Friday, June 13, 2014

10,000 years ago Ancestors of Native Americans In Mexico,en route from Asia

Date:
 February 27, 2014
Source:
University of Utah
Summary:
Genetic and environmental evidence indicates that after the ancestors of Native Americans left Asia, they spent 10,000 years on a land bridge that once linked Siberia and Alaska. Archaeological evidence is lacking because it drowned when sea levels rose.
University of Utah anthropologist Dennis O'Rourke and two colleagues make that argument in the Friday, Feb. 28, issue of the journal Science. They seek to reconcile existing genetic and paleoenvironmental evidence for human habitation on the Bering land bridge -- also called Beringia -- with an absence of archaeological evidence.
 
O'Rourke says cumulative evidence indicates the ancestors of Native Americans lived on the Bering land bridge "in the neighborhood of 10,000 years," from roughly 25,000 years ago until they began moving into the Americas about 15,000 years ago once glacial ice sheets melted and opened migration routes.
 O'Rourke co-authored the Science Perspective column -- titled "Out of Beringia?" -- with archaeologist John Hoffecker of the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Scott Elias, a paleoecologist at the University of London. Perspective columns in Science don't feature research by the authors, but instead are meant to highlight and provide context for exciting new research in a field or across fields.
"Nobody disputes that the ancestors of Native American peoples came from Asia over the coast and interior of the land bridge" during an ice age called the "last glacial maximum," which lasted from 28,000 to at least 18,000 years ago, O'Rourke says, The ice sheets extended south into the Pacific Northwest, Wyoming, Wisconsin and Ohio. Large expanses of Siberia and Beringia were cold but lacked glaciers.
The absence of archaeological sites and the inhospitable nature of open, treeless landscape known as tundra steppe mean that "archaeologists have not given much credence to the idea there was a population that lived on the Bering land bridge for thousands of years," he adds.
O'Rourke and colleagues say that in recent years, paleoecologists -- scientists who study ancient environments -- drilled sediment cores from the Bering Sea and Alaskan bogs. Those sediments contain pollen, plant and insect fossils, suggesting the Bering land bridge wasn't just barren, grassy tundra steppe but was dotted by "refugia" or refuges where there were brushy shrubs and even trees such as spruce, birch, willow and alder.
"We're putting it together with the archaeology and genetics that speak to American origins and saying, look, there was an environment with trees and shrubs that was very different than the open, grassy steppe. It was an area where people could have had resources, lived and persisted through the last glacial maximum in Beringia," O'Rourke says. "That may have been critical for the people to subsist because they would have had wood for construction and for fires. Otherwise, they would have had to use bone, which is difficult to burn."
A Frozen, Isolated Dawn for the Earliest Americans
During the last glacial maximum, thick glacial ice sheets extended south into what now is the northern United States, sea levels dropped some 400 feet, O'Rourke says. As the glaciers melted, sea levels began to rise, reaching current levels 6,000 years ago.
During the long glacial period, Siberia and Alaska were linked by the Bering land bridge, which contrary to the name's implication, really was a huge swath of land north, between and south of Siberia and Alaska, at the present sites of the Chukchi Sea, the Bering Strait and the Bering Sea, respectively.
At its largest extent, Beringia measured as much as 1,000 miles from north to south and as much as 3,000 miles from Siberia's Verkoyansk Range east to the Mackenzie River in in Canada.
The theory that humans inhabited the Bering land bridge for some 10,000 years "helps explain how a Native American genome (genetic blueprint) became separate from its Asian ancestor," O'Rourke says.
"At some point, the genetic blueprint that defines Native American populations had to become distinct from that Asian ancestry," he explains. "The only way to do that was for the population to be isolated. Most of us don't believe that isolation took place in Siberia because we don't see a place where a population could be sufficiently isolated. It would always have been in contact with other Asian groups on its periphery."
"But if there were these shrub-tundra refugia in central Beringia, that provided a place where isolation could occur" due to distance from Siberia, O'Rourke says.
Genetic and Paleoenvironmental Evidence
O'Rourke and colleagues point to a study of mitochondrial DNA -- genetic information passed by mothers -- sampled from Native Americans throughout the Americas. The study found that the unique genome or genetic blueprint of Native Americans arose sometime before 25,000 years ago but didn't spread through the Americas until about 15,000 years ago.
"This result indicated that a substantial population existed somewhere, in isolation from the rest of Asia, while its genome differentiated from the parental Asian genome," O'Rourke says. "The researchers suggested Beringia as the location for this isolated population, and suggested it existed there for several thousand years before members of the population migrated southward into the rest of North and, ultimately, South America as retreating glaciers provided routes for southern migration."
"Several other genetic-genomic analyses of Native American populations have resulted in similar conclusions," he adds.
"For a long time, many of us thought the land bridge was a uniform tundra-steppe environment" -- a broad windswept grassland devoid of shrubs and trees, O'Rourke says. But in recent years, sediment cores drilled in the Bering Sea and along the Alaskan coast -- the now-submerged lowlands of Beringia -- found pollens of trees and shrubs.
That "suggests Beringia was not a uniform tundra-steppe environment, but a patchwork of environments, including substantial areas of lowland shrub tundra," O'Rourke says. "These shrub-tundra areas were likely refugia for a population that would be invisible archaeologically, since the former Beringian lowlands are now submerged."
"Large herd animals like bison or mammoths likely lived on the highland steppe tundra because they graze. Many smaller animals, birds, elk and moose (which browse shrubs instead of grazing on grass) would have been in the shrub tundra," he adds.
Other research indicates "that much of Beringia -- particularly the lowlands -- appears to have had average summer temperatures nearly identical (or only slightly cooler in some regions) to those in the region today," O'Rourke says. "The local environments likely were not as daunting as many have assumed for years. They probably hunkered down pretty good in the winter though. It would have been cold."
The idea that rising sea levels covered evidence of human migration to the Americas has long been cited by researchers studying how early Native Americans moved south along the Pacific coast as the glaciers receded and sea levels rose. O'Rourke says the idea hasn't been used before to explain the scarcity of archaeological sites in Alaska and Siberia, which were highlands when the land bridge was exposed.
But O'Rourke and his colleagues say archaeological sites must be found in Beringia if the long human layover there is to be confirmed. Although most such sites are underwater, some evidence of human habitation in shrub tundra might remain above sea level in low-lying portions of Alaska and eastern Chukotka (in Russia)."
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of Utah. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:
  1. J. F. Hoffecker, S. A. Elias, D. H. O'Rourke. Out of Beringia? Science, 2014; 343 (6174): 979 DOI: 10.1126/science.1250768

