Thursday, December 17, 2009

The Ancient Indian Population was not homogenous

Dravidian People

The HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium (HPASC) (Mapping Human Genetic Diversity in Asia) has done much to bring the genetic data for India in line with the archaeological, anthropological and linguistic data. Ray and Excoffer argue that coupling the archaeological data with genetic data is a powerful way to infer population migration (1).

Before this research by HPASC, researchers have noted the absence of congruency between Indian population genetics and archaeological research (2) As a result research into India population studies are not supported by historical, archaeological and linguistic evidences (3). The archeological evidence indicated that the first settlers of India were probably Negritos and Austro-Asiatic, then Dravidian speakers and finally Southeast Asians (4-5). But Geneticists maintain that the Dravidian speakers originated in India (6-7). They support this view by showing how the Indian mtDNA belonging to the M haplomacrogroup must have developed in situ in India (7).

Some researchers use Rosenberg et al. to argue that there is a low
level of genetic divergence across geographically and linguistically diverse Indian populations based on their analysis solely of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers from India (8-9).

This study by HPASC contradicts Rosenberg et al and supports the view that the Indian populations are not homogenous and that Negritos were probably the first settlers of India. Using an Indian sample from India, HPASC acknowledges that the Dravidians were probably not the first population to settle India. The research of HPASC also supports an Indo-European migration into India.

The HPASC finding is supported by linguistic and archaeological evidence that indicated a Dravidian substratum in the Indo European languages and the major probability those Rosenberg et al. use of only Indo- Aryan and Dravidian speakers in the United States as a representative sample of diverse Indian populations was not an accurate example of the linguistic and geographical diversity of Indian populations because TMRCA of the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers in India was probably a Proto-Dravidian speaker and a high level of genetic divergence across Indian populations (11) . A shared MRCA for Dravidian and Indo-Aryan speakers , is supported by the Dravidian substratum in Indo-European languages which indicates that the speakers of these languages lived in intimate contact in North India for 1000s of years .

The finding of heterogeneity in ancient India by the HUGO Pan –Asian SNP Consortium is inconformity with the archaeological and linguistic data. This makes the research of HPASC significant and suggests future studies which will provide keen insight into the ancient human demography in India and the rest of Asia.


1. Ray N, Excoffier L.2009. Inferring past demography using spatially explicit population genetic models. Human Biology, 81 (2-3): 141-157.
2. Tripathy V, Nirmala A, Reddy BM. 2008. Trends in Molecular Anthropological Studies in India. Int J Hum Genet, 8(1-2): 1-20.
3. Winters,C. 2008.Origin and Spread of Dravidian Speakers Int J Hum Genet, 8(4): 325-329 (2008)
4. Cordaux R, Saha N, Bentley GR, Aunger R, Sirajuddin SM, et al. (2003) Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals diverse histories of tribal populations from India. Eur J Hum Genet 11: 253–264.
5. Kumar V, Reddy ANS, Babu JP, et al. (2007). Y-chromosome evidence suggests a common paternal heritage of Austro-Asiatic populations. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7:47.
6. Rajkumar R, Banerjee J, Gunturi HB, Trivedi R, Kashyap VK. 2005. Phylogeny and antiquity of M macrohaplogroup
inferred from complete mtDNA sequence of Indian specific lineages. BMC Evo. Bio., 5: 26.
7. Thangaraj K, Chaubey G, Singh VK, Vanniarajan A, Thanseem I, Reddy AG, Singh L. 2006. In situ origin of deep rooting lineages of mitochondrial macrogroup M in India. BMC Genome, 7: 151.
8. Rosenberg NA, Mahajan S, Gonzalez-Quevedo C, Blum MGB, Nino-Rosales L, et al.. 2006. Low Levels of Genetic Divergence across Geographically and Linguistically Diverse Populations from India. PLoS Genet, 2(12): e215 DOI: 10.1371 /journal.pgen.0020215
9. Winters C (1989). Review on Dr. Asko Parpola’s ‘The Coming of the Aryans’. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 18 (2): 98-127.

10. Krishnamurti K 2001. Comparative Dravidian linguistics: Current perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Winters CA 2007. High Levels of Genetic Divergence across Indian Populations. PloS Genetics. Retrieved 4/8/2008 http://www.plosgenetics

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Dravidian and Mongolian

Dravidian Speaking Hun

Many of the so called Huns/Mongolians who invaded India were speaking Dravidian languages. these Huns were descendants of the Dravidians who spread from the Indus Valley to East Asia in ancient times. below are so pictures of these "Mongoloids" who spoke Dravidian languages.

