and central Asia or Europe. Also, Vedic India has a strong maritime component and recent research has shown that Indian cotton was exported to south and central America going back to 2000 BC. It was not Columbus who discovered a sea route to America but the Yadavs who excelled in boat building and navigational skills. Those are recent findings, scientifically proved.

Rajaram, in the circumstances, gives us a wholly now picture of ancient Vedic India that places his work in a class of its own, unsurpassed as of now, but made possible by recent scientific and historical discoveries. "Let us make the whole world aryan," says the Rig Veda. And it is about time, too.
cattle domesication was well known in china, it certainly was not introduced by our favorite ruskis. probably we should opt for a trans-brahmaputran diffusion of an indica rice - cattle complex.
PEI, An Ping </b>link
For the first time, an <b>Early Neolithic culture is confirmed in China's Yangtze </b>area. <b>Its age is slightly earlier than 7500-9000 year-old Peiligang culture on the Yellow River. </b>Its discovery advances Neolithic research NW of Dongting lake and completes the cultural sequence of <b>Pengtoushan </b>> Zaoshi lower level > Tang Jia Gung > Daxi > Quling and Shi Jia River in the period 4000-9000 years ago.
Bashidang is in north Liyang Plain near the north shore of Li Lake, ca. 20 km NE of Lixian county seat and 15 km NW of Pengtoushan. Upper level material is 7,000-8,000 year old Pengtoushan Middle to Late Neolithic cultures, that of the lower level, the 15,000 year-old Palaeolithic-Neolithic transition.
    In 4.5-6 m deep west side excavation, an ancient riverbed was found encircling the site. Its black silt, associated with 8,000 year-old bank cultural material, contains much household pottery and water devices, but most surprising are many perfectly preserved organic remains. Thorough silt cleaning and rinsing resulted in several dozen kinds of seeds of important human food like tubers, lotus root, reeds, etc., many wild and domestic animal bones, many bamboo and wood vessels, and bone and woven items (Fig. 5-8).

        Artifacts include a plough handle, awl, pestle and shovel of wood, plus bamboo and wood tablets, etc. The handle is ca. 90 cm long and l0 cm wide. A long wood pestle with round head was used for food processing. Bamboo and wood tablets, 15x2-3x2-3 mm, chronicle divination using surface eyelets, some distributed uniformly, others not.

        Woven items include reed mats, square bamboo basket, hemp and cane ropes, etc. Some reed mats resemble those of modern local villagers.

        <b> Most bone tools are of cow longbone, </b>their broken ends sanded and ground to a slanted blade. Smaller bone tools ca. 10-cm long can be used as drills, larger tools ca. 40 cm long and 8-9 cm diameter, some kind of farming tool.
        4. The finding of the world’s earliest paddy rice (6,500 years) includes much paddy and rough rice, cultivated seed, stems and leaves. A 1994 appraisal of seeds, stems and leaves in Daxi trench silt indicate they were cultivated rice, millet, hemp, barley, winter melon, small bottle gourd melon, etc., the most significant being rice. Research suggests Chengtoushan’s Daxi rice is possibly aquatic and very different from modern rice.<b> Most is small grain indica and japonica </b>that are grown even now.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
another indication for a specifically southern origin of some elements of chinese neolithic. knotted rope mnemonics are a se asian innovation.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Legend says Yandi with human body and cow head matured near Jiang River, adopting it as surname." Hua Mountain is in Shaanxi's Shang County near Jiang River. Zhang Shu of Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) says in his Family Names chapter in Family Origins: "...
(1) Time Gap between Shennongshi and agricultural origin

        Based on ancient records and archaeological data, the Shennongshi period is in the 8000 year-old Middle Neolithic, but rice cultivation is believed to have started 10000-15000 years ago. 12000 year-old rice remains in Yuchanyan site Dao County, Hunan, clearly show a gap between Shennongshi period and primitive agriculture.
        Besides cultivation, primitive agriculture broadly includes livestock, poultry, fish, pottery, spinning, weaving, etc., that slowly grew via historical transformation Husbandry began when wild cattle, sheep, chicken, ducks, etc., captured for sacrifice or later food began breeding. Fish farms began after observing ponds, lakes and rivers for water fauna and flora. Similarly, pottery began for cooking grain, while spinning and weaving were inspired from collecting hemp or silkworms. Zhuang Zi says: "<b>At that time, Shennongshi taught people to record events using knots on ropes, </b>eat good food, make beautiful clothes, pursue good habits, live in safe places, keep good ties with nearby countries but minding ones own business. In Shennongshi period, people farmed for food, wove clothes and lived harmoniously with deer, virtue at its highest level." This food, clothing and habitat represent broad agricultural growth, the 8000 year-old middle Shennongshi period explaining its time gap and primitive agriculture. link <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The caveat that "multiple and repeated" horse domestications were not necessarily independent, seems to be a concession to the "Aryan" theory i.e. that Indo-Europeans still may have been solely responsible for the domestication of the horse in different regions.

Occam's razor would suggest that such an explanation is unlikely, since it requires more steps, and in other similar studies on domestication no such exceptional statement would have been made.

Paul Kekai Manansala
Anim Genet. 2006 Oct;37(5):494-7.

Evidence for biogeographic patterning of mitochondrial DNA sequences in Eastern horse populations.

