Archives for category: linguistics

The DNA data which Silva et al provide us in their article, are mostly wrong and confabulated. The whole conclusion rests over the foundation of huge lies. Alternatively they could be result of poor home-work . These have vitiated the conclusion of the article.


Let us first see some example of the misrepresentation of data in the article regarding the Mitochondrial DNAs:

  • Silva et al say: “….analysis of several “non-autochthonous” N lineages present in South Asia (H2b, H7b, H13, H15a, H29, HV, I1, J1b, J1d, K1a, K2a, N1a, R0a, R1a, R2, T1a, T2, U1, U7, V2a, W and X2—all subclades of West Eurasian haplogroups),…” (page 3 of pdf)

In this passage the Silva list these above-mentioned mtDNA lineages found in India and claim that they are West Eurasian (i.e. European) in origin, and have arrived into India with Aryan Invasion/migration.

He does not site any evidence to support his view other than the weight of his academic position. This reflects his poor study of published literature. Let us see a few of the above mentioned lineages.

In the list above, he mentions R1a (mtDNA; it is not the same as R1a Y-DNA). This R1a mtDNA is found more in the tribes than in the upper-caste or north Indian population. Metspalu (2004) wrote, “Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab but also at a relatively high frequency (26%) in the Chenchu tribe. This finding, together with the higher R1a-associated short tandem repeat diversity in India and Iran compared with Europe
and central Asia, suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup. ” (Metspalu Abstract). See Metspalu’s map below. In the quoted sentence Western Asia stands for East Iran (see below).. So from where did Silva get the information that the mtDNA R1a is European?

Metspalu 2004

M, N and R all mdDNA originating in India

It must also be understood here that Iran which is a sibling of India linguistically (Indo-Iranian branch of IE Family), has been considered as a part of West Asia by the Eurocentric authors, and this practice is wrong. The map below shows how they define West Asia or Middle East in a way to include Iran in it (See map below). And then they say, West Asia is near Europe, hence West Asian DNAs are European DNAs. Thus Iranian DNAs become European DNA by manipulation of geographical description.

Iran in West Asia.jpg

However because of linguistic and prehistoric unity of East Iran with Indus Valley, Iran must not be considered West Asia but as western part of Indo-Iran Civilization. East Iran was certainly within the Greater Indus Valley Civilization, and people from East Iran came and settled in India since the Indus Valley Period up to the Mughal period. Most of the mtDNA lineages listed by Silva are in fact East Iranian, and they are found up to Punjab amounting up to 20% of the population, but not further East in India. In fact the East Iran was a an extension of the Vedic Civilization, and it has been demonstrated again and again by comparison of the Avesta and the Vedas and their practices. The mtDNAs HV, T2, etc fall in this category. And considering these DNAs as Europeans is totally arbitrary and wrong.

Migration was bi-directional between East Iran and India. The climate led earlier migration was from India to Iran, attested by the presence of 10% Indian lineages (mtDNA) in Iran overall, 5% of the mtDNA in Iran today are constituted by the Indian M lineage itself. (See Metspalu 2004). But later when Indus Valley Civilization became the world centre of culture, people from every part of Asia and Eastern part of Africa came and settled there as traders, businessmen and artisans, just as people flocked to London from every part of the world in the last century. This fact was proved by Valentine and Kenoyer et al in their study of the skeletons of the Indus Valley..

In fact the N1a, T2 and HV (mtDNAs) listed by Silva as European, also originated in Iran, and they reached India when the Indus Valley became a trade center of world, and the traders from every part of the world came and settled in the Indus valley in small numbers during the Bronze Age. (see Valentine, Kenoyer et al 2015). East Iranian arrivals due to economic factors is understandable, and they were the largest numbers among the foreign settlers in India. Link:

However, there are pure Indian mtDNA lineages also which have been depicted by Silva as European, one of which (mtDNA R1a) we just described.

None of the above named DNAs, which Silva has listed as European (Western European) mtDNAs, originated in Europe (West Eurasia). These are the mtDNA lineages which reached Europe from Asia after 5500 BC. In fact only a few original paleolithic DNAs of Europe have survived till today. In the great freeze of 8200 BP known as 8.2 kilo year event, nearly all of the European people died. So did the people of the steppe and Central Asia.

Thus to quote Brandt, “Ancient DNA studies have revealed genetic discontinuities between indigenous hunter-gatherers and early farmers and between later and present day Europeans. (Brandt 2013: page 257).

