Paleo-Egyptian-Black African Language

 

During the late pleistocene clay pottery or baskets were probably used by hunter/fisher/gather groups to collect grain, as evidenced by numerous millstones found on early Saharan sites.

     These hunters early domesticated the dog. These dogs were used by hunters to catch their prey. The Egyptian term for dog is

0 uher #. This Egyptian term corresponds to many African, and Dravidian  terms for dog:

Egptian     uher                

Azer        wulle

Bozo        kongoro

Guro        bere

Vai         wuru, ulu

Bo(Bambara)  -ulu

Wassulunka   wulu

Konyanka     wulu

Malinke      wuli, wuru, wulu

Dravidian    ori

The above data indicates that there is contrast between Paleo-Afican l =/= r. The Egyptian 0 uher # , Azer 0 wulle # and Manding 0 wuru #  suggest that the r> l in Paleo-African. There is also vowel alternation in the terms for dog  o =/= u. The predominance of the vowel /u/ in the terms for dog, make it clear that o<u. This evidence suggest that there are two Paleo-African terms for dog: Paleo-African (PA) *uru and *oro.

     Although the Paleo-Africans may have had seasonal migration patterns their ceramic traditions and intensive exploitation of plant foods show a continuity of the technological and structural tradition in the Libyan Sahara, and in our opinion do not reflect a true nomadic herder tradition characterized by historic nomadic societies.(Winters 1986b) It is interesting to note that while cattle predominate the pictorial scenes in the Libyan Sahara, the faunal remains from Uan Muhuggiag and El Kaduda for example, indicate that most Paleo-Africans kept domesticated goat/sheep.

(Obenga 1988; Barich 1985; Winters 1985a,1986b)  Moreover the earliest animal engravings in the Fezzan were of rams and goats/

sheep. (Quellec 1985:367)

     The inhabitants of the Fezzan were roundheaded blacks .(Jelinek 1985:273) The cultural characteristics of the Fezzanese were analogous to C-Group culture items and people of Nubia.(

Quellec 1985; Jelinek 1985) The C-Group people occupied the Sudan and Fezzan regions between 3700-1300 B.C. (Close 1988)

     These early Paleo-Africans of Libya were called the Temehu

by the Egyptians.(Behrens 1984:30) Ethnically the Temehu had the same physical features of black African people. (Quellec 1985; Jelinek 1985; Diop 1984:72)

     These C-Group people used a common black-and-red ware. B.B. Lal (1963) of the Indian Expedition in the Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia proved that the Dravidian people probably originally lived in middle Africa before they settled South India. A common origin for black Africans and Dravidians would explain the analogous cultural and linguistic features of these

two groups. (Anselin 1982; Winters 1980,1981,1981b,1985a, 1985c)

      The Proto-Mande speakers in the Saharan highlands were probably one of the numerous C-Group tribes settled in this area. If we accept this hypothesis the C-Group people would represent a collection of ethnic groups that later became the Supersets we now find in the fragmentation belt, such as the  Niger-Congo speakers Greenberg (1970) believes early domesticated ovicaprids. The origin of the Mande among the sedentary pastoral C-Group ethnic groups supports the linguistic data indicating an early Mande domestication of cattle.

      In the Sahara pastoralism was the first form of food production. Augustin Holl (1989) a specialist on western Africa believes that pastoralism was the first form of food production developed by post-paleolithic groups in the Sahara.

    In the eastern Sahara it would appear that ovicaprid husbandry preceded cattle domestication because cattle were maladaptive to rocky lands. This is in sharp contrast to the western Sahara where cattle was the mainstay domesticate for sedentary pastoral economies.

     Much of the evidence relating to this pastoral way of life comes from the discovery of cattle bones at excavated sites in the Sahara dated between 7000-2000 BC, and the rock drawings of cattle. (McIntosh &McIntosh 1981) In the western Sahara, sites such as Erg In-Sakane region, and the Taoudenni basin of northern Mali, attest to cattle husbandry between 6000 and 5000 BP. The ovicaprid husbandry on the other hand began in this area between 5000 to 3000 BP. Cattle pastoral people began to settle Dar Tichitt and Karkarichinkat between 5000 to 3500 BP.

      The term for cattle,cow in the various African languages

show much correspondence. Below we will compare the term for cow

from various African languages:

 

                          CATTLE/ COW

Egyptian         ng, nag

Wolof            nag

Peul/Fulfulde    nag

Angas            ning

Ankwe            ning

Susu             ninge

Nuer             yang

Baguirmi         m-ang, mang

Gbea             m-angu, mangu

Sar(a)           m-ang, mang

Serere           nak

Mande            nika

Burma            nak

Jarawa           i-nak

Kagoro           nyak

Kaje             nyak

Burak            nyek

Kagoma           nyak

Bobo             nyanga

Kono-Vai         nige

So.W. Mande      ninke

Sembla           nigi

Congo-Benue      *i-nak

Duala            nyaka

Mpongwe          nyare

 

Fang             nyar

Kwa              nare

Azer(Azayr)      na

Soninke          na

Gourmantche      nua, nue

Senufo           nu

Ewe              nyi

Niellim          nya

Boua (Bwa)       nya

Tarok            ina

Iregwe           nya

Dadiya           nee

Amo              na

Baya             nday

Bobofing         nya-nga

Gera              ndiya

Koro              indak

Hausa             nagge

Dravidian Languages

Tamil             naku

Tulu              naku

     The correspondence between African terms for cattle support the archaeological evidence for the early domestication of cattle in the Proto-Sahara. This view is supported by the similarity in the terms for cow/cattle by speakers of the Mande, Niger-Congo, Chadic, and Afro Asiatic Supersets.

