Friday, 18 July 2025

Names and Epithets, Political Correctness and Woke Cancel-Culture

 

Names and Epithets, Political Correctness and Woke Cancel-Culture

 Shrikant G. Talageri

  

Recently, my article “Did the Hittites have “Mongoloid” Physical Features? And if so, What does it Show?” has apparently raised a storm of protest among certain sections of internet trolls, who have apparently been viciously and abusively attacking me on the twin grounds that my article represents “politically incorrect” views, and relies on “outdated and unscientific criteria now universally rejected”.

Let me state at the very beginning itself that I believe in things being factually correct or incorrect; I believe in things being ethically/morally right or wrong; but I very definitely do not believe in things being politically correct or incorrect. In fact, the half-wittedness of people who believe in political correctness and incorrectness on grounds unconnected with facts or ethics/morality only makes me laugh, even if it is sometimes tinged with sadness at the frailties of mankind and of constant amazement at the stupidity of politically motivated and obsessed people. In short: I care two figs for criticism based on woke dogmas of political correctness which seek to control thoughts by mob gangster tactics and to “cancel” out people who do not follow their lexical dictates. In fact I have a very heady contempt for people who live by illogical politically correct dogmas of word usages and taboos, and I am proud to be lambasted by them. If acceptance of the OIT requires the approval of woke ideologists (and of those who buy their dogmas), I don’t care for (and maybe even don’t want) their acceptance.

 

The extremely stupid nature of “political correctness” first came to my notice many decades ago when I read that Shabana Azmi insisted in an interview that she should not be called an “actress” but an “actor” since the former word was discriminatory strangely, this is one “politically correct” dogma which seems (if one reads newspapers and magazines) to have spread everywhere like wildfire. I wondered then whether she also insisted that she be called a ‘man” rather than a “woman”, or that she should be referred to by the personal pronoun “he/him” rather than “she/her”. Why was “actress” a bad word and “actor” a good one? Did she intrinsically feel male epithets were good and female epithets bad?

Words generally (but naturally, not always let us not initiate “politically correct” dogmas about word etymologies) have innocuous origins, even if some of them acquire new and loaded meanings in the course of time (see words like “gay” and “queer” for example). Thus the word “Aryan”, for the Indo-European languages, arose from the fact that authors of the two oldest Indo-European language texts (the Rigveda and the Avesta) seemed to refer to themselves as “ārya/airya”. But the gross misuse of the word, which led to its association with Nazi racism, gave the word a bad name and removed it from most academic studies. Today, after woke ideology has been running berserk over the civilized world since the last so many decades, all kinds of words have become “politically incorrect” or “taboo” words. The insane extent to which this can go may be seen from the fact that, in 2015, Oxford University Press issued an edict  that authors should not use the word “pig” anywhere in their writings (even when specifically referring to the mammal species of that name) since it would offend Muslim readers!    

Coming to specifics, the words by which scholars originally “classified” human racial types was also based on innocuous descriptive words based on visual perceptions. Thus, caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid were based on the name of the Caucasus mountains (wrongly believed to be the original cradle of “the white race”), the name of the Mongols, and the Latin word “black” (which does not automatically mean “bad”, whether or not the scholars coining these words believed it to be bad) respectively.

 

And was this classification based on divine revelations or scientific analysis. No: it was based on simple visual perception. It was noticed that, by and large, these physical features were not restricted to individuals but to the entire populations of large and almost-contiguous geographical regions:

1. Ask google the question: “which areas of the world have native people formerly classified as "negroid"?

AI-generated answer: “The term "Negroid" was formerly used to categorize people from Sub-Saharan Africa and some isolated populations in South and Southeast Asia. Specifically, it encompassed populations in Africa south of the Sahara Desert, stretching from the southern Sahara to the African Great Lakes region, as well as the Negrito populations of the Andaman Islands, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Papua New Guinea.