Cite This Page:
University of Utah. "10,000 years on the Bering Land Bridge: Ancestors of Native Americans paused en route from Asia." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 27 February 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140227141854.htm>.

GENETIC HISTORY OF PEOPLE IN INDIA/BHARAT































SHAMEFULL RASHTRAPITA "GANDHI"

When Hindu refugees in Delhi occupied mosques, some Muslim leaders approached Gandhi to seek help in evicting the Hindus. This made him begin a fast and the situation was resolved in the favor of the Muslims. However, when Hindus living in Pakistan suffered violent attacks at the hands of the Muslims, Gandhi did not utter a single word in protest or try to censure the Pakistani government or the concerned Muslims, by way of a fast. This is because Gandhi was well aware that, ...if he went on a fast under the above circumstances, impose some condition for his breaking the same, he would eventually die in the process and no Muslim would ever shed any tears. This was exactly why he deliberately shied away from imposing any conditions on the Muslims. He had learned from experience that, Jinnah would neither be perturbed nor influenced by his fast and his Muslim League would scarcely attach any importance to the same.
Gandhi with his immense popularity among Muslims and the reverence he received from Hindus, could have been an effective mediator between them. Instead, he chose the easy way out. Events indicate that he was quite unmoved by the tribulations of the Hindus, while ready to shed tears for Muslims. May be that was why Khlifa Haji Mehmud of Lurwani, Sind, a devout Muslim once accorded Gandhi the ultimate accolade that any Muslim can give a person, in these words: “Gandhi

was really a Mohammedan” (D Keer, 1980).

HIDDEN HISTORY OF INDIA

Hidden Histories of ancient India ......
Hidden Histories of ancient India ...... 

