Sunday, December 12, 2010

The Kushana

First, I would like to make it clear that the probable language of the Kushana was Tamil. According to Dravidian literature, the Kushana were called Kosars=Yakshas=Yueh chih/ Kushana. This literature maintains that when they entered India they either already spoke Tamil, or adopted the language upon settlement in India.

The Kushana and the Yueh chih were one and the same. In addition to
North Indian documents the Kushana-Yueh chih association are also
discussed in Dravidian literature. V Kanakasabhai, The Tamils Eighteen
hundred years ago, note that in the Sanskrit literature the Yueh chih were called Yakshas, Pali chroniclers called them Yakkos and Kosars< Kushana.

They allegedely arrived in India during the 2nd century BC. He makes it clear that the Yueh chih/ Kushana as noted on their coins worshipped Siva as seen on the coins of Kanishka. This is why we have a coin of a Kushana king from Taxila, dated to AD 76 that declares that the king was maharaja rajatiraja devaputra Kushana "Great King, King of kings, Son of God, the Kushana".






King Kaniska of the Kushan



The term Tochara has nothing to do with the Yueh
chih, this was a term used to describe the people who took over the Greek Bactrian state, before the Kushana reached the Oxus Valley around 150 BC . There is no reason the Kushana may not have been intimately
familiar with the Kharosthi writing at this time because from 202BC onward Prakrit and Chinese documents were written in Kharosthi.

The Kushana and the Yueh chih were one and the same. In addition to
North Indian documents the Kushana-Yueh chih association are also
discussed in Dravidian literature.V Kanakasabhai, The Tamils Eighteen
hundred years ago note that in the Sanskrit literature the Yueh chih were
called Yakshas, Pali chroniclers called them Yakkos and Kosars< Kushana. They allegedely arrived in India during the 2nd century BC. He makes it clear that the Yueh chih/ Kushana as noted on their coins worshipped Siva as seen on the coins of Kanishka.This is why we have a coin of a Kushana king from Taxila, dated to AD 76 that declares that the king was maharaja rajatiraja devaputra Kushana "Great King, King of kings, Son of God, the Kushana".


Some researchers believe that the Ars'i spoke Tocharian A, while
Tocharian B was the "Kucha language" may have been spoken by the Kushana people. I don't know where you read that the speakers of Tocharian A were called Ars'i. This names have nothing to do with ethnic groups, they refer to the cities where Tocharian text were found:
Tocharian A documents were found around Qarashar and Turfan, thusly these text are also referred to as Turfanian or East Tocharian; Tocharian B documents were found near the town of Kucha, thusly they are sometimes called Kuchean or West Tocharian.


Kanishka Casket






Linguist use the term Tochari to refer to these people, because they were given this title in Turkic manuscripts . They called themselves Kushana.

The observable evidence make it clear that the terms used to label the Tocharian dialects are not ethnonyms, they are terms used to denote where the Tocharian records were found. The use of the term Ars'i does not relate to the Kushana people. The terms: Asii, Pasiani, Tochari and Sacarauli, refer to the nomads that took away Bactria from the Greeks.

These nomads came from the Iaxartes River that adjoins that of Sacae and the Sogdiani .The Kushana people took over Bactria much later. It is a mistake to believe that Ars'i and Kucha were ethnonyms is under-standable given your lack of knowledge about Tocharian. And I will agree that there were a number of different languages spoken by people who
wrote material in Tocharian. It is for this reason that I have maintained
throughout my published works on Tocharian, that this was a trade language. This language was used by the Central Asians as a
lingua franca and trade language due to the numerous ethnic groups which formerly lived in central Asia". Kharosthi was long used to write in Central Asia. It was even used by the Greeks. The use of the Kharosthi writing system in Central Asia and India, would place this writing contemporaneous with the tradition, recorded by the Classical writers of Indians settling among the Kushites of Meroitic Empire..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ancient Skeletons of Blacks from Mesopotamia and Annatolia



There is textual evidence supporting a relationship between the founders of Sumer, Elam and Dilmun. Col. Henry Rawlinson , used textual evidence to determine that a link existed between the Mesopotamians to their ancestors in Africa . Rawlinson called these people Kushites.

There is a positive relationship between crania from Africa and Eurasia. The archaeologist Marcel-Auguste Dieulafoy (Dieulafoy,2004) and Hanberry (1981) maintains that their was a Sub-Saharan strain in Persia .







These researchers maintain that it was evident that an Ethiopian dynasty ruled Elam from a perusal of its statuary of the royal family and members of the army ( Dieulafoy, 2004; Dieulafoy, 2010;Hansberry,1981). Dieulafoy (2010 ) noted that the textual evidence and iconography make it clear that the Elamites were Africans, and part of the Kushite confederation .Dieulafoy (2010) made it clear that the Elamites at Susa were Sub-Saharan Africans.



Marcel Dieulafoy and M. de Quatrefages observed that the craniometrics of the ancient Elamites of Susa indicate that they were Sub-Saharan Africans or Negroes (Dieulafoy,2010).

Ancient Sub-Saharan African skeletons have also been found in Mesopotamia (Tomczyk et al, 2010). The craniometric data indicates that continuity existed between ancient and medieval Sub-Saharan Africans in Mesopotamia (Ricault & Waelkens,2008).


References
Dieulafoy, J. 2004. The Project Gutenberg EBook of Perzi, Chaldea en Susiane, by Jane Dieulafoy. Retrieved 04/04/10
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13901/13901-h/13901-h.htm
Dieulafoy, M.A.2010.. L' Acropole de Suse d'après les fouilles exécutées en 1884, 1885, 1886, sous les auspices du Musée du Louvre. Retrieved 04/04/10 from : http://www.archive.org/stream/lacropoledesused01dieu#page/2/mode/2up

Rawlinson,H. “ Letter read at the meeting of the Royal Asiatic Society on February 5, 1853”, The Athenaeum, (No. 1321) ,p.228.

Rawlinson,H. “Note on the early History of Babylonia”, Journal Royal Asiatic Soc., 15, 215-259.

Ricaut,F.X. and Waelkens.2008. Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzatine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements, Hum Biol, 80(5):535-564.

Tomczyk,J., Jedrychowska-Danska, K., Ploszaj,T & Witas H.W. (2010). Anthropological analysis of the osteological material from an ancient tomb (Early Bronze Age) from the middle Euphrates valley, Terqa (Syria) , International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, Retrieved 04/04/10 from (www.interscience.wiley.com)DOI:10.1002/oa.1150

Genesis and the First Black Civilizations





In Chapter 10, lines 6-10 we find mention of Kush, the son of Ham.



6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

7 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.

8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.

10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.




This passage from Genesis makes it clear that the Kushites were a very powerful people. It shows that the Kushites were situated in Mesopotamia and Anatolia in great numbers in addition to the Sudan where they were responsible for the C-Group Culture and Kerma.



Henry Rawlinson used the Book of Genesis to find the identity of the Mesopotamia. He made it clear that the original inhabitants of Babylonia were represented by the name Nimrod and were represented by the family of Ham: Kushites, Egyptians and etc. This name came from the popularity among these people of hunting the leopard (Nimri). And as noted in earlier post the Egyptian and Nubian rulers always associated leopard spots with royalty, just as Siva is associated with the feline. As a result, Rawlinson used an African language Galla, to decipher the cuneiform writing.

The Sumerians and Elamites came from Africa, like the founders of the Indus Valley civilization. This is why the Elamite and Sumerian languages are closely related to African and Dravidian languages.

The Kushites when they migrated from Middle Africa to Asia continued to call themselves Kushites. This is most evident in place names and the names of gods. The Kassites, chief rulers of Iran occupied the central part of the Zagros. The Kassite god was called Kashshu, which was also the name of the people. The K-S-H, name element is also found in India. For example Kishkinthai, was the name applied to an ancient Dravidian kingdom in South India. Also it should be remembered that the Kings of Sumer, were often referred to as the " Kings of Kush".







The major Kushite tribe in Central Asia was called Kushana. The Kushan of China were styled Ta Yueh-ti or "the Great Lunar Race". Along the Salt Swamp, there was a state called Ku-Shih of Tibet. The city of K-san, was situated in the direction of Kushan, which was located in the Western part of the Gansu Province of China.




The Elamites later conquered Sumer. They called this line of Kings,he "King of Kish'.
This term has affinity to the term Kush,that was given to the Kerma dynasty, founded by the C-Group people of Kush. It is interesting to note that the Elamite language, is closely related to the African languages including Egyptian and the Dravidian languages of India.

The most important Kushite colony in Iran was ancient Elam. The Elamites called their country KHATAM or KHALTAM (Ka-taam). The capital of Khaltam which we call Susa, was called KHUZ (Ka-u-uz) by the Aryans, NIME (Ni-may) by the people of Sumer, and KUSHSHI (Cush-she) by the Elamites.In the Akkadian inscriptions the Elamites were called GIZ-BAM (the land of the bow). The ancient Chinese or Bak tribesmen which dominate China today called the Elamites KASHTI. Moreover, in the Bible the Book of Jeremiah (xlxx,35), we read "bow of Elam". It is interesting to note that both Khaltam-ti and Kashti as the name for Elam, agrees with Ta-Seti, the ancient name for Nubia located in the Meroitic Sudan.

The Sumerians and Akkadians were Blacks

Controversy surrounding the Kushite/African/Black origins of the Elamites, Sumerians, Akkadians and “Assyrians” is simple and yet complicated. It involves both the racism exhibited toward the African slaves in the Western Hemisphere and Africans generally which led to the idea that Africans had no history; and the need of Julius Oppert to make Semites white, to accommodate the “white” ancestry of European Jews.