Vacek (1983) has made an exhaustive study of Dravidian‑Mongolian similarities. He has found cognate verbal noun or temporal suffixes and plural suffixes. Vacek (1983) compared Dravidian and Mongolian lexical items and established several sound correspondences. Recently Vacek (1983) discussed the affinities between 120 Mongolian and Dravidian verbs that show full correspondence.

Vacek (1987) believes that Altaic and Dravidian has an axial relationship. He has based his theroy on the geographical distribution of these languages along the north‑south axis between the Altaic and Uralian languages.

Due to the lack of a visible ethnic relationship between the speakers of Ural‑Altaic and Dravidian, many researchers find it almost impossible to accept that a genetic relationship exist between these languages. Although we may not be able to accept that these languages are genetically related the linguistic evidence suggest extensive bilingualism in ancient Central Asia, this is supported by the mixed heritage visible in the faces of many Turkic speakers.

The Buryat word for mare is guun/gu. This is interesting because it has affinity to Dravidian words for hose including:

Tamil: kutirai

Telugu: gurramu

Kol: gurramu

The linguistic data suggest that the Mongolian and Dravidian terms are very closely related. The sound shift of Dravidian /k/ to Mongolian /g/ is not uncommon in many possible Mongolian and Dravidian cognates. For example a comparison of Mongolian cognates from Vacek (1981) demonstrate clearly this should shift:

Mongolian Tamil

toguri tikiri to circle

tolugai eluka rat

anggai anka to open mouth

egeci akka elder sister

inege naku to smile, laugh

Disagreement surrounds the use of the horse in Central Asia. Although some researchers believe that the domesticated horse was first introduced to Central Asia by the Indo‑Europeans. This theory has little archaeological support. The horse in Central Asia, like the ass, may have been mainly used as a source of food until 500 BC, by the Central Asian pastoralist groups. Full pastoral nomadic exploitation strategies does not appear in

Central Asia until after 500 BC.

V.M. Masson (1989:783) believes that horse domestication and riding developed in the 1st millennium BC on the steppe. Francefort (1985:386) views the intensive use of horses as an Iron Age innovation associated with semi‑nomadism.

Although we can not positively date the domestication of the horse in Central Asia, by the 4th millennium BC horse remains have been found on the steppes. Horse bones have come from the Batay site and the Marupol culture. The Mariupol culture is a group of short lived settlements in forest‑steppe zones along the Dnieper river. Around 80 percent of the animal remains from

Mariupol are of horse bones. (Dergachev 1989)

Horse bones dating to the 4th and 3rd millenniums BC have been found at Batay. Around 95 percent of the faunal remains at Batay, are horses. At Batay, local Central Asians made horse bone tools.

It would appear that most of the early horsemen in Central Asia came from Iran, rather than southern Russia. The nomad artisans of the 3rd millennium BC steppes, show affinity to artisans from Iran. (David 1986) During this period pastures provided grazing and herds with abundant food. (Masson 1986:80)

IN the 2nd millennium BC the horse was extensively exploited throughout Central Asia.(David 1986:486) For example, at the 17th‑16th century BC site of Sinatasha, there are horse and chariot burials. These horsemen made fine bronzehead spears.

The Dravidian language is especially close to Tocharian A (TA). It would appear that Tocharian B (TB) , has been greatly influenced by the Indo‑ European languages. For example, there is labialization of labiovelars before voiceless consonants in TB.

In TA on the otherhand there are few traces of an earlier distinction between labiovelars and velar plus *w, clusters. For example:

Horse: TB yakwe, Old English eoh, Latin equus

> *yakwe PIE *ekwos Sanskrit asvas, Old

Irish ech

TA yuk

Dog: TB kwem< PIE *kwena < PIE acc. *kwonm (Sanskrit svanam )

The TA terms for Central Asian domesticates agree with Dravidian terms.

1. Tocharian A ku dog

Dravidian kona id.

Kannanda Kunni id.

Tamil Kukkal id.

" Kuran id.

Telugu Kukka id.

Malayam Cokkan id.

2. Tocharian A yu horse

Tamil ivuli id.

Brahui hulli id.

Telugu payyoli id.

3. Tocharian A ko bovine

Toda kor id.

Dravidian kode id.

Kolami ku.te id.

Tulugu kode id.

Kolami konda,konde id.

Tamil kali id.

Kananda gonde id.

Gadba konde id.

Gondi Konda bullock

As you can see from the above the Dravidians and Tocharian A group share many terms for animals, e.g., 0 ku‑na # 'dog'__/ Toch. 0 ku #; 0 kode # 'cow', Toch. 0 ko #; and 0 ivuli # 'horse' Toch. 0 yuk #.