2. Ask google the question: “which areas of the world have native people formerly classified as "mongoloid"?

AI-generated answer: “The term "Mongoloid" was a historical racial classification that broadly encompassed populations primarily in East Asia, Southeast Asia, North Asia (Siberia), Central Asia, the Americas (Native Americans), and parts of the Pacific Islands (Polynesia). This classification is now largely outdated and considered scientifically inaccurate and problematic due to its reliance on superficial physical characteristics and its potential to perpetuate harmful stereotypes.

 

Was it morally/ethically wrong or unscientific to note what is before the eyes (though obviously it is morally/ethically wrong as well as unscientific to decide ideas of “superiority” and “inferiority”, or to nurture prejudices and hate-ideologies, on the basis of physical features visible to the eyes)? When we talk of people from certain areas having blonde or red hair, or blue eyes, are we automatically being unscientific and outdated, or hopelessly prejudiced, or automatically believers in racist politics or hate ideologies? Does being politically correct mean becoming (or pretending to be) blind and deaf and giving up the ability to think, or to see what we see?

Yes: woke people believe (or pretend to believe) this, and in fact they make their dogmas of lexical political correctness into weapons for hate-mongering and mob-targeting, and for the cancellation of people and ideas and indeed of Truth and Objectiveness. I have the greatest admiration for J.K.Rowling who courageously faced a veritable siege from woke people for her views on “gender identity” politics. And whether anyone admires me for it or not, and even if everyone attacks me for it, I also stand firm against these satanic woke dogmas. The hate speeches and abuse that I face now only make me laugh.

 

Coming back to the point, people who say the old classification is wrong as a system for classifying mankind (I agree to this part), but then go on to say that the old classification based on physical features visible to the eye has zero value even as visible features, and that the new racist “technology” of “genes” and ‘DNA” disproves and replaces the “outdated” evidence of visible physical features, then I am afraid these people are just newer versions (till even newer ones replace them) of the old “technology” of hair, eyes, skin color and cranial measurements.

See the following questions put to google, and the AI answers. It is clear that there is no direct correlation between visible area-wise physical features (howsoever outdated and politically incorrect as a “science” for “classifying” humanity) and genetic features, that one can be used to disprove the other:

Question put to google: “Do all peoples formerly classified as "mongoloid" have some genes or DNA in common not found in those not so classified?

AI-generated answer: “No, it's not accurate to say that people formerly classified as "Mongoloid" share specific, unique genes or DNA. While there might be some genetic markers that are more common in populations historically labeled as "Mongoloid," there's no single gene or set of genes that defines this group and distinguishes them from others. Human genetic variation is continuous and complex, and attempts to divide people into distinct racial categories based on genetics are not supported by scientific evidence”.

Question put to google: “Do all peoples formerly classified as "negroid" have some genes or DNA in common not found in those not so classified?

AI-generated answer: “No, there is no specific set of genes or DNA that is found in all individuals previously classified as "negroid" and not found in others. Modern genetics demonstrates that humans are remarkably similar at the DNA level, with over 99.9% of their genetic material being identical, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). While there is variation in gene frequencies across populations, this variation does not align with historical racial classifications like "negroid"”.

Question put to google: “Do the Andamanese people have some genes or DNA in common with African people formerly classified as "negroid"?

AI-generated answer: “While Andamanese people do not share significant recent shared ancestry with African populations formerly classified as "negroid," some superficial similarities in physical appearance, like skin tone and hair texture, exist due to similar adaptations to tropical environments rather than shared origins. The Andamanese are believed to be descended from early Southeast Asian populations. The term "negroid" is outdated and considered offensive”.

And yet we have “scientific” clown trolls assuring us that genetics disproves that the Hittites could have had “mongoloid” features”!

 

“Mongoloid”! Yes, though starting out as a word taking the people of Mongolia as a standard physical type, the word has acquired unsavory connotations because of the misuse of the word as a descriptive word for certain disabilities: notably “Down Syndrome”, babies born with this disability being described as “mongoloid” babies. See the following article:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/2020/11/23/how-did-down-syndrome-get-its-name/

But basically, it simply refers to certain types of geography based physical features, neither “superior” nor “inferior” in any way to other types but just physically distinct in appearance.