To understand this dichotomy we have to look at the history of scholarship surrounding the rise of Sumero-Akkadian studies. The study of the Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians and Elamites began with the decipherment of the cuneiform script by Henry Rawlinson (1851). Henry Rawlinson (1810-1895) had spent most of his career in the Orient. This appears to have given him an open mind in regards to history. He recognized the Ancient Model of History, the idea that civilization was founded by the Kushite or Hamitic people of the Bible.

As result, Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite (Cushite) origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”. In Rawlinson’s day the (agglutinative Turanian speaking) Sumerian people were recognized as Akkadian or Chaldean, while the Semitic speaking blacks were called Assyrians.

Rawlinson identified these Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people. But he made it clear that these ancient Scythic or Turanian speaking people were Kushites or Blacks.

A major supporter of Rawlinson was Edward Hincks (1792-1866). Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never discussed their ethnic origin.

A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert (1825-1905). Oppert was a German born of Jewish parents. He made it clear that the Chaldean and Akkadian people spoke different languages. He noted that the original founders of Mesopotamia civilization called themselves Ki-en-gi “land of the true lords” (Kang, Tr. "predecessors, pra-fathers", later also Kangars). It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians.

Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu “the sacred language”. Oppert popularized the Assyrian name Sumer, for the original founders of the civilization. Thus we have today the Akkadians and Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia.

Oppert began to popularize the idea that the Sumerians were related to the contemporary Altaic and Turanian speaking people, e.g., Turks and Magyar (Hungarian) speaking people. He made it clear that the Akkadians were Semites like himself (however, these Semitic people were using an agglutinative language, instead of a flexive Semitic language). To support this idea Oppert pointed out that typological features between Sumerian and Altaic languages existed. This feature was agglutination.

The problem with identifying the Sumerians as descendants (i.e. ancestors) from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related (however, the quantity of genetically related words constitutes a significant portion of Sumerian vocabulary). As a result Oppert began to criticize the work of Hincks (who was dead at the time) in relation to the identification of the Sumerian people as Turanian following the research of Rawlinson.

Oppert knew Rawlinson had used African languages to decipher cuneiform writing. But he did not compare the Sumerian to African languages, probably, due to the fact that he knew they were related given Rawlinson’s earlier research.

It is strange to some observers that Oppert never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians, Kangars). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe.

Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both referred to themselves as sag-gig-ga “black heads”, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant (1837-1883) made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the Persian monuments, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area. As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world even though it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies, these researchers continued to perpetuate the (generally, contained only inside the Euro-centric academic school) myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related.

There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie (1845-1894). Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France, most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves salmat kakkadi "black headed people”, were all Blacks of Kushite origin. Even though de LaCouperie taught at the University of London, the prestige of Oppert, and the fact that the main centers for Sumero-Akkadian studies in France and Germany were founded by Oppert and or his students, led to researchers ignoring the evidence that the Sumerians, Akkadians, and Assyrians were Black.

In summary, the cuneiform evidence makes it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians, and Assyrians recognized themselves as Negroes: “black heads”. This fact was supported by the statues of Gudea, the Akkadians and Assyrians. Plus the Behistun monument made it clear that the Elamites were also Blacks.

The textual evidence also makes it clear that Oppert began the discussion of a typological relationship between Sumerian and Turkic languages (after Rawlinson identified the Sumerians-Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people). He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were “whites”, like himself (you can find a long and winding blurb on the Caucasoidness/Europeoidness of the N.Africans in most of the English-language popular materials. But anybody who saw an Egyptian mummy, and a mummy of a tanned white-skinned corps, can tell that the Hamitic Egyptiand were not lily-white at all, and had a curly hair). Due to this brain washing, and whitening out of Blacks in history, many people today can look at depictions of Assyrians, Achamenians, and Akkadians and fail to see the Negro origin of these people.

To make the Sumerians “white”, the textbooks print pictures of artifacts dating to the Gutian rule of Lagash, to pass them off as the true originators of Sumerian civilization. No Gutian rulers of Lagash are recognized in the Sumerian King List.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

African Glaciers and Slant Eyes Among African and Black People

Enviromental factors have also played a role in the development of the African/Black Variety. For example , the narrow slanted eyes of most Blacks living in the Sahel, South India and Northeast and West Africa such as the Dravidians, some Egyptians, Nubians, Fulani and Ethiopians, are probably adaptations of Blacks during the previous Ice Age, when much of the area around Lake Chad is suppose to have been a glacial area.

Many scholars believe that the melting of these glaciers may have been the cause for the appearence of numerous Lakes, rivers and streams in the Sahara. The narrow slanted eyes of Blacks here in the United States and Western Africa result from the descent from African people who formed an extra layer of fat to keep out the cold of the Ice Age. This cold and ice had little effect on the skin color/pigmentation of the African.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do we study ancient Black History?

Why do we study ancient Black History? We study it because it explains where and what we were, and what we can do to make the world a better place today.

Amos Wilson, in the Falsification of Afrikan consciousness: Eurocentric history, psychiatry and the politics of white Supremacy (New York: Afrikan World Inforsystems, 1993), discussed how the lack of real awareness of Black history can cause mental problems. Wilson wrote that "When we permit another people to name and define, we permit another people to gain dominion and control over us" (p.22).

Dr. Wilson adds that "We must recognize the intimate relationship between culture history and personality. If we do not know our history then we do not know our personality" (p.23).

This led Dr. Wilson to declare: "History is used to intimidate African people and make them feel inferior and cultureless" (p.27

Many people of African descent are separated from their true history because they fail to realize that Eurocentrists write history to maintain the status quo, to day this purpose is white supremacy. Dr. Wilson, maintains that "The European writing of history is in tandem with everything else European and its purpose is ultimately the same: to maintain European power and domination" (p.25).


The best way to maintain this domination is to encourage African people to concentrate on slavery and the West African kingdoms because this period relates to the expansion of the European. If you read official history text, except for the kingdom of Meroe, Blacks did not have any great civilizations until the raise of the West African kingdoms and the Muslim domination of the Indian Ocean.

We are encouraged to study this period because it corresponds to the period when the Europeans began to expand. This fits in with the myth that Europeans have always ruled the world. This is a myth, Black Muslims in Spain and Portugal ruled much of these countries until 1492. In addition, Africa did not come under the domination of European powers until 1899, and for a considerable period after this date European powers were trying to militarily pacify Africa.


Although Europeans were not ruling much of the world until the 20th century, History text makes it appear that this hegemony existed much earlier. It is this myth making done through the writing of history by Europeans that has encouraged feelings of inferiority among many people of African descent. To fight this myth, and create an intact mental structure that promotes positive attributions within African people demands that you accurately study your history from an Afrocentric perspective.

Biomechanical load and African craniafacial heterogeneity






Generally, physical anthropologists can tell the difference between the skeletal remains of an African,and European. This is due to “extremes” in African craniometrics. Carlson and Gerven observed that the variance in craniofacial features in African populations may be due to diet( See: Carlson,D. and Van Gerven,D.P. (1979). Diffussion, biological determinism and bioculdtural adaptation in the Nubian corridor,American Anthropologist, 81, 561-580.)

The research indicates that craniofacial features, in relation to the skull can be shaped, in evolutionary terms by heritability and high biomechanical load. This is reflected in the morphological heterogeneity within the same population studied by Carlson and Gerven when they studied Nubian craniometrics.


These researchers explained that the differences in Nubian skeletal remains was not the result of populaton changes resulting from invasion. They argued that the skeletal remains represented the same population.

So instead of the changes in the crania African and Black people reflecting biological diffusion, the changes in facial features result from changes in diet that lead to less masticatory stress associated with changes in subsistence patterns . Research shows that changes in diet lead to variation in the size and position of the muscles of mastication which inturn lead to reduction in the robustness of the craniofacial complex. This would explain why the use of multivariate techniques show variability between modern and ancient crania and skulls of African people and the broad or fine features associated with diverse African populations.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Haplotype AF-24: An Ancient African Gene



An important haplotype in Africa is Af-24. AF-24 is delineated by a DdeI site at 10394 and AluI site of np 10397. This haplotype is a branch of the African subhaplogroup LOd. The TMRCA for LOd is 106kya (Gonder et al, 2006). This makes haplotype AF-24 much older than L3a.

The basal L3 motif is characterized by the Ddel site np 10394 and Alul site np 10397. The DdeI site np 10394 and AluI site np 10397 in haplotype AF24 (DQ112852) are at the base of the M macrohaplogroup.

The mtDNA LOd is mainly found in West Africa and among the Khoisan of South Africa and Tanzania.

Since the TMRCA of LOd dates to 106kya Anatomically modern humans (amh) had plenty of time to take this haplogroup to Senegal. In West Africa the presence of amh date to the Upper Palaeolithic (Giresse,2008).

Anatomically modern humans arrived in Senegal during the Sangoan period. Sangoan artifacts spread from East Africa to West Africa between 100-80kya. In Senegal Sangoan material has been found near Cap Manuel, Gambia(Giresse, 2008).

In conclusion, the earliest evidence of human activity in West Africa is typified by the Sangoan industry (Phillipson,2005). The amh associated with the Sangoan culture may have deposited Hg LOd and haplotype AF-24 in Senegal thousands of years before the exit of amh from Africa.

References:

Giresse,P. (2008). Tropical and sub-Tropical West Africa—marine and Continental changes during the late Quaternary. Volume 10. Elsevier Science.

Gonder MK, Mortensen HM, Reed FA, de Sousa A, Tishkoff SA: Whole mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages. Mol Biol Evol. 2006, Dec 28.

Phillipson, D.W.(2005). African Archaeology. Cambrige.

Monday, November 29, 2010

The Expansion of haplogroup LOd from East to West Africa






LOd is the oldest haplogroup (1-4). This haplogroup is primarily carried by the Khoisan people (1-2,4). It is also found among Niger-Congo speakers in East Africa (4) and we find LOa in West Africa (3). In this paper we will examine and discuss the demic diffusion of LOd across the African continent into West Africa. This is important because we discuss an early expansion of carriers of LOd from East Africa to West Africa before the exit of homo sapien sapiens from Africa.