 

     Ceramics spread from the  Central and Eastern Sahara into North Africa. These ceramics were of  Sudanese inspiration and date back to the 7th millennium B.C. This pottery was used from the Ennedi to Hoggar. The makers of this pottery were from the Sudan (Andah 1981).

    By the late stone age (LAS) Dravidans were well established in the Sahara (Winters 1985b). These Proto-Dravidans were members of the Saharo-Sudanese tradition (Camps 1974). They lived in the highlands.

      We call these people who live in the ancient Sahara: Proto-Saharans (Winters 1985). Most of the Proto-Saharans lived on hillocks or slopes near water. But some Paleo-Africans lived on the plains which featured lakes and marshes. During much of the neolithic/epipaleolithic period the Sahara resembled the Mediterranean region in climate and ecology.

     In the Sahelian zone there was a short wet phase during the Holocene (c. 7500-4400 B.C.), which led to the formation of large lakes and marshes in Mauritania, the Niger massifs and Chad.  The Inland Niger Delta was unoccupied. In other parts of the Niger area the wet phase existed in the eight/seventh and fourth/third millennia B.C. (McIntosh & McIntosh 1986:417)

     There were few habitable sites in West Africa during the Holocene wet phase. McIntosh and McIntosh (1986) have illustrated that the only human occupation of the Sahara during this period were the Saharan massifs along wadis. By the 8th millennium B.C.

Saharan-Sudanese pottery was used in the Air. (Roset 1983)  Ceramics of this style have also been found at sites in the Hoggar. (McIntosh & McIntosh 1983b:230) Dotted wavy-line pottery

has also been discovered in the Libyan Sahara. (Barich 1985)

     During the late Pleistocene clay pottery or baskets were probably used by hunter/fisher/gather groups to collect grain, as evidenced by numerous millstones found on early Saharan sites.

     These hunters early domesticated the dog. These dogs were used by hunters to catch their prey. The Egyptian term for dog is

0 uher #. This Egyptian term corresponds to many African, and Dravidian  terms for dog:

Egptian     uher                

Azer        wulle

Bozo        kongoro

Guro        bere

Vai         wuru, ulu

Bo(Bambara)  -ulu

Wassulunka   wulu

Konyanka     wulu

Malinke      wuli, wuru, wulu

Dravidian    ori

The above data indicates that there is contrast between Paleo-Dravido-Afican l =/= r. The Egyptian 0 uher # , Azer 0 wulle # and Dravidian 0 ori #  suggest that the r> l in Paleo-African. There is also vowel alternation in the terms for dog  o =/= u. The predominance of the vowel /u/ in the terms for dog, make it clear that o<u. This evidence suggest that there are two Paleo-Dravido-African terms for dog: Paleo-Dravido-African (PA) *uru and *oro.

 

     Although the Paleo-Dravido-Africans may have had seasonal migration patterns their ceramic traditions and intensive exploitation of plant foods show a continuity of the technological and structural tradition in the Libyan Sahara, and in our opinion do not reflect a true nomadic herder tradition characterized by historic nomadic societies (Winters 1986b). It is interesting to note that while cattle predominate the pictorial scenes in the Libyan Sahara, the faunal remains from Uan Muhuggiag and El Kaduda for example, indicate that most Paleo-Dravido-Africans kept domesticated goat/sheep (Obenga 1988 ; Barich 1985; Winters 1985a,1986b).  Moreover the earliest animal engravings in the Fezzan were of rams and goats/

sheep (Quellec 1985:367).

     The inhabitants of the Fezzan were roundheaded blacks (Jelinek 1985:273). The cultural characteristics of the Fezzanese were analogous to C-Group culture items and people of Nubia (

Quellec 1985; Jelinek 1985). The C-Group people occupied the Sudan and Fezzan regions between 3700-1300 B.C. (Close 1988).

The C-Group people are believed to have founded the Kerma dynasty of Nubia.

     These early Paleo-Dravido-Africans of Libya were called the Temehu by the Egyptians (Behrens 1984:30). Ethnically the Temehu had the same physical features of black African people (Quellec 1985; Jelinek 1985; Diop 1984:72).

     These C-Group people used a common black-and-red ware. B.B. Lal (1963) of the Indian Expedition in the Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia proved that the Dravidian people probably originally lived in middle Africa before they settled South India. A common origin for black Africans and Dravidians would explain the analogous cultural and linguistic features of these

two groups (Anselin 1982; Winters 1980,1981,1981b,1985a, 1985c).

      The Proto-Dravidian speakers settled in the Saharan highlands during the LSA were probably one of the numerous C-Group tribes settled in this area. If we accept this hypothesis the C-Group people would represent a collection of ethnic groups that later became the Supersets we now find in the fragmentation belt, such as the  Niger-Congo speakers Greenberg (1970) believes early domesticated ovicaprids. The origin of the Proto-Dravidian people among the sedentary pastoral C-Group ethnic groups supports the linguistic data indicating an early Dravidian term for cattle which is genetically related to terms for cattle in the Niger-Congo Superset of languages.

