Sunday, August 31, 2014

The Greek speakers and the Origin of the Indo-European family of languages



It is important to remember that the relationship between Indo-European and Indo-Aryan language, especially Sanskrit is via the Greek language. Greek influenced other European languages because it was recognized as a language of culture and civilization by the Romans.
It was in Pakistan that the Greek language was probably incorporated into Sanskrit. Many of the rules for Sanskrit were codified by Panini, who was born in Salatura, in Northwest Pakistan. Panini’s grammar contains 4000 rules.
When Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit, it was spoken by the elites in the area. Greek was also popular when Panini wrote the Sanskrit grammar. The Greeks were called Yunani or Yavana. Thus we learn from Agrawala (1953) that the Yavanani lipi (edict) was well known in Gandahara, and even Panini mentions the Yavana in his grammar . The term Yauna meant Ionian (Woodcock, 1966).
The history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting. When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327 B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By 180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline, the Greek Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander (d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila. The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966).
Many Greek terms were probably already incorporated in the Prakrits of Northern India-Pakistan and Central Asia. Here the Greeks minted their coins with Kharoshthi, Brahmi and Greek inscriptions.
Greek was used for commercial purposes and served as a patrician lingua franca of the Kabul valley and of Gandhara. During the rule of Pushyamitra many Greeks settled in India. Due to the long history of Greeks in India, Ashoka had some of his edicts written in Greek and Aramaic bilinguals. In 44 A.D., Appolonius of Tyana when he visited Taxila found that merchants and kings learned Greek “as a matter of course” (Rahman, 2004; Woodcock,1966).
Given the popularity of Greek in the region it is not surprising that Sanskrit would show such a strong relationship to the Indic languages, since it was spoken throughout the area of a couple of hundred years. Commenting on the Greek rulers of India, Kulke and Rothermund (1998), said that “They are referred to as ‘Indo-Greeks’, and there were about forty such kings and rulers who controlled large areas of northwestern India and Afghanistan….They appear as Yavanas in stray references in Indian literature, and there are few but important references in European sources. In these distant outposts, the representatives of the Hellenic policy survived the defeat of their Western compatriots at the hands of the Parthians for more than a century” (p.70). The greatest of the Indo-Greek rulers was Menander, who is mentioned in the famous Milindapanho text. The Shakas adopted many elements of Indo-Greek culture which they perpetuated in India for over 100 years (Rahman, 2004).
It is impossible to argue for a genetic relationship between Vedic and Greek languages based on the fact that speakers of these languages formerly lived in intimate contact in historical times. Secondly, we know the Dravidians were in Greece before the Indo-Europeans enter the country. These non-I-E speakers were called Pelasgians. As a result, Anna Morpurgo Davies, The linguistic evidence:Is there any?, in Gerald Cadogan, The End of the early Bronze Age in the Agean (pp.93-123), says that only 40% of Greek is of Indo-European etymology (p.105). Since only 40% of the Greek terms are of I-E origin, many of the Greek terms that agree with the Indic languages may be from the 60% of the Greek lexical items that came from non-I-E speakers which as noted by Lahovary in Dravidian origins and the West, were people who spoke either Dravidian languages, or other languages from Africa, genetically related to the Dravidian group.
In conclusion, as a result of the Greek influence in Bactria and India-Pakistan , Indians and Bactrians had to acquire "Greek Culture" to enhance their position and opportunity in North India and Bactria during Greek rule. Greek rule placed prestige on status elements introduced into the region by the Greeks, especially the Greek language. Status acquired by Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis was thus centered around acquisition of Greek language and Greek culture. This supported by the evidence that Indian elites used Greek in business and government (Rahman, 2004). This would have inturn added pressure on the Bactrians to incorporate Greek terms into a Bactrian lingua franca (i.e., Tocharian).
Given the fact that Greek administrators in Bactria and Northern India-Pakistan ,refused to fully integrate Bactrians and Indians into the ruling elite, unless they were “well versed in Greek culture and language) led to subsequent generations of native Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis to progressively incorporate more Greek terms into their native language. This would explain why Tocharian has many features that relate to certain IE etymologies and Panini’s Sanskrit grammar, present many terms that are associated with the Greeks, but illustrates little affinity to Indo-Iranian languages which are geographically and temporally closer to Tocharian.
Some researchers might dispute the influence of the Greek language on Sanskrit because Panini’s grammar was suppose to have been written around 400 B.C. This date for the grammar might be too early, because Rahman (2004) and Agrawala (1953) maintains that Greek was spoken in Gandahara in Panini’s time.
The influence of colonial Greeks in Central Asia would explain why the most important evidence of an I-E relationship with Sanskrit. The historical connections between the so-called Indo-European languages probably respect an areal linguistic relationship—not genetic relationship.

Here I discuss in detail the relationship between Greek and Sanskrit
http://www.federatio.org/joes/EurasianStudies_0310.pdf
see pages 70-77.

.

Dravidians and Aryans in Anatolia


To understand the relationship between Dravidian languages and Prakrits you must understand the history of Kushites, the people of Kusha Dwipa. In the Puranas the region from Arabia to Mesopotamia and India and lands below Egypt were belonged to Kusha Dwipa.

Once you recognize the history of the Tamil in Anatolia, as represented by the Kassites, and the fact that the Hattic, Hurrian and Kaska people also belonged the C-Group (or Kushite) people who left Nubia in search of metals after 3500 BC explains why Dravidian languages are at the base of Sanskrit and the Pakrits. Although the original "Aryans" spoke languages related to the Dravidian group when they entered India they came to settle new lands in where the majority of the population lived in city-states instead of an Empire with a central administration.