Links to Brandt’s ancient DNA study of 2013

Full Article


Brandt’s study establishes (by means of ancient DNAs recovered from the fossils) that the newer people continued to arrive into Europe, through the Turkish corridor and the north Black Sea highway, from the Caucasus, Iran and Central Asian during the various stages of the Neolithic.

Brandt’s study of the aDNAs reveals European transition from foraging to farming introduced by the LBK (Linear Pottery Culture), which reached Central Europe circa 5500 calibrated BC (calBC). MtDNA data from Central European hunter-gatherers, i.e. the people who were the original inhabitants of Europe, comprises only of some U lineages (viz. U, U4, U5, and U8) and not even U2 and many other lineages found today in Europe. On the other hand the later Europeans (after 5500 BC) had entirely new DNAs arriving from Asia.

The oldest farming culture of Europe is the LBK. The LBK (i.e. Central Europe after 5500 BC) is characterized by a distinct mtDNA haplogroup (lineages) profile including N1a, T2, K, J, HV, V,W, and X. Although Silva-team have addressed these in the impugned article as European DNAs, these are Iranian in origin and went to Europe only after 5500 BC. Brandt named these haplogroups a mitochondrial “Neolithic package”, and these comprise around 79.4% of the diversity in the LBK, whereas hunter-gatherer lineages are rare comprising only 2.9% (Brandt 2013: page 260). So, the original Europe became minority and got reduced to 2.9% of the population during the LBK period.

Silva et al also claim in the same impugned line, about mtDNA U7, that U7 too is European and migrated from Europe to India. However another article published by a closely allied group of authors Sahakyan, Villems et al (2017) published only recently finds that this mtDNA U7 was present in India about 11,500 years back, and reached Europe about 8000 years back. This also must have originated in Indo-Iran region. We know that Indo-Iranian was one culture before split. And it is useful to describe its territory as Indo-Iran.

Link to Sahakyan 2017 :

also,   (This is another example of these scholars doing poor homework in the haste of being published).




The Claim that Bronze Age migrations were male exclusive is lie

Not only Iranian female lineages migrated into Europe, but also several Indian female lineages (mtDNA) did migrate to Europe in significant numbers, and out of them mtDNA M itself is found in the Eastern Europe, Hungary, Poland etc up to the extent of 3 to 5 percent of population today. This is not a small number. This is almost the same frequency in which the Indian mtDNA “M” lineages are found in Iran today.

So when the Iranian people migrated to Europe with their families, there were Indians (NRIs, Non Resident Indians) too in their group who had earlier arrived into Iran with the farming and other culture. These Indian lineages are scattered all over East Europe and Central Europe and also in Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Arabia and Caucasus. Discussing them all here is beyond the scope of this blog.

The Indian female migrant lineages which are found in Europe today include M5a, M5a1, M35 etc. Malyarchuk (2008). Malyarchuk found that one of the Slovak female lineage (mtDNA) actually had even belonged from Andhra Pradesh in South India. They named it M35b. (Malyarchuk, page 230, column 1, last but 3rd line).


Unfortunately, the Eurocentric academicians label all the Indian DNAs found amongst the Europeans as to be brought there by the Roma Gypsy migration and date them to about 1000 years back. However my study of the Roma DNA found that they migrated to Europe at the late Indus Valley period, when the drought started creating migration pressure on the people of the Indus Valley.  Hence Roma also reflect a Late Bronze Age Indian population, while the other Europeans who are from Indian lineages probably migrated between middle Neolithic period to as late as the Scythian Period.

In fact ancient mtDNA recovered from Central Asia’s Tarim Basin (Xiaohe location) dating to the Bronze Age have many Iranian and Indian lineages. “Nowadays, the M5 variant observed in this study is found mainly in south and southwest Asia. The presence
of hgs U7 and M5 in the Xiaohe people suggests that populations of west/south Asia contributed to the gene pool of the Tarim Basin during the Bronze Age.” [Chunxiang Li 2015: page 5 of 11] Tarim Basin spans from Altai to Mongolia. Link:

In fact today Indian mtDNA M constitutes 72% of Altaian Kazakh population, indicating that this is the place where Indians came in the maximum numbers. (Tarlykov 2013: page 20, Table 1). This matches (overlaps) well with the migration of Indian branch of male lineage R1a known as R1a-Z93. (see Z93’s Eupedia Map).