Results

The majority of carriers of Haplogroup LOd live in East (and South Africa) and speak Khoisan . Haplogroup LOd probably originated in east Africa (5).

Haplogroup LOd is the most ancient genome. The LOd transitions include 14381,4232,6815,8113A, 8152,8251, 12121, 15466, 15930, 15941, 16243.

Haplogroup LOd is found at the root of human mtDNA. Gonder et al maintains that LOd is “the most basal branch of the gene tree”(5). The TMRCA for LOd is 106kya.

Haplogroup LOd predicts a significant period of time for anatomically modern humans (amh) living in Africa to spread across the continent. The existence of the LOd haplotype AF-24 among Senegalese supports this view. AF-24 is an ancient haplotype associated with LOd .

The TMRCA of LOd dates to 106kya. As a result, anatomically modern humans (amh) had plenty of time to spread this haplogroup to Senegal. In West Africa the presence of amh date to the Upper Palaeolithic (6). The archaeological evidence makes it clear that amh had ample opportunity to spread LOd to West Africa during this early period of demic diffusion.

The earliest evidence of human activity in West Africa is typified by the Sangoan industry (7). The amh associated with the Sangoan culture may have deposited Hg LOd in Senegal thousands of years before the exit of amh from Africa.
Anatomically modern humans arrived in Senegal during the Sangoan period. Sangoan artifacts spread from East Africa to West Africa between 100-80kya. In Senegal Sangoan material has been found near Cap Manuel (6), Gambia River in Senegal (8-9); and Cap Vert (7). The distribution of the Sangoan culture supports the demic diffusion of LOd into the Senegambia over 100kya.

Conclusion

The first amh to reach Senegal belonged to the Sangoan culture which spread from East Africa to West Africa probably between 100-80kya . Gonder et al claimed that LOd is exclusive to the southern African Khoisan (SAK) population (5). The presence of the ancient AF-24 haplotype among the Senegalese (10), that is absent in other parts of Africa, suggest a long-term LOd population in the Senegambia that preserved this rare haplotype—that originated early in the history of amh.

References:

1. Soares, Pedro; Luca Ermini, Noel Thomson, Maru Mormina, Teresa Rito, Arne Röhl, Antonio Salas, Stephen Oppenheimer, Vincent Macaulay and Martin B. Richards (04 Jun 2009). "Supplemental Data Correcting for Purifying Selection: An Improved Human Mitochondrial Molecular Clock". The American Society of Human Genetics 84 (6): 82–93. PMID 19500773 doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.05.001. http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(09)00163-3. Retrieved 2009-08-13.

2. van Oven, Mannis; Manfred Kayser (13 Oct 2008). "Updated comprehensive phylogenetic tree of global human mitochondrial DNA variation". Human Mutation 30 (2): E386-E394. PMID 18853457 doi:10.1002/humu.20921. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121449735/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0. Retrieved 2009-05-20.

3. Rosa, A. et al. 2004 July. "MtDNA Profile of West Africa Guineans: Towards a Better Understanding of the Senegambia Region", "Annals of Human Genetics", 68(Pt 4): 344

4. Sarah A. Tishkoff et al. 2007, History of Click-Speaking Populations of Africa Inferred from mtDNA and Y Chromosome Genetic Variation. Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007 24(10):2180-2195

5. Gonder MK, Mortensen HM, Reed FA, de Sousa A, Tishkoff SA.(2006).: Whole mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages. Mol Biol Evol., Dec 28.

6. Giresse,P. (2008). Tropical and sub-Tropical West Africa—marine and Continental changes during the late Quaternary. Volume 10. Elsevier Science.

7. Phillipson, D.W.(2005). African Archaeology. Cambrige.

8. Davies,O. (1967). West Africa before the Europeans. London.

9. Wai-Ogusu,A.(1973). Was there a Sangoan industry in West Africa, West African Jour of Arcaheo,3:191-96.

10. Chen YS, Olckers A, Schurr TG, Kogelnik AM, Huroponen K, Wallace DC. (2000). mtDNA variation in the South African Kung and Khwe—and Their genetic relationships to other African populations. Am J Hum Genet, 66(4): 1362-1383.

The Hadza are related to the South African Khoisan

In The Myth of East African Bushman, Morris presents evidence that the Bushmen were not present in East Africa. He based this on osteological and linguistic data and the relationship between the Hadza and Sandawe.

Morris makes it clear that the material he published denying the presence of Khoisan in East Africa is “arguable at best and must be rejected at worst” (Morris,p.87). This means that there is evidence supporting the presence and/or absence of the Khoisan in East Africa. As a result, his paper needs confirmation of his hypothesis since there is an alternative view.

The genetic, linguistic and osteological data does not support his hypothesis. It suggest that the Hadza are Khoisan and that they probably originally lived in East Africa and later migrated to South Africa.

We can reject Morris’ discussion of the osteological evidence in relation to the Hadza, because the only Hadza osteological crania for comparisons was destroyed during the WWII bombing of Berlin. As a result, you can not use this paper to claim that the Hadza are not Khoisan based on osteological evidence.

In the studies cited by Morris the researchers compared contemporary Sandawe and Khoisan crania with ancient East African skeletal remains. This does not prove anything because microevolutionary processes such as genetic drift and natural selection have probably affected skull morphology and may account for variations in ancient and contemporary crania.

I. Ribat claims that there are two extremes in African craniometrics: the khoisan and the west Africans. Craniofacial features, in relation to the skull can be shaped, in evolutionary terms by lower heritability and high biomechanical load. This is reflected in the morphological heterogeneity within the same population. Carlson and Gerven observed this phenomenon in their study of Nubian craniometrics.


Carlson and Gerven explained that the differences in Nubian skeletal remains was not the result of populaton changes resulting from invasion. They argued that the skeletal remains represented the same population.

They argued that instead of the changes in crania reflecting biological diffusion, the changes in facial features resulted from changes in diet that resulted in less masticatory stress associated with changes in subsistence patterns from the Mesolithic to Neolithic.

Given this reality, a relationship probably did exist between the ancient East Africans and Khoisan as indicated by typological features, while detail study of the crania might show difference between contemporary and ancient East African Khoisan as a result of changes in diet that led to variation in the size and position of the muscles of mastication which inturn led to reduction in the robustness of the craniofacial complex. This would explain why the use of multivariate techniques show variability between modern and ancient crania and skulls.

In relation to linguistic evidence, Morris noted that “the linguistic [relationship] is compelling” (p.87) and they are not rejected (p.89). As a result we cannot deny that a linguistic relationship exist between the speakers of Khoisan languages.

Morris claims that little if any genetic connect the Hadza and the other Khoisan people in South Africa. Morris ask us to ignore the presence of biological connections between the Hadza and SAK, because Ethiopians share with the SAK mtDNA and y-chromosome. As a result some differences between the SAK ,and the Hadza and Sandaw may be explained by interactions with neighboring East African populations.

But we can not ignore the phylogenetic evidence. And if molecular evidence exist for a relationship we must recognize it for what it is: a family relationship.


The South African Khoisan (SAK) have a distinct morphology that link them to the Hadza. In Tishkoff et al results have considerable relevancy in understanding the morophology of the Hadza. Morris mentions the research of Knight et al (2003) which was based on a small sample. The Tishkoff et al sample is much larger and can tell us considerably more about the Hadza.


In your post you discuss the Sandawe. We can not discuss the Hadza based on Sandawe , we must look at them based on their own characteristics. The Hadza surrounded by non-Khoisan speakers has remarkably sustained their genetic and cultural distinctiveness.

Tishkoff et al in The genetic structure and History of Aficans and African Americans (2009) noted that Hadza cluster near the SAK whose mtDNA, y-chromosome and autosomal chromosome indicates the most diverged genetic lineages in phylogenetic trees constructed from RST genetjc distance. These researchers found that the STRUCTURE and PCA indicate that the Hadza cluster near the SAK. They also pointed out that the Hadza and Sandawe show evidence of common ancestry but there is no evidence of recent gene flow; and that Khosian related art work is found in the area where these people reside.


Tishkoff et al in Y-chromosome evidence of a pastoral Migration through Tanzania
to South Africa(2008) noted that the Hadza have a high frequentcy of L3 and L2 (haplogroup common to west Africans). It was also made clear that the Hadza , Sandawe and SAK share the Eb1f-M293 haplotype.

Overall, Tishkoff et al in the Genetic History of African Click Speaking Populations (2007) found that the mtDNA of the Hadza cluster closely with the SAK, not other Tanzanians. This along with the high frequency of y-chromosome B2b which is shared with the SAK indicates a common ancestor.

There is some evidence of interactions between other Tanzanians and the Hadza. Tishkoff et al, suggest that the L4 lineages originated among the Hadza, and was introduced to neighboring groups via Hadza females.

Among the Khoisan there is a high frequentcy of LOd, but none has been found among the Hadza. Tishkoff et al (2007) believes that the loss of LOd may be the result of genetic drift.

In conclusion the biological and linguistic evidence suggest that the Hadza are a Khoisan population. The Morris (2003) paper does nothing to disconfirm my findings.
This fact is supported by the research of Tishkoff et al that indicate that the SAK originally lived in East Africa and that they later migrated into South Arfrica.

It was also revealed that the muscles of mastication probably led to reduction in the robustness of the craniofacial complex as Khoisan populations changed their diet. This would explain why the use of multivariate techniques show variability between modern and ancient Khoisan crania and skulls, while the typological features are consistent with a Khoisan origin.

The research shows that the effect of history have influenced the relationship between the Hadza and SAK, but the genetic evidence indicates a close relationship between the Hadza and SAK as indicated by y-chromosome Eb1f-M293, and B2b.

The absence of hg N among the Sandawe and SAK is probably the result of genetic drift. The fact that the Hadza mtDNA does not cluster with other Tanzanians is an indication that haplogroup N may be native to the Hadza.

