Ancient African Writing Systems and Knowledge

Was the Niger-Congo Speakers Early people of the Desert?

2012-01-27T13:12:00.000-08:00

The Niger-Congo Speakers probably played an important role in the peopling of the Sahara. Drake et al make it clear there was considerable human activity in the Sahara before it became a desert[1]. The authors provide evidence that the original settlers of this wet Sahara, who used aquatic tool kits, were Nilo-Saharan speakers.The authors also recognized another Saharan culture that played a role in the peopling of the desert. This population hunted animals with the bow-and –arrow; they are associated with the Ounanian culture.The Ounanian culture existed 12kya [2]. This culture is associated with sites in central Egypt, Algeria, Mali, Mauretania and Niger [3].The Ounanian tradition is probably associated with the Niger-Congo phyla. Wm. E. Welmers identified the Niger Congo home land was in the Sudan not Niger Valley. Welmers explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley [4]. He believes that the Westward migration began 5000 years ago[4].In support of this theory he discusses the dogs of the Niger-Congo speakers[3]. This is the unique bark less Basenji dogs which live in the Sudan and Uganda today, but were formerly recorded on Egyptian monuments [4]. According to Welmers the Basenji, is related to the Liberian Basenji breed of the Kpelle and Loma people of Liberia. Welmers believes that the Mande took these dogs with them on their migration westward. The Kpelle and Loma speak Mande languages. The Niger Valley was uninhabitable until recently. There were few habitable sites in West Africa during the Holocene wet phase. McIntosh and McIntosh have illustrated that the only human occupation of the Sahara during this period were the Saharan massifs along wadis[5].The Niger-Congo speakers probably began to exist the Sudan during the Ounanian period. By the 8th millennium BC Saharan-Sudanese pottery was used in the Air [6]. Ceramics of this style have also been found at sites in the Hoggar [6-7]. Dotted wavy-line pottery has also been discovered in the Libyan Sahara [7].In the Sahelian zone there was a short wet phase during the Holocene (c. 7500-4400 BC), 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 BC [7].Welmers has suggested that the first group to separate from the Niger-Congo family was the Mande speakers. Although he believes that this dispersal began only 5000 years ago the expansion of the Saharan-Sudanese style into the areas traditionally associated with the Ounanian tradition suggests that the Mande probably separated from Niger-Congo 10kya.Controversy surrounds the classification of the Mande language family. Greenberg (1963) popularized the idea that the Mande subset was a member of the Niger-Congo Superset of Africa languages, while B. Heine and D. Nurse, African Languages: An Introduction believes that the Niger-Congo (Mande) is especially closely united with Central Sudani and Kabu within Nilo-Saharan.The position of Mande in the Niger-Congo Superset has long been precarious and today it is given a peripheral status to the Niger-Congo Superset . Murkarovsky [8] believes that the Mande group of languages does not belong in the Niger-Congo Superset, while Welmers has advanced the idea that Mande was the first group to break away from Niger-Congo[4].The Mande languages are also closely related to Songhay [8-9], Nilo-Saharan and the Chadic group [10]. Zima compared 25 Songhay and Mandekan terms from the cultural vocabulary to highlight the correspondence between these two language groups[9]. Zima made it clear that "the lexical affinities between the Songhay and Mande languages are evident"[9].Mukarovsky has presented hundreds of analogous Mande and Cushitic terms[11]. Due to the similarities between the Mande and Cushitic language families Mukarovsky would place Mande into the Afro-Asiatic Superset of languages[11].Mukarovsky has presented hundreds of analogous Mande and Cushitic terms[11]. This linguistic evidence makes it clear that the Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Cushitic speakers originally lived intimate contact.The Mande were spread across the Sahaelian/Saharan zone in areas associated with the Ounanian tradition. They built many civilizations from the Fezzan to Mauretania [12]. The Northern Mande speakers are divided into the Soninke and Malinke-Bambara groups. Holl believes that the founders of the Dhar Tichit 4kya, were northern Mande speakers[12]. The pottery at Dhar Tichitt is associated with Saharan styles[12].In conclusion, the Ounanian tradition began around 10kya[2-3]. The population associated with this civilization was probably Niger-Congo speakers. The Niger-Congo speakers originated in the Sudan[4].Around the time we see the development of the Ounanian culture in North Africa, we see the spread of the Saharan-Sudanese ceramic style into the Sahara[5,12]. Most researchers agree that the Mande speakers were probably the first group to separate from Niger-Congo phyla. The Mande language early separated from the Niger-Congo Superfamily. The dispersal of the Mande speakers from the Fezzan to Mauretania mirrors the Saharan sites associated with the Ounanian tradition[12]. Given the close relationship between the Mande and Nilo-Saharan languages and early dispersal of the Mande speakers into North Africa where they founded many civilizations including Dhar Tichitt suggest that the Niger-Congo group introduced the hunting tradition and use of bow-and –arrow into Mauretania, Mali, Niger and Southern Algeria and played a prominent role in peopling the desert.REFERENCES1. Drake NA, Blench RM, Armitage SJ, Bristow CS, & White KH. (2012). Ancient watercourses and biogeography of the Sahara explain the peopling of the desert. PNAS, 108(2) 458-462.2. Smith A B. (2005). African Herders: Emergence of Pastoral Traditions.3. Blench R, and Spring, M. (1999). Archaeology and Language II.4. Welmers Wm.(1971). "Niger-Congo Mande". Current Trends in Linguistics, 7:113-140. 5. McIntosh SK, & McIntos RJ.(1986). "Archaeological Research and dates from West Africa". Journal of African History, 27:413-42. 6. Roset JP.(1983). "Nouvelles donnes sur le probleme de la Neolithisation du Sahara meridional: Air et Tenere au Niger".Cashiers O.R.S.T.O.M., 13(2):119-142. 7. McIntosh S K, & McIntosh R J. (1983). "Forgotten Tells of Mali". Expedition,38. 8. Murkarovsky H G.(1976/1977). A Study of Western Nigritic. Vienna:Afro-Pub. 2 Vols. 9. Zima P. (1989). "Les Langues Mande, le Songhay et des Langues Tchadiquees ou en Sommes-nous Apres Greenberg et Lacroix".Mandekan, no.18:97-115.10. Creissels D. (1981). "De la possibilite de rapprochement entre le Songhay et les languages Niger Congo( en particulier Mande). In Nilo-Saharan, (ed.) by Th. Schadeberg, and M.L. Bander (Dordrecht,Holland:Foris Pub.) Pp.185-191. 11. Murkarovsky H G.(1987).Mande-Chadic Common Stock. Wien:Beitrage zur Afrikanistik. 12. Winters C A.(1986)."The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande".The Mankind Quarterly, 27(1):77-96..

Afrocentrism is Valid Area of Research

2011-12-17T20:15:00.000-08:00

Outsiders have always tried to deny the ancient history of Negro and African people.I believe that there are at least three races: African, Mongoloid and European. These races can be differentiated by distinctive characteristics that include facial features, especially the noses and nasal cavities; head shape/form, hair type and etc. These features that distinguish each race can be recognized by simply eyeballing members of the different races. As a result members of each race can get tanned, or have dark skin and still be disguished as belonging to different races.When I refer to Negroes I am talking about Black people who originated in Africa, who later migrated out of Africa and retained their Negro features. I recognize that Negro features include varying phenotypes that include facial features from the 'true negro'type to negroes having thin lips and noses. In the past they claimed Negro/African people did not have a history. Afro-American former slaves learned to read and discovered the truth.They learned two things: 1) the classical literature and 2) Bible claimed that Black/African people founded the first civilizations. They began to inform other AAs that we had a history. The Euronuts changed the script to counter this literacy.Formerly, the Classical literature was accepted as having historical value--when AAs used it to illustrate our ancient history--the Euronuts claimed the Classical literature was a collection of myths. To imply that when AAs recognized our participation and founding the first civilizations.By the middle to late 1800's Blacks began to attend University, usually Harvard. At Harvard they learned that physical antropologist were able to study skeletal remains, especially skulls and pelvises and differentiate these skeletal remains into four races. Studying the literature, AAs discovered that the physical anthropologists identified skeletons from ancient civilizations. The findings indicated that they were Negroes. This finding confirmed the Classical literature's identification of the founders civilization as Negroes of varying sizes, but phenotypically negro.AAs collected this data and researchers wrote papers and books illustrating that Blacks had an ancient history based/supported by contemporary anthropological and archaeological sources. Euronuts claim that Afrocentric researchers use old data to support their work, this is false, if you check these works you will find they current with times they were written.Euronuts became fed up with AAs proving that they had an ancient history. So in the 1980's, after it was established man originated in Africa, some anthropologists began to claim races do not exist. And that anyone who claimed people can be divided into races--are racist. This was a fallacy.Although most physical anthropologist, parroted this line, forensic anthropologist continued to admit that races existed because police needed them to expertly identify the skeletal remains of people who had been murdered.During this period anthropologists moved away from identifying the skeletal remains along racial lines. But they continued to imply that the ancient river valley civilizations were found by 'whites'. These anthropologist used a relativist view to explain who founded this or that civilization. This relativist view implied that the people living in a particular region today have always been resident in that region eventhough the skeletal record proved otherwise. By promoting this view, anthropologists were able to claim that the history of Black people began and ended in Sub-Saharan Africa.Geneticist accepted the relativist view. They spread the idea that genome from contemporary groups represented the genome of ancient populations. They claimed that African male and female lineages were E and L respectively, while European ,lineages varied J,H, R, N, M and etc. Using this analogy they began to claim that any African carrying M or R, must carry this gene as a result of a back migration.There are two problems with this theory. First there is no evidence of a back migration. And 2) the DNA recovered from ancient skeletons is not related to the people presently living in this areas. Moreover, in Eurasian many of the excavated skeletons are of negroes--not Europoid or Mongoloid.This evidence confirmed the research of DuBois that Blacks founded the major ancient civilization. These findings made it clear J.A. Rogers and W.E.B. DuBois were right.As a result of this, Afrocentric researchers don't care what non-Afrocentric nuts say about our history. We say to people who deny this history to prove us wrong.Just as Europeans lie, fake Asian researchers,also lie because they don't have an ancient history ..

Akinidad and the Qasr Ibrim 1420 Inscription

2011-09-04T19:28:00.000-07:00

Amanirenas

The Akinidad stela, is the funerary stela of Kharapkhael, the older brother of Akinidad. In this stela Akinidad described as a paqar (prince). This suggest that Kharapkhael was the original crown prince, not Akinidad of King Teriteqas and Queen Amanirenas.

Griffith believed that arme, meant Rome. This group of Meroitic syllabic signs did not mean Rome. These letters represented four words a ra m e , or "Indeed he gives measure".

In summary, the Hamadab 1 stela is not about a battle against Rome, it is a recording of the death of the oldest son of Teriteqas and Amanirenas, Kharapkhael. The text of this stela makes it clear in line 2, that Amanirenas:

"(She is to) give the glowing good bequeathal (of) her crown prince.Go bring (him) Good. Bestow here protection on him. Go bring (here) Good. The good crown prince, indeed leaves for the good rebirth. The good son Kharapkhael('s)superior renewal will (be)close at hand."

This indicates that Kharapkhael was the original crown prince and that Akinidad only became crown prince as a result of the death of his older brother Kharapkhael. This death may have caused some political dissension in Meroe, since the death of Kharapkhael, may have made a brother of Teriteqas or Amanirenas eligible for the throne instead of Akinidad.

Akinidad is mentioned in many Meroitic inscriptions. Now that Hamadab 1, has been deciphered in its entirety we discover that King Teriteqas and Queen Amanirenas probably promoted Akinidad on many of their inscribed monuments to legitimize his appointment as crown prince of Meroe after the death of Kharapkhael. Teriteqas and Amanirenas therefore may have made travels to the Meroitic religious centers to attempt to find legitimization for Akinidad as crown prince.

Pilgrimages to Meroitic-Kushite holy places would have provided the public ample opportunity to see the new Crown Prince acting royal after he reached the age of maturity. These pilgrimages by Teriteqas and Amanirenas to religious sites in Meroe would explain the appearance of inscriptions bearing the name of Teriteqas, Amanirenas and Akinidad at many Meroitic religious sites.

The final textual material relating to Akinidad comes from an unpublished stela found at Qasr Ibrim. This stela is Qasr Ibrim 1420.

Researchers usually refer to Qasr Ibrim 1420 as the stela of Amanishaketo and Akinidad stela (Torok, 1997). But our examination of a photograph of Qasr Ibrim 1420 indicate that Amanishaketo is not mentioned on this stela.

Qasr Ibrim 1420 is a fairly large stela. This stela was broken and deliberately disfigured. The top of the stela is broken but a pair of wings were engraved in this area as evidenced by the tips of each wing remaining visible on Qasr Ibrim 1420 today.

Qasr Ibrim 1420 has a long inscription. Presently we find 37 lines of cursive Meroitic script on this stela. There were probably additional lines on this stela, because the stela is broken below line 37.

This stela indicates that Akinidad died while he was a prince. We can not publish a translation of the entire document but it appears that Qasr 1420 was a funerary stela.

As a result of the fact that this inscription is not published I will only quote from lines 1-4 of Qasr Ibrim 1420.
Here we read:

1." He goes to prepare the renewal (and) protection of the abstract personality. Protect the prestige of the prince as is the tradition (and) vouchsafe the soul and honorable offering."

2. Produce revitalization of the Ba to leave a grand legacy (is) obligatory...vouchsafe and guide his abstract personality, may it go forth to praise his spirit.

3. The grand patron praises the Chief. Aman opens the shinning translucent spirit for rebirth. (There) will be eternal honor indeed for the prince.

4. "The good embarkation of Akinidad (to Paradise) to will grant the patron a boon, (and) bring (him) eternal good".

These few quotes from Qasr Ibrim 1420 indicate that at the time this document was written Akinidad was recognized as both Chief and Prince. In this passage the Meroitic term wl was used to designate Akinidad as a prince, instead of pqr.

The term wl 'prince', was probably reserved for Meroite princes that held administrative responsibilities. In addition to wl, being engraved on the Qasr Ibrim 1420 stela we also find use of wl to denote a prince in the inscriptions associated with the personage Arayesabkheqo, interned in pyramid N.36.

Qasr Ibrim 1420 is the only textual evidence where Akinidad is referred to as w-ne 'Chief'. This suggest that at the time Akinidad died he was recognized as the leader of government at Qasr Ibrim. This would have been an important post for Akinidad, given the strategic location of Qasr Ibrim as a major center of culture, commerce and trade . To understand the destruction of Qasr Ibrim 1420, we must remember some of the events associated with the Meroitic-Roman War.

In 24 B.C. Roman forces were sent to fight in Arabia. According to Pliny and Strabo the Meroite-Kushites sacked Aswan and destroyed the Roman statues at Philae (Torok, 1997; Welsby, 1996).

In response to the Kushite expedition, Gaius Petronius with a force of 10,000 infantry and 800 horses pushed the Kushites back to Pselchis. Strabo (17.1.53) mentions the fact that the Meroites were led by a Candace.

The Romans and Kushites, according to Strabo began peace negotiations at Dakka in 24 B.C.. The negotiations failed, and the Romans puched their forces deeper into Meroitic-Kushite territory as far as Sara. They also established forts at Qasr Ibrim (Torok, 1997; Welsby, 1996).

Akinidad was probably killed in 24 B.C. Strabo (17.1.54) mentions that the Candace's son was killed during this campaign. This son of the Candance was probably Akinidad.

We know that Akinidad was in Dakka on two occasions, once with Teriteqas, and later only with Amanirenas. In Dakka 2, we discover that Akinidad died at Dakka. This is most interesting because, the Romans pushed the Meroites back to Dakka in 24 B.C.

If Akinidad had been wounded outside Dakka, Amanirenas may have stopped in the town to obtain medical treatment for her son. After Akinidad died in the town, Amanirenas may have withdrawn from peace talks and continued the War.

If these events occurned , Amanirenas probably had the Qasr Ibrim 1420 stela erected in Qasr Ibrim, to honor Akinidad who had served as the Chief of the city during the Meroitic-Roman War. The Qasr Ibrim 1420 stela was probably defaced and broken during the Roman occupation of Qasr Ibrim to show their contempt for the Meroites.

The Meroites resisted Roman occupation. By 22 B.C., the Meroites retook Qasr Ibrim from the Romans. In 21 B.C., a peace treaty was concluded between Augustus, and Meroite envoys on the Island of Samos.

The textual evidence makes it clear that Akinidad remained a paqar (prince) until his death at Dakka in 24 B.C.

The evidence of the Dakka 2 inscription and Hamadab 2 indicate that Akinidad probably died during Amanirenas rule of Merotic-Kush. After Teriteqas was killed during the Meroitic-Roman War, Akinidad may have become recognized as King, but without official succession, and his untimely death at Dakka, he remained until his death officially Crown Prince. This would explain our inability to find any evidence of Akinidad being recognized as anything more than a paqar, rather than a qore (king).

Although we can positively maintain that Akinidad probably never assumed the throne in the Meroitic Sudan, we still have to answer the question where was Akinidad buried? Most Meroitists agree that the pyramids of King Teriteqas and Queen Amanirenas are located at Gebel Barkel. Another pyramid which is "chronologically attached" to these pyramids is Bar.5 (Reisner 1923 ,60).

The Bar 5 pyramid has the type -form analogous to the Beg. N.14 and Beg. N.21 pyramids which are assigned to King Teriteqas and Queen Amanirenas respectively. (Reisner 1923,60) Reisner found a male in this pyramid. This male lacked a crown of uraeus. This led Reisner (1923) to assume that this male never became King. Given the analogous nature of Bar. 5, and the Bar.4 and Bar. 9 pyramids suggest that this may be the pyramid of Akinidad who never became ruler.

The death of both Akinidad and Kharapkhael probably led to Amanirenas assuming the role of ruler at Meroe until her death. This meant that no direct male descendant of Teriteqas took over the throne after his death .
As a result of the Meroitic-Roman War we will never know what kind of ruler Akinidad would have become if he had not died at Dakka. But we can say that Akinidad never became King, he died as Crown Prince of Meroe.

The Kshtriyas

2011-08-13T18:21:00.000-07:00

Although Northern Indian,and Indian history in general is written from the Aryan perspective, many Dravidian and Non-Aryan rulers ruled India. For example tradition has it that monarchies were concentrated in the Ganges plain where Ethiopians or Kushites who had intermarried with the Indians. As a result, the Indian Republics of 600-321 B.C., were found by Black tribes in India, not the Vedic/Aryan tribes.

The founders of these Republics were called Kshtriyas, they did not accept Vedic orthodoxy nor did they honor the Brahmans and Vedic rituals. The Kushite origin of the Kshtriyas is obvious in the root of their name Ksh, which corresponds to the name Kush=Ksh.

The Kshtriyas primary interest was in agriculture. They did not recognize single ownership of land as among the Aryans. All the land in the Kshtriya Republics was acknowledged as being the property of the villagers.

Some of the Kshtriyas may have been descendants of the Nubian army , that tradition claims was led by King Chliaros, who conquered India, all the way to the river Ganges. The victory of this king in India may explain the identification by the Aryans of Meluhhaites in the Ganges region. This results from the fact that the name Meluhha was used to denote Nubia-Kush by the Sumero-Akkadians.

The title of the Kshtriya leaders was Rajbansis , a term corresponding to rajput or Raja. Social and political power lay with the rajas / rajput and the representatives of the elected assembly.The term rajput means "royal descent".

These ancient Indians held the woman in high esteem. This was anti-Aryan thinking. To the Aryans, women were recognized as chattel. But among the Kshtriya rajas, many of these rulers were influenced by the queen mother or dowager. Lineage was traced through the mother.

This form of succession was to dominate in India until the ascendancy of the Brahmans. The Kshtriyas practiced Buddhism rather than Hindus. It is interesting to note that when the Buddhist pray they call upon Ad. As we know from the historical literature the Kushites were the Adites, who occupied most of Arabia before the Aryan invasions.

The tribe of Ad is suppose to be the grandson of Ham, the Biblical ancestor of the Blacks. By calling on Ad the Kshtriyas were probably paying respect to their ancestors.

The descendants of the Kshtriya were conquered by Alexander the Great . Under Alexander, the Greeks learned about Indian science and culture. These Greeks later took the Indian sciences to Macedonia.

King Tut's DNA Is African

2011-08-02T11:36:00.000-07:00

According to iGENEA King Tut of ancient Egypt carried the R1-M173 haplogroup.R1-M269 does not indicate that King Tut was caucasoid. It is further confirmation of the African origin of King Tut given the greatest diversity of R1-M173 in Africa (Winters, 2010b, 2010c).

Y-chromosome V88 (R1b1a) has its highest frequency among Chadic speakers, while the carriers of V88 among Niger-Congo speakers (predominately Bantu people) range between 2-66% ( Cruciani et al, 2010; Bernielle-Lee et al, 2009). Haplogroup V88 includes the mutations M18, V35 and V7. Cruciani et al (2010) revealed that R-V88 is also carried by Eurasians including the distinctive mutations M18, V35 and V7.

R1b1-P25 is found in Western Eurasia. Haplogroup R1b1* is found in Africa at various frequencies. Berniell-Lee et al (2009) found in their study that 5.2% carried Rb1*. The frequency of R1b1* among the Bantu ranged from 2-20. The bearers of R1b1* among the Pygmy populations ranged from 1-25% (Berniell-Lee et al, 2009). The frequency of R1b1 among Guinea-Bissau populations was 12% (Carvalho et al,2010).

The Kushites who belonged to the -roup people of uintroduced R1 to Eurasia (Winters, 2010c).These Kusites founded the Sumerian and Elamite civilizations.

Y-Chromosome R1-M173 was probably spread in Western Europe first by African Roman soldiers, and later by African Muslims when they conquered Western Europe as Moors. This would explain why 60-70% French and Spanish males carry this y-haplogroup.