Lalueza-Fox (2004) was the pioneer of the ancient human DNA studies. Se also found significant Indian DNA presence in Kazakhstan, and she thought that these came from Indo-Iran.

“The general west–east Eurasian composition of the prehistoric samples in the period after the arrival of east Eurasian sequences (after the seventh century BC) is, despite the small sample size (n = 14), quite similar to the values found in the modern Kazakh population: east Eurasian (42.9%), west Eurasian (50%) and Indian (7.1%). Interestingly, the only sequence of Indian origin that was observed, belonging to the M4 haplogroup (Bamshad et al. 2001), originates from a site in the south of Kazakhstan. This fact could correspond to an independent, Indo-Iranian genetic infusion into the steppes.


More direct evidence of Indian migration to Iran, Middle East, Caucasus is provided by the ancient DNAs.

The Indian M52 (mtDNA) has been found from the remains of the Maikop culture which was an Indo-European culture dating back to 3700 BC to 3000 BC. (Solovak et al). Link:

Hence we can say that the Indian families had migrated to north Caucasus region about 5700 years back and these families had gone there with cows and buffaloes and Indo-European language. Clearly they had crossed Armenia before reaching north Caucasus. Armenia is another Indo-European speaking country which shows lot of Indian mtDNA and Y-DNA both.

Hence the conclusion from mtDNA is that the Indo-European migration from India to Europe took place not male specifically but it was both male and female, and often entire families had migrated to Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Armenia and Caucasus, and to a lesser extent as a secondary migration to Eastern Europe up to Romania, Slovakia, Russia, Hungary and Poland.


Y-DNA (male lineages) too migrated from India to Europe

The Silva et al write about R1a branches as their prime evidence. They write (on page 14 of their published pdf document):

“R1a-M17 (R1a-M198 or R1a1a) accounts for 17.5% of male lineages in Indian data overall, and it displays significantly higher frequencies in Indo-European than in Dravidian speakers”. Perhaps Silva has not studied all the papers honestly. This matter has been sorted out much earlier. It has been found that it is not only Indian but in certain Austro-Asiatic tribes of India, its frequency has even been higher than the IE speakers (Sahoo 2006; Sengupta 2006; Sharma 2009; Underhill 2010), and I will not discuss any further this naïve statement by Silva.

Now examine another statement,

“Moreover, not only has R1a been found in all Sintashta and Sintashta derived Andronovo and Srubnaya remains analysed to date at the genome-wide level (nine in total) [76, 77], and been previously identified in a majority of Andronovo (2/3) and post-Andronovo Iron Age (Tagar and Tachtyk: 6/6) male samples from southern central Siberia tested using microsatellite analysis, it has also been identified in other remains across Europe and Central Asia ranging from the Mesolithic up until the Iron Age (Fig. 5).”

Now this statement is a clear example of academic deception. The authors do not reveal here that the ancient samples from Sintashta etc belonged to which branch—Indian branch or European branch. The fact is that they all belonged to the Indian branch Z93. Mathieson has clarified this matter unequivocally:

“Further evidence that migrations originating as far west as central Europe may not have had an important impact on the Late Bronze Age steppe comes from the fact that the Srubnaya possess exclusively (n=6) R1a Y-chromosomes (Supplementary Data Table 1), and four of them (and one Poltavka male) belonged to haplogroup R1a-Z93 which is common in central/south Asians, very rare in present-day Europeans, and absent in all ancient central Europeans studied to date.”  (Mathieson 2015: page 2 of pdf full article in Nature). Link:

Clearly, Silva did not read this article before sitting down to write a paper.

The European branch never came to India but the Indian branch did go to Europe. Underhill wrote, ““Importantly, the virtual absence of M458 chromosomes outside Europe speaks against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including to India, at least since the mid-Holocene.” (Underhill 2010:Abstract)” Had people come from Europe to India or even from Ukraine to India, this European branch R1a-M458 must have arrived to India.


On the other hand the Indian branch R1a-Z93 is present in Europe up to Hungary and Poland. Even in Sintashta, which is considered the Cradle of Europe’s Indo-European culture and language, the ancient DNAs recovered are of the Indian R1a-Z93 and not the European variety, which was reproduced only after the main trunk reached well inside Europe.