Equine mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) phylogeny reconstruction reveals a complex pattern of variation unlike that seen in other large domesticates. It is likely that this pattern reflects a process of multiple and repeated, although not necessarily independent, domestication events. Until now, no clear geographic affiliation of clades has been apparent. In this study, amova analyses have revealed a significant non-random distribution of the diversity among equine populations when seven newly sequenced Eurasian populations were examined in the context of previously published sequences. The association of Eastern mtDNA types in haplogroup F was highly significant using Fisher's exact test of independence (P = 0.00000). For the first time, clear biogeographic partitioning has been detected in equine mtDNA sequence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Since India appears to have been the earliest homeland for homo sapiens after a small band migrated from Africa, it would be logical to theorize that the Indus valley civilization was one of the earliest to originate, earlier than the Mesopotamian valley or the Egyptian Nile delta. And since the spread of the various 'races', European, Asian, Malayo-Polynesian genetically emerged from this Indian homeland, it is far more logical to consider an out-of-India migration theory to explain the extent of the Indo-European language family. This could also solve the Mitanni problem where the first decipherable documentation of Vedic Indian beliefs (Varuna, Mithra, Indra) appear in West Asian script in treaties between the Mitanni and the Egyptians. Even if the time-span under consideration is several tens of thousands of years, why postulate convoluted homelands in the Middle East or Anatolia or the Caucasus when the flow of humanity during those early migrations was genetically out of India? Even taking into consideration a spread of language and culture via farming would need to consider that agriculture probably first arose in the fertile Indus valley and spread from there as the glaciers melted and opened up new avenues for humanity's migration. However, the Eurocentric non-science-based (as in Witzel and Farmer and their ilk) stranglehold on the telling of early history to promote a European (and more reluctantly a Semitic) civilizational homeland must be exposed and given a decent scientific burial. <b>In the end it will be science that drives the retelling of mankind's migrations, and not the obsolete linguistic analysis of Aryan sympathizers or the backdoor nepotistic drivels of itinerate fellow-travelers.</b>
it is now accepted based on genetic analysis that a small band of humans crossed into the Arabian peninsula from the southern end of the Red Sea and took the southern shore route to India and eventually Australia. This was a fatal blow to the Eurocentric notion that humans first settled in the Middle East from North Africa and subsequently went to Europe and Asia. Recent work of Latvian, English and Indian geneticists further show that there was an expansion of population in the subcontinent before groups of humans migrated into SE Asia, China, and into the Pacific islands. A second group left in the opposite direction and eventually populated the Middle East and Europe. While Africa was humanity's homeland, the subcontinent appears to have been the homeland for all the other 'races'. If this finding had, conversely, substantiated a European homeland you could bet that it would have been highly publicized and Indologists and other Orientalists would be working up a lather overtime to drill this into benighted Hindoos to put them in their place. However, things being the way they are, and thanks to the Macauley/Marxist indoctrination that passes for education in the soft sciences, it will be several generations before the general public in India learn about these notions. After all, we don't want to give the Hindu chauvinists any fuel for their misguided notions of an ancient Indian civilization that may have sparked humanity's ascent from barbarism. Every one, but every one, knows that it was Alexander the Great who brought arts and sciences and mathematics and logic and philosophy to India!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->According to Londo and Chiang, O. sativa appears to have <b>originated around the foothills of the Himalayas,</b> with<b> O. sativa var. indica on the Indian side and O. sativa var. japonica on the Chinese side </b>[5].
^ J.P. Londo, Y. Chiang et al, "Phylogeography of Asian wild rice, Oryza rufipogon, reveals multiple independent domestications of cultivated rice, Oryza sativa", PNAS 103(25):9578-83, 2006
Phylogeography of Asian wild rice, Oryza rufipogon, reveals multiple independent domestications of cultivated rice, Oryza sativa

Jason P. Londo, Yu-Chung Chiang, Kuo-Hsiang Hung, Tzen-Yuh Chiang, and Barbara A. Schaal

Cultivated rice, Oryza sativa L., represents the world's most important staple food crop, feeding more than half of the human population. Despite this essential role in world agriculture, the history of cultivated rice's domestication from its wild ancestor, Oryza rufipogon, remains unclear. In this study, DNA sequence variation in three gene regions is examined in a phylogeographic approach to investigate the domestication of cultivated rice. <b>Results indicate that India and Indochina may represent the ancestral center of diversity for O. rufipogon. </b>Additionally, the data suggest that cultivated rice was domesticated at least twice from different O. rufipogon populations and that the products of these two independent domestication events are the two major rice varieties, Oryza sativa indica and Oryza sativa japonica.<b> Based on this geographical analysis, O. sativa indica was domesticated within a region south of the Himalaya mountain range, likely eastern India, Myanmar, and Thailand, whereas O. sativa japonica was domesticated from wild rice in southern China.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> In the end it will be science that drives the retelling of mankind's migrations, and not the obsolete linguistic analysis of Aryan sympathizers or the backdoor nepotistic drivels of itinerate fellow-travelers<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Same was said during Darmouth conference. But Witzel and his gang are still living in deep dig la-la land.
Every one, but every one, knows that it was Alexander the Great who brought arts and sciences and mathematics and logic and philosophy to India!


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)