If just referring to these features in a necessary context is “politically incorrect” or “outdated” according to anyone, I pity people whose minds function on this abysmally low intellectual level. At this rate, if any concerned Indian citizens protest against Indians from the northeast being insulted or discriminated against in urban areas elsewhere in the country only because of their physical features, then we will have to call these concerned citizens “outdated” and “unscientific” for taking official notice of physical features which cannot be attributed to specific “genes” and “DNA”!

 

Physical features visible to the eye are also a measure of the great diversity of the human race. They don’t have to fit in with any “genetic” classifications based on “genes’, “DNA” and “haplogroups” in order to be accepted as valid features. I myself, in referring to the greatness and diversity of Indian culture in every respect, have often written about this same “outdated” classification with pride. For example, in my article; “Why Is Indian Culture the greatest culture in the world? And why is it in mortal peril?” (an extract from the Voice of India Volume "India's Only Communalist" edited by Koenraad Elst, a Commemoration Volume to Sita Ram Goel who (along with Ram Swaroop) was the true Bhishma Pitamaha of Hindutva scholarship, published in 2005. My whole article in that volume was entitled "Sita Ram Goel - Memories and Ideas", and a major portion of that article was uploaded by me on my blogspot as "Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism"), I wrote:

1.“There are three recognised races in the world (Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid), and India is the only area in the world which has all three native to it: the Andaman islanders are the only true Negroids outside Africa. Sometimes, a fourth race, Australoid, is postulated (otherwise included among Caucasoids), and we have it among the Veddas of Sri Lanka. Language wise, six of the nineteen families of languages in the world are found in India, three of them (Dravidian, Andamanese and Burushaski) only in India. And the numerically and politically most important family of languages in the world, Indo-European, originated (as I have shown in my books) in India.

[Yes, in that article, I used the words: “three recognised races in the world”. I meant in the sense of external physical types, not genetic types or racial hierarchical types. But trolls are welcome to make the most of it!]

2. “The idea that Vedic or Sanskrit culture represents Indian culture and that other cultures within India are its subcultures and must be incorporated into it, is wrong…..all other cultures native to this land: the culture of the Andaman islanders, the Nagas, the Mundas, the tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, etc. are all Indian in their own right. They don’t have to be - and should not be - Sanskritised to make them Indian

3. “It will not be an exaggeration to say that the day on which the last of the Andamanese tribals breathes his last breath will be one of the blackest days in our modern human history, in more ways than one. Indian culture will be very much the poorer, by one of its three native races and by one of its six native language families, apart from the different other aspects, most of them probably unrecorded, of Andamanese culture (although I recall seeing a Films Division documentary, “Man in Search of Man”, long ago on Doordarshan, which provided some glimpses of Andamanese culture, including some strains of their music). But, apart from that, it will show how “progress and development” can be as ruthless as “religion”: if the natives of Tasmania were ruthlessly wiped out from the face of this earth, in mediaeval times, in the fanatical name of religion, the natives of the Andaman islands will have been ruthlessly wiped out from the face of this earth, in modern times, in the mindless name of progress and development.

Elsewhere, I have repeatedly expressed my pride in the fact that my family (of Indians) includes people of all “types”, and expressed my frantic desire to oppose forces out to drive these different “types” into oblivion:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-andaman-islanders-and-indian.html 

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-oldest-language-in-world.html

Sorry, but I have no intentions of allowing woke hate-ideologies, even if not consciously “woke”, to dictate my use of words.

 

As for the actual material point about whether or not the Hittites “had mongoloid features” (not “belonged to the mongoloid race”), this is apparently testified to by the numerous contemporary depictions of Hittites by Egyptians and others (and by the Hittites themselves), where they depict the Hittites with a number of “mongoloid’ features, but do not depict non-Hittites with those same features. Whether the early (nineteenth and early twentieth century) scholars were prejudiced or not is immaterial. If they were lying, prove it beyond doubt: until then their perception has to be noted. Whether human beings can indeed be “scientifically” classified by these racial types is also immaterial. And giving as comparable examples totally irrelevant (Jesus depicted in medieval Europe, Krishna depicted in Mughal times, etc.) or isolated (the dancing girl of Harappa) is laughable.