Battle of Rajasthan: Great Rajput king Bappa Rawal ended Arab rule in Shindh and eastern Persia
In 8th century A.D. Arab Muslims started attacking India within a few decades of the birth of Islam, which was basically an extension of invasion of Persia. In order to ward off Muslim invasions across the western and northern borders of Rajputana, Bappa united the smaller states of Ajmer and Jaisalmer to stop the attacks. Bappa Rawal fought and defeated the Arabs in the country and turned the tide for a while.
Bin Qasim(now considered as hero by Pakistani Zehadi) was able to defeat Dahir in Sindh through treachery but was stopped by Bappa Rawal. Some accounts
say that Qasim attacked Chittor, which was ruled by Mori Rajputs, via Mathura.
Bappa, of Guhilot dynasty, was a commander in Mori army and so was Dahir's son. Bappa defeated and pursued Bin Qasim through Saurashtra and back to the western banks of the Sindhu(i.e.
current day Baluchistan). He then marched on to Ghazni and defeated the local ruler Salim and after nominating a representative returned to Chittor. After Raja Mori named Bappa Rawal his successor and coronated him King of Chittor,
Bappa Rawal and his armies invaded various kingdoms including Kandahar, Khorasan, Turan, Ispahan, Iran and made them vassals of his kingdom. Thus he not only defended India's frontiers but for a brief period was able to expand them.
Bappa Rawal was also known to be a just ruler. After having ruled his kingdom for almost 20 years he abdicated the throne in favour of his son, he became a devout Siva 'upasak' (worshiper of Shiva ) and became a 'Yati' (an ascetic who has full control over his passions). Battle of Rajasthan: Great Rajput king Bappa Rawal ended Arab rule in Shindh and eastern Persia
In 8th century A.D. Ar...ab Muslims started attacking India within a few decades of the birth of Islam, which was basically an extension of invasion of Persia. In order to ward off Muslim invasions across the western and northern borders of Rajputana, Bappa united the smaller states of Ajmer and Jaisalmer to stop the attacks. Bappa Rawal fought and defeated the Arabs in the country and turned the tide for a while.
Bin Qasim(now considered as hero by Pakistani Zehadi) was able to defeat Dahir in Sindh through treachery but was stopped by Bappa Rawal. Some accounts
say that Qasim attacked Chittor, which was ruled by Mori Rajputs, via Mathura.
Bappa, of Guhilot dynasty, was a commander in Mori army and so was Dahir's son. Bappa defeated and pursued Bin Qasim through Saurashtra and back to the western banks of the Sindhu(i.e.
current day Baluchistan). He then marched on to Ghazni and defeated the local ruler Salim and after nominating a representative returned to Chittor. After Raja Mori named Bappa Rawal his successor and coronated him King of Chittor,
Bappa Rawal and his armies invaded various kingdoms including Kandahar, Khorasan, Turan, Ispahan, Iran and made them vassals of his kingdom. Thus he not only defended India's frontiers but for a brief period was able to expand them.
Bappa Rawal was also known to be a just ruler. After having ruled his kingdom for almost 20 years he abdicated the throne in favour of his son, he became a devout Siva 'upasak' (worshiper of Shiva ) and became a 'Yati' (an ascetic who has full control over his passions).

 

AKBAR- A BARBARIC ISLAMIST NOT A GREAT AT ALL.

IS AKBAR REALLY THAT GREAT? I WONDER!
 Akbar is a personage well-known for his religious tolerance. His father Humayun was never free from some problem or the other and so did not devote himself wholly to the cause of Islam. However, his son Akbar amply compensated for the lapse for as soon as he was enthroned as the next emperor he lost no time in becoming a ghazi. After the II Battle of Panipat, he stabbed the half-dead Himu. This ritual was eagerly repeated by many ‘b...rave warriors’ of Islam under the leadership of Bairam Khan, hacking at the dead body. Encyclopedia Britannica describes the general massacre in 1568, under the orders of Akbar, of Rajput soldiers after the fall of Chithor. Akbar’s personal historian, Abul Fazl wrote in his work Akbar-Nãma:
“There were 8,000 fighting Rajputs collected in the fortress, but there were more than 40,000 peasants who took part in watching and serving. From early dawn till midday the bodies of those ill-starred men were consumed by the majesty of the great warrior. Nearly 30,000 men were killed… When Sultan Alauddin (Khalji) took the fort after six months and seven days, the peasantry was not put to death as they had not engaged in fighting. But on this occasion they had shown great zeal and activity. Their excuses after the emergence of victory were of no avail, and orders were given for a general massacre.”
Akbar thus bettered the record of Alauddin Khalji. Even watching a war and serving the soldiers were re-interpreted as acts of war and that was why even non-combatants were massacred. After this act of faith, Akbar hurried to Ajmer to offer profuse thanks to Allah as well as the Prophet, and Muinuddin Chishti his patron saint. He also issued a Fathnãma in which many apposite verses from the Quran were recited to prove that he had faithfully followed in the footsteps of the Prophet.


indianscience
 

GOD'S TERRORIST- AN ISLAMIC WAHABI,SAUDI ARABIC TERRORISM

(Book Review)
I read the book about 1.5 years back. Its a rather engaging history of the Wahabis-Deobandis-Salafi Movements. One of the few honest books on the topic.
Allen traces the issue back to 1761, the third battle of Panipat when Islam was conclusively defeated in India (although the battle itself was a stalemate). Also an excellent coverage of what the Wahabis did in 1857 and later. Particularly, how the NWFP / Afghan tribes have been progressively radicalised by thi...s bunch.
Early on in a nut-shell: Wahhabism spread in the 19th century, first throughout the Arabian penninsula and then to the Indian subcontinent including what are now India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Wahabbism is both a fundamentalist ideology that wins over deep converts, and a form of mercenary religion, buying its way into susceptible corners.

