Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

[pmaitra]

The diagram itself shows how minor that trace is. The paper also mentions that this minor trace is far more recent than the existing majority markers that are locally developed over a long period of time.

Yes, Green (dark and light) is major in South Asia, and minor in Caucasus, Europe and MENA. Blue (dark and light) is major in Caucasus, Europe and MENA, and minor in South Asia.

Pleas remind me again, where does the paper say that the blue (dark or light) in India are recent. Also, please quantify "recent."

----------------------
...Both k5 and k6 ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia at K = 8, demonstrate much greater haplotype diversity than those that predominate in West Eurasia. This pattern is indicative of a more ancient demographic history [i.e. local breeding] and/or a higher long-term effective population size underlying South Asian genome variation compared to that of West Eurasia. Given the close genetic relationships between South Asian and West Eurasian populations, as evidenced by both shared ancestry and shared selection signals, this raises the question of whether such a relationship can be explained by a deep common evolutionary history or secondary contacts between two distinct populations. Namely, did genetic variation in West Eurasia and South Asia accumulate separately after the out-of-Africa migration; do the observed instances of shared ancestry component and selection signals reflect secondary gene flow between two regions, or do the populations living in these two regions have a common population history, in which case it is likely that West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more diverse South Asian gene pool...
-----------------------

So what part of the above excerpt "negates AMT," as you claimed?

 

[civfanatic]

American Journal of Human Genetics states the mixing of the ANI and ASI happened more than 500 generations back (Each generation is 25 years). The paper explicitly mentions Max Muller's theory and says that it is hard to find evidence for such a migration following the collapse of the Harappan civilization. As it stands now, the mixing between the two groups happened some time between 40,000 YBP and 12,500 YBP. Now lets see, two ANI-ASI groups can not mix without some sort of linguistic-behavioral similarities, and once mixed they can not stay separated at least linguistically as your question and the map shows which has restricted Sanskrit to the north-India, later between 2nd and 4rth millennium BC no large scale influx of people from west Asia occurred so the Aryan Invasion theory stands rejected by genetic studies,furthermore Metspalu's study suggests that West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more haplotype diverse South Asian and Indian gene pool, so there are zero chances of Sanskrit's arrival in India with so called Aryans, most possibly it was developed in North/North-West India and exported to the west Asia with a group of ANI people supporting the Out-of-India theory, where affected by it other IE languages were developed. That is the reason Sanskrit is non existent in Europe or middle east. OTOH Sanskrit faded off from the South India because of Tamil which was highly Sanskritized at one point (and other factors), later Tamil scholars worked hard to remove that effect from Tamil. So I guess your question in post #736 and the wiki map is flawed, someone should edit and correct it in wiki page.

1. The incoming 'Aryans' did not bring Sanskrit to India. They brought some IE language with them, possibly the language of the Vedas, which later evolved into Sanskrit in NW India.

2. The Aryans did not spread Sanskrit anywhere to the north or west of India. Sanskrit did not exist anywhere outside of India during this time period.

3. I have never expressed my belief in a mass migration of peoples from Central Asia to India during this time period, so your refutation of that theory is simply a strawman argument.

4. Tamil being "highly Sanskritized at one point" is pure BS. There is no trace of IE language in South India before the advent of the Mauryas.

 

[Virendra]

Yes, Green (dark and light) is major in South Asia, and minor in Caucasus, Europe and MENA. Blue (dark and light) is major in Caucasus, Europe and MENA, and minor in South Asia.

Please remind me again, where does the paper say that the blue (dark or light) in India are recent. Also, please quantify "recent."

We've been through this so many times. Says at two places, not just one
--------------------------------

Both k5 and k6 ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia, demonstrate much greater haplotype diversity than those that predominate in West Eurasia. This pattern is indicative of a more ancient demographic history [i.e. long term local breeding] and/or a higher long-term effective population size underlying South Asian genome variation compared to that of West Eurasia.
......
......
For alleles associated with k5 [light green], haplotype diversity is comparable among all studied populations across West Eurasia and the Indus basin (Figure S8). However, we found that haplotypic diversity of this ancestry component is much greater than that of those dominating in Europe (k4, depicted in dark blue) and the Near East (k3, depicted in light blue), thus pointing to an older age of the component and/or long-term higher effective population size
----------------------------------------------------------
Simply put, the blue one (k4) have come into existence pretty much after the greens; at both, the Indian sub continent as well as West Eurasia.
Question arises, then from where did this blue diversity come in such short span of time, especially in West Eurasia (max diversity for blue k4)?
Two possibilities that the paper proposes are highlighted above in my previous post. a) Independent secondary gene flow at both places to accumulate diversity, b) shared and very old ancestry in the two places, in which case, West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more diverse South Asian gene pool.
Explained by the fact that when a composite of two components arises, its diversity would be way higher than each of the contributing components. Where do you have diverse as well as old gene pool? India.

Light Green one (k5) that forms the bulk of populace in India, Central Asia and Caucasus have been here for more than 12,500 YBP or else their intra diversity between the locations would show a stark difference.

Dark Green (k6) has stark difference in intra diversity, being maximum at south India and having only minor presence in Central Asia and Iran.
Meaning, this is a within 12,500 YBP outward migration event.
When the last glacial age melted away after 12,500 YBP, ice receded south to north sequence, tree line advanced/recovered south to north.
During the LGM, refugia would also obviously be more frequent in south than north.
Makes sense?

 

[pmaitra]

We've been through this so many times. Says at two places, not just one

. . .

Makes sense?

Nope, sorry, it does not make any sense.

Here's why:

• The term "long term local breeding," does not equate to "negates AMT."
• "For alleles associated with k5 [light green], . . .," does not equate to "negates AMT." As a matter of fact, light green is not the only colour shown in the diagrams. I am not denying the existence of light green, I am asking you to look at the two shades of blue, and explain how that "negates AMT."

Ok, let's forget about all this. Please focus on this:

What negates AMT is the haplotype diversity of the bulk of Indian genes. I have cited the research already.

[HIGHLIGHT]I want to know, how haplotypical diversity of the bulk of Indian genes "negates AMT."[/HIGHLIGHT]

 

[Virendra]

• The term "long term local breeding," does not equate to "negates AMT."
• "For alleles associated with k5 [light green], . . .," does not equate to "negates AMT." As a matter of fact, light green is not the only colour shown in the diagrams. I am not denying the existence of light green, I am asking you to look at the two shades of blue, and explain how that "negates AMT."

Long term local breeding shows lack of intermixing, shows autocthonous populace and locally evolved diversity in the demography. If that doesn't negate AMT, what will?
Not just the light Green; dark green is Indian as well. The entire set of green alleles forms the bulk of Indian populace as the study clearly shows.

Ok, let's forget about all this. Please focus on this:
[HIGHLIGHT]I want to know, how haplotypical diversity of the bulk of Indian genes "negates AMT."[/HIGHLIGHT]

Haplotypical diversity establishes that majority of Indian populace (green ones) is autocthonous for at least 12,500 years. It hasn't come from outside.
Now don't tell me that green ones aren't majority Everyone can see how marginal the blue presence is in India (one of the blue is not even present in mainland India. And as far as the blue alleles diversity goes, the answer was already given by the study:

Simply put, the blue one (k4) have come into existence pretty much after the greens; at both, the Indian sub continent as well as West Eurasia.
Question arises, then from where did this blue diversity come in such short span of time, especially in West Eurasia (max diversity for blue k4)?
Two possibilities that the paper proposes are highlighted above in my previous post. a) Independent secondary gene flow at both places to accumulate diversity, b) shared and very old ancestry in the two places, in which case, West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more diverse South Asian gene pool.
Explained by the fact that when a composite of two components arises, its diversity would be way higher than each of the contributing components. Where do you have diverse as well as old gene pool? India.

Even if we put aside the origin of blue alleles for the moment, the remaining (majority) populace is still local to India by at least 12,500 YBP.

 

[pmaitra]

@Virendra,

I have read your entire post above, and it is factually correct, but totally off the mark.

I am not denying that green is a majority in India. Moreover, I am not going to put aside origin of blue either, because that is my contention.

Ok, let us go back to your original comment once again, because, frankly, you probably misunderstood what I am trying to say.

What negates AMT is the haplotype diversity of the bulk of Indian genes. I have cited the research already.

When you mention the "bulk," you are not talking about all of the Indian genes, i.e. you are not talking about 100% of the Indian genes, but 80% or 90% of Indian genes, as we can roughly estimate from the diagram. That means, the remaining 20% or 10% is foreign, which it is, either Caucasian, European, MENA, Tibetan, Burmese, etc., which is again proven by the same diagram.

So, if we look at the blue, which I am not willing to set aside, do you still think it is correct to say that anything you have presented, "negates AMT?" The presence of blue, and your acknowledgment of "bulk" as opposed to "all" indicates AMT, not negates it.

In other words, I believe the conclusions you are drawing from the research paper are incorrect and misleading the readers.

 

[Virendra]

The diversity of blue has already been addressed by the paper and been given so in my posts as well. The paper clearly says also, that this scenario cannot be explained by a simple recent influx from northwest.
And no the blue is not even 10 %. You can see the snaps again for how minor the blue presence in India is. One of the blue haplotypes is not even present at all in mainland India.

 

[pmaitra]

The diversity of blue has already been addressed by the paper and been given so in my posts as well.

Addressed by the paper is one thing, and negating AMT is another. Show me which part of the paper "negates AMT," as you claim?

The paper clearly says also, that this scenario cannot be explained by a simple recent influx from northwest.

Not sure what you are talking about.

And no the blue is not even 10 %. You can see the snaps again for how minor the blue presence in India is.

Among Brahmins and Kshatriyas of UP, it is 10%. Ditto for some Gujaratis. If we include Sindhis or Pashtuns, we are surely exceeding 20%.

One of the blue haplotypes is not even present at all in mainland India.

Both the blues are present in India, and I have no idea what you mean by mainland India. Look at UP.

Interestingly, even low caste and chamars have blue, both light and dark blue.

 

[A chauhan]

1. The incoming 'Aryans' did not bring Sanskrit to India. They brought some IE language with them, possibly the language of the Vedas, which later evolved into Sanskrit in NW India.

There is no large scale incoming of Aryans (westerners) in India in that period, small scale migrations can not affect large population. Saying that a perfect language Sanskrit was developed out of a clueless sh!t IE or PIE is utter nonsense.

2. The Aryans did not spread Sanskrit anywhere to the north or west of India. Sanskrit did not exist anywhere outside of India during this time period.