Extremely poor knowledge of Silva of the wider picture like human associated migrations of animals, diseases etc

There have been other studies which indirecly prove migration from India to Europe.

Otzi Man and H. pylori infection :

Otzi Man or the European Iceman was recovered from the Alps frozen. His mtDNA and Y-DNA reflected Iranian ancestry, yet the Helicobactor pylori bacteria recovered from his stomach was of the Indian breed. This finding established that fact that the H. pylori infection reached Europe from India (read details in the link).


Mice Migration:

The domestic mouse is a domestic pest of farming culture. It has been shown by a large number of studies that the domestic mice, shrew and rat have originated in India, were domesticated in India, and they migrated with the humans with the Neolithic migration. It is an indirect or circumstantial evidence of Indian origin of farming culture and the Indo-European speakers.



Cow Migration:

It had been found that all the zebu cows of the world are of Indian origin (Chen). Link:

It has been shown that the Ukrainian cows, as well as East European Piedmont etc and Mongolian and Even South Chinese cows migrated from India in a domesticated form long back. Even the Central Asian cattle recovered from Neolithic and Bronze Ages belong to Indian variety (Zebu). (Chen; Kantanen).


The authors also show a gross ignorance of published literature pertaining to the migration issues. Man did not migrate alone. It migrated with its diseases, its pets and pests.


They Do Not Know about Recombinant Technology:

The most sophisticated method of study for the purpose of finding out the Out of Africa route was adopted by the Genographic Project which was funded by IBM, the computer giant. The method was so refined that it could map each step of a thousand mile journey. This method was the most accurate also. It produced the following map of the routes of human migration. It was based on the study of recombination. Every time a sperm is formed or an ovum is formed there is meiosis in which parts of chromosomes crossover. This crossing over takes place in each generation at a different point of the chromosome causing a permanent print of the past all ancestors on the chromosome.

This study found that the humans first came to India (from Africa) and then migrated to all over the world as depicted in this map.

Geno Project Human Migration Map_print

Link Genographic Project web site. 


Silva does not know that only southern route to India is the valid route.

It has been settled so many times by several repeated studies that the modern man came out of Africa from the horn of Africa (Djibouti) crossing Bab-el-Mandeb Strait then through coastal Arabia to Sind-Gujarat region of India (Quintana-Murci 1999; Oppenheimer 2003; Maccaulay 2005; Mellars 2006; Thangaraj 2005; Field 2007; Armitage 2011; Mele 2012). And it has also been conclusively decided that the human migration out of Africa took place only once and not the second time again.


In Quest of the Dates of the Vedas:

 A comprehensive study of the Vedic and the Indo-European flora, fauna and climate over the last 10,000 years in light of the information emerging from the disciplines of archaeology, archaeo-botany, geology, genetics and linguistics

by Premendra Priyadarshi




There has been a perpetual debate about the dates of the Vedas and the origin of the Indo-European speaking people. “Paradigms, especially old ones, die harder than Bruce Willis.” said James Adovasio.[1] There have been explosively new findings in archaeology and genetics, and also in the field of linguistics, having the capacity to rewrite an entirely different history of mankind. But the history as stated in the books and preserved in the minds of the authors has not changed the least.

There is a lot of information in the Vedas which pose the time limits for each of the four Vedic Samhitas. The Rig-Veda does not have wheat, rice, millets, lentil, date-palm (Phoenix). These appear in the Yajur-Veda. From archaeology, we know that wheat and rice both were well cultivated in the Ghaghar-Hakra culture in the fifth millennium BC (Shinde). Thus Rig-Veda must be before that time. Lentil was domesticated in West Asia, but it arrived in India in the Bronze Age. Its absence from the Rig-Veda and presence in the Yajur-Veda speaks a lot about the dates of the two texts. Date-palm arrived in the region in the mid sixth millennium (Costantini). Its absence from the Rig-Veda fixes the date of this text to before the sixth millennium BC.

The finger millet, which came from Africa to India in the late second millennium BC (Fuller) is absent from all the Vedas, clearly indicating that all the Vedas had been edited finally before this time. Contrasting this, the foxtail millet (priyaṅgu), which arrived in India from China during the early Bronze Age has been mentioned in the Yajur-Veda, and not mentioned in the Rig-Veda. This finding would fix the date of the Rig-Veda before the Bronze Age and that of the Yajur-Veda contemporary with the Bronze Age.