      In the Sahara pastoralism was the first form of food production. Augustin Holl (1989) a specialist on western Africa believes that pastoralism was the first form of food production developed by post-paleolithic groups in the Sahara.

    In the eastern Sahara it would appear that ovicaprid husbandry preceded cattle domestication because cattle were maladaptive to rocky lands. This is in sharp contrast to the western Sahara where cattle was the mainstay domesticate for sedentary pastoral economies.

     Much of the evidence relating to this pastoral way of life comes from the discovery of cattle bones at excavated sites in the Sahara dated between 7000-2000 BC, and the rock drawings of cattle (McIntosh &McIntosh 1981).

    The research indicates and independent origin for the Sanga or Indian type cattle of Africa. Muzzolini (1983) has personally visited many sites in the Sahara and studied the Rock Art found there. He is sure that the zebu cattle of Indian are derived from the humped cattle found in the Rock Art of the Sahara Muzzolini (1983).

    In the western Sahara, sites such as Erg In-Sakane region, and the Taoudenni basin of northern Mali, attest to cattle husbandry between 6000 and 5000 BP. The

ovicaprid husbandry on the other hand began in this area between

5000 to 3000 BP. Cattle pastoral people began to settle Dar Tichitt and Karkarichinkat between 5000 to 3500 BP.

 

ANIMAL DOMESTICATION

     As early as 15,000 years ago cattle were domesticated in Kenya. In the Sahara-Nile complex, people domesticated many animals including the pack ass, and a small screw horned goat which was common from Algeria to Nubia.

   The zebu or humped cattle are found in many parts of Africa.The oldest faunal remains of the Bos Indicus come from Kenya, and date to the first millennium B.C.

    The recent evidence that Bos Indicus , humped cattle, may have originated in East Africa suggest that this type of cattle may have first been situated in Africa, and then taken to Asia by the Proto-Saharans. Testimony to the ancient humped cattle in Africa is supported by the depiction of this type of cattle in the rock art of the Sahara.This view is also supported by the fact that  the advent of the Bos Indicus, cattle in Egypt corresponds to the migration of the C-Group  people into the Nile Valley.

    The C-Group people came from the Fertile African Crescent. Augustin Holl (1989) has made it clear that pastoralism was the first form of food production developed by post Paleolithic groups in the Sahara.

    In the western Saharan sites such as Erg In-Sakane region, and the Taoudenni basin of northern Mali, attest to cattle husbandry between 6000 and 5000 B.P. (McIntosh & McIntosh, 1979,1981,1986,1988). Cattle pastoral people began to settle Dar Tichitt and Karkarchinkat between 5000 and 3500 B.P. (Holl, 1989).

      The term for cattle, cow in the various African languages

show much correspondence. Below we will compare the term for cow

from various African languages:

 

                          CATTLE/ COW

Egyptian         ng, nag

Wolof            nag

Fulani           nag

Hausa            nagge

Angas            ning

Ankwe            ning

Susu             ninge

Nuer             yang

Baguirmi         m-ang, mang

Gbea             m-angu, mangu

Sar(a)           m-ang, mang

Serere           nak

Mande            nika

Burma            nak

Tamil            n_ku

Malayalam       n_ku

Tulu            n_ku

Jarawa           i-nak

Kagoro           nyak

Kaje             nyak

Burak            nyek

Kagoma           nyak

Bobo             nyanga

Kono-Vai         nige

So.W. Mande      ninke

Sembla           nigi

Congo-Benue      *i-nak

Duala            nyaka

Mpongwe          nyare

Fang             nyar

Kwa              nare

Azer(Azayr)      na

Soninke          na

Gourmantche      nua, nue

Tamil            _, _n

Malayalam        _, _n

Konda            _.v

Kannda           _, _vu

Telugu           _vu

Senufo           nu

Ewe              nyi

Niellim          nya

Boua (Bwa)       nya

Tarok            ina

Iregwe           nya

Dadiya           nee

Amo              na

Baya             nday

Bobofing         nya-nga

Gera              ndiya

Koro              indak

Malinke           gu_ga, ko_go ‘zebu’

Songhay           dyu_go

Swahili           Ki-go_go

Kannada           g_nde

Kolami            k_nda, kanda

Gadaba            k_nde

Gondi             k_nda

     The correspondence between Dravidian and African terms for cattle support the archaeological evidence for the early domestication of cattle in the Proto-Sahara. This view is supported by the similarity in the terms for cow/cattle by speakers of the Dravidian, Mande, Niger-Congo, Chadic, and Afro Asiatic Supersets.

     The oldest written evidence from Africa comes from the Egyptian language. The Egyptian terms for cattle/ cow were ng and nag . In other African languages we find either the consonant  n-, before the consonant g/k , e.g., n/v______(v)g/k  ;or the nasal consonant n- , before the vowels  -i,-y , and -a  , e.g., n+i+a =

nia , or n+y+a = nya .

     This evidence of cognition in Dravidian, African terms for cattle/cow show considerable correspondence in consonants and vowels within roots.

Table 1.

                  Correspondence within Roots

Niger-Congo         Nilotic     Dravidian     Chadic    Egyptian

-g/-k                   g        -g/-k         -k         -g

  -s-                             --           -z-         s/z

-n-                   -n-         -n-          -m-          n-

Table 2.