The Hattic, Kaska and Kassite people desperate for land because the Hittites, the first Indo-European speakers had forced them from Anatolia sent these nationalities eastward in search of new lands. Under the Elamites and original Persians these nomadic people were unable to establish themselves in Iran, except among the hunter-gather groups which may have been composed of the Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers.The Anatolians probably intermarried with Iranian speakers and probably adopted many Elamite/Old Persian terms, and like the Elamite/ Old Persians used the term Arya to denote their Anatolian heritage as rulers and elits.

Consequently, when the Aryans (Kassite, Hurrian, Hattic,and Iranians) probably entered India and found much of the authority situated in city-states (walled villages) the Aryans (Kassites, Hattic, Hurrian and Iranian speakers) were able to concentrate their forces and easily overthrow the Dravidian City-States and thus conqueror the North. The nomadic nature of these Aryans and led to their lost of the polish and sofhistication they manifested when they were the rulers of Anatolia.

As a result, there were probably numerous attempts of the Vedic people to return to Anatolia and recapture their heritage. But over time Europeans and Gutians took control of the region and they were forced make India the center of their culture and civilization.

If this is an accurate account of the origin and spread of the Indo-Aryan people to India, it would appear that the Indo-Aryan people would have remained a significant minority in India if not for the fact the India they entered was made up of City-States , instead of an Empire with a centralized polity and military.

Aryan is not a racial term.



Over the years there have been many discussions of the term Aryan. Due to Nazism people believe this term relates to a racial group. This is not the true definition of ARYAN.
  • --- In Ta_Seti@yahoogroups.com, "ulagankmy" wrote:
    Dear Dr Winters

    As you are aware, the word 'aariyan' is a Tamil word, an ancient one at
    that and which has been borrowed by many tribes in deep past. Probably the root is Su. a and Ta. aal, to spread out, powerful, strong etc.


    Sumerian a-ri-a and Tamil aariyan

    The noun aal-al ( >aaRRal) which means strength, capacity and so forth is still in use in Tamil . The following note may help out to destroy the myth that Europeans were the Aryans.

    Related to this is that the whole of Rig Veda and related literature in
    Rigkrit is another variant of SumeroTamil. As such it has nothing to
    do with any "Aryan' family of languages - it is a pure fiction





    The word "aryan " that has acquired a racial connation has become one of
    the most important words to divide of Indian into Aryan and Dravidian with vrious antagonisms along racial lines. The growth of 19th century
    Dravidian movements in Tamil Nadu which has become political in the 20th
    cent. and the cultural movements to purify Tamil by cleaning it of the so-called Sanskrit terms are related to this. The replacemnt of Tamil as the language of Temple Worship among the tamils however has a different
    historical basis. It was something introduced by Ramanuja and on
    philosophical grounds. The Sanskrit literature , under the impact of
    Sankara became predominantly Advaitic Vedantic and hence was seen as
    detrimental to the growth of Bakthi and for which reason Ramaunuja
    installed the recitation of Thruvaymozi in the temples in place of Vedic
    mantras. One can see the present movement of the Saivites to give the
    place of honour to Tamil particularly the Thevaram corpus as something like that of Ramanuja, who incidently was a Brahamin and who wrote only in Sanskrit despite being a brilliant Tamil scholar.

    At the moment and perhaps mainly due to IndoEuropean scholarship the
    excitment and arrogance with which the Brahmins in Tamil Nadu received
    this, which is mainly a hypothesis , and who started to call themseves the scions of these Aryans is that which unnderlies the Brahmin-bashing that continues to this day. I have a colletion of litwrature in Tamil towards the end of 19th ,where the Smartha brahmins called themselves Aryans and went on to criticise severely Saiva Sidddhanta and many other philosophies of the Tamils. The Dravidian identity was fostered by Bihop Caldwell with his epoch making "Comparative study of Dravidian Languages" which was well received by the Tamil scholars but vehemently challenged by the Smartha Brahmins.

    This association of Tamil Brahmins with Aryanism and also Sanskrit along
    with it, still continues and will continue perhaps for a long time. It is certainly unfortunate for such a hatred for the TERM aryan is NOT to be met with in traditional India where the primary meaning of Aryan as used in Thevaram corpus Kamba Ramayan and so forth and perhaps also as Dhammapada did not have the racial sense at all rather that of "exceptional or brilliant individual" as in Tamil " ariyan'

    In Sangam classics there are several uses of it .

    1. aariyar tuvanRiya peerisai imayam: the famed Himalayas where dwell the Aryas. Here it certainly means a group of people bordering the Himalayas and in sense a generic term for all those who dwelt in the North of India

    2. aariyak kuuttu: here it means a noisy kind of dance especially those
    like walking on ropes to the accopaniment of loud and boisterous music.

    3. ariyamum tamizum: This phrase used by Appar and so forth applies to the Languages and here aariyam means certainly Sanskrit. Here we see the
    beginnings of the use of Aryan and Dravidian (=Tamil) in linguistic terms but without any anatogonistic emotional undertones. For both are recognised as languages founded by Siva.