As for my articles apparently making people “laugh”, it is always better (and more an act of piety) to make people laugh than to make them cry. Not that it matters to me either way whether people laugh or cry on reading my articles! And I have never got, or tried to get, any kind of monetary or material advantage from my writings, and see no need to lie or to dissimulate in order to get, or retain, anyone’s approval. So I am actually totally immune and indifferent to trolls: in fact usually I help them to earn some piety by laughing at their rants. No-one has the power to cancel me out!

 

APPENDIX ADDED 20 July 2025:

A Final “ta-ta” to trolls:

I am living a happy retired life, reading my massive collection of (fiction) books, enjoying my massive collection of music, watching films and serials, visiting relatives and meeting friends, eating whatever takes my fancy, doing regular rounds of “Mumbai-Darshan” (or, as the  Marathi phrase goes, doing “jivachi Mumbai”) and generally enjoying myself. I live a happy carefree life (barring health problems which naturally come with age): I do not have or use mobile phones, ATM cards, credit/debit-cards, or “ebanking”. I closed my demat account when I retired six years ago. My nieces had, long ago, opened accounts for me on facebook, linked-in and twitter: but I have never used them and do not even know the passwords (though of course I regularly use google, gmail and youtube). My writing of articles was one serious spoiler in my happy life (especially articles on Politics and History) but now I have finally broken free of those chains. So trolls who are still living in their twilight zone of hatred and abuse are free to enjoy themselves in their own way, as I am enjoying myself in mine.

My regular informants who apprised me of things written about me on twitter still keep me informed, but the only thing that arises out of it now is that we all have a hearty laugh together. For example, today I was informed about one troll who apparently called me the Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva of the OIT! Whatever his intended meaning, which true Hindu would not laugh happily if he was called the Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva of anything? Another liar troll apparently referred to my having “blocked” comments by a critic on my blog! Do google blogs have such a facility of “blocking” comments by specific persons? It is news to me at least. Another medically-trained troll apparently diagnosed me as having “Modi Derangement Syndrome”! Another career counselor troll was apparently busy listing the subjects (the Vājasaneyi Samhita, IVC names in Mesopotamia, etc.) that I should now be studying and analyzing!

To all these trolls, and others like them, I bid my final “ta-ta”, and hope they have a happy time enjoying themselves in their own various ways, as I am enjoying myself in mine after having completely finished writing all that I had to write in this field many times over. 

 

     

 


Sunday, 13 July 2025

Did the Hittites have “Mongoloid” Physical Features? And if so, What does it Show?

 


Did the Hittites have “Mongoloid” Physical Features? And if so, What does it Show?

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

I have stopped writing and stopped responding to trolls and hecklers. One such troll has been trolling me on my blogspot with critical comments/questions on various points, all of which I have conclusively and irrefutably answered so many times in my books and articles that I refuse to repeat things for every new troll.

However (and as I have repeatedly said, I will stir myself to write only if and when I feel something has to be clarified in more detail once and for all) his remarks on the racial features of Hittites made me feel that a more detailed exposition of the situation will not be out of place.

But first, please note that this is a side-feature in my OIT case, and I am not the person to have “discovered” that the Hittites had “mongoloid” racial features. Nevertheless, I have indeed used this as an additional argument for my case, and so it is proper that I should either withdraw the argument as faulty, or reiterate it. I find it completely impossible to withdraw the argument as faulty in any way, as there is no fault. Hence this article to reiterate my argument in more detail.