The Yajur-Veda corresponds to the wet and warm mid-Holocene (5,500-2500 BC). And this is the reason why we generally get mention of those animals in the Yajur-Veda which lived only in the wet and warm climates, but cannot live in cold dry climates. Such animals are crocodile, tortoise, beaver, rhinoceros etc which are completely absent from the Rig-Veda. Rhinoceros, beaver and crocodile become absent again in the Atharva-Veda indicating change to the dry climate, and placing the Athava-Veda after 1900 BC. However the domestic animals are present in all the periods indicating early domestication of the cow, buffalo, camel and horse.

The period of the Sama-Veda comes to 6000-5,500 BC, which was the transition period between cold-dry Early Holocene and the wet and warm mid-Holocene. The Rig-Veda gets placed in the cold and dry Early Holocene (8000-6000 BC) when the Sarasvati was connected with the Himalayan glaciers.

The DNA of the humans have revealed that once evolved in East Africa, man used the Arabian southern coast as a land-bridge to reach India and then all further human expansion and dispersal took place from there. This has been proved again and again that this was the sole route out of Africa. That the man came out from Africa through the Sinai land-bridge has been ruled out by an infinite number of DNA studies. Yet most of the authors, including even many of the geneticists refer to the out of Africa route as through Sinai to Middle East, and then trifurcating the way one leading to Europe, other to Central Asia and the third to Iran!

The human DNA studies have not been covered in this book, because I have already dwelt on that topic in my previous book The First Civilization of the World. Nor have I discussed here in this book the DNA studies of most of the domestic animals and plants, as they too have been discussed and analyzed in my earlier book as well as some of my journal articles. The conclusion of these DNA studies is that domestic mouse (Mus musculus), black rat (Rattus rattus), Shrew, cow (Bos indicus), pig, buffalo, sheep and goat were domesticated first in India, and then they migrated to the rest of the world. Some of these have been mentioned in this book.

The most powerful blow to the Aryan Invasion Theory came not from the study of the human DNA but from the studies of the horse DNA. The theory had rested on the hypothesis that the steppe was the home of the wild caballus horse Przewalskii, which was domesticated there and with the help of this domesticated horse the countries to the west (Europe) and to the south (India, Iran) were conquered by the Aryans of the steppe. However the DNA examinations of the horses have contradicted this view. They have revealed that the Przewalskii was not a member of the caballus horse species at all, but it was an independent species with two chromosomes more than the true horse–Equus caballus (or Equus ferus f. caballus). Other studies came out with the conclusion that the DNAs recovered from the archaeological remains of the domestic horse found in Central Asia and western steppe were all of the horses originating in China or anywhere else but not in the steppe itself. Frachetti demonstrated that the domestic horse and riding became features of Central Asian nomads in the Common Era, and not before that. Levine clarified that the horse bones recoverd from the steppe and Central Asia belonged to the hunted horses, not the domestic horses.

There is enough evidence generated in literature about origin of the light race horses from the Indian Sivalensis (q.v.). Nearly all of such evidence had been generated by the benevolent generation of the English and other Western scholarship which lived before the Second World War. Current generation of scholars, whether Indian or Western, is more interested in popularity and important positions, and concern for the truth has become uncommon. Thus, whenever DNAs of the domestic horses (or even sheep, goat and camel) of the world have been compared, the Indian samples have been left out.

As such, there is no sound evidence of the origin of the domestic horse from the steppe. Thompson found that either the European wild horse Tarpan or the Mongolian wild horse Przewalskii was the ancestor of the heavier built daft type horse of Europe, and that the lighter race horses of the south like the Arabian horse originated from the Sivalensis. By this time it has become clear that the Tarpan was the ancestor of the European daft horse, not the Przewalskii.

The DNA studies of the living as well as the archaeological horses found that there were centres of local horse domestication in Europe older than the supposed presence of the domestic horse in the steppe. Another development was the collapse of David Anthony’s Dereivka horse of 4200 BC. The claim was retracted by the author himself after the radiocarbon dating of the Dereivka horse’s skull proved him wrong.

The reason why there was a sharp decline in the number of horses after 6000 BC in India is climatic. The mid-Holocene wet climate converted the Indus-Sarasvati region from grassland to a dense forest region making it inhospitable to the wild horse and camel, as well as the ostrich and giraffe. Hence the Indian wild horse Sivalensis became extinct from the wild existence soon after 6000 BC. The regional wild horses either died or migrated to the Thar region in India and also to Iran and South Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Tajikistan). Some of the light Indian horses which had adapted to the high altitudes of the Himalayas too survived this period. But over the time their mares were captured and assimilated into the domestic stock, and they too became extinct from the wild.