    Ariyan as the Brilliant , Resplendent Principle and hence another variant for Siva

    We see the use of Aryan in this sense in the following verse of Tirumular

    Tirumantiram 134.

    puraiyaRRa paalinuL ney kalataaR pool
    tirai aRra cintaiyil aariyan ceppum
    uraiyaR RuNarvoor udambing kozitaaR
    karaiyaRRa cooti kalawthasat taame
    Meaning

    BEING emerges but stands as the Unconscious in the mind that
    becomes unruffled by any earthly desires just like ghee
    being present invisibly in the pure milk. Those who transcend
    speech ( by transcending temporality) and LISTEN in
    DEEP SILENCE to the instructions on Absolute Illumination that
    BEING-the -Radiant instructs on (through the language of Cin
    Muttirai) will untie themselves from all attachments to the
    physical body and becoming FREE from it, plunge into
    Boundless Radiance and through that also become a Sat, an
    absolute (just like BEING)

    Here Ariyan is used as anohter name for Civa, the Immensely Radiant BEING who illuminates all and helps the attainment of genuine freedom through the severances to all the bondages.
    The use of Aryan in the sense 'divine" that the above suggests is also
    available in Kampan's description of Rama as "aariya maintan". Here it may also mean the "royal, the kingly" etc.

    Su. a -ri-a

    The Tamil 'aariyan' that has has so many different meanings and hence
    possibly with different etymological roots also occurs in Sumerian in the sense "divine, royal " etc as the following line from Sulgis MutarIbuyam (Hymn B) would indicate.

    11. lugal-e lugal-a-ri-a nin-e -tu-da -me-en
    I, the king of Royal descent, who a princess bore.
    Ta. uLukaLee uLugak aariya(ariya) ninnee todda maan

    lu> uLu> aaLu, aaL: person. gal> kaL: great -e: -ee: the suffix that
    isolates that which is named ; the teeRRa eekaaram. a-ri-a> ariya (the
    rare) ; aariya: the royal , divine etc. nin> Nin, nan: the lofty: tu-da>
    todda; to bear , to give birth; me-en> maan: the person as in ceeramaan,
    atikaimaan etc The term" lugal-aria" is almost identical with the Tamil usage of Arya maintain such as that of Kamban. And this may be the sense in the use of Arya by Buddha in Dhammapada.

    It is also interesting that in the long history of Tamil literature nowhere we come across the Brahmins being called or call themselves as Aryas. Even in Sangam epoch we have kapilar, known as a Brahamana calling himself AntaN and NOT Aryan. This term has been more in use with the royalties and as an alternative term for Siva , the Brilliant Principle, the supremely radiant BEING that illuminates all minds arising as the inner sun.

The Hatti a Kushite people who lived in Anatolia


In the ancient literature the Proto Dravidians are called Kushites. Using boats the Kushites moved down ancient waterways many now dried up, to establish new towns in Asia and Europe after 3500 BC. The Kushites remained supreme around the world until 1400 1200 BC. During this period the Hua (Chinese) and Indo European (I E) speakers began to conquer the Kushites whose cities and economies were destroyed as a result of natural catastrophes which took place on the planet between 1400 1200 BC. Later, after 500 AD, Turkish speaking people began to settle parts of Central Asia. This is the reason behind the presence of the K s h element in many place names in Asia e.g., Kashgar, HinduKush, and Kosh. The HinduKush in Harappan times had lapis lazuli deposits.

 -


Proto Saharans/Kushites expanded into Inner Asia from two primary points of dispersal : Iran and Anatolia. In Anatolia the Kushites were called Hattians and Kaska. In the 2nd millennium BC, the north and east of Anatolia was inhabited by non I E speakers.
Anatolia was divided into two lands “the land of Kanis” and the “land of Hatti”. The Hatti were related to the Kaska people who lived in the Pontic mountains.
Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place names (1). The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.
Singer (1981) has suggested that the Kaska, are remnants of the indigenous Hattian population which was forced northward by the Hittites. But at least as late as 1800 BC, Anatolia was basically settled by Hattians (2)
Anatolia was occupied by many Kushite groups,including the Kashkas and or Hatti. The Hatti , like the Dravidian speaking people were probably related . The Hatti were probably members of the Tehenu tribes.
The Tehenu was composed of various ethnic groups. One of the Tehenu tribes was identified by the Egyptians as the Hatiu or Haltiu.
During the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (2563-2423), namely during the reign of Sahure there is mention of the Tehenu people. Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader “Hati Tehenu” .(3) These Hatiu, may correspond to the Hatti speaking people of Anatolia. The Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas or Kaskas.
The Hatti controlled the city state of Kussara. Kussara was situated in southern Anatolia.
The earliest known ruler of Kussara was Pitkhanas. It was his son Anitta (c. 1790-1750 BC) who expanded the Kussara empire through much of Anatolia.
Many researchers get the Hittites (Nesa) mixed up with the original settlers of Anatolia called Hatti according to Steiner “.[T]his discrepancy is either totally neglected and more or less skillfully veiled, or it is explained by the assumption that the Hittites when conquering the country of Hatti adjusted themselves to the Hattians adopting their personal names and worshipping their gods, out of reverence for a higher culture” .(4)
Neshili, was probably spoken by the Hatti, not the IE Hittite. Yet, this language is classified as an IE langauge. Researchers maintain that the Hatti spoke 'Hattili' or Khattili “language of the Hatti”, and the IE Hittites spoke "Neshumnili"/ Neshili .(5) Researchers maintain that only 10% of the terms in Neshumnili is IE. This supports the view that Nesumnili may have been a lingua franca.
It is clear that the Anatolians spoke many languages including:Palaic, Hatti, Luwian and Hurrian, but the people as you know mainly wrote their writings in Neshumnili. The first people to use this system as the language of the royal chancery were Hatti Itamar Singer makes it clear that the Hittites adopted the language of the Hatti .(6) Steiner wrote that, " In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia, in the 2nd Millennium B.C. with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca [i.e., Neshumnili), whenever commercial transactions or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale" .(7)
•The Hatti language which provided the Hittites with many of the terms Indo-Aryan nationalists use to claim and Aryan origin for the Indus civilization is closely related to African languages including Egyptians. For example:Big, mighty, powerful protect, help upper
  • Hattic ur $uh tufa
    Egyptian wr swh tp
    Malinke fara solo dya, tu ‘raising’
    Head stretch (out) prosper to pour
    Hattic tu put falfalat duq