It is interesting to note that mtDNA LO is primarily found among Khoisan and West Africans. Shows that at some point in prehistory the Khoisan had migrated into West Africa. As I point out in my paper that it was Khoisan from West Africa who migrated into North Africa and thence Iberia.

Given these reasons, I believe that the Khoisan took hg N to Eurasia. I do not believe the Khosian replaced any homo sapien sapien population. The Khoisan was the first anatomically modern human population to settle western Eurasia .


References:

History of Click-Speaking Populations of Africa Inferred from mtDNA and Y Chromosome Genetic Variation
Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007 24: 2180-2195.


Genetic Structure in African Populations: Implications for Human Demographic History Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol (2010) 0(2010): sqb.2009.74.053v1-sqb.2009.74.053

The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans Science (2009) 324(5930): 1035-1044

Y-chromosomal evidence of a pastoralist migration through Tanzania to southern Africa Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (2008) 105(31): 10693-10698

Carlson,D. and Van Gerven,D.P(1979). Diffussion, biological determinism and bioculdtural adaptation in the Nubian corridor,American Anthropologist, 81, 561-580.)

Morris, AG.(2003).The Myth of the East African 'Bushmen' The South African Archaeological Bulletin Vol. 58 ( 178): 85-90

Sunday, November 14, 2010

The African Variety

The spread of early man does nothing to deny the fact that the Australians reflect the first migrants from Africa. They reflect this population because they have traits common to early homosapien sapiens, e.g., Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges so we can assume that this population is associated with the OOA event 60kya.

In addition, Australians have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Although these traits are common to the Australians—some researchers interpret them as Caucasoid—when clearly that were present among the Australians millenia before they engaged European explorers and settlers of Australia.

This indicates that straight hair was a characteristic of early Africans. A trait maintained by East Indians and other African populations today.

Laubenfels argues that the Australians are remnants of the original African migration to the region 60kya . This view is supported by David Bulbeck who found that the Australian craniometrics are different from the Mongoloid (Polynesian), and Melanoid crania metrics .


The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations. Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair . Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges


This research indicates that whereas Australian aborigine crania agree with the archaic population of Asia and first group of Africans to exit Africa, they fail to correspond to the Sahulland crania which are distinctly of Southwest Pacific or Melanoid affinity . This suggests that by the rise of Sahulland there were two distinct Black populations in Asia one Austroloid and the other Melanoid .

The OOA population found in Qafzeh cave, Israel and the 80,000-100,000 year old human in China were isolated homo sapien sapien population because 70,000 years ago during the Lower Pleniglacial most of northern Europe and Canada were covered by thick ice sheets. It was this glacial period which made it possible for the Australians to walk to Australia because of the evaporation of oceans during this dry period. Moreover the dominant homo population was Neanderthal.

Your major problem is that researchers assign specific physical traits to Africans , Europeans and Mongoloids—which are common to African populations generally. This has led some researchers to reflect on the light skin of the Khoisan, and straight hair of the Australians and then take this evidence to indicate some association with Caucasoids—when in reality diverse African populations possessed these characteristics.

We must accept the fact that the physical traits of Africans have always varied and the appearance of so-called “white features” among blacks has nothing to do with admixture with Europeans.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Uthman dan Fodio Institute

Much of my research is conducted at the Uthman dan Fodio Institute in Chicago Illinois.


The Uthman dan Fodio Institute is interested in spreading information on Afro-Asian Studies, Archaeogenetics, Molecular Biology and Neurobiological learning.

The UdFI staff is also interested in teaching interested persons selected African (Malinke, Meroitic, Olmec, Swahili) and Asian ( ancient Tamil/Indus Valley) Languages.

Find out more at the: Uthman dan Fodio Institute

http://olmec98.net/UdFI.htm


Website

Saturday, October 16, 2010

History of Sanskrit

by

Dr. Clyde Winters

Director Uthman Dan Fodio Institute

http://olmec98.net/UdFI.htm




The Sanskrit language is highly respected in India. It carries the religion and culture of all the people of India. A.B. Keith, in A History of Sanskrit Literature (1928), makes it clear that Sanskrit was probably invented as early as the 6th Century BC. Although Sanskrit is recognized as a major language controversy surrounds its origin. Some researchers see it as language given to mankind by the Gods, while others see Sanskrit as an artificial language created to unify the diverse Indian nationalities. Keith in

A History of Sanskrit Literature commenting on this state of affairs noted that: “ We must not…exaggerate the activity of the grammarians to the extent of suggesting…that Classical Sanskrit is an artificial creation, a product of the Brahmins when they sought to counteract the Buddhist creation of an artistic literature in Pali….Nor…does Classical Sanskrit present the appearance of an artificial product; but rathe5r admits exceptions in bewildering profusion, showing that the grammarians were not creators, but were engaged in a serious struggle to bring into handier shape a rather intractable material” (p.7).

Although, this is the opinion of Keith it appears that Sanskrit is lingua franca, an artificial language, that was used by the people of India to unify the multi-lingual people of the India nation. This led Michael Coulson, in Teach Yourself Sanskrit (1992) to write that “The advantage to using Sanskrit, in addition to the dignity which it imparted to the verse, lay in its role as a lingua franca uniting the various regions of Aryan India” (p.xviii).

According to Arthur A. Macdonell in A Sanskrit Grammar for Students (1997), says that the Sanskrit language is known by many names. It was called Nagari ‘urban writin’, Deva-nagari ‘city writing of the gods’. V. Kanakasabhai in the Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago, says that Sanaskrit is called Deva-nagari, because it was introduced to the Aryas by the Nagas. The characters associated with Deva-nagari are the characters used to write Sanskrit today.

The Naga were Semitic speaking people from Ethiopia. According to Macdonell the Semitic writing was introduced to India around 700BC (pg.2).

The Semitic speakers of Africa founded the ancient civilization of Punt. As a result I refer to the speakers of Ethiopian Semitic languages Puntites.

The Puntite languages are characterized by a basic vocabulary, a system of roots and vowel patterns and the formation of derived verbs by prefixes. The South Arabian languages: Sabaean, Minaean and Hadramautic, are slightly different from modern South Arabic, but analogous to the Ethiopian languages. This represents the influence of the Jectanid tribes on South Arabic.

The major gift of the Naga to India was the writing system: Deva-Nagari. Nagari is the name for the Sanskrit script. Over a hundred years ago Sir William Jones, pointed out that the ancient Ethiopic and Sanskrit writing are one and the same. He explained that this was supported by the fact that both writing systems the writing went from left to right and the vowels were annexed to the consonants. Today Eurocentric scholars teach that the Indians taught writing to the Ethiopians, yet the name Nagari for Sanskrit betrays the Ethiopia origin of this form of writing. In Geez, the term nagar means ‘speech, to speak’. Thus we have in Geez, with the addition of pronouns: nagara ‘he spoke, nagarat ‘she spoke’ and nagarku ‘I spoke’.

Moreover, it is interesting to note that Sanskrit vowels: a,aa,',i,u,e,o, virama etc., are in the same order as Geez. Y.M. Kobishnor, in the Unesco History of Africa, maintains that Ethiopic was used as the model for Armenian writing, as was many of the Transcaucasian scripts. The Naga introduced worship of Kali, the Serpent, Murugan and the Sun or Krishna. It is interesting that Krishna, who was associated with the Sun, means Black, this is analogous to the meaning of Khons of the Kushites. Homer, described Hercules as follows: "Black he stood as night his bow uncased, his arrow string for flight". This mention of arrows identifies the Kushites as warriors who used the bow, a common weapon of the Kushites and the Naga.

Overtime the Nagas were absorbed into the Dravidian population. Today the Naga, are recognized by some researchers as Dravidians.

Recently, Dr. K. Loganathan ,has begun to reconstruct the Tamil and Sumerian origin of many Sanskrit terms. Controversy surrounds the work of Dr. Loganathan because it is claimed that Sanskrit is a representative of the ancestral Indo-Aryan language and has been in pristine shape since Panini. Coulson maintains that “Panini is obeyed and bypassed” .

Sanskrit is not genetically related to the Indo-European family of languages as many researchers have assumed. As a result, Coulson notes that “the syntax of Classical Sanskrit in many major respects bears little resemblance to the syntax of any other Indo-European language (leaving aside similarities in certain kinds of Middle Indo-Aryan writing” .

This view is untenable. W.D. Whitney, in Sanskrit Grammar (1889) observed “of linguyistic history there is next to nothing in it all [Classical Sanskrit]; but only a history of style, and this for the most part showing a gradual depravation, an increase of artificially and intensification of certain more undesirable features of the language such as the use of passive construction and of particles instead of verbs, and the substitution of compounds [i.e., agglutination] for sentences”. Professor Whitney found this characteristic strange because agglutination is associated with non-Indo-European languages like Dravidian.

The Sanskrit language has been under constant change since its creation as various grammarians took liberty with Sanskrit to make it conform to the popular colloquial language forms of the grammarian. As a result, Sanskrit writers have made numerous innovations in writing Sanskrit. Coulson wrote that “The syntax of Classical Sanskrit in many major respects bears little resemblance to the syntax of any other Indo-European language (leaving aside similarities in certain kinds of Middle Indo-Aryan writing”(p.xxii). Dr. Coulson adds that “Furthermore, because of the long history of the language andt the varied sources from which it drew its vocabulary, many Sanskrit words have a number of meanings; and this feature, too, is much augmented by compounding (e.g., because it literally means ‘twice born’, the word dvijah can signify ‘brahmin’, ‘bird’ or ‘tooth’ (p.xxiv).