During 6000 BC to 2000 BC, and even after that, the Indus-Sarasvati region had only domestic horses, which dwindled greatly in number because of the Vedic ritualistic slaughter of the horse. This is the why we get so less horse bones in the Indus Valley Civilization. But Kazanas pointed out in his lecture delivered in the Patna University in April 2013 that the horse bones do not increase in Indian archaeology even up to 800 BC; and there is no archaeological evidence of any increase in the number of the horse bones in Indian archaeology at about 1500 BC or any time in the second millennium BC. The animal got strongly associated with the burial-ritual and its graphic depiction probably became a taboo. This could be one of the reasons for its not having been depicted in the Indus seals.

When the DNA studies ruled out any human migration from Europe, Central Asia or West Asia to have arrived into India between 8,000 BC and 1000 BC, it was expected that the Aryan Invasion hypothesis would be retracted. However, it did not happen. The argument was changed from “invasion” to “language-conversion”. The languages of North India and Iran were changed under the powerful rule of a handful of invading Aryans who have not left any mark of their genes on India, yet were able to convert the whole of North India into Indo-European speaking within a couple of centuries, at a time when there was no mass media, a very low literacy rate and very restrictive travelling conditions. This is a very far-fetched imagination. This type of language change did not happen in north India during the 600 years of rule by the Persian speaking elite Muslims in India. Nor did it happen in Europe during the period of the Roman Empire or in Spain during the long Arab rule in the country.

Often self-contradictory stands have been taken by people when it comes to the history of India. Thus, Peter Bellwood wrote that the elite-dominance leading to language change cannot operate over a very large population. However when the issue related with India, he supported the hypothesis that the Aryans from Turkey arrived into India with farming, and changed the language of the northern part of India under their dominating farming skills.

There was the need to produce a robust multi-disciplinary work to clarify the confusions, false beliefs and wrong impressions prevailing in the field of Indo-European history. For the purpose, I persuaded and talked with a large number of learned people in India. Failing in my effort, I decided to do the team work alone. By this I mean, I had to myself study the basics of all the disciplines involved and make in-depth examination of the available facts, arguments and possibilities.

The whole philology of the animal and plants having bearing on the homeland issue has been re-examined in this book. It has been established in this book on the basis of philological examination that lion, tiger, mongoose, camel, crab, oyster, conch-snails, carp (fish), snakes (including even the python), frog, tortoise, chameleon and lizard lived in the original home of the Indo-Europeans. These animals are characteristically Indian or southern in distribution and presence of the Indo-European name for these animals proves that the Indo-Europeans lived at a place where these animals were found.

The Lachs Theory of Thieme (1951) has been examined here and it has been found that words lachs etc for “salmon” are actually words from the substrate language of Europe and Central Asia and the cognates are distributed up to Japanese and even North Amerindian languages. Hence, these words are certainly not Indo-European, and the Lachs Theory should not have been launched in the first place. Thus the Lachs Theory can be discarded now onwards in the Indo-European studies.

That the plants mulberry, opium, Calotropis, lotus, Acacia and rose-apple (Indian plum) grew in the homeland has been made evident by the philological survey done in this book. These are typically Indian plants. However there are some European plants which have been claimed by Witzel and the other authors to have been part of the philologically deciphered Indo-European flora. The examination of such claims reveals that there was gross manipulation of facts for achieving such conclusions. The sections on beech and oak demonstrate how scholars have concocted and lied. However attempt has been made in this book to identify the Vedic names of those plants and animals which existed in India in the Early Holocene dry and cold climate but became extinct once the region became wetter and warmer, and are not found in India toady except some of them in the Himalayas.

I have tried not to repeat the arguments of the earlier authors like Nicholas Kazanas, B.B. Lal, S.P. Gupta and Koenraad Elst. However if anything in the argument needed to be explored further that has been done. The fundamental bases of some of the arguments of Parpola, Witzel, Thieme etc have been examined and found to be wrong. Copper toy-chariots have been found from the Indus Valley Civilization (Mackay, Vats), although denied by these authors. There is enormous genetic and cultural evidence of dispersal of Indians in all direction during the Bronze Age, which cannot be accounted for by the hypotheses of the AIT authors.