    Egyptian tup pd
    Malinke tu ‘strike head’ pe, bemba fin’ya du
    Eye hand Place King, term of respect
The Malinke-Bambara and Hatti language share other cognates and grammatical features. For example,in both languages the pronoun can be prefixed to nouns, e.g., Hatti le ‘his’, le fil ‘his house’; Malinke-Bambara a ‘his’, a falu ‘his father’s house’. Other Hatti and Malinke- Bambara cognates include:
Hattic b’la ka -ka Kaati Malinke n’ye teke -ka ka, kuntigi ‘headman’

Good hypothesis generation suggest that given the fact that the Malinke-Bambara and Hatti languages share cognate terms, Sumerian terms may also relate to Hatti terms since they were also Kushites. Below we compare a few Hatti, Sumerian and Malinke Bambara terms:

  • Mother father lord,ruler build, to set up
    Hattic na-a ša tex
    Malinke na baba sa te
    Sumerian na ‘she’ aba tu ‘to create’
    To pour child,son up, to raise strength,powerful land
    Hatti dug pin,pinu tufa ur -ka
    Malinke du den dya, tu fara -ka
    Sumerian dub peš dul usu ki
Conclusion

In summary, the Hattic speaking people were members of the Kushite tribe called Tehenu. They were probably called Hati ( pl. Hatiu), by the Egyptians.

The language of the Hittites was more than likely a lingua franca, with Hattic, at its base. In Western Anatolia many languages were spoken including Hattic, Palaic, Luwian and Hurrian used Nesa as a lingua franca. For example, the king of Arzawa, asked the Egyptian in the Amarna Letters, to write them back in Nesumnili rather than Egyptian .(8)

Steiner notes that “In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia in the 2nd Millennium B.C., with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca whenever commercial transaction or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale” .(9)

This led Steiner to conclude that “moreover the structure of Hittite easily allowed one to integrate not only proper names, but also nouns of other languages into the morphological system. Indeed, it is a well known fact the vocabulary of Hittite is strongly interspersed with lexemes from other languages, which is a phenomenon typical of a “lingua franca” .(10)

Footnotes


1. Itamar Singer, Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the beginning of the Second Millennium B.C., Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (1981), pp.119-149.

2 Gerd Steiner, The role of the Hittites in ancient Anatolia, Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (1981), 119-149.

3 El Mosallamy,A.H.S. Libyco-Berber relations with ancient Egypt:The Tehenu in Egyptian records. In (pp.51-68) 1986, p.55; and L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Konigs Sahure. Vol. II, Table 1.

4 Steiner, p.160.

5 I.M. Diakonoff and P.L. Kohl, Early Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

6. Itamar Singer, Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the Beginning of the Second Millennium BC,Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (pp.119-149).

7 Ibid., p.162.

8 Ibid., p.161.

9 Ibid., p.162

10 Ibid., p.165.

Dravidian origins of the Prakritic languages

I believe that Dravidian languages were spoken in India when the Indo-Aryans invaded the region. The Proto-Indo-Aryan(Kaska/Mitanni/ Hatti) speakers were probably descendents of the Kushites who formerly lived in Anatolia. Since Dravidians speakers also belonged to the Kushite Dwipa, like the Proto-Indo-Aryans it is only natural that the languages are related.

 -

The relationship between the Dravidian languages and Prakritic languages is much more complicated than the ideas presented by Bh Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti argues that there were many Dravidians in India when the Indo-Aryans arrived; and that as a result Dravidian influenced the Indo-Aryan languages through the introduction of lexical items and (grammatical) structural features.


Due to early Dravidian settlement in Northern India there is a Dravidian substratum in Indo‑Aryan. There are Dravidian loans in the Rg Veda, even though Aryan recorders of this work were situated in the Punjab which occupied around this time by the BRW Dravidians.
There are islands of Dravidian speakers in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. There are over 300,000 Brahui speakers in Qualat, Hairpur and Hyderabad districts of Pakistan. There are an additional 40,000 Brahui in Emeneau and Burrow (1962) found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. In addition, Indo-Aryan illustrates a widespread structural borrowing from Dravidian in addition to 700 lexical loans (Kuiper 1967; Southward 1977; Winters 1989).
Iran and several thousand along the southern border of Russia and Yugoslavia. (ISDL 1983:227)
Emeneau and Burrow (1962) have found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. the number of Dravidian loans in Indo‑Aryan is expected to reach 750.
There are numerous examples of Indo‑Aryan structural borrowings from Dravidian. For example, the Bengali and Oriya plural suffix ‑ra is analogous to the Tamil plural suffix ‑ar. Both of these suffixes are restricted to names of intelligent beings. (Chatterji 1970:173) Oriya borrowed the ‑gura plural suffix from the Dravidians. (Mahapatra 1983:67) Some researchers believe that the syntax of the Indo‑Aryan languages is ambivalent because of the Dravidian influence on these languages. As a result, they represent both SOV and SVO traits. If my theory is correct the relationship between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages is not the result of borrowing, it is due to the fact that the ancestors of the Vangi, Odri and Maharastri were descendents of the Kushite Anatolians.