The most important point stressed throughout the book is that Wahhabism is outside the mainstream of Muslim society.

The big surprise for me, and one reason I am distressed at how badly we prepare people for service in this area, is the deep history of Wahhabism among the Pashtun. Today Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Qatar and the United Arab Republic seem bent on funding a religious war in Central and South Asia, and no one seems to be paying attention to this emergent threat. I would go so far as to say we are now, in this region, where we were in 1988-1989 when the Saudis first began funding the global Islamic outreach program led by Sheikh Binbaz and represented in part by young Bin Laden.

Being terribly limited on time, I have not been able to read this book word for word. I have focused on the last two chapters after skimming the rest. Partly my interest is in the period, the last 25 years from 1875 to 1900, during which time the British invaded Afghanistan twice, thinking they were pre-empting the Russians. The Treaty of Gandamak has always been "the most humiliating treaty ever signed" by an Afghan Emir, until the Bi-Lateral Security Agreement (according the most critical commentary, this one in open source literature by a Hezb-i Islami leader).

The destabilization of the region is explained by the author as being made possible by the coincidence of the death in 1877 of Abdul Ghaffur and the subsequent destabilization of Swat, and the peak of the British "forward" policy of encroaching on Afghanistan to preempt the Russians from doing the same.

QUOTE (214): "The real victor of the second Afghan war was the new Amir of Afghanistan, Abdur Rahman." The author credits Rahman with forging the nation via ruthless focused cruelty. In passing he treated the Hazaras as kaffirs subject to jihad, and also relocated many of them with impunity.

The author suggests that Pan-Islamism was inspired by a combination of push-back against the British imperialists, and the need recognized by intelligent Muslim leaders for a modernization of Islamic regions.

From page 272 onwards I learn that the combination of General Muhammad Zio-ul-Haq as military dictator of Pakistan (determined to radically Islamicize Pakistan's government) with the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, led to the perfect storm -- Saudi and CIA money, Pakistan as the enabler, Soviets as the antagonist, and generally, no understanding at all within the west that we were feeding a monster. This was also the period in which Saudi Arabia, playing the US for fools, began exporting virulent Wahabbism toward Indonesia, and also the time when the first cracks appeared for the House of Saud.

According to the author Bin Laden was radicalized by three coincident events:

01 The revolution of the ayatollahs in Iran
02 Violent seizure of the Grand Mosque
03 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

This book covers ground that was missed in Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001.

The author discusses the one million man gathering of the Assembly of Islamic Scholars (Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam) in April 2001, five months prior to 9/11. This was a culminating point going back to the 1996 election of Mullah Omar of Afghanistan as "Commander of the Faithful." The author makes the point that the Pashtun embraced that election, but not the rest of the tribes of Afghanistan (Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazara, others).

On page 292 the author credits the key switch of sides by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a switch that helped pave the way for the Taliban to take Kabul, to Saudi money. He paints a picture of a triad among Mullah Omar, Bin Laden, and Al-Zawarhri. At this point I cannot help but observe, once again (I began making this point in 2002) that the US still does not "do" intelligence at the individual and sub-state actor level, our track and whack programs being the exception but not the rule.

QUOTE (295): "History teaches that fundamentalist theocracy does not work, because people will simply not put p with it. It may secure a foothold in societies that are isolated and ignorant, but rarely does it outlast its main propagator. It's usual course is to fragment into splinter groups, each accusing the others of heresy."

QUOTE (295): "History also demonstrates that fundamentalists will always be listened to whenever and wherever people believe themselves or their religion or their co-religionists to be threatened. That does not mean the fundamentalists will be followed, but it does mean that they will find popular support."

The author goes on to emphasize on page 296 that the rise and spread of the madrasses in the 1970's was not a bursting of religious zeal, but rather a "direct consequence of political intervention only made possible by Saudi funding."

The book ends on a stellar note that the West -- other than the Nordics -- does not get:

QUOTE (297): "The same lesson applies: remove the grievances and mainstream moderate Islam stands a better change of reasserting itself."