                  Correspondence within Vowels

Niger-Congo        Nilotic     Dravidian   Chadic      Egyptian

-i/-y                           -e/-a     -i/-y          -y

a/u                   a           a/u      a/u            a

 

     The linguistic evidence supports the view that the Paleo-Dravido-African term for cattle/cow was *n'n , *n'g /n'k , and *nia . This data also makes it clear that /g/ and /k/ were interchangeable consonants long before the separation of the Proto-Saharans into distinct African cultural and linguistic groups.

     It is interesting to note that the Chadic terms for cow and cattle corresponds to the Mande terms. Mukarovsky (1987) provides numerous analogous Mande and Chadic terms for cow/cattle.

Mande                                Chadic

Bambara     misi                      Sha   nisi mu

Xassanke     nyinsi                    Gofa  mizzaa

Dyula        misi                      Welamo  mizzaa

Malinke      nisi, misi                Zala    mizzaa

                                       Basketo  mizaa

                                       Boro     miizaa

                                       Anfillo  mintso

       *misi                                        *mizaa

 

     This illustrates  an ancient alternation of the s =/= z consonants in Paleo-African. In terms of the term for cow and

cattle it would appear that the usual pattern was m/v__(v) s/z__.

 

Susu       ninge                       Anga       nin

Mende      nika                        Goemai     nin, nen

Malinke    ningi                        Kofyar    nen

Kono       ningi                        Sura      nin

Vai         nii                         Sha       nisi mu

Bande      nika-i                 Tamil   n_ku

Lomo       nik                Malayalam   n_ku

Kpelle     nina                    Tulu   n_ku

Bobo       nyanga

     *nig / *nik,  *nin                          *nin

 

    In the above Chadic and Mande  terms for cow/cattle we see the n/v_________(v) n. The pattern for Dravidian, Chadic and Mande pastoral words is n/v_________(v) k. The cognition between Chadic Dravidian and Mande terms for cattle/cow indicate that the speakers of these languages were in close proximity to one another during the neolithic.

     In summary, B.B. Lal (1963) has made it clear that the BRW of Nubia and Dravidian megakithic pottry are genetically related. This indicates that the Dravidian people may have originally lived in Middle Africa where this pottery style originated.

    It was in Middle Africa, where we find Rock Art, with humped cattle. Muzzolini (1983) believes that Indian cattle may have come from the ancient Sahara.

References:

Winters,C.(1998). Afrocentric historical and linguistic methods, The Western journal of Afro-American Studies 22(2): 73-83.

_______________.(1999a). ProtoDravidian terms for cattle. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 28, 91-98.

_______________.(1999b). Proto-Dravidian terms for sheep and goats.PILC Journal of Dravidian Studies, 9 (2), 183-87.

_______________.(2000). Proto-Dravidian agricultural terms. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 30 (1), 23-28.

Anzick man and the Paleoamericans from Brazil show little specific allele sharing with present-day people

 

This Cell article, by Posth et al,  made it clear that Anzick man and the Paleoamericans from Brazil shared DNA. They wrote that   "The oldest individuals in the dataset show little specific allele sharing with present-day people.". 

Cosimo Posth et al wrote "To obtain an understanding of how the ancient individuals relate to present-day ones, we computed f3- and f4-statistics, which estimate allele sharing between samples in a way that is unbiased by population-specific drift (Patterson et al., 2012). The oldest individuals in the dataset show little specific allele sharing with present-day people. For example, a
10,900 BP individual from Chile (from the site of Los Rieles) shows only slight excess affinity to later Southern Cone individuals. In Belize, individuals from two sites dating to
9,300 and
7,400 BP (Mayahak Cab Pek and Saki Tzul) do not share significantly more alleles with present-day people from the region near Belize than they do with present-day groups elsewhere in Central and South America. In Brazil, genetic data from sites dating to
9,600 BP (Lapa do Santo) and
6,700 BP (Laranjal) show no distinctive shared ancestry with present-day Brazilians (Figures 2 and S1; Table S1), although the Laranjal individuals do show potential evidence of shared ancestry with a
5,800 BP individual from Moraes (Table S4), confirmed by the statistic f4(Mbuti, Brazil_Laranjal_6700BP; Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP, Brazil_Moraes_5800BP), which is Z = 7.7 standard errors from zero. We detect long-standing continuity  "

Anzick man shares DNA with the paleoamericans in Brazil. The author's of this study noted that "The distribution of this statistic f4(Mbuti, Test; USR1, Anzick-1) confirms previous findings that Anzick-1 relatedness is greatest in Central and South Americans and lowest in North American groups (Table S4) (Rasmussen et al., 2014), with the exception of the California Channel Islands, where the earliest individuals from San Nicolas Island around 4,900 BP show some of the highest Anzick-1 relatedness, consistent with an early spread of Anzick-1-related people to these islands followed by local isolation (Scheib et al., 2018) (Figure S2D). "

The D haplogroup is the Asian name for the African M1 haplogroup. The South Anzick  and South Americans carried the D haplogroup.  Posth et al ,  wrote: " The D4h3a mtDNA haplogroup has been hypothesized to be a marker for an early expansion into the Americas along the Pacific coast (Perego et al., 2009). However, its presence in two Lapa do Santo individuals and Anzick-1 (Rasmussen et al., 2014) makes this hypothesis unlikely (Figure S7; Table S3; STAR Methods). "

Only skeletons 3000 years old show affinity to modern mongoloid Indians. This is not surprising because the earliest mongoloid Indian skeletons date to 6000 BC.