The diverse origin of Sanaskrit encouraged grammarians and authors of Sanskrit literature to make innovations in writing the language that according to Coulson led to “Panini…[being] obeyed and bypassed” (p.xxii). As a result, Sanskrit is a learned language that has been modified over time by numerous poets writing in Sanskrit and thus we see innovations not in conformity with Paninis grammar by Aśvaghosa, and Kalidasa (Samkara) .

As you can see Sanskrit is not the first language. Sanskrit was a lingua franca used to povide a common means of communication for the diverse people who formerly lived in North India.

.

Ge'ez influence on Sanskrit

The Indian Ethiopians called Naga, made one important improvement over the Ethiopic alphabetic scripts. This improvement was the addition of vowels to the alphabet.
The major contribution to the Ethiopian Nagas was the Indian writing system called Deva-Nagari. Nagari is the name for the Sanskrit writing system. Over a hundred years ago Sir William Jones, pointed out that Ge'ez and Sanskrit writing are one and the same. He explained that this was supported by the fact that both writing systems went from left to right, Sanskrit and Ge'ez share udentical vowels in the same order, and the vowels were annexed to the consonants.

Today Eurocentric scholars teach that the Indians taught writing to the Ethioipians, or Ethiopian writing came from Yemen, yet the name Nagari for Sanskrit betrays the Ethiopian origin for this form of writing. In Ge'ez the term nagar means 'speech, to speak'. Thus we have in Ge'ez, with the addition of pronouns: nagara 'he spoke, nagast 'she spoke' and nagarku 'I spoke'.

The origin of Devanagari was as a trade language or lingua franca is evident in any discussion of this term. Sanskrit was, and has always been mainly an oral language until Panini and others wrote a grammar for it . This is why neither the Ge'ez or Sanscript word for 'writing' was ever applied to Devanagari. It is for this reason that it was called Deva+nagari 'the sacre speech'.


There is no Indian etymology that explains Nagari as the name for the Sanskrit language. It is clear that Devanagari means 'Divine city' or 'Sacre city' or 'City of God'. That is why the term script, is placed in brackets in your definitions:" meaning the "urban(e) [script] of the deities (= gods)", i.e. "divine urban(e) [script]".

There is nothing in Sanascrit that allows the term Deva+nagari to represent anything but Deva (sacre, deity, god)+ nagari (city, of the city). For example lets look at deva+ , e.g., devata+maya 'containing all the gods'; deva+putra 'son of god'; deva+nadi 'divine river'; deva+linga 'statue of god ; and deva+nagari 'sacre city'. Lets look at nagari: avanti+nagari 'the city of Uggayini; Yama-nagari 'city of Yama'; and Indra+nagari 'city of Indra'.

These Sanskrit examples make it clear that Deva and nagari has nothing to do with 'writing'. Some researchers have claimed that devanagari= "sacre urbane [wiritng]", because they want to have an etymology for this term. Yet as noted by the Wikipedia site Sanskrit is often simply known as "Nagari" .

This supports my earlier view that the Ethiopian term Nagari, was used to represent writing by the inventors of Sanskrit, which was probably used as a lingua franca by the Ethiopians who ruled India and lived primarially in Indian urban areas. This means that Deva+nagari = 'Sacre Writing', not 'urbane [script] of the Deity'.


They used the term nagari, due to the fact that Sanskrit was originally a lingua franca used by the Ethiopians to communicate with their subjects and other diverse people in India. Because of its possible origin as a trade language, spoken Sanskrit acquired the name "Nagari" 'speech'.

Since it probably originated as a lingua franca, it was later written in Ge'ez or some other Ethiopian script. When Panini and others wrote grammars of Sanskrit they continued to call it by the name given it by its creator: Nagari 'speech'.

This is why attempts to provide a native etymology for nagari 'city, urban(e)' when interpreting Devanagari fails, it fails because Devanagari was a lingua franca and over time the proper meaning of the term was lost as various grammarian refined Sanskrit.

First of all Ge'ez dates back to 500 BC, whereas Brahmi dates to 264-271BC. As a result Devanagari has nothing to do with Brahmi. Brami is a syllabary whereas Devanagari is abugida.

A cursory comparison of the scripts, indicates that Ge'ez shows more similarity to Devanagari that Brahmi does to Devanagari.


A comparison of Devanagari and Ge'ez shows many similar signs.



Deavanagari …………..Ge'ez

Ka………………………k'a, k'e

Þa…………………….ta

Þha……………….ta

Ya…………………ye^

Jha ……………he

Ha………………he

Va………………wa

Ra……………..rä

Dha………….da

Ba…………….be

Ra…………….rä

Da………………dä

Œa…………..ze

Sa…………..zu

Vowels
u………….u

e…………ä

u………a

It is clear fron this comparison of Devanagari and Ge'ez we see the following consonantal patterns:

K/k

Þ/t

D/d

S/z

Œ/z

Vowel pattern

A/ä

U/ u

U/a

A/e



This comparison of Ge'ez and Devanagari suggest a stronger influence of Ge'ez on Devanagari than Brahmi.


As you can clearly see from a comparison of the scripts that Ge'ez shows more similarity to Devanagari that Brahmi does to Devanagari.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Dravidians and Aryans

The debate has raged during the past decade. The Aryan invasion theory stated that the Aryans entered a civilizaed India , where the Dravidian and other people lived in wall cities. The AIT made it clear, as indicated by the Vedic literature that the Aryans were clearly nomads who attacked the cities of North India . Since there was nothing in the Vedic literature which idetified them as civilized,the Indus Valley Civilization was credited to the Dravidian people .

In the 1990's population genetics became popular. At first the science was used to identify connections in a positive fashion. As more and more research was done it was recognize that many Eurasians carried African genes.
Although history and archaeology illustrated that Africans had migrated to Eurasia since 3500 BC, the geneticist began to refine their methods to differentiate between Africans and Europeans who carried the same gene by refining their methods and giving the same gene held by different groups, diferent names.

Based on the monogentic theory that man originated in Africa, geneticist accepted the fact that anatomically modern humans (amh) originated in Africa between 200-100,000 years ago (kya). Next, the geneticist claimed that amh left Africa 60kya.
On the surface this was a neutral conclusion, but in reality it had deep implications for anthropology. First of all radio-carbon dates and skeletal remains make it clear that their is no single African Black population. As mankind developed in Africa different people appeared at different types which were all similar in color but had selected features which indicated differences.

Thus we have:

1) The Australian people have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair and sloping brows and with prominent ridges.

2) The next group were the San who have curly hair , the brows were vertical and without prominent eyebrow ridges . The San were of medium build.

3)The next group were the Pgymy have curly hair , the brows were vertical and without prominent eyebrow ridges . The San were short in stature.

4) Finally we have the African-Melanesian- Oceanic type who have curly hair , the brows were vertical and without prominent eyebrow ridges . The African-Oceanic type is tall in stature.

These types of Negroes are supported by craniometric and skeletal remains recovered from archaeological excavations. This evidence supports multiple migrations.
Because the archaeological evidence supports Africans existing in Europe and Eurasia generally it explained why Eurasiatic people carry African genes.They carry African genes because they were carried to Eurasia in recent times.

Genetics, like the other sciences is Eurocentric. So these researchers used the genetic data that Eurasians carried African genes to imply that since the out of Africa (OOA) event occured only once in 60kya, any genes carried by Eurasians that are derived from African genes must be the result of a back migration ( i.e., Europeans took the African genes they acquired after 60kya back to Africa ).
The main problem with this theory was that it is not supported by the skeletal remains and archaeology which show that Blacks entered the areas at different times since 60kya. Although the genetics have no archaeological and skeletal evidence to support the presence of European and mongoloid people in this or that region, they use statistical methods to claim that Eurasians possessed this or that gene earlier than the same gene in Africa.

Now Eurocentrist can claim that yea, Blacks were in Eurasia, but these Blacks are all derived from the OOA event--not recent migrations.
There was only one problem with this idea:the Dravidians. The Dravidians have long been recognized as Negroes by anthropologist. They shared blood type and cultural features.

In 1999 Kivisild et al, wrote a paper claiming that Dravidians carried the M1 haplogroup. This was evidence that the Dravidians must be related to Africans because hg M1 is primarially found in Africa, especially Ethiopia .
Later Hindu nationalists took over the India government. They began to fund researchers and the 1999 Kivisild article was ignored, and geneticists began to claim that hg M1 did not exist in India, eventhough we have the Kivisild et al 1999 study.

Today the Hindu nationalist claim that Dravidians originated in India and since they share genes with the Indo-Aryan speakers they too must be native to India. Their reasoning continues, that if the Indo-Aryan people were in India since time memorial and they live in North India, while the Dravidians live in South India , it was the Indo-Aryan people who founded the Indus Valley civilization and probably spread the Indo-European languages to Europe. The myth that Indo-Aryan people have always lived in India--provided the Hindu nationalists with the fuel to claim that the Aryan invasion was a myth created by the European colonists.

This meant that the only way the Indo-Aryans can claim an insitu origination is based on genetic evidence. Genetic research is being used to revise India history by erasing Dravidians from Indian history and replacing them with Indo-Aryan speakers.
What the Hindu nationalists did not know is that the archaeology, linguistics and the 1999 Kivisild et al article point to a recent (c. 3000-2500) migration of Dravidians from Africa to India--not an insitu development of Dravidian speakers in India. The Hindu nationalist must support genetic research to provide them with a prominent role.

In summary Indo-Aryans attack the Aryan Invasion theory (AIT) because it makes them recent immigrants to India. To deny the AIT "whites" out Dravidians from India history. The attacks on AIT by Hindu Nationalists is made to give Indo-Aryan people a history they do not deserve.

Friday, September 3, 2010

The Natufians

The Natufians introduced agriculture to the Levant. The founders of civilization in South West Asia were the Anu people, archaeologists call Natufians. By 13,000 BC, according to J.D. Clark ("The origins of domestication in Ethiopia", Fifth Panafrican Congress of prehistory and quaternary Studies, Nairobi,1977) the Natufians were collecting grasses which later became domesticated crops in Southwest Asia. In Palestine the Natufians established intensive grass collection.