Around 0.1 of Sub Saharan Africans carry R1b1b2. Wood et al (2009) found that Khoisan (2.2%) and Niger-Congo (0.4%) speakers carried the R-M269 y-chromosome. The Niger-Congo speakers formed a significant population in the nomes of Upper Egypt, where the founders of the 18th dynasty originated.

Haplogroup R1b1b2 was probably taken to Europe by African Roman soldiers. Africans were first recorded in the Western Europe 1800 years ago, as Roman soldiers defending Hadrian's Wall. There was a skeleton African Roman soilder recently found in Britain.

Other Africans were found in Britain including the Rich African women called the bangled lady.

These skeletons show how heavily integrated Africans were in western Europe. This would explain the widespread nature of y-chromosome R1-M173 in Europe.

In addition to R1-M173 in western Europe, the African y-chromosome haplogroup A1 was also recently found in Britain.

References:

Berniell-Lee, G., Calafell, F., Bosch ,E. ,Heyer, E, Sica, L., Mouguiama-Daouda,| P., van der Veen, L., Hombert, J-M., Quintana-Murci , L.and, Comas, D. (2009) Genetic and Demographic Implications of the Bantu Expansion: Insights from Human Paternal Lineages, Mol. Bio. and Evol. 26(7),1581-1589; doi:10.1093/molbev/msp069.

Carvalho M, Brito P, Bento AM, Gomes V, Antunes H, Costa HA, Lopes V, Serra A, Balsa F, Andrade L, Anjos MJ, Corte-Real F, Gusmão L. (2011).Paternal and maternal lineages in Guinea-Bissau population. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 5(2),114-6.

Coia, V. , Destro-Bisol,G., Verginelli F., Battaggia,C., Boschi,I.,, Cruciani,F.,Spedini,G., Comas,D., and Calafell,F. ( 2005) Brief communication: mtDNA variation in North Cameroon: lack of Asian lineages and implications for back migration from Asia to sub-Saharan Africa, Am J Phys Anthropol (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/110495269/PDFSTART) (electronically published May 13, 2005; accessed August 5, 2005).

Cruciani,F., Trombetta,B., Sellitto, D., Massaia,A. destroy-Bisol,G., Watson, E., Colomb, E.B. (2010) Eur J. Hum Genet.,(6 January 2010) doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.231: 1-8.

Cruciani, F., Santolamazza,P., Shen, P., Macaulay, V., Moral P., Olckers,A. (2002) A Back Migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa is supported by High-Resolution Analysis of Human Y-chromosome Haplotypes. Am J. Hum Genet., 70,1197-1214.

Winters, C.(2010b)Letter: The Fulani are not from the Middle East. PNAS. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/34/E132.full
Winters, C. (2010c) The Kushite Spread of haplogroup R1*-M173 from Africa to Eurasia, Cur Res Jour of Bio Sci , 2(5), 294-299. http://maxwellsci.com/print/crjbs/v2-294-299.pdf

Wood,E.T., Stover,D.A., Ehret,C., Destro-Bisol,G., Spedini,G., McLeod, H., Louie,L., Bamshad,M., Strassmann,B.I., Soodyall,H., Hammer,M.F. (2005) Contrasting patterns of Y-chromosome and mtDNA variation in Africa:evidence for sex-biased demographic processes. Eur. J of Hum Genet, 13,867-876.

C.A.I.D.S.

2011-07-19T17:41:00.000-07:00

Afrocentric study provides the African American the self discipline, the intellectual ideals, love of learning and other motivational attributes necessary for their acquisition of success, and protection from the mental, and physical suffering caused by WHITE RACISM which takes hold of Third World people due to the C.A.I.D.S. virus.

On the other hand, Eurocentricism because of its roots in white supremacy and Negro inferiority cause these salient African attributes to be lacking in most African Americans. Jewish scholars long ago recognized the need for self segregation i.e., Jewish institutions to support Jewish traditions.

Afrocentric studies should be compared to Jewish studies. Jewish studies aim to teach Judaism to Jews and promote Jewish learning and scholarship. No serious commentators attack the self segregation institution of the Jews that promote Jewish learning and Jewish self esteem.

Given this reality, Afrocentricism major objective is to foster Afrocentric learning and scholarship and teach the lessons of African civilization to African Americans so they can see the learning,science and institutions this civilization called into being in the East and the West. This body of knowledge should promote confidence in African American youth so they can compete with their fellow Americans.

Today their is an all out attack against Afrocentricism by the Media establishment. No Eurocentric scholars will openly support their attack against Afrocentric scholars by presenting opposing evidence from history,art and archaeology to dispute the Afrocentric claims they just attack Afrocentric scholars and misrepresent what they have said or written.

Many Eurocentric scholars reject Afrocentricism because of their desire to hide the TRUTH ABOUT THE AFRICAN'S PAST and continue to perpetuate racism. These people refuse to see the African American, or Africans in Africa and the rest of the Diaspora develop self respect and racial self esteem. Dr.M.K.
Asante, of Temple University observed that:
"Most African-American children sit in classrooms, yet
are outside the information being discussed. The white
child sits in the middle of information, whether it is
literature, history, politics or art. The task of the
Afrocentric curriculum is finding patterns in African-
American history and culture that help the teacher
place the child in the middle of the intellectual
experience". [i]

Over the past twenty years Afro-American researchers have been developing the idea of Afrocentricism. This field of Africalogical research has been excellently outlined by Asante (1990) when he observed that:

"The Afrocentrist seeks to uncover and use codes, paradigms, symbols, motifs, myhts and circles of discussion that reinforce the centrality of African ideals values as a valid frame of reference for acquiring and examining data".(p.6)

Although Afrocentric scholars have been writing on africalogical themes for many years due to the success of the late Dr. Asa G. Hilliard of Georgia State University and Molefi Kete Asante of Temple University, the Afrocentric idea in education has spread from a small group of advanced Afro-American scholars to high school and elementary school teachers. Africalogy, as explained by Asante (1990,p.30) "builds upon theoretical princeples outlined by previous scholars....The fundamental theoretical bases for Africalogy are derived from the Afrocentric perspective".

Due to the attempt of many educators to advance Afrocentricism as a part of the multicultural perspective in the social science/ social studies curriculum there has been a white backlash.

Given the increasing popularity of Afrocentricism and multiculturalism among teachers around the United States, man white "resisters" have began a campaign to discredit Afrocentricism which is really an educational idea aimed to establish racial self-esteem.

Racial self esteem is pride in one's own race/ethnic group. Racial self esteem, which is the goal of Afrocentricism can not be equated with racism because racism is the notion that one's own ethnic group is superior to other races or ethnic groups. Afrocentricism just explains the historical role of the African in history.It is based upon the reality truth of the sources of history. It aims to combat C.A.I.D.S.

The letters C.A.I.D.S. mean Culturally Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. C.A.I.D.S. has caused much destruction in the African American community, it is the psychological equivalent to the A.I.D.S. virus.

The C.A.I.D.S. virus is caused primarily by placing the pursuit of European culture and values over the traditional culture and values of Afro American and African people. This lack of race pride, knowledge of one's past leads to feelings of racial inferiority. Due to C.A.I.D.S. many African Americans are ignorant of their past, and thusly lack the human values necessary to protect African American culture from self destruction.

The Eurocentrists refer to Afrocentricism as "a cult", "group separatism", "educational separatism" or "racism". In their opinion Afrocentricism is anti Americanism. To support this claim they admonish that the basic American principles: 1) separation of powers, 2) representative government, human rights and ,4) individual liberty all came from Europe. In reality, although these philosophical trends were used to develop the American value system they were not the traditions of Europeans. No historian will deny that before America, no European government accepted these ideas. In fact the American system is recognized as one of "history's boldest experiments".

Although democratic traditions were not present in Europe until the rise of the United States, in Africa these values and others had been around for thousands of years. For example, whereas Greek democracy only allowed the propertied class to participate in government, in Africa the people often chose their own representatives who legislated laws for their communities.

Whereas in Europe, the conquerors ruled with an iron hand, and deviance from majority norms were not allowed, in Africa the governmental system even under an Emperor was a Federal system in which all the ethnic groups were allowed full autonomy, as long as they recognized the supremacy of the Emperor. In empires such as Arwe in modern Ethiopia, Kush, Ghana and Mali the individual rights, liberties and ethnic cultures were recognized. As a result although we see in European history where entire populations were fully assimilated with the lost of language and culture , or entire races have disappeared or are experiencing genocide like the Bosnians are today in the name of " Ethnic Cleansing"; in Africa on the otherhand, changes in the government did not result in extermination of entire tribes and the resulting lost of language until the modern period as a result of colonial European influences. This lack of a true democratic traditions among Europeans explains their present attack on Afrocentricism because, it declares that African Americans have a history and culture that must be respected.

The view of Western culture is that man must make progress. But progress is not made by Europeans for the future of Mankind. Progress to the European is self-centered progress, aimed at satisfying the needs of the individual. According to Michael Bradley, author of The Iceman's Inheritance, Europeans try to surpass "the past, and proclaim the unique identity of each successive lifetime, with the invention of the concept of progress". He continues, to note that this progress does not benefit future generations because, "Instinctual territorial defense of identity demanded that the past be surpassed and that the future be limited" (p.17). Bradley, a European himself explained that ,"Democracy is a form of government that assumes distrust on the part of the governed, [and] dishonesty on the part of the government. Our checks and balances presuppose no trusting or fitting relationship between leaders and followers, no mutually beneficial pact".

This view is in sharp contrast to the African view of government. Professor Joseph Ki Zerbo writing in the UNESCO Courier, observed that "In spite of instances of sanguinary autocracy, the State authority in black Africa nearly always took the form of a limited monarchy within a framework of corporate bodies and customs, veritable unwritten constitutions most
often inherited from an earlier organization or social stratifications."He continued ,"Their decentralization, adopted as deliberate choices, allowed the basic communities to function with a very real measure of autonomy even in the great empires like Mali".

At the base of Eurocentricism is the doctrine of white supremacy. This ideological foundation aims to thwart the African Americans search for manhood and self assertion, when ever they encounter intensified prejudice by white Americans.

A major component of Eurocentricism is the notion of African American intellectual inferiority. As a result, European scholars can write and research the history of any people on earth. African Americans on the otherhand, are believed to lack the intellectual capacity to research, let alone write history.

Due to the alleged intellectual inferiority of African Americans it is believed that they are unsuited to write ancient history, international affairs, or archaeology. This may result from several factors especially racial bias and social position. These factors are important ,because of the fact that formerly persons writing on these topics usually came from well to do families that could provide them with the capital to undertake research activities abroad. This belief has ghettoized African American scholars and authors , to writing only about slavery, the slave trade and/or the cycle of poverty typified by life in the urban centers of the United States.

Due to C.A.I.D.S. the vast majority of African Americans feel inferior to Europeans. Because of these feelings of inferiority many middle class African Americans and the Black Church have perpetuated Eurocentricism instead of fighting to encourage race pride among African Americans. This failure to assert manliness has allowed C.A.I.D.S. to run rampant in Afro America . This malady has caused the rise of many social problems among African Americans who have adopted a negative lifestyle: gangs, bastardy and etc., first imposed on the African slave, but today identical negative behaviors are being perpetua-ted by African Americans who believe that Black Culture is having children out of wedlock, and any other negative visions of America such as gangbanging popularized by the media. All of these negative cultural elements have no basis in Africa, and are the result of C.A.I.D.S.

The African American middle class after the 1920's has avoided identification with Afrocentricism, cultural nationalism or race consciousness. Harold Cruse has pointed out that "The [Southern] black middle class as it was constituted (even in the north) was not committed to any serious sponsorship of promising artists or any involvement in the 'politics of culture'". [ii]

The Church , long an expression of African American independence has also failed to combat the destructive effects of C.A.I.D.S., because its middle class materialist orientation. [iii] The capitulation of the Black Church and the African American middle class to Eurocentric values has not brought them assimilation or integration into the American mainstream , but no true African-American cultural identity , based on African history and African traditions. [iv]

This is especially true of African American academics. Granted,today we have more African American professors then ever before. Yet, these academics produce few if any research articles, or even serve as editors of mainstream intellectual journals. The most glaring evidence of the devastating effects of C.A.I.D.S., is that except for the Afrocentric scholars who self publish , since the demise of the journal Black World, in the 1970's African Americans do not have a journal which expresses the intellectual ideas, and culture of the African in America. The failure of the African American academics /intellectuals to publish their own journal suggest that either they have nothing to say, are afraid to express their own opinions without the approval of the department heads at the Universities where they teach, or they simply feel inferior to whites because of their contraction of the C.A.I.D.S. virus. The failure of African American intellectuals to publish their work in mainstream publications also highlight the inability of African Americans to be fully integrated into American academia. Due to Eurocentricism , even those African American "scholars " recognized as competent researchers can only hope to associate with the American Academic Establishment, not assimi-late into it.

Afrocentricism is the ultimate remedy for the diseases associated with C.A.I.D.S. , such as alleged racial inferiority and racism that destroy the spirit of African Americans, and especially the self confidence one needs to compete in the United States face the challenge of LIFE and WIN! Asante, has noted that "Afrocentricity resonates with the African-American community because it is fundamental to sanity. It is the fastest growing intellectual and practical idea in the community because of its validity when tested against other experiences". [v]

W.E.B. DuBois, in The Souls of Black Folks, has categorize three principle responses of African Americans to the maladies associated with the C.A.I.D.S. especially white racism. They are l) revolt and revenge, 2) submission to the will of the racist, and 3) a determined effort for self esteem [vi].

According DuBois, the first response of African-Americans to racism can be categorize as the slave insurrections led by Gabriel in Virginia in 1800, Vesey in Carolina in 1822, and Nat Turner also in Virginia around 1831. After slavery this period is best typified by the Black Nationalist Movement of the 1960's, which began with the martyrdom of Malcolm X and the rise of militant organizations in African-American communities such as the Black Panthers, SNCC and the Republic of New Africa. These movements, like the slave rebellions a hundred years earlier were brutally suppressed and destroyed by local state and national police agencies.

The second form of response made by African American to white racism is typified by the African American middle class , Black Church and violent African American gangs. The gangs show their affliction with C.A.I.D.S. through their preoccupation with acquiring material gain, wealth/money (the cornerstones of Eurocentricism the free enterprise economic system with little concern about what happens to their fellow man in the process of acquiring material gain. As a result although many African American gangs will have very positive pro Black "literature", i.e., by laws and history that they teach members of gang to justify their existence as a "positive" force in the community;but in reality , members of these gangs sell drugs and murder one another simply for the love of money. This only increases the riches of peopling living outside their communities, and support the Eurocentric myths that African people can not accomplish positive things without the guidance of Europeans, their culture and "science".

The third response to white racism was formerly the "Negro" Renaissance of the 1920's. Today this response to white supremacy founded upon objective scholarship is Afrocentricism. An Afrocentric view of history is especially needed to combat the debilitating effects of white supremacy. It was noted in the report of the Task Force on Minorities commissioned by the New York State Board of Education that:"African Americans, Asian Americans, Puerto Rican/ Latinos and Native Americans have all been victims of an intellectual and educational oppression that has characterized the culture and institutions of the United States and the European American World for Centuries.

The aim of Afrocentricism is to strengthen the cultural awareness of African people so they can have the self confidence to fight C.A.I.D.S. Afrocentricism is the ideational code African Americans can use to conceptualize the universe in which they live and interact. Culture can be defined as man's learned, accumulated social experience including man's art, belief, customs, knowledge, law and morals that are transmitted and shared by a social group. In general culture refers to a system of learned ideas, not what we do or make.

The second aim of Afrocentricism is the unification of African Americans into a compact enlighten society. Society refers to a collection of people who share a common culture and language that exist as a distinct unit. The awareness of African civilizations by African people should encourage racial self esteem and help them recognize their brilliant past, so they can know the depth of their own potential and work for a positive , productive future.

Afrocentric scholars research the history of African and black civilizations to
recover the true history of Black and African people and their achievements and contribution to the rise of world civilization and western cultural and social values. This results from the fact that history is society's method of explaining an individual's self image within a given society. This unifies that individual to other members of the society. It is through history, that a conglomerate of individuals come together to express a shared identity and culture.

In summary , African-Americans are confronted by a debilitating disease C.A.I.D.S, which if left unchecked can make it impossible for African-American youth to suceed, with the self-esteem necessary to avoid gangs and other negative cultural expressions rampant in African-American communities since slavery. To remedy the spread of this contagious disease we advocate Afrocentrism , and the knowledge of the role of "Blacks" in the creation of WORLD CIVILIZATION. Let the truth be seen by ALL.

Endnotes:

[i]. M.K. Asante, "Putting Africa at the Center", Newsweek ,
23 September 1991, p.46.

[ii].Harold Cruse, Plural but Equal, (New York:William Morrow, 1987)
p. 228.

[iii]. Ibid., p. 236.

[iv]. A good movement to encourage positive cultural traditions in the African -American community is the annual Kwanza celebration that is held in the black community during the Christmas season.

[v]. Asante, p.46.

[vi]. W.E.B. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folks ,(New York: Bantam Books, 1989) p.34.

History of Horse Domestication in Africa

2011-07-03T05:50:00.000-07:00

The horse period in Africa is usually dated between 2000 and 1200 BC. These dates correspond to the archaeological research.There were two horses common to Africa. A horse introduced to Africa by the Hysos and a native small size horse common to much of North and West Africa.

It is usually taken for granted that the horse was introduced to African and Dravidian people by Asians or Indo-Europeans. But the evidence suggest that the horse was early domesticated by the Afro-Dravidian people long before the Indo-Europeans employed the horse.

It has usually been assumed that the horse was introduced into Africa by the Hyksos. But as indicated below the affinities between the terms for horse in Dravidian and African languages indicate that the horse was domesticated by Dravidians, and other Proto-Saharans before the Asian invasion of Egypt and spread of the Indo-European speaking people. Archaeological evidence indicate that the horse was known to the Nubians centuries before its common use in Egypt .

Saharan Africans used the donkey and later horses as beast of burden. The ass or donkey was domesticated in the Sahara at Maadi 3650 BC . A domesticated Equus was found at Hierakonpolis dating around the same period .

The horse was also found at other sites in the Sahara. Skeletons of horses dating to between to around 2000 BC have been found in the Sahara-Sahel zone

Most researchers believe that th horse was introduced to Africa/Egypt by the Hysos after 1700BC. This is an interesting date, and far to late for the introduction of the horse given the archaeological evidence for horses at Maadi and the Sahel-Sahara zone.

In this region we find many horses depicted in the rock art. Some researchers have dated the rock art to after 1000 BC,based on the association of the camel with horses in the rock art.

Although the horse and camel are depicted in the rcok art of Nubia, the Sahel-Sahara and Upper Egypt they are considered to be related to the Graeco-Roman period . This date is far to late for the camel and horse to be used for domesticated purposes. During the Old Kingdom camel hair cord was used by the Egyptians . Moreover camel figurines are found in Gerzean (3500 BC) and archaic Egyptian context .

In the Sahelian-Saharan rock art the horse frequently depicted. The horse is often associated with being rode by the personages depicted in the rock art . In the same area we find engravings of men capturing horses probably to be rode or harnessed to a chariot . There are numerous pictures of blacks riding in chariots. Some researchers have dated this art to 600 BC. This date is probably far to late given the fact that the horse is attested too early in the archaeological history of Saharan Africa as discussed above.

At Buhen, one of the major fortresses of Nubia, which served as the headquarters of the Egyptian Viceroy of Kush a skeleton of a horse was found lying on the pavement of a Middle Kingdom rapart dating to 1675BC. This was only 25 years after the Hysos had conquered Egypt. This suggest that the Kushites had been riding horses for an extended period of time for them to be able to attack Buhen on horse back. This also supports the early habits of Africans riding horses as depicted in the rock art.

The Nubians and Upper Egyptians were great horsemen whereas the Lower Egyptians usually rode the chariot, the Nubian warriors of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty rode on horseback . The appearance of the horse laying on a Buhen rampart may indicate it was used by Kushite warriors attacking Buhen. No matter what the use of the horse was, the linguistic evidence makes it clear that the horse was part of Saharan culture before the advent of the Indo-Europeans.

There are many Dravidian and African words for horse, one of the most ancient Dravidian forms for horse may be Brahui hulli and Tamil ivuli. This ancient form of the word for horse appears in African languages with consonant /l/ or/d/, as the main consonant and the vowels /o/ or /u/. Below we compare the Malinke(M.)-Bambara (B.), Nubia (N), Wolof (W.) Hausa, Tamil (Ta), Malayam (Mal) Somali (Som.) Kanarese (Ka.) Telugu (Tel.) Kordofan Nubian (KN) languages. The African languages belong either to the Niger–Congo Family or the Cushitic Family of languages.

Horse

M. wolu, Bam. b’lu, wolo, N. unde Ta. Iyuli, Brahui hulli

Another ancient form of the word for horse was *par- / * far-. Below are other Dravidian-African terms for horse:

Mande wolu Bam. B’lu, wolo
Mande bara ‘grey horse’, Hausa baraba ‘swift horse’
Wolof fas Somali fara-ka Egyptian nefer Serere pis
Tamil , Mal. Pari Tamil payyeru, Fulani puucu Mande bari Ge’ez faras Galla or Oromo farda, ferda
Ka. Karte Tamil kartai Hausa doki
Tel. gadide Kanuri Nile koś Hausa godiya

The Dravidians and Niger-Congo speakers formerly lived in the highlands of the Sahara. Many of these people migrated into West Africa. In West Africa according to Daniel McCall the horse was in the Sahara during the Second Millennium BC This would explain the affinity between the Dravidian and African terms for horse outlined above.

The Saharan horse was small in size. These horses match perfectly the horses depicted with the Saharan chariot riders. These horses were stiil be used by the warriors of ancient Ghana as noted by the Arabic writer al-Bekri when he visited this area.

