Monday, March 29, 2010

Evidence of African Settlement of Ancient America

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


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

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.


Brooke Persons Genetic Analysis and the Peopling of the New World
ANT 570, November 9, 2004.

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 :

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:

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

The Sumerians and Akkadians

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 ┼čalmat 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.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

The tehenu and Meshwesh

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

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 &

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

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

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
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.
,NJ:Africa World Press. This book provides the
theoretical foundations for africalogical studies.

_________ (1991). "The Afrocentric idea in
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

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
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.

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:
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,
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

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

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

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

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

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

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
tion:An Afrocentric Analysis". Journal of Black
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
".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

___________. (1981). The Children of the Sun.
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

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

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

____________. (1992). "Brown Athena: A Post Processual
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

__________. (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
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

___________. (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

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

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

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

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

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

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:






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.