India – Cradle for all non-African people

Subhash Kak has a new article in Rediff which, based on the findings of an Oxford University scholar Stephen Oppenheimer, says that

Oppenheimer concludes with two extraordinary conclusions: ‘First, that the Europeans’ genetic homeland was originally in South Asia in the Pakistan/Gulf region over 50,000 years ago; and second, that the Europeans’ ancestors followed at least two widely separated routes to arrive, ultimately, in the same cold but rich garden. The earliest of these routes was the Fertile Crescent. The second early route from South Asia to Europe may have been up the Indus into Kashmir and on to Central Asia, where perhaps more than 40,000 years ago hunters first started bringing down game as large as mammoths.’

This synthesis of genetic evidence makes it possible to understand the divide between the north and the south Indian languages. It appears that the Dravidian languages are more ancient, and the Aryan languages evolved in India over thousands of years before migrations took them to central Asia and westward to Europe. The proto-Dravidian languages had also, through the ocean route, reached northeast Asia, explaining the connections between the Dravidian family and the Korean and the Japanese.

Perhaps this new understanding will encourage Indian politicians to get away from the polemics of who the original inhabitants of India are, since that should not matter one way or the other in the governance of the country. Indian politics has long been plagued by the Aryan invasion narrative, which was created by English scholars of the 19th century; it is fitting that another Englishman, Stephen Oppenheimer, should announce its demise. [The cradle that is India]

To see an animated version of human migration, visit the site of the Bradshaw Foundation. The theory that India was the cradle for all non-African people will be pretty hard to digest for many people.


  1. On the other hand I am just A OK with Dravidian being older than Indo European. It kinda was my feeling all these years. Inspite of stiff resistance and disbelief.

    You know, there’s a saying in Tamil about it’s antiquity Apparently,tamil evolved “Kal thondri, man thondra” – When there was rock, but no sand. I think its a brilliant,and (apparently, now more so) true a description.

    What is thisfertile crecent? Which country is he talking about?

  2. Proof enough for ya?

    Well, long time readers (have I been beginning too many posts this way?) know that I am an ardent,loud,and often brash supporter of Tamil’s antiquity, and haveeven said that Tamil is prolly older than Sanskrit. Readers will also know of my debunking th…

Comments are closed.