The fact that the chariots found in West Africa resemble those of Crete does not mean that the riders of these chariots had to have come from Crete. In fact Greek traditions make it clear that the ancient Cretans, called Minoans came from Africa

The Dravidian and African languages share similar names for the wheel. For example:

Galla makurakura Tulu gali, tagori
Swahili guru, dumu Mande koli, kori, muru-fe
Tamil kal, ari, urul , tikiri Ka. gali tiguri, tigari

It would appear that the proto-African-Dravidian term for wheel was *-ori / *-uri *go/uri and *ko/uri. The proto-South Dravidian term for wheel *tigu/ori . The linguistic evidence suggest that in the proto- language the speakers of proto-African-Dravidian used either the vowels o/u or a/i after the consonants. It is also evident that the l and r, were interchangeable in the construction of the term for wheel.

The horse disappeared from the Sahara as the area became increasingly drier. This forced the original West African domesticated horses to move southward where they are presently found.

Dravidian Origin for the term for horse in Central Asia

2011-07-03T05:41:00.000-07:00

It would appear that most of the early horsemen in Central Asia came from Iran, rather than southern Russia. The nomad artisans of the 3rd millennium BC steppes, show affinity to artisans from Iran (David 1986). During this period pastures provided grazing and herds with abundant food (Masson 1986:80). These horsemen would have been Dravidian and /or Elamite speaking people., not Indo-Iranian speaking people who seem to have learned about the horse from the Dravidian speaking people.

In the 2nd millennium BC the horse was extensively exploited throughout Central Asia (David 1986:486). For example, at the 17th 16th century BC site of Sinatasha, there are horse and chariot burials. These horsemen made fine bronzehead spears.

The oldest alleged Indo-European language spoken in Central Asia is Tocharian. Although many researchers believe Tocharian is an Indo-European language, it was probably in reality a trade language, used by the diverse people of Central Asia to communicate.

The Dravidian language is especially close to Tocharian A (TA). It would appear that Tocharian B (TB) has been greatly influenced by the Indo European languages. For example, there is labialization of labiovelars before voiceless consonants in TB.

In TA on the otherhand there are few traces of an earlier distinction between labiovelars and velar plus *w, clusters. For example:

Horse: TB yakwe, Old English eoh, Latin equus
> *yakwe PIE *ekwos Sanskrit asvas, Old Irish ech
TA yuk
Dog: TB kwem< PIE *kwena < PIE acc. *kwonm (Sanskrit svanam )

The TA terms for Central Asian domesticates agree with Dravidian terms.

1. Tocharian A ku dog
Dravidian kona id.
Kannanda Kunni id.
Tamil Kukkal id.
" Kuran id.
Telugu Kukka id.
Malayam Cokkan id.

3. Tocharian A ko bovine
Toda kor id.
Dravidian kode id.
Kolami ku.te id.
Tulugu kode id.
Kolami konda,konde id.
Tamil kali id.
Kananda gonde id.
Gadba konde id.
Gondi Konda bullock

As you can see from the above the Dravidians and Tocharian A group share many terms for animals, e.g., Ø ku na # 'dog'__/ Toch. Ø ku #; Ø kode # 'cow', Toch. Ø ko #; and Ø ivuli # 'horse' Toch. Ø yuk #.

Dravidian speaking people probably introduced the horse and chariots to Central Asia. In Mongolian the term for ‘cart’ is terga, this corresponds to Ta. Teer ‘car, chariot’, Ka. teer(u) ‘chariot’ .

The terms used for horse in Central Asia agree with Dravidian terms. This is interesting because it has affinity to Dravidian and Mongolian words for horse including:

Buryat (Mongolian) guun, gu ‘mare’
Tamil: kutirai, Karutai Ka. Karte ‘horse’, Proto-Nilotic *tike:ri donkey
Hausa kutur, Kuturi ‘hindquarters of a horse or domkey’
Telugu: gurramu, gadide ‘horse’; Hausa doki , goodiya; Kanuri koś
Kol: gurramu

Tocharian A yu horse ; Mande wolu
Tamil ivuli id. Bambara b’lu, wolo
Brahui hulli id. Nubian unde
Telugu payyoli id.

. Many researchers may dispute the affinity between Dravidian Ø ivuli # and Tocharian A Ø yuk # 'horse'. Yet the identification of Tocharian A yuk, to Dravidian is much more supportable than the PIE root for horse. This results from the fact that there are five different Proto Indo European (PIE) roots for horse. This multitude of PIE roots for horse makes these terms inconclusive for the PIE lexicon. They also support the view that the horse was not domesticated by the Indo Europeans.

Thapar suggest that the Indo-Aryans were bilingual, and that all the Vedic agricultural terms were of non-Indo-European origin including langala ‘plough’ . Recent linguistic research makes it clear that even the Indo-Aryan terms for religion, magic, priest, deities and even soma are of non-I-A or I-E origin . David Anthony, notes in a “Comment” to the Lamberg-Karlovsky article on the origin of the Indo-Iranians observed that the Indo-Iranian word for soma plant [ancu] was borrowed from a non-Indo-European substrate language along with words for brick, plowshare and camel.

The Indic term for horse may also be of Dravidian origin. Caldwell noted that in Sanskrit the term for donkey was khara ‘ass’, in Tamil we have karudei. One of the Sanskrit terms for horse according to Caldwell is ghota, this corresponds to Ta. kudirai and goram . The Tamil term for horse may come from kudi ‘to lead’.

S.H. Levitt has presented convincing evidence that the Sanskrit term for horse is of Dravidian origin. Dr. Levitt illustared that as a result of Dravidian euphonic combinations, the Sanskrit terms kindhin, kundin, kilkin, kilvin ‘horse’, are clearly derived from (DEDR 1711) Tamil kutirai, Ma. Kutira, Te. gurramu, Kol. gurram ‘horse’ . It is important to remember that the l and r, and d and t are interchangeable in Dravidian languages. He noted that Dravidian –k-, -v- and –nt- are derivative suffixes, that alternate in the Sanskrit forms of Dravidian loan words as –l-, -nd- and –v- . The Dravidian origin for the Sanskrit terms for hosre should not be too surprising considering the fact that the Indo-Iranian terms associated with horsemanship and the horse are related to Hurrian and Hattic terms. The Hurrian and Hattic speakers spoke languages related the Dravidian group, since they were of Kushite origin.

The first wheeled vehicles probably came to Central Asia along with Dravidian and Manding speakers from Iran practicing a sedentary agro pastoralist culture (Winters 1990a). These wheeled vehicles were first pulled by cattle as evidenced from toys found at selected sites in Central Asia and the Indus Valley. These bovids pulled two or four wheeled wagons (Kohl 1988:594) This semi mobile pastoralism by the middle Bronze Age led to increased population levels in the steppe zone.

The Dravidians may have introduced the wagon, boat and plow/plough to Central Asia. The Tocharian A term 0 kukal # 'chariot,wagon' , has affinity to Dravidian rather than PIE *rotho 'wheel, chariot'.
Below are the word geneology for PIE wheel:

Sanskrit ratha chariot
" cakra wheel
Latin rota id.
German rad id.
Toch. A kukal wagon
Toch. B kokale id.

As you can see *rotho 'wheel', is not closely related to Tocharian terms for wagon, but TB 0 kukal # is closely related to Dravidian kal 'wagon'.

Tocharian B kokale chariot,wagon
Tocharian A kukal id.
Tamil kal id.
Kui Opka id.
Tulugu gali wheel
Kananda gali id.

In summary the Dravidian speaking people were familiar with horses since their former occupation of the Saharan highlands and the Sudan. As a result the Dravidian and African speaking people share common names for the horse and ass/donkey. It is also clear that these Dravidian speaking people may have brought horses with them to the Indus Valley when they founded the Dilmun, or Indus Valley civilization.

In addition, the linguistic evidence clearly suggest that the Mongolian, Tocharian and Indic terms for horse are probably the result of a Dravidian influence. The term for horse can not be a Indo-European loan because of the close relationship between Sanskrit kundin ‘horse’ and Tamil kutirai ‘ horse’ and the terms for ‘ass’ , point to a Dravidian origin for Indo-Iranian words relating to horse, wagon etc.

Dravidian and African Languages

2011-07-02T06:45:00.000-07:00

A great way to see the genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages is to compare the agricultural terms used by both groups.

The Dravidian terms for millet are listed in the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary at 2359, 4300 and 2671. A cursory review of the linguistic examples provided below from the Dravidian, Mande and Wolof languages show a close relationship between these language. These terms are outlined below:

Kol sonna --- --- ----
Wolof (AF.) suna --- ---- ---
Mande (AF) suna bara, baga de-n, doro koro
Tamil connal varaga tinai kural
Malayalam colam varaku tina ---
Kannanda --- baraga, baragu tene korale,korle
*sona *baraga *tenä *kora

Below we will compare other Dravidian and African agricultural terms. These terms come from the Mande languages:Malinke, Kpelle, Bambara, Azer, Soninke, West Atlantic (Wolof, Fulani), Afro-Asiatic (Oromo, Galla), Somali, Nubian and the ancient Egyptian.

The Paleo-Dravido-Africans came from a sedentary culture that domesticated cattle and grew numerous crops including wheat and millet. The Egyptian term for cultivation is 0 b j(w) #. Egyptian Ø b j(w) # corresponds to many African terms for cultivation:

Galla baji 'cultivated field'
Tulu (Dravidian language) bey, benni
Nubian ba, bat 'hoe up ground'
Malinke be
Somali beer
Wolof mbey, ambey, bey
Egyptian b j(w)
Sumerian buru, bur 'to root up'

These terms for cultivate suggest that the Paleo-African term for cultivate was *be.

The Egyptian term for grain is Ø sa #. This corresponds to many African terms for seed,grain:

Galla senyi
Malinke se , si
Sumerian se
Egyptian sen 'granary'
Kannanda cigur

Bozo sii
Bambara sii
Daba sisin
Somali sinni
Loma sii
Susu sansi
Oromo sanyi
Dime siimu
Egyptian ssr 'corn'
id. ssn 'lotus plant'
id. sm 'herb, plant'
id. isw 'weeds'

The identification of a s>0/#_________e pattern for 'seed,grain' in the above languages suggest that these groups were familiar with seeds at the time they separated into distinct Supersets. The fact that Sumerian 0 se # and Egyptian 0 sen #, and Malinke Ø se # are all separated both in time and geographical area highlight the early use of seeds * se , by Paleo-Dravido-Africans.

Rice
Soninke dugo
Vai ko'o
Manding malo
Dravidian mala-kurula
Mende molo, konu
Kpelle moloy
Boko mole
Bisa muhi
Busa mole
Sa mela
Bambara kini
Yam
Bozo ku, kunan
Vai jambi
Malinke ku
Dravidian kui, kuna, ku
Bambara ku

It would appear that all the Proto-Dravidians were familiar with the cultivation of rice, yams and millet. This is not surprising because Weber (1998) made it clear that millet cultivation in ancient South Asia was associated with rice cultivation.

.

Post Relating to Meroitic Language

2011-07-02T06:25:00.001-07:00

There is no evidence that the Meroites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language . See

.
http://bafsudralam.blogspot.com/2009/02/linguistic-support-for-extra-nubian.html

This is based on the Kushana hypothesis which indicates that Indians scholars formerly lived in India. I believe these scholars introduced the Meroitic writing system to the Meroites.See:

.
http://bafsudralam.blogspot.com/2008/04/kushana-hypothesis-and-meroitic-writing.html

The history of writing among the Napatans and Meroites make it clear that they never wrote inscriptions in their own language. See:

.
http://bafsudralam.blogspot.com/2008/04/literacy-in-napatan-and-meroitic.html

It is also important to remember that the Nubians were enemies of the Meroites and were never part of the empire. See:

.
http://bafsudralam.blogspot.com/2008/04/nubian-speakers-were-not-kushites-of.html

.
http://bafsudralam.blogspot.com/2008/04/nubians-were-never-members-of-meroitic.html

Nubian Origin Niger-Congo Languages

2011-07-02T06:11:00.000-07:00

The evidence that Meroitic is related to Niger Congo should not be surprising because Niger-Congo speakers lived in Egypt and the Meroitic empire.

The majority of West Africans formerly lived just below Egypt in Nubia, before they moved westward into Cameroon, the Niger Valley and Senegambian regions. The traditional view of the dispersal of the Niger-Congo speakers would place their original home in the woodland savanna zone of West Africa, in the area of the Niger Basin (Ehret and Posnansky 1982:242 ).
This is a most attractive theory but it does not conform to the archaeological data collected over the past decade. This material illustrates that until the second millennium BC the Inland Niger Delta was sparsely populated (McIntosh & McIntosh 1981 ,1986).

Wm. E. Welmers (1971),explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley. He believes that the Westward migration began 5000 years ago. This was the center of the C-Group civilization.

In support of this theory he discusses the dogs of the Niger-Congo speakers. This is the unique barkless Basenji dogs which live in the Sudan and Uganda today, but were formerly recorded on Egyptian monuments (Welmers,1971). The Basanji dog is the Egyptian hieroglyphic sign for dog.

According to Welmers the Basanji, is related to the Liberian Basenji breed of the Kpelle and Loma people of Liberia. Welmers believes that the Mande took these dogs with them on their migration westward. The Kpelle and Loma speak Mande languages.

Welmers (1971) believes that the Niger Valley region and other regions of West Africa may have been unoccupied when the Mande migrated westward Nubia. In support of this theory Welmers' notes that the Liberian Banji dogs ,show no cross-breeding with dogs kept by other African groups in West Africa, and point to the early introduction of this cannine population after the separation of the Mande from the other Niger-Congo speakers in the original upper Nile homeland for this population. As a result, he claims that the Mande migration occured before these groups entered the region.

Linguistic research make it clear that there is a close relationship between the Niger-Congo Superlanguage family and the Nilo-Saharan languages spoken in the Sudan. Heine and Nurse (2000), discuss the Nilo-Saharan connection. They note that when Westerman described African languages he used lexical evidence to include the Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo languages into a Superfamily he called "Sudanic" (Heine & Nurse, 2000). Using Morphological and lexical similarities Gregerson indicated that these languages belonged to a macrophylum he named " Kongo-Saharan" (Heine and Nurse, 2000). Research by Blench reached the same conclusion, and he named this Superfamily: "Niger-Saharan" (Heine & Nurse, 2000).

Genetic evidence supports the upper Nile origin for the Niger-Congo speakers. Rosa et al, in Y-Chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau (2007), noted that while most Mande & Balanta carry the E3a-M2 gene, there are a number of Felupe-Djola, Papel, Fulbe and Mande carry the M3b*-M35 gene the same as many people in the Sudan.

In addition to haplogroup E3, we also find some carriers of R1*-M173 in Egypt and the Sudan. In Figure 1 we observe that 34% of the carriers of y-chromosome M173 in Africa speak Niger-Congo languages. This genetic evidence makes it clear that R1*-M173 was probably carried by some C-Group speakers.

Coia et al (2005) provides substantial data that the presence of R1*-M173 did not follow the spread of the spread of mtDNA haplogroup U6
in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is found in North Africa (Coia et al, 2005). This suggest that R1*-M173 may not be the result of back migration from Asia if this theory depends on the spread of haplogroup U6 in areas where R1*-M173 is found.

Welmers proposed an upper Nile (Sudan-Uganda) homeland for the Niger-Congo speakers. He claims that they remained intact until 5000 years ago. This view is supported by linguistic and genetics evidence. The linguistic evidence makes it clear that the Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo languages are related. The genetic evidence indicates that Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo speakers carry the y-chromosomes M3b*-M35 and R1*-M173, an indicator for the earlier presence of speakers of this languages in an original Nile Valley homeland.

The Nile Valley origin of the Niger Congo speakers explains the close relationship between Meroitic, Egyptian, Beja and Niger-Congo languages.

Reference:

Coia V. , G Destro-Bisol, F Verginelli, C Battaggia, I Boschi, F Cruciani, G Spedini, D Comas and F Calafell, 2005. Brief communication: mtDNA variation in North Cameroon: lack of Asian lineages and implications for back migration from Asia to sub-Saharan Africa, Am J Phys Anthropol (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/110495269/PDFSTART) (electronically published May 13, 2005; accessed August 5, 2005).

Heine,B. and Nurse,D. (Eds.).2002. African languages: An introduction , Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-666295.

Cruciani,F., Trombetta,B., Sellitto, D., Massaia,A. destroy-Bisol,G., Watson, E., Colomb, E.B. 2010. Eur J. Hum Genet.,(6 January 2010) doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.231: 1-8.
Ehret,C. & Posnansky,M. 1982. The Archaeological and Linguistic
Reconstruction of African History. Berkeley.
McIntosh,S.K. & McIntosh,R.J.1981. "West African Prehistory". American Scientist
,69:602-613.
_____________.1986. "Archaeological Research and dates from
West Africa". Journal of African History, 27:413-42.

Rosa A, Ornelas C, Jobling MA, Brehm A, Villems R. Y-chromosome diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau: a multiethnic perspective, BMC Evol Biology 2007; 7, 124. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1976131/?tool=pubmed

Welmers, Wm E .1971. "Niger-Congo Mande", Cur trends in Ling 7:113-140.

The Tehenu in Anatolia

2011-04-17T22:07:00.000-07:00

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

Kushites expanded into Inner Asia from two primary points of dispersal : Iran and Anatolia. In Anatolia the Kushites were called Hattians and Kaska. In the 2nd millennium BC, the north and east of Anatolia was inhabited by non-I-E speakers.

Anatolia was divided into two lands “the land of Kanis” and the “land of Hatti”. The Hatti were related to the Kaska people who lived in the Pontic mountains.

Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place-names . The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.

Singer (1981) has suggested that the Kaska, are remnants of the indigenous Hattian population which was forced northward by the Hittites. But at least as late as 1800 BC, Anatolia was basically settled by Hattians.

Anatolia was occupied by many Kushite groups,including the Kashkas and or Hatti. The Hatti , like the Dravidian speaking people were probably related

Some of the Tehenu or Kushites settled Anatolia. Some of the major Anatolian Kushite tribes were the Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).

The Hattic people, may be related to the[b] Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes. Many archaeologist believe that the Tehenu people were related to the C-Group people. The Hattic language is closely related to African and Dravidian languages for example:
•English ……Hattic …..Egyptian…….. Malinke (Mande language)

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

protect…….. $uh……… swh …………………solo-

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

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

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

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

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

child …………..pin………,pinu………………… den

Mother ………..na-a ………--…………………….. na

lord …………….sa ………..--………………………. sa

place ………….-ka………… -ka

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

•Hurrians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[*]Dravidian Hurrian

a a

-kku -ikka

imbu impu

There are analogous Dravidian and Hurrian terms:

English Hurrian Dravidian

mountain paba parampu

lady,woman aallay ali

King Sarr,zarr Ca, cira

god en en

give tan tara

to rule irn ire

father attai attan

wife,woman asti atti

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

[*]Hurrian Sanskrit

Mi-it-va Mitra

Aru-na Varuna

In-da-ra Indra

Na-sa-at-tiya Nasatya

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

English Hurrian Sanskrit Tamil

One aika eka okka ‘together’

Three tera tri

Five panza panca añcu

Seven satta sapta

Nine na nava onpatu

Other Hurrian terms relate to Indo-Aryan:

English Hurrian I-A Tamil

Brown babru babhru pukar

Grey parita palita paraitu ‘old’

Reddish pinkara pingala puuval

English Mitanni Vedic Tamil

Warrior marya marya makan, maravan

References:

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

Indo-Aryan languages originated in Anatolia

2011-04-17T22:03:00.000-07:00

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

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

Due to early Dravidian settlement in Northern India there is a Dravidian substratum in Indo‑Aryan. There are Dravidian loans in the Rg Veda, even though Aryan recorders of this work were situated in the Punjab which occupied around this time by the BRW Dravidians.

There are islands of Dravidian speakers in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. There are over 300,000 Brahui speakers in Qualat, Hairpur and Hyderabad districts of Pakistan. There are an additional 40,000 Brahui in Emeneau and Burrow (1962) found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. In addition, Indo-Aryan illustrates a widespread structural borrowing from Dravidian in addition to 700 lexical loans (Kuiper 1967; Southward 1977; Winters 1989).

Iran and several thousand along the southern border of Russia and Yugoslavia. (ISDL 1983:227)

Emeneau and Burrow (1962) have found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. the number of Dravidian loans in Indo‑Aryan is expected to reach 750.

There are numerous examples of Indo‑Aryan structural borrowings from Dravidian. For example, the Bengali and Oriya plural suffix ‑ra is analogous to the Tamil plural suffix ‑ar. Both of these suffixes are restricted to names of intelligent beings. (Chatterji 1970:173) Oriya borrowed the ‑gura plural suffix from the Dravidians. (Mahapatra 1983:67) Some researchers believe that the syntax of the Indo‑Aryan languages is ambivalent because of the Dravidian influence on these languages. As a result, they represent both SOV and SVO traits. If my theory is correct the relationship between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages is not the result of borrowing, it is due to the fact that the ancestors of the Vangi, Odri and Maharastri were descendents of the Kushite Anatolians.

In conclusion,the relationship between indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages are not the result, purely of contact with Dravidian speakers in India. These languages are related because the speakers of these languages formerly belonged to the C-Group or Kushite people of the region called Kusha Dwipa in the Sankritic text.

I believe that after the Hittites defeated the Hatti and Kaska and other peoples belonging to the Hurrian and Mitanni kingdoms, these people were uprooted and forced into Iran. The lost of Anatolia to the Hittites, probably forced these people to become nomads.

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

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

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

R1 Originated in Africa not Western Europe

2011-01-14T03:29:00.000-08:00

First European

Myres et al argues that the neolithic European gene pool was probably influenced most, by events in Western Europe, rather than intrusive pioneer farmers from the Near East(1). They argue that R1b M412 lineages , phylogeographic and temperal patterns support a Central European origin for this clade and not a recent genetic heritage from Anatolia.

The archaeogenetic evidence fails to support this conclusion. The genetic, craniometric and archaeological evidence all support an African, rather than Southwest Asian or Central European origin for R1b.

Myres et al note the maritime spread of neolithic farming communities using impressed cardial pottery to coastal Mediterranean populations and Crete 9kya . They interpret the phylogeography as an indication of the probable spread of M269 from Anatolia. This is contrary to the archaeological data which recognize the migration of populations around this time period from Africa, not Anatolia .