The Natufians used the Ibero-Maurusian tool industry (see F. Wendorf, TheHistory of Nubia, Dallas,1968, pp.941-46). These Natufians , according to Christopher Ehret ( "On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia", Jour. of African History 20, [1979], p.161) were small stature folk who spread agriculture throughout Nubia into the Red Sea. The Natufians took the Ibero-Maurusian tools into Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

The Natufians practiced evulsion of the incisors the same as Bantu people and inhabitants of the Saharan fringes.

The modern civilizations of the Middle East were created by the Natufians.Since the Natufians came from Nubia, they can not be classified as Euorpeans, as you claim in your post.



Trenton W. Holliday,in "Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) [2000], tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa , "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of theLavant,especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area.

Holliday confirmed his hypothesis that the replacement of the Neanderthal people were Sub-Saharan Africans. This shows that there were no European types in the Middle East Between 20,000-4,000BP. Moreover, we clearly see the continuity between African culture from Nubia to the Levant.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

So-Called Sumerian Seals Relating to Gods from outer space or Annunaki

by

Dr. Clyde Winters

Director Uthman Dan Fodio Institute












There are a number of Sumerian seals that some researchers claim to relate to the Anunnaki, who came from the heaven to create man, and enslaved man to work in the mines. Although this is the opinion of these researchers the Sumerian seals they cite as evidence for this enslavement relate to the simple worship of the gods by the Sumerians. These seals were probably talisman meant to encourage the Sumerian people to reflect on their gods and do good.






In the above figure we see a number of signs . There are three figures. A number of signs are associated with the figures. The figures at the end of the seals have their hands made in the shape of the tu sign, and read i tu, “Send forth the libation”. The middle figure’s hand is shaped in sign of the i ta, and reads Send forth (his/the) Touch”.
Lets read the seal from right to left. Sings to the far right of the seal reads: Me mi mi I i-ta mi ge i u u mi gu lu a a i-me, or “The diviner has much power from the diety to send forth. Send forth the character of the Diviner. Act to send forth amazement to nourish the oracle and sustain man. The strong Father sends forth the oracle.

After these signs we see the god (maybe Enlil) whose hand pointing skyward reads i tu ‘send forth the libation”. The other hand carries a beaded necklace. Below the necklace we see a figure seated on a throne on the back of an animal.

Next we see figure that resembles an arrow or spear seated on a base. This spear or arrow figure is made up of a number of signs. They read Pa ta u “Reveal the character of a powerful man”.

On the left side of the spear/arrow figure we see a number of sings beginning with a wave (zi ) like sign slightly above the head of the god. The wavy sign is zi and reads righteousness or ‘breath of life’.

The god’s hand points at the top of the spear. The other hand is changed in the i ta signs=Send forth (his/ the) touch”. Below this hand we see two columns of signs. There are three signs to the right Su a-i u and reads “Wisdom sprouts from the Father/Leader and amazement”.

There are five signs on the left side under the hand. They read Mi mi ta be ta, and reads “The phenomenal oracle to open up speech and entrust benefit ( for MAN/YOU)”.

Above the wazy line we see a figure that has a u symbol, above a circle between two boxes or logs, with a fan under the circular figure. The u symbol equals u, the box figures read bu mesh, the circle sign = ta and the fan below the circle is pa. This figure reads U bu mesh ta bu mesh pa, “The Powerful man supports the character of a super perfect Diviner and leader”.

It is important to note that when a sign is doubled, this represents reduplication or plural nature of the signs.

There are Proto-Sumerian signs behind the middle god, between the god at the far left of the seal. The First sign is a half-moon which reads u or “Gaze (at)”. The rest of signs reading from top to bottom are lu mi ta mi ta gun a lu mi mi i be. Tu mi i. This passage reads “ Gaze (at) the man of power. Open up the divine decree. Entrust benefit to human beings. Distribute the oracle’s divine decree to witness speech. Go forth to make a libation (at the ) oracle.

This seal is also relating to offering libation to the gods at an oracle. This oracle appears to speak to the supplicants.







In the above image we see the Sumerian sign of kingship which is represented by the figure which is star shaped and includes sixteen points. The dot reads li, and the line is i. In Sumerian li i “To become visible/shine”.

Next we see two gods. On the left we see a humano-fish figure. This god may represent the god Ea who was like a fish and is suppose to be the creator of man. The other god may be Enlil. The hands of the gods pointing to the log represent the signs, i ta, and reads “Send forth his Touch”.

Between the gods and above them we see a log shaped figure with a a number of lines. On the right hand side of the log we see two signs: a hook with a line under it. The hook is probably the u sign, the line is read i. The two signs would read u i, , “Witness amazement”.

In the Center of the log we see a dot (li), a half circle (a) under the dot and a fan like symbol (pa). Under the fan is a large half circle (a).These symbols read Li a pa A, or “Become visible a strong leader. The Father”.

At the end of log on the left hand side we see three signs a vertical line (i), with two horizontal lines (gu) between it and another vertical line. These signs read i gu i or “Become a visible witness to benefit man”.

Under the a sign, in the center of the seal we see a figure surrounded by the dot line symbol = li i ‘ Become visible”. The next sign is the u, “Powerful/Nourish”. Within the u sign we see repeatedly the dot (li) sign between two lines on either side gu. Li gu = “send forth sustenance”. These symbols probably read “Become visible a powerful (Leader/Fther) to send forth sustenance for mankind”.

Given the text on the seal, the figure on the log probably represents Anu, the sky Creator of all god.

These seals is telling man(kind) to offer a libation to Anu, to make this god a visible figure in their life.

To summarize, these seals relate to being good luck talisman reminding the bearer of the seals to worship their gods—not space travel.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Nubian Kamitic Sumerian Dravidian Concept of the Soul

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the character of the soul among the
Kametians, Sumerians, Olmecs and Dravidians. For
purposes of this paper we will call the Sumerians,
Olmecs and Dravidians Kushites, since the ancestors of
these people lived in the Highland Areas of Middle
Africa: the Proto-Sahara, and practiced a culture and
civilization –as typified by the rock art in the
region--similar to that of the C-Group people. Below
we discover the ultimate objective of the Kushite for
the soul to become pure or white.

If this is correct in this interpretation of the
Kametian-Sumerian- Kushite-Dravidian view of man’s
soul it should be present in the languages of these
people. To test this hypothesis we will discuss the
culture terms from these languages related to the term
‘soul’.

In most of these languages the basic ideas
about purity and the soul is indicated by two words
ba/pa and or bo/po, with the possible addition of an /
l / or /r/ as a final element to these monosyllabic
terms.

We learn from the seals of the Dravidian speaking
Harappans that they sought righteousness and a
spotlessly pure mind, for purity of mind was the sine
quo non for happiness within. You can find out more
about Harappan religion and writing at the following
sites:
http://olmec98,net/Indus.html


http://olmec98,net/grammar1.pdf

http://olmec98.net/IndusInspiration.pdf


Tolkappiyam makes it clear that in Tamil pa(l),
denoted Karma. In Sangam times pal was considered the
sum and the consequences of a person’s action, i.e.,
his Fate or destiny. Tiruvallur used pal to denote
Fate or the Law of Nature. K. Appadurai, in the Mind
and Thoughts of Tiruvallur, noted that pal in its
external form is the veda, or word of God that makes
everything perfect, undying, everlasting and that
forever grows, and is growing internal Bliss. The fact
that pal represents that undying and perfect aspect of
man corresponds to Loga’s interpretation of the
Kushite view of the soul reflected that this aspect of
man was both eternal and perfect.

In Dravidian we also find that in addition to pal
meaning “Fate”, it also meant distribution, while pala
in Tamil means ‘many and diverse’.
The Tamil concept of pal corresponds to that of
the Sumerians. In Sumerian we find the word bar . Bar
has several meanings including ‘soul’ and ‘white’.The
view here that the bar is both the soul and also
something that is white or pure corresponds favorably
to pal the Tamil conception of that aspect of man
which is both everlasting and pure.

The Dravidians and Mande people who founded the
Shang and Xia civilizations, respectively in China,
also took the concept that the soul was pure to the
Mongoloid Chinese people. We know very little about
the sounds of ancient Chinese because Ancient Chinese
was different from Old Chinese and Middle Chinese and
the modern Chinese dialects. (Ramsey 1987, pp.137-138)
This results from the fact that the Chinese dynasties
were founded by diverse ethnic groups e.g., Xia and
Shang li (i.e., Black Shang) were founded by Dravidian
and Manding speakers. Shang-Yin was founded by
classical mongoloids, and the Zhou by the contemporary
Chinese. ) This explains the difference in
pronunciation for Ancient Chinese spoken by the Xia
and Shang peoples who were Africans and Dravidians
formerly belonging to the C-Group people of Middle
Africa, and Old and Middle Chinese or a variant there
of, which was probably spoken by the Zhou and later
Mongoloid Chinese people. See:

http://olmec98.net/xia.htm


http://www.olmec98.net/DRAVIDIANS.html


http://olmec982.net/blshang2.htm



http://clyde.winters.tripod.com/junezine/id1.html



The Shang characters compare favorably to the ancient
Proto- Saharan script used by the Harappans in the
Indus Valley and the Manding script used in the
ancient Sahara and Crete . Winters (1985c) outlined
the spread of the Proto-Saharan script to Harappa, and
throughout Saharan Africa and Asia by the Dravidians
and Manding.

http://olmec98.net/anwrite.htm

Evidence of Chinese writing first appears around 2000
B.C. as pottery marks. The shell-and-bone characters
represented writing they were not pictures. The Shang
symbols compare favorably with ancient Manding
symbols.