 

There are two aspects involved:

1. Did the Hittites have “mongoloid” features?

2. If they did, what does it show about their geographical origins?

 

I. Did the Hittites have “mongoloid” features?

 The Hittites as a people have been known from ancient times because of their regular or frequent appearance in texts (including prominent mention in the Old Testament of the Bible), in inscriptions and in carved or painted depictions in West Asia. But nothing detailed was known about their language till the early twentieth century when Linguistic studies became important in Europe, and the concept of language families (and especially the “Aryan” or “Indo-European” family) had become well established in academic studies. It was then discovered that they spoke an Indo-European language: this fact was in fact contested and disputed by many scholars till it was finally proved beyond any doubt.

But their “ethnic” identity was well known long before the discovery of their linguistic identity. It was only in the beginning of the twentieth century that their language was discovered and studied in detail and they were conclusively identified linguistically as Indo-Europeans. Shortly after this, a paper in the Journal of the American Oriental Society makes the following incidental observations: “While the reading of the inscriptions by Hrozny and other scholars has almost conclusively shown that they spoke an Indo-European language, their physical type is clearly Mongoloid, as is shown by their representations both on their own sculptures and on Egyptian monuments. They had high cheek-bones and retreating foreheads.” (CARNOY 1919:117).


Here is what jewishencyclopedia.com has to say on the subject:

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7774-hittites#:~:text=The%20Hittites'%20power%20and%20their,xvi. 

The Hittites as shown both on their own and on Egyptian monuments were clearly Mongoloid in type. They were short and stout, prognathous, and had rather receding foreheads. The cheek-bones were high, the nose was large and straight, forming almost a line with the forehead, and the upper lip protruded. They were yellow in color, with black hair and eyes, and were beardless, while according to the Egyptian paintings they wore their hair in pigtails, although this characteristic does not appear in the Hittite sculptures. They would seem to have come from the northeast of Mesopotamia, and to have worked south into Palestine and west into Asia Minor

 

One more example (or rather two) from the book “The Hittites, The Story of a Forgotten Empire” by A.H.Sayce:

The Hittites were a people with yellow skins and ‘mongoloid’ features whose receding foreheads, oblique eyes, and protruding upper jaws, are represented as faithfully on their own monuments as they are on those of Egypt, so that we cannot accuse the Egyptian artists of caricaturing their enemies” (SAYCE 1890:15).

We have seen that the Hittites were a northern race. Their primitive home probably lay on the northern side of the Taurus. What they were like we can learn both from their own sculptures and from the Egyptian monuments, which agree most remarkably in the delineation of their features. The extraordinary resemblance between the Hittite faces drawn by the Egyptian artists and those depicted by themselves in their bas-reliefs and their hieroglyphs, is a convincing proof of the faithfulness of the Egyptian representations, as well as of the identity of the Hittites of the Egyptian inscriptions with the Hittites of Carchemish and Kappadokia.

It must be confessed that they were not a handsome people. They were short and thick of limb, and the front part of their faces was pushed forward in a curious and somewhat repulsive way. The forehead retreated, the cheek-bones were high, the nostrils were large, the upper lip protrusive. They had, in fact, according to the craniologists, the characteristics of a Mongoloid race. [102] Like the Mongols, moreover, their skins were yellow and their eyes and hair were black. They arranged the hair in the form of a 'pig-tail,' which characterizes them on their own and the Egyptian monuments quite as much as their snow-shoes with upturned toes.

In Syria they doubtless mixed with the Semitic race, and the further south they advanced the more likely they were to become absorbed into the native population.” (SAYCE 1890:101).

 

Many more examples could be given. That they were “mongoloid in appearance” was never doubted or disputed: until the discovery that they spoke an Indo-European language made their “mongoloid” features something to be hushed up so as not to complicate matters in the field of Indo-European studies!

That was already in the early twentieth century. Today, two new factors add to the need to blank out any reference to these “mongoloid features”:

1. The fact that the old colonial European division of mankind into three races (Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid) stands rejected as outdated and unscientific.

2. New ideas about political correctness which frown on any mention of physical features even in neutral terms for academic purposes.