In conclusion,the relationship between indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages are not the result, purely of contact with Dravidian speakers in India. These languages are related because the speakers of these languages formerly belonged to the C-Group or Kushite people of the region called Kusha Dwipa in the Sankritic text.
I believe that after the Hittites defeated the Hatti and Kaska and other peoples belonging to the Hurrian and Mitanni kingdoms, these people were uprooted and forced into Iran. The lost of Anatolia to the Hittites, probably forced these people to become nomads.

In Iran the Hatti, Kaska and Mitanni probably formed a significant portion of the Proto-Indo-Aryan population. Here they may have met Iranian speaking people,who may have practiced a hunter-gatherer existence, that adopted aspects of their Kushite culture , especially the religion and use of Mitanni religious terms and chariot culture. Joining forces with the Indo-Aryan (Mitannian-Hurrian-Kaska-Hatti) exiles they probably attacked Dravidian and Austronesian speaking people in India who lived in walled cities. The Austronesian and Dravidian people probably came in intimate contact during the Xia and Shang periods of China.

I have to reject the Afghanistan origin for the Indo-Aryan speaking people because the cultures there in ancient times show no affinity to Indo-European civilization. Given the Austronesian and Dravidian elements in Sanskrit and etc., I would have to date the expansion of the Indo-Aryan people sometime after 800 BC, across Iran, down into India.
This would explain why "the Vedic and Avestan mantras are not carbon copies of each other", they may have had a similar genesis, but they were nativised by different groups of Indic and Iranian speakers after the settlement of nomadic Hurrian, Kaska, Hatti and Mitanni people in Iran.


If this theory is correct the Kaska, Mittani and etc., were probably the ancestors of Prakrit speaking tribes of the Vangi, Odri and Maharastri.This view is supported by the relationship between Indo-Aryan and Mittani. H.H. Hock in Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship , noted that Mittani “words contained in these passages are phonetically closer to the earliest attested Indo-Aryan than to Old Iranian” (p. 62).

The Tehenu in Anatolia



Using boats the Kushites moved down ancient waterways many now dried up, to establish new towns in Asia and Europe after 3500 BC. The Kushites remained supreme around the world until 1400-1200 BC. During this period the Hua (Chinese) and Indo-European (I-E) speakers began to conquer the Kushites whose cities and economies were destroyed as a result of natural catastrophes which took place on the planet between 1400-1200 BC. Later, after 500 AD, Turkish speaking people began to settle parts of Central Asia. This is the reason behind the presence of the K-s-h element in many place names in Asia e.g., Kashgar, HinduKush, and Kosh. The HinduKush in Harappan times had lapis lazuli deposits.
Kushites expanded into Inner Asia from two primary points of dispersal : Iran and Anatolia. In Anatolia the Kushites were called Hattians and Kaska. In the 2nd millennium BC, the north and east of Anatolia was inhabited by non-I-E speakers.
Anatolia was divided into two lands “the land of Kanis” and the “land of Hatti”. The Hatti were related to the Kaska people who lived in the Pontic mountains.
Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place-names . The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.
Singer (1981) has suggested that the Kaska, are remnants of the indigenous Hattian population which was forced northward by the Hittites. But at least as late as 1800 BC, Anatolia was basically settled by Hattians.
Anatolia was occupied by many Kushite groups,including the Kashkas and or Hatti. The Hatti , like the Dravidian speaking people were probably related


Some of the Tehenu or Kushites settled Anatolia. Some of the major Anatolian Kushite tribes were the Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku andKusuh (< Kush).
The Hattic people, may be related to the[b] Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes. Many archaeologist believe that the Tehenu people were related to the C-Group people. The Hattic language is closely related to African and Dravidian languages for example:
  • •English ……Hattic …..Egyptian…….. Malinke (Mande language)

    powerful ……ur………. wr'great,big' ………fara

    protect…….. $uh……… swh …………………solo-

    head …………tup ………tp ……………tu 'strike the head'

    up,upper….. tufa ………..tp……………… dya, tu 'raising ground'

    to stretch put… pd ………pe,……………….. bamba

    o prosper …….falfat …..-- …………………..find'ya

    pour ……………duq …….---………………….. du 'to dispense'

    child …………..pin………,pinu………………… den


    Mother ………..na-a ………--…………………….. na

    lord …………….sa ………..--………………………. sa

    place ………….-ka………… -ka
The languages have similar syntax Hattic le fil 'his house'; Mande a falu 'his father's house'. This suggest that the first Anatolians were Kushites, a view supported by the Hattic name for themselves: Kashka.


•Hurrians



An important group in Anantolia in addition to the Hatti, were the Hurrians. The Hurrians enter Mesopotamia from the northeastern hilly area . They introduced horse-drawn war chariots to Mesopotamia .



Hurrians penetrate Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine between 1700-1500 BC. The major Hurrian Kingdom was Mitanni , which was founded by Sudarna I (c.1550), was established at Washukanni on the Khabur River . The Hurrian capital was Urkesh, one of its earliest kings was called Tupkish.



