India Once Ruled the Americas! [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

Gene Matlock has done it again. He is one of the few modern historian who is not afraid to speak the truth and keeps revealing ancient secrets of India through his amazing findings. His views runs parallel with several historians and scholars such as Dr. David Frawley, Stephen Knapp, George Feuerstein, Godfrey Higgins, Mark Kenoyer to name a few. This is an excellent linguistic approach by Matlock. I first saw Gene's articles at viewzone.com and since then he has opened new doors for me to Indian civilization. Most people try to discredit him but I would request you not to listen to any, but instead find the truth yourself. THIS BOOK IS WORTH EVERY PENNY and I guarantee you will be surpised by the facts presented in this book. I have no doubt Gene's next book will be another Gem!

I have just recently purchased and fully read the book. First, let me mention to you that I have always firmly believed that the original preclassical-ancient peopleing of the Americas was a lot more complex and dynamic than we are often taught. And let me mention to you that I have always firmly believed that there were multiple origin-points of the original American (both N and S) settlements, considering that the expanse of both continents put together are very vast. The continents together are just to big for me to think that the absolute only way in was through Beringia. Thus, there were multiple entrances of people into the Americas; and these other entrances derived from oceanic voyages. This book most certainly explains one of them, the origin and entrance into the Americas from India, which is considerable but only to an extent. The author does imply hyperdiffusionism in the buildup of Mesoamerica and northern South America. However, I disagree with a lot he says, yet agree with only a few things he says. I will discuss them to you, and then I will offer you my conclusion.

What the author implies that holds likely factual basis is that people from India settled in Mesoamerica and northern South America gave an extreme multitude of place names to the regions, which are remarkably similar between the Asian Indian languages and American Indian languages in the aforementioned regions; and way too many to be just a coincidence. The author also implies that several customs from both places, such as food dishes, are also remarkably similar enough to be taken into consideration that this likely holds factual basis as well. The author also implies that there are some similar genetics with those from India and from the particular aforementioned places in the Americas (not a lot, but definitely some; and I have read this from other sources as well). Finally, there are the preclassical-ancient sculptures of the elephant and turbaned rider in several places throughout Mesoamerica, which does offer some actual proof that the author is correct (This is real, and I have checked for this sculpture at another source). Though the author does not mention this in the book, I will add something, which is that early bar-shaped coins from India at c.600BC presents two geometric circles with lines, likely implying that these are two worlds, and that there is another world beyond the Pacific that the Asian Indians knew. It is also already known that India had advanced, seafaring boats, even in preclassical-ancient history.

However, the author also mentions that this migration from India to the Americas had occurred all throughout preclassical ancient history, and continued to occur until roughly 500CE to 1100CE. Certainly there would have been a lot more track records implying these recent migrations; but there are not any. Also, though some other structures and sculptures do show some resemblance between India and Mesoamerica with northern South America, viewing many other surviving ancient structures and scuptures do not imply a connection to India as well, and some are quite unique to the world as well. Also, though the author had mentioned numerous words that are similar in both places, the author does not mention any thorough linguistic or grammatical analyses, only a few word listings. Many other customs from both places do not imply a connection too. So, I cannot conclude the author's hyperdiffusionist theory is correct in entirety or even mostly; but I can conclude something in small part in accordance to the author.

The author mentions that there was an imposed exile of a large number from an Asian Indian lower caste at roughly 3000BCE to the Americas. This is correct from the given evidence in the second paragraph. However, I have to conclude that there were no other mass migrations from India to the Americas. Otherwise, we would have seen or have found more than one kind of definite preclassical-ancient Asian-Indian artifact in the Americas, for instance, and not to mention more historical migration records needed to be present for this. What happened was that this flux of Asian Indians first kept their customs when they arrived in the Americas, and named areas to their language, as they were beginning to explore their new land and establish new settlement grounds. However, without Asian fauna present in the Americas and without rulers from India to impose rules on these numerous outcasted individuals, the preclassical-ancient Americans from India eventually abandoned most (but not all) of their customs, and adopted new ones. Their children and grandchildren born in the Americas, certainly did this too. This would be the pathway for brand new civilizations to be born. Friendly contacts from people with other origins, whether from Siberia, Polynesia, western Africa, etc. to the Asian Indians in Mesoamerica and nothern South America, would also contribute to these newly forming American civilizations.

Therefore, to sum it up, yes I hereby concur that India was indeed present in the Americas in preclassical-ancient history (indicating that yes, there is another origin source for preclassical-ancient peopleing of the Americas), and may have led to the advanced civilizations of Mesoamerica and northern South America; but how India led to these advanced civilizations are as follows and I guote: The spark was diffusionist, but the fire was isolationist. So, the book is worth reading once; but I strongly suggest using your common sense because though I strongly say that a little amount of reading material in the book holds merit, a lot does not. No, there were not any flying machines either, though the author perpetrates it. The Nazca Lines are visible from hilltops, not just from up above. The author also mentions that almost everything else from other world civilizations derive from preclassical-ancient Asian-Indian languages. I am not even going to talk about this.

Gene Matlock's book presents a hyper-diffusionist account of how Hindu culture/religion and many features of the Sanskrit language, originally found in Siberia and later in India, allegedly spread from the latter in an early diaspora to groups such as the Biblical Israelites, early Europeans and Amerindians. This, he says, has been obscured by subsequent degeneration in India and the refusal of mainstream scholars to face the evidence.

However, he himself produces little or no solid evidence. Instead he simply invites his readers to see repeated parallels between myths/legends/popular historical ideas involving India and their equivalents elsewhere. He suggests that archaeological and other evidence supports his views, but it is far from clear that this is so. In places Matlock makes wild claims, eg that ancient Indians used powered aircraft. He quotes various Indian and pro-Hindu sources in his support, but most of them are of low credibility.

However, much of his 'evidence' involves an 18th Century approach to historical linguistics. Matlock identifies unsystematic, superficial similarities between Sanskrit/Indic, Hebrew and Amerindian languages. He concludes that Amerindian and other non-Indian languages derive largely from Sanskrit or Kashmiri. But conclusions like this simply cannot be supported with loose evidence of the kind used (as 200 years of scholarship has made plain). Matlock does not even seem to realise that the grammars and phonologies of Indic and Amerindian languages are completely different in type.

And he oversimplifies the debate on Amerindian origins! He contrasts his ideas and a common traditional Amerindian view (ie, the Amerindians were created where they now live). Fringe archaeologists like Goodman and activists like Deloria have supported such ideas against mainstream scientific findings, and it is easy for Matlock to make them appear less plausible than his own views. But he ignores the mainstream views themselves, ie, there was indeed 'diffusion' from the Old World to the New, but at a much earlier date than he proposes and mainly or entirely by land via Beringia (not by ocean-borne expeditions). In addition, it is not clear why Matlock places so much more reliance on traditional narratives if they come from India rather than from the Americas!

Matlock's exaggerated view of his own importance is displayed in a declaration on the fly-leaf of this book. He warns readers, rather bombastically, that the book will 'destroy' their cherished beliefs and pet theories. It will have no such effect on a well-informed reader, of course. But it might mislead untrained readers - and this gives me my only real reason for bothering to review it.

I urge readers not to buy this book (unless it is very cheap, second-hand). But readers who know enough linguistics may at least have a good laugh.