Although the language used in the Veads is nearly the same, the content covers information of periods separated by thousands of years. Obviously it will have to be accepted that the same contents were given new language as the time changed. Thus the texts were regularly edited for the language change taking place with time within the northwest India’s Indo-European linguistic stock. However it is possible that no further editing has been done after 1300 BC, the date of the last of all the Vedas (Atharva-Veda).

It is easier and better to accept that the language of the texts were changed with time, rather than to say that the two thirds of such a large and populous sub-continent as India changed its language at 1500-1300 BC. Both are assumptions, but which one could have happened more easily is the deciding point—language change of the entire population or the gradual language editing of the sacred texts as time passed. After all it was an oral tradition in which the language changes take place even without being discernible to the speakers.

In this entire book the word “Veda” has been used to imply the respective samhita portions of the four Vedas only. The flora, fauna and climate of the four Vedas are all entirely different from each other as if they describe or pertain to four entirely different periods of time. Such information needed to be correlated with that available from the recent studies in archaeo-biology and geology.

Geology has recently clarified that the Sarasvati River lost her connection with the Himalayan glaciers at about 8900 BP or about 6950 BC. This problem can be only resolved if we date the Rig-Veda to about 6000 to 8000 BC. That was the time when no tiger lived in that region although the lion lived because it was a grassland ecosystem. Consistent with this information we find that there is no mention of the tiger in the Rig-Veda. Historians have ignored the Vedic texts completely while writing about the history of the Vedic period. The Rig-Veda depicts all three modes of life, hunter-gatherer, pastoral and farming. This pertains to the dawn of the Neolithic period.

The reports of the presence or absence of the pollens of the various trees have come out in the last ten years in many scientific journals. They have been thoroughly exhausted here to provide a picture of the different trees or types of ecosystems present during the various eras of the Holocene in India, Iran, Central Asia, the steppe and North and South Europe. This picture explains why some names of certain plants and animals survived in either North Europe or South Europe but not in both.

The survival of the names of the plants and animals depended on the presences of such animals or plants throughout the route of migration as well as at the source and the destination. Such climatic conditions were present in which millennium has been determined in this book on the basis of the recent palynological reports. That gives us the precise date of migration to any particular country or region. This method has been utilized for the first time in this book.

Attempt has been made to identify the some of the animals and plants mentioned in the Rig-Veda or in the later Vedas but which no more exist in India. Or if at all they exist, they exist in the high reaches of the Himalayas and have slipped out of the popular memory. Such plants include the soma, suparṇā, kadru, kuṣṭha, devadāru etc. Such identifications will help the medical field as many of such plants have been mentioned in the Vedas as the cure of some serious diseases like tuberculosis.

Although I believe that the word Aryan has been abused too much, and the phrase ‘original Indo-European speakers’ should be used instead, yet I have used it often because of its brevity and handyness. I do suppose that that was an original language for all mankind, and its relic evidence is printed on all the languages of the world (Bengston and Ruhlen). Thus the family tree of the languages will also emerge parallel to the DNA family trees. Matrilineal trees (mtDNA) would reflect more exactly the language tree. There was a language which was ancestral to all the Indo-European languages, although it was not the same as the suggested PIE forms, but in many ways similar. It cannot be the same because of the limitations of the human minds to visualize the truth. But this language did not come in isolation from the heaven, and it resembled the other languages in its neighbourhood, like the Proto-Munda, Proto-Dravidian etc. In this book, the word Veda has been used to denote the respective Samhita portions only.


[1] My friend Stephen Oppenheimer had once cited  this, and I owe this quote to him.

Mulberry (Morus)

Mulberry tree

In spite of the claims to the fairness, the European Indo-Europeanists never philologically examined the names of any of the typically Indian trees and herbs for assessment whether these belonged to the Indo-European vocabulary. Often many distortions of facts and wrong assumptions were used as evidence to support the claims which were not correct. The case of the mulberry tree well exemplifies this.

Mulberry is a sub-Himalayan forest tree, which grows mainly in India but also in East China, Japan and the Americas (Suttie). It has spread to Europe as a cultivated tree owing to human activity. In Europe, the oldest pollen of the Morus tree has been found from Belgium dating the Late Bronze Age otherwise the botanical samples of the Morus tree are only known as Roman introductions in nearby regions such as France, Germany and the British Isles (Vanessa 2005).