  Although  the the genetic evidence does not show that the Paleoamericans did not have affinity with the Melanesians, Australians,  researchers have tried to make a new reconstruction of Luzia. 

In reality the genetic evidence discussed by Posth et al,  makes it clear there was no reason for artists to make the fake construction Luzia . 

This is a fake reconstruction once you look at the reconstruction you can see that the face of the original reconstruction was negroid, while the final product looked Caucasian. Look at the reconstruction the lips are larger and the nose is wider.

In summary, the Posth et al articles makes it clear that the Paleoamericans do not look like modern mongoloid Indians. It also makes it clear the Paleoamericans carried the same DNA in North and South America.

Source:

Cosimo Posth ,Nathan Nakatsuka ,Iosif Lazaridis, Lars Fehren-Schmitz ,Johannes Krause . David Reich. (2018). Reconstructing the Deep Population History of Central and South America. Cell, VOLUME 175, ISSUE 5, P1185-1197.E22, NOVEMBER 15, 2018, https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(18)31380-1

Meroitic Texts

 

I have deciphered many Meroitic Text. Most of these Meroitic text have been published in articles, books and on Facebook in the Meroitic Group.

I deciphered Meroitic using the Kushana hypothesis. I have deciphered Meroitic based on the most logical path to the decipherment of any dead language. Maurice Pope (1975) , made it clear that before a dead language can be deciphered you most have the right theoretical structure to base your inquiry upon (p.191). There were three preliminary conditions that must be met before any decipherment: 1) confidence that a script can be deciphered; 2) location of proper names must be determined; the grammatical rules of the target language must be known.

Conditions #1 and #2 were met by Griffith when he deciphered the Meroitic script in 1910, and his discovery of the proper names of the Meroitic gods and individuals in the Meroitic text. Griffith also discovered the directions of the Meroitic writing was written. The recognition for the solubility of Meroitic was reinforced by the the publication of , because it provided up to date material on Meroitic and the idea of using the comparative method to decipher Meroitic.

Condition #3 was met in 1978 when Hintze publishesd his . This allowed me to test other languages to Meroitic to find the cognate language.

I chose Kushana for two reasons. Firstly , Philostratus in , claimed that the Gmnosophists of Kush, who settled along the Nile, descended from the Brahmins of India, having been forced to migrate after the murder of their King. This passage pointed to the Kushana, who left China in 176 B.C., after the murder of their king. Because both of this groups called themselves Kushana, it suggested that they may be related , given the Classical tradition for a migration of "Indians" to Kush. Moreover, C.B. Rawlinson , in "Notes on the early History of Babylonia", , 15, PP.221-22, discussed the Kushites of Asia and Africa.

Using the evidence of classical traditions pointing to the Kushana, as possible settlers of Meroe,gave me the confidence to compare Kushana to Meroitic. This comparison proved fruitful.

In addition to the classical mention of the Indians settling Meroe, we also have a horde of Kushana coins that were found on the floor of a cave at the present monastery-shine at Debra Demo in modern Ethiopiain 1940. All of this supported a knowledge of the Kushana among the Meroites.

Again, I welcome the challenge to prove my decipherement. Send me a mailing address and I will provide you with a fuller version of my paper and vocabulary so you may test the decipherment.

 

 

My decipherment of Meroitic is based on the Kushana theory.The Kushana theory is that a group of “East Indian” scholars introduced the Meroitic writing system to the Meroites. The Kushana hypothesis was based on the following evidence:

 

1) no African language has been found to be a cognate language of Meroitic

 

2) the Classical literature says that the Kushites lived in Asiaand Africa;

 

3) the Gymnosophists, or "naked sages" of Meroe came from India.

 

Before I began work on Meroitic, other researchers had already falsified the African theory for Meroitic's cognate language. Meroitic is not related to languages spoken in this area. Griffithand Haycock tried to read Meroitic using Nubian and failed. K.H. Priese tried to read the Meroitic text using Eastern Sudani; he also failed. The fact that not even Nubian, a language spoken by a people who were engaged in constantly conflict with the Meroites , failed to be the cognate language of Meroitic made it clear that we must look elsewhere for the cognate language spoken by the Meroites.

 

The evidence presented above provides internal and external validity for my theory based upon the sources I have cited previously. The sources I have used are impartial, to disconfirm my hypothesis someone needs to show that my propositions are not fully informed. They must prove that:

 

1. there were no Indians North Africa and Kushwhen the Classical writers maintained they were] and present rival explanations based on the evidence.

 

The fact that the claims made by the Classical writers is supported by the Indians themselves isstrong confirmation of the Kushana hypothesis. This hypothesis based on the classical literature, was enough to support the original Kushana Hypothesis.

 

The predicting power of the original theory: the Gymnosophist introduced Meroitic to the Kushites due to the influence of Buddhism in Meroe, matches the observed natural phenomena which was confirmed elsewhere by cognate place names, ethononyms, lexical items and grammatical features, indicate that my theory has not be falsified.

 

The ability to reliably predict a linguistic relationship between Kushana and Meroitic, was further confirmation of the Kushana Hypothesis, because the linguistic connections were deducible from prediction.

 

I controlled the Kushana Hypothesis by comparing the statements of the classical writers, with historical, linguistic anthropological and toponymic evidence found not only in Africa, but also India and Central Asia [where the people also used Tokharian as a trade language to unify the various people in Central Asia].