Using ancient DNA Haak et al makes it clear that during the Linearbandkeramik (LBK), Neolithic culture 5kya the predominate Eurasian haplogroup was haplogroup N (2) . Caramelli et al’s discovery of the presence of haplogroup N among hunter-gatherer Aurignacian samples suggest continuity between Western European populations from the Holocene to the Neolithic period (3) .

The early coalescent estimate of M269*+L23 (x M412) chromosome between 8.5-12 kya (1) , suggest an African genesis for M269, rather than Southwest Asia, since we see not only Sub-Saharan populations entering the area around this time they also bring with them Sub-Saharan fauna (4) ; and African groups who carry R1b are not of Middle eastern Origin (5).

Many of the African populations that carry R1* M173 are associated with the the Kushite people of Nubia (6) . As a result we find many Eurasian ethnonyms of Anatolia and Mesopotamia that indicate a Kushite presence including the Ksaka tribe (7) ; and Kings of Kish/Kush (6) .

The craniometric evidence for the 4-5kya period indicates that many Mesopotamians were Sub-Saharan Africans (8 -9) . The craniometrics for the Anatolians correspond to Niger Congo and Kerma (Kushite) populations (10-11).

In conclusion, African skeletal remains appear in Southwest Asia during the LBK. This along with the variety of haplogroup R lineages in Sub-Saharan Africa , suggest an African rather than Eurasian origin for haplogroup R1.

References

1. Myres N, Rootsi S, Lin A, et al. 2010. A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe. Eur Jour of Hum Genet advance online publication 25 August 2010; doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2010.146.

2.Haak W, Balanovsky O, Sanchez JJ, Koshel S, Zaporozhchenko V, et al. 2010 Ancient DNA from European Early Neolithic Farmers Reveals Their Near Eastern Affinities. PLoS Biol 8(11): e1000536. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000536

3.Caramelli,D.,Lalueza-Fox,C., Vernesi,C., Lari,M.,Casoli,A., Mallegni,B.C., Dupanloup, I., Bertranpetit,J., Barbujani,G., Bertorelle,G. (2003). Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000 year-old anatomically modern Europeans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A., 100 (11):6593-6597.

4.Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads:Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, Am Anth,102(1) .

5. Winters, C.2010b.Letter: The Fulani are not from the Middle East. PNAS. August 3, 2010. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1008007107

6. Winters C. 2010. The Kushite Spread of haplogroup R1*-M173 from Africa to Eurasia, Cur Res Jour of Bio Sci , 2(5): 294-299.

7. Singer, I. (1981). Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the beginning of the Second Millennium B.C., J of Indo-Euro Stud, 9 (1-2):119-149.

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.

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

The Kushana

2010-12-12T07:11:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-12T07:02:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-12T06:56:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-12T06:43:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-12T06:23:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-12-12T06:10:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-12T05:46:00.000-08:00

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.

Haplotype AF-24: An Ancient African Gene

2010-11-30T11:20:00.000-08:00

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.

The Expansion of haplogroup LOd from East to West Africa

2010-11-29T10:07:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-29T10:01:00.000-08:00

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

The African Variety

2010-11-14T06:08:00.000-08:00

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.

Uthman dan Fodio Institute

2010-11-01T21:20:00.000-07:00

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

History of Sanskrit

2010-10-16T05:23:00.000-07:00

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

2010-10-16T05:05:00.000-07:00

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.

Dravidians and Aryans

2010-09-16T20:24:00.000-07:00

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.

The Natufians

2010-09-03T07:57:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2010-08-26T10:10:00.000-07:00

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.

Nubian Kamitic Sumerian Dravidian Concept of the Soul

2010-08-04T20:06:00.000-07:00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

2010-08-04T19:48:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-04T19:46:00.000-07:00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

2010-08-04T19:42:00.000-07:00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Glottochronology and the relationship between Malinke-Bambara, Tamil and Sumerian

2010-08-04T19:32:00.000-07:00

In 1989 I compared the Mande (Bambara-Malinke), and Tamil languages to use glottochronology to determine the date of separation for these languages. Below are a few of the cognates.

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 lexical evidence above supported the hypothesis that a genetic relationship exist between the Mande language which is a member of the Niger-Congo family , Tamil (Dravidian), and Sumerian. This linguistic data illustrates that a common cultural macrostructure is shared by these speakers which subsequently evolved along separate lines.

Given this genetic unity of these languages I call this group of Paleo-African languages situated in Africa and Asia B(lack) Af(rican), S(umerian, Draa(vidian), (E)lam: or Bafsudraalam subset of the Proto-Saharan Superset of languages.(Winters 1989)

The theory of borrowing in ancient time can not account for these morphological, lexicological and phonetic correspondences between Dravidian , Elamite, Egyptian, Manding and Sumerian, because of geographical discontinuity. This cognition illustrates a genetic relationship between the Bafsudraalam subset of the Proto-Saharan family of languages.

In Winters (l989) after a comparison of 100 lexical items from Manding and Dravidian indicated a cognate rate of 70 to 75 percent . The retention rate corresponds to a minimum separation of 1.18 millennia.

Using the standard rates of retention for glottochronology, the rate for corresponding Manding, Sumerian and Tamil terms together is 50 percent retention rate, and suggest a minimum length of separation of 2.29 millennia for the group as a whole.

But when we compare Manding-Sumerian the retention rate was 70 percent or a minimum length of separation of 1.18 millennia. A comparison of Sumerian-Tamil corresponds to a 57 percent retention rate or a minimum separation of 1.50 millennia.

The length of separations for these languages are far too recent. Formerly I believed that Sumerian had been absorbed by the Akkadian language much earlier then 2.29 millennia ago. I was wrong Sachs (1976) proved that Sumerian was still in use by the first century C.E. The fact that the retention rate for Sumerian and Mande is 1.18 millennia corresponds to the date for the end of Sumerian writing in Mesopotamia.

Reference:
A. Sachs 'The Latest Datable Cuneiform Tablets'; Kramer Anniversary Volume,1976. the passage of time".

Expansion and origin of Indo-Aryans

2010-07-13T07:56:00.000-07:00

The first Indo-European speakers were the Hittites. They entered Anatolia and conquered the non-IE speaking people.

I am beginning to believe that after the Hittites defeated the Hatti and Kaska and other peoples belonging to the Hurrian and Mitanni kingdoms,these people were uprooted and forced into Iran. The lost of Anatolia to the Hittites, probably forced
these people to become nomads.

In Iran they probably formed a significant portion of the Proto-Aryapopulation. Here they may have met Indo-Iranian speaking people,who may have practiced a hunter-gatherer existence, that adopted aspects of their culture , especially the religion and use of Mitanni religious terms and chariot culture.

Joining forces with the Mitannian-Hurrian exiles they probably attacked Dravidian and Austronesian speaking people who probably lived in walled cities. The Austronesian and Dravidian people probably came in intimate contact during the Xia and Shang periods of China.

I have to reject the Afghanistan origin for the Indo-Iranian speaking people because the cultures there in ancient times show no affinity to Indo-European civilization.

Given the Austronesian and Dravidian elements in Sanskrit and etc.,I would have to date the expansion of the Indo-Aryan people sometime after 800 BC, across Iran,India down into Afghanistan, since the Austronesia people probably did not begin to enter India until after the fall of the Anyang Shang Dynasty sometime after 1000 BC. This would explain why you declare that "the Vedic and Avestan mantras are not carbon copies of each other", they may have had a similar genesis, but they were nativised by different groups of Indic and Iranian speakers after the settlement of nomadic Hurrian and Mitanni people in Iran.

Thoughts on the Aryan Invasion of India 1

2010-07-13T07:49:00.000-07:00

The Tamil speakers have had a tremendous influence on World history because this group spread into Europe, India, Central Asia on into China and Japan. It appears that the first waves of Dravidian speakers (especially Tamil) went to Asia in search of metals which they exported back to Middle Africa.

The Tamil history is interesting because while one group separated from the main body in the Indus Valley to settle much of South India, another group migrated into China and founded the Shang Dynasty. These Tamil speakers were forced out of China, through Yunnan, across Southeast Asia and through Tibet back into India. This explains the influence of Dravidian (Tamil) on so many languages in Europe and Asia, including the Islands of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on the Aryan Invasion of India 2

2010-07-13T07:43:00.000-07:00

The BRW tradition originated in Nubia and spread first to the
Indus Valley and thence to India. The earliest occurrence of BRW in
South Asia, occurs on the Kathiwad peninsula, parallel ware has been
found at the lowest levels of Harappa and Lothal dating to 2400 B.C.
(Rao 1972) Dr. Nayar (1977). has shown that the Harappan BRW has
affinities to predynastic Egyptian and West Asian BRW dating to the
same period. Rao (1972) has established the unitary nature of the BRW industry from Nubia to India.

The Harappans were masters of hydraulic engineering.These
Dravidians were a riverine people that practiced irrigation
agriculture. They had both the shaduf and windmills.
The Indus region is an area of uncertain rains because it is
located on the fringes of the monsoon (Fairservis 1987, p.47).
Settlers in the Indus Valley had to suffer frequent droughts and
floods. Severe droughts frequently occurred in the Indus Valley so the
people dug wells to insure for themselves a safe supply of water. J.M.
Kenoyer, in Ancient cities of the Indus Valley Civilization (Oxford
University Press ,1998) maintains that a combination of extensive
flooding and shifti ng rivers destroyed the agricultural foundations of
the Indus Valley and led to many Dravidians migrating out of the
Harappan cities.

To compensate for the adverse ecological conditions, the Harappans settled sites along the Indus river (Fairservis 1987, p.48).
The Dravido-Harappans occupied over 1,000 sites in the riverine
Indus Valley environments where they had soil and water reserves. The Harappan sites are spread from the Indus Valley to Ai Kharnoum in northeastern Afghanistan and southward into India. In Baluchistan and Afghanistan Dravidian languages are still spoken today. Other Harappan sites have been found scattered in the regions adjacent to the Arabian sea, the Derajat, Kashmir and the Doab.

The Harappans were organized into chiefdoms, averaging between two and five acres (Fairservis 1987). The Harappans were
sedentary-pastoral people organized into various corporations such as sailor-fishermen, smiths, merchants and farmers. The Harappans also possessed the social technology of writing seals.

The Harappan sites are small and occupy only a few acres with
little depth. This suggests that the Dravidian speaking colonists
settled the Indus Valley over a period of a few decades (Fairservis
1987,p.46). Fairservis (1987,p.47) has shown that the site of
Mohenjodaro was occupied for around 200 years.

The Indo-Aryan speaking people became strong in India after 1000 B.C. The Aryans made the Dravidians and other native Indian people into slaves like the Munda. They organized a caste system based on race.

The highest caste was based on the priesthood or Brahman, after him came the rajanya or warriors and aristocracy caste and then the
craftsmen or Varsya caste, and lastly the Sudra caste, called pariah.
The Sudra represented the first Black population that lived in India
before the coming of the Indo-Aryans.

In the early Indian writings the aristocracy an d warrior caste
was referred too as rajanya. After the kshatriya conquered the
Indo-Aryans, the warrior class was called Kshatriya. The Brahmanic civilization lasted from the 3rd to the 4th centuries B.C. During this period the Laws of Manu were written. The Laws of Manu became India's first civil and political code.

There were two Indo-Aryan migrations into India. The first waves
of Indo-Aryans arrived the Indo-Iranian borderlands when ecological
conditions had improved. These Indo-Aryans began to settle areas
formerly occupied by Dravidian-speaking Harappans.

As the Aryans moved southward other Dravidian-speaking groups living in isolated villages in the Punjab and Haryana, probably allowed

Indo-Aryan tribal groups to settle in their respected urban centers.
This would explain the association of BRW with PGW in the Punjab
dating between 1000-1300 B.C.( Singh 1982, p.xli). It would also
explain the mention of the highly developed civilization of the
non-Indo-Aryan speakers in the Rg Veda.

The second and major wave of Indo-Aryans probably entered northern India around 1000-800 B.C. This would explain why almost all the dependable PGW dates cluster around 800-350 B.C.(Agrawal & Kusumgar 1974, p.132).

By the advent of the second Indo-Aryan migration the Dravidians
were weakened by drought and famine and they were easily defeated and pushed out of the Gajarat. The PGW folk appears to have pushed the Dravidians into the Dekkan.

Due to the early Dravidian presence in Northern India there is a
Dravidian substratum in Indo-Aryan. There are Dravidian loan words in the Rg Veda, even though Aryan recorders of this work were situated in the Punjab, which was occupied around this time by the BRW using Dravidians.

Emeneau and Burrow (1962) have found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. The Dravidian loans in Indo-Aryan are expected to reach 750. Indo-Aryan illustrates widespread structural borrowing from
Dravidian in addition to the lexical loans. For example, Kuiper
(1967) has noted the increasing frequency of Dravidian type retroflex
consonants in Indo-Aryan. Southward (1977) has also recorded the
Dravidian structural features borrowed by the Indo-Aryans.

A new hypothesis about Indo-Aryan has been advanced by Dr. K.
Loganathan (Loga). Dr. Loganathan has presented convincing evidence that Sanskrit is really a form of Tamil, which is the base of this writing system. He has also shown a close relationship between Vedic and Sumerian, by way of Tamil.

Dravidian Substratum in Indo-Aryan Languages

2010-07-13T07:22:00.000-07:00

Due to early Dravidian settlement in Northern India there is a Dravidian substratum in Indo Aryan. There are Dravidian loans in the Rg Veda, even though Aryan recorders of this work were situated in the Punjab which occupied around this time by the BRW Dravidians.

There are islands of Dravidian speakers in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. There are over 300,000 Brahui speakers in Qualat, Hairpur and Hyderabad districts of Pakistan. There are an additional 40,000 Brahui in Emeneau and Burrow (1962) found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. In addition, Indo-Aryan illustrates a widespread structural borrowing from Dravidian in addition to 700 lexical loans (Kuiper 1967; Southward 1977; Winters 1989).
Iran and several thousand along the southern border of Russia and Yugoslavia. (ISDL 1983:227)

Emeneau and Burrow (1962) have found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. the number of Dravidian loans in Indo Aryan is expected to reach 750.

There are numerous examples of Indo Aryan structural borrowings from Dravidian. For example, the Bengali and Oriya plural suffix ra is analogous to the Tamil plural suffix ar. Both of these suffixes are restricted to names of intelligent beings. (Chatterji 1970:173) Oriya borrowed the gura plural suffix from the Dravidians. (Mahapatra 1983:67) The syntax of the Indo Aryan languages is ambivalent because of the Dravidian influence on these languages. As a result, they represent both SOV and SVO traits.

A Short History of African and Classical Mongoloid People

2010-06-11T12:04:00.000-07:00

I accept the fact there were ancient Blacks in Asia. These Blacks were the Australian type people who mainly live in Australia and the Hill regions of Oceania.

The coastal Melanesians on the otherhand, are descendants of recent Africans who settled the area after being forced from Asia. The Polynesians/Filipinos and etc., who are known as the original Mongoloid people and called Classical Mongoloid in the literature probably originated in Anatolia or Mesopotamia.

The Australians are the original settlers of Asia (around 60kybp), and may represent members of the first out of Africa migrants. I never refer to these people as Africans, although I do recognize them as Blacks.

The Anu or Black pygmies probably represent the second African migration of homo sapien sapiens out of Africa. I would class these people with the CroMagnon/Grimaldi group who entered Iberia after 34kybp. Remnants of this great people were found on every continent when Europeans first explored the world.

The Bushman(/Proto-Bantu) type may represent the Natufians who began to migrate out of Africa after 20,000 and settled in the Levant which was first settled by Cro Magnon people who early replaced the Neanderthal folk. The Natufians would represent the fourth African migration into Eurasia.

By the time the Bushmen entered Eurasia the Classical mongoloid people who are the ancestors of the Indonesians/Vietnamese/Filipinos and etc. were probably already settled in Anatolia. The classical mongoloids probably constructed Catal Huyuk. The close relationship between Sumerian and the AustroAsiatic languages suggest that the classical Mongoloid people may have also inhabited Mesopotamia by the time the Sumerians entered the area.

It appears to have been a natural catastrophe which caused the classical mongoloids to migrate eastward. We know this because many of the former sites of the Classical mongoloids in Anatolia were occupied by the Kushites (Kaska) people after 2500 BC.

By 1200 BC the clasical mongoloids had become well established in India. Around this time they conquered the Dravidian people who founded the first Shang empire, and set up a new Shang Empire at Anyang.

By 1000 BC the Hau/Han tribes came down from the mountains and pushed the classical mongoloids southward into Yunnan and eventually Southeast Asia. The Han began to make the Yueh and li min people their slaves. The Han often used the Qiang (another Black tribe) as sacrifice victims.
The Han killed off as many Black tribes as they could. The only thing that saved the pygmies in East Asia, was the fact that they moved into the mountains in areas they could easily defend from Han attacks.

This movement of Han and classical mongoloid people southward forced the Kushite/African (Qiang, li min and other African) tribes onto the Pacific Islands. It is these Africans who represent the coastal Melanesians.

The Sumerians, Elamites, Xia (of China), Harappans of the Indus Valley and coastal Melanoids are the Proto-Saharan people known in History as the Kushites.These people originated in the Highland regions of Middle Africa, and began to occupy the former trade centers of the Anu in Eurasia and the Americas. It is for this reason that we find West African placenames in the Pacific and India.

Given the origin of the classical mongoloids in Anatolia, and the Han Chinese somewhere in North China or Central Asia,the Southeast Asians are not descendants of the first African migration to Eurasia. This is why the Chinese and Classical mongoloid people share few if any genes with the Australians. The Classical mongoloids share genes mainly with the coastal Melanesians who are of African origin, but few genes with the Chinese of East Asia.

.

Beja and Meroitic

2010-04-21T12:28:00.000-07:00

There is increasing evidence that the Beja may provide a key to fully understanding the Meroitic language.

Some years ago I deciphered the Kharamadoye inscription. Today Beja repeat this message from their ancestors with pride as an indication to the long history of the Beja people. At Buzzle.com
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/freedom-for-dirar-ahmed-dirar-independence-for-sudans-beja-blemmyes.html

They note:

…… Hrmdoye ne qor ene ariteñ lne mdes ne mni-t kene
mk lebne ye re qe-ne q yi-t hl-ne y es bo he-ne q r lebne tro.
S-ne ariteñ net er ek li s-ne d-b li lh ne q r kene qor ene mnpte.

This was heard already before 1670 years at a moment the Blemmyan King Kharamadoye drove his compatriots to a point of national statehood at the northern area of the then ailing Meroitic kingdom in what is today's Sudanese North and Egyptian South. Using Meroitic scripture, the scribes of Kharamadoye immortalized down to our times an inscription on walls of the Mandulis temple at Talmis (modern Kalabsha). The beginning of the inscription reads in a plausible English translation as follows:

Kharamadoye the monarch and chief of the living Ariteñ, the great son and patron of Amani, you (who) revitalizes (man). The lord's voyage of discovery indeed gives the creation of Good. Act (now Amani) he travels to support good. Make a good welfare swell (for) the offering of the Chief, (he) desires indeed the restoration of eminence. The patron of good Ariteñ bows in reverence (before Amani) to evoke exalted nourishment (for) the patrons to leave a grand and exalted legacy to behold good. Oh Amani make indeed (a) revitalization (of) the monarch (and) commander of Great Napata…..”

When I first saw this claim that the Beja, represented the Blemmyan people of the Meroitic and Egyptian inscriptions I thought it might be hollow indeed. But after comparing Meroitic to Beja, the claim has considerable merit.

To test the hypothesis that the Beja language was related to meroitic, I compared Meroitic and Beja. The Beja material comes from Klaus and Charlotte Wedekind and Abuzeinab Musa, Beja Pedagogical Grammar (http://www.afrikanistik-online.de/archiv/2008/1283/beja_pedagogical_grammar_final_links_numbered.pdf ) ,

What I found from this cursory examination was most interesting. I will need to gather more vocabulary items from Beja, but I did find a number of matches:

Meroitic ……English……….. Beja
i ‘arrive at this point’ ………… bi ‘went’
t ‘he, she’ ……………………..ta ‘she’
ya ‘go’………………………….yak ‘start’
rit ‘look’……………………….rhitaa ‘you saw’
an(a) plural suffix……………..aan ‘these’
d(d) ‘say’………………………di(y) ‘say’
lb ‘energy, dynamic…………liwa ‘burn’
ken ‘to realize’……………….kana ‘to know’
bk ‘ripen’……………………..bishakwa ‘to be ripe’

The vocabulary items are interesting, but since they come from a grammar book there was not enough to provide an extensive comparison.

Meroitic and Beja share many grammatical features. For example, the pronouns are usually suffixed to verbs e.g., Beja ti bi ‘she went’, Meroitic t-i ‘he goes’. In Beja, adi is used to indicate complete action Taman adi ‘I ate it completely’, Meroitic –a, serves the same purpose akin ne a ‘he has become completely learned’. In both languages the adverb is placed behind the noun Beja takii-da ‘small man’, Meroitic pt ‘praise’: pt es ‘manifest praise’. In Beja the future tense is form by ndi, Tami a ndi “I will eat’, Meroitic –n, s-ne yo-n Aman ‘The patron will bow in reverence to Aman’.

Kalabsha Temple

This makes it clear to me that Beja may be related to Meroitic and that the Beja represent the Blemmy nation of Old.

The Ancient Minoans: Keftiu were Mande Speakers

2010-04-11T14:59:00.000-07:00

Every since Arthur Evans discovered the Hieroglyphic and Linear A writing of Crete there has been a search for the authors of this writing.

Some Grecian traditions indicate that Libyans (called Garamante) formerly lived on Crete. This suggest that some of the Eteocretans may have spoken one of the ancient languages of Libya.

A major group from Libya that settled Crete were the Garamante. Robert Graves in (Vol.1, pp.33-35) maintains that the Garamante who originally lived in the Fezzan fused with the inhabitants of the Upper Niger region of West Africa.