 

Thus, ask the question on google: “Where and when did “mongoloid" racial features originate?” The Artificial Intelligence generated answer (ignoring the “where and when” part): “The concept of "Mongoloid" features originated in the late 18th century as part of a now-discredited system of classifying humans into distinct races. This system, developed by Western scholars, included "Mongoloid," "Caucasoid," and "Negroid" as primary groupings. The term "Mongoloid" was initially used to describe people from East Asia, the Americas, and parts of Oceania. However, modern genetics has shown that this racial classification is not biologically valid.” Further, it clarifies:

The term “Mongoloid” was initially based on perceived physical similarities, particularly facial features, observed in populations across a wide geographic area”.

Modern genetics has demonstrated that the concept of distinct human races, as proposed in the past, is not supported by scientific evidence”.

The term “Mongoloid”, along with related terms like “Mongolian race”, ‘yellow”, or “Asiatic”, is now considered outdated and offensive”.

 

All very politically correct and scientific!

But what the whole thing ignores is “The term “Mongoloid” was initially based on perceived physical similarities, particularly facial features, observed in populations across a wide geographic area”. Whether politically correct or not, whether scientifically valid as a means of classifying mankind or not, these features definitely represented “perceived physical similarities, particularly facial features, observed in populations across a wide geographic area”.

Here the real question is only whether or not these physical features (wrongly accepted as a means of classifying mankind, but correctly perceived as physical features physically visible to the human eye) were distinctly seen among the Hittites or not. Or were the Egyptians (and even the Hittites themselves) hallucinating when they depicted Hittites with those physical features? They were merely objectively depicting what they could see before their eyes: they were not trying to establish systems of classifying mankind, nor were they analyzing Hittite DNA or other genetic features, nor trying to provide grounds for any racial political theories or Linguistic Homeland theories.

No-one has yet produced contemporary recorded evidence of depicted Hittite physical features emphasizing that they did not physically have these particular features but were physically exactly similar to their Egyptian and other neighbors in West Asia, or contemporary written testimonies alleging that the depictions were false. Nor are there any modern studies explaining (and convincingly) why exactly the Egyptians and the Hittites themselves depicted Hittites with these features (and indeed explaining how these depicters were so well acquainted with these particular physical features anyway, to the extent that they regularly and unanimously depicted Hittites with these features).

 

If you put the question “Were the Hittites of mongoloid race?” on google, the Artificial Intelligence generated answer is: “No, the Hittites were not of the Mongoloid race. While some historical accounts and artistic depictions suggest certain physical characteristics that might be associated with Mongoloid features, such as receding foreheads and high cheekbones, this is not the dominant or definitive view among scholars. The Hittites are generally considered to be an Indo-European people who migrated to Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) and established a powerful empire….[since] the prevailing view among historians and anthropologists is that the Hittites were an Indo-European people. Their language Hittite, is classified as part of the Indo-European language family, which also includes languages like Greek, Latin and English

It all boils down to the hand-waving logic: “Oh, we now know that the Hittites were Indo-Europeans, so they cannot possibly have had such physical features. So ignore all those depictions as wrong or irrelevant”!

The case of the gratuitous and automatic transformation of Hittites from having “mongoloid” features to not having “mongoloid” features has several parallels in the AIT/Steppe-Homeland story. The most prominent being how all Indologists analyzing the Vedic evidence before the discovery of the Harappan sites were unanimous that the Aryan invaders were highly civilized people and the natives were savages, But, as soon as the Harappan sites were discovered, it is the natives who became civilized people and the Aryan invaders wandering savages or nomads!

So clearly the “scholarly consensus” is a politically correct afterthought in the context of the discovery that they spoke an IE language, and is not based on the contemporary depictions of the Hittites (or any other kind of evidence) but in fact goes opposite to those depictions!

But, like it or not, the sum of the evidence is still that the Hittites did distinctly have physical features which in the terminology of those times could be correctly described (whether or not now accepted as scientifically valid or politically correct) as “Mongoloid” features.