 

I constructed three testable hypotheses in support of the Kushana theory, and it seems only fair that these variables must be disconfirmed, to falsify the Kushana Hypothesis.

 

Hypothesis 1: If the meroites used a writing system of non-African origin a tradition mentioning this fact will exist. (Hypothesis confirmed. Classical literature mentions Indian scholars in ancient Meroe.)

 

Hypothesis: 2. If the classical literature mentions Indians who lived in Egyptinfluencing the Meroites their should be historical evidence relating to this tradition. (Hypothesis confirmed .Classical literature mentions a King who left his country is mentioned in the Jaina text called the Kalakeharya-Kathanaka.)

 

Hypothesis: 3. If Classical literature is true about the Indian origin of the Gymnosophists Indians will be found living near the Meroites around the time the Meroitic inscriptions appear. (Hypothesis confirmed. Artifacts and coins with Indian inscriptions have been found in Egypt and Ethiopia.) Failure to disconfirm this theorem, implies validity of my prediction.

 

My confirmation of the above , and

 

1) the presence of Kushites in Africa and Asia;

 

2) Shared placenames

 

3) Asoka sent many Buddhist missionaries to Egypt who wrote their scriptures in Kharosthi and Tocharian;

 

4) a Blemmya--native to the Meroitic empire, is mentioned in numerous Buddhist Pali text;

 

5)the presence of Kushana sages in India who may have migrated to Meroe;

 

6) cognate lexical items;

 

7)cognate verbs and

 

8) cognate grammatical features; indicates systematic controlled, critical and empirical investigation of the question of Kushana representing the Meroitic cognate language.

My decipherment of Meroitic allows us to compare Meroitic with African languages. The result of comparative linguistic research makes it clear that Meroitic is related to Egyptian and many languages spoken in the Nile Valley: Beja, Nubian and Sudanese Arabic.

As a result of these facts we can now use Tocharian or Kushana to read the Meroitic text. The historical evidence make it clear that the Meroites were probably not strangers to Kharosthi literacy since the Gymnosophists had been in Upper Egypt and Meroitic Empires hundreds of years.

The Meroitic Confederation was made up of various Sudanese or Nile Valley people living in Kush. As a result, the Meroites needed a language they could use for common communication among the Meroites. This language was Meroitic.

The Meroitic language was a lingua franca. As a result, Meroitic is related to many Sudanese languages spoken today and in the past.

Meroitic was a lingua franca. It united the diverse Kushite (Sudanese) speakers into a unified nation within the Meroitic Empire.

 

The major problem in determining the linguistic history of the Nile Valley is that due to the multiplicity of languages spoken in the Nile Valley, the two major civilizations ancient Egypt and Kush (Napata and Kerma), and the Meroitic (Kushite) Empire used Egyptian as a lingua franca to provide the mixed populations living in these confederations a single means of communication. The Egyptians and Kushites used a lingua franca, so no single ethnic group living in the Egyptian and Kushite Confederations would be recognized as superior to the other ethnic groups living in these “Nations”, by having its language recognized as the “National language”.

 

The rulers of Egypt and Kush knew that if one language spoken in the respective Empires was recognized as the “National language”, this would have caused disunity in the Empire. Use of one of the languages spoken in the Empires , as the National language, would cause disunity because the speakers of the languages not chosen as the National language would feel slighted, and become jealous of the speakers of the National language. It was for this reason that both Confederations used Egyptians as a lingua franca.

 

Because many Meroites were Buddhists, Kushana was already known in the Nile Valley Kushite Empires (Kerma and Meroe and Egypt), because the Empires were made up of Sudanese speaking diverse languages, who were Buddhists. It is obvious that the Meroites were influenced by Buddhism, given the Buddhist elements in Meroitic iconography and culture.

Since Kushana was nativized in the Meroitic Empire lexical items from the local languages over the years were adopted into Kushana. Meroitic was probably what linguists call a “Koine” language. A Koine develops as a result of people speaking a variety of speech who are in contact with each other that are mutually intelligible dialects. Languages that are considered by their speakers to be of equal cultural and political prestige, prefer to use a Koine, so as not to show disrespect to the various speakers of related languages.

 

A good example of a “Koine” language today in the Sudan is Colloquial Sudanese Arabic. Colloquial Sudanese Arabic/Sudanese Arabic Dialect allows Sudanese ethnic groups representing diverse  speaking populations to converse in a mutually intelligible language.

 

As a result, the Meroites created a Koine, with Kushana as the base language to serve as a lingua franca to unite the various people in the Meroitic Empire. The Meroite people , were unified by the Meroitic language which was used as a lingua franca.

 

Because Meroitic was a Koine, like Egyptian was in Kerma we find many Sudanese cognate terms in the Meroitic language.

 

 

 

 

 

The evidence is clear Tocharian and Kharosthi was a popular media among Upper Egyptians and Meroites before the Meroites invented the Meroitic script. As a result, it was a nativized Meroitic language spoken by a major group of Meroites.

    The Meroitic script is almost identical to many of the Kharosthi signs used to write Tocharian. It is interesting to note that over seven of the Kharosthi and Meroitic signs have not only similar shape, but also the same sound.

   Griffith (1911a) has divided the Meroitic writing into two different forms according to the shape of Meroitic signs at various points in history. The two stages of Meroitic writing were called Archaic and late. In deciphering Meroitic inscriptions it is important that you refer to Giffith (1911a) so you can learn how each Meroitic symbol appeared at various stages in the evolution of the Meroitic writing.