This theory is interesting because the chariot routes from the Fezzan terminated at the Niger river. In addition, the Cretan term for king "Minos", agrees with the MandeManding word for ruler "Mansa". Both these terms share consonantal agreement : M N S.

The name Garamante, illustrates affinity to Mande morphology and grammar. The Mande language is a member of the Niger-Congo group of languages. The name for the Manding tribe called "Mande", means Ma 'mother, and nde 'children', can be interpreted as "Children of Ma", or "Mothers children " (descent among this group is matrilineal) . The word Garamante,can be broken down into Malinke-Bambara into the following monosyllabic words Ga 'hearth', arid, hot'; Mante/Mande , the name of the Mande speaking tribes. This means that the term: Garamante, can be interpreted as "Mande of the Arid lands" or "Arid lands of the children of Ma". This last term is quite interesting because by the time the Greeks and Romans learned about the Garamante, the Fezzan was becoming increasingly arid.

Keftiu

The Egyptians called the Cretans Keftiu. There is agreement between the Keftiu names recorded by Egyptian scribes (T.E. Peet, "The Egyptian writing board BM5647 bearing Keftiu names". In , (ed.) by S Casson (Oxford, 1927, 90-99)), and Manding names.

Keftiu
The root kef-, in Keftiu, probably is Ke'be, the name of a Manding clan , plus the locative suffix {i-} used to give the affirmative sense, plus the plural suffix for names {u-}, and the {-te} suffixial element used to denote place names, nationalities and to form words.

On the Egyptian writing board there are eight Keftiu names. These names agree with Manding names:

Keftiu....... Manding

sh h.r........ Sye

Nsy ..........Nsye

'ksh .........Nkyi

Pnrt Pe,..... Beni (name for twins)

'dm ..........Demba

Rs............. Rsa

This analogy between Keftiu and Manding names is startling.

In conclusion, the evidence of similarity between Keftiu names and names from the Manding languages appear to support Graves view that the Eteocretans, who early settled Crete may have spoken a language similar to the Mande people who live near the Niger. Conseqently, there is every possibility that the Linear A script used by the Keftiu, which is analogous to the Libyco Berber writing used by the Proto-Mande .This is further support to Cambell-Dunn' s hypothesis that the Minoans spoke a Niger-Congo language.

Evidence of African Settlement of Ancient America

2010-03-29T05:54:00.000-07:00

The modern Amerinds have nothing to do with the original settlers of the Americas who came from Africa not Siberia.

1) the Australians represent the OOA population that settled Asia

2) during the OOA event mush of Siberia and North America was under ice from 110,000 - 10,000BC. As a result there was no way Siberians could cross Beringa before the end of the ice age

3) Ice even separated much of South America east to west
.

[IMG]http://trylobyte.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ice_age_map.gif[/IMG]

.
4) the first Americans appear in Brazil, Chile and Argintina Latin America around 30,000 BC

5)using craniometric evidence I have pointed out that the first Americans look like Africans not modern Amerinds

6) using craniometrics I have pointed out that Asia was dominated by the Australian population until the rise of Suhulland when the Melanesian people appear in the area, at this time the Beringa was still under Ice

7) I pointed out that the Melanesian type reach East Asian mainland by 5000 BC, long after Africans had settled Latin America

8) between 15,000-12,000 we see numerous African populations in Mexico and Brazil; and statues dating to this period have even been found off the Yucatan coast in the Caribbean

9) these first Americans did not look like the Australians or modern Amerinds

10) iconography of PreClassic people like the Cherla, Ocos and other groups is of Negroes not Amerinds like the Maya

11) Amerind groups not associated with African slaves carry African genes

12) Maya carried African y chromosome

13) Mayans carry African genes

14)Negrocostachicanos claim that they have never been slaves and are indigenous to Guererro and Oaxaca on the Pacific coast

In conclusion, the first Americans came from Africa--not Siberia. These people probably came to the Americas by boat.

Genetic structure Blacks in ancient Mesoamerica

2010-03-29T05:46:00.000-07:00

If Africans early colonized the Americas there was be genetic evidence supporting their ancient presence. Evidence which should exist today in Amerindian populations.

Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”.

Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.

The genetic evidence for Africans among the Mexicans is quite interesting. This evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have lived in Mexico for thousands of years.

The foundational mtDNA lineages for Mexican Indians are lineages A, B, C and D.The frequencies of these lineages vary among population groups. For example, whereas lineages A,B and C were present among Maya at Quintana Roo, Maya at Copan lacked lineages A and B (Gonzalez-Oliver, et al, 2001). This supports Carolina Bonilla et al (2005) view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population.

Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.

Amerindians carry the X hg. Amerindians and Europeans hg X are different (Person, 2004). Haplogroup X has also been found throughout Africa (Shimada et al,2006). Shimada et al (2006) believes that X(hX) is of African origin. Amerindian X is different from European hg X, skeletons from Brazil dating between 400-7000 BP have the transition np 16223 ( Martinez-Cruzado, 2001; Ribeiro-Dos-Santos,1996). Transition np 16223 is characteristic of African haplogroups. This suggest that Africans may have taken the X hg to the Americas in ancient times.

Some researchers claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage (Green et al, 2000). Although this may be the case Cuevas (2004) says these Africans have been erased from history.

References:

Brooke Persons Genetic Analysis and the Peopling of the New World
ANT 570, November 9, 2004. http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:2g9_ETY1V38J:www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/Papers/Persons.pdf+haplotype+X&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

Carolina Bonilla et al. (2005) Admixture analysis of a rural population in the state of Gurerrero , Mexico, Am. Jour Phys Anthropol
128(4):861-869. retrieved 2/9/2006 at :
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/111082577/ABSTRACT

M.H. Crawford et al (1974).Human biology in Mexico II. A comparison of blood group, serum, and red cell enzyme frequencies and genetic distances of the Indian population of Mexico. Am. Phys. Anthropol, 41: 251-268.

Marco P. Hernadez Cuevas.(2004). African Mexicans and the discourse on Modern Mexico.Oxford: University Press.

James L. Guthrie, Human lymphocyte antigens:Apparent Afro-Asiatic, southern Asian and European HLAs in indigenous American populations. Retrieved 3/3/2006 at:
http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens02.htm

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

Desplagnes, M. (1906). Deux nouveau cranes humains de cites lacustres. L'Anthropologie, 17, 134-137.

Diehl, R. A., & Coe, M.D. (1995). "Olmec archaeology". In In Jill Guthrie (Ed.), Ritual and Rulership, (pp.11-25). The Art Museum: Princeton University Press.

Irwin,C.Fair Gods and Stone Faces.

R. Lisker et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.

Angelica Gonzalez-Oliver et al. (2001). Founding Amerindian mitochondrial DNA lineages in ancient Maya from Xcaret, Quintana Roo. Am. Jour of Physical Anthropology, 116 (3):230-235. Retreived 2/9/2006 at:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/85515362/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&

Keita,S.O.Y. (1993). Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships, History in Africa, 20, 129-131.

Keita,S.O.Y.& Kittles,R.A. (1997). The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence, American Anthropologist, 99 (3), 534-544.

MacGaffey,W.(1970). Comcepts of race in Northeast Africa. In J.D. Fage and R.A. Oliver, Papers in African Prehistory (pp.99-115), Camridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marquez,C.(1956). Estudios arqueologicas y ethnograficas. Mexico.
Rensberger, B. ( September, 1988). Black kings of ancient America", Science Digest, 74-77 and 122.

Martinez-Cruzado, J C, Toro-Labrador, G, Ho-Fung, V, Estevez-Montero, M A, Et al (2001). Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals substanial Native American ancestry in Puerto Rico,Human Biology, Aug 2001

Makoto K. Shimada*, , Karuna Panchapakesan , Sarah A. Tishkoff , Alejandro Q. Nato, Jr* and Jody HeY, Divergent Haplotypes and Human History as Revealed in a Worldwide Survey of X-Linked DNA Sequence Variation, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007 24(3):687-698

Underhill,P.A.,Jin,L., Zemans,R., Oefner,J and Cavalli-Sforza,L.L.(1996, January). A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionary history, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA,93, 196-200.

Van Rossum,P. (1996). Olmec skeletons African? No, just poor scholarship. http://copan.bioz.unibas.ch/meso/rossum.html.

Von Wuthenau, Alexander. (1980). Unexplained Faces in Ancient America, 2nd Edition, Mexico 1980.

Wiercinski, A.(1969). Affinidades raciales de algunas poblaiones antiquas de Mexico, Anales de INAH, 7a epoca, tomo II, 123-143.

Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.

Wiercinski,A. (1972b). An anthropological study on the origin of "Olmecs", Swiatowit ,33, 143-174.

Wiercinski, A. & Jairazbhoy, R.A. (1975) "Comment", The New Diffusionist,5 (18),5.

Paleo-Africans in America

2010-03-29T05:30:00.000-07:00

Several types of blacks entered the Americas including the Anu or negrito type and the Proto-Saharan variety of blacks. Up until recently it was believed that the first humans crossed the Bering Strait 12,000 B.P., to enter the North American continent.(Begley 1991, p.15) This view was never accepted by physical anthropologists who have found skeletal remains far older than 12,000 B.P.

The last ice age in North America lasted between 110,000 and 17,000BP. The ice-free corridor on the eastern flank of the Rockies did not open before 13,000 years ago. Africans were in the Americas long before the end of the last Ice Age when the “Siberians”, who also were more than likely Africans began to cross the Bearing Straits. By 12,500 BC Africans were already living in Chile.

The first Americans did not cross the Bearing Straits to enter the Americas.The earliest sites for Negroes date between 20,000 and 40000 years ago Old Crow Basin Canada(38,000BC) Pedra Furada (45,000BC) Brazil. These people were pygmies and bushman types according to Dr. Dixon, & Dr. Marquez(p.179).

Chile: Monteverde (12,500 years), Tierra del Fuego, Cueva de Fell, Tres Arroyos and some other places.

There are older ones in the Argentinian Patagonia.

Today archaeologists have found sites from Canada to Chile that range between 20,000 and 40,000 years old. There are numerous sites in North and South America which are over 35,000 years old. These sites are the Old Crow Basin (c.38,000 B.C.) in Canada; Orogrande Cave (c.36,000 B.C.) in the United States; and Pedra Furada (c.45,000 B.C.) Given the fact that the earliest dates for habitation of the American continent occur below Canada in South America is highly suggestive of the fact that the earliest settlers on the American continents came from Africa before the Ice melted at the Bering Strait and moved northward as the ice melted.

The appearance of pebble tools at Monte verde in Chile (c.32,000 B.P), and rock paintings at Pedra Furada in Brazil (c.22,000 B.P.) and mastodont hunting in Venezuela and Colombia (c.13,000 B.P.), have led some researchers to believe that the Americas was first settled from South America. C. Vance Haynes noted that:

"If people have been in South America for over 30,000
years, or even 20,000 years, why are there so few sites?....One possible
answer is that they were so few in number; another is that South America
was somehow initially populated from directions other than
north until Clovis appeared".

P.S. Martin and R. G. Klein after discussing the evidence of mastodont hunting in Venezuela 13,000 years ago observed that :

"The thought that the fossil record of South America
is much richer in evidence of early archaeological as-
sociations than many believed is indeed provocative....
Have the earliest hunters been overlooked in North
America? Or did the hunters somehow reach South Am-
erica first"?

The early presence of ice-age sites in South America suggest that these people probably came from Africa. This would explain the affinities between African languages and the Amerind family of languages.

In very ancient times the American continent was inhabited by Asian and African blacks. The oldest skeletal remains found in the Americas are of blacks. Marquez (1956,p.179) observed that "it is [good] to report that long ago the youthful America was also a Negro continent." Dr. Dixon (1923) noted that as early as 70,000 B.C., Austroloid and later negritos crossed the Bering Strait to reach the New World. And Lanning (1963) noted that "there was a possible movement of negritos from Ecuador into the Piura Valley, north of Chicama and Viru" in early times.

Penon woman has been characterized as a Negro and is physically different from Native Americans. The Penon skeleton has been dated between 12,500-15,000BP. The skull of Penon woman is dolichocephalic like most Negroes, not brachysephalic (short and braod) like modern Native Americans. She is related to the Fuegians of Parana Argentina and the Luizia population of Brazil.

Here we have a comparison of ancient skulls found in the Americas.

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/images/photos/skeleton-location-map.jpg

In the picture above we have three ancient American skulls. They are a) Penon woman (12.755 Ka), b) Texcal Man (9.5ka) and c) Pericul Indian (18th Century). If you look notice Pericul man shows broad features characteristic of the mongoloid type, while both Penon and Texcul do not.

Some researchers claim that these skeletons are of Australian or Melanesian Blacks. This is highly unlikely given the fact that that have been found near the Atlantic Ocean and suggestive of a migration from Africa to Mexico, like the migration of the Olmec 11,000 years later. This view is supported by the discovery of the so-called Eva Neharon skeleton (c.13,600 ) dating to around the same period found in the Caribbean.

By 11,500 we see the appearence tall Negroes from Africa in Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil e.g.,Luiza. Negroes settled America both from the Bearing & South America. Cite an archaeological site where Amerind skeletons have been found prior to the Negro skeletons.

. Warwick Bray,"The Paleoindian debate". Nature 332, (10 March) 1988, p.107.
. Ibid, p.107; "Man's New World arrival Pushed back", Chicago Tribune, (9 May 1991) Sec.1A, p.40;and A.L. Bryan, "Points of Order". Natural History , (June 1987) pp.7-11.

. Bryan, p.11.

. C.V. Haynes,Jr.,"Geofacts and Fanny". Natural History ,(February 1988)pp.4-12:12.

. P.S. Martin and R.G.Klein (eds.),Quarternary Extinctions:
A Prehistoric Revolution, (Tucson:University of Arizona Press,1989) p.111.

. M.Ruhlen,"Voices from the Past". Natural History, (March 1987) pp.6-10:10; J.H. Greenberg,Language in the Americas. Stanford:Stanford University Press,1987.

The Sumerians and Akkadians

2010-03-27T19:44:00.000-07:00

I wish we could separate the history of the Middle East from race, but it is impossible to do so because of the desire of Eurocentrists to make Semitic speakers members of the “white” race.

The 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. Henry Rawlinson had spent most of his career in the Orient. This appears to have gave 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 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 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. Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never dicussed their ethnic origin.

A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert. 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”. 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 . 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 from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related. 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.

It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). 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 refered 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, 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 monuments of Iran, 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 evethough 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 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. 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 şalmat kakkadi ‘black headed people”, were all Blacks of Kushite origin. Eventhough 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. He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were “whites”, like himself. 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” 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.
.

The tehenu and Meshwesh

2010-03-24T11:30:00.000-07:00

The use of different names to describe the
Tehenu and Asian in the Ramses III Table of Nations is
understood in relation to the political and ethnic
conditions in Egypt and Western Asia during this
period. The research appears to indicate that the
physiognomy of the Libyans had changed by this time .
This resulted , for the most part from the invasion of
Egypt by Sea Peoples in association with the Libu
(Libyans).

The figures on Ramses III Table of nations are
associated with the nations Ramses was dealing with
iduring his reign. The Libyans attacked Egypt during
the 5th and 11th years of Ramses III's reign.
Beginning around 1230 Sea People began to attack
Egypt. In 1180 Ramses III had his decisive battle with
the Libyans. Among the warriors fighting with the Libu
were Sea People.

Ramses III made multiple versions of his
campaigns against the Libyans. To understand the
naming method for Ramses III Table of Nations you have
to understand that the term Tehenu was a generic term
applied to the Libyans, who by this time were mixed
with Palestinian-Syrian people
(who were descendants of the Gutians), and People of
the Sea (Indo-Europeans).

The attack against Egypt in 1188 was a coalition
of tribal groups led by the Meshwesh, who are
believed to be a Tamehu nationality. As a result, we
find that the Meshwesh were referred to as
Tehenu\Tamehu. This may not be correct because the
Meshwesh are not mention in Egyptian text until the
14th Century BC.

The members of the coalition were led by
Meshesher the wr 'ruler' of the coalition.Each group
was led by a "great one" or a magnate. The Meshwesh
were semi-nomads that lived both in villages and
dmi'w 'towns'.The Tehenu lived in the Delta between
the Temehu and the Egyptians. The Egyptians referred
to all of the people in this area most often by the
generic tern "Tehenu".

The TjemhuTemehu which included the Meshwesh
controled an area from Cyrenaica to Syria. As a
result, in textual material from the reign of Ramses
II, there is mention of Temehu towns in Syria. David
O'Connor makes it clear that Ramses III referred to
these Temehu by the term Tehenu/Tjehnyu (p.64).
The Temehu were very hostile to the
Tehenu/Tjehnya. In fact, the first mention of the
Meshwesh in Ramses III inscriptions relating to 1188,
was the attack of the Tehenu, by the Meshwqesh, Soped
and Sea People . David O'Connor makes it clear that
the the records of Ramses III make it clear that the
Meshweshy "savagely" attacked the Tehenu and looted
their cities during their advance to Egypt (p.35 &
105).

The coalition of the Meshweshy had each unit of
the army organized into "family or tribal ' units
under the leadership of a "great one". As result to
understand why the fAsian and Tehenu figures on the
Table of Nations are identified differently you have
use both the pictorical and textual material from the
reign of Ramses III to understand the representations.
As a result, Palestianian -Syrian personage or figure
D, is labled Tehenu because he was probably a member
of one Meshwesh units, thus he was labled Tehenu.

The personage that is second from the Egyptians which
is labled an Asian, eventhough he is clearly a Tehenu,
was probably a member of a Syrian Palestinian unit
when he was captured by the Egyptians thusly he was
labled Asian. You can find out more about this
reality if you check out: David O'Connor, "The nature
of Tjemhu (Libyan) society in later New Kingdom; in
Libya and Egypt c1300-750 BC, (Ed.) by Athony Leahy
(pp.29-113), SOAS Centre of Near and Middle Eastern
Studies and the Society for Libyan Studies, 1990.
In the Table of Nation figure B we see the
traditional depiction of a Tehenu, the sidelock,
shoulder cape and clean face. The Temehu, called
Meshwesh are different from the Tehenu and the
original Tamehu recorded by the Egyptians prior to the
New Kingdom. Below is a Meshwesh

The Meshwesh wore Tehenu traditional costumes but
they are not believed to be real Tehenu. The Tehenu
and the Temehu usually wore different costumes. In the
New Kingdom depictions of the Temehu, the Meshwesh
have "long chin beards", like the Syrian-Palestinians
and Peoples of the Sea. They wear kilts, sheaths and
capes open at the front tied at one shoulder. Like the
earlier Tehenu they wore feathers as a sign of High
Status.

David O'Connor makes it clear that there was
"marked hetergeneity of the Tjemhu" (p.41).
The first attack by Libyans on Egypt were led by
the Libu during the 5th year of Ramses III's reign.
Diop has provided convincing evidence that the Libu,
later migrated into Senegal, where they presenly live
near Cape Verde
The difference in dress among the Meshwesh and
their hostility toward the Tehenu, have led many
researchers to see the Temehu of the New Kingdom as a
different group from the original Temehu of Egyptian
traditions. O'Connor (p.74) in the work cited above
makes it clear that the Temehu in Ramses III
day--"[have] hairstyles, dress and apparently ethnic
type [that] are markedly different from the
Tjehnyu/tjemhu of the Old Kingdom (Osing,
1980,1018-19). Various explanations have been offered:
Wainwright, for example, concluded that 'Meshwesh was
a mixed tribe of Libu like tribesmen with their native
chiefs who become subject to a family of Tjehnu
origin'(1962,p.92), while Osing suggested that the New
Kingdowm Tjemhu had displaced or absorbed the earlier
Tjehnyu but had selectively taken over or retained
some Tjehnyu traits, in the case of the rulers for
Meshwesh (1980,1019-1020). Dr. O'Connor is of the
opinion "that some rulers of the later New Kingdom
Tjemhu deliberately adopted traits they discovered
from the Egyptians to be chracteristic of ancient
Tjehnyu/Tjemhu, so as to increase there prestige, or
in some way had these rtraits imposed upon them by the
Egyptians" (p.74).

It is my opinion that given the organiztion of
the Libyans into mhwt "family or tribal groups',
sometime prior to 1230 BC over an extended period of
time Indo-European speaking people later to be known
as Peoples of the Sea entered Western Asia and Libya
and were adopted by Tehenu families. This adoption of
the new immigrants by Tehenu/Tamehu probably led to
the Meshwesh and Soped adopting Tehenu customs but
maintaining their traditional beards,. The original
Temehu, like the Libu probably saw the integration of
Sea Peoples into Temehu society as a way to increase
their number and possibily conquer Egypt. It is
interesting to note that the Meshwesh were very sure
they might be able to conquor the Egyptians because
they brought their cattle and other animals with them
when they invaded the country. Moreover whereas the
Meshwesh, were semi-nomadic, the Sea Peoples:
Akawashu, Lukki, Tursha., Sheklesh, and Sherden
remained nomadic. and used the spear and round shield.

The Nehasyu were ancient members of the
Tehenu/Temehu. This would explain the reason why the
Meshwesh and Nehasyu were mainly bowman.
In conclusion, the names for the personages in the
Table of Nations from Ramses III tomb were labled
correctly. These personages were recorded in the the
Tables based on the military and family units were
attached too, not the country identifiable by their
dress.

Annotated Bibliograpy

Adler,J.(1991 September 23). "African Dreams",
Newsweek, pp.42- 45. This magazine articles
discussed the controversey surrounding Afrocentrism.

Anselin,A.(1984). "Zeus, Ethiopien Minos Tamoul",
Carbet Revue
Martinique de Sciences Humaines,no. 2:31-50. This
articles explains the African origin of the Libyans.
It has several very good illustrations of
Blacks in ancient Sahara.

_______.(1989). "Le Lecon Dravidienne",Carbet Revue
Martinique
de Sciences Humaines, no.9:7-58. This paper
discussed the origins of the Dravidian and their
relationship to Africans.