Fair enough, it was developed in India.

3. I have never expressed my belief in a mass migration of peoples from Central Asia to India during this time period, so your refutation of that theory is simply a strawman argument.

Then you didn't understand what I said, my refutation was one of the reasons which negates the incoming of IE, PIE or any other language.

4. Tamil being "highly Sanskritized at one point" is pure BS. There is no trace of IE language in South India before the advent of the Mauryas.

You should read "Mirror of Tamil and Sanskrit" written by R. Nagaswamy, former Director of Archaeology, Government of Tamil Nadu before calling it BS. A study on this matter by Sri Aurobindo, a scholar of Latin and Greek as well as of Sanskrit led him to discover that the original connection between the Sanskrit and Tamil languages was far closer and more extensive than is usually supposed. These languages are two divergent families derived from one lost primitive tongue, he also noted that a large part of the vocabulary of the South Indian languages (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam) is common with Sanskrit. Hope it clears your doubt.

@pmaitra ,
Large scale migration is negated, but same can not be said for small scale migration, it is possible that few people migrated into India, but their effect on Indians should me less than minimal.

 

[TrueSpirit]

@pmaitra

If you do not agree with the analysis from @Virendra, you could have a look at this link or, just have a look at Post # 756 of thread (which is a relevant excerpt).

If you are short on time, you can jump to the Conclusion section in the end. It clearly corroborates what @Virendra has been saying all along.

The conclusion it arrives at, is this:

Recent archaeo-linguistic studies point out that the Indo-European languages originated at a place which had agriculture. Evidence further indicates that this place was no farther than the place of evolution of Austro-Asiatic languages and Dravidian languages, because words from these latter languages are found in the oldest core vocabulary of the Proto-Indo-European language. Coupled with this, recent archaeo-genetic studies of rice, barley, cow,pig, buffalo and mice prove their origin in India. This supports an Indian origin of farming,and subsequent spread to the east and west of India. These studies reject the theory of Aryan arrival to India from Central Asia (or West Asia), Dravidian arrival from the West Asia and Austro-Asiatic arrival from the Southeast Asia (or China). Finally human DNA studies rule out any migration to India from Central Asia or West Asia. On the other hand there is DNA evidence of human migration from India to Central Asia, Europe, West Asia and Southeast Asia.

Anyway, the genetic evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of OIT & you, in particular, are in agreement with the fact that than bulk of Indian genes (80%-90%, actually more) is indigenous in origin. The traces of the remaining can be explained likewise but such minuscule traces in few communities do not corroborate the validity of AMT.

So, irrefutable genetic & archaeological evidence (read my posts # 755 & 754) inordinately alludes to OIT & settles all debate. Anyway, no one on the forum seems to have valid counter against the evidences shared on this thread, so far.

The last remaining valid matter you should be discussing is the "lack of enough linguistic evidences". Something that @civicfanatic has reiterating throughout, without receiving any complete explanation. This "linguistic aspect" definitely demands a cogent explanation & we do not have any explanation to that, yet.

 

[pmaitra]

Thank you for your post. The author is better than P. N. Oak.

Quoted inline in the conclusion:

@pmaitra

If you do not agree with the analysis from @Virendra, you could have a look at this link or, just have a look at Post # 756 of thread (which is a relevant excerpt).

If you are short on time, you can jump to the Conclusion section in the end. It clearly corroborates what @Virendra has been saying all along.

The conclusion it arrives at, is this:

Recent archaeo-linguistic studies point out that the Indo-European languages originated at a place which had agriculture. Evidence further indicates that this place was no farther than the place of evolution of Austro-Asiatic languages and Dravidian languages, because words from these latter languages are found in the oldest core vocabulary of the Proto-Indo-European language. (bizarre logic) Coupled with this, recent archaeo-genetic studies of rice, barley, cow,pig, buffalo and mice prove their origin in India. (<sarcasm>everything has its origin in India, such, penicillin, law of gravity, the steam locomotive, turbo-charger, and the space shuttle</sarcasm>; I have already provided articles to the contrary) This supports an Indian origin of farming,and subsequent spread to the east and west of India. These studies reject the theory of Aryan arrival to India from Central Asia (or West Asia), Dravidian arrival from the West Asia and Austro-Asiatic arrival from the Southeast Asia (or China). Finally human DNA studies rule out any migration to India from Central Asia or West Asia. (we have already seen evidence to the contrary) On the other hand there is DNA evidence of human migration from India to Central Asia, Europe, West Asia and Southeast Asia.

Anyway, the genetic evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of OIT (No) & you, in particular, are in agreement with the fact that than bulk of Indian genes (80%-90%, actually more) is indigenous in origin (yes, provided we agree this includes all migrations from until recently to 12,500 years ago). The traces of the remaining can be explained likewise but such minuscule traces in few communities do not corroborate the validity of AMT. (what we know today is what happened in the last 12,500 years, not necessarily what happened during the late-Bronze-early-Iron-Age)

So, irrefutable genetic (refuted many times - see blue traces you yourself mentioned) & archaeological evidence (read my posts # 755 & 754) inordinately alludes to OIT & settles all debate (No). Anyway, no one on the forum seems to have valid counter against the evidences (see the evidences and read the paper again, nicely) shared on this thread, so far.

The last remaining valid matter you should be discussing is the "lack of enough linguistic evidences". Something that @civicfanatic has reiterating throughout, without receiving any complete explanation. This "linguistic aspect" definitely demands a cogent explanation & we do not have any explanation to that, yet.

Moreover, this statement could be a typo, because, from what I understood, the paper implies just the opposite, and says their method is only reliable upto 12,500 years ago:

2) The migration event occured in 12,500 YBP or before that.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Thank you for your post. The author is better than P. N. Oak.

:thumb: So, you did not open the link. Ok, I expected that. This is what happens when one jumps to conclusions without bothering to read & understand the rest.

Anyway, the evidence for the assertion that "these animals mentioned have their origin in India" is backed by genetic proofs amply analyzed & elaborated in the blog itself.

But, how would you know? You never read the blog in the first place.

Please try to read through the blog; you would understand the detailed (very low-level) analysis of the relevant genetic studies, not just the patchy high-level picture delineated on this thread.

Likewise, only now it is that you are discounting all evidences shared by @Virendra, proving it beyond doubt that these animals do have their origin in India. Whereas, you have already conceded to these very facts & evidences (please browse back a few pages on this thread) that you are now trying to refute.

Now coming to blue traces, please tell me what matters really, the 80-90% or the remaining 10% ? The dominant green traces or the minuscule blue traces ?

I have the same understanding as yours regarding the paper

their method is only reliable upto 12,500 years ago

Not sure, how correct is that...

Further, I am still unable to find enough persuasive linguistic evidence & explanations that supports OIT, out & out.

But, I really cannot help the fact that all genetic & archaeological (you have again ignored this aspect; plz read post # 754 & 755) evidence, palpably reinforces OIT.

 

[pmaitra]

:thumb: So, you did not open the link.

I did, and read a lot of it, including the inset, and then stopped.

 

[TrueSpirit]

I did, and read a lot of it, including the inset, and then stopped.

Yeah, I understand. The length is huge, font & background is dull, overall readability is low. Above all, it does not make for an interesting read.

And, we are ore-occupied, to boot.

However, I had managed to read it yesterday somehow. Because, it connects the dots, answers many of the unanswered question, elaborates on the genetic analysis & relies on recent studies of experts, I found it worth quoting.

Anyway, whenever you get some time, please have at the wiki link. Short & simple, along with ample references of the studies/papers/journals.

 

[pmaitra]

@TrueSpirit, will read it.

BTW, I stopped reading the other article not because of font or background, but because the arguments presented seemed inane.

See the first paragraph:

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

The author equates intelligence with rejection of AMT. That alone was reason enough not to read it at all, but I still read it beyond that, but in any event, nothing interesting or insightful.

 

[TrueSpirit]

@pmaitra

This is beyond doubt ingenuous & exaggeration. OIT is far from universal & AMT is equally far from debunked stage.

Fortunately, I missed to read this part, else I would myself have rejected the whole stuff. Good, that you brought it to my notice.

I only read about the genetic study & it is compelling, apparently. Urge you to give it a last shot, in case you are interested.

Further, you could also delve a bit in the archaeological aspect (plus hydronymy & material evidences) mentioned in wiki. The references it relies upon are mostly available in google books; I have already checked for corresponding text in those books.

You would find that the mainstream experts, palaeo-environmental scientists & professional archaelogists already agree that:

there is no archaeological evidence to support external Indo-Aryan origins

Further, According to Hock,

if evidence like linguistic isogloss patterns is ignored, then the hypothesis of an Out-of-India migration becomes "relatively easy to maintain"

So, it is indeed the lack of ample linguistic evidence we should be focusing & discussing about. And, I assume @civicfanatic already knows all this, hence he has been trying to look only for linguistic evidence, rather than disputing the anthropological or archaeological evidences.

 

[Virendra]

Addressed by the paper is one thing, and negating AMT is another. Show me which part of the paper "negates AMT," as you claim?

That is exactly what I am writing since the past three posts. Please read again, slowly :

Simply put, the blue one (k4) have come into existence pretty much after the greens; at both, the Indian sub continent as well as West Eurasia.
Question arises, then from where did this blue diversity come in such short span of time, especially in West Eurasia (max diversity for blue k4)?
Two possibilities that the paper proposes are highlighted above in my previous post. a) Independent secondary gene flow at both places to accumulate diversity, b) shared and very old ancestry in the two places, in which case, West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more diverse South Asian gene pool.
Explained by the fact that when a composite of two components arises, its diversity would be way higher than each of the contributing components. Where do you have diverse as well as old gene pool to derive composites from? India.

And more; directly quoted from the paper ... explaining that the minor presence of k4 here is not a recent incoming migration.

...any nonmarginal migration from Central Asia to South Asia should have also introduced readily apparent signals of East Asian ancestry into India (see Figure 2B). Because this ancestry component is absent from the region, we have to conclude that if such a dispersal event nevertheless took place, it occurred before the East Asian ancestry component reached Central Asia...

Not sure what you are talking about.

I am talking about your assertion that blue alleles might indicative of AMT.
The paper clearly says also, that this scenario cannot be explained by a simple recent influx from northwest.

Read again, directly quoted from the paper ...

...when we look at the two blue ancestry components (Figure 2B) that explain most of the genetic diversity observed in West Eurasian populations (at K = 8), we see that only the k4 dark blue component is present in India and northern Pakistani populations, whereas, in contrast, the k3 light blue component dominates in southern Pakistan and Iran. This patterning suggests additional complexity of gene flow between geographically adjacent populations because it would be difficult to explain the western ancestry component in Indian populations by simple and recent admixture from the Middle East...