Many researchers may dispute the affinity between Dravidian 0 ivuli # and Tocharian A 0 yuk # 'horse'. Yet the identification of Tocharian A yuk, to Dravidian is much more supportable than the PIE root for horse. This results from the fact that there are five different Proto‑Indo‑European (PIE) roots for horse. This multitude of PIE roots for horse makes these terms inconclusive for the PIE lexicon. They also support the view that the horse was not domesticated by the Indo‑Europeans.


Vacek,J.1978. "The problem of the genetic relationship of the Mongolian

and Dravidian languages". ARCHIV ORIENTALNI 46:141‑151.

_______.1983. "Dravido‑Altaic: The Mongolian and Dravidian Verbal Bases


_______. 1987. "The Dravido‑Altaic Relationship" . ARCHIV ORIENTALNI 55:


It is obvious to anyone with a mind that the Dravidian people spread horseback riding among the Central Asians

The Vandal Origin of the Berbers

Cheikh Anta Diop makes it clear that the Berbers are not related to Palaeo-Africans. In Libya Antiqua, Diop explains how the original Libu and Tehenu were blacks; and that the Berbers are descended from the Peoples of the Sea who arrived in the area around 1200 BC and fought Ramses III.

He makes it clear that the majority of the Berbers are descended from the Peoples of the Sea See:Diop, C A , "Formation of the Berber Branch", In Libya Antiqua,(ed) by UNESCO ,(Paris:UNESCO 1986) page 69 and C.A. Diop Civilization or Barbarism (Lawrence Hill Com.1991, p.34).

The Berber languages support a European origin for this group. When I talk about the Berbers I am not talking about the Tuareg, I am talking about the light skinned European looking Berbers.

The Berber language is related to Germanic languages. And the Germanic languages are native to Germany.

The Vandal rule of North Africa, explains the Germanic substratum influence in Berber. This linguistic connection results from the German rule in North Africa for 400 years. The Vandal rule in North Africa explains the origin of the white speakers of this "language" family.

The Berber languages as pointed out by numerous authors is full of vocabulary from other languages. Many Berbers may be descendants of the Vandels (Germanic) speaking people who ruled North Africa and Spain for 400 years. Commenting on this reality Diop in The African Origin of Civilization noted that: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st. Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori, for German tribes in the fifth century overran North Africa vi Spain, and established an empire that they ruled for 400 years….Furthermore, the plural of 50 percent of Berber nouns is formed by adding en, as is the case with feminine nouns in German, while 40 percent form their plural in a, like neuter nouns in Latin.Since we know the Vandals conquered the country from the Romans, why should we not be more inclined to seek explanations for the Berbers in the direction, both linguistically and in physical appearance: blond hair, blue eyes, etc? But no! Disregarding all these facts, historians decree that there was no Vandal influence and that it would be impossible to attribute anything in Barbary to their occupation” (p.69).

The influence of European languages on the Berber languages and the grammar of the Berber languages indicate that the Berbers are probably of European, especially Vandal origin.

The experts say that the Berber languages (I am not including Tuareg) has elements from numerous European languages I have never seen any discussion of Berber relations to East African languages, Berber languages are related to the Semitic group due to the Arabic speakers that surround them.

Elamites in Central Asia

The earliest sites in Bactria were founded by Harappans and Elamites.The presence of Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) artifacts at Gilund does not show evidence of Indo-Aryan influence in India. First of all we know that BMAC cultures originated after the decline of the Harappan site of Shortughai (c.2400-2200 BC) on the Oxus river. The pottery of these people was quite diverse, some of the pottery was dark brown on a greenish-white or reddish pink slip.

Some researchers have noted the existence of strong Elamite affinities among the Bactrian aristocracy (1). In addition the Altyn depe ruins have terracotta statuettes with Proto Elamite and Proto-Sumerian script (2) .

Archaeologists agree thet Black and red ware (BRW) indus unearth on many South India sites are related to Dravidian speaking people. The BRW style has been found on the lower levels of Madurai and Tirukkampuliyur. B.B. Lal (1963) made it clear that the South Indian BRW was related to Nubian ware dating to the Kerma dynasty. Singh (1982) made it clear that he believes that the BRW radiated from Nubia through Mesopotamia and Iran southward into India.BRW is found at the lowest levels of Harappa and Lothal dating to 2400BC. T.B. Nayar in The problem of Dravidian Origins proved that the BRW of Harappa has affinities to predynastic Egyptian and West Asian pottery dating to the same time period.