Asante,M.K. (1990) Kemet,Afrocentricity,and Knowledge.
Trenton
,NJ:Africa World Press. This book provides the
theoretical foundations for africalogical studies.

_________ (1991). "The Afrocentric idea in
Education",Journal
of Negro Education,60(2):170-180. The author
explains the importance of the Afrocentric field of
study for enrichment of the social studies curricula.

__________.(December 1991/January 1992). "Afrocentric
Curriculum".Educational Leadership, pp.28-31. This
article explains the practical reasons supporting the
institution of an Afrocentric curriculum within the
context of multiculturalism.

Baines,J. (11 August,1991). "Was Civilization made in
Africa?" The New York Times Review of Books,pp.12-13.
This article attempts to review the work of Bernal and
Diop in a negative light.

Bernal,M. (1987). Black Athena. New York. Volume 1.
Here the author explains his theory that there is need
for a new historiography for the Mediterranean which
recognizes the multicultural origins of Greece. The
author also returns to the ancient model which claimed
that the Egyptians were "Blacks".

________. (1991). Black Athena. New York. Volume 2. In
this volume Bernal outlines his theory that the
founders of Greece were Hyksos (Semitic) people from
Egypt.

Bonnet,C. (1986). Kerma: Territoire et Metropole.
Cairo: Instut
Francais D'Archeologie Orientale du Caire. This
is a fine examination of the Kerma culture of Nubia
which existed in Nubia before the Egyptians
established rule in this area.

Diop,C.A. (1974). The African Origin of Civilization.
(ed. & Trans) by Mercer Cook,
Westport:Lawrence Hill & Company. This book
outlines Diop's theory of the African origin of
Egyptian civilization.

_________.(1977). Parente genetique de l'Egyptien
Pharaonique et
des Languaes Negro-Africaines. Dakar: IFAN ,Les
Nouvelles
Editions Africaines. This is a very good
discussion of the extensive morphological and
phonological evidence of unity between Wolof
and Egyptian.

__________.(1978) The Cultural Unity of Black Africa.
Chicago:

Third World Press. This book details the
precolombian character of African
civilizations, and explains the common cultural
expressions they share.

___________.(1986). "Formation of the Berber Branch".
In Libya
Antiqua. (ed.) by Unesco,(Paris: UNESCO)
pp.69-73. In this article Diop explains that
the original inhabitants of Libya were Blacks.

____________.(1987). Precolonial Black Africa. (trans.
) by
Harold Salemson, Westport: Lawrence Hill &
Company. In this book Diop explains the origin
and connections between the major Western
Sudanic empires and states. These states are
compared to European states.

____________.(1988). Nouvelles recherches sur
l'Egyptien ancient
et les langues Negro-Africaines Modernes. Paris:
Presence
Africaine. This book provides a number of Diop's
theories regarding the relationship between
Black-African and Egyptian languages.

_____________(1991). Civilization or Barbarism: An
Authentic Anthropology. (trans.) by
Yaa-Lengi Meema Ngemi and (ed.) by
H.J. Salemson and Marjoliiw de Jager,
Westport:Lawrence
Hill and Company. This book details Diop's theory
of the genetic model for the study of
African civilization. It also gives a fine
discussion of the architecture, mathematics and
philosophy of the ancient Egyptians and other African
people.

Farid,El-Yahky. (1985). "The Sahara and Predynastic
Egypt an Overview".The Journal for the
Society for the Study Egyptian
Antiquities, 17 (1/2): 58-65. This paper gives a
detailed discussion of the affinities between
Egyptian civilization and the Saharan
civilizations which we call Proto-Saharan. The
evidence presented in this paper support the Saharan
origin of the Egyptians.

Galassi, . (1942). Tehenu. Rome. Galassi explains the
history of the Tehenu people forerunners of the
Libyans.

Graves, Robert. (1980). The Greek Myths.
Middlesex:Peguin Books
Ltd. 2 volumes. In this volume we see a detailed
account of the founding Myths of the ancient
Greeks as recorded in Greek literature.

Hopper, R.J. (1976). The Early Greeks. New York:Harper
& Row Pub. Hopper gives an informative narative on the
history of the ancient Greeks.

Hochfield,S. & Riesfstahl,E.(1978). (Eds.) Africa in
Antiquity: The Arts of Nubia and the Sudan. New York:
Brooklyn Museum. 2 vols. This is a fine source of
information on the Kushite and Meroitic
empires. It also provides many well
researched articles and photographs of the Kushites.
The evidence in this book shows that the
Egyptians and Kushites were one.

Hughes,R. (1992, February 3). "The Frying of America".
TIME ,pp.44-49. Hughes discussed the threat of
multiculturalism to unity of the American
people.

Jelinek,J. (1985). "Tillizahren,the Key Site of the
Fezzanese Rock Art". Anthropologie (Brno),23(3):223-275.
This paper gives a stimulating account of
the rock art of the Sahara and the important
role the C-Group people played in the
creation of this art.

Levine,M.M. (April 1992). "The use and abuse of Black
Athena", American Historical Review,pp. 440-460. This
articles attacks Bernal and the use of
Black Athena to estabish a new paradigm for
ancient history.

Lefkowitz,M. (1992,February 10). "Not out of Africa".
The New Republic, pp.29-36. This text deals with the
hyptohesis that Greek civilization came from
Africa. Lefkowitz contends that Africans failed
to play an important role in Greecian
civilization.

Marriott,M. (1991,August 11). "As a Discipline
Advances, Questions Arise on
Scholarship". The New York Times.
Marriott gives an excellent discussion of the
controversey surrounding Afrocentrism. It
provides a good discussion of the players pro
and against this field of intellectual
inquiry.

Martel, E. (December 1991/January 1992). "How valid
are the Port-land Baseline Essays". Educational Leadership,
pp.20-23. Martel gives reasons in this article why he
believes that many of the claims of
Afrocentrists are wrong.

__________.(1991). "Teachers's Corner:Ancient Africa
and the Port-land Curriculum Resource",Anthro Notes: National
Museum of Natural History(Smithsonian) Bulletin for
Teachers 13, pp.2-6. This text explains why Afrocentrism
should be kept out of the schools until it conforms with accepted Eurocentric
views about Africana affairs and history. He
does argue that the Egyptians were a multiculutural
society.

Moitt,B. (1989). "Chiekh Anta Diop and the African
Diaspora: Historical Continuity and Socio-Cultural
Symbolism". Presence Africaine, no. 149-150:347-360. This is
an excellent analysis of the influence of Diop on africalogical studies and the
European attacks against his research.

Nicholson,D. (1992, September 23). "Afrocentrism and
the Tribalization of America". The Washington Post,
B-l.Nicholson makes the claim that Afrocentrism is
causing the fragmentation of America.

Okafor,V.O. (1991). " Diop and the African Origin of
Civiliza-
tion:An Afrocentric Analysis". Journal of Black
Studies
22(2):252-268. This book offers excellent
guidelines on implimenting the research
methods of Diop in africological studies.

Parker,G.W. (1917) . "The African Origin of Grecian
Civilization
".Journal of Negro History, 2(3):334-344. This
short article provides a wealth of historical and
lexical evidence for the African origination of
Greccian heroes, literature and
civilization.

___________. (1981). The Children of the Sun.
Baltimore,Md.:
Black Classic Press. This book provides a short
discussion of the important role of Blacks in
the rise of civilization around the world.

Petrie,W.M.F. (1921). Corpus of Prehistoric Pottery.
London.Petrie provides the first detailed categorization
of Egyptian pottery and an informative
account on the origination of Egypt.

Pounder, R.L. (1992,April) "Black Athena 2:History
without Rules" American Historical Review, 461-464. This
articles attacks the credibility of Bernal's
,Black Athena.

Quellec,J-L le. (1985). "Les Gravures Rupestres Du
Fezzan (Libye)". L'Anthropologie, 89
(3):365-383. This text deals comprehensively
with the dates and spread of specific art
themes in the ancient Sahara.

Raphael, . 1947. Prehistoric Pottery . New York:
Pantheon Book. Raphael provides a thorough
explanation of the ceramics of the predynastic
Egyptians.

Ravitch,D. (1990,Summer). "Multiculturalism:E Pluribus
Plures". The American Scholar, pp.337-354.
Ravitch argues that multiculturalism is
causing America to become ethnicallly
polarized, while we abandon many of the values that
unite Americans.

Schlesinger,A.M. (1992). The Disuniting of America:
Reflections on a Multicultural Society. New
York: Norton. Schlesinger argues that
multiculturalism is bringing about the rise
of ethnocentrism in the United States.

Snowden,F. (1976). "Ethiopians and the Greco-Roman
World". In The African Diaspora. Washington: Howard University
Press. In this paper Snowden discusses the
role of Ethiopian slaves in Grecce.

___________. (1992, March 4). "Blacks as seen by
Ancient Egyptians, Greek and Roman
Artists". (Lecture) Chicago: Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago. In this
lecture Snowden continues his theory that the
only Blacks in Egyptian and Classical art were
slaves.

Tounkara,B. (1989). "Problematique du comparatisme
egyptien ancien/langues africaines
(wolof)". Presence Africaine,nos. 149-150:
313-320. This book discusses the linguistic
relationship of wolof and Egyptian.

Trigger,B.G. (1987). "Egypt: A Fledging Nation". The
Journal of
the Society for the Study Egyptian Antiquities,
17 (1/2): 58-65. Trigger documents the rise
of Egyptian civilization in the Sahara and
Nubia.

____________. (1992). "Brown Athena: A Post Processual
Goddess".
Current Anthropology, 33(1): 121-123. This
article focuses on the misuse of the book
Black Athena as a tool to claim the Egyptians
were Blacks.

Vandier,J. (1952). Manuel d'archeologie Egyptienne.
Paris. This is a fine examination of the
archaeology of Egypt.

Williams,B. (1987). The A-Group Royal Cemetery at
Qustul: Cemetery L. Chicago: The
Oriental Institute University of
Chicago. This excellent text reviews the
important Qustul
cemetery, which provides a detailed account of
the rise of the first world empire in Nubia.

Winkler, H.A. (1938). Rock Drawings of Southern Upper
Egypt. London. 2 volumes. This book gives numerous
examples of rock art which point to an Egyptian
origin in Nubia.

Winters, C.A. (1983a). "The Ancient Manding Script".
In Blacks in Science:Ancient and Modern. (ed.) by Ivan van
Sertima,(New Brunswick: Transaction Books) pp.208-215.
This paper discusses the Manding origin for
many of the so-called Libyco-Berber
inscriptions and explains how these
inscriptions can be read. It makes it clear that
literacy was widespread in Africa 5000 years
ago.

__________. (1983b). "Les Fondateurs de la Grece
venaient d'Afrique en passant par la
Crete". Afrique Histoire (Dakar),
no.8:13-18. This rich historical account refutes
the idea that Greece was founded by the
Indo-European speakers. Winters argues
that credit should be given to the African
settlers of Anatolia from Libya, Egypt and Palestine.

_________. (1983c) "Famous Black Greeks Important in
the development of Greek Culture".
Return to the Source,2(1):8.
In this article Winters' discussed the famous
Greeks like Socrates, that were of African/Pelasgian origin.

________. (1984). "Blacks in Europe before the
Europeans".
Return to the Source, 3(1):26-33. This paper
provides insights into the long history
of Blacks in Europe, including the Old
Europeans, Danubians and other groups.

_________.(1985a). "The Indus Valley Writing and
related Scripts of the 3rd Millennium BC". India Past and
Present, 2(1):13-19. The author describes the
unity of the writing systems used by the
Sumerians, Minoans, Egyptians and Harappans.
He shows that these scripts have a common
ideological origin and that they can all be read due
to the genetic unity of the langauges spoken by
these people.

__________. (1985b). "The Proto-Culture of the
Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians". Tamil
Civilization,3(1):1-9. Winters uses linguistics , historical
and archaeological evidence to argue that the
Dravidian, Manding and Sumerian speakers
originated in the highland regions of the Sahara
which he called the "Fertile African Crescent".
Many of the culture terms of these groups are
discussed and the proto- terms are
reconstructed. It also provides numerous maps to
delienate the migrations of these people from their
archetype homeland.

__________. (1988). "Common African and Dravidian
Place Name Elements". South Asian Anthropologist,
9(1):33-36. This paper provides an analysis
of the common roots toponyms found in Asia
of African origin.

__________. (1989a). "Tamil, Sumerian, Manding and the
Genetic Model". International Journal of Dravidian
Linguistics, 18(1):98-127. Winters discusses the genesis of
the common culture of the founders of ancient
civilizations in Africa and Asia. It also
refutes the myth that the Sumerian and
Dravidian languages are unrelated to any other
languages on earth. Here you will find a
detailed explanation of the morphological,
semantic and lexical affinities shared by
these langauges that indicate their genetic unity.

__________. (1989b). "Review of Dr. Asko Parpola's
'The Coming of the Aryans'",International Journal of
Dravidian Linguistics, 18(2):98-127. This anthropological
and linguistic account of the prehistoric linguistic-history of South and
Central Asia outlines the fallacy of Parpola's
theory for an Indo-European founding of the Harappan
civilization. He provides numerous
examples of the Dravidian and African influences
on the Indo-European languages.

__________. (1990). "The Dravido-Harappan Colonization
of Central Asia". Central Asiatic Journal,
34(1/2):120-144. This paper discussed the
settlement of Asia by African people 4500 years
ago. Special attention is placed on the type and
expression of African civilization in ancient
Asia.

___________. (1991). "The Proto-Sahara". The Dravidian
Encyclopaedia, (Trivandrum: International School of
Dravidian Linguistics) pp.553-556. Volume l. This is a
detailed account of the Proto-Saharan
origin of the Elamites, Dravidians,
Sumerians, Egyptians and other Black African
groups. We also find here a well developed
illumination of the cultural features shared
by these genetically related groups.

Yurco,F. (1989,September/October). "Were the ancient
Egyptians Black?". Biblical Archaeological
Review, 15(5):24-29,58.Yurco argues that the Egyptians have always been
"light skinned", and that they got darker
as you went south into Nubia.
Wainwright, G. 1962. The Meshwesh", JEA 48, 89-99.

Osing,J. 1980. "Libyen, Libyer", LA III, 1015-1033.

Sanskrit and the Greek Language

2010-03-24T10:40:00.000-07:00

The relationship between the Greek and Sanskrit languages
is due to historical relationship between Indians and Greeks.
Sanskrit is a lingua franca used to unite the diverse peoples
who lived in ancient India.

It is interesting that the known European
invanders to enter India were the Greeks and Saka. And
that the I-E languages closest to the Indian group are
not Iranian, but Greek.

The fact that the Greeks had settled in India
seems to explain the close relationship between the
European languages and India languages. Moreover,
since many of the Prakrits were written after the
Greek invansion some Greek terms may have entered
Indian languages, or the mercenaries employed by
Alexander may have taken Greek terms back home once
they returned to Europe.

Also, you have to understand that the
Proto-Dravidian people setlled many parts of Europe
after 2500 BC. As a result you will find a Dravidian
(and/or African) substratum in many European languages

The Sanskrit was a lingua franca. As a result,
since many of the events recorded in this lingua
franca took place in the east, where there are
numerous AustroAsiatic speakers explains the identity
of many alleged AustroAsiatic items in the "language".
The fact that many of the terms relate to Greek, but
not Iranian make it clear that the "language" was
created after the Greeks had entered the Indus area.
Morever, the fact that Loga has made it clear that
Sanskrit is closely related to Sumero-Tamil make the
ideas of Elst groundless.

It is interesting that the Prakrits, Sanskrit and
Tocharian all served as lingua francas with Tamil as a
base.

It was in Pakistan that the Greek language was
probably corporated into Sanskrit. Many of the rules for
Sanskrit were codified by Panini, who was born in Salatura, in Northwest
Pakistan. Panini's grammar contains 4000 rules.

When Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit, it was
spoken by the elites in the area. Greek was also popular when
Panini wrote the Sanskrit grammar. The Greeks were called Yunani or
Yavana. Thus we learn from Agrawala (1953) that the Yavanani lipi
(edict) was well known in Gandahara, and even Panini mentions the
Yavana in his grammar

The term Yauna meant Ionian (Woodcock, 1966).The
history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting.
When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327
B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By
180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline,the Greek
Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and
Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander
(d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila.
The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda
near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966).

Just as Greek terms entered Hinduism, it was also
during this period that the extreme caste system,
which strickly divided the people along socio-economic
lines was probably introduced. Under this
Eurocentric-Hindu view you could accept the fact that
one group could be doomed to suffer, until rebirth
changed his condition. This was the perfect system for
the EGO-centered man of Greece, and was readily
adopted by many Indians as they became acculturated
to Greek rule, because it allowed one to ignore his
fellow man while he satiated his personal desires and
lust without fear of being punished.

We know that this could not have been the original
state of Dravidian people, because the TiruKural,
Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Sumerian religious
text make it clear you can not become part of the
BE-ING, unless you were pure and clean from miss-using
your fellow man. These ancient text made it clear that
you must take control of your Ego because it can
deceive you; and that one can not have a social system
that allows you to watch your fellow man suffer and
die in abject poverty and expect to attain BE-ING with
your Creator no matter the name you give it or Icon to
represent it.

Achaemenid records make it clear that by 559 BC,
Persian speakers were ruling the Hindus. Given the
fact that their is historical evidence of Persians
ruling Hindus can explain the relationship between the
speakers of these languages instead of the
Indo-European hypothesis. These Persians also ruled
the Greeks and the Dravidian speaking Lycians in
Europe.

The Achaeminids spoke Persian and Elamite. Since
they were rulers of the Indians would have been
natural for the Hindus to adopt many Persian terms
and vice versa during a period of bilingualism in
North India. Since the Elamite and Dravidian speakers
spoke genetic languages there was little need for a
lingua franca to allow communication between the
diverse groups under Achaeminid rule.
Darius later conquered Macedonia. This led to
Achaeminid people speaking Elamite and Persian may
have contributed lexical items to ancient Ionian
(Greek). Since we have historical evidence of a close
relationship between Hindus and Persians by the 6th
Century BC, there is no need to claim that the
relationship between Indo-Iranian began in 1200 BC,
when the historical evidence indicates interaction
between these groups by 589 BC, not 1200 BC. As a
result of the Persians living in Iran, up until the
Achaeminid Empire, there is no way anyone can claim
that the Indo-Iranian homeland was in India. There was
no Indo-Iranian homeland, the relationship between
these languages id probably the result of the
Achaeminid rule of India.

The Persians also ruled the Greeks. The Greeks
later conquered India, and Pannini mentions Greeks in
his grammar of Sanskrit. This suggest that Greeks
lived in large numbers in India at this time.The fact
that the Greeks, Hindus and Persians lived in intimate
contact for hundreds of years naturally led to the
adoption of many terms by the Greeks and Hindus of
Persian, and later the adoption of many Greek terms by
the Hindus. These states of bilingualism in North
India, explains why the Indo-Iranian languages form
one family , and are linked to the Indo-European
languages via Greek.

The Harappans spoke a Dravidian language,
Indo-Iranian probably originated after 589 BC. This is
made clear by Darius in the Behistun inscription where
he claims that he was the first to write in the Ariya
language.

Darius'- evidence for the first writing of Ariya,
indicates that the idea of the continuity of Hindu
civilization in India is a myth. The original
inhabitants of India spoke Dravidian languages. Over
time, the Dravidians were forced to adopt Hindi and
other Indo-Iranian languages, yet remnants of these
Dravidians in North India remain.
This is why we find no evidence of the Vedic
language until the Naga (Ethiopians) invented
Sanskrit. It also explains the variations in the Vedic
and Avestan manuscripts, which in the case of the
later group date back only to 1288 AD.

The tradition of writing in North India date to
the Achaeminids, and may explain the origin of Brahmi.
The fact that Brahmi has signs that relate to the
Harappan writing may be the result of the fact that
the Elamites of the Achaeminid Empire were familiar
with the writing system of the Dravidians, and the
Naga (Ethiopians) who used a system of writing similar
to Phonesian.

The Dravidians have their own tradition of
writing. It would appear that the Dravidians
introduced writing to the Indus Valley. They continued
to use this writing on their pottery in South India
and later punchmarked coins. This is supported by the
discovery of writing in South India dating back to
before 600 BC.

In summary India was not the home land of the
Indo-Iranian family of languages. The linguistic
relationship between Persian and Greek result from the
rule of these areas by the Achaeminid and later Greek
rulers of India. Attached are pictures that show that
the Nubians (of Africa), the Hindus and King Darius
probably belong to the same family.

Moreover, the fact that the Greeks were in India when
Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit, explains the Greek
relationship with Sk.; and the Elamite speaking Achaemenids (and Persians)
also ruled India for years and thus placed Persian and
Elamite Arya and Hindi Arya in intimate contact for
hundreds of years.

The ability to explain the relationship of
Sanskrit to Greek, and the Indo-Iranian linguistic
relationship due to Persian/Elamite and Hindi contact,
resulting from the historical connections between the
speakers of these languages and bilingualism within
North-India and Afganistan. This hypothesis supports
the view that the Indo-European connection to Indian
languages goes back to the Greek rule of India, not
some hypothetical date millenia ago.

The history of contact between Iranian and Indian
speakers during Achaemenid rule , would explain the
Indo-Iranian relationship, not the existence of a
Proto-Indo-Iranian homeland in India. This history of
Turkic, Persian, Sumerian, Elamite, Tamil, Ethiopic
(/Naga)and Hindi speaking people living in diverse
North Indian communities, is the most logical
explanation of the relationships that exist between
and among these languages.

The history of linguistic contact between the
speakers of these languages make it clear that the
Harappans were not Indo-Aryan speakers. This would
place the origin of the major Vedic and Avestan text
back to maybe 800 BC, and more than likely 600-500 BC
not the 1200 BC or earlier date assigned these text
by some researchers. Let's not forget that some
researchers claim that most editions of the Aestan,
date back to an original copy of this text dating only
to 1200 AD.