Among Brahmins and Kshatriyas of UP, it is 10%. Ditto for some Gujaratis. If we include Sindhis or Pashtuns, we are surely exceeding 20%.

And "Sindhis", "some Gujaratis" and "Brahmins+Kshatriyas of UP" are all who India is :cool2:

Both the blues are present in India, and I have no idea what you mean by mainland India. Look at UP.

UP and Gujarat have a minor k4 presence, like I already said one blue category allele is present. Where do you see k3?
Where do you find light blue k3 in and around Indian subcontinent? Only in Iran and Baluchistan (among Brahuis and Makrani) where Brahuis are Dravidian speaking people and Makranis have recent African admixture.

Interestingly, even low caste and chamars have blue, both light and dark blue.

I'm looking right at the graphs and what I see for Chamars is an extremely minor k4. There is no k3.

If "at least" 90% of the population has been here since 12,500 YBP with locally evolving demography, where did the Aryans fit?
How did they Aryanize the entire country's culture in a matter of few centuries when civilizations like Harappans were already there?
I want this to be my last post on this genetics conversation. I cannot keep repeating and rephrase myself forever. Thank you.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[TrueSpirit]

@pmaitra

Plz forget the link I shared earlier. Because I see that, now it is linking to a different page altogether, though on the same blog.

Instead, read my post # 756, where I managed to copy the the excerpts of the original content.

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

It is not stupid rant, by any means. As you would agree, once you gone through post # 756

Here's is the details & abstract of the paper:

Recent Studies in Indian Archaeo-linguistics and Archaeo-genetics having bearing on Indian Prehistory

by Dr P. Priyadarshi

MBBS, MD, MRCP (UK), MRCPE
Paper accepted for seminar
Recent Achievements of Indian Archaeology, Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology, Lucknow University, Lucknow, India
28-30 December 2010, Joint Annual Conference of Indian Archaeology Society (44th Conference), Indian Society for Prehistoric and Quaternary Studies (38th Conference), Indian History and Culture Society (34th Conference)

2 Abstract:

Recent lexical research in Indian languages conclusively indicates that there was an early and independent evolution of agriculture in India (Fuller, 2006). On the other hand latest lexical study also indicates that the speakers of the Proto-Indo-Europeans had farming before their split into various branches and migration (Comrie, 2003). Added to this, the Indo-European languages of both India and Europe contain agriculture related loan words from Munda and Dravidian families, which were most likely borrowed into Indo-European when all the three language families were evolving within India side by side. Thus the newest linguistic evidence supports Indian origin of Indo-European language family.

DNAs of cows were examined from all regions of the world. The findings conclude that Indian cow(or Zebu) had been domesticated in India before Neolithic period, and independently from the West Asian influence. In addition to that DNA results confirm that Indian cows were carried to other regions of the world viz. East Africa (by sea), South China, Southeast Asia, West Asia, Europe and Central Asia during prehistoric periods. Dates suggested by various authors range from 22,000 before present to 4,000 before present. Bellwood (1995) had suggested that buffalo was domesticated for the first time in India in Orissa-Bihar region, from where it was carried to South China, where rice farming evolved with the help of buffalo.

Recent DNA studies of buffalo confirm that India was the place of domestication of first buffalo (Kumar, 2007). DNA study of barley has ruled out importation of barley cultivation from West Asia to India. It has been proved that barley cultivation developed for the first time in India independently from any external influence (Sang, 2009). There is evidence suggesting that the gene essential for 'domestication' was found only in the Indian wild barley. Similar DNA studies of rice show that rice cultivation evolved at two places in the world independently:— one was Ganga Valley in India and the other was in South China. However the Chinese rice still contains many wild features, hinting that the Indian rice cultivation was earlier in time.

The lexical studies of Indian languages by Fuller suggest that sweet potato, cucumbers, okra, and many other food items were originally Indian and were domesticated in India. Study of human DNAs finally rule out any Aryan arrival from the Central Asia into India. Rather the suggested Aryan gene R1a (M17) evolved and migrated out from India about 16,000 to 14,000 years back crossing through Central Asia ultimately reaching Pontic-Caspian area and Russia (Sahoo, 2006;Sengupta, 2006; Trivedi, 2008; Underhill, 2009). Study of West Asian genes also suggests that that there was a human migration from India to West Asia, indicated by presence of Indian genes in the West Asian population (Y-DNA HGs: F*, L1, H (M-69), K2, C5, C*, R1a (M-17). On the other hand, West Asian genes (Y-DNA: J1, G, I and R1b3) are not found in India, ruling out migration from West Asia to India. L1, which was earlier suggested to be a marker of migration of Dravidian speakers from Elam region of West Asia, has now been confirmed to be of Indian origin from where it migrated to Iran and West Asia (Sengupta, 2006; Sahoo, 2006).

Presence of another gene J2 in India, West Asia, Iran and India was advocated as an evidence of Indo-European arrival from West Asia to India together with Neolithic culture. This gene has been proved to be associated with Anatolian and South European Neolithic cultures. Latest data from Indian population pertaining to this gene clearly militates against its arrival into India from West Asia. Within India, its presence is more in the Dravidian population than the north Indian population.Other statistical features also suggest that it may have originated within India. Its branch J2b has anage of about 14,000 years back in India, and the most likely place of origin is in Uttar Pradesh near Nepal boarder.

Hence evidence from all fields taken together concludes that farming and Indo-European languages evolved together in India, from where the two migrated to many parts of world.In the east a migration took place to Southeast Asia carrying Austro-Asiatic language and rice 3 farming from India (Y-chromosomal DNA O2a migration). Recent archaeological findings from Ganga Valley, where we have found the oldest Pottery Neolithic site of the world, too corroborate with the above set of facts. It has been settled so far that after initial origin in East Africa, modern man migrated quite early(about 100,000 years before present) to India, where further human cultural and linguistic evolution took place. Modern man migrated out of India in many waves from that time until 10,000 years back populating rest of the world.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Here's the complete linguistic evidence & anthropological research

Recent linguistic research by Bernard Comrie and by Dorian Fuller point out that the Indio-European languages evolved at a place which had developed agriculture. This conclusion canbe drawn by presence of agriculture related cognate words in the languages of this familyseparated widely by geography, but all having had their origin from one common ancestrallanguage at a common place. Often such ancient agricultural words of Indo-European familyare shared by languages of Munda (Austro-Asiatic) as well as Dravidian families (see Fuller,2003, p. 201; Fuller 2006, pp. 4, 15, 18, 35, 39, 40, 55; Fuller, 2007; Fuller, 2008). In factFuller is the first author to say, on linguistic grounds, that India was an independent centreof framing. Moreover he notes that origins of Indian farming was different qualitatively fromWest Asian farming and was similar in many ways to African and Eastern North Americanorigins of farming. Fuller finds that
"
evidence based on both archaeo-botanical material and colloquial agricultural terms more parsimoniously postulates that early Dravidian had an epipaleolithicpre-agricultural heritage and that it "originated near a South Asian core region". This should be read with the fact that recently Indian epipalaeolithic (microlithic) has been dated 35,000 B.P. to 15,000 B.P.
3

Fuller's
assertion is an acceptance of India as the oldest place of farming culture. Fuller (2006) claims that there were several independent centres of plantdomestication within the Indian peninsula by indigenous peoples. Fuller concedes an earlierand independent rice-Neolithic in Ganga Valley and western Orissa. He accepts thatindigenous Indian plants, trees and vegetables have contributed words to Sanskrit and otherIndo-European languages.
4
Bellwood, Higham and many such authors had suggested that Austro-Asiatic speakersoriginated in South China, and from there they came to Southeast Asia, and from SE Asia to

1

Comrie, Bernard, "
Farming dispersal in Europe and the spread of the Indo-
European language family", in
Bellwood, Peter and Renfrew, Colin (Eds.);
Examining The Farming/language Dispersal Hypothesis
, CUPArchives, Cambridge, 2003.
2
uller, D. Q.,Agricultural Origins and rontiers in South Asia: A Working Synthesis,
J World Prehist
2006,20:1
–
86. Also see ———-,
"An agricultural perspective on Dravidian historical linguistics: archaeological croppackages, livestock and Dravidian crop vocabulary", in
Bellwood, Peter and Renfrew, Colin (Eds.);
ExaminingThe Farming/language Dispersal Hypothesis
: (191-213), 2003, p. 204.
3

Petraglia, M.
et al
, Population increase and environmental deterioration correspond with microlithicinnovations in South Asia ca. 35,000 years ago,
PNAS
2009 Aug., cgi doi 10.1073, pnas.0810842106
4
Fuller, D. Q.; Agricultural Origins and Frontiers in South Asia: A Working Synthesis,
J World Prehist
2006, 20:1
–
86.

4
India with rice farming.
5
This has not been supported by DNA studies, which suggest thateastern India was the source of the AA population.
6
Other DNA studies have also confirmedIndigenous origin of Austro-Asiatic speaking tribes of India.
7
DNA studies of rice, cattle,buffalo and mice too support an Indian origin of rice farming with subsequent migration toSoutheast Asia. Jerold Edmondson of Department of Linguistics, University of Texas, hasdone a large number of detailed studies based on linguistics as well as DNA, on Neolithicand human migrations towards east of India. He found that the Tai speakers of the Kradaibranch of Austro-Asiatic language family migrated from India, and first settled in SoutheastAsia long back. They were master cultivators and they took agriculture from India toThailand and then from the latter to the Yunnan province of southwest China, and to SouthChina by 10,000 ybp during Neolithic expansion.
8
On the other hand Harvard scholar Michael Witzel has been struggling hard to prove thatthe agriculture related words in the Indo-European languages entered Sanskrit during thehypothetical stay of Indo-Aryans in Iran and then their contact with the Dravidian speakersin the Indus valley area and Munda family tribes in the Ganga Valley.
9
Yet the presence of the same word in Indo-Aryan as well as European languages indicates that these words,even if had entered from some other languages, had entered Proto-Indo-European languagein India before migration to Europe and Iran had started. Thus Aryans, which is primarily speakers of a particular language family, can no longer be
considered 'pastoralists'. Moreover it is wrong to assume that pastorals are independent of
agriculture. Renfrew (1990) pointed out that pastoral life is a part of agricultural society. Hewrote:
"The pastoral economy is usually symbiotic with the agricultural one as it has been
shown that a major component of the diet of these pastoralists was bread. The practice of
agriculture is thus a precondition of a pastoral economy."
10
Added to this fact, the recentlynoted linguistic evidence as discussed above shows that the Aryans were farmers from thevery beginning. Earlier, Renfrew had claimed that Indo-Europeans were farmers from the very beginning,and that the Mehrgarh people and the Indus Valley people were Aryans i.e. speakers of

5
Higham, C
.,
Languages and Farming Dispersals: Austroasiatic Languages and Rice Cultivation,

Bellwood, P.and Renfrew, C. (Eds.), Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis,
Cambridge: The McDonaldInstitute for Archaeological Research, 2003.
6

Kumar, V.
et al
, Y-chromosome evidence suggests a common paternal heritage of Austro-Asiatic populations,
BMC Evol Biol.
2007; 7: 47.