In Chinese the term for ‘white’ is bai, while the
term for ‘soul’ is bo. Because the pronounciation of
Chinese has changed over the centuries because of the
frequent conquest of the ‘country’ by diverse people
since the fall of the Xia and Shang civilizations
Chinese researchers have developed many theories to
explain the origin of bai in Chinese for the terms
white (and soul). Some scholars believe that bai , may
have got its meaning for white, from bo ‘soul’,
through the idea that soul, represents emptiness . I
believe that this view for the origin of bai , may be
wrong. This results from the fact that many people
have attempted to use bai, in relation to its
association with humans and ethnic groups to describe
these people as literally white. Thus they may
translate bai ren as “white men/man”.

During Zhou, times many Dravidians (Shang) and
Xia (Mande) people were sacrificed by the Mongoloid
Chinese. Theses people were later called li Qiang
‘Black Qiang’ by the Zhou. In many of the oral bone
inscriptions of the Zhou we see the phrase bai Qiang,
some Chinese researchers have translated this phrase
as “white Qiang”. This interpretation is probably
wrong. The fact that bai, is related to ‘soul’ and
‘white’ suggest that bai Qiang, may be interpreted as
“holy Qiang” or “Pure Qiang”, in reference to the
sacrifice of Qiang religious men during Zhou rituals.

This belief in sacrificing Qiang (Dravidians and
Mande) by the Zhou to obtain blessing from their gods,
may correspond to the popularity during the lated 19th
Century and first half of the 20th Century of burning
and lynching blacks by the KKK as a form of ritual
sacrifice of Blacks to purify the white racists of the
American South and Midwest. This suggest that just as
bar in Sumerian meant both ‘soul’ and ‘white’, bai and
bo had similar meanings because they entered the
Chinese language via the Dravidians and Mande who
founded Chinese civilization.

The view that the soul is pure, appears to have
also been the belief of the Olmec people. The Olmec
people of Mexico are considered to be the “Mother
Civilization” of all Meso-American civilizations. The
Olmec called themselves Xi (Shi), they spoke a
language similar to Malinke-Bambara which is a member
of the Mande family of languages. It is interesting to
note that the symbol for bai in Chinese, is a box.

Among the Olmec the box shaped symbol is pronounced po
‘pure, superlative of white and clean’, just as in the
Mande languages. Among the Olmec the term bo meant ‘
spirit, principal of life, great, moral gradeur and
ghost’. The identification of the Olmec representation
of ‘white, pure and spirit (which may denote an aspect
of man akin to soul)’ as po/ bo highlights Loga’s
identification of the Kushite concept of this aspect
of man as both the soul and purity/ white.

In conclusion, although their are different
contemporary pronunciations ba/pa and bo/po , along
with the symbols used to represent these words in
Chinese and Olmec writing, they have the same meaning
and shape. This suggest a genetic relationship between
the idea of the soul as pure among the
Kametians-Dravidians-Olmecs-Mande-Sumerians. The
present pronunciation of the Chinese symbols probably
has little relationship to the ancient pronunciation
of Chinese spoken in Xia and Shang times when these
characters were first used, but the recovery of the
actual meaning of these words from looking at Olmec
and Tamil, make it clear that Chinese bai did not come
from emptiness, it obtained its meaning from the
recognition that bo represents the soul’s migration to
attain purity.

This cognation of specialized terms for
soul, and white; and the writing systems supports the
proposed Dravidian and Manding migration and
settlement of ancient Sumer, Mexico , China during Xia
times and the Indus Valley. It was in these diverse
geographical areas that the Kushites left their
recognition that the soul is pure.

Nubian Kamitic Sumerian Civilization 1

To understand the Nubian Kametian Sumerian and Dravidian (NKSD) civilization you have to understand that Afrocentric researchers are falsificationist. We either confirm or disconfirm a theory.

Linguistic evidence suggest that their is a Sumero- Tamil connection. Yet Eurocentrists reject this evidence without comment and counter eduttukkaadu (evidences). This makes their discussion of ancient history in my opinion untrue.

I am a product of Western Civilization. As a result, I was indoctrinated from an early age via TV and books that blacks were inferior. Although I was provided this indoctrination many adults during my socialization and induction into the community in which I grew up in , on the Southside of Chicago (i.e., 47th and Evans) taught me at an early age that Blacks were the founders of civilization based on their reading of the Bible, and the story about the Children of Ham.

As a result, when I undertook the acquisition of abstract sign systems during my forming schooling/instruction I had already acquired a metacognition (awareness of your own thinking) that filtered the biasteachings out of me during my years of schooling. I knew who I was based on the truth of the ancient model of history.

Science is hypothesis testing. We either confirm a theory or disconfirm a theory based on eduttukkaadu. A true scientist would never dispute a theory without
offering counter eduttukkaadu in support of the counter hypothesis, but Eurocentric researchers get away with this unscientific attack on the ideas of
Blacks, Native Americans and Asians everyday due to Eurocentrism.

Science goes out the window when theories are advocated by researchers that are not accepted by the Academe. We like to believe that schooling broadans our knowledge base and makes us wiser but this is not the case.

Schooling provides an environment that constructs the cognitive structures, we use to interpret our environment. If that environment teaching us falsehood, we will learn untruths instead of the Truth. This results from the fact that the growth of the mind is strongly influenced by the cultural sign system in which we live. It is the sign system presented via culture that provides first the child, and later the sdult the psychological tools to interpret the world.

To understand the NKSD cultures it requires more that one's racial status and being. Being a African African American or Dravidian will not gain you entry into understanding these cultures. You can only understand these cultures if you find cognitive and psychological engagement with the study of ancient history based on the Truth covering law, of the Ancient Model of History.

Cognitive engagement is an internal indicator. These indicators are process, recognition and desire.Firstly, cognitive engagement requires that you learn how to process information from a self-based approach. This information is processed both by neurological processes, genetics and the mind. The neurogic system helps us understand the mechanics behind our learning.

It makes clear the processes involved in thinking. The mind allows us to interpret knowledge. We don't know where this mind is, but we do know that it has a physical and a meta-physical base. The physical mind is structure by or experiences that form
representations or schmata to interpret the experiences we have had and explain what we find inthe environment.

The mind is also metaphysical. This part of the mind helps us to find information and answers to the questions we may have about phenomenon through our
dreams. ( I can not number the times I went to bed with a question about ancient history that was answered in a dreamthat directed me to sources / evidence to support my inquiry.)

Seeking truth is also genetic. We often discuss the genes and how they make us unique. But no one really discusses the possibility that a genetic memory
also exist. This genetic memory would consist of the memories we obtain from our both our parents up to the time of our birth, and the memories of our parents
parents , and so on up tothe time of their birth. This memory may even go back to the first human ancestors. This genetic memory would allow us to tap into the
memories of our ancestors.

The second feature of cognitive engagement in our quest for the Truth is recognition. Recognition, simply refers to the way you think, learn and process
information. Your ability to find Truth will result from three factors, a) your ability to access genetic based knowledge; b) interactions with known knowledge
( via multiple intelligences); and c) desire to know the Truth.

A good example of accessing the Truth genetically, was made clear by a Western scholar who said he did not understand Greek philosophy until he studied Ethiopian civilization. He even claimed that he formerly may have been an Ethiopian. A Eurocentric scholar would belittle the idea expressed by this scholar, but in reality, maybe he was able to access knowledge relating to the Ethiopians from his genetic memory from his ancestors who may have lived in Ethiopia, because he kept himself open to Truth and Truth came his way.

Finally, to complete your quest for cognitive engagement the heuristic used for task analysis and completion must include a self-monitoring process guided by Truth Seeking based on the Ancient Model of History.

Psychological engagement is both an internal and external indicator used to interpret the truth. You need psychological engagement of the NKSD culture to understand the phenomenon. Psychological engagement has three parts 1)identification with an intellectual school of thought ( in this case the Ancient Model of History); a sense of belonging and connection to a group; and 3) a positive relationship with teachers and peers.

It is easy to find identification with a researchmodel, but finding a sense of belonging and positive relationship with teachers is more difficult. You must
love yourself and your ethnic group before you can use the ancient model of history to discovery aspects of the past. Yet, you can not be racist. You have to recognize that there is one mankind, eventhough we have different colors, because we all came from God. Finding teachers is also difficult. It is hard to find teachers for the study of NKSD at Universities and Colleges because most of the faculty members at
these institutions maintain the status quo. As a result, your teachers will be scholars who are outside the Academe. Scholars who provide the necessary evidences to support and test their hypotheses.

In summary, Truth seeking is the result of cognitive and psychological engagement along with socializing agents who provide us with the schemata we use to recognize Truth in our research. Truth is like beauty, it is only recognized by the eyes of the
beholder of what ever one believes to be true, and interpreted via the Model of History you chose to understand the past.

Nubian Kamitic Sumerian Civilization 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kohl did not mention the red-and-black ware. This ceramic style was found at NKSD sites and is discussed by Singh and Andersson.

Rawlinson was convinced that there was a relationship between the Sumerians and Africans. As a result he used two African languages: one
Semitic and the other Cushitic to decipher the cuneiform writing. Rawlinson was sure that the ancient Nubians and Puntites founded Mesopotamian civilization.(1)

The Sumerians came from the Sahara before it became a desert. Affinities exist between Nubia ware and pottery from Ennedi and Tibesti.

These Saharan people were round-headed ancient Mediterranean type. They were often referred to as Cafsa or Capsians; a group of people not devoid of negroid characteristics according to J Desanges.(11) Wyatt MacGaffey, claims that the term "Mediterranean" is an anthropological euphemism for "Negro".

The boats of the Saharan people are similar to those found on ancient engravings of boats in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley. Many of the boats found in the eastern desert of Egypt and among the Red Sea Hills show affinities to Mesopotamian models.