Girdini (2013) reported finding of the mulberry remains from the historical period of Rome. Carroll (2012) noted the presence of Morus pollens from 400-800 BC in the islands of Malta. Anderson et al noted the presence of the mulberry pollens only during the last 100 years in Spain in their study of the pollens from a period spanning about 11,500 years of Spain (2011:1622). Hence it is safe to conclude that the mulberry tree was not found in North Europe and the Western steppe until quite late. It is as late as the first millennium BC that the tree reached Southeast Europe and was cultivated in significant numbers. However the Bronze Age migrations from India to Europe had probably carried some mulberry trees from India to North Europe (Belgium) by the Late Bronze Age (Vanessa 2005).

Several species of Morus indica are found in India. With the growth of the silk trade the tree has spread to Central Asia, Near East and Europe (Sanchez 2000). It was never grown, or even known, in the steppe. However we note that there are at least two PIE reconstructions possible for the mulberry tree, indicating that the Indo-European home was located at a place where mulberry grew, and thus it was not the steppe nor even Europe but most likely in India. One reconstructed word is *moro (Pokorny:749 &), and the other *brahma (of this author, or * bherem of Pokorny:142).

Mulberry 1: PIE moro- (mulberry , Pokorny:749); Sanskrit madhura-vṛkṣa (mulberry-tree; Pokorny does not list this Sanskrit word, however, the word has been recorded by Turner in CDIAL 14733); Arm. mor, mori, moreni (blackberry); Gk. moron (μόρον, mulberry, blackberry); Welsh merwydden (mulberry); Lat. mōrum (mulberry, blackberry; Valpi:271), mōrus (mulberry, Valpi:271); Spanish morera (mulberry), French murier (mulberry); O.H.G. mūr-, mōrbere, M.H.G. mūlber (mulberry); Lith. mõras (mulberry). Cognates of *moro are absent from the IE language of the steppe i.e. Ukrainian, where the mulberry is called shovkoveetsya. This indicates that the steppe was not the source of the PIE word for the mulberry.

A wild mulberry tree Artocarpus lacucha (within the mulberry family Moraceae) has identical fruits and leaves to the mulberry, and has been named madar in Assamese and Bengali languages (CDIAL 9849; madhura>madāra). These words must have migrated with the tree itself when the human contact brought the mulberry tree to Europe during the Bronze Age. Hence there is no identification problem or confusion with the names of other plants and trees. However this contact was not the Indo-European migration which had already taken place many millennia ago in our study.


Mulberry 2: Sanskrit brahma-niṣṭha, brahma-bīja, brahma-bhāga, brahma-sthana, brahmaṇya, brāhmaṇya (all meaning ‘mulberry’, q.v. MWD). The common part is brahma. The mulberry does not grow in the wild in North Europe. Yet, the cognate words of its name have travelled into the Nordic territory and are well represented in the Germanic languages as words which mean the “blackberry”. The migration of this set of cognates must have taken place with the original Indo-European migration. The mulberry did not grow in Europe then, hence the name got applied to blackberry which has similar fruits. These words are:

Proto-Germanic *brāmil, English “broom”, O.E. brōm (broom brush), M.L.G. brām (blackberry bush), O.H.G. brāmo, brāma (blackberry bush), brāmberi (PIE *bherem, Pokorny:142). Other cognates are: Ger. Brombeere, O.E. brēmel, Eng. bramble all meaning the “blackberry”.

The Gothic word bagms (tree) as in baíra-bagms (mulberry tree, Lehmann: 55 note B5) may too be a cognate of the Sanskrit word brahma. Central Indian archaic language Nihali which is not related to the IE, has the word baru (mulberry; Witzel Fulltext:21) which may be an early borrowing of the Indo-European brahma. These cognates probably migrated along with the first post-glacial migration from India to Europe taking place at the early Holocene as R1a1a migration.

It may be noted that although the bramble or the blackberry is a bush, and mulberry is a huge tree, yet the fruits of both look alike, and in the absence of mulberry, the words were rightly applied to the blackberry in North Europe. Just as the cognates of morus, the cognates of brahma- etc too are absent from the modern steppe’s IE languages like Ukrainian, where the bramble is called ozheena.

Source: In Quest of the Dates of the Vedas, pp. 273-276.