7

Chaubey, G.
et al
; Phylogeography of mtDNA haplogroup R7 in the Indian peninsula,
BMC Evol Biol
2008, 8:227.
Maji, S.
et al
,Distribution of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup N in India with Special Reference toHaplogroup R and its Sub-Haplogroup U,
Int J Hum Jenet
2008, 8(1-2): 85-96.
Kivisild, T.
et al
,
The geneticheritage of the earliest settlers persists both in Indian tribal and caste populations,
Am J Hum Genet
2003 Feb, 72 (2): 313-32, p. 313.

8
http://ling.uta.edu/~jerry/pol.pdf
9
Witzel, Michael, The linguistic history of some Indian domestic plants,
J Biosciences
2009, 34(6): 829-833.
"Fulltext" of this article is available at
http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/dec2009/Witzel_fulltext.pdf . We shall referthat article as Witzel, Fulltext, 2009.
10
Renfrew, Colin,
Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins
, CUP Archive,Cambridge, 1990, p. 198.

5
Indo-European languages from the very onset of farming culture in these areas.
11
He hadfurther claimed that an early Indo-European language had been in place in the north Indiastretching from the Ganga Valley to Mehrgarh when Mehrgarh civilization was emerging.
12

He wrote, "Certainly the assumption that the Aryas were recent 'immigrants' to India andtheir enemies were 'aborigines', has d
one much to distort our understanding of the
archaeology of India and Pakistan."
13

Renfrew wrote, "We should in other words, consider seriously the possibility that the new
religious and cultural synthesis which is represented by the
Rigveda
was essentially aproduct of soil of India and Pakistan, and that it was not imported, ready-made, on the backof steeds of Indo-Aryans. Of course it evolved while in contact with the developing culturesof other lands, most notably Iran, so that by a process of peer polity interaction, culturesand ideologies emerged which in many ways resembled each other. It is not necessary tosuggest that one was borrowed, as it were, directly from the other.
"This hypothesis that early Indo
-European languages were spoken with India and Pakistanand on the Iranian plateau at the sixth millennium BC has the merit of harmonisingsymmetrically with the theory for the origin of Indo-European languages of Europe. It alsoemphasises the continuity in the Indus valley and adjacent areas from the early Neolithicthrough to the foruit of the Indus Valley Civilization
—
a point which Jarrige has recentlystressed. Moreover the continuity is seen to follow unbroken from that time across the DarkAge succeeding the collapse of the urban centres of the Indus Valley, so that features of thaturban civilization persists, across a series of transformations, to form the basis of laterIndian civilization. A number of scholars have previously developed these ideas of
continuity."
14
Having said this, the new evidence changes some
of Renfrew's assumptions. While Renfrew
thought Anatolia was the original home of the Indo-Europeans where they had developedthe first farming culture, and from where they had migrated to Europe and North India by6,000 B.C., present evidence indicates that India was the place of origin of the Indo-Europeans and an independently evolved centre of farming. Otherwise it is impossible toexplain presence of farming related words of Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian origins in theEuropean branch of Indo-
European languages. Renfrew's views about Anatolia may have
proved wrong, yet his views on South Asia hold true in light of recent evidence which will bepresented in this paper. Genetic evidence as well as linguistic evidence has made it clear that both the Dravidian andthe Austro-Asiatic languages and their speakers have evolved in India
—
the Dravidians in thesouthernmost part and Austro-Asiatic in the eastern part of the South Asia. The currentfindings about early Dravidian languages contradict Renfrew and many other authors who

11
Renfrew, Colin,
Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins
, CUP Archive,Cambridge, 1990, pp. 190, 192, 195-6.
12

Ibid
, p. 190.
13
Renfrew, Colin,
Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins
, CUP Archive,Cambridge, 1990, p. 195.
14

Ibid.
p. 196.

6
had suggested the place of origin of Dravidian in West Asia from Proto-Elamite after 10,000B.P., originally proposed by McAlpin.
15
We can now have a look at some of these farming related words in the Indo-Europeanlanguages: 1.

Harvest (English),
karbitas
(to harvest, Proto-Germanic),
kerpu
(Lithuanian),
kerp
(PIE),
kripANa
(Sanskrit).2.

Sow (E.),
sawan
(Old English),
sero
and
sevi
(Latin, to sow),
semen
(Latin, seed),
seju
and
seti
(Lithuanian, to sow), *
se
and
seh
(PIE, to sow), Santhal, Ho andMunda
si
,
siu
(to plow), and Munda Kharia
silo

('to plow'
),
sA-
(Sanskrit, to sow),
sita
(Sk. a furrow of a ploughshare),
sulh
(Old English, a furrow or ploughshare),
sira
(Sk., plough, a plough ox). Related to this group of words are *
sehm
(PIE,grain),
sasa
(Sanskrit;
sasam
in
Rig-Veda
),
sasya
(Sanskrit, food, seed, grain,herb),
sas
(Kashmiri, beans, peas, lentils),
sas
(Bangla, grain, fruit),
sasa
(Oriya,kernel, nutritious part),
sabz
(Iranian, green vegetable),
sem
(Hindi, beans), *
sito-
and
*sitya-

(PIE, 'corn'),
sitiyam
(Sanskrit, corn, ploughed),
siri
and
siri
(Khowar,barley), and
sili
(Kalasha of Hindukush, millet) are all related. Munda familylanguage Sora has
saro
,
sar
(paddy) and Munda and Kharia have
–
sro
and
–
srA
(rice, as compound words in
ko-soro
and
ko-sra
) are also related. Words
sro
,
sre
and
sru

meaning 'rice' in some Khmer (Cambodia) dialects are obvious cognates
of Munda
–
sro
, Sora
saro
etc meaning rice. On the other hand the root is alsofound in Caucasian
—
Chechen
sos

'oats', Eastern Caucasian
susV

'rye' which are
millets. Witzel thinks that these non-IE languages borrowed these words whileIndo-European was passing across their territories. This is only partly correct–thedirection of migration was from India to West Asia, not from Central Asia toIndia, as DNAs reveal.3.

Plough (E.),
*plogo
(Proto-Germanic),
plugas
(Lithuanian) and
langala
(Sanskrit)are cognates. The ultimate origin of the words is from Munda family (Witzel).
16

Fuller writes, "
Of interest in this regard is historical linguistic analysis forwidespread cognate terms for plough in Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Mundalanguages which may derive from early borrowing between these groups or froma common substrate, perhaps from the Harappan zone (Southworth, 2005, p. 80;Witzel, 1999, pp. 29
–
30).
"
17
4.

Pita (English, bread),
petta
(Greek, bread),
peptos
(Greek, cooked),
pita
(bread,Modern Hibrew),
pizza
(Italian, a cooked food), pastry,
pasta
(Italian),
pittha
(Bihari, a cake made of rice flour),
paiSHTa
(Sanskrit, meaning cake; derivative of Sanskrit
piSHTa
meaning ground or flour, and
pis

meaning 'to grind'). English'paste' (dough) is related. 'Pastry' may be related
.

15

McAlpin, David W., Elamite and Dravidian: Further Evidence of Relationship,
Current Anthropology
1975,16(1): 105-115. ———,
Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The Evidence and its Implications
, The American PhilosophicalSociety, Philadelphia, 1981.

16
Witzel, Michael, The linguistic history of some Indian domestic plants,
J Biosciences
2009, 34(6): 829-833.
"Fulltext" of this article is available at
http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/dec2009/Witzel_fulltext.pdf . We shall referthat article as Witzel, Fulltext, 2009.
17
Fuller, 2006, p. 15.

7
5.

Pestle (E.) related to Old French
pestel
from Latin
pistillum
(to pounder, topestle) from PIE
*pis-to-,
to grind; Sanskrit
pish-
(HK
piS

"to grind"),
pishta
(HK
piSTa
grinded),
pIs
(Hindi to grind).6.

Mill (E.) from Old English
mylen
; Latin
mola
, millstone and
molere
to grind; PIE
mel / mol / ml
to grind; German
muhle
and Sanskrit
musala
(grinder) are fromthe same root. In Thai language
"mill
-
stone" is called
moh
.7.

Grind (E.), O. E.
grindan
, P. Germanic
grindanan
, PIE *
ghren
,
*ghreu-
, *
ghen
,(?*
grendh-
) all have same meaning i.e. to grind. PIE
*gher
and
*gherzdh
mean
'barley'.
The Sanskrit word
godhuma
, Persian
gandum
and Tamil
godhumai
all
meaning 'wheat' seem to have originated from the same root.
Munda
guru
,Santhal and Kherwa
guRgu

mean 'grinding stone', which is in all likelihoodrelated with the roots meaning 'grinding'.
8.

Acre> agri- from P. Germanic
akraz
, PIE
agros
field, Sk.
ajra, ajras
field. It is likelythat Sanskrit
kriS
to pull, to cultivate, may have some relation with PIE
agros
.9.

Sanskrit
sUpa

and English 'soup' have same meaning, pronunciation and
etymology. They are from PIE *
sub-
derived from another PIE base
seue
, 'to takeliquid food'. Proto
-Germanic base *
supp-

and English 'supper' are cognates to
these. Tamil
sappara
may be a cognate. Iranian
sabzi

meaning 'vegetable curry orsoup' is a cognate. Witzel correlates Ir
anian
sabz-
(vegetable) with Old Sanskrit
sapa-
(drifted reed), Old Iranian
sapar-ku
, Rosani (Pamir language)
sabec

'beans',
Lithuanian
sapas

'stalk' and English dialect
haver

'stalk', which all are possibly
cognates of Sanskrit
supa
.10.