   Archaic Meroitic dates from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD. The Meroitic writing from the 1st century AD to the end of the Meroitic Empire is called late Meroitic.

 

References:

Kulke H. & Rothermund ,D. 1990. History of India . London, Routledge.

Salomon, R. 1991. "Epigraphic remains of Indiantraders in Egypt", Journal of the American orientalSociety :pp.731-736.

Salomon,R. 1993. Addenda, Journal of the American Oriental Society : 593.

Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (Juin 1984b). "A Note onTokharian and Meroitic", Meroitic Newsletter\Bulletind"Information Meroitiques , No.23 , pages 18-21.

Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1989b). "Cheikh Anta Diop et ledechiffrement de l'ecriture meroitique",Cabet: RevueMartinique de Sciences Humaines et de Litterature 8,pp. 149-152.

Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(1998). Meroitic funerary Text.Part1, Inscription Journal of Ancient Egypt 1,(1), pp.29-34.

Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(1998). Meroitic funerary Text.Part 2, Inscription Journal of Ancient Egypt 1,(2), pp.41-55.

Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1999). The inscriptions of Tanyidamani. Nubica IV und Nubica V., pp.355-388.

Winters,Clyde. 2007. MerRead: Reading Meroitic Inscriptions: The Writing System of Kush. Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/429844/MerRead

Winters,Clyde. 2009. Tocharian the Cognate Language of Meroitic. https://bafsudralam.blogspot.com/search?q=Tocharia

Winters,Clyde. 2013. The Meroitic Language and Literature. https://www.amazon.com/Meroitic-Writing-Literature-Clyde-Winters/dp/0615801501

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will attempt to read the broken tablet. First of all it is hard to make out some of the signs on this piece, especially parts of line three(3) and five (5), but I will attempt to read the piece.

 Reading the piece from right to left we have the following:

 

Transliteration

 

1. m...e-ne...ap. ...

 

2. [s]....mlo.. nea...š... ..

 

3. m...p....b.. .ye..... s

 

4. e.....q....b. ...p...nea. ...

 

5. [o]...lo... n-ne...ml... .ne...s.. .mš....

 

 

Translation

 

"...(1)The great Commander and ancestor.... (2)[prop up] the inner heart at this time (of) the King....(3) m entreat the Ba to travel (and) prop up...(4)Register the wish (of) the Ba to solicit at this time....(5)[ Begin] to dispatch Goodness and the good spirit (of) the son of Mash.....

 

Vocabulary

 

ap, ancestor, father

 

m , great

 

e-ne, commander

 

e, register; vouchsafe; grant a boon

 

b, Ba

 

ml, spirit

 

mlo, innerheart, soul

 

s, son;to protect; to prop up

 

 

ye, to make; travel, voyage

 

 

nea, at this time;

 

 

ne, good

 

 

n-ne, Goodness

 

 

mš, Mash

 

 

lo, dispatch

 

o, begin

 

 

The so called word divider sign : equals -ne. The : is used to change verbs into nouns, or means good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the lion temple of Naqa, we find Natakamani on the left façade and Amanitore on the right. Under the feet of the ruling pair we find friezes of their defeated enemies.

There are a number of Meroitic hieroglyphics on the front of the Naqa Lion Temple. There are three columns of hieroglyphic inscriptions on under the falcon of King Natakamani. Reading from left to right we see the following

 

 

Transliteration

1. ter tel i ne

2. …ni-ne b-q r

3. ikh iy kh te b d r te

Translation

"1….the erection (of this structure) elevates (our) tradition [of building].2…brillian ce (is) also desired indeed.3…this spot bring Great light (and) also leave a legacy (of) unity." We can interpret the inscriptions and engraving from this part of the temple as follows:"King Natakamani smites the enemies of Meroe. The royalty "...[has made] the erection (of this structure) to elevate (as is our) tradition.2…Brillian ce (is) also indeed desired.3…This spot to bring Great light (to many and) also leave (to the Meroites) a legacy (of) unity."

 

Funerary Stela of Meteye

This Stela dates back to the 2nd to 3rd Centuries. It is has a reddish-white undercoat. It comes from Grave 275, Karanog. The stela is located in Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE40229.

The couple Meteye and Abakharta stand under the inner wings of the sun disk. Meteye wares her hair with a topknot and cornrows. This man may be either Meteye's husband or father. (I am uncertain because the words ab-a can be interpreted as `[her] father'.

If this is the correct reading aba Kharta would mean `her father Kharta'.)The grave was excavated by Woolley-Randall- MacIver at Karanog.

The skeleton in the grave was of a woman. The pointed breast on the figure indicate that she was a young women. Standing side by side suggest that this man was her husband. Since the grave contained only one skeleton we can imagine that Abakharta was depicted on this stela to show his devotion to his wife.There are three sets of inscription on this stela.

There are inscriptions in front of Meteye and Abakharta, and an inscription between the legs of Abakharta.Reading from right to left beginning with the inscription between the legs of Abakharta, then the inscription before Abakharta and finally the one in front of Meteye we have the following:Inscription between Abakharta's legs.

P .. š ….o …."Pray for the patron to commence……"

Inscription in front of the man:

Wosi .. ne. Sore… yi-ne. Abkharta… ke ….lo …..wi-ne... a…kh…m…še.."

Translation

Isis the Good. Osiris the eternal. Abakharta gives permission (for) the offering of this Object of Respect (Meteye) to acquire greatness (and) protection."

