4 ms·

the word for rice also comes from tamil arici and not from the chinese mi unexpectedly even the japanese use a form of the tamil word coupled with the chinese

the word for rice also comes from tamil arici and not from the chinese mi unexpectedly even the japanese use a form of the tamil word coupled with the chinese word uruchi mai leading to theories of dravidian japanese linkages or atleast contact and trade but the debate of whether the tamil word itself comes from sanskrit vrihi is not settled there is the possibility of agriculture spreading to north india from south india and lanka starting 17.5kya and then on to the fertile crescent as well contrary to popular beliefs http://indiafacts.org/how-old-is-indian-agriculture/ http://indiafacts.org/how-old-is-indian-agriculture/

iamshs 8y ago
Why are linking to a site that is known to spread falsehoods?
- dzhshnacct 8y ago
  yes the site is anathema to indian marxists please argue on merits of the content of the article if you think there is something false please point to the specifics
  - iamshs 8y ago
    Indian marxist? No wonder you belong and advocate views of Hindu nationalist party of India, BJP. Pathetic diss. Two Points regarding the article:- 1. Author says agriculture first started in Sri Lanka, and then uses that to say India was the country where agriculture started. Completely ignoring the fact that Sri Lanka is not in India. 2. Author says, "India cannot now be ruled out as the home of the grape, in which case, we would have a Neolithic-era spread of a crop from India to the FC and beyond." His whole assertion is this paper [A], where all the paper authors say is that grape could have been present in India before the presently accepted timeline, they don't say anything about India being home of the grape or even if grape spread out from India. IndiaFacts did quite a reach there just for proving supremacy of India. So yeah again, a better site for your ignorant BS. It is better to not bring your level of discourse to this site. [A] - http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Downloads/article_id_097_04_0564_0572_0.pdf http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Downloads/article_id_097_04_...
    - dzhshnacct 8y ago
      17.5kya lanka was part of the indian landmass according to the article due to sea level differences rest of your nit picking i will ignore since you seem to have accepted and not disputed the main claim of lankan agri well before the fertile crescent
      - iamshs 8y ago
        >17.5kya lanka was part of the indian landmass according to the article due to sea level differences Any other independent source for it?
  - dang 8y ago
    Can you please not use HN for ideological and nationalistic argument? This is definitely not what the site is for, and you've done it a lot already.

iamshs 8y ago

Why are linking to a site that is known to spread falsehoods?

dzhshnacct 8y ago
yes the site is anathema to indian marxists please argue on merits of the content of the article if you think there is something false please point to the specifics
- iamshs 8y ago
  Indian marxist? No wonder you belong and advocate views of Hindu nationalist party of India, BJP. Pathetic diss. Two Points regarding the article:- 1. Author says agriculture first started in Sri Lanka, and then uses that to say India was the country where agriculture started. Completely ignoring the fact that Sri Lanka is not in India. 2. Author says, "India cannot now be ruled out as the home of the grape, in which case, we would have a Neolithic-era spread of a crop from India to the FC and beyond." His whole assertion is this paper [A], where all the paper authors say is that grape could have been present in India before the presently accepted timeline, they don't say anything about India being home of the grape or even if grape spread out from India. IndiaFacts did quite a reach there just for proving supremacy of India. So yeah again, a better site for your ignorant BS. It is better to not bring your level of discourse to this site. [A] - http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Downloads/article_id_097_04_0564_0572_0.pdf http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Downloads/article_id_097_04_...
  - dzhshnacct 8y ago
    17.5kya lanka was part of the indian landmass according to the article due to sea level differences rest of your nit picking i will ignore since you seem to have accepted and not disputed the main claim of lankan agri well before the fertile crescent
    - iamshs 8y ago
      >17.5kya lanka was part of the indian landmass according to the article due to sea level differences Any other independent source for it?
- dang 8y ago
  Can you please not use HN for ideological and nationalistic argument? This is definitely not what the site is for, and you've done it a lot already.