Bread (English),
bhrajj
(Sanskrit, pan cake),
bhrijj
(Sanskrit, the act of baking,roasting or frying). Other cognates are Old Irish
bruth

'
to
heat', French
braser

'toburn', Germanic
brese

'hot coal', Old English
beorma

'yeast', Old High German
brato

'to roast meat', English
brew, PIE *
bhreu-

'to brew'
etc
.11.

Sanskrit
KshIra

meaning 'milk' and 'a porridge made of rice or millets in milk'
(derived from Sanskrit root-word
ghas
: Monier Williams), its Hindi form
khir
, andHindi
ghee
(from Sanskrit
ghrita
, purified butter) are derived from PIE
ghwer
.From PIE
ghwer
are also derived English
burn
, brandy, therm- etc. It shows someform of cooking process during PIE stage.12.

Cook,
coc
(Old English),
cocus
(Vulgar Latin),
coquus
(Latin), from PIE
pekw-
(cooking). Related to this PIE root is Sanskrit
pach-
and
pak-
, Hindi
pakAnA
and
pakwan.
13.

Candy/ candid (English),
qand
(Persian),
khanda
(Sanskrit, sugar). These all arepossibly from Tamil
kantu
(candy),
kattu
(to harden).14.

Meter (E.), measure (E.),
matra
(Sk.),
metre
(Fr.),
metron
(Gk.), Old English
mete
,PIE *
mat
/
*met
. Many food items, which were measured are from this root, andthey include: Sanskrit
masura
,
masUrikA
,
mas
*
, mishta

etc
, English meat, Hindi
mItha
(lump sugar) etc. Sanskrit
mASa
(a small unit of weight used by jwellers),which means a pulse (
oorad
) too, is from the same root.15.

English 'cotton',
Sanskrit
kartta-na
(weaving), Hindi
kata-na
(weaving), Munda
koTNe
(pillow)

and Santhal
kotre
(pillow) are most likely from the same root.Persian
kurta
(upper garment), Proto-Germanic
kalithas
(cloth) and English
'cloth' are also related.
Another set of related words is
kapara
(Hindi, cloth),
kappaTam
(Tamil, cloth),
karpAsa
(Sanskrit, cotton).

8
16.

Pot (E.),
potus
(L. drinking vessel),
pAtra
(Sk.
pAtra
, drinking vessel, MW, p. 612).In sanskrit
patra
means leaf (Greek
pter
). Large leaves were earlier used as dishplates in India. Presence of this word widely in IE languages clearly indicates thatthe Proto-Indo-Europeans had pottery before they migrated.17.

Kanduka
(Sk.),
kandu
,
kanduk
(Persian),
kandouk
(Armenian),
xaendyg
(Ossetic),
kendwg
(Pehlawi),
kondu potarion
(Middle Greek) all meaning earthenwarevessel. Old English
canne
, Proto-Germanic
kanna
, Latin
canne
, meaning
'container' or 'vessel' may be related.
That Neolithic diffused from Indo-Iranianinto Semitic tribes can be inferred from the fact that these words have beenborrowed by Semitics in the West Asia. For example Syrian
kndwk
and Arabic
kandu
Ê’
(earthen vessel) are clear borrowings from Indo-Iranian. Presence of thisword in Dravidian indicates its Indian origin. In Tamil,
kantu
(
kanti-
) means toburn,
kanku
and
kankai

mean 'earthen pot
-
boiler' (Dravidian Etym. Dictionary,
2
nd
Ed, Burrow and Ememeau, entry no. 1458).18.

Wheel (E.), cycle (E.),
chakra
(Sanskrit),
charkha
(Persian) and PIE
k(w)el
probablypertain to pottery-wheel.19.

We get cognate words for cow, pig, goat, sheep and mouse in almost all of theIndo-European languages.20.

Fuller (2008) gives a list of cognates for cotton, spindle and weaving in Indo-European and Austro-Asiatic languages, indicating that Proto-Indo-European aswell as Proto-Austro-Asiatic languages had enough contact for exchange of words. This place could only have been in India, and not West Asia or CentralAsia. Words which are related with weaving but are found in Indo-Aryan,European, Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic languages are:
tantu
(Sk., fiber),
tantra
(Sk., loom),
tAna
(Sk., fiber, tone, tension),
tanti
and
tatamA
(Hindi, weaver),tendon (E.), tentacle (E.) tendril (E.), tent (E.), tenter (E., loom), tenet (E.),
tonti
(Juang, weaver),
dendra
(Telgu, a weaver caste);
tay
(Bonda, to weave),
tor
(Thai,to weave),
tan
(Kharia, to weave),
thai:n
(Khasi, to weave),
tan
(Alak, Lave andNiahon, to weave);21.

tUla
(Sk., cotton),
tUlika
(Sk., brush),
tula
(Munda-Juang; cotton, feather, hair),
tol
(Old Mon; cotton, hair, feather),
tuy
(Tamil, cotton). Having proved that the Indo-Europeans were farmers, we need to settle their place of evolution. There were only two places where farming evolved the earliest. Both can beclaimed to be the place of origin of Indo-Europeans. One is Anatolia (Turkey, West Asia)and the second is India. Central Asia being a cold desert and grassland combination canhardly harbor pastoralist populations but not farming. We note a large number of words from Austro-Asiatic (Munda family) and Dravidianfamilies in the Indo-European languages located as far away as West Europe. This is a biglist. Some of them have been mentioned above. This could be only possible if the Indo-European journey started in India, having evolved over ages in neighborhood of theselanguages. Hence we can conclude, on the basis of linguistic analysis that the Indo-European languages evolved in India from where they migrated out to various regions of the world.

9
DNA studies in Origin of Cow, Pig, Buffalo, Mouse and Black Rat
DNA studies of these animals, which are intimately associated with farming society, haveshown that these animals were first domesticated in India, and that they have notarrived into India from anywhere else. Domestication of Cow History has been more a matter of beliefs of the people in academic establishment thanrepository of truth about the past. Thus it was fashionable to attribute each and everyinnovation in the human prehistory to West Asia, in which the most sacred places of Jews,Christians and Muslims are located. It was largely because of this attitude that cow was thought to have been domesticated forthe first time between 8000 and 10,000 years before present at West Asia from where itwas claimed to have migrated to everywhere including India with farming. During thatimaginary migration through Iran, the Indian breed of cow evolved from the West Asianbreed, they claimed.
18
Thus such authors thought domesticated cow reached India fromWest Asia with farming. Regarding Zebu (Indian cow) in China, it was said that possibly wildancestor of Zebu reached China, where they were domesticated locally in China.
19
Andabout African Zebu (African cow of Indian breed), it was said that Arabic traders took themto Africa from India in the last 700 years.
20
Contradicting such views, Loftus
et al
(1994) came out with formidable genetic data provingan independent and indigenous domestication of cow in India.
21
They even postulatedmigration of Indian cow through sea to Africa, which was later proved by further DNAstudies. Since then a large number of studies have supported this. The latest among suchworks is that of Hiendleder
et al
(2008), which re-confirmed that there are mainly twomatrilineal populations of domesticated cows in Eurasia. One is of Indian ancestry calledZebu or
Bos indicus
, the other is supposedly of West Asian origin called
Bos taurus.
22
Independent domestication of cow and bull in India implied an independent origin of Indianfarming culture too. A recent study of DNA of Zebu by Chen (2009) has shown that
Bos indicus
or Zebu had beendomesticated only in India, and not at any other place, ruling out all skepticism in thematter, and proving that it was only after full domestication in India, that Zebu migrated toother parts of the world.
23
Zebu cows have a prominent presence in China and Africa.
24

18
Epstein, H. & Mason, I. L., in
Evolution of Domesticated Animals
, ed. Mason, I. L., Longman, New York, 1984,pp. 6-27.

19
Lei, C. Z. et al,
Origin and phylogeographical structure of Chinese cattle,
Animal Genetics
, 2006, 37(6):579-586.

20
MacHugh, D. E.
et al
, Microsatellite DNA variation, and the evolution, domestication and phylogeography of Taurine and Zebu cattle (
Bos Taurus and Bos indicus
),
Genetics
1997, 146: 1071-1086, p. 1072.
21
Loftus, R. T.
et al
, Evidence for two independent domestications of cattle,
PNAS
1994, 91:2757-2761.
22
Hiendleder, S.
et al
, Complete mitochondrial genomes of
Bos taurus
and
Bos indicus
provide new insight intointra-species variation, taxonomy and domestication,
Cytogenetic and Genomic Research
2008, 120(1-2): 150-156.
23
Chen, S.
et al
; Zebu cattle are an exclusive legacy of the South Asian Neolithic,
Molecular Biology and Evolution
, Sept 21, 2009, 0:msp213v1-msp213. (accepted manuscript)

10
Other researches indicated that Zebu genes are present in most of the taurine cow lineagesof Europe, West Asia, Africa and other parts of the world.
25
Even those European and WestAsian cows which are taurine in all other respect have zebuine milk protein gene.
26
Thisproves that Indian cows were the first to have been domesticated, and then they migratedto rest of the world with Neolithic migration, where local wild cows were domesticated.These data also prove that the migrated Indian cow (Zebu) hybridized all those lineages. Freeman
et al
(2006) found that
Bos indicus
was introduced into Africa by sea route and notthrough Suez.
27
Moreover Indian cow has been found in Malagasy, which is accessible onlyby sea. On the basis of these, and many other facts, Zeder (2006) claims that India was theplace of origin of the first global economy. He asserts that there was an active maritimetrade in cow in the Indian Ocean from Indian west coast during prehistoric times.
28
Now such views are gaining general acceptance. It was further noted that Zebu not onlymigrated from India to Africa, but also from Africa to Europe. It has been noted that AfricanZebu gene is interspersed in the entire range of
taurine
distribution in Europe and Africa(Meghen
et al
, 2000).
29
Thus Zebu entered West Asia and Europe by two routes, one wasthrough Iran-Iraq route, and the other was from India to East Africa to West Asia to Europe.The second one may have been the earlier one. African Zebu cows are Indian in origin, and extend deep into Africa, while non-Zebu cows of Africa are generally considered either a domesticated wild breed or an imported
taurine
breed from West Asia. Earlier authors thought that Indian cows had been introduced intoAfrica by Arab traders within last one or two thousand years, and
taurine
cows had beenintroduced into Africa during spread of Neolithic from West Asia. But such a view has notbeen supported by DNA studies.
West Asia's claim to domestication of cows was further undermined by Bradley's work.
Bradley and colleagues (1996) studied domesticated
taurine
cow mtDNAs from Africa andEurope. They found that
taurine
cow lineages split from the European cow lineages muchbefore 22,000 years back (p. 5135). This is much before the West Asian 10,000 ybp date of Neolithic and claimed date of so-
called 'first domestication' of cattle. This destroys the
hypothesis of introduction first cows into Africa from West Asia.
30
The authors not only

24
Lai, Song-Jia
et al
, Genetic diversity and origin of Chinese catt
le", revealed by mtDNA D
-loop sequencevariation,
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
, 2006, 38(1):146-154.
25
Jann, Oliver C.
et al
, Geographic distribution of haplotype diversity at the bovine casein locus,
Geneticsselection evolution
2004, 36(2):243-257.
26
Ibeagha-Awemu, E. M.
et al
, Molecular Characterization of Bovine CSN1S2*B and Extensive Distribution of Zebu-Specific Milk Protein Alleles in European Cattle,
Journal of Dairy Sciences
2007, 90:3522-3529.