Malaysia and Indonesia stand today as bastions of moderate intelligent Islam. Turkey remains a bit confused but rising fast to its earlier heights -- I look for a fascinating competition among Iran, Turkey, and India for the soul of South and Central Asia.

Summing up: an extraordinary book that is not written for the lay person, that needs to be updated, and that in its next iteration could go beyond classic status to become a MAJOR reference for how we understand the Sunni - Shi'ite fight for the hearts and minds of the inhabitants of South and Central Asia. This is the religious war of the century, and the West seems to be oblivious to the fact that Saudi Arabia has declared that war rather blatantly in recent months.

Other books I have reviewed that bear on this theme (with the observation that we are not at war with Islam, we are at war with Zionism and Wahhabism, two perversions far removed from mainstream constructive religion):

The Thistle and the Drone: How America's War on Terror Became a Global War on Tribal Islam
Winning the Long War: Retaking the Offensive against Radical Islam
Endless War: Middle-Eastern Islam vs. Western Civilization
Religion, The Missing Dimension of Statecraft
Fountainhead of Jihad: The Haqqani Nexus, 1973-2012
Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West
Surrender to Kindness: One Man's Epic Journey for Love and Peace
Islamic Leviathan: Islam and the Making of State Power (Religion and Global Politics)
While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within

Raja Hem Chandra Vikramaditya -NAPOLEON OF MEDIEVAL INDIA

Gulshandeep Singh's photo.Raja Hem Chandra Vikramaditya the Napoleon of medieval India(1501 – 5 November 1556)
Hemu was a shopkeeper in rewari. he was born in a Hindu Brahmin family. By his uncommon ability and commanding power . hemu had raised himself to the cabinet of adil shah , the afgan musician prince of chunar, later adil shah made him his first minister and chief commander of his army. Ever since humayun died , hemu had been planing to attack the mughals. Hemu never saw defeat in a battle, and had romped from victory to victory after one another throughout his life . He fought Afghan rebels across North India from the Punjab to Bengal and the Mughal forces of Akbar and Humayun in Agra and Delhi, winning 22 consecutive battles. Enemies used to fled in panic from battle from just hearing his name (Iskander Khan Uzbeg in agra a strong mughal hold)hemu’s army was five time superior comparative to akbar’s army . Hemu won the loyalty of his soldiers by his ready distribution of the spoils of war among his soldiers.
in 1556, hemu launched a surprise attack against the mughals, and captured delhi ,he declared himself as emperor. The king . he refused to be called badshah and prefered to be called raja. He had assumed the title of "Vikramaditya” since vedic times many kings had adopted this title. His rajyabhishek (coronation) as raja was held at Purana Qila in Delhi. Hemu re-established the native Hindu rule (albeit for a short duration) in North India, after over 350 years of Muslim(Turkic and Mughal) rule. Hemu also had struck coins bearing his name or title.
However , bairam khan the guardian of akbar, insisted on fighting hemu in an effort to win back delhi. On november 5, 1556, the mughal army met hemu’s army at the historic battle field of panipat . it was the second battle of panipat,in this battle akbar and bairam khan stayed back eight miles away from the battleground with the instructions to leave India in case of defeat. but hemu led his large army himself,sitting atop an elephant. akbar and bairam khan had a treacherous plan a man muslim solder was hiding is disguise in hemu’s army and he struk an arrow in his”hemu” eye on right time, unfortunately there plan worked, arraow struck in his eye and hemu collapsed unconscious . his troops thought he was dead and fled, and thus hemu’s army was defeated 5000 soldiers of Hemu were slain . the unconscious hemu was carried to akbar’s camp , where he was beheaded a tregic end for a brave warrior.some sources speak different thing about his death it say’s his death wass not quick it took several days real slow”in pieces”. Hemu's head was sent to Kabul in Afghanistan, where it was hanged outside the Delhi Darwaza, to be shown to Afghans to prove that the great Hindu warrior is dead, while his body was placed in a gibbet outside Purana Quila in Delhi to terrorise the native Indians.
After Hemu's death, a massacre of Hemu's community and followers was ordered by Bairam Khan. Thousands were beheaded and towers of skulls were built with their heads, to instill terror among the Hindus and Afghans. At least one painting of such minarets is displayed in the "Panipat Wars Museum" at Panipat in Haryana. These towers were still in existence about 60 years later as described by Peter Mundy, a British traveler who visited India during the time of Jahangir.
AND THIS WAS SO CALLED GREAT AKBAR-A MURDERER.