A Short Guide to Ancient World History

2010-03-24T09:39:00.001-07:00

I accept the fact there were ancient Blacks in EurAsia. These Blacks were the Australian type people who mainly live in Australia and the Hill regions of Oceania.

The coastal Melanesians on the otherhand, are descendants of recent Africans who settled the area after being forced from Asia. The Polynesians/Filipinos and etc., who are known as the [b]original Mongoloid people and called Classical Mongoloid [/b] in the literature probably originated in Anatolia or Mesopotamia.

The Australians are the original settlers of Asia (around 60kybp), and may represent members of the first out of Africa migrants. I never refer to these people as Africans, although I do recognize them as Blacks.

The Bushmen/ Khoisan probably represent the second African migration of homo sapien sapiens out of Africa. I would class these people with the CroMagnon/Grimaldi group who entered Iberia after 34kybp. Remnants of this great people were found on every continent when Europeans first explored the world.

The Anu or Black pygmies (/Proto-Bantu) type may represent the Natufians who began to migrate out of Africa after 20,000 and settled in the Levant which was first settled by Cro Magnon people who early replaced the Neanderthal folk. The Natufians would represent the fourth African migration into Eurasia.

By the time the Anu entered Eurasia the Classical mongoloid people who are the ancestors of the Indonesians/Vietnamese/Filipinos and etc. were probably already settled in Anatolia. The classical mongoloids probably constructed Catal Huyuk.

The close relationship between Sumerian and the AustroAsiatic languages suggest that the classical Mongoloid people may have also inhabited Mesopotamia by the time the Sumerians entered the area.

It appears to have been a natural catastrophe which caused the classical mongoloids to migrate eastward. We know this because many of the former sites of the Classical mongoloids in Anatolia were occupied by the Kushites (Kaska) people after 2500 BC.

By 1200 BC the clasical mongoloids had become well established in India. Around this time they conquered the Dravidian people who founded the first Shang empire, and set up a new Shang Empire at Anyang.

By 1000 BC the Hau/Han tribes came down from the mountains and pushed the classical mongoloids southward into Yunnan and eventually Southeast Asia. The Han began to make the Yueh and li min people their slaves. The Han often used the Qiang (another Black tribe) as sacrifice victims.

The Han killed off as many Black tribes as they could. The only thing that saved the pygmies in East Asia, was the fact that they moved into the mountains in areas they could easily defend from Han attacks.

This movement of Han and classical mongoloid people southward forced the Kushite/African (Qiang, li min and other African) tribes onto the Pacific Islands. It is these Africans who represent the coastal Melanesians.

The Sumerians, Elamites, Xia (of China), Harappans of the Indus Valley and coastal Melanoids are the Proto-Saharan people known in History as the Kushites.These people originated in the Highland regions of Middle Africa, and began to occupy the former trade centers of the Anu in Eurasia and the Americas. It is for this reason that we find West African placenames in the Pacific and India.

Given the origin of the classical mongoloids in Anatolia, and the Han Chinese somewhere in North China or Central Asia,the Southeast Asians are not descendants of the first African migration to Eurasia. This is why the Chinese and Classical mongoloid people share few if any genes with the Australians. The Classical mongoloids share genes mainly with the coastal Melanesians who are of African origin, but few genes with the Chinese of East Asia.

Sumerian and Oromo

2010-03-24T09:23:00.000-07:00

Col. Rawlinson’s brother claimed that he used Oromo to decipher the cuneiform writing. If this is true we should be able to find a connection between Oromo , and the Akkadian and/or Sumerian languages. A cursory examination of Oromo and Sumerian verbs suggest that such a relationship may exist.

Sumerian ....... Oromo

bar ‘to open’ ..... ba ‘go out, appear’

ga, aka ‘to place’ ..... kai ‘to put’

kur ‘to rise’ ..... ka ‘to rise up’

bar ‘bright, to shine’ ..... bai ‘excellent’

de ‘pour’ ....... dug ‘drink’

kar ‘to rise’ ....... ka ‘to rise’

dur ‘sit’ ..... tai ‘sit’

kur ‘enter’ ..... gal ‘enter’

pae ‘appear’ ..... ba ‘appear’

bu ‘perfect’ ....... bai ‘excellent’

gal ‘big’ ....... guda ‘big’

gurud ‘throw’ ..... gat ‘throw’

ri ‘let go’ ..... lit ‘go in, enter’

du ‘to plant’ ..... dab ‘to plant’

dub ‘fix a boundary’ ....... dab ‘fix’

There is striking correspondence between the Oromo and Sumerian verbs. There appears to be full correspondence between the:

b-b

k-k

d-d

m-m

n-n

We also find that p/b, r/l and d/t were interchangeable consonants in some Sumerian and Oromo words.

It is interesting that in relation to the vowels, we find that the Sumerian –u- often appears an –a- in Oromo. e.g.:

Sumerian Oromo

nag ‘drink’ ..... dug ‘drink’

dur ‘sit’ ..... tai ‘sit’

kur ‘enter’ ..... gal ‘enter’

bu ‘perfect’ ..... bai ‘excellent’

Granted these are only a few of the verbs found in Sumerian and Oromo. Yet, this discussion of Oromo and Sumerian verbs indicate that the terms illustrate cognation. This cognation in Sumerian and Oromo verbs may explain why Rawlinson felt that he could use Oromo in his decipherment of the cuneiform writing.

African Origin of Writing Part 2

2010-01-10T15:15:00.001-08:00

In this video we discuss the expansion of African writing systems into Eurasia. Special discussion is given to the ole of the Ethiopians in creating the Nagari writing of the people of India.

History of Writing in Africa Part 1

2010-01-10T05:46:00.000-08:00

In this video we discuss the origin of writing in Africa. It begins with pottery inscriptions called Thinite. The video explains that the Thinits script was used to create the later syllabic scripts: Libyco-Berber, Vai, Minoan Linear A, Proto-Sumerian (Uruk) script, Indus Vally and Elamite.

First Europeans

2010-01-05T07:14:00.000-08:00

In this video we explains that the first Europeans Cro-Magnon man came from Africa. And that these first Europeans were Bushman or Khoisan people.

Aryan Invasion of India

2010-01-01T16:50:00.000-08:00

In this video we examine the Aryan invasion of India. It provides details about the role Hurrian-Mitanni and Iranian dialects played in the rise of the Indo-Aryan languages.

The Ancient Indian Population was not homogenous

2009-12-17T21:03:00.000-08:00

Dravidian People

The HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium (HPASC) (Mapping Human Genetic Diversity in Asia) has done much to bring the genetic data for India in line with the archaeological, anthropological and linguistic data. Ray and Excoffer argue that coupling the archaeological data with genetic data is a powerful way to infer population migration (1).

Before this research by HPASC, researchers have noted the absence of congruency between Indian population genetics and archaeological research (2) As a result research into India population studies are not supported by historical, archaeological and linguistic evidences (3). The archeological evidence indicated that the first settlers of India were probably Negritos and Austro-Asiatic, then Dravidian speakers and finally Southeast Asians (4-5). But Geneticists maintain that the Dravidian speakers originated in India (6-7). They support this view by showing how the Indian mtDNA belonging to the M haplomacrogroup must have developed in situ in India (7).

Some researchers use Rosenberg et al. to argue that there is a low
level of genetic divergence across geographically and linguistically diverse Indian populations based on their analysis solely of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers from India (8-9).

This study by HPASC contradicts Rosenberg et al and supports the view that the Indian populations are not homogenous and that Negritos were probably the first settlers of India. Using an Indian sample from India, HPASC acknowledges that the Dravidians were probably not the first population to settle India. The research of HPASC also supports an Indo-European migration into India.

The HPASC finding is supported by linguistic and archaeological evidence that indicated a Dravidian substratum in the Indo European languages and the major probability those Rosenberg et al. use of only Indo- Aryan and Dravidian speakers in the United States as a representative sample of diverse Indian populations was not an accurate example of the linguistic and geographical diversity of Indian populations because TMRCA of the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers in India was probably a Proto-Dravidian speaker and a high level of genetic divergence across Indian populations (11) . A shared MRCA for Dravidian and Indo-Aryan speakers , is supported by the Dravidian substratum in Indo-European languages which indicates that the speakers of these languages lived in intimate contact in North India for 1000s of years .

The finding of heterogeneity in ancient India by the HUGO Pan –Asian SNP Consortium is inconformity with the archaeological and linguistic data. This makes the research of HPASC significant and suggests future studies which will provide keen insight into the ancient human demography in India and the rest of Asia.

Reference:

1. Ray N, Excoffier L.2009. Inferring past demography using spatially explicit population genetic models. Human Biology, 81 (2-3): 141-157.
2. Tripathy V, Nirmala A, Reddy BM. 2008. Trends in Molecular Anthropological Studies in India. Int J Hum Genet, 8(1-2): 1-20.
3. Winters,C. 2008.Origin and Spread of Dravidian Speakers Int J Hum Genet, 8(4): 325-329 (2008)
4. Cordaux R, Saha N, Bentley GR, Aunger R, Sirajuddin SM, et al. (2003) Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals diverse histories of tribal populations from India. Eur J Hum Genet 11: 253–264.
5. Kumar V, Reddy ANS, Babu JP, et al. (2007). Y-chromosome evidence suggests a common paternal heritage of Austro-Asiatic populations. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7:47.
6. Rajkumar R, Banerjee J, Gunturi HB, Trivedi R, Kashyap VK. 2005. Phylogeny and antiquity of M macrohaplogroup
inferred from complete mtDNA sequence of Indian specific lineages. BMC Evo. Bio., 5: 26.
7. Thangaraj K, Chaubey G, Singh VK, Vanniarajan A, Thanseem I, Reddy AG, Singh L. 2006. In situ origin of deep rooting lineages of mitochondrial macrogroup M in India. BMC Genome, 7: 151.
8. Rosenberg NA, Mahajan S, Gonzalez-Quevedo C, Blum MGB, Nino-Rosales L, et al.. 2006. Low Levels of Genetic Divergence across Geographically and Linguistically Diverse Populations from India. PLoS Genet, 2(12): e215 DOI: 10.1371 /journal.pgen.0020215
9. Winters C (1989). Review on Dr. Asko Parpola’s ‘The Coming of the Aryans’. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 18 (2): 98-127.

10. Krishnamurti K 2001. Comparative Dravidian linguistics: Current perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Winters CA 2007. High Levels of Genetic Divergence across Indian Populations. PloS Genetics. Retrieved 4/8/2008 http://www.plosgenetics

Dravidian and Mongolian

2009-12-16T09:21:00.000-08:00

Dravidian Speaking Hun

Many of the so called Huns/Mongolians who invaded India were speaking Dravidian languages. these Huns were descendants of the Dravidians who spread from the Indus Valley to East Asia in ancient times. below are so pictures of these "Mongoloids" who spoke Dravidian languages.

Vacek (1983) has made an exhaustive study of Dravidian‑Mongolian similarities. He has found cognate verbal noun or temporal suffixes and plural suffixes. Vacek (1983) compared Dravidian and Mongolian lexical items and established several sound correspondences. Recently Vacek (1983) discussed the affinities between 120 Mongolian and Dravidian verbs that show full correspondence.

Vacek (1987) believes that Altaic and Dravidian has an axial relationship. He has based his theroy on the geographical distribution of these languages along the north‑south axis between the Altaic and Uralian languages.

Due to the lack of a visible ethnic relationship between the speakers of Ural‑Altaic and Dravidian, many researchers find it almost impossible to accept that a genetic relationship exist between these languages. Although we may not be able to accept that these languages are genetically related the linguistic evidence suggest extensive bilingualism in ancient Central Asia, this is supported by the mixed heritage visible in the faces of many Turkic speakers.

The Buryat word for mare is guun/gu. This is interesting because it has affinity to Dravidian words for hose including:

Tamil: kutirai

Telugu: gurramu

Kol: gurramu

The linguistic data suggest that the Mongolian and Dravidian terms are very closely related. The sound shift of Dravidian /k/ to Mongolian /g/ is not uncommon in many possible Mongolian and Dravidian cognates. For example a comparison of Mongolian cognates from Vacek (1981) demonstrate clearly this should shift:

Mongolian Tamil

toguri tikiri to circle

tolugai eluka rat

anggai anka to open mouth

egeci akka elder sister

inege naku to smile, laugh

Disagreement surrounds the use of the horse in Central Asia. Although some researchers believe that the domesticated horse was first introduced to Central Asia by the Indo‑Europeans. This theory has little archaeological support. The horse in Central Asia, like the ass, may have been mainly used as a source of food until 500 BC, by the Central Asian pastoralist groups. Full pastoral nomadic exploitation strategies does not appear in

Central Asia until after 500 BC.

V.M. Masson (1989:783) believes that horse domestication and riding developed in the 1st millennium BC on the steppe. Francefort (1985:386) views the intensive use of horses as an Iron Age innovation associated with semi‑nomadism.

Although we can not positively date the domestication of the horse in Central Asia, by the 4th millennium BC horse remains have been found on the steppes. Horse bones have come from the Batay site and the Marupol culture. The Mariupol culture is a group of short lived settlements in forest‑steppe zones along the Dnieper river. Around 80 percent of the animal remains from

Mariupol are of horse bones. (Dergachev 1989)

Horse bones dating to the 4th and 3rd millenniums BC have been found at Batay. Around 95 percent of the faunal remains at Batay, are horses. At Batay, local Central Asians made horse bone tools.

It would appear that most of the early horsemen in Central Asia came from Iran, rather than southern Russia. The nomad artisans of the 3rd millennium BC steppes, show affinity to artisans from Iran. (David 1986) During this period pastures provided grazing and herds with abundant food. (Masson 1986:80)

IN the 2nd millennium BC the horse was extensively exploited throughout Central Asia.(David 1986:486) For example, at the 17th‑16th century BC site of Sinatasha, there are horse and chariot burials. These horsemen made fine bronzehead spears.

The Dravidian language is especially close to Tocharian A (TA). It would appear that Tocharian B (TB) , has been greatly influenced by the Indo‑ European languages. For example, there is labialization of labiovelars before voiceless consonants in TB.

In TA on the otherhand there are few traces of an earlier distinction between labiovelars and velar plus *w, clusters. For example:

Horse: TB yakwe, Old English eoh, Latin equus

> *yakwe PIE *ekwos Sanskrit asvas, Old

Irish ech

TA yuk

Dog: TB kwem< PIE *kwena < PIE acc. *kwonm (Sanskrit svanam )

The TA terms for Central Asian domesticates agree with Dravidian terms.

1. Tocharian A ku dog

Dravidian kona id.

Kannanda Kunni id.

Tamil Kukkal id.

" Kuran id.

Telugu Kukka id.

Malayam Cokkan id.

2. Tocharian A yu horse

Tamil ivuli id.

Brahui hulli id.

Telugu payyoli id.

3. Tocharian A ko bovine

Toda kor id.

Dravidian kode id.

Kolami ku.te id.

Tulugu kode id.

Kolami konda,konde id.

Tamil kali id.

Kananda gonde id.

Gadba konde id.

Gondi Konda bullock

As you can see from the above the Dravidians and Tocharian A group share many terms for animals, e.g., 0 ku‑na # 'dog'__/ Toch. 0 ku #; 0 kode # 'cow', Toch. 0 ko #; and 0 ivuli # 'horse' Toch. 0 yuk #.

Many researchers may dispute the affinity between Dravidian 0 ivuli # and Tocharian A 0 yuk # 'horse'. Yet the identification of Tocharian A yuk, to Dravidian is much more supportable than the PIE root for horse. This results from the fact that there are five different Proto‑Indo‑European (PIE) roots for horse. This multitude of PIE roots for horse makes these terms inconclusive for the PIE lexicon. They also support the view that the horse was not domesticated by the Indo‑Europeans.

References:

Vacek,J.1978. "The problem of the genetic relationship of the Mongolian

and Dravidian languages". ARCHIV ORIENTALNI 46:141‑151.

_______.1983. "Dravido‑Altaic: The Mongolian and Dravidian Verbal Bases

. JOURNAL OF TAMIL STUDIES 23: 1‑17.

_______. 1987. "The Dravido‑Altaic Relationship" . ARCHIV ORIENTALNI 55:

134‑139.

It is obvious to anyone with a mind that the Dravidian people spread horseback riding among the Central Asians

The Vandal Origin of the Berbers

2009-12-16T08:22:00.000-08:00

Cheikh Anta Diop makes it clear that the Berbers are not related to Palaeo-Africans. In Libya Antiqua, Diop explains how the original Libu and Tehenu were blacks; and that the Berbers are descended from the Peoples of the Sea who arrived in the area around 1200 BC and fought Ramses III.

He makes it clear that the majority of the Berbers are descended from the Peoples of the Sea See:Diop, C A , "Formation of the Berber Branch", In Libya Antiqua,(ed) by UNESCO ,(Paris:UNESCO 1986) page 69 and C.A. Diop Civilization or Barbarism (Lawrence Hill Com.1991, p.34).

The Berber languages support a European origin for this group. When I talk about the Berbers I am not talking about the Tuareg, I am talking about the light skinned European looking Berbers.

The Berber language is related to Germanic languages. And the Germanic languages are native to Germany.

The Vandal rule of North Africa, explains the Germanic substratum influence in Berber. This linguistic connection results from the German rule in North Africa for 400 years. The Vandal rule in North Africa explains the origin of the white speakers of this "language" family.

The Berber languages as pointed out by numerous authors is full of vocabulary from other languages. Many Berbers may be descendants of the Vandels (Germanic) speaking people who ruled North Africa and Spain for 400 years. Commenting on this reality Diop in The African Origin of Civilization noted that: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st. Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori, for German tribes in the fifth century overran North Africa vi Spain, and established an empire that they ruled for 400 years….Furthermore, the plural of 50 percent of Berber nouns is formed by adding en, as is the case with feminine nouns in German, while 40 percent form their plural in a, like neuter nouns in Latin.Since we know the Vandals conquered the country from the Romans, why should we not be more inclined to seek explanations for the Berbers in the direction, both linguistically and in physical appearance: blond hair, blue eyes, etc? But no! Disregarding all these facts, historians decree that there was no Vandal influence and that it would be impossible to attribute anything in Barbary to their occupation” (p.69).

The influence of European languages on the Berber languages and the grammar of the Berber languages indicate that the Berbers are probably of European, especially Vandal origin.

The experts say that the Berber languages (I am not including Tuareg) has elements from numerous European languages I have never seen any discussion of Berber relations to East African languages, Berber languages are related to the Semitic group due to the Arabic speakers that surround them.

Elamites in Central Asia

2009-12-16T08:15:00.000-08:00

The earliest sites in Bactria were founded by Harappans and Elamites.The presence of Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) artifacts at Gilund does not show evidence of Indo-Aryan influence in India. First of all we know that BMAC cultures originated after the decline of the Harappan site of Shortughai (c.2400-2200 BC) on the Oxus river. The pottery of these people was quite diverse, some of the pottery was dark brown on a greenish-white or reddish pink slip.

Some researchers have noted the existence of strong Elamite affinities among the Bactrian aristocracy (1). In addition the Altyn depe ruins have terracotta statuettes with Proto Elamite and Proto-Sumerian script (2) .

Archaeologists agree thet Black and red ware (BRW) indus unearth on many South India sites are related to Dravidian speaking people. The BRW style has been found on the lower levels of Madurai and Tirukkampuliyur. B.B. Lal (1963) made it clear that the South Indian BRW was related to Nubian ware dating to the Kerma dynasty. Singh (1982) made it clear that he believes that the BRW radiated from Nubia through Mesopotamia and Iran southward into India.BRW is found at the lowest levels of Harappa and Lothal dating to 2400BC. T.B. Nayar in The problem of Dravidian Origins proved that the BRW of Harappa has affinities to predynastic Egyptian and West Asian pottery dating to the same time period.

After 1700 BC, with the end of the Harappan civilization spread BRW southward into the Chalcolithic culture of Malwa and Central India down to Northern Deccan and eastward into the Gangetic Basin. The BRW of the Malwa culture occupied the Tapi Valley Pravara Godavari and the Bhima Valleys. In addition we find that the pottery used by the at Gilund, Rajasthan on the banks of the Bana River, was also BRW (3) . This indicates that the people at Gilund, like other people in North India at this time were Dravidian speakers given their pottery. If this is so, the building where the "bin" containing the cache of BMAC seals were found probably represented a warehouse where exotic objects imported from Central Asia were probably stored. Let's not forget, that Central Asia was a major center for Harappan copper and tin for hundreds of years.

In summary the first civilizations in Central Asia were founded by Harappans and Elamites. These Harappans used the BRW as the Dravidians of South India, cognate pottery suggest that the founders of both Harappan and South Indian civilization were the same people. The presence of BRW at Gilund therefore suggest that the people there were not Indo-Aryans, they were Dravidian speakers who stored some exotic Central Asian goods in the city.

References:
1. Ligue & Salvatori (Ed.), Bactria: an ancient oasis civilization from the sands of Afghanistan , (1989), p, 137).

2. P.A. Kohl (Ed.), The Bronze Age civilization of Central Asia (1981) p.112.

3.Gilund, Retrieved on 7/22/06 at: http://bestindiatours.com/archaeology/harappan/Gilund.html

Maya and Africans Don't Look Alike

2009-12-09T12:47:00.000-08:00

Above we have the Chama vase. This vase depicts a Mayan leader greeting an Afro-Mexican . It is interesting to note that the Mayan figure appears to be painted black, since the chin of the Mayan leader greeting this Afro-Mexican is the same color as the rest of the Maya.

A cursory examination of these two men make it clear that Maya and Afro-Mexicans did not look alike prior to the slave trade which introduced millions of Africans to Mexico who married the Amerinds.

The Negrocostachicanos

2009-12-09T12:42:00.001-08:00

Given the discovery of numerous Olmec artifacts depicting Blacks begs a number of questions: “Were there Black or African people in ancient America? Do the African heads of the Olmec confirm an African presence in Mexico or do they show present-day Mayan people? What is the relation between contemporary Black Costa Chicas (negrocostachicanos) and Blacks depicted in Olmec artifacts?