27
Freeman, A. R.
et al
, Combination of multiple microsatellite data sets to investigate genetic diversity andadmixture of domestic cattle,
Anim. Genet.
2006 Feb., 37 (1):1-9.
28
Zeder, Melinda A.
et al
, Documenting domestication: the intersection of genetics and archeology,
Trends inGenetics
(Genetics, Archeology and the Origins of Domestication; Elsevier) 2006, 22(3): p. 146.
29
Meghen, C.
et al
, "Charecterization of Kuri cattle in Lake Chad using Molecular Genetic Techniques", in
Blench, R. and MacDonald, K. C. (Eds.),
The Origins and Developments of African Livestock: Archaeology,Genetics, Linguistics and Ethnography
, Routledge, 2000, p. 266.
30
Bradley, D. G.
et al
, Mitochondrial diversity and the origins of African and European cattle,
PNAS
1996 May,93(10): 5131-5135.

11
refuted the West Asian origin of African
taurine
cow, but also found that the African cowlineages had a population expansion at 10,000 ybp, while the date for such an expansion inEurope was 5,000 ybp. Hence African
taurine
lineage is older than the West Asian andEuropean ones. Thus, although it is too early to say so, we may express a possibility that the
taurine
cows had been domesticated for the first time in Africa, from where they reachedEurope and West Asia. Ibeagha-Awemu (2005) found that the genetic variability of Indian cows in Africa is fargreater than that of African local or
taurine
cows, especially in Nigeria and Cameroon. Highvariability within
Indicine
cow genes in Africa indicates a very old migration from India toAfrica, before domestication of taurine cow.
31
Thus time of introduction of Indian Zebu intoAfrica should be earlier than the molecular date of domestication of taurine cow in Africa,about 22,000 years back. Migration of Indian humans and Indian cows in large numbers tothe Eastern Horn of Africa at 22,000 ybp, and not
via
West Asia, indicates that the landroute to West Asia from India was closed because of aridity. Petraglia and many otherworkers have noted that this route was closed between about 30,000 ybp and 15,000 ybp.
32

It has been claimed that, "A
fter domestication, survival and diffusion of
Bos taurus
completely depended on humans; thus, the phylogeographic patterns of cattle geneticdiversity should mirror human activities or movements and may provide informationcomplementary to archaeological and anthropological data
".
33
Other studies have alsosupported this view.
34

Hence Zeder's claim that there was a sea trade in cow to Africa and
other parts of world seems to be true. If Neolithic revolution originated in the West Asia, why do we get evidence of Indian cattlefrom Ancient Egyptian paintings (4000 ybp)
35
as well as Jordanian archeological remains?
36
From Arabian littoral remains of 3
rd
millennium BCE, Indian cow paintings have beenrecovered.
37
Hence we conclude that domestication of Indian cow and onset of IndianNeolithic are much older than is usually assumed. Spread of cows from India to other partsof world was of seminal value in prompting local domestications of
taurine
cows in otherparts of world. Post-LGM migration of domesticated cattle over land route, resulting in hybridization of Taurine and Indian cows in the area between India and Iraq has also been provengenetically, but that belongs to a later date than the Indian cow migration to East Africa by

31
Ibeagha-Awemu, E. M.
et al
, High variability of milk protein genes in
Bos indicus
cattle breeds of Cameroon
and Nigeria and characterization of a new α
s1
-casein promoter allele,
Journal of Dairy Research
, 2005, 72:1:1-9.CUP.
32
James, Hannah V. A and Petraglia, Michael D., Modern Human Origins and the Evolution of Behavior in theLater Pleistocene Record of South Asia,
Current Anthropology
2005, 46( Supplement, Dec.), p.S 7
33
Pellecchia1, Marco
et al
, The mystery of Etruscan origins: novel clues from Bos taurus mitochondrial DNA,
PNAS
2006, p. 1, doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.0258.
34
Kidd, K.K. and Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., The role of genetic drift in the differentiation of Icelandic and Norwegiancattle,
Evolution
1974, 28:381
–
395.
35
Marshall, Fiona, Rethinking the Role of
Bos indicus
in sub-Saharan Africa,
Current Anthropology
1989,30(2): 235-240.
36
Clason, A.T., Late Bronze Age-Iorn Age Zebu in Jordan?
J Archaeol Sci
1978, 5: 91
–
93.
37
Clutton, Brock, Juliet,
The Walking Larder
, Routledge, 1990, p. 148-149.

12
sea.
38
,
39
Indian cow entered Africa by land route later by 3,500 ybp.
40

Freeman's data and
distribution-map also indicate that there is a penetration of Indian cow in South-EastEurope. Cattle migration from India to Europe has been proven by other studies also.
41
Some writings claim migration of Zebu to Italy between 30,000 ybp and 25,000.
42
Linguistic evidence corroborates well with genetic findings.
English word 'c
ow
'
has cognatesin Sanskrit (
gAva
,
gau, go
), Farsi (
gAw
), German (
kuh
or
kuhe
), Dutch (
koe
), Danish (
ko
),
etc.
The lexical evidence also proves that India was the source of cow for China and SoutheastAsia. This is reflected in their words for cow– Pinyin Chinese
gu
, Cantonese
ngau
, and Thai
koh
. In Africa, Swahili word for cow
ngombe
. We know that
'm'
is added to each nown as aprefix in Swahili language.Pig DomesticationMitochondrial DNA studies have shown that pig, although evolved 500,000 years back in thewild form in the Southeast Asia (which was a single piece of land then), its one branch cameto India long back. Then this branch radiated from India into many parts of the world in itswild form. It was from this wild stock of Indian radiation, that pigs have been domesticatedat several places in the world independently, the two most important and oldest beingSoutheast Asia and India.Buffalo DomesticationBellwood and many other authors think that paddy cultivation was not possible withoutbuffalo which likes water and mud. On the basis of physical features of wild buffalossurviving in world today Bellwood (1995) diagnosed that water buffalo was domesticatedfor the first time in India in Orissa and Jharkhand area (he actually wrote Bihar instead of Jharkhand, because then Jharkhand was a part of Bihar).
43
Kumar (2007) found, on the basisof DNA studies, that buffalo was domesticated in India 6,500 years back, and from here itmigrated to Southeast Asia and South China.
44
This migration implies migration with farmersor traders, because domestic buffaloes cannot migrate alone.
Buffalo's association with rice
agriculture suggests to us that this migration occurred as a farming related migration. Domestication of BarleyIt was claimed, like everything else, in the past that barley was domesticated for the firsttime in West Asia. But DNA research on barley revealed that it was actually domesticated byman in western India, somewhere near modern Pakistan in circa 10,000 B.P. from Indian

38
Kumar, P.
et al
, Admixture analysis of South Asian Cattle,
Heredity
2003, 91:43-50. See conclusion, p. 49.
39
Zeder, Melinda A.
et al
2006,
op. cit.
, p. 146 (box).
40
Kumar, P.
et al
, Admixture analysis of South Asian Cattle,
Heredity
2003, 91: 43-50. See conclusion, p. 49.Also see Chapter 11, FAO map of zebu cattle penetration route into Africa.
41
Negrini, R.
et al
, Differentiation of European cattle by AFLP fingerprinting,
Animal Genetics
2009 (online2007), 38(1): 60
–
66.

42
http://www.anaborapi.it/Piem-presenta-en.htm
43
Bellwood, Peter,
"
Domesticated and Commensal Mammals of Austronesia and Their Histories
"
, in Bellwood,P., Fox, J. and Tryon, D.,
The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
, 1995.
44
Kumar, Satish
et al
; Phylogenography and domestication of Indian river buffalo,
BMC Evolutionary Biology
2007, 7:186.

13
wild barley, at southwestern ranges of Himalayas after the glacial ice cleared from thisregion.Badr (2000) found a rich diversity of barley varieties in the sub-Himalayan region. Diversity isan indicator of place of origin.
45
Morell and Clegg (2007), on the basis of DNA analysissuggested that there were two centers of domestication of barley, one in the FertileCrescent and the other probably 1500 to 3000 kilometers to the East in western India.
46
Thisstudy also indicated that although, the European varieties of barley originated from theFertile Crescent variant, the eastern nations received barley breeds from Indiandomestication. This leads us to conclude that barley was locally domesticated in the IndusValley area in circa 10,000 B.P.DNA research by Azhanguvel and Komatsuda (2007) further indicated that there wereeastern and western two independent centers of barley domestication in Eurasia.
47
Saisho(2007) found the eastern edge of Iran plateau was the site of domestication of easternbarley.
48
Jones (2008) finally clarified after studying the Ppd-H1 gene of barley fromEuropean farmlands
that the agricultural variant of barley which has "flowering timeadaptation", the essential adaptation for agriculture, did not originate in West Asia or the
Fertile Crescent, but further east, probably in western part of India or in East Iran.
49
Sang(2009) reviewed all the scientific papers presented so far and concluded that at about10,000 B.P., barley cultivation started in western India independently from any externalinfluence.
50
Thus it is concluded by DNA study that barley was cultivated in India independent of anyWest Asian influence, and that the essential gene for farming, as noted by Jones, was foundin Indian wild breeds only, indicating that Indian domestication event was primary and theWest Asian one was secondary. This correlates well with finding of barley at Mehrgarh at9,000 to 10,000 years back.
Domestication of Rice:
There are two main sub-species of rice,
Oryza sativa indica
or Indian rice and
Oryza sativajaponica
or Chinese rice. It is now accepted that
Oryza nivara
, one of the wild species of ricefrom Central India, which is not found in China, is the immediate ancestor of cultivated rice

45
Badr, A.
et al
, On the Origin and Domestication History of Barley,
Molecular Biology and Evolution
2000,17(4): 499-510.
46
Morell P. L. and Clegg M. T.; Genetic evidence for a second domestication of barley (
Hordeun vulagare
) eastof fertile crescent,
PNAS
2007, 104: 3289-3294.
47
Azhanguvel, P. and Komatsuda, T.; A phylogenetic analysis based on nucleotide sequence of a marker linkedto brittle rachis locus indicates a diphylectic origin of barley,
Ann Bot.
Lond. 2007, 100: 1009-1015.
48
Saisho, Daisuke and Purugganan Michael D.; Molecular phylogenography of domesticated barley tracesexpansion of agriculture in Old world,
Genetics
2007, 177: 1765-1776.
49
Jones, Huw
et al
; Population-Based resequencing reveals that the flowering time adaptation of cultivatedbarley Originated east of Fertile Crescent,
Molecular Biology and Evolution
2008, 25(10): 2211-2219.
50
Sang, Tao; Genes and Mutations underlying domestication transitions in grasses,
Plant Physiology
2009, 149:63-70. American Society of plant Physiologists.