After 1700 BC, with the end of the Harappan civilization spread BRW southward into the Chalcolithic culture of Malwa and Central India down to Northern Deccan and eastward into the Gangetic Basin. The BRW of the Malwa culture occupied the Tapi Valley Pravara Godavari and the Bhima Valleys. In addition we find that the pottery used by the at Gilund, Rajasthan on the banks of the Bana River, was also BRW (3) . This indicates that the people at Gilund, like other people in North India at this time were Dravidian speakers given their pottery. If this is so, the building where the "bin" containing the cache of BMAC seals were found probably represented a warehouse where exotic objects imported from Central Asia were probably stored. Let's not forget, that Central Asia was a major center for Harappan copper and tin for hundreds of years.

In summary the first civilizations in Central Asia were founded by Harappans and Elamites. These Harappans used the BRW as the Dravidians of South India, cognate pottery suggest that the founders of both Harappan and South Indian civilization were the same people. The presence of BRW at Gilund therefore suggest that the people there were not Indo-Aryans, they were Dravidian speakers who stored some exotic Central Asian goods in the city.

1. Ligue & Salvatori (Ed.), Bactria: an ancient oasis civilization from the sands of Afghanistan , (1989), p, 137).

2. P.A. Kohl (Ed.), The Bronze Age civilization of Central Asia (1981) p.112.

3.Gilund, Retrieved on 7/22/06 at:

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Maya and Africans Don't Look Alike

Above we have the Chama vase. This vase depicts a Mayan leader greeting an Afro-Mexican . It is interesting to note that the Mayan figure appears to be painted black, since the chin of the Mayan leader greeting this Afro-Mexican is the same color as the rest of the Maya.

A cursory examination of these two men make it clear that Maya and Afro-Mexicans did not look alike prior to the slave trade which introduced millions of Africans to Mexico who married the Amerinds.

The Negrocostachicanos

Given the discovery of numerous Olmec artifacts depicting Blacks begs a number of questions: “Were there Black or African people in ancient America? Do the African heads of the Olmec confirm an African presence in Mexico or do they show present-day Mayan people? What is the relation between contemporary Black Costa Chicas (negrocostachicanos) and Blacks depicted in Olmec artifacts?

The idea of mestizaje was developed by Jose Vascoucelos. Mr. Vascouselos became Minister of Education in 1921. During his tenure Black heroes of Mexican history were whitened as Vascoucelos pursued a policy of homogenization of Mexicans (Cuevas, 2004).

In 1946, Black Mexicans were rediscovered by Aguirre Beltran (1972) when he found the Blacks in Costa Chica. This was a rediscovery because the idea of mestizaje stressed the idea that there were only Mexicans, and not Amerindians, Whites or Blacks. The only problem with this idea was that Black Mexicans became associated with poverty and ignorance. These Blacks also experience much discrimination throughout Mexico, and much hostility in Costa Chica (Vaugh, 2005a, 2005b).

The Negrocostachicanos claim that they have never been slaves and are indigenous to Guererro and Oaxaca on the Pacific coast of Mexico. The 1990 Mexican census recorded 66,000 Negrocostachicanos. These Mexicans live in African style huts and practice rituals which may be of African origin (Vaugh,2005a).

Most researchers believe that the Negrocostachicanos are decendants of marrons or runaway slaves (Aguirre Beltran, 1972; Vaugh,2005a). But none of the Blacks of Costa Chica have songs about slavery and its hardships ( Negrocostachicanos say “they are not they insist, the descendants of African slaves. There was never slavery here, even in ancient times” (,2005). Bobby Vaugh (2005b) noted that he found “no consciousness of slavery among people in Costa Chica” (p.5). Another researcher, noted that “Housewives in San Jose Estancia Grande and Santiago Tapextla [in Costa Chica] say their ancestors did not come from Africa, that their families have always lived right here” (, 2005, p.6).

The fact that the Negrocostachicanos claim that they were never slaves has troubled some researchers who believe that the only Blacks in Mexico came to the New World with the Spanish. Although this is the popular view concerning the origin of Blacks in Mexico, this view may be Eurocentric because the archaeological and historical evidence indicate that Blacks were already in Mexico when the Spanish made there way to Mexico.

Leo Wiener in the African Discovery of America (1922), provides a detailed account of the Black gods of Mexico in the third volume in this series of books. Wiener outlined that the Blacks were traveling merchants in Mexico selling cocao, feathers and other products.

The major Black gods of the Mexicans was Quetzalcoalt, and the Mayan gods L and M, Xaman and Ekchuah these gods are depicted in the Codex Troano(Wiener, 1921, [vol.3] p.258). Sahagun tells us that Ekchuah was also the god of the Amanteca. The Nahuatl term Amanteca, was probably the name of the Mandinka or Mandinga people who were the foundation of the Olmec people (Winters, 2005).

Ekchuah and the Mayan God M, was the god of merchants and warriors. He is also depicted in the Codex Cortesianus and 17 times in the Madrid Codex.