S.N. Kramer in The Sumerians, claimed that Makan was Egypt, Mekluhha was Nubia-Punt, and the Indus Valley was Dilmun. Today Dilmun is believed to be found near Arabia. But the archaeological evidence suggest that the Indus Valley which was settled by Dravidian speakers was the source of the lapis lazuli , which made Dilmun famous .(2)

Archaeological research has confirmed that cultural interaction existed between the contemporary civilizations of the 4th and 3rd millenia B.C. Extensive trade routes connected the Proto-Dravidians of the Indus Valley, with African people in Egypto-Nubia, and the Elamites and Sumerians. P. Kohl discovered that vessels from IVBI worshop at Tepe Yahya, have a uniform shape and design. Vessels sharing this style are
distributed from Soviet Uzbekistan to the Indus Valley, and Sumerian, Elamite and Egyptian sites. (2) In addition, we find common arrowheads at Harappan sites, and sites in Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and Heladic Greece.

It appears that the locus for this distribution of cultural traditions and technology was the Saharan-Nubian zone or Kush. This would explain why the Sumerians and Elamites often referred to themselves as "ksh". For example the ancient Sumerians called their dynasty "Kish". The words "kish", "kesh" and "kush" were also names for ancient Nubia-Sudan.

The Elamites also came from Kush. According to the classical writer Strabo, Susa the centre of the Elamite civilization was founded by Tithonus, king of Kush.

B.B. Lal has shown conclusively that the Dravidians came from Nubia and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty.(3) They both used a common black-and-red ware (BRW) which Lal found was analogous to ceramics used by the megalithic people in India who also used analogous pottery signs identical to those found in the corpus of Indus Valley writing. (4)


Singh believes that this pottery spread from Nubia, through Mesopotamia and Iran southward into India.(5) The earliest examples of this BRW date to the Amratian period (c4000-3500 B.C.).

This same BRW was found at the lowest levels of Harappan sites at Lothal and Rangpur. After 1700 B.C. This ceramic tradition spread southward into
megalithic India.(6) It is also found in Uzbekistan and China. (12)

Dilmun was an important source of lapis lazuli. If the Indus Valley civilization was Dilmun as hypothesized by Kramer, it would explain the control of the Harappans/ or Dilmunites of this important metal.

The Indus Valley people spoke a Dravidian language.(7) The Harappans controlled the lazurite region of Badakhshan, and the routes to the tin and copper fields of central Asia.(8)

The major city of the Harappans/Dilmunites in the lapis lazuli region was Shortughai. Francefort believes that many lapis lazuli works were transported to Iran and Mesopotamia from Shortughai.(9) The BRW at Shortughai is typically Harappan.

When we put all of this evidence together we must agree that there is some historical evidence for a connection between the NKSD people. These people used similar arrow heads, red-and-black pottery, and intercultural vessels.This shows the common culture of these people.

Footnotes

(1)C.B. Rawlinson, "Notes on the early history of Babylon", Jour. Royal Asiatic Society (First Series) 15, p.230.

(2). Philip L. Kohl, "The balance of trade in the mid-Third millenium BC", Current Anthropology, 19 (1978), pp.463-492.

(3)B.B. Lal, "From megalithic to the Harappan: Tracing back the graffiti on pottery", Ancient India, 16 (1960).

(4)B.B. Lal, "The only Asian mission in threatened Nubia", The Illustrated London Times, 20 April 1963.

(5) H.N. Singh, History and Archaeology of Black-and-Red Ware , Delhi, 1982.

(6) C.A. Winters, "The Dravido-Harappan Colonization of Central Asia", Central Asiatic Journal , 34 (1-2), pp.120-144.

(7) C.A. Winters, "The Dravidian language of the Harappan script", Archiv Orientalni, (1990).

(8) B. Brenjes, "On Proto-Elamite Iran", Current Anthropology, 24 (2) (1984), pp. 240-.

(9) Henri-Paul Franceport, "La civilisation de l'Indus aux rives de l'Oxus", Archeologie , (Decembre) p.50.

(10) Ibid., p.49.

(11) J. Desnages, "The Proto-Berbers". In General History of Africa vol.2, (Ed.) by G. Mokhtar (Heinemann Educational Books, London) p.25.

(12) Andersson,T.G. 1934. CHILDREN OF THE YELLOW EARTH:STUDIES IN PREHISTORIC CHINA. London.

Nubian Kamitic Sumerian Civilization 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that the Sumerians, Harappans, Elamites and Manding speaking people all came from an ancient civilization that formerly existed in the ancient Sahara, of middle Africa.

The Fertile Saharan Crescent is an arc shaped series of highland regions in the Saharan zone of Africa. The Saharan zone is
bounded on the north by the Atlas mountains, the Atlantic Ocean in the West, the tropical rain forest in the south and the Red
Sea in the East. It was here that the ancestors of the founders of the river valley civilizations in Africa, the Middle East, China
and Indus Valley developed their highly organized and technological societies (Winters 1983a, 1985b).

The discovery of Intercultural style vessels from Susa (in Iran),Sumerian, Egyptian and Indus Valley sites suggest a shared
ideological identity among these people . In fact the appearance of shared iconographic symbols and beliefs within diverse areas suggest cultural and ethnic unity among the people practicing these cultures. The common naturalistic motifs shared by the major civilizations include, writing (symbols), combatant snakes , the scorpion, bull and etc. This evidence of cultural unity is explained by the origin of these people in the Proto-Sahara.

The Proto-Saharans similar terms for writing. In general the term for writing was formed by the labial stops /p/ and /b/. For example:

Dravidian par 'write'
Manding bo, bu 'make a stroke', sebe 'write'
Elamite tipu 'to write'
Galla tafa 'to write'
There are also other corresponding terms for 'mark', or 'draw' that begin with velar stops:

Dravidian kiri, kuri 'write, draw, mark'
Egyptian hti 'carve'
Manding kiri, kiti 'mark'

In Egyptian we have several terms for write 0 ss #, 0 zs # , and 0 ssw #. During the Old Kingdom writing was referred to as 0
iht # .

The Egyptian term for writing 0 ssw # is analogous to the Mande terms 0 sewe # or 0 sebe # 'writing, trace, design'. In
Dravidian among other terms we have rasu 'write', and shu 'writing' in Sumerian. The Egyptian term 0 zs # is also closely
related to Sumerian 0 shu #.

Writing systems among African people were mainly devised for two purposes. Firstly, to help merchants keep records on the
business venture they made. Secondly, the Proto-Saharan script was also used to preserve religious doctrines or write
obituaries.

The scarcity of documents, written for historical preservation among ancient African groups resulted from the fact that the keeping of history, was usually left in the hands of traditional (oral) historians. These historians memorized the histories of their nation and people for future recitation before members of their respective communities. This oral history was often accompanied by music or delivered in poetic verse and remains the premier source for the history of most African nations even today.


It is obvious that the first inscriptions were engraved in stone by the Proto-Saharans , or a stylus was used to engrave wet clay. The use of the stylus or stick to engrave clay is most evident in the pottery marks found on the pottery excavated at many ancient sites which possess similar symbols impressed on the pottery.

This view is supported by the fact that the term for writing in Dravidian and Egyptian include the consonants /l/, /r/ or /d/.

A "u", is usually attached to the initial consonants (Winters 1985b). For example:

Sumerian ru, shu
Elamite talu
Dravidian carru
Egyptian drf



These terms agree with the Manding terms for excavate or hollow out 0 du #, 0 do #, 0 kulu #, 0 tura #, etc. The Sumerian term for writing was 0 du #. This show that the Proto-Saharan term for writing denoted the creation of impressions on wet clay and hard rock.

The origin of writing among the Proto-Saharans as an activity involving the engraving of stone is most evident in the Egyptian
language. This hypothesis is supported by the Egyptian words 0 m(w)dt #. The term 0 md t # means both '(sculptor's) chisel'
and 'papyrus-roll, book'. The multiple meanings of 0 md t # makes it clear that the Egyptian, and probably other descendants of the Proto-Saharans saw a relationship between engraving stone and the creation of books.

Other Egyptian lexical items also support the important role Proto-Saharans saw in engraving rocks, and writing. In addition to 0md t # we have, 0 hti # 'carve, sculpture' and 0 iht # 'writing'. The fact that iht is an Old Kingdom term for writing, almost identical to hti, is further evidence that writing involved the engraving of stone.


The ancient Proto-Saharan settlers of of Asia and Africa, as their ancestors in the Fertile African Crescent used the term Ko to denote a rock, stone, envoy and God. Ko, may have been a variation of the word Kos "horned ram". The ram among the dwellers of the Fertile African Crescent was the primordial symbol of the Deity who was usually called: Amma, Amon/Amun, Amen and etc. The earliest representation of this deity are found in the Sahara which predate the worship of Amon-Ra in Egypt by 1000 years. Also, an unexcavated ram headed sphinx much older than the Egyptian sphinx, believed to be a rock formation, is presently situated at Siwa, in the Eastern Desert.

Due to the fact that Ko, in the languages spoken by the Proto-Saharans meant 'stone', made it natural for this term to symbolize
God, since the Deity represents both stability and power. Moreover since the Fertile African Crescent and later the Carpathian Basin were settled during a Golden Age, characterized by stability and reason, gave the term Ko a double meaning among the Proto-Saharans 1) stability and 2) power, God.


………….Man child woman person

Dravidian al mog manuci, asa uk

Sumerian tin,mu, lu manus uku

Manding tye, molo musa musu moko

Magyar muki, el 'person' mag anyuci,asszony muki




ENGLISH SUMERIAN MANDING TAMIL

chief kal,kala kele-tigi gasa(n)

field gan ga kalan

eye(l) igi akki

eye(2) ini,en nya kan

arrow kak kala kakam

granary kur k'ur-k'ur kutir

road sila sila caalai

father pap pa appan

lord manus mansa mannan

male mu moko maakkal

to recite sid siti

to buy sa sa cel

grain se se

seed gen ge 'to sprout'

The linguistic data support the unity of NKSD civilizations.