14
Oryza sativa
.
51

O. nivara
originated from another Indian wild species
O. rufipogon
, whoserelated wild breed is also found in Southeast Asia, but not in China.
52
Domestication of
Oryza sativa
's sub
-species
indica
occurred in east India south of Himalayas; and that of the sub-species
japonica
occurred in South China.
53
Chen (1993)
found that 'deletion type Cp DNA' is found in 'annual' varieties of
Oryza rufipogon
, which isthe ancestor of
O. sativa

indica
. On the other hand non-deletion type CpDNA is found inwild
"
perennial
rufipogon
".
It was this wild perennial non-deletion type which gave birth tothe Chinese breed of rice. Thus
indica
and
japonica
were domesticated separately and fromtwo different strains of
rufifipogon
. Thus the Chinese rice is only distantly related to
indica
,and not and ancestor of
indica
. Moreover Chinese rice seems to have been domesticated much later than the
indica
.
54
Yamane
et al
(2009) on the basis of another gene
Hd6
supported the view that
indica
and
japonica
sub-species of rice had been domesticated independently.
55
These works rule outearlier conjecture that rice cultivation originated in South China and was later transportedto India with Austro-Asiatic farming tribes. On the basis of
sh4
gene Sang (2009) claimed that
indica
was domesticated earlier in Indiathan the Chinese rice, and that it was from the Indian domesticated breed that this gene(
sh4
) essential for farming was transmitted into Chinese variety. The
sh4
gene stopsshattering of grains on ripening, and is crucial to domestication. Without this gene, thegrains shatter and fall down from the rice plant as soon as they get ripe.
56
This geneoriginated in domesticated
Oryza sativa

indica
in India, once only, and has by nowintrogressed into all the paddy types by cross pollination and seed selection.
57
Fuller has alleged that rice found at Lahuradewa dating back to up to 10,000 years beforepresent was not cultivated, but gathered from wild growth. In his support he cites presenceof unripe rice on the spikelets as evidence of being wild. Presence of unripe seeds on thepaddy-spikelet found at Lahuradewa only indicates that Lahuradewa farmers were forced toharvest spikelets at a relatively unripe stage, because ripening may have resulted inshattering of paddy seeds. This only implies that mutation
sh4
, which is responsible forprevention of shattering in paddy plants, had not occurred by that time, and therefore theLahuradewa farmers had to harvest paddy spikelets before ripening. It was the food-valueof rice which forced man to cultivate it, not presence or absence of
sh4
mutation. This

51
De Datta, S. K.,
Principles and Practice of Rice Production
, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1981, p. 173.
52
Grillo, M. A.
et al
, Genetic Architecture for the Adaptive Origin of Annual Wild Rice:
Oryza nivara
,
Evolution
, 2009, 63 (4):870-883.
53
Lonedo J. P.
et al
; Phylogenography of Asian wild rice,
Oryza rufipogen
, reveals multiple independentdomestications of cultivated rice
oryza sativa
,
PNAS
2006, 103, 9578-5983.
Harris, David; "The Multi
-
disciplinary Study of Agricultural Origins: "žOne World Archeology"Ÿ in Practice", in
The Future for Archeology
, edited by Layton, Robert
et
al, Routledge Cavendish, 2006, p. 238.
54
Chen,
et
al; Distribution of deletion type in CpDNA of cultivated and wild rice,
Japanese Journal of Genetics
1993, 68: 597-603.
55
Yamane, Hiroko
et al
; Molecular and Evolutionary analysis of the
Hd6
Photoperiod Sensitivity Gene WithinGenus Oryza,
Rice
2009, 2:56-66.
56
Sang, Tao, 2009,
op. cit
.
57

Ibid.

15
mutation occurred only later after domestication, as discovered by Sang (
vide supra
), andselectively promoted by seed selection by the farmers.
Fuller argues that empty husks have been found in Lahuradewa's archaeological
findings,
therefore they should be considered 'gathered' wild paddy. Such a view is a product of
naiveté about rice farming. Occurrence of empty husks is a common mishap in paddycultivation even today, and is not at all associated with wildness of the breed in those cases.Moreover, Dorian Fuller expects modern domestication features in about 9,000 years old
paddy samples. It is too much. Today's paddy is a product of ceaseless process of seed
-selection by Indian famers over 10,000 years, and the earliest farmers cultivated wild breeds
only. Till 1960'
s many of the cultivated breeds of Indian paddy were little different from wildbreeds, and this is natural owing to cross pollination. Fuller further alleges: i.) that Lahuradewa rice had smaller grain size, ii.) that theLahuradewa rice had red seeds, and iii.) that the plant size was tall hence the plants couldstand erect only in water-logged fields. On the basis of these arguments, he claims thatLahuradewa paddy was wild. These all allegations merely show his ignorance about paddyand paddy cultivation. Grain-size of the seed is selected by farmers even today on the basisof productivity. Long-grains are often not good at yield in most of the fields. Hence most of the farmers in the Ganga Valley grow small grains. The grain size of cultivated Indian paddyvaries widely. Till recently, red seeds were most common varieties of cultivated rice inEastern India. Desaria, an Indian domesticated breed of red rice, extincted only recently,had up to six feet tall feeble straw, which grew only in deep waters, and harvesting wasdone by farmers riding on boats.
Thus Fuller's allegations about Lahuradewa rice are
notmaintainable. Fuller (2003, 2006) himself has elsewhere written that there was an early farming in theGanga Valley which gave cultivation related words to both Sanskrit and Tamil.
58
He acceptsthat there was an indigenous evolution of agriculture in India in the Gangetic valley, fromwhere agriculture related words have been derived in both Sanskrit and Tamil.
"Linguistic
evidence congruent with an early North Indian (Gangetic) agricultural complex comes froma range of agricultural terms found in Sanskrit, and sometimes in Dravidian languages, whichappear to derive from extinct languages of
unknown affiliation."
59
Hence his opposition toLahuradeva findings is strange. Thus the genetic evidence favours that India (Ganga Valley) was the first centre of ricecultivation with the help of ox and buffalo, and the Southeast Asians learned this from India,and cultivated their own wild rice. The process then spread to China, whose cultivated ricestill contains many wild features.
The Domestic Mouse and Rat

58
Fuller, D. Q.,
"An agricultural perspective on Dravidian historical linguistics: archaeological crop packages,livestock and Dravidian crop vocabulary", in
Bellwood, Peter and Renfrew, Colin (Eds.);
Examining TheFarming/language Dispersal Hypothesis
: (191-213), 2003, p. 204. ———-;Agricultural Origins and Frontiersin South Asia: A Working Synthesis,
J World Prehist
2006, 20:1
–
86.
59

Fuller, D. Q., 2003,
op. cit.

16
Mouse and rat are two different species of rodents. Incidentally, both of them originated inIndia and migrated out about the same time with agriculture. Although archaeologicalevidence for agriculture starts from 10,000 years back, the black rat migration out of Indiatook place at 20,000 years back and mouse migration took place 15,000 years back(molecular dates). Domestic mice (
Mus
) have lived in and around human dwellings feeding on human storedfood and food debris for ages. In the beginning
Mus
lived only in north India since 900,000years back,
60
as a commensal of
Homo erectus
and later
Homo sapiens sapiens
(Ferris,1983)
.
61
It diverged into three principal species,
viz.Mus musculus domesticus, M. musculusmusculus
and
M. castaneus
by 500,000 years back (Geraldis, 2008; Din, 1996).
62
When
Homo sapiens sapiens
inhabited India in about 100,000 ybp or earlier, these speciesof mice became adapted to live in and around human dwellings (Boursot, 1993).
63
Miceprobably felt safer in human surroundings. Tsutim
et al
(2008) found that humanenvironment gives protection to sparrows from being predated by carnivorous birds andanimals.
64
The same applies to mice. Groves (1984) found that many types of mice and rats had been introduced into IslandSoutheast Asia from India together with rice agriculture.
65

Mus caroli, Mus cervicolor
and
Rattus argentiventer
are found in Southeast Asia north of Malay. They are invariablyrestricted to wet rice growing areas.
Mus dunni
, a small mice, native of northeast India and
Rattus nitidus
, a native of Nepal, are rice-field pests of Indonesia. These all speciesoriginated in India.
66
Bandicoot-rat (
Bandicota bengalensis
) a rice-field pest in Indonesia originated in Mahanadidelta in association with buffalo.
67
We have already discussed buffalo domestication andmigration from India. The other sub-species of mice which migrated out of India toSoutheast Asia is
Muscastaneus
. This species isadept at digging holes in soil. Probably theylearned to do this in a bid to eat tubers and sweet potatoes which grew in abundance inIndian soil.
Mus caroli
is another species of Southeast Asian mice which dwells in rice fields.

60
Boursot, P.,
et al
, Origin and radiation of the house mouse: mitochondrial DNA phylogeny,
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
1996, 9: 391-415.
61
Ferris, S. D.
et al
, Mitochondrial DNA evolution in mice,
Genetics
1983, 105(3):681-721.
62

Geraldis, Armando,
et al
, Inferring the history of speciation in house mice from autosomal, X-linked, Y-linkedand mitochondrial genes,
Molecular Ecology
2008, 17(24):5349-5363. Also, Din, W.
et al
, Origin and radiationof the house mouse: clues from nuclear genes,
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
1996, 9(5):519-539.
63
Boursot, P.
et al
, Evolution of House Mice,
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
1993, 24:119-152.
64
Tsutim, Ido,
et al.
, Foraging Behavior of Urban Birds: Are Human Commensals Less Sensitive to PredationRisk than their Non-urban Counterparts,
The Condor
2008, 110(4):772-776.
65

Groves, Colin P., "
Domesticated and Commensal Mammals of Austronesia and Their Histories
", in
Bellwood, P., Fox, J. and Tryon, D.,
The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
, 1995. Also,Groves, C. P.,
Of mice and men and pigs in the Indo-Australian archipelago,
Canberra Anthropology
1984,7:1-19.