Linguistic and historical evidence support the view that Dravidians influenced Mittanni and Lycia . (Winters 1989a) Alain Anselin is sure that Dravidian speaking peoples once inhabited the Aegean . For example Anselin (1982, pp.111-114) has discussed many Dravidian place names found in the Aegean Sea area.



Two major groups in ancient Anatolia were the Hurrians and Lycians. Although the Hurrians are considered to be Indo-European speakers, some Hurrians probably spoke a Dravidian language.



The Hurrians lived in Mittanni. Mittanni was situated on the great bend of the Upper Euphrates river. Hurrian was spoken in eastern Anatolia and North Syria .



Most of what we know about Hurrian comes from the Tel al-Armarna letters. These letters were written to the Egyptian pharaoh. These letters are important because they were written in a language different from diplomatic Babylonian.



The letters written in the unknown language were numbered 22 and 25. In 1909 Bork, in Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatische Gesellschaft, wrote a translation of the letters.



In 1930, G.W. Brown proposed that the words in letters 22 and 25 were Dravidian especially Tamil. Brown (1930), has shown that the vowels and consonants of Hurrian and Dravidian are analogous. In support of this theory Brown (1930) noted the following similarities between Dravidian and Hurrian: 1) presence of a fullness of forms employed by both languages; 2) presence of active and passive verbal forms are not distinguished; 3) presence of verbal forms that are formed by particles; 4) presence of true relative pronouns is not found in these languages; 5) both languages employ negative verbal forms; 6) identical use of -m, as nominative; 7) similar pronouns; and 8) similar ending formations:

  • Dravidian Hurrian

    a a

    -kku -ikka

    imbu impu



    There are analogous Dravidian and Hurrian terms:



    English Hurrian Dravidian

    mountain paba parampu

    lady,woman aallay ali

    King Sarr,zarr Ca, cira

    god en en

    give tan tara

    to rule irn ire

    father attai attan

    wife,woman asti atti


Many researchers have noted the presence of many Indo-Aryan words. In Hurrians. This has led some researchers to conclude that Indo –Europeans may have ruled the Hurrians. This results from the fact that the names of the Hurrian gods are similar to the Aryan gods:

  • Hurrian Sanskrit

    Mi-it-va Mitra

    Aru-na Varuna

    In-da-ra Indra

    Na-sa-at-tiya Nasatya

There are other Hurrian and Sanskrit terms that appear to show a relationship:

  • English Hurrian Sanskrit Tamil

    One aika eka okka ‘together’

    Three tera tri

    Five panza panca añcu

    Seven satta sapta

    Nine na nava onpatu



    Other Hurrian terms relate to Indo-Aryan:



    English Hurrian I-A Tamil

    Brown babru babhru pukar

    Grey parita palita paraitu ‘old’

    Reddish pinkara pingala puuval



    English Mitanni Vedic Tamil

    Warrior marya marya makan, maravan

References:

Itamar Singer, Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the beginning of the Second Millennium B.C., Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (1981), pp.119-149.

Afghanistan was not the Homeland of the Indo-Aryan

I am beginning to believe that after the Hittites defeated the Hatti and Kaska and other peoples belonging to the Hurrian and Mitanni kingdoms,these people were uprooted and forced into Iran. The lost of Anatolia to the Hittites, probably forced these people to become nomads. The Persians were well established in Iran so these people probably pushed into North India along with Iranian speakers.
In Iran they probably formed a significant portion of the Proto-Arya population. Here they may have met Indo-Iranian speaking people,who may have practiced a hunter-gatherer existence, that adopted aspects of their culture , especially the religion and use of Mitanni religious terms and chariot culture. Joining forces with the Mitannian-Hurrian exiles they probably attacked Dravidian and Austronesian speaking people who probably lived in walled cities. The Austronesian and Dravidian people probably came in intimate contact during the Xia and Shang periods of China.
The first recorded Indo-European language is Hittite. Many researchers get the Hittites (Nesa) mixed up with the originalKushite or Black/African settlers of Anatolia called Hatti according to Steiner “.[T]his discrepancy is either totally neglected and more or less skillfully veiled, or it is explained by the assumption that the Hittites when conquering the country of Hatti adjusted themselves to the Hattians adopting their personal names and worshipping their gods, out of reverence for a higher culture” .
Neshili, was probably spoken by the Hatti, not the IE Hittite. Yet, this language is classified as an IE langauge. Researchers maintain that the Hatti spoke 'Hattili' or Khattili “language of the Hatti”, and the IE Hittites spoke "Neshumnili"/ Neshili . Researchers maintain that only 10% of the terms in Neshumnili is IE. This supports the view that Nesumnili may have been a lingua franca. It is clear that the Anatolians spoke many languages including:Palaic, Hatti, Luwian and Hurrian, but the people as you know mainly wrote their writings in Neshumnili. The first people to use this system as the language of the royal chancery were Hatti Itamar Singer makes it clear that the Hittites adopted the language of the Hatti . Steiner wrote that, " In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia, in the 2nd Millennium B.C. with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca [i.e., Neshumnili), whenever commercial transactions or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale" .