II. If they did, what does it show about their geographical origins?

If the Hittites did indeed have what (in the terminology of those times) could be described as “mongoloid” physical features, what does it show about their geographical origins?

I have pointed out in my books and articles that it (the presence of “Mongoloid” physical features among the Hittites) fits in with the OIT, where early groups of Druhyus migrated northwards through Afghanistan into eastern Central Asia before later, in more historical times, migrating westwards around the Caspian Sea into eastern Turkey and thence southwards into historical West Asia.

The troll who keeps raising objections to this “racial” evidence tells me: “Your assumption that the Hittites were “mongoloid” because they dwelled in central asia, before emigrating to Anatoila is an unscientific speculation which is premised upon an outdated source. As per modern scientific studies, central asia during those times wasn’t inhabited by mongoloid people, in fact mongoloid/east asian tribes arrived during the the Hunnic/Turkic related migrations which happened in mediaeval period”.

Since I have encountered this kind of obfuscatory pseudo-scientific argument many times in the past, I felt the need to write this article specifically on the “mongoloid Hittites”. So let me put things very clearly (unfortunately, I cannot add “in words of one syllable intelligible to the meanest intelligence” since I will have to use longer words, and also it is basically not a question of intelligence but of honesty and of willingness to accept facts):

 

Firstly, it is necessary for everyone to digest the basic fact that the Hittites did indeed have these “mongoloid features”. And that they were physically distinct from all the other people of West Asia specifically on the basis of these “mongoloid features”. So, clearly, since there is no controversy about them being outsiders in the region, the only question is where exactly did they come from bringing these “mongoloid features” which are clearly new to the region.

There can only be three possibilities. The first one that they dropped out of the sky we can safely dismiss without further discussion.

The only two other possibilities are either that they came from the northwest (Ukraine, Europe or the western Steppes) or that they came from the northeast (Central and eastern Asia).

Apparently, “As per modern scientific studies, central asia during those times wasn’t inhabited by mongoloid people, in fact mongoloid/east asian tribes arrived during the the Hunnic/Turkic related migrations which happened in mediaeval period”. Well, were Ukraine, Europe or the western Steppes everinhabited by mongoloid people”?

As per the following article, there are several subgroups of communities of people with “mongoloid features” based on geographical distribution and morphological variations, covering the following different areas:

1. Eastern Asia (China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia Tibet).

2. Arctic regions (northern Canada, Alaska, Greenland, far eastern Siberia).

3. The Americas.

4. Southeast Asia and many of the Pacific islands.

While the first group, as named in the group, covers only the five countries named above, actually they are found all over the Himalayas and all over the adjoining areas of India. They are also found in Ladakh and northwards and westwards up to most of eastern Central Asia and northern Afghanistan. If the point being made is that they expanded westwards into these areas only in post-Hittite times, then it must be noted that they never ever expanded further westwards into Ukraine, Europe or the western Steppes at any point of time convenient to the Steppe Homeland theory (except in much later historical times as invaders: the Huns and Mongols). Clearly, since the Hittites in West Asia did come from the north, and did have “mongoloid features”, they could only have come from the farther eastern direction than from the western one (i.e. from the direction of eastern central Asia, and not from the direction of Ukraine, Europe or the western Steppes).

 

Or else it is up to those who deny that the Hittites moved into West Asia from an original location in eastern Central Asia to prove that the inhabitants of the “Steppe Homeland” of the ancestral Hittites also had “mongoloid features”.

In any case, it is not enough to claim that “As per modern scientific studies, central asia during those times wasn’t inhabited by mongoloid people”:

1. It would firstly be necessary to provide a century-by-century scientifically proven timetable of the progress of such “mongoloid features” into different regions of Central Asia, to prove that the northern-migrating Druhyus of the OIT (who later became the Hittites in West Asia) could not have acquired these features in the required time frame.

