The Cradle that is India.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

In the light that Cayce says the new 'White Race' arose in several

areas including the Iran area, which is adjacent and includes

Pakistan and N India, I find this very interesting. My guess on the

Dravidians is they migrated down to S India. When people talk

of 'Out of Africa' it is only because they don't realise that East

Africa was part of Mu as was India and Australia etc...Churchward

wrote a lot of stuff about Mu, which he claims he rec'd from Rishis

and Priests. I find this believable for on one occasion, when I was

in India I saw solid mercury balls created by Temple Priests in

Andhra Pradesh. Regards Tony.

 

> http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/08kak.htm

>

> The cradle that is India

>

> March 07, 2005

>

> Ideas about early Indian history continue to play an important

role in political ideology of contemporary India. On the one side

are the Left and Dravidian parties, which believe that invading

Aryans from the northwest pushed the Dravidians to south India and

India's caste divisions are a consequence of that encounter. Even

the development of Hinduism is seen through this anthropological

lens. This view is essentially that of colonial historians which was

developed over a hundred years ago.

>

> On the other side are the nationalist parties, which believe that

the Aryan languages are native to India. These groups cite the early

astronomical dates in the Vedas, noting these texts are rooted

firmly in the Indian geographical region. But Leftist scholars

consider such evidence suspect, politically motivated, and

chauvinistic.

>

>

> In recent years, the work of archaeologists and historians of

science concluded that there is no material evidence for any large

scale migrations into India over the period of 4500 to 800 BC,

implicitly supporting the traditional view of Indian history. The

Left has responded by conceding that there were probably no

invasions; rather, there were many small scale migrations by Aryans

who, through a process of cultural dominance, imposed their language

on north Indians.

>

> The drama of text-book revisions, both during the NDA and the

current UPA governments, is essentially a struggle to impose one or

the other of these viewpoints. In any other country, such a fight

would have fought in the pages of academic journals; but in India,

where the government decides what history is, it is a political

matter.

>

> 'There is no absolute objective history'

>

> Now, in an important book titled The Real Eve: Modern Man's

Journey out of Africa (New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2003),

the prominent Oxford University scholar Stephen Oppenheimer has

synthesised the available genetic evidence together with climatology

and archaeology with conclusions which have bearing on the debate

about the early population of India. This work has received great

attention in the West, and it will also interest Indians

tremendously.

>

> Much of Oppenheimer's theory is based on recent advances in

studies of mitochondrial DNA, inherited through the mother, and Y

chromosomes, inherited by males from the father. Oppenheimer makes

the case that whereas Africa is the cradle of all mankind; India is

the cradle of all non-African peoples. Man left Africa approximately

90,000 years ago, heading east along the Indian Ocean, and

established settlements in India. It was only during a break in

glacial activity 50,000 years ago, when deserts turned into

grasslands, that people left India and headed northwest into the

Russian steppes and on into Eastern Europe, as well as northeast

through China and over the now submerged Bering Strait into the

Americas.

>

> In their migration to India, African people carried the

mitochondrial DNA strain L3 and Y chromosome line M168 across south

Red Sea across the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula. On the

maternal side the mtDNA strain L3 split into two daughters which

Oppenheimer labels Nasreen and Manju. While Manju was definitely

born in India the birthplace of Nasreen is tentatively placed by him

in southern Iran or Baluchistan. One Indian Manju subclan in India

is as old as 73,000 years, whereas European man goes back to less

than 50,000 years.

>

> Considering the paternal side, Oppenheimer sees M168 as having

three sons, of whom Seth was the most important one. Seth, in turn,

had five sons which are named by him as Jahangir, H, I, G and

Krishna. Krishna, born in India, is the ancestor of the peoples of

East Asia, Central Asia, Oceania and West Eurasia (through the M17

mutation). This is what Oppenheimer says about M17:

>

> South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his

ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest

diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and

low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South

Asia than in Central Asia but diversity characterizes its presence

in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory

of M17 as a marker of a 'male Aryan Invasion of India.'

>

> Study of the geographical distribution and the diversity of

genetic branches and stems again suggests that Ruslan, along with

his son M17, arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India, and

subsequently spread not only south-east to Australia but also north,

directly to Central Asia, before splitting east and west into Europe

and East Asia.

>

> Oppenheimer argues that the Eurocentric view of ancient history is

also incorrect. For example, Europeans didn't invent art, because

the Australian aborigines developed their own unique artistic

culture in complete isolation. Indian rock art is also extremely

ancient, going back to over 40,000 BC, so perhaps art as a part of

culture had arisen in Africa itself. Similarly, agriculture didn't

arise in the Fertile Crescent; Southeast Asia had already

domesticated many plants by that time.

>

> Oppenheimer concludes with two extraordinary conclusions: 'First,

that the Europeans' genetic homeland was originally in South Asia in

the Pakistan/Gulf region over 50,000 years ago; and second, that the

Europeans' ancestors followed at least two widely separated routes

to arrive, ultimately, in the same cold but rich garden. The

earliest of these routes was the Fertile Crescent. The second early

route from South Asia to Europe may have been up the Indus into

Kashmir and on to Central Asia, where perhaps more than 40,000 years

ago hunters first started bringing down game as large as mammoths.'

>

> This synthesis of genetic evidence makes it possible to understand

the divide between the north and the south Indian languages. It

appears that the Dravidian languages are more ancient, and the Aryan

languages evolved in India over thousands of years before migrations

took them to central Asia and westward to Europe. The proto-

Dravidian languages had also, through the ocean route, reached

northeast Asia, explaining the connections between the Dravidian

family and the Korean and the Japanese.

>

> Perhaps this new understanding will encourage Indian politicians

to get away from the polemics of who the original inhabitants of

India are, since that should not matter one way or the other in the

governance of the country. Indian politics has long been plagued by

the Aryan invasion narrative, which was created by English scholars

of the 19th century; it is fitting that another Englishman, Stephen

Oppenheimer, should announce its demise.