The language of the Hittites was more than likely a lingua franca, with Hattic, as its base. In Western Anatolia many languages were spoken including Hattic, Palaic, Luwian and Hurrian used Nesa as a lingua franca For example, the king of Arzawa, asked the Egyptian in the Amarna Letters, to write them back in Nesumnili rather than Egyptian .
Steiner notes that “In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia in the 2nd Millennium B.C., with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca whenever commercial transaction or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale” . This led Steiner to conclude that “moreover the structure of Hittite easily allowed one to integrate not only proper names, but also nouns of other languages into the morphological system. Indeed, it is a well known fact the vocabulary of Hittite is strongly interspersed with lexemes from other languages, which is a phenomenon typical of a “lingua franca” .
The Old Persians ruled the Greeks. The Greeks later conquered India, and Panini mentions Greeks in his grammar of Sanskrit. This suggest that Greeks lived in large numbers in India at this time.
The fact that the Greeks, Hindus and Persians lived in intimate contact for hundreds of years naturally led to the adoption of many terms by the Greeks and Hindus of Persian origin, and later the adoption of many Greek terms by the Hindus. These states of bilingualism in North India, explains why the Indo-Iranian languages form one family , and are linked to the Indo-European languages via Greek.
The Harappans spoke a Dravidian language, Indo-Iranian probably originated after 589 BC. This is made clear by Darius in the Behistun inscription where he claims that he was the first to write in the Ariya language. Darius'- evidence for the first writing of Ariya, indicates that the idea of the continuity of Hindu civilization in India is a myth. The original inhabitants of India spoke Dravidian languages. Over time, the Dravidians were forced to adopt Hindi and other Indo-Iranian languages, yet remnants of these Dravidians in North India remain. This is why we find no evidence of the Vedic language until the Naga (Ethiopians) invented Sanskrit. It also explains the variations in the Vedic and Avestan manuscripts, which in the case of the later group date back only to 1288 AD.
The tradition of writing in North India date to the Achaeminids, and may explain the origin of Brahmi. The fact that Brahmi has signs that relate to the Harappan writing may be the result of the fact that the Elamites (Old Persians) of the Achaeminid Empire were familiar with the writing system of the Dravidians, and the Naga (Ethiopians) who used a system of writing similar to Phonesian. The Dravidians have their own tradition of writing. It would appear that the Dravidians introduced writing to the Indus Valley. They continued to use this writing on their pottery in South India and later punchmarked coins. This is supported by the discovery of writing in South India dating back to before 600 BC.
The history of contact between Iranian and Indian speakers during Achaemenid rule , would explain the Indo-Iranian relationship, not the existence of a Proto-Indo-Iranian homeland in India. This history of Turkic, Persian, Sumerian, Elamite, Tamil, Ethiopic (/Naga)and Hindi speaking people living in diverse North Indian communities, is the most logical explanation of the relationships that exist between and among these languages. The history of linguistic contact between the speakers of these languages make it clear that the Harappans were not Indo-Aryan speakers. This would place the origin of the major Vedic and Avestan text back to maybe 800 BC, and more than likely 600-500 BC not the 1200 BC or earlier date assigned these text by some researchers. Let's not forget that some researchers claim that most editions of the Aestan, date back to an original copy of this text dating only to 1288 AD.
I have to reject the Afghanistan origin for the Indo-Iranian speaking people because the cultures there in ancient times show no affinity to Indo-European civilization. Given the Austronesian and Dravidian elements in Sanskrit and etc., I would have to date the expansion of the Indo-Aryan people sometime after 800 BC, across Iran, India down into Afghanistan, since the Austronesia people probably did not begin to enter India until after the fall of the Anyang Shang Dynasty sometime after 1000 BC. This would explain why "the Vedic andAvestan mantras are not carbon copies of each other", they may have had a similar genesis, but they were nativised by different groups of Indic and Iranian speakers after the settlement of nomadic Hurrian and Mitanni people in Iran.
.
In summary India was not the homeland of the Indo-Iranian family of languages. The linguistic relationship between Persian and Greek result from the rule of these areas by the Achaeminid and later Greek rulers of India. This may explain why the Achaeminids depicted the Nubians (of Africa), the Hindus and King Darius with Africoid features. The ability to explain the relationship of Sanskrit to Greek, and the Indo-Iranian linguistic relationship due to Persian/Elamite and Hindi contact, resulting from the historical connections between the speakers of these languages and bilingualism within North-India and Afganistan. This hypothesis supports the view that the Indo-European connection to Indian languages goes back to the Greek rule of India, not some hypothetical date millennia ago.

I am beginning to believe that after the Hittites defeated the Hatti and Kaska and other peoples belonging to the Hurrian and Mitanni kingdoms,these people were uprooted and forced into Iran. The lost of Anatolia to the Hittites, probably forced these people to become nomads. The Persians were well established in Iran so these people probably pushed into North India along with Iranian speakers.
In Iran they probably formed a significant portion of the Proto-Arya population. Here they may have met Indo-Iranian speaking people,who may have practiced a hunter-gatherer existence, that adopted aspects of their culture , especially the religion and use of Mitanni religious terms and chariot culture. Joining forces with the Mitannian-Hurrian exiles they probably attacked Dravidian and Austronesian speaking people who probably lived in walled cities. The Austronesian and Dravidian people probably came in intimate contact during the Xia and Shang periods of China.
The first recorded Indo-European language is Hittite. Many researchers get the Hittites (Nesa) mixed up with the originalKushite or Black/African settlers of Anatolia called Hatti according to Steiner “.[T]his discrepancy is either totally neglected and more or less skillfully veiled, or it is explained by the assumption that the Hittites when conquering the country of Hatti adjusted themselves to the Hattians adopting their personal names and worshipping their gods, out of reverence for a higher culture” .
Neshili, was probably spoken by the Hatti, not the IE Hittite. Yet, this language is classified as an IE langauge. Researchers maintain that the Hatti spoke 'Hattili' or Khattili “language of the Hatti”, and the IE Hittites spoke "Neshumnili"/ Neshili . Researchers maintain that only 10% of the terms in Neshumnili is IE. This supports the view that Nesumnili may have been a lingua franca. It is clear that the Anatolians spoke many languages including:Palaic, Hatti, Luwian and Hurrian, but the people as you know mainly wrote their writings in Neshumnili. The first people to use this system as the language of the royal chancery were Hatti Itamar Singer makes it clear that the Hittites adopted the language of the Hatti . Steiner wrote that, " In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia, in the 2nd Millennium B.C. with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca [i.e., Neshumnili), whenever commercial transactions or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale" .