The idea of mestizaje was developed by Jose Vascoucelos. Mr. Vascouselos became Minister of Education in 1921. During his tenure Black heroes of Mexican history were whitened as Vascoucelos pursued a policy of homogenization of Mexicans (Cuevas, 2004).

In 1946, Black Mexicans were rediscovered by Aguirre Beltran (1972) when he found the Blacks in Costa Chica. This was a rediscovery because the idea of mestizaje stressed the idea that there were only Mexicans, and not Amerindians, Whites or Blacks. The only problem with this idea was that Black Mexicans became associated with poverty and ignorance. These Blacks also experience much discrimination throughout Mexico, and much hostility in Costa Chica (Vaugh, 2005a, 2005b).

The Negrocostachicanos claim that they have never been slaves and are indigenous to Guererro and Oaxaca on the Pacific coast of Mexico. The 1990 Mexican census recorded 66,000 Negrocostachicanos. These Mexicans live in African style huts and practice rituals which may be of African origin (Vaugh,2005a).

Most researchers believe that the Negrocostachicanos are decendants of marrons or runaway slaves (Aguirre Beltran, 1972; Vaugh,2005a). But none of the Blacks of Costa Chica have songs about slavery and its hardships (Baja.com.2005).The Negrocostachicanos say “they are not they insist, the descendants of African slaves. There was never slavery here, even in ancient times” (Baja.com,2005). Bobby Vaugh (2005b) noted that he found “no consciousness of slavery among people in Costa Chica” (p.5). Another researcher, noted that “Housewives in San Jose Estancia Grande and Santiago Tapextla [in Costa Chica] say their ancestors did not come from Africa, that their families have always lived right here” (Baja.com, 2005, p.6).

The fact that the Negrocostachicanos claim that they were never slaves has troubled some researchers who believe that the only Blacks in Mexico came to the New World with the Spanish. Although this is the popular view concerning the origin of Blacks in Mexico, this view may be Eurocentric because the archaeological and historical evidence indicate that Blacks were already in Mexico when the Spanish made there way to Mexico.

Leo Wiener in the African Discovery of America (1922), provides a detailed account of the Black gods of Mexico in the third volume in this series of books. Wiener outlined that the Blacks were traveling merchants in Mexico selling cocao, feathers and other products.

The major Black gods of the Mexicans was Quetzalcoalt, and the Mayan gods L and M, Xaman and Ekchuah these gods are depicted in the Codex Troano(Wiener, 1921, [vol.3] p.258). Sahagun tells us that Ekchuah was also the god of the Amanteca. The Nahuatl term Amanteca, was probably the name of the Mandinka or Mandinga people who were the foundation of the Olmec people (Winters, 2005).

Ekchuah and the Mayan God M, was the god of merchants and warriors. He is also depicted in the Codex Cortesianus and 17 times in the Madrid Codex.

.

Olmec Influence on Mayan Writing

2009-11-19T07:37:00.000-08:00

The Mayan people of Mexico have a wonderful script which they used to communicate their feelings, history and culture. In this film I discuss the influence of the Olmec writing system on Mayan writing.

Decipherment Indus Valley Writing

2009-11-19T06:52:00.000-08:00

The Indus Valley script is written in the Tamil language. I deciphered this writing system back in the 1980's.

Tamil is a Dravidian language. The Dravidian people live in South India today.

The original Dravidian speakers lived in Africa. They were part of the C-Group people of Middle Africa.

The C-Group people had their own writing system. This writing system was based on the symbols associated with the Thinite script. These symbols were used to write the Libyco-Berber writing.

These symbols were also used to create the Vai writing.The Vai are a Mande speaking group that lives in West Africa.

The Dravidian languages, like Tamil are genetically related to the Mande languages. The Mande speaking people continued to use the Libyco-Berber writing as represented by the Vai script.

Since the Mande and Tamil languages are genetically related; we were able read the Indus Valley writing by giving the Indus Valley signs the phonetic values of the Vai script and then reading the signs using Tamil.

The Indus Valley seals were amulets worn by the people of the Indus Valley. The inscriptions on the Indus Valley seals are wish statements asking the gods to give them blessings and a good life of service to mankind.

Book Review: Not out of Africa

2009-10-22T19:27:00.000-07:00

Although Lefkowitz teaches classical studies her research methods leave a lot to be desired. She declares in Not Out of Africa that , "there is no archaeological data to support the notion that Egyptians migrated to Greece during the second millennium B.C. (or before that)" .

This statement is untrue. There is an abundance of evidence that the Egyptians had long settled many parts of ancient Greece.

In the ancient writings of the Greeks, the Egyptians were called Melampodes or "blackfeet". The Egyptians were also called Danaans in Greek history.

According to Hyainus in Fabula , and Appollonius, when the Danaans came to Greece they were called 'blackfeet'. This view is supported by the discovery of an inscribed stone in the Peloponnese that had Egyptian writing on it dating to the 5th Dynasty.

This short review of the Classical literature relating to the African identity of the Egyptians suggest that the views held by Lefkowitz in relation to an Egyptian presence in Egypt may not be correct.Numerous archaeologist have found abundant evidence of Egyptians settled in Greece long before the coming of the Indo-European-Aryans to Anatolia.

Cecil Torr in Memphis and Mycenae , discussed the inscriptions of Amemhotep found in a Mycenaean tomb at Ialysos in Rhodes and an 18th Dynasty scarab dating to the same period. As a result of the discovery of these artifacts Torr speculated that there were relations between Egypt and Greece between 1271 and 850 B.C.

The discovery of Torr was only the tip of the iceberg. Since the discovery of these artifacts in the 19th Century, archaeological evidence of Egyptians in Greece during the 2nd millennium has also been reported by J.D.S. Pendlebury, William A. Ward, and S.W. Manning .

Pendlebury provides a detailed discussion of the Egyptian material found at Laconia, Argolid, Thebes in Boeotia, and Athens. Pendlebury like Torr, believes that there were close relations between Greece and Egypt between the 12th and 7th centuries B.C.

Pendlebury's Aegyptiaca, has been excellently followed up by N. J. Skon Jedele, in her recent dissertation on Egyptian artifacts found in Greece. This dissertation provides even more examples of Egyptian artifacts found in Greece than those recorded by Pendlebury over sixty years ago.

Manning gives a well balanced discussion of the Egyptian material found in the Aegean area dating between the Old Kingdom and Dynasties 10 and ll. The work of Hankey and Warren indicate that there is archaeological evidence for Egyptians in ancient Greece, contrary to the false claims of Lefkowitz in Not Out of Africa.

The question must be asked, if there is this abundance of literature relating to an Egyptian role in ancient Greece, Why does Lefkowitz fail to discuss this literature? This question must be answered by Lefkowitz.

The failure of Lefkowitz to discuss this relevant knowledge base is inexcusable given her position at a prestigious Eastern University. The existence of a rich literature on the presence of Egyptians in ancient Greece makes Lefkowitz's claims about the ancient Greeks patently false.

End Notes

1. Lefkowitz, Not out of Africa, p.157.

2.Cecil Torr, Memphis and Mycenae, (London: Cambridge University Press, 1896) p.61.

3.Ibid., pp.64-65.

4. J.D.S. Pendlebury, Aegyptica: A catalogue of Egyptian objects in the Aegean Area, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1930.

5. William W. Ward, Egypt and the Mediterranean World 2200- 1900 B.C., Beirut: American University of Beirut. 1971.

6. S.W. Manning, The absolute chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

.

Book Review: Afrotopia

2009-10-22T19:25:00.000-07:00

Wilson J. Moses in Afrotopia, writes a tale of falsehood .. Looking at his body of work which I have not read it would appear that he has written extensively on Afro-American thought. But it appears that he sees much of this as myth.

It appears that where Afro-Americans talked about separation he believes they wanted integration. Although this is his opinion I believe that this book was written by Moses to assure Europeans that they have nothing to fear from what Moses sees as "restless" Afro-Americans.

Given this background I believe that Moses wrote the present book so he could get free press from the media by presenting himself as a safe "coconut", one who is brown on the outside but possessing a "Eurocentric" mindset. Moses presents himself as a safe negro who through his book, will hopefully corral those radical "urban Afro-American males" who believe in Afrocentrism.

The first thing you have to understand is that writing history is not neutral. Writing history is a means to situate one class over another.

Michael Parenti, History as Mystery(SanFrancisco, CA,1999) p.198 noted that:

“To conclude, history is not just what the historians say it is,corporate publishing conglomerates, chain store distributors,
mass media pundits, editions, reviewers, and other ideological gatekeepers want to put into circulation. Not surprisingly, the deck is stacked to favor those who deal the cards” .

Stephen Howe’s Afrocentrism:Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes, and Wilson J. Moses’ Afrotopia: The Roots of American Popular History attempts to explains the research traditions of the Afrocentric scholars via the demerits of Martin Bernal’s Black Athena. As a result, they fail to realistically discuss the contentious discourses surrounding the ancient Afrocentric historical memory and detail the methods and paradigms associated with this pedagogy.

The works of Moses and Howe fails to fulfill the anxious expectations of many readers of their books who had hoped these works would be balanced and situated on the evidence. Moses and Howe see the study of ancient Afrocentric historical themes as a tradition of dissent rather than a field of study with its own tradition of normal science. These authors without supporting evidence devalue ancient Afrocentric historical education. Moreover, the most exasperating aspect of their writing is that its critics use Bernal's Black Athena, as an Afrocentric history text, and then proceeds to use criticism of this work to "disconfirm" the Afrocentric ancient history discipline.

In the africalogical social sciences, researchers look at the history and society of African people from an African centered or Afrocentric perspective. The Afrocentrist connects Africans in America and elsewhere to thousands of years of history and civilization.

There are three problems with the books of Howe and Moses. These problems include 1) the failure to discuss the research of Afrocentric scholars critically; 2) they present the Afrocentric study of ancient history as a recent development ; and 3) the major reason proffered for their attacks on Afrocentrism is that the “academy” rejects the discipline.

Howe and Moses fail to proffer and outline the major Afrocentric ancient history text. Afrocentric scholars make hundreds of detailed archaeological, historical and linguistic claims, which have not been systematically refuted or discussed by the authors of Afrotopia and Afrocentrism . The fact that these scholars ignore the historical research of the Afrocentric scholars makes their work narrow and unrepresentative of the discipline. In general, these scholars have dismissed Afrocentrism due to external factors such as “race thinking”, “personal prejudices”, “social and political pressures” and “ideology” rather than disconfirmation of Afrocentric

Moses in Afrotopia argues that Afrocentrism should be rejected because:

1) it was founded by white scholars to vindicate enslaved blacks ;

2)it is an ideology of culturally improvised, illiterate urban Afro-American males;

3)it is not recognized as historically valid by “establishment” historians so it should be rejected solely on this basis (p.225).

These arguments are presented without any citations and counter evidence.

My major complaint, is that these books fail to add any critical analysis of the goals of the Afrocentric curriculum and pedagogical methods. The critics of the ancient Afrocentric field make hasty rejections of the ancient Afrocentric history enterprise. They declare, without any citation to the evidence, that it lacks canonical, methodological and theoretical traditions that represent the normal routines of scholarly life.

Unfortunately, Howe and Moses fail to focus on the Afrocentric history literary canon. This neglect to confront Afrocentric historical claims founded on the rigorous nature of Afrocentric scholarship, makes their contribution to this debate another entry in the contest between elitism and a curriculum developed and supported by scholars outside Euro-male dominated “academy establishment” by a member of the status quo, rather than an objective review of Afrocentrism. Consequently, the arguments they present in support of their rejection of Afrocentrism are based on the method of authority, rather than actual historical and anthropological evidence rejecting the varied Afrocentric historical hypothesis. This failure to confront the mounds of evidence, which support the African origin of Grecian, Egyptian, Sumerian and the Indus Valley civilizations ,is a sad commentary on Afrotopia and Afrocentrism. These books cannot provide the reader with any reliable debate on the paradigms encompassing the Afrocentric ancient historical memory.

Howe and Moses are unashamed to admit that their books were written to defend the modern research university from dissenting voices to “establishment” claims of American intellectuals. The real objective of these books is not a search for a “true” vision of history, or a review of the evidence presented by Afrocentrists supporting their historical claims.

Moses reaffirms the establishment view that history should be written by “professional historians” who have professional credentials of “expert knowledge” and affiliation with white universities (pp.225-233). In his opinion Afrocentrism is mainly an ideology of lower class urban Afro-American youth, especially males.

Moses makes it clear in Afrotopia that he has no real clue about Afrocentrism. In his opinion Afrocentrism was developed during the 1930’s by the Jewish American scholar Melville Herskovits (pp.11-12). This view is wrong. It is clear that Afro-American scholars such as Frederick Douglas and Alexander Crummell, not Euro-Americans, first wrote Afrocentric history.

Moses, like Howe boldly explains that Afrocentrism is based on Egyptocentrism and represents Afro-American vindicationist sentiment. He describes Afrocentrism as “ a historiography of decline based on the idea that the African race had fallen from its past greatness”(p.16). Having made this claim he never presents any historical evidence to refute the paradigms of ancient Afrocentric history. Moreover, he fails to explain how scholars like W.E.B. DuBois and George Wells Parker made it clear in their writings that Blacks probably founded civilization in Greece and China in addition to Egypt.

In conclusion, the basic function of the works of Howe, Baines, D'Souza, Lefkowitz and Moses is to silence heterodox voices without any argument or hypothesis testing. Science relies on observation and hypothesis testing, not rational thought alone. Using logic singly to deny the Afrocentric ancient historical memory is unacceptable because their personality, tradition, values and habitual methods of thinking can taint the expectations of historians.

The authors of Afrotopia and Afrocentrism present no evidence in support of their critique of Afrocentrism. This invalidates their theory. You cannot prove true things to be true, but something that is false cane be proven to be false. The failure of Moses and Howe to present “empirical validation” in support of their rejection of Afrocentrism makes their claims pure fiction.

Due to the absence of “positive proof” to disconfirm Afrocentric hypotheses, reveal that the intellectual discourse of Howe and Moses is predetermined by a conformity to a conservative elitist political ideology. An ideology which summary nullifies Afrocentric ancient historical themes simply by the method of authority ( i.e., “establishment historians” say it is false, so it is false) rather than critical reading of the Afrocentric text and hypotheses testing.

Afrotopia and Afrocentrism fail to provide a realistic and critical rendition of the Afrocentric historical memory of the ancient world. These works will not benefit anyone reading these books seeking an actual and true discussion of ancient Afrocentric history as a mature social science. These books represent feel good scholarship for racist whites who want to continue to believe that African history begins and ends with the slave trade.

It is a shame that some coconut Euronuts hate themselves so much that they will write any garbage to cater to Eurocentrist. They hope that by writing this falsehood they will be allowed to join the "club" as full partners in keeping Black people in their "place" as consumers of a history made by Europeans , light skinned Arabs and Asians. But this will never happen for people like Moses, since Eurocentrists will never fully accept a coconut to their ranks, because coconuts fail to respect themselves and their history.

Book Review: Stephen Howe’s Afrocentrism:Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes

2009-10-22T19:23:00.000-07:00

Stephen Howe’s Afrocentrism:Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes , purportedly explain the research traditions of the Afrocentric scholars via the demerits of Martin Bernal’s Black Athena. As a result, they fail to realistically discuss the contentious discourses surrounding the ancient Afrocentric historical memory and detail the methods and paradigms associated with this pedagogy.

Howe fail to fulfill the anxious expectations of many readers of the books who had hoped his work would be balanced and situated on the evidence. Howe sees the study of ancient Afrocentric historical themes as a tradition of dissent rather than a field of study with its own tradition of normal science. Like D'Souza and Leftkowitz this author without supporting evidence devalue ancient Afrocentric historical education. Moreover, the most exasperating aspect of Howe's writing is that he uses Bernal's Black Athena , as an Afrocentric history text, and then proceeds to use criticism of this work to "disconfirm" the Afrocentric ancient history discipline. This book is not an Afrocentric primer.

In the africalogical social sciences, researchers look at the history and society of African people from an African centered or Afrocentric perspective. The Afrocentrist connects Africans in America and elsewhere to thousands of years of history and civilization.

There are three problems with this book of Howe . These problems include :

1) Howe fails to discuss the research of Afrocentric scholars critically;

2) Howe presents the Afrocentric study of ancient history as a recent development ; and

3) the major reason proffered for his attacks on Afrocentrism is that the “academy” rejects the discipline.

Howe fails to proffer and outline the major Afrocentric ancient history text. Afrocentric scholars make hundreds of detailed archaeological, historical and linguistic claims, which have not been systematically refuted or discussed by the author Howe . The fact that Howe ignores the historical research of Afrocentric scholars makes his works narrow and unrepresentative of the ancient Afrocentric history discipline. In general, we have to dismiss Howe’s work, due to alledged external factors such as “race thinking”, “personal prejudices”, “social and political pressures” and “ideology” rather than disconfirmation of Afrocentric hypotheses.

Howe never presents any historical evidence to refute the paradigms of ancient Afrocentric history. Moreover, he fails to explain how scholars like W.E.B. DuBois and George Wells Parker made it clear in their writings that Blacks probably founded civilization in Greece and China in addition to Egypt is based on the latest historical and anthropological evidence available to these authors during this time. This is important, because if the researches of these scholars was fraudulent Howe and his cohorts should be able to present opposing evidence which disconfirms the researches of DuBois, Parker and the other Afrocentric scholars? But alas, there is no evidence presented to disconfirm the research of these Afrocentrists.

Howe acknowledges the long history of Afrocentric research and provides his readers with a series of negative comments made by critics of Chiek Anta Diop without any concern with checking their accuracy. Then in the next breathe Howe explains that much of the work of Afrocentric scholars like Chiek Anta Diop, cross so many disciplines that he is unable to expertly assess the Afrocentric initiatives/propositions of ancient Afrocentric history. And as a result, he cannot grasp the impressive synthesis of scholarship found in the work of Afrocentric scholars.

This admission negates Howe’s basic premise that Afrocentric research is “untrustworthy”, his lack of expertise in the cross-disciplinary procedures of the Afrocentric scholars make it clear that he is unable to expertly assess and evaluate the initiatives/propositions of ancient Afrocentric history. Consequently, he cannot grasp the impressive synthesis of scholarship found in the works of Afrocentric scholars.

Howe claims that Afrocentric history is reverse-racism because Afrocentric researchers have used the classical, historical ,anthropological and linguistic literature to illustrate the African/Black origin of many of the River Valley and Grecian civilizations (p.48). Yet Howe fails to provide crucial examples of the falsification of the sources used by Afrocentric scholars. This makes the claims of Howe that Afro-American contributions to ancient history are either non-existent or irrelevant, groundless.

Howe’s interpretations of Afrocentric researchers are contradictory and confusing. For example, on the one hand he claims that Dubois’ book the The Negro , “overall, his account avoided the sensationalism and special pleading, being a solid reflection of the state of knowledge at that time” (p.52), and therefore acceptable to the “academy”, yet in general DuBois’ work is romantic. How can a work be both factual and “romantic”. Clearly, Howe’s opinion about DuBois’ work is based more on his personal bias rather than evidence.

Howe asks us to reject Afrocentric research based on “authority”. He makes a number of claims about the inadequacy of the ancient Afrocentric historical memory, but he does not provide critical analysis of the historical claims he disputes. For example, Howe claims that Diop failed to prove his connections between West Africa and Egypt eventhough, he provides a 200-page lexicon of hundreds of cognate Wolof-Egyptian terms. He said that:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The basic flaw [ of Parente genetique ]is that in order to trace the history of languages, to identify shared roots, patterns of evolution and divergence, it is entirely inadequate simply to list similar-sounding or possibly related terms in different languages (p.178).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This comment by Howe, on Diop’s work, would seem to be a reasonable analysis of one of Diop’s major works. But anyone who has actually read Parente genetique de l’egyptien pharanique et des langues negro-africaines, knows that Diop spent the first 200 plus pages of this book discussing in detail the grammatical and structural affinities of Egyptian and African languages. The failure of Howe to discuss this fact leads one to assume that he purposely avoids mentioning this fact so as to imply that Diop was an incompetent scholar.

At the base of Eurocentrism is the doctrine of white supremacy. This ideological foundation aims to thwart the Afro-Americans' search for manhood and self-assertion, when ever they encounter intensified prejudice by white Americans.

This major component of Eurocentrism is the notion of African-American intellectual inferiority. As a result, European scholars can write and research the history of any people on earth. But, African Americans on the otherhand, are believed to lack the intellectual capacity to research, let alone write ancient history.

Fighting C.A.I.D.S.

Due to the alleged intellectual inferiority of Africans it is believed that they are unsuited to write ancient history, international affairs, or archaeology. This may result from several factors especially racial bias and social position. These factors are important ,because of the fact that formerly persons writing ancient history themes usually came from well-to-do or middle-class families that could provide them with the capital to undertake research activities abroad. This belief has ghettoized many African American scholars and authors , to writing only about slavery, the slave trade and/or the cycle of poverty typified by life in the urban centers of the United States.

Little has changed in the past 100 years, Howe asserts that Afro-Americans should reframe from writing about ancient history because “their ideas, like cultural nationalism in general, quite simply have nothing at all to say about the most central problem facing Afro-Americans: the conditions of economic marginality, insecurity and underprivileged under which most of them exist” (p.14). It is obvious from this statement that establishment historians wish to constrain the intellectual inquiry of Afro-American scholars.

Howe’s major contribution to the study of ancient Afrocentrism is criticism of Diop’s use of dated references in many of his works. But this criticism is nebulas because nowhere in Afrocentrism does Howe disconfirm the sources used by Chiek Anta Diop. The failure to disconfirm the research of Chiek Anta Diop and the other Afrocentric scholars mentioned in his book makes Howe's Afrocentrism deeply flawed.

This book by Howe does not refute research conducted by Afrocentric scholars. It is a feel good book for Europeans who want to ignore the long history of African people.

It is shame Euronuts are so jealous of the history of African and Black people.

.