2. It would also be necessary to provide a complete century-by-century itinerary of the northward migrating Druhyus to map out the exact areas of Central Asia (or areas further east) which they inhabited at different points of time before finally turning west and moving southeastwards into northeastern Turkey, to prove that they never at any point of time inhabited any “mongoloid-featured” parts of eastern Central Asia (or areas further east). As I myself, the formulator of the OIT, have never imagined how such an itinerary could be drawn out, I don’t know how anyone else (especially those who deny the Druhyu migrations in the first place) would be able to do so.

So, until new and conclusive evidence surfaces to the contrary, the only conclusion that can be logically accepted is that the Hittites with “mongoloid features” could only have emigrated from eastern Central Asia (or areas further east).           

 

Finally, could this be incorporated into a Steppe Homeland Theory? Theoretically, and by a great amount of special pleading, it could desperately be argued that the Hittites set out from the Ukrainian Steppes and marched eastwards all the way to eastern Central Asia (or areas further east), and had a long sojourn there, before finally turning west and moving southeastwards into northeastern Turkey. But wouldn’t that be a bit too thick for any honest person to swallow? Is it likely that both the earliest branches migrating out of the PIE Homeland could have, separately, made a beeline for the very distant east from Ukraine? Is it not more rational to accept a much shorter and natural journey from NW India through Afghanistan into Central Asia (where, indeed, Tocharian continued to remain till its last breath)?

Even V Gordon Childe, in many ways a pioneer of IE migration theories, and a staunch protagonist of the Steppe origin of the IE languages, had to reluctantly concede in the case of Tocharian itself that it was very difficult to fit it into the AIT paradigm. As Childe put it: “to identify a wandering of Aryans across Turkestan from Europe in a relatively late prehistorical period is frankly difficult” (CHILDE 1926:95-96). What would he have said about any attempt to identify another such wandering (of Hittites this time) as part of a desperate bid to explain the “mongoloid features” of the Hittites?


FINAL NOTE ADDED SAME DAY 14 JULY 2025 EVENING:

I will not add anything more after this, because the kind of rubbish I am going to point out now is the only kind of rubbish that I will get from clowns who think they are very clever but don’t realize they are not.

A clown (“Graviton Denier”: does his name indicate that he denies things of gravity or importance?) has apparently reacted to this article as follows:

https://x.com/jugram51036

Honestly using racial science from 1890 and 1919 instead of modern genetics should be incredibly embarrassing for anyone, let alone an anti-AIT person

7:17 PM· JULY 14, 2025.

Talageri is relying on the same methodology that claimed Romans and Macedonians had Northern european features, egyptians had mediterranian features, etruscans had semitic features etc Racist eurocentrism is fine to him over actual science when it suits his claims”.

7:33 PM· JULY 14, 2025.

Riddle me this, if someone looked at this mughal era rajput painting and assumed Krishna actually looked like this, what face type would he assign Indians too?

7:36 PM· JULY 14, 2025.

 

This clown has apparently not bothered to read the article before jumping into the fray. But clowns never do. The Egyptian and Hittite (note: Egyptian and Hittite) artists who depicted both Egyptians and Hittites were not from some other age and area (as in the examples the clown gives) they were contemporary artists depicting what was before their eyes. And they had no knowledge of “racial science from 1890 and 1919” when they produced their artistic depictions, in which they portrayed the Hittites differently from other West Asians.

I am not “incredibly embarrassed” and have no need to be. But people who display their incredible stupidity with a cleverer-than-thou air do have reason to feel “incredibly embarrassed”. But I don’t think they have the honesty to feel embarrassed. In any case, this is the kind of half-witted reactions that will come, and which (after now having drawn attention to a classic example of such a reaction) I will not bother to waste my time reacting to after this.   


BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CARNOY 1919: Pre-Aryan Origins of the Persian Perfect. pp. 117-121 in The Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol.39, 1919.

CHILDE 1926: The Aryans: A study of Indo-European Origins. Childe, V. Gordon. Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & co. Ltd., London, 1926.

SAYCE 1890:The Hittites, The Story of a forgotten Empire”, the Religious Tract Society, Piccadilly, 1890.