The language of the Hittites was more than likely a lingua franca, with Hattic, as its base. In Western Anatolia many languages were spoken including Hattic, Palaic, Luwian and Hurrian used Nesa as a lingua franca For example, the king of Arzawa, asked the Egyptian in the Amarna Letters, to write them back in Nesumnili rather than Egyptian .
Steiner notes that “In the complex linguistic situation of Central Anatolia in the 2nd Millennium B.C., with at least three, but probably more different languages being spoken within the same area there must have been the need for a language of communication or lingua franca whenever commercial transaction or political enterprises were undertaken on a larger scale” . This led Steiner to conclude that “moreover the structure of Hittite easily allowed one to integrate not only proper names, but also nouns of other languages into the morphological system. Indeed, it is a well known fact the vocabulary of Hittite is strongly interspersed with lexemes from other languages, which is a phenomenon typical of a “lingua franca” .
The Old Persians ruled the Greeks. The Greeks later conquered India, and Panini mentions Greeks in his grammar of Sanskrit. This suggest that Greeks lived in large numbers in India at this time.
The fact that the Greeks, Hindus and Persians lived in intimate contact for hundreds of years naturally led to the adoption of many terms by the Greeks and Hindus of Persian origin, and later the adoption of many Greek terms by the Hindus. These states of bilingualism in North India, explains why the Indo-Iranian languages form one family , and are linked to the Indo-European languages via Greek.
The Harappans spoke a Dravidian language, Indo-Iranian probably originated after 589 BC. This is made clear by Darius in the Behistun inscription where he claims that he was the first to write in the Ariya language. Darius'- evidence for the first writing of Ariya, indicates that the idea of the continuity of Hindu civilization in India is a myth. The original inhabitants of India spoke Dravidian languages. Over time, the Dravidians were forced to adopt Hindi and other Indo-Iranian languages, yet remnants of these Dravidians in North India remain. This is why we find no evidence of the Vedic language until the Naga (Ethiopians) invented Sanskrit. It also explains the variations in the Vedic and Avestan manuscripts, which in the case of the later group date back only to 1288 AD.
The tradition of writing in North India date to the Achaeminids, and may explain the origin of Brahmi. The fact that Brahmi has signs that relate to the Harappan writing may be the result of the fact that the Elamites (Old Persians) of the Achaeminid Empire were familiar with the writing system of the Dravidians, and the Naga (Ethiopians) who used a system of writing similar to Phonesian. The Dravidians have their own tradition of writing. It would appear that the Dravidians introduced writing to the Indus Valley. They continued to use this writing on their pottery in South India and later punchmarked coins. This is supported by the discovery of writing in South India dating back to before 600 BC.
The history of contact between Iranian and Indian speakers during Achaemenid rule , would explain the Indo-Iranian relationship, not the existence of a Proto-Indo-Iranian homeland in India. This history of Turkic, Persian, Sumerian, Elamite, Tamil, Ethiopic (/Naga)and Hindi speaking people living in diverse North Indian communities, is the most logical explanation of the relationships that exist between and among these languages. The history of linguistic contact between the speakers of these languages make it clear that the Harappans were not Indo-Aryan speakers. This would place the origin of the major Vedic and Avestan text back to maybe 800 BC, and more than likely 600-500 BC not the 1200 BC or earlier date assigned these text by some researchers. Let's not forget that some researchers claim that most editions of the Aestan, date back to an original copy of this text dating only to 1288 AD.
I have to reject the Afghanistan origin for the Indo-Iranian speaking people because the cultures there in ancient times show no affinity to Indo-European civilization. Given the Austronesian and Dravidian elements in Sanskrit and etc., I would have to date the expansion of the Indo-Aryan people sometime after 800 BC, across Iran, India down into Afghanistan, since the Austronesia people probably did not begin to enter India until after the fall of the Anyang Shang Dynasty sometime after 1000 BC. This would explain why "the Vedic andAvestan mantras are not carbon copies of each other", they may have had a similar genesis, but they were nativised by different groups of Indic and Iranian speakers after the settlement of nomadic Hurrian and Mitanni people in Iran.
.
In summary India was not the homeland of the Indo-Iranian family of languages. The linguistic relationship between Persian and Greek result from the rule of these areas by the Achaeminid and later Greek rulers of India. This may explain why the Achaeminids depicted the Nubians (of Africa), the Hindus and King Darius with Africoid features. The ability to explain the relationship of Sanskrit to Greek, and the Indo-Iranian linguistic relationship due to Persian/Elamite and Hindi contact, resulting from the historical connections between the speakers of these languages and bilingualism within North-India and Afganistan. This hypothesis supports the view that the Indo-European connection to Indian languages goes back to the Greek rule of India, not some hypothetical date millennia ago.