Inscription in front of the woman:

Woš..i-ne…šore.. yi-ne..Meteye… qo …wi…ato ….mh…ene… š.. o-a….tene

Translation

"Isis the good. Osiris the eternal. Meteye , renew (her) honor down the path (to) abundant alms giving. The patron [Meteye] has commenced the Rebirth".

 

 

Funerary stelae of Prince Tedeqen, circa 100-200 B.C.

 

 

 

 

Transliteration

 

Woš-i-ne …Tdeqen …ne …^h …ml …. ol … ho ….lk …tene ..at …mlo …ne… p … rem … eš …. d …. o … tl … wi-ne … el …^h …tene ….ete …. eš …. d…. ot …. el … ^h … tene …^he …. ra …. Ke-ne-l ….l …d …tene.

Translation

[Oh] Good Isis (give) Tedeqen kha, grand inner heart (and) soul to behold the path of rebirth. The good inner heart prays to witness (its) manifestation. (This) bequeathal to open (and) elevate the Object of Respect (i.e., Tedeqen) gift (of the) Kha's rebirth (Oh Isis). You give the manifestation of the bequeathal prestige. The gift (of) the Kha's (and the) external body's rebirth . Indeed [Tedeqen] revitalization (will) be the rebirth of the bequeathal (of the Kha).

Offering Stela of Tablet of Tedeqen

Inscription under the gods:

[………] lo…. wi-ne ….šo ….tk ….te

Translation:

"Dispatch (this) Object of Respect [Tedeqen] to live and to reflect (on good)—may (it go forth)."

Inscription on the funerary tablet reading from left to right and around the tablet :

Wosi …i-ne …a…. šore ….. yi-ne ….tedeqen ….qo-ne …ah ..d …s-ne-l …. d …h … lo-ne… me …n …tone …e ….ri-ne …..ke …. li-ne …..e … ri …ke …lo… ne … atom … lo ..ne ….el … h …..tene ….al …ml …ol

Translation

"Isis the Good, Osiris the eternal. Tedeqen to live good (and) to acquire a lasting legacy (of Good). The patron's legacy (is for) the Kha's transmigration , measure the Good Rebirth (now). Give withdrawal (to the Kha) for revitalization (and) exaltation. Register the sendoff (of the Kha) to invigorate the good offering (of Tedeqen). He is to be (re)born to transmit Good (as his) gift (to mankind). The Kha's noble (re)birth (of a) grand soul."

 

 

The most interesting Meroitic text concerning Apedemak is found on the votive tablet of Tañyidamani which is now found in the Paris Museum.

On this votive tablet Tañyidamani is depicted on the obverse side , and the god Apedemak on the reverse side.On the reverse side of the Tañyidamani votive tablet the god Apedemak is depicted wearing a short apron and hemhem crown.

On this votive tablet Apedemak also wears armlets, bracelets, a collar and pectoral. Inside a panel in front of Apedemak we find a cursive Meroitic inscription.The inscriptions in the panel on the reverse side of the votive tablet of King Tañyidamani make it clear that the king acknowledged the important role the god Apedemak played in his life. These inscriptions can be read either from right to left or top to bottom.

Reading from right to left we read:

TRANSLITERATION OF REVERSE SIDE OF VOTIVE TABLET OF KING TAÑYIDAMANI

Transliteration

1. w e to2. q tel3. w to si4.tone m-k5. d.[l]..r-i6.te i

TRANSLATION

1. You (it is Apedemak who) gives guidance.2. Revitalize support (for me King Tañyidamani).3. You guide (me) to satisfaction.4. (And ) much reverence (for your patron).5. Give (it) amicably (to me).6. May (it go forth).

Reading this same inscription top to bottom we find the following:

TRANSLITERATION OF THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE VOTIVE TABLET OF KING TAÑYIDAMANI

1. w q b-to d-te.2. e te to m ne l.3. toe i skr-i.

TRANSLATION

1. (Oh Apedemak) Guide and Make Honor (for your patron).2. Give here your (full) measure of Good indeed. 3. (It is) thou (Apedemak who) give(s) leave to eminence (for your patron).

 

Temadelo Inscription

The Temadelo funerary tablet/stela was found at Sedeinga. This tablet was found after the demolition of a house in the village of Qubbat Salim in 1966.

The Temadelo tablet has six lines of late Meroitic script.

1…R qo wi-ne di b…nke ne te d ḫ …

2, Te e mdele wi-ne Woš ni te š-n l-h l-ne

3. I-ne še nte l-ne š te lo wi-ne h l bi

4. [N]e..š telo wi-ne ate ḫ šo-ne pl d e

5. ne p šo ba-ne wo š tene ye tem de lo

6. ..ate lo wi-ne ato mḫ ep

Translation

1….Indeed create honor, guide its passage to the Ba…k-Commands the donation of the Kha…2. ..Give Temadelo honor, Isis the Shining. Place the Patron in the resting place….3….i-ne the Patron bows in reverence (to the god) to be elevated. Honor the Khe  and the Ba leaves…4.,,,ne to be elevated to dispatch honor’s progression of the Kha [vital spirit] is of unlocking the departure pious indeed…5..ne to beg existence in Bane, Isis the Good is capable of unlocking the departure [to Bane]…..6….The path of the lonely Commander (was) suitable (for) many [of our] ancestors……