66
Bellwood, P.
et al
, 1995.
67

Ibid.

17
Black rat (
Rattus rattus
) is another species which originated in India and then migrated toother parts of the world. From India it migrated to West Asia and then to Europe.
Rattus
reached West Asia by 20,000 years before present, a date which is earlier than domesticmouse migration.
68
Other migration of this species was from India to Madagaskar.
69
We can guess from the dates of Ganga Valley Pottery Neolithic that Pre-Pottery Neolithicmay have started in India about 13,000 ybp to 14,000 ybp. We are forced to assume thatroughly the same time PPN migration out of India to West Asia started.
Mus domesticus
migration out of India to West Asia must be a direct result of Neolithic migration. Date of migration of Indian male lineage J2b from northern Ganga Valley to West Asia (13,800 yearsback) coincides with that.
Mus domesticus
reached the Eastern Mediterranean basin inabout 10,000 ybp.
70
,
71
The route map of mice migration as mapped by the geneticists isexactly the same as that of human migration. Rajabi-Maham
et al
(2008) studied mice DNA from Iran up to Europe. They found that afterreaching the Fertile Crescent mice expansion toward Europe and Asia Minor took at leasttwo routes, tentatively termed the Mediterranean and the Bosphorus/Black Sea routes.They found that another domesticated animal goat also followed the same routes almostthe same time about 12,000 years back.
72
Thus goat and mice migrated along withexpanding farming. Protracted commensality of
Mus m. domesticus
in India indicates that
Homo sapiens sapiens
was doing some primitive farming or foraging and storing food since much before actualonset of Neolithic migration. Indians of that era had possibly a settled life and home andthey depended on cereal, fruit and tuber diet.Cognate words for
'mouse' are found exclusively within the Indo
-European family of languages (
English 'mouse',
Latin
mus
, Sanskrit
mUSaka
,
muSika, mUs, muSka
,
73
Pahlavi
musk
), indicating expansion of domestic mouse out of India with migrating Neolithic cultureof the Indo-European speakers of north India.
Migrations and Ecology

68
Alpin, Ken in Science News,
Science Daily
, Feb. 6, 2008.
69
Tollenaere, C.
et al
, Phylogenpgraphy of the introduced species
Rattus rattus
in the western Indian Ocean,with special emphasis on the colonization history of Madagascar,
Journal of Biogeography
2010, 37 (3): 398-410.
70
Cucchi, Thomas, Vigne J. D. and Auffray, J. C., First occurrence of the house mouse (
Mus musculusdomesticus
Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943) in the Western Mediterranean: Western Mediterranean: azooarchaeological revision of subfossil occurrences,
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
2005, 84: 429-445.
71
Rajabi-Maham, H., Orth A and Bonhomme F., Phylogeography and post-glacial expansion of
Mus musculusdomesticus
inferred from mitochondrial DNA coalescent, from Iran to Europe,
Mol Ecol
2007, 17(2): 627-641.Also, Cucchi, T. and Vigne
,
J., Origin and Diffusion of the House Mice in the Mediterranean,
Human Evolution
2006, 21(2):95-106.
72
Rajabi-Maham, H.
et al
, Phylogeography and postglacial expansion of
Mus musculus domesticus
inferredfrom mitochondrial DNA coalescent, from Iran to Europe,
Mol. Ecol.
2008, 17 (2): 627-41.
73
Monier Williams Sanskrit English Dictionary, Cologne Scanned copy on the net, pp. 824, 827.

18
Large scale human migrations have taken place mostly out of compulsion. As the numberincreases, there is a lot of competition for food and space within the members of thespecies. Causes stress. To avoid stress, members of population disperse to new ecologicalniche (Gliessman 2006).
74
Groube (1996) pays attention to carrying capacity model, andderives on ecological grounds that any migration would not have been possible from theFertile Crescent (West Asia) to either south or east as those had already been colonized wellby
Homo sapiens sapiens
.
75
Hence due to ecological factors alone the population of Levantand Fertile Crescent had no choice but to migrate only to the north or west. Hence ecologytoo rules out population spread from West Asia to Iran and India.
The Central Role of India in Populating Europe and Asia:Study of Human Maternal Lineages
Earlier, when the Out of Africa theory came, it was thought that man came out of Africathrough Suez and West Asia. That made people and scholars, alike, believe that West Asiawas the source of all further populations of Europe, Asia and beyond. This assumptioncoupled with findings at Jericho and other sites in West Asia made authors believe thatfarming originated at the West Asia, from where it travelled to Europe and India. Whilefarming went to South Europe with Indo-European language, it went to India with Dravidianlanguage
—
they thought (Colin Renfrew). Thus Renfrew suggested that four major languagefamilies of the world–Indo-European, Dravidian, Altaic and Afro-Asiatic
—
originated in theWest Asia.
76
He thought that their common precursor was Proto-Nostratic, the ancestor of Nostratic macro-family, which was located in the West Asia, sometime before 10,000 B.P.(p. 80), he suggested. But it was realized soon that the West Asian route of exit from Africa was untenable. By1998 Cavalli-Sforza and his team reached the conclusion that from Africa,
Homo sapienssapiens
came out quite early and only once to reach India. In India that populationexpanded, had linguistic and cultural development, and then it was from India that the restof the world was populated.
77
This finding has been further supported by a large number of extensive DNA studies by Quintana-Murci
78
, Kivisild
79
, Bamshad
et al
. 2001;
80
Kivisild
et

74
Gliessman, Stephen, R.,
Agroecology
, CRC Press, 2006.
75
Groube, Les,
"
The impact of disease upon the emergence of agriculture
"
, in Harris, D. R. (Ed.),
The Originsand Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia
, Routledge, 1996.
76

Renfrew, Colin; "Language families and the spread of farming", in
The Origins and Spread of Agricultureand Pastoralism in Eurasia
, Ed. Harris, D. R., UCL Press, 1996; reprint Routledge, 2004.
77
Cavalli-Sforza, L.; Man and diversity of his genome: An extraordinary phase in the history of populationgenetics,
Pathologie-Biologie
, Paris 1998, 46 (2):98-102. [Article in French]
78
Quintana-Murci, L.
et al
; Genetic evidence of an early exit of
Homo sapiens sapiens
from Africa througheastern Africa,
Nature Genetics
1999,

23:437
–
41.
79

Kivisild, T.
et al
; "
The place of the Indian mitochondrial DNA variants in the global network of maternal
lineages and the peopling of the Old World", in
Genomic Diversity

(Ed. Papiha, S.S.
et al),
KluwerAcademic/ Plenum Publishers, 1999, pp. 135-152.
———
et al
; Deep common ancestry of Indian andwestern-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages,
Curr Biol
1999, 9 (22) :1331-1334.
———-
et al
, "An
Indian ancestry: A key for understanding hum
an diversity in Europe and beyond," in
Archaeogenetics: DNA and the population prehistory of Europe
", in Renfrew, C. and Boyle, K. (Eds.), McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 267
–
75.

80
Bamshad, M., Kivisild T.
et al
; Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian caste populations,
Genome Res
2001, 11 (6): 994-1004.

19
al
81
,
Metspalu
et al
, Endicott
et al
, 2003; Forster, 2004; Forster and Matsumara, 2005;Macauley, 2005; Thangaraj
et al
, 2005).
82
Thus latest consensus is that there was a single exit out of Africa to India along coastal routevery early in history of human evolution about 100,000 years back, after which all the areasof world were populated by migration from India. Migration maps made by authors likeOppenheimer (2003) and Metspalu (2004) on the basis of DNA studies showed that Indiaoccupied centre-space of human evolution and dispersal. Metspalu
et al
reaffirmed that
"Southern Coastal Route" to India was suggested by the phylogeography of mtDNA
haplogroup M. The oldest Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineage is M. Metspalu noted that
'M'
is virtually absent from North Africa and Near East. This undermined the likelihood of the initial colonization of Eurasia taking a route through Egypt and Suez. Metspalu further noted that the split between West and East Eurasian mtDNAs occurredbetween the Indus Valley and Southwest Asia, and not in the Central Asia. This contradictedthe earlier scheme in which Central Asia had been considered the central place for furtherexpansion, branching and further migration of mankind once man had left Africa. Metspaluand his colleagues explained:
"It is in the South Asia that local branches of the mtDNA tree
(haplogroups given in the spheres) arose (
circa
40,000
–
60,000 B.P.); and from there theywere further carried into the interiors of the continents of Asia and Europe (thinner black
arrows)."
83

They further noted that the "northern route" –
from northeast Africa over Sinaito the Near East
–
was used much later (about 30,000 to 17,000 B.P.) by East African people. The first migration out of India, which took place about 85,000 years back, was to theSoutheast Asia. Man soon reached Australia from Southeast Asia, the migrations greatlyfacilitated by Sunda shelf, which is submerged in sea but less than 100 meters deep at themost. India and Sri Lanka as well as New Guinea and Australia were also joined by land. Sucha view in favour of coastal migration of humans was earlier mooted in 1962 by evolutionary
geographer Carl Saucer, who had explained on the basis of 'ecological niche' that forest and
savanna (grasslands) were least likely to be human home during early days; and sea shoreswere the only likely place for human home (p. 42).
84
A recent review article by Endicott
et al
(2007) clearly concludes that India was the central player in cultural evolution of man andhis migration.
85

Recent Migrations of Male Lineages after Last Glacial Maximum

81
Kivisild, T.
et al
; The genetic heritage of the earliest settlers persists both in Indian tribal and castepopulations,
Am J Hum Genet
2003, 72 (2) : 313-32.
82
See details of articles in the bibliography. Endicott, P.
et al
; Macaulay, V.,
et al
; Single, rapid coastalsettlement of Asia revealed by analysis of complete mitochondrial genomes,
Science
2005, 308:1034
–
1036.

83
Metspalu, M.
et al
; Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shapedduring the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans,
BMC Genetics

 

[TrueSpirit]

@pmaitra

In the above post, you can find answers to origin of those animals, linguistic evidence, origin of Arya & all the evidences you are looking for.